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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

51–258 PDF 2010

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

HEARING 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 13, 2009 

Serial No. 111–19 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

VACANCY

PETER T. KING, New York 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

I. LANIER AVANT, Staff Director 

ROSALINE COHEN, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

ROBERT O’CONNOR, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security .. 1 

The Honorable Peter T. King, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of New York, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security ........ 2 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 4 

WITNESSES

The Honorable Janet Napolitano, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 9 

APPENDIX

Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson ................................................. 51 

Questions From Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee .................................................... 67 

Questions From Honorable Henry Cuellar ............................................................ 68 

Question From Honorable Ann Kirkpatrick .......................................................... 69 

Questions From Honorable Mike Rogers ............................................................... 69 

Questions From Honorable Charles W. Dent ........................................................ 70 

Questions From Honorable Paul C. Broun ............................................................ 71 

(1) 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 311, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bennie G. Thompson [Chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Thompson, Harman, DeFazio, Jackson 

Lee, Cuellar, Carney, Clarke, Richardson, Kirkpatrick, Luja ́n, Pascrell, Cleaver, Green, Kilroy, Massa, Titus, King, Souder, Lungren, 

Rogers, McCaul, Dent, Bilirakis, Broun, Miller, Olson, Cao, and 

Austria. 

Chairman THOMPSON. The Committee on Homeland Security will 

come to order. 

The committee is meeting today to receive testimony from Secretary Janet Napolitano on the President’s fiscal year 2010 budget 

request for the Department of Homeland Security. I want to thank 

Secretary Napolitano for being here today to testify in support of 

the President’s fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Department. 

The transition period for the Obama administration has been 

very busy on many fronts. From border violence to the recent flu 

outbreak, the Department has had a lot on its plate, yet you still 

managed to submit a very comprehensive budget that answers a lot 

of the questions we have had about where the Department wants 

to go. Last week, the President’s budget, just over $55 billion, was requested for the Department of Homeland Security. This is an increase of $2.6 billion over last year. Within that request, the President is seeking about $43 billion in appropriations. This represents 

an increase of 6.6 percent over last year and will cover key investments in homeland security in the range of areas, including the following: $121 million in funding for explosive detection; an additional $96 million for southbound firearms and currency smuggling 

enforcement; $420 million for SAFER firefighter grant program; 

and an additional $75 million for DHS headquarters project. I believe that funding sought for the Department will benefit this vital 

agency. 

Additionally, the budget includes a number of critical programmatic changes that I support and would like to highlight here. 

The transfer of the Office of Intergovernmental Programs to the Of-
2 

fice of the Secretary is a long time coming and will surely enhance 

DHS’s ability to coordinate with State, local, and Tribal governments. 

I also support moving the Federal Protective Service from ICE to 

the National Protection and Programs Directorate, the center of 

gravity for infrastructure protection at DHS. The $75 million increase slated for the comprehensive National 

Cybersecurity Initiative is another step in the right direction. 

Although I agree overall with the President’s request for the Department, I do have some concerns. In previous years, over 40 percent of DHS’s budget went out the door to contractors to perform 

a host of functions, including policymaking. This overreliance on 

contractors has undermined DHS’s ability to execute its missions. 

I am hopeful that through your efficiency review, Madam Secretary, we will start to see some progress in this area. 

While overall funding for grant programs seems in-line with past 

budgets, I am concerned about the significant decreased plan for 

the FIRE Grant Program. As a volunteer firefighter, I know how 

much communities rely on this critical program. 

In these tough economic times, I am committed to working to 

help secure a budget for the Department that keeps on our commitment to fiscal responsibility while strengthening the security of our 

Nation. I am also committed to executing my legislative responsibility and producing authorization legislation to give DHS the resources and authorities it needs to execute all its missions. 

Tomorrow, the committee is moving its first piece of authorization legislation for fiscal year 2010. The TSA Authorization Act is 

a product of extensive bipartisan discussions. It reflects input from 

members, GAO DHS Inspector General, and transportation stakeholders from across the spectrum. Regrettably, input from TSA was 

hard to come by. With no Senate-confirmed leader at the head of 

TSA, the agency has not been the partner that we had hoped to 

have. 

Madam Secretary, I appreciate the challenges that this vacancy 

creates for you on an operational level, and am eager to see a 

strong manager installed in this critical position. Please keep in 

mind that the delays in filling key positions throughout the Department not only makes things difficult for you, but also complicates 

this committee’s ability to carry out its oversight and legislative responsibilities. 

I look forward to a foregoing collaborative relationship with you 

and the new leadership at DHS. This committee has years of 

knowledge and experience on a range of issues that you face. 

Please look to us as a resource as you consider homeland security 

challenges. 

In closing, Madam Secretary, I look forward to working with you 

to ensure that the Department has the resources it needs to execute all its missions, including to prevent and respond to the threat 

of terrorism. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your testimony. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. King, for an opening 

statement. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
3 

Good morning, Madam Secretary. It is good to see you today. 

At the outset, let me express some positive notes. One, I want 

to thank you for your level of cooperation and contact, certainly at 

my office and I am sure with other Members as well. I must tell 

you, though, you do cause trauma among my staff when they realize it is you on the phone, that there are no intermediaries. Go a 

little easy on them. Okay? They are not expecting that. 

Also, on the issue of swine flu, you are very cooperative in keeping us apprised of what was happening. On the issue of the first 

report that came out on the right-wing extremist returning veterans, I very much appreciate your personal call to me on that and 

discussing it. 

Having said that, I believe that the combination of the first report and then the second report, which I know was called back, to 

me and to others certainly on this side does demonstrate we believe 

a weakness in the Department which has to be addressed, and we 

certainly look forward to what you have to say on that and working 

with you on that because it has raised very significant issues. Certainly back in our districts we hear about it. It has made an impression that I don’t think reflects well on the Department. I know 

you want to address it. I would like to really hear what your plans 

are and how those were released and what caused them to be 

brought about. 

Also, while the Chairman has mentioned the issue of the FIRE 

grants, a 70 percent cut in the FIRE grants, this I can assure you 

is a bipartisan issue. There is tremendous concern over this. I am 

certainly hearing from fire districts. I am Chairman of the Congressional Fire Caucus, and I believe last year it was over $3 billion in FIRE grants which shows the real need for it and demand 

for it. So, again, that is an issue that certainly we have to work 

together on and which I will be very much looking forward to your 

testimony on. 

Also on the Secure the Cities, which was a 3-year pilot program; 

and while the program was primarily in New York City, this is 

something that affects cities throughout the country, and it is a 

pilot program which for the most part worked. I believe still more 

has to be done on it. So I don’t believe the pilot program even in 

the pilot stage has been completed. But the fact is that when we 

look overseas at Madrid and London, it is very likely that the next 

attack on a major city is going to be launched from outside the city, 

from suburban areas, from areas outside the city, which is why it 

is so essential that we have radiation detection, that we have comprehensive efforts. 

For instance, the Secure the Cities pilot program in New York, 

which is being zeroed out, is being ended, involved not just New 

York City. It was New York City, it was Long Island, it was Westchester, Rockland, it was New Jersey, it was Connecticut. It was 

a regional defense against radioactive attack. 

I saw an anonymous call in the Washington Post from somebody 

at the Department of Homeland Security saying one of the reasons 

this program was eliminated was because the Department did not 

want to be a goal-line defense; that we wanted to stop nuclear 

weapons from coming, getting them overseas before they got here. 

But one of the reasons the Department was set up was to be a 
4 

goal-line defense. If everything was being done well overseas, we 

wouldn’t have to have the Department of Homeland Security, certainly not to the extent that we do. 

Also, you don’t need a bomb coming from Pakistan to impact 

New York City or Los Angeles or Chicago. There can be radioactive 

material stolen from a hospital, which could create a dirty bomb 

which could devastate financial sectors, devastate neighborhoods 

and communities. So, again, I certainly want to discuss that with 

you. 

On the issue of immigration, I have real concerns that the 

SCAAP program is being eliminated. I even remember some former 

Governors telling us how important that program was in the fight 

against illegal immigration. Again, I think this is something that 

really has to be addressed, and I believe there is strong bipartisan 

support for the SCAAP program. 

On the issue of Guantanamo, I know we have sent a letter to you 

asking what precautions the Department is going to make. There 

have been various news reports, whether it involves the Uighurs 

going into Virginia, whether it involves prisoners or detainees 

being brought to the Southern District of New York for trial in 

Northern Virginia, as to what measures are going to be taken, if 

that does happen, to providing security that is needed to do what 

has to be done, because this to me is going to make already prime 

targets even more targets and create much more security problems 

for us. 

So I want to again commend you for reaching out, but again 

there are some real questions here which have to be addressed. 

Certainly on FIRE grants, on Secure the Cities, on immigration, 

and the whole issue of the unit in your Department which issued 

these reports, and also what we are going to do about Guantanamo 

if in fact detainees are brought to the United States either for trial 

or even to be released as has been heard in some cases. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. King. 

Other Members of the committee are reminded that, under committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the record. 

[The statement of Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership in convening today’s very important 

hearing on the President’s fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Department of 

Homeland Security. I would also like to thank the Ranking Member. Welcome Secretary Janet Napolitano. 

The Department of Homeland Security was established approximately 6 years 

ago. The National Strategy for Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Act 

of 2002 served to mobilize and organize our Nation to secure the homeland from 

terrorist attacks. To this end, the primary reason for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was to provide the unifying core for the vast 

network of organizations and institutions involved in the efforts to secure our Nation. In order to better do this and to provide guidance to the 180,000 DHS men 

and women who work every day on this important task, the Department developed 

its own high-level strategic plan. The vision, mission statements, strategic goals and 

objectives provide the framework guiding the actions that make up the daily operations of the Department. 

DHS’s vision is simple: To preserve our freedoms, protect America, and secure our 

homeland. Its mission is to lead the unified national effort to secure America; prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats and haz-
5 

ards to the Nation; and ensure safe and secure borders, welcome lawful immigrants 

and visitors, and promote the free flow of commerce. 

DHS has seven strategic goals and objectives. These include, awareness, prevention, protection, response, recovery, service, and organizational excellence. 

The magnitude and severity of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, were unprecedented, and that dark day became a watershed event in the Nation’s approach 

to protecting and defending the lives and livelihoods of the American people. Despite 

previous acts of terror on our Nation’s soil, such as the 1993 attack on the World 

Trade Center and the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 

Oklahoma City, homeland security before the tragic events of September 11 existed 

as a patchwork of efforts undertaken by disparate departments and agencies across 

all levels of government. While segments of our law enforcement and intelligence 

communities, along with armed forces, assessed and prepared to act against terrorism and other significant threats to the United States, we lacked a unifying vision, a cohesive strategic approach, and the necessary institutions within Government to secure the homeland against terrorism. 

The shock of September 11 transformed our thinking. In the aftermath of history’s 

deadliest international terrorist attack, we developed a homeland security strategy 

based on a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United 

States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and 

recover from attacks that do occur. To help implement that strategy, DHS enhanced 

homeland security and counterterrorism architecture at the Federal, State, local, 

Tribal, and community levels. 

The Department’s understanding of homeland security continued to evolve after 

September 11, adapting to new realities and threats. Most recently, our Nation endured Hurricane Katrina, the most destructive natural disaster in U.S. history. The 

human suffering and staggering physical destruction caused by this national disaster was a reminder that threats come not only from individuals, inside and outside of our borders, but also from nature. Indeed, certain natural events that reach 

catastrophic levels, such as hurricanes and other natural disasters, can have significant implications for homeland security. The resulting national consequences and 

possible cascading effects from these events might present potential or perceived 

vulnerabilities that could be exploited. 

Over 6 years after September 11, 2001, DHS is moving beyond operating as an 

organization in transition to a Department diligently working to protect our borders 

and critical infrastructure, prevent dangerous people and goods from entering our 

country, and recover from natural disasters effectively. The total fiscal year 2009 

budget request for DHS is $50.5 billion in funding, a 7 percent increase over the 

fiscal year 2008 enacted level excluding emergency funding. The Department’s fiscal 

year 2009 gross discretionary budget request is $40.7 billion, an increase of 8 percent over the fiscal year 2008 enacted level excluding emergency funding. Gross discretionary funding does not include mandatory funding such as the Coast Guard’s 

retirement pay accounts and fees paid for immigration benefits. The Department’s 

fiscal year 2009 net discretionary budget request is $37.6 billion, which does not include fee collections such as funding for the Federal Protective Service and aviation 

security passenger and carrier fees. 

DHS has engaged in much good work over the past 6 years, but more needs to 

be done. The Department of Homeland Security has been dogged by persistent criticism over excessive bureaucracy, waste, and ineffectiveness. In 2003, the Department came under fire after the media revealed that Laura Callahan, Deputy Chief 

Information Officer at DHS, had obtained her advanced computer science degrees 

through a diploma mill in a small town in Wyoming. The Department was blamed 

for up to $2 billion of waste and fraud after audits by the Government Accountability Office revealed widespread misuse of Government credit cards by DHS employees. The frivolous purchases included beer brewing kits, $70,000 of plastic dog 

booties that were later deemed unusable, boats purchased at double the retail price 

(many of which later could not be found), and iPods ostensibly for use in ‘‘data storage’’. 

The Associated Press reported on September 5, 2007 that DHS had scrapped an 

anti-terrorism data mining tool called ADVISE (Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization, Insight, and Semantic Enhancement) after the agency’s internal Inspector General found that pilot testing of the system had been performed using data on real 

people without required privacy safeguards in place. The system, in development at 

Lawrence Livermore and Pacific Northwest National Laboratories since 2003, has 

cost the agency $42 million to date. Controversy over the program is not new; in 

March 2007, the Government Accountability Office stated that ‘‘the ADVISE tool 

could misidentify or erroneously associate an individual with undesirable activity 

such as fraud, crime or terrorism’’. Homeland Security’s Inspector General later said 
6 

that ADVISE was poorly planned, time-consuming for analysts to use, and lacked 

adequate justifications. 

Increasingly, the Department has come under growing scrutiny because of its immigration and deportation practices. In February 2007, the Judiciary Subcommittee 

on Immigration held a hearing investigating the problems with U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) interrogation, detention, and removal procedures 

as applied to U.S. citizens. During that hearing, there were many reports of our immigration system targeting American citizens by detaining, interrogating, and forcibly deporting U.S. citizens under the pretext that these citizens were illegal aliens. 

The citizens targeted have been some of the most vulnerable segments of American 

society. ICE has targeted the mentally challenged and youths. 

ICE detention facilities Nation-wide have been criticized, including the detention 

facility at the T. Don Hutto correctional Center in Williamson County, Texas. Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) operates the 512-bed facility under a contract 

with Williamson County. The facility was opened in May 2006 to accommodate immigrant families in ICE custody. As history has shown us, even the best of intentions can go astray, which is what happened at the Hutto Detention Center. 

Due to the increased use of detention, and particularly in light of the fact that 

children are now being housed in detention facilities, many concerns have been 

raised about the humanitarian, health, and safety conditions at these facilities. In 

a 72-page report, ‘‘Locking Up Family Values: The Detention of Immigrant Families,’’ recently released by two refugee advocacy organizations, the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service concluded that the T. Don Hutto Family Residential Center and the 

Berks Family Shelter Care Facility, were modeled on the criminal justice system. 

In these facilities, ‘‘residents are deprived of the right to live as a family unit, denied adequate medical and mental health care, and face overly harsh disciplinary 

tactics.’’ 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against ICE in March 

2007 on behalf of several juvenile plaintiffs that were housed in the facility at the 

time claiming that the standards by which they were housed was not in compliance 

with the Government’s detention standards for this population. The claims were, 

amongst other things, improper educational opportunities, not enough privacy, and 

substandard health care. The relief being sought was the release of the plaintiffs. 

In August 2007, the ACLU reached a landmark settlement with the ICE that 

greatly improves conditions for immigrant children and their families in the Hutto 

detention center in Taylor, Texas. 

Since the original lawsuits were filed, all 26 children represented by the ACLU 

have been released. The last six children were released days before the settlement 

was finalized and are now living with family members who are U.S. citizens or legal 

permanent residents while pursuing their asylum claims. Conditions at Hutto have 

gradually and significantly improved as a result of litigation. Children are no longer 

required to wear prison uniforms and are allowed much more time outdoors. Educational programming has expanded and guards have been instructed not to discipline children by threatening to separate them from their parents. Despite the tremendous improvements at Hutto, the facility still has a way to go. 

As one of the principal and long-standing supporters of comprehensive immigration reform in the U.S. Congress and an author of a comprehensive immigration reform bill, the SAVE AMERICA Act, I hope that today’s hearing will serve as a catalyst for closer scrutiny of our immigration detention system and the immigration enforcement functions of DHS. 

The administration has more work to do to secure our border. The Border Patrol 

needs more agents and more resources. The Rapid Response Border Protection Act, 

H.R. 4044, a bill that I co-sponsored, would meet these needs by providing critical 

resources and support for the men and women who enforce our homeland security 

laws. 

This would include adding 15,000 Border Patrol agents over the next 5 years, increasing the number of agents from 11,000 to 26,000. It would require the Secretary 

of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to respond rapidly to border crises 

by deploying up to 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents to a State when a border 

security emergency is declared by the governor. It would add 100,000 more detention beds to ensure that those who are apprehended entering the United States unlawfully are sent home instead of being released into our communities. And, it 

would provide critical equipment and infrastructure improvements, including additional helicopters, power boats, police-type vehicles, portable computers, reliable 

radio communications, hand-held GPS devices, body armor, and night-vision equipment. 
7 

The Department has achieved much over the past 5 years in ensuring that America is a safer place; however, much work is still required. I am hopeful that this 

new Federal agency will become more effective and diverse. The Members of Congress and the Department all want a safe and secure America. Again, I welcome 

the testimony from our distinguished panelist, Secretary Napolitano. 

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Again, I welcome our witness today. Janet 

Napolitano is the third Secretary of the Department of Homeland 

Security. I would like to publicly commend you, Madam Secretary, 

for your leadership for the 3 months, especially your handling of 

the recent influenza outbreak. 

Prior to joining this administration, Secretary Napolitano was 

midway through her second term as Governor of Arizona. As Governor, she implemented one of the first State homeland security 

strategies in the Nation, opened the first State Counterterrorism 

Center, and spearheaded efforts to transform immigration enforcement. Secretary Napolitano previously served as the Attorney General of Arizona and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona. 

Madam Secretary, I thank you for your service and for appearing 

before this committee today. 

Without objection, the witness’s full statement will be inserted 

into the record. 

Secretary Napolitano, I now recognize you to summarize your 

statement for the committee for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative King, Members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the Department of Homeland Security portion 

of President Obama’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2010. The proposed total budget for DHS is $55.1 billion, which in- cludes $42.7 billion in appropriated funding. 

DHS performs a broad range of activities across a single driving 

mission: To secure America from the entire range of threats that 

we face. The Department’s leadership in the past couple of weeks 

in response to the H1N1 flu outbreak only proves the breadth of 

the Department’s portfolio, as well as the need to make DHS a 

stronger, more effective Department. 

This budget strengthens our efforts in what I see as the five 

main mission areas where we need to focus in order to secure the 

American people: 

First, guarding against terrorism, the founding purpose and perennial top priority of the Department. 

Second, securing our borders, an effort even more urgent as the 

United States looks to do its part to counter a rise in cartel violence in Mexico. 

Third, smart and effective enforcement of our immigration laws. 

We want to facilitate legal immigration and pursue enforcement 

against those who violate our country’s immigration laws. 

Next, improving our preparation for, response to, and recoveries 

from disasters. Not just hurricanes and tornados, but also unexpected situations like the outbreak of the H1N1 flu. 

Last, unifying, creating one Department of Homeland Security. 

We need to work together as one Department to ensure that we op-
8 

erate at full strength. As this committee knows, the Department 

was recently created out of 22 separate agencies. Part of this budget is designed to help us continue to knit and unify into one DHS. 

Now, there are three approaches that the Department is taking 

to strengthen its performance in each of the five main mission 

areas and that are also strengthened in this budget. 

First, expanding partnerships with State, local, and Tribal governments, the first detectors, and the first responders. 

Second, bolstering our science and technology portfolio, investing 

in new technologies that can increase our capabilities while being 

very cognizant of privacy in other interests that are there. 

Third, maximizing efficiency. Through an efficiency review initiative that we launched in March, we intend to ensure that every security dollar is spent in the most effective way. 

This budget adheres to the President’s main reform goals, Government efficiency, transparency, and cohesion, and will play a 

major part in bringing about a culture of responsibility and fiscal 

discipline at DHS. 

The DHS budget was based on alignment with the Department 

programs and priorities, and that was assessed on the basis of effectiveness and risk. 

In terms of budget priorities to guard against terrorism, this 

budget proposal includes $121 million to fund research for new 

technologies that detect explosives in public places, transportation 

networks, $87 million for new measures to protect critical infrastructure and cyber networks from attack, and it also enhances information sharing about Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement. 

For border security, the budget proposal includes $116 million to 

deploy additional staff and technology to the Southwest border to 

disrupt southbound smuggling of drugs and bulk cash to help combat cartel violence. It also includes $40 million for smart security 

technology funding on the northern border to expand and integrate 

surveillance systems there. 

To assure smart, effective enforcement of our immigration laws, 

this budget proposal includes $112 million to strengthen E-Verify 

to help employers maintain a legal work force, a total of $198 million for the Secure Communities Program which helps State, local, 

and Tribal law enforcement target criminal aliens. It improves security and facilitates trade and tourism to the Western Hemisphere 

Travel Initiative, $145 million, and $344 million for US–VISIT. 

To help Americans prepare for and recover from natural disaster, 

the budget proposal includes doubling the funds from $210 million 

to $420 million, to increase the number of frontline firefighters, a 

$600 million increase to the Disaster Relief Fund, and it strengthens pre-disaster hazard mitigation efforts to reduce injury, loss of 

life, and destruction of property. 

Finally, to unify the Department, this budget proposal includes 

$79 million for the consolidation of DHS headquarters, which will 

bring 35 disparate offices together, generating significant savings 

in the long run. It also includes $200 million to consolidate and 

unify our IT infrastructure, and bring all of DHS under the same 

system. 
9 

In my few months as Secretary, I have seen a number of remarkable accomplishments in addition to challenges that DHS faces. I 

have seen this Department’s potential. I believe we have a path toward realizing it. We are aiming to do even better at achieving our 

Nation’s security mission, and this budget will help the Department do just that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Ms. Napolitano follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANET NAPOLITANO

MAY 13, 2009 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman King, and Members of the Committee: Let me begin 

by saying thank you for the strong support you have consistently shown the Department, and I look forward to working with you to make certain that we have the 

right resources to protect the homeland and the American people and that we make 

the most effective and efficient use of those resources. 

I am pleased to appear before the committee today to present President Obama’s 

fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

I will also summarize the progress we have made since the start of the new administration along with some of our key accomplishments from last year. 

FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET REQUEST

The Department of Homeland Security’s budget will strengthen current efforts 

that are vital to the Nation’s security, bolster DHS’s ability to respond to emerging 

and evolving threats, and allow DHS to embrace new responsibilities in order to secure the Nation. This budget puts forward critical investments in the protection of 

the American people. 

DHS and its many component agencies fulfill a broad mandate and conduct many 

different activities within a single, unified security mission. DHS performs critical 

tasks from protecting transportation hubs to conducting maritime rescues, from aiding disaster victims to enforcing immigration laws. Within this broad portfolio, the 

Department aims to secure the American people from all hazards—including terrorist threats and natural or accidental disasters—and to work effectively with its 

many partners to lead the collaborative effort to secure the Nation. DHS undertakes 

the mission of securing the United States against all threats through five main action areas, each of which is strengthened by this budget: 

• Guarding Against Terrorism.—Protecting the American people from terrorist 

threats is the founding purpose of the Department and DHS’ highest priority. 

This budget expands DHS efforts to battle terrorism, including detecting explosives in public spaces and transportation networks, helping protect critical infrastructure and cyber networks from attack, detecting agents of biological warfare, and building information-sharing partnerships with State and local law 

enforcement that can enable law enforcement to mitigate threats. 

• Securing Our Borders.—DHS prevents and investigates illegal movements 

across our borders, including the smuggling of people, drugs, cash, and weapons. In March, the Department announced a new initiative to strengthen security on the southwest border in order to disrupt the drug, cash, and weapon 

smuggling that fuels cartel violence in Mexico. This budget strengthens those 

efforts by adding manpower and technology to the southwest border. This budget also funds smart security on the northern border and facilitates international 

travel and trade. The President’s request also makes targeted investments to 

reduce security risk across our Nation’s vast maritime borders. 

• Smart and Tough Enforcement of Immigration Laws and Improving Immigration Services.—DHS welcomes legal immigrants, protects against dangerous 

people entering the country, and pursues tough, effective enforcement against 

those who violate the Nation’s immigration laws. This budget contains funding 

to strengthen our employment eligibility verification systems, target and crack 

down on criminal aliens, and expedite the application process for new legal immigrants. 

• Preparing for, Responding to, and Recovering from Natural Disasters.—The Department must aid local and State first responders in all stages of a natural 

disaster—preparing for the worst, responding to a disaster that has occurred, 

and recovering in the long run. This budget contains funding to strengthen DHS 
10 

1Gross discretionary funding does not include funding such as Coast Guard’s retirement pay 

accounts and fees paid for immigration benefits. 2This does not include fee collections such as funding for the Federal Protective Service 

(NPPD), aviation security passenger and carrier fees (TSA), credentialing fees (such as TWIC– 

TSA), and administrative cost of the (National Flood Insurance Fund, FEMA). 

assistance for local first responders and the communities and families affected 

by disasters. 

• Unifying and Maturing DHS.—DHS is a young department. Its components 

must further evolve in order to operate as effectively as possible as one agency 

with a single, unified security mission. This budget contains funding to initiate 

consolidation of mission support activities that will remain off-site from the St. 

Elizabeths campus, reducing the many small and widely scattered leased locations and supporting the goal to build ‘‘One DHS.’’ 

DHS is employing several cross-cutting initiatives to strengthen activities in each 

of these mission areas. 

First, DHS is working across the board to increase cooperation with its partners— 

State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies, international allies, the private 

sector, and other Federal departments. The effort to secure America requires close 

coordination and collaboration; this budget increases resources dedicated to these 

critical partnerships. 

Second, the Department is bolstering its science and technology portfolio. This will 

lead to the development of new techniques and technologies that will expand DHS’ 

law enforcement capabilities while minimizing law enforcement’s impact on everyday, law-abiding citizens. This budget contains important investments in technologies that will allow DHS officers to perform their security tasks more quickly 

and with greater accuracy. 

Third, the Department continually aims for greater efficiency in its operations. 

Through the Department-wide Efficiency Review Initiative launched in March, DHS 

is ensuring all its resources are used in the most effective way possible to secure 

the Nation. 

The total fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security is $55.1 billion in funding; a 5 percent increase over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level excluding supplemental funding. The Department’s fiscal year 2010 gross 

discretionary budget request 1 is $45.8 billion, an increase of 6 percent over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level excluding emergency funding. The Department’s fiscal 

year 2010 net discretionary budget request is $42.7 billion.2

The following are highlights of the fiscal year 2010 budget request: 

GUARDING AGAINST TERRORISM

• State and Local Fusion Centers.—Full support and staffing by the end of fiscal 

year 2011 are requested for the 70 identified State and Local Fusion Centers, 

facilities where information and intelligence is shared between Federal, State, 

local, and Tribal authorities. Funding is dedicated to IT maintenance, support, 

and training. 

• Explosives Detection Systems (EDS) Procurement and Installation.—An increase 

of $565.4 million to accelerate the Electronic Baggage Screening Program 

(EBSP) at the Nation’s airports to ensure 100 percent of all checked baggage 

is screened with an in-line explosive detection capability system, or a suitable 

alternative. This funding will support facility modifications, recapitalization efforts, as well as procurement and deployment of electronic baggage screening 

technology systems. 

• Bomb Appraisal Officers.—$9 million for an additional 109 Bomb Appraisal Officers (BAOs) to provide expertise in the recognition of and response to improvised explosive devices at airports to enhance aviation security. The request will 

provide BAO coverage at 50 percent more airports including all Category X, I, 

and II airports, and will provide a BAO in every hub-spoke airport system, and 

to airports that currently have only one BAO assigned. 

• Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response Teams.—An increase of $50 million 

is requested to fund 15 Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) 

teams dedicated to guarding surface transportation. The VIPR teams contain 

multi-skilled resources, including Transportation Security Inspectors, canine 

teams, Transportation Security Officers, Bomb Detection Officers, and Federal 

Air Marshals. These teams enhance the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) ability to screen passengers, identify suspicious behavior, and act 

as a visible deterrent to potential terrorists in surface transportation environments. 
11 

• Vulnerability Assessments.—A $3.0 million increase is requested to provide for 

new nuclear reactor security consultations with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The budget request will also support vulnerability assessment pilot 

projects, which provide State and local stakeholders with a comprehensive understanding of vulnerabilities and critical infrastructure resiliency. • Bombing Prevention.—$4.2 million is requested to enhance improved, coordinated national bombing prevention and improvised explosive device (IED) security efforts. Additionally, this funding will provide resources to enhance national 

awareness of the threat, facilitate multi-jurisdiction planning, and conduct additional capabilities assessments for 132 high-risk urban area detection, deterrence, response, and search elements. These elements include canine units, 

bomb squads, SWAT teams, and dive teams. • Cybersecurity for the Federal Government.—A $75.1 million increase is requested to enable DHS to develop and deploy cybersecurity technologies to 

counter on-going, real world national cyber threats and apply effective analysis 

and risk mitigation strategies to detect and deter threats. • Explosives Detection Research.—Total funding of $120.8 million, an increase of $24.7 million, is requested to support DHS’ Science and Technology Directorate 

(S&T) in addressing critical capability gaps in detecting, interdicting, and lessening the impacts of non-nuclear explosives used in terrorist attacks against 

mass transit, civil aviation, and critical infrastructure. Of the $24.7 million, 

$10.0 million will develop high-throughput cargo screening technology through 

automated, more efficient equipment. The remaining $14.7 million will build on 

fiscal year 2009 efforts to counter the threat of hand-carried improvised explosive devices to mass transit systems by detecting all types of explosive threats 

such as homemade, commercial, and military explosives. • Cybersecurity Research.—Total funding of $37.2 million, an increase of $6.6 million, is requested to support Science and Technology in addressing critical capability gaps identified in the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative 

(CNCI). Specifically, this effort will develop technologies to secure the Nation’s 

critical information infrastructure and networks. • Transformational Research and Development (R&D).—A $7.2 million increase is 

requested for Transformational R&D to improve nuclear detection capabilities, 

address enduring vulnerabilities, and reduce the operational burden of radiation 

and nuclear detection. The increase in fiscal year 2010 will further these efforts 

to accelerate material optimization and production techniques, and establish a 

low-rate production capability for these materials. Additional funding could 

have a tremendous impact on the ability to uncover threats by detecting radiation sources. • BioWatch.—Total funding of $94.5 million is requested for the BioWatch program in the Office of Health Affairs, which provides the capability for early detection and warning against biological attacks in over 30 of our Nation’s highest-risk urban areas through placement of a series of biological pathogen collectors. The request sustains the baseline capability of Gen-1/Gen-2 collectors 

while moving into the next generation of equipment. The funding would complete field testing for the Gen-3 prototype unit, secure IT architecture to facilitate networking between the biodetection systems, and procure production units 

to support the Gen-3 operational test and evaluation. 

• Vetting Infrastructure Modernization.—An increase of $64 million is requested 

to modernize vetting infrastructure data management, adjudication workflow, 

and integration of all vetting systems in the third and final phase of the Vetting 

Infrastructure Improvement Plan. Modernization will enable a universal fee 

mechanism that will reduce duplicative background checks and fees for transportation workers, and provide the capability to process new populations using 

existing enrollment and vetting infrastructure, while continuing to ensure privacy and security. 

• Information Integration and Technology.—Total funding of $34 million is requested for U.S. Secret Service information technology. Funding would provide 

for a secure cross-domain IT application, engineering, and architecture activities 

to modernize and improve Secret Service systems, information-sharing environments, database performance, cyber security, and continuity of operations 

through robust backup and recovery procedures. 

• Intermodal Security Coordination Office (ISCO).—A $10 million increase is requested for the Intermodal Security Coordination Office within DHS Policy to 

support integrated planning between DHS and the Department of Transportation in the area of maritime transportation, as well as in other homeland security mission areas. The Intermodal Security Coordination Office will develop 

a strategic plan and metrics to guide development and modernization of inter-
12 

modal freight infrastructure that links coastal and inland ports to highways and 

rail networks; an assessment of intermodal freight infrastructure needs and capability gaps; and recommendations to address the needs and capability gaps. 

The recommendations to address intermodal freight infrastructure needs and 

capability gaps will be incorporated into DHS’ 5-year programming and budgeting guidance, and tracked to ensure they are achieved. 

• Electronic Crime Task Forces (ECTFs).—Total funding of $2.0 million is requested to support the operational costs of 13 ECTFs and DHS-mandated Certification and Accreditation of the Secret Service on-line reporting system. 

• Train 21.—Total funding of $4.1 million is requested for Train 21, a business 

operations and training transformation initiative that advances the Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Center’s mission to provide training for law enforcement personnel. 

• Uniformed Division Modernization.—Total funding of $4.0 million is requested 

to support a restructuring of the U.S. Secret Service Uniformed Division’s (UD) 

legal authorities governing pay and compensation to bring the UD in line with 

the rest of the Federal Government and to more effectively recruit and retain 

the talent necessary to carry out its protective mission. 

• National Technical Nuclear Forensics.—A $2.8 million increase is requested to 

expand efforts to develop the capability to improve technical nuclear forensics 

on U.S.-made nuclear and radiological materials. The increase will also expand 

international collaborative efforts to collect and share relevant nuclear forensics 

information. 

SECURING OUR BORDERS

• Combating Southbound Firearms and Currency Smuggling.—An increase of 

$26.1 million is requested to enhance DHS’ capability to combat southbound 

firearms and currency smuggling through additional personnel at and between 

the ports of entry and along the southwest border. This funding will support 

an additional 44 Border Patrol agents and 8 support staff as well as 65 Customs 

and Border Protection officers and 8 support staff. Resources are also requested 

to expand and maintain the Licensed Plate Reader (LPR) program to help establish and maintain effective control of the border. Additionally Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requests an additional $70 million to hire 349 

positions (specifically Special Agents, Intelligence Analysts, and Criminal Investigators) to increase enforcement staffing, improve cooperative efforts with the 

Mexican government, and establish another Border Violence Intelligence Cell. 

This cross-program initiative will increase national security by expanding activities to secure our borders. 

• Maritime Border Security Enhancements.—$700 million is requested to purchase five new Coast Guard Cutters, two Maritime Patrol Aircraft and one aircraft flight simulator to increase surface and air asset presence in the maritime 

domain and vastly improve threat detection and interdiction capabilities. $103 

million is requested to purchase 30 new Coast Guard small boats to replace 

aging, obsolete assets with more capable, multi-mission platforms. $1.2 million 

is requested to establish a permanent Biometrics at Sea System, an investment 

which enables Coast Guard boarding teams to identify dangerous individual 

documented in the US–VISIT database and yields the type of cross-component 

operational integration sought through creation of DHS and that must continue 

to be built upon. 

• Northern Border Technology.—$20.0 million is requested to assist U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) in providing improved situational awareness along 

the northern border through the design, deployment, and integration of surveillance, sensing platforms, detection technologies and tactical infrastructure. This 

technology will expand DHS capabilities, increase the effectiveness of our 

agents, and increase the ability to detect unlawful border activity successfully. 

• CBP Air and Marine (A&M) Personnel.—A $19.1 million increase is requested 

to support Border Patrol agents by providing air cover as well as expanding 

maritime assistance along the borders. Funding is requested to hire an additional 68 pilots, 20 marine and 56 support personnel. During fiscal year 2010, 

A&M plans to continue the expansion of its capabilities across the northern and 

coastal border and place heavy emphasis on the maritime requirements along 

the southeast and Caribbean borders. The additional personnel resources are requested as new marine vessels are deployed to marine branches at strategic locations along the coastal borders. 

• Research and Development for Border and Maritime Security.—A $7.1 million 

increase for Science & Technology is requested to fund a new research effort 
13 

to provide advanced detection, identification, apprehension, and enforcement capabilities along borders, increasing the security of the border and lowering the 

risk of a successful terrorist attack. Additionally, funding will provide new technologies to the United States Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and other components operating in the 

maritime environment. 

SMART AND TOUGH ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS AND IMPROVING

IMMIGRATION SERVICES

• E-Verify.—Total funding of $112 million and 80 new positions are requested to 

support improvements to the employment eligibility verification system, EVerify. The growth of the E-Verify program will increase the need for monitoring and compliance activities to protect employees from discriminatory practices, safeguard privacy information, and enhance program efficacy. The fiscal 

year 2010 program increase is primarily for monitoring and compliance activities, as well as IT-related business initiatives to improve system use. 

• Secure Communities.—Total funding of $39.1 million is requested to hire, train, 

and equip 80 new enforcement personnel who will identify suspected criminal 

aliens, determine subjects’ alien status, prioritize ICE enforcement actions 

against the highest threat criminal aliens, and assist in the removal of apprehended criminal aliens. Funding will also support the continued investment in 

information technology to improve efficiencies within ICE criminal alien identification prioritization and removal processes. 

• Detention and Removal Operations Modernization (DROM).—Total funding of 

$25 million is requested for improvements to the system of detaining and removing illegal immigrants. The funding will be dedicated to developing and deploying the Detainee Location Tracking Module as part of the Bed Space and 

Transportation Management System, expanding the ICE Data warehouse data 

capacity and reporting capability to support the DRO IT data, and expanding 

Web services to allow the Electronic Travel Document application to communicate with other internal or external applications. DROM will effect improvements in the areas of real-time dynamic data reporting, detainee management, 

management of detention beds and tracking detainees, bed-space availability 

management, and transportation management for improved efficiency in detention and removals. 

• Law Enforcement Systems Modernization.—Total funding of $49 million is requested to fund the ICE Law Enforcement Systems Modernization initiative, including a number of case management, information sharing, and operational 

support service projects that will improve access to law enforcement information. For example, the case management Traveler Enforcement Communication 

System (TECS) system modernization effort will support the investigative arm 

of ICE and update a 20-year-old system, giving ICE improved capabilities for 

case management, money laundering tracking and reporting, telephone analysis, intelligence reporting and dissemination, Bank Secrecy Act data access, information sharing of subject record data, and statistical/performance reporting. 

The funding will also support the design and development for the integration 

of ICE-Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security (ACCESS) and Information Sharing. 

• Immigrant Integration.—Total funding of $10 million is requested for an Immigrant Integration program within USCIS, in order to improve the integration 

of immigrants into the United States. This program allows USCIS and the Office of Citizenship to work across the Federal Government and with State and 

local governments, U.S. businesses, non-profits, academia, and faith-based organizations to support effective integration efforts across the country. USCIS will 

provide grants to community-based organizations for citizenship preparation 

programs; facilitate English language learning through improved Web resources; build volunteer capacity by developing a training certification framework for volunteers and, promote citizenship with integration messages at the 

workplace, among Federal agencies, and the general public. 

• US–VISIT Identity Management and Screening Services.—An $11.2 million increase is requested to support the increased workload demands associated with 

the transition from 2- to 10-fingerprint biometric capture for foreign visitors. 

The increase will support biometric identifications and verifications, latent print 

processing, data sharing with other agencies, and the growing Secure Communities initiative, which shares biometric information with local law enforcement. 

The funding will also support information sharing and technical assistance to 

select foreign governments to promote the adoption and use of common biomet-
14 

ric identity management standards in order to advance the ability to screen 

travelers to and workers within the United States. • Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI).—A $20.9 million increase is requested to continue maintaining and operating the WHTI program that supports Departmental efforts to facilitate the efficient movement of people at the 

land border POEs. WHTI provides a tool to conduct the necessary authentication at the time of crossing and it also accelerates the verification process mandated by law to the extent possible with Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) 

Technology and communications technology. 

PREPARING FOR, RESPONDING TO, AND RECOVERING FROM NATURAL DISASTERS

• Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM).—A $60 million increase is requested for PreDisaster Mitigation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Funding 

will assist in the implementation of pre-disaster hazard mitigation measures 

that are cost-effective and are designed to reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction of property, including damage to critical services and facilities. • Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grants.—Total funding of $420 million is requested to 

double the funds devoted to SAFER grants administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which help fire departments increase the number 

of frontline firefighters. Funding will enable fire departments to increase their 

staffing and deployment capabilities, ensuring around-the-clock protection. 

• Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).—Total DRF funding of $2 billion, an increase of 

$0.6 billion, is requested. The DRF, administered by the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), provides a significant portion of the total Federal 

response to victims in declared major disasters and emergencies. This increase 

will provide relief for non-catastrophic disaster activity. 

• First Responder Technology.—Total funding of $12 million is requested to develop and design technologies to address capability gaps identified by Federal, 

State, local, and Tribal first responders. This program will test technologies, assess usability, and commercialize them to increase availability across all first 

responder communities. 

• Gap Analysis Program.—An additional $3.0 million is requested for the Gap 

Analysis Program to supplement programs that evaluate the strengths and 

weaknesses of each State’s emergency plans and evacuation plans and expand 

beyond earlier focus on hurricane-prone regions and rural and suburban areas 

to all hazards. 

MATURING AND UNIFYING DHS

• DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project.—An additional $75.0 million is requested in fiscal year 2010 to initiate consolidation of mission support activities 

that will remain off-campus, reducing the amount of small and widely scattered 

leased locations. 

• Strategic Requirements Planning Process.—An additional $5.0 million and 5 

FTE are requested for the DHS Strategic Requirements Planning Process 

(SRPP) to establish tangible Department-wide targets and goals to help integrate DHS components’ efforts and ensure that the Department fulfills its 

homeland security mission. The SRPP is designed to coordinate with the Department’s resource allocation and investment processes and ensure that both 

of these processes address the most critical homeland security needs and capability gaps. The SRPP is designed to utilize risk assessments to prioritize analysis of capability gaps, and risk would also be used to inform the prioritization 

of investment in capability gaps and needs identified through the SRPP. 

• OIG Auditors.—An increase of $5.1 million is requested to hire an additional 

60 staff. The increase of staffing will better position the Office of Inspector General to assist in supporting the Department’s integrated planning guidance 

(IPG) of strengthening border security and interior enforcement. In addition, 

the increase will expand oversight of activities relating to DHS issues on immigration and border security, transportation security, critical infrastructure protection, Federal and State/local intelligence sharing, Secure Border Initiative 

(SBI), and acquisition strategies. The OIG’s oversight activities add value to 

DHS programs and operations by providing an objective third-party assessment 

to ensure integrity and transparency. 

• Data Center Development/Migration.—A $200.0 million increase is requested to 

support further migration of component systems, applications, and disaster recovery to the DHS Enterprise Data Centers for central DHS management. Se-
15 

lect DHS component budgets include funds to migrate their component specific 

applications to the DHS Data Center. The Data Center consolidation efforts will 

standardize IT resource acquisitions across DHS components, as well as streamline maintenance and support contracts, allowing for less complex vendor support and expediting response times in the event of an emergency. Benefits derived from consolidation include enhanced IT security, improved information 

sharing with stakeholders, and enhanced operational efficiencies over time. 

• Information Security and Infrastructure.—$23.0 million is requested to support: 

Network Security Enhancements, Internet Gateway Enhancements, and Single 

Sign-On Capability. 

• Network Security Enhancements.—This funding is requested to mitigate highrisk areas within the DHS firewall. This request will establish critical Policy 

Enforcement Points across the DHS Network, improve DHS Security Operation Center capabilities (i.e., remediation, forensics), and establish robust 

classified facilities with highly skilled analysts. Network Security Enhancements will identify all internet connections for remediation by migrating separate, legacy component connections behind the DHS Trusted Internet Connections (TICs). 

• Internet Gateway Enhancements.—This request will implement a High Assurance Guard to support mission requirements for accessing social networking 

sites and establishing the DHS Email Disaster Recovery capability where 100 

percent of all e-mail traffic will be behind the two DHS TICs. 

• Single Sign-On (SSO) Capability.—Increased fiscal year 2010 funding will be 

utilized to initiate the application integration and establishment of the core 

infrastructures for AppAuth, eAuth, the SSO Gateway, and Service Oriented 

Architecture required under the SSO project. Through the close alignment 

with HSPD–12, DHS employees and Federal, State, local, and private-sector 

partners will be able to log in to their systems with only a single set of credentials in order to access multiple applications. 

• Fiscal year 2010 Gross Discretionary funding increases by $2.6 billion, or 6 percent, over fiscal year 2009. 
16 

• There is an increase of $8.6 million, or .1 percent, in estimated budget authority 

for Mandatory, Fees, and Trust Funds over fiscal year 2009. 

• Does not include supplementals or rescissions of prior-year carryover funds. 

• The following offices are less than 1 percent of the total budget authority and 

are not labeled in the chart above: Office of the Inspector General, Office of 

Health Affairs. 

• Departmental Operations is comprised of the Office of the Secretary & Executive Management, the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding, the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, the Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer, and the Office of the Chief Information Officer. 
17 

TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY BY ORGANIZATION 

Gross Discretionary & Mandatory, Fees, Trust Funds 

Fiscal Year 2008 

Revised 

Enacted 1

Fiscal Year 2009 

Enacted 2

Fiscal Year 2010 

President’s 

Budget 3

Fiscal Year 2010 

∂/¥ Fiscal Year 

2009 Enacted 

Fiscal Year 2010 

∂/¥ Fiscal Year 

2009 Enacted 

[$000] [$000] [$000] [$000] [%] 

Departmental Operations 4 ........................................... $573,983 $644,553 $904,673 $260,120 40 

Analysis and Operations .............................................. 304,500 327,373 357,345 29,972 9 Office of the Inspector General .................................... 108,711 98,513 127,874 29,361 30 U.S. Customs and Border Protection .......................... 9,285,001 11,274,783 11,436,917 162,134 1 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ............. 5,054,317 5,928,210 5,762,800 (165,410 ) ¥3 

Transportation Security Administration ..................... 6,809,359 6,990,778 7,793,576 802,798 11 U.S. Coast Guard .......................................................... 8,631,053 9,623,779 9,955,663 331,884 3 U.S. Secret Service ........................................................ 1,629,496 1,637,954 1,709,584 71,630 4 National Protection and Programs Directorate .......... 896,476 1,158,263 1,958,937 800,674 69 Office of Health Affairs ................................................. 118,375 157,191 138,000 (19,191 ) ¥12 Federal Emergency Management Agency ................... 5,515,178 5,985,805 6,612,287 626,482 10 FEMA: Grant Programs ............................................... 4,117,800 4,245,700 3,867,000 (387,700 ) ¥9 U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services ................... 2,822,012 2,690,926 2,867,232 176,306 7 Federal Law Enforcement Training Center ................ 273,302 332,986 288,812 (44,174 ) ¥13 

S&T Directorate ............................................................ 830,335 932,587 968,391 35,804 4 Domestic Nuclear Detection Office .............................. 484,750 514,191 366,136 (148,055 ) ¥29 

TOTAL ................................................................ 47,454,648 52,543,592 55,115,227 2,571,635 4 .89 

Less Rescission of Prior Year Carryover Funds 5 ....... (124,985 ) (61,373 ) ......................... 61,373 ¥100 

ADJUSTED TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY ............ 47,329,664 52,482,219 55,115,227 2,633,008 5 SUPPLEMENTAL6 ...................................................... 15,129,607 2,967,000 ......................... (2,967,000 ) .............................

1Fiscal year 2008 revised enacted reflects net reprogramming/transfer adjustments for CBP ($2.6 million); TSA (¥$10.5 million); USSS ($34.0 million); NPPD 

(¥$5.6 million); OHA ($1.9 million); FEMA (¥$23.0 million); US CIS ($282.167 million); FLETC ($5.636 million); FEMA–DRF to OIG ($16 million). Reflects technical adjustments to revise fee estimates for TSA Aviation Security—General Aviation Fee ($.050 million); TSA Aviation Security—Passenger & Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee ($96.025 million); TSA Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing—Registered Traveler (¥$31.601 million); TSA Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing—Transportation Worker Identification Credentials ($37.9 million); TSA Transportation Threat Assessment and 

Credentialing—HAZMAT (¥$1.0 million); TSA Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing—Alien Flight School ($1.0 million); and FEMA—RadiologicalEmergency Preparedness (¥$0.492 million). Pursuant to Pub. L. 110–161 reflects a scorekeeping adjustment for rescissions of prior year unobligated balances 

from USCG—AC&I (¥$137.264 million) and a rescission of current-year appropriations for USM (¥$5.0 million). 
18 

2Fiscal year 2009 enacted reflects technical adjustments to revise fee estimates for TSA—Transportation Threat and Credentialing—Registered Traveler 

(¥$10.0 million); TSA—Transportation Threat and Credentialing—Transportation Worker Identification Credentials ($22.7 million); TSA—Transportation Threat and Credentialing—HAZMAT (¥$3.0 million); TSA—Transportation Threat and Credentialing—Alien Flight School ($1.0 million). Reflects USCG realignment of Operating Expenses funding and pursuant to Pub. L. 110–53 reflects TSA realignment of funds for 9/11 Commission Act implementation ($3.675 million—Avia- tion Security, $13.825 million—Surface, $2.5 million—Support). Reflects a scorekeeping adjustment for a rescission of prior year unobligated balances from USCG—AC&I (¥$20.0 million). 3Fiscal year 2010 President’s budget reflects the proposed transfer of Federal Protective Service from ICE to NPPD ($640.0 million). 4Departmental Operations is comprised of the Office of the Secretary & Executive Management, the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding, the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and the Office of the Chief Information Officer. 5Pursuant to Pub. L. 110–161, reflects rescission of prior year unobligated balances: fiscal year 2008—Counter-Terrorism Fund (¥$8.480 million); TSA (¥$4.5 

million); Analysis and Operations (¥$8.7 million); FEMA—Disaster Relief Fund (¥$20.0 million); USCG—Operating Expenses (¥$9.584 million); CBP (¥$2.003 

million); US CIS (¥$0.672 million); FEMA (¥$2.919 million); ICE (¥$5.137 million); FLETC (¥$0.334 million); OSEM (¥$4.211 million); USM (¥$0.444 million); CFO (¥$0.380 million); CIO (¥$0.493 million); DNDO (¥$0.368 million); OHA (¥$0.045 million); OIG (¥$0.032 million); NPPD (¥$1.995 million); S&T 

(¥$0.217 million). 

Pursuant to Pub. L. 110–161, reflects fiscal year 2008 rescissions of start-up balances: CBP (¥$25.621 million); FEMA (¥$14.257 million); Departmental Oper- ations ($12.084 million); Working Capital Fund (¥$2.509 million). 

Pursuant to Pub. L. 110–329, reflects fiscal year 2009 rescissions of prior year unobligated balances: Analysis and Operations (¥$21.373 million); TSA (¥$31.0 

million); FEMA—Cerro Grande (¥$9.0 million). 6 In order to obtain comparable figures, Total Budget Authority excludes: 

• Fiscal year 2008 supplemental funding pursuant to Pub. L. 110–161: CBP ($1.531 million); ICE ($526.9 million); USCG ($166.1 million). 

• NPPD ($275.0 million); FEMA ($3.030 billion); US CIS ($80.0 million): FLETC ($21.0 million). • Fiscal year 2008 supplemental funding pursuant to Pub. L. 110–252: USCG ($222.607 million); FEMA ($897.0 million). • Fiscal year 2008 supplemental funding pursuant to Pub. L. 110–329: OIG ($8.0 million); USCG ($300.0 million); FEMA ($8.072 billion). • Fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding pursuant to Pub. L. 110–252: USCG ($112 million). • Fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding pursuant to Pub. L. 111–5: USM ($200 million); CBP ($680 million); ICE ($20 million); TSA ($1.0 billion); USCG ($240 million); FEMA ($610 million); OIG ($5 million). 

• Fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding pursuant to Pub. L. 111–8: USSS ($100 million). 
19 

EFFICIENCY REVIEW

As the Department highlights its spending priorities in this budget, it is simultaneously conducting a bold and far-reaching Efficiency Review initiative to ensure 

that taxpayer dollars are spent in the most effective way possible. Efficiency Review 

encompasses both simple, common-sense reforms and longer-term, systemic changes 

that will, over time, make DHS a leaner, smarter Department better equipped to 

protect the Nation. 

I launched the Efficiency Review on March 27, 2009 announcing sixteen Department-wide initiatives beginning within 120 days, including: 

30 Days 

• Eliminate non-mission critical travel and maximize use of conference calls and 

web-based training and meetings. • Consolidate subscriptions to professional publications and newspapers. • Minimize printing and distribution of reports and documents that can be sent 

electronically or posted on-line. • Maximize use of Government office space for meetings and conferences in place 

of renting facilities. 

60 Days 

• Implement an electronic tracking tool for fleet usage data to identify opportunities for alternative fuel usage; heighten vigilance for fraud, waste or abuse; and 

optimize fleet management. • Conduct an assessment of the number of full-time, part-time employees, and 

contractors to better manage our workforce. • Utilize refurbished IT equipment (computers and mobile devices) and redeploy 

the current inventory throughout DHS. • Leverage buying power to acquire software licenses for Department-wide usage 

(estimated savings of $283 million over the next 6 years). 

90 Days 

• Develop cross-component training opportunities for employees. • Develop a process for obtaining preliminary applicant security background data 

for candidates referred for final consideration (savings of up to $5,500 per avoided full background check). • As replacements are needed, convert new printers, faxes, and copiers into allin-one machines (estimated savings of $10 million over 5 years). • Streamline decision-making processes in headquarters offices to eliminate 

redundancies. 

120 Days: 

• Establish a plan to ensure the DHS workforce has employees sufficient in number and skill to deliver our core mission. • As replacements are needed for non-law enforcement vehicles, initiate acquisition and leasing of hybrid vehicles, or alternative-fuel vehicles in cases where 

hybrids are not feasible (estimated mileage improvement of above 30%). 

• Maximize energy efficiencies in facility management projects (estimated savings 

of $3 million a year). 

• Standardize content for new-employee orientation and mandatory annual training modules Department-wide. 

I have issued formal guidance to all DHS employees regarding the 30-day initiatives, and planning for the remaining initiatives is underway. Beyond the first 120 

days, Efficiency Review will become a central element of budget development and 

the long-term strategic vision of the Department. 

PROGRESS

The initiatives strengthened by this budget would build atop what the Department has already accomplished since the start of the new administration. 

To secure the border, DHS has launched a major new initiative to combat drug, 

cash, and weapons smuggling that support drug cartels in Mexico in their efforts 

against law enforcement. The initiative includes hundreds of new personnel at the 

border and increased technological capabilities. These efforts have resulted in significant seizures of smuggled items headed into Mexico. 

The Department has distributed $970 million dollars to bolster transit and port 

security. The Recovery Act signed by President Obama contains $1 billion for the 

development of new explosives-detection technologies to increase safety at transit 

hubs and public places. To guard against terrorism, I signed a new agreement with 

Germany to cooperate in developing new counter-terrorism technologies. 
20 

In terms of increasing preparedness for, response to, and recovery from natural 

disasters, DHS has led the national effort in response to and preparedness for the 

2009 H1N1 flu outbreak. Furthermore, the Department has responded quickly and 

effectively to severe ice storms in Kentucky, Arkansas, and Missouri, as well as to 

record flooding on the Red River in North Dakota and Minnesota. The Department 

has also taken critical steps to speed recovery in the Gulf Coast communities still 

struggling due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, including the extension of critical 

programs. 

The Department has also taken important steps toward building a single identity 

and culture. The Recovery Act contained $650 million for a new, consolidated headquarters for DHS, which is now scattered in buildings throughout the Washington, 

DC area. In March, I announced a moratorium on new branding for DHS components, which will now all use the established DHS seal. 

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I look forward to answering 

your questions and to working with you on the fiscal year 2010 budget request and 

other issues. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I thank you 

for your testimony. 

I will remind each Member that he or she will have 5 minutes 

to question the Secretary. I now recognize myself for the first question. 

Madam Secretary, recent reports have indicated that some 5,000 

families across Mississippi and Louisiana will have to leave their 

FEMA trailers at the end of this month. With that, I have been unsuccessful in figuring out the plan for those 5,000 families. 

Can you assure this committee that there will be a plan for those 

individuals who are presently housed in those trailers soon to be 

displaced? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Let me just begin by 

saying that we have placed over 100,000 families already. These 

are the last remaining. I would be happy to supply you with a list 

extensive of contact with the families, options they have been 

given, and also share with you that we offered to give the State of 

Louisiana additional caseworkers to work with those families, because this goes to the State to work through the families. They did 

not accept that offer. 

But it is now time to start closing out the remains of Katrina, 

and we are and do have many options that have been made available to those occupants. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Coupled with that is this committee’s real 

interest on just the housing of individuals with natural disasters. 

Some of the numbers associated with it have been astronomical, 

and Chairman Conyers and a couple of us are planning to look at 

the whole temporary housing issue. Some of it, $60,000 cost associated with one temporary trailer is a lot of money, and the only answer we have been able to get is, well, we have always done it this 

way. 

So I am hoping that you will look at that going forward and see 

whether there are alternatives that can be explored in that temporary housing arrangement. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, one of the first meetings 

I had as Secretary was with the Secretary of HUD, Shaun Donovan, because there is not a clean connection in terms of housing for 

disaster victims. We are looking, at some point after the immediate 

response of temporary housing these have become long-term housing issues. What this has revealed is that long-term recovery plan-
21 

ning is not as robust as it needs to be. So housing is part of that, 

and yes, indeed, we are working very hard on those issues. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Another issue around procurement, 

Madam Secretary, is the fact that presently DHS has over 15,000 

contractors. That is some 300 percent increase since the Department was created. 

Can you share with the committee whether or not there is a plan 

to reduce the overreliance on outside contractors for the Department? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Mr. Chairman. One of the management things we will be doing this year and probably will be reflected in the 2011 budget is really looking at contractors and what 

needs to be brought in-house. I think the committee understands 

that contractors were used at the outset because of the speed with 

which the Department had to get up and running. But now, as you 

note, there is an overreliance there, and what the committee needs 

to know and appropriators need to know is what do we really need 

in-house to properly staff some of these functions. So, yes, we are 

looking at that from a management standpoint. 

Chairman THOMPSON. So your testimony is that, not this year, 

but next year. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think it would be fair to say that the 

fiscal year 2010 budget has some changes in it already. But looking 

at the contractor issue simply requires more time than we had 

available. 

Chairman THOMPSON. With respect to compliance with detention 

standards and ICE, a number of reports have talked about some 

pretty devastating things occurring with respect to medical care 

and facilities. Some have led to multiple deaths. Looking at this 

budget, it appears that we will expand detention facilities. What 

have you taken to prevent some of those issues medically from reoccurring? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I 

discovered when I took over the Department was that within the 

huge organizational chart that it has, the whole issue of where detention was, was at the very, very bottom. We have moved that up, 

so if a person who reports directly to the head of ICE and brought 

in to help us there, a person who has run the prison systems in 

Missouri and Arizona, extensive experience with these types of facilities, she has been going facility by facility, contract by contract, 

looking at what we have. The budget reflects not only the need for 

beds, but the need to increase the expenditure for health care to 

reach standards for detainees. So we are in the process of doing 

that right now as well. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full committee, the 

gentleman from New York, for questions. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I would like to cover issues of Secure the Cities, FIRE grants, and immigration. How far I will get, I don’t 

know, but I will start with Secure the Cities. Not for the parochial 

respect of New York City, but really what this means for other cities throughout the country. I realize this was a pilot program. I 

don’t believe it has really been completed. I know from talking with 
22 

the NYPD and other police departments they feel there is still 

more that has to be done, even in the pilot phase of it. But even 

if it were finished, I think it is really rolling the dice to be asking 

cities across the country to be applying for grants every year. I 

think there should really be a dedicated revenue stream. I just see 

this as being such a real threat to our cities. I am not aware of 

anything, for instance, of any Federal officials being on highways 

or parkways or roadways leading from suburbs or cities doing radiation detection. This is going to be left to the cities to do, and it 

really requires a regional approach. To that extent, I believe that 

the detection and interdiction of infrastructure that was set up in 

New York is a model that can be used and should have a dedicated 

revenue stream. To me, to zero it out or to end it just because the 

3-year pilot program is over to me is really missing the larger picture. I would appreciate your thoughts on that, especially since, if 

we look at Europe, generally the attacks come from suburbs into 

the cities. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. On Secure the Cities, I 

couldn’t agree with you more that protection of the country from 

a radiation attack is key, a very important mission. This particular 

grant, I think I should share with you that the recipient has not 

yet spent the fiscal year 2008 money that it got, has not yet submitted its grant application for the fiscal year 2009 money that it 

got. So there is money in the pipeline to continue and fulfill the 

grant through fiscal year 2010. So it was the judgment that we 

shouldn’t put more new money in it because there was money that 

would fund the program through this fiscal year. 

As I think we all recognize, money is very tight this year. What 

we are trying to do is if we have unspent moneys, we will use those 

as opposed to asking for others. 

With respect to continuation of the pilot permanently, I think 

that is worthy of consideration once we see how it works. Obviously, New York, the other States participating could apply to some 

of the other preexisting grant programs and use those funds for the 

Secure the Cities operation. But moving forward, one of the things 

you want to know from a pilot is does it work and does it make 

sense to make it permanent and expand it—and we will evaluate 

it. 

Mr. KING. With the previous administration, with Secretary 

Chertoff, we had this disagreement one year about whether or not 

the grant application was in or it was not, and whether or not 

there was money available or not. Rather than lose because of 

bookkeeping tactics, I would ask if you would be willing to meet 

with officials involved in New York City Secure the Cities program 

to make sure this can be continued over the next year without any 

damage being done. Because, again, I sort of went through this 

with Secretary Chertoff and there was a question of whether or not 

the grant was in on time, whether the form was filled out correctly. 

In the meantime, tens of millions of dollars were lost. So rather 

than go through that again, I would really ask if I can or if you 

could be willing to meet with them to make sure everyone is on the 

same page. Again, not for the parochial interests of New York, but 

I just see our cities across the Nation being at threat because of 

this. 
23 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. We will work with your staff to 

make sure we are talking to the people you would like us to speak 

with. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Secretary. 

On the issue of the FIRE grants, I think of all the programs administered by the Department, I don’t think any received a higher 

rating, both being effective, and yet there is going to be a 70 percent cut. I believe you testified yesterday that your belief in the fire 

departments is they needed more personnel as opposed to equipment and training. Again, when you have over $3 billion being applied for under the FIRE grants, and certainly from my contact 

with fire districts not just in my State but around the country, I 

think there is a real demand for this, a real necessity. Again, the 

role of the fire service has also changed since September 11. They 

also become first-line defenders, certainly again in areas which are 

target-rich. 

So I think you are going to be hearing from us on that in a bipartisan way. I promise you, I will try to restrain Congressman Pascrell when he gets going. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. He is looking at me right now. 

Mr. KING. But, seriously, on that, again I look forward to hearing 

what you have to say on it, but also these need to be part of an 

on-going dialog. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Yes. There was money in the 

Stimulus Act for the FIRE grants. The FIRE grants have been 

heavily funded in the past years, as you recognize, kind of 2–1, as 

compared to what are called the SAFER grants which really go for 

firefighters themselves. 

Our analysis was and our context were in this era of very restricted local budgets and departments having to lay off firefighters, that they really wanted some money to keep their personnel numbers up. So the judgment was made, given that the 

Congress already had put money for the SAFER grants in the stimulus bill, was to significantly now plus up the FIRE grants during 

this economic period so that we wouldn’t have fire department layoffs. 

I couldn’t agree with you more. Fire departments now are not 

just about fire; they are about a much broader range of first response. So we want to make sure they are supported in that capacity. 

Mr. KING. I see my time has run out. I am sure somebody will 

mention SCAAP to you before the hearing is over. Thank you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Chairman THOMPSON. The Chair will now recognize other Members for questions they may wish to ask the Secretary. Again, I 

urge Members to be mindful of the 5-minute rule and the Secretary’s limited time with the committee today. 

In accordance with our committee rules, I will recognize Members who were present at the start of the hearing based on seniority on the committee, alternating between Majority and Minority. 

Those Members coming in later will be recognized in the order of 

their arrival. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon for 5 minutes, Mr. DeFazio. 
24 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, 

three questions hopefully we can dispose of quickly. I asked the 

former—I think you would, unlike the former administration, recognize that the Constitution provides for three branches of Government. Do you agree with that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I can agree with that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. That is good. Thank you. That was controversial 

with the previous administration. We are one of the three. There 

was a plan for continuity of Government, and one would assume 

that continuity of Government would include all three branches. 

Would you agree with that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would agree with that. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Excellent. We are off to a good start here. I am a 

Member of this committee, and the Chairman and I have requested 

to have access to that plan, to understand what was the proposed 

role for our branch of Government and what provisions were to be 

made in terms of continuity of Government after either a catastrophic attack or other problems. To the best of my knowledge, the 

Executive order is still in place and is still classified, and we were 

denied access. 

Could you provide us access to that so we might better understand the proposal? You look puzzled. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I am puzzled. But I will look into this 

and report back to you, yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. It started a whole little cottage business on the Internet about what might or might not be in it because of the fact that even the Chairman and I were denied access 

to it and other Members of Congress. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It surprises me that the Legislative 

branch has not developed its own continuity of operations. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. There is certainly concern there, and Brian Baird, 

one of my colleagues from Washington State, has proposals on how 

we might reconstitute ourselves in the case of a devastating attack 

and loss of membership, and thus far it has not gone anywhere. 

But I would just be curious how we fit into the overall plan of the 

Executive branch. 

Second, the last time you were here I asked about the issue of 

collective bargaining rights. You were going to consult on that. 

Have we made progress on that issue for TSA employees? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. We are still looking at that, as well 

as in addition to collective bargaining rights, how do we create 

within TSA a real career path for employees so that we improve 

retention, take advantage of experience, allowing kind of frontline 

employees to move up into the Department, and how we increase 

and improve training, and so forth, for those employees? So, yes, 

we are looking at all those issues. We do not yet have a nominee 

to head TSA. Frankly, I think some of these resolutions are awaiting the new head of TSA. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Hopefully that will happen soon. But I would agree 

with you, as when we then created the TSA over on the Aviation 

Committee where I then served, our idea was to move away from 

the lowest-cost, minimum-wage, high-turnover, dead-end jobs. We 

actually had testimony one year from the screener of the year who 

said that at his airport, St. Louis, which had more than 100 per-
25 

cent turnover in terms of screening employees before the Federal 

Government took over, that it was considered a big move up to go 

to McDonald’s from screening. We tried to fix that by creating the 

TSA, and I applaud your idea about a career path and enhanced 

training. That is excellent. 

Finally, there is a leaked document which talks about the Secure 

Freight Initiative, and it acknowledges, which I think has been 

publicly acknowledged, the fact that we are not—you don’t anticipate being able to meet the 100 percent scanning of in-bound maritime cargo by the 2012 deadline, and it sets out three paths to deal 

with that. 

Do you have thoughts on what path is going to be chosen by the 

Department in terms of either meeting or not meeting that deadline for 100 percent screening maritime cargo? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We are still looking at that. I think I said 

even in my confirmation hearing and in my first hearing before 

this committee that I thought the 2012 deadline for SFI was going 

to be very difficult to reach, to negotiate all the international agreements that are part of that, and we wanted to really focus on what 

is the most effective way to prevent dangerous cargo from entering 

the United States, what kind of a multi-layered risk-based approach. So that is where we are heading now within the context of 

SFI. 

But with respect to the memo that somehow became a public document, we are still evaluating alternatives and have some meetings within the Department to discuss them. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. My personal preference would be strategy three. I 

am concerned that this is the most likely method of delivery of a 

weapons of mass destruction to the United States. The current layered or risk-based program we have pointed to in a number of 

hearings before your tenure is rather loophole-ridden, and I would 

not put great faith in that we are properly identifying and/or providing additional scrutiny to cargo with that system that requires 

it. 

So thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman THOMPSON. I now recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Souder, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. Madam Secretary, I have questions relating to the border. But first, I want to touch briefly, because we 

haven’t had a chance to talk about the so-called FEMA trailers, 

that Elkhart, Indiana is where many of these came from in my district and in Joe Donnelly’s, and that we have had multiple hearings 

here and over in Government Reform. I want to make sure that 

you are aware of a few facts related to what has come out. 

One is that formaldehyde in the room of the Government Reform 

hearing was higher than it was in the trailers; that the housing in 

Louisiana on average was higher than the FEMA trailers; that the 

California standards, you can make a safe—if the industry is moving to this, you can make a safe trailer. 

FEMA is the only agency right now that is being unreasonable. 

In reality, a tent has more formaldehyde in it. There is no housing 

that you can put people in, and we need to have a reasonable 

standard that—by the way, since Katrina, there are people living 
26 

in the same trailers in Florida, in places all over America. They 

have had zero complaints anywhere in America since Katrina. 

We have to have real science here, not emotion, or we are not 

going to be able to handle people. I hope that you can approach 

this. 

Chairman Frank understands a lot of this as he sat through 

some of this, too. We can work out a reasonable thing where we 

can actually build affordable things that are safe if we stick with 

science and not emotion. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I couldn’t agree with you more. 

Mr. SOUDER. Now, on the border, one is a concern on terrorism 

on the border. If we are going to work out anything in this country 

on immigration, we have to have the confidence of the American 

people that whether it is the DREAM Act or whether it is immigration reform of some type, that the border is secure, or other people 

just pour in if we make changes. 

Furthermore, if we are going to fight terrorism, we have to know 

who people are. So two basic questions. 

One is, you stated that you wanted to eliminate or repeal the 

REAL ID Act, which was one of the key 9/11 Commissions. Do you 

still stand with that? Do you see that moving ahead? How is that 

working? If I can do the second, and then you can try and work 

these together. 

On the border, you stated that you are putting resources in, but 

there is basically no increase at all in SBINet technology in that 

side. The increase was for maintenance at the existing. There 

doesn’t appear to be any money for additional fencing. The fundamental question is, do you intend to extend operational control past 

the 815 miles? You have plus-ups for outbound, which is really important on narcotics and guns. You are plussing up I think the 

total is 44 new border agents, Border Patrol, but those are focused 

at the ports of entry. 

The question is, for operational control of the border, do you have 

anything in your budget? Why is there not more for SBINet, fencing, and other things in between the ports of entry? Whether it be 

hard fencing or electronic fencing, it doesn’t appear that you are 

looking past 815 miles. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Congressman. Let me address the questions in order. In the terms of REAL ID, as I think 

the committee recognizes, Governors across the country, both parties, all thought REAL ID was an unfunded mandate from the Congress. I actually signed a bill in Arizona opting Arizona out of 

REAL ID because there was no money associated with it and the 

way that the regs were coming down, it was going to be a very big 

burden. That was almost the strongest bipartisan vote amongst the 

Nation’s Governors that I saw in my time as Governor. 

So when I came here, I said, look, we need to get to what the 

9/11 Commission was getting at, which was a more secure driver’s 

license. All right? So we have been working a team of Governors 

at the NGA level on a bipartisan fashion to craft a substitute for 

REAL ID. There is a proposal now, I believe either it has been or 

will be introduced in the Senate, I think it will have bipartisan 

sponsorship, that the Governors will accept and will be able to implement. 
27 

So it is not just a matter of repealing REAL ID, which nobody 

was going to do; it is a matter of giving the Governors of the country a bill that they can actually implement given the way motor vehicle departments work and the like. So that is where we are with 

that. 

With respect to SBInet, we have just a week or 2 ago approved 

the latest iteration of it. As you know, when it was getting up and 

started it took a while. It was a lot more complicated than people, 

I think, can see. But that first operational part will go down. It is 

about 28 miles or so in Southern Arizona, in the Tucson sector. The 

next sector is on the way. The reason the budget is the way it is, 

is because there are unspent moneys. But there is a spend plan for 

SBInet. It is an integral part of our plans going forward, because 

I believe that a border has to be secured, you have to have operational control over it. It requires manpower and technology, particularly technology between the ports of entry. 

With respect to fencing, you are correct, we did not ask for fencing per se in large miles across the border, but I can anticipate 

there will be projects along the border that will incorporate some 

fencing as part of the tactical infrastructure. 

Mr. SOUDER. So do you see extending past 815 miles? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. On a project basis, yes. But I would not 

say we intend to build a fence from San Diego to Brownsville. 

Mr. SOUDER. I meant, electronic or other? Are you saying you get 

to 850 this year? I mean, we are talking about a 3,000-mile border. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. There is going to be a combination of 

manpower, technology, and infrastructure, and our goal obviously 

is to have a system border-wide, but not just to have a physical 

fence border-wide. 

Chairman THOMPSON. The gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes, 

Mr. Cuellar. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, it is a pleasure seeing you again. One of the 

most important powers that we as Members of the legislature have 

is legislative oversight. There is always a tension between the Executive branch and the legislative body in this area. Most of the 

Secretaries that we have had through the Governors, attorney generals, judges, and that type of experience, I can understand that 

there is always a tension. But when we do ask for information, 

there might be an issue as to when we get it, but we do expect to 

get that information. 

One of the things that we asked, and, Mr. Chairman, you recall 

the former Secretary, we asked him to give us a best estimate as 

to how many Customs Border Protection folks they would need on 

the ports of entry and the infrastructure. I think we waited about 

14 months and we never got it. 

Recently, we made a request to your office also, to your Department, and we are hoping we can try to get that information. The 

reason we want that is because we want to see how we can help 

you. It is not a gotcha type of situation, but we are trying to say, 

how many people do you need? You know, men and women in blue. 

So we can try to fund that as much as possible. 

We need the infrastructure needs both in north and southbound 

so we can reduce the wait time and move traffic, and especially 
28 

since 80 percent of all the trade coming in through the United 

States is through land ports, I think we need to do a lot more in 

that area. 

So do you have a general idea of when we could get that information from you? This is something that both the Chairman and I requested of the former Secretary and we could not get that information. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I don’t know where the actual request is, 

but our goal has been to be as communicative and as cooperative 

as we humanly can with the committee. So we will—I will find that 

request and see what we can do and how quickly we can do it. 

Mr. CUELLAR. The request is very simple. What proper staffing 

do you need? What would be the number of personnel you need to 

staff properly your ports of entry, the men and women in blue? 

One. Then, what are your infrastructure needs, you need for north 

and southbound? Very simple on that. 

Mr. Chairman, you recall we kept asking the other Secretary, 

and we couldn’t get that information. It was not to try to catch 

somebody. We are trying to say, what are your needs so we can try 

to work to get you the proper funding on that? 

The other thing is, I am very interested in performance measures, the efficiencies. I understand that you are doing some of that. 

That part is important, because if you have contractors, we would 

like to see the performance measures because a lot of times what 

agencies do is they have certain performance measures for the 

agencies but when they contract out those performance measures 

drop out. So we would like to see the performance measures, even 

on the contractors as you reduce them, and the efficiencies on some 

of the things that are done. 

For example, why is it that, as an example, in Laredo when property is seized and they are going through the administrative process, they used to store that property in a Laredo warehouse. It 

doesn’t matter where in Laredo. But now, under the contract that 

they have everything is shipped all the way to California. It is good 

for the California folks to have that, but the efficiency is, why do 

we—why do people have to pay all those transportation costs to 

send something all the way up to California instead of keeping it 

in a local place, whether it is in Brownsville or somewhere else? 

I would like to get an answer if that contract is still in place or 

if you all plan on making some changes on the efficiencies on something like that. Efficiencies, like can we use more civilians to do 

support services instead of having Customs and Border Protection? 

I would rather have them out there on the lines trying to move 

traffic faster, instead of behind some computer or typewriter to do 

some of that support services. We did that in Texas with the DPS, 

and we got more people out, what we call more boots out in the 

field instead of having them do the support services, and we hired 

more of those civilians. So I would like to see if we can follow up 

on that. 

Finally, the last thing is on the FEMA grants, what efforts are 

you all doing to streamline the process? I know there is some question as to the cuts, but the streamlined process, paperwork reduction, how fast can we get it out in the areas? What do you do? How 

do you handle those small rural areas? Like the New Yorks or the 
29 

Houstons or the Laredos can handle the paperwork, but the small 

rural voluntary areas, they have a hard time trying to fill those 

out. But the streamlining and simplifications of that would go a 

long way on those FEMA grants. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, we 

are—— 

Chairman THOMPSON. Excuse me a minute, Madam Secretary. 

I am trying to listen to the Secretary. If the Members could be 

a little quieter, we could hear. 

Go ahead. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. With respect to streamlining FEMA, you 

are talking about public assistance grants, individual assistance 

grants in the wake of a natural disaster. Yes. We have been working with communities, and even in my short tenure as Secretary 

have been able to work with relatively small communities to help 

them with that process. We are always looking for ways to make 

it simpler and to streamline it. You are absolutely correct. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Madam Secretary, there were some other 

questions that the gentleman from Texas raised, and I am sure he 

will want to get them responded to. If the gentleman is still of the 

mind to get all the questions answered. 

Mr. CUELLAR. I would love to get—I think you are responding to 

the last one that we had on the efficiency issues. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. With respect to efficiency measures for 

contractors, yes, as I indicated to the Chairman, I think the Department now is at a stage where we really need to thoroughly review contractors versus full-time employees moving forward as a 

Department. Obviously, part of that is what is the best and most 

effective way to spend the security dollars that we do get? So those 

performance measures are going to have to be, and are, going to 

have to be an integral part of that evaluation. 

Then with respect to the first question, I think I already indicated that I am going to go back and see the request and see when 

we can get you a response. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Could you give that response to that two parts of 

the questions? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. How many CBP officers and—— 

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, if you could 

address it to him and copy to me. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would be happy to do that. 

Chairman THOMPSON. We will now recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. McCaul, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I thank the Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, welcome again. I want to commend you for 

your focus on the Southwest border, the resources you are putting 

down there. I was in El Paso 2 weeks ago, and saw the BEST 

teams in action, which we are doing a pretty good job I think 

screening incoming traffic now. I think one of the flaws has been 

tracking out-going cargo, currency, weapons going into Mexico. It 

is really the Mexican responsibility, and they have not stepped up 

to the plate. But I think these BEST teams are working effectively 

with the dogs. I would like to see more infrastructure, quite frankly, and resources put into that, because right now they are oper-
30 

ating more on gut instinct, I think, anything else. The dogs are effective. 

Perhaps a Merida ́ Initiative could provide some funding to Mexico so they could properly screen incoming traffic. But that is just, 

those are my thoughts. 

I wanted to hit one issue specifically with you, and that is the 

State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. This provides assistance 

to the States for incarceration of criminal aliens. It has, in my 

view, been a very successful program. I know when you testified 

last February before the Senate Finance Committee, you stated 

that the Federal Government must at a minimum live up to its financial obligations to compensate for the cost of these failures 

borne by the States, and you referred to this program as an underfunded program and that the Federal Government needs to pay its 

bills. 

This President’s budget eliminates the SCAAP program, and I 

just wanted to get your view. You seemed very supportive of it as 

a Governor. What is your view on the President now eliminating 

this support program? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, yes, in fact when I was 

Governor I think I sent the attorney general of the United States 

an invoice for an unpaid SCAAP bill. States were getting I think 

about 10 cents to the dollar. This is a program that reimburses 

States for the cost of incarceration of illegals. 

As you know, that is part of the Department of Justice budget. 

At the Department of Homeland Security level, I think what I am 

trying to do is to reduce the number of illegals that come into those 

border States. That is the way to reduce the costs on the States, 

not just incarceration, but a whole host of other related issues. So 

with that, I am sure the administration would be happy at the 

DOJ level to discuss SCAAP and how it was not budgeted with 

you. But I think at this point in my role, my emphasis has to be 

on reducing the number of illegals, period. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I agree with that part. I do think elimination of 

this important program, though, is a mistake. I think you are going 

to see in the appropriations process or through maybe amendments 

on the floor this program being restored, as it was last Congress. 

Also, the Stonegarden program is very important to me in terms 

of the resources provided to State and locals, border sheriffs. The 

National Association of Border Sheriffs came out with a figure of 

about $500 million was the number that they believe they needed 

to properly secure the border. I think they play an important part. 

As you said, the State and locals are the eyes and ears. Sixty million dollars are in the budget, which is a good start. Congressman 

Cuellar and I introduced a bill to fully fund this, in our view, at 

the $500 million level, and I hope you will give that some consideration. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Congressman. We have started a biweekly conference call with border sheriffs and police chiefs, so we 

hear directly from them, particularly as we are in this effort. We 

want to sustain this effort at the southwest border. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I commend you on your choice of Mr. Bersin for the 

Border Czar. He briefed us personally. He is a former U.S. Attorney like yourself. He gets it. I have talked to him about this par-
31 

ticular program and the $500 million. I think he is very—he 

seemed at least to be very supportive of the idea of doing that. 

Last, if you could just give us an update on Guantanamo. I went 

down there with other Members, and the top 16 al Qaeda leaders 

are there. There is grave concern from our constituents about these 

people coming into the United States at some point. I know you are 

on the task force. If you could give the committee an update on 

that, I would appreciate it. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Congressman. 

The Department of Homeland Security is on the task force, as 

chaired by the Attorney General. It is looking inmate by inmate at 

Gitmo in terms of what disposition should be made. If any are ultimately decided to come to the United States, that they are paroled 

in under ICE, for example, my No. 1 concern and No. 1 function 

I think is to make sure that it is in such a fashion that Americans 

can be confident that they will not be endangered by that. So we 

are looking at what kind of restrictions would need to be associated 

with any sort of movement. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you. I see my time has expired. 

Chairman THOMPSON. I would now recognize the gentlelady 

from—we will give the gentleman from California—we will get to 

you next. The gentlelady from Arizona, Ms. Kirkpatrick. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, as you know very well, we in Arizona are very 

concerned about smuggling across the border along with the potential for the type of violence we have witnessed in Mexico. I have 

been calling for Congress to authorize $100 million to prevent the 

southbound trafficking of cash and guns, and last month I introduced a bill along with Chairman Thompson which could do just 

that. Therefore, I am really glad to see your budget proposal calls 

for almost exactly the funding I requested to improve CBP and ICE 

southbound interdiction operations. 

When do you expect to have all of the additional CBP officers, 

Border Patrol agents, ICE agents, and license plate readers fully 

in place to prevent southbound trafficking? Do you have a time line 

for that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, yes, virtually all of those 

resources have moved already down to the southwest border as 

part of our effort to assist the Government of Mexico in halting the 

flow of—the fuel for the cartels into the country. In addition, this 

refers back to Representative McCaul’s point, we are working with 

the Government of Mexico and the Minister of Interior, Gomez 

Mont, to set up a system whereby they actually do some southbound inspections themselves. We have some exchange in terms of 

rotation and all the like so the cartels don’t know who is working 

which area at any given time. That planning is underway as well. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Madam Secretary. As you also 

note, we have just started the wildfire season in the West, and we 

have seen the devastating effects of a wildfire in California. I just 

got word this morning that there is a wildfire near Highway 60 in 

my district. So I am very happy to see the funding for the SAFER 

grants. 
32 

My question is: With the new funding, are you looking to have 

a cap on this grant increased? If so, do you have any thoughts as 

to what would be an appropriate level? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would have to get back to you on that, 

Representative. I don’t know the answer. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I 

yield back my time. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. Let me apologize to the gentleman from California. Staff had omitted your name on the list for 

Members present. So we now recognize the gentlemen from California for 5 minutes, Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. I have lost 10 

pounds. I know it is more difficult to see me now, so I appreciate 

that. 

Madam Secretary, first of all let me reiterate what the gentleman from Texas said. Allen Berson is an excellent choice. I 

worked with him when he was in San Diego. He works with both 

sides of the aisle and he has a very good understanding of the border. Thank you for making that selection. 

Second, thank you very much for your commitment in this budget and in the meetings that I have had with representatives of your 

office and the White House on cyber security. That is an unmet 

need in this country. You are recognizing that in part by the budget that you have presented, and I appreciate that. 

One of the areas I hope to talk with you at some other time, both 

you and the Department of Defense and others, is EMP, electromagnetic pulse, whether we are taking that seriously; whether that 

is just the old Cold War concern; or whether, in view of the fact 

that we have rogue nations now that have lifting power with new 

missiles so you don’t have to have an accurate missile to have the 

impact of EMP, what that means for our protection of our infrastructure. Are we even preparing for that, and is that part of your 

concern? 

I would reiterate my concern about the SCAAP program. When 

I was attorney general, I worked hard for it. When you were attorney general, you worked hard for it. When you were Governor, you 

worked hard for it. I doubt the facts have changed. I doubt your 

opinion has changed. I understand you are part of a team now, but 

hopefully you can voice the concerns the rest of us have. 

We are building airports where nobody flies. We are building 

bridges to nowhere. I mean, stuff that you can’t give a justification 

for the Federal Government, but you know and I know the primary 

responsibility for immigration and for border control is the Federal 

Government. When they don’t do the job—and those of us in the 

States have a considerable number of illegal aliens who committed 

felonies—it is a legitimate request for the States to have the Federal Government assist in that. Yet we zero that out in the President’s budget. 

So I am not going to put you on the spot, because I know where 

you have been and no facts have changed. So I doubt you have 

changed your opinion. Maybe they will listen to you a little bit 

more on that. 

Let me focus on Gitmo, though. As an attorney who has clerked 

on the Ninth Circuit, been a U.S. attorney, attorney general, you 
33 

understand that when we bring people to the United States to put 

on American property, American soil, that connection gives rise to 

constitutional protections they might not otherwise have anywhere 

else. So if we close Guantanamo, we bring them here, all of the 

sudden they have an assortment of rights, which may mean, according to Federal judges, they are released, they are released into 

our communities. 

Now, you have said today you are concerned about that and you 

want to make sure that we protect Americans. We have members 

of the Cabinet who have said in other positions, Secretary Salazar 

and Secretary Sebelius, that they don’t want folks in their States. 

I don’t know what your position is about whether Arizona ought to 

be willing to take them, but a whole lot of people aren’t running 

to take these folks. 

What I would like to know with some particularity is what do 

you mean when you say it is your concern that we protect the 

American people? Because if you have people who are terrorists 

and holding them overseas, you don’t necessarily have the basis 

upon which to bring them to trial, because the purpose of detaining 

terrorists on the battlefield is to stop them from carrying out their 

function. You may not be able to prove a completed crime. But yet 

if we bring them to American soil, they may have the right to be 

released under our Federal laws and our Constitution. So I am in 

a quandary to find out what you mean by how we would protect 

the American people if we bring people who are suspected terrorists, because of decisions by Federal courts, because they have been 

brought to the United States, that they are allowed out in the community, how do we protect—what does that mean? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Representative. First of all, I 

think the President has been very clear; we need to close Gitmo, 

which itself has become a recruiting tool for terrorists. How we do 

that has been the subject of the review chaired by the attorney 

general that the Department of Homeland Security sits on. 

My statement was well, what is Homeland Security’s function 

there? Our function there is to provide information and assistance 

as to what sorts of protections would be needed on the homeland 

side if an inmate were ultimately released to the homeland. Those 

decisions have not yet been made. They are reviewing each case 

independently. Obviously there are other places and other facilities 

and other ways to deal with some of the—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. I understand. What I would like to know, can you 

give me some idea what those other ways or other ideas are, because frankly we are left now with talking with our constituents 

saying the administration has taken the position—and if I were in 

court I could debate with you whether Gitmo has been a positive 

or a negative. But the fact of the matter is the President has made 

a decision. We have been telling now the American people we are 

going to close Guantanamo. I don’t see any money in the budget 

to do that but that is another thing. That is going to force people 

here in the United States—Federal judges may very well release 

them, as you have suggested. That could happen. 

But what are the options? What kinds of things are you looking 

at in your Department to assist us in protecting the American people so we can tell our constituents what we are going to do? 
34 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, I think right now we are 

treading into an area that I don’t believe I am able to talk about 

in a public setting. This is a process that is underway at the highest levels within the White House and other departments. But as 

decisions are made, the President is committed to transparency, 

and there will be explanations about what is happening and why. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pascrell, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Secretary, I appreciate fully the difficult 

job you have of creating a budget that meets the needs of this Nation and all the various areas which you are in charge of during 

a tough economic period in our history. I understand that. Believe 

me, I do. 

I have concluded, though, that looking at what you proposed to 

us and the Nation, the last administration made the mistake of not 

understanding that real homeland security starts from the ground 

up, on our local streets, in our intelligence apparatus, and not here 

in Washington. I sincerely hope this administration doesn’t make 

the same mistake. 

I have to say I am greatly dismayed, to say the least, to see the 

dramatic cuts to a couple of grant programs that are vital to our 

local and State first responders who we keep on patting on the 

back, and yet this budget I believe does not reflect what our rhetoric has been. Under this budget proposal, the successful FIRE 

grant program is cut by 70 percent from last year. We simply can’t 

hire thousands of new firefighters to departments, knowing what 

the regulations are under the SAFER bill—which I was cosponsor 

of as well—because they are not going to have the equipment, the 

training. We did not pass the FIRE Act after 9/11. We passed the 

FIRE Act before 9/11. 

We do, as the gentleman from New York stated very specifically, have $3 billion in requests every year. The former administration 

tried to zero this program out. It has been a successful program in 

red districts, pink districts, blue districts, you name it, all across 

America. We had those needs about equipment and training and 

the wellness of our firefighters, be they career or voluntary, long 

before 9/11. They were a neglected part of the public safety equation. They have always been neglected. In fact, there was a debate 

as to whether we have any responsibility at all with regard. But 

towns and municipalities were not meeting their obligations, they 

couldn’t afford to. 

So here is a program. Listen to the ingredients. It is competitive. 

It deals with needs. It is peer-supervised. Wow, that is something 

very unique. There is oversight. It is fair. The money goes directly 

to the local communities, the States can’t cream it off, take it off 

the top. That is different, isn’t it? It doesn’t go through the State. 

It is results-oriented. 

So firefighters and police officers who are dear to my heart, they 

are the first to respond at a national catastrophe or a man-made 

disaster, they are the first that will be there. 

The budget also only provides $50 million for the Interoperable 

Emergency Communications grant program. That is an 85 percent 

decrease in funds. Now, when you are saying by the way, that the 

money is in the recovery plan, let me inform you, Madam Sec-
35 

retary, that there are $210 million in that recovery plan that all 

went to construction of firehouses. It had nothing to do with basically the FIRE Act. Nothing to do with equipment, nothing to do 

with training, nothing to do with apparatus. 

I voted for the Recovery Act. I hope I know what is in there. Mr. 

Reichert and I worked very hard as Chairman and Ranking Member of the subcommittee in the 109th Congress to create the great 

grant program, because the lack of interoperable equipment was 

one of the clearest failures of 9/11 and still is. Still is. 

So the last time you were before this committee, Madam Secretary, there was no bigger supporter of local and State grant programs than you. I want to stress I understand, and I would like 

you to respond to both of these questions, if I may, Mr. Chairman, 

through the Chair and through the Ranking Member. I would like 

you to respond to that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I was talking with staff just a minute 

ago, so I apologize, but I am confused on your statement about the 

interoperability, $50 million. It is my understanding that is levelfunded in the fiscal year 2010 budget. 

Mr. PASCRELL. There is a decrease in the IECGP part of the 

Homeland Security budget. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No, sir. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Then we are looking at the budget incorrectly. I 

will gladly go back and stand corrected. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It says I have, going back to fiscal year 

2008, $50 million. Fiscal year 2009, $50 million. Fiscal year 2010 

request, $50 million. 

Mr. PASCRELL. We will talk about that privately. Would you go— 

we will talk about that. I have different numbers than you have. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. As I explained earlier on the FIRE grant, 

I couldn’t agree more about FIRE and the importance of first responders in the whole context of homeland security. The FIRE 

grants historically have been heavily funded, as you noted, the 

money for FIRE. 

Mr. PASCRELL. I didn’t hear what you just said. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Have been heavily funded historically. 

Mr. PASCRELL. They haven’t been heavily funded. If we have $3 

billion of requests every year, and we have between $500 and $700 

million, they are not heavily funded as far as I am concerned. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. What I am trying to suggest, sir, is that 

in the past, there has been an appropriation there. Part of that appropriation if we want to look an fiscal year 2010 as a continuation, 

was assumed in the Stimulus Act. As you correctly note, the Stimulus Act was for construction of fire stations. I do not know whether local fire departments, then, are moving some of their capital 

budget there and moving their money around, but they are getting 

additional moneys there. Our information was, in meeting with 

first responders, was in this time of limited economic resources, 

they were concerned about personnel and they wanted more money 

for the personnel side of the budgets, and that is what the fiscal 

year 2010 request was. We look forward to working with you on 

this. 
36 

Chairman THOMPSON. Time has expired, and I am sure the gentleman will have other questions that the Secretary can answer. I 

will now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a few questions, 

Madam Secretary, with respect to chemical plant security. But I 

did want to follow up on a couple of things that had been said. 

First, Ranking Member King mentioned in his opening remarks 

about the right-wing extremism report, and I would be remiss if I 

didn’t take this opportunity to express my disappointment in the 

now infamous report which indicated returning veterans might be 

more susceptible to radicalization. To your credit, you have openly 

admitted that the report did not go through as robust a review 

process as you had hoped. Could you tell us where the wheels came 

off the wagon, so to speak, and what you are doing to keep this 

from happening again? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. The wheels came off the wagon, first 

of all, because the vetting process that existed within the Department was followed or resolved. Second, the report was distributed 

and it was not authorized to be distributed. Third, it was distributed more broadly, even if there had been an authorization, than 

it should have been. The report—that particular section was meant 

to say not that veterans are more susceptible to become radicalized, 

but they are certainly targets of recruitment. That is well-known 

and there are many publications that say that. 

Nonetheless, the way it was written or perceived was offensive, 

and I apologize for that. I apologize again. Internally what we have 

done now is to put a process in place to make sure that products 

of the Department are properly vetted and supervised before they 

can be authorized to be distributed at all. 

Let me say, Representative, my view is that where our Department needs to focus is not on the kind of intel and analysis that 

circulates around Washington, DC, but things that are useful for 

State and local law enforcement on the ground. Too much, I think, 

of what we produce is kind of Washington, DC-speak as opposed 

to something that really works for State and local. So one of the 

things I hope to accomplish as Secretary is to kind of review, 

rethink that whole intel support that we are supposed to be providing for security. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you. Also to follow up on Mr. Lungren’s question regarding the particularities of the Gitmo closing and relocation of prisoners, you indicated that you cannot talk about such 

specifics in a public setting. Would you be willing to hold a classified briefing for Members of this committee on the details of 

Gitmo? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Sir, we will work with your staff on that 

and on the timing of that. I simply do not know. It may be the 

White House itself would like to do the briefing, but we would follow up. 

Mr. DENT. Many Members would like to be briefed on that. 

Thank you. I also just wanted to mention too—I wanted to first at 

the outset commend the Department for a job well done with its 

current regulations with respect to chemical plant security. The 

regulations, as you know, the industry doesn’t love them, the environmentalists don’t like them either, which means you are probably 
37 

onto something here. So the Department’s authorization for regulating chemical facilities expired in October of this year. 

The Department has asked in its budget submission to Congress 

for a 1-year extension of this regulatory authority. The committee 

is currently engaged in negotiations on possible chemical security 

legislation that would address this extension. But the legislation 

would do more than extend the current regulation. Some in Congress are considering including provisions that would require the 

Department to assess chemical facility processes at tens of thousands of chemical plants and identify what inherently safer technologies or processes might be appropriate in each situation. 

What are your thoughts on Congress requiring the Department 

to determine which processes and chemicals facilities should utilize? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We would be happy to work with you on 

that. In part, we are sort of doing that now as we implement the 

CFATs rules and regs. So there may be a very useful overlap now. 

Mr. DENT. Because there are some concerns of secondary effects 

of some requirements that might come out of the Committee on 

Commerce overall. Then we get into this issue of inherently safer 

technologies and processes. These are engineering practices. I noticed in the President’s budget request, it included an additional 

$19 million for the Office of Infrastructure Protection to increase 

chemical facility security. Has the Department examined how 

much it would cost to bring unnecessary expertise to review thousands of these IST assessments and make determinations as to 

their feasibility? I think this is very expensive and it requires a 

great deal of expertise. I am just concerned the Department would 

not have that level of expertise when you have $19 million in the 

budget. Can you address that, by chance? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, sir. We do have kind of a spend plan 

associated with what it will take to implement the CFATs regulations and the budget is reflective of that. We would be happy to 

provide you with more detail. 

Mr. DENT. If they could, too, is any of the $19 million designed 

to bring any IST specialists on to your staff? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We will follow up with you on that, absolutely. 

Mr. DENT. I see my time has expired. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

Madam Secretary, to cure Mr. Pascrell’s issue, there is $400 million authorized in that account, which only $50 million has been 

requested each year. So that was the discrepancy in the numbers 

that he had reference to. 

We now will hear from the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. 

Cleaver, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. I am not sure 

whether or not this hearing is being televised on C–Span or not. 

But in the event it is, I think it is extremely important for me and, 

frankly, for all of us to hear you respond to something based on a 

question that—or a statement made earlier. 

I represent Kansas City, Missouri. Kansas City is 19 miles from 

Fort Leavenworth, which is in another State, the city limit is 
38 

right—just 19 miles away. I don’t want anyone to believe, unless 

you say differently, that even if those prisoners were found to be 

illegally imprisoned, that they will be taken down to Main Street 

in Kansas City, Missouri, or any other city, and released. Is it not 

true that a person who was illegally in this country and arrested, 

whether they were found guilty or not, would be deported? Am I 

correct? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Sir, let me just say, this is a hearing on 

the fiscal year 2010 budget request. I just don’t think I can speak 

to the Gitmo issues in a public setting like this. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I understand. I don’t want you to speak to it, and 

I don’t want to come to a secret meeting. I fear that we will be 

making statements in a public statement that causes people in the 

public to believe these people may be turned loose on our streets. 

What I know, a nonlawyer, that is not true. I just had the need 

to say that I don’t want to talk about any other details. I am concerned about sending out bad information. I am 100 percent correct, as a nonlawyer, that I am correct. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would just prefer not to comment at 

this time. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. I editorialized. My concern is about the 

E-Verify program, which I am assuming is under ICE, budgeted 

under ICE, is it? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I believe so, yes. There is $112 million requested for E-Verify. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Early on, I guess in 1997 when the program first 

started, there were questions about its accuracy and so forth. It is 

my understanding that most, if not all, of those problems have 

been corrected. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, sir. Let me just say as Governor of 

Arizona I signed probably the Nation’s toughest employer sanctions 

law, which basically gave an incentive to employers to use EVerify. We used it extensively through State government and it 

gets better and better all the time. It is a very easy system to use. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Is it possible for someone on your staff who can 

run—at least me—there may be other Members who would like to 

become familiar with it so that we can better answer questions 

back in our district. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Absolutely. We would be happy to give 

you a demonstration. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I would appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your presence. I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. For the committee, 

we will take one other Member, Mr. Bilirakis, for 5 minutes. We 

will recess. We have three votes. Reconvene shortly after the third 

vote. The Secretary is scheduled to be with us until 12:30, so we 

will go until 12:30. 

Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it very 

much. Welcome, Secretary. I believe we should do everything in our 

power to ensure that employers are not hiring illegal aliens, especially when it comes to Homeland Security contracts and, again, on 

E-Verify. I received a letter from the assistant secretary of Legislative Affairs on April 17 regarding the use of stimulus funds by the 
39 

Department, which says DHS gives preference to prospective contractors based on the extent to which they use E-Verify. 

I have several questions, a couple of questions anyhow on this. 

Does this mean that the Department refrains from awarding contracts to employers that do not use E-Verify, or just prioritizes contracts for those that do? Do you believe that the use of E-Verify 

should be mandatory for Government contractors and subcontractors doing business with DHS? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, I believe E-Verify needs 

to be an integral part of our immigration law enforcement moving 

forward. The system needs to be easy to use. It needs to be efficient 

for prospective employers and employees, because we don’t want 

people unfairly denied work because of E-Verify. But I believe that 

we will be increasing E-Verify’s capacity, capability. I believe that 

the White House is now considering the rule about all contractors 

for the Federal Government. With respect to Department of Homeland Security, I do not know of contracts that do not provide for 

the use of E-Verify. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Why is there a delay by the administration? Can 

you answer that question? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think the concern was whether the capacity of the E-Verify system was big enough to handle a universal 

rule on all contractors, or whether actually that requirement would 

delay stimulus money getting out into the economy and jobs being 

created. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Can you estimate as to when the program will be 

implemented? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I believe the next deadline is in June; we 

will get back to you on that. But in the White House they are looking at the capacity of all agencies to implement. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Will the gentleman yield back? Thank you. 

Well, the next person is Mr. Green, if you promise not to take but 

2 minutes. The gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for appearing. I want to congratulate you and I want to say 

to you that I will also pray for you. I trust that things will go well. 

You have a great history. You are a real patriot, and the country 

is blessed to have you and we look forward to working with you. 

I will go to page 19 of what I believe has been distributed as the 

proposed budget. On that page, under Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing, there is an indication that we have 

$216 million for this. That is a 37 percent increase, and the indication is that 53—excuse me, I will shut this down. We have $53.3 

million, which is the increase that we will have for this area. I 

want to just read the last sentence, which is what I agree with. 

‘‘Given the past problems associated with the TWIC program, it 

is highly recommended that TSA use these funds to improve the 

efficiency and timeliness of the program.’’ I just want you to know 

I agree completely with that sentence because a TWIC card has 

been the subject of some discussion at the committee level. 

With that, I will yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 
40 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. The committee stands in recess for three votes and we will reconvene shortly. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman THOMPSON. We would like to reconvene the hearing on 

the DHS budget. We will now recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Harman, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam 

Secretary, for really excellent and helpful testimony this morning, 

substantive answers to questions, and for your visit last month to 

the Los Angeles area where several of us went with you to see 

LAX, the top terror airport target in the country, and the ports of 

that Los Angeles and Long Beach which is where 50 percent of our 

vulnerable container traffic moves, and then the JRIC, the Joint 

Regional Intelligence Center, which is the Los Angeles fusion center and gets pretty high marks as these things are reviewed. 

I know you took a lot of the information to heart and I see a lot 

of it reflected in your budget. I want to ask you about three areas, 

but I want to make one comment on Gitmo which has come up in 

several questions. I know you are not going to respond. This is just 

a comment by me. 

In today’s news, it says that the six Miami men charged with 

conspiring with al Qaeda have—five of those men have been convicted in a U.S. Federal court. 

I just want to observe that we have a pretty good record in this 

country in recent years of convicting people charged with the crime 

of terrorism, and some are U.S. nationals and some are foreign nationals. I have every confidence that we are able to do this well in 

U.S. Federal courts and in U.S. military courts. That is just a 

statement. 

Moving along to three areas that I want to ask you about: One, 

the intelligence and analysis budget is mostly classified. It is not 

here. What is unclassified is in the budget we are looking at; and 

I support, of course, the activities in the unclassified budget. But 

I would like to tell you again, Madam Secretary, how opposed I am 

to any money spent on the so-called National Applications Office, 

which is an office that would deploy military satellites over the 

United States for certain homeland security purposes. I think existing law is adequate. I don’t think we need a new office at the 

Homeland Department. I absolutely believe that the authorities designed by your predecessor were inadequate. I know you are reviewing this, but I thought you should hear one more time how 

strongly I feel about it. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, on that, we are reviewing 

NAO and we also are doing a privacy review related to NAO just 

for your information. 

Ms. HARMAN. Good. Well, I appreciate that. I think money would 

be better spent on priorities you have already identified. 

Let me just mention two other issues. One, in this budget, there 

are—there is no request of funds for the exit component of the US– 

VISIT program for fiscal year 2010. You may be planning to use 

a $30 million carryover account to complete two pilot projects, but 

when we were in LAX together—let me put both my questions out. 

When we were in LAX together, we noticed that the ingress portion 

of US–VISIT is fairly robust and we are working on it, but the 
41 

egress portion is zero. This is the largest destination airport, I believe, international destination airport in the country. So there is 

lots of opportunity for us to learn better where the people we have 

processed into the country are going, and whether they are overstaying visas and doing other things we might object to. So I want 

to ask you about funding the exit portion of US–VISIT. 

Second, you provide funds to send DHS representatives to every 

fusion center in the United States. There are 70 such centers. I 

think that is a great initiative. But we could not find any reference 

to privacy and civil liberties training, which is a component, I know 

we all agree, needs to be a central part of what personnel and fusion centers, whether they are DHS personnel or local personnel, 

do. 

The last thing which I do want to put on the table is small boats. 

They are a potential vulnerability at our major ports and our 

smaller ports. Again, we don’t see a specific initiative here, when 

at least it has occurred to me over some years, and to your predecessor, Michael Chertoff, that small boats and general aviation 

were very logical ways that bad things could be brought into our 

country. 

Secretary, answer these questions briefly. My time—I still have 

18 seconds. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I will be brief. On exit, yes. I am looking 

at the exit issue more holistically. We have got to have a way to 

know not only who came in but who has left, and to match those 

things up. So we are working on that. 

Small boats, there is active work being done Department-wide in 

the Federal Government on that. With respect to deployment to the 

fusion centers, yes, I have asked the people—we have brought—we 

have actual money in the civil rights and civil liberties part of the 

office. It is reflected in the request for the Administrative Office of 

the Secretary. A part of that is designed to allow us to do more 

training. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Smart 

women solving problems is exactly what we need, I think. Do you 

agree? 

Chairman THOMPSON. The gentlelady’s time has expired, but I 

agree. We will now recognize the gentleman from Georgia for 5 

minutes, Mr. Broun. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, thank 

you for coming today. I know that we are all concerned about the 

safety and security of this Nation. Madam Secretary, in your opening statement you talked about the threat of terrorism, securing 

our borders, and effective law enforcement. I couldn’t agree with 

you more. There are too many issues that I would like to bring up 

now, but we don’t have time. But I would like to address a few. 

First, I would like to associate myself with Mr. Lungren’s comments about the danger of releasing terrorists on American soil. 

Please don’t do that. The threat is very real, and I am looking forward to hearing an actual plan for what the President intends to 

do with the terrorists that are being detained in Guantanamo. 

Second, I would like to talk about oversight. Congress, and this 

committee in particular, has responsibility to oversee your Department. We would like to be as helpful and effective as possible. 
42 

However, Members of this committee have waited far too long for 

the inspector general, where millions, even billions of dollars are at 

stake, and that is completely unacceptable. I would like to ask you 

if the increasing funding requested for the IG is going to be sufficient and if Members on this committee can expect more timely responses to their request? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, I believe firmly in the 

rule of an inspector general, particularly with a Department like 

ours that is still being built—it is like a plane that we are building 

while we are flying it. That is why we requested additional funds 

there. We have a lot of oversight in our committee—in our Department. In fact, one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 

was for Congress to reorganize itself to streamline the oversight so 

that we were not consistently responding to myriad requests. 

I want to be with this committee, which I believe is our central 

authorizing committee in the House of Representatives, as open 

and responsive and as timely as we can humanly be. We have 

asked for additional resources to assist us with that. 

Mr. BROUN. I hope that is so. There have been multiple requests 

made that have not been timely, and please see, if you can, see 

that they are. While I recognize the importance of staffing increases on the southwest border, I think it is important that our 

efforts on the border do not in any way detract from ICE’s interior 

enforcement mission in other regions, such as mine in Georgia. 

Unfortunately, it appears that in the fiscal year 2010 budget, it 

fails to request any additional ICE investigators in other areas. 

That, combined with new guidelines to focus all work-site enforcement on the employers, will significantly weaken ICE’s ability to 

conduct enforcement operations. In my home State, the ICE personnel are overwhelmed by the different investigative missions and 

definitely need more staff. 

What is the rationale for requesting no additional ICE investigative resources outside the southwestern border? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. First of all, I am a strong ICE enforcement person. I think that is one of the reasons I was brought into 

this Department. I have been doing immigration prosecutions and 

supervising that sort of work for a number of years. So I don’t want 

to leave any impression of a false dichotomy that if you do the border, you can’t do the interior. You have to do it all, because you 

can’t have a system where the border is kind of like a gauntlet and 

if you get through it, you are free. 

We want interior enforcement as a system backing up all of the 

work that we are doing at the border. One area that you should 

look at is that one of the areas we have plussed-up on ICE, because 

I believe also in an effective and efficient law enforcement, and all 

enforcement of immigration doesn’t require an investigative agent 

per se. 

For example, on the work-site side, we are adding I–9 auditors. 

These are people that will actually go in and audit the immigration 

forms employers are required to have. They are lower paid, quite 

frankly, than agents. Their work, however, will help us direct 

which employers deserve or merit further attention by the higherpaid employees. So even as we look at work-site enforcement, we 
43 

are saying, okay, how do we staff it appropriately to get the best 

yield for the dollars that you are supplying? 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I have one final comment before my time runs out. During your testimony, you talked 

about securing the border, and I think it is absolutely critical for 

national security to do that. The message I am getting out of the 

administration is that is not going to be done. We see no funds to 

further the fencing and things like that, and I just hope that you 

as Secretary will be a very strong advocate for securing both borders and not to giving amnesty to the criminals here in this country already. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Sir, may I make a point about the fence, 

however. Just to be very clear, we are completing the fence that 

has already been appropriated. We are adding technology; the virtual fence now, the first big section is underway. We have now approved the technology, some of the glitches that occurred before 

have been corrected. So that will be underway. This budget does 

not prevent us from doing some more fencing as a part of a tactical 

infrastructure with technology and boots on the ground in other 

parts of the border. But I have never believed, and have testified 

before, that simply a fence from Texas or from Brownsville over to 

San Diego will by itself be effective. We have to have a system. 

Mr. BROUN. I agree with that, Madam Secretary. In fact I visited 

P–28 last year with this committee, and was impressed with the 

possibility of doing that. I understand some of the problems that 

are involved there, and I just hope that we push forward and get 

this done so that we secure our border. I think it is absolutely critical for national security. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary. My time has expired. Thank you. 

Chairman THOMPSON. We now recognize the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania for 5 minutes. Mr. Carney. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, 

thank you for showing up today. I have a couple of questions, but 

first I did want to kind of follow on the discussion you had with 

Mr. Dent about the extremist report. I would be remiss, also as a 

veteran, to say that I took offense at that personally. The one in 

three households in my district did as well. I really want to understand the process here on how that got out. You told Mr. Dent that 

you did not authorize that, the release of that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It was not authorized for release; that is 

correct. 

Mr. CARNEY. What happened? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Sir, it was a product that was being circulated in I&A. We know—first of all, let me be very clear. It is 

not the only report out there that says veterans are targeted for 

recruitment. It was an assessment, not an acquisition. We have 

and are working with veteran groups—— 

Mr. CARNEY. It didn’t say that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is right. That is why it shouldn’t 

have gone out. We apologized for it. The report is no longer available and we have put in place processes to make sure that does not 

recur. 

Mr. CARNEY. That didn’t answer how it got out in the first place. 
44 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It went out because an employee sent it 

without authorization. 

Mr. CARNEY. Is that employee still an employee? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Appropriate personnel action is being 

taken. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you. How many members of the Department 

of Homeland Security are actually veterans, do you know? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You have the Coast Guard which are active; it is over 25 percent, including the Department Secretary. 

Mr. CARNEY. Good. I wonder what their take on it was as well. 

I will change the topic here in a second. I just have to calm down 

a little bit. But it was—it really hit home hard to me and to our 

district and to a number of others, frankly. This is not a good start. 

When I go to town hall meetings and I hear people calling for 

your resignation, it is really a problem. We have got to address 

this; we really do. 

I know you apologized to the American Legion. That is a great 

first step. But there are a lot of other veteran groups out there. I 

don’t know if you have reached out to them as well. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We have. 

Mr. CARNEY. Okay. Good. It is just kind of a pall hanging over 

things. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, one of the things that we 

have talked with particularly the American Legion about is how we 

provide at the Department of Homeland Security opportunities for 

veterans who are returning for work, because they are a great employment source for us. They are well-trained, they want to serve 

their country, they have already demonstrated that by their military service. So sometimes, to use the cliche, you have to make 

lemonade out of a lemon. Now we are working with making sure 

that DHS is helping them with job fairs and opportunities of that 

sort so that we continue our linkage with the veterans community. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you. I had a question on UAVs and the border. What is the status of that program? Where are we? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. There are UAVs being used on the border. 

Mr. CARNEY. How many? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I can’t give you a number at any given 

time, but we are using them as part of our process of securing and 

having operational control there. 

Mr. CARNEY. If you could get a more detailed account from your 

staff, that would be great. Are you manned up enough? Do you 

have enough pilots? Do you have enough analysts on the ground to 

do the job? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We believe we do. We believe the budget 

request is adequate to fill those needs. 

Mr. CARNEY. Okay. No further questions. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would the gentleman yield for a minute? Let 

me apologize to the Chairman and to the—and I am just going to 

raise questions that I hope we will have a conversation. I am only 

asking to yield because I am in mark-up, and I will conclude quickly. 
45 

I thank you very much. Madam Secretary, I just want to get 

back with you on some issues dealing with TSA in terms of their 

expanded duties at airports. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Ms. Jackson Lee, it is a problem for you 

to come in and get in front of a lot of the other Members who have 

been here for 3 hours. So I am going to—— 

Mr. CARNEY. I will yield back to the Chair. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I will just say that I will ask the questions 

on the record. I didn’t mean to be a problem. I am just in markup. So thank you very much. 

Chairman THOMPSON. The gentleman from Louisiana for 5 minutes, Mr. Cao. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, 

Madam Secretary, I would like to thank you for the trip that we 

made together down to New Orleans. I thought it was quite productive. I would like to commend you on the changes that you 

made with respect to the local TRO office. They have been much 

more efficient and much more cooperative in bringing PW projects 

forward. 

My main concern now is with the appeal process. As you know, 

prior to Katrina, Charity Hospital was the main provider for indigent care. After Katrina, much of that care was took upon by local 

hospitals, and they incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in debt. 

Touro Hospital, for instance, was threatened with foreclosure but 

for its purchase by the State Childrens Hospital. FEMA has denied 

the State of Louisiana’s first appeal in regards to Charity Hospital. 

I believe the denial has dramatically delayed the recovery of the 

health-care system down there in the Second District and basically 

threatened the system with bankruptcy. 

The appeal process has continually—does not take into account 

the plight of the suffering poor down there in the district and the 

struggles of institutions down there in the Second District postKatrina. 

My question to you is, if you can tell us, what your team has 

done in Region VI that is different from what the Bush administration did in regards to PW appeals? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, we have done a lot to 

streamline and resolve the appeal process with respect to the 

issues in your district. As you know, there is also now arbitration 

language that Senator Landrieu got enacted. We are working with 

the White House on finalizing the actual process by which we will 

be able to arbitrate claims. 

My hope is that for the things we are unable to resolve—and we 

really are trying to resolve as many as we can now—we want to 

move the Katrina recovery forward as expeditiously as possible, but 

we have a responsibility as well. These are taxpayer dollars. We 

are not just given an unending pocket here to make sure they go 

to qualified projects that need to be compensated, and there are 

some legitimate differences of opinion. Those ultimately, I believe, 

will end up in arbitration. We want to facilitate that arbitration so 

that decisions are made and people know finally what to do. So we 

are working all hands on deck on that. 

Mr. CAO. You must also understand the frustration of our constituents down there in the district. It has been 4 years. 
46 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I have been in office about 100 days. 

That 4 years was not my watch. 

Mr. CAO. I fully understand that, and just want to again reflect 

the Chairman’s position on efficiency. What would be the timeline 

to have this arbitration panel instituted to address these issues? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We are working to have it done as soon 

as possible. 

Mr. CAO. What is that—would that imply weeks, months? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Sir, as soon as possible, but within the 

foreseeable future. I don’t want to give you a deadline because everybody has to review, okay, and there are lots of checks that have 

to be made. But it is moving expeditiously through the process. 

Mr. CAO. Okay. With respect to the appeal process itself, I know 

that the decisions are made by the FEMA officer—or FEMA agencies, and oftentimes some of those people who denied the original 

applications might be deciding the appeal process. Is there a system for a more efficient and objective determination in the appeal 

process? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, the appeal process is set—the technical appeal process is set by regulation. It has worked well in 

many areas and in many instances. But I think Katrina is so unusual in scope and the like that the arbitration add-on and augmentation is going to be very helpful not only to resolve things 

quickly, but to give people a sense that they really had their shot. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you very much. I yield the remainder of my 

time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. We now recognize 

the gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Titus, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here. I would like to tell you as a former State 

legislator I was very glad to see in this budget and hear your comments about the REAL ID program, because it was estimated in 

Nevada it would have cost us about $66 million to try to implement 

it, and we did see it as an unfunded mandate. So I appreciate the 

direction that is going. I wanted to ask you, though, about another 

program. That is the Model Ports of Entry program. McCarren Airport is one of about 20 airports that is part of this program. 

I have been talking to officials at McCarran, and they are concerned that some of the operations there are dramatically understaffed. In just 1 week alone, CBP actions resulted in the losses of 

about $120,000 just for one airline because they had to delay and 

cancel some flights. So I just wonder, I am sure this is the case 

probably for other airports and some of our airlines are kind of 

threatening not to fly to Las Vegas because it is such a problem, 

and we certainly can’t lose more tourists coming with the state of 

the economy. I just wondered if there is some oversight of this, if 

you are looking at it, if we can have some input about how we are 

involved in the decisions that are made in that program so we 

won’t have that kind of problem in the future. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Absolutely. If you have information that 

you know of at McCarran, if you would give it to us. But we are, 

yes, looking at that. The last thing we want to do is deter legitimate commercial and tourism traffic out of an effort out of a pilot. 

So, yes. 
47 

Ms. TITUS. If I could get that information to somebody and we 

could work on that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Exactly, yes. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Since we only have a few minutes, if we 

can limit to 2 minutes, we might can at least have a question or 

two from the rest of our Members. 

Mr. Olson from Texas. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will do my best to limit 

to 2 minutes. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for coming today, and what has become a theme between you and I and the two times you have testified here. I would like to talk about FEMA and recovery efforts 

from Ike. Ike is no longer headline news, but the recovery continues and in many places it is just beginning, the third most destructive hurricane to make landfall in the United States, and 

many of the communities affected by it desperately need help. Specifically if the reimbursement deadlines for debris removal and the 

emergency protective measures were extended 6 months, it would 

provide much-needed relief, particularly on the Bolivar Peninsula 

area. 

But, unfortunately, FEMA recently made the decision to deny extension requests for Ike recovery efforts, saying only that they reviewed the information and decided against it. I must point out 

again that communities affected by Katrina, which was an equally 

devastating hurricane, received numerous deadline extensions for 

both categories. However, with respect to debris removal, Texas received only one deadline extension. With respect to emergency protective measures, we didn’t receive an extension at all. 

Please don’t observe that this is some sort of complaint about 

Katrina, because that was a very devastating hurricane in that region, the most devastating one since Andrew in our history. Well, 

Galveston 1900 was the most devastating one. But the point is that 

Texas did not receive an extension at all. All we are asking for is 

fair and equal treatment. 

Could you give me an insight as to why these deadlines were not 

extended, and what we could do on a Federal level to ensure that 

southeast Texas gets the resources that they need so that they can 

return to a normal life? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, there are a number of 

reasons why. Part of it is the amount that had already I think been 

distributed to Texas for that hurricane. In other words, it went to 

the State for distribution out to the communities. 

I would be happy to supply you with a briefing on exactly what 

has gone out already and why those particular extensions were not 

granted. 

Mr. OLSON. I would greatly appreciate it. I thank the Secretary 

and yield back my time. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. The gentlelady 

from California. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I would like to play a little good cop here and 

use 30 of my seconds. I want to commend you for the work that 

you did with the H1N1 virus, and also make sure that although all 

Members may not have had the ability to have you in their district, 
48 

I have. We can all sit here and throw rocks and write in the sand, 

but I don’t think anyone, neither any of our constituents can ever 

say that they haven’t ever done something that they would have 

liked to have done something differently. We need to judge you on 

the work that you are doing, and the work that you are doing is 

excellent. I want to be on the record in saying that, and that is 

what we need to move forward. 

You have been from California, from Los Angeles to Long Beach 

to San Diego all over the place, and that is how I am judging and 

that is how my constituents are evaluating your work. So keep it 

up. It has been a pleasure having you as our Secretary for the 

short time that you have been there. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. The second thing I want to say is to bring to 

your attention that on April 29 we had a TWIC hearing and it 

didn’t go very well. I don’t know if you heard that. Some of the concerns were the lack of—the delay of the TWIC card readers. Just 

the insistence on looking at new technology and old delivery fashions and people coming in instead of looking in the future. Your 

representatives spoke about, oh, we are looking at this new technology because it can be hot and it is outside and raining. I proceeded to share with her that we can go to any airport, and you 

see the folks going in through the back, coming in through the terminal, swiping the card which is outside, rain, winter, sleet, et 

cetera. 

So on behalf of the Chairman and our subcommittee, I would just 

urge you to do a double back on what happened in that hearing 

and look at the questions that we brought forward, and your addressing it would be very helpful. 

Finally, since this is a budget hearing that we are having here, 

I will just read my two questions in for the record. One is that currently we have ships—and I discussed this with you. We have ships 

that the average ship is 5,600 to 6,000 TEUs. The larger ships are 

10,000, and the even larger ones now are 14,500. That means that 

a ship is actually larger than the Empire State Building. 

Currently, in our very large ports we are not prepared with the 

appropriate fireboats to put out a major disaster that could occur. 

So, if not in this year’s budget, in future budgets I would like to 

have a further discussion and consideration of maybe us looking at 

the top 10 to start or a project of the top five. But it is a disaster 

waiting to happen. Those cruise ships, dirty bombs, et cetera, it 

could be disastrous for us all. 

Finally, my second question was in the budget you have an increase for K–9s; however, it is, according to my folks, primarily focused on ferries. I have a tremendous amount of passenger rail, 

metro rail, again susceptible to all sorts of terror, and I would like 

to see it expanded to include more K–9s for rail as well. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We will work with you on that. Thank 

you very much. 

Chairman THOMPSON. I would now recognize the gentleman from 

New Mexico, Mr. Luja ́n, for 2 minutes. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
49 

Madam Secretary, it is great to see you again. I appreciate how 

accessible you have been to each of us as Members of Congress, but 

also to the committee on continuing to provide information to us. 

Madam Secretary, I would like to begin by first just emphasizing 

the fact of the importance of our firefighters and first responders 

as Mr. Pascrell did. No reason for me to get into those details, but 

to just make sure that we are reinforcing the thought that we do 

need to provide them the support and resources they need. We usually don’t appreciate them until we need them, as we do many of 

our men and women who serve our country in different capacities, 

and we need to continue to thank them every day. 

Madam Secretary, as I have done in the past visiting with you 

specifically about the national laboratories and our ability to engage with them, to utilize the technological capabilities that we 

have to be able to strengthen the tools and resources that you will 

need and all the personnel that you are responsible with providing 

them the tools and resources they need to do their jobs effectively. 

Recently, Madam Secretary, I was able to visit with you about taking advantage and moving forward with utilizing the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center, NISAC, out of New 

Mexico, and I appreciate the fact that we are taking advantage of 

their capabilities. 

In the area of cybersecurity, though, because of some of the modeling capabilities that NISAC can present I would encourage you 

to explore opportunities within the Department to see how we 

could take advantage of the capabilities in that regards, specifically 

with cyber attacks, that we could probably help provide some additional information and protection with. I am encouraged by the fact 

of what we have seen in the budget in these specific instances. 

I would just like to close, Mr. Chairman, Madam Secretary, with 

making sure that we are looking to see how some of the small businesses who have done a great job of developing technologies, moving forward with providing some of the support that we need to 

keep our ports safe, to keep roads safer, whether they are looking 

at cargo, whatever mechanism that they are utilizing to assist us 

in that way, that we are encouraging and we are making sure that 

they are providing an opportunity to be able to compete with some 

of those that may be larger and have more resources to keep them 

out of playing in this field and providing their expertise. So making 

sure, Mr. Chairman, that we are really looking to see how we could 

support both women and minority small businesses with the technological capabilities that they have been able to bring forward and 

help provide us with support with. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. 

I now yield to the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Clarke. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

It is good to see you again, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Ms. CLARKE. Earlier this session, the House unanimously passed 

H.R. 559, which is what we call the Fast Redress Act of 2009. This 

legislation will require the Department of Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive cleared list of all lawful citizens who are 

mistakenly labeled as terrorists and placed on the do-not-fly list or 
50 

the watchlist. The President’s budget acknowledges that this is a 

huge problem, and has requested $1.3 million and one full-time employee for the management of the DHS TRIP, Travel Redress Inquiry Program. 

How will the additional funding and staffing allocation improve 

the overall effectiveness of the program? How many employees are 

currently dedicated to the program? Additionally, does the President’s budget discuss the centralization of the DHS TRIP processing system? Can you please explain what this centralization entails, and how will it work with secure flight in the future? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The answer is yes. But I think, given the 

time constraints, what I would like to do is arrange for a briefing 

for you and we will work with you on the bill that is moving over 

to the Senate on this issue. 

The goal, obviously, is to remove people from the lists who don’t 

need to be there so that we can focus on those who do. 

Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman, just in closing, it has really become 

a very serious problem out there for many Americans who are traveling of Muslim descent, Asian, South Asian, Middle Eastern, Caribbean, Irish American, children. I mean, it is cutting across the 

board, and it is really, I think, a point where we should be modernizing the system so that we are not misidentifying so many people. 

They feel very threatened by the process and very stigmatized by 

it. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. I think there, Representative, one of 

the things, there are different lists, as you know, and different 

processes by which one’s name gets on a list. But where we are focused now not only is on who gets on it, but how quickly we can 

resolve removing someone who is mistakenly on a list. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

Madam Secretary, two items. One is Mr. Cao, who has had to 

leave, FEMA did change its appeal process last year because there 

were so many things happening in Louisiana. So there is an independent body that addresses that, and I think you will see some 

legislation really making that law going forward. 

The last question for me is there has been a lot of questions 

around FEMA asked today. The issue for this committee is whether 

or not it is your opinion or the administration’s opinion that FEMA 

should stay in DHS or should be taken out. What is your position? 

What is the administration’s position? Do you care to comment? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you 

know, the Senate just confirmed the new administrator for FEMA 

last night, Craig Fugate, so we now have an administrator who has 

an extensive background in emergency management in Florida. 

But it is my position, it is the position of the administration that 

FEMA should remain within the Department of Homeland Security. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, 

thank you for being generous with your time. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
(51) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN BENNIE G. THOMPSON OF MISSISSIPPI FOR JANET

NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Question 1. We have spoken in the past about the need for DHS to do a better 

job of contracting with small and minority businesses. They often have the talent 

and capabilities to make significant contributions to the operations of the Department but are shut out. As I look at your $55 billion budget request for fiscal year 

2010, I can’t help but think about the stimulative impact that DHS could have if 

it went the extra mile and sought out small and minority businesses for contracting 

opportunities. After all, small business is the engine of our economy. It is critical 

that DHS’s acquisitions provide greater access to these companies. Access merely 

means an open door—not a hand-out. What processes will you put in place to ensure 

greater access for small and minority businesses? 

Answer. DHS has a robust small business program as demonstrated by ‘‘green’’ 

scores from SBA’s annual scorecard for the past 2 years (Attachment 1). 

We currently have numerous initiatives underway that will increase small business participation and build upon our achievements: 

• DHS PACTS (Program Management, Administrative, Clerical, and Technical 

Services) is a multiple-award indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract vehicle set aside exclusively for service-disabled, veteran-owned small 

businesses. The estimated value of all contracts is $1.5 billion over 5 years. 

• Coast Guard Multiple-Award Construction Contracts. IDIQ contracts for construction work will be awarded this fiscal year. Ten regions in the USA will 

each have contracts awarded under one of the socio-economic programs (8(a), 

HUBZone and Service-disabled veteran-owned). The 8(a) contracts are for small 

minority-owned businesses, the HUBZone contracts are for small businesses located in economically distressed areas, and the service-disabled veteran contracts are for small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans. The estimated value of all contracts is $3.5 billion over 5 years. 

• EAGLE II. Currently in the planning phase, this suite of IDIQ contracts for information technology services will include opportunities for all of the Federal 

small business contracting categories. The estimated value of all contracts is 

$10–15 billion over 5 years. 

• Outreach. DHS currently hosts monthly vendor outreach sessions in the Washington, DC, area as well as annual regional sessions. In addition, members of 

the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) have a 

vigorous outreach schedule each year, visiting most areas of the USA. OSDBU 

members present seminars on how to conduct business with DHS, meet individually with vendors, provide business counseling. 

• Forecast of Contract Opportunities. In addition to an annual publication we now 

have the information on-line in real time. Opportunities are listed for the current fiscal year as well as on-going contracts are included for planning purposes. 

• Training. We will continue to educate program managers and contract specialists in the small business programs by conducting customized small business 

specialists to disseminate information, working with SBA to provide training on 

the latest trends affecting small business contracting, and work with the Office 

of the Chief Procurement Officer to issue Acquisition Alerts, as needed, on small 

business topics for the acquisition workforce. 

• Small Business Review. Contracting Officers, Small Business Specialists and 

the program or requesting offices in each component work together to review 

each open market procurement anticipated to exceed $100,000 for small business contracting possibilities, considering the use of the 8(a) program, HUBZone 

small business set-asides, service-disabled veteran-owned small business setasides, and small business set-asides. In addition, Contracting Officers, Small 

Business Specialists and the program or requesting office review contracts as 
52 

they come up for re-competition if market conditions have changed, contracts 

that were not originally set aside for small businesses may be re-evaluated, and 

the use of multiple-award contracts where some or all of the work can be reserved for small business participation may also be considered. Attached is a 

copy of the DHS Small Business review form 700–22 (Attachment 2) that Contracting Officers, Small Business Specialists and the program or requesting office use in evaluating each contracting opportunity and becomes part of the individual contract file. 

ATTACHMENT 1.—FISCAL YEAR 2009 YEAR TO DATE (YTD) FEDERAL 

SMALL BUSINESS PRIME CONTRACTING COMPARISON FOR THE TOP 

FIVE DEPARTMENTS BASED ON TOTAL PROCUREMENT DOLLARS 

(SOURCE: FPDS–NG SMALL BUSINESS GOALING REPORT AS OF 06/02/2009)

TOP 5 DEPARTMENTS

Rank Department Name 

Fiscal Year 2009 Year-toDate Total Procurement 

Dollars 1

1 ......... Department of Defense (DOD) ............................. $119,707,187,369.96 

2 ......... Department of Energy (DOE) ............................... 24,318,550,974.08 

3 ......... National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA).

9,625,833,052.09 

4 ......... Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ........... 7,704,864,530.54 

5 ......... Health and Human Services (HHS) ..................... 7,465,747,156.85 

1 Note: These five departments account for about 86% of total prime Federal procurement 

dollars of fiscal year 2009 year-to-date based on SBA’s small business reporting procedures and 

the FPDS–NG small business goaling report (about $169 billion out of about $197 billion). 

HISTORY

• In a comparison of the Top Five departments for fiscal year 2009 year-to-date 

based on total procurement dollars, DHS is ranked first in every small business 

category. 

• DHS is the newest Federal department. Here is a summary of the Top Five indicating the year in which operations started: 

Department Name 

Year Operations 

Started 

Department of Defense (DOD) ...................................................................... 1947 

Department of Energy (DOE) ........................................................................ 1977 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) .......................... 1958 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) .................................................... 2003 

Health and Human Services (HHS) .............................................................. 1980 

FISCAL YEAR 2009 YTD SMALL BUSINESS PRIME CONTRACTING ACCOMPLISHMENTS

• Explanation: Calculated by Percentage of Total Procurement Dollars for small 

businesses of all types: (SB) Small Business, 8(a), (SDB) Small Disadvantaged 

Business, (HUBZone) Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business, 

(SDVOSB) Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, (VOSB) VeteranOwned Small Business, and (WOSB) Women-Owned Small Business. 

• Government-wide goal for this category = 23%; DHS goal = 31.9%. 

Rank Department Name 

Results by 

Percentage 

(%) 

1 .............. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ............................ 33 .2758 

2 .............. Department of Defense (DOD) ............................................... 18 .1882 

3 .............. Health and Human Services (HHS) ...................................... 13 .9285 

4 .............. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) ... 12 .0999 

5 .............. Department of Energy (DOE) ................................................ 3 .3293 
53 

FISCAL YEAR 2009 YTD 8(a) PRIME CONTRACTING ACCOMPLISHMENTS

• Government-wide goal for this category = N/A; SBA has determined that 8(a) 

results are part of the overall SDB category since all 8(a) firms are SDBs by 

definition; however, to maintain our commitment to the 8(a) program, DHS set 

a 4% goal in this category; further, the 8(a) category appears as a data field 

in the FPDS–NG small business goaling report. 

Rank Department Name 

Results by 

Percentage 

(%) 

1 .............. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ............................ 6 .8616 

2 .............. Health and Human Services (HHS) ...................................... 2 .9293 

3 .............. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) ... 2 .7563 

4 .............. Department of Defense (DOD) ............................................... 2 .6215 

5 .............. Department of Energy (DOE) ................................................ 0 .4542 

FISCAL YEAR 2009 YEAR-TO-DATE SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS PRIME

CONTRACTING ACCOMPLISHMENTS

• Government-wide goal for this category = 5%; DHS goal = 8% [4% for 8(a) and 

4% for SDB prime contracts outside of the 8(a) program for an overall SDB goal 

of 8%] 

Rank Department Name 

Results by 

Percentage 

(%) 

1 .............. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ............................ 14 .7954 

2 .............. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) ... 6 .3301 

3 .............. Health and Human Services (HHS) ...................................... 5 .8048 

4 .............. Department of Defense (DOD) ............................................... 5 .1107 

5 .............. Department of Energy (DOE) ................................................ 0 .9048 

FISCAL YEAR 2009 YEAR-TO-DATE HUBZONE SMALL BUSINESS PRIME CONTRACTING

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

• Government-wide goal for this category = 3%; DHS goal = 3%. 

Rank Department Name 

Results by 

Percentage 

(%) 

1 .............. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ............................ 2 .9141 

2 .............. Department of Defense (DOD) ............................................... 1 .7213 

3 .............. Health and Human Services (HHS) ...................................... 0 .9858 

4 .............. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) ... 0 .6371 

5 .............. Department of Energy (DOE) ................................................ 0 .0700 

FISCAL YEAR 2009 YEAR-TO-DATE SERVICE-DISABLED VETERAN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS

PRIME CONTRACTING ACCOMPLISHMENTS

• Government-wide goal for this category = 3%; DHS goal = 3%. 

Rank Department Name 

Results by 

Percentage 

(%) 

1 .............. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ............................ 1 .7900 

2 .............. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) ... 1 .4207 

3 .............. Department of Defense (DOD) ............................................... 0 .9407 

4 .............. Health and Human Services (HHS) ...................................... 0 .6985 

5 .............. Department of Energy (DOE) ................................................ 0 .4200 
54 

FISCAL YEAR 2009 YEAR-TO-DATE VETERAN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS PRIME

CONTRACTING ACCOMPLISHMENTS

• Government-wide goal for this category = N/A; although there is no Government-wide goal for VOSB participation (only SDVOSB), in accordance with FAR 

4.602, Federal agencies are required to collect this data; also, the VOSB category appears as a data field in the FPDS–NG small business goaling report. 

Rank Department Name 

Results by 

Percentage 

(%) 

1 .............. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ............................ 5 .1123 

2 .............. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) ... 2 .9364 

3 .............. Department of Defense (DOD) ............................................... 2 .3929 

4 .............. Health and Human Services (HHS) ...................................... 1 .9600 

5 .............. Department of Energy (DOE) ................................................ 0 .6085 

FISCAL YEAR 2009 YEAR-TO-DATE WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS PRIME CONTRACTING

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

• Government-wide goal for this category = 5%; DHS goal = 5%. 

Rank Department Name 

Results by 

Percentage 

(%) 

1 .............. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ............................ 7 .7553 

2 .............. Health and Human Services (HHS) ...................................... 3 .5318 

3 .............. Department of Defense (DOD) ............................................... 2 .7115 

4 .............. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) ... 1 .9283 

5 .............. Department of Energy (DOE) ................................................ 0 .4663 
55 

ATTACHMENT 2.—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

OVERALL GRADE 

GREEN ................................ • DHS achieved 35.34% exceeding its small business goal of 30%. 

• Although DHS did not meet its SDVOSB goal, it did make progress in amount of dollars. • DHS exceeded its WOSB, and HUBZone goals. • DHS achieved 13.38% exceeding its SDB goal of 8%. 

SMALL BUSINESS GRADE 

FISCAL YEAR 2006/ 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 % GOAL 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 

SMALL BUSINESS ACHIEVEMENTS 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 

SMALL BUSINESS ACHIEVEMENTS 

MADE PROGRESS? 

GREEN ................................ 30% .................................... 31.60% ($4,410,173,942) ... 35.34% ($3,832,162,724) ... N/A 

SOCIO-ECONOMIC GRADES 

SDB FISCAL YEAR 2006/ 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 % GOAL 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 

SMALL BUSINESS ACHIEVEMENTS 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 

SMALL BUSINESS ACHIEVEMENTS 

MADE PROGRESS? 

GREEN ................................ 8% ...................................... 10.73% ($1,497,052,836) ... 13.38% ($1,453,850,575) ... N/A WOSB FISCAL YEAR 2006/ 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 % GOAL 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 

SMALL BUSINESS ACHIEVEMENTS 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 

SMALL BUSINESS ACHIEVEMENTS 

MADE PROGRESS? 

GREEN ................................ 5% ...................................... 5.31% ($933,492,261) ........ 7.98% ($845,334,056) ........ N/A 
56 

ATTACHMENT 2.—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY—Continued 

HUBZONE FISCAL YEAR 2006/ 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 % GOAL 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 

SMALL BUSINESS ACHIEVEMENTS 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 

SMALL BUSINESS ACHIEVEMENTS 

MADE PROGRESS? 

GREEN ................................ 3% ...................................... 3.30% ($460,271,935) ........ 3.10% ($317,177,978) ........ N/A SDVOSB FISCAL YEAR 2006/ 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 % GOAL 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 

SMALL BUSINESS ACHIEVEMENTS 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 

SMALL BUSINESS ACHIEVEMENTS 

MADE PROGRESS? 

RED ...................................... 3% ...................................... 1.53% ($214,054,627) ........ 1.36% ($151,512,452) ........ YES 

CRITERIA 

GREEN ................................ THE AGENCY MUST MEET 100% OF ITS SMALL BUSINESS GOAL, 3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC GOALS AND 

MAKE PROGRESS IN THE REMAINING GOALS. 

YELLOW ............................. THE AGENCY MUST MEET 90–99% OF ITS SMALL BUSINESS GOAL, 1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC GOALS AND 

MAKE PROGRESS IN REMAINING GOALS. 

RED ...................................... DOES NOT MEET THE ABOVE (YELLOW) STANDARDS. 

PROGRESS DEFINED: SBA USED 1 OF 2 INDICATORS IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN AGENCY MADE PROGRESS ON THEIR SOCIO-ECONOMIC GOALS: (1) A PERCENTAGE INCREASE OVER FISCAL YEAR 2006 GOAL ACHIEVEMENT OR (2) FISCAL YEAR 2007 GOAL ACHIEVEMENT DOLLARS IS GREATER THAN THE ACHIEVEMENT 

AVERAGE FOR THE PAST 3 YEARS (FISCAL YEAR 2005–FISCAL YEAR 2007). 
57 

ATTACHMENT 3 

DHS CURRENT STATUS (As of July 25, 2007) PROGRESS (As of July 25, 2007) COMMENTS Initiative GREEN STANDARDS SMALL BUSINESS PROCUREMENT.Agency Lead: 

Kevin Boshears, Director, DHS OSDBU.

Green ........

l

X

lMeets the small business goal, 

at least 3 socio-economic goals, and shows improvement in the remaining 1 goal.

l

X

l

Meets all Yellow standards: 

1.

l

X

l

Meets the small business 

goals, at least 2 additional socioeconomic goals, and improves in at least one of the unmet goals. Credit can also be given for meeting 4 goals, regardless of which ones they are.

2.

l

X

lHas implemented a strategy 

to increase the number of competitively awarded contracts to small businesses.

3.

l

X

lHas demonstrated top-level 

Agency commitment to small business contracting.

4.

l

X

lHas a comprehensive small 

business program that includes written polices and procedures focused on improving the competitive environment and increasing small business participation in the procurement process.

Green ........ Actions taken this quarter: 

1. The agency has met its small 

business goal, 2 additional socioeconomic goals, and improved in at least one of its unmet goals.

2. The agency has implemented an 

aggressive strategy to increase the number of competitively awarded contracts to small businesses.

3. The agency shows top-level agency commitment to small business 

contracting through internal scorecards, set-aside strategies, goal performance, and top executive meetings on a monthly basis.

4. The agency has a comprehensive 

and active small business plan that is documented and regularly updated.

5. The agency has built-in goal 

achievement requirements in their executive management’s performance to ensure increased accountability.

• DHS did not meet its SDVO goal; 

however exceeded in all others with progress. 
58 

ATTACHMENT 3—Continued 

5.

lXlHas small business goal 

achievement as a rating element for acquisition personnel.

6.

lXlWorks cooperatively with 

SBA on outreach and targeting initiatives.

7.

lXlMeets deadlines for all required strategic plans and annual 

reports due to SBA.

8.

lXlHas a process to ensure 

small business data is accurately reported in FPDS–NG.

9.

lXlEnforces small business subcontracting plans and meets subcontracting goals.

6. The agency’s OSDBU coordinates 

with SBA in 8(a) orientation and match-making events to further outreach and marketing initiatives.

7. The agency submitted all plans 

and reports by the required deadlines.

8. The agency regularly verifies its 

small business data in FPDS–NG for accuracy. The agency also uses internal/external reports as a tool to rectify discrepancies found in the FPDS–NG system.

9. The agency does have a system in 

place to enforce small business subcontracting plans and goal expectations.
59 

Question 2. In September 2006, the Department of Homeland Security awarded 

a contract to Boeing to create a ‘‘virtual fence’’ along the southwest border using 

cameras, sensors, and other technology. This committee has conducted careful oversight of this program, known as SBInet, as well as its two predecessor programs. 

I can say with little hesitation that, to date, we have been disappointed. The Department is currently moving forward with its next SBInet deployment, and the administration has requested additional funds for fiscal year 2010 for the program. As 

Governor of Arizona, you witnessed the deployment of Project 28 in your backyard. 

Now, as Secretary, what have you learned that will help the Department get the 

‘‘virtual fence’’ right this time around? 

Answer. Project 28 (P–28) was a ‘‘proof-of-concept’’ technology demonstration that 

provided insights into the operational and technical challenges the SBInet team 

would face in designing, developing, and deploying the larger SBInet system. P–28 

provided valuable operational, technical, and acquisition lessons relative to implementing an integrated sensor system for surveillance of the border. P–28 now provides an operational capability to Border Patrol agents in the Tucson Sector, and 

since September 2007, the system has assisted agents in the apprehension of more 

than 5,000 illegal border crossers and the seizure of over 12,000 lbs of marijuana. 

Many of the lessons learned from P–28 have been factored into the planning and 

design of the SBInet Block 1 system that will be deployed in Tucson (TUS–1) and 

AJO Stations (AJO–1) this year. These include: 

• The SBInet system design now includes an integrated set of software and hardware to allow streamlined data integration and processing to reduce system latency. 

• The Common Operating Picture software was upgraded to better detect incoming activities, provide multiple displays, and support unattended ground sensors. 

• The radar and camera suite were upgraded to new models with improved capabilities. 

• The system will now use microwave backhaul to communicate video and data, 

instead of satellites, which will increase bandwidth and reduce system latency. 

Further, a comprehensive test program has been established for SBInet in order 

to ensure that it is deployed both functionally and efficiently. Most recently, SBI 

conducted Systems Qualification Testing (SQT) for SBInet Block 1 in December 

2008. The SQT identified and corrected system errors and allowed the program to 

complete successful testing and proceed with the timely deployment of the TUS–1 

and AJO–1 projects. Furthermore, the system will undergo operational testing in 

early fiscal year 2010 to ensure it meets Border Patrol’s operational needs. The results of the operational test will be used to advise decisions about the pace and extent of further deployments. 

Question 3. Given the troubling accounts by the media, GAO, and DHS’s own Inspector General of the lack of compliance with detention standards at ICE-contracted facilities, which includes inadequate medical care—that resulted in multiple 

deaths, please tell us why the President’s budget request seems to explore the expansion of detention facility privatization? 

Answer. Over the last few fiscal years, ICE is currently assessing its Nation-wide 

detention needs to determine whether ICE’s continued ownership of seven Service 

Processing Facilities (SPCs) is in the best interests of the Federal Government. DHS 

will keep the committee updated on the results of this review. 

Question 4. As we all know, the Department of Homeland Security is accountable 

for an extremely broad portfolio of mission areas. As we have seen, circumstances 

can shift the emphasis and priorities within mission areas. A budget is fundamentally an expression of an agency’s priorities. With regard to the fiscal year 2010 

budget, what would you say are the major priorities reflected in your budget request? Specifically, is there a common thread that runs through each component, 

department, and program request? 

Answer. The Department of Homeland Security’s budget will strengthen current 

efforts that are vital to the Nation’s security, bolster DHS’ ability to respond to 

emerging and evolving threats, and allow DHS to embrace new responsibilities in 

order to secure the Nation. This budget puts forward critical investments in the protection of the American people. 

DHS undertakes the mission of securing the United States against all threats 

through five main action areas, each of which is strengthened by this budget: 

• Guarding Against Terrorism—As the founding purpose of the Department and 

its highest priority, the budget expands DHS efforts to battle terrorism, including detecting explosives in public spaces and transportation networks, helping 

protect critical infrastructure and cyber networks from attack, detecting agents 
60 

of biological warfare and building information-sharing partnerships with State 

and local law enforcement to mitigate threats. • Securing Our Borders—DHS prevents and investigates illegal movements 

across our borders, including the smuggling of people, drugs, cash, and weapons. The budget seeks to facilitate legal travel and trade while improving border 

security; these efforts include adding manpower and technology to the southwest border, as well as requests funds for smart security on the northern border. • Smart and Tough Enforcement of Immigration Laws and Improving Immigration Services—DHS welcomes legal immigrants, protects against dangerous people entering the country and pursues tough, effective enforcement against those 

who violate the Nation’s immigration laws. The budget contains funding to 

strengthen our employment eligibility verification systems, target and crack 

down on criminal aliens, and expedite the application process for new legal immigrants. • Preparing for, Responding to, and Recovering from Disasters From All Hazards—The Department must aid local and State first responders in all stages 

of a natural disaster, preparing for the worst, responding to a disaster that has 

occurred, and recovering in the long run. This budget contains funding to 

strengthen DHS assistance for local first responders and the communities and 

families affected by disasters. • Unifying and Maturing DHS—As a young Department, components must further evolve in order to operate as effectively as possible as one agency with a 

single, unified security mission. The budget contains funding to initiate consolidation of mission support activities that will remain off-site from the St. Elizabeth’s campus, reducing the many small and widely-scattered leased locations 

and supporting the goal to build ‘‘One DHS.’’ 

In addition to these priorities, DHS is employing several cross-cutting initiatives 

to strengthen activities in each of these mission areas. First, DHS will increase cooperation with State and local law enforcement agencies, international allies, the 

private sector, and other Federal departments. Second, the Department will bolster 

and expand its science and technology portfolio. Third, DHS will continue to aim 

for greater efficiency in its operations. 

Question 5. With respect to financial management, you have inherited an agency 

that has some substantial legacy challenges. In the fiscal year 2010 budget request, 

you ask for $11 million to fund a new financial management program for DHS. Do you believe $11 million to be adequate considering the large amount of processes that must be merged for the program to be successful? 

What steps are the Department taking to incorporate GAO past recommendations 

into the development of the program? Answer. The $11 million requested in the fiscal year 2010 budget request is in 

addition to $29 million in carry-over funds for a total of $40 million. The Department believes this is sufficient for the initial activities of the Transformation and 

Systems Consolidation (TASC) effort. TASC will be awarded as an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. Although the system solution is yet to be 

determined, $450 million is the contract ceiling estimate for the total value of the 

work to be performed over the 10-year contract life, assuming all option years are 

exercised. This estimate is consistent with other financial system benchmarks within the Federal Government. The actual cost of the work will be determined by the 

solution selected through the competitive acquisition process. 

The Department continues to work diligently with the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) to ensure issues are addressed in a timely manner. CFO personnel 

carefully reviewed all pertinent documentation and strategic approaches with this 

oversight body, and remains committed to ensuring the Department is following 

best practices in pursuit of financial management consolidation. As it is implemented within DHS, TASC will yield significant cost benefits; eliminating redundant hosting/interface requirements as well as reliance on proprietary vendor solutions currently used and reducing operations and maintenance costs. TASC will help 

the Department to increase the transparency of its financial data and accountability. 

Question 6. Madam Secretary, the President has only requested a $1.2 million dollar increase for the Privacy Office. Given the FOIA backlog, amount of training done 

by the office, and the number of reports the office produces, the budget provide additional funding? Please explain why you are only seeking a $1.2 million dollar increase to base and two new employees for this critical office? 

Answer. With an increase of $1.2 million in fiscal year 2010, the Privacy Office’s 

budget will total $7.9 million—close to a 50% increase since 2008. By fiscal year 

2010, the Privacy Office anticipates hiring seven additional full-time, Federal em-
61 

ployees, bringing the total complement for the privacy and FOIA functions to 36 

FTE. 

This budget and workforce level will permit the Privacy Office to complete its 

statutory responsibilities. The Department has already shown remarkable progress 

in reducing the FOIA backlog. Looking ahead, the Privacy Office’s FOIA staff is adequately staffed to provide the guidance necessary to assist the components to further reduce and ultimately clear the FOIA backlog. 

Further, the Privacy Office continues to meet all its statutory obligations to provide training. The works closely with other Federal partners to provide training to 

a variety of stakeholders including I&A analysts as well as for State and local fusion 

center representatives as required under the 9/11 Commission Act. 

Question 7. For fiscal year 2009, the Department received an additional $17 million in funding to cover a 53% increase in personnel for the Analysis and Operations 

(from 380 to 583 FTEs). This year, the Department is seeking another $17 million 

but the funds will only cover a 19% increase in personnel (from 583 to 699). 

Please explain why, if the number of FTEs sought is decreasing, the amount of 

increase to the base you are seeking remains the same as the amount received last 

year. 

The fiscal year 2009 enacted budget authorized 583 FTEs; of these authorized 

FTEs how many has the Department been able to hire and fill? 

Answer. This answer contains classified information, and will be provided to the 

committee via secure channels. 

Question 8. During a hearing before this committee in February, you stated that 

your initial view was that the 2012 deadline for 100 percent maritime cargo scanning was not going to work. What steps are you taking toward meeting the 100 percent goal, whether it happens in 2012 or beyond? 

Answer. DHS has gained important insight from the initial scanning pilots in foreign locations under the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI). We remain confident that 

the scan data produced by the scanning systems can enhance the security of containers as they transit through the global supply chain to the United States. However, DHS has encountered complex logistical, diplomatic, fiscal, and technical challenges that will render 100% scanning difficult to achieve by 2012. 

With over 700 ports shipping to the United States and more than 11 million containers arriving each year, DHS must have a realistic strategy that facilitates legal 

trade. This is not only one of DHS’s key missions, but a critical component of the 

100% scanning mandate. As such, DHS will focus future deployments of scanning 

systems to targeted locations where the additional data provided by the scanning 

will be most beneficial. 

As we work to deploy additional scanning systems in a manner that will complement our current risk-based and layered approach to security, DHS will continue 

to engage with Congress and work in close concert with foreign and industry partners. These partnerships were critical to the success of the initial Secure Freight 

Initiative pilots, and these lines of communication need to remain open as we explore opportunities to deploy scanning systems to strategic locations that could most 

benefit from the additional data. 

Question 9. DHS currently has initiatives to combat all crimes, both domestic and 

international under their purview through the ICE Office of Investigations. Based 

on the 2010 Presidential budget request, due to the increase in Customs and Border 

Protection resources will additional resources for domestic and international investigations be necessary? 

Answer. Yes. Additional resources for ICE’s Office of Investigations (OI) and Office of International Affairs are contained in the President’s 2010 budget request, 

which asks for $48.743 million ($34.877 million for 208 personnel and $13.887 million for non-personnel resources) to support the Southwest Border Initiative for ICE 

domestic investigations. In addition, the President’s budget request also contains a 

$4.925 million enhancement for international investigations along the southwest 

border, including 12 new ICE positions in Mexico. These additional resources will 

allow ICE to increase its ability to conduct criminal investigations along the southwest border, including those investigations resulting from collaboration with Customs and Border Protection personnel. 

Question 10. I note with great interest that the budget proposal specifically blocks 

funding to jurisdictions participating in the 287(g) program who do not comply with 

the memorandum of understanding established with ICE. This is a positive development. What other plans do you have to enhance ICE supervision of participating 

287(g) communities and ensure program compliance? 

Answer. DHS is in the final stages of revising its Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) template. The revised MOA sets forth clear operational and administrative 

standards to ensure each 287(g) partner operates consistently with U.S. Immigra-
62 

tion and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) goals and priorities. The revisions include 

precise statements regarding the nature and extent of ICE supervision as well as 

Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) tailored to fit the unique needs of each State 

or local law enforcement agency. 

To further ensure the 287(g) program meets ICE operational standards and priorities, ICE has implemented a regular inspection process conducted by the ICE Office 

of Professional Responsibility. The inspection assesses the State or local law enforcement agency’s compliance with the terms of its MOA. Any deficiencies identified 

during the inspection will be immediately addressed by ICE and the local LEA. 

Finally, ICE’s revised MOA requires additional data collection by its 287(g) partners. The DHS ENFORCE system has been modified to require program participants to populate mandatory ENFORCE data fields concerning the type of criminal 

activity in which the alien has engaged. ICE will use this data to assist in evaluating whether our 287(g) partnerships function consistently with ICE’s detention 

and arrest priorities. 

Question 11. This committee has been critical of the spending imbalance between 

aviation security and surface transportation security at TSA. The President’s budget 

appears to provide an additional $50 million towards ‘‘Surface Transportation Security Inspectors and Canines,’’ to, among other things, hire 169 new FTEs. However, 

this funding is also supposed to cover the creation of new ‘‘VIPR’’ teams, which include several non-surface components. Therefore, it appears that only a fraction of 

that the requested resources may actually go toward surface inspectors and canines. 

Please explain. 

Similarly, in light of the delays in issuing regulations and grant application processing time, and the relative shortage of expertise in surface transportation modes 

generally, why were there no funding or FTE increases requested for ‘‘Surface 

Transportation Security Operations and Staffing’? Answer. The $50 million requested in the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) fiscal year 2010 President’s budget will fund 15 additional Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams dedicated solely to surface operations. 

Although these teams will consist of any one or combination of TSA personnel, including Transportation Security Officers, Behavior Detection Officers, Explosives Security Specialists, Bomb Appraisal Officers, Transportation Security Inspectors, and 

Federal Air Marshals, all of their missions will be conducted in the surface domain. 

Experience has shown multi-functional VIPR teams with a combination of specialties provide flexible deterrent and analytic capabilities and response options for the 

most effective security enhancement for surface operations. These teams differ from 

TSA’s current 10 VIPR teams in that the fiscal year 2010 requested teams will be 

solely dedicated to the surface mode while the existing 10 teams perform VIPR missions across all modes of transportation. The additional teams do not include TSA 

Canine assets at this time. 

The Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) is administered by the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) through a partnership between the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) and the Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA). Within this partnership, and consistent with the Aviation and Transportation 

Security Act (Public Law 107–71), TSA provides transit system subject matter expertise and determines the primary security architecture for the TSGP. TSA’s subject matter experts set program and funding priorities, craft selection criteria, and 

review the security components of grant applications. TSA has adequate staff for 

these functions. The TSA plan for the $50 million VIPR enhancement will include 

additional Transportation Security Inspectors—Surface, Behavior Detection Officers, 

and Bomb Appraisal Officers that will be dedicated to conducting VIPR operations 

in the Surface domain. 

Question 12. The last time you appeared before this committee, you were asked 

about whether you supported moving Transportation Security Officers out of their 

current pay-for-performance system into the standard General Schedule system and 

whether you were on board with giving them collective bargaining rights. At the 

time, you said you were conferring with your general counsel to see whether such 

action could be done administratively. Can you share your current thinking on this 

critical subject? 

Answer. This determination is still under review by the Department of Homeland 

Security. 

Question 13. The Biometric at Sea Program has clearly been a success. Since its 

inception, migrant flow from the Dominican Republic has dropped 75 percent. The 

President’s budget includes additional funding for the program. Are you also looking 

to expand this program to areas outside of where it is currently in use? 

Answer. In the President’s budget, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

requested $1.2 million to establish a permanent Biometrics-at-Sea system. This in-
63 

vestment will enable the U.S. Coast Guard to identify dangerous individuals by collecting fingerprints and searching them against DHS’s biometrics system IDENT, 

managed by US–VISIT. Through these biometric matches, DHS is able to effectively 

integrate cross-component operational and intelligence activities. In accordance with 

the Department’s comprehensive strategy to secure the Nation’s borders, US–VISIT 

will continue to support the U.S. Coast Guard to help advance the broader objective 

of developing effective mobile solutions for biometric collection and analysis. In addition, the budget request includes the DHS Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate’s research and development of 10-print Mobile Biometrics technology to enable capture of slap fingerprints in a compact handheld device. 

Question 14a. This committee has worked hard to ensure a strong authorization 

for the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, which help communities undertake all-hazards preparedness and planning. According to the National 

Emergency Management Association, there is currently an annual shortfall of $487 

million to this program. 

What is the rationale behind continuing the program at last year’s level of funding? 

Answer. The Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (EMPG) is an 

important part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) overall 

grant portfolio. There are several FEMA grant programs, including the Homeland 

Security Grant Program, that provide funding for personnel and planning for catastrophic events. As such, we believe that continuing to fund EMPG at $315 million 

provide a baseline capability across the Nation. 

Question 14b. Additionally, please explain why the budget chooses to utilize a 

risk-based formula to provide funds for the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) 

Grant program? 

Answer. The Department did not ask for the EOC grant in the fiscal year 2010 

budget and the EOC grants for this year did not employ a risk-based formula. 

Question 15. The President’s budget request indicates that fewer resources will be 

needed for implementation for the CFATS program. Please describe the decrease in 

‘‘Infrastructure Security Compliance Activity.’’ Does the budget for CFATS presume 

that the program will continue following its statutory sunset in October 2009? 

Answer. The Department continues to increase the number of chemical security 

inspectors. There are currently 51 chemical inspectors onboard, with 35 additional 

selections in process. The projected total of personnel on-board for the Infrastructure 

Security Compliance Project by the end of fiscal year 2009 is 178 positions. In fiscal 

year 2010, the budget shifts programmatic base funding to personnel base funding 

in order to further increase the number of Government Full-Time Equivalents 

(FTEs) to 246. This realignment lowers the amount of program funding in the ‘‘Infrastructure Security Compliance Activity’’ request, but raises the level of funding 

for salaries and expenses for the CFATS program. The fiscal year 2010 FTE level 

will provide for 139 chemical facility inspectors and 20 additional cross-trained 

chemical/ammonium nitrate inspectors. The Department continues to work on accelerating and improving its hiring and security clearance processes to bring qualified 

personnel onboard. 

Included in the President’s budget request was a request for a 1-year extension 

for the CFATS program to allow the Department to continue to work with Congress 

on a permanent reauthorization of the program. 

Question 16a. The committee is interested in how the Office of Risk Management 

and Analysis (RMA) is being integrated into DHS programs. Does the Department 

plan to introduce some sort of management directive that provides RMA with the 

ability to compel other components to follow its products and initiatives? 

Answer. On January 18, 2007, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary 

Michael Chertoff directed organizational changes as a result of the Post-Katrina 

Emergency Management Reform Act passed as part of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2007. On April 1, 2007, as part of these changes, 

Secretary Chertoff established the National Protection and Programs Directorate 

(NPPD) and, within it, the Office of Risk Management and Analysis (RMA). Secretary Chertoff delegated to the Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs the authority to ‘‘lead the Department’s efforts to establish a common framework to address the overall management and analysis of homeland security risk 

[and]... develop systematic, rigorous risk analysis methodologies and provide 

core analytic and computational capabilities to be used by all Department Components to assess and quantify risk in order to enhance overall protection, prevention, 
64 

1Delegation 17001, ‘‘Delegation to the Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs,’’ April 10, 2007. 

and mitigation of homeland security risks.’’1 RMA exercises this delegated authority 

on behalf of the Under Secretary. 

We are currently evaluating the utility of a Department directive on integrated 

risk management that clarifies the processes, roles, and responsibilities for achieving integrated risk management in DHS. 

Question 16b. If not, how will its organizational challenges be overcome? 

Answer. The Under Secretary for NPPD, pursuant to delegated authority from the 

Secretary, created a Department-wide Risk Steering Committee (RSC) in April 2007 

to serve as the Department’s risk management governance structure, leveraging 

risk management capabilities across DHS. The RSC, which RMA administers, is a 

three-tier construct. Tier I consists of all of the heads of DHS components; Tier II 

comprises sub-directorate/component principals (e.g., assistant secretaries in components with an Under Secretary; senior officials; and deputy directors); and Tier III 

consists of senior policy and analysis staff. Leveraging the RSC, RMA works collaboratively across DHS to build an integrated risk management program that ensures 

that risk information and analysis are provided to decision-makers in order to inform a full range of decisions. These decisions include the allocation of resources, 

provision of preparedness assistance, prioritization of capability development, operational decisions, regulatory actions undertaken, and research and development investment. 

Question 16c. Does RMA actually conduct risk analysis, or is it more of a clearinghouse to share best practices? Why hasn’t RMA developed a strategic plan? 

Answer. RMA is responsible for developing and executing quantitative all-hazards 

risk assessments. RMA, with its RSC partners, is developing tools and processes to 

produce analysis to support specific decision-making processes. Examples include: • The Risk Assessment Process for Informed Decision-making (RAPID).—RAPID is 

a quantitative, all-hazards risk assessment currently in development to serve 

as a risk management tool for informing the Department’s planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process. This includes products to inform the Integrated Planning Guidance, Program Review Board, and Resource Allocation 

Decision. When fully developed, RAPID will support strategic policy and budgetary decisions by assessing risk, evaluating the risk-reduction effects of DHS 

programs, and evaluating alternative resource allocation strategies. In 2009, 

RMA is working on two RAPID products. The first is a detailed bioterrorism 

and chemical terrorism risk analysis to inform the Department’s Integrated 

Planning Guidance by: (1) Providing an analysis of DHS chemical/biological security programs; (2) evaluating the degree to which DHS chemical/biological 

programs are contributing to risk reduction; (3) identifying gaps; and (4) recommending strategies for better allocation of resources to manage risk. The second 

is an all-hazards assessment of risk beyond chemical and bioterrorism that will 

evaluate the risks of Weapons of Mass Destruction and conventional terrorism, 

natural hazards, and border/immigration scenarios alongside one another; this 

is expected to be complete in early 2010. • Homeland Security National Risk Assessment.—The Department has initiated 

the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, which will set prioritized goals and 

objectives for homeland security. It will also set a course for maturing and unifying DHS and the entire national homeland security enterprise; it will define 

a process and methodology for consistently assessing risk at a national level, 

and it will employ the results of such an assessment to drive strategic 

prioritization and resource decisions. There are numerous assessments, both 

completed and ongoing, that help to define risk in the context of various homeland security threats and challenges to improve decision-making. Going forward, creating a process and methodology to assess risks to the homeland and 

risk management alternatives in an integrated manner across hazards will enable us to use risk analysis more effectively to inform national strategic guidance and subordinate strategies and plans. Development and implementation of 

a process and methodology to assess national risk is a fundamental and critical 

element of an overall risk management process, with the ultimate goal of improving the ability of decision makers to make rational judgments about tradeoffs between courses of action to manage homeland security risk. • Strategic Hazard Identification and Evaluation for Leadership Decisions 

(SHIELD) program.—This initiative, developed by RMA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Office of National Capital Region Coordination, 

served as one of the first regionally focused risk analyses developed for and accepted by regional leadership. The risks and risk management strategic invest-
65 

ment themes identified through SHIELD supported regional guidance on grant 

submissions, assisted in the refinement of proposed investment themes, and will 

be referenced in producing Urban Areas Security Initiative grant applications 

by National Capital Region partners. RMA hopes to leverage SHIELD to develop a model that can be used in other regions of the country. 

To provide strategic guidance, RMA has completed the interim DHS Integrated 

Risk Management Framework, which provides a foundation for institutionalizing integrated risk management in the Department by outlining a vision, objectives, principles, and a process for integrated risk management within DHS. It also identifies 

how the Department will achieve integrated risk management by developing and 

maturing policy, governance, processes, training, and accountability methods. Members of the Department’s Risk Steering Committee developed the framework, and 

all DHS components, directorates, and offices endorsed it. 

Question 17. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member King, and other Members of 

this committee recently introduced H.R. 2195, the ‘‘Critical Electric Infrastructure 

Protection Act.’’ One of the provisions would require you to work with other national 

security and intelligence agencies to conduct research and determine if the security 

of Federally-owned IT infrastructure has been compromised. This would seem to be 

an absolute necessity in order to truly secure the .gov domain. Do you agree that 

such an investigation is required and could the Cybersecurity and Communications 

Division conduct such an investigation? 

Answer. The Office of Cybersecurity and Communication’s (CS&C’s) National 

Cyber Security Division (NCSD) concurs with Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member King, and other Members of the committee that cross-coordination with other 

national security and intelligence agencies is vital for conducting research and investigations of cyber events. We currently work very closely with other national security and intelligence agencies regarding potential compromises of the Federallyowned IT infrastructure, and we believe that CS&C should play a key role in improving our inter-agency cooperation even further. 

Within the NCSD, the Control Systems Security Program (CSSP) has established 

relationships with the private sector and other organizations and agencies involved 

in protecting critical electric infrastructure; it regularly coordinates on activities and 

issues affecting the security of control systems. CSSP leads this coordination and 

analysis through its Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team 

(ICS–CERT) and Industrial Control Systems Joint Working Group (ICSJWG). 

ICS–CERT, in coordination with the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US–CERT) and the Intelligence Community, responds to and analyzes 

control systems incidents through forensic investigations focused on the characterization and analysis of malware and vulnerabilities affecting the critical infrastructure (including electric infrastructure). ICS–CERT shares and coordinates vulnerability information and threat analysis with critical infrastructure owners/operators, 

intelligence agencies, and other stakeholders through actionable information products and alerts. In addition, CSSP is devoted to developing real-time mitigation 

strategies through products and tools to proactively protect Federally-owned information technology infrastructure. 

Critical infrastructure is predominantly owned by the private sector, and DHS 

recognizes the need for a strong Government-industry partnership to protect critical 

electric infrastructure against cybersecurity threats. To accomplish this, CSSP has 

established the ICSJWG to provide a vehicle for the relevant Federal and privatesector stakeholders to communicate and partner across all critical infrastructure 

and key resources (CIKR). The ICSJWG uses a structured approach supported by 

the National Infrastructure Protection Plan framework and the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council. The ICSJWG facilitates coordination of the control systems stakeholder community and reduces redundancies in activities aimed 

at securing CIKR, including the critical electric infrastructure. 

Question 18. I understand that DHS will begin to pilot two different biometric collection methods at airports later this month for the US–VISIT program, one involving TSA at the checkpoint and the other using CBP officers at the gate. I am aware 

that the program has roughly $30 million in carry-over monies to use for the pilots, 

but I am concerned it may need additional funds. 

If the pilots indicate that the CBP or TSA collection methods are optimal, will you 

have the funding necessary to implement biometric exit in fiscal year 2009 or fiscal 

year 2010? 

Answer. Approximately $28 million remains available from prior-year dollars to 

fund the current biometric air exit project. 

Congress included a provision in the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, 

and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (fiscal year 2009 DHS Appropriations Act), 

which restricts the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from obligating US– 
66 

VISIT funds provided under the Act for implementing a final air exit capability 

under the April 24, 2008 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking until additional tests have 

been completed, with reports on the tests provided to the appropriations committees 

and a review of the report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). 

DHS is conducting two pilots—one by CBP at the boarding gate at the Detroit 

Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, and one by TSA at a security checkpoint at 

the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport—for a 35-day period which 

began on May 28, 2009. DHS will evaluate the exit pilot programs, including the 

methods and processes for collecting the required information, after the pilots are 

completed. 

If the evaluation and analysis of the comprehensive biometric air exit pilots recommend selection of an option other than the Department’s proposal in the notice 

of proposed rulemaking—which was for air carriers to collect passenger biometrics— 

US–VISIT will need to develop revised cost estimates to determine if additional 

funds are required above the carryover funding to support initial implementation in 

fiscal year 2010. 

Question 19a. Last year’s DHS appropriations bill required the Department to 

complete two biometric exit pilots at airports: (1) Where the airlines collect and 

transmit biometric exit data, and (2) where CBP collects such information at departure gates. It is my understanding that the Department has yet to partner with any 

airline but that it is still moving forward with the CBP pilot as well as an additional 

pilot performed by TSA personnel. 

What progress has DHS made in addressing the air carriers’ concerns? 

Answer. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials reached out to the airline industry on numerous occasions to discuss their concerns and to identify potential partners for biometric air exit pilot efforts. Despite ongoing DHS discussions 

with the Air Transport Association and its member carriers, no airline volunteered 

to participate in the biometric exit pilot required by the fiscal year 2009 DHS Appropriations Act. Carriers were given flexibility as to the location within airports 

and seaports that could be used to collect biometrics through the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. 

Question 19b. If DHS is unable to complete the air carrier pilot, what will be the 

Department’s next steps? 

Answer. DHS is currently conducting two pilots: (1) CBP collecting biometrics at 

a boarding gate at the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport in Detroit, 

Michigan, (2) Transportation Security Administration (TSA) collecting biometrics at 

a security checkpoint at the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Both 

pilots began on May 28, 2009, and will conclude on July 2. 

US–VISIT has been working closely with these airports and with CBP and TSA 

to ensure that the pilots run. Based upon analysis of the results of the pilots and 

assessment of the comments to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that was published in the Federal Register on April 24, 2008, DHS will publish a Final Rule on 

the implementation of new biometric exit procedures for non-U.S. citizens departing 

the United States via airports and seaports. 

Question 20. The President’s fiscal year 2010 budget request calls for an 8.5% cut 

in the University Programs portfolio. The committee is concerned with this because 

of our strong support of University programs in general, and more specifically the 

great value that should be placed in basic scientific research, which University Programs usually conduct. What is the reason for the decrease? 

Answer. The President’s fiscal year 2010 budget request for University Programs 

is $4.3 million less than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. Within this amount, $2 

million supports a homeland security project at the Naval Post Graduate School 

(NPS). The fiscal year 2010 request moves this $2 million from University Programs 

to Transition, which will continue the field testing objectives that are the central 

focus of the NPS project. In addition, as the DHS Centers of Excellence (COEs) have 

matured, S&T Divisions and DHS Components have started to independently fund 

the COEs as a valuable homeland security resource to meet S&T Division and DHS 

Components’ requirements. We anticipate that S&T base funding plus funding from 

DHS Components will ensure the viability of the COEs. 

Question 21a. One reason for the delay in next generation detection equipment 

has been the requirement that the enhancements in detection capabilities be certified by the DHS Secretary. When do you expect to be able to certify the new detection equipment? Is the current thinking that certification would be for use in primary inspection, secondary inspection, or both? 

Answer. Final decisions on the certification of Advanced Spectroscopic Portal Program (ASP) systems for primary and secondary inspections, as well as the relative 

order of these decisions, will be made by the Secretary, and based on test data and 
67 

other analyses conducted by DNDO, CBP, and other partners. Final decisions on 

certifications are expected in the fall time frame. 

Question 21b. Is there a ‘‘drop-dead’’ date for Secretarial Certification for ASP? 

That is to say, the date for certification has been pushed back several times. Is 

there a point at which you must cut your losses and re-evaluate the program? 

Answer. The fundamental technology that ASP brings promises to deliver a significant improvement over previous capabilities in the detection and identification 

of radiological/nuclear threats. The delays in certification of ASP have been related 

to issues of operational ease and reliability—problems that have taken time to resolve but are not expected to seriously threaten the viability or potential contribution of ASPs. Given the soundness of the underlying technology, and the progress 

we have made in addressing operational issues to date, a termination strategy is 

not being considered at this time. ASP remains the most immediate solution to the 

detection and identification requirements called for at ports of entry. 

Question 22. The committee is very concerned with Source Security and DNDO’s 

role in the trilateral effort to secure radioactive sources. It is our understanding that 

OMB requested that source security funding go through just the Department of Energy instead of through multiple sources. 

Please describe the current status of the trilateral effort, DNDO’s role, and the 

role of the other agencies involved. 

Please describe the funding levels for these efforts at DNDO and at your other 

two agency partners. 

Answer. DNDO’s source security work involves performing gap analysis and promoting mitigation strategies for securing radiological material at its source within 

the United States. In fiscal year 2009, DNDO budget allocated $1 million for 

irradiator hardening; in fiscal year 2010, this effort will be conducted by the Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Interagency collaboration for source security activities will continue amongst DOE, DHS, 

and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), but DNDO will no longer fund 

source security upgrades. 

The NRC is the regulatory body of the United States Government for licensing 

of all radioactive medical and industrial sources in the United States. Part of its 

responsibilities under this authority as codified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) is security of radioactive materials. In addition to all of the regulatory controls on radioactive materials as stated in 10C, the NRC has implemented 

many additional security requirements on the licensees of radioactive source. NRC 

has also raised the security culture among the licensees in the United States in 

partnership with the Agreement States. 

DOE has established a domestic source security program that, in cooperation with 

the U.S. licensees and the NRC, is targeted at implementing security measures 

above what is required by the NRC and 10CFR. DOE is providing funding to licensees to implement increased security measures at licensee facilities in the United 

States. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE OF TEXAS FOR JANET

NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Question 1. How much money is allocated in the budget for border security measures in the southwest border? 

Answer. For fiscal year 2010, DHS has requested a $96.1 million increase for 

southwest border security measures. $26.1 million is requested to provide CBP with 

an enhanced capability to combat southbound firearms and currency smugglers 

through additional personnel at and between the ports of entry along the southern 

border, as well as continuing to expand and maintain the Licensed Plate Reader 

(LPR) program. $70 million is requested to enable ICE to increase enforcement 

staffing, improve cooperative efforts with the Mexican government, and enhance intelligence capacity and information sharing along the border. 

Question 2. Is there a way to identify the savings in the budget as a result of 

287(g) enforcement? What is the savings? 

Answer. ICE does not have the data or a methodology to identify a budget savings 

as a result of 287(g) enforcement. The 287(g) Delegation of Authority Program 

serves as a force multiplier. Operating this delegation program requires ICE funding. ICE’s program costs include: Information technology infrastructure (i.e. T1 

lines, computer equipment, etc.); responding to State and local law enforcement 

agencies (LEAs); training; supervision of participating State or local LEAs; legal 

support; LEA enrollment and oversight; and general program management. 

While ICE cannot quantify any direct cost savings to the Department, the 287(g) 

partner agencies bear the personnel costs for 287(g) officers performing immigration 
68 

enforcement work. To the extent that the 287(g) officers are performing work that 

would otherwise be done by ICE officers, there may be some indirect personnel costs 

savings as a result of the 287(g) enforcement. 

Question 3. Has DHS received any monies from the Stimulus Act? How much 

money? Answer. Yes. DHS received $2.755 billion in direct funding through the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Additionally, DHS programs and activities are also 

being supported with an additional $750 million through the General Services Administration. Provided below is a breakdown of specific funding provisions: 

Total Funds 

• DHS: $2.755 billion. • GSA: $750 million in support of DHS programs. 

St. Elizabeths/Headquarters Consolidation 

• $650 million ($200 million to DHS; $450 million to GSA). 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

• $720 million for land ports of entry construction ($300 million GSA; $420 million CBP). • $100 million for Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) technology, not limited to sea 

ports. • $100 million for border technology on the southwest border. • $60 million for tactical communications equipment and radios. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

• $20 million for ICE automation modernization and tactical communications. 

Transportation Security Administration 

• $1 billion for Explosives Detection Systems and checkpoint screening equipment. 

U.S. Coast Guard 

• $142 million for Alteration of Bridges program. • $98 million for construction, which may include the following: 

• Shore facilities and aids to navigation facilities, • Vessel repair/acquisition (includes High Endurance Cutter, National Security 

Cutter). 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

• $100 million for Emergency Food and Shelter Program. 

• $150 million for transit and rail security grants. 

• $150 million for port security grants. 

• $210 million for Assistance to Firefighter (AFG) grants. 

DHS Office of Inspector General 

• $5 million to conduct bill-related oversight and audits. 

Question 4. Is DHS appropriately staffed to meet current demands with respect 

to homeland security and immigration? 

Answer. The President’s budget for the Department of Homeland Security seeks 

the appropriate mix of staff, infrastructure, and technology to accomplish its missions. 

Question 5. Can you explain why the disaster relief for Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita have tapered off—this year’s request is just $1.5 billion, down 65 percent from 

this year’s appropriation? 

Answer. Disaster relief obligations for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have tapered 

off as we have provided on-going disaster recovery assistance for over 3 years. However, FEMA’s request for Disaster Relief Funding (DRF) in the fiscal year 2010 

budget request actually increases from fiscal year 2009. Congress provided $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2009 for the DRF. FEMA’s fiscal year 2010 DRF request is for 

$2 billion. 

QUESTION FROM HONORABLE HENRY CUELLAR OF TEXAS FOR JANET NAPOLITANO, 

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Question 1a. Madam Secretary, as stated at the hearing I have not received an 

answer for a request I submitted to your office for an estimate as to how many Customs and Border Protection folk they would need on the POEs and the infrastructure. Therefore, please answer the following questions: 

What proper staffing do you need of CBP personnel at land POEs? 
69 

Answer. CBP’s greatest staffing needs at land POEs are on the southwest border 

and in support of expanding efforts to target the highest risk travelers and cargo. 

For fiscal year 2010, CBP has requested 65 CBP officers to conduct outbound inspections on the southern border and 20 CBP officers to conduct expanded targeting operations at the National Targeting Center (NTC). The focus on the southern border 

is especially warranted at this time due to the surge in violence along the U.S.- 

Mexican border. Sixty-five CBP officers will conduct targeted ‘‘pulse and surge’’ outbound operations to seize the southbound currency and firearms that supplement 

the drug cartels’ illegal activities and contribute to the border violence. The twenty 

CBP officers requested for the NTC are necessary to conduct expanded passenger 

and cargo targeting operations at the NTC without scaling back current NTC antiterrorism operations in support of the field. The targeting efforts at the NTC support the ports of entry by assisting the officers at the ports of entry in identifying 

the high and unknown risk passengers and cargo. 

Question 1b. What are your infrastructure needs at POEs, north and southbound? 

Answer. Beginning in 2003, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) undertook 

the first round of Strategic Resource Assessments (SRA), thorough assessments of 

the infrastructural and operational conditions of all 163 POEs. Based on these assessments, CBP identified the infrastructure needs of each POE and prioritized the 

POE modernization projects based on criticality of need. Through the SRAs, CBP 

has identified an approximately $6.5 billion need over the next 10 years for its inbound POE infrastructure requirements. In addition to that, CBP estimates a $48 

million need for short-term outbound infrastructure improvements and $2 billion 

need for long-term outbound infrastructure improvements. 

QUESTION FROM HONORABLE ANN KIRKPATRICK OF ARIZONA FOR JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Question. We in California have just started the wildfire season and it can have 

devastating effects on our communities. At the hearing I stated I was happy to see 

the funding for the SAFER grants increased. 

With the new funding, are you looking to have a cap on this grant increased? 

If so, do you have any thoughts as to what would be an appropriate level? 

Answer. I am aware that Congress is considering changes to the authorized funding-per-firefighter cap, as well as other requirements of the governing statute. These 

changes provide the Secretary with the ability to provide waivers of these requirements. Should these changes be enacted and signed into law, we would seek input 

on the parameters that would be implemented in the granting of exceptions to the 

statutory requirements. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE MIKE ROGERS OF ALABAMA FOR JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Question 1a. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has the important mission of keeping terrorists and weapons out of the United States, while also facilitating trade and travel. The 2010 budget requests 85 new CBP Officer positions, 

which does not appear to be a sufficient increase based on trade facilitation and border security needs in these times. 

What is the Department’s reason for requesting this number of new positions? 

Answer. The focus on the southern border is especially warranted at this time due 

to the surge in violence along the U.S.-Mexican border. Sixty-five CBP officers will 

conduct targeted ‘‘pulse and surge’’ outbound operations to seize the southbound 

currency and firearms that are strengthening the drug cartels and contributing to 

the border violence. Twenty CBP officers are crucial for the National Targeting Center (NTC) to conduct expanded passenger and targeting operations, while enabling 

the NTC to maintain its anti-terrorism operations in support of the field. 

Question 1b. What level of growth of the CBP Officer workforce do you foresee 

in the next few years? 

Answer. Based on its past experience, CBP anticipates its workforce will continue 

to grow over the next few years based on a variety of factors including new congressional mandates, additional training requirements, special events, economic growth, 

and threat level. 

Question 2. Explosives detection dogs play no small part in securing our skies, 

and they can and should do the same for our surface transportation systems. 

Why do neither the fiscal year 2010 budget request nor the 5-year outlook account 

for increased TSA canine teams for surface transportation security, other than 15 

new VIPR teams? 

Answer. The Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) current staffing levels are sufficient to support compliance with currently funded congressional man-
70 

dates, namely the Iraq War Supplement of 2007 and the Budget Amendment of 

2008. When the fiscal year 2010 budget request was prepared, the TSA Canine 

Training Branch was operating at full capacity and could not accommodate any additional teams for fiscal year 2010. As DHS considers the transportation security 

planning priorities, we are reviewing options to ensure the proper mitigation of 

risks across the surface transportation domain. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE CHARLES W. DENT OF PENNSYLVANIA FOR JANET

NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Question 1. How much funding will the Office of Infrastructure Protection be 

budgeted in fiscal year 2010 for enforcement of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 

Standards regulations? How much are they currently funded for? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2010 budget request is for $103.4 million to support both 

continued Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) implementation and 

the development of the Ammonium Nitrate (AN) regulatory program required under 

Section 563 of the fiscal year 2008 DHS Appropriations Act. This breaks down to 

$86.4 million for the CFATS program and $17 million for the AN program. In fiscal 

year 2009, the funding level was $78 million, with $73 million for CFATS and $5 

million for AN. The increased funding request over the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

funding level supports the hiring, training, equipping, and housing of additional inspectors to support the CFATS program, continued deployment and maintenance of 

CFATS compliance tools for covered facilities, and the completion and publication 

of AN regulations, including development of the required registration and 

verification processes and systems, and establishment of inspection and audit procedures. 

Question 2. In the President’s fiscal year 2010 budget request, he asks that current CFATS regulation authority be extended for 1 year. Why? Does the President 

believe the current authorities to regulate chemical facility security are sufficient? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2010 request extends the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards authority for an additional year in order to work with the Congress on permanent authorization legislation, as the current authority is set to expire on October 4, 2009. DHS will work closely with Congress on considering any 

improvements to the existing authority that may be appropriate. 

Question 3. The Congress is considering requiring the Department to review Inherently Safer Technology (IST) analyses completed by all CFATS-regulated facilities. How many IST experts does the Department currently have on staff and how 

many new IST experts are requested in the fiscal year 2010 budget request? 

If IST reviews were required of all CFATS-regulated facilities on October 1, 2009, 

would this budget provide the Department sufficient funding levels to review and 

approve all of the plans? 

Answer. The increased funding request over the fiscal year 2009 enacted funding 

level supports the hiring, training, equipping, and housing of additional inspectors 

to support site inspections for compliance with the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 

Standards (CFATS) program, as well as other activities relating to CFATS compliance by covered facilities. The Department has begun to review data collected under 

the CFATS regulations to get a better sense of the scope of the types of IST changes 

voluntarily being made by industry to adopt safer technologies but does not, at this 

time, have an estimate on the level of expertise and associated costs that may be 

required if IST were incorporated into the regulatory program. As the current regulatory structure does not require use of IST by facilities, the fiscal year 2010 budget 

does not include specific funding for IST purposes. 

Question 4. How much funding does the Department plan on allocating to the 

Transportation Security Lab? Of this, how much will be for original research and 

development and how much will be utilized for product testing and certification? 

Does the Department currently have fee-collecting authority from vendors that submit their products for certification? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2010 President’s budget request for the Transportation 

Security Laboratory (TSL) includes $8.35 million for operations (rent, buildings 

maintenance, utilities, security, environment, and safety), $4 million for Independent Test and Evaluation (IT&E), $3.9 million for core research and development (R&D)—totaling $16.25 million. The budget request also includes approximately $10 million for salaries and expenses for the Federal employees at TSL and 

$5 million to begin adding storage space, including explosive storage bunkers, which 

will eliminate the need to rent space off-site. 

In addition, TSL manages research and development (R&D) funded by S&T Divisions, primarily the Explosives Division, which develops the technical capabilities to 

detect, interdict, and lessen the impacts of non-nuclear explosives used in terrorist 
71 

attacks against mass transit, civil aviation, and critical infrastructure. TSL anticipates that it will manage $15.4 million in fiscal year 2010. 

The Department does not currently have authority to retain fees collected from 

vendors who submit their products to TSL for testing and/or certification. Any such 

fees collected would need to be deposited with the Treasury Department as miscellaneous receipts or S&T risks augmenting its appropriations in violation of the Miscellaneous Receipts Act. The S&T Directorate is in the process of investigating the 

costs and benefits of charging companies for certification of their products at TSL. 

The results will help to determine whether charging companies for certification of 

their products would enable TSL to enhance its certification services and provide 

resources for the capital improvement needs of the laboratory housing TSL’s Independent Test and Evaluation (IT&E) Program. S&T would, of course, need statutory 

authority to retain any such fees collected rather than otherwise depositing such 

fees as miscellaneous receipts at the Treasury Department. 

In July 2008, the S&T Directorate hired an expert team with Department of Defense (DOD) financial experience to look at what business practices and resources 

would be necessary for TSL to execute a work-for-others program. Based on the information collected thus far, S&T believes moving to a fee-for-service business model 

holds potential for increasing the implementation of high-quality transportation security technologies. Over the next 3 years, the S&T Directorate will explore conducting a pilot to determine whether such a fee-for-service business model would 

provide a source of funding for sustaining and upgrading TSL’s infrastructure. During fiscal year 2010, the S&T Directorate will explore the best approach to implement a pilot at TSL, and the S&T Directorate anticipates running the pilot from 

October 2010 to September 2013. As a first step, the S&T Directorate plans to establish a baseline charging structure at TSL and build a customer projection model. 

In addition to enabling some cost recovery, charging fees for service would encourage customers to make sure products are at an appropriate level of development 

prior to bringing them to TSL for IT&E. This would help eliminate inefficiencies by 

cutting down on time and resources spent on products that are not yet technologically mature enough for IT&E. 

Question 5. How much funding is allocated to the purchase of additional wholebody imaging systems in the fiscal year 2010 budget request? How does this compare with current funding levels? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2010 budget reflects approximately $12 million for the 

purchase of Whole-Body Imagers (WBIs). Approximately $60 million, including $32 

million appropriated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, will 

be used to purchase WBIs in fiscal year 2009. 

Question 6. How much of the fiscal year 2010 budget request will be used to conduct operations addressing pipeline security? 

Answer. Within the Surface Transportation Security Operations and Staffing fiscal year 2010 budget request, $2.4 million will be used to conduct operations addressing pipeline security. Activities that will be supported with the fiscal year 2010 

funding include Pipeline Corporate Security Reviews, the 9/11 Act Pipeline Critical 

Facility Inspections, an annual international pipeline security forum, and the development of pipeline security awareness training videos for targeted audiences. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE PAUL C. BROUN OF GEORGIA FOR JANET NAPOLITANO, 

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Question 1. In March, significant action was announced by the administration regarding additional resources and personnel for the southwest border to counter border violence. At the time, you said that this would be funded through reprogramming from ‘‘less urgent activities.’’ Can you give us a breakdown of what ‘‘less urgent activities’’ were the source of funding for the southwest border? 

Answer. On May 11, DHS submitted a reprogramming request for $21.45 million 

to address the growing concerns of violence along the southwest border. The request 

includes reprogramming $2.8 million from Customs and Border Protections (CBP) 

fiscal year 2008 Salaries and Expense lapsed balances and $16.1 million of CBP’s 

no-year funds generated from the deobligation of prior year funds originally appropriated for legacy Customs activities. Current CBP activities will not be impacted 

because the source of CBP funding is largely associated with prior year unobligated 

balances, created by management efficiencies. Sources of funding to support the ICE 

southwest border activities include $2.55 million of ICE lapsed balances as well as 

delaying various non-southwest border activities. This involves delaying retrofit of 

vehicles, facilities projects, permanent change of duty station requests and curtailing activities at ICE overseas locations. In addition, this will result in delaying 

other deployments, suspending other smaller-scale enforcement operations (such as 
72 

2The fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010 funding also included adjustments-to-base for pay 

inflation and annualization of new positions received in fiscal year 2009 of $6.4 million. 

delaying hiring of non-essential personnel that are not directly related to SW border 

enforcement efforts), and re-directing $750,000 from ProNet, a counter proliferation 

information sharing program. All of these activities have been determined to be a 

lower priority than the southwest border initiative. 

Question 2. I was pleased to see the $87 million increase in the President’s fiscal 

year 2010 budget request for the National Cyber Security Division at the Department of Homeland Security. Is this an indication of a greater operational role for 

homeland security in protecting our Government’s cyber networks and data from an 

increasing amount of attacks, and do the increases in funding for cybersecurity reflect changes that will be made as a result of the President’s Cybersecurity Review? 

What large changes do you expect to the Department’s cybersecurity mission as a 

result of the President’s review? 

Answer. The President’s fiscal year 2010 budget request for the National Cyber 

Security Division is $400.654 million, an increase of $87.154 million from the $313.5 

million enacted in fiscal year 2009. The increased funding request supports current 

authorities, including NCSD’s roles and responsibilities for implementing the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative. 

The President’s Cyberspace Policy Review: Assuring a Trusted and Resilient Information and Communication Infrastructure, released May 29, 2009, assesses the current state of U.S. policies and structures for cybersecurity. It is anticipated that 

U.S. cybersecurity decisions will focus on five key areas, outlined in the review, 

which will build on existing programs and activities. Within those key areas, the 

President’s Cyberspace Policy Review sets forth a series of near- and mid-term actions. Many of these actions align with current NCSD activities, such as supply 

chain risk management; cyber workforce development; cybersecurity-related information sharing with Federal, State, local, and private-sector partners; the promotion of cybersecurity through national public awareness and education efforts; 

and the continued coordination with the Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate 

to develop technologies to address current and future technology gaps. The fiscal 

year 2010 funding for NCSD will support these and other NCSD cybersecurity activities as outlined in the budget request. 

Specifically, with regard to the 60-day review, DHS’s current roles and responsibilities are consistent with the review. The 60-day review outlines a range of actions that NCSD will pursue in five key areas: 

• Developing a new comprehensive strategy to secure America’s information and 

communications infrastructure; 

• Ensuring an organized and unified response to future cyber incidents; 

• Strengthening public-private and international partnerships; 

• Investing in cutting-edge research and development in coordination with S&T; 

and, 

• Beginning a national campaign to promote cybersecurity awareness and digital 

literacy as well as to build a digital workforce for the 21st century. 

Question 3. The President’s fiscal year 2010 budget requests $19 million to enforce 

chemical security regulations. Can you give us an update on the implementation of 

the chemical security regulations? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2010 budget request is $103.4 million to support both continued Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) implementation and 

the development of the Ammonium Nitrate (AN) regulatory program required under 

Section 563 of the fiscal year 2008 DHS Appropriations Act. This represents a $19 

million overall increase, which breaks down to $86.4 million for the CFATS program 

and $17 million for the AN program. The fiscal year 2009 enacted funding level was 

$78 million, which amounted to $73 million for CFATS and $5 million for AN.2

In 2007, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) interim final rule and also Appendix A to 

CFATS, defining approximately 300 ‘‘Chemicals of Interest’’ and associated threshold quantities. Pursuant to CFATS, facilities possessing at least threshold amounts 

of Appendix A chemicals were required to complete a Top-Screen assessment within 

60 days of the release of Appendix A (i.e., by January 22, 2008) or, if the facility 

acquires an Appendix A chemical subsequent to the release of Appendix A, within 

60 days of the facility’s acquisition of that chemical. Facilities preliminarily designated high-risk based on the Top-Screen submission are required to complete a 

Security Vulnerability Assessment (SVA) and, if that high-risk status is confirmed 

by the SVA, are then required to develop a Site Security Plan (SSP) and implement 

measures meeting CFATS-defined risk-based performance standards (RBPS). 
73 

To assist facilities in performing these obligations, the Department developed an 

on-line suite of tools known as the Chemical Security Assessment Tool (CSAT). 

CSAT includes, among other applications, the Top-Screen, SVA, and SSP tools; an 

RBPS Guidance Document that facilities may consider when developing their SSPs; 

and a Help Desk to answer questions regarding CFATS. Additionally, upon request, 

the Department performs technical consultations and technical assistance visits for 

facilities having questions regarding the compliance process. To date, more than 

36,400 chemical facilities have submitted Top-Screens, and more than 7,000 facilities were preliminarily designated high-risk and required to submit an SVA. CFATS 

currently covers approximately 6,400 facilities, including facilities both preliminarily 

and finally designated as high-risk. 

In May, following review of their SVAs, the Department began to issue final determination letters to the highest-risk (Tier 1) facilities, which confirm their highrisk status and begin their time frame (120 days) for submitting an SSP. Following 

preliminary approval of the SSPs, the Department expects to begin performing inspections in the first quarter of fiscal year 2010, starting with the designated Tier 

1 facilities. 

Question 4. The Department is the subject of a lawsuit and an Inspector General 

investigation over its handling of the site selection process for the National Bio- and 

Agrodefense Facility, or NBAF. The NBAF is meant to replace the research facility 

on Plum Island, New York. Why does the President’s fiscal year 2010 budget request indicate that the Department is already taking action to sell Plum Island 

when these investigations into serious mishandling are just getting underway? 

Answer. Due to the aging infrastructure at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC) and the need to find a cure for FMD and other foreign animal diseases, 

DHS does not want to delay construction of this high containment laboratory, which 

will provide the country with biosafety level 3 and 4 facilities for large animal research. As for the merits of DHS’s site selection process, the selection of the Manhattan, Kansas site concluded a rigorous 3-year, multi-agency planning process to 

identify the preferred site upon which to construct and operate the NBAF. The process involved a qualitative analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each site alternative and included information from the risk assessment, environmental assessment, and security assessment on proposed NBAF operations. A Steering Committee, comprised of Federal Employees from DHS and USDA, was convened to lead 

the evaluation process and unanimously recommended the site in Manhattan, Kansas as its preferred site alternative. DHS leadership concurred with the Federal employee Steering Committee’s recommendation. As directed by Congress in the fiscal 

year 2009 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, the Department 

is working with the General Services Administration (GSA) to sell Plum Island and 

use the funds from the sale of Plum Island to fund the NBAF construction project. 

Question 5. The Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at DHS objected to some 

of the language contained in the report, ‘‘Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic 

and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment’’ and 

that this disagreement was not resolved prior to its release. Could you elaborate on 

what specific objections that office had to the report? Who in I&A authorized the 

report’s dissemination? How involved was the FBI in the report and why did the 

FBI not agree to sign off on the final product? 

Answer. This risk assessment was intended to provide situational awareness of 

criminal and violent extremist groups. Work on this assessment began last year and 

was drafted by analysts in the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. As I previously 

mentioned, it was a poorly written report and was released despite nonoccurrence 

by the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL). There was a breakdown 

in the process, which the Department has since addressed. The assessment has been 

removed from all DHS intelligence-related Web sites and is not being distributed 

by the agency. The documents that were used to draft the report have been provided 

to the Senate Homeland Security Committee as well as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. These documents include finished intelligence products from 

other intelligence agencies, original research, and references to information obtained 

by organizations that study violent domestic groups. I encourage you to review those 

documents. 

Regarding the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), FBI analysts coordinated on some analytic judgments with I&A analysts who were drafting the risk 

assessment, however, it was not a joint product and DHS is solely responsible for 

its content. 

Æ