U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

80–572 PDF 2014

S. Hrg. 113–158 

THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT’S 

BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 17, 2013 

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

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Deputy Staff Director 

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

STEPHEN R. VIN ̃ A, Deputy Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

TROY H. CRIBB, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

SUSAN B. CORBIN, DHS Detailee 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER J. BARKLEY, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

DANIEL P. LIPS, Minority Director for Homeland Security 

TRINA D. SHIFFMAN, Chief Clerk 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 5 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 15 

Senator Ayotte .................................................................................................. 17 

Senator Baldwin ............................................................................................... 19 

Senator Begich .................................................................................................. 21 

Senator Paul ..................................................................................................... 24 

Senator McCain ................................................................................................ 25 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 28 

Prepared statements: 

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

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 42 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2013 

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

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

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

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record ..................................... 67 

(1) 

THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT’S 

BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2012 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Pryor, McCaskill, Begich, Baldwin, 

Heitkamp, Coburn, McCain, Johnson, Paul, and Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CARPER 

Chairman CARPER. Good morning. This hearing will come to 

order. 

Our thanks to Secretary Napolitano for joining us to discuss the 

President’s budget request for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for fiscal year (FY) 2014. Before we start, I want to take 

just a moment on behalf of Dr. Coburn and my colleagues to offer 

our condolences to the victims of the tragic Boston Marathon terrorist attacks and to their families. I am going to ask that we start 

this hearing with a moment of silence to remember the victims and 

their families in our prayers. [Moment of silence.] 

Thank you. 

Let me also take a moment just to thank our first responders 

and many brave bystanders who selflessly rushed into the chaotic 

scene to care for those who had been injured, in some cases killed, 

and the law enforcement personnel at the Federal, State, and local 

levels who continue to investigate this tragedy. We are carefully 

monitoring this situation and will continue to do so. In the end, we 

will get to the bottom of this incident and bring those responsible 

to justice. Every American has a role in these efforts, and we can 

do so by embracing one of the Secretary’s main messages, and that 

is, if you see something, say something. Every time we go into an 

airport or a train station, we are reminded of those words. If we 

see something, say something. In this case, whoever is responsible 

will be brought to justice, not just because of the efforts of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), or State 

and local law enforcement (SLLE), but because of the help of hundreds, thousands of people who saw something and are going to try 

to say something with all of us. 
2 

In the Navy we say, ‘‘All hands on deck.’’ This is all hands on 

deck, and everybody who wants to help, this is a good way for everybody to be part of the solution. 

Unfortunately, such tragic acts of terror serve as a reminder of 

the critically important mission given to the Department of Homeland Security. Crafting a budget for an agency this complex and 

important is never easy and is particularly challenging in this fiscal environment. 

The Administration’s $39 billion budget request makes some very 

tough choices. It cuts the Department’s budget by roughly 2 percent below 2012 levels, but it is at least consistent with what Congress appropriated in 2013 for the Department, before sequestration cuts were applied. Still, the level of funding in this proposed 

2014 budget is lower than what Congress appropriated in 2009. 

Stepping back and thinking about all of the challenges that our 

country and this Department have faced since 2009—the Christmas Day bomber, the Times Square bomber, the Yemen Cargo 

Bomb plot, Hurricane Sandy, the ever-changing and ever-growing 

cyber threat, and now the Boston attack—it is easy to become concerned with this budget request. That said, we are facing extremely 

difficult budgetary times and sacrifices must be made. 

And while I recognize some important missions may not receive 

all of the funding they or we would want in a perfect world, all departments and agencies in government must share in the sacrifices 

to some extent required to rein in our deficit. Our Secretary seems 

to have taken this message to heart, identifying $1.3 billion in cost 

savings this year and more than $4 billion since 2009, and continues to move to a risk-based approach in an effort to save more 

money, but to do so in a smart way. 

I am happy to see that this budget proposes a much needed increase for cybersecurity which will help the Department fulfill its 

significant cyber responsibilities. Of course, additional resources 

alone are not going to get the job done—that is why passing comprehensive bipartisan legislation to complement the President’s Executive Order (EO) and address the cyber threat is one of our highest priorities. 

I also welcomed the Administration’s continued commitment to 

securing our Nation’s borders by maintaining staffing for the Border Patrol at its current historic levels and adding more than 3,400 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers to staff our ports of 

entry (POE). These critical resources are paid for, in part, with 

modest fee increases. 

During my recent trips to our borders in Arizona, where Secretary Napolitano, Senator McCain, and Congressman McCaul 

joined me and I have been up to Michigan with Senator Levin recently. I heard from local mayors, business leaders, and frontline 

officers, I heard them say that they need more help at our ports 

of entry. And I anticipate we will hear many more of the same comments when I visit in Texas later this month, I think April 30 and 

May 1. 

I just want to say to my colleagues, for anyone who is interested 

in spending a day and a half going down to the border in Texas, 

late afternoon April 30 and all day on May 1, that I would welcome 

you to join us. 
3 

I believe that if something is worth having, it is worth paying 

for, and it is worth it to Americans to better facilitate trade and 

travel at our ports of entry, and we need to pay for it. That is why 

I agree with the President’s proposal to use some modest fee increases to pay for more Customs and Border Protection officers. 

These efforts will build on the tremendous progress we have made 

in securing the border over the past decade. I look forward to reviewing the immigration bill introduced this morning, I think at 

quarter of 2, by Senators McCain, Durbin, Schumer, and others of 

our colleagues to make sure that the bill makes smart investments 

in border security, focusing on deploying force multipliers that can 

help our frontline agents be more effective and efficient. 

Last, I was encouraged to see the increase in funding for the consolidation of the Department’s Headquarters at the St. Elizabeths 

Campus which I visited earlier this week. The $105 million in this 

request, in conjunction with the money that the General Services 

Administration (GSA) has requested, will yield real savings to taxpayers by allowing us to stop leasing buildings all over the D.C. 

metro area, dozens of buildings all over the D.C. metro area, and 

help the Department at the same time to improve management and 

to increase morale. 

Among the major departments in our Federal Government, the 

Department of Homeland Security has had and continues to have 

the lowest ranking morale. I think there is a reason for that, and 

one of the reasons is that they are scattered to the winds. They are 

not really a team, they are not really a unit. They need to be, as 

best we can, joined together at a central location, and we are going 

to try to do that. I know it is a tough, heavy lift, but it is one that 

we started, made huge investments—I think $1 billion investment 

in infrastructure. If we stop now, we have huge investments in infrastructure and not much there to connect the infrastructure to. 

I do not think that is a very smart investment. 

With that said, I am concerned that this budget’s significant cuts 

to several key homeland priorities may be penny-wise and poundfoolish. The cuts to management, for instance, are shortsighted and 

will, I fear, undermine the progress the Department has made in 

this area. Last year for the first time, the Department of Homeland 

Security earned, as you know, a qualified audit opinion on all of 

its fiscal year 2011 financial statements. And in its latest high-risk 

report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) confirmed that 

there has been considerable progress at the Department in integrating its components and in strengthening its management. We 

are looking for a clean audit in 2014 and applaud the progress that 

has been made. We cannot lose this momentum. Better management will yield better results and stewardship of taxpayer dollars. 

I am also concerned by the proposed reduction in frontline personnel at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As we 

work to reform our immigration laws, I believe that ICE will play 

a critical role. I think we all do. These reductions there could undermine our efforts to implement new reforms. I am sure we will 

revisit this during the course of the hearing. We also need to do 

a better job of managing our detention efforts to ensure that criminals are kept off the streets. While acknowledging that the sequestration Congress launched is partly to blame, I was disappointed 
4 

with the management failures that led ICE to release a number of 

felons among the more than 2,000 detainees 2 months ago because 

of budget constraints. 

Another area of concern is the $714 million request to fund the 

construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) 

in Kansas. We have talked a little bit about this. I am sure we will 

talk about it some more today. And I understand the importance 

of studying animal diseases—we all do—but I hope we can avoid 

providing full funding—I think seven-hundred-some million dollars 

in full funding—in 2014 alone for a multi-year construction project. 

If there is some way to build it in logical segments so we can do 

it over a 2- or 3-year period and, thus, avoid taking away resources 

from other agencies like ICE, the Coast Guard, and the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) next year, maybe even 

management, some of the management monies that we need for the 

Department. 

And, finally, I am concerned by proposed cuts in the support the 

Department of Homeland Security provides to State and local governments and first responders through Homeland Security Grants, 

exercises, and training. As we saw clearly this week, State and 

local officials are the ones who will inevitably be on the front lines 

responding to terrorist attacks. My friend Dr. Coburn always reminds us that we need to be risk based and that we need to keep 

that in mind, particularly as we consider these grants to our State 

and local colleagues. 

While acknowledging that our approach must be risk based, I 

want to ensure that the Department is able to continue to help 

State and local responders with the plans, training, and equipment 

they need to respond effectively, as they did so admirably in Boston 

this week. 

The elephant in the room, of course, is sequestration. If implemented, it would take another 5 percent off the Department’s already limited budget. These cuts, I fear, would interfere with the 

Department’s operations and management and with its ability to 

fulfill its missions. We must find a better way to deal with our 

budget crisis. We need a comprehensive plan to rein in our Federal 

debt and deficit. 

And, finally, as my colleagues have heard me say any number of 

times, I favor a ‘‘grand bargain’’—the man sitting to my right here 

has worked very hard to help craft one a couple of years ago, but 

a grand bargain that does three things: First, raises revenues closer to levels that existed in the last 4 years of the Clinton Administration, when we actually had four balanced budgets in a row; second, to enact entitlement reform that saves money, avoids savaging 

older people and poor people, and actually saves these programs for 

future generations; and, finally, the third element, we need to look 

in every nook and cranny of the Federal Government and ask this 

question: How can we get a better result for less money in everything that we do? 

I believe now is the time to make this grand bargain. The cost 

of the failure to do so is just too high for all of us. 

Now let me turn to Dr. Coburn for any comments he would like 

to make at this time. Welcome. Thank you. 
5 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. Madam Secretary, welcome. I appreciate your service. We have a lot to go through today. 

I am one of the few Members of Congress who has supported 

your idea of consolidating our grant programs, and I commend you 

on that. You will have my help in working toward that, with the 

caveat that we actually do a much better job in terms of putting 

metrics on those grants and that they are truly risk based. So I 

will be there to help you do that. There are a lot of areas where 

we are not effective with Homeland Security Grants today. 

I also would comment, if you read the Constitution and you look 

at the enumerated powers, a lot of what we have done is not our 

role. It is the State and locals’ role. And what we have done is we 

have created some learned dependency out there that individual 

States and communities are going to have to free themselves of, because the budget parameters are not going to allow us to be the 

source for what they need. 

On top of that, the point is we cannot spend enough money to 

give us a 100 percent guarantee of security. 

The other thing we cannot do is we cannot get security to the 

level that we are going to compromise our liberty. So we have those 

two tensions that are going forward. 

I have to say, I do trust you in terms of your vision of trying to 

do the best to balance those tensions. And I look forward to working with you so that we can move more of these dollars to riskbased prevention rather than parochial based. Most of the people 

in this room do not know the fights that we have at markups when 

parochial displaces the primacy of risk-based needs. There is nothing wrong with fighting for your State, but there is plenty wrong 

when you have fought for your State and resources which could 

have been used to prevent something and they are not available at 

the highest risk places. 

The last point I would make with this large budget, and I would 

tell my colleague, sequestration is going to stay. That level of funding is not going up. We are not going to go back on the pledge to 

the American people to trim down the size of the Federal Government. And one of the positive things that is coming out of sequestration is innovation, judgment, and making hard decisions. My 

wish would be that the President would ask us for more flexibility. 

He has refused to do so, but I think eventually we are going to see 

that request. 

My hope is that Congress is going to give you more flexibility so 

that can actually make the judgments that we are paying you to 

make. 

With all of that comes the very thing that every family in this 

country is doing: They are doing more with less, instead of less 

with more. And the No. 1 charge to your agency is to do more with 

less. And that is across this government. It is going to have to happen. It is the only way we get out and create a future for the generations that follow us. So I look forward to your testimony. I am 

a supporter when it comes to reforming the things that you need 

to actually do your job, and I will be there to help you. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Thanks, Dr. Coburn. 
6 

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

Before I introduce Secretary Napolitano, I want to thank Senator 

Heitkamp, Senator Ayotte, Senator Johnson, and Senator Baldwin 

for being here. Senator Baldwin, a couple of refugees from Madison, Wisconsin, are out in the audience there, George and Donna. 

Would you all raise your hands and say hello to one of your two 

Senators right there? They came to say hello. They are former 

Delawareans. We are happy to see them. 

I may interrupt this hearing for a minute or two. Once we have, 

I think, nine people here, that gives us a quorum to consider the 

nomination of Sylvia Mathews Burwell to be Director of the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB). 

Secretary Napolitano, I want to again thank you and FBI Director Mueller for joining us last evening for a classified briefing in 

The Capitol on the Boston tragedy. We want to welcome you here 

today. As our Secretary, you have led the Department I think since 

2009, and starting her second term, we are glad you signed on for 

a second hitch. 

Given the recent bombings in Boston, we appreciate your efforts 

all the more, and those of the team that you lead, and look forward 

to this time today to talk with you about the Department’s fiscal 

year 2014 budget request. 

We also want to offer any time if you want at the beginning for 

any updates you want to provide for the ongoing efforts in Boston, 

and you are now recognized to do that and for your statement. 

Thank you. Welcome. 

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you, Chairman Carper and 

Ranking Member Coburn and Members of the Committee, for the 

opportunity to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security. 

Before I begin, as the Chairman acknowledged, I would like to 

say a few words about the attack in Boston. Our thoughts and our 

prayers remain with the victims and their families and with the 

city of Boston. 

DHS is, in fact, a big part of the Boston community. Hundreds 

of our men and women go to work in the city every day. And across 

the region they protect the traveling public. They secure critical infrastructure, they patrol ports and waterways. They help investigate crimes, enforce Federal laws, and support our State and local 

partners. So the attack directly affected DHS in many ways. 

I have personally been speaking with the Governor, the mayor, 

the police commissioner, members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation, and others, assuring them that we will do all we 

can to bring whoever is responsible for the attack to justice. 

As President Obama has said, the FBI is investigating this as an 

act of terrorism, and the full force of the Federal Government will 

support the response and the investigation. 

There is no current indication to suggest the attack was indicative of a broader plot, but out of an abundance of caution, we continue to keep in place enhanced security measures, both seen and 
7 

unseen, in coordination with Federal, State, and local partners. We 

continue to urge the American public to remain vigilant and immediately report any signs of suspicious activity to local law enforcement. 

We thank the people of Boston for their response. We stand in 

solidarity with them and with everyone who has been making sure 

that the response, the recovery, and the investigation continue full 

force. 

Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, I think I should not say anything 

in an unclassified setting except to reassure the Committee that 

DHS is putting its full force into providing the FBI with any and 

all assistance it requires in addition to doing a number of other 

things with the city of Boston. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. As you know, this year marks the 10th 

anniversary of the creation of DHS, the largest reorganization of 

the U.S. Government since the formation of the Department of Defense (DOD). After 10 years of effort, DHS has transformed 22 legacy agencies into a single integrated Department, building a 

strengthened homeland security enterprise and a more secure 

America better equipped to confront the range of threats that we 

face. 

The President’s fiscal year 2014 budget for DHS allows us to 

build on our progress over the past 10 years by preserving core 

frontline operational priorities. At the same time, given the current 

fiscal environment, this is the third straight year that our budget 

request reflects a reduction from the previous year. 

Specifically, the budget request is 2.2 percent, or more than $800 

million, below the fiscal year 2013 enacted budget. While our mission has not changed and we continue to face evolving threats, we 

have become more strategic in how we use these resources, focusing on a risk-based approach. This is coupled with an unprecedented commitment to fiscal discipline which has led to over $4 billion in cost avoidances and reductions over the past 4 years 

through a process we call Efficiency Review (ER). 

Before I get to the nuts and bolts of the budget, I want to pause 

to talk a little bit about sequestration because—— 

Chairman CARPER. Excuse me. Could I ask you to pause just for 

a little longer? We have nine Senators here. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. This is a good time to break. 

Chairman CARPER. If you could just pause for a moment. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. OK. I will go ahead and suspend here. 

Chairman CARPER. Senator Heitkamp is going to preside over 

the Senate in about 10 minutes, so we want to get this done. 

[Whereupon, at 10:24 a.m., the Committee proceeded to other 

business and reconvened at 10:26 a.m.] 

Chairman CARPER. We look forward to the rest of your testimony. Thank you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let me, if I might, resume with a quick 

discussion of sequestration, which has significant effects for the Department, more than $3 billion in cuts across DHS over 6 months. 

Now, the recent full-year appropriations bill enabled DHS to 

mitigate to some degree the projected sequester impacts under the 

continuing resolution (CR) on our operations and workforce. But 
8 

there is no doubt that the remaining cuts will affect operations in 

the short and long term. 

Sustained cuts at these sequester levels will result in reduced 

operational capacity, breached staffing floors, and economic impacts 

to the private sector through reduced and cancelled contracts. 

Nonetheless, we will continue to do everything we can to minimize 

the impacts on our core mission and our employees, consistent with 

the operational priorities in the 2014 budget, which I would like 

now to highlight. 

First, to prevent terrorism and enhance security, the fiscal year 

2014 budget continues to support risk-based security initiatives, including the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) PreCheck, Global Entry, and other trusted traveler programs. As a result, we expect one in four travelers to receive some form of expedited screening domestically by the end of the year. The budget 

supports Administration efforts to secure maritime cargo and the 

global supply chain by strengthening efforts to interdict threats at 

the earliest point possible. 

We continue our strong support for State and local partners 

through training, fusion centers, and information sharing on a wide 

range of critical homeland security issues. 

We also fund cutting-edge research and development (R&D) to 

address evolving biological, radiological, and nuclear threats, including construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility. 

To secure and manage our borders, the budget continues the Administration’s robust border security efforts while facilitating legitimate travel and trade. It sustains historic deployments of personnel along our borders as well as continued utilization of proven, 

effective surveillance technology along the highest-trafficked areas 

of the southwest border. 

To expedite travel and trade while reducing wait times at the 

ports of entry, the budget requests an additional 3,500 port officers—1,600 paid for by appropriation and the remainder by an increase to the immigration user fees that have not been adjusted 

since 2001. 

To secure maritime borders, the budget invests in recapitalization of Coast Guard assets, including the seventh National Security 

Cutter (NSC) and Fast Response Cutters (FRCs). 

The budget also continues the Department’s focus on smart and 

effective enforcement of our country’s immigration laws. It supports 

the Administration’s unprecedented effort to more effectively focus 

the enforcement system on public safety threats, border security, 

and the integrity of the immigration system through initiatives 

such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and greater use of 

prosecutorial discretion. 

At the same time, the budget makes significant reductions to inefficient programs like 287(g) task force agreements, while supporting more cost-effective initiatives like the nationwide implementation of Secure Communities. 

The budget invests in monitoring and compliance, promoting adherence to worksite-related laws, Form I–9 inspections, and enhancements to the E–Verify program, while continuing to support 

alternatives to detention, detention reform, and immigrant integration efforts. 
9 

Comprehensive immigration reform will help us continue to build 

on these efforts and strengthen border security by enabling DHS 

to further focus existing resources on criminals, on human smugglers and traffickers, and national security threats. 

Let me pause here to say that we are greatly encouraged by the 

bipartisan bill that was introduced early this morning. 

Next, to safeguard and secure cyberspace, this budget makes significant investments to strengthen cybersecurity, including funds to 

secure our Nation’s information and financial systems and defend 

against cyber threats to private sector and Federal systems, the 

Nation’s critical infrastructure, and our economy. It supports the 

President’s Executive Order on improving critical infrastructure 

cybersecurity and the Presidential Policy Directive on critical infrastructure security and resilience. And it expedites the deployment 

of EINSTEIN 3 to prevent and detect intrusions on government 

computer systems. 

Finally, to ensure continued resilience to disasters, the President’s budget focuses on a whole-of-community approach to emergency management, includes resources for the Disaster Relief Fund 

(DRF), to support Presidentially declared disasters or emergencies. 

The Administration is again proposing the consolidation of 18 grant 

programs into one National Preparedness Grant Program to create 

a robust national response capacity while reducing administrative 

overhead. This competitive, risk-based program will use a comprehensive process to assess gaps, identify and prioritize 

deployable capabilities, put funding to work quickly, and require 

grantees to regularly report on their progress. 

It is precisely this kind of funding that has enhanced preparedness and response capabilities in cities like Boston. Since 2002, the 

Boston urban area has received nearly $370 million in Federal 

grant funding, which has been used to equip and train tactical and 

specialized response teams specifically in improvised explosive device (IED) detection, prevention, response, and recovery. 

Within the last year, for example, the Metro Boston Homeland 

Security Region used grant funding to provide integrated training 

to improve their speed and efficiency in response to IED threats. 

Importantly, grants also have supported increased coordination, 

particularly with respect to joint exercises and training. 

FEMA has supported 12 exercises involving the city of Boston, 

including 8 over the past 3 years, on topics that include biological 

attack, hazardous materials, and other types of attack. 

FEMA also has provided more than 5,500 Boston area responders with chemical, biological, and mass casualty response training. 

And Homeland Security Grants continue to support joint training 

and exercises among law enforcement and Fire Service that are 

part of the Massachusetts Joint Hazards Assessment Team. 

These investments have proven their value time and again, and 

they greatly aided the response 2 days ago. We should continue 

this support. 

In conclusion, the fiscal year 2014 budget proposal reflects this 

Administration’s strong commitment to protecting the homeland 

and the American people through the effective and efficient use of 

DHS resources. 
10 

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Coburn, Members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. I appreciate very much your presence today and your presentation. 

As I said earlier, at 1:45 or so this morning, eight of our colleagues—four Democrats, four Republicans—together introduced 

comprehensive immigration reform legislation. This Committee has 

a responsibility, I think unique in the Senate, to try to ask and answer the question: Are our borders more secure? And for those of 

you who have been down along the borders and had a chance to 

go not just maybe this or last year but in years past, I believe they 

are significantly more secure. 

I like to say everything I do, I know I can do better. The same 

is true of all of us. The same is true of all Federal programs. Can 

we make the borders more secure? Yes, we can. Can we do that in 

a budget-constrained world? Yes, we can. And one of the things we 

need to do is to figure out what the force multipliers are that we 

can spend some money on to actually increase the effectiveness of 

our security. 

When you were good enough to come and join me for a day down 

in your State, the State that you led for all those years as Governor, and Senator McCain and Congressman McCaul a day earlier, one of the things that I learned, one of my takeaways is that 

there are a number of investments that we can make, and I would 

say they are technology based. But we have four joint aircraft. On 

any given day, we might have two of them flying. And during the 

course of a week, 5 days we will have drones in the air, for instance, about 16 hours. That means there are 2 days they are not 

flying, 2 days of a week that they are not in operation and about 

8 hours of every day that they are not in operation. If the winds 

are greater than 15 knots, they cannot fly. So we have to do something about that. 

One of the things we can do is to better resource the drone operation. Two, they carry the Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation 

Radar (VADER)—V–A–D–E–R—radar system to detect people moving from very high altitudes in bad weather, at nighttime, approaching the border, crossing the border, attempting to cross the 

border. It is a remarkable tool for us to use. 

We have one VADER system for four drones. It is a borrowed 

system I think from a company, not from the Department of Defense. And one of the things I would hope that we can do is find 

a way to—and our friends, our eight colleagues who have introduced the immigration reform bill have actually proposed ways to 

pay for some additional security measures on the border. I think 

a lot of them are user fee based, but we want to look very closely 

at those and work with our colleagues. I hope, to see how many of 

them we can do, can afford, and how we might invest that money 

in technologies that will enable our ground troops or ground forces 

to be more effective. 

There is an aircraft called the C–206. I think it is a Cessna 206, 

a twin-engine airplane—very cost effective to operate, a lot more so 

than the drones—that can be very helpful in performing similar 
11 

missions. They can fly when the winds are greater than 15 knots 

and do so at a smaller price. 

We have, I think, a recommendation in the budget with respect 

to dirigibles, and move some of the—I think they are called Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS). That is the acronym. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Chairman CARPER. But they are lighter-than-air components that 

can carry a pod, a surveillance pod that can go up in the air, can 

be there for a day, a week, long periods of time, and transmit information back to forces on the ground to tell us about movement approaching the border or crossing the border. 

There are land-based radar systems that are already deployed on 

parts of the border. We have other parts of the border maybe to 

the west, the western part of Arizona, where those kinds of investments would seem to make a lot more sense and enable us to better direct the resources we have on the ground and allocate those 

forces. Those are the kinds of things that we want to do more of. 

I know in the President’s budget there is language to move the 

lighter-than-air systems out of the Department of Defense, allocate 

those to Homeland Security. That is good. But there is more that 

we can do from there, and we have to pay for it as well. 

Do you want to comment on any of that, anything that I just 

mentioned that you think is more appropriate, more necessary, 

more helpful than others? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think if you are talking about a 

force multiplier to the manpower on the border, which is at record 

levels and the budget sustains that record level of manpower, so 

now you are talking about a force multiplier, technology is really 

the key. And you have to use different technologies in different 

parts of the border because the terrain is so different, the circumstances are different. San Diego is very different than the 

South Rio Grande Valley. The South Rio Grande Valley is very different from the area between Nogales and Douglas. 

So what we have done is taken the nine Border Patrol sectors 

along that Southwest Border and have constructed—and this is 

using the Border Patrol experts themselves. They know best what 

they need in some respects. So develop nine different technology 

plans that are particular to each area of the border. And we are 

moving to match our funding request to the technology adds that 

we need. 

We have stopped building a one-size-fits-all integrated towers 

project along the entire border. We are going to use that in Arizona 

but not along the entire expanse of the border. It turned out to be 

very expensive and not operational in some of the physical circumstances that we have, and in exchange moved to more off-theshelf technologies, technologies that may have been used in theater, other types of things that we can acquire. 

So technology is a force multiplier, and then moving on to comprehensive immigration reform. Quite frankly, the two main drivers of illegal migration are work and the other is we have made 

it so difficult to immigrate legally because our visa system has become so sclerotic that becomes an incentive to try to get across to 

rejoin your family and the like. 
12 

If we deal with employers with E-Verify, if we deal with the visa 

system, then we can more carefully focus our resources at the border on the narco traffickers and the human smugglers and the like, 

who we would like to focus our law enforcement resources on. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Thanks very much. 

Let me turn to management. I am impressed with the improvements in management of the Department that brought together all 

these diverse components, I do not know, 22 or so, as I recall, kind 

of mushed together into the Department of Homeland Security. But 

they are spread all over the place, and it makes it, not impossible, 

but difficult to operate as a team when you are just scattered to 

the winds. The effort was launched not in this Administration but 

in previous Administrations to begin to consolidate those efforts 

into an area in Washington, DC, a historic area that has great potential called St. Elizabeths. 

Dr. Coburn and I have had a chance to visit the site and try to 

understand the rationale behind doing it. I think it makes sense. 

We spend huge amounts of money leasing buildings, frankly, 

throughout the government, and we would be better off just building them or letting an agency buy and own a property. But the 

problem is that when you do that, it scores as a 1-year, so if you 

are going to use a building for 50 years, you have to score the entire cost by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) at the front 

end. This is a way to actually save some money and at the same 

time consolidate. 

Talk to us about why this is important for management purposes. Why is this important for morale? I talked earlier about the 

low morale at the Department despite the efforts of leadership. 

Talk to us about how this would help on the management side. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think, first of all, the St. E’s campus would actually be the first Federal investment of its kind on 

the other side of the Anacostia River and could be a real economic 

development opportunity in that area, much as the Pentagon was 

years ago. But as you know, we are in over 50 facilities in the National Capital Region. When I want to have a meeting of component heads, I have to bring in the Administrator of TSA from over 

here, the Customs Commissioner from over there, the Secret Service from downtown, et cetera. Much better to have one campus that 

facilitates the management, information sharing, the kinds of integrated approach to homeland security that the Department was 

created for. 

I am not normally one to come in and say, ‘‘Hey, we need a building,’’ given the budget constraints. But it has already started. The 

investment—some of the fixed costs have already been incurred. 

The Coast Guard is moving and the budget supports their move before Thanksgiving. I think it is appropriate, timely, and in the long 

term more cost effective to actually have a real headquarters. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. The last thing, turning to Dr. Coburn, he 

and I both believe that there is a great opportunity for this full 

Committee to work closely with GAO and to use that as a tool, use 

GAO’s high-risk list as a tool to get better results for less money 

in everything we do. We were very much impressed when your 

Deputy Secretary was here a couple of weeks ago, Jane Holl Lute, 

and she is leaving, I understand, and we will miss her. She has 
13 

been a great public servant. But great improvement has been made 

in terms of management of this Department under three Secretaries now. We want to make sure that continues, and we will work 

with you toward that end. Dr. Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. Just a little business. 

I sent you a letter yesterday on drones. I think you all have received it in terms of your privacy situation and the fact that really 

has not been addressed, what the law would require, and I just 

would like your commitment that you will get back to me on that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Sure, yes. Absolutely. 

Senator COBURN. I appreciate it. 

Let us talk about FEMA preparedness grants for a minute. How 

do you know $1 billion more is what is needed and not $500 million 

or $2 billion? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think you have to—first of all, you 

ask. Second, you survey. You compare. You identify gaps. And what 

we would like to move to, Senator, is a system where not every location has 100 percent of everything, that we have a more regional 

approach where certain capabilities are concerned. Not everybody 

needs HazMat teams or certain types of HazMat teams. Not everyone needs urban search and rescue, if they are within the same 

area and can easily get to a site should there be an event. So we 

look at all sorts of things in determining what is the appropriate 

level. 

Senator COBURN. But how did you come up with $1 billion? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Going through exactly what I said: Looking at what the gaps are, what it would take, the cost to fill that 

gap. Let us say, for example, that you need a certain number of 

personnel who have gone through a certain number of trainings on 

incident response. Well, you can kind of cost out, well, how much 

does that training cost per individual, and in what period of time 

can that cost be incurred? 

So that is the sort of nuts and bolts that goes into constituting 

a number. It is inductive, not deductive. In other words, you do not 

start with $1 billion and say, OK, how do I fill it up? It is more 

what do you need and what constitutes that. 

Senator COBURN. You have $5.2 billion I think right now in 

unspent grant money. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. How much of that is obligated? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would say 80 percent plus. 

Senator COBURN. So you have $1 billion that is unobligated right 

now, and we are asking for an increase of $1 billion. And when you 

talked to us last year, one of the things you noted was that you 

described the purpose of getting the grants out was fiscal stimulus, 

economic growth, and job creation. 

Isn’t the purpose of these grants really to enhance preparedness? 

And shouldn’t we be making the choice based on where is our 

greatest risk, where is our greatest weakness? Shouldn’t we be 

sending the money there regardless of what it does in terms of job 

creation and fiscal stimulus? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, and really one of our thoughts in 

putting some time limits on grant drawdown was that if these were 
14 

things needed for emergency response, for homeland security, they 

ought to go out quicker rather than later. 

Now, some of the grants do take more time. I will give you a concrete example. We have been supporting New York City in the development of a computer system which, interlinked with cameras, 

allows it to have greater surveillance over certain areas of the city 

and the bridges. It turns out it takes longer than 2 years to develop 

such a program. 

So what we recommend is we put some time limits on these 

grant drawdowns, subject to a waiver in appropriate circumstances. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Last year, for the first time, you required 

States to complete their own threat and hazard identification and 

risk assessments as part of the grant process. How good are they? 

What are you doing to followup on the accuracy of those? And really my further question, my big criticism of a lot of FEMA grants 

and the grants coming out of your Department is we are not measuring a metric at the end of the grant to see if we accomplished 

what we said we were going to accomplish. And, really my question 

is more general. What are you going to institute so that the American taxpayer knows that when a grant goes out of FEMA or 

Homeland Security that it actually accomplished something that 

decreased risk or increased preparedness? Because right now, quite 

frankly, you do not know the answer to that. In a general way, 

what you can assess here is the quality of what we got out of the 

grant money we have. What are you doing to change that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. We have been really changing 

grant guidance and oversight over the past years. I think you are 

right. I think initial grants, particularly with the speed the Department was stood up, and these grant programs, a lot of them were 

basically formula grants based on population and what have you. 

It is now time—we are at the maturation level—where we should 

say, look, these should be risk-based, we should identify the risk 

area, measure the benefits that we get out of the risks, do everything we can to get the money out as rapidly as possible, as well 

spent as possible. But the way it is now, Senator, we have grant 

programs from all over the place, and it does limit our ability to 

really make those tough judgments. 

Senator COBURN. So this proposal to consolidate these, tell me 

about the efficiencies and also the accuracy as well as the performance that you hope to achieve by consolidating these grant programs. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think, first of all, the threat and 

hazard identification and risk assessment (THIRA), becomes a key 

document. I think they are of varying quality as they have come 

in. We will work with the States that we think need help to increase their capacity. But as we move through this process, I think 

what you will see is administrative savings. First of all, States do 

not have to pay grant writers and grant administrators, and we 

can have one more integrated and unified set of reviewers and 

auditors. 

So I think anytime you say, look, we are going to take 18 programs and meld them into one, you are going to get efficiencies in 

costs. I think you will get a more unified approach to how the grant 
15 

money should be given and how they should be reviewed. And that 

is what we are seeking to do. 

Senator COBURN. All right. Would you agree with me that the 

per capita damage indicator needs to be modified in terms of 

FEMA grants? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You mean in terms of—yes. 

Senator COBURN. What qualifies. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, in terms of what—— 

Senator COBURN. It is a real disadvantage for the large States 

who have a significant event, and it is a real advantage for the 

small States that have the same amount of damage. One qualifies 

for FEMA grants, the other does not qualify at all. And so would 

you commit to work with us through your FEMA Director to try to 

get where we can build a consensus in Congress. How do we actually measure this better? Oklahoma had 22 FEMA grants last year. 

I am thankful that the Federal Government is helping Oklahoma 

out. But in a lot of those, we were not overwhelmed, and we could 

have taken and dealt with it. And some States that may be in 

much worse budget shape than we are had twice as much but got 

no help from the Federal Government on like-minded events. 

So I would just like a commitment that you all will help us figure 

this out so that it is more equitable, one; and, two, when we are 

actually there to help a problem, that we help those that have the 

biggest problem, not the ones that qualify the easiest for the 

grants. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I will pledge that. A great example of how the per capita issue works in strange and unfathomable 

ways is we had flooding on the upper Red River. One side of the 

river was North Dakota, the other side was Minnesota. North Dakota got grant funding, Minnesota did not. 

Senator COBURN. Right. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The same flood. 

Senator COBURN. Yes, OK. 

In the third annual GAO duplication report—I guess I am over 

time. We will come back for a second round. That will let my colleagues—— 

Chairman CARPER. Very good. Thanks very much. 

Just in order of arrival, the next questioner will be Senator Johnson, followed by Senator Ayotte, Senator Baldwin, and Senator 

Begich, and the others to follow. Thank you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As long as we quit talking budget, you were talking about surpluses. You were talking about the revenue side of that equation. 

One of the reasons we had budget surpluses in the late 1990s is 

government spending was only a little over 18 percent. And, of 

course, we hit a high of 25 percent. We are a little over 22 percent 

now, and we are on a trajectory to hit 35 percent. So it was the 

level of spending, from my standpoint, that really balanced the 

budget, but I just want to get that one on the record. 

Madam Secretary, again, thank you for appearing here and, 

truthfully, thank you for your service. I do not envy your task, and 

you have a big job here, and we are all rooting for you. 
16 

I would like to pick up a little bit on what Senator Coburn was 

talking about, the consolidated grant programs. Can you just speak 

to me about the type of pressure you feel, the parochial interests 

versus risk based? Do you find that is a real problem? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I do not involve myself in some 

of the direct grant decisions, so that pressure gets a little diminished. But the real problem is that these grants, many of which 

came out of the 9/11 Act, were written at an earlier stage in our 

understanding of homeland security and what capacity we had 

around the country. 

Our understanding and our capacity is much different 10 years 

later, and it is time to reform the grant programs to match that. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. But from your standpoint, in terms of 

managing the budget, you do not feel that is a huge problem? Do 

you feel that your allocation of funds is appropriately designed toward risk-based assessment? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No, I did not say that. I think we do not 

have the flexibility to incorporate risk-based analysis into enough 

of our grant programs. Too many of them have formulas, baselines, 

things of that sort, and what we really need to do is be evaluating 

where our needs are and how do we fill those needs. 

Senator JOHNSON. In your written testimony, I saw that the total 

grant program is about $2.1 billion. Is that correct or is that just 

for FEMA? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, FEMA is 98 percent of our grant 

program. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK, so it is 2.1. How much do you think is 

misallocated based on parochial interests? Do you have a ballpark? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is a kind of ‘‘Have you stopped beating your wife yet? ’’ question. There is no way to answer it without—— 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Is it significant or—I mean—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. All I will say is we have been doing our 

level best within the statutory requirements that we have to be as 

rigorous as we can on our grant guidance and grant awards. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Let me turn to a question I am getting 

all the time, and we certainly appreciate the information you have 

given us, but let us just kind of lay the rumors to rest. We hear 

reports that DHS is buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. We 

contacted your office, and there is apparently a purchase order for 

650 million rounds over 5 years. Is that the correct number? Can 

you just kind of speak to that? Because I know a lot of people are 

concerned about that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. We are in no way buying up the ammunition of the country for any nefarious purpose. We have what 

we call ‘‘strategic source contracting,’’ where we can purchase at a 

certain per unit cost over time. We use about 150 million rounds 

a year. We train almost all of Federal law enforcement plus a lot 

of State and locals at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). By contracting this way, we save almost 80 percent 

in a per unit basis, so it is really just smart contracting and nothing more. 
17 

Senator JOHNSON. Even the 150 million sounds like a lot, but can 

you just kind of break that down? How many people are trained? 

How many practice rounds are fired? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, yes, I mean, CBP probably uses 60, 

65 million there. The Secret Service—many of our services require 

qualifying multiple times a year. FLETC probably uses another 20, 

30 million rounds. We can give you the actual inventory. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We know where the rounds are used. 

Senator JOHNSON. I am actually just giving you the opportunity 

to try and dispel the rumors. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. It is very strange to me how that 

rumor got started. 

Senator COBURN. If I can interrupt, we have actually made an 

inquiry, and they have been very good. The second inquiry is in the 

process of being processed by Homeland Security. We are going to 

have all that available for all the Members so they can answer this 

question. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK, great. That is great. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. But to just be as firm as I can be 

the rumors are unsubstantiated and totally without merit. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK, great. Thank you. 

You mentioned the Secret Service. I have to admit, I was surprised during the May 2012 hearing in terms of the investigation 

there, and we have repeatedly requested to be able to see that Secret Service investigation report. 

First of all, let me ask you: Are you satisfied with the progress 

made in the investigation in Cartagena? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I am satisfied with the progress made. I 

think some of your requests—my understanding is that you have 

been offered the opportunity to look at documents, but under the 

Privacy Act, we cannot provide you with those documents. If I am 

mistaken in that understanding, let me know. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. I believe we are going to need the support 

of the Committee to try and get that. But let me just say that I 

am not satisfied with the progress, and I certainly have more questions that have not been answered. And it is a year later, so I 

would really like basically your commitment to work with our office 

to get those answers—or those questions answered. I think it is incredibly important for the Secret Service to have full credibility 

moving forward. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, the Secret Service is an incredible 

department and does incredible things, and they have their own interest in making sure that their reputation and professionalism is 

not continually tainted by this. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Well, thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you, Senator. Senator Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam 

Secretary, for your service. we appreciate how difficult it is at this 

time and appreciate what you are doing and those that serve underneath you. 
18 

I wanted to ask about the State fusion centers, the national network of fusion centers. Can you tell me, in your view, how those 

fusion centers at the State level are working? 

I also am new to this Committee. I understand as well that you 

have what is called the ‘‘Homeland Security Information Network 

(HSIN).’’ Do those interact with each other? So what would you say 

are the strengths and weaknesses of the fusion centers? And how 

is the information sharing integrated from a State level, thinking 

about the post-9/11 world to the Federal level and you think about 

an event like Boston and all the various agencies that are involved? 

Can you help me with that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The concept behind the fusion centers 

was pretty straightforward, which is that one of our jobs is to get 

intelligence information distributed across the land into the hands 

of law enforcement officers and first responders who need it, and 

to get information back on all hazards, not specific to terrorism. 

Senator AYOTTE. But it would include also terrorism-related 

events? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Oh, that is the first priority. 

Senator AYOTTE. That is the priority focus, yes. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. But it can include—like, for example, we 

used them during the H1N1 epidemic a couple years ago. 

Senator AYOTTE. OK. Because we have one in Concord, so it was 

just beginning when I was Attorney General, and—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Many of them are relatively new, but 

some have been in existence for several years now. The Boston one 

is a very strong one, and they have been really the center of how 

information from us and the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) 

that the FBI operates has been—we make sure we get it to all the 

locals who need it and get information back. So they have been 

going full bore since the bombs 2 days ago. 

But that is the concept, because you cannot share—I mean, you 

have 3,000 plus local law enforcement departments across the 

country, so being able to share the kind of information we want to 

be able to share, that many departments, it is very difficult and 

probably not productive. So the idea was, let us create some fusion 

centers, let us expand their area of responsibility beyond simply 

terrorism, but also other kinds of crimes, hazards that might occur, 

and really use them as a hub for info and analytics sharing. 

Senator AYOTTE. How are they working? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We have been assessing them all. There 

are 70. All but two are on the HSIN network, which is a classified 

network. I would say that a third are really good; a third are average, and we will be working with them; and a third are either new 

or need some real work. 

But I will tell you, from a long-term perspective on the info-sharing side of the house, to me building up that network of fusion centers is going to continue to be key. 

Senator AYOTTE. In March, as I understand it, former Inspector 

General Richard Skinner testified before this Committee that the 

Department faced ongoing challenges in effectively sharing 

counterterrorism information, and one of the issues is the ability 

to complete the implementation of the Homeland Security Information Network. 
19 

What is the status of that? And I understand, as you just described, that these fusion centers are part of that network, but also 

in the completion of the network so that we have information sharing, where are we with that? And what needs to be done? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think great progress has been made. As 

I mentioned, 68 of the 70 fusion centers are now on the HSIN network, and it is just a much more robust and viable network than 

it was when Mr. Skinner testified. 

Senator AYOTTE. OK. Well, that is actually very good news. 

Also, thinking about as we move forward on the informationsharing front, when you say a third of these fusion centers are either just getting up or are ineffective, how do you on the Department level, given that much of this is driven at the State and local 

level in terms of what gets inputted into the system, how do you 

plan to make sure that those third get up to par? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We are going to work directly with them. 

We have some staff that are really just focused on the fusion centers. 

The other thing we are doing is putting some of our own analysts 

in the fusion centers to help with identifying the kinds of information that we need, the suspicious activity reports (SARs), and what 

really constitutes a SAR and what does not and how it gets transmitted. 

So my hope is that over the next months and couple of years that 

we really will see a rapid maturation of the entire network. 

Senator AYOTTE. OK. Thank you very much. 

Let me add my support to the efforts that Dr. Coburn mentioned 

about consolidating grants, and I appreciate that you are doing 

that and to make sure that the grants really are meeting our current needs, because having seen, when I was at the State level, the 

initial grants that came out, it struck me as very scattered, and 

giving communities certain capacities, that I could not understand 

how it fit in a bigger picture of protecting our homeland, and there 

was not much coordination. So I would love to help you with that 

effort and appreciate that you are undertaking that. 

Thank you for being here today. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Thanks, Senator Ayotte. 

Senator Baldwin, you are next, followed by Senator Begich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. 

Madam Secretary, thank you very much for being here and for 

your service. I want to just add my words to those of the Chairman 

about the tragedy in Boston. Obviously, our thoughts and our 

hearts are with the families and particularly with the first responders, both those who were not wearing a uniform and ran to 

help and those wearing a uniform who ran to help, and many of 

those first responders lie within the Homeland Security Department and I hope you will share with your agents our respect and 

gratefulness for their work. 

I wanted to start with just a specific on the line of questioning 

that you just had on fusion centers. Specifically, budget-wise, the 

Federal assistance to fusion centers mostly comes in the form of 
20 

DHS grants rather than direct funding. And I want to hear your 

thoughts on that mechanism and the level of funding. Should they 

be grant funded or direct funded in your opinion moving forward? 

What should we be looking at in terms of the policy of that funding 

mechanism? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You are right, Senator. Historically, they 

have been FEMA grants to the States, and the States can use the 

money however they want. When it started, those FEMA-to-State 

grants were pretty wide open. 

We have been putting more and more, I want to say, guidance 

into those grants, and one of the things about risk based is it is 

also competitive. One of the things we look at is are the grantees 

really looking at our guidance and making a fair analysis as to how 

what they are proposing meets the guidance. 

So we have specified fusion centers as one of the priorities in the 

guidance. We have not recommended a direct fusion center grant. 

Senator BALDWIN. OK. I understand that the budget numbers for 

the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) are classified. However, to the degree that you can in this forum, please talk about 

how much of a role I&A plays in working with State and local officials, in particular given the tragedies this week, to State and local 

officials to prepare for and protect the public at major public 

events. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think one of the major roles of our 

I&A—and I speak now as a former State Attorney General and 

Governor—is to translate intel that we collect through the whole 

alphabet of agencies around the Beltway into a form that State and 

locals can use. What are the indicators and behaviors we are 

watching for? What is the most up-to-date information that can be 

shared about an investigation? What should they be doing in the 

course of an investigation if we are not able to totally close off the 

possibility that there is a more widespread plot? Those sorts of very 

concrete things that require, I think, an active interpretation, really, from the intel world to the State and local world. 

So that is where we focus a lot of our I&A efforts. We work with 

the FBI on this. So, for example, we have been putting out to State 

and locals what we call a joint intel bulletin (JIB). We put out the 

first one yesterday morning to law enforcement that needed to see 

it. That obviously included more detail than what was being made 

totally public, that sort of thing. And there have been updates to 

that over the course of the last 30 hours. 

Senator BALDWIN. OK. Thank you. 

I understand that there will be a $10 million cut to the border 

security infrastructure and technology account affecting the security of the Northern Border. I wonder if you can just explain this 

cut and how it will impact Northern Border security or how you 

will adapt to make sure it is not impaired? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. Well, the Northern Border represents a different set of responsibilities and opportunities than the 

Southwest Border, and we are fully cognizant of that. I think the 

$10 million is a haircut, particularly compared to the President’s 

proposed increase in port officers. And when I go up to the Northern Border, that is the No. 1 thing I hear, is the need to have more 

lanes staffed at the land ports because of the amount of commerce 
21 

that goes back and forth. So I hope that we do not see anything 

of any major level impact from that. 

Senator BALDWIN. Well, since you mentioned port security, there 

was just a fairly extensive dialogue about the preparedness grants 

consolidation. How do you think that will impact port security? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think port security is obviously 

one of the things that goes into any kind of a risk analysis. I will 

give you an example. 

Yesterday, or 2 days ago, when the bombings occurred in Boston, 

you have the harbor there. You have the Charles River. You have 

to immediately make sure that what you are looking at is two 

bombs and not a Mumbai-type attack. So, immediately, we were 

working with the Boston Police Department and the Coast Guard 

to increase security in the harbor in the Charles River until we 

could satisfy ourselves that there was nothing imminent there, although we have maintained that increased level of security. 

You have to have the capacity to do that. You have to have personnel. You have to have equipment. The personnel have to be 

trained, supervised. They have to be exercised. Ports have internationally been used as a place where attacks occur. So when we 

looked competitively at risk-based, ports obviously will have to be 

given very serious consideration. 

Senator BALDWIN. OK. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Chairman CARPER. Thanks, Senator Baldwin. Senator Begich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEGICH 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. Good to see you. Thank 

you yesterday for the briefing. Also, I will not add to that except 

to say thank you for the incredible work you are doing right now 

in Boston. I know there are a lot of good people on the ground as 

well as here in DC and around the country working on it, so thank 

you for your efforts. 

I have two unique roles which work with your agency. The first 

is I will chair, this year, the Subcommittee on Emergency Management and Intergovernmental Affairs here in this Committee. So we 

will talk a lot more later on FEMA, but one of the things that I 

know comes up a lot is the State grants issue. And I know in the 

budget proposal there are some ideas on some statutory changes 

that may be needed. I think we are going to plan a June or July 

hearing and discussion, so we will save these questions for later. 

Also, I will continue to chair the Oceans Subcommittee, which 

has, as you know, jurisdiction over the Coast Guard and fisheries, 

a lot of issues that touch you, probably more than you wanted, but 

are an important part of Alaska’s interests. 

If I can, I want to start for a second on FEMA, then I am going 

to move on, because I will save a lot of those questions for later. 

And that is, when there is a disaster that occurs, maybe a small 

or large disaster, one of the biggest issues is how you get information out to the public. As a former mayor, we always felt like we 

were on the front lines for that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. Do you think the system you have now has improved significantly? And do you think there are other things we 

could be doing to help make sure that—when there is a disaster, 
22 

it is that first 24 hours of communication that seem to be probably 

the most critical, prior to and as it is occurring. Are there road 

blocks still out there that are causing that communication not to 

be fully developed? Or how do you feel where you are at today than 

maybe where we were 5 or 6 years ago? Does that make sense, the 

question? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think so. 

First, with respect to the legislative language that should go 

along with the grants consolidation, we will be prepared to submit 

the appropriate legislative language for your consideration. 

Senator BEGICH. Fantastic. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. This involves an interaction between the 

appropriations process and the authorizing process to get done. 

Senator BEGICH. And I am on both, so—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. All right. [Laughter.] 

Second, with respect to communication, are you speaking, Senator, with respect to communication between us and the people at 

the city level or—— 

Senator BEGICH. Public. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO [continuing]. With the public in general? 

Senator BEGICH. Public. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think it is much better. I think we have 

increasingly used social media, because so many people now receive 

their information through those many vehicles. So we tweet and we 

put stuff online and we do a lot of things to make information generally available. 

Lessons learned, as we all know, the initial hours after a disaster 

there is often a lot of confusion and misinformation. So one of the 

things that we have been working on is seeing how quickly we can 

kind of identify what we know and explain what we do not know 

to the public. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. And then, of course, we recognize the 

public often has really—Where do I go? How do I find my kids? 

Senator BEGICH. How do I get shelter? Where do I go? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. How do I get shelter, exactly. So setting 

up multiple ways people can get that information as quickly as possible. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. So it is an improving process, still 

more work to be done, but better than it was. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think we can always improve. 

Senator BEGICH. Good. Let me ask you, in regards to the Coast 

Guard budget, I know in the budget I think it is about a 12- or 13- 

percent reduction, mostly on capital assets which is the bigger 

chunk. And, of course, you probably know where I am going, and 

that is, I am concerned when I look at the increased activity. And 

we got a little pause this year, this fiscal year, because of the oil 

and gas exploration issues. But 2014 and 2015 is going to be pretty 

robust up there. And obviously my concern is, as you reduce that 

budget—and I know we are in this tight budget situation, and I 

recognize that, but how do you see that impacting what is going 

to happen in monitoring not only what is in the 2014–15 future, 

but really this year with, fishing and drug interdiction and all 

these things that are critical? And, of course, from Alaska’s per-
23 

spective, the fishing issue is huge. And we have seen, as a matter 

of fact, the day we were out there in Alfical Bay, we saw an incredible new facility that has done some great work on fishing. And so 

how do you see that impacting the enforcement efforts, and then 

obviously the oil and gas industry, making sure we have good coverage for what is going to happen there? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think what we will see is a continue of the sequester on operations of the Coast Guard, and that 

has been in some areas a 20-, 25-percent reduction in daily operations. But I think that will continue. 

On the other hand, the continued work on the National Security 

Cutter fleet is designed so that we have in essence a mobile platform to be up in northern Alaska during the drilling season as opposed to building a permanent Coast Guard station that really 

would not be used half of the year. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. And the NSC has the capability to—— 

Senator BEGICH. Well, they are like a whole town out in the 

water. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, they can provide air coverage; we 

can operate search and rescue from the NSC, et cetera. So the 

NSCs are large investments, but they have a much greater number 

of uses than the other types of vessels we have in the Coast Guard. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Let me ask you also—my time is 

limited here. It seemed like last year the Administration was moving forward on icebreakers impressively. I think in the 5-year plan 

there was $120 million or so for construction, but this year it has 

ratcheted back quite a bit. 

What do you see there—and, first, I commend you for making 

sure the one that we asked to be renovated got renovated. And 

moving forward, I know there is a lot of controversy of should we 

do it, should we not. But I think it is going to pay off long term. 

Give me your sense on what we see as the future as Russia and 

China are very busy, especially China, building icebreakers left and 

right, because they think they own the Arctic, to be very frank with 

you. They say that. They divide it up by population, which, if I am 

not mistaken, they are not an Arctic nation. We are. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. 

Senator BEGICH. So that was my commentary there, but what is 

your thought on icebreakers and what we see in the future? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The proposed budget does continue work 

on another second polar icebreaker, but it is a small downpayment, 

and that, quite frankly, is looking at what could be done this year 

and how it fits within the overall budget, not only of the Coast 

Guard but of the Department, writ large. 

But I agree with you, our Nation needs a very strong Arctic position and Arctic policy, so we are very heavily engaged with the 

White House on the development of that plan. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Thank you for your testimony, and 

I will look forward to the legislation regarding the grants. And 

then the last thing, I will send a question regarding whether you 

should look at leasing equipment also in a partnership with the 

private sector for some of these larger vessels that we may not 
24 

have the capital for. But you do not have to answer that. I will just 

send it in, and we will have a conversation on that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you, Senator Begich. 

Next is Senator Paul, followed by Senator McCain and Senator 

McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL 

Senator PAUL. Madam Secretary, thanks for coming to the Committee today and for your testimony. 

Are you in favor of having our commercial pilots armed? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think properly trained and if they have 

gone through our Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program, 

arming can be appropriate, yes. 

Senator PAUL. I guess I am concerned because in your budget, 

the Administration’s budget, we have zeroed out the funding for 

the training of pilots. I think that has been done a couple times, 

and we have had to add it back in. So we were wondering about 

your commitment to arming pilots. We think it is a—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I will tell you the reason why we 

have zeroed it out, Senator, and that is—and it goes to a lot of the 

changes in the budget. We are moving to risk based, and the FFDO 

program is not risk based. It is just happenstance whether you 

happen to have a pilot on board that went through the training or 

not. 

We are offering the training to air carriers if they want their pilots covered. But we would rather stick with the Federal Air Marshals (FAMs), who are apportioned based on risk. 

Senator PAUL. Well, I do not think I can overemphasize the importance of deterrence, and part of deterrence is not knowing who 

is armed and who is not armed, not knowing whose house has guns 

and who does not. That is why we do not want registries published 

of who owns guns and who does not. But I feel better even if 5 percent of the pilots have it because the terrorists do not know which 

5 percent are. I would rather it be 100 percent are armed. But I 

think zeroing out the funding shows a lack of commitment to the 

idea of self-defense, and I think this sends a huge signal to terrorists around the world if we are not going to arm our pilots. 

In fact, I think we need to go the opposite direction. I think we 

have one training facility in New Mexico where the pilots are 

trained. Is that where they are trained? Anyway, the pilots complain about the costs, the expense also, and the time away. It is 

a 48-hour program. We have training facilities for policemen in 

every State. I do not see any reason why we could not cooperate 

and make it a lot cheaper. I am for saving money. I do not mind 

saving money. But we have all kinds of sunk costs in training facilities for police officers, State troopers. It should not have to be 

done in one place. You have a manual. Send the manual around. 

Let them learn how to do it and have it done. we have concealedcarry in most of the States around the country. There is no reason 

why you cannot have local training. 

I would also take military officers who have had extensive training already, and I would exempt them from half the program so 

they can save time and expense on getting it done. 
25 

But I think the idea of deterrence cannot be measured. You cannot measure how important it is to have deterrence. But I think 

that a lot of us would argue that having pilots armed is a great 

deal of deterrence, and we should not send any indication to any 

terrorists around the world that we are not serious about having 

our pilots armed. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Senator McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary, and, 

again, I share with all of my colleagues our appreciation for the 

great work that your people are doing, especially in light of the 

tragedy in Boston. 

Madam Secretary, I am sure you heard that Senator Schumer 

and I met with the President yesterday and briefed him on our immigration reform proposal, and he expressed his strong support. Do 

you share that view? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. I obviously have not read all 854 

pages in detail, but I think it embraces the principles the President 

has enunciated, and it is very comprehensive in its approach, so 

very appreciative of the work that you have done on this. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you very much. That then also means 

that you support the President’s position that we should have a 

trigger on border security. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It depends on what the trigger is for, but 

as I understand the way the bill is written, that looks like a very 

reasonable approach to border security. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

One of the big problems we have is that you abandon the metric 

of operational control, and you have not given us a border security 

index. Let me quote from your hometown newspaper, an editorial 

the other day: ‘‘If President Obama really wants immigration reform, he needs to put pressure on Homeland Security Secretary 

Janet Napolitano. She has not finished an important job. Her agency has failed to produce a simple standard for measuring border security, a project the Department of Homeland Security started in 

2010, but apparently has not worked up much of a sweat to finish.’’ 

I will not complete the editorial. 

And then, unfortunately, one of your people testified to the 

House and said that—Mr. Borkowski told Republican Candice Miller, ‘‘I do not believe that we intend that the Border Condition 

Index (BCI) will be a tool for the measurement that you are suggesting.’’ 

Now, the Government Accountability Office has also issued a 

very scathing report about, again, a failure of establishing metrics. 

Do you intend to come forth in a far more transparent manner with 

a border security index? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, let me give you some background on this and try to answer this question as concisely as I 

can. 

There are so many ways to measure the border that the problem 

with the operational control definition was it did not encompass all 

of the ways you can look at the border. So we said let us look at 

what all goes into, is the border a safe and secure area. 
26 

And then it turned out, as you got into it, that is a much more 

difficult question to answer than it is to ask. There are a whole 

host of statistics, just like you have a whole host of statistics on 

a baseball player. And so you have to look at the picture and see 

what the trend lines are and the like. 

Now, we have supplied those numbers ad infinitum to every committee that has requested them, and we still intend to work on an 

overall border conditions index. But the notion that there is some 

magic number out there that answers the question, I wish I could 

tell you there is, but we have not found it yet. 

Senator MCCAIN. I know that there is. I know that there are 

ways of determining security anywhere in the world and in the 

United States of America. Now, whether it be on apprehensions— 

which, by the way, interestingly, are up 13 percent, which kind of 

contradicts the arguments that the border is much more secure 

when you are talking for years about how apprehensions are down 

as a measure of that. I cannot believe, it is beyond anyone’s belief, 

nor anyone in the Senate that has worked on this issue, that you 

cannot come up with a measurement of the security of our border. 

If you cannot do that, then we will in legislation. We will. 

So for you to assert that somehow we cannot give the American 

people an accurate depiction of the border—of the security on our 

border, where drug dealers are moving across into Arizona, as we 

know, where coyotes continue to put people in the most unspeakable conditions, and we do not have a measurement as to how we 

are doing on one of the fundamental requirements of any nation, 

and that is, border security, is frankly beyond me. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, if I might, Senator, if you have a 

magic definition, I would be happy to look at it. 

Senator MCCAIN. The Government Accountability Office has a 

number of metrics that could be used. Why don’t you consult them? 

Because they know, even if you do not. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, the GAO, as you know, one of their 

ratios is one that we have a lot of problems with, and we have explained that, at least to your staff. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, it sure is better than nothing, which is 

what you have come up with, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, you do not have nothing, Senator. 

You do not have—— 

Senator MCCAIN. We do not have a measurement of border security, period. And your spokesperson said that would not be coming 

forth anytime soon. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I am my own spokesperson, and let 

me, if I might, you do have a definition. You have many definitions. 

You have every statistic in the world, and you have your own observations. And what I have appreciated during this debate, as you 

have been working on reform, is your going down to the border, 

and you know from your own personal observation, it is different 

now than it was 5 years ago and, indeed, 10 years ago. 

We need to sustain those efforts. We need to be able to put force 

multipliers down there, like technology. We need a national EVerify-type program, which is a main driver of illegal immigration. 

We need the ability to clean up the visa system, which is also a 

main driver of illegal immigration. Those things all go together. 
27 

So we look forward to working with you on this bill as it goes 

through the process, but, again, if I could give you a magic number 

and say if we hit 42 we are in, I am not sure that would be either 

fair, accurate, and in any event, would not reflect all of the factors 

that need to be taken into consideration. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, my assertion is that we can determine 

whether our border is secure or not using information including 

what we can from new radar, the VADER radar. And, again, I tell 

you, if you do not give it to us, then we will decide ourselves. But 

we will have a measurement of border security. We owe that to the 

people of this country. 

Who was in charge and made the decision to release 3,000 people 

who were detainees? Who made that decision? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I do not—3,000? 

Senator MCCAIN. It was a total, I believe, of some 3,000 who 

were released, I have forgotten what date it was. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Oh, I think I know what you are referring to. Yes, I know what you are referring to. This was a decision 

made within ICE as we were under the continuing resolution with 

no prospect of a budget and sequestration to see what detainees 

could be put in alternatives to detention as a way to control costs. 

Senator MCCAIN. I and now Senator Levin have made requests 

for information about those individuals who were released, their 

backgrounds, whether they had criminal activity. And so far you 

and your agency—well, you, because we wrote the letter to you, 

have not given us the information. Do we expect that information? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let me followup on that and see where 

it is. 

Senator MCCAIN. OK. We first wrote to you in March, and then 

Senator Levin and I on behalf of the Permanent Subcommittee on 

Investigations (PSI) wrote to you just a couple of weeks ago. I hope 

we can get that information. I think the American people deserve 

it. 

I look forward to working with you as we move forward with 

comprehensive immigration reform, and I hope you understand 

that in 1986, I guess I am the only one here that voted for Simpson-Mazzoli. We gave amnesty to 3 million people on the proviso 

and the promise that never again would we have to worry about 

people coming into our country illegally because we were going to 

secure our border and take the necessary steps. Now we have 11 

million people. We owe it to the people of this country that there 

not be a third wave 10, 15, or 20 years from now of a renewed 

number of people who have come to this country illegally. 

All of us are advocates of immigration, but we believe it should 

be a fair system, and we believe that to have people living in the 

shadows—and you are as familiar as I am with the way they are 

now being brought to this country—we must address this issue. 

But the American people have to be assured that there is not going 

to be a third wave. You can be very helpful to us in putting into 

law the necessary measures, as you say, including E-Verify, that 

would prevent not only the demand but the supply. And I thank 

you, Madam Secretary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. If I might, just one comment, Senator. 
28 

Chairman CARPER. Go ahead. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. One of the things that I noted in the 

draft legislation is that it has a cutoff date, so that individuals who 

come after the cutoff date are not eligible and would not be eligible 

for the pathway. This is as I understand on a cursory reading of 

the bill. 

I think it is very important to get that information out. One of 

the things that happened after 1986 is there was a surge. We do 

not want that to happen again, and the way you prevent it is exactly as the proposal indicates. 

Senator MCCAIN. I think it might be one of the factors in the 13- 

percent increase that we are seeing this year. Would you agree 

with that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We are not—— 

Senator MCCAIN. That and the economy? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think the economy, and the real surge, 

I can tell you, is in the Southern Rio Grande Valley, and it is otherthan-Mexican immigrants. It is Central Americans. We are already 

moving manpower and equipment down there to deal with that. I 

think we will be able to report some significant progress shortly. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for overspeaking my time. 

Chairman CARPER. You have earned that right. Senator 

McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I, too, want to greet you and commend the rapid response of so 

many first responders and law enforcement assets to Boston in a 

way that was clearly benefited by investments that we have made 

in the Federal Government and investments that we have embraced on this Committee. And so when it is executed in a professional way, you deserve kudos for that, and I want to give you 

kudos for that. But I am a former prosecutor, and I have a question 

that is just—I cannot keep it from coming out. 

Based on the evidence at this point, is there any difference between Sandy Hook and Boston other than the choice of weapon? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, in terms of intent for death and destruction and injury, no. Methodology, yes. And we do not know the 

motivation behind Boston. We do not know whether it was domestic, international—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Or if it was identical to the motivation in 

Sandy Hook. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We just do not know the answer to those 

questions. So I think that it is impossible for me to sit at the table 

today and say they are identical, except in effect and impact. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, as I look at the evidence that is available, you have mass destruction and violence and slaughter of innocents, and in neither case do we know motive. And the irony is we 

are so quick to call Boston ‘‘terror.’’ Why aren’t we calling the man 

with the high-capacity assault weapon and the high-capacity magazine, why aren’t we calling him a ‘‘terrorist’’? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I do not know the answer to that question. 
29 

Senator MCCASKILL. I think it is important that we talk about 

that in government because—and it may be that we learn the motive of both, and it may be the motive in Sandy Hook was political 

and the motive in Boston was not, or the motive in Boston was political and the motive in Sandy Hook was not. It may be they both 

are suffering from severe mental incapacity that caused them to 

want to go slaughter a bunch of innocent people. 

But, as I look at it with the eye of a prosecutor and the evidence 

that is available right now, I find it troubling that one is characterized in a way that causes so much more fear and disruption in everyone’s daily lives than the other one—not that there are not 

mothers all over the country that are afraid to send their first 

graders to school these days. There are. But I would certainly urge 

you, Secretary, to take a look at this and see if the government has 

a responsibility as to when and how we characterize an act, a 

criminal act, an ‘‘act of terror’’ when there is not evidence yet to 

support, I believe, that characterization until we know what the 

motive is. It just is troubling to me, and I think both of them—it 

may be they had identical motives, just one chose a military-style 

weapon with a high-capacity magazine, and the other one chose to 

make a homemade bomb. 

Let me ask you about interoperability. We have now spent a 

huge amount of money on interoperability, and I know this is a 

headache. But we have spent almost half a billion dollars on interoperability, and we have another contract up for $3.2 billion for 

new infrastructure, but yet we still cannot talk to each other. And 

obviously we have an Inspector General (IG) report that says, this 

has not gone well, we have wasted a lot of money. 

Can you give me any hope in the front of interoperability? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, and I think the hope actually stems 

from the Congress’ decision to set aside broadband spectrum for 

public safety and the creation of the FirstNet Board and the way 

that that has been funded. My interactions with the board, which 

also includes private sector representatives, suggest to me that we 

now have the money and, more importantly, the decisionmaking 

expertise to finally create a more universal answer to this problem. 

There is more interoperability in the system than people allow. 

Sometimes the question is: Who needs to be interoperable with 

whom? And so if you go for everybody needs to be universally interoperable, that is a different question than if you say everybody at 

a certain rank needs to be interoperable with others at a certain 

rank and so forth. 

So the definitional issues are important in terms of the universe 

you are trying to cover, but, nonetheless, I think, Senator—and we 

can get a briefing to you on this. I think in my judgment, having 

dealt with this issue for far too long and having dealt with it as 

a Governor and as a State Attorney General and being very frustrated at what was going on, this is really hope for the future. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I would love to get that briefing. 

The GAO report—and I know my colleague is going to maybe 

cover this more fully, but I do want to just emphasize the R&D policy guidance. The research and development, GAO says that there 

is no departmentwide policy defining R&D and as a result, you do 
30 

not really know what your total investment is in R&D, which limits 

your ability to oversee it. 

I know that there is actually money that goes back and forth 

from various parts of your budget under this rubric of R&D. Are 

you taking some steps to address these concerns about getting a 

handle on maybe some duplicative R&D that is going on and contracts that are being let and maybe the right hand does not always 

know what the left hand is doing? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Oh, yes, I do not know the date of that 

report, but we have been involved in the last year in a very extensive effort led by our Science and Technology Directorate and our 

Acquisitions Review Board to do a portfolio review of all the R&D 

projects throughout the Department precisely to identify any unnecessary redundancies, make sure that we have quality control, 

and that we have an acquisition plan that is resultant from R&D. 

So the answer is that that is an area where we have made significant improvements over the last year. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Maybe that Director could get with us, because the report was issued last week, so—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, they typically are not current on 

their research, but we will be happy to respond. 

Senator MCCASKILL. It is the 2013 annual report. So let us make 

sure that we figure out where we are and I would love to get a 

brief also from that Director about where the R&D is going, because I see this all over government, that we are doing R&D at Defense, at Homeland Security, sometimes two or three within Defense and Homeland Security, at three or four different universities, and they are doing the exact same R&D. And I just want to 

make sure that is not occurring. 

So thank you very much. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You bet. 

Chairman CARPER. Secretary Napolitano, maybe we will start off 

a second round. I think Senator Coburn and I have some additional 

questions and would appreciate your sticking with us for just a 

while longer. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Sure. 

Chairman CARPER. Some of our colleagues may come back as 

well. 

I want to go back to a point raised by Senator McCain. We talked 

about the 3,000 or so detainees that were released from a detention 

center. That is a matter that concerns a lot of us, not just that 

3,000 people were released, but the issue where some of the people 

who were released were felons. In our roles as Governors, I do not 

know if that ever happened to you under your watch, but from time 

to time people were released, not often but infrequently, from prison in our State that should not have been released. And we had 

prisoners with the same name, several people with the same name. 

And once or twice the wrong Robert Smith, if you will, was released. So stuff happens like that. 

I would just urge you and the folks at ICE to be extremely careful going forward to make sure, to the best we can ensure, if there 

are any other detainees released—my hope is that will not be happening, but if there are, that they are folks who have really no 

record of felonies or any kind of violent behavior. 
31 

The second thing I want to do in following up on his comments— 

actually, I want to steal just a page—not the whole report, but I 

want to just take a moment to thank Senator Coburn and his staff, 

along with the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, for 

their work in looking at fusion centers. And I think he will talk 

about this more at length, but I guess we have about 75 of them 

now. Some of them are really good. Some of them are pretty good. 

Some are not very good. And some are just—I will not say of no 

value, but of very little value. And as we work to try to target our 

resources in places where they could provide the best bang for our 

buck, the question I am going to ask you is: What are we doing to 

make sure that the ones that are of little value or marginal value, 

what are we doing in a proactive way to make sure that they step 

up their game? 

I will use an example. Long before I came to public office, I was 

a naval flight officer and served as a mission commander in a Navy 

P–3 aircraft, which still fly in the—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We have them. 

Chairman CARPER. Homeland security, that is very encouraging. 

But we had many patrols going across the country, around the 

world actually. Our job was to do maritime surveillance, the surface of the ocean and subsurface of the ocean we tracked. ‘‘The 

Hunt for Red October,’’ we did a lot of those missions and a lot of 

missions off the coast of Vietnam and Cambodia in that war. 

But we had some squadrons in the Navy P–3 role—this is an exaggeration—that had a hard time spelling the word ‘‘submarine’’ 

much less finding them. And we had some that were terrific, and 

then a lot in between. And one of the things we did, the Admiral 

we worked for created tactical training teams to actually go out 

and to work literally with each squadron, maybe 12 crews, but literally to fly with, and work with those squadrons—they were marginal performers—literally worked with the crews that needed the 

most help. 

And I do not know if a similar kind of approach—but a tactical 

team approach worked for us, really raised the performance of the 

Navy P–3 role in our maritime patrol responsibilities. Something 

like that might be of value. I would just lay that out on the table 

and again commend Senator Coburn and his staff for their work on 

this area. 

Second, I want to turn to, if I can, cybersecurity, and I am encouraged that the Senate is actually coming together and starting 

to work more cohesively, more collaboratively. Immigration reform 

is one example. Gun legislation is before us. They are agreeing on 

a continuing resolution for the balance of the fiscal year and providing some discretion from your Department and others to manage through those cuts more effectively. 

But I am encouraged that we are starting to see some cohesion 

forming around what to do, not just within the Congress, but also 

with our key stakeholders and your efforts. 

I have a question I wanted to ask with that in mind. The budget 

of the President includes increases for your Department’s assistance to the private sector and to other Federal agencies. Could you 

just take a moment and describe how those increases for 

cybersecurity are designed to help our partners with critical infra-
32 

structure and other Federal agencies that have experienced cyber 

attacks? Could you do that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, I think cyber obviously is probably 

the fastest growing area of the Department, in part because that 

is where we have seen the most activity grow over the last few 

years. 

The President’s budget does a couple things. It increases funding 

for our ability to secure the civilian side of cyber—the networks 

there, including continuous diagnostics and monitoring. It increases funding for the Computer Emergency Readiness Team 

(CERT), which is a response team that works with the private sector in response to incidents. Sometimes they work out of the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center 

(NCCIC), which is the 24/7 watch center here. They actually go onsite wherever the attack is located or centered. It increases funding 

for the industrial control systems, a CERT in particular, because 

the attacks on control systems are of increasing concern. So we 

have that. 

So it really goes through kind of all of the responsibilities we 

have both within the Federal Government, but also with the private sector, and provides some needed additional funding. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thanks. 

As you know, the President—in fact, you were very much involved in this. The President recently issued his Executive Order 

to strengthen our critical infrastructure. I especially want to applaud whoever figured out the idea of assigning to National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) the responsibility for 

doing the outreach to key stakeholders and asking them for their 

involvement and their participation in deciding what best practices 

should be. That was a good move, and I am hearing very positive 

comments in particular from the business community and the private owners of the critical infrastructure on that. 

But could you describe how the budget request would be used to 

implement the President’s Executive Order? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, the EO and the budget are integrated together. I mean, they were in some respects prepared almost at the same time. And the EO, as you know, directs us to do 

a number of things with the private sector, with NIST, et cetera. 

And so we are given the resources with which to do that and to 

meet the timelines that are in the EO. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. And before I turn it over to Senator 

Coburn, I want to come back to the issue of fusion centers again. 

I mentioned the Navy P–3 where we used tactical training teams 

to go out and work with the marginally performing squadrons. In 

the nuclear regulatory world, I chair a Subcommittee that has jurisdiction over clean air and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC). We have about 100 nuclear power plants, and we use a system where we have seen—I think we call them ‘‘red teams,’’ where 

we have literally seen teams out there to test the security. They 

do not go carrying weapons and finding weapons, but it is pretty 

realistic, and it actually raises everybody’s game. It is just another 

example of that. 
33 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We do a lot of red teaming, Senator. That 

is a very good way to test whether what we are doing makes 

sense—— 

Chairman CARPER. I would just ask—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO [continuing]. And find gaps. 

Chairman CARPER. Good. That is good. I would just ask that we 

consider that with respect to the fusion centers as we try to raise 

their game. Thank you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Fair enough. 

Senator COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I asked the staff of PSI to give 

every Member of our Committee a copy of that. 

Madam Secretary, when we talked about the consolidation of all 

these grant programs, would you kindly provide the Committee 

with a State-by-State and port-by-port breakdown of Port Security 

Grant Program (PSGP) funding from 2010 to 2012? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, if you would do that. 

And I am correct, other than classified information, the spending 

coming through these grant programs goes on USASpending.gov? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I believe that is correct, yes. 

Senator COBURN. All right. Let me talk about fusion centers for 

a minute. I know you did not like my report very much. I heard 

about it in all sorts of ways. Here is the real crux: 

Our Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) are working well. You 

cannot go to a place where the local law enforcement does not have 

a great relationship with the FBI in terms of running those organizations. So the question comes: What is the added value based on 

the amount of money that is spent on the fusion centers and what 

do they bring? And there are some real privacy rights that have 

been violated in fusion centers that has to be cleaned up, which we 

documented. We are not the majority of money that is spent on the 

fusion centers. In other words, we are not the No. 1 funder. That 

is State and local communities. 

So the question is: With the limited budget, where do we get the 

most bang for our buck? And that is my question. What have we 

developed, what have we seen? And as we researched this, what we 

found was not very good value for the money that we are getting. 

Now, your job is to be a visionary, and you are seeing at some 

point in the future, I understand, where you think that value is 

going to come. I just have real doubts about it, and so I will continue to work with you on it and everything else. But in a time of 

limited budgets, what my hope would be is what we take is something that is really working well, which is the JTTF organizations—and they do work well—and really enhance them where we 

can to maybe do everything you want to see done in a fusion center 

done there, rather than have two separate organizations. 

So, anyhow, you and I will continue that conversation in the future, and hopefully we will get a little bit better bang for our buck 

out of what is going into fusion centers and more product that is 

actually usable coming out of them. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. If I might, Senator, I would be happy to 

work with you on that. I hope to at some point persuade you that 

really what we need are both. The JTTFs are good. We are the 

largest participant in the JTTFs besides the FBI. 
34 

But they are there to coordinate and investigate incidents of suspected terrorism. They have a dedicated mission. The fusion centers are there to collect information and provide analytics on all 

sorts of hazards. They have a much broader and more diffuse mission. 

I think the fusion centers can be made better. I am not quarreling about that. But I would suggest to you that putting everything under the terrorism label is too narrow—— 

Senator COBURN. Except that is not what is really happening in 

the JTTF. There is drug stuff, there is all the other stuff. If you 

talk to sheriffs, if you talk to police chiefs, where do they go? They 

do not go to the fusion center. They go to the Joint Terrorism Task 

Force because that is where the information is that is timely. The 

problem with fusion centers is their information is always dated. 

It is behind the curve. 

Now, maybe some of them are very good, and I do not doubt that 

Boston’s was. But the point is, can we do that, can we create one 

organization rather than two and still have a benefit and save the 

taxpayers’ money and have timely information? That is all I am 

saying. I am not against fusion centers, but we certainly—what the 

GAO report said April of this year is there is tons of duplication 

going on that the American taxpayer either at the State level or 

at the Federal level, is paying for. So why are we duplicating 

things, again? 

And that actually takes me into the other area that I wanted to 

work with you on, which is the GAO’s recent duplication report. I 

do not know. Have you read it, been briefed on it? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I have a summary of it, yes. 

Senator COBURN. What steps are you taking now to address the 

areas identified by GAO in terms of duplication in your Department? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I have asked our management team to 

look at all the areas that GAO identified and to give me their assessment as to whether the GAO was correct, whether we have already corrected what the GAO perceived, because as I indicated to 

Senator McCaskill, by the time a GAO report is written, sometimes 

you do not have the most current information. That is just the 

way—I am not being critical, just descriptive. 

Senator COBURN. Yes. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. But, yes, if we can—under these budget 

times, we have no interest in wasting any taxpayer dollars. So if 

I can find a redundancy or something can be done efficiently—that 

is what our Efficiency Review process is all about—we are going to 

do that. 

Senator COBURN. The other thing that would come is where you 

see an area where you need our Committee’s help, what I hope you 

will do is say, ‘‘You guys got us doing three different things in 

three different areas that actually lead to the same result. Here is 

a recommendation. Why don’t you guys change this?’’ 

So what I would like is that you really are forward with us when 

you look at all that the GAO has put out and say, ‘‘Congress, you 

have to change this for us if you expect us to be efficient and save 

money.’’ 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Fair enough. 
35 

Senator COBURN. All right. Senator McCaskill talked about the 

Science and Technology Directorate and the duplication there. It is 

big, in terms of what GAO says. And I notice that you have a significant increase in funding, a 126-percent increase in funding, 

from 2012 for the Science and Technology Directorate. Can you talk 

to us a little bit about that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Almost all of the increase in the funding 

is for the NBAF, which was determined by everybody who looked 

at the issue, including the Congress, that we needed a Level 4 ag 

facility, laboratory. Plum Island, where the existing one is—we are 

going to have to use it for a while, but in the end, it will not be 

our long-term facility, cannot be. There was a peer-reviewed competition for where the site should be. Kansas was the selected site. 

And so now we are in a partnership with the State of Kansas. We 

put in roughly $700 million, they are putting in $300-plus million 

of State money to build the Level 4 facility. 

So the budget request enables us to begin to break ground on the 

main laboratory and to be on a construction schedule where we 

would be done by 2020. 

Senator COBURN. All right. The other thing that I would note is 

at least three reports were due to Congress on April 10, 2013. I do 

not know if you are aware of that. This is the same time the President submitted his budget request, and we have not seen those reports. They cover the result of Science and Technology (S&T’s) research and development for 2013, the amounts deobligated from 

projects from 2013, and the projected costs for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center. 

Are they coming? Do you have any idea? Or do you have to get 

back to me on it? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I will get back to you on that, Senator. 

Senator COBURN. OK. 

It is hard for us to look at the 2014 request when we cannot get 

the reports that are due to us on 2013. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I understand. I will—— 

Senator COBURN. That is just fair. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is a fair question. I will look into it. 

As long as we are having a frank discussion, we will get those reports to you, but perhaps we could look comprehensively at all the 

reporting requirements of the Department. 

Senator COBURN. I agree. What is set up in legislation and mandated is not always things that will actually make you better or 

give us more knowledge. I understand that. You have my commitment to help you. If you see areas where you would like to see that 

changed, I think Senator Carper and I both would like to help you 

see that done. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We will work together on it. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. In that spirit, before I turn to Senator 

McCaskill, one of the things that we could probably do that would 

help the Secretary and future Secretaries and their leadership 

team is somehow figure out how to have fewer Committees and 

Subcommittees with jurisdiction over different pieces of what you 

do. How many are there in all? 
36 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It depends on how you count, but the 

number I use is 105. 

Chairman CARPER. 105. That is a whole lot of folks to be answering to. Maybe as we do our top-to-bottom review of the Department 

we can actually figure out how to have a few less Committees and 

Subcommittees for you to report to. Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I could not agree more with Senator Carper 

on that. It is absolutely unconscionable. I do not know how you 

have time to do your job because it is a fine line between oversight 

and making you inefficient. And I think a lot of the duplication 

that we have on our end, it takes a lot of nerve for me to chew on 

you about duplication when we are having you answer to that 

many Committees. 

And I neglected in my first round of questioning to thank you on 

NBAF. There is an animal science corridor through the Midwest 

that is very important to a lot of preparedness that we need to 

have as we look to the future. And I know this was a tough call 

for you because of limited resources, and I know that my colleagues—and, frankly, it is in Kansas, and I am not really that 

fond of Kansas. [Laughter.] 

But, it is good for the Midwest, and it is good—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It is good for the country. 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. For our country, and so in this 

instance, I have been trying to fight as hard as I could for K State 

to get the funding for this important research facility, and I think 

they will be a great partner in this, and I think the entire region 

will be a great partner. And I realized I had gotten through and 

I was chewing on you and putting you on the spot, and I had not 

thanked you, and I wanted to stick around to do that. 

Thank you very much. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I appreciate that. It was gracious. Thank 

you very much. 

Chairman CARPER. And that was it, huh? 

Senator MCCASKILL. That was it. 

Chairman CARPER. That is very nice. 

I have one more question, if you could bear with us, and then I 

am just going to ask you for a closing thought or two you would 

like to share with us. We always ask our witnesses to give an opening statement, and we come at you from a bunch of different directions. You may have a thought or two you would like to close with, 

and so I will give you a minute to think about that while I pose 

a question. 

It is a question that deals with fee increases, if I could. One of 

the elements in the proposal that Senator McCain and our seven 

colleagues have submitted is they are in favor of identifying force 

multipliers that we have talked about; ways to make us more effective on border security, and also come up with ways to help offset 

those costs. And there are offsets provided in the President’s budget for raising some of the monies that are needed to fund some of 

the extra personnel and initiatives that will be used. 

Just make the case for those. Not everybody is in favor of it, raising revenues even for user fees that pay for stuff that we agree 

needs to be done, but just make the case for us, if you would. 
37 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think the user fees we have requested are adjustments to existing users fees. We have had a immigration user fee. We have had an air security fee. Under the understanding that those who are using those particular services, the 

services of the land ports or the airports, what have you, they 

should pay a little bit of the cost as opposed to the taxpayer generally. 

The problem is the fees have not been adjusted, and there was 

no mechanism put in there for adjustments, automatic adjustments, and so they are woefully out of step with what they actually 

need to cover as a real user fee. And so what the President is requesting is that we make those adjustments. 

We do not, in the case of the aviation fee, do it all at once. We 

do it over a period of 5 years. And we are not talking large dollars 

but enough so that we can make the improvements we need, maintain the security we must have, and not further burden the taxpayer generally. 

Chairman CARPER. Talk to us a little bit about the trade. The 

amount of trade we have with Mexico and with Canada, put that 

in perspective with the rest of the world. And I am not going to 

ask you to put dollar values on that, but just in relative terms, how 

important is it? And why are we so concerned about making sure 

that trade, whether it is Mexico or Canada, can move in an effective way? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Canada and Mexico represent two of our 

top three trading partners, and that translates into hundreds of 

billions of dollars worth of trade annually and hundreds of thousands of jobs within the United States. Facilitating that trade, having things go smoothly and efficiently across borders is not only a 

security issue but it is an economic imperative. 

So working to keep lines shorter at the ports, figuring out ways 

where we can increase so-called trusted trader programs and implement the full beyond-the-border initiative with Canada—— 

Chairman CARPER. That is trader, spelled T-R-A-D-E-R, as opposed to another kind of traitor. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, exactly. Putting in the infrastructure for really a 21st Century border with Mexico. So these things 

really give meaning to the reality that these are two of our top 

three trading partners. 

Chairman CARPER. Good. OK. 

Do you want to take a minute or two just to give us a closing 

thought? And then I will give a short benediction, and we will call 

it a day. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No. I have enjoyed being with the Committee today. I think we have had a fair airing of some of the 

issues. I look forward to working with the Committee on these and 

others that come up. 

This Department has made tremendous advances over the past 

10 years, but we know we are still improving and looking for ways 

to improve, and we are committed to doing that. 

Chairman CARPER. Good. I mentioned this before, I do not know 

if ever in your presence, but I certainly mentioned it at hearings 

here in the past. An international study was done a year or so ago. 

I heard about it on NPR driving to catch the train one morning 
38 

from Delaware to D.C. And the study had been done asking people 

who work in countries all over the world, ‘‘What do you like about 

your job? ’’ And people had, as you might imagine, a lot of different 

answers. Some people liked being paid. Some people liked having 

benefits. They liked having health care, a pension, or vacation. 

Some people liked the folks they worked with, and that was their 

favorite thing. Some people just liked the surroundings in which 

they worked. 

But the most common answer, the most agreed-to answer among 

the people surveyed was this response: The thing they liked most 

about their work was they knew that what they were doing was 

important and they felt that they were making progress. 

Think about that. The work that they do is important and they 

felt like they were making progress. 

The work that you and your team at DHS is doing is incredibly 

important. We were reminded of that this week. And I think in 

many ways progress is being made, and that is a tribute to you and 

your predecessors and the folks that you lead. 

So as I said at the beginning of the hearing, everything I do I 

know I can do better, and to the extent there has been some criticism here, the intent is to be constructive and to try to figure out 

how we can work with you to enable you and us each to do our responsibilities better. 

With that having been said, the hearing record will remain open 

for, I am told, 15 days, until May 2, 5 p.m., for the submission of 

statements and questions for the record. We thank you for your 

time, for your service, and for being here today. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(39) 

A P P E N D I X 

Opening Statement of Chairman Carper 

April 17, 2013 

"The Homeland Security Department's Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2014" 

My thanks to Secretary Napolitano for joining us to discuss the President's budget request for 

the Department of Hom eland Security for fiscal year 2014. Before we start, I first want to offer 

my condolences to the victims of the tragic Boston marathon terrorist attacks and their families. I 

ask that we now have a moment of silence to remember the victims and their families. Thank 

you. 

I also want to thank our first responders and brave bystanders who selflessly rushed into the 

chaotic scene to care for those who were injured, and the law enforcement personnel at the 

federal, state and local level who continue to investigate this incident. I am carefully monitoring 

this situation and will continue to do so. In the end, we'll get to the bottom of this incident and 

bring those responsible to justice. Moving forward, it is critical that all Americans recognize that 

we all have a shared responsibility in keeping each other safe and we should all embrace the 

adage, 'if you see something, say something,' and report anything suspicious to authorities 

immediately. 

Unfortunately, such tragic acts of terror serve as a reminder of the critically important mission 

given to the Department of Homeland Security. Crafting a budget for an agency this complex 

and important is never easy and is particularly challenging in this fiscal environment. 

The Administration's $39 billion dollar budget request makes some very tough choices. It cuts 

the Department's budget by roughly two percent over 20J2levels but it is at least consistent with 

what Congress appropriated in 2013 for the Department, before sequestration cuts were applied. 

Still, this level is lower than what Congress appropriated in 2009. 

Stepping back and thinking about all of the challenges that our country and this Department have 

faced since 2009 -the Christmas Day bomber, the Time Square bomber, the Yemen Cargo Bomb 

plot, Hurricane Sandy, the ever-changing and ever-growing cyber threat, and now the Boston 

attack - it's easy to become concerned with this budget request. That said, we are facing 

extremely difficult budgetary times and sacrifices must be made. 

While I recognize some important missions may not receive all of the funding they or we would 

want in a perfect world, all departments and agencies in government must share in the sacrifices 

required to rein in the deficit. The Secretary seems to have taken this message to heart, 

identifying $ J.3 billion in cost-savings this year and more than $4 billion since 2009 and 

continues to move to a risk-based approach to save more money. 

I'm happy to see that this budget proposes a much needed increase for cybersecurity which will 

help the Department fulfill its significant cyber responsibilities. Of course, additional resources 

alone are not going to get the job done - that is why passing comprehensive bipartisan legislation 

to compliment the President's Executive Order and address the cyber threat is one of my highest 

priorities. 
40 

I also welcomed the Administration's continued commitment to securing our nation's borders by 

maintaining staffing for the Border Patrol at its current historic levels and adding more than 

3,400 Customs and Border Protection officers to staff our ports of entry. These critical resources 

are paid for, in part, with modest fee increases. 

During my recent trips to our borders in Arizona and Michigan, I heard local mayors, business 

leaders, and frontline officers say they need more help at our ports of entry. I believe that if 

something is worth having, it's worth paying for, and it's worth it to America to better facilitate 

trade and travel at our ports of entry. This is why I agree with the President's proposal to use 

modest fee increases to pay for more CBP officers. These efforts will build on the tremendous 

progress we have made in securing the border over the past decade. I look forward to reviewing 

the immigration bill soon to be introduced by the Senator John McCain and seven of our 

colleagues to make sure the bill makes smart investments in border security, focusing on 

deploying force multipliers that can help our frontline agents be more effective, and efficient. 

Lastly, I was encouraged to see the increase in funding for the consolidation of the Department's 

Headquarters at the St. Elizabeths Campus which I visited just this week. The $105 million in 

this request, in conjunction with the money that the General Services Administration has 

requested, will yield real savings to taxpayers by allowing us to stop leasing buildings all over 

the DC metro area and helping the Department improve management and increase morale. 

With that said, I'm concerned that this budget's significant cuts to several key homeland 

priorities may be penny wise and pound foolish. The cuts to management, for instance, are 

shortsighted and will, I fear, undermine the progress the Department has made in this area. Last 

year for the first time, DHS earned a qualified audit opinion on all of its Fiscal Year 2012 

financial statements. And in its latest 'High Risk' report, the Government Accountability Office 

confirmed that there has been considerable progress at the Department in integrating its 

components and in strengthening its management. We can't lose this momentum. Better 

management will yield better results and stewardship of taxpayer dollars. 

I'm also concerned by the proposed reduction in frontline personnel at Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE). As we work to reform our immigration laws, I believe that ICE will playa 

critical role. These reductions, then, could undermine our efforts to implement new reforms. We 

also need to do a better job of managing our detention efforts to ensure that criminals are kept off 

the streets. While acknowledging that the sequestration that Congress launched is partly to 

blame, I was disappointed with the management failures that led ICE to release a number of 

felons among the more than 2,000 detainees two months ago because of budget constraints. 

Another area of concern is the $714 million request to fund the construction of the National Bio 

and Agro-Defense Facility in Kansas. I understand the importance of studying animal diseases, 

but I hope we can avoid providing full funding in 2014 alone for a multi-year construction 

project by building in logical segments over a two-year period and, thus, avoid taking away 

resources from other agencies like ICE, the Coast Guard, and FEMA next year. 

2 
41 

Finally, I am concerned by proposed cuts in the support DHS provides to state and local 

governments and first responders through homeland security grants, exercises and training. As 

we saw clearly this week, state and local officials are the ones who will inevitably be on the front 

lines responding to a terrorist attack. While acknowledging that our approach must be riskedbased, I want to ensure that the Department is able to continue to help state and local responders 

with the plans, training and equipment they need to respond effectively, as they did so admirably 

in Boston this week. 

The elephant in the room, of course, is sequestration. If implemented, it would take another 5 

percent off the Department's already limited budget. These cuts, I fear, would interfere with 

Departmental operations and management and with its ability to fulfill its missions. We must 

find a better way to deal with our budget crisis. We need a comprehensive plan to rein in our 

federal debt and deficit. 

Finally, as my colleagues have heard me say many times, I favor a 'grand bargain' that does 

three key things: (I) raises revenues to levels comparable to those which enabled us to achieve 

four balanced budgets in the Clinton Administration; (2) enacts entitlement reform that saves 

money, avoids savaging older people or poor people and keeps these programs strong for the 

long haul; and (3) looks in every nook and cranny of the federal government and ask, 'How can 

we get a better result for less money?' Now is the time to make this grand bargain. The cost of 

the failure to do so is just too high. 

3 
42 

Opening Statement of Senator Tom Coburn 

"The Homeland Security Department's Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2014" 

April 17, 2013 

Thank you. Madam Secretary, welcome. I appreciate your service - we have a lot to go through 

today. 

I'm one of the few members of Congress who has supported your idea of consolidating 

Homeland Security grant programs, and I commend you on that. You'll have my help on 

working towards that, with the caveat that we do a much better job in terms of putting metrics on 

those grants, and that they are truly risk-based. There are a lot of areas where we are not effective 

with homeland security grants today. 

I would like to offer a few comments. 

First, if you read the Constitution and you look at the enumerated powers, a lot of what we've 

done isn't our role-it's the state and locals' role. We've created some learned dependency out 

there that individual states and communities are going to have to free themselves of, because the 

budget parameters are not going to allow us to be the source for what they need. 

Secondly, we cannot spend enough money to give us a one hundred percent guarantee of 

security. 

Thirdly, we cannot and should not get security to the level that we compromise our liberty. So 

we have those two tensions that we must deal with going forward. 

I have to say, I do trust you in terms of your vision oftrying to do the best to balance those 

tensions. And I look forward to working with you so that we can move more of these dollars to 

risk-based prevention programs, rather than parochial-based formulas. Most of the people in this 

room don't always know about the fights that we have at mark-ups when parochial interests 

displace the primacy of risk -based needs. There's nothing wrong with fighting for your state, but 

there's plenty wrong when you have fought for your state and resources which could have been 

used to prevent something aren't available at the highest risk places. 

Finally, the last point I'd make with this large budget is that sequestration is going to stay. That 

level of funding is not going up. We are not going to go back on the pledge to the American 

people to trim down the size of the federal government. Some of the positive things that are 

coming out of sequestration are innovation, judgment, and making hard decisions. My wish 

would be that the president would ask us for more flexibility. He's refused to do so, but I think 

eventually we're going to see that request. 

My hope, Madam Secretary, is that Congress is going to give the Department of Home1and 

Security more flexibility, so the agency can actually make the judgments that we're paying you 

to make. 
43 

With all of that comes the very thing that every family in this country is doing: they're doing 

more with less, instead of less with more. The number one charge to your agency is to do more 

with less. And that's across this government. It's going to have to happen. It's the only way we 

create a future for the generations that follow us. So I look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you. 
44 

Statement for the Record 

The Honorable Janet Napolitano 

Secretary 

United States Department of Homeland Security 

Before the 

United States Senate 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee 

April 17, 2013 
45 

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Coburn, and Members of the Committee: 

Let me begin by saying thank you to this Committee for the strong support you have provided me 

and the Department over the past 4 years. I look forward to continuing to work with you in the 

coming year to protect the homeland and the American people. 

I am pleased to appear before the Committee today to present President Obama's Fiscal Year (FY) 

2014 Budget Request for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the creation ofDHS, the largest reorganization of the U.S. 

Government since the formation of the Department of Defense. After 10 years of effort, DHS has 

transformed 22 agencies from across the Federal Government into a single integrated Department, 

building a strengthened homeland security enterprise and a more secure America better equipped to 

confront the range of threats we face. 

Our workforce of nearly 240,000 law enforcement agents, officers, and men and women on the 

frontlines put their lives at risk every day to protect our country from threats to the homeland, 

securing our land, air, and maritime borders; enforcing our immigration laws; and responding to 

natural disasters. Our employees are stationed in every state and in more than 75 countries around 

the world, engaging with state, local, and foreign partners to strengthen homeland security through 

cooperation, information sharing, training, and technical assistance. Domestically, DHS works side 

by side with state and local1law enforcement (SLLE) and emergency responders in our 

communities, along our borders, and throughout a national network of fusion centers. The 

Department also collaborates with international partners, including foreign governments, major 

multilateral organizations, and global businesses to strengthen the security of the networks of global 

trade and travel, upon which our Nation's economy and communities rely. 

DHS employs a risk-based, intelligence-driven approach to help prevent terrorism and other 

evolving security threats. Utilizing a multi-layered detection system, DHS focuses on enhanced 

targeting and information sharing, and on working beyond our borders to interdict threats and 

dangerous actors at the earliest point possible. Each day, DHS screens 2 million passengers at 

domestic airports; intercepts thousands of agricultural threats; expedites the transit of nearly 

100,000 people through trusted traveler and known crewmember programs; and trains thousands of 

federal, state, local, rural, tribal, territorial, and international officers and agents through more than 

550 basic and advanced training programs available at the Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center (FLETC). We conduct vulnerability assessments of key infrastructure, disseminate 

intelligence regarding current and developing threats, and provide connectivity to federal systems to 

help local law enforcement and homeland security agencies across the country in reporting 

suspicious activities and implementing protective measures. 

Our borders and ports are stronger, more efficient, and better protected than ever before. At the 

southwest border, apprehensions have decreased to the lowest point in more than 30 years. We 

have significantly invested in additional personnel, technology, and infrastructure, leading to 

historic progress along the border. We have deepened partnerships with federal, state, local, and 

I "Local" law enforcement includes all law enforcement at the municipal, tribal, and territorial levels, 

2 
46 

international law enforcement to combat transnational threats and criminal organizations to help 

keep our border communities safe. We have strengthened entry procedures to protect against the 

use of fraudulent documents and the entry of individuals who may wish to do us harm. And we 

have made our ports of entry (POEs) more efficient to expedite lawful travel and trade. Each day, 

almost 1 million people arrive at our POEs by land, sea, and air. In FY 2012, DHS processed more 

than 350 million travelers at our POEs, including almost 100 million international air travelers and 

$2.3 trillion dollars of trade, while enforcing U.S. laws that welcome travelers, protect health and 

safety, and facilitate the flow of goods essential to our economy. 

DHS has focused on smart and effective enforcement ofD.S. immigration laws while streamlining 

and facilitating the legal immigration process. We have established clear enforcement priorities to 

focus the enforcement system on the removal of individuals who pose a danger to national security 

or a risk to public safety, including aliens convicted of crimes, with particular emphasis on violent 

criminals, felons, and repeat offenders, while implementing a comprehensive worksite enforcement 

strategy to reduce demand for illegal employment and protect employment opportunities for the 

Nation's lawful workforce. DHS has implemented major reforms to the Nation's immigration 

detention system to enhance security and efficiency and protect the health and safety of detainees 

while expanding nationwide the Secure Communities program, which uses biometric information to 

identify criminal aliens in state and local correctional facilities. Over the past 4 years, the 

Department has also improved the legal immigration process by streamlining and modernizing 

immigration benefits processes; strengthening fraud protections; protecting crime victims, asylees, 

and refugees; updating rules to keep immigrant families together; and launching new initiatives to 

spur economic competitiveness. 

Today, our borders are more secure and our border communities are among the safest communities 

in our country. We have removed record numbers of criminals from the United States, and our 

immigration laws are being enforced according to sensible priorities. We have taken numerous 

steps to strengthen legal immigration and build greater integrity into the system. We are using our 

resources smartly, effectively, responsibly. 

Despite these improvements, however, our immigration system remains broken and outdated. That 

is why the Department stands ready to implement common-sense immigration reform that would 

continue investments in border security, crack down on companies that hire undocumented workers, 

improve the legal immigration system for employment-sponsored and family-sponsored 

immigrants, and establish a responsible pathway to earned citizenship. Comprehensive immigration 

reform will help us continue to build on this progress and strengthen border security by providing 

additional tools and enabling DHS to further focus existing resources on preventing the entry of 

criminals, human smugglers and traffickers, and national security threats. 

Our Nation's critical infrastructure is crucial to our economy and security. DHS is the Federal 

Government's lead in securing unclassified federal civilian government networks as well as 

working with owners and operators of critical infrastructure to secure their networks and protect 

physical assets through risk assessment, mitigation, forensic analysis, and incident response 

capabilities. In 2012, DHS issued warnings and responded to an average of70 incidents per month 

arising from more than 10,000 daily alerts. The President also issued an executive order on 

cybersecurity and a presidential policy directive on critical infrastructure security and resilience to 

strengthen the security and resilience of critical infrastructure against evolving threats through an 

3 
47 

updated and overarching national framework that acknowledges the interdependencies between 

cybersecurity and securing physical assets. 

In support of these efforts, DHS serves as the focal point for the U.S. Government's cybersecurity 

outreach and awareness activities and is focused on the development of a world-class cybersecurity 

workforce as well as innovative technologies that sustain safe, secure, and resilient critical 

infrastructure. We work hand-in-hand with our private-sector partners, recognizing the importance 

of public-private partnerships to build resilience through a whole-of-community approach. In 

addition to these responsibilities, DHS combats cybercrime by leveraging the skills and resources of 

the law enforcement community and interagency partners to investigate and prosecute cyber 

criminals. 

DHS has fundamentally changed how we work with our state and local partners to prepare for, 

respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of disasters. Through the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), we have implemented innovative practices to transform our disaster 

workforce through the creation ofFEMA Corps and the DHS Surge Capacity Workforce. Working 

closely with state and local officials, we preposition resources before disasters hit and have 28 

national urban search and rescue teams on standby in addition to dozens of state and local teams to 

support response efforts. We train more than 2 million emergency management and response 

personnel annually at the Emergency Management Institute, National Fire Academy, and through 

Community Emergency Response Teams to improve capabilities across all hazards. Additionally, 

we have deployed new capabilities to help disaster survivors recover and communities rebuild. 

MAXIMIZING EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS 

The FY 2014 Budget for DHS is $60.0 billion in total budget authority and $48.5 billion in gross 

discretionary funding. These two amounts include $5.6 billion in Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) 

appropriations for recovery from major disasters, pursuant to the Budget Control Act. Excluding 

the $5.6 billion funding within the DRF, the net discretionary total is $39 billion. 

Realizing Efficiencies and Streamlining Operations 

The Department has implemented a variety of initiatives to cut costs, share resources across 

Components, and consolidate and streamline operations wherever possible. In FY 2014, these 

initiatives will result in $1.3 billion in savings from administrative and mission support areas, 

including contracts, information technology (IT), travel, personnel moves, overtime, directed 

purchasing, professional services, and vehicle management. 

Through the Department-wide, employee-driven Efficiency Review (ER), which began in 2009, 

as well as other cost-saving initiatives, DHS has identified more than $4 billion in cost 

avoidances and reductions, and redeployed those funds to mission-critical initiatives across the 

Department. 

Strategic Sourcing 

Through ER and Component initiatives, DHS has used strategic sourcing initiatives to leverage the 

purchasing power of the entire Department for items such as language services, tactical 

communications services and devices, intelligence analysis services, and vehicle maintenance 

services. In FY 2012, we achieved $368 million in savings, and we project $250 million in savings 

4 
48 

for FY 2013. We expect a comparable level of savings as we continue forward with this approach 

in FY 2014. 

Travel and Conferences 

In support of the Administration's Campaign to Cut Waste, DHS strengthened conference and 

travel policies and controls to reduce travel expenses, ensure conferences are cost-effective, and 

ensure both travel and conference attendance is driven by critical mission requirements. During 

2012, DHS issued a new directive that establishes additional standards for conferences and requires 

regular reporting on conference spending, further increasing transparency and accountability. The 

Department's FY 2014 budget projects an additional 20-percent reduction in travel costs from 

FYs 2013-2016. 

Real Property Management 

DHS manages a real property portfolio of approximately 38,000 assets, which spans all 50 states 

and 7 U.S. territories. The Department has adopted strategies to achieve greater efficiencies in the 

management of its real property portfolio that includes expediting the identification and disposal of 

under-utilized assets as we!! as improving the utilization of remaining Department inventory. These 

efforts will result in reductions in the size of our civilian real estate inventory, annual operating and 

maintenance costs, and energy usage. DHS anticipates that the amount of space and cost per fulltime equivalent employee will continue to decline as spaces are reconfigured or new space is 

acquired on the basis of new workplace planning assumptions. DHS is committed to continuing to 

improve the management and alignment of its real property with advances in technology, mission, 

and work requirements. 

Management and Integration 

Over the past 4 years, DHS has significantly improved departmental management, developing and 

implementing a comprehensive, strategic approach to enhance Department-wide maturation and 

integration. We have improved acquisition oversight, ensuring full consideration of the investment 

life cycle in cost estimates, establishing procedures to thoroughly vet new requirements and 

alternative solutions, and supporting full funding policies to minimize acquisition risk. The FY 

2014 Budget includes key investments to strengthen the homeland security enterprise, increase 

integration, address challenges raised by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), and 

continue to build upon the management reforms that have been implemented under this 

Administration. 

Modernization of the Department's financial management systems has been consistently 

identified as critical by the Office of Management and Budget, the GAO, and Congress, and is 

vital to our ability to provide strong stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Over the past several 

years, we have made significant progress improving financial management practices and 

establishing internal controls. In 2012, DHS earned a qualified audit opinion on its Balance 

Sheet, a significant milestone and a pivotal step toward increasing transparency and 

accountability for the Department's resources. This full-scope audit opinion is a result of 

DHS's ongoing commitment to instituting sound financial management practices to safeguard 

taxpayer dollars. 

Although DHS continues to maximize cost efficiencies and savings wherever possible, new 

investment must be made to improve our outdated financial systems and tools. The FY 2014 

5 
49 

Budget supports financial system modernization at the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), which also 

provides financial management services to two other DHS Components. 

DHS is also implementing a coordinated management approach for strategic investments and 

resource decisions involving multiple Components through the Integrated Investment Life Cycle 

Model. This initiative will help the Department enhance mission effectiveness while achieving 

management efficiencies by providing a broader, enterprise-wide perspective and ensuring DHS 

investments address the greatest needs of the Department. 

Strategic Re-Organizations 

In today's fiscal environment, the Department has challenged its workforce to fundamentally 

rethink how it does business, from the largest to the smallest investments. To help reduce costs, 

DHS conducted a formal base budget review, looking at all aspects of the Department's budget 

to find savings and better align resources with operational requirements. 

United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US- VISIT) 

To better align the functions of US-VISIT with the operational Components, the Budget re-proposes 

the transfer of US-VISIT functions from the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) 

to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), consistent with the President's FY 2013 Budget. 

Currently, CBP operates numerous screening and targeting systems, and integrating US-VISIT 

within CBP will strengthen the Department's overall vetting capability while also realizing 

operational efficiencies and cost savings. 

State and Local Grants 

Given the fiscal challenges facing the Department's state and local partners, DHS is also 

approaching these partnerships in new and innovative ways. The Budget re-proposes the National 

Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP), originally presented in the FY 2013 Budget, to develop, 

sustain, and leverage core capabilities across the country in support of national preparedness, 

prevention, and response, with appropriate adjustments to respond to stakeholder feedback in 2012. 

While providing a structure that will give grantees more certainty about how funding will flow, the 

proposal continues to utilize a comprehensive process for assessing regional and national gaps; 

support the development of a robust cross-jurisdictional and readily deployable state and local 

assets; and require grantees to regularly report progress in the acquisition and development of these 

capabilities. 

Land Port of Entry (LPOE) Delegation 

Beginning in FY 2013, the General Services Administration (GSA) will work with DHS to delegate 

the operations of LPOE facilities to CBP. The distinctive nature of LPOEs as mission-oriented, 

2417 operational assets of CBP, as well as national trade and transportation infrastructure, 

differentiates this part of the portfolio from other federal buildings managed by GSA. The 

delegation facilitates faster delivery of service tailored to the specific needs of CBP's mission and 

will be more responsive to changing priorities and critical operations. 

DHS Commonality Efforts 

The successful integration of22 legacy agencies into DHS was an important and ambitious 

undertaking that has increased the Department's ability to understand, mitigate, and protect against 

threats to the Nation. Further integration of the Department and of the development of a "OneDHS" culture will strengthen effectiveness, improve decision making to address shared issues, and 

6 
50 

prioritize resources in an era of fiscal constraint. The FY 20 I 4 Budget continues this emphasis and 

supports ongoing efforts aimed at furthering integration, some of which are highlighted as follows. 

Common Vetting 

It is estimated that DHS spends approximately $1.8 billion annually on information-based 

screening. Consequently, DHS has established a Common Vetting Initiative to improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of vetting operations within the Department. Although this work is 

ongoing, it is expected that this effort will identify opportunities for streamlining operations and 

strengthening front-end assessment of requirements as part of an integrated investment life cycle. 

Additionally, DHS is leveraging existing capabilities and its research and development (R&D) 

capabilities at the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) to enhance the Department's exit 

program, and to identify and sanction those who overstay their lawful period of admission to the 

United States. This initiative is focused on aggregating information within existing data systems, 

enhancing review of potential overstays, increasing automated matching, and incorporating 

additional biometric elements to provide the foundation for a future biometric exit solution. The 

transfer of US-VISIT functions to CBP and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

supports this effort and better aligns mission functions. 

Aviation Commonality 

The Department is projected to spend approximately $1.2 billion over FYs 2014-2018 on 

procurement of aviation assets. In 2011, DHS stood up an aviation commonalities working group to 

improve operational coordination in acquisition, facilities, maintenance, and logistics between CBP 

and USCG. The Department also launched an Aviation and Marine Commonalities Pilot Project in 

the fall of 20 12 to test the unified command and control of departmental aviation and marine forces. 

Complementing this effort, DHS recently began an ER initiative, which will increase crossComponent collaboration for aviation-related equipment and maintenance by establishing excess 

equipment sharing, maintenance services, and contract teaming agreements, as well as other 

opportunities for aviation-related efficiencies. 

Investigations 

A recent partnership between ICE's Homeland Security Investigations and the U.S. Secret Service 

(USSS) demonstrates the Department's commitment to leveraging capabilities across Components 

and finding efficiencies. Both ICE and USSS are expanding participation in the existing Secret 

Service Electronic Crimes Task Forces (ECTFs), which will strengthen the Department's 

cybercrimes investigative capabilities and realize efficiencies in the procurement of computer 

forensic hardware, software licensing, and training. This collaboration will integrate resources 

devoted to investigating transnational criminal organizations; transnational child exploitation; 

financial crime, including money laundering and identity and intellectual property theft; and 

network intrusions by domestic and international threats. This will further enhance the response 

capability of the Department to a cyber event by leveraging the assets of the Secret Service's 31 

ECTFs, which bring together more than 2,700 international, federal, state, and local law 

enforcement partners; 3,100 private-sector members; and 300 academic partners. 

CBP Staffing and Mission Integration 

Given the Administration's strong and continued focus on border security, DHS has undertaken a 

series of initiatives to ensure that CBP's operations are integrated and that Border Patrol Agents 

(BPAs) and CBP Officers (CBPOs) are optimally deployed. As part of its mission integration 

7 
51 

efforts, CBP has applied complementary BPA and CBPO deployments to enhance mission sets both 

at and between the POEs. Toward this goal, CBP has identified numerous mission areas where 

BP As can substantially support: port operations, including canine detection operations for drugs 

and concealed humans; outbound operations that target currency, firearms, and fugitives; port 

security, counter-surveillance, and perimeter enforcement operations; inbound secondary 

conveyance inspections for narcotics and human smuggling. CBP has also identified mission areas 

where BPAs secure and transport seized contraband. 

CBP is realizing significant operational and force-multiplying benefits from deploying BPAs to 

support POE requirements. Over the last year, these efforts have augmented POE operations, 

enabling CBP to more effectively address the threat of money and weapons being smuggled 

southbound into Mexico for use by transnational criminal organizations. In 2013, CBP is 

expanding these efforts by synchronizing mission integration efforts across the four key southwest 

border operational corridors: South Texas, EI Paso/New Mexico, Arizona, and Southern California. 

The harmonization of current efforts will increase rapid response capability, develop unified 

intelligence and targeting approaches, and identify additional areas for on-the-ground operational 

collaboration. 

Supporting Economic Growth and Job Creation 

In support of the President's executive order on travel and tourism and to continue building upon 

the Administration's significant investments in border security, the FY 2014 Budget includes 

several proposals to invest in the men and women on the frontlines of our 329 POEs along the 

border and at airports and seaports across the country. Processing the more than 350 million 

travelers annually provides nearly $150 billion in economic stimulus, yet the fees that support these 

operations have not been adjusted in many cases for more than a decade. As the complexity of our 

operations continues to expand, the gap between fee collections and the operations they support is 

growing, and the number of workforce hours fees support decreases each year. Accordingly, the 

Budget supports 3,477 new CBPOs to reduce growing wait times at our POEs and increase seizures 

of illegal items (guns, drugs, currency, and counterfeit goods). This includes appropriated funding 

for 1,600 additional CBPOs and, with congressional approval, 1,877 new CBPOs through 

adjustments in immigration and customs inspections user fees to recover more of the costs 

associated with providing services. These fee proposals will also help address the staffing gap 

outlined in CBP's Resource Optimization at Ports of Entry, FY 2013 Report to Congress, submitted 

with the President's Budget. In addition, CBP and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are 

evaluating financial models to achieve full cost recovery for agricultural inspectional services 

provided by CBP. 

Beyond the additional frontline positions, the President's Budget also provides direct support for 

thousands of new jobs through major infrastructure projects such as the National Bio and AgroDefense Facility (NBAF) and a consolidated departmental headquarters at the St. Elizabeths 

Campus. Investment in USCG recapitalization projects supports more than 4,000 jobs as well in 

the shipbuilding and aircraft industries. Through our grant programs we will continue helping 

local communities to create and maintain jobs, while strengthening the resiliency of important 

economic sectors and infrastructure. The Budget additionally supports CBP and ICE efforts to 

combat commercial trade fraud, including intellectual property law infringement, estimated to 

cost the economy up to $250 billion each year. 

8 
52 

Continued investment in Coast Guard frontline operations and recapitalization of its aging fleet 

helps to protect the Nation's Exclusive Economic Zone, a source of$122 billion in annual U.S. 

revenue, and to secure 361 ports and thousands of miles of maritime thoroughfares that support 

95 percent of trade with the United States. Through CBP and the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA), we continue to promote safe and secure travel and tourism, supporting a 

$2.3 trillion dollar tourism industry. These programs, among others, enhance our Nation's 

safety and security while fostering economic growth and job creation. 

BUDGET PRIORITIES 

The FY 2014 Budget prioritizes programs and activities within the homeland security mission areas 

outlined in the Department's 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, the 2010 Bottom-Up 

Review, and the FY 2012-2016 DHS Strategic Plan, undertaken by the Department to align its DHS 

resources with a comprehensive strategy to meet the Nation's homeland security needs. 

The Budget builds on the progress the Department has made in each of its mission areas while 

strengthening existing capabilities, enhancing partnerships across all levels of government and with 

the private sector, streamlining operations, and increasing efficiencies. 

Mission 1: Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security - Protecting the United States from 

terrorism is the cornerstone of homeland security. DHS's counterterrorism responsibilities focus on 

three goals: preventing terrorist attacks; preventing the unauthorized acquisition, importation, 

movement, or use of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear materials and capabilities 

within the United States; and reducing the vulnerability of critical U.S. infrastructure and key 

resources, essential leadership, and major events to terrorist attacks and other hazards. 

Mission 2: Securing and Managing Our Borders - The protection of the Nation'S borders-land, 

air, and sea-from the illegal entry of people, weapons, drugs, and other contraband while 

facilitating lawful travel and trade is vital to homeland security, as well as the Nation's economic 

prosperity. The Department's border security and management efforts focus on three interrelated 

goals: effectively securing U.S. air, land, and sea borders; safeguarding and streamlining lawful 

trade and travel; and disrupting and dismantling transnational criminal and terrorist organizations. 

Mission 3: Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws - DHS is focused on smart 

and effective enforcement ofV.S. immigration laws while streamlining and facilitating the legal 

immigration process. The Department has fundamentally reformed immigration enforcement, 

focusing on identifying and removing criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety and 

targeting employers who knowingly and repeatedly break the law. 

Mission 4: Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace - DHS is responsible for securing 

unclassified federal civilian government networks and working with owners and operators of 

critical infrastructure to secure their networks through risk assessment, mitigation, and incident 

response capabilities. To combat cybercrime, DHS leverages the skills and resources of the law 

enforcement community and interagency partners to investigate and prosecute cyber criminals. 

DHS also serves as the focal point for the U.S. Government's cybersecurity outreach and awareness 

efforts to create a more secure environment in which the private or financial information of 

individuals is better protected. 

9 
53 

Mission 5: Ensuring Resilience to Disasters - DHS coordinates the comprehensive federal efforts 

to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate a terrorist attack, natural 

disaster, or other large-scale emergency, while working with individuals; communities; the private 

and nonprofit sectors; faith-based organizations; and federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal 

(SL Tf) partners to ensure a swift and effective recovery. The Department's efforts to help build a 

ready and resilient Nation include fostering a whole community approach to emergency 

management nationally; building the Nation's capacity to stabilize and recover from a catastrophic 

event; bolstering information sharing and building unity of effort and common strategic 

understanding among the emergency management team; providing training to our homeland 

security partners; and leading and coordinating national partnerships to foster preparedness and 

resilience across the private sector. 

In addition to these missions, DHS strives to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of its 

operations while strengthening the homeland security enterprise. The collective efforts of federal, 

SLTT, non-governmental, and private-sector partners, as well as individuals and communities 

across the country are critical to our shared security. This includes enhancing shared awareness of 

risks and threats, building capable, resilient communities and fostering innovative approaches and 

solutions through cutting-edge science and technology. 

The following are highlights ofthe FY 2014 Budget. 

Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security 

Guarding against terrorism was the founding mission ofDHS and remains our top priority. To 

address evolving terrorist threats and ensure the safety of the traveling public, the Budget 

safeguards the Nation's transportation systems through a layered detection system and continues to 

support risk-based security initiatives, including TSA Pre,(TM, Global Entry, and other trusted 

traveler programs. The Budget supports Administration efforts to secure maritime cargo and the 

global supply chain by strengthening efforts to prescreen and evaluate high-risk cargo. Investments 

in DHS's intelligence and targeting programs coupled with the expansion of the National Targeting 

Center, supported by the Budget, will increase operational efficiencies and enhance our ability to 

interdict threats and dangerous people before they reach the United States. 

Funding is included for cutting-edge R&D to address evolving biological, radiological, and nuclear 

threats. Among the important research investments is the construction ofNBAF, a state-of-the-art 

bio-containment facility for the study of foreign animal and emerging zoonotic diseases that will 

replace the inadequate facility at Plum Island. The Budget funds the Securing the Cities (STC) 

program to protect our highest-risk cities from radiological or nuclear attack and continues national 

bio-preparedness and response efforts. The Budget also continues strong support for state and local 

partners through the NPGP, training, fusion centers, and intelligence analysis and information 

sharing on a wide range of critical homeland security issues. 

• Strengthening Risk-Based Aviation Security: The FY 2014 Budget supports DHS's effort to 

employ risk-based, intelligence-driven operations to prevent terrorist attacks and to reduce the 

vulnerability of the Nation's aviation system to terrorism. These security measures create a 

multi-layered system to strengthen aviation security from the time a passenger purchases a ticket 

to arrival at his or her destination. The FY 2014 Budget: 

10 
54 

o Continues expansion of trusted traveler programs, such as TSA Pre,/TM and Global Entry, 

which are pre-screening initiatives for travelers who volunteer information about themselves 

before flying in order to potentially expedite screening at domestic checkpoints and through 

customs. By 2014, TSA anticipates that one in four members of the traveling public will be 

eligible for expedited domestic screening. 

o Continues enhanced behavior detection in which interview and behavioral analysis 

techniques are used to determine if a traveler should be referred for additional screening at 

the checkpoint. Analyses from pilots in FY 2013 will inform the next steps on how largerscale implementation in FY 2014 could improve capabilities in a risk-based security 

environment. 

o Expands Secure Flight to perform watch list matching for passengers before boarding large 

general aviation aircraft. An estimated II million additional Secure Flight Passenger Data 

sets are expected to be submitted by general aviation operators per year. 

o Supports, as part of its multi-layered security strategy, the Federal Flight Deck Officer and 

Flight Crew program as a fully reimbursable program under FLETC's existing authorities. 

o Prioritizes TSA's mission-critical screening functions, and proposes the transfer of all exit 

lane staffing to local airports pursuant to federal regulatory authorities. Airports will be 

responsible for integrating exit lane security into their perimeter security plans, which are 

assessed regularly by TSA. 

• Enhancing International Collaboration: To most effectively carry out our core missions, DHS 

continues to engage countries around the world to protect both national and economic security. 

The FY 2014 Budget supports DHS's strategic partnerships with international allies and 

enhanced targeting and information-sharing efforts to interdict threats and dangerous people and 

cargo at the earliest point possible. The Secretary's focus on international partnerships includes 

elevating the Office of International Affairs to a stand-alone office and a direct report. The 

FY 2014 Budget: 

o Supports the Immigration Advisory Program and the continued growth of the Pre-Departure 

Vetting, which have experienced a 156-percent increase in the number of no board 

recommendations since 20 I O. Through these programs, CBP identifies high-risk travelers 

who are likely to be inadmissible into the United States and makes recommendations to 

commercial carriers to deny boarding. 

o Continues to modernize the [T capability for screening visa applications to support the 

expansion of Visa Security Program (VSP) coverage at existing overseas high-risk visa 

adjudication posts. The VSP represents ICE's front line in protecting the United States 

against terrorists and criminal organizations by preventing foreign nationals who pose as a 

threat to national security from entering the United States. [n FY 2014, VSP will enhance 

visa vetting by increasing automated data exchange with the Department of State and CBP's 

National Targeting Center. ICE will leverage modernization to increase investigations of 

visa applicants who pose a potential high risk for terrorism and are attempting to travel to 

the United States. 

II 
55 

o Supports the bilateral Beyond the Border Action Plan with Canada, including CBP's preinspection efforts in rail, land, and marine environments. Pre-inspection is a precursor to 

preclearance, which supports DHS's extended border strategy through the identification and 

prevention of terrorists, criminals, and other national security threats before they enter the 

United States. Pre-inspection/preclearance also helps protect U.S. agriculture from the 

spread of foreign pests, disease and global outbreaks. 

• Supporting Surface Transportation Security: The surface transportation sector, due to its open 

access architecture, has a fundamentally different operational environment than aviation. 

Accordingly, DHS helps secure surface transportation infrastructure through risk-based security 

assessments, critical infrastructure hardening, and close partnerships with SLLE partners. The 

FY 2014 Budget supports DHS's efforts to bolster these efforts. Specifically, the Budget: 

o Includes the NPGP, described in more detail on the following pages. This proposal focuses 

on building national capabilities focused on preventing and responding to threats across the 

country, including the surface transportation sector, through Urban Search and Rescue 

teams, canine explosives detection teams, and HAZMA T response as well as target 

hardening of critical transit infrastructure. 

o Funds surface transportation security inspectors and canine teams who work collaboratively 

with public and private-sector partners to strengthen security and mitigate the risk to our 

Nation's transportation systems. 

o Supports compliance inspections throughout the freight rail and mass transit domains, 

critical facility security reviews for pipeline facilities, comprehensive mass transit 

assessments that focus on high-risk transit agencies, and corporate security reviews 

conducted in multiple modes of transportation to assess security. 

o Funds 37 Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams, including 22 multimodal Teams. VIPR teams are composed of personnel with expertise in inspection, 

behavior detection, security screening, and law enforcement for random, unpredictable 

deployments throughout the transportation sector to prevent potential terrorist and criminal 

acts. 

o Helps secure critical infrastructure and key resources located on or near the water through 

patrols, enforcing security zones and security escorts of certain vessels (e.g., vessels 

containing hazardous cargo) in key U.S. ports and waterways. 

• Strengthening Global Supply Chain Security: The FY 2014 Budget continues to support the 

Administration's Global Supply Chain Security Strategy, which provides a national vision for 

global supply chain security that is secure, efficient, and resilient across air, land, and sea modes 

of transportation. The Budget: 

o Supports increased targeting capability through enhanced automated systems providing CBP 

with real-time information to focus its enforcement activities on higher-risk passengers and 

cargo. 

12 
56 

o Supports the consolidation of CBP's separate cargo and passenger targeting locations, which 

will promote increased targeting efficiencies and reduced delays of travelers and cargo. 

o Strengthens the Container Security Initiative, enabling CBP to prescreen and evaluate highrisk containers before they are shipped to the United States. 

o Continues support to improve the coordination of international cargo security efforts, 

accelerate security efforts in response to vulnerabilities, ensure compliance with screening 

requirements, and strengthen aviation security operations overseas. 

o Supports ongoing assessments of anti-terrorism measures in the ports of our maritime 

trading partners through the Coast Guard International Port Security Program. 

o Supports enhanced system efficiency through continued development and deployment of the 

International Trade Data System. This important resource provides a single automated 

window for submitting trade information to the federal agencies responsible for facilitating 

international trade and securing America's supply chain. 

• Research, Development, and Innovation (RD&I) at S&T: The FY 2014 Budget includes 

$467 million for RD&I, a $200 million increase from FY 2012 enacted levels. This funding 

includes support for unclassified cybersecurity research that supports the public and private 

sectors and the global Internet infrastructure. It also allows S&T to resume R&D in areas such 

as land and maritime border security; chemical, biological, and explosive defense research; 

disaster resilience; cybersecurity; and counterterrorism. 

• Support to SLLE: The FY 2014 Budget continues support for SLLE efforts to understand, 

recognize, prevent, and respond to pre-operational activity and other crimes that are precursors 

or indicators of terrorist activity through training, technical assistance, exercise support, security 

clearances, connectivity to federal systems, technology, and grant funding. The Budget 

supports efforts to share intelligence and information on a wide range of critical homeland 

security issues. The Budget continues to build state and local analytic capabilities through the 

National Network of Fusion Centers, with a focus on strengthening cross-Department and crossgovernment interaction with fusion centers. It also elevates the Office of State and Local Law 

Enforcement to a stand-alone office. The Budget: 

o Enables DHS to continue to assess capability development and performance improvements 

of the National Network of Fusion Centers through an annual assessment, collection of 

outcomes-based performance data, and targeted exercises. Resources also enable the Office 

of Intelligence and Analysis, in partnership with the Office for Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties and the Privacy Office, to provide privacy and civil rights and civil liberties 

training and technical assistance support for fusion centers and their respective liaison 

officer programs. Additionally, unique partnerships with FEMA, NPPD, USCG, and ICE 

have facilitated additional analytic training for fusion center analysts on a variety of topics. 

o Continues to support SL TT efforts to counter violent extremism, including the delivery of 

Building Communities of Trust initiative roundtables, which focus on developing trust 

13 
57 

between community leaders and law enforcement officials so they cooperatively address the 

challenges of crime and terrorism. 

o Expands, in partnership with the Departments of Justice (DOJ), Education, and Health and 

Human Services, ongoing efforts to prevent future mass casualty shootings, improve 

preparedness, and strengthen security and resilience in schools and other potential targets 

while working with partners at all levels of government. 

• Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Threat Detection: Countering biological, nuclear, and 

radiological threats requires a coordinated, whole-of-government approach. DHS, through the 

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) and the Office of Health Affairs, works in 

partnership with agencies across federal, state, and local governments to prevent and deter 

attacks using radiological and nuclear (rad/nuc) weapons through nuclear detection and 

forensics programs and provides medical and scientific expertise to support bio-preparedness 

and response efforts. 

The FY 2014 Budget supports the following efforts: 

o Global Nuclear Detection Architecture (GNDA): DNDO, in coordination with other DHS 

Components, the Attorney General, and the Departments of State, Defense, and Energy, 

leads the continued evolution of the GNDA. This comprehensive framework incorporates 

detector systems, telecommunication, and personnel, with the supporting information 

exchanges, programs, and protocols that serve to detect, analyze, and report on radlnuc 

materials that are not in regulatory control. 

o STC: $22 million is requested for the STC program to continue developing the domestic 

portion ofthe GNDA to enhance the Nation's ability to detect and prevent a radiological or 

nuclear attack in our highest-risk cities. 

o Transformational R&D: Funding is requested to develop and demonstrate scientific and 

technological approaches that address gaps in the GNDA and improve the performance of 

radlnuc detection and technical nuclear forensic capabilities. R&D investments are made on 

the basis of competitive awards, with investigators in all sectors-government laboratories, 

academia, and private industry--encouraged to participate. 

o RadlNuc Detection: Supports the procurement and deployment of Radiation Portal 

Monitors and Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems, providing vital detection 

equipment to CBP, USCG, and TSA to scan for radlnuc threats. 

o BioWatch: Continues operations and maintenance of the federally managed, locally 

operated, nationwide bio-surveillance system designed to detect the release of aerosolized 

biological agents. 

o NBAF: The Budget provides full funding for the construction of the main laboratory at 

NBAF when coupled with the increased cost share from the State of Kansas. This 

innovative federal-state partnership will support the first Bio Level 4 lab facility of its kind, 

a state-of-the-art bio-containment facility for the study of foreign animal and emerging 

14 
58 

zoonotic diseases that is central to the protection of the Nation's food supply as well as our 

national and economic security. 

In partnership with the State of Kansas, D HS is committed to building a safe and secure 

facility in Manhattan, Kansas. The main laboratory facility includes enhanced safety and 

security features to ensure research conducted within the facility will be contained, 

ultimately protecting the surrounding region and the Nation's food supply. These features, 

which are incorporated into the current NBAF design and address safety recommendations 

ofthe National Academies of Sciences, include specialized air and water decontamination 

systems, new technologies to handle solid waste on site, and structural components to 

strengthen the laboratory against hazardous weather conditions. 

Funding is also provided for life and safety infrastructure repairs at Plum Island Animal 

Disease Center while NBAF is being built, to ensure an appropriate transition of research 

from Plum Island, New York, to Manhattan, Kansas. 

Securing and Managing Our Borders 

The Budget continues the Administration's robust border security efforts, while facilitating 

legitimate travel and trade. It sustains historic deployments of personnel along U.S. borders as well 

as the continued utilization of proven, effective surveillance technology along the highest-trafficked 

areas of the southwest border to continue achieving record levels of apprehensions and seizures. In 

support of the President's executive order on travel and tourism, the Budget funds a record number 

of CBPOs through appropriated funds and proposed increases to user fee rates, to expedite travel 

and trade while reducing wait times at more than 300 POEs along the border and at airports and 

seaports across the country. Increased POE staffing of 1,600 CBPOs funded through appropriations 

and 1,877 CBPOs funded through user fee increases will have a direct impact on the economy. On 

the basis of a study conducted by the National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism 

Events - University of Southern California, initial estimates indicate that for every 1,000 CBPOs 

added, the United States can anticipate a $2 billion increase in gross domestic product. That 

research indicates that these additional CBPOs may result in approximately 110,000 more jobs and 

a potential increase of $6.95 billion in gross domestic product. 

To secure the Nation's maritime borders and 3.4 million nautical square miles of maritime territory, 

the Budget invests in recapitalization of USCG assets and provides operational funding for new 

assets coming on line, including National Security Cutters (NSCs), Fast Response Cutters (FRCs), 

Response Boats-Medium, Maritime Patrol Aircraft, and Command and Control systems. 

• Law Eriforcement Officers: The Budget supports 21,370 BPAs and a record 25,252 CBPOs at 

POEs who work with federal, state, and local law enforcement to target illicit networks 

trafficking in people, drugs, illegal weapons, and money and to expedite legal travel and trade. 

This includes funds from proposed increases to inspection user fees. 

• Travel and Trade: In 2012, President Obama announced new administrative initiatives through 

Executive Order 13597 to increase travel and tourism throughout and to the United States, and 

DHS plays an important role in this work. As discussed in the highlights section, DHS is 

continuing to develop new ways to increase the efficiency of our port operations and to make 

international travel and trade easier, more cost-effective and more secure. 

15 
59 

• Technology: Funding is requested to support the continued deployment of proven, effective 

surveillance technology along the highest trafficked areas of the southwest border. Funds will 

be used to procure and deploy commercially available technology tailored to the operational 

requirements of the Border Patrol, the distinct terrain, and the population density within 

Arizona. 

• Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS): DHS will take over operations of TARS beginning in 

FY 20 14. TARS is a multi-mission capability that supports both the counterdrug and air 

defense missions, providing long-range detection and monitoring oflow-level air, maritime, and 

surface narcotics traffickers. 

• Targeting and Analysis: The Budget includes additional investments in CBP's targeting 

capabilities, which will enable CBP to develop and implement an enhanced strategy that more 

effectively and efficiently divides cargo and travelers according to the potential threat they pose. 

• POE Infrastructure: CBP, working with its various partners including GSA, continues to 

modernize and maintain border infrastructure that both facilitates trade and travel, and helps 

secure the border. In FY 2014, CBP will work with GSA to complete the last phase of the 

Nogales-Mariposa inspection facility and initiate the site acquisition and design for the 

southbound phase of the San Ysidro modernization project. Additionally, CBP will work with 

GSA to initiate construction of a new bus processing terminal at the Lincoln-Juarez Bridge and 

renovation of the passenger and pedestrian processing facility at the Convent Street inspection 

facility in Laredo, Texas. Beginning in late FY 2013 and continuing in FY 2014, CBP will 

assume responsibility for the building operations, maintenance, and repair of the land port 

inspection facilities from GSA to streamline administrative processes and improve the 

responsiveness to CBP mission requirements. Finally, CBP proposes legislative authority in the 

FY 2014 Budget to accept donations from the private sector. 

• CBP Air and Marine Procurement: Funding is requested for two KA-350CER Multi-Role 

Enforcement Aircraft (MEA), which provide direct support to CBP efforts to secure our 

Nation's borders. Unlike the older, less-capable aircraft they are replacing, MEA has the 

capabilities to detect, track, and intercept general aviation threats; detect and track maritime 

threats over a wide area; and support ground interdiction operations through a variety of sensors 

and advanced data and video down-link. 

• Collect Customs Revenue: Funds are requested to support CBP's role as a revenue collector for 

the U.S. Treasury; customs revenue remains the second largest source of revenue for the Federal 

Government. CBP relies on bonds to collect duties owed when importers fail to pay and efforts 

to collect from the importer are not successful. This funding will support improvements to 

increase the efficacy of CBP's bonding process, including the delegation to a centralized office 

the responsibility for developing and implementing Single Transaction Bond (STB) policy, 

approving bond applications, reporting on activities, and monitoring results. These resources 

will fund the automation ofSTB processing and record keeping and provide effective internal 

controls that protect the duties and taxes (more than $38 billion in 2012) collected by CBP. 

Specifically, CBP will automate and centralize into one location processing of all STBs, 

16 
60 

resulting in enhanced program oversight, consistent processing, and reduced write-offs and 

delinquencies. 

• Protect Trade and Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement: Funding is requested to support 

intellectual property and commercial trade fraud investigations within ICE's National 

Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center). With 21 partners and the 

expertise ofthe Federal Government's largest law enforcement agencies, the IPR Center brings 

together the full range of legal authorities and law enforcement tools to combat intellectual 

property theft, including medical regulation; patent, trademark, and copyright protection; border 

enforcement; organized crime investigations; and undercover operations. ICE will also increase 

collaboration with CBP through a joint fraud enforcement strategy to coordinate commercial 

fraud enforcement operations. The FY 2014 Budget also supports CBP's enforcement programs 

to prevent trade in counterfeit and pirated goods, and to protect consumers and national security 

from harm from counterfeit goods through special enforcement operations to increase IPR 

seizures and referrals for criminal investigation. In addition, the FY 2014 Budget supports 

technology and training to increase the efficiency of targeting IPR infringing merchandise. 

• USCG Recapitalization: The FY 2014 request fully funds a seventh NSC; supports patrol boat 

recapitalization through the FRC acquisition; continues acquisitions of the Offshore Patrol 

Cutter and a new polar ice breaker; and provides for critical upgrades to command, control, and 

aviation sustainment. The total request for USCG Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements 

is $951 million. 

• USCG Operations: The FY 2014 request funds nearly 50,000 full-time personnel and nearly 

7,000 reservists to maintain safety, security, and stewardship of our Nation's waters and 

maritime borders. Funds will support a full range of Coast Guard cutters, aircraft, and boats to 

address threats from inside the ports, within customs waters and out on the high seas. 

Enforcing and Administering our Immigration Laws 

In the area of immigration, the Budget supports the Administration's unprecedented efforts to 

more effectively focus the enforcement system on public safety threats, border security, and the 

integrity of the immigration system while streamlining and facilitating the legal immigration 

process. Initiatives such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and greater use of 

prosecutorial discretion, where appropriate, support DHS efforts to focus finite resources on 

individuals who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety, and other highpriority cases. At the same time, the Budget significantly reduces inefficient 287(g) task force 

agreements, while supporting more cost-efficient initiatives like the Secure Communities 

program. Nationwide implementation of Secure Communities and other enforcement 

initiatives, coupled with continued collaboration with DO] to focus resources on the detained 

docket, is expected to result in the continued increase in the identification and removal of 

criminal aliens and other priority individuals. 

The Budget provides the resources needed to address this changing population, while continuing 

to support Alternatives to Detention, detention reform, and immigrant integration efforts. 

Resources are also focused on monitoring and compliance, promoting adherence to worksiterelated laws, Form 1-9 inspections, and enhancements to the E-Verify program. 

17 
61 

Secure Communities: In FY 2013, the Department completed nationwide deployment of the Secure 

Communities program, which uses biometric information and services to identify and remove 

criminal and other priority aliens found in state prisons and local jails. Secure Communities is an 

important tool in ICE's efforts to focus its immigration enforcement resources on the highestpriority individuals who pose a threat to public safety or national security, and the Budget continues 

support of this program. ICE is committed to ensuring the Secure Communities program respects 

civil rights and civil liberties, and works closely with law enforcement agencies and stakeholders 

across the country to ensure the program operates in the most-effective manner possible. To this 

end, ICE has issued guidance regarding the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in appropriate cases, 

including in cases involving witnesses and victims of crime, implemented enhanced training for 

SLLE regarding civil rights issues, and released new guidance that limits the use of detainers to the 

agency's enforcement priorities and restricts the use of detainers against individuals arrested for 

minor misdemeanor offenses such as traffic offenses and other petty crimes, among other recent 

improvements. The Budget also includes $10 million for 73 ICE attorney positions that will 

continue prosecutorial discretion reviews of new cases to ensure that resources at the Executive 

Office for Immigration Review and ICE are focused on priority cases. 

• Immigration Detention: Under this Administration, ICE has focused its immigration 

enforcement efforts on identifying and removing priority aliens, including criminals, repeat 

immigration law violators, and recent border entrants. As ICE focuses on criminal and other 

priority cases, the agency continues to work to reduce the time removable aliens spend in 

detention custody, going from 37 days in FY 2010 to fewer than 32 days in FY 2012. 

Consistent with its stated enforcement priorities and guidance to the field, ICE will continue to 

focus detention and removal resources on those individuals who have criminal convictions or 

fall under other priority categories. For low-risk individuals, ICE will work to enhance the 

effectiveness of Alternatives to Detention, which provides a lower per-day cost than detention. 

To ensure the most cost-effective use of federal resources, the Budget includes flexibility to 

transfer funding between immigration detention and the Altematives to Detention program, 

commensurate with the level of risk a detainee presents. 

• 287(g) Program: The Budget reflects the cancelation of inefficient task force officer model 

agreements, reducing the cost of the 287(g) program by $44 million. The 287(g) jail model 

agreements, as well as programs such as Secure Communities, have proven to be more efficient 

and effective in identifying and removing criminal and other priority aliens than the task force 

officer model agreements. 

• Detention Reform: ICE will continue building on ongoing detention reform efforts in FY 2014. 

In FY 2013, ICE implemented its new Risk Classification Assessment nationwide to improve 

transparency and uniformity in detention custody and classification decisions and to promote 

identification of vulnerable populations. ICE will continue to work with DOJ to reduce the 

average length of stay in detention by working to secure orders of removal before the release of 

criminal aliens from DO] custody. In addition, ICE will continue implementation of the new 

transfer directive, which is designed to minimize long-distance transfers of detainees within 

ICE's detention system, especially for those detainees with family members in the area, local 

attorneys, or pending immigration proceedings. ICE will also continue implementation of 

revised national detention standards designed to maximize access to counsel, visitation, and 

quality medical and mental health care in additional facilities. Finally, DHS anticipates that the 

18 
62 

rulemaking applying the Prison Rape Elimination Act to DHS confinement facilities will be 

finalized in FY 2013 and implemented in FY 2013 and FY 2014. 

• Worksite Enforcement: Requested funds will continue the Department's focus to promote 

compliance with worksite-related laws through criminal prosecutions of egregious employers, 

Form 1-9 inspections, civil fines, and debarment, as well as education and compliance tools. 

• E-VerifY: The Budget provides $114 million to support the continued expansion and 

enhancement ofE-Verify, the Administration's electronic employment eligibility verification 

system. This funding will also continue support for the expansion of the E-Verify Self-Check 

program, a voluntary, free, fast, and secure online service that allows individuals in the United 

States to confirm the accuracy of government records related to their employment eligibility 

status before formally seeking employment. These enhancements will give individuals 

unprecedented control over how their social security numbers are used in E-Verify and will 

further strengthen DHS's ability to identify and prevent identity fraud. In FY 2014, U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) also plans to phase in an enhanced enrollment 

process for E-Verify that reduces the enrollment burden on the employer and the Federal 

Government, and that will provide more-detailed user information for compliance assistance 

activities. Additionally, USCIS will finalize the requirements for the electronic I-9 and its 

supporting processes for E-Verify. These enhancements will deploy in phases in FY 2014 and 

subsequent years. 

• Verification Information System (VIS): The Budget includes $12 million to fund the VIS 

Modernization initiative, a major redesign of the system that supports E-Verify that will 

transform the current E-Verify system, and improve usability and overall ease of operations. 

• Immigrant Integration: The Budget includes $10 million to continue support for USCIS 

immigrant integration efforts-a key element of the President's immigration principlesthrough funding of citizenship and integration program activities including competitive grants to 

local immigrant-serving organizations to strengthen citizenship preparation programs for 

permanent residents. 

• Systematic Alien Verificationfor Entitlements (SAVE): The FY 2014 Budget continues support 

for USCIS SAVE operations and enhancements to assist local, state, and federal agencies in 

determining the immigration status of benefit applicants. This effort is funded through the 

Immigration Examinations Fee Account. 

• USCIS Business Transformation: The Budget continues the multiyear effort to transform 

USCIS from a paper-based filing system to a customer-focused electronic filing system. This 

effort is funded through the Immigration Examinations Fee Account. In FY 2013, USCIS will 

deploy additional functionality into the agency's Electronic Immigration System (ELlS) to 

allow processing of 1 million customer requests annually. USCIS is committed to adding 

functionality and benefit types until all workload is processed through ELlS. 

Safeguardiug and Securing Cyberspace 

The Budget supports initiatives to secure our Nation's information and financial systems and to 

defend against cyber threats to private-sector and federal systems, the Nation's critical 

19 
63 

infrastructure, and the U.S. economy. It also supports the President's executive order on 

improving critical infrastructure cybersecurity and the presidential policy directive on critical 

infrastructure security and resilience. Taken together, the Administration's initiatives 

strengthen the security and resilience of critical infrastructure against evolving threats through 

an updated and overarching national framework that acknowledges the linkage between 

cybersecurity and securing physical assets. 

Included in the FY 2014 Budget are enhancements to the National Cybersecurity Protection 

System (NCPS) to prevent and detect intrusions on government computer systems, and to the 

National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center to protect against and respond 

to cybersecurity threats. The Budget also leverages a new operational partnership between ICE 

and USSS through the established network ofUSSS ECTFs to safeguard the Nation's financial 

payment systems, combat cybercrimes, target transnational child exploitation including largescale producers and distributors of child pornography, and prevent attacks against U.S. critical 

infrastructure. 

• Federal Network Security: $200 million is included for Federal Network Security, which 

manages activities designed to enable federal agencies to secure their IT networks. The Budget 

provides funding to further reduce risk in the federal cyber domain by enabling continuous 

monitoring and diagnostics of networks in support of mitigation activities designed to 

strengthen the operational security posture of federal civilian networks. DHS will directly 

support federal civilian departments and agencies in developing capabilities to improve their 

cybersecurity posture and to better thwart advanced, persistent cyber threats that are emerging in 

a dynamic threat environment. 

• NCPS: $406 million is included for Network Security Deployment, which manages NCPS, 

operationally known as EINSTEIN. NCPS is an integrated intrusion detection, analytics, 

information-sharing, and intrusion-prevention system that supports DHS responsibilities to 

defend federal civilian networks. 

• US-Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT): $102 million is included for operations 

ofUS-CERT, which leads and coordinates efforts to improve the Nation's cybersecurity 

posture, promotes cyber information sharing, and manages cyber risks to the Nation. US-CERT 

encompasses the activities that provide immediate customer support and incident response, 

including 24-hour support in the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration 

Center. As more federal network traffic is covered by NCPS, additional US-CERT analysts are 

required to ensure cyber threats are detected and the federal response is effective. 

• SLIT Engagement: In FY 2014, DHS will expand its support to the Multi-State Information 

Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC) to assist in providing coverage for all 50 states and 6 

U.S. territories in its managed security services program. MS-ISAC is a central entity through 

which SL TT governments can strengthen their security posture through network defense 

services and receive early warnings of cyber threats. In addition, the MS-ISAC shares 

cybersecurity incident information, trends, and other analysis for security planning. 

• Cybersecurity R&D: The FY 2014 Budget includes $70 million for S&T's R&D focused on 

strengthening the Nation's cybersecurity capabilities. 

20 
64 

• Cyber Investigations: The FY 2014 Budget continues to support ICE and USSS efforts to 

provide computer forensics support and training for investigations into domestic and 

international criminal activities, including computer fraud, network intrusions, financial crimes, 

access device fraud, bank fraud, identity crimes and telecommunications fraud, benefits fraud, 

arms and strategic technology, money laundering, counterfeit pharmaceuticals, child 

pornography, and human trafficking occurring on or through the Internet. USSS ECTFs will 

also continue to focus on the prevention of cyber attacks against U.S. financial payment systems 

and critical infrastructure. 

Ensuring Resilience to Disasters 

The Department's efforts to build a ready and resilient Nation focuses on a whole community 

approach to emergency management by engaging partners at all levels to build, sustain, and 

improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all 

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

provides the coordinated, comprehensive federal response while working with federal, state, local, 

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

To support the objectives of the National Preparedness Goal (NPG) and to leverage limited grant 

funding in the current fiscal environment, the Administration is again proposing the NPGP to create 

a robust national response capacity based on cross-jurisdictional and readily deployable state and 

local assets, with appropriate adjustments to respond to stakeholder feedback received in 2012. 

While providing a structure that will give grantees more certainty about how funding will flow, the 

proposal continues to utilize a comprehensive process for assessing regional and national gaps, 

identifying and prioritizing deployable capabilities, and requiring grantees to regularly report 

progress in the acquisition and development of these capabilities. 

The Budget also funds initiatives associated with the NPG; FEMA's continued development of 

catastrophic plans, which include regional plans for response to earthquakes and hurricanes and 

medical countermeasure dispensing; and training for 2 million emergency managers and first 

responders. 

State and Local Grants: The Budget includes $2.1 billion for state and local grants, consistent with 

the amount appropriated by Congress in FY 2012. This funding will sustain resources for fire and 

emergency management programs while consolidating all other grants into the new, streamlined 

NPGP. In FY 2014, the NPGP will: 

• Focus on the development and sustainment of core national emergency management and 

homeland security capabilities. 

• Utilize gap analyses to determine asset and resource deficiencies and inform the development of 

new capabilities through a competitive process. 

• Build a robust national response capacity based on cross-jurisdictional and readily deployable 

state and local assets. 

21 
65 

Using a competitive, risk-based model, the NPGP will use a comprehensive process for identifying 

and prioritizing deployable capabilities, limit periods of performance to put funding to work 

quickly, and require grantees to regularly report progress in the acquisition and development of 

these capabilities. 

• Firefighter Assistance Grants: The Budget provides $670 million for Firefighter Assistance 

Grants. Included in the amount is $335 million for Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency 

Response (SAFER) Grants to retain and hire firefighters and first responders, and $335 million 

for Assistance to Firefighter Grants, of which $20 million is provided for Fire Prevention and 

Safety Grants. The Administration re-proposes $1 billion for SAFER grants as part of the First 

Responder Stabilization Fund, which was originally proposed in the American Jobs Act. 

• Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPGs): Also included in the Budget is 

$350 million to support emergency managers and emergency management offices in every state 

across the country. EMPG supports state and local governments in developing and sustaining 

the core capabilities identified in the NPG and achieving measurable results in key functional 

areas of emergency management. 

• DRF: A total of$6.2 billion is provided for the DRF. Of this, $586 million is included in the 

Department's base budget with the remainder provided through the Budget Control Act budget 

cap adjustment. The DRF provides a significant portion of the total federal response to victims 

in presidentially declared disasters or emergencies. Because of recently passed legislation, 

Native American tribes can now request presidential major or emergency declarations. Two 

tribes, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and the Navajo Nation, have already received 

declarations in 2013. 

• National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): The NFIP is fully funded by policy fees. This 

program helps to reduce the risk of flood damage to existing buildings and infrastructure by 

providing flood-related grants to states, communities, and tribal nations. The FY 2014 Budget 

reflects implementation of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of2012. The Act 

improves fiscal soundness by phasing out subsidies for structures built before their flood risk 

was identified on a Flood Insurance Rate Map. In addition, the Act establishes a reserve fund to 

be used for the payment of claims and claims-handling expenses as well as principal and interest 

payments on any outstanding Treasury loans. The Budget includes a $3.5 billion mandatory 

budget authority, of which $100 million will be used for three interrelated mitigation grant 

programs to increase America's resiliency to floods. 

• Training/Exercises: The Budget includes $165 million for training and exercise activities to 

support federal, state, and local officials and first responders. In FY 2014, the Department 

expects to train more than 2 million first responders and, under the revised National Exercise 

Program, will conduct more than a dozen exercises across the country to help improve national 

preparedness. The Budget also supports conducting a Spill of National Significance exercise, 

and continues development of equipment and techniques that can be used to detect, track, and 

recover oil in ice-filled waters. 

• Emergency Management Oversight: The Budget includes $24 million in base resources for the 

Office of the Inspector General to continue its Emergency Management Oversight operations. 

22 
66 

• Incident Management: The Budget enables the Coast Guard to achieve Full Operational 

Capability for the Incident Management Assist Team, providing an immediate, highly 

proficient, and deployable surge capacity to Incident Commanders nationwide for response to 

threats and other disasters. 

Maturing and Strengthening the Department and the Homeland Security Enterprise 

St. Elizabeths Campus: The Budget includes $92.7 million to support construction at the 

St. Elizabeths Campus. Currently, the Department's facilities are scattered in more than 50 

locations throughout the National Capital Region, affecting critical communication and 

coordination across DHS Components. USCG will move to St. Elizabeths in FY 2013. To support 

the incident management and command-and-control requirements of our mission, the Department 

will continue development of the DHS Consolidated Headquarters at St. Elizabeths Campus. The 

requested funding will support Phase 2 renovation of the Center Building Complex for the 

Secretary's Office and key headquarters functions for command, control, and management of the 

Department. 

Data Center Consolidation: The FY 2014 Budget includes $54.2 million for data center 

consolidation funding, which will be used to migrate FEMA, USCIS, TSA, and CBP to the 

enterprise data centers. A recent study performed by the Department's Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer analyzed 10 of the first completed migrations to enterprise data centers and determined that 

an average savings of 14 percent, about $17.4 million in annual savings, had been achieved. 

CONCLUSION 

The FY 2014 budget proposal reflects this Administration's strong commitment to protecting the 

homeland and the American people through the effective and efficient use ofDHS resources. As 

outlined in my testimony today, we will continue to preserve core frontline priorities across the 

Department by cutting costs, sharing resources across Components, and streamlining operations 

wherever possible. 

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

and to working with you on the Department's FY 2014 Budget Request and other homeland 

security issues. 

23 
67 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to the Honorable Janet A. Napolitano 

From Senator Thomas R. Carper 

"The Homeland Security Department's Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2014" 

April 17, 2013 

Question#: I 

Topic: frontline personnel 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: The Department's budget for FY 2014 proposes cutting significant numbers of 

frontline personnel at Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Coast 

Guard, and the U.S. Secret Service. This includes more than 300 ICE criminal 

investigators, 850 military positions within the Coast Guard, and over 200 agents, 

officers and support staff within the Secret Service. What will be the impact to these 

agencies' missions, and our national preparedness and law enforcement posture if these 

proposed personnel cuts are made? 

Response: The Department anticipates that enactment of its FY 2014 Budget will 

strengthen its Components' capabilities and mission success, particularly in the areas of 

the Nation's preparedness and law enforcement posture. 

Since the beginning of the Administration, DHS has made an unprecedented commitment 

to efficiency to better support frontline operations by building a culture of fiscal 

discipline and accountability, and by making the best, most efficient use of available 

resources. The FY 2014 Budget builds on the progress the Department has made in each 

of its mission areas while strengthening its existing capabilities, enhancing partnerships 

across all levels of government and with the private sector, streamlining operations, and 

increasing efficiencies. 

For U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the FY 2014 Budget proposes to 

reduce its workforce by 131 full-time employee positions which are non-mission critical. 

This decrease in personnel is necessary in order to ensure sufficient funding for other 

priorities across the organization; the Budget does not reduce ICE agent hours or ICE's 

law enforcement posture. 

The net impact of the personnel decreases associated with asset decommissionings, 

efficiencies, and reductions, and the increases associated with the delivery of new assets 
68 

Question#: I 

Topic: frontline personnel 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURlTY (SENATE) 

contained in the FY 2014 President's Budget, is a reduction of850 military positions to 

the U. S. Coast Guard. Approximately half of the reductions are directly tied to planned 

realignment of military personnel as legacy assets are replaced by new assets. Those 

personnel reductions have already been offset by personnel increases for new assets in 

prior years. The remainder of the personnel reduction is associated with efficiencies and 

savings initiatives identified primarily within the mission support functions of the 

Service. 

With respect to the U.S. Secret Service, the FY 2014 Budget was formulated in 

recognition that some staffing levels would be reduced following conclusion of the 2012 

Presidential Campaign ensure sufficient funding for other priorities across the 

organization. The Secret Service will achieve the personnel reductions through attrition 

and limited hiring. The Service has established optimal field office staffing levels that 

balance the investigative and protective workload while ensuring appropriate staffing 

levels for securing fixed posts around the White House, the Vice President's Residence, 

and Foreign Missions. 
69 

Question#: 2 

Topic: Management Directorate 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: If the President's FY 2014 proposal is enacted, the Management Directorate 

would be cut to a level nearly 14 percent below the FY 2012 level. How can the 

Department sustain its progress in improving management with these proposed cuts -

which under the current law would be further deepened by sequestration? 

Response: Given the constraints of the Budget Control Act, difficult choices had to be 

made in developing the FY 2014 budget. Over the past four years, DHS has made 

significant improvements to departmental management, developing and implementing a 

comprehensive, strategic approach to enhance Department-wide maturation and 

integration. We have improved acquisition oversight, ensuring full consideration of the 

investment life cycle in cost estimates, establishing procedures to thoroughly vet new 

requirements and alternative solutions, and supporting full funding policies to minimize 

acquisition risk. By gaining significant efficiencies through implementing initiatives 

such as "Freeze the Footprint", leveraging strategic sourcing, reviewing vehicle refresh 

schedules, and getting the most out of mobile workforce capabilities the Department has 

been able to redirect these savings towards continuing our successes in improving 

management. The FY 2014 Budget includes key investments to strengthen the homeland 

security enterprise, increase integration, address challenges raised by the U.S. 

Govemment Accountability Office (GAO), and continue to build upon the management 

reforms that have been implemented under this Administration. To preserve core 

frontline priorities in FY 2014, we have redirected over $1.3 billion in base resources 

from administrative and mission support areas, including contracts, personnel (through 

attrition), information technology, travel, personnel moves, overtime, directed 

purchasing, professional services, and vehicle management to mission-critical initiatives 

across the Department. The DHS Management Directorate's contribution to this effort 

resulted in $35.6 million of the total $1.3 billion. Despite these reductions, we have 

made significant improvements in how our Department is managed and we remain 

committed to demonstrating measurable, sustained progress over the coming years. 
70 

Question#: 3 

Topic: budget proposal 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURlTY (SENATE) 

Question: The Administration's budget proposal substantially reduces the base funding 

for the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer. If this budget proposal was enacted 

would you be able to adequately provide necessary oversight of the many billions in 

program and project funding requested in this FY 2014 budget? If this budget proposal 

was enacted would you be able to sustain the Acquisition Career Intern Program to 

ensure a future supply of qualified acquisition specialists? 

Response: If the current budget request of$66.9 million is enacted, funding would be 

sufficient to provide adequate oversight of the Department's procurement programs. 

However, further reductions would negatively impact the improved acquisition oversight 

DHS accomplished since the Management Directorate's Office of Program 

Accountability and Risk Management was established, sharply diminishing the DHS 

Chief Acquisition Officer's ability to conduct and provide guidance for Acquisition 

Review Boards. 

The budget request adequately funds the Acquisition Professional Career Program based 

on current estimates. The Office ofthe Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO) is working 

with Components to analyze staffing needs based on attrition and future requirements. 

Currently, 14 percent of the acquisition workforce is eligible for retirement by the end of 

FY 2014, and a total of29 percent will be eligible by the end ofFY 2018. These figures 

demonstrate a continuing need for the program. Cuts beyond the President's budget 

proposal will force OCPO to reduce the Acquisition Professional Career Program as well 

as reduce associated training programs. We will continue to work with Congress as we 

evaluate our ongoing acquisition needs and appreciate the support provided to enhance 

our acquisition programs. 
71 

Question#: 4 

Topic: cost analysis 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: What is your management team doing to improve cost analysis, and to 

strengthen the oversight over major acquisitions, so that we see better results and fewer 

cost increases in major programs? How many cost analysts are supported in the FY 2014 

budget request? How many are currently employed by DHS? 

Response: The DHS Chief Acquisition Officer (CAO) has established several initiatives 

to ensure programs are increasingly following DHS Acquisition policy, such as the 

acquisition program management Centers of Excellence (COE), Executive Steering 

Committees and the Decision Support Tool. Each initiative has been beneficial, but some 

have been more effective than others. One initiative that the CAO has determined has yet 

to be established is an Acquisition oversight process with early and continuous 

verification of system requirements, planning, and execution throughout the entire 

development and acquisition lifecycle. To implement this significant change to DHS 

current process and improve acquisition policy compliance, the CAO appointed a new 

Executive Director, Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management (P ARM) on 

30 September 2013. The new Executive Director was previously the DHS Director of 

Operational Test and Evaluation who implemented DHS T&E policy and oversight for 

the DHS major acquisition programs and has been responsible for verifying acquisition 

program effectiveness and suitability since 2008. The new P ARM Director will continue 

to perform all of the prior P ARM functions but will increase the emphasis on Acquisition 

oversight and policy compliance for all Acquisition programs. In an effort to contain and 

prevent cost growth in our major acquisition programs, DHS has instituted a variety of 

measures to ensure efficiency and mitigate risk. 

Management Directive (MD) 102-0 I requires Components to demonstrate appropriate 

planning in order to receive approval for an acquisition. To ensure program managers are 

executing within cost and schedule parameters and to prevent potential cost growth, 

every program is required to receive approval from the Acquisition Review Board (ARB) 

before proceeding to the next phase of the acquisition life cycle, such as moving from 

development to production. Part of this process includes the development of an 

Acquisition Program Baseline (APB). The APB documents the fundamental agreement 

on critical program cost, schedule, and performance objectives between the Program 

Manager (PM), the Component Head, and the DHS Acquisition Decision Authority 

(ADA). The APB's scope encompasses the entire planned execution of the program. Its 

cost parameters trace back to an approved Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE) that 

documents the program's critical cost parameters in measureable, quantitative terms. The 

LCCE affords the Department the ability to track actual program performance against a 
72 

Question#: 4 

Topic: cost analysis 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

formal baseline. In practical terms, the APB is the "contract" between the Acquisition 

Decision Authority (ADA) and the Component on what will be delivered, how it will 

perform, when it will be delivered, and what it will cost. Should a program or project fail 

to meet any cost, schedule, or performance threshold in the APB the Program Manager 

must submit a remediation plan within 30 days explaining circumstances of the breach 

and proposing corrective action. Within 90 days of the breach, the program should be 

consistent with approved APB parameters; undergo a re-baseline of the breached 

parameters and have a new APB approved, or partake in a program review with the ADA 

to review any proposed baseline revisions and recommendations. 

As a result of these oversight processes, the Under Secretary for Management (USM) is 

able to direct improvements to inadequate program plans before allowing them to 

proceed. In addition to ARB reviews at major milestones, DHS actively tracks and 

measures actual program performance via monthly reporting and oversight mechanisms 

such as the Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report, Quarterly Program Accountability 

Report, and Exhibit 300. This oversight provides an early alert to potential problems, 

such as cost growth or requirements creep, and, as a result, the Department can take 

corrective action by engaging the Component or program. 

The Department has also implemented several improvements to the quality and reliability 

of the cost estimating discipline across DHS. In 2011, the USM established the Cost 

Estimating & Analysis Center of Excellence (CE&A COE), through the Office of 

Program Accountability and Risk Management (P ARM), to provide best practices and 

guidance for development of all cost estimates and cost analyses in the Department. The 

COE has identified and obtained best-in-c1ass cost estimating tools and standardized 

operating models that have been disseminated to the Components. By providing cost 

estimating subject matter expertise to assist DHS Components and program managers, 

the number ofDHS-approved LCCEs has significantly increased over the last year. This 

allows DHS to better articulate required funding needs and more effectively ascertain 

impacts to program scope should budget be changed. 

DHS has also increased the number of Level III Certified Cost Estimators in FY 2013 by 

50 percent over prior years. Level III, the highest level certification, represents a senior 

level mastery of the knowledge and skills associated with the complexities of cost 

estimating. DHS is institutionalizing the cost estimating discipline across the Department 

by embedding experienced certified cost estimators into major operational Components 

via the CE&A COE. 

These cost estimators provide consistent application of GAO best practices and establish 

cost estimating standard operating procedures at the Component level. In addition to the 
73 

Question#: 4 

Topic: cost analysis 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURlTY (SENATE) 

added focus on accountability, risk, and oversight through the establishment ofPARM, 

the changes have significantly enhanced the maturity of the Department, particularly in 

this discipline. These tools and practices provide a robust foundation upon which to 

build a culture of cost estimation within DHS which, in turn, increases the reliability of 

cost estimates across the Department. 

Through the work in the CE&A COE the Department has built a community of practice 

that is composed of both federal and contractor cost estimators. This community of 

practice is composed of23 junior and senior federal cost estimators spread across the 

enterprise. Ten of the cost estimators are employed by P ARM. The other 12 are 

employed by DHS Components, specifically, one at CBP, two at USCG, three at USCIS, 

and six at NPPD. 

In 2012, we recognized the deficit of federal cost estimators within the Components and 

proactively hired and deployed seven cost estimators to collocate with the major 

Components' Acquisition Executive staff. These seven cost estimators are employed by 

P ARM as part of the CE&A COE. The additional three cost estimators reside in P ARM. 

The Management Directorate's FY 2014 budget includes base funding for these existing 

cost estimators at DHS. 
74 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to the Honorable Janet A. Napolitano 

From Senator Carl Levin 

"The Homeland Security Department's Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2014" 

April 17, 2013 

Question#: 5 

Topic: lost airframes 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Carl Levin 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Prior to 2013 there were five H-65 helicopters stationed at Air Station 

Traverse City. Due to the Coast Guard's Echo model transition, one H-65 was relocated 

from Traverse City leaving only four H-65's. 

What is the Coast Guard's plan to replace the lost H-65 in Traverse City especially given 

the approaching summer season when Air Station Traverse City supports an airframe in 

Waukegan, IL? 

Does the Coast Guard plan to send an additional H-65 to Traverse City this summer? 

With the loss of several H-65 airframes over the last few years due to mishaps does the 

Coast Guard have any plan to build or retrofit new H-65 airframes? 

Given that the Coast Guard is actively working to transition the H-65 from the Dolphin to 

the Echo model, does the Coast Guard have any money available to upgrade the current 

fleet ofH-65 Dolphin airframes to the H-65 Echo model? 

If so, what is the Coast Guard's plan to modernize its fleet to the Echo model? 

Response: The relocated aircraft from Traverse City provides a prototype aircraft for the 

MH-65E upgrade. Only the physical aircraft was moved; personnel remain on station. 

The FY 2014 President's Budget request has sufficient funding to continue the H-65 

Echo model transition. Construction of the prototype aircraft has begun. Initial 

Operational Capability for the MH-65E is anticipated in FY 2017. Air Station Traverse 

City has sufficient resources to meet operational demands. 
75 

Question#: 6 

Topic: retrofitted airframes 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Carl Levin 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURlTY (SENATE) 

Question: The Coast Guard has received appropriations of$18.3M in FY12 and $14.0M 

in FY13 for the retrofit of Navy H-60 airframes to Coast Guard H-60 airframes in 

Elizabeth City, North Carolina. 

How many H-60 Navy airframes are there in Elizabeth City, NC waiting to be retrofitted? 

What is the plan and timeline for retrofitting these airframes? 

Response: There are two "sundown" airframes at the Aviation Logistics Center 

(ALC). The FY 2012 and FY 2013 appropriations were used to convert two Navy H60 airframes to operational Coast Guard MH-60T aircraft. The first was completed in 

February, 2013, the second is scheduled to be completed in April 2014. 

Question: With no mention in the President's FY 2014 Budget of replacing the H-65's 

currently stationed at Air Station Traverse City with the more capable and able H-60's, 

what is the Coast Guard's plan for bringing four H-60's to Air Station Traverse City? 

Previous proposals have only had three H-60's moving to Traverse City. Is the 

movement offour H-60 airframes to Traverse City supported by the Coast Guard? 

Is the movement off our H-60's to Traverse City dependent on the retrofitting of 

additional airframes in Elizabeth City, NC? 

Response: The $18.3 million in Fiscal Year 2012 was designated to replace an H-60 lost in 

an aircraft accident. The $14.0 million in Fiscal Year 2013 provides an additional H-60 to 

fill operational and training needs. 

The FY 2013 President's Budget proposed the replacement ofH-65s in Traverse City with 

H-60s as part of a comprehensive plan to realize savings by eliminating redundancy, 

closing two seasonal Air Facilities and leveraging the enhanced capability of more capable 

H-60 helicopters. This proposal was not enacted in the FY 2013 appropriations. 
76 

Question#: 7 

Topic: pre-disaster mitigation 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Carl Levin 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Destructive forces from Hurricane Sandy were so massive and intense that 

impacts were felt as far west as the Great Lakes region. The Great Lakes witnessed winds 

of more than 60 miles per hour and 20-foot waves. Sand and sediment washed into 

harbors damaging federal thoroughfares and breakwaters. Hurricane Sandy showed the 

nation that we are not prepared for the impacts and costs of extreme weather. We know 

that every $1 spent on disaster preparedness and resilient infrastructure building avoids 

$4 in future costs. Extreme weather continues to impact every sector of this country and 

we cannot continue to be ill-prepared. 

What is the rationale for eliminating the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program, which is so 

critical for protecting life and property, especially in light ofthe damaging impacts of 

Hurricane Sandy? 

The FY 2014 budget request indicates that the PDM program is duplicative and that there 

are other sources of funding. What are the other sources of pre-disaster mitigation 

funding for locations that are not presidentially declared disaster areas? 

Response: FEMA proposes to eliminate funding for the PDM program in FY 2014 and 

will work to aggressively process grant applications funded by prior years' 

appropriations. FEMA will continue to make flood-related mitigation grants available to 

States and local and tribal governments through the existing Flood Mitigation Assistance 

program. States and locals can continue to utilize the Emergency Management 

Performance Grants and the State Homeland Security Grant Programs to address 

mitigation planning activities. Additionally, NFIP policyholders can use increased costs 

of compliance coverage post-disaster for mitigation activities. FEMA will continue to 

focus on mitigating costs associated with potential large-scale disaster flooding 

operations. The post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs allows for statewide 

mitigation activities targeted to a state's required hazard mitigation plan. 
77 

Question#: 8 

Topic: State Incorporation Practices 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Carl Levin 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: The 50 U.S. states fonn nearly 2 million new corporations and LLCs each 

year, without knowing who owns them. The fact that our laws allow states to fonn 

corporations with hidden owners invites wrongdoers to misuse U.S. companies for 

terrorism, money laundering, drug trafficking, tax evasion, and other crimes. To me, it 

makes no sense that people have to provide more infonnation to a state to get a drivers' 

license than a new corporation. It's a subject that this Committee has been examining for 

a number of years now, but has yet to act to correct. The Administration has now taken 

on the issue and urged Congress to enact legislation to require beneficial owners of 

companies to be identified at the time of incorporation. The Administration has included 

enacting legislation in its 2011 Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime and in 

its 2011 Open Government National Action Plan. So enacting that legislation has 

become a priority for the Administration. 

Does DRS support enacting legislation that would require states, at the time of 

incorporation, to get the names of beneficial owners ofthe corporation being fonned? If 

so, please explain why that legislation is important to homeland security. 

The Chamber of Commerce and some Secretaries of State oppose any federal legislation, 

Claiming it would be burdensome to implement, even though the Treasury Department 

and Justice Department have agreed to provide $30 million from their forfeiture funds to 

help states add a question to their existing incorporation fonns to request beneficial 

owners. When my colleagues hear about this opposition, I remind them that all of the 

law enforcement organizations, including the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 

Association and the Fraternal Order of Police, support legislation, in particular the 

bipartisan bill I introduced in the last Congress with Sen. Grassley, S. 1483, and which I 

plan to reintroduce soon. Does DRS view federal legislation in this area as imposing an 

undue burden on the states? 

Should this Committee treat moving legislation in this area as a priority this year? 

Response: Increasing the transparency of U.S. legal entities and their beneficial owners 

will address a prominent and growing national security threat, significantly assist law 

enforcement in preventing criminals from exploiting our financial system, and facilitate 

compliance by financial institutions with fundamental customer due diligence 

requirements consistent with global standards of financial transparency. We look 

forward to working with the Congress to find a meaningful solution to the misuse of legal 

entities. 
78 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to the Honorable Janet A. Napolitano 

From Senator Claire McCaskill 

"The Homeland Security Department's Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2014" 

April 17, 2013 

Question#: 9 

Topic: communications 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Communications were a critical component of integrating 22 agencies into 

DHS. To this end, DHS invested about $430 million to develop interoperable 

communications that would allow elements of each former agency to speak on common 

channels using compatible equipment. 

Although it is not highlighted in your budget request, the Department of Homeland 

Security is in the process of updating its radio communications and infrastructure, as 

evidenced by the $3.2 billion dollar contract awarded in FY 2012. 

According to a recent report from the DHS Office ofInspector General (OlG), DRS did 

not provide effective oversight to ensure that its components achieved the goals of 

interoperable radio communications. The report notes that only 1 of 479 radio users 

tested could access and communicate using the specified common channel and that only 

20 percent of tested radios contained the correct program settings for this common 

channel. 

Can you identify the amount to be spent out of the FY 2014 budget for interoperable 

communications and the safeguards you have put in place to ensure that any additional 

money will achieve this goal? 

Response: Currently, DHS and component telecommunications budget categories do not 

separate interoperability from other projects at a high level of review. Each component 

agency maintains its own separate tactical communications budget managed by its Office 

ofInformation and Technology (OlT), and the DHS Information Technology 

Acquisitions Review (IT AR) process has been established at the enterprise level for 

component and Department acquisitions of more than $2 million. The DHS Joint 

Wireless Program Management Office (JWPMO) was chartered in April 2012 to provide 

a single collaboration point for the planning, development, acquisition, and 

implementation of enterprise-level wireless communications systems. The JWPMO is in 
79 

Question#: 9 

Topic: communications 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

the process of establishing an investment portfolio review board, which is developing a 

process for more easily tracking investments in interoperability and approving those 

investments at an enterprise level to promote interoperability. This portfolio review 

board consists of the following components: Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Federal 

Protective Service (FPS), U.S. Secret Service (USSS), Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), plus the Office of Emergency Communications 

(OEC). The portfolio review board is in the initial stages of prioritizing projects. Only 

those efforts approved by the investment portfolio review board will be executed for 

expenditure of funds and other resources. 

Question: The department has spent almost half a billion on radios and communications 

infrastructure and has another contract for up to $3.2 billion for new infrastructure, yet 

operators cannot talk to each other. How much is it going to take to reach an acceptable 

level of interoperability? 

Response: Since the formation ofDHS, the Department has worked to integrate multiple, 

existing radio communications systems from the legacy organizations that were brought 

together. Many of these systems required significant technological upgrades in order to 

provide interoperable radio communications. The DHS JWPMO has been chartered to 

provide a single collaboration point for the planning, development, acquisition, and 

implementation of enterprise-level wireless communications systems. The JWPMO is in 

the process of establishing an investment portfolio review board, which is developing a 

process for approving tactical communications projects at an enterprise level to promote 

interoperability. As the portfolio review board processes all requests for investments to 

improve interoperability, it will continually align approved efforts with current JWPMO 

strategic goals. These goals include: 

Increase component involvement by engaging dedicated, matrixed FEMA, USSS, 

ICE, TSA, USCG, FLETC, FPS and CBP resources in the Tactical 

Communications Network (TACNET) program, interoperability and enterprise 

services. 

Improve mission critical voice interoperability by implementing the structure 

developed by the Tactical Interoperability Framework (TIF) Committee 

JWPMO will continually review investment requests and make assignments as 

appropriate to make progress in TIF-defined milestones for DHS interoperability gains. 
80 

Question#: 9 

Topic: communications 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question Has the Department defined an acceptable/necessary level of department-wide 

interoperability? 

Response: In 2012, the JWPMO initiated a broad-scale project to address interoperability 

from the mission level. The TIF charter was finalized in April 2013. The TIF provides a 

structure to develop better information sharing and communication along with improved 

situational awareness for optimizing resources. Creating a framework through which 

organizations acquire, plan, develop, and implement modernization of communications 

systems is essential to ensuring interoperability and potentially facilitates the offering of 

other enterprise benefits, including bulk purchase savings and development of innovative 

capabilities that can be shared throughout the enterprise. 

Question: What actions has the Department taken to attain Department-wide 

interoperability? Do these measures address the lack of training associated with a failure 

to identify and access specified common channels? 

Response: The One DHS Emergency Communications (EC) Committee--the DHS 

interagency body charged with establishing Departmental EC policy and guidance, 

including that which affects tactical communications-completed an assessment of the 

Department's interoperability needs and capabilities in February 2013. The assessment 

took a holistic view of interoperability, beyond specific common channel use, to include 

interoperability governance, technical solutions, standard operating procedures, training 

and exercises, and agreements. The One DHS Committee and the JWPMO are working 

together to develop a department-wide communications interoperability plan based on the 

findings and recommendations from the assessment. The plan will establish priorities 

and guide Component efforts aimed at improving DHS interoperability. 

Training is specifically addressed in an interoperable continuum adopted through the TIF 

effort to specify interoperability. This continuum has five elements: 

1. Governance 

2. Standard Operating Procedures 

3. Technology 

4. Training and Exercise 

5. Usage 

The JWPMO TIF committee first will identify a list of deliverables and artifacts that 

should be produced to address each element of the interoperable continuum. The TIF 
81 

Question#: 9 

Topic: communications 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

committee will leverage the OEC library as appropriate and identify specific projects 

and/or Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) to address specific interoperability problems. 

Once the TIF committee identifies desired artifacts and projects, it prioritizes and 

implements them as resources permit. 

Question: Has the Department established interoperability as a measurable goal in its 

strategic planning? If so, has the Department developed attainable, incremental goals to 

achieve the overall goal? In what year will the Department meet the goal? And, does the 

Department believe that after executing the funds for the $3.2 billion contract that it will 

achieve interoperability? 

Response: As reviewed above, the DRS JWPMO has adopted an interoperability 

continuum as a performance measure for indicating an acceptable level of 

interoperability. This is part of the draft strategic plan that the JWPMO is now drafting 

to indicate its mission for attaining interoperability. The continuum has defined interval 

steps for achieving interoperability in each of the five areas listed in the response above. 

The JWPMO believes that when all these steps have been achieved in each ofthese five 

areas, interoperability among the DRS component agencies will be reached. 
82 

Question#: 10 

Topic: efficiencies 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: In the FY 2014 Budget request, DRS anticipates saving just over $1.3 billion 

through efficiencies. A significant portion of these savings appear to come from advisory 

and assistance contracts as well as other service contracts, in fact over $600 million will 

come from these contracts. The biggest portion of these particular savings will be seen at 

CBP, ICE and TSA. 

Can you expand upon these specific savings? For example are these savings coming 

from the expiring of existing contracts? Give specific examples of how we are achieving 

these efficiencies? 

For CBP, ICE and TSA what are the particular types of service contracts you have 

identified to achieve these efficiencies? 

Response: The $1.3 billion in savings and efficiencies included in the budget continues 

DRS's strong commitment to fiscal discipline which has led to over $4 billion in cost 

avoidances and reductions since FY 2009. The following are some specific examples of 

what CBP, ICE, and TSA are doing to achieve savings: 

• Efficiencies/OFPP Directed Purchasing Savings ($18.5 million) In a November 

2011 Memorandum, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy directed federal 

agencies to reduce spending by 15 percent in FY 2011-2012 on management support 

service contracts, including engineering & technical services, acquisition services, 

information technology services, and program management support services. For 

FY 2014, DHS identified an additional $31.5 million reduction for these service 

contracts. The $31.5M in savings will be allocated across CBP based on FY 2010 

spend data. 

• Transportation Program ($23.8 million) - CBP will realize a savings of $23.8 million 

due to a reduction to transportation workload and through cost efficiencies. This 

savings will be acquired through reconfiguration of the assets used in meeting the 

lower workload requirements and cost reductions gained from the re-competition of 

the transportation contract. 

• IT Systems and Support ($47.9 million) - In order to meet FY 2014 CBP IT program 

budget targets, the CBP Office ofInformation and Technology (OIT) is examining 

the following areas: software re-evaluations, hardware maintenance strategy reviews, 

efficiencies realized by the installation of the CBP Cloud Computing Environment 

(C3E), and mission application services. 
83 

Question#: 10 

Topic: efficiencies 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

• Service Contract Reductions ($17.854 million) - Through a review of procurement 

support service requirements and other contractual requirements, ICE has identified 

savings that can be realized in 2014 with minimal impact on front-line operations, 

such as M&A and HQIT support, material leases and contracted training and travel. 

• Administrative Savings and Servicewide Reductions ($35.25 million) - This 

reduction is an effort to find cost savings in administrative spending in areas such as 

professional service contracts, supplies and materials, and printing. ICE will also 

continue its efforts to reduce costs through on-going initiatives such as the Balanced 

Workforce Strategy. 

• Agency/Enterprise Wide Reductions ($22.422 million) - This reduction includes cost 

savings attributed to a Department Enterprise-Wide Efficiency initiative to reduce 

overall administrative expenses. It is a reduction to areas such as vehicle fleet, PCS 

costs, TDY and travel, professional service contracts, and overtime. 

• Contract Efficiencies ($151.933 million) - TSA achieved contract efficiencies from 

not renewing existing contracts and exercising contract options. Efficiencies were 

identified in Management Support Services from Automated Data Processing (ADP) 

Systems Development Services; Automated Information Systems Services; ADP 

Backup and Security Services; ADP Acquisition Supply Services; Program 

Management/Support Services; Specification Development Services; Technical 

Assistance; Intelligence Services; Engineering and Technical Services; Systems 

Engineering Services; Management Services/Contract and Procurement Support. 
84 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to the Honorable Janet A. Napolitano 

From Senator Heidi Heitkamp 

"The Homeland Security Department's Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2014" 

April 17, 2013 

Question#: 11 

Topic: AIT 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: An issue of concern in North Dakota right now is airport security. Recently, 

TSA transferred full-body passenger scanners (AIT machines) from three North Dakota 

airports Grand Forks, Bismarck and Minot. All three airports are experiencing doubledigit growth thanks to my state's strong economy. TSA made this decision because 

scanners at other, larger airports could not meet privacy standards as required in the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act (P.L. 112-95). As I have shared with TSA Administrator 

John Pistole, I feel TSA erred in its overall handling of the situation by removing 

scanners from such high-growth facilities, and I disagree with the decision to wait until 

next-generation AIT machines receive certification before purchasing additional 

scanners. 

Your FY14 budget proposal identifies cuts to screening technology because TSA expects 

to be at or near full operational capability for most checkpoint screening technologies 

after FY12 and FYI3 purchases. 

What role do you expect additional scanners - potentially purchased with funds 

appropriated in FY12 and still available - to play in reaching the full operational capacity 

that the budget request refers to? 

Regarding the certification process for next generation AIT, what steps can DHS take to 

ensure this process is completed as soon as possible with minimal delays? 

What other technologies, such as Explosives Trace Detection, besides AIT does TSA 

intend to use to meet full operational capability regarding airport passenger security? 

Are these other technologies as effective as ArT scanners? rfthey are not, what is the 

rationale for relying on these technologies rather than ArT? If they are, can you provide 

documentation that demonstrates their effectiveness? 
85 

Question#: 11 

Topic: AIT 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Response: Currently, it is the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) strategy 

not to deploy Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) at Category III and IV airports, but 

instead to deploy comparable screening procedures to ensure that security effectiveness is 

consistent across the Nation's airports. TSA addresses vulnerabilities using a risk-based 

approach in order to allocate limited resources in the most effective way. TSA will 

employ other screening technologies and security measures, including Walk-Through 

Metal Detectors and Explosives Trace Detection, to maintain the most effective security 

at the affected airports. 

TSA is committed to the use of AIT and has begun testing next-generation AIT units 

equipped with Automated Target Recognition from several vendors. This testing process 

will enable TSA to determine if these technologies meet enhanced detection standards 

and are feasible for use in the airport environment. These next-generation AIT units will 

have enhanced detection capabilities, a smaller footprint, and are intended to enable faster 

passenger throughput. The current schedule for the procurement of the next-generation 

AIT systems currently is on track with no major risks. 

The AIT procurement schedule is tightly monitored for risks, and the Department of 

Homeland Security and TSA are collaborating on the successful execution of the testing 

and acquisition of these systems. Additional AIT units, currently in testing, are expected 

to provide a smaller footprint than existing scanners and will help enable TSA to reach 

full operational capability (FOC). The FOC for current and next-generation AIT systems 

will take into consideration, among other factors, the numerous Risk-Based Security 

initiatives to provide expedited screening services to eligible travelers based upon their 

assessed risk. TSA is evaluating the effect of these initiatives on FOC requirements and 

fiscal year procurement schedules. 

TSA documentation on the effectiveness of screening technologies is considered 

Sensitive Security Information and can be provided upon request. 
86 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to the Honorable Janet A. Napolitano 

From Senator Tom Coburn 

"The Homeland Security Department's Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2014" 

April 17, 2013 

Question#: 12 

Topic: reports 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURlTY (SENATE) 

Question: Please provide to the Committee a list of all Congressionally-mandated reports 

that DHS is required to complete, their due dates, and statuses, as well as an estimate or 

description of the cost incurred by the Department associated with producing those 

reports. Please identify, with a written justification which, if any, of these reports the 

Department believes are duplicative or unnecessary. 

Response: The chart below lists all required Congressionally-mandated reports. In 

addition, as required under the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act 

of 2010, the Administration provided a list to Congress ofreports that should be 

eliminated, consolidated, or reduce frequency of reporting, and provided the reason for 

that determination. 

Current Status of Reports Due in FY 2013 

(Updated as of 06-17-2013) 

Cl9InP DUe nue(304 ri$orts) , " 

. '. ," 

StatU. . 

CBP 10/27/2012 Cross-Border Tunnels - FY12 2nd Semi-Annual Transmitted 

CBP 11/15/2012 CBP Unobligated Balances - FY12 4th Qtr Transmitted 

CBP 10/15/2012 CBP Staffing and Hiring - Aug 2012 Transmitted 

CBP 11/15/2012 CBP Staffing and Hiring - Sep 2012 Transmitted 

CBP 12/26/2012 POE Technology Demonstration Program - 2013 Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

CBP 2/15/2013 CBP Unobligated Balances - FY13 1st Qtr Transmitted 

CBP 12/15/2012 CBP Staffing and Hiring - Oct 2013 Transmitted 

CBP 1/15/2013 CBP Staffing and Hiring' Nov 2013 Transmitted 

CBP 2/15/2013 CBP Staffing and Hiring - Dec 2013 Transmitted 

CBP 3/15/2013 CBP Staffing and Hiring - Jan 2013 Transmitted 

cap 1O{15/2012 Integrated Scanning System FY 2013 Transmitted 
87 

Question#: 12 

Topic: reports 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

CBP 10/13/2012 FY13 CR Expenditure Plan - CBP Salaries & Expenses Transmitted 

CBP 10/30/2012 Commercial and Trade Functions in the Office of Field Operations Transmitted 

CBP 10/26/2012 FY13 Expenditure Plan - S&E Financial Plan Transmitted 

CBP 4/10/2013 FY13 Multiyear Investment Plan CBP Office of Information Transmitted 

Technology 

CBP 4/10/2013 FY13 Multiyear Investment Plan - CBP BSFIT FYs 2013-2016 Transmitted 

CBP 2/1/2013 FY13 Orcumvention of Customs Duties: Imports from China Transmitted 

CBP 4/10/2013 FY13 5-Year Strategic Plan: Textile Enforcement Transmitted 

CBP 11/27/2012 FY13 CR Expenditure Plan - ACE Transmitted 

CBP 4/15/2013 FY12 Annual Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Enforcement Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

CBP 12/27/2012 FY13 5-Year Strategic Plan: Air and Marine Operations Transmitted 

CBP 4/10/2013 FY13 Multiyear Investment Plan: Non-Intrusive Inspection and Transmitted 

Radiation Detection Equipment 

CBP 12/30/2012 Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) 4th Quarter FY 2012 Transmitted 

CBP 4/10/2013 FY13 5-Year Plan: land Border Ports of Entry Transmitted 

CBP 4/10/2013 FY13 Real Property Inventory Plan Transmitted 

CBP 10/31/2012 International Trade Committee FY 2012 Transmitted 

CBP 6/29/2013 COBRA Customs User Fees Report for FY 2012 Transmitted 

CBP 1/1/2013 Border Tunnel Prevention FY 2012 Transmitted 

CBP 12/28/2012 CBP Semiannual Progress Report Toward Compliance with the Transmitted 

Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 Polygraph Examination & 

Periodic Reinvestigations (Report 4) 

CBP 4/15/2013 CBP Staffing and Hiring - Feb 2013 Transmitted 

cap 5/15/2013 cap Staffing and Hiring - Mar 2013 Transmitted 

CBP 6/15/2013 CBP Staffing and Hiring - April 2013 Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

CBP 7/15/2013 cap Staffing and Hiring - May 2013 Pending: Due <30 Days 

CBP 8/15/2013 CBP Staffing and Hiring June 2013 Pending: Due >30 Days 

CBP 9/15/2013 CBP Staffing and Hiring July 2013 Pending: Due >30 Days 

CBP 5/15/2013 CBP Unobligated Balances - FY13 2nd Qtr Transmitted 

CBP 8/15/2013 CBP UnObligated Balances - FY13 3rd Qtr Pending: Due> 30 Days 

CBP 5/15/2013 Cross-Border Tunnels - FY13 1st Semi-Annual Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

CBP 3/30/2013 Dog and cat Fur Protection Report FY 2012 Transmitted 

CBP 6/29/2013 Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) 1st Quarter FY 2013 Transmitted 

CBP 4/29/2013 CBP Use of FY 2013 Disaster Relief Funds Pending: Overdue to 
88 

Question#: 12 

Topic: reports 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Congress 

CBP 2/14/2013 Softwood Lumber Act of 2008 FY 2012 Transmitted 

CBP 4/15/2013 Update 10 on Integrated Scanning System Operations FY 2013 Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

CBP 4/25/2013 FY13 Expenditure Plan - CBP Financial Plan Transmitted 

CBP 5/25/2013 CBP Officer Staffing at Air POEs Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

CBP 5/25/2013 Detention Standards and Oversight Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

CBP 4/312013 Classified Report - PreClearance Transmitted 

CBP 5/15/2013 ACE Quarterly Reports - FY13 2nd Qtr Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

CBP 8/15/2013 ACE Quarterly Reports - FY13 3rd Qtr Pending: Due >30 Days 

CBP 9/22/2013 Reimbursable Fee Agreements Pending: Due >30 Days 

CBP 6/24/2013 FY13 S-Year Border Patrol Staffing and Deployment Plan Pending: Due <30 Days 

CBP 6/24/2013 FY13 5-Year StrategiC Air and Marine Plan Update Pending: Due <30 Days 

CBP 7/24/2013 Entry-Exit Policy and Operations Report Pending: Due > 30 Days 

CBP 9/22/2013 Collection of Outstanding Duties Pending: Due >30 Days 

CBP 5/24/2013 FY13 Expenditure Plan - ACE Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

CBP 7/6/2013 Efforts to Counter Abuse of PreSCription Drugs Pending: Due <30 Days 

CBP 1/31/2013 CBP Port of Entry (POE) Infrastructure Assessment Study Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

CBP 4/10/2013 Northern Border Port Staffing and Funding Plan Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

CBP 1/31/2013 National Land Border Security Plan Pending: Overdue to Congress 

CBP 9/6/2013 Semiannual Progress Report on Polygraph Examinations Pending: Due >30 Days 

DNDO 5/27/2013 FY13 StrategiC Plan: Global Nuclear Detection Architecture Pending: Overdue to 

Investments Congress 

DNDO 3/31/2013 Global Nuclear Dectection Architecture (GNDA) Joint Annual Transmitted 

Interagency Review 2013 

DNDO 3/31/2013 2013 JOint Interagency Annual Review of the National StrategiC Transmitted 

Five-Year Plan for Improving the Nuclear Forensics and Attribution 

Capabilities of the United States 

DNDO 4/10/2013 Commercial First Approach Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

DNDO 7/24/2013 Nuclear Material Detection Technologies Pending: Due >30 Days 

FEMA 11/15/2012 Disaster Readiness and Support Costs - FY12 4th Qtr Transmitted 

FEMA 10/5/2012 Disaster Relief Fund - FY12 Sep Transmitted 
89 

Question#: 12 

Topic: reports 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 20 14 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

FEMA 10/4/2012 Catastrophic Resource Report - 2012 Transmitted 

FEMA 11/15/2012 FEMA Disaster Contracts - FY12 4th Qtr Transmitted 

FEMA 2/15/2013 FEMA Disaster Contracts - FY13 1st Qtr Transmitted 

FEMA 5/15/2013 FEMA Disaster Contracts - FY13 2nd Qtr Transmitted 

FEMA 8{15/2013 FEMA Disaster Contracts FY13 3rd Qtr Pending: Due >30 Days 

FEMA 4/10/2013 Disaster Relief Fund Annual Report - FY13 Transmitted 

FEMA 11/5/2012 Disaster Relief Fund - FY13 Oct Transmitted 

FEMA 12/5/2012 Disaster Relief Fund - FY13 Nov Transmitted 

FEMA 1/5/2013 Disaster Relief Fund - FY13 Dec Transmitted 

FEMA 2/5/2013 Disaster Relief Fund - FY13 Jan Transmitted 

FEMA 3/5/2013 Disaster Relief Fund - FY13 Feb Transmitted 

FEMA 9/30/2013 Principal Federal Official FY13 Contingent 

FEMA 12/15/2012 Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP) FY Transmitted 

2012 

FEMA 11/17/2012 NCRC 2012 Report on Homeland Security Activities in the NatiOnal Transmitted 

capital Region 

FEMA 1/3/2013 FEMA-USACE Flood Protection Structure Accreditation Task Force Transmitted 

Interim Report 

FEMA 4/5/2013 Disaster Relief Fund - FY13 Mar Transmitted 

FEMA 6/5/2013 Disaster Relief Fund - FY13 May Transmitted 

FEMA 5/5/2013 Disaster Relief Fund - FY13 Apr Transmitted 

FEMA 7/5/2013 Disaster Relief Fund - FY13 Jun Pending: Due <30 Days 

FEMA 8/5/2013 Disaster Relief Fund - FY13 Jul Pending: Due> 30 Days 

FEMA 9/5/2013 Disaster Relief Fund FY13 Aug Pending: Due >30 Days 

FEMA 3/30/2013 Use of the Defense Production Act to Reduce Interruptions in Transmitted 

Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource Operations 

FEMA 3/30/2013 Defense Production Act Committee Report 2011 and 2012 Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

FEMA 5/25/2013 FY13 Disaster Readiness and Support Annual Report Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

FEMA 2/15/2013 FEMA Disaster Readiness and Support Costs FY13 1st Qtr Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

FEMA 5/15/2013 FEMA Disaster Readiness and Support Costs FY13 2nd Qtr Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

FEMA 8/15/2013 FEMA Disaster Readiness and Support Costs FY13 3rd Qtr Pending: Due >30 Days 

FEMA 4/3/2013 Improvements to Levee Analysis and Mapping Procedures Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

FEMA 5/1/2013 US Fire Administration; Educational Outreach Transmitted 
90 

Question#: 12 

Topic: reports 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

FEMA 5/1/2013 FY13 Expenditure Plan - Mt Weather Capital Improvements Pending: OVerdue to Congress 

FEMA 6/24/2013 FY13 Strategic Plan for Automated Systems Modernization Pending: Due <30 Days 

I&A 11/15/2012 I&A Budget Execution - FY12 4th Qtr Transmitted 

I&A 2/15/2013 I&A Budget Execution - FY13 1st Qtr Transmitted 

I&A 5/15/2013 I&A Budget Execution - FY13 2nd Qtr Transmitted by CFO 

I&A 8/15/2013 I&A Budget Execution - FY13 3rd Qtr Pending: Due> 30 Days 

I&A 6/3/2013 Annual Customer Feedback FY 2012 Transmitted on 5/24/13 

I&A 5/14/2013 Intelligence Authorization Act FY 13 HSIP Report Transmitted on 5/20/13 

I&A 5/25/2013 FY13 Expenditure Plan - I&A Pending 

I&A 5/10/2013 Production Improvement Plan Pending: OVerdue to Congress 

ICE 11/15/2012 ICE Staffing and Hiring - FY12 4th Qtr Transmitted 

ICE 11/15/2012 Detention and Removal Operations - FY12 4th Qtr Transmitted 

ICE 11/15/2012 Domestic Investigations FY124th Qtr Transmitted 

ICE 11/15/2012 Secure Communities - FY12 4th Qtr Transmitted 

ICE 11/15/2012 ICE Unobligated Balances - FY12 4th Qtr Transmitted 

ICE 1/l/2013 

Annual 

Deportation of Parents of US-Born Children - 2012 2nd Semi- ~ueto 

ICE 2/15/2013 ICE Staffing and Hiring - FY13 1st Qtr Transmitted 

ICE 2/15/2013 Detention and Removal FY13 1st Qtr Transmitted 

ICE 2/15/2013 Domestic Investigations - FY13 1st Qtr Transmitted 

ICE 2/15/2013 Secure Communities - FY13 1st Qtr Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

ICE 2/15/2013 ICE Unobligated Balances - FY13 1st Qtr Transmitted 

ICE 4/10/2013 FY13 Textile Transshipment Enforcement Pending: OVerdue to 

Congress 

ICE 12/31/2012 FY 2011 Office of International Affairs VISA Security Program Pending: OVerdue to Deployment Overseas Congress 

ICE 4/10/2013 FY13 Multiyear Investment Plan - ICE Office of Information Transmitted 

Technology 

ICE 5/15/2013 Secure Communities - FY13 2nd Qtr Pending: OVerdue to 

Congress 

ICE 8/15/2013 Secure Communities - FY13 3rd Qtr Pending: Due >30 Days 

ICE 5/15/2013 ICE Unobligated Balances - FY13 2nd Qtr Pending: OVerdue to 

Congress 

ICE 8/15/2013 ICE Unobligated Balances - FY13 3rd Qtr Pending: Due >30 Days 

ICE 5/15/2013 ICE Staffing and Hiring - FYI3 2nd Qtr Transmitted 
91 

Question#: 12 

Topic: reports 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

ICE 8/15/2013 ICE Staffing and Hiring - FY13 3rd Qtr Pending: Due >30 Days 

ICE 5/15/2013 Domestic Investigations FY13 2nd Qtr Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

ICE 8/15/2013 Domestic Investigations - FY13 3rd Qtr Pending: Due >30 Days 

ICE 5/15/2013 Detention and Removal FY13 2nd Qtr Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

ICE 8/15/2013 Detention and Removal - FY13 3rd Qtr Pending: Due >30 Days 

ICE 7/1/2013 Deportation of Parents of US-Born Children - 2013 1st Semi- Pending: Due <30 Days 

Annual 

ICE 4/29/2013 ICE Use of FY 2013 Disaster Relief Funds Transmitted 

ICE 6/24/2013 Cooperation from Foreign Countries on Repatriation Pending: Due <30 Days 

ICE 9/30/2013 Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Report Pending: Due >30 Days 

ICE 8/16/2013 Border Enforcement Security Task Force Pending: Due> 30 Days 

NPPD 10/4/2012 National Emergency Communications Capabilities - Baseline Transmitted 

Assessment Update, 2012 

NPPD 10/13/2012 FY13 Expenditure Plan - Cybersecurity Activities Transmitted 

NPPD 3/30/2013 Coordination of Chemical Security Efforts - FY13 1st Semi-Annual Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

NPPD 9/30/2013 Coordination of Chemical Security Efforts - FY13 2nd Semi-Annual Pending: Due> 30 Days 

NPPD 4/10/2013 FPS Human Capital Report Transmitted 

NPPD 4/10/2013 FY13 Obligation Report - Continuous Monitoring and Diagnostics Transmitted 

NPPD 4/10/2013 FY13 Multi Year Investment Plan for Office of Biometric Identity Transmitted 

Management 

NPPD 4/10/2013 FY13 Expenditure Plan - Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

NPPD 5/25/2013 FY13 Expenditure Plan OBIM Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

NPPD 8/15/2013 Continuous Monitoring - FY13 1st Quarter Update Pending: Due >30 Days 

NPPD 7/1/2013 Cybersecurity Improvements Contingent 

NPPD 4/3/2013 Grant Programs Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

NPPD 4/3/2013 FY13 Expenditure Plan - Federal Network Security Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

NPPD 4/3/2013 FY13 Veterans Cybersecurity Workforce Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

NPPD 1/30/2013 Title X - Improving Critical Infrastructure Security Sec.21OE(d) Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

OSEM 4/3/2013 FY08-13 Executive Aircraft Usage and Funding Transmitted 

OSEM 5/25/2013 Departmental Integrity Efforts Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 
92 

Question#: 12 

Topic: reports 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENA TEl 

OSEM- 6/24/2013 FY13 Expenditure Plan - Citizenship and Immigration SelVices Pending: Due <30 Days 

CISOMB Ombudsman 

OSEM-CRCL 12/28/2012 CRCL Third Quarter FY 2012 Report to Congress Transmitted 

OSEM-CRCL 3/28/2013 No Fear Act Annual Report for FY 2012 Transmitted 

OSEM-CRCL 09/30/2013 CRCL FY 2012 Annual Report to Congress Pending 

OSEM-CRCL 6/24/2013 FY13 Expenditure Plan - Office of Civil Rights and Civil Uberties Pending: Due <30 Days 

OSEM-CRCL 9/30/2013 CRCL FY 2013 Ql and Q2 Report to Congress Pending: Due >30 Days 

OSEM-IGA 6/24/2013 FY13 Expenditure Plan Office of Intergovernmental Affairs Pending: Due <30 Days 

OSEM-PLCY 11/15/2012 Border Security Status Report (BSSR) - FY12 4th Quarter Pending: OVerdue to 

Congress 

OSEM-PLCY 12/28/2012 PLCY Visa Waiver Program (VWP) Summary Report for Taiwan Transmitted 

OSEM-PLCY 2/15/2013 Border Security Status Report - FY13 1st Qtr Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

OSEM-PLCY 12/3/2012 PLCY Visa Waiver Program (VWP) Summary Report for Finland Transmitted 

OSEM-PLCY 12/28/2012 VISA Waiver Program (VWP) Continuing DeSignation Review Transmitted 

Report on Sweden 

OSEM-PLCY 12/28/2012 VISA Waiver Program (VWP) Continuing Designation Review on Pending: OVerdue to 

United Kingdom Congress 

OSEM-PlCY 12/28/2012 VISA Waiver Program (VWP) Continuing Oesignation Review on Pending: Overdue to 

Luxembourg and Estonia Congress 

OSEM-PLCY 5/15/2013 Border Security Status Report - FY13 2nd Qtr Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

OSEM-PLCY 8/15/2013 Border Security Status Report - FY13 3rd Olr Pending: Due >30 Days 

OSEM-PLCY 3/31/2013 VISA Waiver Program (VWP) Continuing Designation Review Pending: Overdue to 

Report to Congress on Andorra, Austria, Brunei, Denmark, Congress 

Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Spain, and South 

Korea 

OSEM-PLCY 6/24/2013 FY13 Expenditure Plan - PLCY Pending: Due <30 Days 

OSEM-PRIV 10/l/2012 Privacy 2012 Annual Report to Congress Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

OSEM-PRIV 12/31/2012 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Privacy Office's Fourth Transmitted 

Quarter Fiscal Year 2012 Report to Congress 

OSEM-PRIV 2/28/2013 2012 Data Mining Report Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

OSEM-PRlV 3/30/2013 Ql FY 2013 803 Report Transmitted 

OSEM-PRIV 6/28/2013 Q2 FY 2013 Section 803 Report Pending: Due <30 Days 

OSEM-PRlV 6/24/2013 FY13 Expenditure Plan - Privacy Office Pending: Due <30 Days 

s&T 10/22/2012 FY12 3rd Quarterly Update - RDI funding Transmitted 

s&T 4/22/2013 Research Oevelopment Institute Pending: OVerdue to 

Congress 

saT 6/24/2013 FY13 National Bio- and Agro-defense Facility Construction Plan Pending: Due <30 Days 
93 

Question#: 12 

Topic: reports 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

s&T 7/24/2013 FY13 Expenditure Report - Financial Sector Cybersecurity Pending: Due >30 Days 

S&T 4/10/2013 Plum Island Animal Projected Costs Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

s&T 4/10/2013 FY12 De-0bligated Research and Development Funds Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

s&T 4/25/2013 FY13 Expenditure Plan - Research, Development and Innovation Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

TSA 10/1/2012 Risk-Based Security Screening for Members of the Armed Forces Transmitted 

TSA 12/20/2012 Air Cargo Screening - FY12 2nd Semi-Annual Transmitted 

TSA 11/15/2012 Federal Air Marshals Service FY12 4th Qtr Transmitted 

TSA 6/1/2013 Implementation of ATR Software 

TSA 12/28/2012 Airport Exit Lanes Pilot Programs Transmitted 

TSA 12/28/2012 Screening of Armed Forces Transmitted 

TSA 2/15/2013 Federal Air Marshals - FY13 1st Qtr Transmitted 

TSA 12/31/2012 Transportation Security Information Sharing Environment (TSISE) Transmitted 

TSA 12/6/2012 FY13 CR Expenditure Plan - Air Cargo Transmitted 

TSA 12/7/2012 FY13 CR Expenditure Plan - EDS and Checkpoint Transmitted 

TSA 6/20/2013 Unclaimed Money at Airports - FY12 Transmitted 

TSA 12/27/2012 2013 Advanced Integrated Passenger Screening Transmitted 

TSA 2/21/2013 FY13 CR Expenditure Plan· VIPR Transmitted 

TSA 5/15/2013 Federal Air Marshals - FY13 2nd Qtr Transmitted 

TSA 8/15/2013 Federal Air Marshals - FY13 3rd Qtr Pending: Due >30 Days 

TSA 4/10/2013 Installation of Optimal Baggage Screening Systems and FTE Transmitted 

Savings 

TSA 5/25/2013 Security Breaches Report Transmitted 

TSA 7/24/2013 Federal Law Enforcement Supplement to FAMS Pending: Due >30 Days 

TSA 9/22/2013 Air Cargo Screening Report Pending: Due >30 Days 

TSA 5/25/2013 FY13 Expenditure Plan· Air Cargo Security Transmitted 

TSA 5/25/2013 FY13 Expenditure Plan - EDS and Checkpoint Support Transmitted 

TSA 5/15/2013 Screening Partnership Program (SPP) - FY13 2nd Qtr. Transmitted 

TSA 8/15/2013 Screening Partnership Program (SPP) • FY13 3rd Qtr. Pending: Due >30 Days 

TSA 6/24/2013 2013 Advanced Integrated Passenger Screening Update Transmitted 

TSA 6/24/2013 Unclaimed Money at Airports - Transfer Collections to Nonprofit Pending: Due <30 Days 

Organizations 

TSA 5/10/2013 FY13 Expenditure Plan • FAMS Transmitted 

TSA 9/30/2013 Advanced Imaging Technology Study and Health Risks of AIT Pending: Due> 30 Days 
94 

Question#: 12 

Topic: reports 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

TSA 4/10/2013 5-Year Strategic Plan of Investments Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

USCG 10/15/2012 Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Disbursements for FY 2011 Transmitted 

USCG 2/1/2013 2012 Sexual Harrassment and Violence at CGA Transmitted 

USCG 11/12/2012 FY12 4th Qtr - OCO Transmitted 

USCG 4/10/2013 5-Year capital Investment Plan: FYs 2014-2018 Transmitted 

USCG 12/1/2012 Assessment of the Adequacy of the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Transmitted 

Safety Workforce 2012 

USCG 1/13/2013 Sexual Assault in the U.S. Coast Guard in FY 2012 Transmitted 

USCG 10/31/2012 Drug Interdiction Expenditures FY 2012 Transmitted 

USCG 3/13/2013 Conveyance of Coast Guard Real Property in 2012 Transmitted 

USCG 1/20/2013 Coast Guard's National Housing Assessment Transmitted 

USCG 3/23/2013 Compliance with Security Standards Pursuant to Maritime Transmitted 

Transportation Security Plans in 2012 

USCG 2/15/2013 capabilities and Readiness to Fulfill National Defense Transmitted 

Responsibilties During FY 2012 

USCG 1/29/2013 Rescue 21 (2013) Transmitted 

USCG 3/20/2013 Environmental Compliance and Restoration Transmitted 

USCG 2/2/2013 Marine Industry Training Program FY 2012 Transmitted 

USCG 4/30/2013 Use of AC&I Disaster Funds Transmitted 

USCG 5/1/2013 Living Marine Resource Enforcement Activities Annual Summary Transmitted 

2012 

USCG 1/28/2013 Threat of Terrorism to U.S. Ports and Vessels in 2012 Transmitted 

USCG 9/30/2013 Marine Safety Long Term Strategy, Performance Report and Transmitted 

Annual Plan FY 2013 

USCG 4/22/2013 Support of Military Families Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

USCG 6/24/2013 Infrastructure and Response capabilities in the Arctic Pending: Due <30 Days 

USCG 6/24/2013 USCG FY13 Automation Modernization Report Pending: Due <30 Days 

USCG 4/22/2013 Major/MinorShore Construction, HOUSing, Aids to Navigatoin and Transmitted 

Survey and Design 

USCG 5/10/2013 FY13 Expenditure Plan - USCG Military Housing and Prioritized Pending: Overdue to 

Backlog Congress 

USCG 3/1/2013 Distant Water Tuna Aeet CY 2012 Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

USCG 6/28/2013 Presidential Security Expenditures, First Half, Fiscal Year 2013 Transmitted 

USCG 9/27/2013 Waterside Security of Espedally Hazardous Cargo - Resource Pending: Due >30 Days 

Deficiency Reporting for FY 2012 

USCG 7/1/2013 Hazing in the Coast Guard Pending: Due <30 Days 
95 

Question#: 12 

Topic: reports 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

USCG 6/11/2013 Ringo Cocke Canal Passenger Vessels Regulatory Requirements Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

USCG 5/24/2013 Diversity in Coast Guard Leadership Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

USCG 4/10/2013 Capital Investment Plan and Unfunded Priority List Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

USCIS 10/30/2012 Internal Affairs Investigations January - June 2012 Transmitted 

USCIS 12{1{2012 Adjustment of Status Granted Pursuant to Section 13 for October Pending: Overdue to 

2012 Congress 

USCIS 12/30/2012 TRIG Report (Secretary's Application of the Discretionary Authority Pending: Overdue to 

Contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act Congress 

USCIS 12/30/2012 FY 2012 H-IB PetitiOns Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

USCIS 12/31/2012 H2 B Petitions FY12 Part 2 Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

USCIS 12{30/2012 Characteristics of H-IB Specialty Workers FY 2012 Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

USCIS 1/3/2013 Section 13 Report November 2012 Transmitted 

USCIS 2/2/2013 Section 13 Report December 2012 Transmitted 

USCIS 3/1/2013 Adjustments of Status Granted Pursuant to Section 13 for January Pending: Overdue to 

2013 Congress 

USCIS 11/25/2012 Annual Report on the Impact of the Homeland Security Act on Pending: Overdue to Immigration Functions Transferred to the Department of Congress 

Homeland Security 

USCIS 3/1/2013 Temporary Protected Status: Calendar Year 2012 Report Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

USCIS 4/30/2013 Internal Affairs Investigations July to December 2012 Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

USCIS 4/2/2013 Characteristics of H-2B Nonagricultural Temporary Workers FY Pending: Overdue to 

2012 Congress 

USCIS 11/1/2012 Section 13 Report for September 2012 Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

USCIS 4{1/2013 Section 13 Report for February 2013 Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

USCIS 10/l{2012 Section 13 Report for August 2012 Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

USCIS 9/30/2013 Electronic Access to Immigration Information Contingent 

USCIS 7/1/2013 Section 13 Report for March 2013 Pending: Due <30 Days 

USCIS 3/1/2013 Report on Certain Applications for Naturalization Pending Longer Pending: Overdue to 

Than One Year As of December 2012 (Military Naturalization) Congress 

USCIS 7/1/2013 Section 13 April 2013 Pending: Due <30 Days 

USM 11/6/2012 Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report 3rd FY12 Quarterly Transmitted 

Update 
96 

Question#: 12 

Topic: reports 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

USM 4/10/2013 FY13 Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report Transmitted 

USM 9/30/2013 FY13 DHS Effidency Review Contingent 

USM 8/15/2013 CASR- CY13 1st Quarterly Update Pending: Due >30 Days 

USM 2/15/2013 CASR Quarterly Update FY13 - 1st Qtf Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

USM 511512013 CASR Quarterly Update FY13 - 2nd Qtr Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

USM-OCAO 6/2412013 FY13 Expenditure Plan - DHS HQ Consolidation Pending: Due <30 Days 

USM-OCFO 2115/2013 DHS User Fees FY 12 Semi-Annual Update Transmitted 

USM-DCFO 10/30/2012 Official Reception and Representation Expenses - FY12 4th Qtr Transmitted 

USM-OCFO 10115/2012 DHS Budget Execution and Staffing - Aug 2012 Transmitted 

USM-OCFO 11/15/2012 DHS Budget Execution and Staffing - Sep 2012 Transmitted 

USM-OCFO 2/15/2013 Federally Funded Research and Development Centers FY122nd Pending: Overdue to 

Semi-Annual Congress 

USM-OCFO 1/512013 FY12 Event Fees Transmitted 

USM-DCFO 1/30/2013 Offidal Reception and Representation Expenses - FY13 1st Qtr Transmitted 

USM-OCFO 12{15/2012 DHS Budget Execution and Staffing - Oct 2013 Transmitted 

USM-OCFO 1/16/2013 DHS Budget Execution and Staffing - Nov 2013 Transmitted 

USM-OCFO 2/15/2013 DHS Budget Execution and Staffing - Dec 2013 Transmitted 

USM-OCFO 3115/2013 DHS Budget Execution and Staffing - Jan 2013 Transmitted 

USM-OCFO 811512013 Federally Funded Research and Development Centers - FY13 1st Pending: Due >30 Days 

Semi-Annual 

USM-OCFO 10/28/2012 FY13 CR Expenditure Plan DHS-Wide Operations Transmitted 

USM-OCFO 4/26/2013 FY13 Expenditure Plan - DHS-Wide Appropriations After Transmitted 

Sequestration 

USM-OCFO 6{15/2013 DHS Budget Execution and Staffing - April 2013 Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

USM-OCFO 4/15/2013 DHS Budget Execution and Staffing - Feb 2013 Transmitted 

USM-DCFO 5/15/2013 DHS Budget Execution and Staffing - Mar 2013 Transmitted 

USM-DCFO 7115/2013 DHS Budget Execution and Staffing - May 2013 Pending: Due <30 Days 

USM-OCFO 8/15/2013 DHS Budget Execution and Staffing - Jun 2013 Pending: Due >30 Days 

USM-OCFO 9/15/2013 DHS Budget Execution and Staffing - Jul 2013 Pending: Due >30 Days 

USM-OCFO 8/15/2013 Official Reception and Representation Expenses - FY13 3rd Qtr Pending: Due >30 Days 

USM-OCFO 5/15/2013 Official Reception and Representation Expenses - FY13 2nd Qtr Transmitted 

USM-OCFO 3/31/2013 Internal Control of FY13 Disaster Funds Transmitted 

USM-OCFO 4/10/2013 FY14-18 FYHSP Transmitted 

USM-OCFO 6/24/2013 campaign to Cut Waste Pending: Due <30 Days 
97 

Question#: 12 

Topic: reports 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENA TEl 

USM-OCFO 4/10/2013 Federally Funded Research and Development CenlErs - FYs 13 & Pending: Overdue to 

14 Projections Congress 

USM-OCFO 6/24/2013 DHS User Fees - Revised Plan Pending: Due <30 Days 

USM- 4/3/2013 lnsourcing and Balanced Workforce Strategy Fiscal 2009-2012 Transmitted 

OCHCO 

USM-OCIO 4/10/2013 FY13 Multiyear Investment Plan - OCIO IT Acquisition Projects Transmitted 

USM-OCIO 4/3/2013 HSPD-12 Trusted Internet Connection Pending: Overdue to Congress 

USM-OCPO 4/10/2013 Buy American Requirements Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

USM-OCSO 1/31/2013 SS! 2012 Report Transmitted 

USSS 4/29/2013 USSS Use of FY 2013 Disaster Relief Funds Transmitted 

USSS 4/10/2013 USSS 1m Multi-Year Investment and Management Plan Transmitted 

USSS 6/15/2013 Update to 2012 Campaign Financial Plan Pending: Overdue to 

Congress 

The Department does not currently have an estimate on the resources required and the 

costs incurred to produce the 304 reports currently required in FY 2013. DHS does not 

currently track the number of man-hours or production costs associated with the 

development of each report. Reports are significantly varied in terms of content and 

material. 

DHS OUTDATED & DUPLICATIVE CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED REPORTS 

Request these 

into O!le report 

the annual authorization report 

on duty collections (NA FT A 
98 

Question#: 12 

Topic: reports 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Sec 691, 19U5C (6771). CBPalso 

requests changing the due date to 

Congress to the end of April, because 

it takes two months to collate and 

organize the data after the yearly 

distributions (usually in early 

December) and two months for 

review. 

CBP- Annual Consolidate duplicative There are three reporting 

Outstanding requirements in the Senate Report 

Antidumping and 112-74 that all deal with very similar 

Countervailing topics: ADCVD yearly distributions, 

Duty Collection on the Outstanding $1 

Enforcement billion in 

Collection Antidumping/Countervailing Duties, 

Reports and Collections During the Preceding 

Fiscal year. These topics are also 

closely related to an annual 

authorizations report on ADCVD 

collections during the preceding fiscal 

year (required by NAFTA 

Implementation Act). Request these 

reports be combined into one report 

with the annual authorization report 

on duty collections (NAFTA 

Implementation Act, H.R. 3450, 

Sec 691, 19 USC 16771). CBP also 

requests changing the due date to 

Congress to end of April, because it 

takes two months to collate and 

organize the data after the yearly 

distributions (usually in early 

December) and two months for 

review. 

CBP-FY12 Monthly Consolidate duplicative Information is duplicative with onStaffing and board statistics included in the CFO 

Hiring Monthly Monthly Execution Report. Suggest 

Report this report requirement be eliminated. 

ICE-FY12 Annual Streamline duplicative Recommend this information be 

Annual Worksite provided in conjunction with the 

Enforcement quarterly worksite enforcement 

briefing and eliminate this report. 

ICE - Quarterly Quarterly Reduce costlbenefit Recommend changing this report 

Domestic Frequency requirement to a quarterly briefing 

Investigations requirement as the information can be 

provided in a more timely fashion. 

ICE - Quarterly Quarterly Reduce costlbenefit Recommend changing this report 
99 

Question#: 12 

Topic: reports 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A, Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Secure Frequency requirement to a quarterly briefing 

Communities requirement as the information can be 

provided in a more timely fashion 

with a summary annual report 

provided within 45 days after the end 

of the fiscal year, 

ICE - Quarterly Quarterly Streamline duplicative Recommend this report requirement 

Unobligated be eliminated as the same information 

Balances is provided via the Department's 

Monthly Execution Report, 

ICE- Trade Annual Streamline duplicative Recommend conso lidating all three 

Compliance Trade Compliance and Enforcement 

Expenditure Plan Reports into one annual report, 

ICE - Staffing Monthly Streamline costibenefit Recommend changing this monthly 

and Hiring report to a quarterly report as the 

Monthly Report benefit of providing monthly 

information does not outweigh the 

time and resources needed to produce 

it 

TSA - Quarterly Quarterly Reduce duplicative Recommend change in submission 

Recovered or Frequency schedule to semi-annual vice 

Deobligated quarterly, DHS believes that there is 

Funds for minimal value in reporting this data 

Explosive on a more frequent basis, considering 

Detection the cost and redundancy in effort 

Systems associated with generating the report. 

TSA - Quarterly Quarterly Reduce duplicative Recommend change in submission 

Federal Air Frequency schedule to semi-annual vice 

Marshals Report quarterly, DHS believes that there is 

minimal value in reporting this data 

on a more frequent basis, considering 

the cost and redundancy in effort 

associated with ~enerating the report. 

TSA - Registered Annual Consolidate other The Registered Traveler Program is 

Traveler no longer an active program, 

Program, 

Protection of 

Personal 

Information 

OSEM-PLCY Quarterly Streamline duplicative This report contains information on 

Quarterly Border illegal border entries, apprehensions, 

Seucrity Status and other statistics that is often 

Report provided as background in other 

reporting requirements such as the 

BSFIT expenditure plan which 

provides a comprehensive overview 

of CBP's efforts at the borders -
100 

Question#: 12 

Topic: reports 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

current status, future endeavors, 

issues/problems and resolutions aU 

of which encompasses this reporting 

requirement. Recommend this report 

requirement be eliminated. 

USCG-20ll Annual Consolidate costlhenefit Recommend combining this report 

Sexual with the Authorizations report titled 

Harassment and "Sexual Assaults in the CG." Both 

Violence at CGA are annual requirements. 

USM-OCPO Quarterly Reduce costlhenefit Recommend changing this 

Comprehensive Frequency requirement from quarterly to one 

Acquisition annual report. 

Status Report 

Quarterly 

Update 

USCG - Annual Annual Repeal Redundant The Coast Guard notes that the 

assessment of content of this report is incorporated 

adequacy of in the annual submission of the 

marine safety "Marine Safety Long Term Strategy, 

workforce Performance Report." 

USCG - Annual Annual Repeal Redundant The Coast Guard notes that the 

report on marine content of this report is incorporated 

industry training in the annual submission of the 

program "Marine Safety Long Term Strategy, 

Performance Report." 

USCG Biennial Biennial Repeal Redundant The Coast Guard notes that the 

report on major content of this report is incorporated 

acquisitions in the Department of Homeland 

Security's Comprehensive 

Acquisition Status Report. 

USCG- Annual Repeal Costlhenefit From year to year, the content of this 

Annual report on report differs little. In lieu of a report, 

minor the Coast Guard recommends that it 

construction and brief congressional staff. 

improvement 

USCG - Annual Annual Repeal Redundant The Coast Guard notes that the capital 

capital investment plan element of this report 

investment plan in provided as part of the President's 

annual budget submission. 

USCG- Annual Repeal Costlhenefit From year to year, the content of this 

Annual report on report differs little. In lieu of a report, 

conveyance of the Coast Guard recommends that it 

real property brief congressional staff. 

USCG- Annual Repeal Costlbenefit From year to year, the content of this 

Annual list of report differs little. In lieu of a report, 

projects the Coast Guard recommends that it 

brief congressional staff. 
101 

Question#: 12 

Topic: reports 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

USCG Annual Repeal Costlbenefit From year to year, the content of this 

Annual marine report differs little. In lieu of a report, 

safety strategy the Coast Guard recommends that it 

and plans brief congressional staff. 

USCG- Annual Repeal Costlbenefit From year to year, the content of this 

Annual resource report differs little. In lieu of a report, 

deficiency the Coast Guard recommends that it 

reporting; brief congressional staff. 

waterside 

security of 

especially 

hazardous cargo 

USCG Annual Repeal Costlbenefit From year to year, the content of this 

Annual report on report differs little. In lieu of a report, 

terrorist threats the Coast Guard recommends that it 

brief congressional staff. 

USCG- Biannual Repeal Costlbenefit From year to year, the content of this 

Presidential report differs little. In lieu of a report, 

Protection the Coast Guard recommends that it 

Assistance Act of brief congressional staff. 

1976; semiannual report of 

expenditures 

USCG- Annual Repeal Costlbenefit The National Pollution Fund Center 

Annual report on continues to anticipate the Oil Spill 

use of Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund will be able to 

Liability Trust cover projected non-catastrophic 

Fund liabilities, including claims, without 

further increases to vessel liability 

limits. Annual report updates do not 

provide any significant new 

information or recommendations. 

Accordingly, the Coast Guard 

believes that this reporting 

requirement has outlived its 

legislative purpose and informative 

value. 

USCG- Biennial Repeal Costlbenefit From year to year, the content of this 

Biennial report report differs little. In lieu of a report, 

on oil pollution the Coast Guard recommends that it 

research and brief congressional staff. 

development 

program 

USCG- Annual Repeal Redundant Most, if not all the information, 

Coast Guard contained in this report is found in 

Authorization other Executive branch publications. 

Actof1996; And, ITom year to year, the content of 
102 

Questiou#: 12 

Topic: reports 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

annual report on this report differs little. In lieu of a 

drug interdiction report, the Coast Guard recommends 

that it brief congressional staff. 

USCG- Annual Repeal Costlbenefit As the Rescue 21 project nears 

Annual report on completion, this reporting 

the requirement has outlived its 

modernization of legislative purpose and informative 

national distress value. In lieu of a report, the Coast 

and response Guard recommends that it brief 

system congressional staff. 

USCG- Annual Repeal Costlbenefit From year to year, the content of this 

Annual report on report differs little. In lieu of a report, 

Coast Guard the Coast Guard recommends that it 

capabilities and brief congressional staff. 

readiness to 

fulfill national 

defense 

responsibilities 

USCG- Annual Repeal Costlbenefit The steady decline in enforcement 

Coast Guard and actions and deficiencies awarded to 

Maritime non-compliant vessels suggests that 

Transportation this reporting requirement has 

Act of2004; outlived its legislative purpose and 

annual report on informative value. In lieu of a report, 

compliance with the Coast Guard recommends that it 

security brief congressional staff. 

standards 

established 

pursuant to 

maritime 

transportation 

security plans 

USCG- Annual Repeal Costlbenefit From year to year, the content of this 

Annual report on report differs little. In lieu of a report, 

distant water tuna the Coast Guard recommends that it 

fleet brief congressional staff. 

USCG- Annual Repeal Costlbenefit The National Pollution Fund Center 

Annual updates continues to anticipate the Oil Spill 

on limits on Liability Trust Fund will be able to 

liability cover projected non-catastrophic 

liabilities, including claims, without 

further increases to vessel liability 

limits. Annual report updates do not 

provide any significant new 

information or recommendations. 

Accordingly, the Coast Guard 

believes that this reporting 
103 

Question#: 12 

Topic: reports 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

requirement has outlived its 

legislative purpose and informative 

value. 

USCG - Annual AnnuallBiennial Repeal Costlbenefit From year to year, the content of this 

summary on report differs little. In lieu of a report, 

fisheries the Coast Guard recommends that it 

enforcement brief congressional staff 

plans and 

reporting; 

Biennial updates 

on foreign 

fishing 

incursions 

USCG Annual Repeal Costlbenefit 

USCG- Annual Repeal Costlbenefit 

USCG Annual Repeal Costlbenefit 

USCG-Non- One-time Repeal Costfbenefit The production of these reports is 

reoccurring dependent on the cooperation of 

recommendations Canadian authorities, which rightly 

on tug escorts for has their own priorities and 

laden oil tankers; obligations. Additionally, the cost of 

Non-reoccurring the latter is prohibitive (in excessive 

risk assessment of $1 M). The Service believes most 

of transporting of the information Congress seeks 

Canadian oil could be presented in a brief without 

sands further delay or cost. 
104 

Questiou#: 13 

Topic: grants 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: At the April 17, 2013 hearing, you indicated that the Department performed a 

survey and capability gap analysis to determine the amount ofFY2014 funding requested 

for FEMA' s preparedness grants. Please provide the committee with the results of that 

survey and gap analysis, as well as a description of how the survey and analysis were 

performed. 

You indicated that the department anticipates administrative cost savings as a result of 

consolidating existing preparedness grants. What is the dollar amount of administrative 

cost savings that you estimate can be achieved through consolidation, and what is that 

estimate based on? 

Response: FEMA has established measurable goals and objectives through the National 

Preparedness Goal and National Preparedness System that enable us to systematically 

measure improvements in first responder capabilities and state-wide preparedness. 

FEMA's strategy is to base assessments on the principles ofthe National Preparedness 

System: the Nation needs to understand the risks it faces, use those risks to determine the 

capabilities it needs, assess its current capability levels against those requirements, and 

track its progress in closing capability gaps. Developing and maintaining an 

understanding of the variety of risks faced by communities and the Nation, and how this 

information can be used to build and sustain preparedness, are essential components the 

System. 

In 2012, FEMA released the methodology for determining risks in Comprehensive 

Preparedness Guide 201: Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment 

(THlRA) Guide (CPG-20l). The TRIRA process is an all-hazards assessment tool 

developed by FEMA for use by jurisdictions of all sizes. Diverging from past efforts to 

establish measures and metrics for a capability that would be applied uniformly, this 

approach allows a jurisdiction to establish its own capability targets based on the risks it 

faces. It expands on existing local, state, territorial, and tribal hazard identification and 

risk assessments and other risk methodologies by broadening the factors considered in the 

process, incorporating the whole community from the beginning to the end ofthe 

process, and by accounting for important community-specific factors. This knowledge 

allows a jurisdiction to establish informed and defensible capability targets based on 

plausible impacts of the threats and hazards of concern to their jurisdiction. Each of the 

10 FEMA Regions and a1156 states and territories completed TRIRAs in 2012. 
105 

Question#: 13 

Topic: grants 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

The States assessed their current capabilities against their TRIRA targets in the State 

Preparedness Report, also submitted to FEMA in December 2012. For each identified 

capability shortfall, states and territories indicated the degree to which they expected to 

fill the shortfall themselves or their expected reliance on federal capability. Responses 

regarding the responsibility for filling existing shortfalls help identify mismatches in 

perception about appropriate roles between different levels of goverrunent. State, 

territorial and federal officials may not always agree on the perceived roles, but in an era 

of constrained budgets, these results may be used to start productive conversations about 

expectations, constraints, and innovative partnership models to fill critical shortfalls. 

Taken together, the TRIRA results and the SPR identify capability needs. These 

products allow the Nation to look holistically across all capabilities and whole 

community partners to gauge areas of strength and areas for improvement. FEMA 

reports the results of the capability assessments annually in the National Preparedness 

Report submitted to the White House March 30 and released publicly on May 30, 2013. 

The proposal to consolidate the existing suite of preparedness grants into one National 

Preparedness Grant Program is driven by the need to improve coordination among 

various grantees and to allow for the type of strategic, risk-informed decision-making 

about grant investments that is not possible under the current, structure. An ancillary, but 

by no means less important, benefit of the consolidation is the expectation that both the 

Department and its grantees will realize administrative cost savings as a result of 

consolidating existing preparedness grants. 

There is an administrative burden for both grantees and FEMA's Grant Programs 

Directorate (GPD) as they manage the existing portfolio of grants; each has independent, 

statutory and administrative reporting requirements. By consolidating programs, this 

administrative burden will improve. FEMA's, GPD is currently working to determine 

how the proposed NPG, if enacted, would impact its organizational structure and future 

workforce requirements. It is anticipated that any administrative cost savings would take 

several fiscal years, as the existing portfolio of grants will continue to require oversight 

until closed out procedures can be conducted. Efforts will be made to determine 

estimated cost benefits for grantees even though each state and local unit of government 

manages its grants differently. 
106 

Question#: 14 

Topic: infonnation sharing 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: In April 2013, GAO issued a report identifying potential duplication and 

overlap in the mission of the federally-supported field-based information sharing 

initiatives, including Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), Field Intelligence Groups, 

Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS), state major urban area fusion centers, and 

Righ Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Investigative Support Centers. 

Specifically, GAO found "91 instances of overlap in some analytical activities-such as 

producing intelligence reports-and 32 instances of overlap in investigative support 

activities." Given the potential duplication and overlap that exists in domestic 

intelligence collection and information sharing, I would like to hear your ideas for how 

DRS could maximize its contribution to the nation's intelligence and information sharing 

mission. Specifically, please describe the reforms you would suggest Congress make to 

better define roles and responsibilities should be for the Office of Intelligence and 

Analysis and the intelligence operations of DRS's component agencies. 

Response: DRS is charged with supporting and establishing information sharing 

relationships with state and local fusion centers, which-unlike any of the others in the 

report-are owned and operated by state and local governments under their legal 

authorities. The other entities examined in the report-JTTFs, Field Intelligence Groups 

(FIGs), RISS and RIDTAs-are sponsored, funded and overseen by federal agencies. 

The intelligence products disseminated by fusion centers are directed to customers, such 

as local municipalities, emergency management agencies and other first responders, who 

are not traditionally served by local FIGs, which focus support on FBI Field Offices. FBI 

JTTFs primarily support the exchange of investigative information for the purpose of 

enabling task force officers detailed to JTTFs to support federal counterterrorism 

investigations. 

DRS, through the Office ofIntelligence and Analysis (I&A), is working closely with 

federal partners, including the FBI and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, 

through the Fusion Center Subcommittee of the Information Sharing and Access 

Interagency Policy Committee, to foster improved coordination and collaboration with 

fusion centers through engagement on fusion center governance bodies and advisory 

boards. DRS is also working closely with fusion centers to define performance measures 

that reflect the degree to which fusion centers coordinate with each other and with other 

field-based information sharing entities to avoid inefficiencies and minimize duplication 

of effort. As noted in the GAO report, we expect to complete the development of these 

measures by the end of September 2013. 
107 

Question#: 14 

Topic: information sharing 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURlTY (SENATE) 

DHS also continues to more effectively align its internal intelligence and information 

sharing efforts through programmatic alignment and strategic planning. As the Chief 

Intelligence Officer for the Department (CINT), the Under Secretary for Intelligence and 

Analysis leads the Homeland Security Intelligence Council (HSIC), composed of Key 

Intelligence Officials from all intelligence components of the Department. The CINT, in 

consultation with the HSIC, provides strategic oversight across the DHS intelligence 

enterprise and, through the HSIC, establishes working groups on key issues including 

collections management, counterintelligence, analytic coordination and intelligence 

systems across the intelligence components of the Department. This coordination 

prevents duplication and unnecessary overlap - understanding that, as noted by GAO, 

"overlap in these activities can lead to benefits such as validating information for 

customers." 

DHS looks forward to working with Congress on these efforts and will keep Congress 

apprised of our progress in improving coordination and collaboration among fusion 

centers, other field-based federal entities and the Department. 
108 

Question#: 15 

Topic: fusion centers 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: The October 12th, 2012 report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on 

Investigations titled "Federal Support For and Involvement in State and Local Fusion 

Centers," highlighted DHS' inability to provide accurate tally of how much it had granted 

to states and cities to support fusion center efforts. 

How has DHS improved its ability to effectively track preparedness grant funding being 

spent on fusions centers? 

Response: Per the requirements ofthe Implementing Recommendations of the 9111 

Commission Act of2007, the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) 

conducts on-site financial and programmatic monitoring in each State, territory and 

eligible urban area every two years. During the monitoring, FEMA staff review progress 

made towards completing grant investments, as outlined in the grantee's funding 

application. This includes a review of the fusion center investments. 

In addition to the on-site monitoring noted above, FEMA also conducts quarterly 

financial reviews of grantee drawdown activities as well as biannual reviews of projectspecific activities (including fusion center-related investments.) 

Question: What is the current number of fusion centers in operation? 

Response: There are currently 78 designated fusion centers. 

Question: How has DHS reformed its oversight of intelligence reporting generated by 

information at the state and local level? 

Response: As DHS pointed at the time, and Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member 

Collins, Chairman King and major law enforcement organizations have since confirmed, 

the committee report on federal support for fusion centers is out of date, inaccurate and 

misleading. Of particular concern is that the committee refused to review relevant data, 

including important intelligence information pertinent to their findings, in preparing their 

report. Not only does the report rely on limited data from two to three years ago in its 

analysis, much of what it identifies as problematic had been identified and rectified by 

DHS prior to their investigation. The report also fundamentally misunderstands the role 

of the federal govemment in supporting fusion centers and overlooks the significant 

benefits of this relationship to both state and local law enforcement and the federal 

govemment. Among other benefits, fusion centers playa key role by receiving classified 
109 

Question#: 15 

Topic: fusion centers 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

and unclassified information from the federal government and assessing its local 

implications, helping law enforcement on the frontlines better protect their communities 

from all threats, whether it is terrorism or other criminal activities. The Department of 

Homeland Security supports fusion centers, working in coordination with other federal 

partners, through training, technical assistance, technology and grant funding, as well as 

the deployment ofDHS intelligence officers who work side-by-side with fusion center 

personnel to assess threats and share information. Homeland security begins with 

hometown security, and fusion centers playa vital role in keeping communities safe all 

across America. 

Question: How has DHS improved its ability to assess performance by state and local 

fusion centers in contributing to stated federal missions? 

Response: Beginning in 2012, the scope ofthe DHS' annual fusion center assessment 

process was broadened from a focus on capability development to include an evaluation 

of the National Network of Fusion Centers' (National Network) performance in 

contributing to national information sharing and homeland security outcomes. National 

Network partners finalized the initial set of five performance measures in April 2012. 

These five performance measures reflect the benefits of a National Network, as well as 

the shared responsibilities of individual fusion centers and federal, state and local 

partners in supporting and sustaining the National Network over time. These measures 

also reflect the implementation and institutionalization of Critical Operational 

Capabilities and Enabling Capabilities and the fusion process in general. An expanded 

set of performance measures, which are currently being implemented, will provide a 

more comprehensive understanding of the broader value and impact of the National 

Network. 

Question: Has the Department implemented any reforms in response to the PSI report's 

recommendations? If so, what are they and what have they accomplished? 

Response: The Department closely examined the recommendations contained in the 

report, what it has already done to address these issues, and what additional steps can be 

taken to further improve support for fusion centers. Highlights include: 

• Recommendation: DBS should reform its intelligence reporting efforts at state 

and local fusion centers to eliminate duplication. 

Fusion centers today share information via a variety of mechanisms, including through 

the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative, which was not fully deployed 

during the period covered by the Report. 
110 

Question#: 15 

Topic: fusion centers 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

• Recommendation: DHS should improve its training of intelligence reporters. 

In 2012, I&A piloted a revised and expanded Reports Officer Course as part of a larger 

Reports Officer certification program. The course has undergone both further 

development and delivery in 2013. Post-training Reports Officer certification includes a 

period of supervised on-the-job training and an independent assessment of reporting for 

compliance with standards. 

• Recommendation: DHS should strictly align fusion center grant funding to meet 

federal needs. 

The way the Department awards federal dollars to state and local first responders is 

largely dictated by current statutory requirements. Per these requirements, the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) does not award funding directly to fusion 

centers; rather, funds are awarded to states through their State Administrative Agencies 

(SAAs), which use funding to support fusion centers, among other eligible security 

related expenses. FEMA provides flexibility to SAAs to reprogram grant funding to meet 

the goals and objectives of their homeland security strategies, subject to applicable 

federal laws and regulations. Starting in FY 2011, DHS instituted processes to tie the 

allocation of grant funds requested for fusion centers to capability gaps identified in the 

annual Fusion Center Assessment. I&A has also partnered with FEMA to strengthen the 

grant guidance and its associated reporting requirements concerning fusion centers. 

• Recommendation: DHS should track how much money it gives to each fusion 

ccnter. 

The Department has made significant strides in recent years to track grantee spending, 

consistent with applicable law. Per the requirements of the 9/11 Act, FEMA formally 

conducts on-site financial and programmatic monitoring in each state, territory, and 

eligible urban area every two years. During the monitoring, FEMA staff review progress 

made towards completing grant investments, as outlined in the grantee's funding 

application. This includes a review of the fusion center investments. In addition to the 

on-site monitoring noted above, FEMA also conducts quarterly financial reviews of 

grantee drawdown activities as well as biannual reviews of project-specific activities 

including fusion center-related investments. 

• Recommendation: DHS should align its practices and guidelines to protect civil 

liberties, so they adhere to the Constitution, federal law , and its statutory mission. 
111 

Question#: 15 

Topic: fusion centers 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

DHS is proud of the standards we apply to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are 

paramount considerations as we work to protect the homeland. To facilitate protections 

we build into programs at their inception, both the DHS Privacy Office and the DHS 

Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties provide critical policy advice and rigorous 

oversight to ensure that individual rights are not diminished as a result of Department 

efforts, activities and programs aimed at securing the homeland. Furthermore, because 

law and policy is continually changing, we are careful to review and refine our practices 

and guidelines, as necessary. 

Question: In the wake of the PSI report, was there any internal examination ofDHS 

functions which pertain to federal fusion center support grant-making, intelligence 

gathering, information sharing, oversight, or assessment? If so, what were they and what 

did they find? 

Response: DHS conducts regular, ongoing oversight of its support to fusion centers. 

DHS welcomes regular reviews of, and recommendations for, enhancing its support to 

state and locally owned and operated fusion centers. 
112 

Question#: 16 

Topic: OBP 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: The Office for Bombing Prevention (OBP) has responsibilities to implement 

the National Policy for Countering Improvised Explosive Devices and enhance the 

Nation's ability to prevent, protect against, respond to, and mitigate the terrorist use of 

explosives against critical infrastructure, the private sector, and Federal, State, local, 

tribal, and territorial entities. 

What is the mission of the OBP? 

Response: The Office for Bombing Prevention's (OBP) mission is to protect life and 

critical infrastructure by building capabilities within the general public and across the 

private and public sectors to prevent, protect against, respond to, and mitigate bombing 

incidents. OBP accomplishes its mission through a portfolio of complementary counterimprovised explosive device (lED) capability development programs available at no cost 

to its diverse customers. OBP is a key organization in the Department of Homeland 

Security's (DHS) counter-lED effort, leading and coordinating activities throughout the 

Department to enhance counter-lED capabilities and reduce the risk of explosive attack 

against critical infrastructure, the private sector, and Federal, state, local, tribal, and 

territorial entities through bombing prevention and awareness programs. OBP focuses on 

four areas to improve counter-lED preparedness: coordination of national and 

intergovermnental bombing prevention efforts, counter-lED training and awareness, 

information sharing and decision support, and counter-lED capability analysis and 

planning support. 

OBP has deployed several programs and capabilities to fulfill this mission: 

• Counter-lED Capabilities Analysis and Planning Support assists state and local 

govermnents to more effectively build and manage their counter-lED capabilities, 

including: 

o Multi-Jurisdiction lED Security Planning (MJlEDSP) Workshops assist 

high-risk areas by producing lED security planning guidance outlining 

specific bombing prevention actions to reduce vulnerabilities and mitigate the 

risk ofIED attacks within a multi-jurisdiction area. Responding effectively to 

explosive threats and actual incidents requires close coordination amongst a 

variety of public safety and law enforcement organizations and disciplines. 

This planning process assists state and local governments in high-risk urban 

areas to collectively identify roles, capability gaps, and how to optimize 

limited prevention, protection, and response resources. MJlEDSP results in 
113 

Question#: 16 

Topic: OBP 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

detailed security planning guidance to enhance multi-agency, multijurisdiction capabilities. 

o National Capabilities Analysis Database (NCAD), a capability assessment 

program for bomb squads, explosive detection canine teams, SWAT teams, 

and public safety dive teams. NCAD's standardized methodology measures 

readiness, equipment, training, and assets required for effective lED threat 

response. The resulting integrated information provides a snapshot of national 

lED preparedness that supports informed decision-making in the areas of 

policy, resource allocation, and capability enhancements. NCAD uses a 

consistent, repeatable analytical methodology, field surveys, and webaccessible database to identify gaps and steer improvement. NCAD gives 

state and local, homeland security professionals a qualitative and quantitative 

basis for understanding their counter-lED capabilities in comparison to 

preparedness goals and standards, remedying gaps, and optimizing their value 

through improved investment strategies and asset allocation. 

• Information Sharing and Decision Support pushes valuable counter-lED 

information to first responders and supports Federal decision makers during 

significant lED incidents that require a whole-of-government response, including: 

o The Technical Resource for Incident Prevention (TRIPwire), the DHS 

2417 online, collaborative, information-sharing network designed for bomb 

squad, law enforcement, and other emergency services personnel to leam 

about current terrorist lED tactics, techniques, and procedures, to include 

design and emplacement considerations. TRIPwire access requires 

verification and is limited to the bombing prevention community. Developed 

and maintained by OBP, the system combines expert analyses and reports 

with relevant documents, images, and videos gathered directly from terrorist 

sources to help law enforcement anticipate, identify, and prevent lED 

incidents 

o TRIPwire Community Gateway (TWCG) is a TRiPwire web portal 

designed specifically for the Nation's private sector critical infrastructure 

owners and operators and private security personnel. TWCG provides expert 

threat analyses, reports, and relevant planning documents to help key private 

sector partners anticipate, identify, and prevent lED incidents. Developed and 

maintained by OBP, TWCG shares lED-related information tailored to each 

of the 16 critical infrastructure sectors, as well as certain educational 

institutions, in accordance with the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. 

Sector partners benefit from increased communication, improved awareness 

of emergent threats, and access to resources and guidance on lED preventive 

and protective measures. 
114 

Question#: 16 

Topic: OBP 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 20 14 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

o The National Explosives Task Force (NETF) is an interagency body that 

evaluates technical information and intelligence on lED threats in order to 

inform real-time, complementary response actions for lED threats and 

incidents; law enforcement investigations; intelligence sharing; and protective 

measures, including screening decisions. OBP provides subject matter experts 

to the NETF to provide focused analysis in recurring intelligence and 

information coordination, as well as engage in surge-capacity support. OBP 

contributes expertise and facilitates coordination with DRS capabilities, and 

establishes surge-capacity support during significant incidents. 

• Bombing Prevention Training and Awareness builds knowledge of counter-lED 

principles and techniques among law enforcement, first responders, and private sector 

partners that increase capability to detect, prevent, protect against, and respond to 

lED threats. This includes: 

o Bombing Prevention and Risk Mitigation Training, which includes a 

diverse curriculum, such as Surveillance Detection; Protective Measures; lED 

Awareness/Bomb Threat Management; lED Search Procedures; and lED 

Counterterrorism. This training is the most requested training offered by the 

DRS National Protection and Programs Directorate's Office ofInfrastructure 

Protection (IP) and demand outpaces available resources. OBP has trained 

approximately 25,000 law enforcement, first responders, and private sector 

partners since 2009. 

o The Bomb-Making Materials Awareness Program (BMAP) is an OBPdesigned, joint OBP-Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) outreach program 

that is a collaborative effort designed to increase public and private sector 

awareness of homemade explosives (RME) by promoting private sector pointof-sale awareness and suspicious activity reporting to prevent misuse of 

explosive precursor chemicals and components commonly used in IEDs. The 

program develops prevention opportunities by building a network of vigilant 

and informed private sector partners who serve as the Nation's counter-lED 

"eyes-and-ears. " 

• Coordination of National and Intergovernmental Bombing Prevention Efforts 

o OBP functions as the program management office for counter-IED policy 

activities within DRS. In that role, OBP works to align DRS and national 

counter-lED efforts through coordination of ongoing programs with national 

policy and strategy goals. 

o OBP executes that role by representing DRS as the Deputy Administrator of 

the Joint Program Office for Countering IEDs (JPO C-IED), the interagency 

policy and program coordination body led by the FBI, and chairs the DRS 
115 

Question#: 16 

Topic: OBP 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

IED Working Group through which DRS coordinates across multiple 

components with substantive counter-IED programs. 

The National Policy for Countering IEDs, articulated through Presidential Policy 

Directive 17 (PPD-17), calls for a whole-of-government approach in the national effort to 

counter IEDs. Thus, responsibility for countering IEDs falls to more than just a single 

department. The Departments of Justice, (DOJ), Defense (DOD), State (DOS), DRS, and 

the Office ofthe Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) all have substantive roles 

assigned through the National Policy and the interagency Implementation Plan developed 

in support thereof. OBP has significant roles across all eight "priority capability" areas 

defined in PPD-17, Countering Improvised Explosive Devices. OBP has been designated 

as the interagency lead for 11 of 49 tasks identified in the PPD-17 Implementation Plan 

and as interagency support for 18 of 49, giving OBP a substantive role in over 59 percent 

of the tasks identified in support of the National Policy. In addition, OBP has 

responsibility for the programmatic coordination of counter-IED efforts within DRS, 

including the implementation ofPPD-17. 

Question: Did the Office of Bombing Prevention playa role if any, in the response and 

aftermath of the Boston Marathon Bombing? 

Response: Yes, OBP played an important role in response to the bombing in concert with 

other Federal counter-lED mission partners. Information sharing between DRS and other 

Federal partners is critical during bombings and is informed by technical expertise on the 

threat so that subsequent actions can be executed in an effective and complementary 

manner. To that end, OBP deployed staff to the NETF within 30 minutes of the 

bombings in order to provide Federal partners with information on DRS activities, IED 

protective measures, and counter-IED assets in the Boston region. The OBP liaison 

facilitated sharing of device intelligence to inform operational activities and develop 

appropriate guidance to other jurisdictions and the private sector. 

Together, this technical insight was used to coordinate numerous intelligence and 

information products to state and local, as well as private sector, partners throughout the 

week following the incident: 

o OBP developed and shared multiple information bulletins on the Boston 

incidents for dissemination through TRIPwire, and contributed to numerous 

joint interagency products coordinated between FBI, DHS, and other Federal 

partners. 

• During the week of April 15, 2013, TRiPwire logged over 1,110,878 

site hits (four times the average number of hits), providing an 
116 

Question#: 

Topic: 

Hearing: 

Primary: 

Committee: 

16 

OBP 

DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

indication of how heavily the community relies upon TRIPwire as a 

vital source of counter-IED information, particularly during times of 

elevated threat 

o OBP shared both bomb threat management and protective measures guidance 

documents based on the devices used in Boston that were used in subsequent 

DHS and FBI intelligence and information products. 

o OBP developed and shared a consolidated list of U.S. Government CounterIED Resources to assist State and local and private sector partners following 

the incidents. 

OBP provided information on state and local counter-IED assets, such as bomb squads 

and canine teams, in the Boston area from its NCAD to inform the FBI's incident 

command and tactical decisions. OBP also provided incident information and protective 

measures to interagency and private sector partners; including the Faith Based Advisory 

Council, Government Coordinating Council, Sector Coordinating Council, and 

Commercial Facilities Sector via conference calls and information-sharing gateways. 

Prior to the incident, OBP assisted the Boston area in enhancing specific counter-IED 

capabilities. OBP's efforts in Boston are representative of its assistance to many other 

large urban areas throughout the country. For example, OBP conducted a MJIEDSP 

Workshop for Boston and surrounding jurisdictions in 2009 that focused on simultaneous 

attacks using multiple IEDs against mass transit, large public venues, and other critical 

infrastructure within the downtown Boston area. More than 40 state and local 

stakeholders from 19 organizations participated. The Workshop resulted in counter-IED 

planning guidance extremely relevant to the Boston and Watertown incidents including 

multiple LED response; evacuation/shelter in place procedures; medical surge and 

emergency triage; emergency public information and warning; Memorandum of 

Agreement! Mutual Aid Agreements (including DOD); device-specific response 

strategies (for secondary IEDs targeting first responders; leave-behind IEDs; and radiocontrolled IEDs); managing mass public reporting of suspicious items; and IED incidents 

at large public gatherings, including sporting events; all of which applied to the Boston 

incident 

OBP conducted nine Counter-IED Training and Awareness sessions in the Boston area 

since 2008, with 398 participants from local law enforcement, first responders, 

emergency management, and private sector security. Courses included Surveillance 

Detection; Protective Measures; Bomb-Making Materials Awareness; IED 

Counterterrorism; and Adversarial Targeting. 
117 

Question#: 17 

Topic: DHS Component 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: For each DHS component, how much of the FY2014 budget request will be 

spent under contracts? 

Response: Based on analysis of past years' spending, the Department anticipates that no 

more than approximately $14.5 billion will be spent under contracts in FY 2014. 

Contract spending may be less than this amount, due to fiscal constraints within the 

current budget environment. The FY 2014 budget includes break-outs of amounts 

requested for advisory and assistance service contracts (Budget Object Class 25.1) and 

other service contracts from non-Federal sources (Budget Object Class 25.2). These are 

shown by Component in the table below. 

Component Service Contracts 

(Object Classes 

25.1 and 25.2) 

$ in thousands 

CBP $ 1,270,214 

DMO $ 152,198 

DNDO $ 47,387 

FEMA $ 2,652,863 

FLETC $ 16,370 

ICE $ 467,685 

NPPD $ 1,515,750 

OHA $ 44,619 

OIG $ 5,628 

S&T $ 68,156 

TSA $ 1,031,716 

USCG $ 1,154,878 

USCIS $ 805,910 

USSS $ 162,984 

Grand Total $9,396,358 

Additional contract spending will occur in the following object classes, but these object 

classes do not include breakouts for contract and non-contract spending: 

• Supplies (Object Class 26.0) 

• Operation and maintenance offacilities (Object Class 25.4) 

• Operation and maintenance of equipment (Object Class 25.7) 

• Equipment (Object Class 31.0) 

• Construction (Object Class 32.0) 
118 

Question#: 18 

Topic: USCG budget 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: The Coast Guard's 2014 budget request proposes reductions of approximately 

$628 million-including a $43 million reduction in training along with the 

decommissioning of2 High Endurance Cutters; 8 HU-25/2 HC-130 Aircraft and 2 Air 

Facilities. Understanding that resources are scarce, please describe how these reductions 

will affect the Coast Guard's ability to execute its mission. How will the Coast Guard 

prioritize and meet its training and operational readiness requirements given this 

significant reduction? 

Response: The FY 2014 Budget sustains the most critical frontline operations, 

including maintaining search and rescue coverage, protecting critical infrastructure 

and key resources, supporting safe navigation, safeguarding natural resources, 

protecting the environment, detecting and interdicting drugs and individuals 

attempting to enter the United States illegally, and supporting the Nation's foreign 

policy objectives. In order to address the Coast Guard's highest priority short and 

long-term risks, the FY 2014 Budget decommissions aging assets that are decreasing 

in performance while growing more expensive to maintain, and reduces lower-risk 

operations such as those at the AIRF ACs, the International Port Security (IPS) and 

Port State Control (PSC) Programs. 

The Fiscal Year 2014 budget proposes the decommissioning oflegacy Coast Guard 

assets, including two High Endurance Cutters (HEC), eight HU-25 and two C-130H 

aircraft. The HEC and C-130H fleet have become increasingly difficult to maintain and 

sustain operationally, with an average age of 44 and 28 years, respectively. The loss of 

these assets will be mitigated by the delivery in 2014 of the fourth National Security 

Cutter, HC-144A and HC-130J Maritime Patrol Aircraft. 
119 

Question#: 19 

Topic: BioWatch 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURlTY (SENATE) 

Question: In total, how many alerts or BioWatch Action Results (BARs) has BioWatch 

generation two issued since it has been installed? Of those, how many have been 

substantiated as threats to public safety? 

Response: Since 2003, more than 7 million tests have been performed by qualified local 

and state public health laboratory officials. Out of these more than 7 million tests, 

BioWatch has reported 149 BARs which were subsequently determined to represent 

naturally-occurring biological pathogens from likely-environmental sources. BioWatch 

is intended to detect biological agents that are known to cause human illnesses, and most 

of them occur naturally in the environment. To date, low concentrations of naturally 

occurring pathogens have not been shown to be a risk to public health. 

The Bio Watch program uses laboratory tests which specifically look for the presence of a 

biological agent's DNA. A BAR is declared based on a protocol that uses a series of tests 

that look for multiple segments of DNA specific to the biological agent-all of which 

must be positive-before the Laboratory Director declares the BAR. If a Bio Watch 

laboratory detects the DNA of a biological agent, federal, state and local officials, from 

public health, law enforcement and emergency response, have the ability to assess the 

incident and determine if the detection is a result ofbioterrorism andlor if there is a threat 

to the public health. 

To date, no jurisdiction has determined that a BAR was a threat to public health. A list of 

all BARs is provided in the attached spreadsheet. This spreadsheet includes the date, 

jurisdiction, agent, site, and a description of the screening performed and results. These 

instances represent less than III ooth of 1 percent (or less than 0.002 percent) of all tests 

performed by the Bio Watch system. 
120 

Question#: 20 

Topic: funding for S& T 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: GAO identified duplication in funding research studies by DHS components 

including the Science and Technology Directorate. You are asking for $1.5 billion in 

funding for Science and Technology, a 126 percent increase from FY 2012. How can 

you ensure that this money won't duplicate other research efforts within DHS 

components? Do you have a way to track all of your existing research projects across the 

Department? 

Response: In the past decade, S&T has undergone many changes and continues to 

evolve. The extraordinary breadth and diversity ofDHS's missions requires S&T to 

address a wide range of programs including DHS Components' near-term needs for new 

operational capabilities and improved operational effectiveness, efficiency, and safety. 

S&T also has responsibilities related to understanding and creating solutions to biological 

and chemical threats, and to conducting the R&D required to meet homeland 

cybersecurity needs. It is important to note that more than 80 percent of the increase in 

the FY 2014 President's Budget is for the National Bio and Agro Defense Facility 

(NBAF) construction. The remainder of the FY 2014 budget is roughly equivalent to 

FY 2011 and FY 2013 enacted levels. 

S&T has procedures in place to avoid duplication of research efforts within DHS and 

other agencies as well as procedures to track its existing research projects. For example, 

all S&T research and development projects must include an environment scan of 

technology work being done by industry, universities, overseas work, and Government 

laboratories. This helps to ensure that S&T does not repeat work and it helps S&T 

adapt/adopt existing work for DHS needs. 

S&T has also developed the Science & Technology'S Resource Allocation Strategy 

(STRAS) to work with senior DHS Component and first responder officials to validate 

and prioritize mission capability gaps and develop technology solution requirements to 

help shape S&T R&D investments. In addition, S&T is working with DHS Components, 

other Federal agencies, and owners of critical infrastructure to develop R&D Strategies 

identifying the top challenges faced by the Homeland Security Enterprise. For example, 

ChemlBio and Cybersecurity, two mission areas that do not directly map to a single DHS 

Component, will have an R&D Strategy that is co-drafted and co-signed by the Director 

of the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARP A) and the 

appropriate subject matter lead. These R&D Strategies are shared with all of S&T's 

R&D partners through mechanisms such as webinars and industry days. 
121 

Æ 

Question#: 20 

Topic: funding for S&T 

Hearing: DHS Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Tom A. Coburn 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

The R&D Strategies will guide future R&D investment by identifying areas where the 

S&T R&D portfolio can map to identify priorities and close remaining operational gaps 

as funding becomes available. S&T will work closely with its partners in industry, 

academia, other Federal agencies and the National Labs to fill these gaps moving 

forward. 

In addition to working closely with DHS Components to develop the R&D Strategies, the 

S&T First Responders Group's (FRG) Solution Development Process helps determine the 

first responders' priority needs and, in partnership with the first responder community, 

develops solutions to meet those needs. This process requires FRG to coordinate with the 

first responder community through interagency and external groups nationwide to 

identify and prioritize requirements. S&T then reaches out to commercial sector partners 

to transition and integrate technologies, standards, and knowledge products into regular 

use. 

Finally, DHS has instituted an R&D related portfolio review process modeled on S&T's 

successful review process established in FY 20 I O. DHS's United States Coast Guard 

(USCG) was the first to implement this review process, which is helping shape and direct 

key technological research within USCG to bring those efforts toward fruition, and 

ensure that there isn't duplication between the agencies with DHS. This type of review 

will be of great value to the coordination of efforts in research and development efforts 

across the Department. The intent is to expeditiously continue the review process with 

other DHS Components with the help and assistance of the Under Secretary for Science 

and Technology to improve the coordinated approach to research and development and 

related activities within DRS. In addition to direct research and development, the review 

will include operational analysis (documenting and resolving Component capability gaps 

including any modeling and simulation funding to better understand where gaps reside in 

a Component's mission space, the improvement of concepts of operation, etc.); 

technology improvement (any incremental upgrade to currently deployed technology); 

spiral development (resources devoted toward iterative processes such as software 

development involving the continual refinement of technology); and product 

development (any funding for new technology or knowledge products).