U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

73–678 PDF 2012

S. Hrg. 112–545 

THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT’S 

BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 21, 2012 

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

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

CHRISTIAN J. BECKNER, Associate Staff Director for Homeland Security 

Prevention and Protection 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Minority Staff Director 

BRENDAN P. SHIELDS, Minority Director for Homeland Security Policy 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 

PATRICIA R. HOGAN, Publications Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 1 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 3 

Senator Brown .................................................................................................. 11 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 14 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 16 

Senator Pryor .................................................................................................... 18 

Senator McCain ................................................................................................ 20 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 22 

Senator Moran .................................................................................................. 25 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 30 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 35 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 37 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 39 

WITNESS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2012 

Hon. Janet A. Napolitano, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Response to post-hearing questions for the Record with attachments ........ 62 

APPENDIX 

Letter from the National Association of Counties et al., dated March 20, 

2012 ....................................................................................................................... 41 

(1) 

THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT’S 

BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2012 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Lieberman, Akaka, Carper, Pryor, Collins, 

Coburn, Brown, McCain, Johnson, and Moran. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. The hearing will come to order. Good 

afternoon and thanks, Madam Secretary, for being here, and 

thanks to everyone else who is here. In the face of record deficits 

and a national debt now heading toward $16 trillion, it is obviously 

imperative that the Federal Government get its spending under 

control. 

Budgets have to carefully balance our Nation’s needs with what 

we can afford. Even something as important as securing our homeland from terrorists and cyber criminals, or being prepared for natural disasters like the devastating tornadoes that recently swept 

through the South and Midwest, requires a cold-eyed look at our 

national ledger. 

With this combination of realities in mind, I want to commend 

President Obama and Secretary Napolitano for presenting us with 

what I believe is a responsible budget request in these times. It 

holds spending at essentially last year’s budget level. Adjusted for 

inflation, this budget for fiscal year 2013 is lower than it was for 

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in fiscal year 2009. 

But the budget also increases investments in some key areas 

where I believe we need to strengthen our ability to meet emerging 

threats. In other words, it makes some priority judgments, tough 

judgments. It pays for these increases by finding efficiencies and 

administrative savings throughout the Department. Most notable to me is the significant increase of $325.8 million in cybersecurity funding, for a total request of $770 million for cybersecurity. 

I could not agree more with this strong commitment to improving 

our cyber defenses and, of course, as is evidenced in the bill that 

this Committee has reported out, for placing much of that responsiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:44 Sep 25, 2012 Jkt 073678 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\73678.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
2 

bility within the Department of Homeland Security as our lead civilian agency. 

The Department simply cannot carry out the responsibilities we 

need it to in defense of the homeland without the kind of funding 

that this budget requests. 

I am also pleased to see that the budget restores $212 million to 

the Science and Technology Directorate, for a total request of about 

$830 million. This is one of those parts of a department that probably does not have a vast constituency supporting it. And yet the 

work done by the Directorate is vital to our capacity to develop 

countermeasures and detection techniques against, for instance, 

conventional explosives and nuclear material or to improve our defenses to cyber attack and bioterrorism attack. 

So this additional money, in my opinion, that goes to the Science 

and Technology Directorate is money that is spent wisely because 

it really is an investment in a safer future. And as has been the 

case with the money that has been invested in similar parts of the 

Department of Defense, it can—and I am confident will—spin off 

new technologies, products, and services in the private sector, 

which will help our economy and create jobs. 

On the other hand, I am concerned that the budget includes a 

number of attempts to circumvent congressional authorizing committees by making legislative and organizational changes to the 

Department through the appropriations process. 

For example, the Administration’s budget proposal would fundamentally change the nature of core homeland security grants 

that this Committee created by eliminating programs such as the 

State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI), and port and transit security grants, and replacing them with a new program that adds natural disasters as 

a primary focus. 

We created these programs specifically to help State and local 

governments prepare for terrorist attacks, even though when properly implemented they also help localities prepare for and respond 

to natural disasters. 

I have questions about whether the new grant program as proposed would be duplicative of the existing all-hazards programs, 

such as the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program. 

But I must say that I am really perplexed that the Administration is proposing to make such changes to statutory programs without submitting legislation to the committees, such as ours, with jurisdiction over these programs. 

This Committee also needs to take a closer look at the Administration’s plans to reorganize some components and programs, including the proposal to take U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) out of the National Protection and 

Programs Directorate (NPPD) and transfer its screening duties to 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and its visa overstay duties 

to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). I will have questions about this and some of the other parts of the proposal that 

trouble me. 

But, in summary—I go back to what I said earlier—I believe that 

Secretary Napolitano and the Administration have put forth a reVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:44 Sep 25, 2012 Jkt 073678 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\73678.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
3 

sponsible budget request, and I look forward to your testimony and 

the questions that follow. Senator Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This afternoon, the Committee will review the $39.5 billion budget proposal for the Department of Homeland Security. 

I, like the Chairman, am pleased that the budget recognizes the 

seriousness of the cyber threat by including a 74-percent increase 

in the Department’s cybersecurity budget. This level would help to 

reduce vulnerabilities in the Federal cyber domain by hastening deployment of intrusion-prevention tools on government computer 

systems. The funds would also strengthen the Department’s information-sharing capabilities and increase support to the United 

States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), which 

responds to more than 100,000 cyber incidents and helps the government and the private sector mitigate cyber risks. 

Of course, in this time of severe financial constraints, we must 

also continue to find savings within the Department’s budget. 

Our Committee outlined many cost savings and efficiencies in its 

reauthorization bill reported last fall. For example, our bill would 

mandate a 5-percent cut over 2 years from the budget for field components, to be achieved through field office consolidation, administrative and logistical cost savings, and operational efficiencies. Our 

plan also eliminates two offices and five programs, consolidates 

three offices dealing with travel security, and allows DHS labs to 

collect fees from outside users. 

For the most part, the Administration’s budget proposal ignores 

our specific cost savings and efficiencies, which is perplexing to me. 

The President does propose to eliminate or combine several 

homeland security grant programs. While some consolidation may 

be desirable, the Department must ensure that it does not jeopardize the progress that has been made in achieving such goals as 

interoperability of communications equipment used by first responders. 

It is also unclear how the baseline State allocations for the newly 

proposed National Preparedness Grant Program would work. I 

share the Chairman’s concern that this proposal appears to negate 

the current State minimum grant formula that this Committee 

wrote in the 2007 Homeland Security law to ensure that all States 

achieve the capability to prevent, respond to, and recover from a 

terrorist attack or other catastrophic event. 

We must remember that two of the September 11, 2001, hijackers, including the ringleader, started their trail of death and destruction from Portland, Maine. Others trained and plotted far outside the major urban areas that were their target. More recently, 

the arrest of two al-Qaeda in Iraq affiliates in Bowling Green, Kentucky, has served to remind us that homeland security challenges 

are not confined to large cities. 

For the State of Maine, with its long, rural border with Canada, 

it is particularly important that DHS continue to employ the right 

mix of resources, ensuring an effective use of personnel, technology, 

and international, State, and local agency partnerships to keep the 

4 

border open to our friends but closed to those who would do us 

harm. 

And, of course, any State can experience catastrophic weather or 

another natural disaster that tests its capacity to save lives. 

The budget request does include $10 million for technologies to 

help secure the Northern border. Operation Stonegarden funding, 

however, remains critical to this goal by putting boots on the 

ground in the form of local law enforcement serving as force multipliers in partnership with Customs and Border Protection. I am 

concerned that the President’s budget would simply collapse this 

successful program and other key programs such as the Port Security Grants into a single new program. 

I would mention that I recently met with Border Patrol agents 

from the State of Maine as well as sheriffs who told me of case 

after case where Operation Stonegarden had helped both the State 

and local agencies plus their Federal counterparts to do a better 

job. 

During last year’s budget hearing, I expressed my concern about 

whether the budget provided the Coast Guard with the necessary 

assets for its very important maritime security role, which has 

grown enormously since September 11, 2001, as well as to respond 

effectively to emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina, where the 

Coast Guard was the one shining star among Federal agencies, and 

the Gulf oil spill. The plan last year was to replace 12 High Endurance Cutters (HECs), whose average age is 44 years old, with eight 

National Security Cutters (NSCs). 

I am appalled that the Administration’s new request for the 

Coast Guard is even worse. It proposes only six National Security 

Cutters and delays the acquisition of the first Offshore Patrol Cutter by another year. 

The need for recapitalizing the Coast Guard’s fleet is more and 

more evident. The Coast Guard has reported that it lost 528 operational cutter days last year due to engineering failures in the 

service’s aging High Endurance Cutters. That is the equivalent of 

losing three of these cutters from the Coast Guard fleet. In comparison, the Coast Guard lost 228 HEC operational days in fiscal 

year 2007. That trend is unacceptable and highlights the importance of investing in the Coast Guard modernization effort. 

Last month’s tragic crash of a Coast Guard helicopter on a training mission is a reminder of the significant personal risk that the 

brave men and women of the Department face every day. 

At a time when budgets are tight, difficult decisions must be 

made, but we must ensure that the priorities set by the Administration and by Congress do not result in a Department that is unable to respond to catastrophic incidents, whether created by man 

or nature. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Collins. 

Secretary Napolitano, thanks very much for your leadership of 

this Department and for being here today. Please proceed. 

5 

1The prepared statement of Secretary Napolitano appears in the Appendix on page 44. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JANET A. NAPOLITANO,1 SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Collins, and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to discuss 

President Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget for the Department of 

Homeland Security. 

Ten years after the September 11th attacks, America is stronger 

and more secure today thanks to the strong support of the President and the Congress, the work of the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security, and local, State, and Federal partners across the homeland security enterprise. 

And while we have made significant progress, threats from terrorism—including, but not limited to al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda related groups—persist and continue to evolve, and the demands on 

DHS continue to grow. Today’s threats are not limited to any one 

individual, group, or ideology and are neither defined nor contained 

by international borders. Terrorist tactics can be as simple as a 

homemade bomb or as sophisticated as a biological threat or a coordinated cyber attack. We have had success in thwarting numerous terrorist plots, including the attempted bombings of the New 

York City subway and Times Square, foiled attacks against air 

cargo, and other attempts across the country. Nonetheless, continued threats from abroad and at home demonstrate how we must 

constantly remain vigilant and prepared. 

The President’s fiscal year 2013 budget for DHS allows us to continue to meet these evolving threats and challenges by preserving 

core front-line operational priorities through the redirection of over 

$850 million in base resources from administrative and mission 

support areas. This continues our unprecedented commitment to 

fiscal discipline, which has led to over $3 billion in cost avoidances 

and reductions over the past 3 years through our efficiency review 

and other initiatives. 

Given the fiscal challenges to the Department’s State and local 

partners, DHS is also approaching these partnerships in new and 

innovative ways. For 9 years, DHS has been supporting State and 

local efforts across the homeland security enterprise to build capabilities, awarding more than $35 billion in funding. As we look 

ahead, in order to address evolving threats and make the most of 

limited resources, the Administration has proposed a new vision for 

homeland security grants through the National Preparedness 

Grant Program to create a robust national preparedness capacity 

based on cross-jurisdictional and readily deployable State and local 

assets. Using a competitive risk-based model, this grants program 

will use a comprehensive process to assess gaps, identify and 

prioritize deployable capabilities, put funding to work quickly, and 

require grantees to regularly report their progress. 

My written testimony includes a comprehensive list of the operational priorities in our budget. Today I would like to highlight a 

few of them. 

First, preventing terrorism and enhancing security. This was the 

founding mission of DHS. It remains our top priority today. The fiscal year 2013 budget safeguards the Nation’s transportation sysVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:44 Sep 25, 2012 Jkt 073678 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\73678.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
6 

tems through a layered detection system focused on risk-based 

screening, enhanced targeting, and information sharing to interdict 

threats and dangerous people at the earliest point possible. 

The budget supports the Administration’s Global Supply Chain 

Security Strategy across air, land, and sea modes of transportation 

by strengthening efforts to pre-screen and evaluate high-risk containers before they are shipped to the United States. We also continue our strong support for State and local partners through training, fusion centers, and intelligence analysis and information sharing on a wide range of critical homeland security issues. 

To secure and manage our borders, the budget continues the Administration’s unprecedented focus on border security, travel, and 

trade by supporting our Border Patrol agents and CBP officers on 

the front lines, as well as the continued deployment of proven, effective surveillance technology along the highest-trafficked areas of 

the Southwest border and continued security improvements along 

the Northern border. 

To secure our Nation’s maritime borders, the budget invests in 

recapitalization of Coast Guard assets, including the sixth National 

Security Cutter, Fast Response Cutters, as well as the renovation 

and restoration of shore facilities. 

With respect to the enforcement of the U.S. immigration laws, we 

will complete nationwide implementation of Secure Communities in 

2013. Through this initiative and our continued collaboration with 

the Department of Justice, we expect to continue to increase the 

number of criminal aliens and other priority individuals who are 

identified and removed. The budget provides the resources needed 

to address this changing population while continuing to support Alternatives to Detention, detention reform, and immigrant integration efforts. 

The budget also focuses on monitoring and compliance, promoting adherence to worksite-related laws through criminal prosecutions of egregious employers and expansion of E-Verify. 

To safeguard and secure cyberspace, the budget makes significant investments to strengthen cybersecurity, including funds to 

expedite the deployment of EINSTEIN 3 to prevent and detect intrusions on government computer systems, increase Federal network security across the Federal Government, and develop a robust 

cybersecurity workforce to protect against and respond to national 

cybersecurity threats. 

Finally, with respect to disasters, in 2011 the Department responded to a record number of disasters. The President’s budget 

focuses on a whole-of-community approach to emergency management. It includes resources for the Disaster Relief Fund, which provides a significant portion of the Federal response to victims in 

presidentially declared disasters or emergencies, and is funded 

largely through authority provided under the Budget Control Act 

(BCA). 

The budget also continues to provide essential support to national and economic security by supporting the Coast Guard’s operations in the polar regions and by continuing to support ICE and 

CBP’s efforts to protect U.S. intellectual property rights and collection of customs revenue. 

7 

In closing, the fiscal year 2013 budget proposal reflects this Administration’s strong commitment to protecting the homeland and 

the American people through the effective and efficient use of DHS 

resources. And while we have taken many steps to sustain frontline operations in the face of declining budgets, additional cuts of 

the magnitude outlined in BCA sequestration would directly impact 

our front-line operations. They would entail rolling back significant 

progress in securing our Nation’s borders, increasing wait times at 

our Nation’s land ports of entry and our airports, impacting aviation and maritime safety and security, hampering disaster response 

time, and eliminating the cybersecurity infrastructure that has 

been developed in recent years. An 8-percent cut, as prescribed by 

sequestration, translates to over $3 billion in reduction to DHS operations. This cut would equate to all of CBP’s trade and customs 

operations at our land ports of entry or ICE’s enforcement and removal operations in their entirety or nearly half of our Nation’s 

critical disaster relief funding. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Collins, Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify, and thank you for your 

continued support of the work of the Department. I am happy to 

answer your questions and to address some of the issues you have 

raised. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Secretary Napolitano. 

We will do 7-minute rounds of questions for each Senator here. 

I focused in my opening statement on the increase in budgetary 

request for cybersecurity, and you touched on that some in your 

statement, and I am supportive of it. I wonder if you could give a 

little more detail about what the additional funding will enable the 

Department to do to protect our cyber systems because, as you and 

I agree, this is the most significant vulnerability we have in terms 

of homeland security today. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I would say it is 

the cloud on the horizon, but it is really the cloud that is here. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I agree. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We are seeing an increasing number of 

cyber attacks of various forms, both in the private sector and on 

our government systems. The increase in the budget allows us to 

do several things. It will allow us to speed up the deployment of 

EINSTEIN 3. It will allow us to create a Federal cybersecurity pool 

for all of the Federal Government. It will allow us to increase the 

size of US-CERT, which is our key response asset, by about 31 percent. In short, it will give us the tools we need to meet the responsibilities we already have in the cybersecurity arena. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good. Let me ask you to go a little deeper 

on US-CERT. Just take a minute because this is a program that 

I am very supportive of. Describe what US-CERT does and what 

the additional funding will enable it to do that it cannot do now. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. In the last full year for which we have 

numbers, as Senator Collins mentioned, the US-CERT team, which 

is basically an incident response team, responded to 106,000-plus 

cyber incidents. We did a number of field assessments. We did a 

number of control system interventions and assessments across the 

country. So it is a wide variety, a wide menu of protective, preventive, and mitigative activities, and it is really kind of a key part 

8 

of how we intersect with not only the rest of the Federal Government, but the private sector, writ large, in terms of the cybersecurity network. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. So if somebody has reason to believe that 

there has been a cyber attack, they find their way to US-CERT. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Actually, there is a center in Northern 

Virginia called the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), to which we invite you or your staffs, 

and it is staffed not only by folks from US-CERT but by other cyber 

professionals, private sector representatives, and State and local 

representatives. Those calls come in there, and then depending on 

what they are, they get deployed out. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Let us talk about the shift from terrorism 

to all hazards in the homeland security grants and what the rationale for it is. It raises concerns in me and others that there is a 

statement being made that terrorism is less of a priority now than 

it was when the Department was created, although, obviously, as 

you said earlier, this is the reason why the Department was created. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, and let me explain, if I might, Mr. 

Chairman. State and local grants have been cut by the Congress 

in major ways over the last several years. In fact, in the 2013 request, we actually ask for restoration of $500 million of the $1.5 

billion they were cut last year because they were cut too deeply. 

But it seems to me that those cuts are kind of the way of the world, 

and so the question for us is: How do we make sure the grant dollars that we receive go to their highest and best use? 

We have the grant programs that were established under the 

original construct, as you mentioned. But we have put $35 billion 

out there now. We have by that been able to raise the overall national capacity both for response and recovery. The kinds of response you saw in a multiple of States just 2 weeks ago to tornadoes—they had training, they had personnel, and they had equipment. They did not need to call on the Federal Government first. 

That is all a product of the grants that, in part because of the work 

of this Committee, they have received over the last 9 years or so. 

But now we have to say, all right, in this fiscal environment, 

what makes sense for grants phase II? And what we have recommended is consolidating grants so that beyond a State minimum—not many, but one State minimum, which would be derived 

from a population-driven formula—we evaluate all grant requests 

according to risk, according to gaps, both locally and regionally, 

and in terms of overall capability so that we can sustain an overall 

security safety net across the country. 

We thought that consolidating grants, streamlining the process, 

and putting out guidance that requires the grantees to get the 

money out into the field more quickly would make the grant program more viable in a fiscally restricted environment. 

That being said, we know that this requires changes in authorizing language, and we are respectful of that. We in our congressional budget justification documents provided an initial stab at 

what that would look like, but we would hope that working over 

the next months, we would work with you and others on the actual 

9 

authorizing language and how the program would actually go into 

statute. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I appreciate that. That was my next question, and I look forward to working with you because we do think 

it is not right to do it without authorization changes. 

Let me ask you one additional question, and it goes to the whole 

challenge of countering violent homegrown Islamist extremism. As 

you know, the White House promulgated last December the Strategic Implementation Plan for countering violent extremism with a 

number of important responsibilities given to DHS, including areas 

such as community engagement, strengthening partnerships with 

local law enforcement, etc. 

However, I do not see those responsibilities on the face of the 

budget reflected in the details of the budget request for fiscal year 

2013. So I wanted to ask you if you could describe the amount of 

money contained in the budget request that will assist in the implementation of the Strategic Implementation Plan, which I support. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think, Mr. Chairman, we do not break 

out in a separate budget line what goes for what we call countering 

violent extremism (CVE). But you will find it in several places: 

Support for fusion centers across the country. We have 72. Almost all of them are now on the classified network. 

You will find it in the Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative. 

You will find it in the funding for the See Something, Say Something Initiative. And you will find it in training. The Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) now has developed a curriculum for State and local law enforcement, and we field-tested it 

in San Diego a couple of weeks ago. We are getting ready to deploy 

it over the summer. 

We are also developing a law enforcement curriculum on CVE to 

be used in law enforcement training academies. That is also just 

about ready to go. And we have a one-week course for Federal law 

enforcement also that will be done at FLETC. 

So there are areas in the budget that have a particular emphasis 

on CVE, but it is just not broken out by name. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. That, as you know, has been an interest 

of the Committee. I think—and I know you agree—that the threat 

of homegrown extremism continues. In some sense, the tragic 

events in France over the last couple of weeks may reflect there a 

kind of homegrown Islamist extremism as well. So I would like to 

continue to provide oversight and have dialogue with you about 

how the Department is doing in implementing the plan. 

My time is up. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me echo 

your praise of DHS efforts under the leadership of Secretary 

Napolitano in the area of cybersecurity. I think a lot of our colleagues are unaware of just how developed those efforts are, and 

maybe we should organize a field trip for the Committee to go to 

the 24/7 National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration 

Center in Virginia that responds to incidents. I think we could 

learn a lot from that trip. 

Now, that is the good news. That is the first part of the questioning. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that a letVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:44 Sep 25, 2012 Jkt 073678 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\73678.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
10 

1The letter submitted by Senator Collins appears in the Appendix on page 41. 

ter from 12 different State, local, county, and first responder 

groups be put into the record. It is a March 20 letter to both of us 

expressing concerns about the Department’s proposal to consolidate 

homeland security grant programs.1

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Without objection. And that same request 

I can see is being made by hand motions from Senator Brown. So 

ordered. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I have the same letter. 

Senator COLLINS. That is why I felt confident I could question 

you about it. 

Secretary Napolitano, as a former governor, you are well aware 

of the fact that Federal law enforcement officials and DHS agents 

cannot be everywhere. They truly have to depend on a partnership 

with State, county, local, and tribal law enforcement officials, as 

well as an alert public, which is at times our best defense. And that 

is why I am very concerned to receive this letter from such a wide 

range of groups that says that the Department did not consult with 

them in coming up with what are indeed substantial changes in the 

homeland security grant programs. If these are your partners and 

if we are all in this together, why was there no consultation with 

these organizations on the changes? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, there was consultation, but if I 

might explain, the grant proposal that we make in the 2013 budget 

request is really an outgrowth of a series of engagements we had 

with our partners in response to what was called Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD–8). And in the process, we consulted with 100 

partners, including the associations on the letter, about how they 

would look at the grant program, seeing, reasonably foreseeable, 

that monies would only continue to go down, what they would suggest, and what they would recommend. We incorporated many of 

those suggestions in the proposal for the National Preparedness 

Grant Program. 

However, it is just like the authorizing language. We realized— 

this is a process. Somebody had to start it in terms of getting it 

to closure. So we have put forward a proposal, but we are meeting 

with those groups now. In fact, I had a conference call with the 

leadership of the Conference of Mayors just 2 days ago going 

through it. So we will be engaging with them over the course of the 

next months with respect to the specifics. But the basic ideas and 

a lot of the themes that go into the National Preparedness Grant 

Program were part of really the findings we had in doing the consultations on PPD–8. 

Senator COLLINS. Well, as you know, this letter would take issue 

with that and says, ‘‘We must ask why such major changes are 

being proposed without advance consultation with local governments and the full range of first responders charged with preventing, protecting against, and responding when incidents, manmade or natural, occur and why they are being proposed without 

consulting with—in fact, in a way that would bypass—the authorizing committees.’’ A concern that we have already expressed. 

11 

I would encourage you to work with them. They are the partners, 

and we need them, and that is another reason that I am so concerned about the fate of Operation Stonegarden, which has been 

such a force multiplier. 

I want to turn, since my time is rapidly expiring, to a couple of 

other questions. One has to do with improper payments by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). We have talked a 

great deal about this in the past and the fact that FEMA has 

lacked the kinds of basic safeguards in order to prevent improper 

payments. But the most recent report, which is from December of 

last year, indicates that FEMA has been aware of issues regarding 

lack of enforcement on several insurance requirements within 

FEMA’s Public Assistance Program for more than 10 years. That 

is just extraordinary, and these requirements are designed to prevent public money from being used to pay for an insured property, 

either at the time or in the future after an insurance requirement 

is put on the property. 

What are you doing, given that this is such a longstanding problem, to ensure that FEMA is addressing improper payments in general? This was an Office of Inspector General December 2011 report, but also this latest one about the lack of enforcement of several insurance requirements for the Public Assistance Program. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, FEMA has done a number of 

things. When we came in, I think the so-called error rate on FEMA 

payments was running between 7 and 8 percent. A large part of 

that, in fact, the overwhelming bulk of it, was with respect to payments for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. And as you know, there 

has been legislation now about recoupment and limiting 

recoupment of those. But FEMA has put into place a number of 

protections. Now the error rate is running less than 1 percent, and 

we are trying to drive it down even further. So it is supervision, 

it is training, and it is really being cognizant of those requirements. 

Senator COLLINS. Well, I would note that this is a very recent report. It is December of last year, which indicates that there is still 

a problem in the insurance requirements area that is costing taxpayers a considerable amount of money where we are ending up 

paying twice. So I know that we are doing better on the private 

payments, but this is the Public Assistance Program that the Inspector General has put a spotlight on. So I would ask for a more 

detailed response to that for the record. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Sure, absolutely. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Collins. 

For the information of colleagues, in order of arrival, Senators 

Brown, Coburn, Johnson, Pryor, and McCain. Senator Brown. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BROWN 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, 

thank you for coming. It is always a pleasure to see you back in 

Boston. 

This question is an extension of what Senator Collins was saying. 

The Urban Areas Security Initiative program has worked very well 

in Boston and the surrounding areas to improve emergency reVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:44 Sep 25, 2012 Jkt 073678 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\73678.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
12 

sponse and other homeland security efforts. It has broken down 

barriers among agencies in Massachusetts and in Boston in particular, and it made more efficient use of those very valuable Federal dollars. And it has kept, as I said, Boston safe while preventing a duplication and waste of Federal money. 

In your recent budget, you eliminate the UASI program, and it 

makes a major city like Boston go through a lot of bureaucratic red 

tape and another layer of bureaucracy at the State level in order 

to get its security needs funded, and I am hearing from Mayor 

Thomas Menino of Boston and other mayors that they are deeply 

concerned about this fact. 

Are you willing to meet with any of those stakeholders about 

their concerns? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I am willing to and do, but if I might, 

Senator, I think our goal is to eliminate some of the red tape and 

streamline multiple grant programs into one National Preparedness Grant Program. 

I think one of the questions that Mayor Menino might be raising 

is the fact that cities typically do not get the check. It goes through 

the States and then the States give the check to the cities, and 

there sometimes is friction in that process. 

Senator BROWN. Well, there is not only friction; the States keep 

a little of the juice on top, 20 percent sometimes, and it is obviously 

very frustrating to the States that have X amount and certain 

needs and then the State is going to get the check, keep a piece, 

and then give it out to the cities, and that is a deep concern of 

theirs. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The statute sets out who gets the money. 

Senator BROWN. I will follow up on that. 

I am also hearing that, for example, with that grant program, it 

unfairly favors the purchase of equipment over spending on planning. In other words, DHS makes it easier for local governments 

to get a vehicle funded than to get an evacuation plan for millions 

of residents funded. Will there be provisions of flexibility that will 

allow communities more time to get their planning right rather 

than rushing them to spend their funding on something that they 

may or may not need? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, let me take it in two bites. We have 

added a lot of flexibility in the grant process over the last 2 years 

in response to comments that we have received from some local 

and State officials, like, for example, money to maintain, as opposed to having to buy, new equipment, money for training, and 

money for personnel, which previously had not been allowed within 

the ambit of the grants. We have expanded the flexibility to permit 

that. 

With respect to planning, I would have to know the specifics 

about feeling rushed to do planning, but important evacuation 

planning, exercising, and training are all part of that security safety net that we want to have. 

Senator BROWN. If there are some specific issues, maybe I could 

get that information, and we can draw that connection. That would 

be great. 

I want to commend you and the President on the leadership you 

have shown on the Secure Communities program. It is a commonVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:44 Sep 25, 2012 Jkt 073678 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\73678.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
13 

sense program, and I think it would enjoy unqualified support here 

in a less politicized environment. And all you are doing is sharing 

information among law enforcement agencies to remove dangerous 

criminal aliens from this country. I know when you last testified, 

I commended you on it, and I want to continue to do that. And for 

those who are listening, let us be clear how it works. It is not about 

randomly tracking down immigration violators. It is about giving 

local law enforcement officials factual and accurate information 

about someone they have arrested for a crime. They might have 

just arrested a violent criminal who is in the country illegally or 

has an outstanding warrant, and sometimes the system you set up 

detects fugitives in our country who are evading justice back in 

their home country and then lets your agency know that they have 

these bad guys in custody, and you make the call on whether to 

pick them up. And it makes a lot of sense. 

I know nationwide, 79 percent of the jurisdictions are actually 

activated, when in Massachusetts, one of 15 jurisdictions has been 

activated. And there is, for whatever reason, a reluctance to fully 

implement this program, and I can think of many cases, especially 

most recently, that people’s lives potentially could have been saved 

in Massachusetts if this program had been implemented. 

Could you please update us on that effort to bring the program 

to all jurisdictions? And do you have a sense of when Secure Communities will be fully implemented in Massachusetts? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, we intend to be fully implemented 

by the end of fiscal year 2013. The President’s budget request provides the funding for that, and we have, I want to say, 320-someodd counties left, basically. So the big bulk of them have already 

been done. 

In Massachusetts, I know we have it turned on in Suffolk County. With respect to the other counties, we have ICE agents under 

what is called the Criminal Alien Program who are actually in the 

jails helping provide the same information, but in the end, we really need Secure Communities. That is the system that links the fingerprint check that you do for criminal history with the immigration check. 

Senator BROWN. I agree with you, and there are many sheriffs 

in Massachusetts who also agree with you and the President. Some 

critics would say that implementation would mean communities 

are less secure, i.e., they would deter other illegal immigrants from 

reporting crimes. But there are safeguards that are in place for 

that type of thing. Is that right? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. There are, including U and V visas that 

are given to those. Many communities have had Secure Communities in place now for a couple of years, and their police departments have good community outreach into communities that might 

feel particularly threatened, if I could use that word. 

Senator BROWN. Vulnerable. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Senator BROWN. Now, have you been in contact with Governor 

Deval Patrick’s office in Massachusetts on Secure Communities and 

why it has not been implemented? 

14 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I have been in touch with a number of 

officials about Secure Communities over the years. I cannot think 

of anything recent with Governor Patrick. 

Senator BROWN. But there has been communication in the past 

about this issue? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let me not answer that. We will check 

and see. 

Senator BROWN. If you could. I would like to know what the status is and if you can provide any of that correspondence to us because I am trying to find out what the reasoning is. Because as I 

have said, people are dying, and this is another tool in the toolbox 

for law enforcement. I agree with you, I agree with the President, 

and I want to see it implemented, as many citizens do in Massachusetts. So I want to thank you for that effort, and I look forward 

to working through the budgetary process with you. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Brown. Next is Senator 

Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary, for being here. Also, thank you for your service. It is a very 

tough job. 

You will find that I am going to be your favorite person on your 

consolidation of grants. I think you have it just right. And what 

you are hearing already is blowback of a parochial nature because 

when we did the grant program, we did not do it based on risk. We 

did it some based on risk, and we improved that with the last authorization. But basically we threw it out there, and so what we 

have is a little bit of a creaking door, and screeching, because the 

fast money that really is a State responsibility is not going to be 

paid by the Federal Government, and true terrorism prevention 

based on risk is liable to be the outcome of what you are recommending. So I heartily endorse your recommendations on consolidating it. 

I want to talk just a minute about fusion centers because I have 

a lot of doubts about them, and we are doing a lot of looking at 

that now. You say we now have 72? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. Do you think they are fulfilling their mission 

on terrorism prevention? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Their mission is terrorism prevention, 

but it is also much broader than that. And as governor, I started 

one of the first fusion centers in the country. It is an ideal place 

to collocate, to share information. We use them in a variety of 

ways. They are also the portal of entry we now use to get classified 

information out to the country quickly because the vast majority 

are now linked up and have people who have the right clearances 

to get that information. That was a common complaint a few years 

ago. 

So are there things that can always be done to improve? You 

know, it was a relatively new concept when we started it, but I 

think they are going in the right direction. And, yes, I think they 

are an essential part ultimately of the framework we need. 

Senator COBURN. Do you think they are cost-effective? 

15 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. Let me talk with you a minute, and all I would 

like for you to do is just respond. We have talked with your legislative representatives here on the Hill about the request to spend 

down this $8.3 billion in unspent grant money. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. We could not get an answer, so I would hope 

that you would make sure we get an answer on it. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I can tell you what the guidance that 

went out in February is with respect to the $8.3 billion—— 

Senator COBURN. Well, I have read that. I have read your stuff, 

but I cannot get an explanation. Here is basically the explanation— 

those grants are for terrorism prevention, correct? 

I mean, that is what the statute says. That is what they are for. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. They are for a number of things, but yes. 

Senator COBURN. But if you look at that specific UASI grant, 

that is what they are for. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. But the $8.3 billion is not just UASI, but 

go ahead. 

Senator COBURN. Well, that is some of the stuff that we are asking that we have not been able to get through your legislative office. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. All right. 

Senator COBURN. The idea to tell them to spend it out faster, can 

you talk to me about that? Because the fact is, if it is for equipment and they are not spending it, either the equipment is not 

available or they do not see it as a priority for equipment, and now 

we have loosened the grant up to say we are going to actually with 

this grant money be paying for things that are truly State and city 

obligations, not Federal obligations. Talk to me about the philosophy behind that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Sure. The guidance is, with the unspent 

grant monies that go back to 2007, those need to be spent by this 

June. For 2008 and 2009, those need to be spent by the end of the 

fiscal year, and so forth. 

One of the reasons for the backlog, quite frankly, is some of those 

original grants were for things like hardening port security, and by 

the time you go through the environmental and historic reviews 

that are required for those and do the procurement processes and 

all the rest, the money just has not gone out. 

We have streamlined that process and that review process so 

that we turn those around much more quickly. We are trying by 

this mechanism to encourage States and locals to cut through their 

own red tape to the extent they can and get money where it is 

needed. These are for safety, security, and terrorism prevention. 

They are not just for equipment. They cover a whole range of 

things. And we think if Congress is going to appropriate the 

money, we need to do what we can to get the money into the field. 

Senator COBURN. Well, if, in fact, they cannot get the money into 

the field, what is wrong with them returning it to the Treasury and 

letting us spend it somewhere where it might be more effective? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. There is nothing wrong with that. 

16 

1 Responses to Senator Coburn’s questions for the Record appear in the Appendix on page 78. 

Senator COBURN. But has that been part of the directive that you 

sent out—if you really cannot spend this money at this time, please 

send it back? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think that is part of the guidance, that 

the money will not go out. 

Senator COBURN. One question about US-CERT, and then I 

would like to submit some questions for the record to you and have 

them returned on a timely basis, if I may, and not go through them 

here today.1

Is it true that you all have reported that the US-CERT’s own 

network is vulnerable to cyber attack? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think every network is vulnerable, yes. 

Senator COBURN. I do not think that is classified at all. I think 

that is a public statement that we have made. What are we doing 

to make sure it is not? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That would be classified, and I would be 

happy to provide a briefing for you. 

Senator COBURN. Then I guess the answer is we are working to 

make sure that US-CERT is not vulnerable, correct? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Correct. 

Senator COBURN. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Coburn. Senator 

Johnson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, 

welcome back. Nice to see you. 

In earlier testimony, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that 

he certainly felt that because we are running huge deficits and 

huge debts, that is definitely a national security issue. Admiral 

Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that the 

most significant threat to our national security is our debt. Secretary Hillary Clinton said our rising debt levels pose a national 

security threat. 

I guess I am just asking you as Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security, do you also agree that our debt and deficit is 

a security threat? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, they can be. 

Senator JOHNSON. How significant a threat? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, to the extent they implicate the 

fundamentals of your economy, I think that is part of a cluster of 

security issues that we have to confront. 

Senator JOHNSON. Do you believe that the deficits that we have 

been running, the $1.4 to $1.3 trillion a year, and probably now 

again this year maybe $1.3 trillion, do you believe that is sustainable? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You know, Senator, I am here as the Secretary of Homeland Security. You all have to make the spending 

decisions, but I will say this: When we prepared our budget for this 

year, we did that in the context of knowing that there needed to 

be fiscal austerity measures taken. That is why we came in at less 

than the fiscal year 2012 appropriated amount. It is the first year 

17 

ever that the President has requested a lower amount for Homeland Security. It is because we all are dealing with that issue and 

trying to solve it as much as we can. 

Senator JOHNSON. Again, having recognized that the debt and 

deficit is a security issue, as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, do you believe that is part of your responsibility? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. In the sense that the security of the 

country is part and parcel of the daily responsibility I have, I 

would have to agree. 

Senator JOHNSON. Have you ever spoken to President Obama 

about the security threat that the debt and deficit issue poses within that context? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No. 

Senator JOHNSON. As a former governor, I believe you probably 

submitted—I have written down here—six budgets? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, more than that when you add midyear, etc. Lots. 

Senator JOHNSON. Did you always submit those on time? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. Were those balanced? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. Are you surprised or, let us say, disappointed 

that now after four bites of the apple President Obama has not 

submitted any plan for ever balancing the budget? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. If I might, Senator, I think a Federal 

budget is very different than a State budget. I mean, the Federal 

Government assumes obligations and responsibilities, for example, 

for the national defense and the national security that States do 

not have. It is a different animal. 

Senator JOHNSON. But, again, I think we just established that 

the level of debt and deficit is a security threat. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, it is among many, and I think we 

are all working to be fiscally responsible with how we conduct our 

affairs. But I think it is a little bit like comparing an apple and 

an orange to say a State budget is just like a Federal budget. They 

are not similar. 

Senator JOHNSON. I did not say that. 

Let me turn to the cybersecurity bill that you testified about in 

January. I asked you whether or not the Department had developed any sort of estimate on the cost of the regulations that were 

being proposed in that piece of legislation. At the time, you did not 

have any kind of estimate. Have you developed an estimate since 

that point in time? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No, but I think, if I might, Senator, the 

bill is really a very robust public-private partnership approach to 

how we raise the base level of cybersecurity for the core critical infrastructure of the country—core critical infrastructure that right 

now is being subject to attack. And so there is no regulation per 

se to evaluate I think in the sense that you mean. 

Is this something that we need to do as a country? Absolutely. 

You just asked me whether I thought the deficit was a threat. I am 

here testifying that I think the cybersecurity threat in my wheelhouse is the one right in front of us. 

18 

Senator JOHNSON. That is the one that keeps you awake at 

night. Me, too. I think it is extremely important. 

One of the questions I asked is whether there were companies 

that were supporting that particular piece of legislation, and you 

said that there were, and you were going to supply us a list. We 

have not received that list. Are there companies? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We will get you a list of some supporters, 

yes, sir. 

Senator JOHNSON. What about companies or people who would be 

falling under those regulations that are posed? Have people come 

out of that that you are aware of? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think the first thing is the decision about what constitutes core critical infrastructure of the country, and what the Lieberman-Collins bill would do would be to set 

up the process by which those are determined at the outset. But 

it makes common sense when you think about it, those where if 

they are shut down or attacked, you would have loss of life, massive economic damage, displacement of persons. So within that 

realm, then you would want to work with those participants, as we 

do across critical infrastructure across the country now, in terms 

of what are the base standards that should be met? Leaving to the 

actors to decide how to meet them, but what should you be able 

to do if you want to be in the core critical infrastructure business? 

Senator JOHNSON. But, again, I am concerned that we actually 

pass a cybersecurity bill that starts allowing companies to share information. Are there companies that have come out against this? 

And why would they be against it? Again, I am just trying to address their concerns. I want to make sure that we can actually develop a piece of legislation that we can pass so we can start moving 

that football forward. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, and we look forward to working with all of you on this. I have not seen all of the traffic, but 

the opposition that I have seen is a regulation kind of opposition, 

but not to the information-sharing parts. 

Senator JOHNSON. One of my concerns is that during that hearing, one of the witnesses—Stewart Baker—testified that the industry is concerned about waiting up to 7 years for the Department 

to actually write the regulations. Let us face it, the development 

of technology moves incredibly rapidly. Do you really believe that 

the government can keep up with that pace of technological advancement? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. But we are not waiting 7 years; the 

problem will not wait 7 years. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Secretary and Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Johnson. 

I am going to resist the inclination to get into a dialogue on the 

cybersecurity bill because there will be plenty of time for that, and 

I look forward to working with you on it. 

Senator Pryor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Madam Secretary, it is always good to see you. 

19 

I have a question about the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 

that we passed a few years ago. As I understand it, Customs and 

Border Protection has made significant progress under the new 

law. However, there is still some work to be done. 

It is my understanding that CBP will be caught up with the 

backlog of background investigations by the end of this calendar 

year and that the polygraph requirement is going to take a little 

bit longer. Do you have an update on that? Do you know the status 

of that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. I think actually the background 

investigation part, I hope, will be a little bit sooner than that, Senator. With respect to polygraph, one of the practical problems is the 

lack of enough polygraphers, so we are hiring and getting them on 

staff and contracting and doing everything we can to get those 

polygraphs out there. So, as soon as possible, I will try to get you 

a more definitive answer. 

Senator PRYOR. It would be great if we could get a sense of a 

timetable on that, and I do understand the constrictions you have 

with the polygraphers. I understand that. 

Do you think that Customs and Border Protection has adequate 

resources to implement the new law? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Senator PRYOR. It is just really a matter of finding the expertise 

for the polygraphers. Is that right? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is it. And then the other thing, and 

we are working on this very hard, is that the vast majority of the 

men and women who do that work are honest, they are in it for 

the right reasons. But when you have a big swell in new hiring, 

as we have had, particularly in the Border Patrol, there are issues 

that can go along with that. So it is not just background checks but 

recurrent checking, using the polygraph, all of those things to 

make sure that we maintain that honest workforce. 

Senator PRYOR. Right. This may be a little bit of a follow-up to 

Senator Coburn’s questions a few moments ago. I have a question 

about grants, specifically about the proposal to consolidate and 

streamline 16 existing grant programs into one bigger program. 

And part of that, as I understand it, is the Pre-Disaster Mitigation 

(PDM) Grant Program, which apparently Homeland Security 

thinks is duplicative of other grant programs. But the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) is only accessible through a major 

disaster declaration, meaning that if States or localities want to 

apply, they have to have had either a recent or a frequent disaster 

in their area; otherwise, they cannot get mitigation funds. 

And so to me, it seems that on those two you may have different 

requirements that would maybe be consolidated into one thing. Are 

you confident that Homeland Security will still be providing assistance for people who want to mitigate disasters and prevent the 

damage on the front end? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, I think this is one of the things we 

will work through, but the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program 

has been relatively unused. That is one of the reasons we are recommending that it be streamlined or folded in, and part of it is because of just the nature of the beast and the other statutory requirements that go with those monies. And as I mentioned, the 

20 

President has asked for an additional $500 million for grants that 

would enable us to keep working on hazard mitigation. 

Senator PRYOR. On the importance of pre-disaster mitigation, one 

example would be in 2011, of course, we had terrible flooding in the 

mid-section of the country, up and down the Mississippi River, the 

Ohio River, and those areas. This is a great example of how sometimes you spend millions but save billions. The Army Corps of Engineers system worked up and down the Mississippi River, but 

there were lots of local levees in States, counties, and cities that 

were also doing pre-flood mitigation during that time, and, again, 

largely it worked. 

I saw a number the other day—it was way in the billions—of the 

amount of money that we saved because of that investment. So I 

would just encourage you and your team to be very confident that 

the money will be available because these cities and counties and 

levee districts are putting it to good use. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Pryor. Senator 

McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is nice to see you 

again, Madam Secretary. 

As you will recall, last year the Border Patrol initiated a very 

successful operation called Operation Samurai, and it led to the apprehension of 31 cartel scouts operating on mountaintops in Arizona, in addition to 84 smugglers, over 800 illegal aliens, and thousands of pounds of marijuana and other illegal drugs. It was a very 

professional and impressive operation. The operation, as you know, 

was enabled through the use of air support that allowed the Border 

Patrol agents to get in position before the scouts had an opportunity to flee. 

So I have concerns about the proposed reduction of flight hours 

from 106,000 mission hours in fiscal year 2010 to 65,000 mission 

hours in 2013. Can you give me an explanation about this reduction in flight hours? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, two things, Senator. One is that we 

are putting into the air equipment that has more sensors and other 

types of equipment on it, on the platforms. So the hours that we 

are getting are yielding a lot more than some of the older planes 

that we were putting up in the air in 2009 and 2010. 

Second, as you know, we will be and are receiving air equipment 

from the Department of Defense to put in the air over the Southwest border. We think of it as boots in the air and boots on the 

ground, and it is the combination that really works best. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, I will be glad to exchange information 

with you, but that kind of reduction, even though we have enhanced capabilities, in my view, does not keep aircraft in the air 

24/7 or drones in the air. And it certainly does not provide for the 

24/7 coverage that I think we need. So maybe for the record you 

can provide me with additional information. 

In December, Senator Collins and I wrote to you asking for jus- tification over media reports that the DHS spent over $770,000 on 

automated cameras to document the movement of jaguars crossing 

21 

into Arizona from Mexico. We received a response indicating the 

jaguar project was just one of about $50 million in projects to ‘‘mitigate the environmental impact of the border fence,’’ and the funding would come from the Border Patrol’s fencing and infrastructure 

budget. And among those projects were $925,000 to find and study 

the bat caves of the Mexican long-nosed bat, $500,000 to help breed 

Aplomado falcons, and $230,000 to put radio collars on bighorn 

sheep. 

I am pretty familiar with the border and fencing, Madam Secretary, but I do not know how studying the bat caves of the Mexican long-nosed bat has anything to do with the border fence. Perhaps you can educate me. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Not today, but I will be happy to respond 

to you. I will have to look into it myself. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, here we are with stringent economic 

measures needed to be taken, and we are spending $230,000 to put 

radio collars on bighorn sheep, and maybe we need to put radio collars on bighorn sheep, but to call that a mitigation of the environmental impact of the border fence obviously is a great stretch of the 

imagination. I missed $2.1 million to plant agave cacti. The list, 

unfortunately, is rather long. 

You know, Madam Secretary, we have been having these hearings now since the Department of Homeland Security was created 

as a result of the 9/11 Commission, and most every weekend I go 

to an airport and get on a plane and go somewhere. And for the 

life of me, I cannot think of a single improvement in the technology 

and the screening of passengers that we have seen. The men and 

women who serve under you are very outstanding and dedicated 

people, but 11 years later, we still are subjecting passengers to the 

really invasive patting-down procedure. 

We now have a new device, I see, that you have to go into and 

raise your arms, and it lengthens the time of going through security rather than shortens it. And I have heard over the years, well, 

we are working on this technology, we are working on that technology, we have a Trusted Traveler Program, we will do optical— 

I have heard everything. And nothing has changed. The American 

people are very patient. The American people understand the need 

for airport security. But I can tell you, they do not understand why 

we cannot develop technology that eases their passage through security at an airport. 

Now, maybe you can not only help me out but help people who 

have to fly all over the country through commercial airports by telling me a little bit about what we can expect. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Senator, I am sorry that you feel 

that way because there have been a number of improvements, and 

one thing I can say is the traveling public is safe in the face of continuing threats in the aviation environment, which involve all 

kinds of populations. So we start from that premise. There is nothing we are doing that is not threat related. 

With respect to the technology, I would like nothing better than 

to sit at this table and announce that we do not have to take off 

our shoes and we do not have to divest ourselves of our briefcases 

and our backpacks, etc. The technology just is not there, Senator. 

We have made moves with specific populations—children, those 

22 

over 75—who we view as low risk, but we still have to do a certain 

amount of random checking, even in those populations. 

We have met and worked with, among other things, the International Air Travel Association (IATA), which is the big global 

unit, on something called the Checkpoint of the Future, kind of a 

one-stop shop. You go in, check, etc. But that, I have to say, from 

a technology standpoint is years away. 

This is a complicated area. We are moving 1.5 million people per 

day through the Nation’s airports. It is the largest airport system 

in the world. But, yes, if we can find that magic technology, we will 

use it. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, it puzzles the American people and this 

Member of the Senate that the most innovative, most technologically advanced Nation in the world has not made basically a 

single change. And, by the way, if you think that it is more rapid 

than it was when it was first installed, you are not going to the 

same airports I am. So the fact is, it has not been sped up. In fact, 

it has been delayed some. 

Maybe a trip out to Silicon Valley to meet with some of the people out there who are very good at the development of new technology might be something that you might think of. But, again, I 

understand your response. I understand exactly what you are saying. It is very plain English. But the fact is that we have not seen 

anything that has been a technological advance that I know of that 

would indicate that we could travel more expeditiously without the 

embarrassment of some of the procedures that are necessary in 

your view as we go through airports in this country. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. Senator, I think what would be useful for you is to meet not with us but with the people who are involved in the technology side of the industry because I think they 

will show you what is being looked at, what has been evaluated. 

Silicon Valley, Cambridge, Massachusetts, you name the high-tech 

centers of the United States, we have been there looking. No place 

in the world has it quite yet. But we will get it ultimately. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator McCain. Senator 

Akaka, welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I commend you and Senator Collins for your leadership in these areas, and I do personally appreciate it. And, of 

course, I want to say aloha and welcome to Secretary Napolitano 

for being here with us today. 

I would like to express my admiration and sincere gratitude to 

the dedicated men and women of DHS who tirelessly are working 

to ensure our safety and security. And sometimes it is tough to do 

that, but they are doing it. These employees often turn down higher pay in the private sector to serve their country, and I am saddened by the proposals targeting Federal workers that will make 

it even harder for the Department to attract and retain the best 

and the brightest in our country. We must ensure that they have 

23 

the resources and tools needed to do their jobs. I want to commend 

you for your leadership in these areas over these years now. 

Secretary Napolitano, as an island State, Hawaii relies heavily 

on the Coast Guard to protect our people, environment, and economic interests. The 14th Coast Guard District in Honolulu is the 

largest geographic command in the Coast Guard, covering over 12 

million square miles of ocean. Despite the 14th District’s vital role 

in protecting national interests in the Pacific, it is relying on an 

antiquated fleet. 

How will the proposed cuts in the Coast Guard’s budget affect its 

mission in the Pacific? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I think the mission in the Pacific is very significant to us. It is significant to the Coast Guard. 

Our presence in Hawaii and its surrounding area is critical to the 

security of the United States, as you mentioned. 

When you look at the Coast Guard budget that has been submitted by the President, it maintains the long-range aircraft that 

are necessary for Hawaii. We are in the midst of the process of 

building the National Security Cutters: four and five are on schedule and on budget; six is contained within the President’s budget. 

We are building out or replacing the Fast Response Cutters (FRCs). 

There is a minor personnel reduction in the President’s budget 

for the Coast Guard, but that is primarily in the Office of Intelligence here, Senator, that has been increased 200 percent in the 

last few years—we thought it could go down a little bit—and also 

some back-office administrative and other personnel here. So that 

should not be felt at the front line at all. So we are very conscious 

of the special role the Coast Guard has in Hawaii. 

Senator AKAKA. Yes, and I am sure you know what I am referring to when I say antiquated fleet. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Senator AKAKA. Some of the ships that they have are really antiquated out there. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I concur. 

Senator AKAKA. I am just worried about what the budget would 

do to it. 

Secretary Napolitano, last November, Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) whistleblowers at Honolulu airport alleged 

that two behavior detection officers (BDOs) regularly engaged in 

racial profiling by targeting Hispanic travelers for additional 

screening. Similar problems of racial profiling reportedly occurred 

at Newark airport as well. There are more than 3,000 BDOs nationwide, and the Administration’s budget requests funding for additional officers. Concerns about racial profiling could undermine 

this entire program, and I urge you to fully investigate and address 

these allegations, and I am sure you have. 

How is DHS investigating and addressing alleged abuses? And 

when will DHS release the findings of their investigations? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I will have to get back to you on 

those particular investigations in terms of the timing. With respect 

to the behavior detection officer program, however, that is based in 

large part on a program that is done in Israel. They perfected some 

of the original methodology. 

24 

We have over the last year done a study of it in terms of evaluating its ability to identify a traveler who deserves extra scrutiny 

versus simply doing random checks. And those BDOs were found 

to be statistically better at doing that than just simply doing random checks. So I think in terms of a tool to use properly and appropriately in that security environment at the airport, it is a good 

tool for us to use. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Madam Secretary, as you may know, 

the debris as a result of the 2011 tsunami in Japan is circulating 

the Pacific and may reach Hawaii within the year. The National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) manages Federal 

debris removal efforts and partners with Federal agencies to coordinate their efforts. 

How is the Coast Guard working with NOAA to determine the 

best approach to address the tsunami debris? And does the budget 

take these efforts into account? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Senator. As you noted, NOAA has 

the lead responsibility on the tsunami debris, but our Coast Guard 

region is working with them with respect to the tsunami that you 

are talking about and will coordinate in any way they think appropriate. But we are relying on NOAA as the lead. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Secretary Napolitano, in 2007, DHS 

committed to empowering CBP’s agricultural mission with an enhanced leadership structure and authorities to safeguard American 

agriculture, the economy, and public health. Years later, our borders remain still vulnerable to dangerous pests and disease, and I 

am deeply concerned that agricultural inspections are a low priority for DHS. And as you know, in all these years in Hawaii, we 

have had these agricultural inspections going on. I have been informed that CBP uses most of the agricultural inspection fees to 

fund its offices instead of its agricultural specialists. 

What steps is DHS taking to fulfill its commitment to prevent 

the entry of harmful pests and bioterrorism agents and make sure 

agricultural user fees are spent as Congress intended? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think, Senator, if they are not 

being spent as Congress intended, I want to know about it because 

that agricultural inspection program, as you say, is an important 

one, and we do it a number of ways. 

Actually, the safety of the Nation from bioterrorism or just an 

invasive species getting in, it is a lot of different levels, but that 

agricultural inspector at the gate of entry, so to speak, that is kind 

of the last line of defense. And so it is training, it is supervision, 

it is identifying and having people right there with the right kind 

of equipment so you do not have to travel a long time to test things 

out. So that is what we are using the fees for. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, may I ask my last 

question? 

Senator MORAN. It is fine with me, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Go ahead. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Madam Secretary, I am pleased that the Department proposes to 

maintain total funding for emergency management performance 

grants. However, I understand that several changes have been 

25 

made to homeland security preparedness grants to better support 

the national preparedness goal. 

Will you please explain how these proposed changes may better 

address special emergency preparedness needs of States like Hawaii? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think what we are working on and will 

work with the Committee on is to take the existing multiplicity of 

grants now, consolidate them, have one base level of funding population driven; but beyond that, look at risk, gaps, and capabilities 

within States and really try to direct those dollars to where they 

will best be used now given that we have already spent $35 billion 

across the country. So this is an Administration proposal that we 

will work with the Congress on and with other groups on. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Senator Moran. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MORAN 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Madam Secretary, last Friday, Under Secretary Tara O’Toole 

spoke to the National Research Council (NRC) about the NRC 

Committee that will be formed at your request to reassess the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) mission. She said that 

panel will not revisit the site selection or consider alternative locations for the NBAF. Previously, you likewise have told me, Senator 

Pat Roberts, and others that the reassessment will consider only 

NBAF’s scope. So in that regard, Under Secretary O’Toole, as far 

as I can tell to that point, did not say anything contrary to the conversations that we have had. 

However, Under Secretary O’Toole said that the reassessment 

committee will also consider the question of, ‘‘Could the country 

manage Plum Island Animal Disease Center, which would not be 

pushed to a Bio-Safety Level 4 (BSL-4) level?’’ And I am concerned 

that DHS even is asking that question. 

Plum Island has served a useful purpose. It is over 50 years old. 

It is well beyond its end-of-life span. It is too small to enable necessary research. It does not have a BSL-4 capability to do research 

on diseases like Nipah virus or Hendra virus. DHS’s own studies 

point to Plum Island’s severe limitations. From 2006 to 2009, DHS 

conducted an exhaustive site selection process for NBAF, and it 

considered Plum Island as a potential finalist site. And according 

to DHS’s 2009 Record of Decision for NBAF, Plum Island ‘‘has 

much higher’’ construction and operation costs associated with 

building on an island. As I understand it, the indications were that 

island costs are 15 to 24 percent above mainland costs. It lacks 

‘‘proximity and accessibility to medical and veterinary schools as 

well as BSL–3 and 4 labs with related mission areas.’’ My understanding is that this proximity is necessary and useful for attracting the best scientists and working with the animal health industry 

to get vaccines to market. And Plum Island’s remoteness is a serious drawback in limiting research and our country’s ability to protect itself. 

Your report indicated that in New York and Connecticut, there 

is ‘‘strong political opposition at Federal, State, and local levels to 

26 

expanding’’ and including BSL-4 research capabilities; and, finally, 

‘‘a foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) virus outbreak on an island 

would be considered no different from a FMD outbreak on mainland with respect to impact.’’ 

Why would we now once again consider spending money on propping up an outdated, costly, and inadequate facility instead of 

building a state-of-the-art lab that our country needs? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I do not know exactly what Under 

Secretary O’Toole said, but if I might, as you and I have discussed, 

we are not reconsidering locale. We are not reconsidering the need 

for an NBAF. In my view, it is an essential part of the Nation’s 

security structure moving forward. 

We have had a problem persuading the Congress to appropriate 

money in a steady enough stream so that we could really get the 

project moving, and that has left us in a position where we have 

the Plum Island, which in the end will not be able to be the kind 

of Level 4 facility that we envision for NBAF. But we are going to 

have to use it now for a while until NBAF is completed. 

We hope through this budget process and the other assessments 

that are being done that we can make material progress on that 

score. But I suspect what the Under Secretary was saying is, look, 

at some point we still have to have a biolevel lab, even though we 

know that lab in the end is not the final answer. 

Senator MORAN. I think you have answered my question. Thank 

you, Madam Secretary. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Moran. 

Just a couple more questions, and we will let you go back to your 

work. Last month, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James 

Clapper testified before Congress that ‘‘some Iranian officials, probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, have changed their 

calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the 

United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that 

threaten the regime.’’ 

Obviously, the catalyzing event was the plot that was broken up, 

with particular help by a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 

agent, to retain some members of a Mexican drug cartel to come 

in and assassinate the Saudi Ambassador here in Washington. 

So I wanted to ask you whether the Department is taking any 

actions in response to what the DNI says is this change in the attitude of Iran toward committing acts of terrorism here in the homeland, including with respect to departmental activities such as border screening and infrastructure protection or information sharing 

with State and local law enforcement. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Without commenting on the specifics in 

an open setting, Senator, we are constantly monitoring threat information, scenarios that become more realistic than previously, 

and providing analysis and products at various classification levels 

out into the State and local environment. So I think I would leave 

that answer just at that level for right now. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. That is good enough. And, finally, let me 

ask you about the US-VISIT program. I agree with you and, by action I will describe in a minute, I think that most Members of the 

Committee agree that the US-VISIT’s placement within the National Protection and Programs Directorate at DHS is problematic. 

27 

One reason is that NPPD is not primarily an operating component. 

So the DHS Authorization Act that we passed last fall addressed 

this issue by creating a new entity within the Department to better 

coordinate DHS efforts to stop terrorists from traveling and placing 

US-VISIT there. 

The proposal that the budget makes, as I mentioned in my opening statement briefly, is to place US-VISIT within Customs and 

Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and 

I wanted to ask you about that. My concern is that moving the program, splitting it essentially into two sections, will make it more 

difficult to coordinate screening activities within the Department, 

across the interagency, and with our foreign partners. 

So we agree there is a problem here. We ended up with a different recommendation to deal with it. Why do you think the one 

in the budget is a good one? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, what we are doing, Senator, is we 

are consolidating all the vetting and screening programs and databases in CBP. They have the largest nucleus of that data now. 

They now have the technologic capability for databases to talk with 

each other, etc. And so what we are proposing is, take all of the 

vetting and screening part of US-VISIT and merge that into the existing resources we have at CBP, and then going and picking up 

the overstays would go into ICE. That is their typical function, 

which is to do enforcement. So that is the theory behind the recommendation. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I would like to continue this discussion. 

Again, incidentally, going back to our discussion about the grants 

and noting the absence of Senator Coburn so there is no chance he 

will pick up any support at this moment. [Laughter.] 

Although I do not know what his position is on this one, I would 

like to work with you on it to see whether we can have an agreement where we as the authorizers will agree on how to deal with 

this problem that we both agree exists. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. OK. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I wish that Senator Johnson and more of our 

colleagues did not have to leave before I asked you this question. 

He brought up the issue of having a very limited cybersecurity bill 

that would just focus on information sharing about cyber threats. 

As you are well aware, that is part of the bill that Senator 

Lieberman and I have introduced. We drew on some work done by 

Senator Carper and others, Senator Dianne Feinstein as well. But 

the fact is that while information sharing about cyber threats is 

needed and those liability protections are essential, it does not remove the necessity of focusing on critical infrastructure, does it? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No, they are not mutually exclusive. We 

need to have core critical infrastructure at a certain base level. Because they are a core critical infrastructure, we all rely on them. 

Families rely on them, small business relies on them, everybody relies on them. We need the information sharing, and it needs to be 

real time. We need some of the other elements. We need Federal 

Information Security Management Act (FISMA) reform. We need 

28 

1Senator Collins’ questions for the Record appear in the Appendix on page 117. 

some help with some of the personnel rules so that we can hire 

more people more quickly. 

So there are a lot of things that need to be done in the cyber 

arena and that need to be done now. 

Senator COLLINS. And if, in fact, we just passed a very limited 

bill that dealt only with information sharing and did not give the 

Department the authority to designate what is core critical infrastructure and, working in partnership with the industry, develop 

risk-based standards and then leave it up to industry how to 

achieve those standards, we would be falling short in addressing 

what is a very serious threat, would we not? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I think we would be back here 

in a year or 18 months, and we will have suffered a major infiltration or attack, and we will find that some part of our critical infrastructure was a gap and they were not doing it on their own, so 

to speak, and then the gap might be filled at that point. 

But it seems to me that what we know now is already enough 

to go ahead, and we should be moving forward. 

Senator COLLINS. Well, I could not agree with you more. I think 

this is the threat where there is the biggest gap between the seriousness of the threat and how little we have done legislatively to 

ensure that the Administration has the tools that it needs to address what is an escalating threat. And it is important once again 

to reinforce what we are talking about when we are talking about 

core critical infrastructure. We are talking about infrastructure 

against which an attack would cause mass casualties, severe harm 

to our economy, a serious degradation of our national security. We 

are not talking about covering every business, every system in our 

country. We are talking about the electric grid, key water supplies, 

and I think that is something that needs to be better understood. 

So I appreciate the chance to engage you on that colloquy. 

I want to ask you two more questions, and the rest I will submit 

for the record.1 First, you have used the term and the budget uses 

the term ‘‘population-driven formula’’ several times in talking 

about the grant. My staff has had great difficulty in getting from 

the Department exactly what you mean by that phrase. It could be 

meant in one of two ways. It could mean that you are talking about 

the formula that this Committee wrote that ensures that every 

State receives a certain minimum in order to build and now maintain the capabilities that have been built up over the past 10 years. 

Or it could mean that you are talking about a formula that is driven by the size of populations and, thus, the money is shifted away 

from that statutory minimum and instead given to the large cities 

and big States. 

So what do you mean when you use the term population-driven 

formula? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. A little bit of both in a way. What we 

want to have is one State formula. There are many different formulas now for basic State grants, depending on which grant program is at issue, so that there would be one consistent State formula of which population would be a key variable that would give 

29 

you that base level. But beyond that, we would be looking at risk 

and gap and capability. 

So, for example, take a State like Maine. One of the things you 

would say is, well, the population is a smaller population base, it 

is a more rural State, but it has a lot of border and a lot of coast, 

and it has some critical infrastructure on those things. And that 

would go into the vast majority of the grant dollars, which would 

be how you look at the risk, how you look at consequence, gaps, 

and capabilities. 

Senator COLLINS. But are you proposing to still have a State 

minimum of some sort to ensure that every State can maintain certain capabilities? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, but it would be one uniform formula. 

Senator COLLINS. And, finally, I want to return to the Coast 

Guard. I am just very distressed by the cuts in the budget that affect the Coast Guard. A thousand uniformed personnel to me is not 

a small cut. This is not a big service. And it was just last year 

when I was unhappy about the reduction to eight National Security 

Cutters that you testified that we fully intend to build them, and 

we fully intend to build them on schedule. In January of this year, 

just 2 months ago, DHS provided the Deepwater Implementation 

Plan Annual Report that validated the Coast Guard’s methodology 

for determining the appropriate mix for the Deepwater fleet, including verifying the methodology that produced the eight National 

Security Cutters. 

So I do not understand the Administration’s budget cuts that 

would eliminate the seventh and eighth National Security Cutters 

from the Coast Guard’s 5-year plan as well as that 1,000 uniform 

personnel cut. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let me address each of those, and I 

would think one intervening factor is the passage of the Budget 

Control Act, which we are all trying to fit within. As I mentioned 

to Senator Akaka, the Coast Guard is roughly a 50,000 member 

service. The 1,000 personnel cut is made up of some exchange between decommissioning higher personnel vessels and replacing 

them with vessels that do not need quite as many personnel. That 

is a small part. A second part is some non-replaced attrition in 

clerical and backroom personnel here. A third part is, for example, 

we do not need as many recruitment officers in the Coast Guard 

as we had because we fulfill our recruitment at the end of the second quarter, so we do not have to fill all of those with full-time 

equivalent. And the fourth is the intelligence officers that I mentioned earlier where we have had a very dramatic increase over the 

last several years. We can cut back on that with no impact on 

front-line operations. That is the 1,000. 

With respect to the NSC, the budget fully funds six. There is language—and I think it is in a footnote in the budget documents— 

to the effect that the decisions on seven and eight will be done in 

relation to what the Navy is doing with its laydown because it is 

adjusting its forces in response to the Budget Control Act as well. 

And so we are beginning a process, working with the Chief of 

Naval Operations, before we make final decisions on seven and 

eight, which would hit dollar-wise not until 2014 anyway. So that 

is the thinking there. 

30 

Senator COLLINS. Well, given the cutbacks in naval ship building, 

that is not of great comfort to me. The missions are different. I like 

seeing coordination. Do not get me wrong. But I think the cuts in 

the Coast Guard are something that we are going to need to take 

a very close look at. 

If you look at the expanded role of the Coast Guard, I mean, it 

has just changed enormously during the past decade. And while I 

think they are unparalleled in their ability to do more with very 

little, there is a limit. I have been on those cutters and actually 

seen where you could see through the side of some of the cutters 

because of the poor condition that they are in, and the number of 

cutters that are simply out of commission for so many days each 

year because of engineering and other failures. It just calls for recapitalization and not delaying with the Offshore Patrol Cutters either. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. If I might, Senator, one thing—it relates 

to recapitalization of the Coast Guard, it relates to the NBAF that 

Senator Moran referenced. At some point in this process, we need 

to work through how the Department is funded to pay for big capital expenditures without having to pay for those expenditures out 

of operations. We are constantly caught between those two things. 

So, for example, we need another icebreaker. Now, the budget 

has in it some planning money for another icebreaker. There is 

going to be more activities in the Arctic. Drilling is going to start 

off of Alaska. We know we need a Coast Guard presence up there. 

But that is a $1 billion vessel. Plus, there are the NSCs you mentioned, or other recapitalization with other kinds of vessels, or the 

NBAF. 

So these are big-ticket items, but what happens, unfortunately, 

I think, is in the budget process, somehow the big items and the 

operations get merged together. And so we will work with you on 

what the right balance is, but that really is a tension that we have 

to discuss. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. Thank you for your time. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Collins. 

Of course, I agree with Senator Collins regarding the Coast 

Guard, and I have the same feeling toward this as I have expressed 

several times in the Armed Services Committee, which is a lot of 

these cuts are forced on you by the Budget Control Act, which we 

adopted. But in this authorization process, we have an obligation 

to look back and see if what you have done makes sense and 

whether we want to relook at the BCA and find other ways to fund 

some of these things that really need to be funded in the national 

interest, either by finding savings elsewhere or, perish the thought, 

by raising taxes. Thank you. 

Just when you thought it was safe, Secretary Napolitano, to go 

back to your office, Senator Carper appears. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I would introduce me differently. I would say 

‘‘an unexpected pleasure.’’ [Laughter.] 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. It is that, too, of course. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. It was very good talking with you last week. 

Thanks for that opportunity. And for my colleagues, let me just say 

31 

that the Department of Homeland Security has announced that 

they are going to be audit ready—not in a couple years, not in the 

next decade, but they are going to be audit ready this year, paving 

the way for the Department of Homeland Security to actually pass 

a financial audit—not just talk about it, not just think about it, but 

actually be able to do it. And I think this is a wonderful achievement and just a great example of one of the best ways that our 

Federal agencies can act to curb not just fraud but wasteful and 

ineffective spending. We are glad you set a great example for a bigger agency whose Secretary is trying to drag his agency—the Department of Defense—kicking and screaming to being auditable as 

well and trying to push them to beat their deadline of 2017. So 

thanks for being a good role model for them. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I will share that with Secretary Leon Panetta. 

Senator CARPER. He is on it. You know, when you take somebody 

who used to be a Budget Committee Chairman in the House, Office 

of Management and Budget Director, White House Chief of Staff, 

all of the above—you put all that together and put that person in 

charge of the Department of Defense, they care about this sort of 

thing. And the reason why it is important, as you know, is if we 

do not have good financial controls, if we do not have the ability 

to actually track money, I mean, we are doomed. It is hard to manage what we cannot measure, so it is important. 

I just want to commend you and the folks who work for you who 

have taken your Department to this point in time. And I was just 

hoping you might take a minute and just give us here on the Committee some idea how you plan to move forward to obtain a clean 

or unqualified audit for your Department. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, first of all, the Under Secretary for 

Management, Rafael Borras, and his staff, the Chief Financial Officer and others, deserve the credit. I do not. But they have moved 

forward on a number of management fronts, really working particularly with one or two of our components that we are having 

particular difficulty in getting audit ready because of the complexity of the mission and the state of the books, etc. So it is training, management, supervision, and it is just constant monitoring 

the process and encouraging us. So we were recipients of a qualified audit this year, which is a huge step forward. We will be 

ready. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. 

The second area I would like to just discuss briefly. This Committee has continued to challenge this Administration and the previous Administration to try to work smarter with Federal dollars 

and to find programs where we can get better results for less 

money or at least better results for the same amount of money. 

And I believe that your Department budget takes really a giant 

step in this direction, cutting, I am told, more than $850 million 

in administrative costs and duplicative programs for fiscal year 

2013. And, again, I want to commend you and the team you lead 

for looking in every nook and cranny of your Department for ways 

to save money and doing your part to move our country from what 

I call a culture of spendthrift more to a culture of thrift. 

32 

Can you take a moment and talk with us about some of the cuts 

that the Department has made and what type of impact they may 

have on your Department’s ability to carry out its security mission? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think, Senator, our goal is to cut 

but not deleteriously impact security mission, and so we are looking for ways where we can get rid of redundancies, inefficient processes, everything from unnecessary expenditures, things that are 

nice but not necessary, to acquisition reform, procurement reform. 

The whole contracting process required a real thorough look at by 

us— fleet management, purchasing, purchase management, all the 

rest. Every component has come up with savings or places where 

they can take money back. ICE is a key example. A large part of 

their budget is not really a reduction. It is savings and costs they 

have been able to identify they can avoid next year and not impact 

mission. 

Senator CARPER. In talking with Cabinet Secretaries and folks 

who run some of our other Federal agencies, one of the themes that 

I have heard from them is trying to change, if you will, the way 

people think about Federal programs and to really make it part of 

a cultural change to say how do we get a better result for less 

money about almost everything that we do, or how do we get a better result for the same amount of money. And given the magnitude 

of the cuts that you all are looking at, it sounds like that is the 

mind-set you are bringing, so bring it on. 

The third question I would have deals with cybersecurity within 

the realm of State and local training. We talked a little bit about 

this before, as you may recall. But a couple of weeks ago when you 

were here, we talked a fair amount about Federal cybersecurity efforts, and I know you have talked with some of my colleagues 

about it here today. But while I strongly believe we ought to improve our Federal cybersecurity efforts, I think it is equally important that we also take some important steps at the State and local 

level. And as you may know, my home State of Delaware has devoted a significant amount of time and resources and energy to enhancing public awareness of cyber attacks and has even participated in several Department of Homeland Security Cyber Storm 

exercises to prepare our local officials for cyber incidents. 

Could you just discuss with us briefly some of your hands-on cybersecurity training programs and how the Department’s budget 

request will maintain these important programs that have helped 

my own State become what we think is a bit of a leader nationally 

in cybersecurity? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Absolutely, Senator. It begins with the 

fusion centers, which, as I mentioned to Senator Coburn, are a real 

focus for us in terms of how we get training out to the country on 

basic security needs and analysis. It is training programs at 

FLETC and other places. It is the exercises. Delaware participated 

in Cyber Storm. The National Level Exercise this year will be another cyber exercise, so we are going to have a continued drumbeat 

of exercises that will include our State and local partners. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks again for your leadership, for being 

here today, and for the spirit that you bring to your job. Thank 

you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

33 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Carper. 

Secretary Napolitano, thank you for your testimony. I was thinking as I was listening to you, leaving aside the fact that I have 

known you for a long time, and admire you and even consider you 

my friend, if I was just coming in from nowhere, I would say to myself, ‘‘That Secretary is very informed.’’ [Laughter.] 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. You really are on top of what is happening in the Department, and we agree most of the time, we disagree some of the time, but you were very responsive today, and 

I appreciate that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Senator COLLINS. As do I. 

In all seriousness, it is such an important Department, and I do 

appreciate your leadership, particularly in the area of cybersecurity, and I have great confidence that you are going to fix the budget when it comes to the Coast Guard and that we will continue to 

work very closely together. 

I also want to thank all the men and women who work for the 

Department. So many of them are the unsung heroes who every 

day are so committed to the mission of protecting our country. I 

know, unfortunately, it has become in vogue nowadays to beat up 

on Federal employees, and I think that is really unfortunate because so many of them work so hard with the best of motivations 

and intentions. So I would ask that you pass on our thanks to them 

as well. Thank you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I will do that. Thank you very much. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. As do I. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you all. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. The record of the hearing will stay open 

for 15 days for any additional questions or statements. Again, I 

thank you. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:34 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(35) 

A P P E N D I X 


73678.001
36 


73678.002
37 


73678.003
38 


73678.004
39 


73678.005
40 


73678.006
41 


73678.007
42 


73678.008
43 


73678.009
44 


73678.010
45 


73678.011
46 


73678.012
47 


73678.013
48 


73678.014
49 


73678.015
50 


73678.016
51 


73678.017
52 


73678.018
53 


73678.019
54 


73678.020
55 


73678.021
56 


73678.022
57 


73678.023
58 


73678.024
59 


73678.025
60 


73678.026
61 


73678.027
62 


73678.028
63 


73678.043
64 


73678.029
65 


73678.030
66 


73678.031
67 


73678.032
68 


73678.033
69 


73678.034
70 


73678.035
71 


73678.036
72 


73678.037
73 


73678.038
74 


73678.039
75 


73678.040
76 


73678.041
77 


73678.042
78 


73678.044
79 


73678.045
80 


73678.046
81 


73678.047
82 


73678.048
83 


73678.049
84 


73678.050
85 


73678.051
86 


73678.052
87 


73678.053
88 


73678.054
89 


73678.055
90 


73678.056
91 


73678.057
92 


73678.058
93 


73678.059
94 


73678.060
95 


73678.061
96 


73678.062
97 


73680.103
98 


73680.104
99 


73680.105
100 


73680.106
101 


73680.107
102 


73680.108
103 


73680.109
104 


73680.110
105 


73680.111
106 


73680.112
107 


73680.113
108 


73680.114
109 


73680.115
110 


73680.116
111 


73680.117
112 


73680.118
113 


73680.119
114 


73680.120
115 


73680.121
116 


73680.122
117 


73680.123
118 


73680.124
119 


73680.125
120 


73680.126
121 


73680.127
122 


73680.128
123 


73680.129
124 


73680.130
125 


73680.131
126 


73680.132
127 


73680.133
128 


73680.134
129 


73680.135
130 


73680.136
131 


73680.137
132 


73680.138
133 


73680.139
134 


73680.140
135 


73680.141
136 


73680.142
137 


73680.143
138 


73680.144
139 


73680.145
140 


73680.146
141 


73680.147
142 


73680.148
143 


73680.149
144 


73680.150
145 

Æ 


73680.151