DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina, Chairman 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

KEN CALVERT, California 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

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

STEPHANIE GUPTA, JEFF ASHFORD, JIM HOLM, 

KARYN KENDALL, WILL PAINTER, and MIKE BIRSIC, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 2 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Page 

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

Major Systems Acquisition .................................................... 197 

Intelligence Programs ............................................................ 263 

Homeland Security Headquarters Facilities .................... 333 

Testimony of Members of Congress and Outside 

Entities .................................................................................... 407 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
PART 2 

DHS 

Acquisitions 

Intel 

St. E’s 

Mem. Req. Out. Wit. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina, Chairman 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

KEN CALVERT, California 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

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

STEPHANIE GUPTA, JEFF ASHFORD, JIM HOLM, 

KARYN KENDALL, WILL PAINTER, and MIKE BIRSIC, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 2 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Page 

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

Major Systems Acquisition .................................................... 197 

Intelligence Programs ............................................................ 263 

Homeland Security Headquarters Facilities .................... 333 

Testimony of Members of Congress and Outside 

Entities .................................................................................... 407 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

57–551 WASHINGTON : 2010 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

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 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New 

Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

BEVERLY PHETO, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2010. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

WITNESS 

HON. JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

OPENING STATMENT OF CHAIRMAN DAVID PRICE

Mr. PRICE. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Good morning, everyone. We are pleased to welcome Secretary 

Janet Napolitano this morning to kick off our hearings this year on 

Department of Homeland Security activities. All of this was supposed to happen in the middle of the snow 2 weeks ago, but we appreciate everyone’s flexibility as we have rescheduled this hearing. 

This of course will be the first of a fairly closely scheduled set of 

hearings over the next few weeks, dealing with the full range of 

homeland security agencies. 

Madam Secretary, your first year leading DHS has been full of 

major challenges to the security of our homeland, from the attempted bombing of an airplane on Christmas Day to the menace 

of an influenza epidemic; from the constant onslaught of 

cyberattacks on our governmental networks and critical infrastructure to the brutal violence associated with transnational drug cartels along our southwest border. I commend you for facing these 

tests head-on, bringing a Governor’s practicality to the task of 

managing a myriad of competing needs and focusing on integrating 

homeland security missions and cultures into a unified team. 

At the outset, I want to commend DHS for its response to the 

earthquake in Haiti as well. While almost every DHS agency has 

been involved, the Coast Guard captured our attention with their 

early arrival in devastated Port-au-Prince, their rapid assistance in 

evacuating victims, and their help to restore port operations to expedite delivery of critical supplies. So our appreciation goes out to 

you, to the brave men and women of the Coast Guard, and to the 

entire Department. 

Similarly, I am very pleased that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, ICE, has taken seriously this Committee’s direction to prioritize the identification and deportation of convicted criminals. Between 2002 and 2007, ICE increased criminal 

alien removals by only 7 percent per year, even as noncriminal deportations surged by over 22 percent per year. Since the implementation of the Secure Communities program, the funding and the 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
2 

impetus for which was initiated by this Subcommittee, criminal 

alien removals increased 12 percent in 2008 and another 18 percent in 2009. That is a remarkable achievement, and I am proud 

to support its continuation of this trend. Furthermore, the 2011 

budget estimates that, after full rollout of the Secure Communities 

programs, 80 percent of ICE detention capacity will be dedicated to 

criminals awaiting removal from this country. So Madam Secretary, I commend you and Assistant Secretary Morton for your 

focus on the criminal alien issue and the impressive results ICE 

has achieved over the last year. The fiscal year 2011 discretionary budget requests $43.6 billion 

for DHS, or a 2.7 percent increase over the comparable amount appropriated in 2010. In a tight fiscal environment, you had to make 

some difficult decisions, including some controversial cuts in an attempt to maintain efforts in some areas while ramping up our defenses in others. 

Within the past year, we have witnessed a substantial rise in 

threats to our homeland from homegrown terrorists as well as 

threats from across the globe, including the recent Christmas Day 

incident. Based on this heightened threat environment and consistent with the lesson of the 9/11 attacks, DHS must focus on 

adapting to the next what-if scenarios, not just rely on measures 

that are currently in place. A critical measure of your Department’s 

success is whether it can adapt as nimbly as our enemies. 

I am pleased that your budget responds to these threats with a 

substantial increase for aviation security, with new funding for canine teams, advanced technologies and additional screeners, all to 

better detect dangerous objects. Yet while no one questions the 

need to close aviation security gaps, I want to ask you to explain 

the mix of funding that you have proposed and especially how a 

people-intensive approach with a 9 percent increase in staff is the 

right answer to a threat that is continually evolving. 

Your budget request overall shows some difficult trade-offs which 

I hope we can explore fully today. On one hand, it is clear that you 

have taken to heart the need to find efficiencies, to reduce waste, 

to make difficult but necessary decisions about priorities. For example, the Department has made an excellent start with its plan 

to save money and improve oversight by reducing its reliance on 

contractor support by 3,500 personnel in the current fiscal year. I 

am also pleased that the budget request includes additional staff 

and funding for the Inspector General, whose diligent work allowed 

DHS to recover over $100 million in taxpayer funds last fiscal year 

and to secure 241 convictions for fraud and corruption. 

Your budget includes many examples for programs that have 

been trimmed, stretched out, or suspended to achieve cost savings 

without significantly degrading critical security requirements. 

There is certainly ample evidence that some long-standing programs with significant past funding do deserve a closer look to determine whether they fit in with our country’s priorities. 

Nonetheless, we have questions about your direction in some 

areas, and we will look to you and the agencies we will hear from 

in the next weeks to provide insight and explanation. 

For example, the amount requested for disaster relief will likely 

be depleted after 4 or 5 months into the next fiscal year. It is not 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
3 

clear to me how the administration can continue to ignore the 

known costs of ongoing recovery activities associated with large disasters when formulating its requests. We are less than 5 months 

into the current fiscal year, and the administration has already 

had to request $5.1 billion in disaster funding to supplement what 

was appropriated for 2010. We had hoped that this new administration would not continue this flawed budgeting method. In the 

wake of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike, the 

spend rate continues to be about $500 million per month, more 

than double the 5-year average assumed in your request. We need 

to understand how you expect to reconcile this problem. 

While, as I mentioned, your budget significantly grows the transportation security workforce, we are seeing a leveling off within 

other agencies, particularly those involved in stopping drug and 

human trafficking along our southwest border. It is important to 

note that this budget would actually enhance ICE’s workforce. In 

particular, the additional support staff funded in the budget would 

free agents up to spend more time investigating criminal activity, 

but it is also true that the level of violence across the southwest 

border has risen for the second straight year and we are making 

only a small dent in the volume of drugs and weapons moving both 

ways. While I commend the Department for the actions has it 

taken in conjunction with other Federal and international partners, 

I want to understand how progress will continue to be made. 

Madam Secretary, you must not lose sight of important immigration detention reforms proposed in the report developed by Dr. 

Doris Shiro before she left the Department. While the budget includes several detainee health-related proposals, such as implementing an electronic medical records system and better intake 

screening, these reforms will not be implemented for at least a 

year. It is important to implement immediate reforms of day-to-day 

operations so that ICE detainees receive adequate medical care. We 

want to learn more about what you plan for that area. 

Turning to an issue that has been a constant thorn in this Subcommittee’s side, the Department appears to ignore repeated congressional direction to provide timely reports to this Subcommittee, 

including the Deepwater implementation plan, key spend plans for 

aviation security and border investments, and a strategy on how 

the Department will achieve meaningful and effective cargo and 

supply chain security. 

The Congress requires these reports in order to make informed 

decisions about the Department’s budget. These reports should also 

help the Department and your management team gain a better understanding of the work going on within the Department. So, in my 

view, it will be in all of our interests to clear up this logjam of reports. 

Finally, with so many challenges facing the Department, you 

need your full leadership team onboard. Yet several of the largest 

agencies in the Department have operated for nearly a year with 

critical positions unfilled, including the Transportation Security 

Administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. I understand that the reasons for 

these vacancies lie beyond your control. I have the greatest respect 

for the career management staff at DHS, but we are concerned that 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
4 

key decisions and critical management actions may be delayed 

without politically accountable leadership. 

As we begin 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, to make prudent investments in effective 

security. Madam Secretary, I have no doubt that you share this 

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

year. 

Since your full written statement will be entered into the record, 

I am going to ask you to limit your oral remarks to a 5-minute 

presentation. But before we begin I want to recognize our distinguished ranking member, Hal Rogers, for any comments he wishes 

to make. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
5 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 10 57551A.001
6 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 11 57551A.002
7 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 12 57551A.003
8 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 13 57551A.004
9 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and, Madam Secretary, 

welcome to the hearing room. There are plenty of witnesses here 

that saw you come in on crutches and that you did not acquire 

those crutches while here, and we assure you that we will protect 

your ankles at all cost. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. ROGERS. This is the seventh year of the Department, seventh 

year of this Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, and the Subcommittee 

continues its nonpartisan, bipartisan effort to aid the Department 

in affecting homeland security, something I am very proud of and 

want to see continue. 

However, Madam Secretary, to put it mildly, I am very concerned 

about the budget request and, frankly, as well as the current state 

of the Department, some of which was alluded to by the Chairman. 

The Christmas Day terrorist attack punctuates what has been a 

steady stream of challenges to our homeland security within the 

last year, including several al Qaeda-led attacks, multiple homegrown terrorist plots, escalation of the murderous drug war along 

the southwest border, an outbreak of swine flu, numerous 

cyberattacks—thousands, actually—and horrific natural disasters 

all across the country, as well as the recent catastrophic earthquake in Haiti. And then, just last week, all of our Nation’s intelligence chiefs testified before the Senate that the likelihood of an 

al Qaeda attack occurring in the U.S. over the next 3 to 6 months 

is ‘‘certain.’’ 

In the face of all this, I am troubled by what appears to be a 

greater emphasis upon political correctness, global public opinion 

polls, and other domestic priorities, rather than a serious focus 

downrange for the next terrorist threat, the next natural disaster, 

or the next unprovoked attack on the American people. 

That brings me to your budget request for next year. One look 

at this budget suggests the administration’s plan for moving forward through the current threat environment is to severely cut our 

frontline security capabilities, grow DHS’s administrative offices 

with double-digit increases, delay investments in critical operational assets, avoid true visible budgeting for key programs, ignore congressional mandates and reporting requirements, and 

waste $250 million on the cost of security for terror trials. 

Madam Secretary, with threats confronting us at every turn, 

when our country needs fiscal discipline from its government, this 

budget proposal is simply indefensible. In the 7 years that we have 

examined DHS budget requests, I don’t think I have seen a proposal that so poorly prioritizes and so badly fails to address the realities that our country is currently facing. 

More to the point, there are many aspects of this budget that I 

find questionable. 

First, in the wake of the Christmas Day terrorist attack, the administration has submitted a proposal for aviation security that 

spends tens of millions of dollars more on staffing than it does on 

advanced technology or the systems that screen foreign travellers. 

How can the President honestly believe such a costly and reacVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:15 Sep 10, 2010 Jkt 057551 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A551P2.XXX A551P2

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
10 

tionary approach will effectively address our strategic needs in 

aviation security? 

Second, in the midst of a drug war, how can you propose to significantly decrease the interdiction capabilities of the Border Patrol 

and Coast Guard but request to increase the funds for bureaucrats 

in Washington, D.C., virtually every office within headquarters? 

Third, how can the Congress even contemplate the administration’s substantial cuts to SBInet and Deepwater when the investment plans and oversight reports required by law have been completely ignored? 

And, finally, at a time of persistent threats and record deficits, 

what is the justification for severely reducing everything from port 

and cargo security to infrastructure protection and cybersecurity 

and then, at the same time, wasting $250 million on security costs 

for trying terrorists on U.S. soil? 

Closing Guantanamo Bay and trying terrorists in civilian courts 

might win the popular vote in France and Norway, but it won’t 

deter one single terrorist, and it won’t make this country any safer. 

The American people don’t support bringing terrorists to their 

hometowns or trying them in civilian courts, and I have serious 

reservations about supporting any bill that includes funding for 

such purposes. 

Now having said all of this, and I know the country is going 

through some very rough economic times and the sad state of the 

Nation’s finances will necessitate difficult trade-offs, I certainly 

agree with President Obama when he states that we must live 

within our means, a principle that must apply to homeland security as well. But the foremost role of government, the foremost role 

of government is to provide for the safety and security of the country and its citizens. 

I have said many times since 9/11, we must get our security 

right. We must find a way to balance our scarce resources across 

our competing priorities and numerous vulnerabilities in order to 

confront every threat with relentless tenacity, purpose, and rigor. 

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

people are counting on us to fulfill, and there is no room for failure. 

There is no margin here. 

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

all the more reason we must avoid throwing more money and more 

government at programs that won’t improve our security. Sadly, 

however, this 2011 budget request misses the mark and makes me 

sincerely question the administration’s priorities. 

Mr. Chairman, I think we certainly have our work cut out for us 

this year. I look forward to asking many questions today and in the 

future. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Madam Secretary, please proceed. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
11 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 57551A.005
12 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 57551A.006
13 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 57551A.007
14 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 57551A.008
15 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 57551A.009
16 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JANET NAPOLITANO

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Representative Rogers. I look forward to those questions, because I 

think the characterization that you have just made of the President’s budget request is, respectfully, off the mark. The budget for 

the Department focuses our resources where they could be put to 

the most efficient and effective use in securing the American people. 

The total Fiscal Year 2011 budget request for the Department is 

$56.3 billion, equating to a more than a 2-percent increase over last 

year’s funding, indicating the President’s commitment to securing 

the Nation even in the midst of tight fiscal times. But fiscal discipline requires that we invest our resources in what works, that 

we cut down on redundancy, that we eliminate ineffective programs, and we make improvements across the board. 

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

events of the past months underscore the importance of the investments in our mission and our ongoing activities. The attempted attack on Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas was a powerful illustration that terrorists—specifically al Qaeda and its affiliates—will 

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

already been put in place since September 11. 

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

board. 

Now, as President Obama has made clear, the administration is 

determined to find and fix vulnerabilities in our system that allowed the events of December 25 to occur, and the budget 

prioritizes these security enhancements. 

The Department is also working hand-in-hand with our Federal 

partners to respond to a number of other issues, in particular, most 

recently the devastation and loss of life in Haiti. 

This year, for the first time, the Department produced a Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. It is a long-term vision for the 

homeland security enterprise. It identifies five major mission areas: 

preventing terrorism and enhancing security, securing and managing the borders, smart and effective enforcement of our Nation’s 

immigration laws, safeguarding and securing cyberspace—by the 

way, I think that is the first time a review process has specifically 

identified cyberspace—and then, fifth, ensuring our Nation’s resiliency to disasters. 

My written statement that we have submitted for the record contains a more exhaustive list of what the budget contains and the 

activities we have under way. I would like to point out a few. 

To prevent terrorism and enhance security, the budget request 

enhances multiple layers of aviation security. This is a critical investment made evident by the failed Christmas Day attack. We 

want to advance and accelerate the installation of advanced imaging technology machines and the personnel who are necessary to 

run them. We want to make sure that there are canine teams, 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
17 

more Federal Air Marshals, and more behavior detection officers on 

our international flights and in our domestic airplanes. 

To secure and manage our borders, the request actually strengthens initiatives that have resulted in concrete border security successes over the past year. We expand the Border Enforcement Security Task Forces, the BEST teams that have proven so very effective along the southwest border in particular, with seizures that 

are in record numbers of contraband in every major category. We 

are utilizing an intelligence-based approach to the drug cartels in 

Mexico, and the budget contains monies to put more intel analysts 

to work on that very issue. It also contains monies to protect Customs and Border Protection staffing levels to make sure that we 

not only sustain Border Patrol along the southwest border but that 

we meet the congressional mandates along the northern border. 

In addition, the border efforts are enhanced by the purchase and 

installation of license plate readers, which this committee approved 

last year, more canine teams, southbound inspection of vehicles 

and the train, the use of mobile imaging systems, and, as I already 

mentioned, doubling the personnel on the BEST teams. We are at 

an unprecedented level of cooperation with Mexico on the battle 

against the cartels, and I would be happy to discuss that with you 

in the Q&A part of this morning. 

In addition, we have for the Coast Guard provided $1.4 billion 

for recapitalization. I have been on Coast Guard vessels now from 

Charleston to Kuwait. The vessels are antiquated. They are old. 

Our servicemen and -women should not have to work in these surroundings. This budget provides for the National Security Cutter 

number five, while decommissioning four of the most antiquated 

cutters. That decommissioning is responsible for a great part of 

some of the personnel loss that you mentioned. 

In terms of enforcement and administration of the Nation’s immigration laws, the budget requests further several initiatives 

under way. For example, it requests monies to strengthen the EVerify system, which is the program we are using to ensure that 

businesses are hiring a legal workforce. 185,000 employers are now 

signed up on E-Verify. They are registering at a little over 1,000 

employers per week. 

Now we also want to expand Secure Communities, Mr. Chairman. I know that you mentioned that in your remarks. We want 

to, at the end of this year, be at 270 jurisdictions that will have 

Secure Communities in their jails and prisons. This allows us to 

identify those who are already incarcerated who must be removed 

from the country. Indeed, the number of criminal alien removals 

and removals in this past year is a record number. 

To safeguard and secure cyberspace, the President’s budget request includes a total of $379 million for our National Cybersecurity Division to identify and reduce vulnerabilities in key cyber networks. We have eliminated some one-time expenditures from last 

year. Particularly, we have already paid for the data center migration that you appropriated last year, and we also have received 

from OPM the authority to direct hire 1,000 computer or cybersecurity experts which we hope will facilitate building up that civilian 

cyber workforce that we need. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
18 

And to ensure resilience to disaster, the President’s budget request includes support for the DRF, the Disaster Relief Fund, with 

a $5.1 billion supplemental in addition to what we are requesting 

for 2011. It also includes monies for Pre-Disaster Mitigation grants 

to support state, local, and tribal governments. 

Finally, let me turn to the question of administration, because 

you raised that. This Department, as you know, is the third largest 

department of the Federal Government. We are, in essence, building the plane while we are flying it. When the Department was created, it was composed of 23 different agencies spread around the 

capital region and elsewhere, in more than four dozen buildings in 

the District alone. 

The budget contains monies to further the construction of a consolidated headquarters in St. Elizabeths. This is important. It contains monies to put program managers and procurement officers in 

place. It looks like it is in my headquarters budget, but these people will actually be out in the components. 

Why is that important? It is important that we have that administrative infrastructure in place so that we make sure that we 

make smart and efficient use of the tax dollars that you appropriate. 

And, indeed, without trying to offer an excuse, the issue of reports was raised. We have 400 mandated congressional reports, I 

think more than any other department. This is something that we 

will continue to work with the Chairman on and you, Congressman 

Rogers. We want to get you accurate information. We want to get 

you speedy information. 

But there is a huge administrative and oversight aspect to this, 

in part because the Congress itself has not changed its committee 

structure to match the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and I think it is fair to point that out. That was a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. It is a recommendation that 

has not yet been followed. 

We will continue to employ the efficiency review initiative in our 

Department. We have already identified millions of dollars of cost 

savings and avoidances that we can have so our money goes where 

it is most needed, which is the mission areas that we have and the 

priorities that we have set. 

I believe the President’s budget furthers those mission areas and 

supports those priorities. So I am happy to be here with you today. 

I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
19 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 57551A.010
20 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 57551A.011
21 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 57551A.012
22 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 57551A.013
23 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 35 57551A.014
24 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 36 57551A.015
25 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 57551A.016
26 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 57551A.017
27 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 57551A.018
28 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 57551A.019
29 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 57551A.020
30 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 57551A.021
31 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 43 57551A.022
32 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 44 57551A.023
33 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 45 57551A.024
34 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 46 57551A.025
35 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 57551A.026
36 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 57551A.027
37 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 57551A.028
38 

AVIATION SECURITY

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Let me begin with a couple of related questions in the area of 

aviation security. 

It doesn’t surprise anyone, of course—especially following the December 25 incident—that you would request a sizable increase for 

aviation security. As both I and the Ranking Member commented, 

it is striking how people-dependent this request is and how heavily 

it is tilted toward new personnel—6,650 new positions—excluding 

the classified Federal air marshal figure. That would be the largest 

hiring effort since TSA federalized the screener workforce. 

So one question I want to ask you has to do with the mix of people and technology that is involved here. How do you justify that? 

Then how do you balance resources between this heavy domestic 

focus on people and technology and the international nature of the 

threat that we face? Only Federal air marshals and a small increase in international aviation security personnel are included on 

the budget on the international side. So I would like for you to 

comment on that mix of people and technologies and also the heavy 

domestic focus here. 

And then, fill us in a bit more than you have in your statement 

about your own international focus. In January, you went to Spain 

to discuss the Nigerian bomber plot and related issues with European security officials. You were in Geneva meeting with international airlines on aviation security. Last week, you went to Mexico to engage Western Hemisphere governments on the same 

issues. Your European trip resulted in a U.S.-European Union declaration on strengthening the civil aviation system through better 

information collection, sharing, and technical cooperation. There is 

an April meeting scheduled to discuss specific measures to achieve 

these goals. And the Mexican trip resulted in a joint agreement 

with Canada and six Latin American countries for greater airplane 

security, biometric use, and information sharing. 

This international focus is understandable and commendable. 

Help us understand its significance and its thrust going forward. 

What consensus have you reached about the kind of airport security procedures to be used for international flights here and 

abroad? What can you tell us about the kind of advanced information that is going to be required going forward of airlines and airplanes? And also any information sharing practices that have been 

agreed upon by the cooperating nations. 

I would be happy to hear whatever you have to say this morning 

and perhaps a fuller account for the record of the status of these 

international discussions and the way they relate directly to some 

of the shortcomings that these recent incidents have highlighted. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me, if I might, break your question into two parts: one, the 

international and then, the funding for what is happening in our 

domestic airplanes. 

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab got on a plane in Lagos, Nigeria. 

He transferred in Amsterdam, and he was flying to Detroit. What 

that illustrated is that the aviation system is a global system. Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security has a very limited role 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
39 

overseas, which is why in the budget proposal you see the heavy 

emphasis on domestic, not international. 

To compensate for that, we have embarked on a very aggressive 

international outreach working with ICAO, which is the international aviation wing of the U.N., to increase aviation screening, 

airport standards, information sharing and collection around the 

world. 

We started in Europe, because they had a ministerial meeting 

that was already set. They allowed aviation to become the agenda 

item. We reached a Western Hemispheric agreement last week 

with major countries of the Western Hemisphere, others will join. 

Next week, we will go to Tokyo to meet with the countries of 

Asia. We have meetings also planned for Africa and the Middle 

East. 

The goal is to have global standards agreed to region by region 

that are then represented globally by the General Assembly of 

ICAO in the early fall. This will do us several things. One is, it will 

improve information and advance passenger information sharing 

and collection about passengers and passenger vetting; secondly, it 

will help create global standards for airport screening, which can 

then be audited and enforced; and, thirdly, it will I think embody 

a worldwide recognition now that al Qaeda and its affiliates are 

still focused on aviation as a central target. That is why while this 

budget contains monies for VIPR teams and other equipment and 

personnel for surface transportation, you see the heavy investment 

in aviation. 

And of course we don’t do the screening abroad. We don’t handle 

what happens at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, for example. 

We have to work in the international environment to get some 

of those things done. We are working with the air carriers themselves. They have, obviously, a vested interest in this. And so 

IATA, which is the international—it is the international airlines 

who are non-U.S. flagged and also with the U.S.-flagged air carriers and their CEOs on this. 

[The information follows:] 

Following the events of December 25, 2009, TSA developed an aggressive timeline 

and corresponding strategy to build upon its already strong engagement and outreach efforts at the international level. The Secretary has attended meetings in 

Mexico City for Latin America and is currently in Japan for an Asian Ministerial. 

Follow-on meetings will occur in Africa in April and an undetermined date in May 

in the Middle East. Additionally there have been extensive meetings with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) at a global level, regional AVSEC 

groups and a series of bilateral meetings with EU countries, Asian nations, Latin 

American countries and African nations. 

Focusing on 10 priority areas designed to effect the greatest change in international aviation security, TSA strives to raise awareness of the threat and encourage specific enhancements in security measures worldwide. Priority areas include 

developing a common view of the threat; enhancing international standards; conducting audits; encouraging the use of technological and non-technological measures; developing cooperative agreements for information sharing; providing training 

and technical assistance; and working with host governments to enhance their authorities for aviation. This targeted coordination and collaboration will continue to 

advance our key security objectives. One critical element of this strategy is working 

within the construct of the ICAO to ensure new and emerging threats are incorporated into future amendments of Annex 17 (Security) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, which is the guiding document for security requirements for 

international aviation. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
40 

ADVANCED IMAGING TECHNOLOGY

In terms of our domestic airlines, yes, you saw an increase in 

personnel at the TSA. Those are associated with what is necessary 

to operate the AITs, the Advanced Imaging Technology machines, 

on a 24/7 basis; and there is a formula for that. 

We had, prior to Christmas, planned to be rolling out AITs. They 

are the next iteration of technology. They are objectively better 

than relying on a magnetometer. They pick up powders, liquids, 

other anomalies that a passenger may be trying to bring on a 

plane, but they needed personnel trained to operate them. So a 

great part of that is associated with the rapid acceleration of the 

deployment of the Advanced Imaging Technology. 

Mr. PRICE. The formula being five FTEs to operate each AIT machine around the clock? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. And we can give you the staffing 

plan. These machines have been piloted, obviously. But it is for a 

24/7 operation. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, I do think the December 25 incident highlighted 

the good work this Subcommittee and your Department have done 

in providing for the deployment of hundreds of these machines. 

This has been under way for some time now. The piloting is completed, and we have a deployment plan. But, of course, this gives 

us an impetus to step this up, to make it more comprehensive, and 

your budget does reflect that. 

It is expensive, though. It is a big item, and it has probably led 

to some trade-offs in other areas that we are going to need to 

evaluate. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, and we will look 

forward to working with the Subcommittee and the staff on that 

as you go through the appropriations process. 

But in looking at the amount of machines that are out there, 

what could actually physically be purchased and installed in Fiscal 

Year 2011 so that we could get all the way down really to category 

X, category one, two, and even some of the category three airplanes, this was the staffing that we estimated was required. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Rogers. 

GROWING HEADQUARTERS FUNDING AT EXPENSE OF OPERATIONS

Mr. ROGERS. Madam Secretary, there is an alarming disparity in 

the budget request. Double-digit increases for headquarters offices’ 

staff but cuts to virtually every major operational security program—border security, port security, cargo security, infrastructure 

protection, cybersecurity. And at a time when our intelligence community is projecting a certain al Qaeda attack in the U.S. in the 

next 3 to 6 months, the budget request proposes funding priorities 

and trade-offs that are at best curious and at worst dangerous. For 

example, notable funding imbalances that I wanted to mention to 

you: 

Your headquarter’s offices, including the Offices of the Secretary 

and Executive Management, Office of the Under Secretary for Management, CFO, CIO are requested to increase by $468 million—58 

percent—and at a time when you are proposing $200 million for seVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:15 Sep 10, 2010 Jkt 057551 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A551P2.XXX A551P2

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
41 

curity costs associated with bringing the terrorists from Guantanamo here for trial. 

You are also proposing to decrease Customs and Border Protection by $309 million, over a 3 percent cut. The Coast Guard will 

be cut by $31.6 million. Infrastructure protection, including cybersecurity, is proposed to decrease by $18 million-plus. 

Your office staffing is proposed to be grown by 576 full-time 

equivalents, a 35 percent increase. I think we are all here certainly 

saying you need personnel to try to tie together the disparate 

pieces of homeland security, but this is way beyond what I think 

is necessary. 

The Coast Guard would be cutting 1,100 personnel, and I can’t 

fathom what the game plan here is. For example, in fiscal 2011, 

while we are, in my judgment, wasting the $200 million on terror 

trial protection, CBP air and machine operations are cut by 3.2 

percent, key operational assets from Coast Guard are being decommissioned, including four of the twelve 378-foot high-endurance 

cutters. That is one-third of the HEC fleet. You are cutting four 

HU–25 fixed-wing aircraft, five HH–65 helicopters, and five of the 

13 maritime safety and security teams, including the ones located 

in New York, New Orleans, and Anchorage, the sites of two of the 

largest-ever disasters in American history, 9/11 and Katrina, and 

sites near two of the Nation’s vital oil pipelines, the LOOP terminal off Louisiana and the Alaska pipeline shipping terminal in 

Valdez. 

I know that you say that the Coast Guard cuts are to make room 

for new investments, but the Coast Guard’s acquisitions are also 

decreased by $155 million, or 10 percent. New investments are 

being prolonged. The net result is a huge loss in the operational 

capability in fiscal 2011 until toward the end of fiscal 2011. 

The Coast Guard tells me in questioning that its capability to 

interdict smuggled cocaine will decline, that the amount of cocaine 

removed will decline by 11 percent due to the loss of these assets. 

In fiscal 2009, the four 378-footer ships that are proposed to be decommissioned contributed to the removal of 35,000 pounds of cocaine and 400 pounds of marijuana, estimated value of close to 

$500 million. 

I don’t understand the priorities that are represented in this 

budget with regard to these matters, among others. Can you help 

me with them? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. I really appreciate the opportunity 

to do that, because I really believe that it is superficially easy to 

say you are increasing bureaucrats and decreasing folks who actually do the mission, and nothing could be further from the truth. 

Here is the fact of the matter. As I suggested in my opening 

statement, yes, you are right. There is an increase of ‘‘headquarters 

staff’’ but these are individuals who are not actually, many of them, 

at headquarters. They are making sure that we have good program 

management, procurement management and that we are integrating and migrating together the myriad data systems that we 

inherited in this Department. It is part of creating the structure of 

the Department out of which operations arise. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
42 

And I will tell you, as a former governor, you have got to have 

some of these personnel to make your operations the most efficient, 

the most intelligent and effective that you can. 

The number had to go somewhere, so I guess it is easy to pick 

on headquarters. But these are folks that are designed to make 

sure we spend the dollars you appropriate in the best possible way. 

With respect to CBP, I know there has been some issue about 

cutting Border Patrol agents? We are not. We will not. And I think 

a clarification document has been submitted to the Committee. 

[The information follows:] 

These materials were provided to the Committee on March 9, 2010. 

With respect to cyber, we have eliminated some one-time expenses. For example, you gave us the money last year to help us 

integrate into what is called the NCCIC, our cybercapacity. We 

don’t need to do that this year. 

Some of those things are also attributable in CBP. I mentioned 

license plate readers. You gave us the money to buy more license 

plate readers for the border. Those are very useful law enforcement 

tools, but we have bought them. They are there. They are installed. 

They are being used. We don’t need to repeat that expenditure in 

a tight fiscal year. 

And if I might close, Representative, on the Coast Guard. You 

used the number 1,100. There is actually an add-on in other areas. 

I think the net is 783 personnel. 

Let me address in particular the reduction—the consolidation, 

really, of the MSSTs. You know, one of the challenges that we have 

is to make sure that we are operating efficiently even as we perform our mission. There is no bigger supporter of the Coast Guard 

than I am, and they do a remarkable job at many, many things. 

The MSSTs are simply being consolidated. Why? Because they can 

cover regionally. 

Let me use New York as an example. We suggest that that 

MSST be consolidated and consolidated up to Boston. That was a 

proposal that emanated from the Coast Guard. Why? Well, because 

they already have a huge Coast Guard footprint in New York Harbor, and a third of the time they were being deployed not even in 

the New York area. They were being deployed elsewhere. It was 

considered by the Coast Guard leadership better to have fewer 

teams that have a more regional focus. I believe that you can accomplish that mission out of those teams with fewer of them regionally designed; and that, indeed, is what the Coast Guard leadership proposed. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, in closing, Mr. Chairman, we are delighted to 

give you money to fill these vacant management positions at the 

Department. As the Chairman has mentioned, there are several 

major pieces of homeland security who are leaderless at this point, 

including TSA for over a year, amongst others. We have no problem giving money for filling those positions. 

But you know, last year—this is the second year in a row that 

you have proposed a budget that focuses more upon the bureaucrats in Washington than the frontline operators, a prioritization 

that Congress rejected last year and I have confidence we will reject again this year. When are you going to learn that we are not 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
43 

going to fund these enormous increases in personnel in headquarters as opposed to—and while you are cutting Coast Guard 

and other frontline operations? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Congressman, if I might just add—I must 

not be communicating clearly. 

Mr. ROGERS. No, you are not. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. So let me try one more time. Are you 

ready? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. All right. First of all, these are personnel 

that will be spread throughout the operating components of the Department; and so to say they are headquarters personnel is a 

mischaracterization. 

Secondly, these are individuals designed to meet the management requisites that the Congress, in part, has imposed on the Department but also makes smart long-term investments in creating 

the management infrastructure of the Department. 

And, thirdly, the operational components—I just responded to 

the Chairman on why we were increasing TSA officers by such a 

high number. We will meet our Border Patrol numbers on the 

southern border and the northern border and sustain them. We are 

going to make smarter use of the technology dollars that you appropriate for that southern border. That is why we are taking a 

fresh look at SBInet. We are going to recapitalize this Coast Guard 

so our men and women aren’t fighting in antiquated vessels, and 

that is really the design and focus of the President’s budget. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Ruppersberger. 

CYBERSECURITY

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Thank you. 

Well, first, you do have a difficult job. You have a lot on your 

plate. So I hope you have a good team, and we will try to do what 

we can to work with you. 

I think Mr. Rogers, by the way, made some relevant issues on 

the budgeting. If you are cutting, we need in our capacity of oversight to look at that. 

I do want to applaud you for the Coast Guard. I think it is one 

of the best organizations that I have seen in this country. They 

have very little but they do an excellent job in what their mission 

is. I am glad you look after the Coast Guard. 

I want to get into the area of cybersecurity. It is an area that 

a lot of people in this country don’t know about, but yet it is one 

of the biggest threats we have, I believe, to our national security. 

As you know, we have been cyberattacked by different countries. 

Hackers—probably al Qaeda—has attempted not only with respect 

to our military, our intelligence, our dot-gov, and all of our commercial industry. And the President’s directive gives you, Homeland Security—your job is to oversee all of the dot-com and the dotgov, and that is an awesome responsibility where we are as it relates to cybersecurity. 

Cybersecurity is something that has to be a team effort. We have 

to work very closely with our military, our intelligence, our business communities, and we have to eventually educate our citizens 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
44 

how serious cybersecurity is and how the bad guys can go in—a 

senior citizen in California who might communicate with a community bank, that community bank then communicates with the Bank 

of America, and there is an ability to cut down the ATM systems 

of a major bank. So the threats are out there. 

Where I want to focus, though, on this hearing is the fact of your 

technology. I have had conversations with Admiral Brown who—I 

guess he oversees your cybersecurity or is one of your key people 

there. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. One of them. 

EINSTEIN 3

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. One of them. And the technology that you 

are using to protect us. 

You know, Einstein—and a lot of people don’t know what I am 

talking about now, but it is really the mechanism, the software program that is there to help and protect us in the dot-gov and the 

dot-com. Einstein has worked for a while, but as we move forward 

we are moving into different Einsteins, 1, 2, and now 3. Now Einstein 3 is going to be, hopefully, the program that will help to protect this country and the responsibility of your mission. 

I believe right now NSA is one of the best in the world in what 

they do as it relates to the technology of homeland security. I think 

that General Alexander is one of the best in this field. I just hope 

the Senate will hurry up and confirm him so he can do the job as 

necessary. 

But where my concern is is that NSA has spent a tremendous 

amount of money on research and development to develop the programs to protect us; and now you are coming in, rather new, and 

these are the early stages of homeland security and the defense. I 

would hope that you would not only work very closely but not reinvent the wheel as it relates to the technology of Einstein 3. 

And, you know, this happens a lot in our government. FBI as an 

example has a communication system that still doesn’t work. Why 

they didn’t take one of the other agencies, like CIA or NSA, I don’t 

know. But spending millions of dollars on that communications system still hasn’t worked. 

And I say that as an example because it seems to me that if 

Homeland Security in the initial stages does not work closely—and 

if they are going to duplicate efforts, if they are going to spend 

money that we don’t need when we really need to get to the end 

game and do whatever we can to stand up as quickly as we can 

the defense mechanisms to protect our homeland from 

cyberattacks—where are you as it relates to Einstein 3? Are you 

going out sole source? 

I know you have put out a request for information, which kind 

of concerns me. Are there issues involving the acquisition laws that 

we have to deal with? But it is very important I think that we 

work very closely with the NSA program that is there so that that 

will help us stand up and protect our citizens. 

That is a long question but—kind of complicated. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. Representative, first of all, we 

have culled out cyber. Because, after the President’s review, DHS 

is the lead agency for dot-com and dot-gov. Obviously, dot-com is 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
45 

controlled by the private sector, so part of that is just working 

with—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. In coordination. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Coordination. And I think that even 

when companies like Google say they need help, I think it finally 

is penetrating the public’s mind how important this issue is. It is 

not our intent to reinvent any wheel. It is our intent to move forward. 

I don’t want to comment publicly on Einstein 3 per se here in an 

unclassified setting, but—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. The word is not classified, but I know other 

issues are. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. There are other issues. And what I would 

suggest is perhaps a classified briefing for members of the subcommittee who are interested particularly in the cyber aspect of 

the budget and how we are moving forward with that. 

[The information follows:] 

The Department had a classified cyber security briefing for the Members of the 

Subcommittee for 3:30 p.m. on April 15, 2010. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. That would be a good idea. Mr. Chairman, 

maybe we could have the Director of NSA there also and really, 

really hone in on what needs to be done to make sure that there 

are not duplication of efforts. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would recommend that you have the 

Deputy Under Secretary for NPPD, Phil Reitinger. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. What is NPPD? A lot of people don’t know 

the acronym. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. National Protection and Programs Directorate. I always just call it NPPD. 

But, in any event, the Deputy Director, Phil Reitinger, we have 

centered all cyberactivity—except the cybercrimes issues that are 

done by the Secret Service—all other cybers under Phil’s direction. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Is my time up? 

Mr. PRICE. It is up. We have had such briefings in the past and 

no doubt will in the near future. 

Let’s turn now to Mr. Carter. 

ISLAMIC EXTREMISM

Mr. CARTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, welcome. Good to see you again. 

I want to start out, I woke up this morning and turned on the 

television and was very pleased to hear you say that violent Islamic terrorism relates to the incident at Fort Hood, and I agree 

110 percent with you on that issue. It is an issue that I have been 

waiting to hear from the administration for quite a while now and 

have been waiting to hear from the Department of the Army. Because I do honestly believe that that was a terrorist act that was 

committed there in my district. 

So thank you for that comment, and I would hope that you would 

join me in trying to get the benefits for wounded soldiers who are 

killed in combat and fighting terrorism for those people who were 

wounded and killed at Fort Hood because I think it is something 

we owe those people that were shot and killed at Fort Hood. So we 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
46 

have a bill to do that, and I would love to have your support on 

that bill. So thank you very much for that comment. 

I think it is important that we—and I think what you said when 

you talked to the Senate—please forgive my voice—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is all right. 

Mr. CARTER. I have this strange allergy to this town. I think everybody does, but mine seems to—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Everyone has that at some point or another, I suspect. 

Mr. CARTER. But I think all of us feel very strongly that it is important that we call things what we see honestly and identify 

things as honestly as we fight this very, very strange war we are 

having to fight against people who want to kill innocent people. So 

that is a comment. 

The question that I want to ask about this, do you have any further thoughts on how we identify terrorists and what terrorism— 

and get us some kind of a definable definition not only for your Department but for the concept that we are having? We have battered 

this around for years since this first all started, and everybody 

seems to have their own version of what terrorism is. Would you 

like to expand upon any of the things you said to the Senate about 

terrorism? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Representative, I think that terrorism in several iterations is—it is the environment in which we 

live now, and it will be the environment in which we live for the 

foreseeable future. Some of it is international, Islamic extremism, 

al Qaeda and its affiliates, to give you the primary example. 

What we have seen this year, unfortunately, is the rise of what 

is called homegrown, U.S. citizens who have become radicalized, 

may go to a camp in Yemen and come back, for example. That is 

a concern at the Department of Homeland Security. 

And then we have seen an increase in the lone wolf-type attacks 

which from a law enforcement and investigation perspective are 

the most challenging. Why? Because, by definition, they are not 

conspiring, they are not using the phones, the computer networks, 

they are not talking with others, any other way that we might get 

some inkling about what is being planned. So we have a lot to do 

in this area. 

We have chosen a particular focus moving forward, based on the 

intel that we receive, but I think that you could use the word terrorism to perhaps describe each of those three areas. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, I thank you for being willing to address violent Islamic terrorism. 

I will tell you that when this incident occurred at Fort Hood, my 

office was inundated out of my district and around the entire country with comments about—it seemed to be that we were not hearing people being willing to reflect on the Islamic part of this thing 

because they were accusing the government and the Congress of 

being too politically correct to identify accurately what that attack 

was all about. I am talking about thousands of e-mails we received 

and requests for us to speak truthfully about that. 

I think we can speak truthfully without being offensive to any religion, being offensive to Islam at all. We are identifying a situation 

that is occurring, and I think everybody knows it is occurring. And 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
47 

I commend you for being courageous to speak out like that, because 

the American people have been waiting to hear that kind of comment. So I thank you for that. You can guarantee that I am going 

to be speaking out about that, and I think most of my colleagues, 

also, too. So thank you for that. 

We are going to be fighting this fight, and we will provide the 

resources to get it done. So thank you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Mollohan. 

FUNDING REQUESTS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like to 

commend you on your efforts at continually calibrating, updating, 

and reorganizing the Department of Homeland Security. I think we 

all recognize that it was the throwing together of a lot of disparate 

elements of the government into one agency. And it is no criticism 

of you that you continue to look for ways to manage it efficiently. 

And that, of course, is going to impact your personnel across the 

agencies, as you have emphasized, and result in budget shifts, 

which might look like swings as we look at them here on a yearto-year basis. Your predecessors had that challenge and it was no 

criticism of them that it was a difficult challenge then. 

So as we look at these funding requests and the swings they represent, I think we have to look at it in that context. So you are to 

be commended to move forward with that reorganization, and I 

commend you for it. 

I chair the Subcommittee that funds the Department of Justice, 

and there is a lot of interfacing between the Homeland Security 

and Justice, of course, and so some of the DHS requests will have 

a domino effect on DOJ funding. Your Border Patrol request looks 

like it has a decrease in Border Patrol agents, but you emphasized 

or you commented that it does not. I would like you to talk briefly 

about why this request, while it might look like it results in a decrease in Border Patrol agents, it really doesn’t. Would you comment on that first? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. Well, first of all, the request 

never contemplated any reduction in terms of operational force on 

either the southern or the northern borders. I am very protective 

of that force. I was one of the advocates to build it up. You need 

boots on the ground to marry it with technology and then to marry 

with effective work site enforcement to really have an immigration 

system that enforces our Nation’s laws even as we work to improve 

those laws. And they do need to be improved. 

So it never contemplated that. What it did contemplate was some 

attrition savings and other savings. We have now reprogrammed 

basically $15.5 million, which, in the scheme of a $50-billion or so 

budget is a small amount. But we programmed that amount to 

cover that. So, again, let me just emphasize there is no reduction 

of Border Patrol in the President’s 2011 request. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Of Border Patrol agents? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is correct. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
48 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. It also looks like you are cutting spending on border technology by $225 million. Is that the license plate readers? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Some of that, a lot of that is. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. One-time purchase? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed, one-time purchases that were 

made. 

OPERATION STONEGARDEN

We have a very extensive program of security along the southwest border. By the way, I neglected to mention that the 

Stonegarden Funds are being used by the local State sheriffs along 

that border to help as well. And that has really helped them 

through some tight budget times. So we have an extensive program 

along that southwest border and involving not just DHS but other 

departments, I think a great deal of cooperation with the federal 

government of Mexico. My particular concern and our particular 

concern right now, of course, is assisting not just with the cartels 

and the violence there. Several heads of those cartels now have 

been apprehended this year. Others are certainly under investigation. But, also, the issue about the rule of law and the state of Chihuahua, which is where Juarez is located. 

We have not seen the kind of spillover violence that I think we 

all are concerned about, but we don’t want to see spillover violence. 

So a lot of it is prophylactic in nature as well. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. A budgetary question. As you fashion your border, do you and your agency budgets anticipate its impact on the 

budgets of other agencies, like the Department of Justice? Is that 

a conscious part of your thinking as you interface with the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Attorneys, all of 

the investigative personnel, and drug enforcement people? As your 

budget impacts the border, are you interfacing with the Department of Justice and considering how DHS’s work impacts DOJ’s 

budget? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, we are absolutely interfacing at an 

operational level. One of the agreements we reached, for example—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, what about at the budgetary level? That 

is my question. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. For example, if we have agents 

down there, who is going to handle the prosecution and the immigration courts, where the DOJ budget gets impacted. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I don’t have much time. Is that a part of the 

budgetary process on your part? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It is. Not directly. That is done at OMB. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Calvert. 

E-VERIFY

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary, for coming today. As you know, I 

was involved in the creation of E-Verify. And there was a story in 

The Wall Street Journal this morning, I don’t know if you saw the 

story, it was regarding a company named—if I have the pronunciaVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:15 Sep 10, 2010 Jkt 057551 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A551P2.XXX A551P2

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
49 

tion right, I think it is Westat, a consulting firm. And the story was 

regarding abuse of identity fraud in the utilization of E-Verify. 

Apparently, it’s very accurate as far as being able to identify the 

Social Security number versus the name, and there is improvements in that. Unfortunately, a lot of people now are using someone else’s identity and Social Security number. And so the study 

stated in the paper this morning there was a 54 percent inaccuracy 

rate. Which I think seems high. But I was going to ask you to look 

into that and see if you can get back to us on that. 

In that regard, I know that there is action taking place to fight 

that, freezing the Social Security number, making sure that Social 

Security numbers are not being used multiple periods of time, the 

same identification over and over again. I would ask that you look 

into that. But in that regard, I see that in your budget request, 

that you cut E-Verify somewhat. And I was going to ask, what is 

the purpose of cutting the program this year? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, we asked for another $108 million 

this year to build on the $130-some odd million that was appropriated last year. Part of it is, as you build the system, you don’t 

need to keep replicating the same expenditures. But I think the EVerify system is absolutely where we are going in terms of 

incentivizing employers and making it as user friendly as possible 

to make sure they are using a legal workforce. 

Now, on the identity fraud issue. We are adding or have added, 

actually, to the algorithms used in the system, pings, for example, 

if the same Social Security number arises, so that you can pretty 

much tell there is an ID fraud going on because different people 

are using the same Social Security number. 

So those kinds of algorithms are now being added to the system 

to really deal with that identity fraud issue, as well as biometrics. 

Mr. CALVERT. Apparently, according to the story, it is happening 

quite a bit. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I don’t think it is 54 percent. So I will be 

happy to look into that. 

[The information follows:] 

In its study of the E-Verify program, the Westat Corporation found that in approximately 96% of the cases submitted during a three-month period in 2008, the 

findings of E-Verify were consistent with the workers’ true employment authorization status. Further, the study found that of the cases submitted to E-Verify, 6.2% 

of the workers were actually unauthorized and, of that subset, E-Verify detected 

slightly less than half as unauthorized. The study concluded that this rate is not 

surprising in light of E-Verify’s current limited ability to detect identity fraud. 

USCIS is working hard to improve E-Verify’s ability to detect identity fraud. 

USCIS has already added DHS-issued photos to the system allowing for a biometric 

comparison for authorized workers and we are in the process of adding passport 

photos to E-Verify’s photo tool. We have also significantly enhanced our capabilities 

to monitor system use for evidence of identity fraud, and we are developing tools 

that will allow workers to lock their own Social Security Number in E-Verify until 

they are changing jobs. 

However, even with these steps it is important to understand the limitations of 

the current system. The largest pool of available biometrics are state driver’s license 

photos. Access to these photos would improve E-Verify’s ability to effectively combat 

identity fraud. However, even with this limitation we are examining biometric and 

biographic options to further strengthen verification of employees and to reduce misuse, fraud, identity theft and abuse. 

It is important to note that E-Verify is but one tool in the Department’s efforts 

to ensure a lawful workforce, and the crime of identity fraud is combated by a full 

complement of enforcement tools, including the 1–9 audit program. USCIS is workVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:15 Sep 10, 2010 Jkt 057551 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A551P2.XXX A551P2

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
50 

ing this year and in FY 2011 to implement a series of improvements consistent with 

the $30 million in two-year funding the Congress provided in the FY 2010 appropriations bill. System algorithms are being improved for better data matching in 

order to continue to reduce inaccurate initial results. USCIS is also developing SelfCheck functionality within E-Verify to help employees proactively identify and resolve data issues outside of the hiring process that could help prevent data 

mismatches with the E-Verify system. 

Mr. CALVERT. The other question I have, as you know, in my district is the Air and Marine Operations Center. And I was asking 

as far as how the National Task Force as designated by the National Interdiction Command and Control Plan as Homeland Security Interdiction Center focused on the arrival zone, is a question 

here. I have heard that some interest in my colleagues in Texas of 

creating another AMOC-like center in Texas. Is that going on right 

now, too? Is there going to be another plan to put another AMOClike center for interdiction in Texas? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I will have to get back to you on that. It 

is not something I am familiar with. 

[The information follows:] 

There are no plans to create an AMOC in TX. 

URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE

Mr. CALVERT. Okay. Another issue that came to my attention is 

the urban search and rescue program. As you know, we have 28 

teams nationally that do a great job. We utilized them most recently in Haiti. Apparently, there in the budget is a $4.5 million 

decrease from the $32.5 million enacted last year. I have heard 

from some of these teams. They claim that it costs them significantly more to keep these teams up and operating than they are 

presently getting in the present budget under the $32.5 million and 

this cut is certainly disappointing to them. As a matter of fact, 

some of these teams have told me that they may have to remove 

themselves from the program if they aren’t able to get increased 

funding because of some of the budget challenges they have in 

their various states and local communities. 

So I would ask you to take a look at that, and I think as a Committee we should take a look at that, also. Obviously, if, in fact, 

there is a terrorist attack or a natural disaster, we are going to 

rely on these teams to respond, and taking a cut in these programs 

at this time is probably a significant problem. I would hope that 

we can find, Mr. Chairman, a suitable offset to remedy that problem. 

Do you have any comment on that, Madam Secretary? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, as you say, the search and rescue 

teams have multiple uses. And we saw one of the things we were 

able to do with FEMA in helping coordinate was bring a lot of them 

down to Haiti in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake. Those 

are the kind of things we would be happy to work with the Subcommittee on. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Ms. Lowey. 

PASSENGER MANIFEST

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome. Before I 

get to my question, I would like you to get back to me on the biparVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:15 Sep 10, 2010 Jkt 057551 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A551P2.XXX A551P2

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
51 

tisan legislation, which you were going to get back to me on, which 

is currently cosponsored by nearly 150 members to grant all TSA 

employees collective bargaining rights, whistleblower protections, 

veterans preference, and other common workplace protections that 

belong to other DHS employees which President Obama has publicly supported. 

I do not view the lack of the TSA administrator as an excuse to 

neglect the workplace rights of over 40,000 frontline security personnel. So if you can get back to me as soon as possible, I would 

appreciate it. 

There are two questions I would like to ask of you today: Number 

one, regarding the passenger manifest vetting system. To me, it is 

outrageous that Abdulmutallab was a known threat and could have 

been stopped from boarding the plane had CBP more time to review the passenger list. During a hearing last March 10 with CBP 

Commissioner Ahern, I asked him whether airlines should provide 

passenger lists 24 hours in advance of international flights arriving 

in the United States as incoming sea vessels are required to do, 

and he replied, Ahern, Absolutely not. I do not think so, in the air 

environment. So it is obvious that 30 minutes is not enough time 

for CBP officers to screen hundreds of passengers. Twenty-four 

hours should be the new standard. 

So I would like to know from you—and we all understand there 

will be stragglers last minute. Is it still the position of DHS that 

30 minutes is ample time to properly and extensively vet all passengers on international flights bound for the United States? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, we are obviously looking and reviewing the entire way that international aviation works, as I described to the Chair. But let me make one point about one change 

we have made in the wake of December 25. 

It was the protocol in prior years that CBP overseas would get 

two lists that were pushed out, the terror screening database and 

the no-fly list. Through a process in which multiple errors occurred, 

Abdulmutallab’s name never got on TSDB, nor did it get on the nofly list. And so in Amsterdam, the CBP officer there was not able 

to advise the Dutch to make sure he got a secondary screening, nor 

were they able to advise the airline that he was a no-fly. 

Now, that process is being reformed and corrected, and that involves not DHS––we don’t prepare the watchlist—but the NCTC. 

But we have made one material change, and that is the State 

Department visa lists. Whenever there is a note made on a visa 

that mentions terrorism or extremism, that will be pushed out in 

addition to the TSDB and the no-fly list overseas. That would have 

picked up Abdulmutallab had that been done. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Secretary, I appreciate that. But if you can 

answer my question, respectfully: Why is 24 hours unacceptable? 

Why can’t the visas and other documents be presented 24 hours in 

advance, understanding that there will be stragglers? Why are you 

opposed to that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I didn’t say I was opposed to it. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Why did you not tell me you support it? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, because, Representative, I don’t 

know whether 24 hours is the right amount of time. 

Mrs. LOWEY. It may be 72. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
52 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It may be shorter. But I will say that we 

are looking at the entire system. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Let me just say, we have been working on secure 

flight forever. I don’t even want to discuss the mega millions of dollars that have been spent on that. Originally we were talking about 

72 hours. But it would seem to me that there is no rational reason 

why 24 hours in advance, given all the other changes that are 

being made, in these very difficult times where we hear about constant threats, why the—I would like 72 hours. Why 24 hours is unreasonable. So if you can get back to me as soon as possible on 

that, I would appreciate it. 

[The information follows:] 

DHS has implemented a layered approach to screening advance passenger data 

against the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), the U.S. Government’s Terrorist 

Watchlist. Specifically, DHS is implementing the Secure Flight program that requires carriers to provide TSA with available passenger data 72 hours prior to the 

departure of a flight (domestic or international) for screening against the No Fly 

and Selectee subsets of the TSDB. TSA anticipates that Secure Flight deployments 

for domestic aircraft operators will be completed in spring 2010. TSA has also initiated Secure Flight deployments for foreign aircraft operators and expects to assume 

watchlist matching for all flights, international and domestic, by the end of calendar 

year 2010. 

Additionally, CBP has direct access to Passenger Name Record (PNR—passenger 

reservations) data for international flights with a nexus to the U.S. beginning at 72 

hours prior to departure. CBP screens PNR data against TSDB records to include 

the No Fly and Selectee lists. 

Finally, carriers are required to transmit their complete and final passenger 

manifests to CBP no less than 30 minutes prior to departure. This allows for one 

final check against the TSDB. 

CBP and TSA have well established procedures in place to coordinate directly 

with carriers to ensure that passengers on the No Fly list are denied boarding, and 

that the carriers are informed of passengers who are otherwise inadmissible to the 

United States, such that they may deny boarding to those passengers. 

Once all carriers have transitioned to Secure Flight, all DHS information-based 

screening will begin at 72 hours prior to departure. CBP will continue to screen 

PNR data against the TSDB as part of their border security and immigration admissibility determination, and TSA will assume responsibility for screening air passengers against the watchlist and advise carriers of No Fly and Selectee matches. 

SECURING THE CITIES

And I would like to ask one more question. Because your fiscal 

year 2011 budget proposal, as with your fiscal year 2010 request 

does not request any funding once again for securing the cities a 

Federal and local effort to prevent illicit radiological and nuclear 

material from being detonated in Manhattan. For fiscal year 2010, 

Congress provided $20 million under the Systems Acquisition Account to fund this vital initiative to eliminate the most catastrophic 

attack scenario. 

Now, Congress has continued to support this program. I think we 

all understand that the 9/11 attack was an attack on the United 

States of America. New York remains the top target. And, as far 

as I am concerned, if Ray Kelly says he needs the money and the 

money that has been appropriated has been obligated, I cannot understand why this is not a priority for you and the Department. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Representative, Securing the Cities 

was always designed to be a 3-year program and then it could convert to UASI. And you may suggest that that money has already 

been obligated by the New York City Police, but the last time I 

asked it had not yet; the money that had already been approVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:15 Sep 10, 2010 Jkt 057551 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A551P2.XXX A551P2

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
53 

priated had not yet been obligated. So there is UASI monies available if New York chooses to use it in that fashion. It was always 

designed when the program was set up to be a 3-year grant. The 

Congress has funded it in that fashion. 

You know, you are absolutely right that Manhattan is a central 

target. There is no question about that. It gets a variety and will 

receive a variety of monies from this Congress for its protection. 

But that particular grant, which is a small amount of what it ultimately gets, was always designed to be 3 years and, as far as I 

know, has not yet been obligated by the City of New York. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Let me just say in closing, Mr. Chairman, I would 

like some more information on that as well, because it was a demonstration project. And, frankly, if Ray Kelly says the demonstration hasn’t been completed and he needs more money specifically 

for that, the tremendous amount of money that has to be spent— 

and you know that because New York is still the number one 

threat—I think we have to evaluate it in that context. 

[The information follows:] 

Response—STC was conceived to be a three year pilot program to develop a preventive radiological/nuclear detection (PRND) operating capability centered on a 

high-risk metropolitan area. $70 million has been made available for this purpose. 

Due to risk, NYC was chosen as the first implementation of this initiative. The initiative was never intended to fully complete the NYC region’s radiological/nuclear 

detection architecture. NYC regional STC stakeholders can continue to fund additional capabilities through DHS grants (Homeland Security Grant Program, UASI, 

etc.) if they feel this capability remains a priority and if additional funds are still 

warranted. DNDO will continue to support the STC initiative through the obligation 

and expenditure of appropriated STC funds with experienced program management 

and subject matter experts in preventive radiological and nuclear detection. 

Congress appropriated FY2010 STC funding. A Funding Opportunity Announcement will be posted on Grants.gov in mid to late March 2010 to announce the availability of these funds for the NYC region. DHS expects to award this money via a 

cooperative agreement during 4th quarter FY 2010. 

2007 2008 2009 Total 2010 

Appropriated for STC ..................................................................................... *$0.00 $30.00 $20.00 $50.00 $20.00 

DHS Support .................................................................................................. 5.60 0.50 2.00 8.10 TBD 

Amt Awarded to NYPD .................................................................................. 3.25 29.50 16.70 49.45 TBD

Amt Expensed by NYPD ................................................................................. 0.09 12.10 0.00 12.19 TBD 

* Funding for the FY07 Securing the Cities Grant was from the RD&O Appropriation; all remaining funds were from the Systems Acquisition 

Appropriation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

PROJECT SHIELD

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Kirk. 

Mr. KIRK. I just want to agree with my colleague from New York 

that I think the intelligence shows New York is the number one 

threat. So I think she is wisely grounded there. 

I first want to say I think our decision as a Committee that the 

Chairman wisely cut headquarter staff and restored Coast Guard, 

I don’t think your budget is sustainable. I think on a bipartisan 

basis we will need to do that again. 

And I will say on the proposal to bring GITMO to the heartland, 

the Illinois General Assembly last Wednesday voted 81–13 to strip 

the Illinois governor of the ability to offer Thompson. So you probVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:15 Sep 10, 2010 Jkt 057551 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A551P2.XXX A551P2

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
54 

ably won’t have the ability to spend that money, because by a vetoproof majority now the State legislature is quickly acting to deny 

the ability of that facility to be offered. Let me ask you a separate 

question, though. 

Last October, Congressman Quigley and I wrote to the Department about the improper use of Federal Homeland Security dollars 

at Cook County. Apparently, $43 million in DH funds for a Project 

Shield, a video surveillance program, was misspent. We have reports that Project Shield out of DHS funded bankrupt companies, 

phony surveillance programs, and companies that did not exist and 

falsified documents. 

Now, in January, the president of the Cook County Board fired 

his chief information officer, Antonio Hilton, who was in charge of 

Project Shield. To date, the project is showing 36 percent over 

budget, 3 years late in implementation, and looks like largely a 

waste of over $40 million in Federal monies. 

First of all, since Congressman Quigley and I wrote to you, have 

you done anything about this? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We are looking into it right now. But I 

am going to make another point. I am as opposed to misspent, 

overspent, inefficient use of tax dollars as anyone you will ever see. 

But you need project managers to manage that. So it is somehow 

working with the Committee we have to understand that we can’t 

on the one hand say you have got too many headquarters staff, 

which I have said now many times is not located in headquarters, 

and then have a critique on a particular program because it wasn’t 

well managed. 

So I really look forward to working with this Subcommittee, because those are inconsistent positions. 

Mr. KIRK. But beyond the generalities, you have now had 4 

months notice on this. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No. The letter was sent to the IG. It was 

not sent to me. 

Mr. KIRK. I think you had a copy. So did you do anything? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You sent it to the IG. It was not sent to 

me. So I don’t know about it. And we will be happy to look into 

it. 

Mr. KIRK. Wow. So the fact that this ran on all three Chicago 

networks and directly referenced your Department, you didn’t 

know about it? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Sir, I have a copy of the letter here. It 

was addressed to the IG. There is no cc to me. And, I am sorry, 

I don’t get Chicago television. 

Mr. KIRK. Given it’s $43 million, I think that is fairly incompetent. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Sir. 

Mr. KIRK. A Google search of DHS showing $43 million in wastage should come to your attention. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Sir, we will be happy to look into that. 

You addressed the letter to the IG. I don’t get the IG’s correspondence. 

Mr. KIRK. Federal money for Project Shield was directed to certain businesses with connection to the Chicago Cook County president, and there was difficulty in finding any actual work done. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
55 

Now, one of the connected companies is called Synch Solutions, and 

it received $787,000 for quality assurance reports. Initially, Cook 

County was unable to produce a single report from Synch Solutions. Then, the County said it had filed these reports by word of 

mouth. Then, the County said it did have 82 reports on its work 

for DHS, but refused to release them. Can I get those reports from 

you? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, we will be happy to get 

back to you. 

Mr. KIRK. It is a yes-or-no question. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Sir, I am not familiar with those reports. 

We will be happy to work with you and get back to you. 

[The information follows:] 

The State of Illinois is the DHS grantee and the Illinois Emergency Management 

Agency is responsible for oversight of UASI grant subrecipients such as Cook County. There have been no problems related to Project Shield procurements or activities 

to date as reviewed by FEMA, the Illinois Emergency Management Agency and 

UASI Peer Review. 

The Illinois Emergency Management Agency reviews all requests for reimbursements from sub-grantees and all requests for reimbursement related to Project 

Shield have been in accordance with grant guidance. In addition, the Illinois Emergency Management Agency reviews the annual independent audits of grant recipients within the state. To date, there have been no problems related to procurement 

issues or anything related to Project Shield contained in the independent audits. 

The UASI peer review process has reviewed and approved Cook County’s Project 

Shield each of the last four years. In addition, FEMA reviewed the Chicago/Cook 

County UASI funding in 2006 and 2008 and did not report any issues related to 

Project Shield. 

My staff doesn’t know anything about the reports, nor does the grantee (State of 

Illinois). However, in response to the 9/11 Act, the DHS Office of Inspector General 

plans to review the State’s oversight of UASI expenditures when they complete their 

review of all states who receive UASI & State Homeland Security Program grants. 

Their audit is expected to be completed by the end of Summer 2010. 

Mr. KIRK. Since it involves the waste of $43 million, don’t you 

think you should be able to provide that to me since it is Federal 

money? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Sir, if I can, I will. 

Mr. KIRK. That is a correct answer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Ms. Roybal-Allard. 

DETAINEE TREATMENT

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Madam Secretary. As you know, one of the concerns 

that I have had for some time has been the treatment of detainees. 

And I was encouraged by the plans of your Department announced 

in October to revamp the dysfunctional detention system; but as 

you know, time is of the essence, because since 2003, we have had 

at least 107 immigrants who have died in America’s immigration 

prisons and many of their stories are truly horrifying. 

In fact, the latest reports came from a New York Times investigation which recently exposed a case in which a Salvadorian man 

committed suicide after suffering for weeks from unbearable pain 

in his legs after his pleas for help were ignored. Following his 

death, it is reported that detention authorities subsequently attempted to change the man’s medical records to conceal their 

wrongdoing. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
56 

An October report by your Department has acknowledged the 

need for a well-managed medical care system and has made several 

recommendations. What concerns me is that in spite of the urgency 

to make these changes in the next steps section is very, very general and very vague, such as using recommendations can be actualized soon. I don’t know what ‘‘soon’’ means. Requires further analysis, without any time line for when that analysis is to take place 

and be completed. Must continue the progress of recent months. 

Well, for how many months? There seems to be no sense of urgency 

in dealing with this. 

So can you give me an idea as to what the time line is for implementing these reforms, not only in your Department’s report, but 

also in meetings with Assistant Secretary Morton? He also has proposals for improving this system. 

I would like to know what the timeline is to get these things 

moving. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Fair enough. And a number of things are 

already being implemented. So they are underway as we speak. 

The program office has been set up. We have consolidated facilities. 

We have put oversight into the contracted facilities. That is where 

a lot of the problems were occurring. We have instituted evaluation 

of medical conditions, et cetera, on entrance into a facility. Some 

of the things are going to take longer, like a locator system, to develop. But by soon, we mean as soon as possible, and some things 

are underway now. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Let me ask on the treatment. I have been 

told that one of the problems is the requirement by ICE headquarters to approve every treatment, and that has sent the wrong 

message to the personnel that detention medical staff all they have 

to do is be responsible for ensuring that the detainee is healthy 

enough to be deported. Is that process still in place where everything has to be—every medical treatment has to be approved 

through headquarters? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think that was an inaccurate report. 

That is not the way it is supposed to occur. If there is a misunderstanding in the field, that will be corrected. 

287(g)

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Thank you. Sheriff Arpaio of Maricopa 

County, Arizona has drawn widespread criticism, as you know, 

from civil rights groups, and he is currently subject of a Department of Justice investigation. And earlier this month, he announced that his office intends to continue making immigration arrests despite the fact that ICE rescinded his 287(g) agreement 

which gives him the authority to enforce immigration law. 

Given these circumstances, why does your Department continue 

to use the Maricopa County jails to house detainees? Is your Department taking steps to revaluate that decision? And what steps 

are you considering to ensure that law enforcement agencies seeking 287(g) authority have acceptable civil rights records? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, the complaints about the Maricopa 

County situation were almost exclusively—actually, virtually all related to his going out and picking up illegals, not at the jail itself. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
57 

Which is actually one of our largest places for detainees being deported from the United States. So we monitor it. 

The 287(g) agreements require a civil rights commitment. That 

was part and parcel of how we standardized the agreements over 

the course of last year. And our strategy, of course, is really to 

build up securing the communities, because the budget really 

shows that that is really I think a very effective way to go, where 

you get the immigration data base information right at the time of 

booking or immediately upon incarceration. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I would like to follow up with you a little 

more on that at a different time. 

Mr. PRICE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. So perhaps you 

could take that up on the second round. 

Mr. Farr is next. Let me remind Members that our procedure 

here is to go through the entire roster of Members who were here 

when the hearing opened before we turned to other Members. We 

do proceed in a partisan rotation, but there are a couple of majority 

Members who were here at the beginning so we will go through 

their questions and then we will resume the rotation. Mr. Farr. 

GRADUATE PROGRAMS

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I met with law enforcement a couple weeks 

ago in my district when we were all snowed out of Washington, and 

I just want to relay to you that they think that a lot of the operations on the ground between ICE and other Federal agencies are 

just going a lot smoother, and we are really complimentary of your 

administrative abilities to make them interoperable. You know, 

and certainly you can see by the questions in this Committee what 

a variety of subject matters. We also hear in Washington that all 

politics is local because we all represent districts. But it is very interesting, because your first word of your Department is Homeland. 

And, for us, the homeland is each of our districts. 

I think you agree that a strong America is dependent on being 

also a very smart America. So I want to get a little parochial, because I represent the Naval Postgraduate School, which is a Federal university run by the Navy but has a civilian program run by 

the Department of Homeland Security called the Center for Homeland Defense and Security. I know you are familiar with the program, because when you were governor of Arizona, you sent some 

of your operational people there. 

I have a couple of questions because I think the success of that 

is over 500 alumni have got a master’s degree or executive leaders 

programs, and they are now professional practitioners, scholars, 

and leaders who serve all homeland security disciplines at all levels of government. 

I really want to know how you can sort of more formalize the 

process and incorporating the cutting edge research undertaken by 

these master degree students into the Homeland Security Institute 

and, more broadly, how the science and technology directorate can 

make better use of the high-caliber research going on by the scholars at the graduate school. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
58 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think, Representative, that we are 

in discussions with the schools right now and have an ongoing and 

strong relationship there. So that is underway. 

Mr. FARR. So underway to kind of build on lessons learned and 

things like that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, sir. 

GANG VIOLENCE

Mr. FARR. Because one of the lessons that we are doing is, I represent Salinas, which is the county seat of Monterey, it is the biggest city that I represent, 150,000 people. It is the salad bowl capital of the world. And Salinas, unfortunately, has had the most— 

I think it is the highest per capita violence rate in the United 

States. Last year, 29 kids were killed in homicides gang-related. 

What I have gotten is, as the military students from the Naval 

Postgraduate School who have come back from Iraq and Afghanistan to work with the city to determine if there are any lessons 

learned from terrorist incidents that can be applied to hometown 

security, and you mentioned in your comments that this hometown 

security is a problem, that we are growing our own terrorists. 

Their research shows that there are some profound similarities. 

Gang recruitment might be similar on how al Qaeda recruits their 

members. The questions, are there similar feelings of alienation 

that drive both gang members and terrorists to join violent groups? 

Does poverty play a role? Are there cultural factors that predispose 

more violent societies? Does martyrdom represent the same thing 

to both gangs and terrorists? Is the society failing to provide youth 

legal opportunities to earn a livelihood? And I would like your 

thoughts if you can tell us if the Department is investing in programs to try to understand and address what motivates human 

beings to become members of violent groups, whether they be terrorists or gang members. 

And just an incidental comment. When the late Jack Murtha was 

out at the Naval Postgraduate School—and we put a lot of money 

into IED detection and how to avoid it. And one of the soldiers who 

had just got back from Iraq was—asked the Members of Congress 

pretty profoundly. He says, I know you are spending these billions 

of dollars. But, he said, are you spending any money on trying to 

figure out what motivates cultures to do this? And Jack was very— 

that is the kind of question that we need answered. And so, are we 

pursuing those and are we pursuing them on our domestic arena? 

The violence in Salinas—people don’t care about all these things 

that we talk about in this Committee. They are afraid that their 

kids can’t get home from school safely. People aren’t shopping. This 

has cut down. The city is dying because of this violence. So it, in 

effect, is terrorist activity because it ends in the same result, a lot 

of death. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Congressman, one of the issues that has 

been—that we are looking at and looking in conjunction with countries like the U.K., for example, is, is there an effective means by 

which you intervene in a person’s process from being interested in 

something to becoming a violent extremist. And there is—we are 

looking at that. I think the Justice Department is looking at that. 

I think the FBI is looking at that. But are there some things that 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
59 

can be done particularly at the local level and perhaps even outside 

the law enforcement realm itself that would interrupt that continuum. 

Mr. FARR. Well, I think just anecdotally, if we are going to have 

homeland security—the violence at Fort Hood was not imported. 

Maybe the psychology of it all was imported, but it was home 

grown. And the machismo in gangs can also grow into much more 

violent activities than we can accept and have stability in our 

home. So I hope that the Homeland Security Administration will 

pay attention to all of our issues in our districts, because that is 

truly the heartland of America. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rothman. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, it is great to have you here. And thank you 

for the great work you are doing. And I think the Department, 

under your leadership, is getting better and better every day. And, 

as you say, you are flying the airplane. At the same time, you have 

been required to construct it. And the instructions are to build a 

bigger airplane every day. 

As you may know, I represent a district in northern New Jersey, 

one of the most densely populated areas in the country with many 

vital industrial and chemical facilities. Law enforcement has 

dubbed two of the miles in my district as the most dangerous two 

miles when it comes to potential terrorist targets: Bridges, tunnels, 

chemical plants, et cetera. 

In your testimony, you identified one of the Homeland Security’s 

five main missions as preventing terrorism and enhancing security. 

Could you elaborate a little bit on what in your budget addresses 

improving industrial and chemical plant security here at home? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed, Representative. One area to look 

is on our whole institution. And now we are carrying out what is 

called the CFATS, where we have tiered chemical facilities, where 

we now have a system to be able to patrol, inspect, and the like, 

beginning with the biggest and moving to the smallest, depending 

on what type of chemical they have. And I think in that area there 

are a number of large chemical facilities, if I recall correctly, many 

of whom are now under the CFATS regime. And you will find monies for that in the budget under NPPD. 

NEWARK AIRPORT SECURITY BREACH

Mr. ROTHMAN. On another subject. As you may know, a young 

man snuck through security at Newark Airport apparently to kiss 

his girlfriend good-bye. He has apologized. He is going through the 

criminal justice system. I don’t know if he will be tried at GITMO, 

but he is presently in the criminal justice system of the United 

States. Anyway, are there procedures that have been put in place 

at Newark, to the best of your knowledge, to prevent that and have 

those lessons learned about how such an incident could have occurred, been applied, and is the knowledge from that incident being 

applied across the breadth of your jurisdiction? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. One of the things—of course, several 

things. One is there was an employee who was distracted. That employee is in the disciplinary process now. I can’t say more than 

that. But there need to be consequences when performance doesn’t 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
60 

match responsibilities. As you say, the individual involved who 

caused great delay and inconvenience at a minimum for everybody—— 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Beyond the discipline of that employee, especially 

in security—and I know you know this as former governor and two 

executives, et cetera. I am a belt and suspenders person when it 

comes to security matters. I am sure you are as well. Are there redundant systems in case an employee does drop the ball, does become distracted? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. TSA, I have asked them to look at 

that, to look at how we do those pinch points. Also, as you know, 

the Port Authority controlled the cameras and the cameras didn’t 

work. I asked for an immediate audit of all camera systems in domestic airports. So that is underway as well. 

I might suggest, now I am outside my lane a little bit, it might 

be worth reexamining the penalties for individuals who intentionally do such a thing. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Although, given there are people willing to blow 

themselves up, I am not sure the penalties would affect everybody. 

I am more concerned about physical obstacles to this happening 

again and redundant personnel structures to address them. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. 

NONPROFIT SECURITY GRANTS

Mr. ROTHMAN. If you could have someone get back to me on that, 

great. And if I have time for one more question. There is a nonprofit security grant program, a nonprofit security grant program 

which provides nonprofit organizations in high-risk urban areas, 

including religious institutions who are the subject of terrorist 

threats, with a chance to increase their security measures. It is already in your budget, and I am grateful for that. Do you believe 

that the funding level is sufficient to do the job in your fiscal year 

2011 budget. 

[The information follows:] 

Following the security breach at Newark Airport on January 3, 2010, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) deployed a team of security experts to the 

airport to evaluate, review, and make necessary security changes to the existing 

checkpoint layout. As a consequence of this review, TSA installed glass barricades 

to minimize the chance of recurrence, and has evaluated staffing coverage at all exit 

lanes vulnerable to breach. 

In addition, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) ordered all Federal 

Security Directors nationwide to review the security vulnerabilities at their airport 

checkpoints and make necessary changes, including ensuring immediate access to 

closed circuit television records. Moreover, TSA is evaluating Exit Lane Breach Control (ELBC) technologies, as requested by Congress, that are capable of detecting 

unauthorized individuals using exit lanes as a means to bypass a security checkpoint and gain access into the sterile area. TSA will guide the selection, configuration, and evaluation of various technologies under a 6- to 18-month lab and field 

assessment to test and evaluate the performance capabilities and technical viability 

of ELBC technologies. Once the lab and field assessment is complete, a report will 

be provided to Congress, and TSA will determine if the technology provides value 

to the checkpoint environment. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think it is the right funding level for 

2011. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Culberson. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
61 

OPERATION STREAMLINE

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for being here today. I wanted to 

ask, if I could, first of all, for you to reaffirm the support you expressed last year before our Committee for a very successful program that is in place on the southwest border that my good friend 

Ciro Rodriguez and I have worked together with our colleagues to 

get in place. Operation Streamline in the Laredo, Del Rio, and 

Yuma sector is working beautifully. The local community supports 

it. It is essentially a zero tolerance, 100 percent enforcement, obviously with the officers using their good judgment and women and 

kids, et cetera. 

But it is very effective, has strong local community support, and 

continues to enjoy support from the Department. I just want to ask 

if you could, please, to reaffirm your support for that program and 

so all those good men and women working for Homeland Security 

will know the Secretary is strongly behind it. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I am. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It has been a great success and we appreciate 

it. It is something that we in Texas—and I thank you for that. We 

in Texas have always, and just common sense, understood that law 

enforcement works when you are enforcing the law vigorously and 

uniformly and fairly. It works. 

PASSENGER MANIFESTS

And one other thing that does defy common sense, following up 

on Chairman Lowey’s question, is that the passenger manifests are 

not available at least 24 hours in advance. And I want to reaffirm 

my support for her position on that and ask in follow-up, what can 

you do, what will you do to help ensure that those manifests are 

available at least 24 hours in advance for our law enforcement people to review? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think, as I mentioned to the Congresswoman, we are looking at the entire system in terms of information 

collection and sharing and passenger vetting across the globe. And 

one of the parts that needs to be put into the equation is the capacity of the carriers themselves. 

So my suggestion is that as we move through this over the 

course of the next months, that we report to the committee on the 

progress we are making and any adjustments that are being made 

in terms of the time of passenger information flow. 

Mr. CULBERSON. What can you tell us about what has happened 

so far since the Christmas bombing? You are reviewing it. What is 

your personal estimate of what is a reasonable amount of time that 

we can expect to get those manifests in advance? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Congressman, I don’t want to be premature and guess, because any statement I say here will have ripple effects throughout the globe. 

I will say this. I think we need to say, what is the goal of this? 

The goal is to make sure, to the extent that we can, in a travel environment where the U.S. process is 2 million air passengers a day, 

that someone who is a known or potential terrorist does not get on 

board a plane carrying an explosive. So we start from there and 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
62 

then we back up: What needs to happen, what information needs 

to be processed? How do you handle the fact that Customs is really—their infrastructure personnel are primarily located at the borders of the United States, air and land. So we don’t have jurisdiction overseas. We can only advise foreign authorities about who to 

check and the like. So we are working through all of that as well. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And I completely agree with you. It would seem, 

again, common sense, fairly straight forward, if an individual like 

the Christmas bomber is on a terror watchlist, then they shouldn’t 

have a visa to fly to the United States and they shouldn’t even be 

allowed to board the aircraft. 

What can you tell Americans that are watching today and all of 

our constituents who are concerned about this? That just seems, 

you are absolutely right, common sense. When is that going to happen? What needs to happen to make sure that somebody on the terror list does not have a visa and can’t get on an airplane to fly into 

the United States? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, the NCTC has already significantly 

worked on revising the watchlisting process. A number of people 

have been moved up on the watchlist. As I mentioned to Representative Lowey, prior to Christmas and pursuant to protocols that 

have been in place for a number of years, Customs abroad received 

the terrorist screening base database and they received the no-fly 

list. Then, all they can do at that point is tell law enforcement at 

the airport in whatever country they are in that somebody needs 

a secondary, or tell the air carrier don’t board this individual because they are no-fly. 

We are adding to that, those two subsets of information, a third 

subset, which is anything in the State Department Visa Catalog, 

it is called PB3, I believe, that mentions terrorism or extremism 

would also be handled as if somebody were on the TSDB already. 

We are pushing that abroad. That step we took almost immediately 

after Christmas, once we realized that it wasn’t being sent abroad. 

Mr. CULBERSON. So you have already got the mechanisms in 

place for us to reach the point where those people are automatically removed and they will not be allowed to fly? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, to get the information out. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez. 

STAFFING

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. 

And, Madam Secretary, I know you have been here pretty long 

so let me make some comments that I would hope that some of the 

concerns of the staff picks up on them. 

Let me, first of all, say, I know from the very beginning you indicated this is 23 agencies that were brought together. Before they 

were brought together, we are having all kinds of trouble with the 

INS then as it was referred to, which is under you now, we were 

having all kinds of trouble with FEMA. So all these problematic 

agencies came in, and supposedly everything should be okay now. 

We know that that is not the case. 

I am actually pleased that you are suggesting that we need additional staffing to see how you can streamline and bring those toVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:15 Sep 10, 2010 Jkt 057551 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A551P2.XXX A551P2

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
63 

gether, because one of the major problems was how do we communicate between agencies and within your own Department, which 

is, I can imagine, still a major problem that you have to work on. 

And, hopefully, the recommendations that you have there will 

make that happen. 

The other thing is, for both you and us, is the fact that I feel very 

strongly that this is one of the, areas just like the Department of 

Defense, that we really need more resources. When you look at the 

Coast Guard, and just one agency there, that has the items that 

go back to the 1950s and the fact that we don’t have the sufficient 

equipment that is necessary. We really need to reassess in terms 

of the amount of resources, not only from an administrative perspective and your Department, but from our perspective, also, as 

the Congress, as to how much resources need to go into that area. 

And there are some real concerns. Each one talked about the necessities in each one of the areas. 

I am here to tell you, for example, to thank you, number one, on 

the Border Patrol going up to 20,000 and holding the line in both 

of the northern and southern borders, but also from the Customs 

perspective. We have had there is more of a request. We have the 

Texas Border Coalition, the Government Accounting Office, the National Treasury Employees. And this is for our staff, too. There has 

been recommendation after recommendation that we need about 

5,000 Customs people. As you look at the border, we look at the— 

Border Patrol works between the bridges and so they have done a 

good job there. But, my God, the cartels are not coming through 

the bridges because we don’t have the staff. And it is really hurting 

us economically. And that is one thing we had talked about, that 

as the Congresswoman talks about 24 hours, one of the things we 

don’t want to do to ourselves is hurt us economically. What the terrorists want to do is hurt us and hurt us economically, and we 

want to make sure we don’t do that to ourselves. 

So there is a need for, and you recommend, 300 additional. That 

is not adequate. Just on the southern border we have got the 

Anzalduas Bridge coming up. We have the one on Donna. We have 

one that hopefully will be opened up in the future in El Paso, and 

there is no telling what on the northern border. And there is a 

holdup as people come back and forth. 

I have got one community, 80 percent of the sales tax is Mexicans coming over and purchasing. Number one economic impact for 

Texas is Mexico. So whenever we put the gap there, especially 

around the holidays when 24 percent of the sales are sold, that is 

about hurting us economically as a Nation. 

So I am hoping that we look at this budget and really move forward in the rest in terms—and, yes. In terms of waste, $43 million 

is not appropriate. But I am here also to tell the Department of Defense from 2003 to 2008, just on overruns, GAO reported $500 billion. Not million, $500 billion overruns. So we really need to come 

to grips with that. 

Having said that, I hope you look at the issue of Customs. And 

I think that is an area of interest that really needs to kind of be 

looked at on the long term, because based on the 300, it would take 

us, my figures show me, to 28 before we come up with the necessary numbers that are needed in order for us to beef up. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
64 

VACANCIES

Secondly, the other Congressman that oversees the DOJ talked 

about a couple of other things that are beyond you, but the coordination is important. We still don’t have the U.S. Attorneys in 

Texas, not a one has been appointed. We still don’t have the U.S. 

Marshals, not a one has been appointed. We still don’t have the 

judges. I have a vacancy in the western district, two vacancies in 

the southern district, and also the ones that Congressman 

Culberson is talking about where we need the judges. They are 

overburdened right now. That is another problem that is confronting us on the border in terms of how do we deal. I just got 

calls yesterday, this is again local, from a county saying: We are 

not going to file charges against people in a certain county because 

we don’t have the resources. 

So I am looking forward to working with you. And I know you 

have been handed this huge elephant—and I don’t mean that politically—but, you know, we really need to see how we can bring 

more resources to come to bear and do that when it comes to homeland security. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Please feel free to comment, if you wish. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I agree. That is my comment. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. There will be plenty of opportunities to follow up on all those topics. 

We are looking at a series of votes before too long, but I hope we 

do have time to get into some further questions. So I will proceed 

here with a very quick question about the Coast Guard and then 

moving on to some other topics. 

DEEPWATER IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Madam Secretary, in the fiscal 2006 Homeland Security appropriation written under the direction of my colleague, Mr. Rogers, 

there was a bill requirement for the Secretary to submit a revised 

Deepwater Implementation Plan with the fiscal 2011 budget. Language went into some detail as to what would be required. That 

same statutory language has been carried every year for the last 

five years. Yet, the 2011 budget fails to provide the Deepwater implementation plan as required by this Congress. This is particularly troubling given the fact the Commandant noted in his annual 

State of the Coast Guard address this month that acquisitions 

aren’t credible if they are not supported by a timely capital investment plan. 

So I want you to let us know here this morning when we can expect that comprehensive Deepwater review; and just remind you 

that, without the revised Deepwater Implementation Plan, we are 

in a very poor position to judge these various decommissionings of 

ships and aircraft that you are suggesting in next year’s budget. 

How can we be sure they are not opening long-term capability gaps 

similar to the ones we have been struggling to fill in funding the 

Deepwater program in these intervening years? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I will speak with the 

Commandant today about that report. I believe he is actually testifying in a Transportation Subcommittee this morning about that. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
65 

So I will speak with the Commandant, and ask him to call you directly with that information. 

Mr. PRICE. Good. And we hope we can get a firm timeline so we 

know what we are dealing with here. In the meantime, we are 

going to need to access some information that gives us some guidance beyond what is provided in your budget submission. 

[The information follows:] 

The Commandant met with Chairman Price on Thursday, March 4, 2010 to discuss, among other issues, the timeliness of reports. He conveyed to the Chairman 

that his message was heard loud and clear. The Coast Guard is working closely and 

proactively with the Department to ensure necessary reports are expeditiously delivered to Congress. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. 

DISASTER RELIEF FUND

Mr. PRICE. The Disaster Relief Fund. The budget request origi- nally included $3.6 billion in supplemental funding for the rest of 

fiscal year 2010 for the Disaster Relief Fund. On February 12, as 

you know, the administration transmitted a budget amendment to 

increase that amount for the current fiscal year to $5.1 billion. 

That would hopefully cover the potential exposure due to the 

Katrina arbitration cases and a costly lump sum agreement with 

Louisiana schools. But we are concerned that even this amount 

may not be adequate to cover costs until the end of September, 

leaving the possibility that the fund could run low on balances during the height of the hurricane season. So that is 2010. But when 

you turn to the 2011 request, the fund is being depleted at nearly 

double the rate assumed in your budget due to ongoing costs associated with past large disasters. This budget request we estimate 

will last only 4 or 5 months into the fiscal year. What can you tell 

us about how we are going to get on track here with a more realistic, more accountable, and more responsible budgeting process for 

the Disaster Relief Fund? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, sir. First of all, the supplemental request of $5.1 billion we believe will carry the DRF through the end 

of the fiscal year, accounting for not only the arbitrations, but also 

there is $1.1 billion for schools reconstruction in New Orleans. So 

we believe that that supplemental, if approved, would carry us 

through the end of the fiscal year. 

With respect to the ongoing budget request, it is the 5-year rolling average of noncatastrophic disasters which are defined as disasters below $500 million. That has been the methodology used; 

and if there is a better one to employ, I am open to looking at that. 

It is difficult to predict with any certainty a disaster that is 

above $500 million, so the $1.9 billion, which is the 5-year rolling 

average, seems to be a reasonable way to approach the problem. 

But, Mr. Chairman, if you would like to discuss perhaps a better 

way to do it, I am open to those suggestions. 

Mr. PRICE. We are going to want to do that because recent history would suggest that this really is going to run out way before 

the end of the fiscal year and that we are going to need to deal 

with it. We are feeling the same pressures everyone feels for putting money elsewhere in budget and letting this be dealt with on 

an emergency basis. But that, we know, is not sound budgeting. I 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
66 

think our Subcommittee has stood for trying to get those numbers 

into more realistic territory, and we are going to be looking at this 

carefully this year as well. 

SAFER GRANTS

Finally, a quick question about firefighter jobs. You know about 

the crisis we are facing economically, and you know that the impact on the local government includes something like 6,000 lost 

firefighter jobs, the best we can estimate at the moment, and another 6,000 lost through attrition. Because of this situation, we 

have altered the language of the SAFER grants. You have been 

given authority to waive a number of cost sharing and other local 

matching provisions for fiscal 2009 and 2010. You have been given 

additional authority for retention as well as for new hires and rehires. We—and we weren’t alone in this—felt that you had not 

taken full advantage of these new authorities, and so the Department did change the fiscal 2009 SAFER guidance and allowed for 

extensions to apply midway through the application period. 

As we look ahead—and, of course, we are still in the middle of 

this economic downturn—we didn’t move as quickly as possible on 

this. There have been serious delays on this. We are trying to stem 

the flow of layoffs, create jobs. 

But for the Department to take 18 months to award the fiscal 

2009 SAFER grants really is not in sync with the kind of urgency 

we feel, and now we are being told the Department won’t begin the 

fiscal 2010 grant process until this summer. So I would like to ask 

you what assurances you can give us today, and then get back to 

us if you need to, about the Department being in a position now 

fully to utilize this broadened authority that you have been granted 

that addresses the situation. 

The authority addresses the personnel situation and it addresses 

retention as well as new hires. And then also getting the process 

for 2010 going. Maybe somehow telescoping it with the ongoing 

2009 process? What can we do to get this money out the door? This 

is important to public safety. It is also important because of the 

desperate fiscal situation many of our local governments find themselves in. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. And, number one, you are right 

to be unhappy with the length of time it took to regrant the 2009 

monies. The basic cause of the delay was rewriting the grant guidance to reflect the greater flexibility that you had provided. But 

that process took too long. We have instituted changes within the 

Department to fix that so that that does not recur, and all I can 

say is that we have identified the problem, we have fixed it, and 

now we are moving with alacrity, with all the speed we can, not 

only to get all those monies out the door for 2009 but for 2010, as 

well. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, completing the 2009 awards, first of all. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It is moving out, yeah. 

Mr. PRICE. And then moving with 2010. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. 

Mr. PRICE. So you are assuring us that you are now in a position 

fully to take advantage and implement the new flexibility? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
67 

Mr. PRICE. I am asking you to get back to us as to what kind 

of timetable we expect to complete these 2009 awards and get the 

2010 awards out the door. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I will get back to you as soon as possible. 

And by that I mean very, very soon. We have it. I just don’t have 

it at my fingertips. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Good. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
68 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 57551A.029
69 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 57551A.030
70 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 57551A.031
71 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Rogers. 

OVERDUE REPORTS AND EXPENDITURE PLANS

Mr. ROGERS. I feel like that movie Groundhog Day where every 

year we live the same thing over and over again. We have talked 

about those grants now for forever, and nothing ever seems to happen. And that is true in so many other instances within the Department. 

For example, we have been begging for these reports and expenditure plans in the—we put that in the 2010 Appropriations Act. 

Nothing happens. A revised Deepwater implementation plan, required in bill language to be submitted with the 2011 budget request every year since 2006. Now I would remind the Secretary 

that when we did not get that report in 2006, we would cut the 

Deepwater budget in half. 

So we are serious about this. We have a responsibility, Madam 

Secretary, that we have to defend to our public on the expenditure—wise expenditures of funds. And if we don’t know your plan, 

how can we wisely or even rightly allocate the funds that we have? 

These are not just mere reporting requirements. These are conditional requirements for us to appropriate funds. So this is not a request. This is a command. We want the reports on Deepwater, on 

the border security, fencing infrastructure and technology expenditure plan, including SBInet, which was due a month and a half 

ago, expenditure plans for TSA’s air cargo security, checkpoint support, EDS procurement. All of those were due December 27, and we 

are having to prepare the budget as we go along here. And as we 

interrogate your subordinate agency heads, we have to have those 

reports in order to be able to question whether or not it is the wise 

thing to do. So it is imperative that we get those expenditure plans. 

These are not reports. They are expenditure plans which we have 

to have. 

These are not questions. I just wanted to make these points. 

There is nothing in the budget report on biometric exit information. That is troubling, since that exit system can’t even begin until 

2012 under the administration’s timeline, and that is assuming a 

decision on exit is actually made. 

REAL ID

Thirdly, there is no budget request explicitly for REAL ID in 

your submission, and that needs to be explained. 

And, as has been mentioned before by the Chairman and by myself as well, we still have some very glaring vacancies on some 

heads of agencies, TSA included, CBP. We need to know when 

those things can be filled because those are vitally important, of 

course, as you know, to the security of the country. They have been 

vacant way too long and inexcusable, in my judgment. 

And then on immigration—and I applaud the efforts of this Subcommittee and the Department Secretary to deport criminal aliens. 

However, I was afraid at the time—and I think it has been confirmed now—that we are, in focusing on that, neglecting to deal 

with simple administrative noncriminal illegal aliens, and the data 

are pointing to that conclusion. From 2008 to 2009, noncriminal administrative arrests declined by almost 72 percent, from 5,100 to 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
72 

1,600 arrests; criminal arrests during work site enforcement operations declined 60 percent; indictments filed during work site enforcement operations declined 58 percent; convictions obtained 

through work site enforcement operations declined 59 percent. 

However, during the same period, I–9 audits of employers did increase by 187 percent, 503 to 1,444, during that same time. Arrests 

and convictions of illegal aliens are still the law, but apparently it 

is being very much overlooked. And that continues to trouble me, 

and I think it troubles the American people. 

WHITE HOUSE PARTY CRASHERS

Oh, and, finally, the White House party crashers. I think the 

State Department and the White House Social Secretary and the 

Secret Service apparently all have some hand in clearing who goes 

into the White House. I know when we go down there for the annual Christmas party, Members of Congress, there are eight or ten 

different people that you go through to be checked off some list, if 

there is a list. And if your name is not on such and such list, you 

are sort of passed along to the next person. And these, God love 

them, are very young people, and I don’t know who they are or who 

they work for. I really think that you should tighten up and let the 

Secret Service be the single agency that deals with clearances into 

the White House inner circle. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. 

Mr. ROGERS. So those are the points I want to make to you, 

Madam Secretary. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. May I respond? And, also, I will do it 

quickly because I know that time is short. I will go backwards. 

On the White House situation, we have tightened up or made 

some changes I think in a very good way to make sure the Secret 

Service is lead. 

WORK SITE ENFORCEMENT

On the work site enforcement, I would invite you to—and I will 

ask Assistant Secretary Morton to come meet with you, because we 

are deporting, we are arresting, and we are doing work site enforcement. And because we have changed the methodology by 

which we do it, we are covering more employers, and we get a deterrent effect out of that. And my judgment in terms—and we can 

perhaps disagree—but from a public safety and anti-illegal immigration standpoint, to focus on criminal aliens is the way to go, and 

the numbers bear that out. 

NOMINEES

In terms of nominees and confirmations for TSA and CBP, as you 

know, the nominee for TSA withdrew. I think there is vetting going 

on for a substitute right now. The CBP nominee is awaiting a hearing in the Senate Finance Committee. He has been waiting for a 

number of months. We are trying to see what can be done to accelerate that process. He is the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern 

District of California. He knows that border and knows immigration very, very well. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
73 

REAL ID

On REAL ID, we didn’t request money because we had to extend 

the REAL ID deadline because the bipartisan agreement that was 

reached with the Governors to make some changes to REAL ID 

didn’t pass. It didn’t get out of the Senate, and, therefore, it 

couldn’t move over here, and, therefore, we had to extend the 

REAL ID deadline. 

On biometric exit, we had $50 million in unspent monies from 

last year, and we will simply use that. We will focus on using that 

at airports. 

We still have and need to have a dialogue, Representative, about 

exits at land ports of entry, which is an enormous project, and how 

that really is value added to security compared to some other 

things, for example, increasing the ICE budget. That is a discussion we could have not just for this year but for future years. 

And, lastly, on the report situation, let me just say I apologize. 

I will call the Commandant today on the Deepwater report. We 

have a list of the others. 

But if I might, sir, we have approximately 300 reports due to this 

Subcommittee alone this year. Eighty are in the pipeline. We have 

delivered 80. Some of the remainders are in OMB. Some of them 

are dependent upon decisions that are made in the 2011 budget. 

We will work to get these reports in, and I will direct the CFO to 

make that a priority. But I would ask respectfully of the Committee, perhaps there is a way to prioritize all of these Committee 

reports so we really focus on the ones that are of the most severe 

concern. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, that is fine and dandy. But I am just here to 

tell you, as we did before, I will be trying to freeze these monies 

until we get those reports. I don’t want to be appropriating funds 

unless I know what I am doing. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I understand that and appreciate that. 

And, like I said, we will pursue that. All I am asking, sir, is that, 

as we prioritize that, perhaps the Committee can also look at a way 

so that our staff is more focused on operations as opposed to reports. There ought to be some way to prioritize among the 300. 

Mr. ROGERS. I think that is a legitimate request; and, Mr. Chairman, I think we certainly need to do that. 

Mr. PRICE. It certainly is. I would hope that we have at least this 

morning communicated what the very top priorities are—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mr. PRICE [continuing]. And the ones that really do relate quite 

directly to decisions we have to make in a fairly short order. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. And we will prioritize those. 

Mr. PRICE. As you well know, many of those reports are one- or 

two-page affairs. They are by no means all equivalent or similar in 

scope. 

Mr. ROGERS. But when we put these in bill language, as these 

are, these are not just reports. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Message conveyed and message understood. 

Mr. PRICE. These are statutory expenditure plans. That is a different order of importance. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
74 

Mr. ROGERS. That is the law. 

Mr. PRICE. As I think we all do understand. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me compliment the 

Secretary for a change here. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Is there anybody still in the room? 

Mr. ROGERS. I want to thank the Secretary especially for the 

FEMA help that was given to Kentucky to recover from a very severe ice storm down there last year and floods. FEMA did a great 

job, and I want to publicly say thanks. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Mollohan. 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, through your Office of Infrastructure Protection, you train State and local governments, and the private sector 

in risk management. Could you comment on that and what emphasis you think that needs to be given and how important that is? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. It is actually one of the little-known 

but very important parts of the Department in the sense of a lot 

of homeland security is State- and local-based, and you can’t have 

the expertise in Washington, D.C. It has to be out in our communities. And that is part and parcel to a number of things that we 

are doing to spread that—what we call the homeland security enterprise expertise outside of the Beltway. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The Department—am I correct in my reading of 

your request, that you are requesting a reduction of funding of that 

activity? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Could you explain that in light of your acknowledgement of the importance of the program? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, it is important. On the other hand, 

in a budget time when difficult decisions need to be made and 

when there has already been a significant number of people that 

have been trained, that seemed the place where we could reduce. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, I would like for you to talk about that a 

little more substantively. If we are going to have an integrated system from the State and local level right up to the top, that implies 

knowledge and capability and synthesizing from the local level 

right up to the top. And that has to be seamless, does it not? And 

when you say a lot of that training has occurred, I can imagine 

that training actually never gets finished because of the nature of 

the system and the continual change in personnel up and down the 

line. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, as I mentioned, Representative, I 

come from a State background. I can appreciate that both as a Governor and a former Attorney General. That is something that we 

can work on with the committee. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. With regard to the bombing prevention activity, 

you have stated that one of the most serious threats to our homeland is the threat of an attack via an improvised explosive device. 

And keeping in mind the recent testimony of our intelligence experts were over in our companion body, IEDs are obviously very serious threats to the homeland. I am interested in why the DepartVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:18 Sep 10, 2010 Jkt 057551 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A551P2.XXX A551P2

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
75 

ment of Homeland Security would request a decrease in funding for 

the Office of Bombing Prevention. It seems like an odd place to cut. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, there are some activities of the Department that are spread in other places as well. So, for example, 

bombing prevention also involves I&A, intel and analysis. It involves greater coordination with State and locals. We have increased fusion centers across the country to help deal with these 

things at the local level. So I think that you can’t, in some of these 

areas, look at one budget line in isolation from other efforts. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, following up this testimony in both of 

these areas, I would like to explore with Department experts these 

cuts and see what the impacts are and see how they impact the 

other law enforcement agencies with which you work. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Let me indicate to Members—and I think there are three remaining to question in this last round—we do need to clear this 

room very soon after 12:30 for Secretary Clinton and another hearing. So I am going to impose a 4-minute rule, and I hope that we 

can get through this final round very efficiently. 

With that, Ms. Roybal-Allard. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. First of all, I want to go back to my previous question with regard to detainees. I just wanted to mention 

that, in a meeting with Mr. Morton, he is aware of the ICE requirement that the headquarters has to approve every treatment and 

the fact that the detention medical staff does have this misunderstanding. So I hope that you will look at that and expedite any 

changes that need to be taken to prevent what has been happening 

there. 

Also, if you could submit a timeline for the completion of the 

process to improve detainee medical care, I would appreciate that. 

[The information follows:] 

DHS is committed to providing sound medical care to detainees. Senior level officials from within the Department and the Bureau of Prisons have been detailed to 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to help conduct a systematic review 

of how resources provided by the Division of Immigration Health Services (DIHS) 

are used and maximized. 

ICE has three projects underway: 

1. Medical Classification Process: DHS is developing a new medical classification 

process to help medical providers immediately determine the detainee’s unique medical or mental health needs, which will also inform the placement and housing decisions of the detainee. This new classification process will be piloted in April 2010 

with nationwide adoption planned in September 2010. 

2. Treatment Authorization Request (TAR): DHS has modified the process to authorize treatment requests, eliminating delays in the delivery of medical services. 

The modified TAR process will be implemented by December 2010. DHS is also improving the covered services package—the list of all the health care that detainees 

are eligible to receive. Finally, DHS is moving towards National Commission on Correctional Health Care accreditation. This process will begin in December 2010. 

3. Performance Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS): DHS is currently 

revising the PBNDS—standards which will reflect the conditions appropriate for 

various detainee populations. The PBNDS are undergoing final review. As part of 

the revised standards, DHS has developed women-specific medical standards and 

enhanced the Medical Care, Admission and Release, Significant Self Harm–Suicide 

Prevention and Intervention, Hunger Strikes, and the Terminal Illness standards. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
76 

IMMIGRATION REFORM

Also, President Obama has tapped you to head his Task Force 

on Immigration Reform, and I have been very encouraged by many 

of the public statements that you have made, but I would also like 

you to submit some kind of an update on what kind of progress 

that task force is making with regards to comprehensive immigration reform. 

[The information follows:] 

The President’s commitment to fixing our immigration system remains unwavering. The President has maintained that only a ‘‘complete solution’’ can fix the U.S. 

immigration system and such reform must continue to strengthen enforcement on 

our borders, crack down on employers who exploit undocumented workers to undercut American workers, and also resolve the status of the 11 million people who are 

undocumented. These individuals will need to come forward to register, be screened, 

pay a penalty for breaking the law and meet other obligations such as paying taxes 

and learning English to earn legal status and get on a path to citizenship. The 

President has told Congressional leaders of both parties that if they can fashion a 

plan to deal with these problems, he is eager to work with them to get it done. 

In support of this goal, the President in June 2009 named Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Napolitano as the Administration lead working with 

Congress and other stakeholders on the issues involved in immigration reform legislation. Since then, Secretary Napolitano and other DHS principals have had dozens 

of meetings with Members of Congress; participated in over 40 roundtable discussions and listening sessions across the United States; and held meetings with over 

1,000 different immigration stakeholders. Other members of the Cabinet, including 

Secretaries Salazar, Solis, Locke, and Vilsack, and Attorney General Holder, are 

also providing insights into key components of reform. 

The Administration’s coordinated, interagency effort has led to the establishment 

of several interagency policy workgroups to refine and elaborate on the President’s 

guiding principles for immigration reform. In addition, the Administration has 

worked to provide technical assistance on legislative language to Members of Congress. 

DHS and its interagency partners will continue to work toward the enactment of 

immigration reform over the coming months and stand ready to assist Congress in 

that effort wherever possible. 

AVIATION SECURITY

Earlier, in a question by the Chairman, he was asking you about 

aviation security, and there was discussion about using the new 

technologies at the airport checkpoints. But you know enhancing 

the security of our commercial aviation certainly is going to require 

more than just, you know, additional scanning machines. In addition to the new technology, what is your overall aviation security 

strategy? 

And, also, I have also heard some criticism about the smaller 

budget for DHS science and technology, but I also understand that 

you have a plan to make this money go further in fiscal year 2011. 

So could you explain how your budget addresses the Department’s 

research and development needs as well? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, on aviation security—let me try to 

answer quickly, because I know that you have to clear the room. 

But the scanners are just one part. It is behavior detection officers. 

It is explosion detection equipment. It’s trained canine teams. It is 

a layered approach. The principle being that if one fails, maybe another one will pick up. That is in addition to whatever prior passenger information or intel that we have about somebody traveling 

through the air environment. And that is all I think encompassed 

within the budget. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
77 

Your second question was—I am sorry, Congresswoman. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. The second had to do with the fact that you 

have a smaller budget for—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Oh, S&T, yes. I think we have some unobligated balances from prior years that we can better employ. The 

Undersecretary of S&T has actually been confirmed. We actually 

do have a leader there, and she now has taken hold of that. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have been trying to build collaboratives because I think that is 

the growth of government, not just more silos. And you have with 

you the Center for Homeland Defense and Security at the Naval 

Postgraduate School. Outside of that, there is a number cybersecurity entities in the region, in the county, and most of them are all 

related to the Department of Defense. I am not sure that our hometown Leon Panetta even realized how much cybersecurity capacity 

we have there. 

What I would like to ask you to do is to have somebody in your 

Department look at how we might collaborate more with the Center for Homeland Defense and Security with the ability that we 

have to support and identify management for single agency use 

and for shared enterprises. 

We have the ability to assist in cyberpolicy, information security, 

and high assurance networks. We can test and develop cybersecurity technologies and checklists. We can provide means to guard 

against insider threats. We can maintain records of designated cybersecurity personnel. We can identify knowledge and skill requirements for cybersecurity personnel. We can make available the secure operation center for streamlining efforts for creating synergy 

and cross-agency collaboration, and we can leverage our information technology with business efficiency teams because a lot of the 

technology of Silicon Valley is tested there before it is purchased 

by our security entities in the United States. 

So since you are there and giving these master’s degrees to all 

of these wonderful people, maybe we can build also the capacity to 

increase our cybersecurity education. And I will give you a little 

more background about it and put together this thing called Team 

Monterey. I would just like to get Homeland Security involved in 

Team Monterey. You already are with the Coast Guard but the 

other entities. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. There is already a Coast Guard, I think, 

base out there. 

Mr. FARR. Yeah, it has 38 personnel. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. So we would be happy to look at 

that, Congressman. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Rodriguez. 

AGENT HOUSING

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Secretary, thank you very much for 

being here; and let me also indicate that there is a very serious 

problem in the area of housing. 

I was just in Sanderson, Texas, where we have beefed up on Border Patrol. There was a family there that indicated that there was 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
78 

a family of Border Patrol people living inside their homes because 

they didn’t have—I was just wondering, in terms of housing, how 

do we beef up in those rural communities throughout the region in 

terms of housing for our staff. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You know, for the acting head of the 

CBP, David Aguilar, this has been a key issue and particularly in 

certain rural parts along the border where we have added so many 

Border Patrol so quickly. They do have a housing plan that they 

are working on, but we know that it is just—when you add a lot 

of agents, surge agents, in a way, into a rural area where you may 

not even have a lot of contractors available to build—there is not 

a lot of housing stock, that is an issue for us. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you. I would hope that you would continue to look at that, because I represent 800 miles along the border, and we have a major problem in terms of housing for our staff. 

In addition, you had a program where you took people coming in 

illegally from Arizona and then taking them to my district in Presidio and taking them across through there. There were a couple 

of buses a day that were coming through there. Do you have any 

reports on that program? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I have had a report, not recently, however, but I will ask Assistant Secretary Morton to get back to you 

on that. 

[The information follows:] 

This is a CBP program not an ICE program. Immediately following Secretary 

Napolitano’s hearing before the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee on the FY 2011 DHS budget request, CBP Office of Congressional Affairs 

(OCA) discussed this issue with the Office of Rep. Ciro Rodriguez. CBP OCA informed the Congressman’s staff that the program is currently being reassessed. Due 

to the law enforcement sensitive nature of the program CBP cannot release further 

details for the record. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. Because you have a good number of buses 

going there on a daily basis. I think it is expired, but I am wondering, you know, in terms of your plans for the future on that one, 

if you can get back with me on that. 

And then, finally, I just want to thank you in terms of your efforts on cybersecurity. There is a real need in that area not only 

in terms of during natural disasters. I recall Congressman Gene 

Taylor telling me that during Katrina he couldn’t get anything 

from the bank, and he didn’t have any cash, and thank God they 

recognized him and he got $200. Otherwise he couldn’t. So cyber 

is essential. There was no way of communicating. 

We just had a breakdown in both Merrick and Val Verde right 

on the border, and we couldn’t communicate at all, and credit cards 

couldn’t be used, and there was supposedly some kind of an accident that occurred. 

But that is one of the areas where we are being hit directly. I 

know that we need to continue moving on that, and I was wondering whether we have any pilot programs to kind of respond during those times of natural disaster as it deals with cyber. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. The FEMA Director is actually looking at how we make sure that those types of networks are restored 

very quickly and interoperability, and has been working with local 

FEMA directors on that issue, yes. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
79 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

And with that, Madam Secretary, we will wrap up this hearing. 

We are going to reconvene at 2:00 to deal with biosurveillance, as 

you probably know, as we move on to our agency hearings. But we 

do thank you for your service and for your responsive testimony 

here this morning. We look forward to working with you through 

this budget season. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
80 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 154 here 57551A.032
81 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 02 here 57551C1.033
82 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 03 here 57551C1.034
83 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 04 here 57551C1.035
84 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 05 here 57551C1.036
85 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 06 here 57551C1.037
86 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 07 here 57551C1.038
87 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 08 here 57551C1.039
88 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 09 here 57551C1.040
89 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 010 here 57551C1.041
90 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 011 here 57551C1.042
91 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 012 here 57551C1.043
92 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 013 here 57551C1.044
93 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 014 here 57551C1.045
94 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 015 here 57551C1.046
95 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 016 here 57551C1.047
96 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 017 here 57551C1.048
97 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 018 here 57551C1.049
98 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 019 here 57551C1.050
99 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 020 here 57551C1.051
100 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 021 here 57551C1.052
101 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 022 here 57551C1.053
102 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 023 here 57551C1.054
103 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 024 here 57551C1.055
104 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 025 here 57551C1.056
105 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 026 here 57551C1.057
106 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 027 here 57551C1.058
107 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 028 here 57551C1.059
108 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 029 here 57551C1.060
109 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 030 here 57551C1.061
110 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 031 here 57551C1.062
111 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 032 here 57551C1.063
112 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 033 here 57551C1.064
113 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 034 here 57551C1.065
114 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 035 here 57551C1.066
115 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 036 here 57551C1.067
116 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 037 here 57551C1.068
117 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 038 here 57551C1.069
118 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 039 here 57551C1.070
119 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 040 here 57551C1.071
120 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 041 here 57551C1.072
121 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 042 here 57551C1.073
122 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 043 here 57551C1.074
123 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 044 here 57551C1.075
124 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 045 here 57551C1.076
125 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 046 here 57551C1.077
126 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 047 here 57551C1.078
127 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 048 here 57551C1.079
128 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 049 here 57551C1.080
129 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 050 here 57551C1.081
130 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 051 here 57551C1.082
131 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 052 here 57551C1.083
132 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 053 here 57551C1.084
133 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 054 here 57551C1.085
134 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 055 here 57551C1.086
135 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 056 here 57551C1.087
136 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 057 here 57551C1.088
137 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 058 here 57551C1.089
138 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 059 here 57551C1.090
139 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 060 here 57551C1.091
140 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 061 here 57551C1.092
141 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 062 here 57551C1.093
142 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 063 here 57551C1.094
143 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 064 here 57551C1.095
144 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 065 here 57551C1.096
145 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 066 here 57551C1.097
146 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 067 here 57551C1.098
147 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 068 here 57551C1.099
148 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 069 here 57551C1.100
149 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 070 here 57551C1.101
150 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 071 here 57551C1.102
151 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 072 here 57551C1.103
152 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 073 here 57551C1.104
153 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 074 here 57551C1.105
154 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 075 here 57551C1.106
155 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 076 here 57551C1.107
156 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 077 here 57551C1.108
157 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 078 here 57551C1.109
158 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 079 here 57551C1.110
159 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 080 here 57551C1.111
160 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 081 here 57551C1.112
161 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 082 here 57551C1.113
162 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 083 here 57551C1.114
163 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 084 here 57551C1.115
164 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 085 here 57551C1.116
165 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 086 here 57551C1.117
166 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 087 here 57551C1.118
167 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 088 here 57551C1.119
168 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 089 here 57551C1.120
169 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 090 here 57551C1.121
170 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 091 here 57551C1.122
171 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 092 here 57551C1.123
172 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 093 here 57551C1.124
173 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 094 here 57551C1.125
174 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 095 here 57551C1.126
175 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 096 here 57551C1.127
176 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 097 here 57551C1.128
177 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 098 here 57551C1.129
178 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 099 here 57551C1.130
179 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0100 here 57551C1.131
180 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0101 here 57551C1.132
181 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0102 here 57551C1.133
182 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0103 here 57551C1.134
183 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0104 here 57551C1.135
184 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0105 here 57551C1.136
185 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0106 here 57551C1.137
186 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0107 here 57551C1.138
187 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0108 here 57551C1.139
188 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0109 here 57551C1.140
189 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0110 here 57551C1.141
190 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0111 here 57551C1.142
191 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0112 here 57551C1.143
192 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0113 here 57551C1.144
193 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0114 here 57551C1.145
194 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0115 here 57551C1.146
195 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0116 here 57551C1.147
196 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0117 here 57551C1.148
(197) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2010. 

MAJOR SYSTEMS ACQUISITION 

WITNESSES 

JANE HOLL LUTE, DEPUTY SECRETARY 

ELAINE DUKE, UNDERSECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT 

OPENING STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN DAVID PRICE

Mr. PRICE. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

Good afternoon, everyone. 

We are pleased to welcome Deputy Secretary Jane Holl Lute before this Subcommittee to discuss how the Department is managing 

its major systems acquisitions. 

This is her first appearance before us. It is somewhat like learning to swim by being thrown into the deep end of the pool, I guess, 

with all the details we are going to be getting into pretty quickly 

about these major acquisitions, but we are sure you are up to the 

task, and we look forward to hearing from you. 

We also want to thank Under Secretary for Management Elaine 

Duke for being on hand as well to answer any questions that we 

may have on specific items. 

Thanks to the both of you for being here. 

Deputy Secretary Lute brings to the Department a formidable resume from her career in the U.S. Army, as a member of the National Security Council staff, as U.N. Assistant Secretary General 

and in the private sector. Her broad experience as a leader in organizing responses to international crises, military intervention, and 

peacekeeping operations will come in handy as she helps manage 

a sometimes unwieldy department. 

Among the major tasks she faces is putting DHS major systems 

acquisitions on track and keeping them there. 

The Department has struggled from its inception to manage 

major acquisition projects effectively. Congress chose to construct a 

large bureaucracy from scratch to manage and operate components 

that had been relocated from other departments at a time when securing the homeland had to be done both right and right away. It 

was inevitable that not everything would work smoothly in the beginning, but that was 7 years ago. Americans expect that a maturing agency should have addressed these issues, to ensure the taxpayers’ dollars are well spent; that planning, design, procurement 

and deployment of systems directly supports the Department’s mission priorities; and that deliverables arrive on time and on budget. 

To be blunt, there has been great dismay at how some of the Department’s major acquisition programs have been handled. While 

sometimes we can say enough is enough and pull the plug on 

projects that go off course, such as the Coast Guard’s original comVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:18 Sep 10, 2010 Jkt 057551 PO 00000 Frm 00197 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A551P2.XXX A551P2

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
198 

posite-hulled Fast Response Cutter or its Vertical Unmanned Aerial System, we often do not have that luxury. 

Today we focus on four acquisition programs: an experimental 

border security system for Customs and Border Protection; a major 

capital asset for the Coast Guard; a consolidated financial management system for the entire Department; and a long-running project 

to modernize trade and customs processes. All of these programs 

have drawn public criticism for various failings, whether they have 

been for cost growth or charges of unfair contracting, delays, failure to define requirements or objectives, or simply not meeting 

agency needs. 

What we hope to learn today is how the Department is repairing 

the acquisition processes for these major systems and to assess 

whether, despite initial problems, these acquisitions are now on 

track. 

The Secure Border Initiative was launched in 2005 to leverage 

technology to expand our capacity to monitor and protect our borders, making our fencing and Border Patrol agents more effective. 

Four years ago, DHS held an industry day to show how our first 

case study, the Secure Border Initiative Network, would, ‘‘integrate 

multiple state-of-the-art systems and traditional security infrastructure into a single comprehensive border security suite for the 

Department.’’ 

It has been a bumpy road for SBInet. Initial plans deferred technology investment in favor of placing tactical fencing on 670 miles 

of Southwest border. The initial 28-mile pilot project was late and 

failed to live up to its billing. Finally, original SBInet plans, which 

called for technology to be deployed in Tucson and Yuma sectors 

by the end of fiscal year 2008 and to the entire Southwest border 

by fiscal year 2011, have been significantly delayed. 

Block 1, the first operational deployment of SBInet, will not be 

formally tested until later this year, with completion in 2013, and 

no decisions for deployment beyond Tucson until the 2011 Acquisition Review Board meeting. No funding is requested for deployment beyond Tucson or Yuma or for block 2, the next SBI deployment. 

Therefore, with only deployment to about 50 miles of the border 

scheduled, it appears that SBINet deployment will take many more 

years. 

Our second case study, the Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter, was a component of Deepwater, the much maligned recapitalization initiative for the Coast Guard. The goal of the National Security Cutter was to provide a more capable replacement for the 

aging fleet of High-Endurance Cutters, one that could operate in 

conjunction with Navy surface ships, provide command-and-control 

capabilities, and even serve as a mother ship for unmanned reconnaissance drones. 

The Coast Guard now has two of these vessels, but problems 

were identified with the design that would shorten the service life 

of these ships. Costs have escalated significantly, and the production time table has slipped. 

While supporters of the program say the vessels are extremely 

capable, critics have charged that the Deepwater acquisition process was more focused on the contractors designing a profitable ship 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
199 

instead of giving the Coast Guard what it needed to accomplish its 

mission. The budget request before this Subcommittee requests 

$538 million for the fifth in this line of ships, which, if approved, 

will bring the total investment of the program to nearly $3 billion. 

The Transformation and Systems Consolidation Project, or TASC 

for short, is our third case study, an ambitious project aimed at 

providing unified financial and asset management for the Department of Homeland Security. From its inception, the Department 

has struggled to demonstrate transparency and offer timely reporting on its finances. At OMB’s direction, DHS attempted to develop 

an in-house financial management system called eMerge2. This 

was beyond the Department’s capabilities, so they scrapped the 

program and sought the commercially available solution to their 

problem. 

The contracting process has resulted in lawsuits charging a lack 

of fair competition, followed by changes in further lawsuits. The 

challenge of getting the right system to implement across the entire Department with its unique mix of old and new agencies would 

be difficult enough without such obstacles. 

While the contract has not been awarded yet to begin this work, TASC is currently estimated to cost $450 million with lifecycle 

costs of over $1 billion. 

Last but not least on today’s list is ACE, the Automated Commercial Environment. ACE has been on the drawing board for Customs and now CBP for over a decade. When I sat on the former 

Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee, ACE was touted as the 

way to move Customs past its paper-bound, 19th century procedures and 1970s vintage computer systems and to implement the 

1994 Customs Modernization Act. It was to be the platform for 

automating all major agency functions, to include import and export systems, finances, personnel, enforcement systems and procurement. 

Over the past decade, Congress has appropriated $2.9 billion to develop and deploy ACE, including $123 million for the related 

International Trade Data System, an initiative to consolidate various Federal trade data reporting and statistical requirements into 

one virtual window. Congress has required expenditure plans for 

the project along the way to ensure that best practices were followed in designing and procuring the system. 

There have been numerous GAO studies on the management of 

ACE, and OMB reviewed the program in 2006. It awarded it three 

stars, its highest score, for program performance and effectiveness. 

Given that the initiative has been studied and restudied time 

and time again and that there are still major functions yet to be 

delivered by the program, I am eager to understand why the budget seeks to scale the program back in 2011. To put it another way, 

it appears that you would like to halt the development of new products, take a step back and substantially redefine the requirements 

and timeline of the Automated Commercial Environment. 

We thought this type of review had been completed long ago, so 

we anticipate learning about your plan for getting ACE and ITDS 

back on track. I certainly approach this issue with an open mind, 

so I am seeking your assistance in determining the most prudent 

course to take. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
200 

So, Madam Deputy Secretary, we look forward to hearing from 

you, receiving your perspective on the problems I have outlined. 

Your full statement, of course, will be entered into the record, so 

I ask you to limit your oral remarks to a 5-minute presentation, 

after which, we will have questions. 

Before we begin, let me recognize our distinguished ranking minority member, Hal Rogers, for any comments he wishes to make. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
201 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 284 here 57551A.154
202 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 285 here 57551A.155
203 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 286 here 57551A.156
204 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 287 here 57551A.157
205 

OPENING STATEMENT BY RANKING MEMBER HAROLD ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome to both of you to the table. 

Madam Secretary, this is your first visit with us, and we hope 

it is a good one for you and us. 

We are pleased that Elaine Duke is with us today, undersecretary for management. I understand she is due to retire next month 

after 28 years of government service. 

You do not look that old. 

Ms. DUKE. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. But thank you for your service to your country. 

Madam Secretary, while your years of military and legal experience have surely prepared you for your duties as DHS’s deputy secretary, it is your expertise in peacekeeping and conflict resolution 

that perhaps makes you ideally suited for overseeing the challenge 

of managing DHS’s major acquisitions. From Deepwater to SBInet 

to the multitude of IT systems across the Department, acquisition 

programs at DHS have unfortunately encountered more setbacks 

than success. 

However, what gets lost in all the GAO and IG reports on cost 

and schedule overruns is the fact that these acquisition programs 

serve the vital purpose of equipping and supporting our brave security professionals in the field who are charged with keeping us safe 

and secure. In short, these acquisitions programs matter. We simply cannot achieve lasting success in Homeland Security without 

modern tools. 

But that fact does not eliminate the need for stewardship of the 

taxpayers’ precious dollars. 

In my view, we should spend every dollar that is necessary on 

Homeland Security, but not a penny more. So we must get our 

major acquisitions right. We must find a way to expeditiously obtain and deploy the tools needed to meet our security requirements 

without breaking the bank or breaching the public’s trust. 

But as I look at DHS’s fiscal year 2011 budget request, I see less 

traction toward this goal and more glaring questions and inconsistencies. First, the budget claims the substantial cuts to Coast Guard 

operations are necessary to ‘‘make room’’ for investments in new 

acquisitions, but the budget pushes many critical investments to 

future years, while also decreasing Coast Guard acquisitions by 

$155 million, 10 percent. 

What this means in real terms for fiscal year 2011 and perhaps 

a few years following is that fewer drugs will be seized; fewer drug 

smugglers will be interdicted; fewer migrants will be saved; fewer 

ports and miles of coast line will be protected. 

Secondly, on SBInet, the budget proposes a massive cut of $225 

million, 28 percent plus below fiscal year 2010. Now I know this 

program has a history of failures and delays, but SBInet’s operation was supposed to coincide with the deployment of 20,000 Border Patrol agents and robust air support. Sadly, the budget is proposing to cut all elements of border security operations at a time 

when a murderous drug war is raging along that border. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
206 

These proposed reductions to Deepwater and SBInet might make 

sense if we had the expenditure plans as required by law. But we 

do not have those plans, and they are well overdue. 

And the record will show that, in the past, when we have been 

denied those expenditure plans, we simply do not appropriate, or 

cut them severely pending the presentation to us of the plans for 

expenditures. We have to have that; that is what we do for a living, 

if you will. 

And so due to this failure to comply with the law, and this requirement is in the law; it is in the bill language for the last 4 

years. So due to the failure to comply with the law, I do not see 

how the Subcommittee can make informed decisions on these proposed cuts or the direction of these critical programs. Finally, the budget request is proposing a sizable $24 million initiative to hire an additional 150 acquisition professionals. It is unclear what outcomes this costly initiative will actually achieve 

other than to simply hire more bureaucrats in the Department’s 

administrative offices. And this proposal seems to overlook the fact 

that this Subcommittee has consistently and rather responsibly increased acquisition management staffing at DHS as needed over 

the past few years. 

Madam Secretary, in the wake of a terrorist attack, with mounting threats at every turn and when fiscal discipline is so badly 

needed, how can Congress even contemplate sweeping bureaucratic 

increases, prolonged delivery schedules and severe cuts to frontline 

operations? Furthermore, how can you expect the Subcommittee to 

accept the budget’s far-fetched claims when the administration has 

so badly failed to comply with mandated planning and oversight requirements? 

Mr. Chairman, from where I sit, questionable cuts to essential 

security operations, vague promises for the future, and the failure 

to plan and comply with the law do not meet this Subcommittee’s 

standards for adequate budgeting. So to say I have a few questions 

on how the Department is approaching its major acquisitions is a 

gross understatement. 

Secretary Lute, it is my understanding that you are taking a 

very deliberate and aggressive stance toward the management of 

the Department’s major systems acquisitions, so I sincerely hope 

you can help us make sense of the budget’s questionable proposals. 

As you well know, far too much is at stake for us to fail. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
207 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 293 here 57551A.158
208 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 294 here 57551A.159
209 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 295 here 57551A.160
210 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 296 here 57551A.161
211 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Madam Secretary, please proceed. 

STATEMENT BY DEPUTY SECRETARY JANE HOLL LUTE

Ms. LUTE. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rogers, thank you 

and the other members of the Subcommittee very much for this opportunity to appear before you, particularly to appear with my colleague Elaine Duke, who is retiring and in whom we have placed 

enormous trust and learned a great deal during the past year. She 

is much admired by her colleagues in the Department and is a 

mainstay of our operations across the board. Thank you for this opportunity to recognize her. 

It is my hope to provide you today with some insight into how 

the Secretary and I are thinking about implementing procedural 

and systemic reforms and oversight in the acquisition process. 

Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that I was thrown into the deep 

end of the pool. In many ways, I was born in the deep end of the 

pool. I am the middle of seven kids, God rest my parents’ souls, 

and was born with very much a sense of responsibility and a commitment to public service. And from my time in peacekeeping, from 

my time in the United States Army and from my time in Homeland 

Security, people tell me I am developing a bit of a specialty in 

large, far-flung struggling bureaucracies. And it is a privilege to be 

in the Department today. 

As this Subcommittee knows well, the Department’s major program portfolio encompasses 67 programs with an aggregate cost of 

$232 billion. By any measure, this is a lot of money. The Secretary 

and I take our responsibility to ensure proper execution of this 

portfolio very seriously. When you speak to the Secretary, you get 

a view of the Department’s work, perhaps from the flagpole. When 

you speak to me, you will get a view of the Department’s work from 

the motor pool. And when you speak to Elaine Duke, you will get 

a view of the Department’s work from the wash rack. We will give 

you a very fulsome understanding of how the Department is trying 

to live up to the responsibilities that have been entrusted to it by 

the American people. 

Allow me please to say just a few words about the essential elements of our acquisition process; that is to say, the policies, the 

procedures and the people that we have in place to ensure that the 

operators of this Department have what they need and have what 

they need when they need it because this is, as Ranking Member 

Rogers has said, an operating department. And it is an operation 

that we take very seriously. 

And as you know, if you are an operator, and I am one, that the 

most important operating factors you have are your people and, for 

us in acquisition, recognizing the importance of getting the right 

people, as this Committee not only knows but has helped us work 

through over the years. It is important that we establish a core of 

acquisition experts at every key position within the Department of 

Homeland Security. These professionals, both at headquarters and 

in the components, provide valuable improvements in program 

oversight, in-place expert support and other key aspects of logistics, 

engineering, testing and evaluation for the Department’s programs. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
212 

But we also recognize that we still have a shortage of acquisition 

professionals within the Department, and so we have developed 

and implemented an Acquisition Professional Career Program, 

which has drawn in 109 new entry level acquisition positions. We 

are on track to grow this program to 300 by the end of Fiscal Year 

2011. 

Additionally, we have established a formal acquisition certification program for contracting and program management and have 

created a partnership agreement with the Department of Defense 

(DOD) to allow our workforce to take advantage of existing DOD 

best practice and training programs and developing opportunities 

as well. 

Extending beyond our people, we have been looking intensively 

at our policies and our processes. Why is this important? As this 

Committee well knows, we need to have solid policies and processes 

in place for two key reasons. The first key reason is that we can 

replicate success of a reliable way, and the second is that we can 

avoid encountering every problem as if for the first time. 

One of the very first steps we took in establishing a robust oversight organization was to expand the competencies and capabilities 

of our Procurement Office in the Department, moving it from procurement-focused, emphasizing contracting and the contracting discipline, to an acquisition orientation and acquisition focus that emphasizes the synergies among multiple disciplines. Again, this is 

essential for an operating organization because, whether you are in 

the field or anywhere else, it is impossible to operate if you do not 

have what you need or if you do not have what you need when you 

need it. And it is for this purpose that an acquisition process is designed and built. 

We established the Acquisition and Program Management Division to develop, implement and oversee an acquisition governance 

process. And we have established the Cost Analysis Division to provide independent assessments of life-cycle cost estimates for level 

1 programs at major decision points, in part because we know that 

the acquisition process covers the entire life-cycle of a commodity, 

program or service. We established the Office of Test and Evaluation to provide independent assessments of program testing evaluation plans and of actual test results. 

And finally, I would note that, in our effort to improve departmental oversight, we have completed a comprehensive revision of 

our Acquisition Review Process. The previous department acquisition governance process was modeled after the DoD, but our acquisitions are generally focused on service and information technologies, not entirely on development of hardware efforts. This revised Acquisition Review Process is tailored to match our actual 

situation. 

Looking forward, Mr. Chairman, several steps are highlighted in 

my written testimony. However, I think it is important to note that 

these reforms and improvements, while important, are really in 

alignment with the broader strategy and undertaking we have in 

the Department of Homeland Security. 

At the instruction of Congress, we have produced and recently 

released the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR). This 

document represents the first strategic look at the enterprise of 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
213 

Homeland Security because it does take an enterprise to keep this 

homeland secure. It articulates a vision for Homeland Security, 

that is to say, a safe, secure and resilient place where the American way of life can thrive and we can live our lives protected from 

terrorist threats or any others who would do us harm. 

In the service of this vision, we have articulated five mission 

area sets: preventing terrorist attacks; securing our borders; enforcing our immigration rules; ensuring resilience and the ability to respond quickly from disasters; and establishing a new mission in the 

area of cyber security. For each of these missions, the QHSR lays 

out an approach, goals and objectives to achieve the goals that we 

know will help ensure that these missions are achieved and that 

this vision of a secure homeland is itself achieved as well. 

Following up the QHSR, we are working on a bottom-up review 

of the Department to look comprehensively at how we are organized, whether we are organized optimally and effectively, not only 

with respect to personnel but also with respect to policy and processes as well. 

So I do not view reform of our acquisition process as purely a 

management problem or a problem that happens outside the broader context of the purpose and function of the Department of Homeland Security. 

Secretary Napolitano and I recognize that improving our acquisition process is, as you say, Mr. Chairman, and as the ranking 

member has said, fundamental to our Department’s ability to make 

progress on the strategic goals that we have articulated in the 

QHSR. Our work on acquisition reform is appropriately viewed as 

part of this overall effort to mature the strategic orientation of the 

Department of Homeland Security. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your interest in and the continued support of this Committee for the acquisition program and for 

this opportunity to appear before you today. 

At this point, I stand ready, with the help of Under Secretary 

Duke, to answer any questions you may have. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
214 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 304 here 57551A.162
215 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 305 here 57551A.163
216 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 306 here 57551A.164
217 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 307 here 57551A.165
218 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 308 here 57551A.166
219 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 309 here 57551A.167
220 

CHANGES TO ACQUISITION REVIEW PROCESS

Mr. PRICE. All right, thank you very much. We will proceed with 

questions. 

Let me begin with one that takes as its point of departure your 

comments on the second page of your written testimony, your indication that comprehensive review of the Acquisition Review Process 

has taken place. The changes that resulted from this review geared 

the process, to use your terms, for acquisition of service and information technology programs rather than developmental hardware 

acquisition programs. 

Can you provide more detail on how the process has changed, 

how the new process differs from the old one? And in orienting the 

processes, you said, more towards supporting services and IT acquisition programs, what do these changes mean for major capital acquisitions, like the National Security Cutter, or the Deepwater programs and for developmental efforts, like the SBInet and ACE? 

Ms. LUTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The reform of the acquisition process began before January of 

last year. A number of elements were being put in place to establish the kind of competent control over the acquisition process the 

Department needed. 

When you are in a standup of a relatively new department, as 

we are, you live in your past, your present and your future all at 

the same time. You have to overcome the legacy tendencies of the 

past. You have to operate in the current environment, and you 

have to plan for the future. 

The comprehensive review was designed to look at every aspect 

of the programs that we had underway, all of our level 1 programs, 

equally our level 2 and level 3. This resulted in a policy directive 

being signed in January of this year that established, for the first 

time in the Department, a standardized acquisition life-cycle process where needs requirements were articulated and defined. Solution sets were analyzed and selected, where we went through the 

process of procuring or obtaining the solution that was selected. 

And we followed through with the deployment of the support onward to disposition. We had not had that before. 

We have laid out overall management policies regarding every 

step of this process, generating a better handle on the programs’ 

overall performance and flow. And we have introduced senior decision-making at key points at each step along the way of the acquisition process. 

I, along with Under Secretary Duke, have—I think ‘‘aggressive’’ 

was the term that Ranking Member Rogers used—I have been aggressive in establishing senior leader accountability and responsibility for every step in the acquisition process. I have myself 18 Acquisition Review Boards. Under Secretary Duke has 19 in just 

about a year’s worth of time on station. And we have linked these 

processes as well to the program review boards and then the resource allocation decisions. 

As we have said, in the Department, we recognize that service 

and IT acquisitions are major dollar investments that we have to 

get a better handle on. We do have major capital programs, as you 

mentioned, like SBInet and like the National Security Cutter. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
221 

Those programs are in train and underway. And we believe that 

this system, resulting from the review, will serve those as well because those programs will take their place in this schema of the acquisition life-cycle that I mentioned. 

Mr. PRICE. All right, you are getting at what I was trying to understand more fully. You suggest in your testimony that the previous acquisition governance process was modeled on DOD, on the 

Defense Department, and targeted developmental hardware acquisition programs. But you are suggesting that, because DHS acquisition is generally focused on service and information technology, you 

have now undertaken these revisions. I gather this is an adaptation, in other words, to the bulk of the acquisition efforts that DHS 

has underway and is a departure from an earlier modeling on DOD 

that you concluded was not entirely appropriate. I want to really 

understand what you are saying here, though, and what the thrust 

of it is for these major programs. 

Ms. LUTE. Essentially, Mr. Chairman, the DOD approach, as I 

have come to understand it, and the Department of Homeland Security and the developmental approach to acquisition is to identify 

requirements that need to be filled—operational requirements in 

the field—and then to work with industry to develop a technological solution. This very often requires a large capital investment 

over many years, novel to the solution of those requirements that 

exist in the field. Working interactively in that developmental process is a major function of the acquisition that we are doing. 

The Department has done some of that. We will continue to do 

some of that. But our entire acquisition process is focused more on 

identifying the requirements and needs that we have for systems 

and services support, and for the IT systems that undergird those 

as well, and less on novel technological solutions requiring major 

capital investments to secure over time. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

We will return to some of the specifics of these four cases, but 

let me ask Mr. Rogers for his questions. 

COAST GUARD BUDGET CUTS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Talking about the Coast Guard, the budget is proposing to cut 

1,112 military billets and decommissioning key assets, including 

four of the 12 High-Endurance Cutters; four fixed-wing aircraft; 

five H–65 helicopters; five of the 13 Maritime Safety and Security 

Teams, including those in New York, New Orleans, and Anchorage, 

and so forth. And you claim that these cuts to Coast Guard’s operational expenses and decommissioning of assets will ‘‘make room 

for acquisitions in the future.’’ 

But in Congressional Quarterly yesterday, the Commandant of 

the Coast Guard, Admiral Allen, says these cuts will have a real 

impact, making the Coast Guard less capable in fiscal year 2011 

than it has been in fiscal year 2010, and disagreeing with the Secretary on how important these cuts are. 

Your budget claims that you are cutting Coast Guard operations 

and acquisitions to make room for acquisitions in the future. Well, 

I assume you are talking about the National Security Cutter, the 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
222 

Maritime Patrol Aircraft, and the unmanned aerial system and H– 

65 helicopters. 

However, that does not stand up to logic, because in the budget 

for the National Security Cutter, for example, you include money 

only for NSC number five. Unlike previous years, the budget does 

not include funding for the long-lead materials for the following 

NSC cutter number six. And I want to recollect that eight NSC cutters are planned to replace the 12 378-foot High-Endurance Cutters. And since these long-lead materials can take up to a year to 

obtain, the planned delivery schedule of one cutter per year is unlikely to stay on track. 

Probable consequence of the budget proposal is the elongation of 

the delivery reschedule for number six, seven and eight of the 

NSCs, which will create that huge mission gap for the Coast Guard 

surface fleet over the next several years. 

Maritime Patrol Aircraft, you include $40 million for only one 

aircraft, no funding for spare parts. And by budgeting for only one 

Maritime Patrol Aircraft, the Guard is likely to pay a higher unit 

cost, since previous budgets have included funding for two to four 

MPAs as well as funds for spare parts. So the mission gap will 

grow there as well. 

Unmanned aerial systems and the H–65 helicopters: no funding 

for a cutter-based UAS; that is an essential and plan component of 

the National Security Cutter; and includes the unplanned deactivation of five of the H–65 helicopters. 

The bottom line claims that cuts to the Guard’s budget are to 

allow for funding to be put toward acquisitions are simply unfounded, since the funding for the NSC, the aircraft and the unmanned aerial systems are either prolonged, diminished or nonexistent. In the meantime, the Coast Guard is crippled and at a 

time when we cannot afford it. 

What do you think? 

Ms. LUTE. Congressman Rogers, what I would say is that the 

Coast Guard is ready and prepared to execute its missions. 

The Secretary and the Commandant have said publicly that the 

readiness of the Coast Guard is essential to the security of this 

homeland and to the other missions that it is asked to perform on 

behalf of the Nation. 

We are, in fact, undergoing the recapitalization and indeed a 

reprofiling of the Coast Guard fleet, and we are doing that systemically and comprehensively as well. 

There are a number of specific issues that we can address in detail. For example, there has been a change in policy with respect 

to splitting the long lead-time requests and the requests for builds. 

We are combining those, and so number six will have that come together. 

With the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), a seaborne aerial system, we are conducting joint testing with the Navy. 

But part of what you raise is an issue of great concern to me and 

one that I have been focused on and looking at very hard for the 

past year. And that is, how to get a solid multiyear commitment 

for recapitalization investments that can be sustained over time 

like DOD has? Part of that requires that we get our internal 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
223 

plumbing and wiring in the Department cleaned up and put together. 

It is not possible right now to speak about budget comparability; 

we do not have common budget alignment. It is not possible to 

speak about capability reinforcement; we do not have performance 

indicators and metrics that allow us to compare assets across the 

entire Department. 

Mr. ROGERS. Let me interrupt you. It is fairly simple what I am 

asking; your budget says that you want to, you are making these 

cuts, substantial cuts, in both equipment and manpower, in order 

to fund investments in the new equipment that is coming on board, 

and yet, you do not include money for the new equipment coming 

on board. In the meantime, the Coast Guard is hurting for certain 

now on interdicting drugs, smugglers, the drug war on the border, 

the violence and not to mention the seagoing difficulties. 

Do you not agree that the cuts are now, but the investments are 

not there for the future in this budget request? 

Ms. LUTE. What I would say to you is that I believe that the 

Coast Guard is ready and able to perform its missions and that the 

budget takes a realistic view of the asset requirements that currently exist and are projected in Fiscal Year 2011. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, is my time up? 

Mr. PRICE. Yes. 

I am sorry, we will have a second and possibly a third round. 

Mr. Farr. 

REDUCING RELIANCE ON CONTRACTORS

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am rather new to this Committee, and I am just amazed at 

some of the things I have learned preparing for this hearing. One 

is that the acquisition budget for the Department is $332 billion 

and that you have supervision over 67 major acquisition programs 

in the Department, but that the number of employees, the Department has 188,000 Federal employees, but you employ 200,000 contractors, more than all the Federal force that works for the DHS, 

and that you’re in the process of developing a professional career 

program, the APCP, that you have 190 entry positions now, and 

you want to grow to 9,300, is that correct? Is that math right? By 

the end of 2011. 

How much does that program cost to train the new acquisition 

professionals? 

Ms. LUTE. We have asked for $24 million for acquisition professionals. 

Mr. FARR. And who provides the curriculum, is that a contractedout curriculum, or do you do that in house? 

Ms. LUTE. We are also working with the Department of Defense 

Acquisition University to leverage the university’s expertise in 

training opportunities. 

Mr. FARR. But these will be in-house employees when they finish 

and they get certified as acquisition—— 

Ms. LUTE. For acquisition professionals within the Department, 

yes. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
224 

Mr. FARR. Why has it taken so long? With 200,000 or more contractors than in-house employees, it seems like the fox is guarding 

the hen house. 

Ms. LUTE. Congressman, when the Department was stood up, a 

premium was placed on establishing a rapid capacity to operate. 

And part of the solution for that was to rely on contractors and 

contracting services. 

Out of the number of contractors that you highlight, we have 

identified about 70,000 that we are looking at intensively in the 

professional ranks. A number of others, many thousands of others, 

provide building and custodial services and the kinds of contracting 

services that are common elsewhere in the Federal Government. 

We recognize, though, that this is a ratio that we want to get substantially down in order to consolidate and evolve the Department. 

Mr. FARR. So when you are working with DOD, this partnership 

you are having, is it essentially to get to that kind of professional 

capacity? I mean, how does the partnership with DOD get implemented? 

Ms. LUTE. The under secretary may want to elaborate. But part 

of what we are trying to do through our certification program is to 

reach the point where we have only certified level 2 or level 3 program managers for level 1 and level 2 acquisition programs. It requires a combination of education, training and experience that we 

validate in the Department and work with DOD. 

Mr. FARR. Does that parallel with what DOD has in its professional cadre of acquisition professionals? 

Ms. LUTE. It is my understanding, yes. 

Mr. FARR. I represent the Naval Postgraduate School out in 

Monterrey, and DOD uses, that is a Masters, Ph.D. Program. And 

acquisition management is one of their training programs. DHS 

has a program there, but it is not that. Do you use assets like that 

for training? 

Ms. LUTE. We do. Perhaps Under Secretary Duke can elaborate 

on some of the specific aspects of the DOD structure that we make 

extensive use of. 

Ms. DUKE. We use the Naval Postgraduate School for some of our 

Homeland Security professionals. We have an ongoing partnership 

with them. 

We use Defense Acquisition Training for the basic training of our 

young people entering the workforce. And we use them because 

they had established curricula that basically meet our needs. 

Mr. FARR. So that is not what is going on in Naval Postgraduate 

School. Naval Postgraduate School is more firemen, police chiefs 

and others in their getting their Masters degrees. 

Ms. DUKE. No, we are using them for Homeland Security employees, not specifically for acquisition. 

Mr. FARR. Okay. Today’s Post has an article about you are planning to drop the Bush-era nuclear detectors. And it says, recent 

testing revealed that the consequences of these machines being deployed nationwide in 2007 as DNDO intended could have been disastrous, the GAO’s director of natural resources environment said. 

How many of these machines that could have been disastrous are 

installed? 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
225 

At this time there are no ASP detectors deployed in an operational capacity. 

There are 15 ASP detectors installed at ports of entry as test units to support field 

validation and operational testing and evaluation. While DHS recognizes the right 

of the GAO to offer their opinion on the potential consequences of deploying ASP 

systems nationwide, the Department is unaware of any testing or analysis that 

would support the claim that such actions could have been ‘‘disastrous.’’ The decision discussed in the Washington Post article was based on projected performance 

and cost data, but additional testing and analysis of ASP systems is still on-going. 

The Department continues to pursue the deployment of ASP systems to secondary 

inspection locations, and is committed to following stated acquisition processes. 

These processes will culminate in a procurement and deployment decision from the 

Acquisition Review Board, followed, if successful, by Secretarial certification of the 

system’s performance. 

Ms. LUTE. I will have to get back to you, Congressman. I have 

not seen the article. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Culberson. 

COAST GUARD BUDGET CUTS

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I share Mr. Rogers’ concerns about the proposed cuts to the Coast Guard. They are an absolutely essential 

part of our Homeland Security network. And the ships they currently have are badly out of date. They are always ready, as any 

branch of the military is, to do their job. 

But Mr. Rogers had I think some very good points to make that 

I share, the proposed increases and funding for headquarters at a 

time when the Coast Guard is proposed to be cut. I also wanted 

to be sure to bring to your attention the need for, because I do not 

see it in here, a new ice breaker. They have completely inadequate—the ice breakers that they are running now are ancient 

and break down. And it is essential that we maintain that ability 

to get ships down to the South Pole. 

In fact, if I could Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Rogers, if I could, because he had some good 

follow up. 

If you would like some additional time, I would like to yield my 

time to you, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. I will have a second round. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. But I share Mr. Rogers’ concern, and I 

wish you could address in a little more detail what he was asking 

you about with regard to the Coast Guard. 

Ms. LUTE. Congressman, it is the view of the Secretary and certainly my view, as reflected in the President’s budget, that the 

Coast Guard will be properly resourced in the coming budget year. 

We recognize that we are in the process of recapitalizing the 

fleet, and that requires major investments and major decisions 

about those investments. 

I would respectfully disagree that funding, I think what you have 

termed bureaucracy, at the expense of the Coast Guard is the 

choice that we have made. I am an operator. I know what it is like 

to operate in the field. I know that, for effective operations, we 

need the ability of a high-quality, highly trained, highly responsive 

acquisition system. And this Department, with the help of this 

Committee, has made a series of investments and improvements 

over the years, and we are building on that and continuing those 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
226 

improvements. So the Coast Guard is not the bill payer for our 

strengthening our acquisition system. 

Mr. CULBERSON. No, but it is just simply a matter of priorities. 

And I share Mr. Rogers’ concern that, at a time when the Coast 

Guard’s mission requirements have increased, you are proposing a 

reduction in critical funding for the ships and equipment that they 

need, at a time you are proposing an increase in the bureaucracy. 

It is a matter of prioritization, and I think it is the wrong priorities, and I share Mr. Rogers’ concerns. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Let me weigh in, too, on the Coast Guard and the National Security Cutter and try to get a focus on this from the standpoint of 

today’s hearing, which has to do with acquisition management. 

Of course, Madam Secretary, the National Security Cutter is a 

highly capable vessel, but as originally envisioned, it was at the 

heart of the Deepwater fleet. Eight National Security Cutters were 

to replace the 12 High-Endurance Cutters, as Mr. Rogers recalled, 

with greater numbers of days on patrol, increased reach, due to the 

use of unmanned aircraft, as well as traditional helicopters and 

greater command-and-control capabilities. 

NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER AND DEEPWATER PROGRAMS

Now since that original concept the National Security Cutter has 

become less mission-capable because the unmanned aircraft program failed to deliver an operational vehicle as hoped, and design 

flaws that would have shortened the structural life of the ships 

have required changes that reduce the flexibility of the cutters by 

adding additional weight. 

Furthermore, as you know, the program has been plagued by escalating costs. According to a GAO report from July of 2009, the 

eight National Security Cutters will cost over $4.75 billion. That is 

38 percent more than the 2007 baseline of $3.45 billion. So some 

questions about this. 

The original design and requirements for the National Security 

Cutter were developed by the Deepwater integrated systems contractor before 9/11, based on the contractor’s assessment of the 

Coast Guard’s needs at that time. 

So my first question, how has the NSC program been reviewed 

to ensure that the ship we are buying meets the Coast Guard’s own 

assessment of its needs today? 

Secondly, what methods has the Department explored for keeping coast growth in the NSC program under control? 

And then, finally, since I became Chairman of this Subcommittee, we have provided $153 million to the Coast Guard to 

oversee the Deepwater contract in house, instead of depending on 

a systems integrator, with the hope of eliminating problems that 

I have already mentioned. 

So, in your view, does the Coast Guard at this point have the capacity—have an adequate number of acquisition staff with enough 

training and expertise and experience—to act as lead systems integrator for NSC and other Deepwater elements? 

Ms. LUTE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe that they do. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
227 

We conducted an independent review on the National Security 

Cutter procurement process. And that review validated the requirements, the estimated cost projections and the schedule as well. 

As I mentioned in my remarks, we have instituted an aggressive 

Acquisition Review Board (ARB) process, where every major step of 

the acquisition process is put to senior decision makers in the Department representing all of the major lines of business for review, 

discussion and validation before we go forward. And it is our determination to keep ourselves on track, on target, on schedule and 

within the bounds of acceptable cost as they have been projected. 

Mr. PRICE. Can you say more about the methods the Department 

has explored for keeping cost growth under control? 

Ms. LUTE. The principal method, as I have said, Mr. Chairman, 

is that the ARB process that we have, the Acquisition Review Process, engages the operators from the requirements point of view and 

then the program managers throughout the life-cycle of an acquisition to ensure that things are on schedule and within the cost 

bounds that have been estimated. We have introduced this deliberate decision-making process to understand, at the earliest opportunity, if costs are potentially getting out of control and to devise 

strategies, if that is the case, and to validate that we are, in fact, 

on track. 

And, because of this process and a vigorous interchange between 

the Department and the components for all of the acquisitions, we 

now have and can address what has been one of the persistent 

Government Accountability Office and Inspector General findings, 

which is a lack of senior executive engagement and focus on the acquisition process. 

The Secretary and I have made it very clear that acquisition is 

not purely the business of acquisition professionals or of our finance staff. This is a leadership responsibility that we have to engage in. 

Mr. PRICE. So this movement away from using a systems integrator, a contractor to oversee other contractors, the development 

of the capability in-house is, in your view, that change has basically been executed and has achieved its objectives? 

Ms. LUTE. Cutter number four is not under the lead system integrator in Deepwater. 

Mr. PRICE. That is what I am asking. 

Ms. LUTE. And moving forward. 

Mr. PRICE. In your view, that transition has occurred successfully? 

Ms. LUTE. Yes. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. 

Mr. Rogers. 

OVERDUE EXPENDITURE PLANS

Mr. ROGERS. Madam Secretary, when can we get the spending 

plan, the expenditure plan for Deepwater and the other spending 

plans that are required by law, that we wrote into the law? 

[The information follows:] 

Response. The Department anticipates providing the FY 2010 Revised Deepwater 

Implementation Plan Review in the Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2010. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
228 

Ms. LUTE. I am aware, Congressman, of how behind we are, and 

it is unacceptable. As the Secretary said, nearly 300 reports are 

due for the current fiscal year. And it would be helpful to have the 

priorities of Congress in that. 

And, for a specific answer to your question, I will have to get 

back to you with a date certain. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, to look at priorities, look at the statute, look 

at the law, not some extraneous request. There are a few, I do not 

know how many there are, there are just a few. 

Ms. LUTE. There are 16 overdue from 2009. 

Mr. ROGERS. That are required by law? 

Ms. LUTE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Written in the bill? 

Ms. LUTE. Yes, sir, the expenditure plans are overdue. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yeah, but the ones that are written in the statute 

and the ones that we have specifically mentioned in these hearings, 

Deepwater, SBInet and so on, we want those; those are 2 months 

or more overdue. We cannot do our work until we know how you 

want to spend the money. That is what we do, and it is what your 

budget people are supposed to do. And yet we do not have those 

reports, so this is not just a request. 

Ms. LUTE. I understand, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. This is the law, and we want those reports. That 

would settle a lot of these questions we have today about the Coast 

Guard around SBInet and the others. We would know specifically 

what it is that you plan to use and how much money for each and 

the timetable and the like, that way we would not waste this time 

verbalizing when those reports, assumedly by the experts, would be 

available for you and me as well. 

So when do you think we can get those reports? 

Ms. LUTE. Congressman, I am not in a position to give you a specific date for each of these reports with the exception of task C, 

which I believe we will have transmitted tomorrow, but we recognize that we have this obligation due. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, it hampers what we can do. And as I have 

told the Secretary the other day and this Subcommittee many 

times, I am not prepared to go for any expenditures until we have 

the plans for how you plan to spend the money. It hampers our capability to allocate funds across the whole Department. 

So I think the Chairman joins me in this, that we need and want 

those reports, the spending plans. 

OFFSHORE PATROL CUTTER

Now, that would also help us understand the Offshore Patrol 

Cutter (OPC). You included a request for $45 million for that cutter, to fund initial acquisition work, but we appropriated $40 million for similar work since 2004. And the Coast Guard has been 

studying and designing the OPC for more than six fiscal years. 

They say the cost for initial production will not be funded until fiscal year 2015, 5 years later than had been planned under the 2006 

Deepwater Implementation Plan. And those 25 cutters are supposed to replace the 27 legacy medium-endurance cutters. So we 

are into the same predicament with them as what occurred with 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
229 

the 378-foot high-endurance cutter and NSC. We have got a big 

gap in patrol time. 

The bottom line, the exacerbation of the Coast Guard’s gap in 

surface fleet mission hours brought about by the delay in delivery 

of the NSC will be further strained with a delay in the delivery of 

the OPC. 

So we need to know what is the plans for the expenditures of 

funds for the OPC as well. 

Ms. LUTE. What I can tell you, Congressman Rogers, is that the 

design work is complete to the best of my knowledge, but I would 

have to ask Under Secretary Duke to elaborate beyond that. 

Ms. DUKE. The delay in the OPC was defining the requirement. 

The requirement is complete now. We have an approved acquisition 

strategy, and the procurement for the OPC will be coming out very 

soon and we can get a date for that. 

Mr. ROGERS. Would that be in the plan, the expenditure plan 

that we are asking for? 

Ms. DUKE. I will make sure it is. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, you know that is news. I hate for us to have 

to drag out every detail when your expenditure plan will answer 

our questions and we can devote this hearing to something a good 

deal more significant. But here we are dabbling around in details 

that the spending plan will tell us if it were timely, and we should 

have had that 2 months ago, as the law says, so we can plan our 

work. 

Do you hear me? 

Ms. LUTE. Yes, sir. 

BUDGET CUTS FOR THE SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE (SBINET)

Mr. ROGERS. Now, you propose a cut of $225 million, 28 percent 

below 2010, to CBP’s border security fencing infrastructure and 

technology account. Why are we proposing to eliminate the design 

and development of what is called Block 2 and scale back the program management resources for SBInet? 

Ms. LUTE. Congressman, we are not proposing to eliminate Block 

2. What we are going to do is to deploy those parts of Block 1, Tucson 1 and Ajo 1, subject those deployments to vigorous operational 

testing and use and then adapt those proven technologies and systems in the expansion as we move forward in order to avoid false 

starts again. 

Mr. ROGERS. And when will that take place? 

Ms. LUTE. I don’t have them memorized, Congressman. If Elaine 

wants to jump in and rescue her deputy, that would be great. Tucson 1, we have 23 miles constructed and Ajo 1, 30 miles. But, at 

the moment, there is a preservation hold on expansion as I recall. 

Ms. DUKE. Tucson 1 is in final testing and should be completed 

by the end of this fiscal year. Ajo 1 is on hold for deployment because of some environmental breeding reasons, and that will be deployed shortly and then go into testing. We expect the full rate production decision, which is what you are talking about ‘‘Do we go 

to Block 2’’ to be about a year from now. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, your budget submissions and justifications on 

page 20 say that you eliminate SBI Block 2. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
230 

Ms. DUKE. We are not funding SBI Block 2 because Block 1 is 

still in testing and deployment, and the decision of whether we will 

need Block 2, which is really an enhancement of Block 1, has not 

been decided. It is also part of the Secretary’s directed assessment 

of the best way to secure the border. So it is not eliminated, but 

there is a decision to not request funding on it at this point because 

we are not ready to say what Block 2 will be. We have not even 

completed the decisions on Block 1, which is the initial deployment 

and the initial system. 

Mr. ROGERS. So when your budget request says you eliminate 

SBI Block 2, it is inaccurate? 

Ms. DUKE. We have eliminated it in this budget request. No 

funding for Block 2 is in this budget request. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Farr. 

REDUCING RELIANCE ON CONTRACTORS

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In your testimony you indicated near the end that finally we are initiating a study of acquisition programs staffing focused on the key disciplines needed to necessarily execute a program, and then go on to say we want to understand if our major acquisition programs have the necessary key 

personnel and program management system engineering information technology, logistics, cost estimation, test and evaluation, and 

develop concepts to aptly fill identified gaps. The study that you 

are initiating, who is going to do that study; is that going to be internal or external? 

Ms. LUTE. It is internal. 

Mr. FARR. If indeed there is more contractors, there is more people outside working for DHS than inside, how do you get a handle 

on those in light of this—it wasn’t today’s paper, but Saturday’s 

Post that points out that the Department engaged in buying these 

nuclear detection devices, and that each machine was supposed to 

cost $377,000, and indeed some cost as much as $822,000, and now 

that you have looked at them and bought them and in some cases 

installed them you are deciding to junk them. I mean if there is 

200 more contractors out there than employees, how do you get 

there from here? This seems to me that it is just out of control. I 

mean everybody who sells something in this town has a great idea 

that it is going to solve all kinds of problems. And we as Members 

of Congress see that all the time. With vendors coming in here and 

saying here is a problem and we have got the ideal technology to 

solve it sounds pretty good. But then it takes a lot smarter people 

than we have in our world to try to do that, to really find out if 

this is cost effective and relevant and all those things. It seems to 

me that is what you are in the process of training for. But I mean 

if you have got a lot more contractors out there than the cadre of 

people that you are going to be training, and we see these kinds 

of disasters of acquisition, how do you explain to this Committee, 

how do you get your hands around it in a short time? 

Ms. LUTE. Well, again—— 

Mr. FARR. Because a lot of money is at stake here. 

Ms. LUTE. Absolutely right, by any measure, a lot of money is involved. And again, I haven’t seen the article. I don’t know if Under 

Secretary Duke has. The advanced spectroscopic portal monitoring, 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
231 

we have decided to move those into secondary, not completely junk 

the program. So I don’t know what the article is referring to. 

Mr. FARR. Well, that is your excuse, you are going to move into 

secondary. It means you are spending $800,000 on equipment that 

doesn’t do what it was supposed to do. 

Ms. LUTE. But further to your point on contractors, the Secretary 

has instructed, and we are certainly concerned about our reliance 

on contractors and have been looking systematically at how to reduce that reliance in a way that doesn’t put the operations of the 

Department at risk, prioritizing those functions that are inherently 

governmental functions for which full-time, government employees 

need to be providing and then systematically moving through our 

workforce to reduce our reliance. 

Mr. FARR. Did you get what you asked for from OMB; is it in this 

budget or did OMB cut your training program? 

Ms. LUTE. I don’t remember. 

Ms. DUKE. We have a small cut in our centralized training program in this budget. But we think, through our partnerships, we 

have brought down the cost of training considerably, and we think 

we can adequately train our resources with the President’s budget. 

Mr. FARR. And this training, explain something about internships. These aren’t just typical interns that come in. You will retain them after they intern? They are not going to intern and then 

leave and go work for the private sector? Sell you some more equipment that doesn’t work? 

Ms. DUKE. I think it is important that there are a lot of them. 

Some are mid career, most predominantly new college graduates. 

They come in and go through a 3-year program. They are on-thejob, they do not work at headquarters and they are not overhead. 

From day one, they work in one of the operating components under 

a mentor doing actual contract work. And, during their 3-year program, they go to formal training. They are in the workplace, so 

they get the on-the-job training. 

Another great piece of this is that they rotate through three DHS 

components so they get varied experience. For instance, they might 

do Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency and 

Transportation Security Administration, so they get a good feeling. 

When they graduate in 3 years, they are career employees, and 

they have the training and the experience to be contract officers. 

Mr. FARR. Is there going to be enough of them to get your hands 

around this if there is 200,000 contractors out there? And frankly 

that figure came from the Washington Post. I don’t think the Department knew the answer to how many contractors there were. 

Ms. DUKE. Well, these acquisition interns will not replace the 

contractors. Those contractors are doing a wide variety of work. 

Mr. FARR. I understand that. They are going to be monitoring 

these contracts, right? You are going to learn how to make sure 

that we get what we are promised? These contractors are smart. 

Hopefully we have less and less people that we need to contract 

with. It is cheaper to bring them in and make them Federal employees in some cases, not in every case, but in a lot of cases to 

have them work for the Department rather than for a private contractor. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
232 

Ms. DUKE. We very much agree and are looking at rebalancing 

our workforce for the principal purpose of making sure that the 

core capabilities of DHS are done by federal employees, and that 

is our phase one. 

Mr. FARR. How long do you think it will take to get this cadre 

of people trained and in place? 

Ms. DUKE. We have 109 that are in place now. We will be building to 300 by the end of fiscal year 2011. In terms of the conversion 

and making sure we have the right number of Federal employees, 

we have identified about 3,500 contractor positions that are more 

appropriately done by Federal employees, and those will be converted this fiscal year. And that is just phase one of our effort. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Culberson. 

SECURING THE SOUTHWEST BORDER

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, I 

represent Houston and Texas, more than any other State, has a 

long and very special good relationship with Mexico. We have a 

special history with them and a keen understanding of the need for 

workers from Mexico to come here legally so we know who you are 

and you are here for a specific purpose, we know when you are 

going home. And because we have the longest border with Mexico 

than any other State we also have a keen understanding of the 

need to keep illegal activity out, people that are crossing the country and entering America illegally, that are bringing in contraband, 

drugs, weapons, et cetera. And in the Del Rio sector and the Laredo sector, with the help of several of my colleagues in this Committee, in a bipartisan way, we have successfully implemented a 

law enforcement program of zero tolerance where people that enter 

illegally under existing law are prosecuted and incarcerated and removed from the country in a criminal proceeding and it works 

beautifully. The local community loves it. The local community on 

the border is 96 percent Hispanic. Law enforcement is something 

that everyone in America understands, it works, it is common 

sense. Yet I see in your budget proposal, and it is here in the budget proposal that you have submitted, the fiscal year 2011 budget 

and brief, a 58 percent increase in Department operations; that 

this President’s priority is a 58 percent increase in the bureaucracy, yet you are cutting the investment in the Coast Guard’s operational needs 10 percent, you are proposing a 28.2 percent cut in 

the border patrols, border security fencing, infrastructure and technology account, you have eliminated Block 2 of SBInet, so how 

can—it is just common sense you can’t proceed with Block 2 in future years if you are wiping it out. I mean, in addition, the concern 

the American people have over this administration and this Congress is this majority is out-of-control spending and the debt, the 

deficit, the fear that everyone has about spending. It is the priorities. And I have to tell you on behalf of my constituents I share 

absolutely Mr. Rogers’ concern and frankly strenuous opposition to 

cutting the Coast Guard and cutting Customs and Border Protection’s security fencing at a time when it is so critical. 

If we would just enforce the law and secure the border. The 

crime rate in Del Rio and Laredo have dropped dramatically. In 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
233 

Del Rio the crime rate has dropped around 60 percent. We have 

seen about a 50 percent drop in the crime rate in Laredo. It is the 

priorities that concern us, the absence of reports, as Mr. Rogers has 

said, that are required by statute to help us do our job. And I can 

tell you, the public, this is something that, this is one of many reasons the prioritization, your priority of our bureaucrats, in not 

helping our men and women in the field with the infrastructure 

that they need. That is unavoidable. There is no other conclusion. 

And I have to tell you, this is one of many reasons there is going 

to be a tsunami this November, and it is a real source of concern. 

Why in the world would you cut the Block 2 when, and I understand about the problems with SBInet, but how do you propose to 

even move into Block 2 if you have wiped it out? 

Ms. LUTE. So, Congressman, what I would say, in the first instance, the lion’s share of the operating program changes are going 

to St. Elizabeth’s, the new headquarters for the Department of 

Homeland Security, and we do not believe that we are causing the 

operational effectiveness of our operators in the field, whether they 

are in the Coast Guard or Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

or on the border patrol or anywhere else—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, ma’am, but you are increasing the—you are 

hiring, you are staffing up headquarters personnel or a bureaucracy at a time when you are proposing cuts and infrastructure to 

Border Patrol and Coast Guard. That is a fact. 

Ms. LUTE. Congressman, I am an operator, and I will tell you 

from an operator’s perspective that your teammates at headquarters are every bit as essential to your operation as your buddies in the field. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I am just telling you that is not acceptable to 

the American people. 

Ms. LUTE. And what I would respectfully clarify is that the priority is supporting our operations in the field with competent ability to operate at headquarters. There is never a good time to make 

the kinds of choices that we make, but we are determined to have 

this Department as responsive to our field requirements as we can 

be. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I understand. I just wanted to confirm your priorities are bureaucrats rather than supporting the men and women 

in the field. 

Ms. LUTE. I will say what I said before, Congressman. Our priority is supporting our field-based operations with all of DHS. And 

these requirements, whether in the acquisition workforce or elsewhere, are essential for operators to have what they need and have 

it when they need it. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Are you aware the Tucson sector is essentially 

wide open? I have toured it several times myself. It is a problem 

with the DOJ and the prosecutor there. But the border patrol 

agents in the Tucson sector, and I talked to the Chairman and the 

Ranking Member and the Members about this, in Texas if you 

cross you are arrested and prosecuted. If you enter the United 

States illegally in the Tucson sector you will not be prosecuted unless you are carrying more than 500 pounds of dope. You have a 

99.6 percent chance of being home in time for dinner, literally. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
234 

They are out of about 4 hours of time and they lose the load. It 

is crazy. 

Tucson is wide open, yet you are not installing this critical infrastructure in the Tucson sector where it really is needed. That is the 

Wild West out there. Tucson is wide open. 

Why would you not proceed in installing this infrastructure in 

Tucson where it is needed so badly? 

Ms. LUTE. As Under Secretary Duke said, we are proceeding with 

Tucson 1 and Ajo 1. We expect them both to be operational by the 

end of the year. We expect to exercise them and use them vigorously and have them form the basis of—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Is that the Yuma sector? I think that is in the 

Yuma sector. Or part is in the Yuma sector and parts of it right 

next door. We are on the edge of the Yuma sector in Tucson, out 

in the wilderness, right? 

Ms. LUTE. Well, in addition, Congressman—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Oh, Ajo, that is 

Yuma. They have zero tolerance in Yuma too, Mr. Chairman. That 

is the area where law enforcement is just enforcing existing law. 

So where you are building it is wonderful, but you are not building 

it where it is needed the most, Mr. Chairman, and that is in the 

Tucson sector. And I hope at some point you or any of my colleagues, we all need to look at Tucson and try to help those poor 

folks because it is a wide open superhighway in Tucson. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Ms. Lute, feel free to complete your sentence. I didn’t 

mean to cut you off. 

Ms. LUTE. The only thing I was going to say is that in the interim, as you know, we have undertaken a strengthening of the 

Southwest border over the past year. We deployed mobile surveillance radars, we have increased the use of canine teams and reinforced best teams. The Secretary is certainly very aware of the entire border, having been there herself personally, and this has been 

a priority for the Border Patrol and will continue to be a priority 

for the Department. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but take a close look 

at Tucson. 

OVERDUE REPORTS AND EXPENDITURE PLANS

Mr. PRICE. Madam Secretary, let me pause just a minute to clarify a matter that was under discussion earlier, and indeed last 

week with the Secretary, having to do with reports and overdue reports. The number was bandied about last week that something 

like over 300 reports had been required of the Department of 

Homeland Security by this Subcommittee. I am here this afternoon 

to tell you that the House appropriations subcommittee mandated 

reports due to this point, number 105. That includes some from the 

2010 bill and some late ones from 2009. Now, that is a lot of reports. A lot of those are a page or two, but some are major. But 

the number is less than 300. And while it is often said that jurisdiction over homeland security is spread all over our Committee 

structure that is manifestly not true on Appropriations. On Appropriations we have consolidated jurisdiction in one committee that 

deals with the entire Department, and the reports that we require 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
235 

are very considerably in scope and format, but they do represent 

our best judgment from a single vantage point as to the overall 

functioning of this Department. 

Mr. ROGERS. Will the gentleman yield on that? 

Mr. PRICE. I would be happy to. 

Mr. ROGERS. In the 2010 bill, the bill, the Act, has 18 expenditure plan requirements. 

Mr. PRICE. In statutory language. 

Mr. ROGERS. That is 18. 

Mr. PRICE. That is right. 18 expenditure plans in statutory language. The balance of those reports and plans would be of a greater 

variety and usually not included in statutory language. 

We do take this very seriously, and I think all of us have 

stressed that today. The major plans we are talking about here are 

the Deepwater expenditure plan, the SBI expenditure plan, and 

aviation security plans for explosive detection systems, checkpoints 

and air cargo. We made that very clear with the Secretary, and I 

trust it is clear today. But some of these numbers are confusing, 

and I hope this serves to clarify what we are dealing with. 

SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE (SBINET)

Let me now turn to SBInet. SBInet was expected to leverage the 

expertise and resources of a major systems integrator, Boeing, and 

its team to apply commercial off-the-shelf solutions to help DHS, 

and in particular the Border Patrol, achieve operational control 

over land borders with Mexico and Canada. However, as everyone 

knows, the progress has been slower than expected. The original 

target to deploy SBInet to Tucson and Yuma sectors was October 

of 2008 with the Southwest border deployment of a common operating picture, as it is called, scheduled for December 2008. However, your budget indicates more conservative plans to complete 

testing just for Tucson Block 1 by the end of this year and finish 

deployment in 2013. That is 2 to 5 years later than planned. And 

as you have confirmed, Block 2 is deferred entirely—deferred, not 

canceled but deferred entirely—until completion of the Secretary’s 

SBI review. 

Last week the SBInet program manager said, and I am quoting, 

that ‘‘technology helps with the surveillance part’’ of Border Patrol’s mission, but acknowledged mistakes made by DHS and Boeing over the past 4 years in relation to the use of radar, cameras, 

and defining of system requirements. He also said ‘‘we thought it 

would be very easy and it wasn’t. Technology has to be a key part 

of the border security plan, it’s not there. So what do we do in the 

meantime?’’ 

So Madam Secretary, I want to ask you about ‘‘in the meantime.’’ 

What steps are you taking to ensure benefits of technology will be 

realized in the meantime, and specifically we understand Boeing is 

permitting the Border Patrol to make operational use of some of 

the Block 1 technology now in testing. What is that all about? Will 

that speed up future acceptance testing, will it help define requirements, will it inform investment decisions? 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
236 

OVERDUE REPORTS AND EXPENDITURE PLANS

Ms. LUTE. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I can just make a comment 

about the reports and to Ranking Member Rogers, you hear no excuses from me about why our reports are late. They are late; it is 

unacceptable. We understand what our requirements are, and we 

will work to meet them. I certainly understand the value of these 

reports for Congress to discharge its responsibility. This Committee, as I have mentioned before, has been extremely helpful to 

us in strengthening our acquisition process, and these reports are 

key instruments for that purpose. 

Our job in homeland security is really to do three things: execute 

our mission sets, run ourselves and account responsibly for the resources that Congress has given us. We take each of those responsibilities very seriously, and so, with respect to reports, we recognize the importance. That message comes through loud and clear. 

SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE (SBINET)

With respect to SBInet, we experience problems here, Mr. Chairman, that we have experienced in a number of our other areas, 

which, in part, is a problem of understanding our requirements and 

being in a position to be able to articulate what our operating requirements are to a commercial level of satisfaction. All over the 

public sector, industry has the ability to monetize every aspect of 

a capability: the durability of the equipment, the length of hours 

that it operates, the mean time between failure, everything. And 

we are, in many cases, operators. We are trying to strengthen our 

acquisition workforce across the range of capabilities that are designed to address these shortfalls and have us do it well once; to 

identify within an acceptable range what our operating capabilities 

and requirements are, to be able to assess and identify solution 

sets that are presented to us by industry and to engage with industry, where necessary. For prototyping, this is what DOD does, as 

you mentioned before, for limited production numbers and to interact in a way that validates what has been achieved or makes adjustments as we go forward. 

So we have put in the hands of some of our operators some of 

this technical capability. And this is my old world. These are radars, cameras and command and control radios that talk to each 

other in terms of data and that allow operator manipulation command and control for the purposes of detection, attribution and 

interdiction. 

This is a complicated, difficult system that is temperamental to 

the weather. It is a recipe for difficulty in acquisition. And so the 

decision was made to review SBInet entirely, at the Secretary’s direction, to ask CBP to go back in and look at what we are requiring 

and, in the meantime, to use our technology such as the mobile 

radar surveillance capability. It is on the back of a truck and gives 

you night vision capability as well as day capability of movement 

and detection, plussing up agents at the borders and other mechanisms to help strengthen our border visibility and operation. 

Under Secretary Duke may be able to elaborate beyond that. 

Ms. DUKE. In addition to deploying the current technologies, as 

we continue to develop the Block 1 technology, we also are using 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
237 

some of the ARRA funding that went to the Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology account to introduce opportunities for other companies that have proven technologies that can 

work along the border to propose those and that will broaden our 

tool box. The original philosophy for Block 1 was that it would be 

systematically reproduced along at least Arizona and potentially 

the whole Southwest border. That has not necessarily changed; it 

is just not decided yet. We want to look at how far Block 1 should 

be reproduced and what other technologies, both that we know 

about and don’t know about yet, might be introduced to best protect the Southwest border. 

Mr. PRICE. Can you give us a little bit more practical sense of 

what this Block 1 technology looks like, what it achieves, what we 

are getting out of this in the way of border security, apart from the 

testing and the projection of capabilities for future use? 

Ms. DUKE. Yes. What you are getting is a system of unattended 

ground sensors. You are getting sensor towers. And the sensor towers have day cameras, night cameras and radar. And then there 

are relay towers, microwave towers, that are basically communications relay. The biggest things you are getting are technologies to 

allow, in Tucson, for example, four to five border patrol agents 

working from computers in an upgraded command center basically 

to get persistent visibility of the entire 23 miles, and the 23 miles 

is the border. Understand that, even inland, four to five border patrol agents get this view from computer screens from these, in this 

case of Tucson, nine towers. And so basically what you are doing 

is you are getting persistent surveillance completely, day and 

night, with sensors and with the technology. 

So that is what you are getting. You are leveraging your border 

patrol agents and giving more complete visibility into the area. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, it was originally assumed that this kind of technological fix was a good alternative, in some cases a superior alternative, to the actual construction of physical barriers, physical 

fencing. 

Is that judgment still intact and do you anticipate that after this 

further period of demonstration and testing that will in fact be the 

case? 

I presume that we are talking about areas here where the fencing solution itself has lots of challenges and difficulties. 

Ms. LUTE. I think that is right, Mr. Chairman. As the Secretary 

has said repeatedly, a fence is not a strategy. SBInet is not a strategy. We need a combination of technology, people and processes to 

comprehensively address the border challenges, which, on the one 

hand, are to keep out people who are unauthorized to come here 

who might be dangerous but, on the other hand, particularly at our 

points of entry, to expedite legitimate trade and travel. And this as 

Under Secretary Duke said, is designed to give realtime border 

space operational awareness and to allow the kinds of decisionmaking, for interdiction purposes, that maximizes the personnel 

and the other infrastructure that exists. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Rogers. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
238 

BUDGET CUTS TO COAST GUARD AND CUSTOMS AND BORDER

PROTECTION

Mr. ROGERS. Well, you say that Block 2 is not eliminated and yet 

there is no funding there for it, which reminds me of that old saying that a vision without funding is a hallucination. And I hope we 

are not hallucinating here. 

Somebody said a moment ago, I think you said a while ago, that 

the cuts to the Coast Guard will not be significant, will not be 

harmful. However, the Coast Guard says that their ability to interdict smuggled cocaine will drop by about 3 percent, the amount of 

cocaine removed will decline by 11 percent due to the loss of the 

assets proposed in the 2011 budget. In 2009, the four 378-foot cutters proposed to be decommissioned contributed to the removal of 

35,000 pounds of cocaine, 400 pounds of marijuana with an estimated wholesale value of $493 million. 

So I beg to differ with you. The loss of these assets will mean 

significant reduction in the capability of the Coast Guard, as the 

Commandant now has said. 

Now, quickly moving to the CBP’s air and marine operations, the 

Border Patrol relies heavily on robust air support, and the decision 

in this budget to decrease funding for procurement and operations 

of the air and marine division by $16.6 million, 3.2 percent, had air 

and marine salaries and expenses by $11.3 million, 3.7 percent 

below 2010, will be significant, is significant. What do you think 

will be the impact of the cuts to CBP and marine operations on 

border security at a time when we are in a big time war on the 

border? 

Ms. LUTE. Congressman Rogers, as the Secretary has said and 

I certainly support, CBP, including its air and marine operations, 

is well equipped and prepared to discharge their missions to protect our Nation’s borders. We again view this capability in the context of the overall approach to border operations, of which this is 

an integral part, and believe that we are profiled properly to discharge our missions and recognize, frankly, the importance of air 

and marine operations for that purpose. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, again, this is another report that we don’t 

have yet that is required. If we had that report we wouldn’t have 

to be asking these questions. We would know because you will have 

had your experts tell us precisely what you are going to do, what 

you are not going to do, and what impact it is going to have, what 

context these reductions are in. So again, as the chairman has said, 

these reports are not just debating points, these are the way we 

plan our work, because we have got to justify what we do to the 

rest of the Congress and to, more importantly, the people of the 

country. So can we have that report as well? 

Ms. LUTE. Yes, sir. 

AIRPORT SECURITY TECHNOLOGY

Mr. ROGERS. Now, the other day the chairman and I went to the 

airport, went to the TSA testing facility out here, to look at the 

new whole body imaging machines and watched a demonstration of 

the product. The budget request will acquire and deploy a huge 

number of these machines. In fact, according to TSA, 497 of the 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
239 

machines are to be acquired with 2009 stimulus and 2010 funds, 

another 503 plan to be purchased with the 2011 request, and about 

800 would potentially be sought in future years if they are working 

well in the field. 

So we are in the business of testing and evaluating on the fly, 

if you will. One of us asked the question about whether or not 

these machines would replace the magnetometers. Of course they 

would not. But the magnetometers and the machines would be deployed together, but requiring an additional five FTEs per machine, 

which is a hefty budgetary item and personnel cost. The question 

is why aren’t we just combining those two machines into one machine. It seems like it might be a fairly simple thing to do. And 

why are we deploying this huge number of these very expensive 

whole body imaging machines before they are integrated with the 

magnetometers? 

Ms. LUTE. I am no technical expert in this regard, so I won’t be 

able to satisfactorily address your question about why they are not 

being merged technologically. But what I can tell you is that we 

believe very strongly that this represents an enhancement as part 

of our overall layered defense in airport security and that we have, 

in looking at the whole body imaging, the magnetometers, the explosion trace detection, behavioral detection, the whole suite of 

measures that we employ at airports. We have tasked our Science 

and Technology Division, working together with the Department of 

Energy and the national labs, to take a hard systems look at three 

aspects of technology in the service of aviation security. 

Aspect number one: Are we currently deploying existing technology to its maximum effect, whether maximizing its technical capabilities or maximizing the configuration as it relates to other 

pieces? Secondly, what new and promising technologies can we accelerate the development and deployment of? 

Mr. ROGERS. No, no, no, the question is pretty simple. 

Magnetometers are needed—— 

Ms. LUTE. To detect metal. 

Mr. ROGERS [continuing]. And whole body imagers appear to be 

great. But why did not S&T which is, according to Secretary 

O’Toole, Under Secretary O’Toole, S&T will be the testing and authority for the Department, which is the way it should be, but if 

that is true why did we not try to combine these two machines before they are separately bought and deployed? It seems to me like 

we could save some money, significant monies, if we are able to 

combine the two, not only in equipment cost but in personnel cost. 

Ms. LUTE. On the specific question—— 

Ms. DUKE. I think the issue is the Directorate for Science and 

Technology performs the test and evaluation. Industry develops the 

new technology. This is just an example. Right now the combined 

capability doesn’t exist in industry. We feel that the threat is such 

that we need the immediate detection of nonmetal threats. And so 

it is a series. We make decisions about where to deploy existing 

technology—— 

Mr. ROGERS. All S&T would have had to do is to issue specs for 

a combined machine and industry assumedly would have provided 

it forthwith and we could have saved, I think, a lot of money. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
240 

Ms. DUKE. And we have many specs out to which the industry 

is working. This particular technology is ready to deploy, and we 

feel the threat warrants deploying it as a separate technology at 

this point. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a personal observation. When the Chairman led us on a tour of the border and SBInet 

was described to us, it just seemed to be overwhelming. It was 

more like Star Wars. And what we really found on the ground that 

the Border Patrol needed and very complimentary of was the mobile radar units. I mean I became very critical of the UAVs. It just 

seems to me they were not cost effective for the amount of money, 

I think it was $10 million, and then you need I think four operators, whereas these mobile units are about $700,000 for a radar 

unit. And it seems to me that you have got to invest in equipment 

that the people on the ground need for their job, not something 

back in sort of headquarters command which can’t be as responsive 

as the people that are on the ground. This is just a personal comment. I felt very strongly that we were not buying enough of those 

mobile radar units and buying too much of the Star Wars stuff. 

REDUCING RELIANCE ON CONTRACTORS

One of the questions I have is, following up on the others that 

I had, you said that there are about 70,000 people that are contracted out, personnel that could be, might be brought into DHS as 

Federal employees. You also indicated you are going to convert 

3,500 this year. How long is it going to take to convert in the next 

5 years? What are the projections of transferring, is it that number, 

70,000? 

Ms. LUTE. That number of 70,000 is from the number of the 

200,000 that you mentioned that are in professional services as opposed to support services, the custodial that I mentioned. We are 

looking to phase in our approach to reducing our reliance on contractors beginning with the 3,500 that Under Secretary Duke mentioned. 

Mr. FARR. And that is 3,500 this year? 

Ms. LUTE. Yes. 

Mr. FARR. And how many in the next 5 years? 

Ms. DUKE. We are in the process of gathering that. We are actually meeting with the committee staff tomorrow to discuss in more 

detail our current plans, but we are developing the outyear plans 

at this point. 

Mr. FARR. So do we have to ask you for another report? 

Ms. DUKE. No. I am confident that we will have that number tomorrow as we sit down, and we will regularly update you on our 

progress, but we don’t have the numbers for the outyears yet. We 

do have some specific requests in our 2011 budget where we are 

actually asking to convert to full-time equivalent positions, but we 

think there are going to be additional positions coming. We do not 

think it is going to be the full 70,000, but we don’t have a number 

yet. 

Mr. FARR. I think you can tell from my questions that I am very 

concerned of this whole runaway contracting out where essentially 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
241 

the outside world, the vendor world has a handle on running the 

DHS. I mean there are more employees out there than inside, and 

it is of great concern. I think we have the capability in government 

to have the best and brightest working on our side and really reviewing these things because we are spending a lot of money on 

technology that is going to become obsolete. I mean, the whole border, you would think if we ever just had a really good investment 

plan in Mexico to upgrade middle class quality of life issues we 

would have less people coming across the border and we wouldn’t 

need all this very expensive, billion dollar equipment. I would like 

to see us some day engage in a strategy like that rather than just 

trying to build the most sophisticated border in the world with a 

country that we have that is our number one trade partner. For the 

State of California, Mexico is the leading, is our biggest buyer of 

California goods, and Canada being second. 

So it just doesn’t make any sense that we are going to create a 

border there that, as you indicated, is one of the biggest commerce 

borders in the world, but also a border that represents the largest 

contrast between rich and poor anywhere in the world. And how 

one is based on security and the other is based on rapid movement 

of goods and services that we just we have got to get it right. And 

I am not sure that spending billions and billions of dollars on Star 

Wars border activity is a way to do it. That is my opinion. 

I will be looking forward to the rest of the hearings this year, 

and I appreciate the Chairman scheduling you before the Committee. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Ruppersberger. 

CYBER SECURITY

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Just a couple of things if I have time. I 

want to get into the cybersecurity issue, and secondly the TASC. 

On the issue, and I am not sure if you can answer this or this is 

what you are working on, the Homeland Security has a mission 

from the President to deal with all dot-gov and dot-com in the cybersecurity area and developing the programs to help us with cybersecurity. NSA is doing the military and intelligence. NSA has 

been working on this for a long time and has spent a lot of money 

in developing a good program for cybersecurity. And I know that 

Homeland Security and NSA have been communicating together. 

But it is my understanding that Homeland Security might be attempting to develop their own program maybe different from where 

NSA is. And NSA has invested in a lot of money and I think they 

are where they need to be at this point. And I want to know whether you could comment on where we are. One of the issues that I 

heard that might be a concern with Homeland Security is that they 

might not be able to sole source on certain programs, but we are 

talking about the Einstein and where that goes. 

Do you have any comments on that or where we are on that, 

what the status is, where the policy issues are going with respect 

to working closely and more compatible with NSA on the programs 

that are needed for cybersecurity defense? 

Ms. LUTE. Congressman, we work very closely with the National 

Security Agency (NSA), including, at my level, in direct dialogue 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
242 

with the Director. We also have a separate set of responsibilities 

that we understand and take very seriously. 

No one intends to replicate capabilities of NSA. We are working 

very closely with our colleagues in the interagency, including NSA, 

to identify and prioritize the challenges that exist in securing the 

cyber space for the dot-gov and dot-com domain, as you have suggested. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. But that is not what I am hearing on the 

other side, that there is a move to go out and develop your own system. And if that is not the case, I think we—and I am not sure 

where we are or who is making the decisions there. 

Ms. LUTE. In this setting, that is about all I feel comfortable 

with. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay, that is fine. I understand that. If 

there is another setting, and we can talk about that later on, but 

it is an issue that is going to be out there and that we are going 

to raise. 

TRANSFORMATION AND SYSTEMS CONSOLIDATION (TASC)

TASC, you know there have been—basically I think Homeland 

Security has had a difficult time struggling over the last couple of 

years with the internal acquisition process, you have, what, 22 different areas. I understand there is some headway that has been 

made, in other areas there hasn’t been a lot of headway. 

Can you give me the status of where you think TASC is right 

now and what and how were the total costs for TASC developed 

using what assumptions and what alternatives are being considered or identified? 

Ms. LUTE. Congressman, Under Secretary Duke can elaborate on 

the details. But Transformation and Systems Consolidation (TASC) 

is designed to give us a single Department solution for financial 

asset and acquisition process and controls. We can’t talk coherently 

across the Department yet in these areas, and we need to be able 

to do that. TASC is designed to focus on integration of these processes and connect to a whole suite of internal controls. TASC will 

be a phased-in approach that is designed to move in a stepwise 

fashion using existing solutions in the federal space so we can 

maximize best practices and lessons learned. 

But perhaps Under Secretary Duke can give you greater detail. 

Ms. DUKE. The current status is that we have a solicitation out, 

proposals have been received and we are currently evaluating proposals. There was a protest lodged with the Federal Court of 

Claims, in which DHS prevailed. We heard on the appeal about 2 

weeks ago and won the appeal so we are going forward. 

The key differences in TASC that we are delivering are that it 

is competitive; it requires industry to try to manage that technology risk to deliver solutions that have been proven in the federal sector because we need an immediate solution; and it is based 

on federal standards for the nine standard business processes that 

are core to financial systems. 

So we feel like we have a good balance between getting proven 

technology and not going so cutting edge that the risk is unrealistic. Additionally, we are not going to do the big bang approach 

in terms of deployment. We are going to do a phased deployment 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
243 

within DHS, starting with one major component and two small offices and deploying over about 5 years once the contract is awarded 

to try to again manage risk and ensure the success of this major 

move. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. It might be wise to do it that way. The one 

message I want to send back, getting back to the cyber issue, I will 

use an analogy or an example, where FBI at this stage still has not 

developed the communication system they need, yet NSA and CIA 

both had systems that worked. And in order to develop their own 

system and bring in IBM, there have been a lot of failures even to 

this day. We don’t want to duplicate that. So it is really important 

that we focus on what we had, what works and then move forward 

from there. 

Thanks. 

Ms. LUTE. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, and thanks to both of you for your appearance here today, for your service and for your responsiveness 

to our questions. We will probably each have additional questions 

to submit for the record, things that we weren’t able to bring up 

here. But our time is about up. We need to adjourn the hearing and 

we will do so with thanks to both of you for your appearance here 

today. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
244 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0118 here 57551C1.168
245 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0119 here 57551C1.169
246 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0120 here 57551C1.170
247 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0121 here 57551C1.171
248 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0122 here 57551C1.172
249 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0123 here 57551C1.173
250 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0124 here 57551C1.174
251 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0125 here 57551C1.175
252 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0126 here 57551C1.176
253 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0127 here 57551C1.177
254 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0128 here 57551C1.178
255 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0129 here 57551C1.179
256 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0130 here 57551C1.180
257 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0131 here 57551C1.181
258 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0132 here 57551C1.182
259 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0133 here 57551C1.183
260 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0134 here 57551C1.184
261 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0135 here 57551C1.185
262 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0136 here 57551C1.186
(263) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2010. 

INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS 

WITNESSES 

CARYN WAGNER, UNDER SECRETARY, OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE AND 

ANALYSIS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

CAPTAIN WILLIAM HARRIS, DELAWARE STATE POLICE 

OPENING STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN DAVID PRICE

Mr. PRICE. Good morning everyone. I am pleased to welcome our 

witnesses to today’s hearing on the Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence and analysis programs and DHS support for 

State and local fusion centers. 

From DHS we have Ms. Caryn Wagner, the recently confirmed 

Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis. Under Secretary 

Wagner, congratulations on navigating the obstacles in the Senate 

confirmation process and welcome to our subcommittee. 

We are also privileged to welcome Captain Bill Harris from the 

Delaware State Police. Captain Harris is the commanding officer of 

the Delaware State Fusion Center and has worked with DHS since 

the inception of the fusion center program. 

Captain Harris, we look forward to your perspective and insight 

into the partnership between the Federal Government and State 

and local intelligence centers and any recommendations you have 

for how the program can be improved. 

Before we discuss the fusion centers, however, I would be remiss 

if I didn’t mention that the budgets for fusion centers and the 

broader intelligence and analysis function are classified. So we will 

discuss specific funding levels at one of our closed reviews. However, it is fair to say that the 2011 budget proposes modest increases for DHS intelligence programs, allowing intelligence and 

analysis to continue to establish itself within the broader Intelligence Community. 

The purpose of the DHS State and local fusion center program 

is to build a collaborative environment in which both State law enforcement officers and Federal intelligence officers can share information, build analytical products and expertise, and ideally uncover terrorist and other criminal plots well before they are carried 

out. Given the vast number of State and local police, some 800,000 

nationwide, it is more likely that non-Federal officers will be the 

first to encounter terrorist suspects or identify suspicious behavior 

to crack criminal conspiracies. As Commander Joan McNamara of 

the Los Angeles Police Department Counterterrorism and Criminal 

Intelligence Bureau noted in a hearing on fusion centers last year, 

State and local police are being looked at more and more as the 

‘‘first preventers’’ of terrorist attacks. Ensuring that DHS provides 

appropriate support and expertise to State and local fusion centers 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
264 

in the context of adequate privacy and security controls should be 

the priority for the Federal participants in this program. 

DHS currently recognizes 72 State and local fusion centers nationwide, one for each State, and additional centers in 22 Urban 

Area Security Initiative cities. Importantly, many of the State intelligence centers preexist DHS as operations within State police 

agencies or State bureaus of investigation. As the DHS State and 

local fusion center program has grown, there has been an effort to 

standardize relationships between Federal and State partners. 

This progress is laudable, but I believe it would be a mistake for 

DHS to become overly prescriptive in its requirements for State 

and local fusion centers. The primary customers served by the fusion centers are, and must remain, State and local law enforcement 

agencies that rely on the information developed by the centers. In 

fact, one major participant in the program, the city of New York, 

has gone so far as to send its own intelligence agents overseas to 

gather information that it believes it cannot get from the Federal 

Government. While the NYPD Fusion Center does have an I&A intelligence analyst on staff, that operation is nevertheless an example of how simply adding Federal participation to State and local 

centers doesn’t necessarily mean that all of a given locality’s needs 

are met. 

Under Secretary Wagner, I am interested to know if you plan 

any review of the fusion center program to make sure it is meeting 

the needs of your partners, understanding that those partners are 

diverse and have diverse needs. 

State and local fusion centers have succeeded at analyzing opensource information, pursuing leads and threats reported by members of the public, developing intelligence reports to promote situational awareness, and exploiting various social networking sites to 

respond to emerging threats in real-time. I understand that efforts 

are also underway to improve the analysis of data collected by 

other components of State and local law enforcement agencies, such 

as pattern analysis of suspicious activity reports and in-depth reviews of 911 call logs. I would be interested to hear more about 

how these efforts are being conceived and about other analytical 

approaches that have been envisioned for the program. 

Before we hear today’s testimony, I need to make one point to 

all of the members. While this hearing is taking place in an unclassified setting, most, if not all, of the specific cases handled by the 

DHS intelligence program at the State and local fusion centers are 

sensitive to national or homeland security. Therefore, discussions 

about specific threats or cases may need to be conducted in another 

setting, such as at our next quarterly classified threat brief, which 

we anticipate scheduling sometime in April. 

Under Secretary Wagner is our first witness. I will ask you to 

summarize your written testimony in a 5-minute statement, followed by you, Captain Harris, for another 5 minutes. Your entire 

written statements will be entered into the hearing record. 

Before we again, though, let me turn to the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Rogers, for his comments. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
265 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 507 here 57551B.001
266 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 508 here 57551B.002
267 

OPENING STATEMENT BY RANKING MEMBER HAROLD ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank both of you 

for being with us today. We have a special welcome for Under Secretary Wagner, what marks her first appearance before the Subcommittee. Thanks to Captain Harris coming from Delaware to 

share insights on the State level. 

It is unusual for this Subcommittee to hold an open unclassified 

hearing on DHS’s intelligence programs. But I believe today’s hearing gives us the opportunity to thoroughly discuss what are perhaps our most important homeland security assets and that is leadership and information. 

First, leadership. Unfortunately, it took the Administration almost 13 months to get a confirmed Under Secretary at the helm 

of DHS’s Intelligence Office, far too long for such a critical function. 

And while I am pleased to see that Ms. Wagner has been confirmed 

and is getting settled in at DHS, I am concerned that DHS’s intelligence function may have lost some stature and credibility within 

the broader Intelligence Community during this extended vacancy, 

and that credibility within that community is altogether important 

as we have seen in the past. 

Simply put, leadership matters. Especially true for an office that 

relies so heavily upon its relationships with other agencies, agencies at the Federal, State, local, tribal, even international levels in 

order to be truly effective, relationships with agencies that have a 

history and custom and genetic inheritance of being secret with 

their information and unwilling to share with others. 

Secondly, information. Out of all the tools in our homeland security arsenal, information is perhaps the most valuable when it 

comes to disrupting potential terrorist activity. We need look no 

further than a contrast of the disrupted Zazi pilot versus the failed 

Christmas Day attack. In the Zazi case, the combination of solid intelligence and investigative work disrupted what could have been 

a horrific attack. However, in the case of the Christmas Day attack, information was not effectively shared, in my judgment, and 

the attack was thwarted by little more than luck and some dedicated American patriots. 

So when it comes to return on investment for our limited dollars, 

intelligence is where we get the biggest bang for the buck. But we 

have to get intelligence and information sharing right. 

From the Hart-Rudman Commission to the 9/11 Commission to 

the review of the Christmas Day attack, countless experts and 

leaders have recommended we significantly refine and hone our intelligence collection and dissemination capabilities and processes. 

So that brings us to today and a discussion of the resources we 

are investing in DHS’s intelligence and analysis functions. And as 

the Chairman has rightly informed us, this is an open hearing, and 

I think probably the first we have had with the Intelligence section 

of DHS. So we will have to skirt around certain barriers in order 

to discuss the subject. 

In particular, we need to better understand the value added by 

these 72 State and local fusion centers, something I believe Captain Harris can speak to from the State and local perspective in 

particular. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
268 

Considering the threat activity we continue to see both domestically and abroad, far too much is at stake for our intelligence functions to be anything less than focused and effective. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Rogers follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
269 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 512 here 57551B.003
270 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 513 here 57551B.004
271 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 514 here 57551B.005
272 

STATEMENT BY CARYN WAGNER

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. And we will now proceed first with Under 

Secretary Wagner. 

Ms. WAGNER. Thank you. Chairman Price, Ranking Member Rogers and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Fiscal 

Year 2011 budget request from the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’) Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A). 

This is my first congressional testimony as the new Under Secretary. I am honored to have the opportunity to lead this critical 

component of the Department, and I look forward to working closely with this Committee and the Congress to keep our homeland secure. 

I&A is charged with leading the Department’s efforts to provide 

intelligence and information in a useful form to state, local, tribal, 

private-sector and federal partners and with getting functional intelligence and information to the national intelligence and law enforcement users. 

In other words, we are managing a constant, two-way flow of information. Our efforts support and enable the fulfillment of core 

DHS missions, as articulated in our recently completed Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, which was delivered to the Congress on February 1. For all those key departmental missions—preventing terrorism and enhancing security, securing and managing 

our borders, enforcing and administering our immigration laws, 

safeguarding and securing cyberspace, ensuring resilience to disasters—I&A provides intelligence support. 

Our activities are also aligned to the goals and missions of the 

Director of Intelligence’s National Intelligence Strategy because 

I&A is also a member of the Intelligence Community. We also are 

aligned with the National Strategy for Information Sharing. 

And finally, the budget is also aligned with the priority areas 

that I mentioned in my 2009 confirmation testimony, when I was 

asked to provide a vision for the way ahead. My first goal was to 

support state, local, tribal and private sector partners; the second, 

to strengthen DHS intelligence enterprise and I&A support to DHS 

components; third, to mature and strengthen our analysis and our 

products; and fourth, to improve overall management and processes. 

My written statement for the record talks about all four of those, 

but because today’s hearing is mostly focused on state and local fusion centers, I am going to focus on that in my oral remarks. 

We are continuing to expand the level of cooperation and information sharing with our state, local and tribal partners by a robust 

network of intelligence and law enforcement agencies participating 

in the state and local fusion centers. Secretary Napolitano directed 

then-Acting Under Secretary of Intelligence and Analysis Bart 

Johnson to conduct a study on the best ways to create a Joint Fusion Center Program Management Office (JFCPMO) that would 

support information sharing and would leverage all of the elements 

of the Department on this very important issue. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
273 

The Secretary asked for a recommendation on the feasibility and 

structure of this, and it is due to her by March 6. It is completed 

and in her office, and we hope to get back to you on that soon. 

The Department is also working on how the pending JFCPMO 

will align with the White House’s direction that DHS, in cooperation with the program manager for the information-sharing environment, be the lead agency for establishing a national fusion center program management office. So we are working on that as well. 

Fusion centers are a proven and invaluable tool for the Department to work closely with our state, local and tribal partners. To 

leverage these capabilities, we have 57 intelligence officers and fusion centers nationwide, with a plan to deploy a total of 76 by the 

end of 2010. 

We have also installed the Homeland Security Data Network at 

33 fusion centers, with plans for more. 

Most recently, fusion centers have been used for passing and 

sharing information from I&A, in cooperation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to the centers regarding the Najibulla 

Zazi and Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab investigations and arrests. 

In fact, the Colorado Information Analysis Center provided very 

important support to the FBI during the Zazi investigation. 

In addition, the Washington Fusion Center played a key role in 

development of a multi-seal threat assessment for the 2010 Winter 

Olympic Games in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. I&A had 

analysts assigned to the Joint Operation Center in Washington 

State during the games who were responsible for working with the 

fusion center, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and federal partners for monitoring information and intelligence. That was a great 

collaborative state, local and federal effort. 

I want to address a little more specifically, despite the fact that 

the annual numbers are classified, how the President’s 2011 budget 

submission is going to support our program and enable us to make 

progress. The 2011 budget seeks to continue our commitment to 

the fusion center network by providing us with funds to complete 

representation to all the fusion centers across the country. It will 

allow us to deploy additional intelligence analysts and reports officers and secure communications to all 72 currently operational centers and to assign 10 regional directors to oversee I&A fusion center support activities in the respective regions. The request will 

also allow us to continue providing classified information awareness training to fusion center personnel who access sensitive federal information and to expand our current program to provide privacy and civil liberties awareness and protection training. 

I am encouraged by Congress’ continuing support of the Department’s program to support fusion centers. I look forward to working with you to fund the program in 2011 to meet both the President’s goals and objectives and the key statutory requirements. As 

we continue to work with the fusion centers to mature their capabilities and ensure they are well-trained in analytic trade craft in 

the protection of privacy, civil rights and civil liberties, I&A will 

continue to advocate for sustained funding of the fusion centers as 

the linchpin of the evolving Homeland Security Enterprise. 

I want to convey to you my personal sense of commitment to ensuring that DHS and its partners have the intelligence capability 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
274 

to address all threats to the homeland while performing their missions and upholding the rule of law. The President’s budget request 

will enhance Departmental intelligence capabilities to mitigate the 

complex and dynamic threats that we face, while also protecting 

the privacy, civil rights and civil liberties of the American public. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to testify on I&A’s current activities and the budget request, and I look 

forward to your questions. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
275 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 521 57551B.006
276 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 522 57551B.007
277 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 523 57551B.008
278 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 524 57551B.009
279 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 525 57551B.010
280 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 526 57551B.011
281 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 527 57551B.012
282 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 528 57551B.013
283 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 529 57551B.014
284 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 530 57551B.015
285 

STATEMENT BY CAPTAIN WILLIAM HARRIS

Mr. PRICE. Captain Harris. 

Captain HARRIS. Good morning, Chairman Price, Congressman 

Rogers and members of the Subcommittee. Let me begin by saying 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discuss our Nation’s 

security as it pertains to Federal, State, and local government efforts, specifically fusion centers. 

My name is Captain Bill Harris with the Delaware State Police 

and I am a 29-year veteran of the State Police and the commander 

of Delaware’s Fusion Center. I also chair the newly formed National Fusion Center Association’s communications and outreach 

committee. The national fusion center association is focused on continuing to develop positive and sustainable relationships with DHS, 

DOJ, ODNI, the Program Management Office of the information 

sharing environment, based on collaboration and information sharing. 

I am honored to testify today with Under Secretary Caryn Wagner of the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence 

Analysis. The Office of Intelligence Analysis has been an integral 

partner in the successful effort, assisting our jurisdictions in establishing a national network of fusion centers. Fusion centers embody 

a core collaboration and are an extremely efficient tool to maximize 

our available resources. 

This concept serves as a force multiplier to local and rural agencies that would not normally have the resources to receive or analyze intelligence information relative to their geographic area. Fusion centers have only been in existence over the last 5 years, and 

many have success stories to share that benefit their local jurisdictions and support our Federal goals. 

The concept of a fusion center is predicated on collaboration. The 

relationship between fusion centers and the Department of Homeland Security is one of partnership and consensus. That relationship has very much improved since the concept began. The future 

success of a national network of fusion centers is a shared responsibility. And it is dependent upon the combined efforts of Federal, 

State, local, tribal and territorial partners. 

I would like to take a moment to thank principal Deputy Under 

Secretary Bart Johnson for his leadership this past year. Colonel 

Johnson and his staff are a great asset to the fusion center network 

and are responsible for implementing many of the improvements 

fusion center directors have seen over the last year. 

The following are some support fusion centers are receiving from 

the Department of Homeland Security to enhance our operational 

capacity and support our sustainment: the creation of a Joint Program Management Office between DHS and DOJ to coordinate and 

support our fusion centers; the creation of a National Suspicious 

Activity Reporting Program Management Office residing in DOJ, 

but working closely with DHS; the development of a fusion center 

commander’s course with ODNI and input from the fusion center 

directors; enhancing training on privacy and civil liberties protections, with regional workshops and added provisions to the Homeland Security Grant Program guidance; facilitating more than 700 

State and local security clearances to enable enhanced classified inVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:18 Sep 10, 2010 Jkt 057551 PO 00000 Frm 00285 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A551P2.XXX A551P2

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
286 

formation sharing between the fusion centers; training and technical assistance by providing 15 services to enhance fusion center 

operational capacity—49 of these were provided last year for a total 

of 184 to date; direct field support to fusion centers by assigning 

57 intelligence officers to enhance our center’s capacity and competence; commitment to sustainment by prioritizing fusion centers 

in the 2010 Homeland Security Grant Program guidance; deploying 

33 Homeland Security HSDN Systems with SIPERnet to fusion 

centers for an exchange of classified information; deploying HSIN, 

SLIC, the State and local Intelligence Community, which is a nonclassified information technology exchange system that complements such systems such as RISS, which are vital to State and 

local enforcement. 

In speaking with my colleagues recently, the overwhelming concern of their fusion center operations is sustainment. Currently, 

most fusion centers depend on Federal Government support for 

continued operations. 

In direct relationship to the fusion center sustainment problem 

is the current language within the SHSGP and UASI grant guidance in which 25 percent of the funding to the jurisdiction must be 

designated to law enforcement terrorism prevention activities. The 

wording of this language is found to be universally detrimental to 

the sustainment of fusion centers. 

After meeting with my peers last week at our semiannual Fusion 

Center Directors Meeting, along with representatives from the 

IACP and the Major City Chiefs Association, we unanimously 

agreed to support the reestablishment of the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program as a funded grant program rather than 

an allowable activity under SHSGP and UASI programs. This 

would ensure that moneys designated by the Department of Homeland Security for the sustainment of fusion centers would go directly to the fusion centers and not other areas considered ‘‘related’’ 

to law enforcement activity. Law enforcement and the mission of 

prevention and protection continue to be the only public safety and 

homeland security mission not to receive dedicated funding from 

Homeland Security. 

As a Nation, we continue to spend billions and billions on response and recovery missions while funding for dedicated law enforcement prevention and protection at the State, local and tribal 

level continues not to be funded. 

I thank you for your time this morning and the opportunity to 

discuss our Nation’s national network of fusion centers. On behalf 

of the National Fusion Center Association, we look forward to continuing our work with you and your staff to enhance and sustain 

this critical prevention and protection mission. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
287 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 536 here 57551B.016
288 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 537 here 57551B.017
289 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 538 here 57551B.018
290 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 539 here 57551B.019
291 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 540 here 57551B.020
292 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 541 here 57551B.021
293 

PARADIGM SHIFT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY AND FUSION CENTERS

Mr. PRICE. We will proceed to questions now. And I will ask the 

first one, kind of a three-part question directed to both of you. 

At the recent National Governors Association meeting, Deputy 

National Security Adviser Brennan and Secretary Napolitano 

hosted a panel discussion about State and local fusion centers, as 

you probably know. Mr. Brennan discussed how information sharing between Federal Government and the States has improved 

since 2002 but noted that ‘‘We still have a long way to go.’’ Secretary Napolitano said that the country needs a ‘‘paradigm shift,’’ 

as she put it, to improve communications between the Federal Government and State and local law enforcement. 

So under Secretary Wagner, Captain Harris, would you agree in 

general and in particular that there is still a lot of work to do, and 

how would you get specific about what that work consists of? What 

are the deficiencies you see in communication and the correctives 

that might be undertaken? 

Under Secretary, what is the Department’s plan for implementing this paradigm shift? First, what exactly do we mean by it? 

And, second, what is it going to look like, implementing a paradigm 

shift in communications between DHS and the fusion centers? And, 

Captain, I would appreciate your elaborating more fully on the two 

or three changes you would focus on that would most improve the 

work done by the fusion centers. 

You have indicated the need for dedicated funding. Yet, it is true, 

isn’t it, that despite the flexibility of funding, every State has in 

fact established a fusion center. We have an additional, what is it, 

22 or so fusion centers established under UASI grants. You might 

want to sharpen that recommendation a bit, and of course we 

would be receptive to any other specific suggestions you would have 

for improving this program. 

Under Secretary, let me start with you. 

Ms. WAGNER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I believe that the paradigm 

shift being discussed has to do with the fact that the Intelligence 

Community for many, many, many years had a foreign intelligence 

focus. Only relatively recently in the span of a bureaucratic life, it 

has had more of a homeland focus as well. 

One of I&A’s main responsibilities is to be a translator of requirements for the Homeland Enterprise to the Intelligence Community in order to get better support and to leverage those capabilities in a way that can be shared with the local, tribal and urban 

areas. We are working very hard on that. 

For many years, I know many of you have been familiar with the 

extraordinary support that is provided to military forces when they 

are deployed in harm’s way. We are trying to instill a paradigm 

shift to that same thought process at the same level of urgency for 

support to our Department when we are facing a heightened threat 

to the homeland. And we are having some very fruitful dialogues 

on what that would mean. But there is, I think, still work to be 

done, and we are actively engaged with our partners on how we 

can do a better job thinking about articulating the homeland requirements, making sure they are factored into the kinds of anaVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:18 Sep 10, 2010 Jkt 057551 PO 00000 Frm 00293 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A551P2.XXX A551P2

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
294 

lytic work the Intelligence Community is doing and thinking more 

about tearline reporting for information that is less classified, so 

we are more able to send that information to the folks who can actually use it if we translate it into actionable information. 

So I would tend to think that is what they meant by paradigm 

shift, and there is a lot of work going on in that area, but I would 

agree there is still work to be done. 

Mr. PRICE. Captain. 

Captain HARRIS. Thank you, Congressman. I have my own opinions on the paradigm shift, based upon my interaction with my colleagues from the National Fusion Center Association. The paradigm shift is a natural change, if you will. The Federal Intelligence 

Community works differently from the law enforcement criminal 

Intelligence Community. They both have separate sets of rules that 

they have to abide by, and that is the right thing to do. 

But as these two different communities merge together, there is 

a paradigm shift with understanding each other’s culture, each other’s rules, and how information is handled and transpired back and 

forth. 

Some of the things I would recommend are not only on the Federal Government’s side, sir, but also on the law enforcement side. 

Fusion centers, the people in fusion centers and law enforcement, 

have to understand what the Intelligence Community’s rules are, 

just like the Federal community has to understand what State and 

local rules are. And we have seen a bit of a rub there over the 

years. I will preface this with saying over the last year it has been 

excellent, absolutely excellent. But how could this improve? Well, 

with better understanding on the Federal side, such as expansion 

of the DHS fellowship program to get more State and locals into 

DHS to find—so they can understand—the people within the Federal Government can understand the relevancy to what State and 

locals want, to create opportunities for State and local partners to 

work hand in hand. 

Just like we have Federal partners in our fusion centers, we 

have intelligence officers assigned to the fusion centers, more State 

and locals assigned within DHS to show what our particular needs 

are, depending upon our geographic location and depending on our 

particular law enforcement needs, or public safety I should say. It 

is broader than law enforcement, public safety needs are. 

As you talked about dedicated funding, Mr. Chairman, fusion 

centers are a recommended prioritization in the 2010 Homeland 

Security Grant Program. Currently as exists, the language says 

that the money for law enforcement should be spent on law enforcement ‘‘activities.’’ The SAA of each State has the opportunity 

to play with that money as they see fit, and classify or—‘‘classify’’ 

is a poor choice of words, but put a program that says it is a law 

enforcement activity, but really does not add to the fusion center 

or maybe even law enforcement. 

And I can give you an example of that. The National Strategic 

Stockpile. We have an acronym that is called NEAC for neighborhood emergency disbursement of those particular drugs. Because 

law enforcement provides security to those NEACs, that is considered a law enforcement activity which takes money away from our 

fusion center. So that is just to give you one short example of that. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
295 

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE JOINT TERRORISM TASK FORCES AND

FUSION CENTERS

Mr. PRICE. We no doubt will want to return to the question of 

variety, the diversity of fusion center operations we see, and the extent to which that flexibility is desirable, as opposed to more specificity as to funding priorities from the Department. 

Let me quickly ask you to both comment, though, on a problem 

I think is inherent in the discussion we are having, and that is the 

discussion of how we measure effectiveness. 

The effectiveness of intelligence programs is notoriously difficult 

to measure. I will stipulate that. And it is also very unclear whether, if a fusion center weren’t there, what the normal existing relationships would look like and what they would amount to. Would 

existing relationships between Federal, State and local authorities 

have comparable results? In other words, what is the value added? 

What is the value added for the fusion centers to our country’s 

counterterrorism efforts? How specific can we be about this? And 

how can we measure it, what thoughts do you have about measuring it? And, of course, with measurement comes some kind of assessment about duplicative efforts. Redundancy is not always a bad 

thing, but nonetheless we need to know to what extent we are duplicating other efforts such as the Joint Terrorism Task Forces and 

how do you calculate that. 

Ms. WAGNER. First, I don’t think that we are duplicating the 

Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) at all. The Joint Terrorism 

Task Forces are multi-agency but FBI-led groups focused specifically on investigations. 

The fusion centers have a broader mandate to look at all information, not necessarily restricted to a specific investigation. They 

have an analytic and information-sharing focus. And they are all 

hazards in many cases, not in all cases, because the fusion centers 

obviously are tailored to their local state needs, so they are not all 

the same. But in many cases, they are co-located with the JTTF 

and I think it is an excellent partnership, but they really are not 

doing the same thing. 

So I just wanted to put that out there. And I am sure Captain 

Harris can elaborate more. 

And I have gotten lost on what else I was supposed to be answering. 

MEASURING FUSION CENTERS’ EFFECTIVENESS

Mr. PRICE. The question of any quick thoughts on measurement. 

We can return to this topic as well. 

Ms. WAGNER. And that, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, is a 

perennially difficult problem. Part of it is, I think, the fusion centers are part of a Homeland Security Enterprise we are trying to 

create that provides for readiness, preparedness and reaction. And 

having that capability, even if it is never needed (which, in most 

cases, we would prefer that it not be because we are reacting to a 

disaster or an attack), I think is fundamentally—it is just manifest, 

you need to do it, so we should do it. It has to be there; it has to 

be ready in case you do need it. And if you don’t, then that doesn’t 

mean that it is not valuable. And I understand that is a difficult 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
296 

point to accept, especially when you are trying to match resources 

to results. 

I think one of the ways to evaluate the successes of the fusion 

centers is to ask the states and the areas that they are actually 

supporting whether they believe that this construct is supporting 

their requirements. At the same time, we try to figure out ways to 

evaluate at the national level whether they are mutually reinforcing each other. We want to make sure that we have an opportunity for fusion centers to back each other up to make sure that 

we are looking at them from a regional perspective, which is why 

we are putting these regional directors in place. 

And I know that may not be as specific an answer to your question as you would like, but I think, in many ways, the metric is 

going to be subjective rather than objective because we are not always going to know when a fusion center—by virtue of the fact 

that it has created an excellent network of terrorist liaison officers 

down at the local law enforcement activities within the State and 

by virtue of the fact that we have alerted them to look for specific 

things—may have prevented something that you would never know 

has been prevented, just because the surveillance or the alertness 

of the first responders/preventers is such that people decide they 

are not going to try something; they are going to go somewhere 

else. 

That is the challenge with trying to gauge the effectiveness, but 

that is what we want. We want that network to be so pervasive in 

a legal way that people decide it is too hard to do what they want 

to do. 

And I would welcome Captain Harris’s views on that. 

Mr. PRICE. Captain, briefly for now, and then we will return to 

this, but I would be interested in your thoughts. 

Captain HARRIS. A couple answers to a couple of the questions 

you had, sir. 

Fusion centers, what value would they be if they weren’t there? 

As I said earlier, we act as a force multiplier and embody the core 

of collaboration, and we are able to supply local departments with 

information that they would not normally have. 

How do we measure our effectiveness? We are already working 

on that in this collaborative effort with DOJ, DHS, the Program 

Management Office for the Information Sharing Environment. How 

do we do this? With a group called GLOBAL. And we came up with 

the baseline capabilities for fusion centers. So there are documents 

out there that establish the baseline capabilities for fusion centers, 

and we have drilled down on those baseline capabilities. 

So to determine what value added we have, we are working with 

our partners at DHS on those baseline capabilities to put an assessment out. First, it will be a self-assessment for fusion center 

directors to see where they meet on that baseline capability, and 

to do a gap analysis of that baseline capability to see if there is a 

uniform area across the broad spectrum where we need to 

strengthen that particular area for the baseline capabilities. Beyond that, we have already planned to do an assessment by our 

peers where we would go out with DHS and other peers and assess 

outside centers, between the different centers, to see where they 

meet on the baseline capabilities and, in fact, start an accreditation 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
297 

program. So that would be your value added and that would be 

how you measure it. 

One of the other ways we are measuring is fusion center directors at our meeting last week, our national meeting, came up with 

some priorities for 2011. And those priorities are part of the baseline capabilities on concentrating on our ability to, one, receive 

classified and unclassified information; our ability to analyze that 

classified and unclassified information; find its relevancy to our 

particular geographic area of that information; and then the ability 

to disseminate it; who has the need for that information, whether 

it is any public safety agency, public health, emergency management, or the private sector, and to get feedback on that also from 

our stakeholders within our geographic location. 

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JOINT TERRORISM TASK FORCES AND OTHER

INTELLIGENCE GROUPS

You asked about are we duplicating efforts with the Joint Terrorism Task Force? Mr. Chairman, I am here to tell you we are 

complementing their efforts. The fusion centers are working with 

the FBI’s FIGs, the field intelligence groups. We work with the Baltimore FIG and in fact the south side of our area, the Philadelphia 

FIG. Our fusion center directly supports the Joint Terrorism Task 

Force in our jurisdiction. The FBI has recognized that, put assets 

in our center, they have put computers in our center, we have classified FBI computers in our center, along with members of the 

Joint Terrorist Task Force. So as far as duplicating efforts, sir, they 

are complementing each other. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, sir. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. I want to talk about how we balance the sharing 

of intelligence through the Department and fusion centers, how we 

balance the sharing of that intelligence without compromising ongoing investigations. 

The recent Christmas Day attack and also the Zazi case, both illustrate the problem that we have, in my judgment, and not surprisingly the FBI is very controlling about the information that 

they release for fear of messing up the integrity of a given investigation for a criminal charge. 

But at the same time, the protection of that information perhaps 

could cause real problems for other people; somewhat like when a 

fire company responds to a fire in the city, they have two responsibilities. One is to put out the fire in the particular building, and 

the second, perhaps more importantly, is to keep the fire from 

spreading to other locales. 

Well, I think the same thing could be true here. In the Zazi matter, a disrupted plot to detonate an explosive in New York City, 

perhaps the subway system, the arrest of Zazi revealed a plot involving multiple co-conspirators as well as portable IEDs to carry 

out apparently a very large-scale coordinated explosives-based attack. But due to the nature of the ongoing investigation, the FBI 

was unable to share a substantial portion of its initial findings, and 

that constrained DHS from widely disseminating potentially useful 

counterterrorism information to the SLFCs on the Christmas Day 

attack, which we all are very familiar about, again illustrates the 

delicate balance between pending investigative work and the need 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
298 

to disseminate vital homeland security counterterrorism information quickly. And the FBI’s concern, of course, is ensuring the integrity of the criminal investigation, the case. However, the public 

need is to know whether or not there is an imminent danger to 

other people by the action that the person has initiated. 

So these two cases have engendered a national debate about 

which comes first. In the case of the FBI and the criminal investigation of a matter, as we saw in the Christmas Day attack, they 

are obligated to give Miranda warnings under our law. And when 

you tell a defendant you have the right to remain silent and have 

an attorney present, there goes the capability to investigate for further damage. 

INFORMATION SHARING DURING AN INVESTIGATION

What do you think about this? Where do we go, Ms. Wagner? 

Ms. WAGNER. Well, obviously, DHS has to work very closely with 

the FBI, and this is an area of ongoing and constant dialogue. You 

are correct. There is a natural tension between the FBI’s desire to 

protect the information that is arising from an active investigation 

and DHS’ mandate to share actionable and useful information with 

its state, local and tribal customers. 

We are working through the best way of doing this. DHS has to 

make a case that the information it wants to share is in fact actionable. It has to be beyond just ‘‘people want to know.’’ It has to be 

that it can result in some actual constructive action being taken. 

We are continuing to work this. I won’t say that it is completely 

resolved, and every instance is a little bit different. There was, 

however, quite a bit of information that was shared with the fusion 

centers in the wake of the Christmas Day bomber. I think there 

were at least five or six joint DHS–FBI bulletins that were put out 

within a day or two to share as much information as could be 

shared. This was discussed at the fusion center conference last 

week as well; because of the relationship of trust between the JTTF 

and Colorado Fusion Center, there was quite a bit of sharing of information in Colorado on the Zazi investigation, even though not 

all of that information could be provided more widely. 

So I view that as one of the missions on which I have to work 

with the FBI and refine our procedures. But it is always going to 

be—there will always be that tension. We will have to make the 

best of it. 

HIGH-VALUE DETAINEE INTERROGATION GROUP (HIG)

Mr. ROGERS. Apparently this administration has formed—I forgot 

the name of the units. HIG group apparently has been formed to 

rapidly rush to the scene of a Christmas Day-type arrest and be 

able to interrogate under our laws quickly to try to stave off any 

further damage to any airplanes or other locales. And yet, in the 

Christmas Day attack, apparently that group was not consulted. In 

fact, I think the Secretary of DHS said she was not consulted. 

Ms. WAGNER. That is correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. It was strictly an FBI operation, which I find to be 

questionable. Why was not this unit called in, and is that the way 

to go? 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
299 

Ms. WAGNER. I believe that the unit was still in the stages of 

being formulated. There are discussions ongoing about how that 

would work and what DHS’ role would be. We believe it would be 

logical that we would participate in a High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group when there is a major homeland component. 

Mr. ROGERS. And yet who knows where the next one is going to 

occur? This one happened over the skies of Detroit. Obviously the 

FBI has field offices all over the country. This HIG unit does not, 

obviously, and speed in getting to the site of the incursion and interrogating the suspect is all important. So what good is this unit 

which is supposed to be a combination of law enforcement and intelligence gathering, but with the capability to quickly interrogate 

a suspect? If you don’t have that unit on the scene, what good is 

it? 

Ms. WAGNER. All I can say is the unit is still being developed, 

the concept is still being developed and I think we will have to wait 

and see when we actually deploy it whether or not it is going to 

meet the expectations. 

Mr. ROGERS. What are you going to do in the meantime? 

Ms. WAGNER. I believe that it will be ready if it is needed again. 

Mr. ROGERS. The HIG unit? 

Ms. WAGNER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. I will get back to my question. Is it going to be pervasive? Will it be in Detroit and LA and New York and Miami and 

all the places that the FBI is? 

Ms. WAGNER. Sir, I believe the HIG is more focused on overseas 

threats. But to be honest with you, I probably don’t know enough 

about it to give you good answers, so I will be happy to take that 

for the record and come back and talk to you in more detail. I don’t 

want to misspeak. 

[The information follows:] 

Response: The High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) is an interagency 

group, but is administratively housed within the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI). The classified ‘‘Charter for Operations of Interagency High Value Detainee 

Interrogation Group’’ was signed by National Security Advisor General Jim Jones 

(Ret.) in late January. Further details can be provided in a classified briefing from 

the appropriate interagency players. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Harris, do you have any thoughts? 

INTELLIGENCE SHARING DURING AN INVESTIGATION

Captain HARRIS. Yes, I do Congressman Rogers. That is a very 

interesting question and one that I have a strong opinion on: How 

do we balance sharing of intelligence information without compromising ongoing investigations? 

Well, I am a career investigator, sir, 29 years with State Police 

and just about all of it in criminal investigations, with the last 9 

being in criminal intelligence. I am in the unique position to supervise not just our fusion center, but co-supervise our Joint Terrorism 

Task Force in Delaware with the FBI. And it is a very good partnership, I can tell you, sir. 

I will be the first to tell you there are things that the FBI does 

not do well with State and locals. But I can tell you in the cases 

that we are talking about here, they are an excellent partner with 

us. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
300 

The FBI is in a unique position that they are the investigative 

authority on these things, along with the State and locals that 

partner with them on these investigations. You are absolutely 

right; it could compromise an ongoing investigation. 

I will go back on the Zazi case and give you a specific example 

of how it worked with the fusion center in Delaware and other fusion centers. First let’s take the CIAC in Colorado. The CIAC provided information support to the FBI—and if you look at in my 

written testimony, it will tell you how they provided support to the 

FBI in that particular case. As that investigation was unfolding, we 

went to our FBI partners, because it was an ongoing investigation 

and still unraveling at that particular time, to find its relevancy to 

our geographic location. 

If you remember, sir, not just subways were involved, but there 

was a hint that stadiums may be involved in these types of attacks. 

Well, in Delaware that weekend, we were getting ready to host the 

largest sports venue in the United States that particular weekend, 

NASCAR, which I know both of you have in your States. And I 

turned to the FBI for information on that particular case. I was 

given exactly what I needed as the case was unfolding; not all the 

investigative details, sir, because they weren’t relevant to what was 

going on in Delaware. I felt comfortable if they were relevant to 

Delaware, I would have them. 

I then turned to my FBI counterpart and asked him to participate in two conference calls, one with the security people from 

NASCAR, and two with the police chiefs from Delaware, and we 

put all concerns aside. However, we got the information, relative 

information, not all the investigative information, because we 

didn’t need it in that particular investigation. 

I disagree with some of my counterparts in fusion centers. I have 

heard some of them say we didn’t have the information from DHS. 

It wasn’t relevant to them. If it was, they would have it just like 

the CIAC in Colorado had it, sir. 

The FBI needs to support fusion centers like DHS does. Not 

every fusion center has FBI terminals in them. Not every fusion 

center has FBI analysts in them. The FBI has told us that they are 

going to do that, but they fall way behind the Department of 

Homeland Security. And to be honest with you, sir, they are the 

underdog in this, because the FBI has investigative authority with 

that on those investigations. We get classified information every 

day on HSDN through the NCTC daily report, and I can tell you 

through DHS we get information routinely on what might be an 

IED threat and where that IED threat might be, what type of infrastructure and what type of precursor activities to look to. 

Mr. ROGERS. I know we are under a timeline here and I will 

come back to this at a later time. However, I have not heard an 

answer to the question: How do we balance intelligence sharing 

without compromising a criminal investigation, and whether or not 

we ought to focus not on the criminal investigation of a defendant, 

a suspect, but focus on the dissemination of intelligence that is 

gathered outside the scope of the FBI’s criminal case? We will come 

back to that. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. I want to turn to Mr. Ruppersberger who 

has been here from the very beginning, and we I think will have 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
301 

time to get his questions in before we adjourn. But then we will 

return after the votes. We have a series of votes on the House floor. 

Mr. Ruppersberger. 

CYBER SECURITY

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. First, Caryn, congratulations on your new 

job. We have worked together on Intel. You did a great job there. 

I am glad you have taken Charlie Allen’s job, because you need 

somebody in the Intelligence Community to coordinate all the 

things that are happening in our homeland. 

I want to talk you about cyber. I talked to Secretary Napolitano 

when she was here, and also the person in the head of appropriations about how we are going to—how Homeland Security is going 

to handle the cybersecurity. The Homeland Security has a real, 

real large mission, as you know. The President’s directive says you 

are responsible for dot.com and all government, and a lot of what 

we do in cybersecurity is technology. And we know the threats are 

there with Russia and China. We are getting attacked every day, 

our commercial companies are getting attacked, and it goes on and 

on and the public really does not understand where we are. 

The first thing as far as technology, we have spent a tremendous 

amount of money in the Intelligence Community, mostly with NSA, 

to develop technology to deal with the issue of cybersecurity. And 

you are well aware of the programs that are there and as they 

have evolved. Right now Homeland Security is standing up what 

we are going to do in cybersecurity. 

And I want your opinion on how you are going to be working 

with NSA. We don’t want to duplicate effort. We spent a tremendous amount of money. We don’t want to again lose that money. 

And we want compatibility, because if we are going to work together not only within our own government but also internationally, this is something we have to deal with, that we should be 

working together and be compatible. 

You know the issue with the FBI to this day. They still don’t 

have a communication system that works, yet they probably could 

have picked an NSA or CIA communication system that was up 

and working. And I will use that as a example to make sure this 

doesn’t happen here. 

How are you going to be involved? What is your involvement? 

What is your opinion on working with the NSA programs that have 

evolved? And, as you know, the President just declassified Einstein-3. We can talk about that now. Einstein-3 is a software program that is moving ahead. Can you give me your opinion on 

where you are on that? 

Ms. WAGNER. I can. Thank you, Congressman Ruppersberger. 

Again the technology piece does not fall under me. I expect 

that—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. You have input, though. 

Ms. WAGNER. And I will be teaming very closely with Phil 

Reitinger, who is the head of cyber within the National Program 

and Protection Directorate under Rand Beers. 

What I hope to do is forge a very close relationship with the rest 

of the Intelligence Community to improve the analytic support underpinning DHS’ cybersecurity operations. Similar to how we operVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:18 Sep 10, 2010 Jkt 057551 PO 00000 Frm 00301 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A551P2.XXX A551P2

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
302 

ate in the realm of critical infrastructure protection, I&A provides 

the threat to critical infrastructure, and NPPD does the vulnerability analysis; we work together to get the information to our private-sector and state and local customers. 

I think we need to do the same thing in the cyber arena, but we 

need to improve our ability to categorize the threat, figure out better what we can share and work with the Intelligence Community 

on the issue of attribution, which, as you know, is a huge challenge 

in terms of who is attacking you, and why, so that you can take 

appropriate measures. We don’t have a very big analytic effort devoted to this right now, and it is one of my priorities to increase 

that. I am already working on trying to do that and teaming with 

the folks at National Security Administration, Defense Intelligence 

Agency and Central Intelligence Agency who are already working 

on this. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Well, this Committee is an Appropriations 

Committee on Homeland Security, so we are in a unique position 

to make sure we can oversee what program we are moving ahead 

so we don’t waste money, to make sure we go where we need to 

go. 

The fusion centers are something very positive, not only JTTF, 

but fusion centers, bringing all the State and local with all the disciplines together is probably one of the main reasons we have deterred a lot of attacks. 

You know the issues that have occurred in Colorado and wherever we go, because more and more I am sure we estimate or that 

we are concerned about home-grown terrorists that are getting 

more involved. 

So it is good to see Delaware—I am from Baltimore—I am glad 

you are working with the Baltimore Fusion Center, but we need to 

do this all over the country, and I think they are doing this very 

well. 

So I think we have votes. 

Mr. PRICE. We do indeed, but we will return so, adjournment is 

only temporary. We hope to return around 11:30. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

FUSION CENTER STANDARDIZATION

Mr. PRICE. The subcommittee will reconvene, with apologies for 

the delayed time on the floor. We will do one further round of questions with Mr. Rogers and myself and try to adjourn not too much 

after the appointed hour, maybe around 12:15. 

Let me ask you both, starting with you, Madam Under Secretary, 

about the DHS requirements for fusion centers, and also ask you 

for some thoughts about State and local fusion center configuration. 

But, first, the question of direction and standardization for the 

centers. Fusion centers primarily exist to fulfill the needs of States 

or localities. We know that. We understand that. DHS has made 

little effort to date to standardize processes or methods, understanding there is a diversity of centers and functions. That doesn’t 

mean we haven’t heard some complaints that DHS sometimes imposes a significant bureaucratic reporting burden on the fusion centers. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
303 

And so, Madam Under Secretary, what responsibilities do you 

impose on the fusion centers? Have you given any thought to the 

further imposition of standardized policies or methods at the fusion 

centers? Has there been, on the other hand, any kind of review of 

reporting requirements or other requirements that you impose on 

the centers to make sure that they are really needed and that the 

effectiveness and flexibility of the centers is not being diluted? 

And then, Captain Harris, obviously you are in a position to comment on this as well. Do you believe the requirements imposed on 

the fusion centers are optimal, too much, too little, or something 

of a mix? 

Madam Under Secretary. 

Ms. WAGNER. Well, as Captain Harris mentioned earlier, there is 

something called the baseline capabilities for the fusion centers 

that was established, to help establish a level playing field, if you 

will. As you said, Mr. Chairman, the configuration of the various 

centers is going to be different, depending on what the state wants 

and what the local environment needs. 

But we are trying to make sure that, for things like reporting of 

information that might be of interest to the national community or 

doing analysis, there is a common set of standards of trade craft 

so that we are producing a useful product, and we are doing so in 

a constitutional manner and with respect for privacy, civil rights 

and civil liberties. 

So we don’t levy—I don’t believe, and it will be interesting to 

hear what Captain Harris says—a lot of requirements on the centers in the sense of tasking. What we are trying to do is work with 

them to achieve a mutually agreed upon set of standards, and, as 

he also mentioned, to put in place a mechanism for the centers to 

self-assess themselves—how well are they doing in ensuring that 

the information is collected properly, is handled correctly, is reported correctly, and so on. 

So I think it is really more of a partnership. I am not aware that 

we are levying a lot of requirements on them. But again, I look forward to hearing Captain Harris’ perspective there. 

In terms of the configuration, what we want to do is work with 

the centers to understand what their requirements are so that we 

can put together a multiyear strategy to achieve that. In some 

cases, you know, we want to have at least one DHS/I&A person at 

each of the centers. And, in some cases, there may also be a need 

for an individual from a component like TSA, CBP, ICE or the 

Coast Guard. We want to work with the fusion centers, understanding that everybody has a lot of requirements and not as much 

manpower as they want, but we want to understand those requirements and put together a plan for what our desired end state 

would be for the DHS footprint in the field. And we also want to 

understand what their requirements are for classified information 

and try to meet those as well. 

There are differing requirements or desires for classified information. We want to make sure that we are meeting those needs. So 

I think that is how I would respond. We are interested, of course, 

in maintaining situational awareness of how the centers are progressing toward these agreed-upon capabilities. In that sense, we 

do expect them to update us periodically. But I am not aware of 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
304 

a lot of burden of reporting requirements, and maybe I will turn 

it over to Captain Harris and see if he is going to surprise me. 

Mr. PRICE. Captain. 

Captain HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, first let me comment on the requirements of fusion centers. The Under Secretary spoke about the 

baseline capabilities of fusion centers. We established that about a 

year and a half ago. We are going further into that with—again, 

it is a partnership with ODNI and DHS to drill down on those 

baseline capabilities requirements, that self-assessment that we 

are doing. And then we are going to do a peer-to-peer, and we are 

going to do an accreditation, if you will, for fusion centers, to make 

sure that they are meeting that standardization, if you will, because each fusion center, as you know, Mr. Chairman, is unique to 

its jurisdiction. However, there should be some standardization for 

what we do. 

One other thing I want to comment on is that DHS has worked 

very well with us on the training and technical assistance on that 

to bring us up to speed. Again, 15 different areas that they offer 

services to us now. 

One thing that we are working hard on at DHS is it is important 

for us to have the analysis component to make it relevant to our 

stakeholders in our specific jurisdictions. So DHS is working with 

us now on a common core of competencies for our analysts, and actually there is a draft form of that out right now. And they are 

working with us on that common core of competencies so we can 

make the information that we receive from the Federal Government relevant to our stakeholders in our particular jurisdiction. 

And asked about and tasked with information, I can speak on behalf of DHS/I&A; we are not tasked with anything. The only thing 

we are tasked for is they ask us what our priority information 

needs are. And we have done that in our specific jurisdiction. We 

do a poll of all the chiefs, we do a poll of the law enforcement, public safety, which is a broader-than-law-enforcement spectrum, to include public health and emergency management, what their priority information needs are, and we feed that back to DHS and get 

that information through I&A. So to state that we are being asked 

for too much information is not necessarily relevant on the INS 

side. 

I can tell you where that comes into play, sir, if you have heard 

that. It is on the critical infrastructure key resource side. Annually 

in our fusion centers, some of them have CIKR responsibility, some 

of them don’t. It depends on the jurisdiction. I would say most of 

them do, because the threat is certainly relevant to the critical infrastructure in your jurisdiction, so it makes sense to have them 

together. 

Where you get that question posed to you on information asked 

from DHS is from the critical infrastructure key resources. They 

have data calls every year asking State and local jurisdictions to 

gather information on their critical infrastructure, and then it is 

tiered at four different levels. We run into problems with State and 

locals on how they define that oftentimes, how they measure the 

criticality of those particular sites, and a timely return on that information that we get back so we can start the process of what 

would be target hardening, if you will, of those particular sites. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
305 

And I will give you a specific example. In Delaware, we hold a 

site that is a redundancy for the New York Stock Exchange, an IT 

center if you will. But because there were at least two more IT centers for redundancy of that New York Stock Exchange, that necessarily wasn’t considered a Tier 2 site because there were two 

more in place. Well, if none of them are considered a Tier 2 site, 

then what is the risk on that particular site and all three of those 

sites, if you will? 

Mr. PRICE. And what is your complaint exactly about the way 

that was handled? 

Captain HARRIS. Well, the complaint is if none of them are—— 

Mr. PRICE. No, I understand the complaint about the designation. But in terms of the fusion center-DHS interaction—— 

Captain HARRIS. The interaction is how they classify or how 

they—I don’t want to use the term ‘‘classify,’’ but how they determine the different sites of Tier 1, Tier 2, 3 and 4, and the turnaround for that information back to us. 

FUSION CENTER LOCATIONS

Mr. PRICE. I see. Well, let me ask you briefly to focus on configuration in a different sense; that is, the spread across the country 

of these centers. The program has grown significantly over the last 

4 years. We now have 72 centers across the country. Each State 

has its own and there are 22 UASI cities with centers as well. It 

does raise the question as to on what basis we are locating these 

centers and prioritizing them. 

I think when you look at the spread of the 50 States and you 

think particularly about the situations of these UASI cities, it is 

manifestly clear what both of you have said, that not every center 

is going to look the same, not every center is going to be dealing 

with the same kind of information or with the same quantity of information to process. 

I suppose there is a kind of targeting going on here in that the 

UASI centers represent a particular kind of city, a particular kind 

of threat configuration, and so there is a kind of de facto risk-based 

allocation of center resources, because some of them are going to 

UASI centers. But there is a bias in the system toward universality, toward comprehensiveness, toward covering all 50 States. 

Moreover, there have been reports in the media and other 

sources that we are becoming more comprehensive in the sense of 

responding to all hazards as well, not just the threats of terrorism. 

So my question has to do with the question of spread and comprehensiveness versus concentration. Again, that sounds theoretical, but actually it is a very practical question as to whether we 

have the optimal distribution of these centers now and the kind of 

optimal focus. Does it make sense to have one in every State? 

Should we be concentrating more in this activity on some of the 

high-risk areas? Any thought of combining centers in a regional approach or to focus on high-threat areas? What would you say about 

this general question I have raised? 

And then, Under Secretary, if you could also elaborate whether 

there are some centers that do focus in a way different from others 

on the most significant threats to the homeland. What about the 

all-hazards approach? How are you thinking, longer term, that we 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
306 

want to allocate DHS resources, given the fact that we can’t do everything, everywhere, 

Ms. WAGNER. Mr. Chairman, we basically defer to the states on 

where they want to have their fusion center. And I think you— 

maybe it was the Ranking Member—mentioned that some of these 

actually predate the Department. The states have varying ways of 

organizing themselves, and the fusion centers frequently fall under 

different elements of the State government, public safety or law enforcement. So we are not really looking to standardize in that sense 

because it really is up to the states to determine what they need, 

where they need it and how they are going to manage it. But the 

fusion centers do vary. 

Mr. PRICE. Yes, it is up to the States, given the way this program 

has worked. And I am not questioning that there needs to be that 

kind of flexibility and some degree of deference to the State’s own 

definition of its needs. But I am asking you to evaluate that and 

how well it works overall, and especially what the implications are 

for where DHS ought to offer its support and its resources. 

Ms. WAGNER. We will do that in partnership with them. The fusion centers are in varying stages of maturity. Some of them are 

very mature, some are basically just being stood up and some are 

going to be quite small. And, as I mentioned earlier, we are going 

to be looking at what the appropriate DHS footprint should be. 

So we are going to work again with the states to try to sort of 

aim our resources where there is mutual agreement that they will 

do the most good. So, I think, the differences are going to be not 

so much in where they are—the geographic spread—but in the size 

and sophistication, if you will, of the centers, based on where more 

resources are needed. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, what about where the threats are more serious 

and more tangible and where there is more work to be done by the 

centers? 

Ms. WAGNER. And that is part of the calculation. 

Mr. PRICE. Does the UASI-based funding of a certain number of 

these centers achieve that kind of de facto targeting? Is that the 

intent? Should that be the intent? 

Ms. WAGNER. The 22 Urban Areas Security Initiative cities are 

the result of a combination of factors, of which threat is one. And 

that is the component that I&A is responsible for contributing into 

the process. And that also factors in, I believe, to the grant process 

for the fusion centers themselves. But there are a variety of factors 

that are considered. And I am happy to give you more information 

on that for the record if you want to know exactly how that has 

been done. 

Mr. PRICE. I think that would be helpful. 

[The information follows:] 

Response: The Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) eligibility determination 

and grant allocation process is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). The UASI formula is based on a 100 point scale, with 

20% based on threat, and 80% based on vulnerability and consequence. The factors 

reviewed include population, economic factors, national infrastructure index, and a 

national security index. Note that while FEMA provides preparedness grant funding 

to States and territories, determination of the amount of individual grant funding 

for fusion centers is made by both state and local governments. 

The initial level of DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) support to fusion 

centers will be uniform across all of the 72 centers. Each designated center will ultiVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:18 Sep 10, 2010 Jkt 057551 PO 00000 Frm 00306 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A551P2.XXX A551P2

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
307 

mately receive a deployed Intelligence Officer; Homeland Secure Data Network 

(HSDN) and the required secure facility build-outs to house the system; security 

clearance as appropriate; analytical as well as privacy and civil rights and civil liberties training; and technical assistance offerings. 

The sequence of deployment of this support package (i.e., which fusion centers 

were resourced first) was determined by a risk-based prioritization, as well as a consideration of the center’s readiness to receive support. The legacy National Fusion 

Center Coordination Group, which included participation from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, DHS I&A, the Department of Justice, and State and 

local partners, was integral in this decision-making process. The risk-based 

prioritization used 12 weighted factors: state population (10%), population density 

(5%), border risk (10%), critical infrastructure (10%), terror risk (10%), port risk 

(10%), immigration risk (10%), economic risk (10%), iconic value (5%), hazardous 

materials risk (10%), 2005 UASI grant funding (5%) and 2005 State grant distribution (5%). 

Decisions regarding additional resourcing of fusion centers beyond the standard 

package—e.g. deployed intelligence analysts or reports officers—are made using a 

similar risk based prioritization. 

Mr. PRICE. Captain. 

Captain HARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. An abbreviated comment, and you too can submit further information for the record. 

Captain HARRIS. Okay. I particularly am happy to answer this 

question, because I come from a small fusion center. As the Under 

Secretary has said, there are some small centers. However, we 

don’t underestimate our importance to this national network of fusion centers, sir. 

As you said in your opening statement by Joanie McNamara 

from LA, from the JREG, that it is going to be a State or local police officer that is going to come across someone in the act of precursor activities that is going to disrupt a potential event, or we 

have already been successful in doing that. Threat, sir, lies everywhere throughout the U.S. and was most recently seen in Colorado; 

how you have in rural Colorado, how that is a threat to New York 

City, and how those fusion centers are working together. 

Mr. PRICE. All right, thank you. Mr. Rogers. 

INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS’ ROLE

Mr. ROGERS. Switching gears, I am confused about the role of Intelligence and Analysis at DHS. I don’t know that we know what 

the role of I&A is now. Let me go into a little bit of history. When 

DHS was created, the Intelligence Office was envisioned at that 

time to be a hub fusion center for counterterrorism intelligence 

across the whole government. Then Secretary Ridge recognized 

that DHS was not mature enough at that point in time, in terms 

of staffing or capabilities, to take on that broad, urgent mission, 

and he deferred to the CIA. And that decision led to the creation 

of what is now called the National Counterterrorism Center, run 

by the CIA. 

And since the creation of that outfit, DHS has tried to focus its 

I&A office as a conduit between State and local law enforcement 

and the Intelligence Community. 

Now, the I&A’s role has become very insular and very compartmentalized. And I am confused about where we are going and what 

is the purpose. Former Under Secretary Charlie Allen, when he 

had headed up this office, he was unique in that he had a special 

relationship with CIA where he had been working for 50 years or 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
308 

whatever, as an encyclopedia area of intelligence. But he brought 

some heft and credibility to the office based on that experience and 

connections over the years, where he was able to wrest information 

from those agencies that he would then use in the I&A office to 

feed State and locals and others. 

But since Secretary Napolitano has taken office, she has stressed 

the domestic, State and local aspects of this office, and not intelligence work with other Federal or international Intelligence Community agencies, essentially taking the opposite tack of Charlie 

Allen. And as we learned in the Christmas Day and Zazi and other 

instances, FBI has sequestered, if you will, the intelligence from 

those types of activities and frozen DHS out of the chain of information essentially. 

So I don’t know what the role now is of the I&A since we are 

not trying to focus, apparently, on bringing to this office the Intelligence Community information. And since we have the State and 

local fusion centers that are doing their thing, somewhat independently of DHS’s supervision, what is the role? What are you supposed to be doing? You know, we have said we have to balance the 

flow of information amongst our State and local first responders, 

and infuse that operation with the international intelligence and 

national intelligence that we are sort of frozen out of at the moment. Can you help me? 

Ms. WAGNER. I am actually very happy to answer that question 

because I think your background is very instructive. And, because 

there has been some uncertainty on exactly what mission space 

I&A should occupy, I have been giving that a lot of thought. We 

have, I believe, three major customer sets in I&A. The state, local 

and tribal set is only one. It is a very important one. 

The other set is the operational components of the Department 

themselves, making sure that ICE, CBP and so on have the necessary intelligence support; they are either doing it themselves or 

being supported to do their departmental mission. 

Our third customer is actually the Intelligence Community, and 

we do have some intelligence responsibilities and analytic responsibilities within that realm. Most of them, but not all of them, are 

going to be done in partnership with other elements of the community, and we have to elbow our way to the table a little bit to make 

that happen. But I intend to do that. And we are already working, 

I think, pretty well with the National Counterterrorism Center 

(NCTC) on those threats that are foreign-planned or conducted or 

have a strong foreign nexus. But whenever there is a homeland 

component, we are going to be participating and contributing to 

that analysis. We have unique sets of data to bring to bear on that 

problem from within our components, travel data in particular. 

We also have, potentially, information from our state, local and 

tribal partner that can be of use, and we are sort of a clearinghouse 

for all of that. 

We do have some unique analytic responsibilities in the area of 

threats to critical infrastructure, in cyber analysis and in travel 

analysis. In most other cases, we are going to be working collaboratively, again, when there is that strong foreign nexus with 

NCTC. When we have threats to the homeland that don’t have that 

strong foreign nexus, we are going to be working with FBI. And we 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
309 

have some room to improve in building these partnerships, but I 

am going to make that a focus. I view my main responsibility as 

making sure that my customers who are trying to keep the homeland secure get what they need. And if that means we get it from 

someone else, tailor it, push it down in classification level and get 

it out, that is what we will do. If it means we have to produce it 

because no one else is producing it, then that is what we will do. 

So it is a combination of serving as a conduit and performing intelligence analysis. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, we have come a long way since the department was first conceived and enacted into being, from this office 

being, as I said before, the government center for the fusion of intelligence, State and local, Federal, national, international; and all 

of the intelligence agencies were to be in this office, and this was 

to be the office. Now that has washed away, and if this is a mere 

shadow of what the office was originally intended to be, I don’t lay 

blame at anybody’s feet. I am just asserting, I think, a reasonable 

fact. 

But I am struggling to try to find out what the role of the I&A 

office is, especially as it relates to the Intelligence Community and 

their willingness to share information with you and, consequently, 

our State and local partners. And, you know, the Federal agencies, 

the FBI and the CIA and the others, have a legal excuse, really, 

for not sharing information. 

The FBI, you know, obviously has to protect their sources. A lot 

of the information they collect is from Grand Jury secret investigations and that type of thing, which, by law, they are proscribed 

from sharing. CIA, of course, has to protect their sources and people who—and other means of intelligence gathering. 

But I do not see yet, to my great disappointment, the sharing of 

information between governmental agencies that is going to be required of us if we survive all of this. I just don’t see it there. And 

for whatever reason, it is there, that fact is there, and I am sorry 

about it. 

STATE AND LOCAL FUSION CENTER PROGRAM

Let me quickly change gears. Fusion centers. In April 2008, GAO 

raised a lot of concerns about the connectivity, the direction, and 

the sustainability of the State and local fusion center program. 

Specifically, GAO found the fusion centers to be inconsistent and 

understaffed; that they lacked adequate information technology 

systems; that they were in need of more centralized direction. And 

then concerns have also been raised, and we have talked about that 

briefly here, about the duplication of efforts between the centers 

and the 65 Joint Terrorism Task Forces led by FBI. And I know 

that you have described the differences as you perceive between 

these two centers. 

However, that criticism still echoes around the walls from the 

GAO. And I know that you have submitted some examples of success stories, and we have read those. Essentially, though, those 

success stories, to me, reveal that the fusion centers are serving 

more of a law enforcement fusion role, rather than one of sharing 

true intelligence or threat information. That is needed, but it 

doesn’t fit DHS’s ambitions and purposes, in my judgment. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
310 

Captain Harris, I think, has taken a fairly novel approach—I 

hope it is copied elsewhere—to the fusion of law enforcement and 

first responder info across the State of Delaware. As I understand 

it, Captain, you were able to pool together State and local funding 

to ensure that all the stakeholders procured, installed, and deployed and aligned the same information technology systems. You 

made them able to communicate with each other. And that helps 

to share information, obviously, which is the name of the game. 

But nevertheless, the fusion centers, in my opinion, are serving 

more of a law enforcement role and public safety function than an 

intelligence or threat identification role. 

Either one of you want to dispute that? 

Ms. WAGNER. Well, I will echo something that I think Captain 

Harris said earlier, which is that the person who is going to potentially catch somebody who is trying to conduct a terrorist attack on 

the homeland is probably going to be a first responder or a law enforcement official. So it is in our best interest to look at the all-hazards approach because that is going to be, in many circumstances, 

our first line of defense. So I think, in some ways, it may be somewhat of an artificial distinction, and that is one of the reasons why 

we have been talking about the all-hazards approach as being a 

force multiplier for the intelligence, the Homeland Security Intelligence Enterprise. 

I don’t know if Captain Harris has anything he wants to add 

there, but—— 

Captain HARRIS. I do. Great question, Mr. Rogers. It is not surprising that the 2008 GAO report would state that for a number 

of these reasons that you bring up. And in 2000—well, first of all, 

I want to say thank you for the compliment on what we did in 

Delaware. But that was a collaborative effort, not just with me, a 

collaborative effort of all our law enforcement in Delaware to do 

that. As you know, 80 percent of that funding goes to local law enforcement jurisdictions, and we were able to build some consensus 

of doing this, what we felt was the right way, so every law enforcement officer, at their mobile data terminal, has access to all this 

information. 

Anyhow, in 2008, we did not have connectivity with the HISN 

State and local intelligence platform, if you will, the unclassified 

system that we use; that we network all the fusion centers together 

now; that we collaborate with weekly; that we have analyst’s chats 

and calls every week, every Thursday, that the analysts across the 

Nation get together and talk about topical subjects. In 2008 that 

was not there. That we were inconsistently understaffed, that is 

absolutely true. 

Some of the problems, DHS has been very responsive to us. 

When the grant guidance only said that the grant would pay for 

3 years of analyst funding, which is the core of what we do, analysis, they were very responsive to give us ongoing funding for that. 

However, some States, most States, are in a position where they 

have zero government growth now. So my Governor says zero government growth and the Budget Office says okay, if you want another analyst, are you going to give up a trooper for that? And an 

executive decision above my level has to be made. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
311 

The same thing goes with training. There are no travel policies 

throughout the States for training. And DHS has been, over the 

last year, very responsive to our needs with bringing training to us 

and helping us with the ongoing funding of analysts. It was in 2006 

that that LETPP funding went away, sir, and in 2008 this report 

came out. Some of the symptoms of the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program going away are from this 2008 report. 

When it talks about need more direction, last year we adopted the 

baseline capabilities, in 2009, after the 2008 report, and we are 

moving forward on that on an accreditation process. 

Duplication of services with the JTTF. Absolutely not. We complement each other. The FBI, I will say this. The FBI, they are 

good in our State and our center, but they are not as good in all 

the centers. They need to be as big a partner as the Department 

of Homeland Security is with putting their systems in these centers. 

Ms. WAGNER. And if I could just add one more thing—while 

counterterrorism is a very important and possibly the most important Departmental mission, it is not the only one. So our relationship with the fusion centers does extend beyond that, and we work 

with them along the southwest border on securing our border, and 

we also work with them on preparation for or response to 

pandemics. 

So there is a robust relationship with the fusion centers on more 

than just counterterrorism. But clearly we view them also as a 

major force multiplier in the counterterrorism enterprise. 

Captain HARRIS. Mr. Rogers, one more thing. The homeland security data network in the fusion centers, not all fusion centers, 

just about every fusion center, which is a classified system. We get 

the NTCC, the National Counterterrorism Center report daily. 

Mr. ROGERS. My time is up. But quickly, as head of the National 

Fusion Center Groups, do you plan to try to get them to duplicate 

what you did in streamlining the communications in Delaware? 

Captain HARRIS. Well, sir, we have highlighted it as our best 

practice in our annual conferences, sir. But in other jurisdictions, 

all we can do is suggest about consensus. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Both of you have begun to get into the all-hazards 

matter that I asked you about. I will not take that up again here, 

but I will ask you to elaborate those comments for the record, if 

you will. It was a component of the question that I asked about the 

configuration of these centers and the variety that we see out there 

among their missions. 

[The information follows:] 

Response: State and major urban area governments operate fusion centers under 

state and local law. Each fusion center is unique in terms of its mission, capabilities, and configuration. For example, while one fusion center may only employ two 

trained analysts working counter-terrorism issues, a fully matured fusion center 

may employ multiple, specialized analysts working an array of issues such as: 

counter-terrorism, critical infrastructure, health and fire, and border security. 

To aid in establishing a baseline capability across all fusion centers, the Baseline 

Capabilities for State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers, released in September 

2008 by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Homeland Security 

(DHC), and the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative, identifies twelve core 

capabilities and provides specific instructions on how to achieve each capability. The 

fusion center capability areas include: planning and requirements development, inVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:18 Sep 10, 2010 Jkt 057551 PO 00000 Frm 00311 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A551P2.XXX A551P2

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
312 

formation gathering/collection and recognition of indicators and warnings, processing and collation of information, intelligence analysis and production, reevaluation, management and governance, information privacy protections, security, personnel and training, information technology and communications infrastructure, and 

funding. 

While the baseline capabilities do not dictate fusion center configuration or mission focus, partners at all levels of government are encouraging fusion centers to 

achieve the baseline capabilities to build a national fusion center network foundation. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Rodriguez, I think you are the clean-up hitter. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. And let me first of all 

thank each and every one of you for the testimony. And Captain 

Harris, thank you very much for your leadership there in Delaware. 

And I think—and I don’t mean this in any way, you know—but 

when you look at the question that was raised by the Chairman in 

terms of where the centers are at, that is extremely important. My 

district is about 785 miles along the Mexican border. I have more 

population, you know, than the State of Delaware in my present 

district as it stands now, and a little bit close to a million. And so 

I think those centers are, you know, located in Houston and elsewhere, and so probably getting that dialogue was a major problem 

during the last time, during 9/11, and was identified as a problem, 

the importance of communicating. And that is something we are 

going to have to continue to work on, and I am glad you got it done 

there in Delaware, but I will be very blunt. I mean, that is a pretty 

kind of small area. And you have a lot of other areas that don’t dialogue with each other as much and are not as coalesced together. 

And so we really need to see how we can identify, as the Chairman said, some of the rationale for the centers being where they 

are at. And I would question some of the rationale for some of that. 

Secondly, the Chairman also asked how do we evaluate what we 

are doing and where we are at. We did, prior to the 2000 glitch— 

I had been on the Armed Services Committee, we had done some 

exercises on cyber. We had drug screen projects in San Antonio and 

a couple that we did on our own without any Federal money, without anything. We might look at doing, you know, some exercises 

like the military does. And one good time to do that is when you 

do have a natural disaster. 

We had one in Eagle Pass where we had a major tornado. When 

we had another flood recently, we just had another, you know, 

where all the technology went down on the border in two counties. 

And for 2 days people couldn’t get any money out of their banks 

and we couldn’t contact our services down there. 

And so I think that there is, you know, maybe a way of getting 

some of those exercises to see where they are at and see if they actually do communicate with each other and get them to practice on 

that as a way of maybe getting some inroads. 

I did want to ask you specifically, there was some dialogue on 

the papers regarding that we needed to go beyond the Merida Initiative with Mexico. And I was wondering in terms of what, Under 

Secretary, of what was meant by that and what areas were we 

looking at in terms of going beyond the Merida Initiative, if you are 

informed of that, in the intelligence area. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
313 

SECURING UNITED STATES BORDERS

Ms. WAGNER. To be honest, Congressman Rodriguez, I am probably not aware of what policy discussions are going on in that regard. I would be happy to share with you what we are doing to 

support the efforts of President Calderon to crack down on the drug 

trafficking and what we are doing at I&A to support efforts to secure the border. But I am afraid I don’t know about the policy discussion. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. Yeah, because that is a—and I know the 

Mexicans are concerned in terms of, you know, our role down there 

and vice versa. But we are also concerned on the border in terms 

of making sure that there is no spillover in terms of the cartels and 

how we are going to move forward on some of that. 

Ms. WAGNER. Absolutely. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And that also includes the northern border. And 

so I really, you know, see there is strategy as to how to deal with 

not only the southern border, but the northern border also, as it 

deals with not only cyber, but other forms of security that are entailed there. And in terms of where our centers are located, I would 

ask that you kind of look at that as an option. 

I wanted to mention also to you that there on the border we still 

have some difficulties, and there is a need for a plan to respond 

in case of emergencies for situations that might spill over, and if 

we have some kind of a team that would do that. Are you aware 

of any of that? 

Ms. WAGNER. I am not aware of any particular response mechanism, but we have pushed a lot of folks down to reinforce the fusion 

centers that are along the border. Also, we have 12 people at Electronic Privacy Information Center, and we are thinking through a 

lot of those issues. We are obviously monitoring the violence very 

carefully to make sure there is no spillover too, because we expect 

it to be going on for some time. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. There is a good number of people coming over, 

middle-class and wealthy Mexicans, a pretty huge number. We 

have seen in the past when they have had revolutions, a good number have come over. But we are seeing a good number in from 

Juarez into El Paso, to San Antonio, to Austin, to Del Rio, to all 

those communities. Is there any assessment being looked at that? 

Now, they are coming over legally, okay, but that also has some 

implications in terms of what is occurring. 

Ms. WAGNER. I don’t know if we have done an analysis of increases in legal immigration, but I would be happy to get back to 

you on that if that is something you are interested in. 

[The information follows:] 

Response: Research by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) indicates that 

Mexican immigration to the United States increased during 2003–2008 for a variety 

of reasons. However, according to a variety of open source materials, immigration 

statistics indicated a decline during 2008–2009, because of the economic downturn. 

DHS statistics show a steady increase in Mexicans becoming naturalized U.S. citizens during 2003–2008, but this increase is likely due to a variety of factors, not 

necessarily violence alone. I&A continues to analyze Mexican violence along our 

Southwest border and its implications for the Homeland. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
314 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. And with that, we will thank you for your 

testimony this morning, for your service, and we will look forward 

to working with you as we put our budget together in the coming 

weeks. 

The Subcommittee is adjourned, to resume at 2:00 with the 

Transportation and Security Administration. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
315 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 596 here 57551B.022
316 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0137 here 57551C1.187
317 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0138 here 57551C1.188
318 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0139 here 57551C1.189
319 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0140 here 57551C1.190
320 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0141 here 57551C1.191
321 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0142 here 57551C1.192
322 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0143 here 57551C1.193
323 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0144 here 57551C1.194
324 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0145 here 57551C1.195
325 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0146 here 57551C1.196
326 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0147 here 57551C1.197
327 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0148 here 57551C1.198
328 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0149 here 57551C1.199
329 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0150 here 57551C1.200
330 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0151 here 57551C1.201
331 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0152 here 57551C1.202
332 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0153 here 57551C1.203
(333) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2010. 

HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS FACILITIES 

WITNESSES 

ELAINE DUKE, UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT 

OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

ROBERT A. PECK, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE COMMISSIONER, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

KATHLEEN GEISLER, DIRECTOR, LEASING DIVISION, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DAVID PRICE

Mr. PRICE. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

This morning we will review the progress made on the new Department of Homeland Security headquarters at St. Elizabeths and 

the administration’s plans for further consolidating and 

rationalizing DHS headquarters’ footprint. For this discussion, we 

welcome DHS Under Secretary for Management, Elaine Duke; and 

from the General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service 

Commissioner, Robert Peck. Good morning to both of you. 

Under Secretary Duke is well known to this Subcommittee, although this is her first time testifying before us. She served in a 

variety of roles at DHS since coming over from the Department of 

Transportation when DHS was first established. She has served as 

Under Secretary for Management since June of 2008, overseeing 

the management and administration of the entire Department. It 

is our understanding she will be retiring at the end of this month. 

We want to take this opportunity to thank her for her efforts to 

help keep our country safe and for her very distinguished and dedicated service. 

Commissioner Peck is 7 months into his second term as Commissioner of Public Buildings for GSA. In this role, he is responsible 

for the nationwide management of 362 million square feet of government-owned and -leased office space. 

Before this term, Commissioner Peck served as Managing Director of Jones Lang LaSalle, where he advised large clients on real 

estate portfolio strategy and on public-private mixed use developments. 

When the Department of Homeland Security was assembled from 

22 elements of other governmental agencies after the 9/11 attacks, 

it was clear that some aspects of building this new institution 

would have to be addressed at a later time. 

Exhibit A of this challenge: Over 7 years after the creation of the 

Department, its offices are still strewn across 50 locations around 

the Washington, D.C. area, listed on the charts that I think everyone has before them. This scattershot layout increases operational 

costs, hurts morale, and makes it harder for the Department to 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
334 

work effectively as a unit; in other words, it compounds the challenges and difficulties of bringing these 22 agencies into a working 

whole. 

To alleviate part of this problem, the Department has approved a $3.4 billion master plan that would consolidate a great deal of 

the department’s headquarters into the west campus of St. Elizabeths, a 19th-century hospital campus east of the Anacostia River. 

This year, the administration has requested $287.8 million in the 

DHS budget as well as $380.3 million through GSA to fund the 

completion of phase 1, the Coast Guard headquarters, and to begin 

phase 2, the National Operations Center and infrastructure work. 

Now, we need to be clear, St. Elizabeths resolves only part of the 

problem. The Department still needs an additional 5 million square 

feet of space to accommodate the rest, including various kinds of 

support services from all the agencies. The administration last year 

put forward a $75 million request for a down payment on consolidation of the Department’s remaining leases to fewer locations. The 

administration has returned with this proposal again this year 

with a more detailed justification as this Subcommittee requested. 

The plan is to pull together the elements of the Department that 

will not move to St. Elizabeths in six other locations, as shown on 

the right side of the chart you have. Five of the six locations already house DHS elements. The sixth, shown on this chart as mission support, has yet to be formally identified. 

Now, given the constraints on the budget this year and in the future, committing to additional significant investments in the Department’s physical plant is not appealing at first. However, this 

is an action that will need to be taken at some point to improve 

the Department’s efficiency, and it may well be more affordable to 

do this now rather than later. Investments in departmental facilities and management deserve careful consideration, although I am 

afraid critics of the 2011 budget request may have spent these 

funds many times over already. 

What we want to learn from you today are a handful of simple 

things that fall into two categories: First, what is the status of the 

St. Elizabeths project? Are we on time, are we on budget, and are 

we going to get the headquarters we need to help this Department 

operate more efficiently? 

Secondly, how does the Administration justify this further consolidation initiative? What are the specific costs and benefits to this 

move? 

So Under Secretary Duke, Commissioner Peck, we look forward 

to an exploration of these questions and no doubt other topics here 

today. We will place your full written statements in the record and 

we will ask each of you to limit your remarks to a five-minute presentation. 

Mr. PRICE. Before you begin, I want to recognize the distinguished ranking member, Hal Rogers, for his comments. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
335 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 620 57551B.041
336 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 621 57551B.042
337 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 622 57551B.043
338 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER HAROLD ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to our distinguished guests. 

For Ms. Duke, I understand you are, indeed, a short timer, retiring in just a matter of days. I know we recognized your contributions at our hearing on acquisitions just a few weeks ago, but let 

me just reiterate our gratitude for your more than 28 years of service and wish you well in your next life. Thank you for your service. 

Over the last few weeks, we have heard a lot from DHS’s operational commanders about how they are being asked to live within 

the constraints of the budget and seek greater efficiencies. But as 

the fiscal 2011 budget is asking DHS’s frontline agencies to withstand enormous reductions to both personnel and assets, I want to 

see increases for our headquarters offices personnel. 

While I know the decision to construct a new consolidated headquarters campus at St. Elizabeths has been made, and I full well 

understand the need for such a facility, it is entirely unclear to me 

whether anyone has asked if we can trim down the $3.4 billion 

price tag. At a time of record deficits, has anyone looked at this 

plan through a lens of fiscal discipline? 

I understand the need to align funding to mission requirements, 

it has been a mantra of this Subcommittee since it was born; but 

if there ever was a time, if there ever was a need to seek greater 

efficiencies, now is that time. In the wake of the Christmas day terrorist attack, with a raging drug war along our borders, with escalating threats at every turn, now is the time to give our operators 

on the front line in the Department what they need and ask our 

headquarters and administrative personnel to function with austerity. 

More to the point, DHS’s political leadership has spoken quite a 

bit about the Department’s headquarters functions needing to be 

strengthened, and that it is superficial to say we are trading operational needs for headquarters bureaucrats. But the Secretary, nor 

the Deputy Secretary, neither one said one word about headquarters personnel living within budget limitations. And that fact 

is clearly reflected by the priorities of the fiscal 2011 budget request, priorities that I do not agree with and find simply indefensible. 

It is not enough to simply say DHS needs a headquarters that 

can accommodate more than 30,000 people and provide 4.5 million 

square feet of secure space. Rather, it is incumbent upon the two 

of you to make it clear to this Subcommittee and the taxpayers 

that this proposal is both fiscally responsible and justifiably sound. 

So today, what I want to understand from you is how this massive 

proposal, the largest headquarters consolidation in our government’s history since the establishment of the Pentagon in 1943, 

how it meets the reality of our Nation’s limited finances as well as 

DHS’s needs. 

Sadly, our government does not perform well with large-scale 

procurements or construction projects. Costs and schedule overruns 

are, unfortunately, way too common. I can tell you right now that 

we will not tolerate such waste and abuse with this project, not 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
339 

when the American people are pinching pennies and we are asking 

our frontline personnel to do more with less. 

Now, having said all that, let me just say that I know we set a 

very high bar on this Subcommittee, but I believe such an uncompromising standard is what is needed when we are dealing with 

matters of our Nation’s security. 

So I thank you both for being here today. We look forward to 

learning more about the progress of the headquarters project. 

Know that while we recognize the need for a lean, efficient department, we will be watching very closely as you continue to plan your 

work and work your plan. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
340 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 626 57551B.044
341 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 627 57551B.045
342 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 628 57551B.046
343 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 629 57551B.047
344 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Under Secretary Duke, we will begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF ELAINE DUKE

Ms. DUKE. Good morning, Chairman Price, Ranking Member 

Rogers, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for giving 

us the opportunity to talk about this very important project before 

you this morning. 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and component 

headquarters currently occupy more than 7 million square feet 

scattered in about 50 locations throughout the National Capital Region. We project the need for more than 8 million square feet by 

2010, and anticipated personnel growth may require additional 

space in the future. This extreme dispersion imposes significant inefficiencies in our daily operations that could be magnified considerably at the most important moments, when the Department must 

act as a nimble and quick integrated team in response to national 

disasters or terrorist threats. 

The DHS headquarters consolidation plan will synchronize the 

transition of 82 percent of the approximately 180 leases that are 

expiring before Fiscal Year 2015. Basically, the plan consists of St. 

Elizabeths development for mission-execution functions and the 

consolidation of the remaining mission-support functions in the National Capital Region. These efforts are two sides of the same coin 

that must be jointly addressed in order to effectively and efficiently 

realign our real estate portfolio. 

Besides the positive effect it will have on the Department, the 

Homeland Security consolidated headquarters at St. Elizabeths, 

partially funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act (ARRA), will create direct and indirect employment opportunities for thousands of people in the Washington region while preserving a national historic landmark. It is anticipated that direct 

and indirect employment will create more than 30,000 jobs in the 

region for construction and reconstruction-related activities, and 

that doesn’t include the 14,000 DHS employees that will relocate 

to St. Elizabeths. 

St. Elizabeths will serve as the epicenter of DHS leadership operations, operations coordination, policy and program management— 

the Department’s key mission functions. The project has been 

planned in close cooperation and coordination with the General 

Services Administration (GSA) as a three-phase development, with 

several of those segments designed to create an effective and 

steady funding requirement over Fiscal Years 2011 through 2014. 

Phase 1 is Coast Guard headquarters, scheduled for occupancy in 

Fiscal Year 2013. Phase 2 is the DHS headquarters, the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and an all-important National Operations Center scheduled for completion in 2014. Phase 

3 is for the remaining component occupancies to be completed in 

Fiscal Year 2016. The entire plan will create 4.5 million gross 

square feet of space for 14,000 DHS employees. 

Although we do have a phase plan for St. E’s, each phase is 

timed to ensure that disruption of construction activities is kept to 

an absolute minimum. Keeping these phases in tact and in line is 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
345 

essential to the efficient and fiscally responsible funding of the entire project. DHS received more than $97 million in Fiscal Year 2009 appro- priations and an additional $200 million in ARRA funding for the 

consolidation headquarters. GSA awarded a $435 million design 

build contract last August for phase 1A, and that is predominantly 

the Coast Guard headquarters building. In addition, GSA has 

awarded contracts for phase 1 construction management and phase 

2 design contracts. 

Our Fiscal Year 2011 budget request asks for DHS funding of ap- proximately $287.8 million for DHS to continue to develop its headquarters. This request will provide for the outfitting of phase 1, 

which is Coast Guard headquarters, in addition to the construction 

of phase 2A for the headquarters. 

As you stated, along with St. E’s, we have our mission support 

consolidation, and the fiscal year request seeks funding for this 

mission-support consolidation. While St. E’s will accommodate the 

main department and component mission-essential functions, it 

does not have capacity to accommodate all of DHS mission-support 

elements. GSA and DHS will work closely with our components to 

manage the approximately 180 leases and do the consolidation we 

have discussed. 

The mission-support consolidation plan has the potential to achieve more than $400 million in that present value cost avoidance over the next 30-year period. It minimizes vacancies, shortterm lease extensions and multiple move requirements. This consolidation will also contribute to a reduction in our facility operation and maintenance costs throughout the DHS National Capital 

Region. 

The magnitude and complexity of our task to realign our facilities to better support the mission presents many challenges and opportunities. This project is one of Secretary Napolitano’s highest 

priorities, and she has established specific objectives and is monitoring as we move forward. 

Any delay in the DHS headquarters consolidation program will 

result in expensive charges to the lease management plan, with effects on mission performance and performance of our mission. The 

Department’s strategic goal to strengthen and unify DHS operations and management is critical to our mission. 

I look forward to answering your questions about this important 

project this morning. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
346 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 636 here 57551B.048
347 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 637 here 57551B.049
348 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 638 here 57551B.050
349 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 639 here 57551B.051
350 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 640 here 57551B.052
351 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 641 here 57551B.053
352 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 642 here 57551B.054
353 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 643 here 57551B.055
354 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 644 here 57551B.056
355 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 645 here 57551B.057
356 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 646 here 57551B.058
357 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 647 here 57551B.059
358 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT PECK

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Peck. 

Mr. PECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rogers, 

and also Congressman Farr. Thank you for inviting me to appear 

today to talk about our partnership with the Department of Homeland Security in building out a consolidated headquarters at St. 

Elizabeths. 

As you know, the headquarters will reside at the former St. Elizabeths Hospital in southeast Washington, a national historic landmark. As Under Secretary Duke noted, DHS is currently in more 

than 40 locations owned and leased in the Washington area. The 

consolidation is necessary, in the opinion of DHS, to facilitate its 

headquarters operation, communication, command and control of 

the Department. 

It is our honor at GSA to have as our clients more than 100 Federal agencies. And one of the things that is amazing about this job 

is the people in the Federal Government who everyday perform 

functions important to our national defense and to Homeland Security; it is our honor to work on this project. We are enthusiastic 

about it. And I am here to assure you today that we are going to 

seek the greatest efficiencies possible and to maintain the schedule 

and budget that this project needs and deserves. 

Housing DHS in government-owned facilities compared to the 

comparable cost of housing them in leased facilities over 30 years 

represents a savings of $600 million to the taxpayers. It is important to maintain the schedule that we are currently on with this 

project for two reasons. In the private and public sector, I have 

been involved in projects that have gone on time, and projects that 

have gone over time and over budget. And more often than not, 

when projects go over time and over budget, it is because we 

change our minds about what the scope is during the course of the 

project and because funding gets interrupted. Particularly in the 

current climate, in which bids for design and construction are coming in under estimates because—this is both good and bad—there 

is a soft economy, but an advantage to us in bidding, it is important for us to maintain the current schedule because we are realizing economies as we let contracts all over the country. 

I will also note, to put this in context, that at the same time that 

we are building the headquarters here, we are building new land 

ports of entry all over the country for Customs and Border Protection. We are putting CIS and ICE in projects all over the country 

that also allow them to operate more efficiently, so this isn’t just 

a headquarters-versus-the-field business. 

As Under Secretary Duke noted and you have noted, the total 

cost of the project is going to be $3.4 billion, funded both by GSA 

and DHS. During the peak period of construction, there will be 

over 1,000 workers on the site, and approximately 100 subcontractors and vendors. We estimate the project overall will create over 

30,000 jobs. Our share of the construction budget of $3.4 billion— 

which is $2 billion—alone is estimated to provide regional economic 

benefits of up to $3.8 billion. 

Now, I know that your job is to provide funding for DHS headquarters and not just to stimulate economic development, but there 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
359 

are so many side benefits of this project, including restoring a national historic site and bringing economic development that it is 

worth mentioning. 

We have begun construction of phase 1A, which includes the 1.2 

million square foot headquarters for the Coast Guard, and 700,000 

feet of structured parking. We are on schedule to complete it in 

2013. Phase 1B, which involves the adaptive reuse and renovation 

of seven historic campus buildings as well as the construction of a 

perimeter security fence gate house and underground utility tunnels is being accelerated. 

The next two phases construct 3.75 million square feet of office 

space and structured parking on the west campus and, importantly, the construction of a 750,000 square foot office building for 

FEMA and its structured parking on what is known as the east 

campus, a property owned by the District of Columbia, and which 

will serve as the anchor for a new community on the east campus 

in Anacostia. We intend a secured underground passageway from 

the west campus to the east campus to allow easy access without 

going outside the security perimeter, but also to help DHS employees on the west campus provide the economic stimulus that will 

make the east campus community work. The entire project is 

scheduled for completion in 2016. 

In line with President Obama’s executive order of last October, 

EO 13514, we are ensuring that the headquarters facility will be 

environmentally sustainable. We are striving for LEED Gold certification on all of our buildings, and we are well on the way to 

achieving that. We are using small businesses and providing opportunities for minority and small business contractors. 

On April 1, I should note, in addition to the headquarters consolidation, we plan to issue a solicitation for offers for 1.1 million 

square feet of leased space to consolidate mission support functions 

of DHS that will not be housed at St. Elizabeths. I have to say that 

during my private sector employment previous to working here, I 

was working on that lease for a private contractor, and so while I 

can tell you in general terms what is happening, if you have detailed questions, I am going to have to defer, under government 

ethics rules, for someone else to answer. 

We will also retain, as you have noted, a number of other lease 

locations, principally the headquarters of the Transportation Security Administration in northern Virginia, and leased office space for 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the District of Columbia. 

We are procuring some interim leases for Coast Guard and CBP in 

the meantime, but they will be moving to the campus. 

We are proud of our opportunity to work with DHS on this 

project. And finally, I would just say to you, I would invite you to 

visit the site—I was there yesterday morning. You will see amazing 

earth moving going on, sheeting and shoring for the project. We are 

well underway. It is going to be a project of which we can all be 

proud, and mostly one that will help the Department coordinate its 

operations in a new modern advanced environment. 

I am happy to answer your questions. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. Thanks to both of you. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
360 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 653 here 57551B.060
361 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 654 here 57551B.061
362 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 655 here 57551B.062
363 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 656 here 57551B.063
364 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 657 here 57551B.064
365 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 658 here 57551B.065
366 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 659 here 57551B.066
367 

RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Mr. PRICE. Under Secretary, let me begin the questions with an 

observation that you are already well aware of, and that is that we 

are operating in a very constrained budget environment. The budget is very tight. It is so tight that controversial cuts are being proposed in the operational capacities of this Department. 

According to some critics, the budget before us is short on personnel. Others are going to decry shortages of funds for grant programs. Some are inclined to characterize management expenses 

and investment in headquarters capabilities as feathering the nest 

of the Secretary and the Department leadership. However, we 

know what you are proposing in your view will make possible better departmental oversight of the use of taxpayer dollars and will 

facilitate improved departmental responsiveness to the demands of 

its mission and the American public. So we recognize the legitimacy of these costs, and of course, the importance of the project 

we are discussing this morning, but there are other proposed investments that crowd in on us and offer some challenging tradeoffs. 

So today, you need to make a case for these large capital proposals in terms of their return in departmental effectiveness and 

savings for the taxpayer. And I am going to ask you both to do 

that. You have lined it out in your opening statements, and we 

want elaboration. 

So Under Secretary, given the constraints of this budget, can you 

explain how these two capital proposals will improve the operational effectiveness of the Department? Can you tell us why we 

should do headquarters consolidation now instead of using these 

dollars to fill operational holes? 

And to both of you, I think Mr. Rogers has a legitimate point 

when he asks about what the evidence is that these proposals have 

really been scrubbed, have really been scrutinized very carefully for 

cost savings. Both of you cite advantages to moving ahead, both because of the inevitable costs of delaying projects in any environment, but certainly some of the advantages in the present economic 

environment to doing these things now when costs are lower. Can 

you be more precise about that? What are the advantages to proceeding on this time frame, and what are the costs of delay? 

And then, just finally, the last sentence I think, almost, that you 

gave, Under Secretary, you are literally turning the argument 

about operational needs on its head, you are reversing that argument. That does carry with it a burden of proof, I think. You are 

saying that any delay in the headquarters consolidation project will 

result in expensive changes to the lease management plan, with effects on the performance of the DHS mission. Now, that is a claim 

we have to take seriously, particularly when precisely the opposite 

is being argued with respect to the budget before us. 

So Under Secretary, why don’t you start, but I think you see the 

kind of case we are looking for you to make. 

Ms. DUKE. I do. I think it is important to start out noting that 

right now the components pay the cost of their leasing, the cost of 

many of the management integration functions we are trying to put 

forward in addition to St. Elizabeths and the mission-support accommodation and the cost to their data centers. So right now, they 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
368 

are paying that as overhead if you call that mission-support overhead as opposed to direct mission functions. So we are going to 

have relatively flat budgets in the out years. If we don’t do something to reduce the size of that wedge, the size of providing the infrastructure, that wedge is going to take a bigger piece of the components’ budget. They are going to suffer, and they are going to 

have to reduce mission if they are going to stay with the same size 

of the pie or a flat budget. 

So what these initiatives are seeking to do is, for the components, reduce their pieces of the DHS budget that are for overhead. 

So if we don’t reduce their lease costs, say in U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP), with a flat budget, it will take up more 

of their budget and the mission will suffer. So that is what we are 

seeking to do. 

When you look at the headquarters budget—for instance, my 

budget stays at 13 people, and it reduces. So this isn’t building a 

bureaucracy of overhead, it is seeking to directly reduce the infrastructure and the overhead costs that the components are already 

paying so that they can use more of their budget toward direct mission support. 

In terms of the lease and the delay, the specific problem with 

that is the far majority of our leases throughout the Department 

expire in the next couple of years, so if we cannot proceed with the 

St. Elizabeths and the mission-support consolidation, those leases 

will either have to be extended in a sole source environment or 

there will be double move costs, which are huge costs plus disruptions of operations. So we are looking to time this and take advantage of the fact that, I believe, more than 80 percent of our leases 

are expiring. 

OFFICE CONSOLIDATION

Mr. PRICE. Well, that is readily understandable simply spending 

a couple of minutes with this chart. Can you put a dollar figure on 

that, though? It is intuitively understandable, but I don’t hear very 

many hard figures. 

Ms. DUKE. We think the net present value of the savings of this consolidation are about $500 million over a net present value of 30 

years. 

Mr. PRICE. $500 million over 30 years. And what you are incorporating in that is both the St. Elizabeths construction and the 

consolidation of these lease sites? 

Ms. DUKE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

IMPACT ON OPERATIONAL CAPABILITIES

Mr. PRICE. What about my question about the impact on operational capabilities? 

Ms. DUKE. Well, I think there are two impacts. One is the one 

I just talked about, which is that if overhead stays fixed, it will actually eat more of a percentage of the budget. So that is a direct 

impact on mission. 

I think the second is the fact that the effect on mission in terms 

of having a DHS headquarters; when the Department was formed, 

it was to get rid of gaps in Homeland Security and eliminate 

redundancies. And with the dispersion of our offices, especially our 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
369 

National Operations Center and the other operation centers, that 

is extremely difficult to actually accomplish. One of the key tenets 

of the St. E’s piece is the collocation of the Operation Center so 

that when we are in a Homeland Security Presidential Directive5-type situation, we actually have the incident coordination 

through a single location. That is absolutely essential for one of our 

most key missions, which is that incident response. 

COST CONTROL AND ECONOMICS OF PROCEEDING

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Peck, can you chime in here about the evidence 

you can provide of serious cost control efforts and also the economies of proceeding now rather than later? 

Mr. PECK. Well, let me talk about some of the economies of just 

consolidating on the site. 

One, we own the land at St. Elizabeths; we don’t have to go out 

and acquire a piece of land for multiple agencies. 

Two, in almost any operation, private or public, if you have permanent functions, there is pretty much a year that you can predict, 

no matter what the cost of construction and the cost of leasing, in 

which if you believe a function is going to exist and be useful in 

a particular location, it makes sense to own rather than lease. That 

number always comes out somewhere between 15 and 20 years. 

That is the point at which you start saving money from being in 

one place. 

Third, we are going to have one single electric cogeneration plant 

on the facility; it should reduce operating costs over what DHS 

would find anywhere else. We are able to provide security within 

a single perimeter, which will provide some economies of scale for 

security itself. Otherwise, we are left finding facilities, particularly 

in lease cases, in which we have to often invest in privately owned 

buildings to provide sufficient security. 

And just as to the operational aspects, there is a reason that we 

have joint terrorism task forces around the country. Even in an era 

in which people can work virtually, as you well know, particularly 

when you are in a secure environment and people need to share intelligence and information, we find not just in DHS, but with FBI 

and other black box agencies that we provide services for, people 

want to bring their disparate elements together. 

Finally, I will just say again, this is one of you can pay now or 

you can pay later. I can’t speak to how many people DHS needs 

to run its operations and the headquarters, but we are going to 

provide the facilities to house DHS headquarters in the National 

Capital Region one way or another. We can do it in a consolidatedowned location, which saves money for reasons I just noted—security, electricity, and the fact that over time the costs are less—or 

we can provide them as we do now in leases and continually roll 

over the leases. 

One other thing, if I may, that Secretary Duke just talked about, 

let me just expand a little bit. If we don’t make our schedule here, 

we will continue to roll over the leases that we have in buildings 

in the Washington area. We will do that with the idea that we are 

eventually going to consolidate. That will drive us toward renewing 

in short-term chunks; you pay more to a landlord when you renew 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
370 

a lease for a couple of years than you do for 20 years. We have 

made this decision to go ahead. 

Long-term leases are somewhat less expensive than short term, 

but compared to owning, even a long-term lease is more expensive. 

So if we keep having to roll over the leases we are currently in, 

we are going to face much more expense in the headquarters operations on the real estate end than you will if we go to St. Elizabeths as fast as we can. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Rogers. 

OFFICE CONSOLIDATION

Mr. ROGERS. Well, to follow up on that line of questioning, what 

do we mean by consolidation of leases? 

Mr. PECK. For the mission support elements, sir? This is a complicated plan, as you can partly see from the chart. But as we roll 

people into the St. Elizabeths campus, we are rolling as many people as possible into the NAC on Nebraska Avenue because it is also 

a government-owned location and cheaper than leasing. But when 

all is said and done, given the amount of square footage we can fit 

on St. Elizabeths and the amount of government space that we 

have at the NAC, we have some left over needs for DHS. 

And there again, although our plan is to put them in a leased 

location, we want to get them out of multiple leases into as close 

proximity as we can. So we are going to consolidate a number of 

the support elements into a 1.1 million square foot lease consolidation. 

There are three basic elements in those mission support elements, and the solicitation that we are going to put out is going 

to have some suggestions for how close together or far apart those 

locations can be. But they, too, will be in much closer proximity 

and more consolidated than they have been before. 

TRANSIT TIME AND LABOR EFFICIENCY

Mr. ROGERS. Well, you are claiming that $175 million will be 

saved due to decreased transit time and labor efficiency. How can 

you calculate such a thing? 

Ms. DUKE. That number is calculated by looking at the current 

layout of the National Capital Region and where we are in nearly 

50 locations. And that number is based on our current shuttle bus 

services and sedan services and tracking the usage of those services; that’s just an estimate of how much time DHS employees 

spend going to another location for purposes of conducting official 

business. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, you are not paying them for that transit time, 

are you? 

Ms. DUKE. Well, two things: one is we are paying for the transportation services, so that is a cost. But, in addition, it is lost productivity time in terms of the time spent in transit predominantly 

by senior DHS officials. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
371 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Mr. ROGERS. You are claiming $115 million would be saved due 

to energy efficiency, but that savings is based upon certain specific 

building standards that are not yet in place at the six locations you 

are migrating to, as I understand it. Is that accurate? And how is 

this figure calculated? 

Ms. DUKE. Mr. Peck may want to expand on my answer, but predominantly, by taking over St. E as a historic site, all the designs 

are under the President’s sustainability standard, so we are building the energy efficiency into the St. Elizabeths site. I can’t specifically comment on the other existing sites, but on St. E’s, it is being 

built into the design. 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Rogers, all of the buildings that we are building 

at St. E’s are going to be built to a high sustainability standard, 

which is, on the one hand, great for reducing greenhouse gases, but 

even more immediately, they reduce the amount of utilities that 

you have to pay for. So, for example, the Coast Guard building is 

going to have green roofs, a storm water retention pond. We have 

every technique you can use now, some of it as simple as just making sure that the buildings allow more daylight in so you need to 

use less electricity for lighting. And they will be much more efficient than the standard Washington building that we are in across 

the region. And I will say, to the credit of the private sector, as 

they upgrade their buildings, are making them more efficient, that 

is a slow process. 

GOLD CERTIFICATION

Mr. ROGERS. I am unclear, too, you said in your oral testimony 

that we would be going for the Gold certification, but your written 

testimony says you are at least going for Silver, striving for Gold. 

Mr. PECK. That is correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. Which is it? 

Mr. PECK. We are hedging our bets because you have to go 

through a certification process with the U.S. Green Building Council, and they don’t give you your final certification until you are 

through design. Our standard is we don’t accept anything less than 

Silver, but we believe in our designs on St. Elizabeths that we are 

within striking distance of Gold. So I have said to our people that 

we are going to reach Gold, and I am confident we are going to get 

there. 

Mr. ROGERS. What is the difference in terms of savings if we only 

go for Silver? 

Mr. PECK. I would have to get you that answer. I mean, you get 

points for different things, not just energy, not just utility reduction, storm water reduction, cutting down on commuting, and I 

don’t know quite where our points are there, but I will get you an 

answer. 

Mr. ROGERS. Is it a substantial figure? 

Mr. PECK. Between Silver and Gold, I don’t even want to hazard 

a guess, but it is a measurable percentage difference, yes, sir. I can 

get you the number. 

Mr. ROGERS. Are we talking billions of dollars? 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
372 

Mr. PECK. Over the course of 20 years, I suspect it is. For 4.5 

million square feet, that would be a significant difference in energy 

efficiency. 

But I will also note that the other thing we are relying on here 

is we are building our own very efficient energy-producing plant. 

We have awarded a contract to Washington Gas and Honeywell to 

build us an essential plant, and that in itself will produce a tremendous energy benefit. 

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST STABILITY

Mr. ROGERS. Large-scale acquisitions and construction projects 

have a nasty tendency to grow in cost and schedule. I am saying 

that very gingerly, it is worse than that. But how conservative is 

the estimated total cost of $3.4 billion? What is that likely to wind 

up being in the normal governmental projects? 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Rogers, I had this job in the 1990s when the economy was in a boom and construction in particular was pretty high 

priced, and I have to confess to you that our estimates then seemed 

continually to be under what we eventually realized just because 

costs kept going up. In this environment, I can tell you in the last 

year our bids have been coming in at something like 10 to 15 percent below what we had estimated in early 2009. And these estimates were made at that time, so I don’t want to suggest to you 

that is by any management genius that we possess that I am fairly 

confident we will make our estimates here, but the economy, at 

least through the next few years, is going to work in our favor. 

And I want to say again what I said at the outset, through my 

experience with government projects, Federal, State and local, as 

well as some large private sector projects, is that costs, to the extent they often go up and to the extent that scope creep comes in, 

it is often because we delay the projects. As things get put off, if 

the project slips for a year, somebody will come up with some great 

new idea for something that we ought to do and someone will try 

to add it to the project. Again, cost overruns so often just relate to 

management decision-making and a failure to continue funding at 

the rate at which you thought you were going to get it. 

Ms. DUKE. And if I could add, Mr. Rogers, a lot of construction 

overruns are by unstable requirements. We at DHS have our own 

program management office of about 28 people, and one of its principal purposes is to be a good and fiscally responsible customer to 

GSA. One of the things that we are striving for with that program 

office is stable requirements and consistent requirements, looking 

for efficiencies. So, for instance, we have a standard space and 

standard and consolidated furniture purchases, so that we are 

making sure that we have the minimal requirements not gold plate 

requirements and that those requirements are stable throughout 

the project so that we don’t have those cost overruns. 

Mr. PECK. I can tell you we also put every design through a process called Value Engineering, which I suspect you are familiar 

with, in which we have people take a second look at the design and 

ask questions about what can be shaved off that won’t impair either the structural solidity of the building or its energy efficiency 

or its functionality, but we put all our designs through those here. 

Mr. ROGERS. Who does that? 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
373 

Mr. PECK. A private contractor, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. You contract out an objective look-over-your-shoulder? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. We have some terrific internal project managers—and I have to say on this project we have put our best proven project manager, the best single proven project manager in the 

region, who is sitting behind me. But we have project managers, 

construction managers who are on site as anybody does on large 

projects. They are private sector people. We do have a government 

system, we have a lot of people overlooking us, the Inspector General has two people full-time on site. There is not much we are 

going to slip by on this. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, we are all going to be lined up looking over 

your shoulder. 

Mr. PECK. We know that. It is the fun of working in this environment. 

Mr. ROGERS. We are going to look over his shoulder; he is going 

to be looking over your shoulder; IG is going to be looking over 

everybody’s shoulder; and the taxpayers are going to look all over 

us. 

Mr. PECK. As well they should. 

Mr. ROGERS. As well they should. 

Well, you have answered a question I was going to ask, and that 

is, how can we cut the risks of project growth and keep the costs 

in line, and I think you have answered that question for me. 

By the way, the consolidation of lease request, $75 million, that 

was submitted also in fiscal 2010, which we denied because we did 

not have sufficient justification at that time. So, Mr. Chairman, 

that is something I think we will need to look at carefully again 

this year as we did last year. 

I have other questions that I will ask next round. 

Mr. PRICE. We will proceed with the second round after we hear 

from Mr. Farr. 

PROJECT VISION

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am enjoying this discussion. Looking back on my younger life when one of my mentors was 

Matt Owings of Skid, Owings and Merrill. I remember his discussion, actually calling the President of the United States on the 

Pennsylvania Avenue project. And the intent then was, for savings, 

to let 395 go right in front of the Capitol. He was insistent that 

he had to put that under the Capitol, there had to be a tunnel. Of 

course it was very expensive to build that, but just think what the 

Mall would look like in the front of the Capitol if we had a freeway 

right there where the Reflection Pond is, it would just be a different city. What I think is interesting about this project, this is 

the biggest building since the President, right—biggest construction project? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FARR. And you are doing it in Ward 8, which is certainly one 

of the most need for economic stimulation. It seems to me the vision here is phenomenal, and the idea that you are striving for 

Gold LEED and you have this apprenticeship with people working 

in the building trades to get the training. I mean, if we are really 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
374 

talking about stimulating the economy and doing something, it is 

going to just remarkably change that ward in this city. And I think 

it would be good to kind of give us some perspective as people— 

because I think we are going to get—Members of Congress are very 

leery because we are now experiencing what we spent on the Visitors Center. I think we all enjoy the Visitors Center, but the design 

of it, the functionality of it is nuts—at least for us it is. It maybe 

works for the tourists from that standpoint, but for the rooms, it 

is a monument of corridors. 

Mr. ROGERS. Would the gentleman yield on that? 

Mr. FARR. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. I think it would help if we had hospital stripes on 

the floor. 

MENTAL HEALTH PATIENTS

Mr. FARR. Well, it is very interesting, one of the questions is— 

hospital stripes? What is going to happen to the mental health patients? You are not moving all the mental health patients, so there 

is going to be some—they are going to still be there on part of the 

property? I couldn’t figure that out on the map? 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Farr, the District of Columbia still runs a mental 

hospital operation on their property. There are no more mental 

hospital operations on our side of Martin Luther King Avenue. 

Mr. FARR. We run a mental health hospital right here on the 

Hill, particularly after last weekend. Good thing we have mental 

health fully covered in our health bill. 

REVITALIZATION OF WARD 8

Ms. DUKE. Mr. Farr, if I could comment on the revitalization of 

Ward 8. I mean, one can only look to what happened when the 

Navy moved to the Washington Navy Yard on M Street and the revitalization. There has been some criticism, well, you are behind a 

preexisting stone wall, and that is going to stop revitalization. I 

think M Street and the fact that they are behind a concertina wire 

fence—the revitalization that took place there is clear evidence that 

the same thing is going to happen for Ward 8 when DHS moves 

there. 

TOTAL COST OF ST. ELIZABETHS

Mr. FARR. Well, I like the vision thing. I mean, I am interested, 

what is the total cost of this, including the relocation for leases and 

everything? 

Mr. PECK. The cost of the project on the west campus that we 

are doing is $3.4 billion. The total cost of the 1.1 million square 

foot lease that we are going to solicit, I can’t say, quite honestly, 

because we haven’t awarded it yet. And again, in this case, knowing what I know about the Washington real estate market, I can 

tell you my guess about what we would lease it for per square foot, 

and we have a limit on that number, but I don’t want to hazard 

a guess, I am not supposed to. 

Mr. FARR. $3.4 billion for the phase—— 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
375 

Mr. PECK. All the phases of construction on the west campus, 

and it includes the construction on the east campus for the FEMA 

headquarters. 

COLLABORATION WITH THE DISTRICT

Mr. FARR. I don’t like the mega—when we created DHS, I think 

we were all concerned about creating this mega bureaucracy, but 

I do like the idea that consolidation I think is where governments, 

all of them, we need to consolidate and collaborate, and I like the 

consolidation effort here. 

The question I have is, in that, can we also build some collaboration with the District? It seems to me that the concept of putting 

all these like kinds of needs in the same campus, same location, 

there is savings there, too, that the State and local governments, 

their headquarters aren’t spread all over the place either. Is there 

an ability to build on this to help the District and to help either 

Virginia or Maryland? 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Farr, a number of responses, if you will allow me 

a few minutes. One, I appreciated your alluding to the Pennsylvania Avenue development project because in the other body I 

worked for Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was a proponent 

of that from the time it started, along with Matt Owings of 

Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. I worked on that project. That was 

started at a time, however, when the District of Columbia was an 

agency of the Federal Government. The District of Columbia has 

home rule. We have worked with the District of Columbia on this 

project from the beginning. They have created on the east campus 

what is called a small area plant, so their plan is for what today 

is known as smart growth, a transit-oriented development because 

we have a Metro station. 

Their plan is to use our employees to help populate a retail strip 

on Martin Luther King Avenue and hopefully help generate the demand for housing across the street, and to help revitalize that area 

of the city, which certainly needs it, not to mention providing jobs. 

I also note, as you noted, that in that area of the city you not 

only need to provide jobs, you need to provide job training so that 

people can qualify for the jobs and have the skills they need. We 

have been working on that. We have a trailer on the site that takes 

job applications. We have apprenticeship programs, as you noted, 

that try to get people prepared for the jobs. But I will say there 

is a very close cooperation with the District of Columbia. 

There is one other issue which they will want me to address, 

which is a transportation issue. And while we are hoping that 

many or most of the employees come here by Metro when this is 

finished, we are providing parking. We have looked at other ways 

in which we can improve the road interchanges to make this thing 

work. But one of the things we are doing here is by very judiciously 

putting the sorts of amenities on the site for DHS employees that 

they need to get their work done during the day, but also making 

it convenient for them to get out into the community and provide 

the clientele that we will need for shops and restaurants and cafes, 

those kinds of things. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
376 

OVERHEAD COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Mr. FARR. Last question, what is your overhead factor on contracts? I sit on the MILCON Subcommittee, and for the MILCON, 

it is 5 percent. What is it for yours? 

Mr. PECK. We have talked about that. It is a number I would like 

to provide you for the record because I don’t quite know how 

MILCON calculates their overhead. If you are asking what is 

strictly GSA overhead, I can get you that number. If you are asking 

also what do we consider overhead among the private sector contractors that we hire, that is a different number. 

Mr. FARR. Why don’t you look at it from the same point that 

MILCON does? 

Mr. PECK. Let me ask them and I will give you an apples-to-apples comparison. 

Mr. FARR. Because they build buildings the same way that you 

do? 

Mr. PECK. They do. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: The Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) uses a flat rate for supervision and administration of a construction cost. This is similar to GSA’s management and inspection costs for GSA projects. The ACOE’s flat rate for Supervision 

and Administration is based on the construction cost and is 5.6% of construction. 

The management and inspection cost for the new Coast Guard Headquarters project 

is 6% of the total construction cost. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. 

MORE DETAILED JUSTIFICATION

Madam Secretary, let me return to the question of the lease consolidation and ask you about the differences between this year’s 

budget proposal and last year’s. As you well know, there was a 

very similar looking proposal for lease consolidation in last year’s 

budget, and we have asked, of course, for a more detailed justification. How is the proposal before us different from what you proposed a year ago? 

Ms. DUKE. I think there are two weaknesses we sought to correct 

in this year’s budget proposal. First, the previous submittal lacked 

clear evidence of the cost savings. So we tried to lay out more clearly when the leases would transfer and be able to quantify the cost 

savings in the out years. This is a case where you have to spend 

money to save money. We wanted to make that case better, and we 

believe we did. 

The second weakness we had in the previous submittal was there 

wasn’t confidence by the Committee that we could actually execute, 

and that was partially driven by the vagueness of the request. So 

we sought to be much more precise in what leases we would want 

to consolidate when, and the exact locations and timing of those, 

to demonstrate that we had a more clear handle on the consolidation, that we could actually execute it and spend the money. 

RECOVERY ACT FUNDING

Mr. PRICE. Now I want to pursue with our GSA witness some 

similar issues. I know you need to recuse yourself, Mr. Peck, on 

that. Before you leave the table, though, let me just divert us for 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
377 

a moment, I think this will be a very quick answer. I would like 

to know from both of you what the effect on the proposal before us 

out of the Recovery Act funding is and will be. In other words, how 

would the budget proposal for 2011 look different from either of 

your agency’s perspective if the Recovery Act funding had not been 

there? 

Ms. DUKE. From our perspective, the biggest benefit has been 

that we have been able to jump-start some of the areas of construction. One specific example I can give you, Mr. Chairman, is in construction; even though we have phase projects, there is construction phasing that allows efficiencies. So, for instance, for the Coast 

Guard, there is a lot of excavation that needs to be done. With the 

ARRA funding, we have been able to start excavation for the Nebraska Avenue Complex, which they abut each other. So rather 

than having to do excavation and then do a lot of shoring and construction things and then go back and excavate, with the ARRA 

money, we are able to do a more efficient excavation of that phase. 

So that is an example. 

Mr. PECK. I guess the simplest answer, Mr. Chairman, is that we got $450 million in ARRA funding to commence the Coast Guard 

headquarters. That funding had been delayed from fiscal 2009, we 

hadn’t gotten it. It allowed us to proceed, and quite honestly, we 

are significantly in the ground right now. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. So in terms of the map and the sequencing 

we are looking at here, had it not been for the Recovery Act funding, we really would still be entirely in the confines of phase 1? 

Mr. PECK. I don’t think we would have broken ground on phase 

1, I think we would still be in the confines of doing a lot of planning. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Well, I understand we are going to hear Director Geisler on the lease consolidation? 

LEASE CONSOLIDATION COST

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. If I can introduce Kathleen Geisler, who is 

the Director of our leasing division in the National Capital Region, 

and she has been working on the consolidation. They don’t make 

me put my hands over my ears, but I can’t talk about it. I can hear 

what she says though. 

Mr. PRICE. Good. Well, we welcome you, Director, to the witness 

table. 

Ms. GEISLER. Good morning. 

Mr. PRICE. There have been some conflicting estimates, Director, 

as I understand, about the exact timing of the lease consolidation. 

Is there any chance it could be less expensive next year if we wait? 

What kind of estimates do you have and what kind of risk would 

we be incurring in deferring all or part of this? 

Ms. GEISLER. The risk that we would be incurring if we delay is 

the lease extensions that we currently have in place that coincide 

with the move of some of those components into the St. E’s facility, 

as well as other components that we would be consolidating where 

we have done extensions to be able to move in the 2013 and 2014 

time frame. So we do have a fairly complex master plan of the various leases and where they would go as we consolidate the 1.1 million of lease consolidation and the mission support. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
378 

Mr. PRICE. All right. If you want to furnish further information 

for the record that will give us a precise handle on that, that would 

be helpful because we are going to have to figure out how much 

of this we can afford to do and when we can afford to do it. 

Ms. GEISLER. We would be happy to. 

Mr. PRICE. And we know that $75 million for lease consolidation 

is only a down payment. Director, we do need a better answer than 

we have gotten this morning thus far about the total cost of lease 

consolidation. I wonder if you can give us a better answer, and also 

tell us what measures are in place to ensure those costs don’t rise, 

assuming we go ahead with funding a good part or all of this. 

Ms. GEISLER. I think the most critical part as we move forward, 

especially with the schedule of a $1.1 million of mission support acquisition, that becomes very critical because there are so many different leases that are tied to that consolidation. We believe that 

our schedule gives us ample time to do a good evaluation of the offers that come in. We also believe that we have maximized our 

ability to have good competition to actually get very good competitive rates. So we believe that we have taken all the steps necessary 

in conjunction with DHS to really come forward with a good plan 

and a good schedule to be able to—— 

Mr. PRICE. I am asking you what the cost is likely to be, given 

the fact that $75 million is only a fraction. 

Ms. GEISLER. I would like to be able to present that to you at 

a later date. But it is difficult to give you the lease cost until we 

actually finish the acquisition because the way that the prospectus 

reads is that there are three different jurisdictions that are in play, 

and those three different jurisdictions have different caps. 

Mr. PRICE. Excuse me. I understand some of those difficulties, 

but I want the best figure you can give us or the range of possible 

costs before we write this bill. 

Ms. GEISLER. Okay, we will do that. 

Mr. PRICE. So that means quickly. 

Ms. GEISLER. Okay. We will do that. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: The maximum annual allowable full service rents in FY12 (according 

to GSA’s prospectus submission) are $38.624 million in Maryland ($34 per rentable 

square foot), $43.168 million in Virginia ($38 per rentable square foot), and $55.664 

million in the District of Columbia ($49 per rentable square foot). 

LEASE CONSOLIDATION COST SAVINGS

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Now, Madam Under Secretary, your testimony indicates a potential cost savings of $400 million. I want to 

pin this down as much as we can. You indicated a potential cost 

savings of $400 million for the lease consolidation project alone, 

and the other figures you give I presume include that project plus 

the St. E’s project overall figures, but let’s just focus on that $400 

million. 

Over what time frame are you projecting these cost savings? How 

do you arrive at the figure? Is it based solely on rental costs, alternative rental costs, or what other components should we know 

about? 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
379 

Ms. DUKE. We based that on the 30-year net present value, and 

we can provide the analysis for the record if we haven’t done so already. But there are several components of that. The largest is 

rent, and we believe that we can save the rent cost through having 

less leases, bringing our buying power to the larger space, the 1.1 

million, vice the many small leases we have now. 

Additional costs are some of the shared services. For instance, 

when we are in 50 locations, you have mail services, you have security guard services, those type of things for each building. Being 

able to consolidate those support services, we estimate about a $26 

million savings for that. 

We talked about transient time earlier; that is, movement of 

DHS people throughout the day, both the cost of lost productive 

time and the cost of having the shuttle service to take us around. 

There are also the energy savings. One of the requirements of 

the new building is we do believe we will have energy savings both 

through the new standards and through mandates we have for energy savings throughout our DHS projects. 

Mr. PRICE. All right, thank you, that is helpful. And here, too, 

if you could furnish for the record as good a tabular breakdown as 

you can manage of where that $400 million projection comes from. 

And then let us know what your overall projection is in terms of 

cost savings for the Saint E’s project and the lease consolidation, 

just so we know actually what we are dealing with here in terms 

of the trade-offs we face. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: The table below provides each item that makes up the Net Present 

Value (NPV) for the cost avoidances over 30 years for the Mission Support program: 

SUMMARY OF TOTAL COST AVOIDANCE 

[Dollars in millions] 

LEED Energy ............................................................................................................................................................. $115.3 

Labor Efficiency ........................................................................................................................................................ 175.0 

Mail Management ..................................................................................................................................................... 26.2 

Cont. Sedan/Shuttle ................................................................................................................................................. 23.3 

Rent Cost Avoidance ................................................................................................................................................ 138.4 

Total ................................................................................................................................................................. $478.2 

The updated St. E’s NPV Cost Avoidance is $600 million over 30 years which was 

determined by the General Services Administration using The Automated Prospectus System (TAPS), a cost modeling program that determines the comparison 

between the cost of leasing versus federal construction. Adding the Mission Support 

$478 million and the St. Elizabeths $600 million is $1,078 million net present value 

cost avoidance over a 30 year period for the St. E’s project and the lease consolidation. 

OFFICE SPACE REQUIREMENT GROWTH

Now, the estimates for office space needed to accommodate 

growth have risen somewhat in recent years from 8 million square 

feet to 10 million square feet. Naturally we look at that and wonder what has driven that change. An expectation for a larger headquarters cadre, or is it something else? 

Ms. DUKE. It’s driven partially by a larger headquarters cadre, 

and the functions of headquarters have grown. When you look at 

headquarters, we have many close-to-operational units; for instance, NPPD is not a traditional headquarters function. We have 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
380 

about 3,800 people in headquarters now, which is obviously larger 

than the original estimate for headquarters, and those are in the 

National Capital Region. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, we do want to make sure that these growth projections are quite well-grounded and well-considered. I don’t think 

in a few years we want to be facing the unpleasant prospect of 

hearings before this Subcommittee where we are having these 

same discussions again about how DHS needs more money for 

more space. 

Ms. DUKE. We are in the process right now—our program of 

record, which says how many people and where they go is from 

2007. We are in the process now, since the change of administration, of reevaluating that. The Secretary herself is personally involved, and we are evaluating not only the proper numbers, but do 

they match the budget. So we are not looking at numbers, pie in 

the sky, that aren’t supported by our program of record budgetwise. That will be completed this spring. 

LEASE CONSOLIDATION

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. This is an enormously complex undertaking. I was 

just trying to decipher this diagram here. Now I know where they 

got the idea for the computer chip. Can you help us? Can you decipher this some on the charts? 

Ms. DUKE. I think the summary—and Mr. Peck might want to 

add. What we want to do is we have approximately 50 locations 

right now in the National Capital Region. We want to get down to 

what you see here. We want to have St. E’s as our headquarters. 

We want to keep some existing facilities that we are in right now 

in the National Capital Region; that includes the Nebraska Avenue 

Complex by American University, which is our current headquarters. That is a federally owned building. 

We also want to keep the Ronald Reagan Building where we 

have CBP; the lease we have with the Transportation Security Administration for the two buildings at Pentagon City; the Secret 

Service Building; another federally owned building on H Street; 

and Potomac Center North, which is where U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement is now, near L’Enfant Plaza. 

In addition to keeping those buildings, we need approximately 

1.1 to 1.3 million gross square feet, and that is what was talked 

about earlier is we are out. We have a prospectus in front of the 

Hill, and a request for proposals will be coming out we hope within 

the next month that will solicit that new space. 

Basically what this is showing is that we are going to take all 

those 50 locations—I think it is about 107, a lot of leases—and turn 

it into those eight to ten locations and leases that we can manage 

more effectively and just eliminate the middle of this chart. 

Mr. ROGERS. So when it is all said and done, will the locations 

on the right-hand side remain in place? 

Ms. DUKE. Yes, Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. So we will have six-plus headquarters, places for all 

the agencies. 

Ms. DUKE. Yes, yes. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
381 

Mr. ROGERS. What is the bottom chart; how does it relate to the 

top chart? 

Ms. DUKE. I think the top chart is an amplification of the bottom 

chart. We try to show the data in more granularity. It was to answer the question asking if we are really prepared and if we know 

what we are doing in spending the $75 million that we requested 

in the 2011 budget. We tried to give a much more detailed look in 

the top chart. 

Mr. PECK. It is more or less the Under Secretary and I looked 

at the wiring diagram, and also said could somebody show it in a 

way we can understand it. And the other chart is simpler and it 

just shows who is moving where, as opposed to who is moving 

where and when. 

Mr. ROGERS. I think it would probably help us if we had a trigonometry specialist on our staff. I am going to take this to bed with 

me tonight. 

Mr. PECK. It will help you sleep. 

Mr. ROGERS. It will help me sleep. 

The consolidation of leases will be completed by when, according 

to your plan? 

Ms. GEISLER. We are planning to award that lease in mid-2011 

with the move-in to be projected for 2013 and 2014. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, is that when the consolidation of the leases 

will be ended? 

Ms. GEISLER. The consolidation of the leases will end around 

2014 as we phase out of them. Because it is such a large block of 

space, it will be a phased move based on the expiration of the 

leases that we have in place. 

Ms. DUKE. But that is to the new space, the 1.1 to 1.3 million 

square feet that we are actually acquiring. There is some movement of people in existing leased space to St E’s, and the St E’s 

occupancy isn’t completed until 2016. So that will continue. We 

won’t be down to the 8 to 10 in 2014. There will be a big large 

number of them going by the 2014 number. And then the finishing 

will be when we do the final phase of Saint E. 

Mr. ROGERS. So we will need to find funding for all of the fiscal 

years, including fiscal 2016? 

Ms. DUKE. We do have a complex plan that allows extensions in 

place. Our goal is not to do any double moves or to minimize them 

as much as possible because that is costly. The complexity is trying 

to get the things in place, have the final homes of each of the people. There will be some potential lease extensions for people moving to Saint E’s or one of the locations that are not ready, but we 

are trying to do single moves as much as possible to keep the costs 

down. 

Mr. ROGERS. So you don’t want to go to the expense of an agency 

in the middle of the chart moving to the right-hand side and then 

go all the way back to the left-hand side? 

Ms. DUKE. Correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. But nevertheless, we are looking at some spending 

each year through fiscal 2016 to consolidate the leases, correct? 

Ms. DUKE. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Will that number increase every year or decrease 

every year or remain roughly the same? 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
382 

Ms. DUKE. I don’t have our Future Years Homeland Security 

Program. I could provide that for the record in terms of a projection 

through 2015. 

Mr. ROGERS. That would help us, I think. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: The total mission support consolidation is estimated by GSA to be 

about $263 million with the expectation that DHS will lease 1.2 million rentable 

square feet of space with a two-phase implementation schedule in calendar years 

2013 and 2014. The current project costs are estimated based on a plan to consolidate mission support functions by 2014. In cooperation with DHS and OMB, a Mission Support Consolidation Prospectus for lease authority was submitted by GSA to 

Congress in October 2009 that will address the Department’s current housing needs 

through Fiscal Year 2010. As the prospectus is for leased office space, GSA does not 

require a separate appropriation and all costs for tenant fit out requirements will 

pass directly to DHS. The $75 million included in the FY 2011 budget request will 

initiate the mission support consolidation effort by providing the necessary funding 

to acquire 1.2 million square feet of office space included in our prospectus. The remaining funding will be requested in future budget requests to deliver the space in 

FY2013 and FY2014. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
383 

CURRENT NUMBERS BASED ON PROGRAM ESTIMATES 

[Dollars in thousands] 

FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Totals 

Mission Support ......................................................................................................................... $0 $0 $75,000 $67,095 $57,781 $63,158 $0 $263,035 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
384 

INTERIOR BUILD OUT

Mr. ROGERS. Help me out here. The total cost is $3.4 billion, of 

which GSA is responsible for property construction of $2 billion; 

DHS responsible for interior build-out, $1.4 billion; is that correct? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Since DHS’ responsibility is interior build-out, why 

would we need this amount of money that is requested for this 

year, since I am not sure we are going to be in a position to spend 

for interior build-out, are we? 

Mr. PECK. Well, let me distinguish between, in the building business, between interior build-out and what is called FF&E, furniture, fixtures and equipment. We are responsible for providing a 

building and an interior, ready to move into, meaning walls, lighting, air conditioning, heating. 

Mr. ROGERS. GSA. 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. And DHS is responsible for the furniture and 

information technology that goes in it. And often in projects, what 

you need to do is you need to order in advance that equipment so 

it is ready when you get there. Some of—just to make it more complicated—some of the information technology infrastructure, some 

of the cabling and things like that, does go on the DHS side of the 

ledger. 

FUNDING FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Mr. ROGERS. We have had some confusion, or at least I have 

been confused somewhat by the funding for IT infrastructure. We 

were briefed on March the 8th that the request of $287 million for 

Saint E’s fails to include $69 million in information technology and 

infrastructure that is required to begin construction activities, 

which, if it were not there, could delay the project for up to a year 

as I understand. 

And then last night at 5 o’clock, the Department said they need 

to retract the information provided the Committee on the $69 million omission for IT, and a more accurate answer would be submitted in the next few days. 

Where are we on this? What is it all about? 

Ms. DUKE. Well, first of all, Mr. Rogers, I would like to apologize 

for that confusion in the last minute right before hearing modification or answer. We do have a need in Fiscal Year 2011 to be doing 

a lot of IT infrastructure. We want to make sure that with IT we 

are building efficiencies into how we are going to deliver IT services. 

Our current plan—and we will be coming back with a revised 

question for the record, I believe that came from the Secretary’s 

hearing. What we plan on doing now is we believe that, like the 

first round of contracts, we will have a savings from the bids that 

are coming in. We have about six major contracts to be awarded 

this year in August. So with proposals coming in the next couple 

months, we believe that we will be able to adequately fund the IT 

infrastructure needs through the current funding level for Saint 

E’s, without delay on a project. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, it is a bit jarring to us that we have got a $69 

million item that is sort of bouncing around. That doesn’t help your 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
385 

veracity on the rest of the proposal. So are there any other things 

out there that are bouncing around that we don’t know about that 

affect the dollar figure? 

Ms. DUKE. No, this one we have known about, and I think the 

difference in the last-minute change is whether we consider it a 

problem or an unfunded requirement or something we can handle 

within the current project. And so we have always known about 

this issue. The difference is we feel confident we can handle this 

within the existing project budget and with our IT priorities within 

DHS. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, consolidation of the Department is necessary. 

It is a great idea. It reminds me of an old saying that I like to 

carry around, that ‘‘vision without funding is a hallucination.’’ And 

Mr. Chairman, I may be hallucinating, but this is going to take 

some time to understand. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. It does lead one to intuitively understand 

the importance of consolidating some of this, however. DHS is an 

impossibly spread-out, dispersed agency. We understand that problem. 

Mr. Farr. 

OFFICE CONSOLIDATION

Mr. FARR. If we could use that other chart, I think it is more 

helpful, at least for the question I am going to have. What essentially I see on that chart is you are going to end up with a total 

of seven places for Department of Homeland Security, the six on 

the right and the one St. Elizabeths on the left. 

But what I don’t understand is that in a couple of those areas, 

it seems to be how do you split the baby. That first chart, I can’t 

even read all the alphabets that are under there. As you see the 

green line that is going to the NAC building on Nebraska Avenue, 

but it is also showing that it goes to St. Elizabeths. If you go down 

that chart, the same thing with CBP, the same thing with DNDO, 

with TSA, ICE, and USSS. How do you global—those are ones that 

are all showing going both directions. 

Ms. DUKE. The St. E’s, as we said, will not accommodate all of 

DHS headquarters; it is 14,000 seats. I think we have about a 

35,000-seat need. So where you see the line going both places, in 

some cases, we expect all of one component to be there. For example, FEMA currently is projected to be on the east campus, 100 percent of FEMA. There are some components—— 

Mr. FARR. Space limitations. 

Ms. DUKE. So CBP will keep space at the Ronald Reagan Building. 

Mr. FARR. How do you decide who to split? 

Ms. DUKE. We are working on that. There is a program from 

2007 that shows the splits. With the change of virtually all the 

leadership in DHS, we are going back and reevaluating whether 

this is a good split. 

Mr. FARR. Okay. 

Ms. DUKE. We do need the senior leadership team to have some 

presence, but you will see a split. There is no way to not have a 

split. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
386 

DIVESTING FUNCTIONS

Mr. FARR. In this process of reassessing, is there any interest in 

looking at perhaps some of these components shouldn’t be in DHS? 

I mean, there has been some criticism, particularly the Ag folks 

and things like that, that were brought over to Ag inspectors. 

Ms. DUKE. No, I think the Secretary feels comfortable that everything in DHS should be there. I think that our first Quadrennial 

Homeland Security Review demonstrates that and our follow-on 

work. So we are now just looking not at divesting of functions, but 

actually what is the best split so that the components can execute 

their missions most effectively. 

Mr. FARR. Even with all the investment in St. Elizabeths, you 

add up all the different agencies, and obviously they are different 

sizes, the sign on the left there is going to be 34 of those outside 

St. Elizabeths and 24 inside St. Elizabeths. So more of the Department will still rest outside of St. Elizabeths. 

Ms. DUKE. Yes, that is correct, slightly more than half. 

Mr. FARR. And certainly not consolidated. These are all around 

town. 

Ms. DUKE. The good thing we can do with the consolidation, 

though, is getting the leadership team together. I mean, one of our 

most important missions—we have our day to day—is having the 

leadership team together in an incident response and recovery-type 

scenario. This is the largest—there is no possible way to get all 

35,000 DHS National Capitol Region people together in one locations. It physically doesn’t fit. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS INTERLINKED

Mr. FARR. Is their IT going to be all interlinked? 

Ms. DUKE. Yes. That is a huge part. We have task forces under 

this. The overarching executive committee is led by the Deputy 

Secretary and our Chief Information Officer, Richard Spires, leads 

the IT. 

And we think that both IT, in general—but the co-location of the 

command centers adjacent and with the NAC is huge in the incident situation. 

SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION FACILITY

Mr. FARR. Do you have to build Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) in any of these facilities? 

Ms. DUKE. I believe there will be SCIFs. 

Mr. PECK. At St. Elizabeths, yes, sir. 

Mr. FARR. I have never really asked this question, but what is 

the determination of what agencies, Federal agencies, are partners 

with GSA and which ones aren’t? Obviously the Pentagon has their 

own MILCON that is separate from GSA. But other areas, USDA, 

the Department of Agriculture, they are not a partner with GSA. 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. 

COST ALLOCATION

Mr. FARR. What is the determination of what departments get to 

go on their own capital outlays and which are construction and 

which are partners with GSA? 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
387 

Mr. PECK. Some of it is history. Some agencies have long, proud 

traditions. And GSA didn’t come along until 1949 when the government decided to have a truly consolidated real estate function, so 

some had been doing it before. The best example is probably the 

Treasury Department which used to house the building function. 

And I believe there was a negotiation in 1949, and they got to keep 

their headquarters building as something they do themselves. 

Some others, like the Forest Service, has a lot of small leases 

in—or they built small things in the national forests. Some occasionally lease right outside the national forest. Because they have 

people there on the ground and they know the market, it is actually more efficient for the government for them to do that kind of 

work than it would be for GSA to have to either hire people to do 

it separately or to hire some private real estate person to do it. 

Mr. FARR. Are there any papers discussing all of that? I would 

just be curious to read up on it. Are there thresholds where GSA— 

I have also dealt with the bureaucracy of the GSA. 

Mr. PECK. I don’t know that anyone has taken a look. We do 

have an Office of Government-Wide Policy that takes a look at real 

estate across the board. I don’t know that anybody has taken a significant look at who does what. For example, the military departments which do building on military reservations. But if they are 

off it, and we need to lease space for the Army, Navy, Air Force, 

we generally do it. 

There has been that split which I don’t think has been challenged anytime recently. I ask the question all the time. We often 

get other agencies saying, We like to do real estate ourselves, or 

will you do it for us, even though we have the authority and we 

work those things out. I don’t know that anyone has taken a government-wide look at who really should do what or does do what. 

I do believe still that there are—I wouldn’t say a perfect allocation of responsibilities, but I think like so many things in our government, it mostly makes sense. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

LONG AND SHORT TERM LEASE COST

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. We will proceed with a rather abbreviated 

final round, and we appreciate your sticking with us here and helping us pursue some very important questions. 

I have a couple of rather narrowly targeted ones, but I do want 

to ask them in this session because I think they do help us get a 

little better fix on this and some comparative perspectives. 

I will start with you, Commissioner. You note in your testimony 

that the Department is retaining long-term leases for TSA and 

ICE, and will soon be procuring interim leases for the Coast Guard 

and CBP. So that does offer perhaps a point of comparison, a way 

for us to compare the costs we are considering for construction, visa-vis additional long-term leases for mission support. 

What are the prices of the long-term leases GSA has retained for 

these two components? And what is the expected cost for the interim shorter-termed Coast Guard and CBP leases? What kind of 

prospectus can you give the Committee on the kind of relative costs 

we are talking about? 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
388 

Mr. PECK. That is a great question. I will have to provide you 

those numbers for the record, because they are specific leases and 

I will have to go back and find out what they are. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: The price of the long term lease of TSA at Pentagon City is $17 million per annum, while the price of the long term lease of ICE at Potomac Center 

North is $20 million per annum. 

GSA calculated that St. Elizabeths has a $31 million annual cost advantage over 

equivalent leased space of 4.8 million usable square feet (USF). Of this total 

amount, ICE and TSA will occupy 742,500 USF. On a pro rata basis, the annual 

cost advantage is approximately $4.8 million. The underlying discount rate assumption for this is 4.5% per annum. Both TSA and ICE long term leases will be retained 

as anchor locations in the DHS Headquarters Consolidation plan. 

Mr. PRICE. But you would agree that it is a relevant question 

and that when we examine the claims for long-term versus shortterm leases and the kind of savings we are projecting here, it is relevant to look at those kinds of examples. 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. I also think we owe you the dollar assumptions and interest rate assumptions and term assumptions we have 

made on our net present value of savings, and we can provide those 

to you. I can tell you what lease rates we assumed the Agency 

would pay in government-owned space and what we would assume 

in a lease, and we can at least get you that comparison, as well 

as giving you these actual numbers of leases today. 

Mr. PRICE. All right, I really think that would be helpful. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE: Responses to a data call for a staffing benchmark analysis conducted 

by the DHS Chief Administrative Officer estimates that DHS Headquarters (HQ) 

and the component HQ’s currently have approximately 50 real estate professionals 

involved with managing the DHS HQ and component HQ’s real estate portfolio in 

the National Capitol Region (NCR). An esimate of the time involved managing the 

real estate portfolio indicates that approximately 300 work hours per year per person is currently expended. This equates to an esimated 15,000 man hours per year 

of real estate management that can be avoided after consolidation. Using an hourly 

rate of $38.22 per hour (GS–12/Step 3 Washington, DC) equals an annual cost 

avoidance of $574k per year. 

CONSOLIDATION SAVINGS

Mr. PRICE. Madam Secretary, let me turn to you for a last question. This has to do with what it costs to oversee all this, to administer it. According to your testimony we are talking about 180 existing leases in the DHS portfolio; is that right? 

Ms. DUKE. Yes, that is approximately. 

Mr. PRICE. Now if we can find a way to fund consolidation, could 

we anticipate a reduction in headquarters staff or at least some administrative savings in overseeing these scores of leases and other 

management costs? Can you put a figure on that? 

Ms. DUKE. I don’t have a figure right now; but yes, I do think 

we would have efficiencies in all the management proposals. Most 

of the overseeing is done throughout DHS. It is not just done in 

management. But I think it would be reasonable for the committee 

to expect efficiencies as we reduce the numbers and make it less 

complex. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, there too, the more specific you can make that, 

the more helpful it will be. I think all my other questions I will 

submit for the record. So I will turn to Mr. Rogers. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
389 

COMPLETION DATE FOR ST. ELIZABETHS

Mr. ROGERS. And I will be very brief in closing. When will we 

be able to say it is done, it is all over? 

Ms. DUKE. Right now, total completion of St. E’s and all the 

other consolidations are targeted for 2016. 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir, that should be—that is our goal. As you can 

see in the funding, the last really significant funding we are going 

to ask for St. E’s is in fiscal year 2014, and then we finish up the 

construction and it should be done by fiscal year 2016. 

Mr. ROGERS. You hesitated before you answered. 

Mr. PECK. I was wondering whether you were thinking—I am 

thinking lease consolidations and all the moves, but that is our 

schedule if the funding stays on schedule. 

Mr. ROGERS. I hear a lot of ‘‘shoulds’’ and ‘‘ifs’’ and ‘‘maybe.’’ You 

don’t seem really committed. 

Mr. PECK. Sir, there are—if everything were under our control, 

including the funding spigot, I would be very confident. But I have 

been in this business a long time and I learned that sometimes you 

say, okay, we are ready to go, but somebody else isn’t. And as I 

said, we will be there if we get the funding as we need it. If we 

don’t, we won’t make it. 

Mr. ROGERS. It took the Pentagon 2 years from the date of 

ground-breaking to commissioning. Two years. They had to relocate 

National Airport before they could build the building. 

Mr. PECK. Correct. And they did a relocation out of the building 

that is now in the State Department Complex. They moved fast. 

Our country can, when we have to, because we all know from the 

Pentagon reconstruction after September 11th, when we want to, 

we can beat our schedules. 

OFFICE CONSOLIDATION

Mr. ROGERS. One final question. I thought I had this figured out, 

but in the chart that is showing there now, you show certain of the 

locations migrating to one of the six locations. But then on the 

other side, you show the same ones migrating to the St. E’s. 

Ms. DUKE. And that is because not everybody—two things. Not 

everybody at one location will go to one or the other. So it could 

be just that there are multiple functions in one of the middle locations now. It also goes back to the question Mr. Farr asked about; 

we will be splitting the components. So a piece of CBP will go to 

St. E’s, but a piece of CBP will stay at the Ronald Reagan Building. 

The current plan does require a split of components, both the headquarters and the operating components. 

Mr. ROGERS. For example, CBP might have people at two different places? 

Ms. DUKE. Yes. What the split is at the highest level is mission 

versus mission support. So, say, in CBP the direct mission would 

be there, but then they have contracting support and they have logistics and they have those type of functions. So because of the 

space constraints of St. E’s, not all of that would be there. We 

would have the mission support co-located in predominantly the 

new space but in some of these other locations, also. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
390 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, as we have said from the very beginning of 

the DHS, and even before then, and every day since, IT is terribly 

important to the mission of DHS and the consolidation and communications between wherever the personnel are. So the IT question 

that we asked you about earlier is a terribly important piece of this 

project. So I would hope that we would be sure we get the IT right 

in the new building as well as the six adjuncts. 

Ms. DUKE. Absolutely. I want to add the Department’s commitment—I know my commitment doesn’t mean as much this week as 

it might have in the past, but I have personally engaged with the 

Secretary and the Deputy on this. They are committed, and they 

recognize and understand the importance of the IT. 

The Deputy Secretary is chairing these. We meet monthly on this 

with the senior leadership and component heads. We are committed. It is one of the Secretary’s priority. The reality is that the 

problem is not going to go away unless we fix it. It has gotten 

worse in the life of DHS. Is a very difficult decision for the Congress to look at spending money to make us more efficient in these 

tight budget times. But the problem will not go away without an 

actual movement and fix. 

Mr. ROGERS. We appreciate all of your testimony and your support staff being here today. 

Secretary Duke, we wish you well and want you to come back 

and visit with us. 

Ms. DUKE. I will. Thank you. 

Mr. ROGERS. Maybe we will see you on the campus here, this 

side or the other side. 

Ms. DUKE. After 8 years at the Department, I might be in the 

parts still operated by D.C. 

Mr. ROGERS. We will see you there. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good luck with your next 

endeavors in your life. Thank you for your service to our country. 

Mr. Peck, you are going to stick around for a while, aren’t you? 

Mr. PECK. I am a political appointee, as long as they’ll have me; 

yes, sir. 

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Mr. FARR. I was thinking I didn’t come to this hearing knowing 

how significant this is. This is the largest construction since the 

Pentagon, which was 73 years ago. I mean, we are talking about 

trying to set out as models for this Nation of building for the next 

century and using LEED’s ideas, IT. 

I think this is an opportunity to showcase government at its best. 

And I have worked with Duke and—I mean with Clark Pinnacle, 

Pinnacle being the realty company. Clark in my district is a phenomenal company. It builds well and they build beautifully. I think 

about all the architectural design, the way this is going to merge. 

It is going to be on your watch, on our watch. We are responsible 

for the oversight and funding. I hope this just comes back as one 

of those things that we will be as proud of as anything that has 

ever been done in this great city, because we really have an opportunity to do it, do it well, and I think design—my father was the 

first Director of Highway Beautification. He came up with the idea 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
391 

of scenic highways, and it led to being the Director of Highway 

Beautification under Lady Bird and President Johnson. And that 

is how I got involved with hearing about Washington and all the 

great things going on here in those days. So now on your watch. 

Mr. PECK. Congressman, I grew up here. My father was assigned 

as an Army officer to the construction project at the Pentagon 

somewhere around 1941 or 1942. He then made the mistake of 

transferring to military police. But in any event, one of the reasons 

I am back in this job is that the opportunity to do this project and 

other Recovery Act projects around the country, this happens to be, 

I think, the best job in American real estate. 

When I was in the job before, I was fortunate to preside over the 

beginning of our design excellence program in which we began once 

again building buildings that, as we say, are worthy of the American people. I think we are going to do that on this project, too. We 

are determined to do that. 

The Coast Guard Building itself, if you look at the design, is 

going to be a terrific example for green design. It is a beautiful 

building. Just in passing, the site happens to have one of the most 

fantastic views of the city of Washington that you can imagine, and 

it is going to be a terrific campus, a great place I think for the people in DHS to work together and productively, and it is going to 

revitalize the city as a side benefit. We are proud of it and determined to do it right. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. And thanks to all of our witnesses. Commissioner, glad to have you, to welcome you on board—— 

Mr. PECK. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PRICE [continuing]. And to talk with you this morning. Director Geisler, thank you for your contribution, and Secretary Duke. 

Ms. DUKE. Chairman Price, I would also like to thank this Committee. You have been so supportive of us. When I look back, there 

is still so much to do, but we have done a lot. And one of the 

things—we have a few interns here—your support of revitalizing 

the acquisition workforce not only for DHS but the Federal Government. I know it is difficult to support initiatives in management, 

and you have been wonderful to us. Your staff has always thought 

to understand. I just wanted to formally thank you for that. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. I know you mean the bipartisan leadership of this Committee, which, after all, has worked with you over 

a good portion of the Department’s life. 

Ms. DUKE. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. So we join in thanking you for your contribution and 

thanking all of you for being here this morning. 

Thank you. Committee is adjourned. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
392 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0154 here 57551C1.204
393 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0155 here 57551C1.205
394 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0156 here 57551C1.206
395 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0157 here 57551C1.207
396 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0158 here 57551C1.208
397 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0159 here 57551C1.209
398 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0160 here 57551C1.210
399 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0161 here 57551C1.211
400 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0162 here 57551C1.212
401 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0163 here 57551C1.213
402 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0164 here 57551C1.214
403 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0165 here 57551C1.215
404 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0166 here 57551C1.216
405 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0167 here 57551C1.217

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
(407) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010. 

TESTIMONY FROM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND 

OUTSIDE ENTITIES 

WITNESSES 

HON. LAURA RICHARDSON 

HON. KEITH ELLISON 

JENNIFER FELT, PROGRAM MANAGER FOR THE MARINE CONSERVATION BIOLOGY INSTITUTE 

DAVID WRIGHT, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE UNION 

ERIC PERRODIN, MAYOR OF COMPTON 

LILLIE DOBSON, COUNCILWOMAN FOR THE CITY OF COMPTON 

TODD HAUPTLI, SENIOR EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES 

WILLIAM MILLAR, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION 

KELLY PETERS, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SEARCH 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DAVID PRICE

Mr. PRICE. Good morning, and welcome to our last day of public 

hearings in this 2011 cycle. Today we will be taking testimony from 

members of Congress and outside entities who have asked for 

project consideration as part of the fiscal 2011 budget for the Department of Homeland Security. 

As I have previously stated, and as was made clear, I think, in 

a letter to the House’s entire membership, the Subcommittee generally earmarks funding in three areas within DHS: pre-disaster 

mitigation, emergency operations centers, and bridges that are 

deemed an obstruction to navigation and must be altered. On occasion, the Subcommittee has earmarked projects outside of these 

categories, but it is uncommon. 

Today, we welcome discussion of such requests, and also programmatic requests that do not require a specific earmark. This is 

a time when members and outside groups, interested individuals, 

and organizations can come forward and give us their views on any 

aspect, really, of the Homeland Security budget. 

So we are glad to start with members today. And, Congresswoman Richardson, we are pleased to have you here. We are looking to hear from Congressman Ellison after that, and then we will 

move to other witnesses. Our process here is to enter your full 

statement into the record and ask you to limit your oral remarks 

to five minutes. So we are glad to begin with you. First, I want to 

yield to Mr. Rogers for any comments he has. 

Mr. ROGERS. I have no comments, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. 

Mr. ROGERS. Does that surprise you? 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
408 

Mr. PRICE. No, no, not at all. You are always a man of few words. 

Please proceed. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

WITNESS 

HON. LAURA RICHARDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

STATEMENT OF HON. LAURA RICHARDSON

Mrs. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Price 

and Mr. Rogers, thank you for convening this witness request day 

for full-year 2011 Homeland Security appropriations. I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee. And as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I want to commend you 

and your colleagues of the Subcommittee for this outstanding work 

that you do to ensure that our nation has the financial resources 

necessary to secure our homeland. 

The 37th congressional district of California, which I am privileged to represent, has a vital interest in ensuring our homeland 

security needs. My district is located in southern California, which 

is no stranger to some of the more recent things of natural disasters ranging from earthquakes, mudslides, and wildfires. But in addition to that, the 37th congressional district is also home to many 

high-value terrorist targets such as the port of Long Beach; the adjacent port of Los Angeles; airports, two of them; rail; treatment facilities; power plants; and many more. 

First of all, I would like to talk a little bit about the programmatic request that I have before this Committee and express 

to you some of my concerns, and then I will go into my only request 

that I have before this Committee for an earmark. First of all, I 

would like to talk about cargo screening. I am concerned about the 

decrease in funding for international cargo screening. The proposal 

of $84.4 million, a decrease from 77.56 million below the full-year 

2010 enactment is a significant decrease, and I believe will cause 

harm ultimately to all of our goals of protecting the public. 

The 9/11 Act set forth a goal of working towards 100 percent 

cargo screening. We are not taking steps forward; in fact, we are 

taking steps back. I recently was on a CODEL and had a chance 

to go to another country and ask them, out of all of the cargo that 

you screen, the ones that we individually through inspections we 

say that you must pull out—how many others do you actually 

check? And I was alarmed at the response. The response was, none. 

So therefore, I would say to do less in terms of cargo screening 

would really be an ill-advised recommendation, and something I 

hope you would consider. 

Second of all, in terms of fire grants, I have read that many 

members have talked about the concern of the reduction in the fire 

grants, and I wanted to add my voice of concern with that. When 

you look at the local fire departments and their first responder 

role, particularly with homeland security issues, to reduce in that 

particular area that has been a success is something that I would 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
409 

also request that you consider making a change to the President’s 

recommendation. 

Third, urban search and rescue. I support the increased funding 

in the national urban search and rescue response system in the 

full-year 2011 Homeland Security appropriations bill. Clearly, as I 

have talked about with both of the ports of Long Beach and Los 

Angeles that are in my district, we have strong urban search and 

rescue teams, but they need to be stronger. And to evaluate the 

bridges, all of the other high-target mechanisms that are there in 

the port, this increase is definitely needed. 

The fourth area is disaster relief. As we know, the Department 

of Homeland Security recently requested an increase. In my statement that I believe that I have provided for you, I have a picture 

of when I went to American Samoa, and I had an opportunity to 

view firsthand the disaster that they had, first the earthquake and 

then the tsunami that followed 10 minutes later. 

Unfortunately, in this world today, we are not only having the 

disasters that we have had that we normally anticipate several, 

but we have had beyond those numbers. And so I would support 

increasing that funding. 

Finally, in terms of emergency planning, I brought forward a bill, 

H.R. 4898, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Preparedness Planning Act. This bill would empower school districts 

in high-risk areas to bolster their emergency preparedness training 

by establishing a program to award grants to local education agencies, which we all know are set up primarily in places to go if in 

fact we do have disasters or a risk situation. 

Finally, I would like to talk about—those were all programmatic 

requests that I have before this Committee. But now I would like 

to close with my comments on having to do with the EOC, the 

emergency operation centers. Today, I have with me members of 

the city of Compton who are going to speak to you, I think approximately at 10:30. We have Mayor Perrodin and also Councilwoman 

Lillie Dobson and their representative. 

We have for several years approached this Committee in terms 

of the need of what this particular district is facing, and I would 

like to briefly share that with you. One, when you talk about 

Compton—and they will say it for themselves, but the thing I 

wanted to share is in my district, the city of Compton is surrounded by five major freeways and is located within 10 miles of 

three major ports of entry, the Los Angeles International Airport 

and both the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. In addition, the 

Alameda Corridor rail project runs directly through Compton’s 

high-threat, high-density urban area. 

The current first respondent capabilities in the city are insufficient to protect the infrastructure assets, and the failure to upgrade their current operation center could jeopardize health and 

safety for millions of residents. This funding is critical. 

Now just on a personal point of privilege—and I will speak off 

of my comments—being a member who actually represents—my entire district is in the county of Los Angeles, representing neighboring cities that oftentimes receive large amounts of homeland security grants. Compton is the one that has been for a long time— 

and needs to end; hopefully in your deliberations, ends today. The 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
410 

city of Compton is surrounded by all of these communities, and all 

you have to do is look at any of the disasters that we have had, 

and Compton is left to fend for itself while other larger cities that 

surround them have often had the support necessary that they 

needed to protect their residents and to protect their infrastructure. 

When you look at the city of Compton and where it is situated, 

with all of the freeways, if there were a major disaster in that particular section—we in the past, when the ports were cut off due to 

labor negotiations, every single day we lost a billion dollars a day, 

one billion dollars a day. So the impacts of the freeways that they 

have, their inability to connect on both ends of each parts of their 

city, is a critical piece that must happen. 

As I said, major investments have been done in surrounding communities, and that is one that is left that if a major disaster occurs, 

those communities are going to respond to those cities first and not 

the city of Compton. And when you look at the growing amount of 

manufacturing industry that they have, the improvements that 

have been made in terms of business communities, this really is an 

accident waiting to happen. It is a high-risk area, and I would really seek your full review of their application. 

And with that, they have their time coming up shortly, and I of 

course will be happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
411 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 742 here 57551B.081
412 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 743 here 57551B.082
413 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 744 here 57551B.083
414 

Mr. PRICE. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate your statement, and we will look forward to hearing also from your constituents from the city of Compton a little later this morning. I have 

no further questions. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. No questions. 

Mr. PRICE. With that, thank you so much for appearing and for 

your good work. 

Mrs. RICHARDSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Ellison is not on the scene yet, so we will proceed 

with the Marine Conservation Biology Institute, represented by 

Program Manager Jennifer Felt. Ms. Felt, welcome to the Subcommittee. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

WITNESS 

JENNIFER FELT, PROGRAM MANAGER FOR THE MARINE CONSERVATION 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER FELT

Ms. FELT. Good morning, and I am about to switch gears pretty 

drastically. My name is Jennifer Felt, and I represent Marine Conservation Biology Institute, which is based in Bellevue, Washington, with offices in California, Hawaii, and here in D.C. I wish 

to thank the members of the Homeland Security for the opportunity to testify as an outside witness for the fiscal year 2011 appropriations for the United States Coast Guard. 

MCBI is a national, non-profit environmental organization whose 

mission is to advance the science of marine conservation biology 

and secure protection for ocean ecosystems. We advocate for adequate appropriations for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, Fish and Wildlife Service, and now Coast 

Guard programs that focus on understanding and conserving marine ecosystems, habitats, and species. 

Today, I am going to focus on the important role that the Coast 

Guard plays in furthering these goals by combating marine debris. 

Marine debris is defined as any persistent solid material that is 

manufactured or processed and directly or indirectly, intentionally 

or unintentionally, disposed of or abandoned into the marine environment or Great Lakes. Some of the most common types of marine 

debris are discarded or lost fishing lines and nets; household plastics such as disposable lighters, six-pack rings, plastic bags, and 

Styrofoam pellets. 

Marine debris fouls beaches and marine ecosystems; kills coral 

reef; causes death to marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles by entanglement and ingestion, as represented here by this albatross 

chick, who has ingested quite a bit of plastic material, and as a result has died; transports non-native and invasive species to marine 

ecosystems; and creates navigational safety hazards by fouling the 

engine propellers. 

Research has shown that debris has serious effects on the marine 

environment, wildlife, the economy, and human health and safety. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
415 

The number of marine debris-related entanglement deaths of endangered and threatened seals, sea turtles and seabirds continues 

to grow. Entanglement and debris is a major cause of death for the 

Hawaiian Monk Seal, whose population is estimated at less than 

1,200 individuals. 

Marine debris has become one of the most widespread pollution 

problems affecting the world’s oceans and waterways. Marine debris is a growing problem that is manifesting itself in all U.S. waters. The Coast Guard plays a critical role combating marine debris 

under two authorities. First, it monitors discharge of waste from 

ships and oversees port receptor facilities in compliance with 

MARPOL Annex 5, implemented through the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships of 1980. 

Second, in partnership with NOAA, the United States Coast 

Guard identifies, assesses, reduces, and prevents marine debris 

and its effects on the marine environment under the Marine Debris 

Research Prevention and Reduction Act of 2006. The act establishes a national program led by NOAA and supported by the 

United States Coast Guard. The act authorizes $10 million annually for NOAA’s marine debris program and $2 million annually for 

the United States Coast Guard’s program. However, NOAA has 

been level-funded at $4 million since 2008, and the United States 

Coast Guard has never received any program funding for its marine debris efforts. 

The United States Coast Guard participates in and provides 

leadership for a variety of important anti-marine debris activities. 

For example, working together, NOAA and the United States Coast 

Guard have removed an estimated 600 metric tons of marine debris, mostly derelict fishing gear, from the northwestern Hawaiian 

islands since 1998, and are currently removing an estimated 40 

metric tons each year. 

While this is a great accomplishment, the annual accumulation 

rate is 52 metric tons, leaving a surplus of 12 metric tons of marine 

debris each year. The reason for this gap is lack of resources due 

to insufficient funding, which prevents the agencies from keeping 

up with the problem, and marine debris continues to be a threat 

to the endangered Hawaiian Monk Seal and seabirds in 

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. 

MCBI supports the United States Coast Guard in its efforts to 

reach its goals in providing maritime safety, security, mobility, national defense, and protection of natural resources. As the nation 

continues to deal with economic challenges, MCBI recognizes that 

allocating new funds for projects may be difficult. However, given 

the crucial need to complete these missions and enhance efforts to 

combat marine debris, we encourage the Subcommittee to minimally maintain United States Coast Guard funding levels at fiscal 

year 2010 enacted levels of $10.4 billion to sustain the services operating capabilities, and include an additional $2 million for the 

United States Coast Guard to meet its responsibilities under the 

Marine Debris Act. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share our views. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
416 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 751 57551B.084
417 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 752 57551B.085
418 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Ms. Felt, for your testimony. I know that 

representatives from your organization have met with Subcommittee staff and associate staff of several of our members to express support for maintaining the 2010 funding levels for the Coast 

Guard and adding a specific set-aside for marine debris removal. 

Your organization was unable to say with any degree of certainty 

how much the Coast Guard is spending currently on marine debris 

removal. We are at this point seeking that information from the 

Coast Guard, as well as information on how they coordinate their 

efforts with NOAA. 

But let me just ask you one question, obviously focused on the 

portion of the budget for which we have responsibility, namely, the 

Coast Guard. In your estimation, what level of effort would it take 

to close the gap between the 40 metric tons of marine debris removed each year and the 52 metric tons of marine debris that enters the system? I am sure $2 million in Coast Guard funding 

would help a bit, but it really seems unlikely that it would resolve 

the issue. 

So I think we would be interested in the steps you see as feasible, desirable to end this accumulation, to get us on a track to 

reducing the presence of this persistent threat of trash. 

Ms. FELT. So I think that NOAA and the Coast Guard play two 

very different roles in marine debris and the marine debris program, and the Coast Guard has been an excellent partner for 

NOAA in the northwestern Hawaiian islands in helping in this removal. 

The Coast Guard’s role particularly is focused on monitoring 

waste from ships as well as port receptor facilities. And my understanding is at this time, that with the amount of time and manpower that they have allocated, they are able to do a very good job, 

but that additional funds would be needed to enhance the efforts 

that would include things such as develop and implement a plan 

that would coordinate with the industry and recreational boaters 

that would improve ship waste management, including recordkeeping and access to waste receptor facilities for shipboard waste; 

also things like establishing a voluntary reporting program for 

commercial vessel operators and recreational boaters to report incidents of damage to vessels and disruption of navigation caused by 

marine debris, and observed violations of laws and regulations relating to the disposal of plastics and other marine debris. 

So in the particular pickup in the northwestern Hawaiian islands, I think that additional funds for NOAA and perhaps the 

Coast Guard could lead to maybe an extra trip out to the northwestern Hawaiian islands to pick up that surplus of marine debris. 

But the Coast Guard really has an important role for preventing 

marine debris from getting into the environment in the first place, 

so that they can strengthen their program onboard these ships and 

outreach to the fish shipping community, that would result in a decrease in the amount of garbage that is actually getting into the 

oceans. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Well, we will pay attention to this as we 

work with this Coast Guard and develop the budget for next year. 

Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. No questions. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
419 

Mr. PRICE. All right, no questions. So we will thank you for your 

testimony. 

Ms. FELT. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. And with that, we will call our next witness, Mr. 

David Wright, who represents the National Federal Protective 

Service Union. Mr. Wright, welcome to the Subcommittee. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

WITNESS 

DAVID WRIGHT, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE UNION 

STATEMENT OF DAVID WRIGHT

Mr. WRIGHT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rogers. I have 

my fellow law enforcement officers here today for support. And 

they have taken their personal time off to be here. 

Mr. PRICE. Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for coming. 

Mr. WRIGHT. These are Federal Protective Service inspectors. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. 

Mr. WRIGHT. My name is David Wright, President of the National Federal Protective Service Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Government Employees. I know my time is 

short. I will get right to the point. 

The Federal Protective Service is a Homeland Security agency 

that is charged with protecting approximately 9,000 federal properties across the U.S., mainly GSA properties. We are so starved 

for resources and personnel that FPS is not performing its mission 

objectives. That is not only true of security level one and level two 

facilities, the lowest graded facilities in the nation. It is true of 

some of our highest security buildings around the nation. 

At the present time, only two cities in America have 24-hour FPS 

police patrols. As GAO has pointed out, oversight of private guards 

is entirely inadequate. Recently, ten GAO investigators penetrated 

10 federal buildings with actual bomb-making materials, and proceeded to set up those bombs in each building without any outside 

interference. Of the 1,200 full-time employees at FPS, there are 

only about 50 police officers left, and these are the people who have 

historically monitored the underpaid, undertrained contract 

guards. 

The number of inspectors who have now assumed the work of police officers, guard overseers, and physical security specialists number only about 830 at this point. This is below the congressionally 

mandated level of 900 boots on the ground that this Committee established in fiscal year 2008. We are now below the manpower levels of when Federal Protective Service was transitioned into the 

Department of Homeland Security. 

The FPS union recently looked at hiring at several other agencies with similar Homeland Security and law enforcement missions. We have attached a copy of this analysis to our statement. 

It showed that over the period since DHS was created, FPS law enforcement personnel have dropped from 1,017 to 830, an 18.4 perVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:18 Sep 10, 2010 Jkt 057551 PO 00000 Frm 00419 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A551P2.XXX A551P2

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
420 

cent reduction. Over that same period, the U.S. Secret Service increased by 24.6 percent, and the total government law enforcement 

security personnel increase was 56.5 percent. 

These numbers provide one measure of the extent to which funding for this agency has been neglected in the post-9/11 Homeland 

Security buildup. But the case for restoring law enforcement personnel to FPS has been made repeatedly in congressional hearings 

over the past three years. We urge this Committee to include an 

increase of $48 million in either fees or a direct appropriation sufficient to fund a level of 300 non-supervisory police officers, inspectors, and also 80 civilian contract guard oversight personnel. 

The FPS union also supports the insourcing of private guards at 

level three and level four federal buildings, and providing federally 

trained police officers for those critical properties. While we know 

that money will not solve all problems at FPS, it will allow the 

agency to enhance its physical and visible presence in and around 

the security level three and level four buildings and facilities. 

We believe the new personnel should be an efficient mix of police 

officers, inspectors, and civilian contract oversight personnel. The 

hiring of one civilian contracting officer technical rep frees up between one to three inspectors to perform security and law enforcement duties. 

I do not have to document the failures of FPS management to 

members of this Committee, as I am sure you know them well. 

However, I do want to say that there are hopeful signs for the future of this agency. I am happy to say that the transfer to NPPD 

from ICE has gone smoothly, particularly in the field of labor and 

management relations. 

Nonetheless, there are still bureaucrats within DHS and the Office of Management and Budget who continue to create problems 

for this agency. Apparently, these individuals manage to convince 

the administration to request no funding increase for FPS this coming fiscal year. In light of the current situation at this agency, we 

view this as an irresponsible and potentially dangerous decision, 

which we hope this Committee will ignore. 

Finally, I leave you with this thought. Recent high-profile threats 

to congressional leaders and federal employees fall directly under 

the purview of the Federal Protective Service. Making necessary reforms to this agency and increasing the number of federal police officers on duty are not a matter of responding to vague, unsubstantiated warnings. The vulnerability and immediate danger are quite 

real. The writing is on the wall. And I am available for questions. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
421 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 761 57551B.086
422 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 762 57551B.087
423 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 763 57551B.088
424 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 764 57551B.089
425 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 765 57551B.090
426 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 766 57551B.091
427 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 767 57551B.092
428 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 768 57551B.093
429 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 769 57551B.094
430 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 770 57551B.095
431 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Wright. We appreciate your being 

here, and we will insert your full statement in the record. I have 

no questions. 

Mr. ROGERS. No questions. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you for your assistance to our efforts. We will 

now call forward representatives of the city of Compton, California, 

Mayor Eric Perrodin and Compton Councilwoman Lillie Dobson. 

Welcome to the Subcommittee. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

WITNESSES 

ERIC PERRODIN, MAYOR OF COMPTON ACCOMPANIED BY LILLIE 

DOBSON, COUNCILWOMAN, CITY OF COMPTON 

STATEMENT OF ERIC PERRODIN AND LILLIE DOBSON

Mr. PERRODIN. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. And let me just reiterate here at midstream that our 

practice this morning is to ask our witnesses to limit themselves 

to a five-minute oral statement. I assume we will be hearing from 

you, Mayor. Is that correct? 

Mr. PERRODIN. Yes, Chairman Price. 

Mr. PRICE. You are the man. So a five-minute oral statement. 

But we would be happy to have any further written materials from 

either of you. So thank you for being here. 

Mr. PERRODIN. Thank you. I want to thank Chairman Price and 

also Ranking Member Rogers for giving me the opportunity to 

speak this morning. I also want to thank my congresswoman, 

Laura Richardson, for her efforts on behalf of the city of Compton 

and the members in her district. 

This morning, I am accompanied by my councilwoman, Ms. Lillie 

Dobson. She has been a passionate advocate for the city of Compton. Ms. Dobson has focused her efforts on finding solutions to existing infrastructure and problematic issues that place the city and 

other parts of the region at heightened risk. I thank her for her efforts. 

As Congress begins to work on the appropriations and priorities 

for the fiscal year 2011 federal budget, I am here to speak about 

the need for an enhanced emergency operation center, EOC, located 

in the city of Compton to protect and respond to potential threats 

related to the Alameda Corridor, a critical national infrastructure 

asset. 

I urge the Subcommittee’s support for the efforts by Congresswoman Richardson to secure $2.3 million to the fiscal year 2011 appropriation process to help Compton pay for the aforementioned enhanced alternative EOC. The city of Compton, also known as the 

Hub City, is surrounded by five freeways, and it is located within 

12 miles of three major ports of entry, LAX, the port of Long 

Beach, and the port of Los Angeles. 

In addition, due to the city’s high-threat, high-density urban area 

runs through the federally funded Alameda Corridor rail project, a 

20-mile long rail cargo expressway linking the ports of Long Beach 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
432 

and Los Angeles to the transcontinental rail network near downtown Los Angeles. The importance of the Alameda Corridor to the 

national economy is significant. A study conducted by the Alameda 

Corridor Transportation Authority noted that in 2005, the two 

ports generated $256 billion in trade value, and affected 3.3 million 

jobs across the country. 

Moreover, with 43 percent of all container traffic entering the 

United States through the San Pedro ports going up the Alameda 

Corridor, it is estimated that any major shutdown of the rail corridor would damage the national economy at approximately $29 

million per day. Approximately $12 million is the total cost to establish an EOC in the city of Compton, which will include the construction of facilities and equipment for first responders. 

With this in mind, the city proposes an enhanced partnership between federal and local leaders to secure adequate resources to protect Compton residents and provide critical infrastructure elements 

of relevance to the state and national economy. 

To go off point for a second, Chairman Price, I used to be a police 

officer in the city of Compton for 12 years. Currently, I am a deputy district attorney for L.A. County. And one thing I know as 

being a first responder, the way the city is situated, it is a critical 

need for us to have an EOC in the city of Compton because as Congressman Richardson stated earlier, we are surrounded by Los Angeles and Long Beach. And a lot of times, the resources do not 

come to our city because we are so small. But the Alameda Corridor goes right through the heart of our city. And if any terrorist 

or some type of national disaster were to happen upon us, it could 

be devastating, not only to Compton, but more importantly to the 

rest of the United States. 

So I urge your supporting. I would like to turn over my remaining time to Councilwoman Lillie Dobson. 

Ms. DOBSON. Thank you, Chairman. I cannot over-emphasize the 

critical need for the fire facility and emergency operation center. 

The possibility of a catastrophic event was borne out in a recent 

statewide simulation during the last statewide disaster preparedness simulation, Golden Guardian, Spring 2009. 

The challenge was presented that a fire affected the Alameda 

Corridor and spread throughout the east side of the city of Compton. The simulation revealed that the potential for a fire-related 

shutdown of the corridor is not an unrealistic scenario, based upon 

the current configuration of first response capabilities. Consequently, there is an immediate need to construct and equip a replacement first responder facility that will accommodate more 

equipment and allow the coordination of various departments to 

provide an adequate level of protection and specialized services. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided $210 

million in funding to DHS. Under the assistance to firefighters, fire 

stations, construction grants, unfortunately Compton was not selected for an award. We were one of the 6,025 applicants for the 

federal funding grant, and only 110 requesters were selected. 

Clearly, as evidenced by the over-subscription to the ARRA grant 

program, a significant shortfall in funding exists. 

I take this opportunity today to urge Congress to authorize and 

appropriate fire station construction grant funds at a level that reVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:18 Sep 10, 2010 Jkt 057551 PO 00000 Frm 00432 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A551P2.XXX A551P2

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
433 

flects the dire need for federal investment in communities across 

the nation, including Compton. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
434 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0168 here 57551C1.218
435 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0169 here 57551C1.219
436 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0170 here 57551C1.220
437 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Let me just take a moment to clarify the 

situation we face. You are right, of course, about the emergency appropriations that went to fire station construction, as part of the 

Recovery Act. That is, however, not our usual practice, to earmark 

funds for fire station construction, or indeed the fire grants program, which does not cover that kind of construction. 

So I assume what we are talking about here is the EOC component of this project. Is that true? 

Ms. DOBSON. Yes. 

Mr. PERRODIN. Yes, Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. And the request of $2.3 million is well above what we 

have ever been able to grant for EOC construction. Often we would 

like to do more, but we in fact are dealing with a situation where 

the federal funding is never the complete funding for these 

projects. It always is a partnership, has to be a partnership, which 

involves funding from other sources. In fact the bulk of the funding 

comes from other sources. 

Now you have talked about a $12 million total. Do you have the 

rest of that funding in hand? 

Mr. PERRODIN. We have a portion of it, Chairman, through some 

bonds that we have at this time. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Some bonds that have already been approved? 

Mr. PERRODIN. Actually, it was going to be approved last night, 

but unfortunately I had to catch the redeye here, so we did not 

have a quorum. So hopefully, next Tuesday it will be passed. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Well, that will be an important part of our 

consideration, you know, to see what the other pieces of this funding picture look like. But we will give your proposal due consideration. We appreciate the work that has gone into it, and the effort 

to craft a proposal that is in line with DHS’s criteria. 

Mr. PERRODIN. Thank you, Chairman Price. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. No questions. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Farr, do you have any questions? 

Mr. FARR. No questions. 

Mr. PRICE. With that—— 

Mrs. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Certainly. 

Mrs. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What Ms. Dobson 

was referring to is that in the city of Compton, in addition to what 

we are here to talk about, she was just sharing with you some of 

the frustration, that they have attempted to apply for various funding mechanisms from other sources, and yet have not been successful. 

Mr. PRICE. Sure. 

Mrs. RICHARDSON. And so that is why this in particular is important, because they are going to have to find other resources to fill 

that gap. That is what she was referring to. Specifically, regarding 

the EOC, what I would like to stress, that I apologize was not really captured in my comments, is understanding the network that is 

surrounding them, which is what I know is within your jurisdiction. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
438 

Compton also has, for example, the sheriff’s department. So 

when you consider the network of sheriffs, of fire, of SWAT, of 

what I was already sharing with the port of Los Angeles, with the 

Alameda Corridor, when you have the metrorail, there is at least 

12 different varying agencies there that they all have to coordinate 

with at any one period of time. And so what happens is we have 

had disasters in our community, and Compton—what I must say, 

you know, in all honesty, I do not feel is best prepared to be able 

to coordinate all of those assets in an emergency to be able to respond for its people, again for the businesses that are now there. 

Compton is one of the largest in terms of manufacturing businesses 

that we have in southern California. It is actually still a very 

strong industry. 

So that hence is what our application is before you today. We 

have made other requests, you know, TIGER grants and so on. We 

were simply alluding to the fact that this is not an area that has 

received a whole lot of money, which is why we need your assistance. 

And finally, I did not say in my comments, but this is one of my 

top ten requests. And so I hope that you would also consider that. 

And I will follow up upon their successful vote next week of the 

local match. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Thanks to all of you. 

Mr. PERRODIN. Thank you. 

Ms. DOBSON. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Let me now call our colleague, Keith Ellison. Congressman, we are pleased to have you here today, and we ask you 

to summarize your comments in five minutes or less, and give us 

the full statement for inclusion in the record. Welcome to the Subcommittee. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

WITNESS 

HON. KEITH ELLISON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF MINNESOTA 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEITH ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Also allow me to thank 

Mr. Rogers for holding this hearing and allowing members of Congress to testify concerning priority homeland appropriation requests for their districts. I am here today to provide a little extra 

detail for the request that I have already submitted on behalf of 

the city of Minneapolis. 

This request is for $1 million to replace the city’s deteriorating 

community outward warning siren system. We have sought out and 

have secured funding from city and state, and so this is part of an 

overall package, but it is essential to complete the project. 

The current system is comprised of about 33 individual sirens 

alerted to the general public, to alert the general public on largescale emergency exits or threatening the city. Unfortunately, the 

existing system is completely antiquated. It was built in the early 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
439 

1950s as part of a civil defense era warning system. And given its 

age, it has become increasingly difficult to obtain equipment and 

parts to maintain the siren system. 

The need to replace this system was highlighted in August 2009, 

when a tornado hit downtown Minneapolis, or the edge of downtown Minneapolis. According to local Minneapolis emergency preparedness officials, the current siren system no longer has the capability to adequately alert Minneapolis residents during the tornado. 

Minneapolis has consistently ranked among cities over 50,000 at 

the greatest risk for tornado outbreaks. It has suffered several tornadoes in the past. Additionally, Minneapolis, like other major 

metropolitan areas, is a real potential threat for terrorist attacks 

and incidents. The importance of alerting community during a crisis or eminent danger situation cannot be overstated. When emergency leaders are responsible for keeping order and reducing the 

chance of damage, injury, and death, it is imperative to quickly and 

adequately notify the community in order to help them take the appropriate action. 

Several temporary measures have been put in place to maintain 

the system, but these improvements, though necessary in an emergency situation, have become outdated, with software and hardware no longer available to support the operating system. 

So let me wrap up my remarks and thank you for your time. The 

requested funds will be used to replace the existing system with a 

new warning system that will ensure safety and health of residents, and can provide a more complete coverage for the city of 

Minneapolis. Again, this request is a part of city and state commitment to the project. It is a priority for all of us. It is a priority for 

me here. And the funds will be used for technology upgrades and 

siren system. And so with that, I would like to thank the Committee, and thank you again for the time. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
440 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0171 here 57551C1.221
441 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0172 here 57551C1.222
442 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0173 here 57551C1.223
443 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Ellison. Let me just clarify, as I did 

with the last witnesses. In this case, we are talking about a predisaster mitigation item. 

Mr. ELLISON. That is right. 

Mr. PRICE. Yes, under FEMA. 

Mr. ELLISON. That is right. 

Mr. PRICE. And you cited the total cost. What kind of commitment do you have from the city and/or the state to cover the balance of this? 

Mr. ELLISON. Both the city and the state of Minnesota have put 

forth bonding requests, which have been passed. And so we have 

a gap, and we are hoping the federal government can help us close 

it. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. There too we will want to look at that total 

funding picture, and appreciate your help in doing that. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. No questions. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. It is very interesting. The question I have is that if 

the siren system is there, and the whole city is notified, and by sirens, what response do you—what action are they supposed to take 

if they hear the sirens go off? 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, it certainly could alert the city, depending on 

the nature of the disaster—it could be there is an early warning 

system that says in case of siren you should perhaps go in your 

basement, if it is a tornado. There are a number of educational 

processes which the city goes through to make sure citizens know 

what the right thing to do is. Students go through drills. There is 

a whole pre-education process the city goes through to help ensure 

that residents know what a siren means and what to do in case of 

such an occasion. 

Mr. FARR. Our siren system here is 16 bells, but I have no idea 

what happens after the 16 bells go off. 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, in Minneapolis, we make sure everybody 

knows what happens when those bells go off. 

Mr. PRICE. If you heard 16 bells, you would sure do something, 

would you not? [Laughter] 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Ellison. We appreciate your being 

here. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Okay. We will turn now to the American Association 

of Airport Executives, represented by Senior Executive/VP Todd 

Hauptli. You are a familiar figure on Capitol Hill. We welcome you 

here, Mr. Hauptli. Please proceed. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

WITNESS 

TODD HAUPTLI, SENIOR EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
444 

STATEMENT OF TODD HAUPTLI

Mr. HAUPTLI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Farr. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I wanted to talk mostly 

about the advanced imaging technology that TSA spoke to you on 

the Subcommittee about last month. 

Airport executives are excited about the technology, and nervous 

about the deployment of that technology. We have the experience 

going back a long ways on the inline baggage screening and the 

challenges associated with deploying that technology across the airport system, and we share some of the concerns raised by both you, 

Mr. Chairman, and you, Mr. Rogers, when TSA testified last 

month. 

Here is the headline: our specific request is that we ask you to 

include in your fiscal year 2011 bill language requiring TSA to pay 

for the terminal modifications and the space necessary for this deployment across the airport system. TSA has told you and has told 

us that that will be a minimal cost, that there is really not that 

much to it, but history would perhaps tell a different story. 

They are intending to use larger machines, not get rid of the existing magnetometers, introduce additional personnel into that 

same screening checkpoint, and also add baggage reconciliation 

screening rooms. And at some airports, that may not involve tremendous disruption, but certainly at other facilities it will. If you 

just think about a local example here at Reagan National and out 

at Dulles, at Reagan National, in terminal A, the old terminal, 

which four or five airlines still use, the engineers there are not 

sure they can even get a single additional machine in that facility, 

an AIT machine, without having to knock walls down and expand 

out the footprint. 

At Dulles, brand new security mezzanines, state-of-the-art, brand 

new facility, and the engineers there think they can figure out how 

to get the machines in place, but are quite certain there is not 

room for this—there is not the space for this screening room to reconcile the images. And when we met recently with Secretary 

Napolitano, one of my leaders was stopped dead in his tracks. She 

interrupted and said, hold on, wait a minute. We do not think that 

we, DHS, TSA, should have to pay for you to knock down a wall 

to build that facility. You should do that. 

And so we just have a fundamental policy disagreement with the 

department on that issue. We believe that the department, that 

TSA, should pay for terminal modifications to put this equipment 

in place. The department says it does not need to do that. This is 

particularly important in our judgment in the fiscal year 2011 cycle 

because they have indicated that in the current year, where they 

already have machines in place, they are going to drop them in in 

facilities that can accommodate it pretty easily, that they have the 

staffing, that the facilities do not require much modification. They 

have made no similar claim for fiscal year 2011, yet they have not 

offered any funding to take care of that. 

So we are asking again for the Subcommittee to put language in 

place requiring TSA to pay for those terminal modifications and the 

space necessary to accommodate the AIT machines. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
445 

With that, I would yield back the balance of my time, and thank 

you for your continued leadership on this issue, and we look forward to working with you and the staff in the weeks and months 

ahead. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
446 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0174 here 57551C1.224
447 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0175 here 57551C1.225
448 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0176 here 57551C1.226
449 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0177 here 57551C1.227
450 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0178 here 57551C1.228
451 

Mr. PRICE. Well, thank you. Of course, this installation effort is 

underway as we speak, and we understand that the installation of 

these AIT machines for primary screening are going to start, other 

things being equal, with airports that have the most space, where 

the configuration is least problematic. You have mentioned a couple of instances. Can you say in general how the installations are 

going, concerns that your members have expressed, and how involved they have been in working with TSA to make sure we have 

the best configurations to avoid delays? 

Mr. HAUPTLI. My understanding of the situation, Mr. Chairman, 

is they are a bit behind from their projections in terms of getting 

these machines in place. They had, I believe, a number of trying 

to get 450 in place by the end of the year. They have not awarded 

one of the big contracts yet for that, and we are approaching the 

first week in May. So I think there is a good chance they will not 

get as many machines in this year as they had intended. 

Some of the other items that people have been concerned about 

from the airport kind of engineering point of view is ADA-compliant lanes require additional space, and there does not seem to be 

sort of a recognition of that or factoring that into the work plan. 

So airports have had some—I mean, I think TSA is working in 

good faith and has tried to learn the lessons of the past on just sort 

of barreling forward without consulting with the airport community. But we have seen this movie before, and we sort of know how 

it ends, and we want to make sure that we really are more involved at the beginning of the process, and that TSA is responsible 

for paying for those modifications, because physically, you just cannot fit within that same footprint in many facilities—you just cannot fit extra machines, extra bodies, brand new rooms, and expect 

all of that to work within the existing footprint of the security. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Well, we appreciate your coming in, and we 

understand the disagreement you articulate as regards funding responsibilities. We will be taking that under advisement as we draw 

up the budget for next year. 

Mr. HAUPTLI. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, we have discussed this at some length now, for some time. The Chairman and 

I, a couple of months ago, went out to TSA headquarters and 

looked at the installation, the equipment and the model they had 

set up to demonstrate the new machine. 

It is going to take more space than we presently have. It is going 

to require 5,000-plus people. And it perhaps could even require a 

larger waiting area for people to go through the machines because 

they will go slower than the present machines. And I do think the 

airports have a legitimate complaint here that TSA is expecting the 

airports to pay for this cost. 

It is not an airport responsibility to provide security for people 

boarding planes. That is a governmental responsibility, federal government. So I think you have got a legitimate request, and we will 

look into it and try to accommodate something. 

Do you have any idea what the cost nationally would be to install 

the machines? Is there any idea? 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
452 

Mr. HAUPTLI. I do not have the number, Mr. Rogers. I will be 

happy to try to supply something to the Subcommittee, an estimate 

of that. It should not be as dramatic as it was with the inline systems. But we are very concerned that it will still be substantial 

and much higher than what TSA would suggest because we really 

do believe that there are plenty of examples where you are going 

to have to physically knock out wall space, expand, you know, the 

facilities pretty dramatically, and that is going to cost money. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, you know, the resolution to me is going to be 

the most expensive to provide for. It has to be fairly close to the 

line, but not too close. It has to be secure and protected from public 

viewing, and it has to be wide. And it is going to cost somebody 

some money. And TSA, they do not have any money either. But it 

is a federal responsibility, and I think we need to figure out a way 

to accommodate the airports. 

Mr. HAUPTLI. And to your earlier point, sir, that example at Dulles, that new mezzanine, you will remember you sort of go on one 

level, and then you take an escalator down. They believe they may 

have to meter people and hold them up at the top of the escalator 

because of the lines backing up, as you talk about. So even a brand 

new, state-of-the-art, newly built facility is going to have to be 

redone. And you know, facilities that have been around for much 

longer and are in greater in need of work, the problems just multiply. 

Mr. ROGERS. At the airports where TSA says they are planning 

immediately to install the machines, have those airports estimated 

the cost to them? 

Mr. HAUPTLI. Some of the airports have cost figures, and I can 

get that. Some of those airports have been planning for this for 

some time. Airports are excited about the new technology. We are 

always in favor of technology over people solving problems. 

Mr. ROGERS. Amen. 

Mr. HAUPTLI. But they have been planning for this for some 

time, and they are in better position than most of the airports. I 

mean, we are talking about a fraction, 25 to 30 airports, that are 

in that first initial wave. And then the bigger wave of, you know, 

400 machines, maybe, this year, and then TSA has obviously asked 

for—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, these 25 machines you are talking about, the 

first ones—— 

Mr. HAUPTLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Have those airports requested funds from TSA to 

install the machines? 

Mr. HAUPTLI. Not to my knowledge, because in those instances, 

they have not had to do major reconfigurations. But we can see the 

iceberg that we are going towards. And a lot of those facilities 

down the stream—because TSA has, in selecting those first few airports, they have selected airports that can easily accommodate the 

technology. And for most airports, it is not going to be as easy. 

Mr. ROGERS. When do you think we will encounter this problem 

first? 

Mr. HAUPTLI. I suspect you will see it in the coming weeks rather 

than months. It will be in this fiscal year. Despite TSA’s suggestion 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
453 

that it will be a smooth deployment this year, I think you will see 

stuff, frankly, before your bill is ready to be enacted into law. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, there are no funds in the current budget for 

this purpose. 

Mr. HAUPTLI. Right, right. All the more reason, in our view, that 

you consider the request to make sure that it gets in in the 2011 

budget, because that is where the big problem is going to be. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, somebody is going to have to tell us what it 

is going to cost so we can consider the number. 

Mr. HAUPTLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Whether it is you or TSA or both. I would like to 

see TSA and your group sit down and talk about this, and see if 

there is some sort of accommodation that can be reached that 

would minimize the cost to the government, yours and ours, and 

would provide a pathway that we can live with. 

Mr. HAUPTLI. Yes, sir. The initial conversation did not go well. 

That was Secretary Napolitano saying no. So we will keep working 

at it. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. Well, we may have a voice in that. 

Mr. HAUPTLI. We hope so, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Just to clarify—— 

Mr. HAUPTLI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. The checkpoint support line in the budget—— 

Mr. HAUPTLI. The 300 million request? 

Mr. PRICE. The request is for $360 million. The current amount is $128 million. That can be used for this purpose, for reconfiguration purposes at the TSA’s discretion. Is that not true? 

Mr. HAUPTLI. I will have to admit that I do not know the answer 

to that, sir. If that is, maybe that is a good work-around. I do not 

know the answer to that. I thought that was the personnel request. 

You are talking about the—— 

Mr. PRICE. It is an inclusive budget line, which covers a number 

of specific functions, and has some flexibility. It is called ‘‘checkpoint support,’’ and it is a sizeable increase that is requested in the 

2011 budget. 

Mr. HAUPTLI. And that may be elegant solution, sir, in terms of 

providing a little additional clarity to the TSA about what they can 

and cannot use that for. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, we will certainly work with you and obviously 

with the agency in trying to figure our way through this. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. PRICE. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. On that point, that account was set up before we 

anticipated this problem we have now. So I am sort of doubtful 

that these expenses were anticipated when we were doing that 

number. 

Mr. PRICE. No, not for the current year. But there is a sizable 

request for next year. What we need to figure out is how flexible 

that money is, potentially. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Price. 

I am curious, when an airport was designed did they have to get 

FAA approval? 

Mr. HAUPTLI. Yes, sir. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
454 

Mr. FARR. This is where the right hand of government and the 

left hand of government do not know what they are doing. I mean, 

if you look out at Dulles, which is a monument to space, they have 

got a tram to nowhere. They take you all the way out in the tram 

and then you have got to walk back to the terminal. It is a design 

of stupidity trying to—from a passenger’s standpoint. If indeed the 

design for the airports have to be approved by the FAA, why do 

they not be inclusionary in the process of sort of getting the building codes for security machinery and lines, and so on into the design of the airport? 

Mr. HAUPTLI. Mr. Farr, it is a great question, and up until seven 

or eight years ago FAA would have had that all within its purview. 

With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and 

TSA, that responsibility for security shifted over, and the truth is 

there has not been that many new facilities constructed in that period of time. 

Mr. FARR. Well, certainly Dulles expansion did not—— 

Mr. HAUPTLI. No, that is exactly right. Your example of the train, 

you know, part of the frustration that you and other passengers 

like myself share on that, is that United Airlines was unwilling to 

be a partner in building that train all the way out to where it really should have gone, and the airport authority went as far as they 

could with the money that they had, and if United had stepped in 

to be a full partner there, that would be a more customer-friendly 

experience for you. 

Mr. FARR. But it seems to me what has been pointed out here, 

this is a unfunded band-aid. You are requiring the airports to absorb this construction code modification, if you will, of the airport 

design for purposes of security, and certainly I agree we ought to 

have some money for that. 

Mr. HAUPTLI. Thank you, sir. 

I also if I may very briefly just say thank you, Mr. Farr, on behalf of the Monterey Airport. You recently were very helpful in getting the attention of the Department of Transportation and getting 

a sizeable funding stream headed towards Monterey for that small 

community air service program, and without your leadership on 

that, that probably would not have happened. 

Mr. FARR. Well, they certainly do not have the space to accommodate this new equipment, I will tell you. 

Mr. HAUPTLI. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Hauptli. 

Now we will call to the table President William Millar of the 

American Public Transportation Association. Mr. Millar, thank you 

for joining us. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

WITNESS 

WILLIAM MILLAR, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
455 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MILLAR

Mr. MILLAR. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rogers, members 

of the Committee. I am pleased to be with you. I am Bill Millar. 

I am the President of the American Public Transportation Association, and I appreciate the opportunity to return before this Committee on very important issues related to the security of our nation’s public transportation and rail system. 

I have to ask the Committee to provide in its Fiscal Year 2011 

appropriations for the Transit Security Grant Program in the 

amount of $1.1 billion. This is the amount that was authorized by 

the Congress under the implementing regulations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. 

Now, we appreciate the funding that the Committee has provided 

in the past, but at recent levels grant allocations to regions and ultimately grant awards to individual transit agencies have greatly 

limited what projects can be pursued and implemented, and we 

urge the Congress to find the resources to appropriate the levels 

authorized in the 9/11 Act. 

Now for many Americans it is hard to believe that at this point 

in time so long after the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 that we are 

still in need of significant investments for transit security in order 

to protect the millions of citizens who use our systems every day, 

but that need remains. 

You may recall GAO report in 2002 that said about a third of the 

terrorist attacks worldwide target transportation systems, and 

transit systems are the most commonly attacked where just last 

fall the Director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center Michael 

Leiter testified in the Senate that Al Qaeda continues to pursue 

plans for homeland attacks and is focusing on prominent political, 

economic infrastructure targets designed to produce mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks 

and/or fear among the population. The group also likely remains interested in targeting mass transit systems and other public benefit 

venues that are viewed as relatively soft targets as evidenced by 

the attacks in London. 

Unfortunately, terrorist attacks in London, in Mumbai, in Madrid, in Moscow, and a host of lesser known incidents have made 

it clear that our enemy has not relented and neither can we. Unless someone say, but, gee, that has all occurred overseas, we 

would urge them to look and not ignore the planned attacks that 

we have been fortunate to thwart. Details have emerged about 

plans involving Al Qaedans planned recent New York subway bomb 

plot. We remind the Committee of similar New York subway bomb 

plots prevented back in 1997, a planned chemical attack avoided in 

2003, a bomb plot to Harold Square Station in 2004, and the list 

goes on and on and on. This is a real threat. 

Now recently APTA, my association, conducted a survey of U.S. 

transit agencies that have been receiving the security grants to 

gain a better understanding about how they have been spending 

the money that you have made available to them, and what needs 

remain, and today at this hearing I am announcing the release of 

that survey, and if you wish, Mr. Chairman, I would be very 

pleased to make a copy of the survey available to the Committee. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
456 

Mr. PRICE. Please do that. 

Mr. MILLAR. We will gladly do that. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
457 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 816 here 57551B.107
458 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 817 here 57551B.108
459 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 818 here 57551B.109
460 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 819 here 57551B.110
461 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 820 here 57551B.111
462 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 821 here 57551B.112
463 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 822 here 57551B.113
464 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 823 here 57551B.114
465 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 824 here 57551B.115
466 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 825 here 57551B.116
467 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 826 here 57551B.117
468 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 827 here 57551B.118
469 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 828 here 57551B.119
470 

Now, this survey shows that over the next five years some $6.4 

billion should be invested in America’s public transit systems, and 

I can tell you, according to our survey plus my own experience, that 

the funds you have provided previously have been well used. Many 

systems now have closed circuit television that did not before. They 

do better access controls to their stations. They have intrusion 

monitoring and perimeter protection. They have more training and 

more exercises than they have had before. They have been able to 

alert the public to its responsibilities in this area. They have increased their security planning, expanded their canine protection, 

and the list goes on. But more should have been done, more could 

have been done if additional funding had been available. 

Unfortunately, the restrictiveness of the Transit Security Grant 

Program does not allow us to fulfill the goals stated in the act, and 

the funds appropriated by the Subcommittee continue to flow slowly to our nation’s transit agencies. And while we are pleased with 

some recent steps taken at FEMA and the Transportation Security 

Administration to improve the program, we hope that this Subcommittee can continue its attention on simplifying and streamlining the process necessary. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, we agree with the stated mission of TSA to 

protect ‘‘the nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of 

movement for people and commerce,’’ but TSA continues to be overly focused on one mode of travel rather than the security of all. 

No one doubts the need to have a safe and secure aviation system, but realizing that in three weeks public transit systems carry 

more Americans than in 12 months by our domestic airlines it is 

certainly necessary to have the better balance between the investments in the air system and in the public transit. We do not need 

another wake-up call in transportation, and we have learned much 

since 2001 how to thwart our enemy, but we need the financial resources to do so. This is why we are calling for the Congress to appropriate $1.1 billion authorized by the Congress in the 9/11 Act 

during the 110th Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today, 

and I will be very pleased to answer your and the Committee members’ questions. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
471 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0179 here 57551C1.229
472 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0180 here 57551C1.230
473 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0181 here 57551C1.231
474 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0182 here 57551C1.232
475 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0183 here 57551C1.233
476 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Millar. We appreciate your presence 

here. We will look with interest to your full statement. Let me just 

ask you one question and it has to do with something that this 

Subcommittee has been concerned about for some time, and it has 

to do with the grant process that you are contending with. 

Mr. MILLAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. You mentioned the difficulties of that process at 

greater length in your written testimony. We, as you probably 

know, had—it turned out to be sequential hearings last year—with 

TSA and FEMA about the tangle and delayed grant process. We 

have just received some several months late a report on this which 

indicates the problems are not yet solved, although administrators 

in both agencies are working on them in good faith, but there are 

frustrations that you, of course, and your members experience 

daily. 

I wonder maybe just briefly here this morning orally and any 

other material you would want to submit what kind of particular 

take you have on the current state of the process; efforts to streamline it, ways that might offer promise going forward. 

Mr. MILLAR. Yes, sir. As I stated in my testimony, we do believe 

that some things are going better today, but we continually have 

to avoid backsliding. Even though the Congress has not required 

a local match and, you know, we still fight those issues in a variety 

of ways. Even though we now finally have grants that are going 

more directly to the transit agencies, we continue to see delay. 

I think what I would prefer to do, if it is acceptable to you, sir, 

is let me find a small handful of what I think are clear examples 

in various categories that I could supply to the committee. 

Mr. PRICE. That would be very helpful and you can perhaps consult the report that we have just received and offer this by way of 

reflections on that progress report. 

Mr. MILLAR. We would relish that opportunity. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. No questions. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. No questions. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Rothman. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. No questions. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Well, thank you very much. 

Mr. MILLAR. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. We will move to our last witness of the morning, the 

Deputy Executive Director of SEARCH, Kelly Peters. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

WITNESS 

KELLY PETERS, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SEARCH 

STATEMENT OF KELLY PETERS

Ms. PETERS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Farr 

and Mr. Rothman. Thanks for allowing me to appear before you all 

today and for your support over the past year. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
477 

I am Kelly Peters, Deputy Executive Director of SEARCH. 

SEARCH is a nonprofit justice support organization created by the 

states and comprised of state governors’ appointees. Each state 

pays dues annually. 

SEARCH’s mission is to bring out the effective use of information, communications, and identification technologies by justice, 

public safety and first responder agencies. This House of Representatives recognized our work just this past November in House 

Resolution 851. SEARCH is requesting $1 million earmark to continue development of the National Institute for Emergency Communications or NIEC. 

Working in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of Emergency Communications, the NIEC will address the most critical issue facing the first responder community 

today: their ability to man and control emergency resources in response to terrorist acts, natural disasters and crimes through interagency communications. 

Nearly 10 years after the tragic events of 9/11 there is still much 

work to be done. State and local public safety organizations are undertaking major communications interoperability initiatives without access to ongoing professional training and resources to plan 

for, design and implement, and manage these efforts. By 2011, 

state and local governments are predicted to spend $4.4 billion on 

communications technology for first responders in part through 

funding from new and exiting grant programs. 

However, when decisionmakers have limited access to expert 

training, they can underestimate the extent of the effort involved 

in overseeing, implementing and managing such initiatives. These 

initiatives can fail and be very costly to the public, and sadly we 

read about them in the news quite often. While there are programs 

that provide technical assistance and training to first responders, 

there are oftentimes specific federal grant programs, and only a 

small percentage of the nation’s 60,000 or more first responder 

agencies actually receive federal grants, so there is a large number 

of agencies that have little or no access to these resources. 

The NIEC will professionalize public safety project management, 

provide communications interoperability training and assistance, 

and create a nationally recognized resource for best practices and 

tools. In addition, there are major initiatives occurring with the 

public safety broadband spectrum and few opportunities for training on this critical issue. NIEC can provide the needed training 

and technical assistance to practitioners on this major effort. This 

will directly benefit communities nationwide by giving first responders the communications tools necessary to do their job and ultimately to keep citizens safe. 

For over 40 years SEARCH has earned a strong reputation for 

providing on-site technical assistance to state and local agencies in 

the planning, development, implementation, and management of 

their information sharing and interoperability activities. SEARCH 

was a founding member of the Interoperable Communications 

Technical Assistance Program at DHS over five years ago, and 

since 2007, SEARCH has also lead efforts to develop and provide 

training through the communications unit program. Through funding and support from DHS, SEARCH convened subject matter exVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:18 Sep 10, 2010 Jkt 057551 PO 00000 Frm 00477 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A551P2.XXX A551P2

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
478 

perts from across this country, practitioners from the field to develop this critical training program. It is now a key program of the 

OEC and over 1,600 students have been trained in 80 classes offered nationwide. 

In addition to the communications unit leader training, SEARCH 

has just led and completed the development of the communications 

technician training curriculum to be used by OEC in a national 

rollout anticipated later this month. 

SEARCH’s assistance with these national programs is only part 

of the story. We also work directly with state and local agencies to 

advance their information sharing and interoperability projects in 

the field. In North Carolina, for example, SEARCH helped the 

state develop standard operating procedures for equipment purchased for the North Carolina Voice Interoperability Plan for 

Emergency Responders an 800 megahertz radio system. 

As it has in many states across the country, SEARCH hosted the 

newly developed community unit leader training course last year in 

Kentucky and in New Jersey. SEARCH has participated in many 

other additional training and technical assistance initiatives across 

the country, including statewide communications interoperability 

plan review. 

I share this with you to say that SEARCH’s independent and 

trusted expertise in the design, use, and implementation of interoperable communications technology highly qualifies us to establish 

and operate the National Institute for Emergency Communications, 

and Congress, and with our partners in New Jersey and the support of Congressman Rothman last year you all recognized this and 

created the NIEC in Fiscal Year 2010 by awarding SEARCH a $1 

million earmark. 

We are still awaiting receipt of that funding, but we are prepared 

and ready to move as soon as funding is received, and we have 

been working with OEC on this initiative in anticipation of that 

funding. 

All state and local governments would openly have access to the 

NIEC. However, the first step in this process is to establish the 

pilot site with our partners in New Jersey. The next step will be 

to operationally develop and roll out training, curriculum and technical assistance and up to three additional pilot sites. 

The program’s development will require an estimated two to four 

years of expansion before becoming operational on a national level, 

and SEARCH does intend for NIEC to transition to a fee-based, 

fee-supported program. 

Congressional support for the National Institute for Emergency 

Communications is vital. The federal investment of $1 million for 

NIEC will allow SEARCH to move forward with ground-breaking 

opportunities to help professionalize public safety project management and communications interoperability nationally. It will also 

leverage the billions of dollars federal, state, and local agencies are 

investing in these critical efforts. 

So on behalf of SEARCH and its governors’ appointees I thank 

you for your time today, and I am available for questions. 

[The information follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
479 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0184 here 57551C1.234
480 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0185 here 57551C1.235
481 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0186 here 57551C1.236
482 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0187 here 57551C1.237
483 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0188 here 57551C1.238
484 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0189 here 57551C1.239
485 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0190 here 57551C1.240
486 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0191 here 57551C1.241
487 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0192 here 57551C1.242
488 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0193 here 57551C1.243
489 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0194 here 57551C1.244
490 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0195 here 57551C1.245
491 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0196 here 57551C1.246
492 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0197 here 57551C1.247
493 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0198 here 57551C1.248
494 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0199 here 57551C1.249
495 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0200 here 57551C1.250
496 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 0201 here 57551C1.251
497 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. We will put your full statement into the record, and that full statement does contain information about the work you have done in a number of states represented on this Subcommittee, including my State of North Carolina. 

Let me just briefly use that North Carolina effort as a way of 

asking you to illustrate the relationship between the state level 

and the local first responder level of your work, how that is integrated. Maybe you can help us get a better understanding of that. 

In North Carolina, you have provided technical assistance for the 

development of the statewide system, the North Carolina Voice 

Interoperability Plan for Emergency Responders, so-called VIPER 

System which we have been involved with for years. It is an 800 

megahertz radio system, and you have also worked locally. You 

have provided on-site assistance, as you say here, to the various 

public safety service agencies involved in the program, various 

sheriff departments, police departments, and of course one of your 

major focal points has been making sure first responders are 

trained to make appropriate use of these systems, and yet it is a 

little hard to conceptualize just what that relationship looks like. 

Can you clarify? 

Ms. PETERS. Sure, absolutely, and it is an excellent question, and 

I think something that we consider one of the important, most important pieces of our methodology is that anything an agency takes 

on, whether it is a state or local level, is done in lockstep, quite 

frankly, with what is going on around them, whether it is regionally, statewide or at the national level, and so when we work with 

a local agency, for example, we always reach out. If we have not 

already conducted projects with the state, we work with the state. 

We consider it sort of a holistic program. We are not going to work 

with a local agency without consulting the states, understand what 

is happening at the state level, what standards the states are following, what technologies the state is implementing, so that a local 

agency is not going off in a new and different direction because of 

course the last thing we want are stovepipe systems to be developed, but it certainly happens on a regular basis. 

So one of the most important things we look at and try and participate in is standards set at the state levels, but also nationally, 

and how we bring that holistically to a jurisdiction so that when 

they are moving forward in their initiatives they, and so often they 

are not aware of what is going on at the state or there are often 

issues of very well-intentioned grant programs but have very different missions and requirements. Oftentimes we will see local, especially large locals getting huge funding from substantially the 

Communications office or OEC, and the state has other types of 

funding, and they have mandates to follow. 

So what we try and do is collaborate and coordinate those efforts 

and bring people, and that is why governance is so important in 

the standard operating procedures. It is not about just purchasing 

the technology, it is making sure the right people are involved so 

that we are marching down that same path, and in the end we 

have a result where we do have interoperable communications. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. No questions. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
498 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. I have a question. 

The Department of Homeland Security has a school that is at the 

Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey. It is the Center for Homeland Defense and Security, and DHS likes the students to go out 

there, and part of that program is emergency communications 

training. Are you working—I mean, California, I know, the governor’s office is working with that school. You being from Davis, 

are you aware of that program? 

Ms. PETERS. I am aware of that. What tends to happen, quite 

frankly, is there are—you know, FEMA has programs, OEC has 

programs. 

Mr. FARR. Yes. 

Ms. PETERS. The program that you mentioned, and quite frankly, 

helping coordinate all those initiatives is a key issue too, so being 

aware of what is going on in those programs. I think that training 

is a little bit different than what ours is. I think it is more technical, and I would have to look into it a little bit more. I am not 

as familiar with that training program myself. 

Mr. FARR. What about, I mean, we put a lot of money into supplemental to fill out the broadband, essentially to fill out the net 

so that one can at least have access. In your opinion is it more important to get the infrastructure in place? 

I mean, I think you are absolutely right. The field of interoperability communication does not communicate. They do not. Everybody is out to buy their own equipment. 

Ms. PETERS. Right, right. 

Mr. FARR. The equipment they buy does not operate with somebody else’s equipment. We found that between police and fire, even 

among fire station stuff. 

Ms. PETERS. Right. 

Mr. FARR. I have seen a lot of it firsthand or involved in it, particularly in fires because I have experienced fighting fires when I 

was in college. So I am really interested in how we—I think this 

is another thing, Mr. Chairman, where we have a lot of programs, 

not just solely in DHS, but in other appropriations responsibilities, 

and we are putting money out there and there is no requirement 

to this ability to make them interoperable and learn how to do 

that, and learn how to build the system as being interoperable so 

that the infrastructure works. 

I guess the question is are you working with the broadband installation to make sure that they are doing this smartly? 

Ms. PETERS. Well, as you are aware, that is all formulating right 

now. There is a lot going on at FCC with the development of the 

ERIC governance of that. Quite frankly, the concern is that the 

technology is there and we want to build out this spectrum but it 

has to be built out with the needs of public safety agencies squarely 

represented and in mind, and just making everybody able to talk 

to one another is not solving the problem. In fact, that can cause 

more problems, and it is understanding all those hierarchical communications, what the standard operating procedures are going to 

be, who is going to take command in responding to an incident. 

I think it is absolutely critical that we have the technology, but 

the technology, no matter how good it is, is not going to be used 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
499 

well if it does not have a governance associated with it both from 

people and policy level. 

Mr. FARR. So reports will get developed with report language 

that allows this committee to understand the things that are broken. 

Ms. PETERS. And if I may, that disconnect that you talk about 

is something that we work very hard, and I think programs like 

this could assist in helping folks understand. Locals have a hard 

time understanding what is out there, what is available to them, 

what they should be pursuing, those sort of things. I think you are 

absolutely right. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. To tell you the truth, Mr. Farr, we need to continue 

pursue coherence in this area of interoperable communications 

where there have been many funding streams and problems with 

coordination in the past. I think the value of this SEARCH organization has been the consultation available at the state and local 

level to enable these players to make rational decisions as they put 

their own systems together. That has been a useful complement to 

governmental efforts on the part of the funding agencies. 

Mr. Rothman. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me associate 

myself with your remarks a well. 

Ms. Peters, thank you for being here, and I want to thank my 

colleagues on this Subcommittee for providing an earmark last year 

for this organization. We are looking forward to getting that stood 

up. 

I come from the 9th Congressional District, and we literally look 

out our windows, many of us, and saw people jumping out of the 

World Trade Center Building on 9/11. Many of our residents died. 

Many of our first responder units, everyone of the first responder 

units within 50 miles raced over to get across the river to help, and 

so we are very, very familiar with the heroism of all those first responders and those law enforcement and the terrible tragedy, of 

course. But we are very mindful of the shortcomings in the communication and radio communications capability amongst law enforcement which is why we brought this forth last year, and looking forward to funding again this year to complete that work in New Jersey and then use it as the model. 

Ms. Peters, what if you do not exist, your organization does not 

get funded, and this effort does not go forward? How many billions 

of dollars of investments from this Committee and the Congress 

will be poorly spent because no one coordinated all these activities? 

Ms. PETERS. I do not have a figure for you on that, but I think 

that that is where it is always—we routinely work with agencies 

that say we are so glad that we found you because we would not 

have known this otherwise, or I think, unfortunately, more commonly we get calls from agencies that have already gone down the 

path of failure and they need to redirect their spending money, 

things are not going the way they are supposed to be going, and 

we can straighten them out and then we talk about—they often 

talk about we wish we had known when we started that this resource is available. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
500 

Resources like this have to be made available, I think, because 

agencies cannot—especially in these budgetary times—keep people 

with this type of expertise on staff, quite frankly. It is hard to keep 

technical positions, it is hard to keep up with the technology, and 

when you have to make choices between first responders out on the 

street or your technical infrastructure, unfortunately that is—— 

Mr. ROTHMAN. And your organization is funded voluntarily by 

each of the 50 states? 

Ms. PETERS. Each of the 50 states pay membership dues that 

support their coming together twice annually and for a board of directors to meet to establish priorities for the organization in the 

public safety and justice field. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. So in a sense your organization is giving the Good 

Housekeeping Seal of Approval by these 50 different states? 

Ms. PETERS. That is correct. One governor’s appointee from each 

of the 50 states, and we are also funded by federal grant programs. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Ms. Peters. We are grateful for your testimony. 

Ms. PETERS. Appreciate your time. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. And that brings our morning hearing to a close and 

our hearing season to a close. So with thanks to everyone will adjourn the Subcommittee. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Dobson, Lillie ........................................................................................................... 431 

Duke, Elaine ............................................................................................................. 333 

Ellison, Keith ........................................................................................................... 438 

Felt, Jennifer ............................................................................................................ 414 

Harris, William ........................................................................................................ 263 

Hauptli, Todd ........................................................................................................... 443 

Lute, Jane Holl ........................................................................................................ 197 

Millar, William ......................................................................................................... 454 

Napolitano, Janet .................................................................................................... 16 

Peck, Robert ............................................................................................................. 333 

Perrodin, Eric ........................................................................................................... 431 

Peters, Kelly ............................................................................................................. 476 

Richardson, Laura ................................................................................................... 408 

Wagner, Caryn ......................................................................................................... 263 

Wright, David ........................................................................................................... 419 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
(iii) 

I N D E X 

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for 2011 

Page 

Opening Statement of Chairman David Price ....................................................... 1 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Harold Rogers ...................................... 9 

Statement of the Honorable Janet Napolitano, DHS ........................................... 16 

287(g) ........................................................................................................................ 56 

Advanced Imaging Technology ............................................................................... 40 

Agency Leadership (e.g., lack of senior political/career management staff) ....... 89 

Agent Housing ......................................................................................................... 77 

Air and Marine Operations Center ........................................................................ 196 

Aviation Security...................................................................................................... 38, 76 

Bonuses ..................................................................................................................... 103 

Center for Homeland Defense and Security .......................................................... 191 

Clear Funding for Unbudgeted Items .................................................................... 179 

Coast Guard ............................................................................................................. 189 

Contracts .................................................................................................................. 151

Cybersecurity.......................................................................................................... 43, 192 

Deepwater Implementation Plan ............................................................................ 64 

Detainee Treatment ................................................................................................. 55 

Disaster Relief Fund ................................................................................................ 65 

Einstein 3 ................................................................................................................. 44 

E-Verify .................................................................................................................... 48

Firefighter Jobs ........................................................................................................ 82 

Funding for Additional CBPOs ............................................................................... 182 

Funding Requests .................................................................................................... 47 

Future Budgeting .................................................................................................... 89 

Gang Violence .......................................................................................................... 58 

Graduate Programs ................................................................................................. 57 

Growing Headquarters Funding at Expense of Operations ................................. 40 

Haiti Response ......................................................................................................... 82 

Haiti .......................................................................................................................... 190 

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 19 ....................................................... 187 

Hometown Security and Gang Violence ................................................................. 191 

Housing for Agents .................................................................................................. 182 

Human Resources .................................................................................................... 91 

Immigration Reform ................................................................................................ 76 

Inflationary Increases ............................................................................................. 90 

Infrastructure Protection ........................................................................................ 74 

Intelligence Coordination-Sharing and ‘‘Operationalization’’ ............................... 88 

Intelligence Sharing and Coordination .................................................................. 189 

Interagency Coordination ........................................................................................ 185 

International Cargo Security .................................................................................. 85 

Interoperability Grants ........................................................................................... 188 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
Page

iv 

Islamic Extremism ................................................................................................... 45 

Maritime Security .................................................................................................... 88 

National Protection and Programs Directorate and the Office of Infrastructure 

Protection .............................................................................................................. 185 

Newark Airport Security Breach ............................................................................ 59 

Nominees .................................................................................................................. 72 

Nonprofit Security Grant Program ........................................................................ 190 

Nonprofit Security Grants ...................................................................................... 60 

Office of Bombing Prevention ................................................................................. 186 

Operation Stonegarden ........................................................................................... 48 

Operation Streamline .............................................................................................. 61 

Overdue Reports and Expenditure Plans .............................................................. 71 

Passenger Manifest(s).............................................................................................. 50, 61 

Project Shield ........................................................................................................... 53 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman David Price .......................... 82 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Member Harold Rogers ......... 164 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Alan B. Mollohan ......... 185 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Ciro D. Rodriguez ......... 182 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Ken Calvert .................. 196 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Nita M. Lowey .............. 188 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Sam Farr ....................... 191 

REAL ID ................................................................................................................... 71, 73 

Reception and Representation ................................................................................ 155 

SAFER Grants ......................................................................................................... 66 

Secure Border Initiative .......................................................................................... 83 

Secure Communities ................................................................................................ 194 

Secure Communities/Immigration Enforcement ................................................... 86 

Securing the Cities .................................................................................................. 52 

Southwest Border .................................................................................................... 192 

Staffing for DHS Departmental Management ...................................................... 164 

Staffing ..................................................................................................................... 62 

Stimulus Spending/Advanced Imaging Technology .............................................. 188 

Termination of FLAP .............................................................................................. 183 

Terrorism and Gang Violence ................................................................................. 195 

Travel ........................................................................................................................ 111 

Urban Search and Rescue ....................................................................................... 50 

Vacancies .................................................................................................................. 64 

Vulnerability Assessments ...................................................................................... 186 

White House Party Crashers .................................................................................. 72 

Work Site Enforcement ........................................................................................... 72 

Working Capital Fund ............................................................................................. 153 

Major Systems Acquisition 

Opening Statement of Chairman David Price ....................................................... 197 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Harold Rogers ...................................... 205 

Statement of Deputy Secretary Jane Holl Lute .................................................... 211 

Acquisition Management Process ........................................................................... 246 

Acquisition Management Workforce ...................................................................... 248 

Acquisition/Shipbuilding ......................................................................................... 262 

Airport Security Technology ................................................................................... 238 

Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) ........................................................ 251 

Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology ................................... 250 

Budget Cuts for the Secure Border Initiative (SBInet) ........................................ 229 

Budget Cuts to Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection ..................... 238 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
Page

v 

Changes to Acquisition Review Process ................................................................. 220 

CIO Invoices ............................................................................................................. 259 

Coast Guard Budget Cuts ................................................................................... 221, 225 

Cyber Security ......................................................................................................... 241 

National Security Cutter and Deepwater Programs ............................................. 226 

National Security Cutter ......................................................................................... 257 

Offshore Patrol Cutter ............................................................................................. 228 

Overdue Expenditure Plans .................................................................................... 227 

Overdue Reports and Expenditure Plans........................................................... 234, 236 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman David Price .......................... 246 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Congressman C.A. ‘‘Dutch’’ 

Ruppersberger ...................................................................................................... 261 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Ken Calvert ........................................... 262 

Reducing Reliance on Contractors.............................................................. 223, 230, 240 

Secure Border Initiative (SBInet) ....................................................................... 235, 236 

Securing the Southwest Border .............................................................................. 232 

Transformation and Systems Consolidation (TASC)................................. 242, 258, 261 

TSA Information Technology and Services ............................................................ 258 

Intelligence Programs 

Opening Statement of Chairman David Price ....................................................... 263 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Harold Rogers ...................................... 267 

Statement of Caryn Wagner, Under Secretary, I&A ............................................ 272 

Statement of Captain William Harris, Delaware State Police ............................ 285 

Bonuses ..................................................................................................................... 328 

Contracts .................................................................................................................. 325 

Cyber Security ......................................................................................................... 301 

Differences Between the Joint Terrorism Task Forces and Fusion Centers ...... 295 

Differences Between the Joint Terrorism Task Forces and Other Intelligence 

Groups ................................................................................................................... 297 

Fusion Center Locations ......................................................................................... 305 

Fusion Center Standardization .............................................................................. 302 

High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) ................................................. 298 

Hiring ........................................................................................................................ 324 

I&A Information Technology Systems ................................................................... 321 

I&A Products ............................................................................................................ 324 

Information Sharing During an Investigation ...................................................... 298 

Intelligence and Analysis’ Role ............................................................................... 307 

Intelligence Sharing During an Investigation ....................................................... 299 

Joint Fusion Center-Program Management Office ............................................... 317 

Local Confusion ........................................................................................................ 329 

Measuring Fusion Centers’ Effectiveness .............................................................. 295 

Paradigm Shift Between the Department of Homeland Security and Fusion 

Centers .................................................................................................................. 293 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman David Price .......................... 317 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Ken Calvert .................. 331 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard ... 329 

Reception and Representation ................................................................................ 324 

Securing United States Borders ............................................................................. 313 

State and Local Fusion Center Program ............................................................... 309 

State and Local Fusion Center Reporting Requirements ..................................... 324 

State and Local Fusion Centers ............................................................................. 331 

Sustainment Challenges ......................................................................................... 329 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
Page

vi 

Travel ........................................................................................................................ 328 

Unobligated Balances .............................................................................................. 328 

Homeland Security Headquarters Facilities 

Opening Statement of Chairman David Price ....................................................... 333 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Harold Rogers ...................................... 338 

Statement of Elaine Duke, Under Secretary for Management, DHS .................. 344 

Statement of Robert Peck, Commissioner, GSA .................................................... 358 

Collaboration with the District ............................................................................... 375 

Completion Date for St. Elizabeths ........................................................................ 389 

Consolidation Savings ............................................................................................. 388 

Contracts............................................................................................................... 394, 398 

Cost Allocation ......................................................................................................... 386 

Cost Control and Economics of Proceeding ........................................................... 369 

Divesting Functions ................................................................................................. 386 

Energy Efficiency ..................................................................................................... 371 

Environmental Impacts of St. Elizabeths .......................................................... 395, 402 

Funding For Information Technology .................................................................... 384 

Gold Certification ..................................................................................................... 371 

Growth in Demand for Space ................................................................................. 395 

Historical Significance ............................................................................................. 390 

Impact on Operational Capabilities ....................................................................... 368 

Information Technology Functions Interlinked ..................................................... 386 

Interior Build Out .................................................................................................... 384 

IT Infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 404 

Job Creation ............................................................................................................. 402 

Lease Consolidation Cost Savings .......................................................................... 378 

Lease Consolidation Cost ........................................................................................ 377 

Lease Consolidation ................................................................................................. 380 

Long and Short Term Lease Cost ........................................................................... 387 

Mental Health Patients ........................................................................................... 374 

More Detailed Justification ..................................................................................... 376 

Office Consolidation..................................................................................... 368, 370, 385 

Office Consolidation Continued ....................................................................... 389 

Office Space Requirement Growth ......................................................................... 379 

Overhead Costs for Construction Projects ............................................................. 376 

Project Vision ........................................................................................................... 373 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman David Price .......................... 394 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Member Harold Rogers ......... 404 

Recovery Act Funding ............................................................................................. 376 

Return on Investment ............................................................................................. 367 

Revitalization of Ward 8 ......................................................................................... 374 

Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility .................................................... 386 

Total Cost of St. Elizabeths .................................................................................... 374 

Total Estimated Cost Stability ............................................................................... 372 

Transit Time and Labor Efficiency ........................................................................ 370 

Testimony From Members of Congress and Outside Entities 

Opening Statement of Chairman David Price ....................................................... 407 

Statement of the Honorable Laura Richardson .................................................... 408 

Statement of Jennifer Felt, Program Manager for the Marine Conservation .... 414 

Statement of David Wright, President of the National Federal Protective 

Service Union ....................................................................................................... 419 

Statement of Eric Perrodin, Mayor of Compton Accompanied by Lillie Dobson, 

Councilwoman, City of Compton ......................................................................... 431 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
Page

vii 

Statement of the Honorable Keith Ellison ............................................................ 438 

Statement of Todd Hauptli, Senior Executive Vice President of the American 

Association of Airport Executives ....................................................................... 443 

Statement of William Millar, President of the American Public Transportation 

Association ............................................................................................................ 454 

Statement of Kelly Peters, Deputy Director of SEARCH ..................................... 476 

Æ 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING