DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama, Chairman 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

BEN NICHOLSON, JEFF ASHFORD, KRIS MALLARD, 

KATHY KRANINGER, and MILES TAYLOR, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 2 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Page 

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

U.S. Customs and Border Protection .................................. 163 

U.S. Coast Guard ...................................................................... 277 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
PART 2 

DHS 

Customs 

Coast Guard 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama, Chairman 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

BEN NICHOLSON, JEFF ASHFORD, KRIS MALLARD, 

KATHY KRANINGER, and MILES TAYLOR, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 2 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Page 

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

U.S. Customs and Border Protection .................................. 163 

U.S. Coast Guard ...................................................................... 277 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

66–893 WASHINGTON : 2011 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 1

JERRY LEWIS, California 1

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNY REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

KEVIN YODER, Kansas 

STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas 

ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi 

————— 

1 Chairman Emeritus 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

WILLIAM B. INGLEE, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

WITNESS 

HON. JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

OPENING STATEMENT: CHAIRMAN ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. The hearing is called to order. 

I would like to welcome everyone to our first scheduled hearing 

for the year. It is an honor for me to chair this Subcommittee, and 

also to welcome some new Members to the Subcommittee who are 

still, I think, making their way in. Thank you for being here, and 

welcome to the Subcommittee. 

Today we welcome Secretary Napolitano to what marks her third 

appearance before the Subcommittee. Madam Secretary, we thank 

you for being here, and I look forward to hearing your testimony 

as part of the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

Madam Secretary, as you know, the threats facing our country 

have never been as persistent and as diverse as they are today. In 

fact, recently you testified before the Senate that in some ways the 

threat facing us is at its most heightened state since the 9/11 attacks. This past year we have seen intensified terrorist activity, including new threats to aviation and several home-grown plots. Furthermore, the cartel-fueled violence in Mexico continues to cast a 

lengthy shadow over the Southwest Border and even claimed the 

life of an ICE agent 2 weeks ago. And certainly our thoughts and 

prayers go out to the family of Special Agent Zapata. 

In light of such challenges, the importance of the Department’s 

work cannot be overemphasized. This is especially true as we approach the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks later this year. 

That is precisely why H.R. 1, the full-year continuing resolution 

passed by the House just a week and a half ago, fully funds all 

frontline operation and essential personnel, including Border Patrol 

agents, ICE agents, Coast Guard personnel, intelligence officers, 

and other key employees. In fact, the funds provided in H.R. 1, 

combined with fiscal year 2010 supplemental funds, enable the Department of Homeland Security to actually increase the number of 

Border Patrol agents beyond the minimum 20,500 agents to reach 

the target of 21,370 agents by the end of fiscal year 2011. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

As we work to enact a responsible FY 2011 appropriation for Department of Homeland Security, we are mindful both of our critical 

national security needs and our government’s mounting fiscal crisis. Even in the name of security, we can no longer afford to simply 

throw money at programs without tangible results. We must carefully align funding to mission requirements and be able to show the 

American people how every single dollar is making our Nation 

safer and more secure. This alignment of funding to results will be 

the mantra of this Subcommittee under my Chairmanship. 

This brings us to the substance of the Department’s fiscal year 

2012 budget request, which includes some fairly austere and reasonably balanced proposals. But these virtues are, unfortunately, 

outweighed by the budget’s substantially inadequate justification 

for the cost of disaster relief, for phony offsets in the form of increased fees that have yet to be enacted, and the undefined reductions to operational budgets. In total, your budget request ignores 

an estimated $4.9 billion in known disaster relief costs, relies upon 

$650 million in aviation security and custom fee revenues that 

have yet to materialize, and proposes more than $615 million in reductions from the Department’s operational components through 

so-called administrative savings or efficiencies that are not clearly 

itemized in the Department’s budget justifications. 

Madam Secretary, at a time of record deficits and mounting debt, 

the first thing we need from the administration and each and every 

department and agency across the Federal Government is ‘‘truthin-budgeting.’’ 

Having said that, I am sincerely pleased that your budget 

pledges to cut costs. It limits administrative overhead, promotes efficiency, and it places priority on frontline operations. And these 

are the priorities of this Subcommittee as well. But these promises 

will be little more than rhetoric if the Department does not live up 

to its fiscal responsibilities and follow through on its legislative 

proposals. 

The Department of Homeland Security cannot operate in a world 

as it would like to be; instead, it must follow the law as it is written. This assertion not only applies to the budget realities I have 

just outlined but also to areas where this administration has been 

reluctant to fully engage, such as immigration enforcement, REAL 

ID, and a biometric exit solution for US-VISIT. These are mandates 

the Department of Homeland Security must plan for, budget for, 

and perform. 

While I realize the enormity of this obligation, it is a duty the 

American people are counting on you to fulfill, and there is no room 

for failure. We must find a way to balance our limited resources 

across our competing priorities and numerous vulnerabilities in 

order to confront every threat with tenacity and with purpose. 

Madam Secretary, I know you have a tough, often thankless, job. 

That is precisely why we are relying upon you to explain how this 

budget moves our Nation’s security forward and does so in a way 

that is fiscally responsible and well justified. We do thank you for 

being here today and look forward to our discussion and your budget request in greater detail as we move forward. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 6 here 66893A.001
4 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 7 here 66893A.002
5 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 8 here 66893A.003
6 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 66893A.004
7 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 66893A.005
8 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Before I turn to the Secretary for her statement, 

let me recognize the distinguished Ranking Member and then the 

former chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. Rogers, for any remarks 

that he may have. 

Mr. Price. 

OPENING STATEMENT: RANKING MEMBER PRICE

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to congratulate you 

on your appointment to lead this Subcommittee. You and I have 

worked together on the Appropriations Committee for years, and 

you served on this Subcommittee in the early years. So we welcome 

you back. 

Since this Subcommittee was established under Mr. Rogers’ leadership, the Chairman and Ranking Member have always striven to 

do our work professionally and collaboratively and in a very bipartisan fashion. I understand you intend to continue that tradition, 

and I very much look forward to a strong working relationship. 

Madam Secretary, you are no stranger to this Subcommittee either, of course, and I have enjoyed our working relationship over 

these last two years when I was privileged to serve as Chairman. 

We welcome you back to kick off our hearings on Homeland Security’s fiscal year 2012 budget and a review of its ongoing activities. 

This past year has been one of major challenges with multiple attempted attacks on our homeland beginning with the attempted 

Christmas Day bombing, followed by the Times Square incident, 

and most recently the air cargo threat from Yemen. You have been 

confronting continued violence associated with transnational drug 

cartels along our Southwest Border resulting in the deaths of both 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, the challenges resulting from the 

Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, and the constant onslaught of 

cyber attacks on our government networks and critical infrastructure. So I thank you for your constant vigilance in facing so many 

competing challenges head on, especially as the threats to our 

homeland have diversified and proliferated. 

The 2012 discretionary budget for the Department of Homeland Security is $43.2 billion, about $400 million above the 2010 enacted 

level, but 1.4 percent less than the 2011 budget request. Just as 

we are doing elsewhere in the Federal Government, you have been 

asked to do more with fewer resources. 

Your budget includes many examples where administrative and 

overhead costs have been reduced, where programs have been 

trimmed, stretched out, or suspended to achieve cost savings without significantly degrading critical security requirements. By making these reductions, you were able to preserve essential frontline 

security operations, for which I applaud you. 

I am pleased to see that you continue to prioritize the identification and deportation of convicted criminals, a program that originated after I challenged the Department to prioritize the identification and removal from our country of illegal immigrants who have 

been convicted of serious crimes. Your budget expands on this priority. 

Similarly, I am pleased to see that the budget request includes 

a significant increase in Coast Guard personnel for marine safety 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

and environmental response following the Deepwater Horizon disaster, as well as funds for 11 maritime safety and security teams, 

recognizing that this Subcommittee disagreed with the 2011 request to decommission four of these teams. 

Finally, the budget request includes funding specifically to address the substantial rise in threats from homegrown terrorists as 

well as threats from across the globe. This includes funding within 

the Customs and Border Protection for additional targeting efforts, 

the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for additional 

aviation and surface security efforts, and intelligence and analysis 

for additional enhancements to our State and local fusion centers 

to better manage and coordinate our intelligence-sharing agencies. 

So there are many, many items to applaud within this budget request. I also believe there are some challenges that this Committee 

will need to address with your help, and we will need guidance as 

we come to grips with these issues. 

First, the administration continues to underfund the actual 

needs for disaster relief funded through FEMA. The 2012 request 

totals $1.8 billion, which is likely to last only halfway through the 

fiscal year, requiring a supplemental early next year. In addition, FEMA has at least $6 billion in known catastrophic 

costs that it must reimburse localities for which are not factored 

into this budget request, and about half of these costs are expected 

to come to you in 2012. If we know the costs for ongoing recovery 

activities associated with large disasters, then I believe it makes 

sense to budget accordingly rather than to assume that Congress 

can follow behind with emergency supplemental bills. It is much 

better for the administration to present Congress with a workable 

plan to meet these disaster relief obligations by budgeting for 

them. Otherwise, you are virtually inviting Congress to make budgetary trade-offs without full vetting and guidance from the Department, which I am afraid is exactly what is taking place as we 

speak as we consider the 2011 continuing resolution for the remainder of the year. 

Second, the budget assumes the collection of $645 million in additional fee revenues for TSA and CBP. This includes an additional 

$1.50 in the fees charged to airlines per passenger resulting in 

$590 million in additional revenues and an additional $55 million 

in new immigration and aviation processing fees for Canada, Mexico, and most of the Caribbean Islands. Both of these fee adjustments require Congress to change authorizing statutes. We all 

know these fee proposals have been languishing with the authorizing committees for years already, so we are going to need your 

help in determining how we deal with the $645 million shortfall in 

your budget if Congress does not change these fees for 2012. Alternatively, we are going to need the administration to work very seriously with the authorizers to get these proposals enacted. 

Finally, I have some reservations about your cuts to automation 

and construction accounts in your budget, and I would be very surprised if you didn’t also have some misgivings. 

This Subcommittee has had to fight repeatedly against irresponsible cuts to the front office, irresponsible cuts for construction to 

new DHS headquarters and related lease-consolidation efforts and 

to protect your information technology needs. You and your associVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:11 Jul 08, 2011 Jkt 066893 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A893P2.XXX A893P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

ates have had to testify repeatedly about the importance of these 

requirements. Just last year we had a very impressive hearing on 

the cost savings associated with DHS offices being collocated at St. 

Elizabeths or in fewer spaces. We were told, and we were told very 

convincingly, that deferring these investments will ultimately affect 

frontline operations and will cost us more money in the long run. 

I want to make sure we are not being penny wise and pound foolish with these cuts, and we will welcome your explanation in this 

regard. 

As we began our hearings to more closely examine the budget, 

it is important to note that no program or account will be off limits 

to scrutiny. Our obligation is to take a balanced, realistic approach, 

to weigh risks carefully, and to make prudent investments in effective security. Secretary Napolitano, I have no doubt that you share 

this point of view, and I look forward to working again with you 

this year. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Price. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 66893A.006
12 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 66893A.007
13 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 66893A.008
14 

Mr. ADERHOLT. At this time I would like to recognize the full 

Committee Chairman and former chairman of this Subcommittee 

Mr. Rogers. 

OPENING STATEMENT: CHAIRMAN ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And congratulations to 

you for assuming that chair. I have a warm spot in my heart for 

that chair on this Subcommittee, and this Subcommittee and the 

Department. And it is good to be back on the same platform with 

my friend David Price. We had a wonderful working relationship 

and still do. And we welcome all the new Members of this Subcommittee. 

And thank you, Madam Secretary, for being with us today. This 

marks the eighth anniversary of the Department. I am proud to 

say that I was there at the beginning and helped, along with others, nurse it along, and continue to do so, and I always wish you 

and the Department well. 

This is truly an historic time. I don’t have to tell you that our 

Nation has found itself at a crossroads. Over the last 2 years, we 

have increased discretionary spending by 24 percent, 84 percent if 

you include the stimulus monies. We are borrowing 42 cents on 

every dollar we spend. And so it is time to get serious, we have to, 

about reducing spending and putting a dent in the record-setting 

deficit that we all abhor. 

In that vein, I certainly applaud your efforts to cut costs and 

limit administrative overhead. I do have some serious concerns 

about the budget request. 

While the President has essentially leveled out non-security 

spending in his 2012 request, your request is actually $300 million 

lower than in fiscal year 2011, marking the first time the Department has decreased its request from one fiscal year to another. 

There is no question that the Department plays a vital role in 

fighting terrorism and keeping our country safe. That is what it is 

for. And the brave men and women in our law enforcement community ought to be commended for the good work they do, and I do 

that right now. And that is why, for the past few years, I have 

pushed and pushed for you to place a stronger emphasis on operations in your budgeting. 

I am happy to see that you are taking steps in that direction; 

however, many of the cost reductions you have noted in your budget request should be further scrutinized. These cost-cutting gimmicks only undermine these great pledges to our men and women 

on the front lines. The budget proposal simply ignores some $5 billion in known disaster-relief costs, and offsets other costs with $650 

million in fees that Congress has yet to approve all these years. If 

we are going to be serious about deficit reduction, we have got to 

stop fudging numbers. 

We have got some tough choices, and I look forward to hearing 

from you today about the administration’s priorities. As I have said 

many times, when it comes to the security of the country, we 

should spend all the money we can, but not a penny more. That 

adage has never been more salient than today when considering 

the fiscal and security challenges confronting our Nation. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

In closing, I note that the estimated costs now of the St. Eliza- beths facility has now gone up another $200 million or so. I asked 

last year, I think it was, for assurances that the cost that was projected at that time would be accurate and final, but it has already 

gone up another $200 million. We have got to find a way to discipline that spending. It is good to be with you and see you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Dicks. 

OPENING STATEMENT: RANKING MEMBER DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to welcome Secretary Napolitano and congratulate 

her on the good work that the Department has been doing. I think 

it has made a lot of improvements. I was on the authorizing committee for three terms, and, to put it bluntly, there was a lot of disorganization at Homeland Security and an inability to do good procurement work. 

The issue I am concerned about—I am not going to get into this 

in great detail today, but I would like to have somebody come up 

and give me a briefing on this and meet some of your people—on 

cybersecurity issues. I have served as chairman and ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee and on the Intelligence Committee, and I believe the cybersecurity issue is one of the top three 

issues that face our country. And the Department plays a major 

part in this on the ‘‘dot.gov’’ part of the equation and working with 

the private sector. And it is my understanding, having met with 

some of the people, I think, from your Department earlier, that the 

Department doesn’t have all the authorities that it may need in 

order to deal with the private sector effectively. So, again, I welcome you. But I would like to work this out to arrange it with your 

office to get this briefing so we can see it. 

[The information follows:] 

The subject briefing was provided March 7, 2011. 

Also, if you would just in your statement talk a little bit about 

the agreement that you and Secretary Gates agreed to. It is supposed to be a landmark memorandum of agreement. So I would appreciate if you could mention or talk about that a little bit. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Dicks. 

OPENING STATEMENT: SECRETARY NAPOLITANO

Mr. ADERHOLT. And again, we welcome the Secretary. And we 

will turn it over to you for your comments. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you, Chairmen Aderholt, 

Price, Rogers, Dicks, and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to discuss President Obama’s fiscal year (FY) 2012 budget 

for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). And I would be 

happy as well to answer questions about the House continuing resolution for FY 2011. 

The demands on DHS have never been greater. This is especially 

true as we remember those at the Department who have given 

their lives in service to our mission of securing America, including 

most recently Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Special Agent Jaime Zapata. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

Mexico is leading the criminal investigation into the death of Agent 

Zapata, and we are supporting Mexico through a joint Department 

of Justice/DHS task force that the Attorney General and I announced 2 weeks ago. Recently Mexican authorities have apprehended some of the alleged killers of Agent Zapata, and we are conducting a number of operations throughout the United States related to the drug cartels. 

I can speak for the entire administration when I say we are not 

only saddened by the loss of an agent, but we are outraged by this 

act of violence against an officer of the United States. And make 

no mistake, justice will be brought to those involved. We owe nothing less to the memory of Agent Zapata and to those who are still 

on the job in Mexico. 

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

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

strengthens our resolve to continue to do everything in our power 

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

our Nation more resilient for years to come. 

Today’s threat picture features adversaries who evolve quickly 

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

system and global supply chain to surface transportation, to critical 

infrastructure, to our cyber networks. 

We are leading the administration’s unprecedented effort to 

strengthen Southwest Border security, coupled with a smart and 

effective approach to enforcing immigration laws in the interior of 

the country. And we continue to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters of all types. 

President Obama’s FY 2012 budget for the Department allows us 

to continue to meet these evolving threats and challenges by 

prioritizing our essential operational requirements while reflecting 

an unprecedented commitment to fiscal discipline that maximizes 

the effectiveness of every security dollar we receive. Reflecting the 

current fiscal environment and building the FY 2012 budget, all 

DHS components identified savings associated with the Department’s 33 efficiency review initiatives, and we cut administration 

and overhead, including my own office’s budget, by over $800 million. Savings were realized through efficiencies in acquisition, asset 

and real property management, as well as employee vetting and 

credentialing, hiring and onboarding, and information technology. 

We cut professional services contracts, travel, and nonmission-critical training. We also delayed construction of Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) Offices at the new DHS headquarters 

at St. Elizabeths and deferred a number of office co-locations as 

well as building maintenance and enhancements. 

My written statement includes a comprehensive list of the operational priorities in the budget request. Today I would like to highlight just a few of those priorities for you. 

First, preventing terrorism and enhancing security. Now, this 

was the founding mission of DHS. It remains our top priority 

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

transportation security officers (TSOs), behavioral detection officers, canine teams, and advanced imaging technology (AIT) machines at domestic airports, while expanding watch list vetting 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

through the Secure Flight program and enhancing screening and 

targeting of international travelers before they board U.S.-bound 

flights through the Immigration Advisory Program. 

This budget also strengthens surface transportation security by 

supporting 12 new multimodal Visible Intermodal Prevention and 

Response (VIPR) teams, which conduct operations throughout the 

transportation sector to prevent potential terrorist activity. The request also provides funding for the Securing the Cities program to 

protect our highest-risk cities from a radiological or nuclear attack. 

In addition, the request makes a significant investment in the National Bio and Agro-defense Facility (NBAF), which will provide enhanced diagnostic capabilities to protect our country from foreign 

animal and emerging diseases. The request expands support for the 

national network of State and local fusion centers to enhance baseline capabilities and provide local law enforcement with the tools 

to address threats in their communities. 

To secure and manage our borders, the request continues the administration’s historic border security efforts by supporting 21,320 

Border Patrol agents and 21,186 Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) officers, both all-time highs. The budget includes $242 million for the continued deployment of proven effective surveillance 

technology along the highest-trafficked areas of the Southwest Border to better meet the operational requirements of our agents on 

the front lines. For the northern border, this budget request supports investments in technology tailored to the maritime and coldweather environment, including proven stand-alone technology to 

provide immediate operational benefits. And for our Nation’s maritime borders, this budget includes funding to continue the essential 

National Security Cutter program and makes historic investments 

to recapitalize the Coast Guard’s aging assets, including 6 fast response cutters, 40 response boats, as well as a sizeable investment 

in the renovation and restoration of aging shore facilities. 

This budget request also continues the Department’s focus on 

smart and effective enforcement of our Nation’s immigration laws, 

while streamlining and facilitating the legal immigration process. 

Building on our record over the past 2 years, the Department 

will continue to prioritize the identification and removal of criminal 

aliens who pose a threat to public safety, and target employers who 

knowingly and repeatedly break the law. The request enables ICE 

to fund 33,400 detention beds, remove more than 200,000 criminal 

aliens, and deploy Secure Communities to 96 percent of all jurisdictions nationally in FY 2012, while promoting compliance with 

work-site-related laws through criminal prosecution of egregious 

employers, Form I–9 inspections, and continued expansion and enhancement of the E-Verify system. The request also funds immigrant integration efforts, including programs supporting Englishlanguage and citizenship education, and continues the detention reform efforts currently under way. 

To safeguard and secure cyberspace, the budget increases resources to identify and reduce vulnerabilities in our Nation’s key 

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

security of large and small agencies, and continue to develop a roVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:11 Jul 08, 2011 Jkt 066893 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A893P2.XXX A893P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

bust cybersecurity workforce to protect against and respond to cybersecurity threats. The budget also focuses on combating cyber 

crime and preventing attacks against U.S. critical infrastructure. 

To ensure resilience to disasters, the budget request focuses on 

moving resources out of Washington, D.C., and into the hands of 

State and local responders, who are often best positioned to detect 

and respond to terrorism, natural disasters, and other threats, by 

sustaining Federal funding for State and local preparedness grants, 

providing more than $3.8 billion in FY 2012. This funding includes 

$670 million for Assistance to Firefighter grants, and that funding 

includes $420 million to rehire an estimated 2,300 laid-off firefighters and retain veteran first responders. 

To lead and support essential national and economic security efforts, this budget expands the Coast Guard’s operational capacity 

by funding 50,682 military and civilian positions, and establishes 

the Coast Guard’s first Incident Management Assistance Team, 

which will be deployed rapidly to support incidents of national significance. 

The request also continues to support ICE and CBP efforts and 

investigative efforts to protect U.S. intellectual property rights, as 

well as the Secret Service’s state-of-the-art forensic support to the 

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 

Mr. Chairman, this budget is the culmination of a major first-ofits-kind effort by the Department through the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review as well as the Bottom-Up Review to align our 

resources with a comprehensive strategy to ensure a safe, secure, 

and resilient Homeland, while making an unprecedented commitment to fiscal discipline. 

Mr. Chairman, Representative Price, Members of the Committee, 

I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify. I ask that my 

full statement be included in the record. I am happy to address 

your questions, particularly as they relate to the Disaster Relief 

Fund (DRF), to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 

and CBP fees, and to the impact of the FY 2011 H.R.1. Thank you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for your opening 

comments. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 66893A.009
20 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 66893A.010
21 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 66893A.011
22 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 66893A.012
23 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 66893A.013
24 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 66893A.014
25 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 66893A.015
26 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 66893A.016
27 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 66893A.017
28 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 66893A.018
29 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 66893A.019
30 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 66893A.020
31 

DISASTER RELIEF FUND

Mr. ADERHOLT. And certainly FEMA’s disaster relief fund is 

something I think of concern. FEMA has requested $1.8 billion in 

the fiscal year 2012 request for the DRF, and there are no funds 

requested for prior-year catastrophic events. 

The bottom line is that your fiscal year 2011 budget and your fiscal year 2012 request do not support these disaster relief costs for 

the rest of the year or next, and we would like to know your plan 

in regard to that. How will you complete the year when you are 

clearly short of required funding for fiscal year 2011 by $1.6 billion? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, a few, I think, salient 

points in response to that. 

First, one of the things that we have focused on is going backward in FEMA and returning funds to the DRF that had previously 

been obligated but not used. By that process, we returned approximately $2 billion to the DRF in FY 2010, and those efforts continue 

to be under way. 

Secondly, for many, many years, under both Republican and 

Democratic administrations, under different majorities in the Congress, the DRF has been funded by taking a rolling average of noncatastrophic disasters, in this case a 5-year rolling average of noncatastrophic disasters, which are disasters that are less than $500 

million, and that average goes into the DRF base. But because of 

unpredictability and other factors, including, for example, years 

after the fact, the ability to go back and see what was actually used 

and to deobligate funds, the Congress and the administration have 

relied on supplementals to support the DRF. I think it is the administration’s intent to come back when there is an appropriate 

number and work with the Congress on what a supplemental 

would look like for the DRF in accord with historic practice. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What is the funding requirement for fiscal year 

2012 for prior-year catastrophic events? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. For prior catastrophic events? It is hard 

to say given the deobligation issues. I would say, the funding requirement is approximately between $2 billion and $3 billion. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. But clearly these costs are not measured in fiscal 

year 2012; is that correct? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. They are not in the baseline budget. That 

is correct. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Secretary, as we stated earlier, your 

budget request significantly underfunds DRF for 2012 because of 

that reason, based on your comments that you foresee that there 

will be an emergency request over the next several months for fiscal year 2012. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. What we anticipate, Mr. Chairman, is 

that we would proceed as the DRF has been handled historically, 

which is, yes, to finish the fiscal year with supplementals related 

to catastrophic disasters. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And I think the concern is, and we have sort of 

been dancing around it, that it is really a ‘‘truth-in-budgeting’’ 

issue. The historic data shows that the funding for some of these 

disasters is in the billions of dollars, and we know that it will be. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

So I’m concerned that you are not bringing that up into the current 

request, and it really just comes down to a truth-in-budgeting issue 

from the beginning I think. This is a concern to this Subcommittee. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, we are happy to work 

with you on the DRF issue. As I said before, the budget has been 

written in accord with how the DRF has always been handled, in 

part because of the unpredictability of the size of disasters when 

a budget is submitted. But we are happy to work with you. And 

as I stated, the intent of the administration would be to seek an 

appropriate supplemental at the appropriate time. 

AVIATION SECURITY FEE INCREASE: FEASIBILITY IN FY 2012

Mr. ADERHOLT. Let me move on, because I do know that we have 

votes that will be coming up soon. I know you have to be out later 

this afternoon for other obligations. So let me move on to the issue 

of user fees, aviation security, and Customs. 

In the fiscal year 2012 request, it assumes an increase in the 

aviation passenger security fees and a change in the COBRA fee 

for Customs processing. Given the difficulty in getting aviation security fee increases and Customs fee changes enacted in the past, 

I guess the question that I would pose to you is: is it realistic to 

think that your proposals can get implemented this year? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, we will work with the authorizers. 

And, indeed, I have been speaking with the authorizers about the 

need for this. But it seems to me, Mr. Chair, that in this era of fiscal discipline, one of the things that we ought to be looking at is 

what is the true cost of an enplanement security fee, what is the 

true cost in Customs. 

The security fees have not been adjusted for TSA since 2002, and 

the plain fact of the matter is that we know that aviation remains 

a key target of our adversaries. We know that we have to provide 

additional security. We know that a small increase in the security 

fee enables us to do this and cover all of the security responsibilities we have against all the modes of transportation. 

So we will work with this Committee; we will work with the authorizers. But the consequence of not having these fees is very serious for the operations of this Department. It is effectively another 

$600 million out of operations that would come directly out of the 

front line. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So if the fees are not implemented in time, then 

how do you foresee filling in that $600-plus million gap? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. First of all, we assumed that they would 

not be ready by the beginning of the fiscal year, so the number that 

we use is only for the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year 

2012, in part because there needs to be a rulemaking associated 

with the fees. But we have been to this Congress before. We are 

here at this Congress again. I think in this fiscal time, the authorizers are perhaps more receptive to acknowledging that this should 

come out of almost a user fee, a security fee arrangement, as opposed to out of the general tax base. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Well, and certainly that is our concern here on 

the Subcommittee, and we have discussed this, is the fact that the 

reality of these, they may not be implemented in time. And so that 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

would be something that again we would be concerned about, and 

we want to just bring that to your attention. 

Let me go to Mr. Price now and turn the mic over to him. 

GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN: POTENTIAL IMPACT ON DHS

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, the President has a few hours ago signed a 2- 

week extension of the continuing resolution to keep the government 

running. After that it is anybody’s guess as to what extent the new 

House leadership is interested in responsibly discharging their duties, or whether they will continue to insist on slashing domestic 

programs, which individually and cumulatively threaten to stall 

the recovery, while ironically leaving 88 percent of the budget untouched. 

Having said that, many are drawing comparisons to the split between the Republican Congress in 1995 and President Clinton on 

the budget, which led to a government shutdown. The Department 

of Homeland Security, of course, was not around when that happened. 

In this uncertain budget requirement, have you been considering 

the implications of a budget impasse and a potential shutdown? 

What impact would this have, or indeed has it already had, on 

DHS? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think, Representative Price, managing a large agency by continuing resolution is extraordinarily difficult. We are already halfway through the fiscal year, and you are 

trying to make plans about how many agents you have to put 

where, where your equipment could be, will you have it, can you 

fix this, so forth. 

In terms of the 2-week extension and the possibility of an impasse and a shutdown, because we were not around in 1995, we 

have been looking at what would be shut down and what would be 

exempt. We have made some judgments that are internal to the 

Secretary’s office right now as to what would stop, what would be 

partially stopped, and what would need to continue. I think it is 

fair to say that frontline personnel would continue. But those who 

support the frontline personnel and enable them to do their job 

most effectively, a number of those types of positions would not be 

able to be sustained. 

The thing I am also concerned about, I must say, is that a number of our frontline positions are not very well paid: Border Patrol 

officers, TSOs in our airports, the ones we really rely on to be the 

last line of defense for entry into the country or protection of an 

aircraft. Many of our employees live paycheck to paycheck. And 

even when you work under a shutdown scenario, you don’t get paid 

until Congress catches you up. That is a hardship as well. 

So we are hopeful. I am hopeful that this will be worked out, and 

that Congress will reach a resolution on fiscal year 2011. I thought 

I would share that with you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. It does strike one that so many of your 

personnel are, in effect, waiting for some kind of disaster to strike, 

most obviously in FEMA with natural disasters. There is a kind of 

depth of capacity that is required that is not immediately engaged 

in an emergency maybe, but nonetheless needs to be on call at very 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

rapid notice. In that kind of situation, it strikes me as especially 

difficult to discern between essential and less essential personnel, 

or emergency and nonemergency personnel. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative Price, you are exactly 

right. It is going to be, in some of these areas very, very difficult 

to make those judgments. And, again, even for those who are 

deemed exempt from a shutdown, they will be undergoing financial 

hardship. 

H.R. 1: IMPACT ON DHS FUNDING

Mr. PRICE. Let me, in the limited time I have remaining, go back 

to this question of how we fund for emergencies. And there clearly 

is an ongoing discussion we need to have here, but I don’t have a 

hard time concluding that whatever one thinks about what the initial budget should look like, it is not a very good practice in the 

middle of the fiscal year to cannibalize other DHS accounts to pay 

for unaccounted-for costs. In fact, H.R. 1, reduces DHS funding to 

levels prior to the 2009 Christmas Day attack to pay for disaster 

relief. That is not an ideal situation, to put it mildly, and I don’t 

think we ought to replicate it in the future. 

So I wonder if you could tell us today, what are the consequences 

of lowering the boom in this way, halfway through the fiscal year, 

by cutting 1 point—$5.65 billion in DHS activities to make up for 

the disaster relief shortfall? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, H.R. 1 has some very serious impacts for the Department. I mean, there are impacts on counterterrorism. We will cut the number of AIT machines we were intending 

to deploy to protect lanes at airports in half. We will cut the number of explosive trace detection machines that we could make available by half. We will cut the number of canine teams by almost 

two-thirds. This will have an impact on aviation security. 

It does, Mr. Chairman—I think we have a disagreement on this 

point, but in my reading of it, 250 ICE agents who are currently 

paid for would not be paid for under the H.R. 1. That is a problem. 

And we can talk about why that is, but that is our count. It could 

reduce FEMA grants by almost $1 billion. And, as you know, that 

really will affect State and local preparedness. 

I could go on, but there are very real operational impacts by H.R. 

1 because does not fund the President’s requested FY 2011 budget. 

DISASTER RELIEF FUND

Mr. PRICE. We need to have an ongoing discussion about the normal practice for disaster funding and including it into the budget. 

I don’t perceive any disagreement at all about the dire consequences of lowering the boom in this way halfway through the 

fiscal year. That is what I wanted to get you to elaborate on, and 

I would invite you to elaborate further for the record. 

Before my time expires, though, let me ask the obvious remaining question. Does this mean we will be expecting a supplemental 

from you? Would you expect that you would be submitting a disaster relief supplemental sometime later this year? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative Price, as I stated earlier, 

the budget was planned based on the historical practice, which is, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

yes, you fund the base, and then you seek a supplemental. So the 

answer is yes. And we would work with the Committee on that. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Secretary, you mentioned the ICE 

agents, and I am forced to respond to that, because H.R. 1 actually 

does provide an increase to ICE above FY 2010 based upon technical budget assistance that your staff provided the Committee. 

H.R. 1 sustains all ICE agents, especially those deployed along the 

Southwest Border, and supports the same 33,400 bed funding that 

it did in fiscal year 2010. In fact, H.R. 1 actually increases the 

numbers for CBP, ICE, and the Coast Guard above the fiscal year 

2010 level, and sustains the funding for TSA operational functions 

and all the intelligence officers across the Department. So I did 

want to point that out. 

Now I would like to recognize the full Chairman, the former 

chairman of this Subcommittee, Mr. Rogers for questions. 

AVIATION SECURITY FEE INCREASE: JUSTIFICATION FOR FY 2012

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just a note about the proposed fee increase. There you go again. 

We have been facing this for years. Every year, whomever the Secretary was always comes in with this fee increase, knowing that 

Congress is not going to do it, and we won’t do it. And we don’t 

know yet what you would do to replace that big $600 million hole, 

and my information is that your budget request assumes that that 

fee would be in place for all of 2012 to produce $589,940,000, not 

the last quarter but the whole year. That is the justifications that 

I have seen. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think in response to the Chairman’s last comment, I believe our staffs need 

to get together. There clearly is a strong difference of opinion as 

to what H.R. 1 does to ICE agents. 

With respect to the fee, Mr. Chair, it seems to me that in an era 

of fiscal restraint or fiscal discipline, or whatever we want to call 

it, we all know we have a tough fiscal time. And this is a dire situation. To continue to come back, as I now have, the third Secretary, 

and say we need to have a security fee for enplanement that is 

commensurate with the cost of providing the security, to say that 

the fee is a no-go from the outset, to me, means that the general 

taxpayer has to pick up the cost or the income generated. 

Now, the airlines have not experienced any deleterious impact by 

imposing fees to check baggage or to buy a Coke on an airplane. 

And it seems to me that, at this particular juncture, where the 

Federal budget is under stress, resuscitating this idea as a real 

idea that makes sense from a policy and a fiscal perspective is the 

right thing to do. We will work with the authorizers on that. I have 

already done that. And we want to work with this Committee on 

it. But right now we are stuck with a fee that in no way covers 

the actual costs of the service we are providing. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, it has been proposed every year since I have 

been chairman of the Subcommittee, I think, virtually every year, 

and we always turn it down. And I don’t see any change in that 

this time. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, this is the first year, Mr. Chairman, respectfully, that we have been in this kind of a fiscal situation. So if I might respectfully request, everything deserves a fresh 

look, and this does as well. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION: PERSONNEL CAP

Mr. ROGERS. Well, whatever the Ways and Means Committee or 

whomever does, we have to find $600 million. It is a plain fact. And 

we can’t rely upon this fee being authorized, because it never has 

been, and it has been tried year after year. 

But I wanted to move on to something else. I have been a proponent on this Subcommittee all along of trying to utilize electronics and equipment and mechanization to the maximum to try 

to help us with the personnel costs of TSA. And you have pushed 

that, too. But I don’t see us making much headway. I think the employment level at TSA is now at 52,269. I remember when we put 

a cap on the employment levels at TSA a few years ago at 45,000 

just for screeners. And I don’t see much impact mechanization or 

using of equipment and machinery is doing us much good in reducing the personnel at TSA. I know the airports I fly through, I see 

a lot of personnel not doing anything, and I think that is the universal thing that practically all of us would agree to. 

In H.R. 1, we reintroduce the FTE levels at 46,000 in an attempt 

to prompt you to more closely examine your requirements. And I 

know that we are placing some new machines in out there that are 

going to require probably more personnel, but I don’t see us saving 

personnel on the other side of that equation. What do you say 

about a cap again of 46,000 in TSA? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have some real 

problems with that for several reasons. One is I don’t know where 

the 46,000 came from. It could be 47-: it could be 48-. 

But second, once this Congress sets a cap, it is like setting our 

security fee in 2002; getting that changed, no matter the circumstances, can be very, very difficult. 

And, number three, as you have noted, we are now installing AIT 

machines. The threat in aviation is different than it was several 

years ago. It is different in the sense that our adversaries are now 

clearly using or trying to use and get onto planes material that is 

nonmetallic in nature—powders, gels, or liquids—that could be 

used as an explosive. And that means that we have to move into, 

and quickly, this next-generation machinery, the AITs. Our budget 

supports the personnel necessary to put 500 more AITs on airport 

lanes in fiscal year 2011. 

And then, last, I think it is important to note that the security 

laydown in an airport is not all constituted by TSOs who you observe there. There are undercover TSOs, there are behavioral detection TSOs, and there are also individuals who operate in canine 

teams in the airports. So there is a whole mixture of things, different layer of things necessary to secure the air environment. 

So my view is, or my judgment is that, rather than an arbitrary 

cap, we work together to make sure that we have got the right mix 

of technology and personnel every year necessary to meet the 

threats that we have. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I agree with you on that, but I don’t think I 

have seen enough effort to get technology involved to replace personnel that in off times during the day at the airport have nothing 

to do during the non-peak hours. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, if I might, Mr. Chairman, again, 

one of the consequences of H.R. 1 is it cuts in half our Science and 

Technology budget. That is the budget that funds, among other 

things, the research that we are doing with the national labs to 

look at the checkpoint of the future. How do we get beyond what 

we have now and get to something that allows people to keep their 

shoes on and to carry a large bottle of water on a plane and so 

forth? The technology simply doesn’t exist right now to do that or 

to do it safely. That is in the research and development part of the 

budget and—S&T, Science and Technology, excuse me. Sorry for 

using acronyms. And that itself, that whole budget was cut 50 percent in the continuing resolution. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, you are asking for an additional 510 transportation security officers assumedly to be financed by the fee increase. But an increase of 510 additional officers on top of what we 

have, when I see at the airports that I travel through personnel 

that could easily handle the new machines without any increase in 

personnel at that airport, what do you say about that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I can’t speak to what you see at 

which airports. All I can say is we know now, with pretty hard certainty, what it takes to operate an AIT for the number of hours it 

needs to be operated in an airport environment, and our budget 

and the personnel we request is based on that. It is actual experience. 

Mr. ROGERS. Madam Secretary, thank you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

CYBERSECURITY: AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Mr. DICKS. I know we are short on time here, and we have to 

go vote. Tell us about what you are doing on cybersecurity and 

what this agreement you reached with Secretary Gates will accomplish. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The agreement with Defense Secretary 

Gates allows us to co-locate personnel. He has some folks in our 

shop; we have some folks in his. More importantly, Representative 

Dicks, it enables us to be able to use or have access to the technological resources of the National Security Agency. We have people 

now located there. We have a lawyer with them, and we have a privacy officer with them, because there are different rules that apply 

in the civilian environment than the military. But the resources of 

the NSA are key. 

CYBERSECURITY: AUTHORITY OVER PRIVATE SECTOR

Mr. DICKS. That is good. 

Now, my time is very short. What about authority? Do you need 

more authority over the private sector to get them to do the things 

necessary to protect themselves? Talking about utilities, financial 

institutions, things of that nature, that could be vulnerable. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The subject of authorities is something 

that we would like to discuss with you. The answer is we have 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

been working with different committees as a cyber bill was being 

prepared, looking at clarifying and improving on the authorities we 

do have. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DICKS. How does the private sector do on their own? Are they taking this threat seriously? I understand that $1 trillion has 

been lost in intellectual property worldwide because of 

cyberattacks. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It—— 

Mr. DICKS. That is a big deal. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It is a big, big deal. And I would say that 

we have good connectivity with some sectors of the private sector 

and not so good with some others. It varies. But some of the key 

ones, for example, financial institutions, the connectivity is very 

good. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Let me thank you, Madam Secretary. We have 

a vote, as you probably know by now. I know you have to leave at 

5:00 today. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. 4:45, excuse me, sir, for a 5 o’clock. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What we are going to do is when we vote, quickly 

come back. I know some other Members want to ask a few questions. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I will try to keep my answers shorter. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I will encourage everyone to hustle back right 

after the vote. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mrs. Lowey, you are recognized. 

URBAN AREAS SECURITY INITIATIVE: FUNDING

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. 

And it is also a pleasure to be with you today. We thank you for 

your service and your leadership. 

Let me start by saying I appreciate that the fiscal year 2012 request proposes increased funding to the Urban Areas Security Initiative, the UASI program. However, a $34 million increase in 

UASI funding strikes me as insufficient if we are, in fact, at our 

most heightened state since 9/11, as you recently said, and when 

the program is authorized at $1.3 billion for fiscal year 2012. Given 

the grave threats we face, why is the administration request nearly 

$400 million below the authorized level for this program? 

Maybe I will ask the rest of the questions. That is the first. 

Along those lines, UASI funding has continually been diluted by increasing the number of recipients. What started as a program for 

7 urban areas now serves 64. Every area of the country deserves 

funds, I want to make that very clear, but not from the high-risk 

program. I attached an amendment to the CR to limit UASI funding to the top 25 highest-risk regions, restoring the program to its 

original intent. So will you commit once and for all to stop using 

the UASI program as a form of DHS pork-barrel spending and 

limit recipients to only high-risk, high-density urban areas for 

which it was dedicated? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Representative, first of all, the 

President’s fiscal year 2012 budget for grants maintains the overall 

grant level, about $3.8 billion. It also requests that we be allowed 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

to consolidate grants so that grants can be used by localities for 

various purposes. I think we now have 17 different grant programs 

that have been established over time. We think that can be compressed to everybody’s advantage. 

With respect to the UASI or the tiering of high-risk locales, we 

have a methodology we use to evaluate risk. As I mentioned at a 

hearing earlier, another hearing earlier this morning, there are 

risks that you can identify in all areas of the country. And so one 

of the things that happens is that, through formula requirements 

of the Congress, all areas of the country get at least some base 

level for preparedness, for response, and the like. We will continue 

to work to refine that. We will continue to work with the Congress 

to make sure the money is going where it will have the most beneficial effect. 

And last, one of the things I would mention is that the President 

has requested funding this year for the Securing the Cities program, which is a program to fund sensors for radiological or nuclear devices. It is being piloted in New York, particularly around 

devising sensors for the tunnels and the bridges there. And we 

hope that if the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget is funded, we 

would be able to add one more pilot location at a major U.S. city 

as well. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Well, let me just say I have been to that location, 

and I hope to bring the Chair to New York and perhaps the airports just to see the money in action. And I am very impressed 

with what Commissioner Kelly is doing with that money. And I am 

glad that there was wise decision made so that would be in the 

budget. 

But I do hope you will look at the UASI funding again, because 

I want to make it very clear, I am not thrilled about being ‘‘number 

one’’ as a New Yorker and living in a high-threat area, but to divide the money, that money that is for high-threat areas. Where 

areas should be getting other funds, fine, everyone needs funding, 

but if this started with 7, and it is now at 64, I think 25 might 

be a reasonable number for this program, and others can apply for 

other programs. So I would appreciate your consideration. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Dent. 

CHEMICAL FACILITY SECURITY

Mr. DENT. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Good to see you, Madam Secretary. Just a couple things. On 

chemical plant security, chemical facility security rather, we passed 

legislation in 2009 on Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards 

(CFATS) with some adjustments, including implementation of the 

inherently safer technology (IST) issue. I have introduced legislation again this Congress to extend the CFATS for about 5 years, 

up to 2015. Do you support a long-term extension of these CFATS 

regs? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mr. DENT. Very good. And if IST was federally mandated, does 

the Department have the professionals in place to implement the 

IST requirement on regulated chemical facilities? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let me check back on that, because I 

don’t want to give you an inaccurate answer. My understanding is 

that we would be—as in all things CFATS related, we would stack 

up appropriately. 

[The information follows:] 

Representative Dent’s office was contacted March 21, 2011 and briefed on the capability. A follow-on briefing involving Undersecretary Beers is under consideration. 

Mr. DENT. Okay. Because I just want to make sure the Department has a grasp on the financial consequences of the IST mandates. It is very, very expensive, and you need a lot of people. And 

there are potential job losses tied to that issue in the private sector. 

ADVANCED IMAGING TECHNOLOGY: PASSENGER EDUCATION

On passenger screening—I am going quickly because I only have 

a minute—the budget proposal requests an additional 200 units for 

installation. As you know, I have been very supportive of the AIT 

and other passenger-screening initiatives. And the big issue is 

what are we doing to educate the public better about AIT and other 

passenger enhancements? We went through that situation back 

around Thanksgiving where there was a lot of public discontent 

with some of the practices. What are you doing to help educate the 

public, as well as Members of Congress, because we are going to 

face amendments on AIT, I suspect, as we deal with this Homeland 

Security appropriations bill in 2012. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, first of all, experience is the best 

educator. More and more passengers now have gone through the 

AITs. They recognize that it is actually fast, it is thorough, it is the 

next wave of technology, and it makes airports safer and air travel 

safer. And if you say to passengers, ‘‘Do you want to fly on a plane 

where people have been through the AIT or not through the 

AIT?’’—they are going to pick the AIT. But we are also doing inairport education, and we are making a lot of information available 

to the TSA. 

Mr. DENT. I have additional questions. I will submit them for the 

record. Thank you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Olver. 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are you operating under 

a special time limit at the moment? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Three minutes. 

ADVANCED IMAGING TECHNOLOGY: MODEL TYPES

Mr. OLVER. Three minutes, okay. Well, that is going to constrain 

me greatly. 

Just one other question on AIT. How many different kinds of— 

how many different models are you working with these days; how 

many different models are under testing? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You mean in terms of hardware or software or both? 

Mr. OLVER. Well, maybe I don’t know what an AIT is. I am referring, and I thought Mr. Dent was referring, to full-body scanners. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. And there are basically two types of 

the hardware. But we are also now piloting a new type of software 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

that gives you basically a stick figure outline of an individual, as 

opposed to an image, and if there is an anomaly, identifies that 

anomaly is for pat-down purposes. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION: EMPLOYEE TURNOVER

Mr. OLVER. I was going to say it seems to me there is technology 

that is being developed that is quite noninvasive from a privacy 

point of view. So you seem to be headed toward that in any case. 

My impression is, from where I go in and out of my airport, is 

that there is a lot of turnover; people are always changing. Is the 

agency seeing a fair amount of turnover, or are people pretty stable 

in their jobs and just adding more? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. At the TSA? 

Mr. OLVER. Yes. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. There is some turnover, I would say. In 

part it is because of the size and, you know, just the type of workforce there is. It is a very high-stress job. I have worked a line for 

a while myself. It is hard work, and it is zero-error work, which 

adds to the stress. In other words, if you are the TSO who permits 

something to get on a plane, the consequences could be dire. 

So we work with our TSOs. We are developing a career path for 

them that makes it a long-term career as opposed to not. And we 

are doing a number of other things to make the workplace conditions better for them. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay. I want to turn to something in relation to immigration. I have quite a few responses in my office that look for 

immigration assistance, and every once in a while I sit down with 

great care and talk with people that seem to me to have an egregious error or problem. And I wanted to just mention one that happened quite recently of a family that had come in under some sort 

of a waive situation just before 9/11—I am not sure whether the 

waive arrangement is still being used—but a family, which was a 

father and mother, man and wife, and two children 13 and 7 or 8, 

something like that. 

This is now 20 years ago. They stayed. They overstayed. And the 

daughter, the older person, by the time she was 19 or 20, she had 

graduated from college—this is Massachusetts—and gotten a degree and married, and at which point she was able to adjust for 

her parents, for her parents, who also had been under the radar 

for all of that period of time. But her younger brother she couldn’t 

adjust for, she cannot adjust for. 

Now, he was 7 or 8 when he came in probably 15 years ago— 

I guess I exaggerated slightly—and he is about to be deported back 

to someplace in South America. I know where it is, but I am not 

going to mention exactly where. And he speaks English as well as 

we do, had scholarships allowed for college and so forth. 

Is there any hope for people like that? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Secretary 

has to leave at 5:00, and we have one more question. So Mr. Carter. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We will get back to you on that situation, 

Representative. I will have somebody come visit with you. 

Mr. OLVER. I would appreciate it. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

USCIS briefed Representative Olver’s staff on the specifics of the immigration 

case on March 22, 2011. Representative Olver’s staff indicated the information was 

sufficient and that a meeting would not be necessary. 

BORDER SECURITY: NATIONAL GUARD ASSISTANCE

Mr. CARTER. Madam Secretary, thank you for waiting here for 

us. I really appreciate that. 

You were the first Governor, I believe, to attempt to use our new 

law that allows you to request the National Guard to be deployed 

in your State, and I believe as a result of that request your response from then-Secretary Rumsfeld was that he didn’t think it 

was their duty to enforce the borders; it was the duty of the Homeland Security Department. You experienced that, I believe. And 

right now my Governor in my State is saying that he needs troops 

on our border for safety and security of the citizens of the State of 

Texas, and I believe he does. 

Do you believe we should approve a Governor’s request to use the 

National Guard on the border, and do you think that we should authorize the Department of Homeland Security to pay for National 

Guard deployments if necessary by the Governors? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. First of all, the President has put 1,200- 

plus National Guards on the border, and they are providing very 

useful counter-drug assistance to the Border Patrol. You have also, 

in this Congress, approved upping the personnel in the Border Patrol, and that is the ideal situation where you have enough Federal 

civilian resources. But there can be a role for the National Guard. 

That is why we have some of them down there now. And I think 

that there is going to be a continuing discussion between us, the 

Department of Defense, and these committees as to how many, 

where, and how it should be paid for. 

Mr. CARTER. And part of that discussion right now is that the 

Department of Defense says they won’t pay for it. And so then my 

question is under a circumstance which you and I may not be able 

to imagine, although our Governor believes he needs it right now. 

Should we think about authorizing the payment of those guardsmen by our Department? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I certainly think that is something that, 

as we move forward, will need to be discussed between the legislative and executive branches, yes, sir. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Price. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, again, I apologize for leaving you bereft today 

for an hour, but we appreciate your patience. We have to close out 

now. I will be submitting some questions for the record. Some of 

them commend you for progress you made; for example, on the 100 

percent screening requirement for cargo in the hold of passenger 

planes. You have actually accelerated the timetable for meeting 

that requirement, and recent incidents showed just how important 

that is. In other areas, for example, the future of the CSI, the Container Security Initiative in overseas ports, I am going to want to 

seek some clarification as to exactly what the implications of your 

budget are for the future of that and other programs. But we will 

have to do that for the record, and now I just want to thank you 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

for your good work, for your presence here today, and again express 

how much we are looking forward to another round of working with 

you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Secretary, let me again echo what Ranking Member Price said. The votes are out of our control, as you 

know, so we are at the mercy of the Speaker and when they call 

it. But I do thank you for being here today. And we are about to 

begin working with the Senate to pass a full year CR. Without additional information, we have no option but to fully fund the DRF. 

Part of the reason we took the cuts in H.R. 1 was due to a lack 

of a budget amendment or a supplemental. 

But, Madam Secretary, what I would ask you to do is to commit 

to working with my staff on developing a plan that will fund the 

DRF through the end of the year and fund the DRF in fiscal year 

2012. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, sir. And I really appreciate your forbearance with my schedule, too. I think we have all been juggling 

like crazy this afternoon. I know I put off one thing and so forth. 

So I really appreciate the consideration you and your staff have 

shown. And obviously and absolutely we will work with you and 

with staff on the DRF and some of these other issues that have 

been raised this afternoon. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Sure. Well, thank you very much. We look forward to working with you. And again, thank you for your attendance this afternoon. The meeting is adjourned. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75 here 66893A.021
45 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 76 here 66893A.022
46 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 77 here 66893A.023
47 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 78 here 66893A.024
48 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 79 here 66893A.025
49 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 here 66893A.026
50 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 here 66893A.027
51 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 here 66893A.028
52 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 here 66893A.029
53 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 here 66893A.030
54 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 here 66893A.031
55 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 86 here 66893A.032
56 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 87 here 66893A.033
57 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 88 here 66893A.034
58 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 89 here 66893A.035
59 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 90 here 66893A.036
60 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 91 here 66893A.037
61 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 92 here 66893A.038
62 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 here 66893A.039
63 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 here 66893A.040
64 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 95 here 66893A.041
65 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 here 66893A.042
66 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 97 here 66893A.043
67 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 98 here 66893A.044
68 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 99 here 66893A.045
69 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 100 here 66893A.046
70 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 101 here 66893A.047
71 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 102 here 66893A.048
72 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 103 here 66893A.049
73 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 104 here 66893A.050
74 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 105 here 66893A.051
75 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 106 here 66893A.052
76 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 107 here 66893A.053
77 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 108 here 66893A.054
78 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 109 here 66893A.055
79 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 110 here 66893A.056
80 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 111 here 66893A.057
81 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 112 here 66893A.058
82 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 here 66893A.059
83 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 here 66893A.060
84 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 115 here 66893A.061
85 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 116 here 66893A.062
86 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 117 here 66893A.063
87 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 118 here 66893A.064
88 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 119 here 66893A.065
89 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 120 here 66893A.066
90 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 121 here 66893A.067
91 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 122 here 66893A.068
92 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 123 here 66893A.069
93 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 124 here 66893A.070
94 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 125 here 66893A.071
95 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 126 here 66893A.072
96 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 127 here 66893A.073
97 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 128 here 66893A.074
98 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 129 here 66893A.075
99 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 130 here 66893A.076
100 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 131 here 66893A.077
101 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 132 here 66893A.078
102 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 133 here 66893A.079
103 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 134 here 66893A.080
104 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 135 here 66893A.081
105 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 136 here 66893A.082
106 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 137 here 66893A.083
107 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 138 here 66893A.084
108 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 139 here 66893A.085
109 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 140 here 66893A.086
110 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 141 here 66893A.087
111 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 142 here 66893A.088
112 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 143 here 66893A.089
113 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 144 here 66893A.090
114 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 145 here 66893A.091
115 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 146 here 66893A.092
116 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 147 here 66893A.093
117 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 148 here 66893A.094
118 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 149 here 66893A.095
119 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 150 here 66893A.096
120 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 151 here 66893A.097
121 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 152 here 66893A.098
122 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 153 here 66893A.099
123 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 154 here 66893A.100
124 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 155 here 66893A.101
125 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 156 here 66893A.102
126 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 157 here 66893A.103
127 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 158 here 66893A.104
128 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 159 here 66893A.105
129 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 160 here 66893A.106
130 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 161 here 66893A.107
131 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 162 here 66893A.108
132 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 163 here 66893A.109
133 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 164 here 66893A.110
134 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 165 here 66893A.111
135 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 166 here 66893A.112
136 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 167 here 66893A.113
137 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 168 here 66893A.114
138 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 169 here 66893A.115
139 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 170 here 66893A.116
140 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 171 here 66893A.117
141 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 172 here 66893A.118
142 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 173 here 66893A.119
143 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 174 here 66893A.120
144 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 175 here 66893A.121
145 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 176 here 66893A.122
146 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 177 here 66893A.123
147 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 178 here 66893A.124
148 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 179 here 66893A.125
149 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 180 here 66893A.126
150 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 181 here 66893A.127
151 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 182 here 66893A.128
152 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 183 here 66893A.129
153 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 184 here 66893A.130
154 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 185 here 66893A.131
155 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 186 here 66893A.132
156 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 187 here 66893A.133
157 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 188 here 66893A.134
158 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 189 here 66893A.135
159 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 190 here 66893A.136
160 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 191 here 66893A.137
161 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 192 here 66893A.138
162 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 193 here 66893A.139
(163) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2011. 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION 

WITNESS 

ALAN BERSIN, COMMISSIONER, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION 

OPENING STATEMENT: CHAIRMAN ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. The hearing is called to order. 

This morning we welcome Alan Bersin, Commissioner of U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, as we consider the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request to secure our borders and facilitate 

lawful travel and trade. Commissioner, we thank you for being 

here, and we look forward to hearing your testimony this morning. 

CBP has experienced dramatic growth in the past 8 years. Today 

it is the largest agency within the Department of Homeland Security, with a budget of $11.8 billion and a workforce of nearly 

60,000. Given the significance of CBP’s mission to our Nation’s security and prosperity, and considering the continuing threats we 

face, Congress has certainly provided robust resources. Going forward, we expect to see results for those investments. 

Commissioner, at a time of financial crisis, the American people 

are demanding responsible budgets and accountability for every 

dollar spent. That is why I am pleased to see your budget pledges 

to cut costs and put a priority on frontline operations. As I said before, these are also priorities of this Subcommittee. 

I am, however, concerned that the President’s request for CBP 

includes undefined efficiencies and administrative savings that will 

likely impact operations. For example, the request cuts $60 million 

from air and marine personnel and assets which will likely reduce 

surveillance of the Southwest border. It also reduces overtime flexibility for CBP officers by $20 million that will likely increase wait 

times at ports of entry. I am not convinced that this request stabilizes CBP’s budget to sustain the workforce, much less support 

investments in technology, infrastructure, and assets needed to 

meet the mission. 

Commissioner, during this time of fiscal crisis, there are two 

things we need: truth in budgeting and clear results. First, let’s 

tackle truth in budgeting. 

Those so-called efficiencies and savings I mentioned earlier, in 

addition to program reductions, account for $330 million. While 

some proposals represent real savings, the rest are merely budget 

fiction. Operations will suffer and true needs will be deferred. 

The President’s request also proposed a hypothetical increase to customs user fees of $55 million for fiscal year 2012. Authorizing 

legislation would be needed to require passengers entering the U.S. 

from Canada and Mexico to pay the fee. If not enacted, history tells 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
164 

us these changes are difficult to enact, CBP will likely expect this 

Subcommittee to fill that $55 million hole. 

The second thing we need is results, a clear understanding of 

how your request supports operational needs. The United States invested billions in Southwest border operations in recent years 

across law enforcement agencies but, in particular, in CBP. We are 

scheduled to hear from Field Operations and Border Patrol next 

week on detailed operations; but today, Commissioner, I look forward to having a clear understanding of how you will define operational control of the border and your plan to get there. 

Equally significant, this Subcommittee is particularly pleased to 

have the esteemed Mr. Price. He has invested in CBP’s strategy to 

push out the border, and I would like to hear how this request supports CBP’s overseas operations to secure trade and travel to the 

United States. 

The American public demands straightforward answers to our 

border security efforts. Truth in budgeting and transparency with 

respect to operational needs are essential in this fiscal climate. I 

appreciate you appearing before us today, before this Subcommittee, and thank you in advance for your candor in helping us 

to understand CBP’s budget request for fiscal year 2012. 

At this point, I would like to recognize the Subcommittee’s distinguished Ranking Member, the former Chairman of this Committee, 

Mr. Price, for his opening remarks. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
165 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 199 here 66893A.140
166 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 200 here 66893A.141
167 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 201 here 66893A.142
168 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 202 here 66893A.143
169 

OPENING STATEMENT: RANKING MEMBER PRICE

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will be very brief 

because I know with the joint session we are going to be pressed 

for time. So let me just welcome you, Commissioner, and make a 

couple of brief comments. 

Over the past few years, the size and assets of CBP have grown 

substantially. Since 2006, just five years ago, the number of Border 

Patrol agents who patrol the Mexican and Canadian borders and 

the coastal waters surrounding Florida and Puerto Rico has grown 

by 70 percent; from 12,349 to 21,370 Border Patrol agents funded 

in 2012. 

Meanwhile, the number of CBP officers has grown by 18 percent 

to more than 21,186 officers funded in 2012, largely to enhance 

Southwest Border port-of-entry operations. Your 2012 budget request reflects your heavy reliance on people for all of our activities, 

with over two-thirds of the request funding salaries and benefits 

alone. 

From 2010 to 2012, salaries and benefits grew by $1.1 billion. 

This leaves very few dollars to invest in new technologies and tools 

for your personnel and to conduct maintenance on your facilities. 

Moreover, during this time of fiscal restraint, you most likely will 

be asked to do more with less. We need to make sure that in doing 

so, critical operations are not negatively affected. 

Commissioner, your agency carries on one of the core functions 

of DHS: keeping dangerous goods and people out of the country 

while facilitating lawful cross-border movement. Accomplishing 

that task in an ever-changing threat environment requires an 

agency that is flexible and forward leaning, making good use of intelligence, preferably intercepting threats before they reach our 

borders. 

A good example of that approach, I believe, is the Immigration 

Advisory Program, which places CBP officers in foreign airports to 

stop potential terrorists from boarding flights to the U.S. I commend you on the progress of that initiative, and am pleased to note 

the expansion of this program in your budget request, along with 

additional funds to improve our targeting capabilities. 

Recognizing the staffing needs at our ports of entry, I am also 

glad you proposed 300 new CBP officers and new canine teams. 

And I want to call attention to your efforts in the critically important area of officer integrity. Specifically, you propose $26 million 

to enhance CBP’s polygraph program and to conduct timely background investigations. 

I do have some concerns about what is missing from this request. 

There is no new funding for air cargo security, even though CBP 

informally asked this Subcommittee to provide additional resources 

after the attempted air cargo bombing plot out of Yemen last fall. 

The budget substantially reduces funding to your facilities, delaying maintenance and repairs and alterations. It reduces air and 

marine programs, which your own budget brief says, ‘‘will reduce 

the ability to safely and effectively transport personnel and equipment in support of border security missions.’’ And, finally, the 

budget contains changes in maritime container security efforts that 

seem to be at odds with what both the Secretary and CBP have 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
170 

been proposing for the last few years. I look forward to discussing 

each of these in detail during the hearing today. 

Commissioner, we hold the men and women of CBP in the highest regard. We place great value in the work they and you do, day 

in and day out. Many operate in many dangerous areas, and they 

put their lives on the line to protect us. I know we are going to discuss this in more detail next week at our hearing on Southwest 

border violence. 

As we begin this hearing to more closely examine your 2012 

budget, it is important to note that no program or account will be 

off limits to scrutiny. Our obligation is to take a balanced realistic 

approach, to weigh risks carefully, and to make prudent investments. Commissioner, I have no doubt that you share this point of 

view. I look forward to working with you again this year. Thank 

you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Price. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
171 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 207 here 66893A.144
172 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 208 here 66893A.145
173 

OPENING STATEMENT: COMMISSIONER BERSIN

Mr. ADERHOLT. Again, Commissioner, we thank you for being 

here this morning and for taking time to address the Subcommittee. And we at this time would like to hear your testimony 

before the Subcommittee. 

Mr. BERSIN. Good morning. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

Ranking Member Price, Representative Lowey. CBP [U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection], all of its nearly 60,000 employees, join me 

in thanking this Committee and the Congress generally for the 

support that you have provided, providing the resources and the 

funding necessary to accomplish the mission sets that the Nation 

has assigned CBP. 

I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that time is limited today, so I will 

shorten an already brief statement so that we can get to the questions and answers. But I do want to reiterate and emphasize the 

high points. 

CBP is charged with keeping dangerous people and dangerous 

things out of the American Homeland, away from American communities and families. We do that in terms of two direct approaches. 

First, we are charged with protecting the land borders of the 

United States. This encompasses the Southwest border, which has 

garnered most of the attention in the last years because of the activities there and in Mexico. But it also encompasses the Canadian 

border, more than 3,900 miles that are on the Northern border 

from Maine to Seattle and the State of Washington. It also encompasses, in concert with the United States Coast Guard, responsibilities on the littorals, the maritime approaches off the coasts of the 

United States. The resources that this Committee has provided 

have had an impact and will continue to have an impact on all of 

those mission sets having to do with the border. 

We also look at the border not simply as a boundary between the 

United States and Mexico and the United States and Canada, but 

we also look at it as securing the flow of goods and people toward 

the United States, and the twin dimensions to this issue, as the 

Ranking Member and the Chairman both indicated. We have a responsibility to secure the flows to be sure that dangerous people 

and dangerous things are identified as far away from the physical 

borders as possible and as early in time as possible. That is why 

we have the international footprint at CBP. 

We also have an enormous responsibility with regard to the expediting of lawful trade and traffic. And the approach that CBP takes 

to this task is by risk management, by assessing risks and being 

able to distinguish between trusted travelers, trusted shippers, and 

those about whom or about which we have adverse information or 

about which we lack sufficient information to make a judgment as 

to how we ought to expedite their passage across our physical borders. 

These two mission sets—securing the land border, the Southwest 

border, the Northern border and the littorals, and also securing the 

flow of goods and people through programs such as the Immigration Advisory Program or the Container Security Initiative—are 

the way in which we accomplish our tasks. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
174 

The 2012 budget that has been proposed by the Administration 

is under consideration by this Committee and the Congress provides us with the resources that we need to do this job. It is not 

a perfect budget. It never is. But I hope that, in discussions with 

this Committee and generally between the administration and the 

Congress, we can sharpen the budget, fill the gaps that are perceived to exist, and continue the progress that we have made both 

in protecting the land borders, protecting the aviation borders, protecting the maritime approaches, and also securing flows of people 

and goods so that we can continue to partner with the private sector to process $2 trillion worth of imports that come into the 

United States each year, and we can also expedite the movement 

of $1.8 trillion in exports that leave this country each year. 

With regard to the challenges, rather than go into them as I 

thought I originally would, I think the Ranking Member and the 

Chairman have each raised the major challenges that we face with 

regard to maintaining the personnel, also maintaining the ability 

to make efficiencies, show efficiencies in a time of constrained 

budget, and yet keep the productivity of our men and women of 

CBP high and growing, and also make their activities more efficient and effective at the same time. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, and in the interests of beginning the 

dialogue so critical to this enterprise, let me again thank you on 

behalf of the 58,000 men and women of CBP for the support that 

this Committee has always shown our efforts. Thank you, Sir. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Commissioner. And we will enter 

your full statement into the record, and we thank you for your 

opening comments. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
175 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 213 here 66893A.146
176 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 214 here 66893A.147
177 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 215 here 66893A.148
178 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 216 here 66893A.149
179 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 217 here 66893A.150
180 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 218 here 66893A.151
181 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 219 here 66893A.152
182 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 220 here 66893A.153
183 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 221 here 66893A.154
184 

BORDER SECURITY: UNITED STATES-MEXICO COOPERATION

Mr. ADERHOLT. The first issue that I would like to bring up is 

a clear goal for border security. The United States Government has 

made significant investments in Mexico directly and in United 

States law enforcement agencies, in particular the Department of 

Homeland Security, to counter Mexican drug trafficking organizations and to assist the Calderon administration. While it is clear 

that these efforts are disrupting cartel activity, it remains to be 

seen what the end goal actually is and how we expect to get there, 

especially as the Calderon administration draws to an end in 2012. 

How would you describe our progress collectively, United States 

and Mexican efforts, to undermine the drug trafficking organizations, and what evidence do we have of the impact on the cartels? 

Mr. BERSIN. Mr. Chairman, an issue critical to our border security and also to our national security. The enterprise of cooperation 

with Mexico is a work in process; in fact, we have started down a 

path that is truly historical. The decision in 2006 of President 

Calderon to take on the organized crime elements that had so infiltrated both Mexican politics and Mexican society, that were having 

such a detrimental impact on our border and on our country, was 

truly a turning point in Mexican history and in the history of our 

two countries, particularly at the United States-Mexican border. 

That effort has led to the kind of violence that we have seen in 

Mexico that has resulted in the deaths of more than 35,000 Mexicans since 2006. 

Recognizing how critical Mexican national security is to our own 

border security and, I would argue, our national security, the 

Obama administration, continuing the work of Merida, has actually 

taken the level of collaboration and cooperation to a new level and 

a new status. This is a work in process, but I believe that we have 

achieved something that is critical as we look forward. 

I believe, regardless of changes that might take place in the leadership of the United States or Mexico, that we have with our neighbor to the south for the first time, really, since the 19th century 

treaty that ended the U.S.-Mexican War, reached a level of collaboration and cooperation that will never, ever go back to where it 

was, where we had erect borders, but not violent borders, but never 

terribly cooperative borders between the United States and Mexico. 

The key to this has been the understanding between President 

Obama and President Calderon that in fact the issue of guns going 

south and cash going south and drugs coming north is not the occasion for finger-pointing, which it was for so much of our bilateral 

history: Mexicans blaming us for their problem of violent crime due 

to the consumption of drugs in the United States; and Mexicans 

blaming the United States for the passage of weapons into Mexico, 

without accepting the notion that there was a Mafia of frightening 

proportion growing in their country. That actually, thankfully, is a 

matter of the past. 

For the first time in our history, instead of pointing fingers at 

one another, the United States and Mexico recognize drugs coming 

north, guns and cash going south, as being part of a common problem for which we have shared responsibility. That acceptance, Mr. 

Chairman, has permitted us for the first time to not only design 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
185 

common solutions but to be well along the path of implementing 

them. It is a major change for the good. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Just to follow up on that. You mentioned it has 

changed historically, the finger-pointing. As the Presidential election year approaches, 2011 is a critical year. President Calderon is 

under increasing pressure internally, and we have seen, him publicly lashing out at the United States, calling cooperation from the 

United States ‘‘notoriously insufficient’’ and saying, ‘‘How can 

Americans cooperate? By reducing drug use, which they haven’t 

done. And the flow of weapons hasn’t slowed, it has increased.’’ 

While the tone was better in the Calderon meetings with the 

President last week, there is still that concern. Let me just follow 

with that and just your take on that. 

Mr. BERSIN. Mr. Chairman, I think that actually that is an index 

of the relationship that we now have; that in fact, when you are 

engaged in the kind of partnership that we now have, there can be 

candid, even publicly candid remarks about the shortcomings that 

are perceived in the performance of the other partner. 

So, for example, yes, the fact is that President Calderon underlines, with regard to drug trafficking, the critical role played by 

drug consumption in this country. He also outlines, with regard to 

illegal immigration, the lack of a legitimate labor market between 

the United States and Mexico, and the desire on the part of some 

Americans for both secure borders and cheap labor. I look at that 

as the candor and the frank discussion that will permit us to start 

to address those issues together. 

So, for example, we point out to the Mexicans, in ways that were 

unsayable even 3 or 4 years ago, that they have a major problem 

of corruption in their law enforcement, that their state and local 

law enforcement and much of their judiciary, unfortunately, remains plagued by problems of corruption. Those are the kinds of 

public statements and acknowledgements that I think reflect the 

deeper partnership and the greater potential for cooperation than 

has ever existed before. 

But I take your point. There are candid exchanges between partners that in fact our people, both in Mexico and the United States, 

need to hear and increasingly understand. 

BORDER SECURITY: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Mr. ADERHOLT. You have often stated in your public comments 

that the border is as secure as it has ever been. But this assertion 

doesn’t tell us how close we are to actually securing operational 

control of the border. So that begs the question, given the billions 

that we have invested into the border, what is your goal for border 

security, and how close are we to achieving it? 

Mr. BERSIN. Mr. Chairman, a critical question and well asked 

and reasonably asked, ‘‘What does border security mean?’’ So let 

me begin perhaps by describing what it can and cannot mean. 

If we understand border security to be the absence of any illegal 

migration at all across the United States borders or the absence of 

any drug smuggling at all, then in fact we have set a goal that is 

impracticable and not possible in terms of an absolute sealing of 

the American border. That would be an issue of resources and an 

issue of actually having to correct those problems that, as I indiVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:11 Jul 08, 2011 Jkt 066893 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A893P2.XXX A893P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
186 

cated in response to your previous question, have led to an understanding that the consumption of drugs in this country is as much 

a part of the problem as the smuggling of drugs by organized criminals in Mexico across the border. We need to work on that. Under 

ONDCP [the Office of National Drug Control Policy], we are making very serious efforts of curtailing drug use and seeing some 

progress. 

The same thing goes with regard to the labor market. As long as 

the magnet, the job magnet exists, we will see this flow. But, Mr. 

Chairman, security means that these are not flows that disrupt 

American family life and community life either in border communities or in the interior of our country. And there we need to basically take the position that if you try to cross into our country illegally, either to smuggle drugs or to come here to work illegally, you 

will be detected and you will be arrested. And that is the sense in 

which we approach our task at CBP. 

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report to you that compared to 

certainly five years ago, certainly 10 years ago, and I know myself, 

having started with the border first, as the United States Attorney 

in the Southern District of California 15 years ago, that the border 

is actually more secure than it has ever been in terms of the ability 

to detect and apprehend those who come into the country illegally. 

Having said that, we have considerable work to do, particularly 

in the Tucson Sector. That sector from Hermosilla, Mexico, in Sonora, to Nogales, Sonora, to Tucson, to Phoenix, half of the illegal 

immigration in the United States comes through that corridor. Half 

of the marijuana smuggling into the United States from Mexico 

takes place through that corridor. 

And that is why Secretary Napolitano, beginning in March 2009, 

two years ago, began the greatest buildup of resources in Arizona 

that we have ever seen. This Committee has facilitated the growth 

of the Border Patrol, as indicated by the Ranking Member, such 

that by the end of fiscal year 2012, we will have 21,370 Border Patrol agents. Sir, I remember in 1993, when I first became involved 

with the border, we had 2,800 Border Patrol agents in the entire 

country. We now have nearly 10 times that many. They are being 

used to good effect, and in no place better than in the Tucson Sector where we have more than 6,000 people between the ports of 

entry CBP and at the ports of entry. And they are showing results 

in their work. 

What does bringing that border under control and that sector 

under control mean? It means reducing the flow of illegal traffic 

into the United States from Mexico to a point that both assures 

public safety and is perceived by the people who live on the border 

and the people who live in Arizona as being safe and secure. 

So I can tell you, having lived and worked there myself, and my 

family still lives on the border between Baja California, Mexico, 

and California. In San Diego, in 1994, when Proposition 187 was 

passed by the people of California, a proposition that is reminiscent 

of Arizona’s bill 1070 of this last year in the context of Arizona politics, 565,000 illegal immigrants, illegal aliens, crossed over from 

Mexico and were arrested on the San Diego-Tijuana border. And at 

least twice that many, Mr. Chairman, got by the Border Patrol and 

made their way up to Los Angeles. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
187 

Today, the situation is completely different in terms of the resources Congress has provided. We have more than 3,000 Border 

Patrol agents in the San Diego Sector. We have a complete set of 

infrastructure in terms of fencing and pedestrian fencing and vehicle fencing. We have technology that permits us to detect the very 

large majority, I estimate 90 percent, of the people who are trying 

to cross illegally into the United States in that sector. But what 

that means, Mr. Chairman, is that when we say 58,000 as opposed 

to 560,000 people were arrested last year in San Diego, I can tell 

you that my friends and neighbors in San Diego will tell you this 

border is not out of control. San Diego is one of the safest 10 cities 

in the United States, and there are three other border cities that 

are among the 10 safest cities in the United States: El Paso, Texas; 

Austin, Texas; and Phoenix, Arizona. 

So, with regard to this motion of what will it take to complete 

the job, I would say respectfully, Mr. Chairman, that until we have 

the kind of legitimate labor market between the United States and 

Mexico, and until we reduce the level of drug demand in the 

United States, we are going to continue to have attempted crossings on our border. The issue is, how many? And how many do we 

arrest after detecting them? The situation there is considerably improved, and it will be improved in Arizona as a result of Secretary 

Napolitano’s initiative and, frankly, the Congress’ Southwest border supplemental bill of last spring. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Commissioner. 

Let me turn now to Mr. Price. 

AIR CARGO SECURITY: EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Commissioner, I would like you to address air cargo security, 

first in respect to the capacities that you are developing, and secondly, some of the budget implications of those efforts. 

Prior to the attempted air cargo bombing plot out of Yemen last 

fall, CBP was receiving international air cargo manifests four 

hours before cargo arrival in the United States; that is, after the 

plane was airborne. In response to the October 29, 2010, mailing 

of improvised explosive devices from Yemen, the National Targeting Center has been working with air carriers so they can analyze cargo manifests before flights take off. 

In December, CBP began piloting this type of screening with the 

Big Four all-cargo carriers. Two of these pilot efforts have been 

completed, two others are either ongoing or are starting shortly. I 

know you call these pilots, but I don’t believe there are any plans 

to turn them off. Maybe some analysis will follow, but this is going 

to be, as we understand, a permanent improvement of capacity. 

So I wonder, first, if you could highlight what efforts CBP, in 

conjunction with the carriers, has undertaken to strengthen your 

air cargo security before it arrives in the United States, and what 

you believe the next steps are. And then, secondly, I want to ask 

you about the budget implications of all this. 

I was somewhat surprised that the 2012 budget didn’t include 

any additional funding for better targeting of cargo. Last November, CBP told the Committee that it needed up to $80 million for 

these specific efforts. In December, in our consultations, this figure 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
188 

was revised twice, to $50 million and then to $17.3 million for the 

‘‘highest needs.’’ The highest needs include 40 new air cargo targeting positions funded to upgrade targeting infrastructure and 

funding to develop new targeting rules. Since final funding for 2011 

unfortunately has not been resolved, we were unable to provide 

these resources; however, we did expect to see something in the 

2012 budget. It is not there. 

Last December, CBP told the Subcommittee it would expand its 

review of cargo transportation documents, known as bills of lading, 

to countries surrounding Yemen. That required additional staff, required additional infrastructure improvements to provide adequate 

bandwidth and hardware to support the workload, and additional 

screening technology. Has something changed? Or what has 

changed over the last few months so that you didn’t include these 

needs in the 2012 request? And I guess the obvious question is, are 

you now planning to fund these activities from base resources? 

Mr. BERSIN. Ranking Member Price, thank you for that question 

that focuses on that dimension of our mission that is securing 

goods so that when they arrive at the physical ports of entry, we 

have done everything we need to do to identify, as best we can, 

dangerous cargo. And in fact, the Yemen cargo plot, with regard to 

packages and freight, led to the same kind of changes that we saw 

a year earlier with regard to the processing of passengers as a result of the Abdul Muttalib attempt to blow up a Northwest airliner 

over Detroit. So let me indicate what we have done, and then provide a very direct response to your question about how will this be 

funded. 

Two major partnerships characterized our response. And remember, as you indicated, what happened in the Yemen cargo plot was 

that we received intelligence, our government did, from the Saudi 

intelligence that indicated there were two packages that were on 

their way to the United States that were intended to be detonated 

in the cargo plane over Chicago. So the question then was, how do 

we locate those packages? And I think one of the changes in the 

global supply chain was we did identify, out of this mass of tens 

of millions of packages and cargos involved in the international 

trade. We were in relatively short order, working together with our 

partners abroad, able to pluck out those two packages and to neutralize them so they did not do damage to the American Homeland. 

As we analyzed the situation, though, we were able then to identify very quickly where the other packages that had come in the 

preceding days from Yemen were. But what we also noticed was 

that we needed, as we did in the passenger context, to be doing 

much more work away from the American Homeland and early in 

time. And that is what led to the pilot projects that you indicated. 

Three critical partnerships have characterized the work. 

The first is, as I suggested, the partnership with foreign customs 

and police authorities, which needs to be very close and is increasingly close. 

The second has to do with the partnership within DHS between 

the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), charged with 

cargo security, and CBP. And the linking of the work of CBP and 

TSA on this has been extraordinary. And I know that government 

agencies always talk about the extent to which they cooperate, but 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
189 

I can tell you, having been in the Federal Government, this is cooperation with real results that we see exemplified and illustrated 

in the way in which our Nation has responded to the cargo plot 

from Yemen. 

The third partnership and key to this is the way in which we 

have collaborated with the private sector. From day one, we began 

working with the express cargo carriers, with the commercial airlines, and with the large cargo operators to begin to co-create the 

solution. 

So what does the solution look like? And, frankly, I would say 

parenthetically that the way in which we have worked with the 

private sector contrasts with what I believe the Ranking Member 

and Members of the Subcommittee are familiar with, which is the 

contentious manner in which we began to deal with maritime security in the wake of 2001. That situation has vastly improved, but 

it has taken a long time for those engaged in maritime trade to 

look at the requirements that we imposed on them top down, in 

part through Congress imposing requirements on DHS. We basically mandated a series of changes to require advance information 

and a whole variety of pre-departure and pre-arrival changes. We 

took a different approach, frankly, Mr. Price, to this situation, air 

cargo. 

From day one, Secretary Napolitano convened working groups involving the private sector and TSA and CBP to address the issue. 

And within a month, we began what you referred to as pilot 

projects. And they basically have two dimensions to them. We get 

advanced information. Right now, the law provides that when cargo 

is coming toward the United States, it must be given to CBP four 

hours before arrival. It must be entered into our system. Or if the 

place of disembarkation is fewer than four hours from our homeland, then it is entered into the system upon wheels-up of the cargo 

plane or the commercial plane carrying cargo. 

What the pilot project basically does is it articulates and starts 

to implement a new grand bargain between governmental authorities and the private sector. Basically, the grand bargain is if you 

give us information early in advance of the departure, we will use 

the National Targeting Center to analyze the information you give 

us in terms of manifest data, and we will make a judgment about 

whether or not we need to screen and look at it and in which way 

we need to look and screen the cargo much earlier. 

That has led express cargo—and right now the pilot is between 

the United States Government, DHS, and the express carriers, 

FedEx, UPS, I believe will be extended to DHL soon, and to TNT 

in the not-too-distant future. And basically what we see from UPS 

is that we are getting the information sometimes 24 hours earlier 

before departure, sometimes even 36 hours. And we are able to 

make this decision, working together: Do we screen it? Do we isolate it? Do we do it abroad? Do we do it en route? Or do we do it 

when it arrives at the physical boundaries of the United States? 

That is the nature of the bargain. It is an extraordinary collaboration, and will be extended over the next six months to commercial airlines and the large cargo operators. 

So then, Mr. Price, you say, so why haven’t you asked for additional funding to support this? And the answer is that we have 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
190 

asked for additional funding, as you indicated in your question. We 

have asked for additional personnel at the National Targeting Center. Now, we have actually asked for, I believe, 33 additional 

targeters that will work in Herndon and be able to analyze that 

manifest data. 

And, Sir, I indicate to you, as we have with the Immigration Advisory Program, we will be coming back to the Congress when we 

have perfected this, when we have gotten to the point where we 

can say, as a result of the experience we have had, these are the 

additional measures that we need to take. And I think you have 

understood that we are not bashful about asking for resources. 

But taking the Chairman’s caution into account, in the environment in which we are operating, the Secretary is determined that 

we need to perfect these protocols. And we are able to do that within our existing resource base, together with the additional resources we asked for at the National Targeting Center. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is expiring. Just one 

clarification, though. I thought these additional personnel that you 

referred to were aimed at a passenger screening operation. 

Mr. BERSIN. The National Targeting Center—I will correct the 

record if I misspeak, but I believe these are going to be National 

Targeting Center for Cargo. We have the NTC-P, National Targeting Center for Passengers in Reston, Virginia, and that is the 

program that works with the Immigration Advisory Program. But 

I believe that these were destined, and we intend to allocate them 

to the NTC-P. 

CLERK’S NOTE.—The Commissioner confirmed that the FY12 request was for NTC-P analysts, not cargo. 

Mr. PRICE. That is not the information that we have. But if you 

can get this straight for the record. And while you are at it, please 

provide us with whatever accounting you can of where in the budget these items that we had earlier been briefed on and had anticipated might be embedded; and to the extent that they are not in 

the budget, how you are making up the difference. That would be 

very helpful to us as we try to support this program fully. You understand, we want this to happen. We want to make sure that we 

understand the full budget implications of this capacity building, 

though. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
191 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here 66893A.155
192 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here 66893A.156
193 

Mr. BERSIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Dent. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning. A couple things following up on Mr. Price’s questions. 

It is my understanding that 100 percent of outbound commercial 

aircraft carrying cargo is now screened. Is that correct? 

Mr. BERSIN. No. I don’t believe that 100 percent of the outbound 

cargo is—— 

Mr. DENT. On passenger planes. 

Mr. BERSIN. This may be a TSA function. I know that CBP is not 

screening 100 percent of outbound. 

Mr. DENT. On the issue of the inbound, you just referred to the 

Yemen situation. Even if we were to screen 100 percent of all inbound cargo coming on non-passenger aircraft, how confident are 

you that we are going to detect problematic material, given what 

you know about the situation? 

Mr. BERSIN. Again, Mr. Dent, with regard to inbound, on commercial planes coming to the United States, there is 100 percent 

screening by TSA-certified screeners or by the TSA itself of inbound cargo. And I believe with regard to that extent, we do 

have—we can always improve our screening capacity. We need to 

improve our protection capacity in terms of the technology. But 

that situation is considerably improved from where it was even a 

few short years ago. 

Mr. DENT. It is my understanding on the inbound, coming from 

overseas in, we are still not at 100 percent. Outbound, we were. 

You met the mandate. 

Mr. BERSIN. I will correct the record again. This is a TSA function. 

Mr. DENT. Understood. 

Mr. BERSIN. I will correct the record if I have misspoken. 

BORDER SECURITY: USE OF CIVIL AIR PATROL

Mr. DENT. And one thing, too. I wanted to follow up on Civil Air 

Patrol issues. For the past several Congresses, I have been advocating the use of the Civil Air Patrol on the border, the Southwest 

border. You have a shortage of assets down there. It seems that if 

the Civil Air Patrol is willing to help, they have been effective in 

the past helping us with various security missions. What relationship does CBP currently have with Civil Air Patrol? 

Mr. BERSIN. Mr. Dent, I know from the days in which I was the 

U.S. Attorney that the Civil Air Patrol played a very important role 

in assisting the Border Patrol in those years to patrol. Because of 

the increase provided by Congress in the air and marine assets of 

the CBP, we rely hardly at all now on the Civil Air Patrol. And I 

do know of your interest. We do not at this point, except in very 

spotty cases, regularly use them, in part because the air and marine assets that have been provided by the Congress and are at 

work, for example, in Arizona, are on the order of 10 times what 

they were years ago. But I—— 

Mr. DENT. Are you amenable to establishing some type of a 

working relationship with the Civil Air Patrol? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
194 

Mr. BERSIN. Absolutely. Absolutely. Partnership with Civil Air 

Patrol as with State, local, and tribal law enforcement authorities 

is critical. Yes, sir. 

BORDER SECURITY: SBINET

Mr. DENT. I would love to follow up with you on that further. I 

think we could use them and it would be a cost-effective way for 

us to develop some more effective aviation assets. 

And on SBInet, the Secretary announced I think on January 14, 

that they ended the SBInet program; yet it has endorsed the integrated fixed towers that are at the heart of the SBInet and indicated the Department intended to buy 52 more integrated fixed 

towers for Arizona. That is on top of the 15 that I think are already 

out there. So these additional towers are for some of the most problematic areas, as you know. But you postponed the purchase of 

these towers until fiscal year 2012, and delivery isn’t expected I 

think until sometime in early 2013. Why aren’t we moving aggressively in building on those towers? 

Mr. BERSIN. Mr. Dent, you have correctly described the situation. 

The large-scale integration and the virtual fence dimensions of 

SBInet were ended by the Secretary, and I think to the general approval of Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. But 

where the Boeing-developed technology, so-called block technology 

for the Ajo-1 technology, which integrates video and radar works, 

is in the flat terrain, and there will be need for it. Where there are 

canyons and mountains, that technology is not very useful and the 

Secretary has directed that we fill in the gaps in those areas with 

Mobile Surveillance Systems and Remote Video Systems. And our 

agents confirm that this is the best technique, together with aviation ISR [Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance], the ability to integrate from surveillance from air, aviation platforms. 

The reason, frankly, for the delay—and I believe we started purchasing in 2012 and continue to purchase in 2012 and 2013—is 

that we need to fill in the gaps. We have in Arizona, which is our 

area of greatest priority on the border, we have the towers in place 

on the flat areas. But we need to fill them in with the technology 

better suited for the canyons and the mountains. 

But you are right; we want more of those towers to use in other 

places where the terrain makes them very useful. The priority is 

one reason there is a delay until 2012. The second is simply get the 

competitive bidding that will be required to give companies other 

than Boeing an opportunity to compete for this contract and to provide the fixed towers. 

So we think, both as a matter of tactics but also good and efficient business sense, that schedule will not do us harm from a security perspective, and will get us a better product in due course. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mrs. Lowey. 

AIR CARGO SECURITY: 100 PERCENT SCREENING

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome. And I just want to say, Commissioner Bersin, we 

are very fortunate to have a person of your wisdom, experience, 

and caliber in this position, and I thank you very much. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
195 

And if you could just clarify in writing for the record, it is my 

understanding that the 100 percent screening of cargo on passenger airlines won’t be completed until the end of 2011. I don’t 

think it can be done soon enough. I think it is urgent. And I would 

like you to clarify that for us because I would like to know why. 

And also—why it is not completed. 

Mrs. LOWEY. And I would also like to know if there are some nations that are not being cooperative as we seek to implement better 

screening procedures abroad, and what can we do about it? Perhaps the first one you can submit to us in writing. 

But the second, if you are aware of certain nations that have not 

been cooperative, I would like to know about it. 

Mr. BERSIN. Yes, with regard to providing information on both. 

As you know, the legislation provides the extension, although the 

deadline is coming up and I believe that the Secretary, if she hasn’t 

already, will be indicating the further extension on the 100 percent 

scanning. And with regard to—— 

Mrs. LOWEY. I just happen to think on that issue it is unacceptable. So I just want to know what you need, how much money, how 

many people to get it done now. 

Mr. BERSIN. I understand. And then with regard to the information on countries that have not been cooperative, no one comes to 

mind. But I would need to consult with Administrator Pistole with 

regard to the cargo screening from abroad. And I will do that and 

supplement the record, if he so advises. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
196 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 66893A.157
197 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 66893A.158
198 

PORTS OF ENTRY: CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICERS

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you. 

On another issue. I have recently heard reports about staffing 

issues at Kennedy Airport, including that one quarter of all Customs and Border Patrol officers (CBPOs) are handling basic immigration work rather than searching cargo for weapons or drugs. 

Perhaps more alarmingly, I have been told that 18 flights a day are 

arriving from known high-risk narcotic-producing nations without 

searches by CBPOs due to staffing shortages. 

So I would like to know, number one, what steps are you taking 

to ensure CBP is in fact searching cargo at Kennedy Airport rather 

than performing administrative tasks? And, secondly, what additional resources do you need from Congress to achieve this mission? 

Mr. BERSIN. I was at Kennedy Airport on Friday, Thursday and 

Friday of last week. We are constantly looking at the staffing 

issues and also the allocation of duties. So at Kennedy Airport, 

which has more CBPOs, Customs and Border Protection officers, 

than any other airport because of the size and the scope of its operations, we have just under 1,800 now, with a staffing model that 

actually allocates both to the processing of people, which we have 

to do to prevent dangerous people from coming into the United 

States. But also increasingly, we check obviously on screening of 

freight and cargo coming into the United States, and Kennedy 

leads the way in terms of outbound checks. We have more outbound checks led by an extraordinarily experienced and good group 

of officers. 

But I take your point that we always need to look at how do we 

allocate scarce resources and when do we need more resources for 

any particular function? 

I believe that we can improve the situation at Kennedy, but I am 

satisfied that the leadership and this new port director at Kennedy, 

who I hope you will have an opportunity to meet: Mr. Brian Humphrey, who was at O’Hare Airport, now in charge of Kennedy Airport under Bob Perez’s leadership at the district. And I will make 

him aware of your concerns and confirm that he is always looking 

at how best to allocate the resources among the functions that we 

have. 

BORDER SECURITY: WEAPONS SMUGGLING

Mrs. LOWEY. I am not questioning anyone’s ability. I am just saying that I think it is important that we get the job done. If you 

need more assistance, you should let us know. 

In that regard, I have been to the San Diego entryway, and I 

have spent hours there. And to me it looks like a needle in a haystack. So I applaud you. I don’t know how you do that work. 

I also want to say, you talked before about the issues involving 

our government and the Mexican Government. I have met with 

Calderon, I have been there, I have talked with him. And I think 

this has reached proportions that are just extraordinarily dangerous. We know of the 35,000 lives that have been lost there. And 

I personally think it is not enough to say guns are going there and 

drugs are going there. I think we have to push for an assault weapVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:11 Jul 08, 2011 Jkt 066893 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A893P2.XXX A893P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
199 

ons ban, and I think we have to do something about controlling our 

use of drugs here in the United States of America. 

What to do about the infiltration of the military, infiltration of 

the security force with the cartels, because the cartels pay more 

than the government, and the corruption is another whole story for 

another hearing, Mr. Chairman. But I appreciate your mentioning 

those issues, and I think we just have to do something about it. 

So thank you again for appearing before us. And I think my time 

is up, so I will save my other question. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. We would like to go now to Mr. Carter. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Commissioner, thank you for being here. Thank you for all 

the people in your Department that are doing very important work 

to protect our Nation. Texans feel it probably more, or as much— 

I would argue ‘‘more’’ than most in this country—as far as what 

you are doing on our borders. We are very appreciative of it. 

My friend just raised the issue of the question that seems to 

come up every time we address the border. We certainly are aware 

of the violence coming from the south. And the question then comes 

up, where do the weapons come from? And it seems to be the finger 

gets pointed at the United States, that we are allowing weapons to 

be smuggled into Mexico. 

I don’t know whether that is true or not. We assumed it was 

true. We had this discussion in the last Congress. We thought we 

had put adequate resources on the border to be able to inspect cargos going south, but there are at least accusations that we are failing in that inspection. 

First and foremost, I want to make sure that is actually true, 

and to learn something about the interdiction that you may have 

had on weapons going south. The reason I question this is because 

AK–47s are not American-manufactured weapons; they are European-manufactured weapons, and that is what I see the bad guys 

carrying. But maybe we are importing them into the United States 

and then shipping them down there, I don’t know. 

I think that it is important that we do interdict weapons flowing 

south if they are coming through the United States. If we have a 

fault in this violence on the border, we need to correct that fault. 

My Governor in my State has said he is perfectly willing to assist 

with the resources of Texas law enforcement. Would that be of assistance to you if Texas law enforcement—and law enforcement of 

other States, was willing to assist in the interdiction of weapons 

going south? 

Second, do you have any weapons coming in from other sources 

besides the United States of America? 

Mr. BERSIN. With regard to the source of weapons flow into Mexico, I think we have to acknowledge that many of the weapons do 

come from the United States. I think that has been established by 

the work of ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and 

ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives] as 

they have traced weapons that are seized in Mexico and traced 

back to sales in the United States. So I think we should acknowledge that, because it is a fact. 

I think the extent of it, though, is not certain. You hear charges 

from certain quarters in Mexico that it is 98 percent. Others say 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
200 

90 percent. Others say it is 80 percent. I think we should just acknowledge that it is an issue and we need to deal with it in terms 

of a new situation. 

At the same time, there is no question in my mind that weapons 

are being smuggled into Mexico from the southern border as well, 

through Central America, particularly some of the heavier weapons 

that are there. 

But, again, in keeping with this new relationship between the 

United States and Mexico, we acknowledge the issue. And, as you 

suggested, it is one we need to work on. 

With regard to outbound operations, Secretary Napolitano, beginning in March 2009, instituted for the first time in the history of 

our border, not southbound checks of which there were intermittent 

ones, but instead a regular systematic check, not a 24/7 check, but 

a systematic, well-orchestrated effort to intercept guns and cash 

going south. 

With regard to the participation of local law enforcement, they 

do participate now, all over the border from California to Texas. 

Texas DPS [Department of Public Safety] is a big partner of us, 

and Border Patrol agents speak highly of it, as do I. 

With regard to local sheriffs and local police departments in 

Texas and elsewhere, they are often involved in task forces that are 

participating in southbound checks, and they share in the forfeiture of assets that are seized and liquidated as a result of those 

seizures. 

So the answer is, yes, those partnerships are critical. And they 

can always be improved, but they are very extensive, as we speak. 

Mr. CARTER. We certainly are perfectly willing to be involved in 

our State, and our Governor is speaking out publicly that he is 

willing to share any resources you need to protect our State. Because, quite honestly, we are very concerned about the violence 

across the border. 

I was with people from Laredo yesterday. We were talking about 

how much we used to share a great celebration on our borders, 

George Washington’s birthday celebration, and it used to flow back 

and forth between Nuevo Laredo and Laredo. That flow now stops, 

and we have snipers protecting our meeting of Governors on the 

international bridge. That is a dangerous situation that shouldn’t 

occur between friendly neighbors, and it concerns Texas greatly 

that this is going on. 

Mr. BERSIN. It should concern all Americans, Mr. Carter. And I 

will say that, for all the violence taking place in northern Mexico, 

including Nuevo Laredo, the fact is that we have not seen that 

spillover violence into the United States, even from Juarez to El 

Paso. And, Mr. Carter, it is a major, major mandate of CBP to see 

that that does not happen. Working with DOJ [the Department of 

Justice] and with local law enforcement, we need to make clear to 

the cartels, particularly in the wake of the killing of a law enforcement agent in Mexico, that we will not tolerate the widespread violence coming over from Mexico into our country, and we will not 

tolerate the killing of American law enforcement officers. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, my time is up. But I assure you the State of 

Texas stands ready, willing, and able to assist you in any way you 

request. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
201 

Mr. BERSIN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Ms. Roybal-Allard. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND IMPORTATION: ILLEGAL IMPORTS

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome, Commissioner. As you are well aware, protecting 

American businesses and American workers from illegal imports is 

a key component of CBP’s mission. Unfortunately, the agency has 

been unable to prevent Chinese shippers from evading paying dues 

on many of their shipments into the United States. 

In November, Senate investigators posing as business owners 

easily found ten Chinese companies willing and able to sneak merchandise into the United States to avoid paying duties which have 

been imposed to protect more than 120 domestic companies and 

12,000 U.S. workers from unfairly traded imports. 

Also, steel industry investigators recently discovered a consignment of tubing bound for the Los Angeles market, used books, 

again to avoid detection of their required duties. 

This failure to address industrial smuggling, as you know, is 

costing American jobs and robbing our Treasury of much needed 

revenue. What is preventing CBP from doing a better job of addressing this threat posed by Chinese illegal imports? And what is 

it that you are doing to address this, and how can we be helpful? 

Mr. BERSIN. Ms. Roybal-Allard, I would say that of the many 

changes that the Secretary has instituted and that I am proud to 

be implementing, one of the largest has to do with reemphasizing 

the importance of our trade function at Customs and Border Protection; in addition to securing the flow of goods, we need to expedite the lawful movement of goods. And in fact we see that expediting of lawful traffic as being entirely consistent with and critical 

to raising our security profile. It is only by expediting the movement of the vast amount of lawful traffic that we can actually concentrate our attention on the very small amount of traffic that prevents risks of harm to our security. And we include in the definition of ‘‘security,’’ our economic prosperity and our economic competitiveness. 

So in fact we are revamping the relationship between our ports 

and the trade function at CBP to see to it that trade enforcement 

of Intellectual Property Rights, of various antidumping provisions, 

has a new emphasis in our activities, because we don’t see that as 

being antithetical to our security duties. 

And I think you will see over the coming weeks and months a 

focus on such industries as the textiles. As you see a focus on the 

evasion and the defrauding on the basis of NAFTA [North Atlantic 

Free Trade Agreement] distinctions, I think you will see increased 

attention both from CBP and from ICE to Intellectual Property 

Rights enforcement. These are important objectives of the Secretary and ones that we see as completely consistent with our mission of keeping dangerous people and dangerous things out of the 

United States. 

PORTS OF ENTRY: NEED FOR IMPROVED SECURITY

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Which brings me to my second question. 

The National Immigration Forum and the Texas Border Coalition 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
202 

have found that while billions of dollars have been spent between 

ports of entry, such as the vast expansive desert along the southwest border, by comparison DHS has spent little to improve security at the ports of entry. 

According to a white paper by the Texas Border Coalition, the 

probability of a person being apprehended for criminal activity between ports of entry is 70 percent, and only 30 percent at the ports 

of entry where the bulk of criminal activity occurs. 

This is a vulnerability, as has been discussed earlier, that Mexican drug cartels have exploited. And according to the 2010 National Drug Threat Assessment, more than 90 percent of hard 

drugs smuggled into the U.S. in 2009 actually came through our 

border ports. 

In addition, according to the Border Trade Alliance, which is a 

network of leaders and business and government, insufficient staffing at border crossings is creating bottlenecks that seriously impede the flow of commerce vital to the economy of both countries. 

While I am pleased that your fiscal year 2012 budget request includes additional funding to meet this need, it falls far short of 

what is needed to combat drug cartels and facilitate the flow of 

goods and people through our busy border ports of entry. 

I understand that earlier you spoke of efforts and of success 

along a specific corridor in Arizona on the Southwest border, and 

I applaud your efforts in that area. However, given the reports that 

I referenced, can you please tell us what strategies you have to address the threats at the ports of entry? And wouldn’t our country 

be better served if our resources were directed towards these areas 

that appear to be the main ports of illegal activity? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Ms. Roybal-Allard, your time is expired. But go 

ahead and answer this question briefly. And then we will go on. 

But go ahead. 

Mr. BERSIN. The issue is not a zero-sum game. And you are exactly right; we need to see the border not as divided irrevocably between the ports and at the ports, we have to see it as a continuous 

border. And we do see it that way at CBP. 

So in fact, as you noted, the budget asked for 300 additional 

CBPOs that are necessary to staff the new ports of entry on the 

Southwest border. We have also received 250 more CBPOs in the 

Southwest supplemental bill, in the 2012 budget actually made a 

part of the base budget. But over time we do need to address that 

issue. There is no question. 

In fiscal year 2004, there were 17,689 CBPOs and there were 

10,819 Border Patrol officers. In fiscal year 2011, there were 20,370 

Border Patrol agents and 20,777 CBPOs. So while we have seen 

growth in CBPOs, we have seen much greater rates of growth in 

the Border Patrol. 

We are conscious of the issue you raise, but we see it as a continuum and believe that we can continue to grow CBPOs in a way 

that will address more effectively the issues you raise. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Latham. 

BORDER SECURITY: BORDER SEARCH AUTHORITY

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
203 

Welcome, Commissioner. I have heard from different people inside the Department and outside the Department on the issue of 

contraband coming into this country, whether drugs, whatever it 

may be, that maybe we are not using the kind of authority we already have. I am talking about the border search authority. There 

has been a change in the way the authority is used according to 

some. If you would just tell us what your policy is, and whether 

search authority is being utilized in the way it should be. 

Mr. BERSIN. Mr. Latham, I can speak as a former prosecutor, 

and assure you that there is no place in the American landscape 

where American law enforcement has greater powers of search 

without any reasonable suspicion or any probable cause but, rather, as a matter of protecting the American Homeland at the physical ports of entry. Those authorities are fully in use, in fact are 

even in greater use with regard to matters of questioning. 

So, for example, in the wake of the assassination of Agent Jaime 

Zapata in San Luis Potosi, we exercise those authorities to the fullest, to question and hold in secondary anybody with the remotest 

link to the Zeta group believed to be responsible for the murder of 

Agent Zapata. 

So I want to assure you as a prosecutor, also as the head of CBP, 

that we understand our authorities. We understand that they need 

to be used responsibly, but they also need to be used fully, and 

they are being used to the fullest extent consistent with our tactical objectives. 

Mr. LATHAM. I don’t understand why we keep hearing reports 

that it is not being used as it should be, or as widely. Are there 

any other agencies that you give that authority to? 

Mr. BERSIN. When people are cross-designated from ICE or in 

fact from one of the DOJ agencies or in fact, as Mr. Carter suggested, when local law enforcement is part of the task on the outbound, if they are cross-designated they are actually empowered 

with the same authorities of search to the fullest extent permitted 

at the border, which is the widest permitted under American law 

and jurisprudence. 

So I think what would be helpful is when you are told that a border authority is not being used, it is good to get the case; and I 

would be happy to respond to the case, because I am a very firm 

believer in the exercise of our authority at the border, responsibly, 

but also fully. 

Mr. LATHAM. So how does the contraband come in? 

Mr. BERSIN. Those authorities are not exercised on every car that 

comes in across the United States border. We have 270,000 vehicles 

coming into the United States every day from the northern border 

and the southern border, and what we use are risk management, 

the experience and skill and knowledge of our officers, which is not 

perfect. But the alternative is not one that the Congress has ever 

commended to us, which is to open up every trunk and subject 

every car to an X-Ray, which would bring trade and travel into the 

United States, so critical to our economy, to a halt. 

But you are right, there is a decision that can be made. I submit 

to you, sir, that we want to use our powers to the fullest, but we 

want to use those powers where we have good reason to believe 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
204 

that they will provide us with a secure result and not represent an 

undue burden on lawful trade and traffic. 

Mr. LATHAM. Do we have any idea what percentage of the 

amount of, say, drugs are being caught at the border? 

Mr. BERSIN. Mr. Latham, I have been involved in border-related 

activities for 20 years, and I have heard a whole range of estimates. And rather than provide one, all of which are, at best, educated guesses, I would just as soon share my personal view, not an 

official view, off line. I can’t state it with any official imprimatur 

and would hesitate to do that and thereby mislead people that 

there is some more certainty to it because of the position I occupy. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND IMPORTATION: BORDER INSPECTIONS

Mr. LATHAM. Ms. Roybal-Allard was talking about trade. A lot of 

the companies in the U.S. have teamed up in a partnership like the 

Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism and importer selfassessment programs, but they still seem to have significant 

delays. Apparently, there are 47 different agencies involved in 

some way in border inspections. Are the programs working as they 

should? 

Mr. BERSIN. Sir, there are now more than 10,000 companies that 

are part of the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. As 

I indicated in response to Ms. Roybal-Allard’s question, one of our 

major objectives consistent with maintaining a high level of security and increasing security levels is to restructure the relationship 

with the trade and provide a more expedited passage for those 

members of the trade community who are trusted shippers, who 

have engaged in the ISA [Importer Self-Assessment Program], who 

have engaged in the supply chain security matters. 

And I think if you consult with the trade associations, you will 

see, both in the air cargo area, where we have partnered on the security measure having to do with freight, so too in terms of this 

idea of what benefits can we provide to the trusted shippers, to the 

trusted importers, to the trusted customs programs. And we are 

working with the private sector to enhance those benefits and to 

work with our partner government agencies. 

While there are 47 agencies for which we serve as the executive 

agent and we take action at the border on their behalf, seven agencies, including EPA [the Environmental Protection Agency], FDA 

[the Food and Drug Administration] notably, Agriculture, the Highway Safety Transportation, are the main agencies for which we 

work, and that is where the ACE [Automated Commercial Environment] program is critical. And I look forward to discussing with the 

committee the work we are doing with ACE that is critical to the 

issue you raise. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Let me yield now to Mr. Dent. I understand you 

have a quick question for clarification. 

CARGO SECURITY: CBP AND TSA RESPONSIBILITIES

Mr. DENT. Commissioner Bersin, just quickly. Could you please 

clarify for the record the respective roles of CBP and TSA with regard to screening and inspecting international air cargo? 

It is my understanding that CBP inspects arriving cargo at ports 

of entry under its customs authority, but that TSA inspects and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
205 

screens U.S.-bound cargo overseas and departing the U.S. because 

of its aviation security responsibilities. And it is the only agency 

empowered to carry out such screening overseas. Can you clarify 

that? 

Mr. BERSIN. Yes. That is generally correct in terms of where the 

physical inspections take place, although TSA relies on certified 

screeners in many cases abroad. But we are involved very heavily 

in this work in partnership with TSA, because the targeting work 

that takes place is done through the National Targeting Center for 

Cargo in Herndon, Virginia. 

So, for example, when cargo is placed on a commercial airline or 

on an express carrier, there is a manifest filing that is processed 

by CBP officers in Herndon, Virginia. We are partnering with TSA, 

so there are TSA officers. 

Mr. DENT. You are talking about the cargo manifest, not the passengers’ manifests? 

Mr. BERSIN. We analyze the passenger manifest as well at 

the National Targeting Center for Passengers. But for cargo, we colocate with TSA so that the targeting is being done by CBP at the 

NTC-C. But the actual screening, you are correct, is being done by 

either TSA personnel or TSA-certified screeners. 

CUSTOMS FEE ADJUSTMENT

Mr. DENT. Thank you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Let me turn now just briefly—and I know we 

have very limited time, and I want to get to a couple more just for 

a second round. But as you know, Commissioner, it has been difficult in getting the customs fee changes enacted in the past. And 

of course it is out of this Committee’s jurisdiction. But how will 

CBP make up that $55 million fee revenue difference if the legislation is not enacted as we had discussed earlier? 

Mr. BERSIN. Mr. Chairman, this is part of a larger issue and 

challenge that faces CBP. So, for example, 37 percent of our 

CBPOs, 37 percent of the 20,186 officers are actually paid by user 

fees. So when we see a decline, which we have seen during the 

height of the recession—in 2009 we saw a decline in user fees of 

8 percent—we need to make up the difference and we do that in 

the appropriations. 

It is not a satisfactory situation, which is why we have asked for 

the help of the Congress in both repealing the exemptions from the 

COBRA [Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] fee to 

generate the $55 million in a period of constrained budget resources. 

But you are correct. If that relief is not there, we need then to 

turn to our appropriations. And we do it in a way consistent with 

the appropriations, but in a way that does not permit the predictability or, as Ms. Roybal-Allard’s question suggested, with the 

growth projectory that we have seen where there is an appropriation made in the case of the Border Patrol, and we have seen a 

steady growth. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Well, as we mentioned earlier, it is about truthin-budgeting. We need a responsible request from the Administration for operations, especially in light of the fact that we have a 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
206 

shortage of officers at major airports. And these are things that 

certainly we need to pay attention to. 

At this time, let me go ahead and recognize Mr. Price. 

CARGO SECURITY: CONTAINER SECURITY INITIATIVE

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Mr. Commissioner, I want to get into another of the 100 percent mandates you are dealing with from the 9/11 Act, this one 

having to do with the scanning of U.S.-bound cargo overseas. I will 

not have time to ask the full question and you won’t have time to 

fully answer it, so we will both no doubt make submissions for the 

record. 

But let me just flag this issue, because I think it is important 

and I think there is a certain ambiguity in your budget with respect to the 2–year intentions. 

I have made it abundantly clear that I share the Secretary’s 

skepticism that the 100 percent mandate is achievable, certainly 

within the 2012 time frame. She just said it is not going to work. 

And I believe it would probably take a prohibitive amount of resources to scan all cargo overseas at any near point in time. 

In any event, DHS has chosen a different path. I think you have 

made that quite clear. You are using a risk-based methodology, 

using advance information and intelligence to target the high-risk, 

highest risk maritime cargo for scanning overseas. 

Now, in light of this, I want to ask you to elaborate on your 

budget request and on the future, in particular, of the Secure 

Freight Initiative program, which, as you know, is the pilot program involving 100 percent scanning overseas, and the Container 

Security Initiative which involves dozens of ports overseas where 

the targeting methodology is being implemented and perfected. 

The earlier budget request that you made for 2011 seems to envision certainly the scaling down, if not the phasing out of the Secure 

Freight Initiative pilots in all places except Pakistan. Yet your 

2012 budget includes funding for two pilots to test the 100 percent 

screening mandate. In essence, as I read it, replicating the SFI 

model used in Pakistan in a different high-threat corridor likely on 

the Arabian peninsula. I do not understand the consistency of that 

request with the path the Department has chosen and with your 

earlier funding proposals. 

And then, also, we need to know what the future of CSI is. Is 

it really feasible to reduce the overseas physical presence of your 

officers in these ports where this is a very difficult thing to carry 

out? Is it really feasible to reduce that to the degree that you are 

suggesting? And in any event, what is the future of the CSI approach and the kind of pattern you anticipate for continuing and 

enhancing this kind of work overseas? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Commissioner, let me just say, we have that joint 

session. If you could just briefly maybe answer Mr. Price and then 

maybe submit the rest of your answer. I do want to let Mr. Carter 

get one question in before we go to the joint session. So if you will 

briefly answer that, and then we will go to Mr. Carter. 

Mr. BERSIN. Yes, sir. 

In a word, we should supplement the record, and we will, because these are very serious issues. And with regard to the Secure 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
207 

Freight Initiative (SFI), we think that the pilots have demonstrated that we should restrict the application of that model, 

which is basically getting X-Ray images taken abroad by foreign 

service nationals and transmitted to Virginia for analysis. We 

think that should be restricted to those relatively few countries 

where American officers would not be safe. So in fact, we do not 

have officers in Pakistan, and that is why we have maintained the 

SFI in that form there. 

The CSI [Container Security Initiative], frankly the changes 

there—which we need to elaborate—are fully consistent with the 

difference in circumstances between 2002 and today. So in fact in 

2002, we had no advanced data. We had no automated targeting 

capabilities. We had no NTC. We had no Do Not Load authority. 

We had a limited overseas presence. We had very few international 

relationships. That situation has completely changed 8 years later, 

9 years later. And the CSI program, still very critical, needs to 

evolve and is evolving, and this budget reflects that. 

But Mr. Chairman, if I may, we would like to supplement that. 

And Mr. Price, if possible, I would like to have an opportunity to 

go into much greater detail on what the new CSI looks like and 

how it is consistent with the goals that you have espoused and articulated. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
208 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 271 here 66893A.159
209 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 272 here 66893A.160
210 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Commissioner. 

Mr. Carter. 

BORDER SECURITY: STONEGARDEN GRANTS

Mr. CARTER. Thank you. 

We have a short time scheduled here. Operation Stonegarden 

grants are in your budget. How are they being utilized? Has there 

been any mention of that today? And is there anything that is preventing them from being utilized? 

Mr. BERSIN. No, sir. What we have done is channeled and funneled the Stonegarden grants, which were border related. We funneled them to the area of greatest impact and need, which is the 

southwest border. These funds permit local law enforcement, sheriff departments from Texas, police departments in California, to actually use their officers overtime in operations that are related to 

border security. 

The Secretary and I are great proponents of this program, and 

that program will continue and hopefully be strengthened over the 

years to come. 

Mr. CARTER. If there are ways to strengthen this program let us 

know what they are. 

Mr. BERSIN. Thank you. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Commissioner, for being here today. 

We look forward to working with you on these issues. And the 

meeting is adjourned. 

Mr. BERSIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
211 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 275 here 66893A.161
212 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 276 here 66893A.162
213 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 277 here 66893A.163
214 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 278 here 66893A.164
215 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 279 here 66893A.165
216 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 280 here 66893A.166
217 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 281 here 66893A.167
218 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 282 here 66893A.168
219 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 283 here 66893A.169
220 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 284 here 66893A.170
221 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 285 here 66893A.171
222 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 286 here 66893A.172
223 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 287 here 66893A.173
224 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 288 here 66893A.174
225 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 289 here 66893A.175
226 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 290 here 66893A.176
227 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 291 here 66893A.177
228 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 292 here 66893A.178
229 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 293 here 66893A.179
230 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 294 here 66893A.180
231 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 295 here 66893A.181
232 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 296 here 66893A.182
233 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 297 here 66893A.183
234 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 298 here 66893A.184
235 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 299 here 66893A.185
236 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 300 here 66893A.186
237 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 301 here 66893A.187
238 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 302 here 66893A.188
239 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 303 here 66893A.189
240 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 304 here 66893A.190
241 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 305 here 66893A.191
242 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 306 here 66893A.192
243 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 307 here 66893A.193
244 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 308 here 66893A.194
245 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 309 here 66893A.195
246 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 310 here 66893A.196
247 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 311 here 66893A.197
248 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 312 here 66893A.198
249 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 313 here 66893A.199
250 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 314 here 66893A.200
251 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 315 here 66893A.201
252 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 316 here 66893A.202
253 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 317 here 66893A.203
254 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 318 here 66893A.204
255 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 319 here 66893A.205
256 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 320 here 66893A.206
257 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 321 here 66893A.207
258 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 322 here 66893A.208
259 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 323 here 66893A.209
260 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 324 here 66893A.210
261 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 325 here 66893A.211
262 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 326 here 66893A.212
263 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 327 here 66893A.213
264 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 328 here 66893A.214
265 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 329 here 66893A.215
266 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 330 here 66893A.216
267 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 331 here 66893A.217
268 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 332 here 66893A.218
269 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 333 here 66893A.219
270 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 334 here 66893A.220
271 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 335 here 66893A.221
272 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 336 here 66893A.222
273 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 337 here 66893A.223
274 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 338 here 66893A.224
275 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 339 here 66893A.225
276 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 340 here 66893A.226
(277) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2011. 

U.S. COAST GUARD 

WITNESS 

ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP, JR., COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST GUARD 

OPENING STATEMENT: CHAIRMAN ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. The Subcommittee will come to order. And today 

we welcome Admiral Papp, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, 

to what makes his first appearance before the Subcommittee. Admiral, while I think it is safe to say that you would rather be on 

the sea, we thank you for being here and we look forward to your 

testimony on the Coast Guard’s fiscal year 2012 budget request. 

The Coast Guard is currently in the midst of one of the most 

challenging periods in its 200-year history. On the one hand, the 

Coast Guard has laudably responded to unprecedented operational 

challenges such as the horrific Haitian earthquake and the prolonged BP oil spill. At the same time, the agency is showing real 

signs of stress and fatigue, to include a troubling increase in preventible but fatal accidents, higher maintenance costs, more frequent mechanical casualties aboard aging cutters and aircraft, and 

proposals to significantly scale back operational capabilities, active 

duty military personnel, and critical acquisitions. 

In the wake of these challenges I believe the Coast Guard now 

finds itself at a tipping point between fulfilling its statutory missions and the realities of our Nation’s fiscal crisis. 

In fact, during last month’s State of the Coast Guard Address 

you stated: Quote, ‘‘We may need to reduce the number and range 

of capabilities we have added since 9/11 until properly resourced, 

and this will be acceptable.’’ 

Admiral, this statement is disturbing on many levels. It is a 

stark admission that your budget does not sufficiently address your 

mission needs. And perhaps most troubling, it appears as though 

you are limiting the area of your budget that you are examining 

for contraction to only post-9/11 security capabilities. These are 

concerns that we must candidly discuss here today. 

This brings us to your fiscal year 2012 budget request. Upon first 

glance this budget proposal appears fairly robust and balanced, but 

on closer examination there are requests in this budget that will 

significantly impact current operations and Coast Guard features. 

First, despite your assertions that the Coast Guard must reconsider its mission priorities, your budget and its 5-year projection 

continues to support a mission needs assessment that was last updated in 2004. 

Second, your budget proposes more than $140 million in so-called 

efficiencies, administrative savings, and support reductions that 

are not clearly defined. Considering the fact that the Coast Guard 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
278 

claimed just last month that it needed a budget adjustment of $107 

million for operations just to make ends meet and complete the 

current year, we need the details behind these seemingly arbitrary 

reductions. 

Third, the Office of Management and Budget is delaying the fifth 

National Security Cutter by forcing you to fund closeout activities 

before you can award a contract for the cutter production this year. 

As a result of requesting funds for activities that will not occur for 

several years, an even greater strain will be placed upon your antiquated High Endurance Cutters and the cost and schedule of the 

National Security Cutter will grow. 

And finally, you budget proposes to decommission one of the two 

heavy icebreakers and further study the needs for polar capabilities 

rather than confront the budget realities of what are known mission needs. 

Admiral, at a time when the threats facing our Nation are as 

grave as they have ever been and our deficit spending is out of control, the first thing we need is truth in budgeting that gets our security priorities right. So the immediate and long-term impact of 

your budget request and how it supports our mission requirements 

are what we need to better understand here in this hearing this 

afternoon. 

Admiral, we know that you have a tough job. That is precisely 

why we are relying on you to explain how this budget moves the 

Coast Guard forward and does so in a way that is fiscally responsible and appropriately justified. 

Before I turn to the Admiral for his statement, let me recognize 

the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Price, of this Subcommittee 

for any remarks he may wish to make. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
279 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1 here 66893P2.001
280 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2 here 66893P2.002
281 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 3 here 66893P2.003
282 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 4 here 66893P2.004
283 

OPENING STATEMENT: CHAIRMAN PRICE

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, welcome to the 

Subcommittee. You assumed the Commandant’s position just over 

8 months ago and we are pleased to welcome you here today for 

your first hearing, before us anyway, on the Coast Guard’s 2012 

budget request. 

Over the past year, the Coast Guard has operated in a number 

of challenging environments: From the earthquake in Haiti, where 

you assisted in both humanitarian efforts and port restoration, to 

the unprecedented Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and cleanup 

where over 3,000 of your personnel recovered more than 34 million 

gallons of oil-water mix and performed controlled burns to remove 

more than 11 million gallons of oil to protect our shorelines. Those 

were impressive feats, and I commend all of the men and women 

of the Coast Guard for your efforts. 

While there have been these high notes, the Coast Guard has 

also experienced some unfortunate events. Over the past 2 years 

the Coast Guard has had too many accidents. I know you agree. 

Accidents that resulted in the tragic loss of 14 aviators and a Marine Safety and Security Team member. This accident rate is unprecedented, and I know you are working hard to rectify it. You 

have required aviation standdowns to review safety operations and 

have implemented recommendations from these assessments. We 

hope and pray that these efforts pay off and we can avoid these 

type of mishaps during the remainder of 2011 and through the next 

fiscal year. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
284 

In total, the administration is requesting $8.677 billion in discretionary resources for the Coast Guard in fiscal 2010. This level is 

about 2 percent, or $135.5 million, above the 2010 enacted level. I 

am pleased to note that this request does not include some elements with which this Subcommittee disagreed last year: Significant reductions in manpower, for example, or accelerated decommissioning of planes and ships without the timely acquisition of 

new ones to replace them. 

Admiral, your State of the Coast Guard Address of February 

10th gave advanced notice of key aspects of your 2012 budget request. You emphasized recapitalizing and building capacity as well 

as crisis response and management capabilities. You are requesting 

$1.4 billion to rebuild your aviation and cutter assets so that you 

can replace aging and unreliable assets. The budget also includes 

a substantial increase in shore facilities to accommodate these new 

assets as they come online. There is $22.2 million to hire new personnel to enhance your agency’s ability to prevent disasters in the 

Nation’s waters and respond to them when they occur. And the 

budget includes $39 million for the polar ice breaking program, an 

activity that was recently transferred from the National Science 

Foundation to the Coast Guard. 

At the same time the Coast Guard, like every Homeland Security 

agency, has been asked to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars and 

to find savings where possible. This budget includes approximately 

$130 million in savings from management efficiencies, administrative services, and the decommissioning of aging assets that will be 

replaced by 2012. 

I understand that these reductions will in no way jeopardize your 

ability to update your ships, planes, boats and shore facilities so 

the Coast Guard can continue to perform its mission unimpeded. 

We will count on you to let the Subcommittee know if this is not 

the case. 

We hold the men and women of the Coast Guard in the highest 

regard on this Subcommittee. To paraphrase your statement in the 

Coast Guard address: You protect citizens from the sea, you protect 

America from threats delivered by the sea, and you protect the sea 

itself. All are distinct missions yet interrelated and critically important. 

Our job here today and through the appropriations process is to 

ensure that your budget adequately resources the Coast Guard to 

fulfill these missions. At the same time it is important to note that 

no program or account is off limits to scrutiny. I know you share 

that point of view, Admiral, and I look forward to working with you 

again this year. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
285 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 348 here 66893A.227
286 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 349 here 66893A.228
287 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 350 here 66893A.229
288 

OPENING STATEMENT: ADMIRAL PAPP

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Price. Admiral Papp, we look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Admiral PAPP. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Price. Sir, you are absolutely right. I would rather be at 

sea, but I got about 14 years of my career where I was able to do 

that, and as an old sailor on a day like today when it is rainy and 

cold outside, I welcome the opportunity to be inside the room. But 

more than anything else, I am privileged to be here so that I can 

try to provide that support that the people who are currently sailing out there and protecting our shores desperately need. 

Over the past year Americans have seen the Coast Guard in action like never before: In January, responding to the devastating 

earthquake in Haiti and in April responding to the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and oil spill. These responses received a lot 

of attention and rightly so. But all the while, thousands of Coast 

Guard men and women were also performing our many other challenging and persistent maritime missions. 

This past week is typical. The Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service 

in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, which is on the St. Mary’s River in 

Michigan, or what local mariners call Sault Traffic, celebrated its 

115th year of operation. Last year, Sault Traffic helped 61,500 vessels to safely carry over 70 million tons of cargo with a value of 

over $3 billion. And our Coast Guard ice breakers are up there now 

enabling the flow of cargoes like iron ore and coal from the fields 

of Minnesota being shipped to the steel mills in Indiana and Ohio, 

cargo that is critical to American jobs and to our economy. 

Just last week as well, eight members of a Coast Guard Maritime Safety and Security Team from San Diego returned home 

from a 4-month deployment in the Gulf of Aden in support of our 

joint task force anti-piracy mission. The Coast Guard has been 

training boarding teams to board U.S. Navy ships and conducted 

three high-risk boardings of suspected pirate vessels. Also, last 

week in the Gulf of Mexico, Coast Guard air and cutter crews from 

Mobile, New Orleans, and Morgan City rescued oil workers from 

their platform when it caught fire and then monitored for pollution. 

The 39-year-old cutter Midget, actually the youngest of our High 

Endurance Cutters, returned from a counter-drug patrol in the 

eastern Pacific, where the patrol detected and intercepted a selfpropelled semi-submersible vessel disrupting 2 tons of cocaine and 

containing two suspected smugglers. 

In the Straits of Florida, the cutter Ocracoke repatriated 14 

Cuban migrants after they were interdicted along with two suspected smugglers from a small vessel just north of Cuba. And the 

cutters Bear and Kodiak Island rescued and interdicted 87 Cuban 

migrants who were bound for Miami and 6 brave lieutenants and 

their crews onboard. Six Coast Guard patrol boats in the northern 

Arabian Gulf continue to serve our country and provide for the security of the country of Iraq working for the Central Command. 

These missions protect U.S. national interests. They are missions 

that not only the Coast Guard has the authorities, competencies 

and capabilities to do, but no one else can do them. Our Homeland 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
289 

is safer and more secure because Coast Guard men and women 

perform them so ably. 

What concerns me is that our aging fleet of cutters and aircraft 

continue to cost us both in dollars and in mission performance. It 

is vital that we protect our waterways by sustaining frontline operations while continuing to recapitalize our fleet. 

So as you noted, I reported in my State of the Coast Guard Address our service is ready to meet mission demands, but we are facing many challenges. Our fiscal year 2012 budget request responds 

to these challenges. Given current fiscal realities, I have directed 

management efficiencies and targeted reductions in administrative 

costs and professional services totaling over $100 million. We will 

reinvest these savings in frontline operations. And my priorities for 

this budget are: first, to sustain our frontline operations; second, to 

rebuild the Coast Guard; third, to enhance maritime incident prevention and response; and then last, to support our military families. 

Now, in sustaining our frontline operations, the fiscal year 2012 

budget requests roughly $200 million over either the President’s request for 2011 or the continuing resolution. It funds the military 

pay raise and increases in other benefits, which enable our service 

to continue to maintain and attract highly competent people. It also 

provides operating funds for the new National Security Cutter, new 

patrol boats, new response boats, new maritime patrol aircraft, and 

support for our obsolete polar ice breakers. And it increases depotlevel funding to sustain our aging fleet of ships and aircraft. 

In terms of rebuilding the Coast Guard, my second priority, we 

are requesting over $1.4 billion for our ongoing recapitalization effort, an effort that has already begun to show operational impact. 

As an example, during her first patrol, the National Security 

Cutter Bertholf interdicted 12,500 kilograms of cocaine with a 

street value of nearly $400 million and detained nine suspected 

drug smugglers. Last week, one of our new Maritime Patrol Aircraft, the Ocean Sentry, was instrumental in disrupting two drug 

smuggling events in the Strait of Florida and then diverted to assist a vessel that was taking on water, all in a single patrol, and 

was able to do that because it has twice the duration of flight over 

the aircraft that it is replacing and carries a modern sensor package. 

New assets like the National Security Cutter and the Maritime 

Patrol Aircraft enhance our ability to keep drugs from reaching our 

shores and literally save lives. 

In terms of enhancing maritime incident prevention and response, it is vital that we ensure the safe and efficient flow of maritime commerce, protect our national resources, and effectively manage incidents when they occur. The 2012 budget does this by improving the capacity and competency of our work force. $10.7 million is allocated for the hiring of additional marine inspectors, investigators, and fishing vessel safety examiners, and $11.5 million 

is provided to fund a new national Incident Management Assist 

Team (IMAT). The IMAT will assist in day-to-day missions and respond to large-scale events such as spills of national significance, 

hurricanes, or other disasters. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
290 

Then finally, supporting military families. You can’t have a 

strong military workforce without healthy families, and this budget 

puts us on track to receive needed housing construction monies and 

funds that will begin to close the child care gap that we find compared to the Department of Defense. 

In conclusion, for over 220 years the Coast Guard has provided 

for the safety and security of American citizens and our ports and 

waterways. As the lead maritime component of the Department of 

Homeland Security, the fiscal year 2012 budget will ensure that 

the Coast Guard is able to continue to perform our vital maritime 

missions. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to your questions, sir. 

[The statement of Admiral Papp follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
291 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 357 here 66893A.230
292 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 358 here 66893A.231
293 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 359 here 66893A.232
294 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 360 here 66893A.233
295 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 361 here 66893A.234
296 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 362 here 66893A.235
297 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 363 here 66893A.236
298 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 364 here 66893A.237
299 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 365 here 66893A.238
300 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 366 here 66893A.239
301 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 367 here 66893A.240
302 

FLEET MIX STUDY

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Admiral. You have been very frank 

about the reality of competing mission priorities in a world of increasingly limited resources. Yet as I noted in my opening remarks, 

your budget continues to support the mission needs assessment 

that was done back in 2004. My understanding is the Coast Guard 

has been working for years on an update as to that 2004 study 

known as the Fleet Mix Study, but has yet to submit it to Congress. 

Where is the Fleet Mix Study and when will it be submitted to 

Congress? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, sir, there is nobody that feels more strongly 

about getting the right tools out there to our people than I do. Over 

the last 6 years, 4 of those years have been spent on operational 

command assignments first in the Great Lakes and then responsibility for the entire Atlantic area and managing those very hard to 

maintain ships and watching the very hard working crews that 

struggle to maintain those old ships and keep them on station performing missions. So I am absolutely desperate to get the new 

ships out there. 

We continue to study this, we have conducted study after study, 

which seems to confirm the direction which we are going in, and 

we need to be about the business of building ships. 

The fleet mix analysis that you asked for is in review. We have 

completed the first portion of it, and it is with GAO [Government 

Accountability Office] right now. I can tell you that it does support 

the baseline approach that we are taking in terms of recapitalizing 

our fleet and indicates that the ships that we have already embarked upon building will perform better than those that are out 

there, but we understand that intuitively already. 

What we are in the process of right now is doing the second and 

third levels of that study, which impose cost constraints, and then 

also look at unconstrained environments and what the Coast 

Guard would need to fully perform our mission. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. When do you think that you will be able to submit a study to us here at the Congress? 

Admiral PAPP. As I said, sir, we have submitted it to GAO right 

now. It is continuing to be reviewed by the administration, and I 

am pushing as hard as I can to get it to you as soon as we can 

because it supports our needs. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So right now you are pretty much at their mercy 

at waiting to hear back from them? 

Admiral PAPP. I am working with the Secretary and the administration to get it to you as quickly as we can, sir, and I will redouble 

those efforts. 

SECURITY-RELATED MISSIONS: CUTBACKS

Mr. ADERHOLT. What security-related missions are you examining for either elimination or contraction? 

Admiral PAPP. Sir, I think some people who have listened to my 

speeches have mischaracterized what I am talking about. We have 

no intent to cut back on any of our security responsibilities, and I 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
303 

firmly believe in the need to do most of the things that we are 

doing out there. 

When I talk about cutting back on some of our activities, what 

I am talking about is looking at the full range of activities that we 

have asked some of our units to do. And if I could focus in just one 

area. We have Maritime Safety and Security Teams. They are 

roughly about 80 people who are tasked with providing fast response. We refer to them as sea-going SWAT teams. They are located, as you know, around the country, and they drive boats 

tactically. They have to be well-trained and proficient in small 

arms use. And the original intent was to have them provide fixed 

and moving security zones around events of national significance 

and provide extra capacity in ports when security warrants it. 

Because of our general can-do attitude in the Coast Guard, we 

have looked for other things for them to do as well. And what we 

have done is we have added additional activities that they have to 

become qualified to do, in some cases, things that people haven’t 

even asked us to do, but because we are imaginative, enthusiastic, 

dedicated and hard working, we try to train those people up to do 

those activities. 

What I want to do now is look at the broad range of activities 

that we have asked these units to do, and then determine exactly 

what are the most important activities we ought to do that get the 

most bang for the buck for security in our ports, and then train 

these units to become absolutely proficient in those activities. It 

may require us to drop a couple of things. 

For instance, one of the things we are doing right now is training 

those Maritime Safety and Security Teams to do opposed 

boardings, which is another level of expertise—for these people to 

be able to go on ships where you have armed people and, perhaps, 

opposing them as they try to board. I don’t believe these teams 

were ever intended for that specific purpose, but if that is needed, 

then we need to provide the proper resources, the proper training 

programs. And, in fact, the one Coast Guardsman who was lost 

that, Mr. Price mentioned, was involved in a training exercise for 

that specific competency. And we are giving not only that case a 

thorough review, but I have also taken one of my admirals, Admiral Paul Zukunft, and he is in charge of undertaking a stem-tostern review, which is looking at all of our deployable specialized 

forces and making a determination on what are the most important 

things for them to be doing and then making sure they are doing 

it absolutely right and in a safe and effective manner. 

ACQUISITION PROGRAM

Mr. ADERHOLT. The fiscal year 2012 budget notably proposes a 

new budget structure to reflect the acquisition reform efforts the 

Coast Guard has undertaken over the past few years post Deepwater. However, this new budget structure does not help Congress 

understand the scope, schedule, and cost of the Coast Guard’s recapitalization since acquisitions are no longer framed under one 

umbrella. 

What is the impact of the dissolution of Deepwater on the 

planned recapitalization efforts in terms of acquisitions and their 

associated costs? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
304 

Admiral PAPP. Mr. Chairman, I think it should actually assist 

the Subcommittee in having greater granularity on how we are 

conducting this project. I am extremely proud of the improvements 

and the progress that our acquisition program has made. I was involved with then Rear Admiral Currier, who is now our Chief of 

Staff of the Coast Guard, 4 years ago when I was Chief of Staff of 

the Coast Guard, working with Admiral Allen, to reform our acquisition programs, and we have come a long way. 

Parts of that is disassociating ourselves with a lead systems integrator in the Deepwater project where all of these things were 

lumped together and it was very difficult to disaggregate and identify exact costs for each one of the projects that was contained 

within. In other words, you did not know necessarily exactly how 

much one of the national security cutters was costing as opposed 

to a fast response cutter or a patrol boat replacement or some of 

the aircraft in there. Proper acquisition execution requires that you 

disaggregate all of these projects, establish acquisition project baselines for each one of them, set schedules, come up with predictable 

funding streams, and then execute on a stable program. 

The National Security Cutter, I think, is the one that I am most 

proud of, and we have worked very hard over the last couple of 

years to come up with now a fixed price contract, handling that 

separately with the Coast Guard dealing directly with Northrop 

Grumman to build the ships. We have come up with a fair price 

for that ship now. It is a little more expensive than we thought 

under the original project, but we can confirm and we can validate 

what these costs are because we are looking at them independently. Each one of our projects in the former Deepwater project can 

be looked at in that manner now, and it will enable me to better 

inform you in your oversight role as we go forward over the next 

couple of years. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Under this new organization, how will you manage and measure the Coast Guard’s progress of recapitalization? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, we have acquisition project baselines where 

we have predicted individual projects, whether it is the national security cutter or the fast response cutter or our aircraft, and what 

years we intend to buy them. Of course, that gets revised almost 

every year depending upon the limits of the acquisition funding 

within our budget. 

This year you made note of the fact that there was a delay in 

awarding National Security Cutter No. 5. We were backed into that 

situation because, as we took the time to properly negotiate a fixed 

price contract before we awarded National Security Cutter No. 4, 

we were dealing with presumptions upon what we would need in 

the outyear budgets in order to pay for the next in that series of 

ships. They came in a little bit more than what we expected and 

now we are having to, in the fiscal year 2012 budget, for instance, 

ask for $77 million more to complete NSC [National Security Cutter] No. 5 before we can award it. And because of that, and the requirement, as you noted, to put the full price of any subsequent 

ships in a single-year budget, we decided to alter some of the other 

baseline acquisitions in that project: the fast response cutter, our 

patrol boat replacement, for instance. We can move some of those 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
305 

into fiscal year 2012 and perhaps buy out that program a little 

more quickly to make room in our budget in the outyears. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. All right. I think my time has elapsed. Mr. 

Price. 

COAST GUARD MISSIONS

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, let me pick up 

on the line of questioning the Chairman was originally pursuing. 

We all have referenced your State of the Coast Guard Address, a 

good address which received more than the usual attention. You 

have issued a caveat here today that you are not interested in unilaterally or summarily redefining the Coast Guard’s mission. We 

understand that. But at the same time I think that address, many 

of those points, were well taken. And certainly the overall assertion 

that the mission needs to be defined very clearly and perhaps in 

key aspects reconsidered, it seems to me those were serious points 

that deserve to be followed up on. 

You have historical responsibilities, search and rescue, fisheries 

enforcement, drug interdiction, marine environmental protection. 

You have some post-September 11th missions, or at least that is 

mainly when they have come to the fore, maritime and port security operations, inspecting high-interest vessels, providing escorts 

for certainly military vessels. And at the same time you have some 

responsibilities that are changing before our eyes and that continue 

to be underdeveloped, particularly in light of these changes. The 

one that most obviously comes to mind is your role in the Arctic 

as the ice recedes. This Subcommittee reviewed Arctic operations 

in Alaska last year, and Admiral Colvin spoke very passionately 

and persuasively about this changing and challenging mission. 

So I want to ask you three interrelated questions. First, can you 

be more specific? You have offered one illustration here today, you 

might offer a little more elaboration about what you were referring 

to in your speech. What do you believe the core missions are? What 

is dispensable? What areas do you think the Coast Guard should 

not be asked to work in? And honestly, are there gray areas? Are 

there areas that really deserve further deliberation and debate? 

They are going to need to be performed possibly by someone somewhere in our military or Federal establishment and yet there is 

some uncertainty about where the responsibility should lie. 

Secondly, specifically, about these post–9/11 responsibilities, 

what is your assessment of the Coast Guard’s capability and your 

assessment of what the mission going forward should look like 

there? And if there is to be a lessening or shifting of responsibility, 

who, if anyone, should pick it up? 

And then finally, to what extent is this hard look that you are 

talking about reflected in your 2012 budget request? To what extent have you been able to already act on some of your convictions 

here, and to what extent is this a work in progress? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, sir, in terms of balancing the missions, and 

one of the questions I always get particularly as a result of some 

of the times I speak and the State of the Coast Guard speeches 

(‘‘What missions are you going to cut?’’) I cannot cut any missions. 

All of our 11 mission areas are statutorily mandated missions that 

we perform. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
306 

And as I stated in the State of the Coast Guard speech, we have 

a requirement to perform those. But we can’t perform all 11 statutory missions 100 percent any given day. The Administration, the 

Congress, and the taxpayers through the Congress, give us a finite 

set of resources to use and then our operational commanders have 

to apply them. And that is what I have been doing most of my career as an operator, and in particular the last 2 years before coming here as the Atlantic area commander. I was given only so many 

ships, so many people and so many aircraft to carry out the mission. And, on any given day—some of the persistent missions out 

there, as you know: search and rescue, migrant interdiction, marine environmental response, drug interdiction—you cannot do all 

of those things every day. As an operational commander, you use 

your staff, you develop priorities, you see where the risks and the 

threats are from based on intelligence, and then you assign those 

resources. 

The Haitian earthquake is just a perfect example of what I am 

talking about. We had cutters that were under way in the Caribbean, in the Florida straits, and in the Windward Pass either doing 

migrant interdiction, drug interdiction, or other duties down there, 

and those were the priorities for that given day, the day before the 

earthquake. When the earthquake occurred in Haiti, there was a 

national need for us to provide humanitarian response to those unfortunate people in Haiti. 

So literally overnight we took our finite number of cutters, cutters that were deployed on other missions, and repositioned them 

to Haiti. And, in fact, the next morning, the morning after the 

earthquake, we had two Coast Guard cutters steam in there, immediately start doing reconnaissance by surveying the damage and 

sending medical teams ashore. It demonstrates the great 

versatility, adaptability, and flexibility that comes with a Coast 

Guard resource. We can move it from one mission to another. 

But taking cognizance of the fact that when I did that—when I 

directed those ships to go to Haiti, I was going to take a short-term 

deficit in drug interdiction and in migrant interdiction and some of 

the other duties that we do. But it was a national priority. We responded to it. We do not have Haitian earthquake cutters sitting 

out there. What we have is multi-mission cutters, ships and people 

that can respond to events like that. 

So that is the type of decisions that our operational commanders 

are confronted with on a daily basis out there. Would we like to 

have the resources to do 100 percent in every mission area? Of 

course we would. But we are also citizens of the country and understand that we need to tighten our belts and understand that resources are constrained, and so we do the best we can and then 

identify the shortfalls in terms of mission accomplishment and do 

our best to get the support. And right now, as I said, the support 

is to try to replace some of those old ships and versatile aircraft 

that we have got out there. 

You asked about post–9/11. I gave you the example of the Maritime Safety and Security Teams. Perhaps one of the ones that I am 

even more passionate about is our aviation program within the 

Coast Guard. And I am passionate about that because, as you note, 

we have lost 14 aviators in 2 years. That is unacceptable. I have 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
307 

had to attend and speak at two memorial services just in the time 

that I have been Commandant. And I don’t want to speak at any 

more memorial services in my service. 

We have essentially the same numbers of aircraft—let’s say helicopters—we have the same numbers of helicopters and pilots that 

we did prior to 9/11. Yet we have added on additional missions. 

Prior to 9/11, almost all that our helicopters and pilots did was 

search and rescue. They trained very hard to go out in the middle 

of the night in the middle of storms and hover over broken-down 

ships and put swimmers in the water and rescue people from certain catastrophe and death. And we have the best pilots in the 

world doing that. 

But since 9/11, we have picked up additional responsibilities. We 

now do rotary wing air intercept (RWAI), which is a mission to 

intercept low slow aircraft that might have intent of doing a suicide 

mission on the Capitol or on the White House. We have airborne 

use of force, where we train our people to carry marksmen on the 

sides of helicopters and potentially shoot out outboard engines on 

small boats that might be coming to do us harm. We are doing 

vertical insertion, where we are taking assault Coast Guardsmen 

trained for assault who lower themselves out of helicopters on rope 

onto noncompliant vessels. 

All of these things place an added training burden upon our people, and they are not necessarily complementary skills for our pilots for the search and rescue mission. So right now, where we 

used to devote about 40 percent of our flight hours for training for 

search and rescue, we are devoting 60 percent of our flight hours 

for training for various missions that might not necessarily complement each other and, in my simple sailor’s estimation, dilutes 

the experience and proficiency level across those mission sets. 

No one asked us to do all those things. We took that on ourselves 

in many cases, and I think it is incumbent upon me as a leader 

who has lost people now to take a very serious look at all those 

things that we are doing and say perhaps we don’t need to be doing 

all of that. Perhaps there are other agencies that might do it better. Or if the Coast Guard is the best to do it and there is a need 

to do it, then I need to go forth to the Congress and the administration and say I need additional resources to do it. So that is where 

I am coming from on that aspect of post–9/11 duties. 

And then the hard look at, yes, the third question was the hard 

look at those missions and our security. I am convinced that we are 

doing our best to provide for the security of our country. On any 

given day if we are alerted to a threat through intelligence, which 

is where we get most of our stuff, we will redivert every force we 

have and put it on security operations, neglecting and taking the 

short-term downturn in other activities because that is what we do. 

We are a versatile, adaptable force that can move between those 

mission areas. And my operational commanders, we push that 

down as low as we can in the organization to make those decisions, 

to make sure that we are doing the highest priority mission on any 

given day for our country. 

Mr. PRICE. Let me simply commend you for your candor and for 

your willingness to take on these significant issues frontally. I hope 

and believe you will find on this Subcommittee, on a bipartisan 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
308 

basis, ready partners in going through this necessary exercise and 

putting our, not just our budget, but our national security on a 

firmer foundation in the future. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

OVERSEAS ACTIVITIES

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, one of 

your strongest advocates is my colleague from New Jersey, Frank 

LoBiondo, who, if you will pardon the expression, has felt that the 

Coast Guard gets the short end of the stick. And I have to say, 

with the things that you are doing today around the world. I worry 

that you are shunted off under the aegis of the Department of 

Homeland Security. I see you in another venue. I serve on the Defense Appropriations Committee, and I would like to have you explore with the committee your involvement with the Navy. 

You get funding through the Navy’s operations and maintenance 

accounts for what some call the ‘‘supplemental overseas contingency operations,’’ AKA, it used to be called the war on terror. Can 

you talk about how those dollars are spent and how you work with 

the Navy? 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir, thank you. I for one, just because you 

brought it up, I am a strong believer that we belong in the Department of Homeland Security. Not every one of our mission sets fits 

neatly or exactly and precisely, but nor did it in the Department 

of Transportation either. There is always some portion of our mission sets that is not an exact fit, but right now we are fit in with 

a bunch of other agencies that have—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Are you ever? 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. But let me tell you why. And people from 

time to time make the suggestion that perhaps we should be in the 

Department of Defense. I think that we would be so small in the 

Department of Defense that oftentimes we would get overlooked 

there as well. And I think there is a value to having an armed 

service that is not in the Department of Defense because we do 

have those law enforcement authorities that none of the other four 

services have. 

And having said that, as I described to Secretary Napolitano 

when I interviewed with her originally—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. With all due respect, I want to focus on 

your connection. I think it is good for you to advocate to be where 

you are. But I would like to know how you connect with the Navy. 

I think a lot of people are unaware of what your people are doing 

on the high seas. They may be aware of what you are doing in the 

Caribbean and intercepting drugs that are coming out of Colombia 

and other countries, but you are playing an integral role in the 

overseas theater. And I would like to know how you are sort of 

matching your assets, which are limited, in terms of surface vessels, but what are you doing over there that you could tell the committee that shows that we have a good substantial investment? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, Sir, to give you the down-in-the-weeds activities that we are actually involved in, as I mentioned during my 

opening comments, we have a patrol boat squadron over there. 

They [the patrol boats] have been over there nearly 8 years now, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
309 

six of our island class patrol boats commanded by lieutenants, and 

they are providing security operations for the oil platforms off the 

coast of Iraq and also doing engagement with the other emerging 

coast guards and navies within the Arabian Gulf, working under 

the Navy component commander and Central Command located in 

Bahrain. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Does the Coast Guard have a role in training some of those foreign navies? 

Admiral PAPP. Absolutely. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. To take on some of these obligations—and 

honestly maybe this is a mischaracterization—some of those navies 

wouldn’t be exactly what we would call the U.S. Navy. They would 

be, in terms of their size and capabilities, somewhat parallel to 

yours. 

Admiral PAPP. I can guarantee you, sir, that as I travel—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You are superior, of course. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir, absolutely. Almost every navy in the 

world—there is no other navy except for perhaps China, who is trying to build a large ocean-going navy, that is a peer competitor of 

our United States Navy. So most of the navies and coast guards 

around the world are actually more like the U.S. Coast Guard. 

They are concerned about piracy, drug smuggling, migrant smuggling, fisheries protection, and consequently we are in high demand 

around the world. In fact, we just got an inquiry this morning from 

the Indian Coast Guard that would like to open up some exchange 

with us because they have patterned themselves after us, and I 

have attended numerous international forums where I have spoken 

with the CNOs or heads of Coast Guards of other countries. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You are involved in joint exercises? Are you 

involved in providing some lead in terms of training? 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir, we have operations that we do in the Pacific where we deploy right now. Given the numbers of cutters that 

we still have, we are able to devote one ship per year to the European Command and Africa Command to do training with navies. 

In fact, we have been involved in the Africa Partnership Station, 

training the emerging navies of some of the smaller countries in 

Africa. 

We generally deploy one cutter out to the western Pacific to work 

with, for the United States Navy, but to train some of the smaller 

coast guards and navies and others. And we exchange with China, 

Japan, Russia, South Korea. We also have forums that we work in, 

the North Pacific Coast Guard Forum, for example. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am for those exchanges. I hope you are 

not doing any training of the Chinese. They are progressing without any support from us. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mrs. Lowey. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you, and I join my colleagues in thanking 

you for your service to our country, and congratulations to you. 

Admiral PAPP. Thank you, Ma’am. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
310 

SMALL VESSEL THREATS

Mrs. LOWEY. Pleasure to meet you today. You referenced small 

boats before, and in previous testimony before the subcommittee, 

Admiral Allen has stated that the top maritime threat we face was 

from small boats. [And in 2009, the Inspector General found that 

the Nation’s ports, waterways and—I am coughing and you are 

drinking water. That is a change.] 

In 2009, the Inspector General found that the Nation’s ports, waterways, and maritime borders remain vulnerable to small vessel 

threats. 

Given that, when terrorists attacked Mumbai, they did so using 

relatively small speedboats. If you could share with us the Coast 

Guard’s actions, activities to prevent similar entry from occurring 

in the United States, particularly in New York City, and what specific actions has the Coast Guard taken in light of that Inspector 

General report and what more can this subcommittee do to help? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, Ma’am, I caution to make too many connections with the Mumbai attack. I have studied that in detail. They 

[terrorists] used the conveyance of boats, but that was driven to a 

certain extent because of the people coming from Pakistan to India 

and the inability or the more difficult problems they would have in 

terms of transiting a land border there. It is interesting to study, 

and certainly something we need to be concerned about, but the 

type of attack that was carried out could be done in numerous 

ways; it just happened to be landed by sea in this particular case. 

Mrs. LOWEY. However, didn’t the Inspector General make a 

statement, I believe it was 2009, that our ports, waterways, maritime borders remain vulnerable to small vessel threats? I am glad 

that after study that you don’t think that is the case. 

Admiral PAPP. No, I didn’t say that wasn’t the case. I said in the 

Mumbai attack that we can’t draw a direct conclusion that that 

type of attack would occur only by small boat. It could, and I agree 

with the Inspector General’s report that in fact our waterways are 

vulnerable. One of the challenges that we have is with the roughly 

14 million registered recreational boaters out there. It is very difficult to monitor all these things. 

So we do it to a large extent on the basis of intelligence, watching trends and analyzing and following up on any leads that we 

have. One of the best things we can do is simply presence on the 

water. In that regard, we have, besides the Maritime Safety and 

Security Teams, which are there for surge efforts—Many of our stations, particularly in New York City, have grown over the last 10 

years since 9/11. We have gone from about 45 people at Station 

New York to 90 people right now and increased commensurately 

the number of boats there as well for our Coast Guard people. 

But also knowing that we can’t do it all on our own, our Sector 

New York Commander works through the Area Maritime Security 

Committee, which brings in the city officials, Ray Kelly’s folks, the 

New York City police, their maritime units, county officials and industry as well, to make sure that everybody is aware, everybody 

is looking, they share information, and they follow up on leads and 

inform each other. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
311 

Then we also have our Coast Guard Auxiliary that is out there 

on a regular basis raising awareness in the ports, speaking to recreational boaters out there and encouraging them to report things 

that look out of the ordinary. So we are working on many prongs 

out there to try to increase security. A lot of it is just having presence, knowing the area, knowing the people who should be there 

and who looks strange. 

In fact, in the Mumbai attack, there was an Indian Coast Guard 

boat that went through the area, and in the interviews afterward, 

they had questions in their mind but did not follow up on those and 

do a boarding and investigate, which might have thwarted the attack. So having people presence on the water, people who understand the operation area, who are familiar with it, and know who 

is supposed to be there or not takes us a long way toward providing 

that security and awareness. 

SECURITY OF FRIENDLY PORTS

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you very much. 

As events continue to unravel throughout the Middle East, there 

is potential for a serious disruption of our efforts in the region. Has 

any of the unrest to date affected or modified your mission in the 

Persian Gulf? And what would the impact for your personnel be if 

friendly ports such as in Bahrain were suddenly with little warning 

unavailable to Coast Guard vessels? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, we work for the Navy in Bahrain, and I 

know having been over there twice myself, as the Atlantic Area 

Commander—I went to Bahrain and Kuwait and Iraq twice and 

spoke with the Navy commanders up there—we have contingency 

plans on where boats could go to. Bahrain is actually fairly secure 

even though there has been some noise there recently. We have 

monitored the situation. We were concerned about the security. 

There were a few riots, but that all seems to be under control. 

Force protection efforts were put in place, and we are confident 

that our people are taken care of. 

We do also have Kuwait, where we can move our boats to. In 

fact, our boats oftentimes, because Kuwait is on the way to the 

Iraqi terminals, pull in there for logistics and supply. We also have 

a port security unit in Kuwait, a team of about 110 people that provide security for the military onloads and offloads that occur in the 

Port of Ash Shuaybah. So I am confident that my Atlantic Area 

Commander, Vice Admiral Parker, he has been over there recently 

as well—We are confident with the security considerations and precautions that have been taken, and I think we are in good shape 

for now. 

RAILROAD BRIDGE PROJECT

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a question 

that is of great importance in the Midwest, in Iowa. Your St. Louis 

District is overseeing a railroad bridge project in Clinton, Iowa, and 

I would like to know what you can provide me with regard to the 

way in which they intend to balance the needs of water navigation 

and rail transportation. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
312 

More specifically, I am told that the Union Pacific Railroad has 

a plan to build the bridge structure with its own private resources, 

and they factored in a 300–foot span, maybe a little more than 

that, with the doubling of the current clearance. I am also told that 

the Coast Guard may want the bridge span lengthened to as much 

as 450 feet. My concern is that from the UP’s standpoint the requirements could get to the point where they may just wait until 

the Federal Government pays for it rather than the private sector. 

If you could tell me about your evaluation process—and you may 

have to do this for the record, I understand—and what Coast 

Guard will go through to ensure that the new bridge requirements 

don’t unnecessarily tip the expenses to the point where the private 

investment would withdraw. Since the proposed project right now 

is fully funded with private sector money, it will generate a lot of 

jobs right in that area; I would just like to know how quickly you 

can get approval, and maybe accelerate the approval process for 

the project. 

Admiral PAPP. Thanks, Mr. Latham, and I am sorry I don’t have 

the level of detail and granularity that you might expect of me, and 

we will provide that for the record. But in a general response, I 

think that one of the many strengths of the Coast Guard is the fact 

that we act as an honest broker between the needs of the mariner 

and the needs of commerce, and we try to balance those things. 

Sometimes it is difficult, sometimes you are not going to please 

both parties. We do the best we can. Ultimately we are concerned 

about the safety of navigation on the waterway, but we fully comprehend and understand that commerce has to flow through there 

as well and those are oftentimes understandably competing priorities. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
313 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 393 here 66893A.241
314 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 394 here 66893A.242
315 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 395 here 66893A.243
316 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Well, it is obviously very, very important. 

And I just, you know, make sure that you keep your balance and 

that you are not just an ancient mariner, you are a gold ancient 

mariner. 

Thank you. That is all I have. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Crenshaw. 

INTERAGENCY COOPERATION

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You talked a little bit 

about efficiency, being more effective, and that is kind of the buzz 

word around this place. Everybody doing more with less. And it is 

encouraging to hear that. One of the things that I know a little bit 

about in my district in northeast Florida, Jacksonville, there is a 

seaport, and the Coast Guard works with the border and customs 

folks. They call it JMAST. I don’t know exactly what that stands 

for, but basically they are working together in a very efficient way. 

It seems like it ought to be a model of how two agencies under the 

same department can work together in an efficiency and effective 

way. 

And I am told that the one thing they need, the next step so to 

speak, is to be collocated together. They are kind of spread out. 

They are still working together as best they can. But if they were 

collocated then it would be even more efficient. 

And so I wanted to ask you if you are aware of that situation, 

what are you doing to assist them. I don’t know, that was something I was going to ask the Secretary when she was here, I didn’t 

have a chance, but somehow talking to her about how to coordinate 

this move and make it even more effective. 

And then the second question is just that kind of interagency cooperation brings to mind other areas that maybe—I don’t know if 

aviation, somewhere, that you might work together with border 

folks. So if you could talk a little bit about that. Number one, how 

is that going, that JMAST program? Is that moving ahead? Are 

they finding a place? And number two, talk about how that might 

be a model for other areas of cooperation. 

Admiral PAPP. Well, sir, that falls in line with exactly what I 

have been talking about: first of all, identifying those things that 

the Coast Guard can do, must do, do them well, and then identify 

the shortfalls. 

Sometimes resources for those shortfalls are not going to be 

found within the Coast Guard appropriation, and sometimes the 

citizens of this country have already paid for resources in other 

ways that perhaps we can leverage. One of my four principles when 

I became Commandant was strengthening our partnerships, and 

part of that is looking out across the broad expanse of the Federal 

Government and determining what other partners could we work 

with to fulfill our needs and vice versa. 

The CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] and border protection is one of those great partners that is within our own department. And in fact it is ironic that you asked the question because 

Commissioner Bersin and I had an hour and 10-minute breakfast 

yesterday comparing notes, seeing where we can work more closely. 

One of the things I have been tasked to do is come up with interagency operation centers (IOCs), which would bring various FedVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:11 Jul 08, 2011 Jkt 066893 PO 00000 Frm 00316 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A893P2.XXX A893P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
317 

eral agencies together, local and State agencies together, where we 

can share information in one operation center to create a seamless 

response leveraging all those various agencies to provide the security of our ports. 

Jacksonville is one of the great examples of where we are doing 

that. The challenge, as you have identified, is where do you come 

up with the resources to consolidate and bring them and collocate 

themselves together. 

We are facing a similar problem in the Coast Guard. We have 

restructured our shore commands, our legacy group offices and marine safety offices. The promise 7 years ago was that we were going 

to collocate them together for greater efficiencies. The challenge, of 

course, is coming up with the appropriations to build new buildings. And I think in the current environment, we are not going to 

see too many new buildings built. We will continue to identify 

those needs, but I think the tough part is bringing them all together. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Whose responsibility is that? Is that something 

that Secretary Napolitano has to kind of bless or is that GSA [General Services Administration] ? If that is a better way to run the 

railroad and we will save money in the long run, is there something that we can help you do to say look, this is working. Let’s 

move ahead. Because if everybody is spread out you are not going 

to have the efficiencies that it sounds like you understand that you 

could have when they are together. 

Admiral PAPP. Absolutely. I would say yes to all. It has to be a 

shared responsibility, and one that is not being mentioned here is 

the U.S. Navy as well. What is the bulk of our security work down 

there in Jacksonville? It is the ships coming into the naval station 

at Mayport and the ships and submarines going into Kings Bay. I 

have been down there on the water and watched those escorts. It 

is a resource sink properly done of Coast Guard resources, both on 

the water and in the operations center, and I have been working 

with Admiral Roughead, and when I was Atlantic Area Commander with Admiral Harvey, who is Fleet Forces Command, to 

come up with a way to perhaps have the Navy provide a building 

where we can come together. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Has somebody talked to the Navy about that? 

Admiral PAPP. I am, sir, and it continues. Everybody is facing 

the same challenges in terms of tightening the belt. But I think 

this is what we have to be doing in order to provide, first of all, 

the proper service to people and then also to pool our resources to 

be able to do it in a more effective manner. And as we identify 

those things, I am more than happy to bring them to the subcommittee and ask you for your help, sir, in pushing them forward. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Dent. 

ARCTIC: POLAR ICEBREAKERS AND OTHER CAPABILITIES

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Commandant. First I wanted to thank you and the U.S. Coast Guard 

for all the great work you did at the Deepwater Horizon in the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
318 

Gulf. I visited there last August and I was very impressed by your 

efforts. It was extraordinary. 

Do you think if there would be an oil spill in the Arctic do we 

have the infrastructure in place to respond quickly and effectively? 

Admiral PAPP. No, sir. 

Mr. DENT. That was—wow. So I guess the next question is, heaven forbid, if there were a cruise ship or some other ship in distress 

in danger up in the Arctic waters, could you carry out those types 

of lifesaving responsibilities? 

Admiral PAPP. No, sir. But I will elaborate on this if you don’t 

mind. I think most of our focus over the last few years has been 

on polar icebreakers, and we do need to have a thoughtful discussion on where we are going with polar icebreakers. But polar icebreakers is just a small part of the capabilities that we need in the 

Arctic to carry out not just Coast Guard missions but missions that 

are important to the United States as a whole. We are an Arctic 

nation, but it is tough to walk up to the average person on the 

street and convince them that we are. But we have a lot of needs 

up there. 

I went up there in August and spent a little over a week traveling around Alaska. It had been 35 years since I had been up 

there. I did my first tour in the Coast Guard in Alaska, I spent 

time in the Arctic and the Bering Sea, and I wanted to go back 

there and reacquaint myself. And I went back almost 35 years to 

the day when I had stood on the shore in Kotzebue, Alaska, in 

July, and saw ice almost all the way up to the shores. I flew into 

Kotzebue this time, and even from the altitude in the jet I was in, 

I could not see ice. So there is a lot of open water, and open water 

means Coast Guard responsibilities, first of all, search and rescue, 

fisheries, other things that will migrate into that area as we go forward. 

Right now I have got zero resources to conduct those missions up 

there. It is a zero sum game, and if I am needed to carry out Coast 

Guard missions up there, they have to come from some other place. 

So what we are doing right now is we are doing a high latitude 

study. I think that—that has been, in my estimation—In looking 

at it as it stands right now, its primary focus is on icebreakers. I 

think it should be on the broad expanse of Coast Guard duties that 

would be required in the Arctic and what do we need to conduct 

that. 

A ‘‘for instance’’ is, right off the top of my head, going up there 

this summer, we need at a minimum a seasonal air station up 

there that we can fly helicopters out of and helicopters and crews 

to man them to be able to start to conduct our duties. As drilling 

begins up there offshore, of course, the Coast Guard will approve 

response plans for those facilities. But in terms of Coast Guard 

ability to respond, as I said in my first question, we have got none 

right now. We need to be about the business of doing that, because 

that business will come to the Alaskan waters, and it is my job to 

identify to all of you what we need to do that. And we are working 

very hard on that right now. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
319 

MARITIME SAFETY AND SECURITY TEAMS

Mr. DENT. Admiral, last year you requested the reduction, I 

think, of five maritime safety and security teams. And I understand that the Coast Guard is proceeding with the closure of the 

MSST up in Anchorage. I guess that leaves 11 other teams 

throughout the Nation. 

What was the rationale for the closure of that team up in Anchorage? And is that going to impact the other MSSTs? 

Admiral PAPP. Let me start off by saying how much I deeply appreciate—I saw the Senate mark and the House mark last year 

that restored those teams back to the budget. I know the budget 

hasn’t been approved but the continuing resolution has allowed us 

to keep those teams going, and I am deeply appreciative of that. 

I need each and every one of our Coast Guard people to carry out 

the duties that we do. 

Now on the Anchorage MSST, I support the decommissioning of 

that unit. The truth of the matter is, because of the conditions up 

in Alaska, they just aren’t able to operate up there year-round and 

provide the type of return on investment that we would be looking 

for. They, most of the time, deploy outside of Alaska, and it is very 

expensive to deploy them when they go outside of Alaska. So we 

don’t see an operational need for them up there. And if there is a 

time when we need security operations, we can deploy one of our 

other MSSTs up there. 

What the proposal does besides decommissioning, it does allow 

us to retain some of those people from the MSST, and we are reallocating them into law enforcement detachments, which we have 

a high demand signal for right now but a shortfall in terms of our 

ability to provide them. So it is a win-win solution for the Coast 

Guard in my estimation and perhaps a short-term loss in terms of 

numbers of Coast Guard people in Alaska. But I think we will be 

able to cover Alaska adequately, and it is going to provide me some 

resources for higher priority missions. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Admiral. I yield back. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Judge Carter. 

RIO GRANDE PRESENCE

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, welcome. Sorry 

I was late. I had another hearing to go to. 

I am going to start off with a question I got last night on the 

phone from Texas. My Senator called me on behalf of the Governor 

and asked me to ask the Coast Guard to put ships on Falcon and 

Amistad Lake, put some kind of armed boat because it has now become the international highway of drug trafficking. Because of the 

killing on the lake we had up there a while back, people are off the 

lake. And every night it seems like there is just a parade of boats 

coming across the lakes and it has become, quite honestly, a major 

drug smuggling corridor. 

Would it be possible for that? And would you have a type boat 

or ship that you could put on the lakes to patrol those lakes if we 

could find you the resources? 

Admiral PAPP. Mr. Carter, I agree with you. And what we have 

done is we have actually done some pulse operations. We have 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
320 

trailered boats up there and put them out, particularly after the 

unfortunate killing that occurred up there. We immediately surged 

Customs and Border Protection. The Border Patrol has put boats 

out there. None of us have the dedicated resources for Falcon Lake 

right now, but we can pull them from other places for the surge 

operations that we do. The return on investment has been very 

small when we have been up there because, as you know, once we 

put a presence up there, they will go into hiding. As soon as we 

leave, they will resume their activities. So perhaps some level of 

persistent presence is required on Falcon Lake. 

We have to look at that in terms of balancing resources with the 

Border Patrol, us, and perhaps looking at State and locals as well. 

But I guarantee you that our Eighth District Commander, Rear 

Admiral Landry, has that on her radar scope front and center and 

we will do our best. 

Mr. CARTER. My Governor would like actually a presence on the 

Rio Grande from its mouth as far up as you can get. I would recommend an air boat. In some places, it is a little shallow on the 

river. Because I have the highest respect for the Coast Guard and 

their ability to accomplish their mission, I think you would be a 

great resource on the southern border if we could do some planning 

to figure out a way to get you there. That is kind of an off-the-wall 

question. But when the Governor calls, you ask the question. 

Admiral PAPP. Sir. 

Mr. CARTER. You know, talking about Alaska, I happen to have 

had the great joy of going up and being with the Coast Guard for 

an extended length of time two summers ago, and I can personally 

testify that you are operating with some real antiques up there. 

Some of them might even be called museum pieces, but those Coast 

Guardsmen are out there doing their job every day on those things. 

And the President’s budget proposes a 22 percent reduction in the 

Coast Guard’s Deepwater program. It is my understanding this 

pushes back the completion of the eight National Security Cutters 

to 18. And does this also cut the in effect funding for the new Offshore Patrol Cutter? If so, how much does this put cash back in the 

OP acquisition timeline? And more importantly, how many of these 

resources were scheduled for that really fierce environment that 

you have in Alaska? And you really are short of some pretty major 

equipment needs up there. 

NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTERS

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. Absolutely. This was nowhere more evident than a trip I made just a couple of weeks ago out to San Francisco where at the same pier we had our new National Security 

Cutter, the BERTHOLF, and then two of our 40-plus-year-old High 

Endurance Cutters that were there. My heart aches for the Coast 

Guard people who are trying to keep those 40-year-old ships going. 

They are struggling working on engines that you can’t even get 

spare parts for anymore. They are keeping systems working all because of their dedication and patriotism, and they are getting out 

there and they are going up into dangerous environments like the 

Bering Sea and conducting some very challenging missions up 

there for our country, protecting our fisheries, rescuing fishermen 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
321 

and other activities. So the sooner we get the National Security 

Cutter out there, the better. 

The second National Security Cutter, the Waesche, was deployed 

off San Francisco. I got up at first light one morning, flew out by 

helicopter and spent the entire day basically from sunrise to sunset 

seeing that ship being put through its paces. There are some people 

that would make the case that it is an extravagant ship that the 

Coast Guard doesn’t need, and I will debate those people until the 

end of the day. It provides us with adequate improvements in 

terms of capabilities, sensors, and systems, allowing us to do our 

job better and in a safer manner and in a way that respects our 

young patriots who step forward to serve their country by putting 

them into something with a little bit more comfort to live in rather 

than the 30-person, dark, dank berthing areas that you find on the 

40-year-old ships that were built when we used to draft people instead of looking for volunteers to patriotically step forward. So we 

need to get those ships built as soon as possible. 

Now to the core of your question (‘‘Why aren’t we building them 

faster?’’), I think if I will paraphrase, is we had problems with this 

acquisition project 4 years ago, and it has taken us a long time to 

straighten out our acquisition practices and come up with a predictable, fair, fixed price for the ship going forward. The delay in 

coming up with that fixed price set us behind, and I am now under 

a new constraint of full pricing in any given year for follow-on 

ships. So in other words, I have to get the long lead material costs, 

the production costs, and the post-production costs all in one budget, which takes up a rather significant chunk of a 1-year acquisition funding. 

So when I looked at the balance across the next couple of years, 

[and saw that] we needed to come up with the funding to complete 

No. 5, which is in the 2012 budget, I could not fit the full price for 

National Security Cutter No. 6. Even though I would like to move 

forward on that, I could not fit it within our acquisition budget 

without starving out a lot of other very valuable projects, like our 

patrol boat replacement, our maritime patrol aircraft, our response 

boats that go out to the search and rescue stations. 

So I am confronted with a lot of difficult choices and decisions. 

I made the best reasoned choices in terms of our acquisition 

projects for this given year based upon the rules that I have to operate under. 

ARCTIC: RESPONSE TO INCIDENTS

Mr. CARTER. Well I, for one, would like to see this committee do 

everything they can. When I was up there, they pointed out that 

the famous Northwest Passage, which people spent a couple of 

hundred years looking for, is now open basically and that there are 

cruise ships that are actually advertising being the first to go 

through the Northwest Passage. And the Coast Guard explained to 

me that once they pass the top of Alaska and start around on the 

Canadian side there is basically nobody, neither the Canadians nor 

our Coast Guard, that have the ability to get to them with the resources they would need should they have a disaster strike on that 

cruise ship. Literally, our helicopters at a point can’t get there beVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:11 Jul 08, 2011 Jkt 066893 PO 00000 Frm 00321 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A893P2.XXX A893P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
322 

fore they run out of fuel. So we are in the Arctic, and we need to 

deal with the resources. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. I met 2 weeks ago with Commissioner 

Gre ́goire, who is the Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard. 

We were discussing our mutual issues in the Arctic. Canada had 

a 600-passenger cruise ship and an oil tanker both run aground in 

separate incidents but very close in terms of timing last summer. 

Commissioner Gre ́goire and the Canadian Coast Guard were 

roundly criticized because they were only able to respond within a 

matter of days. I think in one case 2 weeks. In our case, we would 

not be able to respond, period. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Admiral. 

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Admiral. What we are going to do is, 

I think we have votes that are coming up pretty soon. So we will 

do a quick second round of questioning. 

Let me shift to the unmanned aerial systems, follow up on that. 

Your fiscal year 2012 budget request nor your 1-page 5-year capital 

investment plan includes the funding for a cutter-based Unmanned 

Aerial System, or UAS. Yet the Coast Guard has continually stated 

that the NSC will not be fully mission capable without the UAS. 

Considering you have been testing cutter-based UAS for years 

with the Navy, why doesn’t your budget include funding for the unmanned aerial systems? 

Admiral PAPP. You are absolutely right that to get to full capability of the system, you do need a tactical ship-born unmanned 

system. But there are other components to the system as well. 

Maritime patrol aviation, which we are investing in; your small 

boats that you run out of the ship, which we are investing in; and 

manned helicopters, which we continue to invest in, are carried by 

those ships as well. So when you look at the entire system, the only 

thing that we are not asking funding for right now is the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle [UAV]. And that is primarily because it is 

a cost avoidance for us right now. There is just so much we can 

fit into the budget. And when I look across the government, the 

Navy is experimenting primarily right now with Fire Scout as a 

UAV. And I think it is a prudent measure for us to watch the 

progress that the Navy makes when they make a determination on 

the system that they are going to use. Then we will have identified 

one that is interoperable with us, one that the Navy has invested 

in that we didn’t have to invest in, and I think for the Coast Guard 

that is a good route for us to take and a proper route for someone 

who is enforcing fiscal stewardship as well for our service. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So, right now this is basically just a cost avoidance issue. So you don’t have a certain timeline? 

Admiral PAPP. And because the Navy, in their experimentation, 

has not finalized and has not firmly decided that Fire Scout is the 

system that they are going to go with. So I think it is prudent for 

us to leverage off the Navy’s expertise in this, watch where they 

are going. And there are all kinds of things that will save us costs 

because the Navy will set up training systems for this. The Navy 

will have logistics and supply lines set up for whatever they choose. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
323 

And the Coast Guard will avoid all those costs and be able to take 

advantage of the Navy’s work and save us a little bit of money. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What is the impact on the NSC’s interdiction effectiveness without the Unmanned Aerial System? 

Admiral PAPP. Sir, I am not sure I can fully quantify that because there is so much that goes into interdiction of drugs, ranging 

all the way down to basic on-the-ground intelligence. So you have 

to look at the entire picture. We have invested heavily in our intelligence programs. We are working on bilateral and multilateral relationships with the South and Central American countries. We are 

leveraging Department of Defense assets that go out and gather 

signals intelligence and human intelligence. And then we still have 

our maritime patrol aircraft. We put helicopters that deploy on our 

ships. 

So if you are looking at the aggregate of all those systems, I 

would say, maybe without a UAV, we are only performing at 90 

percent. I am reluctant to say an exact number on that. What I will 

say is we are not performing at 100 percent. Would I like to get 

a UAV? Of course I would. It makes us all that much better. But 

I think where we are making our investments is the wise area to 

go right now. And then, as I said, we will leverage off the Navy 

and see what they come up with. 

DRUG INTERDICTION

Mr. ADERHOLT. As the Mexican drug war rages on I don’t have 

to tell you that the Coast Guard’s effort to interdict drugs being 

smuggled from the source and transit zones is absolutely vital to 

our security. To use a football analogy, I see the Border Patrol as 

defending the goal line and the Coast Guard and other agency 

playing offense deep in enemy territory. However, it appears that 

some aspects of your fiscal year 2012 budget will actually diminish 

your current drug interdiction capabilities. Your fiscal year 2012 

budget proposes to both decommission another High Endurance 

Cutter and extension of the delivery schedule of the replacement 

NSCs. Won’t the combination of these decisions decrease the Coast 

Guard’s drug interdiction capabilities in fiscal year 2012 and for 

the next few years? 

Admiral PAPP. Sir, I would say it could decrease. What I am 

going to do is work very hard to make sure that it doesn’t decrease. 

Once again, going back to what I talked about, my experiences as 

the Atlantic Area Commander, those decisions are being made on 

a day-to-day basis, and we will continue to give a high priority to 

drug interdiction. And right now, as projected, we are going to 

meet all the demand signals that JIATF [Joint Interagency Task 

Force] South is asking for in terms of Coast Guard ships and aircraft to provide patrol capabilities down there. 

We will also continue to leverage the Navy to the extent that we 

can, to get Navy ships down there with Coast Guard law enforcement detachments. And I don’t look at this just from my role as 

Commandant of the Coast Guard. One of my other collateral duties 

is I am the Chairman of The Interdiction Committee [TIC]. I report 

directly to the Chairman of the Office of National Drug Control 

Policy. I bring the interagency together to work on these issues. 

And in fact we had our recent TIC meeting where we brought in 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
324 

General Fraser from SOUTHCOM. We are looking at various 

means of making sure that we keep our assets up down there and 

continue to work with the Central American countries in terms of 

bilateral agreements and working with their coast guards and navies. I have made a trip down to Mexico City to talk to Admiral 

Saynez of the Mexican Navy to continue our cooperation there. 

But you are absolutely right, the Coast Guard and our partner 

agencies need to interdict those large 5- and 6-ton loads as they 

leave Colombia and go up the coast of Central America so they 

don’t reach Mexico and then get broken down into those small 

loads that the trafficking organizations are fighting over and bringing across our southern border. So to the extent that we can pull 

out the large loads, it helps our Border Patrol colleagues in fighting 

the more intense war that is going on on the land border. 

HIGH ENDURANCE CUTTERS

Mr. ADERHOLT. Just briefly before I go to Mr. Price, what is the 

current status of the Coast Guard’s High Endurance Cutter Fleet? 

Admiral PAPP. I was going to use a sailor’s term there. But I will 

just say it is poor, sir. In fact, probably if I got to the second and 

third order responses of the question that you gave, the fact of the 

matter that we are decommissioning another one of them in this 

budget does not break my heart because right at this point, across 

the fleet of the 12 High Endurance Cutters we have got, we have 

got about a 75-percent availability, which means we are basically 

losing four ship-years just because of unplanned maintenance. So 

we are only getting about eight to nine ships worth of time on station out there as it is. So the quicker that we decommission these, 

devote our resources to getting the National Security Cutters, 

which will be more reliable out there—I need reliable ships on station. 

We could keep the High Endurance Cutters going, but they are 

just unreliable at this point. I had one that I had to pull off station. 

They have four engines. They have two gas turbines and they have 

two diesel engines. One ship was down there on one engine left, 

trying to maintain station off the coast of Colombia, and two out 

of the three electrical generators were broken down. They had an 

emergency generator left. In order to launch the boat, they had to 

shut off the air conditioning and the refrigerators in the ship just 

so they could launch the boat. That is unacceptable. We have got 

to get those ships replaced soon. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Price. 

ARCTIC: POLAR ICEBREAKERS, BUDGET FOR

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to turn, Admiral, 

to marine safety and environmental response. But, before I do, I 

want to quickly revisit the matter raised by a number of members 

today; that is our Arctic capability. I was listening carefully to 

what you said, and I appreciate fully your response to the effect 

that this is not just a matter of icebreaker capability, that the implications are much broader than that in terms of what kind of 

missions the Coast Guard might be required to perform. But I 

wanted to go one step further in terms of specificity with respect 

to this budget. I am glad, I think the Subcommittee is glad, to see 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
325 

the transfer of that $39 million and 180 FTEs from the National 

Science Foundation back into an entirely DHS-funded program. We 

have been encouraging that for a long time. 

However, the budget appears to fund reduced icebreaking responsibilities. It assumes the decommissioning of the Polar Sea in 2011, 

leaving us with only two polar icebreakers in the future. The second large icebreaker that can be used in Antarctica, the Polar Star, 

is being refurbished and not expected to return to service until 

2013. Even with the refurbishment, the Polar Star will only last for 

at most 10 more years. That means the future will have only one 

heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, when it is back in service and the 

more limited Healy which can really only operate in the Arctic. 

Now other countries have much larger icebreaking fleets, 25 for 

Russia, as I understand it, 18 for Canada. Ours is quite small. I 

am not sure that is the appropriate point of comparison though. 

But I do need some help in matching up the kind of minimal icebreaker capabilities that I think we are hearing you say you need 

with this budget request. And you may want to elaborate on this 

for the record. This is a very detailed question. And also elaborate 

to the extent you can on what the future minimal capabilities are 

likely to look like, assuming that the present projections are going 

forward. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. Well, just as a point of reference—and I 

have studied this extensively. The United States put ships through 

the Northwest Passage back in 1957. They were three Coast Guard 

cutters, ice-strengthened vessels that circumnavigated the North 

American continent. They had been up there working off Alaska. 

People say, ‘‘Well, why did they go through the Northwest Passage?’’ It is because our country had a national imperative at the 

time. Each summer, the Navy formed up a squadron of icebreakers 

and Coast Guard cutters to resupply the DEW [Distant Early 

Warning] Line. We had a reason to be up there at that time. And 

Coast Guard cutters and the Navy—and at the time the Nation 

owned six polar icebreakers, four that had been transferred to the 

Coast Guard from the Navy and the Navy was still operating two. 

Ultimately, the remaining two were transferred to the Coast 

Guard. But they were all World War II vintage. And over time and 

because of Coast Guard budgets, we ended up decommissioning 

them until we were able to build the Polar Sea and the Polar Star 

in the early 1970s. Now the Polar Sea and the Polar Star are more 

than 30 years old and are either due for replacement or very, very 

significant renovation. 

So I am pleased, happy, delighted that we are getting the money 

transferred back into the Coast Guard budget to take care of these 

ships because there is another aspect to this as well. We are losing 

our competencies. Because the National Science Foundation has 

not been transferring the funding to use Coast Guard icebreakers, 

we are starting to lose our expertise. We are running out of people 

that have been involved up in the Arctic doing icebreaking and in 

the Antarctic, and that is a perishable skill. Fortunately, we have 

still got a few people around that can do it. 

But what I am confronted with is balancing the resources that 

we have. And with the $39 million, it is not enough—and in fact 

we have been directed to decommission Polar Sea. Given the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
326 

amount of money that I have, I see that as a wise decision at this 

point even though there will be a gap before we can bring Polar 

Star back in service in 2013. But I cannot see pouring more money 

to repair Polar Sea right now to maybe get a couple of years out 

of that ship. I would rather divert the funds to the reactivation of 

Polar Star, which I know we can get at least 10 years and, between 

you and me, I think probably a couple of years beyond that, which 

will give us time to complete this high latitude study and confirm 

what the Nation needs. 

Ultimately, the answer might be that the Nation wants to lease 

icebreakers. I don’t know. If that decision is made, I will say, 

‘‘Fine,’’ and we don’t have to train Coast Guard people for it anymore. I think the Coast Guard can do it better. But then again, I 

am a Coast Guardsman and that is sort of our attitude. So we will 

do the best we can with the resources that we have been given. 

And in my estimation, my best judgment, our best course of action, 

Healy is in good shape. We can keep her running, and we have got 

sufficient budget authority. We will take the crew and the operating funds from Polar Sea and make sure we do a good reactivation of Polar Star to give this Nation a sound heavy icebreaker for 

at least another decade or so while we are making those decisions 

on the way ahead. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. We really are short on time now, so let 

me ask the question very quickly. I am referring back to your State 

of the Coast Guard speech. You noted that, ‘‘We need to ensure we 

have a sufficient number of inspectors, investigators, and prevention officers, and that they are keeping pace with the maritime industry.’’ Now your budget request includes $22.2 million to enhance 

maritime safety and environmental response activity. That includes 

$192 new personnel, as I understand. Now this appears to be a 

well-based request. However, after action reports from the Deepwater Horizon spill are still ongoing. Can you specify again—and 

you might want to elaborate on this for the record—what concrete 

needs were identified after Deepwater Horizon? How do the 192 

new personnel and the $22.2 million increase address these gaps? 

And with after-action reports still being finalized, do you believe 

there are other areas of concern that could affect the Coast Guard 

operations and could shape future budget requests? 

DEEPWATER HORIZON TAKEAWAYS

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. I think the biggest take-away for me 

from Deepwater Horizon was what I knew already, was that we 

lacked the capacity to put on a sustained response to a disaster like 

this. And if I can elaborate, if there is a hurricane, generally we 

ramp up for the hurricane. We deploy Coast Guard forces to respond to it. 

A hurricane passes over and it is over in relatively short order, 

and we do the necessary repairs and then we can flow Coast Guard 

people back to their regular jobs. We sent 3,000 people down to the 

Gulf of Mexico for Deepwater Horizon. Those aren’t 3,000 people 

that we held in garrison to sit around and wait for disasters to 

happen. These are people that have regular jobs in the Coast 

Guard. So there were many jobs that were not done during that 6- 

to 8-month period that we had all those people deployed. We got 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
327 

set back on a number of initiatives that we would like to be working on because the Nation had a higher priority at the time, and 

we flowed Coast Guard forces down there. 

So one of the take-aways—and in this budget what we are asking 

for is something called an Incident Management and Assist Team. 

And this is going to be 87 people. It is part of those 192 people that 

you are talking about. That will form the nucleus of a group that 

would deploy and do the initial setup. In other words, these will 

be our people in garrison. They will have jobs to do. But when 

there is a hurricane or an oil spill or some other natural disaster, 

these are the people who we will immediately deploy down there, 

put them in place to form the nucleus of those incident command 

posts that we set up in response to the disaster. 

So this is something we desperately need. We may need more. 

And if we do, I will come back to you and let you know. But I think 

this is a good start in terms of responding to incidents. Out of that 

192, the remaining 105 is part of a marine safety performance plan 

that we have already identified. We are into, I think, our fifth year 

of this. Because of the growth of the marine industry, the increase 

in regulations, and the acknowledged shortfalls we have had in our 

marine safety personnel, we have had a 5-year plan to restore us 

up to the point where we can adequately respond to the concerns 

of the marine industry. So 105 of those 92 go toward the continuation of the marine safety plan, and then 87 of those go to this incident management assist team that I talked about earlier. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we are out of time. 

As to the future projected plans and the remaining after-action reports, I would appreciate your elaborating on that for the record. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
328 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 423 here 66893A.244
329 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Well, thank you, Admiral, for being here today. 

Just to follow up, you had mentioned the revisions to the APBs. 

And I just wanted to follow up on the APBs. If you could submit 

these to the Committee, it would be very helpful. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. We would be glad to. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you again for your presence here before 

the Subcommittee, and we look forward to working with you on the 

fiscal year 2012 budget. 

Admiral PAPP. Me, too. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. The Subcommittee is adjourned. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
330 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 425 here 66893A.245
331 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 426 here 66893A.246
332 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 427 here 66893A.247
333 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 428 here 66893A.248
334 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 429 here 66893A.249
335 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 430 here 66893A.250
336 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 431 here 66893A.251
337 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 432 here 66893A.252
338 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 433 here 66893A.253
339 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 434 here 66893A.254
340 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 435 here 66893A.255
341 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 436 here 66893A.256
342 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 437 here 66893A.257
343 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 438 here 66893A.258
344 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 439 here 66893A.259
345 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 440 here 66893A.260
346 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 441 here 66893A.261
347 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 442 here 66893A.262
348 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 443 here 66893A.263
349 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 444 here 66893A.264
350 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 445 here 66893A.265
351 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 446 here 66893A.266
352 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 447 here 66893A.267
353 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 448 here 66893A.268
354 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 449 here 66893A.269
355 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 450 here 66893A.270
356 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 451 here 66893A.271
357 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 452 here 66893A.272
358 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 453 here 66893A.273
359 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 454 here 66893A.274
360 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 455 here 66893A.275
361 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 456 here 66893A.276
362 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 457 here 66893A.277
363 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 458 here 66893A.278
364 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 459 here 66893A.279
365 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 460 here 66893A.280
366 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 461 here 66893A.281
367 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 462 here 66893A.282
368 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 463 here 66893A.283
369 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 464 here 66893A.284
370 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 465 here 66893A.285
371 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 466 here 66893A.286
372 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 467 here 66893A.287
373 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 468 here 66893A.288
374 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 469 here 66893A.289
375 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 470 here 66893A.290
376 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 471 here 66893A.291
377 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 472 here 66893A.292
378 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 473 here 66893A.293
379 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 474 here 66893A.294
380 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 475 here 66893A.295
381 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 476 here 66893A.296
382 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 477 here 66893A.297
383 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 478 here 66893A.298
384 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 479 here 66893A.299
385 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 480 here 66893A.300
386 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 481 here 66893A.301
387 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 482 here 66893A.302
388 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 483 here 66893A.303
389 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 484 here 66893A.304
390 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 485 here 66893A.305
391 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 486 here 66893A.306
392 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 487 here 66893A.307
393 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 488 here 66893A.308
394 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 489 here 66893A.309
395 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 490 here 66893A.310
396 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 491 here 66893A.311
397 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 492 here 66893A.312
398 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 493 here 66893A.313
399 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 494 here 66893A.314
400 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 495 here 66893A.315
401 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 496 here 66893A.316
402 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 497 here 66893A.317
403 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 498 here 66893A.318
404 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 499 here 66893A.319
405 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 500 here 66893A.320
406 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 501 here 66893A.321
407 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 502 here 66893A.322
408 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 503 here 66893A.323
409 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 504 here 66893A.324
410 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 505 here 66893A.325
411 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 506 here 66893A.326
412 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 507 here 66893A.327
413 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 508 here 66893A.328
414 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 509 here 66893A.329
415 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 510 here 66893A.330
416 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 511 here 66893A.331
417 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 512 here 66893A.332
418 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 513 here 66893A.333
419 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 514 here 66893A.334
420 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 515 here 66893A.335
421 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 516 here 66893A.336
422 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 517 here 66893A.337
423 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 518 here 66893A.338
424 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 519 here 66893A.339
425 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 520 here 66893A.340
426 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 521 here 66893A.341
427 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 522 here 66893A.342
428 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 523 here 66893A.343
429 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 524 here 66893A.344
430 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 525 here 66893A.345
431 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 526 here 66893A.346
432 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 527 here 66893A.347
433 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 528 here 66893A.348
434 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 529 here 66893A.349
435 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 530 here 66893A.350
436 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 531 here 66893A.351
437 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 532 here 66893A.352
438 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 533 here 66893A.353
439 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 534 here 66893A.354
440 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 535 here 66893A.355
441 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 536 here 66893A.356
442 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 537 here 66893A.357
443 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 538 here 66893A.358
444 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 539 here 66893A.359
445 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 540 here 66893A.360
446 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 541 here 66893A.361
447 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 542 here 66893A.362
448 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 543 here 66893A.363
449 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 544 here 66893A.364
450 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 545 here 66893A.365
451 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 546 here 66893A.366
452 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 547 here 66893A.367
453 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 548 here 66893A.368
454 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 549 here 66893A.369
455 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 550 here 66893A.370
456 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 551 here 66893A.371
457 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 552 here 66893A.372
458 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 553 here 66893A.373
459 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 554 here 66893A.374
460 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 555 here 66893A.375
461 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 556 here 66893A.376
462 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 557 here 66893A.377
463 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 558 here 66893A.378
464 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 559 here 66893A.379
465 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 560 here 66893A.380
466 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 561 here 66893A.381
467 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 562 here 66893A.382
468 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 563 here 66893A.383
469 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 564 here 66893A.384
470 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 565 here 66893A.385
471 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 566 here 66893A.386
472 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 567 here 66893A.387
473 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 568 here 66893A.388
474 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 569 here 66893A.389
475 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 570 here 66893A.390
476 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 571 here 66893A.391
477 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 572 here 66893A.392
478 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 573 here 66893A.393
479 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 574 here 66893A.394
480 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 575 here 66893A.395
481 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 576 here 66893A.396
482 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 577 here 66893A.397
483 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 578 here 66893A.398
484 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 579 here 66893A.399
485 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 580 here 66893A.400
486 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 581 here 66893A.401
487 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 582 here 66893A.402
488 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 583 here 66893A.403
489 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 584 here 66893A.404
490 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 585 here 66893A.405
491 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 586 here 66893A.406
492 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 587 here 66893A.407
493 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 588 here 66893A.408
494 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 589 here 66893A.409
495 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 590 here 66893A.410
496 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 591 here 66893A.411
497 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 592 here 66893A.412
498 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 593 here 66893A.413
499 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 594 here 66893A.414
500 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 595 here 66893A.415
501 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 596 here 66893A.416
502 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 597 here 66893A.417
503 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 598 here 66893A.418
504 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 599 here 66893A.419
505 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 600 here 66893A.420
506 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 601 here 66893A.421
507 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 602 here 66893A.422
508 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 603 here 66893A.423
509 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 604 here 66893A.424
510 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 605 here 66893A.425
511 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 606 here 66893A.426
512 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 607 here 66893A.427
513 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 608 here 66893A.428
514 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 609 here 66893A.429
515 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 610 here 66893A.430
516 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 611 here 66893A.431
517 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 612 here 66893A.432
518 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 613 here 66893A.433
519 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 614 here 66893A.434
520 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 615 here 66893A.435
521 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 616 here 66893A.436
522 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 617 here 66893A.437
523 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 618 here 66893A.438
524 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 619 here 66893A.439
525 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 620 here 66893A.440
526 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 621 here 66893A.441
527 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 622 here 66893A.442
528 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 623 here 66893A.443
529 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 624 here 66893A.444
530 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 625 here 66893A.445
531 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 626 here 66893A.446
532 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 627 here 66893A.447
533 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 628 here 66893A.448
534 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 629 here 66893A.449
535 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 630 here 66893A.450
536 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 631 here 66893A.451
537 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 632 here 66893A.452
538 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 633 here 66893A.453
539 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 634 here 66893A.454
540 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 635 here 66893A.455
541 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 636 here 66893A.456
542 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 637 here 66893A.457
543 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 638 here 66893A.458
544 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 639 here 66893A.459
545 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 640 here 66893A.460
546 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 641 here 66893A.461
547 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 642 here 66893A.462
548 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 643 here 66893A.463
549 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 644 here 66893A.464
550 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 645 here 66893A.465
551 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 646 here 66893A.466
552 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 647 here 66893A.467
553 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 648 here 66893A.468
554 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 649 here 66893A.469
555 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 650 here 66893A.470
556 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 651 here 66893A.471
557 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 652 here 66893A.472
558 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 653 here 66893A.473
559 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 654 here 66893A.474
560 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 655 here 66893A.475
561 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 656 here 66893A.476
562 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 657 here 66893A.477
563 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 658 here 66893A.478
564 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 659 here 66893A.479
565 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 660 here 66893A.480
566 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 661 here 66893A.481
567 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 662 here 66893A.482
568 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 663 here 66893A.483
569 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 664 here 66893A.484
570 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 665 here 66893A.485
571 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 666 here 66893A.486
572 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 667 here 66893A.487
573 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 668 here 66893A.488
574 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 669 here 66893A.489
575 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 670 here 66893A.490
576 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 671 here 66893A.491
577 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 672 here 66893A.492
578 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 673 here 66893A.493
579 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 674 here 66893A.494
580 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 675 here 66893A.495
581 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 676 here 66893A.496
582 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 677 here 66893A.497
583 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 678 here 66893A.498
584 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 679 here 66893A.499
585 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 680 here 66893A.500
586 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 681 here 66893A.501
587 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 682 here 66893A.502
588 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 683 here 66893A.503
589 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 684 here 66893A.504
590 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 685 here 66893A.505
591 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 686 here 66893A.506
592 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 687 here 66893A.507
593 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 688 here 66893A.508
594 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 689 here 66893A.509
595 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 690 here 66893A.510
596 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 691 here 66893A.511
597 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 692 here 66893A.512
598 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 693 here 66893A.513
599 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 694 here 66893A.514
600 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 695 here 66893A.515
601 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 696 here 66893A.516
602 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 697 here 66893A.517
603 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 698 here 66893A.518
604 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 699 here 66893A.519
605 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 700 here 66893A.520
606 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 701 here 66893A.521
607 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 702 here 66893A.522
608 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 703 here 66893A.523
609 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 704 here 66893A.524
610 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 705 here 66893A.525
611 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 706/1000 here 66893A.526
(i) 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 001 here 66893P3.001

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(iii) 

I N D E X 

Page 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security ......................................................... 1 

Advanced Imaging Technology: 

Model Types ...................................................................................................... 40 

Passenger Education ........................................................................................ 40 

Aviation Security Fee Increase: 

Feasibility in FY2012 ....................................................................................... 32 

Justification for FY2012 ................................................................................... 35 

Biography: Secretary Napolitano ........................................................................ 30 

Border Security: 

National Guard Assistance .............................................................................. 42 

Chemical Facility Security .................................................................................. 39 

Cybersecurity: 

Agreement with Department of Defense ........................................................ 37 

Authority over Private Sector .......................................................................... 37 

Disaster Relief Fund ............................................................................................ 31, 34 

Government Shutdown: Potential Impact on DHS ........................................... 33 

H.R. 1: 

Impact on DHS Funding .................................................................................. 34 

Opening Statement: 

Chairman Aderholt ........................................................................................... 1 

Chairman Rogers .............................................................................................. 14 

Ranking Member Price .................................................................................... 8 

Ranking Member Dicks .................................................................................... 15 

Secretary Napolitano ........................................................................................ 15 

Transportation Security Administration: 

Employee Turnover .......................................................................................... 41 

Personnel Cap ................................................................................................... 36 

Urban Areas Security Initiative: 

Funding ............................................................................................................. 38 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) .................................................. 163 

Air Cargo Security: 

100 Percent Screening ...................................................................................... 194 

Efforts to Strengthen ........................................................................................ 187 

Biography: Bersin, Alan ...................................................................................... 182 

Border Security: 

Border Search Authority .................................................................................. 202 

Civil Air Patrol, Use of ..................................................................................... 193 

Illegal Immigration .......................................................................................... 185 

SBInet ................................................................................................................ 194 

Stonegarden Grants ......................................................................................... 210 

United States-Mexico Cooperation .................................................................. 184 

Weapons Smuggling ......................................................................................... 198 

Cargo Security: 

CBP and TSA Responsibilities ........................................................................ 204 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

iv 

Cargo Security—Continued 

Container Security Initiative ........................................................................... 206 

Customs Fee Adjustment .................................................................................... 205 

International Trade and Importation: 

Border Inspections ............................................................................................ 204 

Illegal Imports .................................................................................................. 201 

Opening Statement: 

Chairman Aderholt ........................................................................................... 163 

Commissioner Bersin ....................................................................................... 173 

Ranking Member Price .................................................................................... 169 

Ports of Entry: 

Customs and Border Protection Officers ........................................................ 198 

Need for Improved Security ............................................................................. 201 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) ................................................................................... 277 

Acquisition Program ............................................................................................ 303 

Arctic: 

Polar Icebreakers and Other Capabilities ...................................................... 317 

Polar Icebreakers, Budget for .......................................................................... 324 

Response to Incidents ....................................................................................... 321 

Biography: Papp, Robert ...................................................................................... 301 

Coast Guard Missions .......................................................................................... 305 

Deepwater Horizon Takeaways ........................................................................... 326 

Drug Interdiction ................................................................................................. 323 

Fleet Max Study ................................................................................................... 302 

Friendly Ports, Security of .................................................................................. 311 

High Endurance Cutters ..................................................................................... 324 

Interagency Cooperation ...................................................................................... 316 

Maritime Safety and Security Teams ................................................................. 319 

National Security Cutters ................................................................................... 320 

Opening Statement: 

Admiral Papp .................................................................................................... 288 

Chairman Aderholt ........................................................................................... 277 

Ranking Member Price .................................................................................... 283 

Overseas Activities ............................................................................................... 308 

Railroad Bridge Project ....................................................................................... 311 

Rio Grande Presence ............................................................................................ 319 

Security-Related Missions: Cutbacks ................................................................. 302 

Small Vessel Threats ........................................................................................... 310 

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles .................................................................................. 322 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING