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

82–585 PDF 2013

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 18, 2013 

Serial No. 113–11 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Vice Chair 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

VACANCY

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

DONDALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

GREG HILL, Chief of Staff 

MICHAEL GEFFROY, Deputy Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

I. LANIER AVANT, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 2 

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

the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 3 

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

WITNESS

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

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 5 

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

FOR THE RECORD

The Honorable Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of South Carolina: 

Excerpt .................................................................................................................. 44 

APPENDIX

Questions From Honorable Jeff Duncan for Janet Napolitano ............................ 63 

Questions From Honorable Susan W. Brooks for Janet Napolitano ................... 63 

Questions From Honorable Scott Perry for Janet Napolitano ............................. 64 

Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Janet Napolitano . 65 

Question From Honorable Loretta Sanchez for Janet Napolitano ...................... 73 

Questions From Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee for Janet Napolitano ................ 73 

Questions From Honorable Yvette D. Clarke for Janet Napolitano .................... 73 

Question From Honorable Brian Higgins for Janet Napolitano .......................... 73 

Question From Honorable Ron Barber for Janet Napolitano .............................. 73 

Questions From Honorable Donald M. Payne, Jr. for Janet Napolitano ............ 73 

Questions From Honorable Beto O’Rourke for Janet Napolitano ........................ 75 

(1) 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Thursday, April 18, 2013 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:09 a.m., in Room 311, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Michael T. McCaul [Chairman 

of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McCaul, Smith, King, Rogers, Miller, 

Meehan, Duncan, Chaffetz, Barletta, Stewart, Hudson, Daines, 

Brooks, Perry, Thompson, Sanchez, Jackson Lee, Clarke, Higgins, 

Barber, Payne, O’Rourke, Vela, Horsford, and Swalwell. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Committee on Homeland Security will 

come to order. 

The committee is meeting today to hear testimony from Secretary Janet Napolitano, related to the President’s fiscal year 2014 

budget request for the Department of Homeland Security. I now 

recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Secretary Napolitano, I want to thank you for being here today 

during this difficult time for our country. Events like the Boston 

bombing, transcend politics. Today as we search for answers, and 

we remember those who were lost and injured, we are reminded of 

how vulnerable we are in a free society. 

We also realize the truths about the core of this country. That 

we are strong, resilient, and committed to continuing our way of 

life. In the moments following the explosions, we felt tremendous 

heartbreak, but also witnessed tremendous acts of heroism. From 

the first responders who arrived on the scene and saved lives, to 

the marathoners who ran towards the victims, instead of away 

from the blast. 

The courage of the people in this country in the face of great evil 

inspires us all to not be intimidated, but instead carry on, and care 

for each other. The spirit of the people of Boston make us all proud 

to be Americans. The tragic images of that day will stay with us. 

However, if there is a silver lining in times like these, it is that 

we as a country become united. After the explosions ceased, I received a call from the White House. It was clear from that conversation that we were not Republicans or Democrats, but we are 

all Americans who stand together in this fight against terrorism. 

As our Nation comes together to embrace the families affected by 

the tragedy, we re-commit ourselves to never returning to a pre9/11 mentality. We will never forget this heartbreak of losing our 
2 

own, and we owe them our commitment to never become complacent. While our intelligence, military, and law enforcement are the 

best in the world, we as citizens must always remain vigilant. For 

every event like the one in Boston, many are thwarted. 

Hearings like this one today, are meant to improve our prevention of these attacks, and ensure that if they occur, we have the 

best knowledge, and resources to respond. I want to commend the 

Department for its involvement in trying to find the terrorist behind this plot. I appreciate the assurances I have received, that we 

are putting the full weight of the Federal Government behind this 

search. I am confident that we will succeed in bringing these terrorists to justice. 

I think I speak for the committee and tell you that, when it 

comes to Boston, we are all in this together. We are all equally 

committed to finding who did this, and to ensuring that they will 

receive swift justice. As we witnessed this week, this country is 

still a target for terrorism. I look forward to discussing how we can 

best use our resources to combat the many threats against us. 

While we may not always agree on the best way to ensure homeland security, today we can all agree that our highest calling is to 

serve the people and to ensure their safety. 

Today as we examine the fiscal priorities of the Department, I 

hope we can identify ways to improve our National security by ensuring DHS agencies are working together and for a common purpose. From securing our borders to ensuring resources aren’t wasted, and all of the decisions at DHS that play a critical role in safeguarding the Nation. I hope that you, Madam Secretary, can discuss the administration’s plans to continue to support DHS’s 

counterterrorism and disaster preparedness and response efforts in 

addition to the other many issues. 

The Department was created out of the combination of 22 independent agencies after 9/11. Therefore, it has great challenges from 

its inception. I hope that this hearing 10 years after the creation 

can be a constructive forum, and I look forward to hearing the Secretary’s assessment of the proposed budget today. Finally, I want 

to add my concern about what happened in my home State in 

West, Texas yesterday evening. As you know, these types of explosions are extremely hard to contain, and we know that there were 

many injured, and our thoughts and prayers go out to them. 

If you have anything you can share with us today, Madam Secretary, on those events, and what is being done now, we would all 

appreciate your insight. With that, I now recognize the Ranking 

Member of the committee, Mr. Thompson. 

[The statement of Chairman McCaul follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MCCAUL

Secretary Napolitano, I want to thank you for being here during this difficult time 

for our country. 

Events like the Boston bombing transcend politics. Today, as we search for answers and remember those who were lost and injured, we are reminded of how vulnerable we are as a free society. We also realize the truths about the core of this 

country—that we are strong, resilient, and committed to continuing our way of life. 

In the moments following the explosions, we felt tremendous heartbreak, but also 

witnessed tremendous acts of heroism. From the first responders who arrived on the 

scene and undoubtedly saved lives, to the marathoners who ran towards the victims 

instead of away from the blasts. The courage of the people in this country in the 
3 

face of great evil inspires us all to not be intimidated—but to instead carry on and 

to care for each other. The spirit of the people of Boston makes us all proud to be 

Americans. 

The tragic images of that day will stay with us. However, if there is a silver lining 

in times like these, it is that we as a country become united. After the explosions 

ceased, I received a call from the White House. It was clear from that conversation 

that we were not Republicans or Democrats, but we are all Americans who stand 

together in the fight against terrorism. 

And as the Nation comes together to embrace the families affected by the tragedy, 

we recommit ourselves to never returning to a pre-9/11 mentality. We will never forget this heartbreak of losing our own, and we owe them our commitment to never 

become complacent. While our intelligence, military, and law enforcement are the 

best in the world, we as citizens must always remain vigilant. 

For every event like the one in Boston, many are thwarted. Hearings, like this 

one today, are meant to improve our prevention of these attacks—and ensure that 

if they occur, we have the best knowledge and resources to respond. 

I want to commend the Department for its involvement in trying to find the terrorists behind this plot. I appreciate the assurances I’ve received that we are putting the full weight of the Federal Government behind this search, and I have confidence that we will succeed. 

I think I can speak for the committee and tell you that when it comes to Boston, 

we are all in this together. We are all equally committed to finding who did this 

and to ensuring they receive swift justice. 

As we witnessed this week, this country is still a target for terrorism, and I look 

forward to discussing how we can best use our resources to combat the many 

threats against us. 

While we may not always agree on the best way to ensure homeland security, 

today we can all agree that our highest calling is to serve the people, and to ensure 

their safety. 

Today, as we examine the fiscal priorities of the Department, I hope we can identify ways to improve our National security by ensuring DHS agencies work together, 

and for a common purpose. From securing our borders to ensuring resources aren’t 

wasted—all of the decisions at DHS play a critical role in safeguarding our Nation. 

I hope that you, Madame Secretary, can discuss the administration’s plans to continue to support DHS’s counterterrorism and disaster preparedness and response efforts in addition to the many other issues facing the Department. 

The Department was created out of the combination of 22 independent agencies 

after 9/11, therefore it has had great challenges from its inception. I hope that this 

hearing, 10 years after the creation of DHS, can be a constructive forum, and I look 

forward to the Secretary’s assessment of the Department’s proposed budget today. 

Finally, I want to add my concern about what happened in West, Texas, yesterday 

evening. As you know—these types of explosions are extremely hard to contain— 

and we know that there were many injured. If you have anything you can share 

with us today on those events and what’s being done now, we would all appreciate 

your insight. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman for setting 

this hearing to hear from the Secretary on the proposed 2014 budget. Good morning Madam Secretary. I am appreciative that you are 

here to discuss the budget. However, before I begin I would like to 

take a moment to express my sincere condolences to those who 

have lost loved ones, or were injured in Boston. Our thoughts are 

with them today. As a former volunteer firefighter, I want to commend the Boston police, firefighters, and medical personnel for 

their heroic response. 

Also, I would like—be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge the lives 

lost, and destruction out in West, Texas. Our prayers also go out 

to that community. As authorizers, we bear special responsibility 

to make sure that the Government is working to prevent attacks 

like the one that happened on Monday. Madam Secretary, your job 

has certainly not been an easy one. When you arrived at the Department 4 years ago, it was in bad shape. There were problems 

with acquisitions. There were problems with morale. Despite significant investment in preparedness, we had no idea if, as a Na-
4 

tion, we were better prepared to respond to a natural disaster, or 

a terrorist attack. 

To add to that, over the past 3 years, the Department’s budget 

has been reduced. Meanwhile, the periodic logjams in the Congressional budget process have certainly made future budget planning 

much more difficult. So to be clear, I understand that you have a 

very difficult job. That said, I am concerned about the lack of 

progress on many of the fundamental problems that have plagued 

your agency since its inception. 

For example, the Department continues to be on the Government 

Accountability Office’s high-risk list, and employee morale continues to be among the lowest of all Federal agencies. After $430 

million of investment in interoperable communications, Departmental components are still not interoperable. With respect to the 

fiscal year 2014 budget request, I appreciate your efforts to achieve 

savings through efficiencies, but I have some serious reservations 

about some of your proposals. I am concerned that many of the critical new investments are dependent upon Congress approving new 

revenues. 

In the current Congressional environment, that strikes me as a 

very heavy lift. Additionally, I have questions about the proposal 

to let CBP to accept money from outside stakeholders to defray 

costs. In particular, I would like to know how this proposal relates 

to plans to extend the pre-clearance program to Abu Dhabi, UAE. 

With respect to preparedness, I am concerned that the Department 

has yet again proposed to consolidate 16 targeted Homeland Security grant programs into a single pot. 

It has been over a year since grant consolidation was first proposed, and the Department still has not articulated how the capabilities gained through existing grant programs will be maintained 

under the new program. With the limited resources available to the 

Department, we must ensure that the Federal, State, and local programs are adequately funded. Yet, before I close I would note that 

the administration has two major initiatives where the Department 

is expected to play a central role: Immigration reform and cybersecurity. 

I am interested to hear what resources you need in order to undertake the anticipated advances in these two key areas. Again, I 

thank you for being here today, and I look forward to your testimony, and I yield back my time. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON

Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to express my sincere condolences 

to those who lost loved ones or were injured in Boston. Our thoughts are with them 

today. As a former volunteer firefighter, I want to commend the Boston police, firefighters, and medical personnel for their heroic response. 

Also, I would be remiss if I didn’t also acknowledge the lives lost and destruction 

we are seeing out of West, Texas. Our prayers go out to that community. 

As authorizers, we bear a special responsibility to make sure that the Government 

is working to prevent attacks like the one that happened on Monday. 

Madame Secretary, your job has certainly not been an easy one. When you arrived 

at the Department 4 years ago, it was in bad shape. 

There were problems with acquisitions. There were problems with morale. Despite 

significant investments in preparedness, we had no idea if, as a Nation, we were 

better prepared to respond to a natural disaster or terrorist attack. 
5 

To add to that, over the past 3 years, the Department’s budget has been reduced; 

meanwhile, the periodic logjams in the Congressional budget process have certainly 

made future budget planning much more difficult. So, to be clear, I understand that 

you have a very difficult job. 

That said, I am concerned about the lack of progress on many of the fundamental 

problems that have plagued your agency. 

For example, the Department continues to be on the Government Accountability 

Office’s ‘‘High-Risk List’’ and employee morale continues to be among the lowest of 

all Federal agencies. 

After $430 million of investment in interoperable communications, Departmental 

components still are not interoperable. 

With respect to the fiscal year 2014 budget request, I appreciate your efforts to 

achieve savings through efficiencies, but I have some serious reservations about 

some of your proposals. 

I am concerned that many of the critical, new investments are dependent upon 

Congress approving new revenues. In the current Congressional environment, that 

strikes me as a very heavy lift. 

Additionally, I have questions about the proposal to allow CBP to accept money 

from outside stakeholders to defray costs. In particular, I would like to know how 

this proposal relates to plans to extend the preclearance program to Abu Dhabi, 

UAE. 

With respect to preparedness, I am concerned that the Department has, yet again, 

proposed to consolidate 16 targeted homeland security grant programs into a single 

pot. 

It has been over a year since grant consolidation was first proposed, and the Department still has not articulated how the capabilities gained through existing grant 

programs will be maintained under the new program. 

With the limited resources available to the Department, we must ensure that the 

Federal, State, and local programs are adequately funded. 

Before I close, I would note that the administration has two major initiatives 

where the Department is expected to play a central role—immigration reform and 

cybersecurity. 

I am interested to hear what resources you need in order to undertake the anticipated advances in these two key areas. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I want to thank the Ranking Member. Other 

Members of the committee are reminded that opening statements 

may be submitted for the record. I would like now to introduce the 

Secretary. Secretary Napolitano is beginning her fifth year of service in one of the most important Cabinet positions in our Government. Prior to her service at the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Napolitano served as Governor and attorney general 

in the State of Arizona and as a former justice department prosecutor. She was also a United States attorney. 

I remind our witness her entire written statement will appear in 

the record, and ask our witness to summarize her statement at this 

time. I now recognize the Secretary. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you Chairman McCaul and 

Ranking Member Thompson, Members of the committee. Before I 

begin discussion of the fiscal year 2014 budget request, if I might, 

just a few words both about West, Texas, and about Boston. I will 

begin with West, Texas as the more recent event, and give you the 

most current information that we have about the explosion. Of 

course our sympathies and concerns go out to the families of those 

who have lost loved ones, or who have had a loved one who has 

been injured. 

But, as of right now, the FAA has issued a temporary flight restriction over the area. The Texas Commission on Environmental 
6 

Quality is providing air monitoring, and technical assistance. Texas 

Task Force–1 has been alerted to provide structural collapse support. The Union Pacific Railroad has halted freight service, and 

local utilities have turned off utility service in the area, including 

gas and electricity. There is an Incident Command Center, and a 

Triage Center, but they have been recently moved due to fears that 

additional tanks could be at risk. FEMA, part of the department 

has been activated, and stands ready to assist Texas upon request. 

The State Fire Marshall’s Office, the Texas DPS, the Waco Fire 

and Hazmat and other State agencies are also responding. The 

American Red Cross is working with local Emergency Management 

to identify shelter management assistance. We have within FEMA, 

activated an Incident Management Assistance Team, three preliminary Damage Assessment Teams, and we are also standing by to 

assist in any other way. Our EOC remains at level 3, which is at 

increased readiness. We will continue to monitor events over the 

course of today, and provide you with updates as they are relevant. 

I might add, Mr. Chairman that many of the things I have just 

gone through are examples of the kinds of activities that have been 

supported by the committee, through FEMA, through the various 

grants that we supply. Urban Search and Rescue being a good example of the kinds of things that grants have been supporting, increasing or capacity for response and resilience as a Nation. So, 

that is the most recent on West, Texas. With respect to Boston, we 

are—in the FBI’s lead, we are investigating this as an act of terror. 

We are assisting. 

ICE is part of the JTTF. We have over four dozen ICE agents 

now assigned to the Boston office, helping in the investigation. CBP 

is assisting in a number of ways. Immediately after the attack, we 

worked to close Logan, to ground air for a few hours and to institute special targeting rules, both in the air environment, and at the 

Canadian border environment, in case there were those seeking to 

escape the scene. 

With respect to FEMA, again when you saw the response in Boston and how coordinated it was even given the level of destruction, 

I would remind the committee that just last November, Boston held 

a massive exercise on how to deal with a mass casualty event. That 

exercise was the kind of exercise, and exercises supported by the 

committee through FEMA to local areas, again increasing our ability for response and resilience. 

We have worked with the FBI and provided several intel products and briefings to State and local law enforcement across the 

country. Critical infrastructure owners and operators, and we have 

been reaching out to faith-based organizations, community organizations, and others who want to know what they can do. We are 

implementing a number of security measures, both seen and unseen at airports, transit hubs, within the maritime environment, 

and at ports of entry. 

The Coast Guard is providing security on the ferries in the Boston area. VIPR teams are doing surges in terms of ground transportation and the like. Finally, with respect to the public, we do 

urge the public to remain vigilant. We are all in this together. Security is a joint responsibility. The ‘‘see something, say something’’ 
7 

message is something that all of us can emphasize. Events such as 

Boston remind us of the importance of that. 

This is an all-hands-on-deck effort by the entire Federal Government, led by the President. We are committed to making sure that 

we bring the perpetrators to justice. 

Moving on to the budget, this marks the 10th anniversary of the 

creation of DHS. It is the largest reorganization of the Federal 

Government since the creation of the Department of Defense. In 10 

years, we have transformed 22 legacy agencies into a single integrated Department. We have built a strengthened homeland security enterprise and a more secure America better equipped to confront the range of threats we face. 

The President’s fiscal year 2014 budget request allows us to build 

on our progress by preserving core front-line operational priorities. 

At the same time, given the current fiscal environment—this is the 

third straight year that our budget request reflects a reduction 

from the previous year. Specifically, the budget request is 2.2 percent, or more than $800 million dollars below the fiscal year 2013 

enacted budget. While our missions have not changed, and we continue to face evolving threats, I think, we have become more strategic in how we use our resources, focusing on a risk-based approach. 

This is coupled with a commitment to fiscal discipline, which has led to over $4 billion in cost avoidances and reductions through our 

efficiency review. The recent, 4-year appropriations bill enables 

DHS to mitigate, to some degree, the projected sequester impacts 

under the Continuing Resolution on our operations and work force. 

But there is no doubt that these cuts, totaling more than $3 billion 

over 6 months, will affect our operations in the short and long 

term. 

Sustained cuts at sequester levels will result in reduced operational capacity, breached staffing floors, and economic impacts to 

the private sector through reduced and canceled contracts. Nonetheless, we continue to do everything we can to minimize impacts 

on our core mission and employees, consistent with the operational 

priorities in the 2014 budget. 

Let me, if I might, briefly highlight those. First, to prevent terrorism and enhance security, the 2014 budget continues to support 

risk-based security initiatives, like TSA PreCheck, Global Entry, 

other trusted traveler programs. As a result, we expect 1 in 4 travelers to receive some form of expedited screening by the end of the 

year. The budget supports the administration efforts to secure maritime cargo in the global supply train by strengthening efforts to 

interdict threats at the earliest possible point. 

We continue our strong support for State and local partners 

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

range of homeland security issues. We also fund cutting-edge research and development to address evolving biological, radiological, 

and nuclear threats, including construction of the National Bio and 

Agro-Defense Facility, the NBAF. 

To secure and manage our borders, the budget continues the administration’s robust border security efforts, while facilitating legitimate travel and trade. It sustains historic deployments of personnel along our borders, as well as continued utilization of proven, 
8 

effective surveillance technology along the highest-trafficked areas 

of the Southwest Border. 

To expedite travel and trade, while reducing wait times at the 

ports of entry, the budget requests an additional 3,500 port officers, 

1,600 paid for by appropriation, the remainder by an increase to 

the immigration user fees that have not been adjusted since 2001. 

To secure maritime borders, the budget invests in recapitalization of Coast Guard assets, including the 7th National Security 

Cutter and fast response cutters. The budget also continues the Department’s focus on smart and effective enforcement of our Nation’s 

immigration laws. It supports the unprecedented effort to more effectively focus the enforcement system on public safety threats, 

border security, and the integrity of the immigration system 

through initiatives such as deferred action for childhood arrivals 

and greater use of prosecutorial discretion. 

At the same time, the budget makes significant reductions to inefficient programs like 287–G task force agreements while supporting more cost-efficient initiatives like the Nation-wide implementation of secure communities. 

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

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

Comprehensive immigration reform will help us continue to build 

on these efforts and strengthen border security by enabling DHS 

to further focus its resources on criminals, human smugglers and 

traffickers, and National security threats. 

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

secure our Nation’s information and financial systems and to defend against cyber threats to private sector and Federal systems, 

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

the President’s Executive Order on improving critical infrastructure, cybersecurity, and the Presidential Policy Directive on critical 

infrastructure, security, and resilience. It expedites the deployment 

of the EINSTEIN–3 to prevent and detect intrusions on Government computer systems. 

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

Fund, the DRF, to support Presidentially-declared disasters or 

emergencies. The administration is again proposing the consolidation of 18 grant programs into one National preparedness grants 

program to create a robust National response capacity while reducing administrative overhead. This competitive risk-based program 

will use a comprehensive process to identify gaps, identify and 

prioritize deployable capabilities, put funding to work quickly, and 

require grantees to regularly report on their progress. 

It is, as I mentioned before, precisely this kind of funding that 

has enhanced preparedness and response capabilities in cities like 

Boston and locations like West, Texas. Since 2002, the Boston 

urban area has received nearly $370 million in Federal grant funding, which has been used to equip and train tactical and specialize 
9 

1 ‘‘Local’’ law enforcement includes all law enforcement at the municipal, Tribal, and territorial levels. 

response teams, specifically, in IED detection, prevention, response, 

and recovery. 

Grants have supported increased coordination, particularly with 

respect to joint exercises and training, including more than a dozen 

exercises involving the city of Boston over the past several years. 

As I mentioned, this included a large-scale mass casualty exercise 

with more than 1,800 first responders just last November. 

Due to the investments made over the past 10 years, our State 

and local jurisdictions now have greater capabilities to prevent and 

respond to incidents. In sum, our communities are better prepared, 

and we must continue this support. 

In conclusion, the fiscal year 2014 budget proposal reflects this 

administration’s strong commitment to protecting the homeland 

and the American people through the effective and efficient use of 

DHS resources. 

Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, Members of the 

committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I look forward 

to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Napolitano follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANET NAPOLITANO

Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the committee: 

Let me begin by saying thank you to this committee for the strong support you have 

provided me and the Department over the past 4 years. I look forward to continuing 

to work with you in the coming year to protect the homeland and the American people. 

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

fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the creation of DHS, the largest reorganization of the U.S. Government since the formation of the Department of Defense. 

After 10 years of effort, DHS has transformed 22 agencies from across the Federal 

Government into a single integrated Department, building a strengthened homeland 

security enterprise and a more secure America better equipped to confront the range 

of threats we face. 

Our workforce of nearly 240,000 law enforcement agents, officers, and men and 

women on the front lines put their lives at risk every day to protect our country 

from threats to the homeland, securing our land, air, and maritime borders; enforcing our immigration laws; and responding to natural disasters. Our employees are 

stationed in every State and in more than 75 countries around the world, engaging 

with State, local, and foreign partners to strengthen homeland security through cooperation, information sharing, training, and technical assistance. Domestically, 

DHS works side-by-side with State and local 1 law enforcement (SLLE) and emergency responders in our communities, along our borders, and throughout a National 

network of fusion centers. The Department also collaborates with international partners, including foreign governments, major multilateral organizations, and global 

businesses to strengthen the security of the networks of global trade and travel, 

upon which our Nation’s economy and communities rely. 

DHS employs a risk-based, intelligence-driven approach to help prevent terrorism 

and other evolving security threats. Utilizing a multi-layered detection system, DHS 

focuses on enhanced targeting and information sharing, and on working beyond our 

borders to interdict threats and dangerous actors at the earliest point possible. Each 

day, DHS screens 2 million passengers at domestic airports; intercepts thousands 

of agricultural threats; expedites the transit of nearly 100,000 people through trusted traveler and known crewmember programs; and trains thousands of Federal, 

State, local, rural, Tribal, territorial, and international officers and agents through 

more than 550 basic and advanced training programs available at the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). We conduct vulnerability assessments of 

key infrastructure, disseminate intelligence regarding current and developing 

threats, and provide connectivity to Federal systems to help local law enforcement 
10 

and homeland security agencies across the country in reporting suspicious activities 

and implementing protective measures. 

Our borders and ports are stronger, more efficient, and better protected than ever 

before. At the Southwest Border, apprehensions have decreased to the lowest point 

in more than 30 years. We have significantly invested in additional personnel, technology, and infrastructure, leading to historic progress along the border. We have 

deepened partnerships with Federal, State, local, and international law enforcement 

to combat transnational threats and criminal organizations to help keep our border 

communities safe. We have strengthened entry procedures to protect against the use 

of fraudulent documents and the entry of individuals who may wish to do us harm. 

And we have made our ports of entry (POEs) more efficient to expedite lawful travel 

and trade. Each day, almost 1 million people arrive at our POEs by land, sea, and 

air. In fiscal year 2012, DHS processed more than 350 million travelers at our 

POEs, including almost 100 million international air travelers and $2.3 trillion dollars of trade, while enforcing U.S. laws that welcome travelers, protect health and 

safety, and facilitate the flow of goods essential to our economy. 

DHS has focused on smart and effective enforcement of U.S. immigration laws 

while streamlining and facilitating the legal immigration process. We have established clear enforcement priorities to focus the enforcement system on the removal 

of individuals who pose a danger to National security or a risk to public safety, including aliens convicted of crimes, with particular emphasis on violent criminals, 

felons, and repeat offenders, while implementing a comprehensive worksite enforcement strategy to reduce demand for illegal employment and protect employment opportunities for the Nation’s lawful workforce. DHS has implemented major reforms 

to the Nation’s immigration detention system to enhance security and efficiency and 

protect the health and safety of detainees while expanding Nation-wide the Secure 

Communities program, which uses biometric information to identify criminal aliens 

in State and local correctional facilities. Over the past 4 years, the Department has 

also improved the legal immigration process by streamlining and modernizing immigration benefits processes; strengthening fraud protections; protecting crime victims, 

asylees, and refugees; updating rules to keep immigrant families together; and 

launching new initiatives to spur economic competitiveness. 

Today, our borders are more secure and our border communities are among the 

safest communities in our country. We have removed record numbers of criminals 

from the United States, and our immigration laws are being enforced according to 

sensible priorities. We have taken numerous steps to strengthen legal immigration 

and build greater integrity into the system. We are using our resources smartly, effectively, responsibly. 

Despite these improvements, however, our immigration system remains broken 

and outdated. That is why the Department stands ready to implement commonsense immigration reform that would continue investments in border security, crack 

down on companies that hire undocumented workers, improve the legal immigration 

system for employment-sponsored and family-sponsored immigrants, and establish 

a responsible pathway to earned citizenship. Comprehensive immigration reform 

will help us continue to build on this progress and strengthen border security by 

providing additional tools and enabling DHS to further focus existing resources on 

preventing the entry of criminals, human smugglers and traffickers, and National 

security threats. 

Our Nation’s critical infrastructure is crucial to our economy and security. DHS 

is the Federal Government’s lead in securing unclassified Federal civilian government networks as well as working with owners and operators of critical infrastructure to secure their networks and protect physical assets through risk assessment, 

mitigation, forensic analysis, and incident response capabilities. In 2012, DHS 

issued warnings and responded to an average of 70 incidents per month arising 

from more than 10,000 daily alerts. The President also issued an Executive Order 

on cybersecurity and a Presidential Policy Directive on critical infrastructure security and resilience to strengthen the security and resilience of critical infrastructure 

against evolving threats through an updated and overarching National framework 

that acknowledges the interdependencies between cybersecurity and securing physical assets. 

In support of these efforts, DHS serves as the focal point for the U.S. Government’s cybersecurity outreach and awareness activities and is focused on the development of a world-class cybersecurity workforce as well as innovative technologies 

that sustain safe, secure, and resilient critical infrastructure. We work hand-in-hand 

with our private-sector partners, recognizing the importance of public-private partnerships to build resilience through a whole-of-community approach. In addition to 

these responsibilities, DHS combats cybercrime by leveraging the skills and re-
11 

sources of the law enforcement community and interagency partners to investigate 

and prosecute cyber criminals. 

DHS has fundamentally changed how we work with our State and local partners 

to prepare for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of disasters. 

Through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), we have implemented innovative practices to transform our disaster workforce through the creation of FEMA Corps and the DHS Surge Capacity Workforce. Working closely with 

State and local officials, we preposition resources before disasters hit and have 28 

National urban search-and-rescue teams on standby in addition to dozens of State 

and local teams to support response efforts. We train more than 2 million emergency management and response personnel annually at the Emergency Management Institute, National Fire Academy, and through Community Emergency Response Teams to improve capabilities across all hazards. Additionally, we have deployed new capabilities to help disaster survivors recover and communities rebuild. 

MAXIMIZING EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS

The fiscal year 2014 budget for DHS is $60.0 billion in total budget authority and 

$48.5 billion in gross discretionary funding. These two amounts include $5.6 billion 

in Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) appropriations for recovery from major disasters, pursuant to the Budget Control Act. Excluding the $5.6 billion funding within the DRF, 

the net discretionary total is $39 billion. 

Realizing Efficiencies and Streamlining Operations 

The Department has implemented a variety of initiatives to cut costs, share resources across components, and consolidate and streamline operations wherever possible. In fiscal year 2014, these initiatives will result in $1.3 billion in savings from 

administrative and mission support areas, including contracts, information technology (IT), travel, personnel moves, overtime, directed purchasing, professional 

services, and vehicle management. 

Through the Department-wide, employee-driven Efficiency Review (ER), which 

began in 2009, as well as other cost-saving initiatives, DHS has identified more 

than $4 billion in cost avoidances and reductions, and redeployed those funds to 

mission-critical initiatives across the Department. 

Strategic Sourcing 

Through ER and component initiatives, DHS has used strategic sourcing initiatives to leverage the purchasing power of the entire Department for items such as 

language services, tactical communications services and devices, intelligence analysis services, and vehicle maintenance services. In fiscal year 2012, we achieved 

$368 million in savings, and we project $250 million in savings for fiscal year 2013. 

We expect a comparable level of savings as we continue forward with this approach 

in fiscal year 2014. 

Travel and Conferences 

In support of the administration’s Campaign to Cut Waste, DHS strengthened 

conference and travel policies and controls to reduce travel expenses, ensure conferences are cost-effective, and ensure both travel and conference attendance is driven by critical mission requirements. During 2012, DHS issued a new directive that 

establishes additional standards for conferences and requires regular reporting on 

conference spending, further increasing transparency and accountability. The Department’s fiscal year 2014 budget projects an additional 20 percent reduction in 

travel costs from fiscal years 2013–2016. 

Real Property Management 

DHS manages a real property portfolio of approximately 38,000 assets, which 

spans all 50 States and 7 U.S. territories. The Department has adopted strategies 

to achieve greater efficiencies in the management of its real property portfolio that 

includes expediting the identification and disposal of under-utilized assets as well 

as improving the utilization of remaining Department inventory. These efforts will 

result in reductions in the size of our civilian real estate inventory, annual operating and maintenance costs, and energy usage. DHS anticipates that the amount 

of space and cost per full-time equivalent employee will continue to decline as 

spaces are reconfigured or new space is acquired on the basis of new workplace 

planning assumptions. DHS is committed to continuing to improve the management 

and alignment of its real property with advances in technology, mission, and work 

requirements. 
12 

Management and Integration 

Over the past 4 years, DHS has significantly improved Departmental management, developing and implementing a comprehensive, strategic approach to enhance 

Department-wide maturation and integration. We have improved acquisition oversight, ensuring full consideration of the investment life cycle in cost estimates, establishing procedures to thoroughly vet new requirements and alternative solutions, 

and supporting full funding policies to minimize acquisition risk. The fiscal year 

2014 budget includes key investments to strengthen the homeland security enterprise, increase integration, address challenges raised by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), and continue to build upon the management reforms that 

have been implemented under this administration. 

Modernization of the Department’s financial management systems has been consistently identified as critical by the Office of Management and Budget, the GAO, 

and Congress, and is vital to our ability to provide strong stewardship of taxpayer 

dollars. Over the past several years, we have made significant progress improving 

financial management practices and establishing internal controls. In 2012, DHS 

earned a qualified audit opinion on its Balance Sheet, a significant milestone and 

a pivotal step toward increasing transparency and accountability for the Department’s resources. This full-scope audit opinion is a result of DHS’s on-going commitment to instituting sound financial management practices to safeguard taxpayer 

dollars. 

Although DHS continues to maximize cost efficiencies and savings wherever possible, new investment must be made to improve our outdated financial systems and 

tools. The fiscal year 2014 budget supports financial system modernization at the 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), which also provides financial management services to 

two other DHS components. 

DHS is also implementing a coordinated management approach for strategic investments and resource decisions involving multiple components through the Integrated Investment Life Cycle Model. This initiative will help the Department enhance mission effectiveness while achieving management efficiencies by providing a 

broader, enterprise-wide perspective and ensuring DHS investments address the 

greatest needs of the Department. 

Strategic Re-Organizations 

In today’s fiscal environment, the Department has challenged its workforce to fundamentally rethink how it does business, from the largest to the smallest investments. To help reduce costs, DHS conducted a formal base budget review, looking 

at all aspects of the Department’s budget to find savings and better align resources 

with operational requirements. 

United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US–VISIT) 

To better align the functions of US–VISIT with the operational components, the 

Budget re-proposes the transfer of US–VISIT functions from the National Protection 

and Programs Directorate (NPPD) to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 

consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget. Currently, CBP operates numerous screening and targeting systems, and integrating US–VISIT within CBP 

will strengthen the Department’s overall vetting capability while also realizing operational efficiencies and cost savings. 

State and Local Grants 

Given the fiscal challenges facing the Department’s State and local partners, DHS 

is also approaching these partnerships in new and innovative ways. The budget reproposes the National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP), originally presented in 

the fiscal year 2013 budget, to develop, sustain, and leverage core capabilities across 

the country in support of National preparedness, prevention, and response, with appropriate adjustments to respond to stakeholder feedback in 2012. While providing 

a structure that will give grantees more certainty about how funding will flow, the 

proposal continues to utilize a comprehensive process for assessing regional and National gaps; support the development of a robust cross-jurisdictional and readily 

deployable State and local assets; and require grantees to regularly report progress 

in the acquisition and development of these capabilities. 

Land Port of Entry (LPOE) Delegation 

Beginning in fiscal year 2013, the General Services Administration (GSA) will 

work with DHS to delegate the operations of LPOE facilities to CBP. The distinctive 

nature of LPOEs as mission-oriented, 24/7 operational assets of CBP, as well as National trade and transportation infrastructure, differentiates this part of the portfolio from other Federal buildings managed by GSA. The delegation facilitates faster 
13 

delivery of service tailored to the specific needs of CBP’s mission and will be more 

responsive to changing priorities and critical operations. 

DHS Commonality Efforts 

The successful integration of 22 legacy agencies into DHS was an important and 

ambitious undertaking that has increased the Department’s ability to understand, 

mitigate, and protect against threats to the Nation. Further integration of the Department and of the development of a ‘‘One DHS’’ culture will strengthen effectiveness, improve decision making to address shared issues, and prioritize resources in 

an era of fiscal constraint. The fiscal year 2014 budget continues this emphasis and 

supports on-going efforts aimed at furthering integration, some of which are highlighted as follows. 

Common Vetting 

It is estimated that DHS spends approximately $1.8 billion annually on information-based screening. Consequently, DHS has established a Common Vetting Initiative to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of vetting operations within the Department. Although this work is on-going, it is expected that this effort will identify 

opportunities for streamlining operations and strengthening front-end assessment of 

requirements as part of an integrated investment life cycle. 

Additionally, DHS is leveraging existing capabilities and its research and development (R&D) capabilities at the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) to enhance the Department’s exit program, and to identify and sanction those who overstay their lawful period of admission to the United States. This initiative is focused 

on aggregating information within existing data systems, enhancing review of potential overstays, increasing automated matching, and incorporating additional biometric elements to provide the foundation for a future biometric exit solution. The 

transfer of US–VISIT functions to CBP and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) supports this effort and better aligns mission functions. 

Aviation Commonality 

The Department is projected to spend approximately $1.2 billion over fiscal years 

2014–2018 on procurement of aviation assets. In 2011, DHS stood up an aviation 

commonalities working group to improve operational coordination in acquisition, facilities, maintenance, and logistics between CBP and USCG. The Department also 

launched an Aviation and Marine Commonalities Pilot Project in the fall of 2012 

to test the unified command and control of Departmental aviation and marine 

forces. Complementing this effort, DHS recently began an ER initiative, which will 

increase cross-component collaboration for aviation-related equipment and maintenance by establishing excess equipment sharing, maintenance services, and contract 

teaming agreements, as well as other opportunities for aviation-related efficiencies. 

Investigations 

A recent partnership between ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations and the 

U.S. Secret Service (USSS) demonstrates the Department’s commitment to 

leveraging capabilities across components and finding efficiencies. Both ICE and 

USSS are expanding participation in the existing Secret Service Electronic Crimes 

Task Forces (ECTFs), which will strengthen the Department’s cybercrimes investigative capabilities and realize efficiencies in the procurement of computer forensic 

hardware, software licensing, and training. This collaboration will integrate resources devoted to investigating transnational criminal organizations; transnational 

child exploitation; financial crime, including money laundering and identity and intellectual property theft; and network intrusions by domestic and international 

threats. This will further enhance the response capability of the Department to a 

cyber event by leveraging the assets of the Secret Service’s 31 ECTFs, which bring 

together more than 2,700 international, Federal, State, and local law enforcement 

partners; 3,100 private-sector members; and 300 academic partners. 

CBP Staffing and Mission Integration 

Given the administration’s strong and continued focus on border security, DHS 

has undertaken a series of initiatives to ensure that CBP’s operations are integrated 

and that Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) and CBP Officers (CBPOs) are optimally deployed. As part of its mission integration efforts, CBP has applied complementary 

BPA and CBPO deployments to enhance mission sets both at and between the 

POEs. Toward this goal, CBP has identified numerous mission areas where BPAs 

can substantially support: Port operations, including canine detection operations for 

drugs and concealed humans; outbound operations that target currency, firearms, 

and fugitives; port security, counter-surveillance, and perimeter enforcement operations; inbound secondary conveyance inspections for narcotics and human smug-
14 

gling. CBP has also identified mission areas where BPAs secure and transport 

seized contraband. 

CBP is realizing significant operational and force-multiplying benefits from deploying BPAs to support POE requirements. Over the last year, these efforts have 

augmented POE operations, enabling CBP to more effectively address the threat of 

money and weapons being smuggled southbound into Mexico for use by 

transnational criminal organizations. In 2013, CBP is expanding these efforts by 

synchronizing mission integration efforts across the four key Southwest Border 

operational corridors: South Texas, El Paso/New Mexico, Arizona, and Southern 

California. The harmonization of current efforts will increase rapid response capability, develop unified intelligence and targeting approaches, and identify additional 

areas for on-the-ground operational collaboration. 

Supporting Economic Growth and Job Creation 

In support of the President’s Executive Order on travel and tourism and to continue building upon the administration’s significant investments in border security, 

the fiscal year 2014 budget includes several proposals to invest in the men and 

women on the front lines of our 329 POEs along the border and at airports and seaports across the country. Processing the more than 350 million travelers annually 

provides nearly $150 billion in economic stimulus, yet the fees that support these 

operations have not been adjusted in many cases for more than a decade. As the 

complexity of our operations continues to expand, the gap between fee collections 

and the operations they support is growing, and the number of workforce hours fees 

support decreases each year. Accordingly, the budget supports 3,477 new CBPOs to 

reduce growing wait times at our POEs and increase seizures of illegal items (guns, 

drugs, currency, and counterfeit goods). This includes appropriated funding for 1,600 

additional CBPOs and, with Congressional approval, 1,877 new CBPOs through adjustments in immigration and customs inspections user fees to recover more of the 

costs associated with providing services. These fee proposals will also help address 

the staffing gap outlined in CBP’s Resource Optimization at Ports of Entry, Fiscal 

Year 2013 Report to Congress, submitted with the President’s budget. In addition, 

CBP and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are evaluating financial models to 

achieve full cost recovery for agricultural inspectional services provided by CBP. 

Beyond the additional front-line positions, the President’s budget also provides direct support for thousands of new jobs through major infrastructure projects such 

as the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) and a consolidated departmental headquarters at the St. Elizabeths Campus. Investment in USCG recapitalization projects supports more than 4,000 jobs as well in the shipbuilding and aircraft industries. Through our grant programs we will continue helping local communities to create and maintain jobs, while strengthening the resiliency of important 

economic sectors and infrastructure. The budget additionally supports CBP and ICE 

efforts to combat commercial trade fraud, including intellectual property law infringement, estimated to cost the economy up to $250 billion each year. 

Continued investment in Coast Guard front-line operations and recapitalization of 

its aging fleet helps to protect the Nation’s Exclusive Economic Zone, a source of 

$122 billion in annual U.S. revenue, and to secure 361 ports and thousands of miles 

of maritime thoroughfares that support 95 percent of trade with the United States. 

Through CBP and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), we continue 

to promote safe and secure travel and tourism, supporting a $2.3 trillion dollar tourism industry. These programs, among others, enhance our Nation’s safety and security while fostering economic growth and job creation. 

BUDGET PRIORITIES

The fiscal year 2014 budget prioritizes programs and activities within the homeland security mission areas outlined in the Department’s 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, the 2010 Bottom-Up Review, and the fiscal year 2012–2016 

DHS Strategic Plan, undertaken by the Department to align its DHS resources with 

a comprehensive strategy to meet the Nation’s homeland security needs. 

The budget builds on the progress the Department has made in each of its mission areas while strengthening existing capabilities, enhancing partnerships across 

all levels of government and with the private sector, streamlining operations, and 

increasing efficiencies. 

Mission 1: Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security.—Protecting the United 

States from terrorism is the cornerstone of homeland security. DHS’s counterterrorism responsibilities focus on three goals: Preventing terrorist attacks; preventing 

the unauthorized acquisition, importation, movement, or use of chemical, biological, 

radiological, and nuclear materials and capabilities within the United States; and 
15 

reducing the vulnerability of critical U.S. infrastructure and key resources, essential 

leadership, and major events to terrorist attacks and other hazards. 

Mission 2: Securing and Managing Our Borders.—The protection of the Nation’s 

borders—land, air, and sea—from the illegal entry of people, weapons, drugs, and 

other contraband while facilitating lawful travel and trade is vital to homeland security, as well as the Nation’s economic prosperity. The Department’s border security and management efforts focus on three interrelated goals: Effectively securing 

U.S. air, land, and sea borders; safeguarding and streamlining lawful trade and 

travel; and disrupting and dismantling transnational criminal and terrorist organizations. 

Mission 3: Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws.—DHS is focused 

on smart and effective enforcement of U.S. immigration laws while streamlining and 

facilitating the legal immigration process. The Department has fundamentally reformed immigration enforcement, focusing on identifying and removing criminal 

aliens who pose a threat to public safety and targeting employers who knowingly 

and repeatedly break the law. 

Mission 4: Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace.—DHS is responsible for securing unclassified Federal civilian government networks and working with owners and 

operators of critical infrastructure to secure their networks through risk assessment, 

mitigation, and incident response capabilities. To combat cybercrime, DHS leverages 

the skills and resources of the law enforcement community and interagency partners 

to investigate and prosecute cyber criminals. DHS also serves as the focal point for 

the U.S. Government’s cybersecurity outreach and awareness efforts to create a 

more secure environment in which the private or financial information of individuals is better protected. 

Mission 5: Ensuring Resilience to Disasters.—DHS coordinates the comprehensive 

Federal efforts to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate 

a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or other large-scale emergency, while working 

with individuals; communities; the private and nonprofit sectors; faith-based organizations; and Federal, State, local, territorial, and Tribal (SLTT) partners to ensure 

a swift and effective recovery. The Department’s efforts to help build a ready and 

resilient Nation include fostering a whole community approach to emergency management Nationally; building the Nation’s capacity to stabilize and recover from a 

catastrophic event; bolstering information sharing and building unity of effort and 

common strategic understanding among the emergency management team; providing training to our homeland security partners; and leading and coordinating National partnerships to foster preparedness and resilience across the private sector. 

In addition to these missions, DHS strives to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of its operations while strengthening the homeland security enterprise. The 

collective efforts of Federal, SLTT, non-Governmental, and private-sector partners, 

as well as individuals and communities across the country are critical to our shared 

security. This includes enhancing shared awareness of risks and threats, building 

capable, resilient communities, and fostering innovative approaches and solutions 

through cutting-edge science and technology. 

The following are highlights of the fiscal year 2014 budget. 

Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security 

Guarding against terrorism was the founding mission of DHS and remains our 

top priority. To address evolving terrorist threats and ensure the safety of the traveling public, the budget safeguards the Nation’s transportation systems through a 

layered detection system and continues to support risk-based security initiatives, including TSA Pre✔TM, Global Entry, and other trusted traveler programs. The budget supports administration efforts to secure maritime cargo and the global supply 

chain by strengthening efforts to prescreen and evaluate high-risk cargo. Investments in DHS’s intelligence and targeting programs coupled with the expansion of 

the National Targeting Center, supported by the budget, will increase operational 

efficiencies and enhance our ability to interdict threats and dangerous people before 

they reach the United States. 

Funding is included for cutting-edge R&D to address evolving biological, radiological, and nuclear threats. Among the important research investments is the construction of NBAF, a state-of-the-art bio-containment facility for the study of foreign 

animal and emerging zoonotic diseases that will replace the inadequate facility at 

Plum Island. The budget funds the Securing the Cities (STC) program to protect our 

highest-risk cities from radiological or nuclear attack and continues National biopreparedness and response efforts. The budget also continues strong support for 

State and local partners through the NPGP, training, fusion centers, and intelligence analysis and information sharing on a wide range of critical homeland security issues. 
16 

• Strengthening Risk-Based Aviation Security.—The fiscal year 2014 budget supports DHS’s effort to employ risk-based, intelligence-driven operations to prevent terrorist attacks and to reduce the vulnerability of the Nation’s aviation 

system to terrorism. These security measures create a multi-layered system to 

strengthen aviation security from the time a passenger purchases a ticket to arrival at his or her destination. The fiscal year 2014 budget: 

• Continues expansion of trusted traveler programs, such as TSA Pre✔TM and 

Global Entry, which are pre-screening initiatives for travelers who volunteer 

information about themselves before flying in order to potentially expedite 

screening at domestic checkpoints and through customs. By 2014, TSA anticipates that one in four members of the traveling public will be eligible for expedited domestic screening. • Continues enhanced behavior detection in which interview and behavioral 

analysis techniques are used to determine if a traveler should be referred for 

additional screening at the checkpoint. Analyses from pilots in fiscal year 

2013 will inform the next steps on how larger-scale implementation in fiscal 

year 2014 could improve capabilities in a risk-based security environment. • Expands Secure Flight to perform watch list matching for passengers before 

boarding large general aviation aircraft. An estimated 11 million additional 

Secure Flight Passenger Data sets are expected to be submitted by general 

aviation operators per year. • Supports, as part of its multi-layered security strategy, the Federal Flight 

Deck Officer and Flight Crew program as a fully reimbursable program under 

FLETC’s existing authorities. • Prioritizes TSA’s mission-critical screening functions, and proposes the transfer of all exit lane staffing to local airports pursuant to Federal regulatory authorities. Airports will be responsible for integrating exit lane security into 

their perimeter security plans, which are assessed regularly by TSA. • Enhancing International Collaboration.—To most effectively carry out our core 

missions, DHS continues to engage countries around the world to protect both 

National and economic security. The fiscal year 2014 budget supports DHS’s 

strategic partnerships with international allies and enhanced targeting and information-sharing efforts to interdict threats and dangerous people and cargo 

at the earliest point possible. The Secretary’s focus on international partnerships includes elevating the Office of International Affairs to a stand-alone office and a direct report. The fiscal year 2014 budget: 

• Supports the Immigration Advisory Program and the continued growth of the 

Pre-Departure Vetting, which have experienced a 156 percent increase in the 

number of no-board recommendations since 2010. Through these programs, 

CBP identifies high-risk travelers who are likely to be inadmissible into the 

United States and makes recommendations to commercial carriers to deny 

boarding. 

• Continues to modernize the IT capability for screening visa applications to 

support the expansion of Visa Security Program (VSP) coverage at existing 

overseas high-risk visa adjudication posts. The VSP represents ICE’s front 

line in protecting the United States against terrorists and criminal organizations by preventing foreign nationals who pose as a threat to National security from entering the United States. In fiscal year 2014, VSP will enhance 

visa vetting by increasing automated data exchange with the Department of 

State and CBP’s National Targeting Center. ICE will leverage modernization 

to increase investigations of visa applicants who pose a potential high risk for 

terrorism and are attempting to travel to the United States. 

• Supports the bilateral Beyond the Border Action Plan with Canada, including 

CBP’s pre-inspection efforts in rail, land, and marine environments. Pre-inspection is a precursor to preclearance, which supports DHS’s extended border strategy through the identification and prevention of terrorists, criminals, 

and other National security threats before they enter the United States. Preinspection/preclearance also helps protect U.S. agriculture from the spread of 

foreign pests, disease, and global outbreaks. 

• Supporting Surface Transportation Security.—The surface transportation sector, 

due to its open access architecture, has a fundamentally different operational 

environment than aviation. Accordingly, DHS helps secure surface transportation infrastructure through risk-based security assessments, critical infrastructure hardening, and close partnerships with SLLE partners. The fiscal 

year 2014 budget supports DHS’s efforts to bolster these efforts. Specifically, the 

budget: 

• Includes the NPGP, described in more detail on the following pages. This proposal focuses on building National capabilities focused on preventing and re-
17 

sponding to threats across the country, including the surface transportation 

sector, through Urban Search and Rescue teams, canine explosives detection 

teams, and HAZMAT response as well as target hardening of critical transit 

infrastructure. • Funds surface transportation security inspectors and canine teams who work 

collaboratively with public and private-sector partners to strengthen security 

and mitigate the risk to our Nation’s transportation systems. • Supports compliance inspections throughout the freight rail and mass transit 

domains, critical facility security reviews for pipeline facilities, comprehensive 

mass transit assessments that focus on high-risk transit agencies, and corporate security reviews conducted in multiple modes of transportation to assess security. • Funds 37 Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams, including 22 multi-modal Teams. VIPR teams are composed of personnel with expertise in inspection, behavior detection, security screening, and law enforcement for random, unpredictable deployments throughout the transportation 

sector to prevent potential terrorist and criminal acts. • Helps secure critical infrastructure and key resources located on or near the 

water through patrols, enforcing security zones and security escorts of certain 

vessels (e.g., vessels containing hazardous cargo) in key U.S. ports and waterways. • Strengthening Global Supply Chain Security.—The fiscal year 2014 budget continues to support the administration’s Global Supply Chain Security Strategy, 

which provides a National vision for global supply chain security that is secure, 

efficient, and resilient across air, land, and sea modes of transportation. The 

budget: 

• Supports increased targeting capability through enhanced automated systems 

providing CBP with real-time information to focus its enforcement activities 

on higher-risk passengers and cargo. • Supports the consolidation of CBP’s separate cargo and passenger targeting 

locations, which will promote increased targeting efficiencies and reduced 

delays of travelers and cargo. • Strengthens the Container Security Initiative, enabling CBP to prescreen and 

evaluate high-risk containers before they are shipped to the United States. • Continues support to improve the coordination of international cargo security 

efforts, accelerate security efforts in response to vulnerabilities, ensure compliance with screening requirements, and strengthen aviation security operations overseas. • Supports on-going assessments of anti-terrorism measures in the ports of our 

maritime trading partners through the Coast Guard International Port Security Program. 

• Supports enhanced system efficiency through continued development and deployment of the International Trade Data System. This important resource 

provides a single automated window for submitting trade information to the 

Federal agencies responsible for facilitating international trade and securing 

America’s supply chain. 

• Research, Development, and Innovation (RD&I) at S&T.—The fiscal year 2014 

budget includes $467 million for RD&I, a $200 million increase from fiscal year 

2012 enacted levels. This funding includes support for unclassified cybersecurity 

research that supports the public and private sectors and the global internet infrastructure. It also allows S&T to resume R&D in areas such as land and maritime border security; chemical, biological, and explosive defense research; disaster resilience; cybersecurity; and counterterrorism. 

• Support to SLLE.—The fiscal year 2014 budget continues support for SLLE efforts to understand, recognize, prevent, and respond to pre-operational activity 

and other crimes that are precursors or indicators of terrorist activity through 

training, technical assistance, exercise support, security clearances, connectivity 

to Federal systems, technology, and grant funding. The budget supports efforts 

to share intelligence and information on a wide range of critical homeland security issues. The budget continues to build State and local analytic capabilities 

through the National Network of Fusion Centers, with a focus on strengthening 

cross-Department and cross-Government interaction with fusion centers. It also 

elevates the Office of State and Local Law Enforcement to a stand-alone office. 

The budget: 

• Enables DHS to continue to assess capability development and performance 

improvements of the National Network of Fusion Centers through an annual 

assessment, collection of outcomes-based performance data, and targeted exercises. Resources also enable the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, in part-
18 

nership with the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Privacy 

Office, to provide privacy and civil rights and civil liberties training and technical assistance support for fusion centers and their respective liaison officer 

programs. Additionally, unique partnerships with FEMA, NPPD, USCG, and 

ICE have facilitated additional analytic training for fusion center analysts on 

a variety of topics. • Continues to support SLTT efforts to counter violent extremism, including the 

delivery of Building Communities of Trust initiative roundtables, which focus 

on developing trust between community leaders and law enforcement officials 

so they cooperatively address the challenges of crime and terrorism. • Expands, in partnership with the Departments of Justice (DOJ), Education, 

and Health and Human Services, on-going efforts to prevent future mass casualty shootings, improve preparedness, and strengthen security and resilience 

in schools and other potential targets while working with partners at all levels of government. • Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Threat Detection.—Countering biological, 

nuclear, and radiological threats requires a coordinated, whole-of-Government 

approach. DHS, through the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) and the 

Office of Health Affairs, works in partnership with agencies across Federal, 

State, and local governments to prevent and deter attacks using radiological 

and nuclear (rad/nuc) weapons through nuclear detection and forensics programs and provides medical and scientific expertise to support bio-preparedness 

and response efforts. 

The fiscal year 2014 budget supports the following efforts: • Global Nuclear Detection Architecture (GNDA).—DNDO, in coordination with 

other DHS components, the Attorney General, and the Departments of State, 

Defense, and Energy, leads the continued evolution of the GNDA. This comprehensive framework incorporates detector systems, telecommunication, and 

personnel, with the supporting information exchanges, programs, and protocols that serve to detect, analyze, and report on rad/nuc materials that are 

not in regulatory control. • STC.—$22 million is requested for the STC program to continue developing 

the domestic portion of the GNDA to enhance the Nation’s ability to detect 

and prevent a radiological or nuclear attack in our highest-risk cities. • Transformational R&D.—Funding is requested to develop and demonstrate 

scientific and technological approaches that address gaps in the GNDA and 

improve the performance of rad/nuc detection and technical nuclear forensic 

capabilities. R&D investments are made on the basis of competitive awards, 

with investigators in all sectors—Government laboratories, academia, and private industry—encouraged to participate. • Rad/Nuc Detection.—Supports the procurement and deployment of Radiation 

Portal Monitors and Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems, providing 

vital detection equipment to CBP, USCG, and TSA to scan for rad/nuc 

threats. 

• BioWatch.—Continues operations and maintenance of the Federally-managed, 

locally-operated, Nation-wide bio-surveillance system designed to detect the 

release of aerosolized biological agents. 

• NBAF.—The budget provides full funding for the construction of the main 

laboratory at NBAF when coupled with the increased cost share from the 

State of Kansas. This innovative Federal-State partnership will support the 

first Bio Level 4 lab facility of its kind, a state-of-the-art bio-containment facility for the study of foreign animal and emerging zoonotic diseases that is 

central to the protection of the Nation’s food supply as well as our National 

and economic security. 

In partnership with the State of Kansas, DHS is committed to building a 

safe and secure facility in Manhattan, Kansas. The main laboratory facility 

includes enhanced safety and security features to ensure research conducted 

within the facility will be contained, ultimately protecting the surrounding region and the Nation’s food supply. These features, which are incorporated into 

the current NBAF design and address safety recommendations of the National Academies of Sciences, include specialized air and water decontamination systems, new technologies to handle solid waste on site, and structural 

components to strengthen the laboratory against hazardous weather conditions. 

Funding is also provided for life and safety infrastructure repairs at Plum 

Island Animal Disease Center while NBAF is being built, to ensure an appropriate transition of research from Plum Island, New York, to Manhattan, 

Kansas. 
19 

Securing and Managing Our Borders 

The budget continues the administration’s robust border security efforts, while facilitating legitimate travel and trade. It sustains historic deployments of personnel 

along U.S. borders as well as the continued utilization of proven, effective surveillance technology along the highest-trafficked areas of the Southwest Border to continue achieving record levels of apprehensions and seizures. In support of the President’s Executive Order on travel and tourism, the budget funds a record number 

of CBPOs through appropriated funds and proposed increases to user fee rates, to 

expedite travel and trade while reducing wait times at more than 300 POEs along 

the border and at airports and seaports across the country. Increased POE staffing 

of 1,600 CBPOs funded through appropriations and 1,877 CBPOs funded through 

user fee increases will have a direct impact on the economy. On the basis of a study 

conducted by the National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism 

Events—University of Southern California, initial estimates indicate that for every 

1,000 CBPOs added, the United States can anticipate a $2 billion increase in gross 

domestic product. That research indicates that these additional CBPOs may result 

in approximately 110,000 more jobs and a potential increase of $6.95 billion in gross 

domestic product. 

To secure the Nation’s maritime borders and 3.4 million nautical square miles of 

maritime territory, the budget invests in recapitalization of USCG assets and provides operational funding for new assets coming on-line, including National Security 

Cutters (NSCs), Fast Response Cutters (FRCs), Response Boats-Medium, Maritime 

Patrol Aircraft, and Command and Control systems. • Law Enforcement Officers.—The budget supports 21,370 BPAs and a record 

25,252 CBPOs at POEs who work with Federal, State, and local law enforcement to target illicit networks trafficking in people, drugs, illegal weapons, and 

money and to expedite legal travel and trade. This includes funds from proposed 

increases to inspection user fees. • Travel and Trade.—In 2012, President Obama announced new administrative 

initiatives through Executive Order 13597 to increase travel and tourism 

throughout and to the United States, and DHS plays an important role in this 

work. As discussed in the highlights section, DHS is continuing to develop new 

ways to increase the efficiency of our port operations and to make international 

travel and trade easier, more cost-effective, and more secure. • Technology.—Funding is requested to support the continued deployment of 

proven, effective surveillance technology along the highest-trafficked areas of 

the Southwest Border. Funds will be used to procure and deploy commerciallyavailable technology tailored to the operational requirements of the Border Patrol, the distinct terrain, and the population density within Arizona. • Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS).—DHS will take over operations of 

TARS beginning in fiscal year 2014. TARS is a multi-mission capability that 

supports both the counterdrug and air defense missions, providing long-range 

detection and monitoring of low-level air, maritime, and surface narcotics traffickers. • Targeting and Analysis.—The budget includes additional investments in CBP’s 

targeting capabilities, which will enable CBP to develop and implement an enhanced strategy that more effectively and efficiently divides cargo and travelers 

according to the potential threat they pose. • POE Infrastructure.—CBP, working with its various partners including GSA, 

continues to modernize and maintain border infrastructure that both facilitates 

trade and travel, and helps secure the border. In fiscal year 2014, CBP will 

work with GSA to complete the last phase of the Nogales-Mariposa inspection 

facility and initiate the site acquisition and design for the south-bound phase 

of the San Ysidro modernization project. Additionally, CBP will work with GSA 

to initiate construction of a new bus processing terminal at the Lincoln-Juarez 

Bridge and renovation of the passenger and pedestrian processing facility at the 

Convent Street inspection facility in Laredo, Texas. Beginning in late fiscal year 

2013 and continuing in fiscal year 2014, CBP will assume responsibility for the 

building operations, maintenance, and repair of the land port inspection facilities from GSA to streamline administrative processes and improve the responsiveness to CBP mission requirements. Finally, CBP proposes legislative authority in the fiscal year 2014 budget to accept donations from the private sector. 

• CBP Air and Marine Procurement.—Funding is requested for two KA–350CER 

Multi-Role Enforcement Aircraft (MEA), which provide direct support to CBP efforts to secure our Nation’s borders. Unlike the older, less-capable aircraft they 

are replacing, MEA has the capabilities to detect, track, and intercept general 

aviation threats; detect and track maritime threats over a wide area; and sup-
20 

port ground interdiction operations through a variety of sensors and advanced 

data and video down-link. • Collect Customs Revenue.—Funds are requested to support CBP’s role as a revenue collector for the U.S. Treasury; customs revenue remains the second-largest source of revenue for the Federal Government. CBP relies on bonds to collect 

duties owed when importers fail to pay and efforts to collect from the importer 

are not successful. This funding will support improvements to increase the efficacy of CBP’s bonding process, including the delegation to a centralized office 

the responsibility for developing and implementing Single Transaction Bond 

(STB) policy, approving bond applications, reporting on activities, and monitoring results. These resources will fund the automation of STB processing and 

record-keeping and provide effective internal controls that protect the duties 

and taxes (more than $38 billion in 2012) collected by CBP. Specifically, CBP 

will automate and centralize into one location processing of all STBs, resulting 

in enhanced program oversight, consistent processing, and reduced write-offs 

and delinquencies. • Protect Trade and Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement.—Funding is requested to support intellectual property and commercial trade fraud investigations within ICE’s National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center 

(IPR Center). With 21 partners and the expertise of the Federal Government’s 

largest law enforcement agencies, the IPR Center brings together the full range 

of legal authorities and law enforcement tools to combat intellectual property 

theft, including medical regulation; patent, trademark, and copyright protection; 

border enforcement; organized crime investigations; and undercover operations. 

ICE will also increase collaboration with CBP through a joint fraud enforcement 

strategy to coordinate commercial fraud enforcement operations. The fiscal year 

2014 budget also supports CBP’s enforcement programs to prevent trade in 

counterfeit and pirated goods, and to protect consumers and National security 

from harm from counterfeit goods through special enforcement operations to increase IPR seizures and referrals for criminal investigation. In addition, the fiscal year 2014 budget supports technology and training to increase the efficiency 

of targeting IPR infringing merchandise. 

• USCG Recapitalization.—The fiscal year 2014 request fully funds a seventh 

NSC; supports patrol boat recapitalization through the FRC acquisition; continues acquisitions of the Offshore Patrol Cutter and a new polar ice breaker; 

and provides for critical upgrades to command, control, and aviation 

sustainment. The total request for USCG Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements is $951 million. 

• USCG Operations.—The fiscal year 2014 request funds nearly 50,000 full-time 

personnel and nearly 7,000 reservists to maintain safety, security, and stewardship of our Nation’s waters and maritime borders. Funds will support a full 

range of Coast Guard cutters, aircraft, and boats to address threats from inside 

the ports, within customs waters and out on the high seas. 

Enforcing and Administering our Immigration Laws 

In the area of immigration, the budget supports the administration’s unprecedented efforts to more effectively focus the enforcement system on public safety 

threats, border security, and the integrity of the immigration system while streamlining and facilitating the legal immigration process. Initiatives such as Deferred 

Action for Childhood Arrivals and greater use of prosecutorial discretion, where appropriate, support DHS efforts to focus finite resources on individuals who pose a 

danger to National security or a risk to public safety, and other high-priority cases. 

At the same time, the budget significantly reduces inefficient 287(g) task force 

agreements, while supporting more cost-efficient initiatives like the Secure Communities program. Nation-wide implementation of Secure Communities and other enforcement initiatives, coupled with continued collaboration with DOJ to focus resources on the detained docket, is expected to result in the continued increase in 

the identification and removal of criminal aliens and other priority individuals. 

The budget provides the resources needed to address this changing population, 

while continuing to support Alternatives to Detention, detention reform, and immigrant integration efforts. Resources are also focused on monitoring and compliance, 

promoting adherence to worksite-related laws, Form I–9 inspections, and enhancements to the E-Verify program. 

• Secure Communities.—In fiscal year 2013, the Department completed Nationwide deployment of the Secure Communities program, which uses biometric information and services to identify and remove criminal and other priority aliens 

found in State prisons and local jails. Secure Communities is an important tool 

in ICE’s efforts to focus its immigration enforcement resources on the highest- 
21 

priority individuals who pose a threat to public safety or National security, and 

the budget continues support of this program. ICE is committed to ensuring the 

Secure Communities program respects civil rights and civil liberties, and works 

closely with law enforcement agencies and stakeholders across the country to 

ensure the program operates in the most effective manner possible. To this end, 

ICE has issued guidance regarding the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in appropriate cases, including in cases involving witnesses and victims of crime; implemented enhanced training for SLLE regarding civil rights issues; and released new guidance that limits the use of detainers to the agency’s enforcement 

priorities and restricts the use of detainers against individuals arrested for 

minor misdemeanor offenses such as traffic offenses and other petty crimes, 

among other recent improvements. The budget also includes $10 million for 73 

ICE attorney positions that will continue prosecutorial discretion reviews of new 

cases to ensure that resources at the Executive Office for Immigration Review 

and ICE are focused on priority cases. • Immigration Detention.—Under this administration, ICE has focused its immigration enforcement efforts on identifying and removing priority aliens, including criminals, repeat immigration law violators, and recent border entrants. As 

ICE focuses on criminal and other priority cases, the agency continues to work 

to reduce the time removable aliens spend in detention custody, going from 37 

days in fiscal year 2010 to fewer than 32 days in fiscal year 2012. Consistent 

with its stated enforcement priorities and guidance to the field, ICE will continue to focus detention and removal resources on those individuals who have 

criminal convictions or fall under other priority categories. For low-risk individuals, ICE will work to enhance the effectiveness of Alternatives to Detention, 

which provides a lower per-day cost than detention. To ensure the most costeffective use of Federal resources, the budget includes flexibility to transfer 

funding between immigration detention and the Alternatives to Detention program, commensurate with the level of risk a detainee presents. • 287(g) Program.—The budget reflects the cancelation of inefficient task force of- ficer model agreements, reducing the cost of the 287(g) program by $44 million. 

The 287(g) jail model agreements, as well as programs such as Secure Communities, have proven to be more efficient and effective in identifying and removing criminal and other priority aliens than the task force officer model agreements. • Detention Reform.—ICE will continue building on on-going detention reform efforts in fiscal year 2014. In fiscal year 2013, ICE implemented its new Risk 

Classification Assessment Nation-wide to improve transparency and uniformity 

in detention custody and classification decisions and to promote identification 

of vulnerable populations. ICE will continue to work with DOJ to reduce the 

average length of stay in detention by working to secure orders of removal before the release of criminal aliens from DOJ custody. In addition, ICE will continue implementation of the new transfer directive, which is designed to minimize long-distance transfers of detainees within ICE’s detention system, especially for those detainees with family members in the area, local attorneys, or 

pending immigration proceedings. ICE will also continue implementation of revised National detention standards designed to maximize access to counsel, visitation, and quality medical and mental health care in additional facilities. Finally, DHS anticipates that the rulemaking applying the Prison Rape Elimination Act to DHS confinement facilities will be finalized in fiscal year 2013 and 

implemented in fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014. 

• Worksite Enforcement.—Requested funds will continue the Department’s focus 

to promote compliance with worksite-related laws through criminal prosecutions 

of egregious employers, Form I–9 inspections, civil fines, and debarment, as well 

as education and compliance tools. 

• E-Verify.—The budget provides $114 million to support the continued expansion 

and enhancement of E-Verify, the administration’s electronic employment eligibility verification system. This funding will also continue support for the expansion of the E-Verify Self-Check program, a voluntary, free, fast, and secure online service that allows individuals in the United States to confirm the accuracy 

of Government records related to their employment eligibility status before formally seeking employment. These enhancements will give individuals unprecedented control over how their social security numbers are used in E-Verify and 

will further strengthen DHS’s ability to identify and prevent identity fraud. In 

fiscal year 2014, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) also plans 

to phase in an enhanced enrollment process for E-Verify that reduces the enrollment burden on the employer and the Federal Government, and that will provide more-detailed user information for compliance assistance activities. Addi-
22 

tionally, USCIS will finalize the requirements for the electronic I–9 and its supporting processes for E-Verify. These enhancements will deploy in phases in fiscal year 2014 and subsequent years. • Verification Information System (VIS).—The budget includes $12 million to fund 

the VIS Modernization initiative, a major redesign of the system that supports 

E-Verify that will transform the current E-Verify system, and improve usability 

and overall ease of operations. • Immigrant Integration.—The budget includes $10 million to continue support 

for USCIS immigrant integration efforts—a key element of the President’s immigration principles—through funding of citizenship and integration program 

activities including competitive grants to local immigrant-serving organizations 

to strengthen citizenship preparation programs for permanent residents. • Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE).—The fiscal year 2014 

budget continues support for USCIS SAVE operations and enhancements to assist local, State, and Federal agencies in determining the immigration status of 

benefit applicants. This effort is funded through the Immigration Examinations 

Fee Account. • USCIS Business Transformation.—The budget continues the multi-year effort to 

transform USCIS from a paper-based filing system to a customer-focused electronic filing system. This effort is funded through the Immigration Examinations Fee Account. In fiscal year 2013, USCIS will deploy additional 

functionality into the agency’s Electronic Immigration System (ELIS) to allow 

processing of 1 million customer requests annually. USCIS is committed to adding functionality and benefit types until all workload is processed through ELIS. 

Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace 

The budget supports initiatives to secure our Nation’s information and financial 

systems and to defend against cyber threats to private-sector and Federal systems, 

the Nation’s critical nfrastructure, and the U.S. economy. It also supports the President’s Executive Order on improving critical infrastructure cybersecurity and the 

Presidential Policy Directive on critical infrastructure security and resilience. Taken 

together, the administration’s initiatives strengthen the security and resilience of 

critical infrastructure against evolving threats through an updated and overarching 

National framework that acknowledges the linkage between cybersecurity and securing physical assets. 

Included in the fiscal year 2014 budget are enhancements to the National Cybersecurity Protection System (NCPS) to prevent and detect intrusions on Government 

computer systems, and to the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center to protect against and respond to cybersecurity threats. The budget also 

leverages a new operational partnership between ICE and USSS through the established network of USSS ECTFs to safeguard the Nation’s financial payment systems, combat cybercrimes, target transnational child exploitation including largescale producers and distributors of child pornography, and prevent attacks against 

U.S. critical infrastructure. 

• Federal Network Security.—$200 million is included for Federal Network Security, which manages activities designed to enable Federal agencies to secure 

their IT networks. The budget provides funding to further reduce risk in the 

Federal cyber domain by enabling continuous monitoring and diagnostics of networks in support of mitigation activities designed to strengthen the operational 

security posture of Federal civilian networks. DHS will directly support Federal 

civilian departments and agencies in developing capabilities to improve their cybersecurity posture and to better thwart advanced, persistent cyber threats that 

are emerging in a dynamic threat environment. 

• NCPS.—$406 million is included for Network Security Deployment, which manages NCPS, operationally known as EINSTEIN. NCPS is an integrated intrusion detection, analytics, information sharing, and intrusion-prevention system 

that supports DHS responsibilities to defend Federal civilian networks. 

• US-Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US–CERT).—$102 million is included for operations of US–CERT, which leads and coordinates efforts to improve the Nation’s cybersecurity posture, promotes cyber information sharing, 

and manages cyber risks to the Nation. US–CERT encompasses the activities 

that provide immediate customer support and incident response, including 24- 

hour support in the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration 

Center. As more Federal network traffic is covered by NCPS, additional US– 

CERT analysts are required to ensure cyber threats are detected and the Federal response is effective. 

• SLTT Engagement.—In fiscal year 2014, DHS will expand its support to the 

Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS–ISAC) to assist in 
23 

providing coverage for all 50 States and 6 U.S. territories in its managed security services program. MS–ISAC is a central entity through which SLTT governments can strengthen their security posture through network defense services 

and receive early warnings of cyber threats. In addition, the MS–ISAC shares 

cybersecurity incident information, trends, and other analysis for security planning. 

• Cybersecurity R&D.—The fiscal year 2014 budget includes $70 million for S&T’s 

R&D focused on strengthening the Nation’s cybersecurity capabilities. 

• Cyber Investigations.—The fiscal year 2014 budget continues to support ICE 

and USSS efforts to provide computer forensics support and training for investigations into domestic and international criminal activities, including computer 

fraud, network intrusions, financial crimes, access device fraud, bank fraud, 

identity crimes and telecommunications fraud, benefits fraud, arms and strategic technology, money laundering, counterfeit pharmaceuticals, child pornography, and human trafficking occurring on or through the internet. USSS 

ECTFs will also continue to focus on the prevention of cyber attacks against 

U.S. financial payment systems and critical infrastructure. 

Ensuring Resilience to Disasters 

The Department’s efforts to build a ready and resilient Nation focuses on a wholecommunity approach to emergency management by engaging partners at all levels 

to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond 

to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. In the event of a terrorist attack, natural 

disaster, or other large-scale emergency, DHS provides the coordinated, comprehensive Federal response while working with Federal, State, local, and private-sector 

partners to ensure a swift and effective recovery effort. 

To support the objectives of the National Preparedness Goal (NPG) and to leverage limited grant funding in the current fiscal environment, the administration is 

again proposing the NPGP to create a robust National response capacity based on 

cross-jurisdictional and readily deployable State and local assets, with appropriate 

adjustments to respond to stakeholder feedback received in 2012. While providing 

a structure that will give grantees more certainty about how funding will flow, the 

proposal continues to utilize a comprehensive process for assessing regional and National gaps, identifying and prioritizing deployable capabilities, and requiring grantees to regularly report progress in the acquisition and development of these capabilities. 

The budget also funds initiatives associated with the NPG; FEMA’s continued development of catastrophic plans, which include regional plans for response to earthquakes and hurricanes and medical countermeasure dispensing; and training for 2 

million emergency managers and first responders. 

State and Local Grants: The budget includes $2.1 billion for State and local 

grants, consistent with the amount appropriated by Congress in fiscal year 2012. 

This funding will sustain resources for fire and emergency management programs 

while consolidating all other grants into the new, streamlined NPGP. In fiscal year 

2014, the NPGP will: 

• Focus on the development and sustainment of core National emergency management and homeland security capabilities. 

• Utilize gap analyses to determine asset and resource deficiencies and inform the 

development of new capabilities through a competitive process. 

• Build a robust National response capacity based on cross-jurisdictional and 

readily deployable State and local assets. 

Using a competitive, risk-based model, the NPGP will use a comprehensive process for identifying and prioritizing deployable capabilities, limit periods of performance to put funding to work quickly, and require grantees to regularly report 

progress in the acquisition and development of these capabilities. 

• Firefighter Assistance Grants.—The budget provides $670 million for Firefighter 

Assistance Grants. Included in the amount is $335 million for Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grants to retain and hire firefighters and first responders, and $335 million for Assistance to Firefighter 

Grants, of which $20 million is provided for Fire Prevention and Safety Grants. 

The administration re-proposes $1 billion for SAFER grants as part of the First 

Responder Stabilization Fund, which was originally proposed in the American 

Jobs Act. 

• Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPGs).—Also included in the 

budget is $350 million to support emergency managers and emergency management offices in every State across the country. EMPG supports State and local 

governments in developing and sustaining the core capabilities identified in the 
24 

NPG and achieving measurable results in key functional areas of emergency 

management. 

• DRF.—A total of $6.2 billion is provided for the DRF. Of this, $586 million is 

included in the Department’s base budget with the remainder provided through 

the Budget Control Act budget cap adjustment. The DRF provides a significant 

portion of the total Federal response to victims in Presidentially-declared disasters or emergencies. Because of recently-passed legislation, Native American 

tribes can now request Presidential major or emergency declarations. Two 

tribes, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and the Navajo Nation, have already received declarations in 2013. 

• National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).—The NFIP is fully funded by policy 

fees. This program helps to reduce the risk of flood damage to existing buildings 

and infrastructure by providing flood-related grants to States, communities, and 

Tribal nations. The fiscal year 2014 budget reflects implementation of the 

Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. The Act improves fiscal 

soundness by phasing out subsidies for structures built before their flood risk 

was identified on a Flood Insurance Rate Map. In addition, the Act establishes 

a reserve fund to be used for the payment of claims and claims-handling expenses as well as principal and interest payments on any outstanding Treasury 

loans. The budget includes a $3.5 billion mandatory budget authority, of which 

$100 million will be used for three interrelated mitigation grant programs to increase America’s resiliency to floods. 

• Training/Exercises.—The budget includes $165 million for training and exercise 

activities to support Federal, State, and local officials and first responders. In 

fiscal year 2014, the Department expects to train more than 2 million first responders and, under the revised National Exercise Program, will conduct more 

than a dozen exercises across the country to help improve National preparedness. The budget also supports conducting a Spill of National Significance exercise, and continues development of equipment and techniques that can be used 

to detect, track, and recover oil in ice-filled waters. 

• Emergency Management Oversight.—The budget includes $24 million in base resources for the Office of the Inspector General to continue its Emergency Management Oversight operations. 

• Incident Management.—The budget enables the Coast Guard to achieve Full 

Operational Capability for the Incident Management Assist Team, providing an 

immediate, highly proficient, and deployable surge capacity to Incident Commanders Nation-wide for response to threats and other disasters. 

Maturing and Strengthening the Department and the Homeland Security Enterprise 

• St. Elizabeths Campus.—The budget includes $92.7 million to support construction at the St. Elizabeths Campus. Currently, the Department’s facilities are 

scattered in more than 50 locations throughout the National Capital Region, affecting critical communication and coordination across DHS components. USCG 

will move to St. Elizabeths in fiscal year 2013. To support the incident management and command-and-control requirements of our mission, the Department 

will continue development of the DHS Consolidated Headquarters at St. Elizabeths Campus. The requested funding will support Phase 2 renovation of the 

Center Building Complex for the Secretary’s Office and key headquarters functions for command, control, and management of the Department. 

• Data Center Consolidation.—The fiscal year 2014 budget includes $54.2 million 

for data center consolidation funding, which will be used to migrate FEMA, 

USCIS, TSA, and CBP to the enterprise data centers. A recent study performed 

by the Department’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer analyzed 10 of the first 

completed migrations to enterprise data centers and determined that an average savings of 14 percent, about $17.4 million in annual savings, had been 

achieved. 

CONCLUSION

The fiscal year 2014 budget proposal reflects this administration’s strong commitment to protecting the homeland and the American people through the effective and 

efficient use of DHS resources. As outlined in my testimony today, we will continue 

to preserve core front-line priorities across the Department by cutting costs, sharing 

resources across components, and streamlining operations wherever possible. 

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

your questions and to working with you on the Department’s fiscal year 2014 budget 

request and other homeland security issues. 
25 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you, ma’am. Secretary, I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Let me first say, I want to thank you for your attention to the 

tragic events in West, Texas. I look forward to working with you 

on the response efforts there. 

Before I ask a couple of budget questions, I do want to ask you 

about some reports that have come out, as of just really late last 

night, that the FBI has photos of two possible suspects in the Boston bombings. I thought—if you could tell us about this development, as to what you may know about these photographs. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, the—we have been collecting video 

from a variety of sources. As you might imagine, at the finish line 

at the Boston marathon, there is lots and lots of video. There is 

some video that has raised the question of those that the FBI 

would like to speak with. I wouldn’t characterize them as ‘‘suspects’’ under the technical term, but we need the public’s help in 

locating these individuals. 

Chairman MCCAUL. There are also—there were also reports yesterday that the FBI actually had persons of interests or suspects 

in custody. My response, based upon the information I have from 

the Justice Department, is that that was not accurate information. 

Can you elaborate on that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Mr. Chairman, you were accurate. 

There were no arrests made yesterday or persons held in custody. 

There has been a fair amount of media churn on various things involving the investigation. All I will say is, having spoken repeatedly with the FBI director, having spoken with the police commissioner in Boston, there is very good lash-up between local, State, 

and Federal resources up there. 

The investigation is proceeding the pace, and it just—you know, 

this is not an ‘‘NCIS’’ episode. Sometimes you have to take time to 

properly, you know, put the chain together to identify the perpetrators. But everyone is committed to seeing that that gets done in the 

right way. 

Chairman MCCAUL. No, I think, any—these united Federal prosecutors know it is a complex investigation. I think, the video footage and the forensics on the bomb device are probably some of the 

best evidence we can—we have right now. 

Moving on to the budget, the—this pressure cooker IED has really gained a lot of attention. For the first time Americans, sort of, 

know what that is. We have known about it for quite some time. 

Inspire magazine, essentially, instructs you how to make a bomb— 

in fact, an article, ‘‘How to Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your 

Mom.’’ 

Can you tell me what the Department is doing in its budget 

and—to prevent this occurrence from happening in the future? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It is difficult, Mr. Chairman. Instructions 

on how to make simple IEDs or even more complex ones are commonly available through Inspire, through things like the ‘‘Anarchist’s Cookbook,’’ on the internet, generally. 

So, we run into the issue of speech, writings, versus actual activities. One of the things we have been doing is, through the Office 

of Bombing Prevention, we have been, we actually now have a joint 

program office with DOD in terms of combining our efforts to im-
26 

prove the capability to detect something before there is an explosion. Although that is very difficult. 

We also through the Directorate on Science and Technology are 

doing some, I think, very interesting research that down the road 

may result in some positive developments. But right now as your 

question I think, presupposes, there is commonly available recipes 

for making various kinds of IEDs including those made with pressure cookers. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Let me just, I have said from the beginning, 

we do not, we can’t reach to conclusions. At this point in time we 

do not know whether this was a Federal, I mean a foreign terrorist 

plot or a domestic terrorist plot. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right now we cannot say one way or the 

other. 

Chairman MCCAUL. You mentioned the Bomb Prevention fund 

and that is important because the Office of Bombing Prevention 

leads the Department’s efforts to implement the National policy for 

countering IED devices responsible for the Tripwire IED Information Sharing Network for bombing squads, law enforcement, and 

the like. 

My concern about the budget that in your budget you have decreased it by 8 percent and overall, over time it seems like every 

year it has gone down and had a decrease. In light of the Boston 

bombings, would you reconsider this budget request? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You know, we are obviously able to do 

that. I think two points, No. 1 is, if you look at the budget, one of 

the things we have done is convert much of the, some of the inperson training to on-line training. That saves a lot of cost. As I 

also mentioned we have begun participation in a joint program office with DOD, State, I think Justice, and that helps mitigate costs 

as well. Then some of the Bombing Prevention work, you will also 

find embodied in the research being done in the Science and Technology Directorate. 

Chairman MCCAUL. My question is, it has decreased over the 

years, some say 45 percent, 8 percent in this budget. I mean in 

light of the bombings, wouldn’t you reconsider that request? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We will take a look and make sure that 

it is properly resourced, yes sir. 

Chairman MCCAUL. My understanding is you did request, did 

OMB deny your request for additional funding on this? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. There is a lot of exchange between the 

Department and OMB, but I will go back and look at this, yes sir. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Okay. Last question, my time is limited. You 

know, look, when we talk about the border, that is really the last 

line of defense, defending the homeland is keeping the threat out 

of this country. I have been a big proponent of border security for 

a long time. The missing piece is the technology piece. We don’t 

have the technology we need down there, as you know. 

We are getting ready to unveil a lot of good technology. Yet I was 

disappointed to see that your budget does decrease funding for border technology. If you would answer that question and I will ask 

an additional one. Thank you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You are right. Technology is the force 

multiplier for our manpower. The budget looks, we are on track to 
27 

implement our technology procurement. As you know, what I did 

last year, a year-and-a-half ago was stop the investment in having 

one integrated fixed tower plan across the entire border because it 

was too expensive and it wasn’t working. It works in some areas 

like Arizona. We will finish it there. 

But for the other sectors of the border, we want to use more offthe-shelf technology that fits the particular terrain. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Let me just say, I agree, leveraging existing 

technologies is important, off-the-shelf. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is right. 

Chairman MCCAUL. But I will say, if we are going to talk about 

Comprehensive Immigration Reform, we have to, No. 1, get operational control of the border and we are not going to be able to do 

that if we don’t have the technology. So the decrease in your budget on this issue, I think is important. 

The last point is I went over to Afghanistan with Henry Cuellar. 

We talked to General Allen about the technologies they have. 

Bringing that technology back to the Southwest Border. Now he is 

very much in agreement with it. There are 18 aerostats, excess, 

surplus, military property, they are willing to share with your Department to put down on the Southwest Border. Where are with 

this, this development? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well the budget does include $43 million 

for the TARS Program which is from DOD. I will tell you frankly 

Mr. Chairman, some of those aerostats are not in the best of shape. 

The O&M for them is pretty significant. They don’t, it is not a perfect solution. But the point is an important one, which is to say, 

to the extent we have already invested in R&D on the Defense side 

that we can transfer over to the border, that is what I mean when 

I say, that is the kind of off-the-shelf thing that we are investing 

in. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I hope you are looking towards a lot of military technologies that can be redeployed to the Southwest Border. 

We have already paid for them and we have already put the R&D 

into them. In these tough budgetary times, to me, it just makes a 

lot of sense. So with that, I will now recognize the Ranking Member for his questions. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary in 

light of what we are dealing with in Boston and with respect to the 

resources that we are putting there, do you feel that this proposed 

budget will be adequate to address that situation and any on-going 

probability for the next fiscal year? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think the President’s proposed budget 

meets the core mission responsibilities of the Department, yes sir. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So you can do your job with the money? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. There have been issues about morale 

in the Department, I made reference to in my opening statement. 

How do you plan to address the reports that have come out about 

that we are last in effective leadership, teamwork, training and development, and support for diversity? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We have done a number of things in that 

regard Representative Thompson, including forming an Executive 

Steering Committee just on morale. We have actually gone back 
28 

and re-questioned some of our employees, because the Morale Survey is pretty generic, so we want to get down below it. 

So one of the things we found out for example is, in the Department, many people have been promoted to be a first-line supervisor, because they were good at their operational front-line job, 

but they hadn’t necessarily received any training on how to be a 

supervisor. Well that makes a big difference. It is a different skill 

set, or an additional skill set. So now we are providing that kind 

of training. 

We have instituted ways to get more employee input into the decisions of the Department. I will share with you frankly, budget 

uncertainly, pay uncertainly, furlough uncertainty, sequester, has 

been a difficult field in which to make people feel better about their 

jobs. But we are going to do all that we can. Our employees really 

are the engine of the Department. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, but you can still do your job? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Have to do the job. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Absolutely. One of the challenges that we identified a number of years ago, spoke with interoperability. We require 

State and locals to be able to communicate with each other. The 

Inspector General said that we don’t have interoperability within 

DHS. We spent several hundred million dollars trying to do that. 

What is your proposal to get interoperability in fact within DHS? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. If I might, not referencing that particular 

I.G. report, but we have enough interoperability to get the job done. 

Overall with respect, I have dealt with interoperability issues for 

years. Throughout the country, hundreds of millions of dollars have 

been spent on interoperable systems. 

The best thing that has happened, quite frankly, is when Congress set aside a public safety spectrum, a broadband spectrum. 

And established the First Net Board. And set aside a fund source 

for that. That Board has private and public-sector, Federal, State, 

and local representatives. They are coming up, in my judgment 

with what ultimately will be a comprehensive answer that will be 

more comprehensive and cheaper than anything that has ever been 

looked at before. 

They are on a very tight time line so I would suggest that we 

keep you informed on the progress of the First Net Board. But I 

must say it is one of the most encouraging things I have seen in 

Government in a long time. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So are you at issue with the Inspector General’s—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I don’t know which report you are referring to? 

Mr. THOMPSON. The one that came out the—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. There are so many. I will be happy to follow up on that with you. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well it spoke to emergency communications. It 

is the last I.G. report, came out the fall of last year, that said we 

had spent $430 million on interoperability and within the Department, we still can’t cross-communicate with each other. I mean I, 

if this First Net is your response to it, I just need to know some 

time table as to when we can expect, as Members of Congress, for 

that to happen. 
29 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We will be happy to brief you on that. 

But it is a very aggressive time table. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well if you would provide it to the committee in 

writing, I think that would be most helpful. With respect to what 

happened in West, Texas, can you tell us whether or not that fertilizer facility or chemical plant facility was regulated by CFAC? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We don’t know yet. We don’t know 

whether the quantities of material there fell within the TSCA rule 

or not, but we are drilling down on that. 

Mr. THOMPSON. You don’t have a list of, I mean that should be 

kind of easy, I would think. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Sir we have been engaged over the past 

hours in making sure that the response is all that it can be in dealing with the immediate aftermath of the fire and explosion. I would 

be happy to—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam Secretary, I understand that. All I am 

saying is either it was presently under CFACS or it wasn’t. That 

is just a matter of looking on the record. Now, if you can get—ask 

somebody here, look and see whether it is covered, or not. That is 

all I am asking. I am not asking for any details. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You should know that early this morning, 

I asked the very same question. I just don’t have the answer for 

you yet. 

Mr. THOMPSON. That is what I am looking for. 

Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman now recognizes the former 

chairman of the full committee, Mr. King from New York. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Secretary 

for your service and for the work that all the components of your 

Department are doing in Boston, and will be doing in Texas. 

I have three questions. I will ask them up front, and then just 

let you answer them as you do. 

They all basically come from Boston. 

The question of jamming technology—I think the use of IEDs in 

Boston demonstrates that this could be the weapon of choice for 

terrorists, whether foreign or domestic in the future. 

I know last year, we had two subcommittees—I believe Chairman McCaul’s subcommittee was one of them—which held hearings into the use of jammers. That is to stop these IEDs, at least 

by remote control. 

Now, whether these turn out to be remote control or not, if you 

could tell us to the extent you can in a public setting what progress 

we have made as far as jamming, and what cooperation there can 

be between the military and civilian. First question. 

The second question is on ‘‘see something, say something.’’ I 

agree with you. I think it serves a real purpose. That began in New 

York with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It did. 

Mr. KING. The only real criticism I have heard—and it is really 

a question—is that different localities and States—some of them 

use complex e-mail addresses and phone numbers—is there any 

way that the Federal Government can urge them to use like a basic 

9–1–1, or something which makes it easier so that in times of crisis, it can be used? 
30 

Then second—third, I think it is a general consensus that there 

was no Federal intelligence—at least as of now, there was no chatter. There was no intelligence out there indicating that something 

was going to happen. It would seem to me that as we are getting 

a much better hold on al-Qaeda from overseas, or terrorist groups 

foreign and domestic are getting more sophisticated, that really the 

Federal role in intelligence, as important as it is, we also need an 

important local role. 

Do you believe there is enough funding in the budget, for instance, for something like the Boston Police Department, or other 

police departments, to start building up more local intelligence, as 

far as it involves terrorism? Because what we use prior—using 

chatter, using Federal intel may not be sufficient in the future. 

With that, I look forward to your questions. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. On the jamming question, there is a—one 

of the key differences between military use of jamming equipment 

and using it in a domestic-civilian environment is, it is difficult to 

jam only bad stuff. So you end up interfering with signals more 

generally in a civilian environment. 

So, there were two early pilots, I think, in—I want to say 2006 

and 2007 in the Department to look at whether that anti-jamming 

technology used in theater could be used in a civilian way. They 

were not successful. But I don’t know whether there is any current 

or new research being done in that regard. 

On ‘‘see something, say something’’—— 

Mr. KING. If you could get back to us—if there is any progress 

or chance for progress—because I can understand the problems you 

are talking about, but also, it would go a great way towards, you 

know, minimizing the issue—the problem. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Exactly, exactly. Again, as you say, we 

don’t know whether or not a jam—this was remotely detonated. 

With respect to see-say, we encourage State and locals who are 

part of the program, and religious organizations and others to tie 

into a simple line. 

The majority use either 9–1–1 or whatever the tip line is for that 

particular department. But I think your point is well taken, because we want it to be as simple and memorable as we can. Excuse 

me, the third question was—oh, the intel. 

Mr. KING. That was on the intel, yeah. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The intel. 

Mr. KING. More use of local intel. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. I think—that is an interesting question. In part, because we don’t know whether this was domestic or 

international, particularly where domestic is concerned, I think 

there is a particularly valuable role for intelligence that is collected 

and analyzed at the local level. 

So irrespective of Boston, this is something that we have been, 

and want to look at. We are using the fusion centers, and hope to 

build a capacity there in this regard. The Boston fusion center 

turns out to be one of the strongest ones in the country. We have 

been using them the last couple of days as a way to exchange information. But your point is well-taken. 

Mr. KING. Also, my own parochial bias in that in view of the fact 

the NYPD has 1,000 cops going out seeking intelligence, despite 
31 

the fact they had—unfairly attacked by The New York Times and 

The Associated Press. 

With that, I yield back. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman MCCAUL. Nicely done. 

The Chairman recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Sanchez. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. What a way to use your last second. 

Good morning, Madam Secretary. 

I have several things to ask you about. 

First of all, I want to thank you for having reconstructed SBInet 

and redone it. I just want to say that because I think it is going 

to be important for your Department to educate Congress on what 

really can be done with respect to technology, especially as we 

move forward on this border security piece of a possible immigration plan. 

I think those of us who live that, fight, understand, but the rest 

of the Congress, in some ways, doesn’t have a good idea of what 

can and cannot be done with technology. 

I would hope that you would help us with that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And interoperability, I would like to see at the 

Federal level. I would like to see it all over the place. 

As you know, Orange County is one of the few—probably the 

largest regional area that has interoperability between 34 cities— 

State, Federal, regional, et cetera—and it cost us quite a bit of 

money: $800 million about 15 years ago. So the price tag is very 

heavy on that, and I know that that has been one of the problems 

with respect to trying to get that underway. But we need to get it, 

I think, especially if we are going to be asking States to do it for 

the Federal Government. 

So, I have a question about Coast Guard, because I am one of 

the few Members, I think, that sits both on the Armed Services 

Committee and on the—on this committee. 

So, when you testified in front of the House Appropriations Committee, you say that the Coast Guard now has a different production path for vessel acquisition in order to meet the mission needs. 

On Tuesday, Coast Guard Commandant Papp testified that this 

budget request reduces Coast Guard’s drug interdiction because it 

cannot maintain operations while rebuilding its fleet. 

So, my question to you is: What is the different production path 

you referenced in your previous testimony? Is this a different 

plan—has this different plan been submitted to the Congress? Is 

Coast Guard going to reduce mission capabilities in order to modernize its fleet? If so, can you provide the committee on documentation of that? Because this seems to me a different path, and it is 

sort of like, ‘‘Well, we are going to not do as much because we need 

to rebuild over here.’’ 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The point I was making in Approps 

was—in the Appropriations Committee was that we use a different 

production path to the fast response cutter. 

We fully fund the commandant’s top priority, which is the completion of the National security cutter fleet. The National security 

cutters have a lot of uses, but they can also—they don’t require as 
32 

many billets to operate as some of the smaller vessels because they 

have more technology on them. 

With respect to drug interdiction operations, I will tell you, we 

are already effective. We have had to reduce—and I was very public about this—those operations because of sequester, to meet the 

number that we were given. 

As you know, sequester was account-by-account, so we didn’t 

have any flexibility to move around that. 

How do we compensate for that? We are working with DOD in 

areas like JATO–South. We are trying to leverage more with State 

and local entities. But make no mistake, if sequester continues, by 

definition, there will be effect on drug interdiction capability of the 

Coast Guard. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. So, Madam Secretary, if you could—if your Department could provide us a plan of this vessel that—new vessel 

plan, if it is different than what we have seen before, I would appreciate it. Or maybe we just haven’t seen it in the last year or 2. 

The other question I had for you—first of all, US–VISIT, the exit 

part. I mean, that is another thing that we see on the tenant side 

coming forward. I know the last time that you were before us— 

maybe a year or 2 ago—and I have been asking all along—I know 

that you all didn’t have a plan to implement it. 

So I would just say, you know, it is coming up. It is going to be 

something that is going to require it if we do get an immigration 

plan. So I hope that you all will begin, if you haven’t, to figure out 

how we are going to get that exit piece of US–VISIT in there. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. If I might, representative—one of the 

things we are re-requesting this year is to move US–VISIT to CBP, 

which is where we have all of our other databases and targeting 

capabilities. It is—it would be a much better place to central all of 

the—centralize all of those in one place, as opposed to keeping US– 

VISIT by itself over at MPPD. So I would ask you to look at that 

request. 

Second, with respect to exit, we have submitted a plan on enhanced biographic and long-term biometric. 

My understanding—and I am—we are still going through the bill 

that has been introduced in the Senate. My understanding is, the 

way the exit part of that is written is ultimately doable. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. That would be great, because, again, that bill will 

change quite a bit, I think, as we move back and forth between the 

House and—you know, I have been one that has said, ‘‘We need to 

find those people who are not leaving when they are supposed to 

because they have overstayed their visa,’’ and that is a major problem. That is 40 percent of the people who don’t leave our country. 

That is something I am going to be looking for when I go to vote 

for an immigration bill. 

Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I am in total agreement with that. I think 

40 percent of the illegals here are here by overstays on visas. So, 

with that, the Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here and for your service to our country. 
33 

I was very pleased to hear you acknowledge with Ranking Member Thompson that we are spending an enormous amount of money 

on emergency communications, and still haven’t achieved an acceptable degree of interoperability, and that we have to find a different approach. 

As a former member of the Emergency Communications Subcommittee, that is just an enormous frustration to me, so I do hope 

that you do plow ahead in a different direction and try to make 

that happen. Because events like this week are reminders why we 

have got to achieve it. 

Mr. ROGERS. But also, events like this week, I think, are a great 

reminder of why we have made such an important investment in 

preparing first responders. I had the privilege of having you visit 

the Center For Domestic Preparedness, as well as former Chairman King, who has been there, and seen that facility, which trains 

the first responders from all over the world, who have been there 

for the folks in Boston this week, and as well in Texas today. Also 

the hospital personnel. As you saw, that facility there to train for 

mass casualties. They are state-of-the-art, and that has been a wise 

investment by the Department, and I appreciate it. 

Weeks like this are sad, but it is a good reminder to us why we 

make those investments. So, those are appreciated. One of the concerns I have got is that DHS is—and their science and technology 

department over the last several years has made a significant investment in advanced explosive detection K–9 research out in 

Texas at Lackland Air Force Base. That program was shuttered at 

the end of last year by Administrator Pistole. Very disappointed 

about that because, as you know—I know you are a big supporter 

of the explosive detection K–9 activities, and its ability to protect 

us in—not only in the airports, but in events like Boston if we had 

had them there, sweeping that area. 

By closing the only breeding and genetic research facility, which 

was doing some cutting-edge work, we are now at the mercy of the 

private market. Can you tell me why that was closed? Given that 

it was closed, do you intend to at least contract with some folks to 

do that kind of research and breeding, so that we can produce our 

own assets here domestically, and not be subject to world markets 

for those core assets that we didn’t train up? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. If I might, Congressman. As you know, 

you and I are both big fans of K–9s and their capabilities. Recognizing that they are not the only answer in these situations. 

Mr. ROGERS. Right. Just one of the layers. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. My understanding is we do intend to follow up on that research in another way, but if I might give you 

some separate information about that, I think it would be more 

useful to you. 

Mr. ROGERS. I would appreciate that. I think that research is 

pretty important. Because as I have seen in the last several years 

that I have been really focused on this, we have come a long way 

in what their capability is. But also talking about that—partnerships outside of the Department, one of my frustrations as Chairman of the Transportation Security Subcommittee was, I don’t see 

enough interaction with the private sector and the Department. 
34 

Like Ms. Sanchez, I am a member of the Homeland Security 

Committee, and the Armed Services Committee, and we see a lot 

public-private partnerships between DOD and the private sector to 

achieve technological capabilities that we just couldn’t do without 

them. There seems to be a reluctance in the Department to have 

that kind of interaction. Can you tell me what, if anything, you are 

doing on the procurement side, on the acquisition side to reach out 

to the private sector? To bring them in as a partner, to help us 

achieve some capabilities that we don’t know have? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Oh, I think we have very aggressive outreach. One difference between DHS and DOD is their research 

budget is infinitely larger than ours, and so as a result, their public-private partnerships are more numerous than ours. Plus there 

are more long-standing relationships because they have been in existence so long. But, I believe very firmly in partnerships outside 

the Department, in the R&D world, private sector, academia, Centers of Excellence, other places. So we will push as much as we 

have resources. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, you know while I was chairing that committee, and I know that Mr. Hudson who now chairs it, is following 

up. We have been bringing in private-sector folks to talk with Department folks about what we can do to improve communications. 

That has been difficult in the past. These folks have come to us as 

members regularly and say: We can’t talk to anybody in the Department. Not just TSA, but in other segments of the full Department. So, anything you could do to try to drill down to your management folks that they need to try to create some real open access 

to the private sector to communicate with them, I think it would 

be beneficial to both parties. And thanks—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I will drill down on that. I am sorry to 

hear that. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you. 

The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. 

Barber. 

Mr. BARBER. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, it is 

great to see you here today. You know, oftentimes when you come 

to this committee, and when your staff come, we rain criticism on 

the Department. I would like to start in a different fashion, and 

talk about what I believe is the most challenging and unenviable 

one in the Cabinet, the one that you hold. Trying to integrate 22 

different agencies who are not always rowing the boat in the same 

direction. Merging contact management, IT, financial accountability into a single process, moving quickly and effectively to respond to natural disasters, guarding our country against terrorist 

attacks, which has been very successful, until of course, the tragedy in Boston. 

We still don’t know the cause, but over the last 5 years, we have 

had a lot of prevention in that area. So, I want to just acknowledge 

the progress that has been made before I ask some questions about 

the challenges that are remaining for the Department. Of course, 

highest on the list, at least for many of us, is the impact of sequestration on the Department. As you know from previous conversations, sequestration and its initial look is going to hit very hard on 
35 

Border Patrol Agents, and the men and women who are at the 

ports of entry. 

Initially it was suggested, or proposed, that 40 percent of the 

Border Patrol Agent’s salaries would be cut, due to the loss of overtime, and furloughs. I appreciate the Department’s willingness to 

delay that. As you know, under the CR, we gave additional money 

back to the Department, some flexibility. I know in conversations 

with you, that you are currently working on some reprogramming 

requests. I guess I would just like to know, what progress is being 

made? Additionally, how your communicating with the men and 

women who are affected, or likely to be affected, and their families? 

There is a great deal of uncertainty. As you pointed out in your 

remarks, this is adding to the morale problems. So, if you could 

just speak to us about progress that is being made towards reducing. I know you can’t eliminate these cuts, but reducing them significantly so that we can both secure the border, expedite the flow 

of legal commercial traffic, and give some certainty back to the 

lives of these people who we ask every day to protect our homeland? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. Congressman as you also know, 

the pay systems for Customs are different than the pay systems for 

Border Patrol, and they have never been unified. That makes a difference where sequestration is concerned, unfortunately. Here is 

what we are doing: We have already gone through the sequestration legislation. The budget that was finally appropriated with the 

add-on for CBP, we have identified some reprogramming requests 

that we would like to add to that. 

We hope to get those complete and into OMB by the end of the 

week, and move that process along as quickly as we can. Our goal 

is to absolutely minimize the effect on AUO premium pay for Border Patrol, and furlough days generally throughout CBP. We have 

been communicating regularly by e-mail and other messages about 

what our goal is, asking—and it is a difficult ask, asking for patience to try to figure out ultimately how much we can pay our men 

and women. But our—like I said, our goal is to minimize the disruption in their compensation. 

Mr. BARBER. What might we, and they expect to be the earliest 

possible time when some certainty would be given to the situation? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Boy, I wish I could give you a definite 

date. I do not know, except that—I was just at the border. I mean 

I was just in south Texas, and I was down in, as you know, the 

Douglas area, and I know the effect this uncertainty is having on 

our men and women. So we are moving as quickly as we can. 

Mr. BARBER. Well in the remaining time, I just want to move 

quickly to the—an issue we have often discussed here, and you and 

I have discussed as well, and that is how it is that we measure border security? It is a key element in moving immigration reform forward. At a hearing Chairman Miller, some of us said DHS needs 

to get in the game of giving us solid metrics that we can really 

have a common understanding of what border security improvements mean. The GAO study, as you know, was critical of the lack 

of metrics in the latest roll-out plan. Can you tell us what progress 

is being made towards getting those metrics? 
36 

Second, how you are going to gather information from agents, 

from ranchers, business people, others who are living and working 

daily on the border, who know so much about what the border is 

really like? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, on the metrics question is frustrating for everybody. Because in our view, we have provided 

metrics up the wazoo. 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I don’t know how to spell that. But—and 

the GAO study uses our metrics. They just calculate—then they 

use them in a different way than we use them. The goal, however, 

is to see: Well, is this a safer and more secure border than it was 

last year, the year before and so forth? What is the trend? If you 

look at things like apprehensions, and crime rates, and contraband 

seizures, and gun seizures, and things like property values in communities along the border, the trend line is all positive. We know 

we are making significant progress and have made significant 

progress along the border. 

We know we are not done. We know there is more work to do. 

We want to sustain and build on that. So, we will work with the 

Congress and what have you. But as I mentioned yesterday in a 

hearing, there is no one magic number. You really have to look at 

the whole picture, and then inform it with real-life experience. So, 

it does require, you know getting down to the border, talking not 

only with agents, but with police chiefs and sheriffs and mayors of 

the little towns that line our border, and so forth. That is what we 

attempt to do as well. 

Mr. BARBER. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Yes. I mean—let me thank Mr. Barber, the 

gentleman from Arizona, for his support on the Border Security Results Act, co-sponsoring that bill. That will be the bill coming out 

of this committee. I think it is important that we have metrics. 

There are some who assert it is never been more secure, I know 

as you have Madam Secretary. But I would argue that in my home 

State, that the numbers are increasing in terms of apprehensions. 

Particularly the Brownsville sector, 50 percent. 

So, with that, the Chairman now recognizes the Vice Chair of the 

full committee, Ms. Candice Miller. 

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

Secretary, thank you so very much for your attendance here 

today. I have been listening carefully and I think I will—as the 

Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, I will pick up right where Mr. Barber left off, and Chairman 

McCaul added some comments as well. I am very appreciative of 

your trying to quantify, or give us your best estimate of what border security actually looks like, in regards to metrics. I will say 

this, I think there is always a moment in time in politics where 

something can happen, and that moment in time is probably now 

for comprehensive immigration reform. 

I think we have a small window of time, and if something doesn’t 

happen, that window is going to close. I do think that, absent some 

sort of accountability or a metric system that we can quantify in 

some way that the American people, through their Congress, has 

a high degree of confidence that we are moving toward an adequate 
37 

amount of border under operational control or whatever term we 

want to utilize it—absent that, I think the immigration reform will 

be a heavy lift. 

I mentioned to your staff, Mr. Borkowski, when he testified before our subcommittee that it would be too bad if the Department 

of Homeland Security became the stumbling block for comprehensive immigration reform because we are not satisfied with what we 

are getting. There is no one else to ask. I know it is a difficult 

thing. I know that securing the border with a layered approach as 

we have been doing, as there has been progress made. 

Still as was mentioned to us, by you, a couple of years ago, the 

term operational control was antiquated, you said it was an antiquated term. I have an open mind to that. But then what? Then 

we were told that the BCI, the Border Control Index would be the 

term that would be used, and the matrix that we utilized and we 

were anticipating actually several weeks ago in this hearing room, 

that we would be hearing what the construct of that actually was, 

where we were with it, et cetera. Looking at GAO with the various 

components of whether it is operational control or BCI index or 

whatever it is, under operational control, boots on the ground, strategic fencing, utilization of various kinds of technology as the 

Chairman had mentioned about UAVs, or land systems or you 

know, the next version of SBInet. All of these kinds of things. 

Also recognizing that sometimes you can secure a portion of the 

border and then 6 months later you have a different situation. Believe me, I think all of us do understand that. It is not a static kind 

of a thing. It is a dynamic situation that you are always dealing 

with there. But you mentioned yesterday some comments you made 

at a hearing. I was looking at some of that as well, and have a 

press release you put out which you said, every metric that we use 

to measure border security shows significant progress. 

Yet really the only, it feels like the only thing we are hearing is 

about apprehensions. That is a component in my mind, that is the 

component it can’t be, it is something that we need to know, what 

is happening with regard to apprehension, but then we are not 

really measuring how many did we not apprehend? Other kinds of 

things that have happened there. So I guess I would like to have 

you flesh that out a little bit more about the matrix because I appreciate your position and what you are saying. But in my observation and opinion, if we don’t get something pretty darn, much more 

specific than what we have had so far from your Department, I do 

believe that your Department can be the stumbling block to comprehensive immigration reform. We don’t want that to happen, I 

am sure. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well we certainly don’t want that because, as you know, I have been advocating for CIR since my first 

day here in Washington, DC. Two things: No. 1 is on the apprehensions, you know, the missing piece has been a better ability to identify the denominator. I mean we know how many we apprehend. 

Really being able to track the attempts has been difficult. 

Looking at the Senate-proposed CIR and how that is drafted, if 

the technology piece is supplied to us, as that bill provides, with 

the funding mechanism for that, so that we can sustain the efforts 

we already have and build on them. One of the problems with bor-
38 

der security has always been, we secure an area and then we leave 

it. Then the border changes. But I think that the way that is written and how it is informed by technology is a do-able deal. 

Mrs. MILLER. I do, and I appreciate that. Because as you mentioned, along with funding, I think, I feel your Department needs 

to tell us, as the Congress, what it is you actually need in regards 

to resourcing. It is for us to determine whether or not we have the 

political will, as a Congress, to insure that that happens. You know 

that is part of one of our enumerated responsibilities under the 

Constitution. Border security again, is such an important thing, in 

every way. 

So we want to work with your Department to make sure, again, 

that we have some sort of system, metrics, accountability, whatever 

term you want to utilize. Our bill that we have dropped though 

does use the term operational control. We have fallen to that as a 

default position since we have had nothing from DHS. I know my 

time is I guess it is expired. So I will leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I thank the gentle lady for all your hard 

work as Chairwoman of the Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee and I absolutely agree. You need to tell us. These are 

tough budgetary times but we can authorize. It is important we get 

this done right. So with that I now recognize the gentleman, Mr. 

Payne, from New Jersey. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Secretary Napolitano 

thank you for your service to this Nation over the past 5 years. I 

know it has been a difficult journey but we appreciate everything 

you do every single day. It has really been good to see you in the 

last 2 weeks three times. So you are keeping us abreast of what 

is going on. 

You know, I have a question in reference to regarding the proposal to consolidate the 16 grants under a single National Preparedness Grant Program. My district includes Newark, New Jersey, Jersey City, and Bayonne, and we sit across from New York 

City. It includes an airport, a seaport, rail lines, bus lines, and 

chemical plants all in between. So my district relies heavily on 

many of these individual grants including UASI and the Port & 

Transit Security Grants. How do you think the consolidation of 

those grants will impact a district such as mine? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Our goal is to move from you know so 

many of these grant programs we either inherited or were part of 

the 9/11 Act. As we can see from response capabilities that happen 

after Sandy, now after Boston and so forth, we have built a fair 

amount of capacity and resilience around the country. 

We want to move to a risk-based approach for further funding of 

grants. We want to consolidate in an effort so that we can unify 

grant guidance and reduce administrative overhead. We want to 

make sure that areas that have lots of critical infrastructure and 

critical ports and the like, that we can really fund those according 

to risk as opposed to having to use formula grants through many 

of our programs. 

So it really will depend, but our whole goal is, now let’s identify 

risk and gaps and where the monies best should go. 
39 

Mr. PAYNE. Well you know in the past, funding for State and 

local grant programs have been cut considerably. In addition to the 

funding cuts, you know, for port security grants. So I am very concerned about this consolidation effort. Let me—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. If I might Congressman, Congress has 

cut the grants over the President’s objection. One of the things the 

Congress did do when it passed the budget for the Department was 

restore some grant funding. 

Mr. PAYNE. Okay. You know, New Jersey, let’s get back into 

interoperability. New Jersey is currently without a State-wide 

interoperability coordinator. I understand that the same thing is 

happening to other States as this grant winds down. I believe it 

ends in September. You know that is of great concern, moving towards First Net, which I understand is still in the planning process 

and getting up to speed. 

So as these coordinators, the SWIX, are leaving, the one in New 

Jersey left this past month and I believe several other States are 

experiencing the same thing. How do we move towards getting 

First Net up when we are losing the coordinators that would be an 

integral part of that system? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well part of that is what the State wants 

to support on its own. Not everything should be paid for by Federal 

grant money. But if I might, my experience as a Governor on this 

interoperability issue, was every bit as frustrating as I think as 

being expressed by Members of the committee. 

We have not, we have spent way too much money for far too little coverage. I think part of the reason was we didn’t have adequate private/public partnerships going on. It was more a vendorbuyer type situation as opposed to a true partnership. I think that 

is where we need to move. I think we will move there. I think the 

States by themselves can identify how they want to manage that. 

But we really have to change the whole way we look at building 

a National interoperability capacity. 

Mr. PAYNE. As my time winds down, you know, I have several 

chemical facilities in my district that could experience the same 

thing that we have seen in West, Texas. So from what I understand, FEMA’s monitoring the situation and prepared to assist 

State and local authorities as needed. Is DHS personnel on the 

scene in Texas? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. They are nearby. I don’t know if they are 

physically on the scene. They will be if requested. 

Mr. PAYNE. How are they prepared to assist? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We can do a number of things. But we 

have an Instant Management Assistance Team that is standing, 

that is on stand-by right now. 

Mr. PAYNE. Okay thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I have to depart. I have an amendment on 

the floor to the CISPA bill, the intel cybersecurity bill, that provides a civilian interface to the private sector for threat information, that being the primary interface the Department of Homeland 

Security, which I think is the right way to go with cybersecurity, 

and also with the robust Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, that 

we have within your Department. I believe that is the best way to 
40 

protect the privacy of the American people. So I have to depart for 

that. 

Let me also say, commend you for the increase in your budget 

for cybersecurity. We plus that up in our CR as well as you know, 

this is one of the biggest threats in the virtual world. 

So with that segue, the Chairman of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee, Mr. Meehan. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman for that tee up. 

Thank you, Secretary, for your being here. 

Let me start at the outset. I see in you as someone who is symbolic of the many people in Boston who are on the front lines today 

with their dedication and resilience. So, through you, I express our 

appreciation for the great work that you are doing. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I have another issue, just briefly, as well. The 

Ranking Member raised an issue about the pre-clearance facilities 

in Abu Dhabi. I had been circulating, along with Representative 

DeFazio, a letter of concern. I thought we would get about 25 signatures on it. In a very short period of time, we are already over 

70. I am going to be forwarding that to you probably in a day or 

so, because of many more. 

I hope that at some future time we can discuss that issue. Because I am worried about the fact that what we are doing there is 

creating a real competitive imbalance for America-based airlines, in 

which foreign countries are able to, in effect, put into position a 

benefit for their foreign-based airlines. 

But I am also very appreciative of the great work that you are 

doing on cyber. Your colleague, Mr. Mueller at the FBI, in testimony not so long ago, notwithstanding what we are seeing in Boston, had said that cyber may soon replace terrorism as the No. 1 

issue and threat to the United States. I was struck by the Secretary of Defense, former, Mr. Panetta. One of the first things that 

he did after leaving that was to go to New York and talk about a 

cyber Pearl Harbor. I think, it is an issue, which is significantly 

greater than many Americans have an appreciation for. I know 

that you do. But many Americans out there do not appreciate the 

extent of the vulnerability. 

Ninety percent of our cyber structure is in the private sector. 

When we have something that is an issue, there is also cross sectors. We are paying a lot of attention to what is going on to the 

banking sector, but as the banking folks said to me, if our grid, 

electrical grid goes down, we are affected in that way, as well. So 

there is a lot of cross-sectional issues. 

We are also dealing with instantaneous communication. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. MEEHAN. So things are happening by the second. Those 

kinds of things make a difference. Can you explain to me how the 

investments that you are making are enabling homeland security 

to be on the forefront and then the cutting edge of helping us, as 

the Nation, to prepare to defend ourselves and to utilize the relationships with the private sector to encourage them to become partners with us in protecting our critical infrastructure? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, I will try to keep my answers short, 

because there is so many things that we are doing. But that inter-
41 

section with the private sector where core critical infrastructure is 

concerned, absolutely key if we are serious about cybersecurity. 

We are interested in real-time information sharing, because the 

more quickly information is shared, the better we are able to help 

with response and mitigation. We are asking for money to increase 

our CERT teams, to increase our industrial control system teams, 

to fund the NCAMP, which is a 24–7 watch center where we have 

private-sector partners on the floor with us. 

Mr. MEEHAN. That is a place in which you are talking about, 

the—communication and the private sector can participate directly, 

as was—Mr. Rogers was asking questions about how we can encourage private-sector participation. This is a place where it actually takes place, is it not? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is correct, and I invite any Member 

who wishes to come out and see the floor and how it is arranged. 

But we know it will have to expand over time as our responsibilities increase, both pursuant to the Executive Order, the Presidential Policy Directive, and hopefully through the amendment 

that Chairman McCaul was speaking about. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Isn’t it accurate that we would be able to include 

numbers of the private sector, and when we talk about R&D and 

other kinds of things, while we would like to do more, but the fact 

of that matter is, a lot of private sectors, in many ways, at or above 

the best that the Government can do in the form of technologies 

and other kinds of things. So, inviting them in, doesn’t that enhance our capacity overall? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, to the extent that is shared, obviously. But, you know, just the ability to discuss ideas and get the 

relevant people in the same place, there is a value to that. So we 

are encouraging that kind of co-location. The NCIC is a very vital 

place. It—through the NCIC and the CERT, we have literally responded to hundreds of thousands of cyber incidents, just this past 

year. That number is only going up. 

Mr. MEEHAN. May I ask one last question? It is, as we deal with 

the imminent nature of, and changing threat, of cyber because of 

the fact that technology changes so quickly, how about your acquisition regulations and the ability for you to be able to work through 

the acquisition of the highest and greatest technology? 

Are you bogged down at all by requirements that may take 

weeks if not months to get something approved, and, therefore, 

many times the technology may be obsolete by the time we put it 

in place? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think, that is a problem throughout the 

Government, Representative. I think, acquisition is too slow for the 

cyber world. 

Another area, if I might, where we had asked for legislative help 

last year in a Senate cyber bill that ultimately didn’t pass, the socalled Collins-Lieberman bill or Lieberman-Collins bill, was statutory authority to allow us to hire in the cyber world to the same 

degree NSA can, so that we are relieved from some of the normal 

hiring restraints and salary restraints that confine us. Because 

cyber professionals are very—it is very competitive market place 

for them. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Well, thank you—— 
42 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you. I look forward to working with—— 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank the gentleman for his comments. 

At this time, the Chairwoman recognizes Mr. O’Rourke from 

Texas. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Madam Secretary, I also want to thank you for your work, and 

through you, the men and women who keep our country safe, who 

have helped make the community I represent the safest in America 

for the last 3 years in a row, despite living next to one of the most 

dangerous cities in the world, bar none, in Ciudad Jua ́ rez. 

I want to touch on a statement that you made in your opening 

comments about reduced operational capacity at our ports of entry 

as it relates to the sequester. I believe, in a previous hearing, you 

talked about, because of the sequester, 4- and 5-hour wait times at 

our ports of entry that can become the norm going forward. 

So I want to ask you where we are now, given the additional 

flexibility included within the Continuing Resolution as it pertains 

to wait times at our ports and where we will be should this budget 

be approved, and you get the resources that you are asking for. 

What kind of wait times can we expect given the importance of our 

ports of entry to the National economy and local economies like 

mine? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think, even without sequester, we 

were short of port officers and staffing. Part of that was because 

they were paid for out of user fees, and user fees were diminished 

during the recession, and so, it got to be this gap. Those land ports 

are incredibly important and are responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs in the United States. 

The President has asked for 3,400 more port officers. We believe 

that will meet our staffing model needs for the future and keep 

wait times to a minimum. In the mean time, we are going to do 

everything we can to mitigate those times. I can’t give you precise 

hours right now. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. One request I would make related to that is, as 

you know, communities like El Paso, that I represent, are willing 

to commit resources, millions of dollars from local tax payers to 

compliment the investment that you are making at our ports. 

What we don’t have, that would help us make better decisions 

about this, is your workload staffing model, understanding how you 

staff the different ports of entry in our communities. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. We want to know those answers so that we can 

make a wise investment at the local level. I also want to be able 

to get back to constituents who, you know, send us or text us 

photos when they have been waiting on the port for—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Oh, I know. 

Mr. O’ROURKE [continuing]. Three and 4 hours, get to the front 

of the line, and of 11 potential lanes, only see four of them staffed 

and open. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is right. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. So just being able to be transparent and responsive and communicate to our constituents about how you staff 

those ports would be important. Can you commit to getting us your 
43 

workload staffing model? Would it be possible to commit to a date 

to do so? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We will provide you with the workload 

staffing model, because it forms the basis for the request for 3,400. 

So I will ask my staff to get that to you as quickly as possible. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. I would also like to address some comments you 

made about comprehensive immigration reform. I really appreciate 

what you said, and what I think I heard you say, which is, if we 

are able to pass immigration reform, that, in itself, will help make 

the border more secure. You will be able to focus resources and attention on our highest, greatest priority threats, the existential 

threats, the people who want to come in, kill American citizens, do 

us harm, disrupt our economy, as well as the other criminal activity that we should be focusing on. So I appreciate you saying that. 

Within this budget that you are proposing, do you have the resources necessary to carry out your obligations as it relates to comprehensive immigration reform? In your answer, do you want to 

touch on what was proposed from the Senate or the Senate plan, 

with, I think, an additional $3 billion towards border surveillance 

and another $1.5 billion towards extending the border wall? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, I think, my answer would be that, 

under CAR, and we are still going through it, as you might imagine, but if those resources are provided and sustained, and, I think, 

that is a key thing—they need—there needs to be a commitment 

to sustain the border security measures that are there. 

But—assuming that, and assuming we fund the technology plans 

we have already provided to the Congress, I believe we can build 

on the efforts we have already done. I believe the manpower we 

have at the border is adequate. I believe that, yes, we can meet the 

measures that we have seen. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Real quickly, could I get you to respond to the request within that legislation to extend the wall? Do you think it is 

necessary to add additional mileage in the border wall between the 

United States and Mexico? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You know, I have never been a big fan 

of just, kind of, arbitrary, ‘‘build more fence.’’ I have said, you 

know, ‘‘Show me a 10-foot wall, I will show you a 12-foot ladder.’’ 

But, I think—again, we are looking at that, but there are different 

kinds of fencing. There is real. There is virtual, and other kinds of 

infrastructure. 

So we are looking at what would go into that, but it needs to be 

part of our comprehensive strategic plan for the border itself, which 

includes the technology, the aerial, and the manpower as well. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank the gentleman. 

The Chairwoman now recognizes the gentleman from South 

Carolina, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Madam Secretary, first off, let me say thank you for what you and your Department do to try to keep America safe. I certainly appreciate it. 

First off, let me also thank you for answering Senator Johnson’s 

questions yesterday in the hearing about the ammo purchases that 

DHS is making and trying to refute some of the rumors. We get 
44 

a lot of those questions as Members of Congress back in my district, really from all over the country. 

So as part of that, Chairman McCaul and I have asked GAO to 

do an audit just so we can deal with the facts and we can answer 

those questions for the American people, not only on the ammo but 

also on the MRAPs. 

The question I have for you, you know, when Forbes magazine 

or Drudge or some reputable news sources start to repeat the numbers of 1.6 million or 2,700 MRAPs, they cease to be internet rumors and they start having some credibility. 

So I would just ask, why was there a long delay or silence from 

the DHS for a period of time, almost 3 months, before you all came 

forth saying these numbers aren’t correct, these are the actual 

facts? Why was there a delay or a silence from your Department? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I don’t know about that there was 

that kind of delay, but I will tell you we found it so inherently unbelievable that those statements would be made, it was hard to ascribe credibility to them. I don’t know if I would put Forbes and 

Drudge in the same sentence, but I—let me be as clear as I can 

be. 

Mr. DUNCAN [continuing]. Leave Drudge out of it. I wouldn’t. I 

think they are credible, but Forbes is definitely a credible magazine. So when they use that number and then we hear silence from 

the Department and Americans see the ammo shelves empty, all 

that feeds that—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well like I said, it got into the 

blogosphere and it went viral. We understand that. As I was with 

Senator Johnson, let me be clear as I can be. This was a 5-year 

strategic sourcing contract for up to those 1-point-whatever 

rounds—billion rounds. It is an up-to number. We usually use 150 

million, 160 million rounds a year. 

We do all the Federal law enforcement training, qualifying. We 

do a lot of the training and so forth for State and locals, plus our 

own operational needs. We are the largest Federal law enforcement 

agency. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes ma’am. In the absence of time, you did a great 

job. I ask to submit for the record her testimony yesterday in the 

Senate. 

Mrs. MILLER. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

EXCERPT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY HON. JEFF DUNCAN

RON JOHNSON (WI). OK. Let me turn to a question I’m getting all the time, and 

we certainly appreciate the information you’ve given us, but let’s just kind of lay 

the rumors to rest. We hear reports that DHS is, you know, buying 1.6 billion 

rounds of ammunition. We contacted your office and apparently a purchase order 

for 650 million rounds over 5 years. I mean, is that the correct number? Can you 

just kind of speak to that, because I know a lot of people are concerned about that. 

NAPOLITANO. Yes. We are in no way buying up the ammunition of the country for 

any nefarious purpose. We have what we call strategic source contracting where we 

can purchase up to at a certain per unit cost over time. We use about 150 million 

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

and locals at FLETC. By contracting this way we save almost 80 percent in a per 

unit basis. So it’s really just smart contracting and nothing more. 

JOHNSON. Even the 150 million sounds like a lot. But can you just kind of break 

that down, how many people are trained, how many practice rounds are fired? I 

mean—— 
45 

NAPOLITANO. Well yeah, I mean it’s—CBP probably uses 60 million, 65 million 

there. Secret Service, many of our services require qualifying multiple times a year. 

FLETC probably uses another 20 million, 30 million rounds. We can give you the 

actual inventory. We know where the rounds are used. 

JOHNSON. I’m actually just giving you the opportunity to try and dispel the rumors. 

SPEAKER. If I can interrupt. We’ve actually made an inquiry and they’ve been very 

good, the second inquiry is in the process of being processed by Homeland Security. 

We’re going to have all that available for all the Members so they can answer the 

questions. 

JOHNSON. OK, great. That’s great. 

NAPOLITANO. Right, but—but to just be as firm as I can be, the rumors are unsubstantiated and totally without merit. 

Mr. DUNCAN. You answered those questions yesterday, and I appreciate that. I guess I was just asking about the silence, why 

there was a delay in you guys saying, you know, these numbers 

aren’t right. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. Like I said, it really didn’t start getting to us as a question until I think we started getting Congressional inquiries. That was some time after the reports had first 

surfaced. So if we could have been quicker to the ball, perhaps, but 

again, in the press of things—if I might say in our own defense— 

we just couldn’t believe that anyone would believe those allegations. So let me be very clear. Absolutely not true. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I appreciate that. Let’s shift gears a little bit because I am very concerned about this person of interest that was 

detained at the hospital in Boston following the marathon madness. He is, I believe, scheduled to be deported next week. Now I 

understand he has been cleared of any wrongdoing in the involvement in Boston, but he is being deported due to National security 

concerns. 

CBS says this. This gentleman is here on a student visa. He was 

at the scene, along with many other people, when the blasts happened. As everybody is standing in shock, three Boston P.D. detectives see this guy moving quickly out of the crowd. As they are 

watching him, he seems to be moving very deliberately, which 

could be a very natural thing after a bombing. They stop him because he is covered with blood. They end up taking him to the hospital. That is straight off CBS. 

We are asking average Americans to help ID and assist law enforcement in identifying who the bomber was. See something, say 

something. Now we have someone who is being deported due to National security concerns, and I am assuming he has got some sort 

of link to terror or he wouldn’t be being deported. 

He was at the scene. He could possibly ID the bomber, just like 

we are asking every other American that was on the scene to provide your pictures, help us identify who may have been acting 

funny. Everybody we are asking that that was in Boston, and we 

have got this guy who was there. 

We know he was there. He was arrested—or wasn’t arrested, was 

detained in the hospital covered with blood. He was at the scene, 

and yet we are going to deport him. So we are going to—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. If I might, Representative—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. We are going to remove him from the scene. 
46 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I am unaware of anyone who is being deported for National security concerns at all related to Boston. I 

don’t know where that rumor—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. I am not saying it is related to Boston, but he is 

being deported. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Like I said, again, he—I don’t even think 

he was technically a person of interest or a suspect. That was a 

wash. I am unaware of any proceeding there. I will clarify that for 

you, but I think this is an example of why it is so important to let 

law enforcement do its job. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I want them to do their job, and that is why I say 

wouldn’t you agree with me that it is negligent for us as American 

administration to deport someone who was reportedly at the scene 

of the bombing and we are going to deport him, not to be able to 

question him anymore? Is that not negligence? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I am not going to answer that question. 

It is so full with misstatements and misapprehensions that it is 

just not worthy of an answer. 

Mr. DUNCAN. CBS reports the gentleman was there. We did detain him at the hospital. He was covered with blood. We have 

cleared him of any wrongdoing, but it has been reported he is being 

deported. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. There has been so much reported on this 

that has been wrong, I can’t even begin to tell you, Congressman. 

We will provide you with accurate information as it becomes available. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I look forward to that. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank the gentleman. 

The Chairwoman now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. 

Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairwoman, and I thank the 

Ranking Member for this hearing. I thank the Secretary as well. 

I will be fleeting and asking some of my questions to be in writing. 

I too have an amendment on the floor dealing with the cybersecurity bill. 

I do want to thank you and reannounce again, ‘‘See something, 

say something.’’ You were in my district a year or 2 ago. We spoke 

about it. Certainly we remember the Times Square bomber and the 

good Americans, good New Yorkers who saw something and said 

something. I want to remind everybody of that. 

Madam Secretary, may I just again—this has been a week—and 

go straight to West, Texas, and say this: That if they are not under 

the CFATS process, can we galvanize resources under Homeland 

Security, which is the anchor of help when there is a devastation, 

as well even in light of them not having—maybe not having a security plan? What kind of resources could we quickly galvanize for 

them working with the State of Texas? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. We will look into that immediately. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you so very much. I know that there 

are first responders who lost their life. I offer them my deepest 

sympathy. 

I want to go straight to the question of the border security. I 

thank you for reviewing the legislation that myself, Chairman 

McCaul, Thompson, Chairwoman Miller, and Cornyn has been on. 
47 

Let me tell you where we are going with that, and if I can get a 

specific answer. 

We want to be a partner. This is a road map. This is an answer to I think a $1.5 billion fence. You were very careful in your answer about that virtual fence. I don’t know if that is what is being 

perceived in that $1.5 billion. It looks to me like they want to put 

up a fence. 

We know that that does not work. What kind of resources or 

input can you give us so that we can get the kind of defined way 

that we should be looking and assessing the border? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think the No. 1 thing you want 

to see is do we have the situational awareness of the highly-trafficked areas of the border and the ability to respond. That takes 

into account infrastructure and ground technology, air technology, 

manpower, all the rest. 

But when I look at the border and I kind of step back and say: 

Well, what do we need? I really focus on: All right, what is our— 

do we have awareness of the area? If not, why not? What do we 

need to get that? That is where our technology plans come into 

play, and that is why we are asking that those be—that is what 

is kind of comprehended in CIR, among other things. Our technology plans are there and that we have the ability to respond. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, what we have offered in this legislation 

is for, as I have said in a very inspirational way, for DHS to be 

in the game with us. We want to draw out, and I think that that 

will be very helpful to this committee. Again, I have always said 

when a tragedy happens, they look to you, Madam Secretary. I 

know that the FBI’s investigating Boston, but they are also looking 

to us. 

Can I quickly note whether there was a fusion center in that 

area? We worked very hard to get these centers in terms of having 

people work together. My concern is—and are we going to get a 

briefing—my concern was seemingly the lack of credible threat 

chatter. That seemed surprising to me. Will we be able to get a 

briefing to determine what might have been happening and how 

the fusion center is working? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You are talking about Boston? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Boston. I am sorry. I have jumped—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. Yes. Without going into all of the 

things in the investigation, I will say there is a very good fusion 

center there. They have been actively involved. We will be happy 

to provide a briefing on how the fusion center has been used and 

is operating in the Boston case. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to hope 

that we can have a briefing on—with Homeland Security and Secretary and others, and very quickly. Let me just finish. I will just 

say again, Madam Secretary, we have given every opportunity for 

Administrator Pistole to delay, if you will, his moving on the 

knives. Everywhere I go, people are horrified. We don’t want to 

have a confrontation. We would like to have a reasoned opportunity 

for more stakeholders to be heard. 

I would just ask whether or not it would not be reasonable—you 

have agreed with him, but here is a question. A extension in light 

of—the TSOs are going to be short-changed. We are going to have 
48 

long lines at DCA. I already know that because I travel in and out 

of it, and I think that that is something—I ask you to make request or the inquiry or to give me an answer back. 

Last, let me just say that having met with Border Patrol Agents, 

I want to make sure—I want to thank you for I think retracting 

the furlough, but I do think it is important in the comprehensive 

immigration reform to not underestimate the need for more patrol 

agents. I know there is some funding in this budget, the President’s 

budget, but I support more funding for it even though they have 

a higher number. 

Do you have just a quick comment on the knives and any opportunity for more stakeholders to be involved and more opportunity 

for discussion? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think with respect to that, as you 

and I have discussed, I think it is the right policy. I think, however, we can always look at how better to improve stakeholder outreach. I will talk with the administrator about that. 

With—and the second part of your question? I am sorry. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Was it Border Patrol Agents—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Agents, yeah. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You are taking away the furlough, as I understand. You are taking away the furlough. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, we are trying to mitigate any furloughs and effect on AUL. We don’t have a final answer yet. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I ask that you look at that very carefully. I 

yield back. I thank you very much. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank the gentlelady. The Chairwoman now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Barletta. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Madam Secretary, on April 8 in a Federal lawsuit in Dallas, Jessica Von who is the director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, gave testimony that focused on internal DHS 

statistics showing a significant decline in the number of deportations. She also described how the administration has cooked its removal statistics in a way that gives lawmakers and the public, the 

false impression that enforcement has improved. 

She was asked to analyze a set of mostly unpublished statistics 

and documents on DHS enforcement activity over the last 5 years. 

In her testimony, she said the materials show that contrary to the 

administration’s claims that have achieved record levels of enforcement, the number of removals is now 40 percent lower than in 

June 2011. Removals of convicted criminals are also running at 40 

percent lower now than in June 2011. Removals generated by ICE’s 

Enforcement and Removals Division, which carries out most of 

what little interior immigration enforcement, are 50 percent lower 

now than in June 2011. 

This decline has occurred despite the expansion of ICE’s Secure 

Communities Program. If ICE is removing so few people now than 

before, than how can DHS claim that they set a record number of 

deportations last year? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I don’t know how she does her 

math, but I know how I do mine. The way I do my math is look 

at removals from the country. We have removed more people from 

the United States than any prior administration. So I can’t respond 
49 

to an individual and how she cooks her books, but I can tell you 

what I look at. 

I look at implementation of Secure Communities. I look at how 

many convicted felons we are removing. I look at how many repeat 

violators we are removing. I get the complaints Representative 

from the other side who say we are removing too many. That is 

also a sign, I guess I get them from both sides. Maybe we hit the 

sweet spot at some point. 

But we are very committed to the rule of law where immigration 

is concerned. That is border security and its interior enforcement. 

Mr. BARLETTA. But are we now counting Border Patrol cases, the 

turnarounds at the border, as part of our deportations? Rather 

than the criminal on the interior of the country? Aren’t we now 

adding the Border Patrol cases, the turnarounds, as part of the deportations? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. If there is a removal, but not, there is not 

always a removal. Like I said, you know, we can get into the weeds 

on statistics. The plain fact of the matter is, is that ICE ERO has 

been extremely active. I will tell you, when Representative Miller 

talked about this is the window of time on immigration. This is the 

window of time. We need to be looking at our worksite enforcement, because that is a real driver of illegal immigration. 

We need some more tools. I mean the statutes governing how you 

prosecute somebody who continually brings over illegals, incredible. 

We need to unclog the visa process. These all go to the migration—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. I am familiar with cases right in my hometown 

and right outside of my hometown, where criminal aliens have 

been caught and turned over by local police, multiple access cards, 

committing fraud, aggravated assault charges, and left go. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I can’t tell you, I don’t know about 

a particular case. I don’t know who they were turned over to. But 

I will tell you this, somebody who has that record, that we have, 

will be a priority removal. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Well, I will give you another case just recent. 

There was actually a warrant for this man’s arrest in New York 

City and he was let go. So I am going to disagree that we are deporting people or apprehending, the people that are being turned 

over and they are being deported. I am going to take issue also 

that Comprehensive Immigration Reform that has been proposed 

will make our borders more secure. 

I couldn’t disagree with that more. I believe we have now made 

our borders less secure because millions, millions of people are now 

being encouraged to come to the United States illegally with the 

hope of getting amnesty in the future. We saw that in 1986 when 

1.5 million turned out to be 3 million. We have already seen, in testimony last week by Border Control Chief Michael Fisher, where 

they are seeing an increase already at the border, and some of it, 

he believes, is due to this policy. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let me be very clear on this. Because 

this is a very important public message. Under any immigration reform proposal, you need to have a cutoff date. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Oh I know, I know about the December 11—— 
50 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. If I might, if I might complete my answer. So December 31, 2011, was chosen by the Gang of Eight as 

the cut-off date. We are already working, State Department and 

others, to get that message out so that we do not have any repeat. 

By the way, this bill and the bills that are being considered that 

I have seen, are very different from 1986. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Well, we all know that anyone can use false documents to claim they were here any day they want to say they are 

here. It happens all the time. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is not accurate either. 

Mrs. MILLER. Appreciate the gentleman’s comments. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. 

Swalwell from California. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you Madam Chairwoman, and thank you 

Madam Secretary for being here. The Boston tragedy reminds us 

that the threat continues to be real as far as what we face with 

respect to terrorism. Whether it is domestic or international terrorism. I have to say in light of what we have seen, whether it is 

the blogosphere, the twittersphere, and all the rumors that are out 

there. I think that the administration, and you particularly, have 

done a very fine job and had a very measured response and have 

not chased many of the rumors that are out there. 

Having been a former prosecutor myself, coming from a family 

of law enforcement, I agree it is very important right now in these 

early stages of investment, to just simply let law enforcement do 

its job. There is so much to learn right now. I appreciate that DHS 

is focused on that. 

I have a couple questions based on my experience as a prosecutor, when I was a prosecutor, I worked in our office, and our office still works at the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office 

with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, which created what is 

called Urban Shield. Urban Shield is a full-scale training exercise 

developed in Alameda County to test and evaluate the region’s ability to respond to any kind of man-made or natural disaster. 

It involves first responders, businesses, law enforcement, communication systems, intelligence, critical infrastructure, and so on. 

Our former Sheriff Charlie Plumber and current Sheriff Greg 

Ahern continue to work on this and it is now an international and 

National program. We know from that program and we know from 

attacks in our country and across the world, that we are only as 

good as our game on the ground. 

Meaning that local law enforcement will be the first responders. 

So as we are looking at our budget, what is DHS doing to publicize 

the training effort, or encouraging other major metropolitan areas 

to develop programs like this, or assist them with funding? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, we think the Urban Shield-type 

program, that is exactly what Boston used last November. That 

was an Urban Shield-type program. That is the kind of thing we 

want to support through our grants, and grant guidance. It improves, as you say, our ability to respond and to do with as minimum of chaos as possible in the wake of a terrible event like a 

Boston. 
51 

So yes we work with the major city chiefs, with the Sheriffs Association, with the IACP and others, really to encourage participation 

and design of things like Urban Shield. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great, also I believe these attacks also magnify 

our transit risks. In an article this week in Politico both Chairman 

McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson agreed on the threat to 

mass transit. I have circulated a letter asking for robust funding 

for the Transit Security Grant Program, which is administered by 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency in fiscal year 2014. 

In that letter I explained what I believe to be our transit risks. 

In the Bay Area, we have Bay Area Rapid Transit also known as 

BART. What can you tell me that the Department of Homeland Security is doing now to step up protection around mass transit? Does 

Congress need to do a better long-term job as far as our budgeting 

to secure our transit areas and how would sequester affect this? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, sequester has not been helpful in a 

number of respects. But with respect to Boston, we have increased 

our security around transit hubs, working with Boston City Police, 

and the State of Massachusetts. We have VIPR teams that have 

been deployed into that general area and up through the New England corridor. 

We also put the Coast Guard on the ferries. That is also a mass 

transit in some areas, and it is in San Francisco Bay. So all of 

those things have been increased for the time being. 

Mr. SWALWELL. That is great. My final question has to do with 

immigration. The number of removals, you are correct, have increased under this administration, and I believe our borders have 

never been more secure. 

However as we move toward Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

in my district, we have a very diverse area, and as a prosecutor I 

know that when you are looking at criminal removals, there is a 

broad range of types of criminals. You mentioned a convicted felon 

is much different than the person who is arrested for driving with 

a suspended license. However you could classify both of them as a 

criminal. Is the Department taking steps to prioritize the removals 

so that we are removing the most violent and serious offenders and 

the lower-class offenders who pose a lesser risk and many types 

their crimes are associated with being here in an undocumented 

fashion, are not being removed at the same rate? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, and one of the adjustments we made 

to Secure Communities in response to comments in that regard was 

to remove the automatic issue of a Notice of Detainer for low-level, 

misdemeanors and others, who pose no public safety threat. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great, and thank you Madam Secretary, and 

again I am confident that with your leadership and the way the administration has been responding to this tragedy in Boston, that 

we will find the persons responsible and we all need to just be patient and trust that law enforcement will do its job. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. Thank you. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hudson. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
52 

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Good morning to you. I appreciate 

you being here. I also would like to thank you for all the personnel 

of DHS who are working so diligently and tirelessly in Boston, as 

well as West, Texas. There were several victims in Boston from 

Charlotte, North Carolina, and so we were watching with a personal interest and really appreciate what your folks are doing. 

I also wanted to echo at the outset, and sort of associate myself 

with the border metrics discussion we have had here. For my 

standpoint, I understand how important reforming our immigration 

system is to our economy, and our National security. But, I can’t 

support any immigration reform if we can’t be satisfied that we 

have secured the border. So getting those metrics where we can definitively talk about how we are doing on securing that border, and 

making sure that border security is a piece of comprehensive immigration reform will be critical to getting my support and others, I 

think, in our conference. 

So we look forward to working with you to try and come up with 

definitive metrics, and move in that direction. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. 

Mr. HUDSON. As Chairman of the Transportation Security Subcommittee, I am particularly interested in the TSA’s budget, and 

would love to discuss—sort of directing my questions in that direction. It seems logical as we are moving towards risk-based security 

at TSA, which is something I fully support. I think it is the exact 

right thing to do. I support the administrator. It seems to me that 

as we move those towards more risk-based security, there ought to 

be significant cost savings for the taxpayer. For example, as we do 

risk-based screening, we start focusing more on threats, that ought 

to free up resources. 

As we look at some of the new high-tech value screen, it ought 

to mean that we need less screeners for baggage. As we look at 

some of the privacy software upgrades for AIT again, ought to be 

able to reduce some of the workforce and screeners there was well. 

But it doesn’t seem that in the budget, we are reflecting a lot of 

those cost savings. Why are we not seeing those? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think, Representative, I think because 

those cost savings will be more long-term than experienced immediately in fiscal year 2014. You are seeing some savings. For example, the AITs have basically been installed, and so we don’t, you 

know have to buy as many and install as many AITs. The same 

with baggage systems. You know, the basic equipment has been installed, and now it is a matter of continual upgrades. I do believe 

as we move to more risk-based, those long-term savings will accrue. 

But, it is hard to say whether they will happen immediately. 

Mr. HUDSON. I understand. What other costs and personnel efficiencies do you think that we—can be gained by expanding 

PreCheck, for example and implementing some of these other riskbased policy decisions? What kind of—how much savings do you 

think we are looking at? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think it all depends, but you 

know, in a PreCheck regime you don’t, obviously need as many 

TSOs before an individual gets on a plane. So, there will be personnel savings with that. On the other hand, we do need to make 

sure that we fund the operation of the PreCheck program itself and 
53 

our, you know our ability to do background checks, and so forth on 

the members. 

Mr. HUDSON. Absolutely. Well, I understand that obviously we 

need to put these systems in place before we start seeing some of 

the reductions in personnel that we are talking about, but what do 

you think the time frame is on that, particularly when we talk 

about PreCheck? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You know I would defer to the administrator on that. You known I think we have set an aggressive goal 

of having 1 in 4 passengers be in some sort of expedited program 

by the end of the year. If we meet that goal, I think we will start 

seeing some reduction in, certainly in growth of personnel shortly 

thereafter. 

Mr. HUDSON. Right. I appreciate that. Shifting a little bit, initiatives that we have talked about in private. You know my concerns 

about us looking long-term at threats of an EMP attack. You know, 

one of the things that I brought up with you is that when we look 

at St. Elizabeths and we prepare to move to the new DH headquarters—DHS headquarters there, my concern is that we are 

spending a lot of money on that facility. But I am not sure we are 

doing what we need to do, to harden the electric grid there. I would 

just ask, has there been any other thought put into that? I guess 

behind that question I would just say, I think it would be important that there is. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I understand the concern. What I would 

suggest, if you have the time, is a classified briefing on St. E’s? On 

what is happening. But, I would also like to say that, you know 

given now I am only going into my fifth year, but we really need 

a headquarters. It is very difficult to efficiently manage a Department as diverse as ours when we are in 50-plus locations around 

the Capitol region. So, I hope that is something the committee can 

support. 

Mr. HUDSON. Absolutely. I know I am running out of time here, 

but I just wanted to say again, we do have a classified briefing 

scheduled that I have requested, and so I look forward to following 

up with you on that. But I think again, this is a long-term situation, and we need to be working on together when we look at the 

threat of EMP attack. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you. I yield back the time I don’t have. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman for giving back what he 

didn’t have. 

The Chairman now recognizes the distinguished Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies, the gentlelady from New York, Ms. 

Clarke. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me add my voice to that of all of the colleagues who have 

commended you for your leadership, Madam Secretary. You know, 

from responses to the multiple natural disasters during your tenure, to the response to the Boston bombing, and the Texas plant 

explosion, it is becoming more, and more clear to all Americans, the 

critical mission of Homeland Security—the Department of Home-
54 

land Security. I think that your leadership is emblematic of how 

robust we need to be as this agency grows from strength to 

strength. 

That is why it is a bit challenging for us who recognize the missions to see that agency go through such a painful period where sequestration has now become, sort of a binding of hands in meeting 

these very critical missions. I want to move to the area of cybersecurity because I have been a bit concerned about the public level 

of awareness, where really understanding what it means to protect 

ourselves in the virtual world, actually means. 

I guess the bandwidth of understanding can go from a person 

using a flip-phone, to a child using an iPad in the public sphere. 

But, what I recognize is that in this budget, there was a substantial cut to the cyber education program. While I recognize that Einstein–3 is a very important tool that we need, I noticed that, we 

are kind of trying to rob Peter to pay Paul, in order to manage the 

sequestration. I wanted to ask, you know: How we can meet our 

commitment to the public with such a drastic cut to the one area 

that we have that actually educates the public? Is there no way to 

slightly decrease funding for top-priority programs to fully fund 

education? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, I understand the concern. I don’t know how I can address it right now. I think pitting 

Einstein against education is probably not the way to go because 

Einstein is the fundamental system we are putting in place across 

the Federal Government for continuous monitoring and diagnostics, 

which is going to be critical to cybersecurity. But I understand your 

concern. Maybe there is a way through some other areas to plug 

cyber education, even if we can’t specifically increase that account. 

Ms. CLARKE. Yes. I—you know again we recognize that these 

vulnerabilities that we all have in the civil society makes it even 

more difficult to use the tools that you are establishing. So it is a— 

you know it is a delicate balancing act. I think the more that 

Americans become sensitized to the battle ahead of us, the more 

that we can all put our shoulders to the wheel. I wanted to also 

raise the issue of the new office that is requested in the President’s 

budget, requesting $27 million. 

This is the Office of Cyber and Infrastructure Analysis, which 

would synthesize the analytical—the analytic efforts of the Office 

of Infrastructure Protection, the Office of Cyber Security and Communications. Can you talk about why this new office was considered necessary? How quickly you think the office will get off the 

ground? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, it is really designed to help us meet 

our responsibilities under the Executive Order, and the PPD, and 

that is the information, and the information sharing in the private 

sector, and the also with the Government. So, you know, part of 

that is in NPPD, parts if it are in other parts of the Department, 

I&A for example. We really want a central—it centralized in one 

place given our central role, the analytics involved in cyber. So, you 

know the office probably be able to actually be larger than a $27 

million office, but that is the number we have put on what we want 

to make sure that we have. 

Ms. CLARKE. Do you have a time table, Madam Secretary? 
55 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, we already are moving on implementation, but we would like to be able to form the office as soon 

as we have a budget. 

Ms. CLARKE. Very well. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you. 

The Chairman now recognizes the distinguished former United 

States attorney from Indianapolis, the gentlelady from Indianapolis, Mrs. Brooks. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I, too, thank you, Madam Secretary, for your service, not just as 

head of the Department of Homeland Security, but for your longtime service to the Federal Government, as well as to your State. 

It has been 10 years since the Department was stood up. I know 

there has been, just so much to bring all of the different legacy 

agencies together, and continue to train, but I remain concerned as 

the Ranking Member of my subcommittee brought up, with the 

consolidation of all of those grants that have been so critically important in the last 10 years to train our local and State law enforcement, and first responders. I am a bit concerned that the 

grants, which currently go to States, urban areas, ports, and so 

forth, that the new National Preparedness Grant Program as I understand it to be, is going to step away from a terrorism focus specifically to an all-hazards approach. Would you comment on that? 

Because I am very concerned if we are not focusing in—on both, 

quite frankly, and that we remain very focused on terrorism. So by 

that consolidation, it is my understanding that even in the continuing resolution there was a prohibition and—assuring that this 

type of proposal, which has been brought forth in the past, would 

not go forward. 

So what is different now than what has been proposed in the 

past, the past couple of budget cycles? I am all for efficiencies in 

administration and so forth, but what can you share with us more 

specifically about the details as to how this grant program is going 

to make sure that we are getting the funding to the agencies that 

are—that need it the most? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think one of the things that is different is we have held over 70 stakeholder outreach meetings and 

conferences in the last year. We did make some adjustments to the 

proposal in response to that. 

But, you know, the basic problem is that, you know, if we are 

really going to say we want to cover risk and we want to do that 

in the best possible way, but we also want to be efficient, continuing to administer 18 grant programs that really all ought to be 

looked at holistically based on each State doing their own threat 

and hazard identification and risk assessment, and an ability to 

identify gaps, fill those gaps, et cetera, well, it is very difficult to 

do that when everything is kind of isolated in its own program. 

Plus, the administrative overhead—I can say this at the State level 

where everybody has their own grant, grant writer, and so forth— 

is obvious. So the notion is: Let’s base more on risk. Let’s do more 

by way of gap analysis and filling gap analysis. Let’s try to get rid 

of some of this legacy overhead and make this a more streamlined 

consolidated proposal. 
56 

So in addition to the outreach we have done and the adjustments 

we have made in response to that, I am hoping what is different 

now is I can be more persuasive. 

Mrs. BROOKS. With that, can you please share with us the 

BioWatch program? The President’s fiscal year 2014 budget requests a little over $90 million for the BioWatch program to continue funding Gen–2 operations. No funding, as I understand, has 

been put in the budget for the acquisition of Gen–3. 

I think as we continue to see—obviously it has been 11 years 

since we have had a terrorist attack of this nature, but yet chemical, biological, nuclear, radiological, those are all things that we 

need to continue to be mindful of. Can you, you know, share with 

us what is happening with the Gen–3 system? 

Why would we be pulling back as, you know, technology and people become more savvy? What are we doing to make sure that we 

can protect ourselves against chemical, biological, radiological? It 

seems to me that a pullback from Gen–3 is not moving in the right 

direction. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We have—Gen–3 is undergoing an assessment as to whether it will ultimately be productive for the 

money we would put into it. So rather than head into a large acquisition, there were enough problems with it that our acquisitions review board has asked for an individual assessment. That is on a 

time line. 

There is some carryover money that can be deployed, but it is 

really a matter of: Let’s make sure that before we do a large acquisition we really know what we are doing, what we are getting and 

whether it is going to work. There have been problems with the 

early stages of Gen–3. 

On bio, chem, radiological, nuclear, there is a lot in the budget 

in different places, but one I would point to is a major request by 

the President to build the NBAF, which is the National Bio-Agro 

Facility, in Kansas. We have known for a long time we need a new 

Level 4 lab. There was a peer-reviewed competition among States. 

Kansas won. It is at K. State—in conjunction with K. State. 

They Kansas legislature has agreed to put in roughly $300 million. We put in $700 million or so. It is about a billion-dollar facility. If this is approved and appropriated, we could begin construction of a major lab and be done by 2020. I think long-term infrastructure for the country, that kind of a facility is going to be very 

important. 

Mrs. BROOKS. When you say appropriated, is that by Kansas? 

Have they appropriated it yet? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. They have—I don’t know whether 

they have appropriated it, but they have made a commitment to 

those millions to partner with the Federal Government. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentlelady. 

The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 

Mr. Perry. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Certainly don’t envy your challenges, and I think we all acknowledge the exceptional challenge 
57 

that you have in the agency and the size and scope of the things 

that you have to do on a daily basis. 

My questioning will probably revolve mostly around immigration 

and maybe some of the metrics. I know we have kind of beaten 

that dead horse, but I just want to get my mind wrapped around 

some of the concepts here. 

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 stated that the Department must 

take all, as I read here, actions to necessary to achieve operational 

control of the border. In this section, the term operational control 

means the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United 

States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and contraband. 

It is my understanding that the Department has stated that this 

definition is not attainable and must be changed to 90 percent. 

With that, I think the Department has asked for an increase of 

3,477, almost 3,500 agents. We are counting on you to know the 

correct number to secure, so we are assuming that is correct. 

But now I am picturing myself as a—I was a person as a commander of a task force in enemy territory. You know, whether I tell 

my troops that we are going to secure our perimeter up to 90 percent or whether I tell their families and their other troopers that, 

you know, 10 percent of you—we are going to try and make sure 

that 90 percent of you come home is an untenable—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. I think you are mixing apples and 

oranges, if I might respectfully. So let me back up the bus a little 

bit. What you are talking about on 90 percent is a number that the 

GAO uses as an effectiveness ratio. It is a calculation about apprehensions to attempts. As I have said, the technology is really the 

part that will help us get more confident in the attempts versus apprehensions. 

Obviously everybody always wants 100 percent of everything. 

When you look at a long border, however, that ability to seal the 

border it is not going to happen. I mean, just—as someone who is 

from the border, lived the border my whole life, you don’t seal it. 

But you can make it safe and secure as can be with the resources 

you have. That is the goal that we strive for. 

Now the 3,500 additional personnel are for the ports of entry 

themselves. One of the problems we have had with the border is 

that the ports have become so clogged and the lines get so long because there aren’t enough port officers. That in and of itself becomes an incentive to go around and try to sneak through some 

other way. So the 3,500 is designed to meet our estimate of what 

we need to properly staff the—— 

Mr. PERRY. Manage and staff the ports of entry. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is correct. 

Mr. PERRY. So the 90 percent that the GAO is describing is the 

U.S. border, whether it is south, north, over water, over land, the 

border period all around the United States. Am I correct on that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It is a number that they used in a recent 

report. So that is where that comes from. 

Mr. PERRY. I just want to—yes. I just want to make sure I am 

clear. I don’t want to be critical—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No, I am just trying to explain it. 
58 

Mr. PERRY. So just to be sure here and to clarify for myself, the 

Department is still seeking 100 percent. Even though we know it 

is hard to be perfect with thousands and thousands of miles of border, whether it is over the ocean and the coast line, through the 

forest or through the desert, we are still seeking 100 percent. We 

will continue to seek 100 percent. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, the question is difficult. If I were 

a police chief and you were asking me am I going to seek to eliminate all crime, I could say yes, but everyone would know, well that 

is not going to happen. Some crime is going to happen. So—— 

Mr. PERRY. I understand what is—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO [continuing]. Our goals are always to do 

the maximum we can. That is what you want to put as 100 percent, that is. But I will share with you that is really probably not 

the best way to address the problem. 

Mr. PERRY. I am just thinking about—you know, I understand 

that it might not be practical to get to 100 percent. But you know, 

I am—like I said, I am picturing myself in my own circumstance 

where I am trying to safeguard lives and bring folks home and 

make sure none of the bad guys get in the wire with us. We, you 

know, we strove for—that was our goal. Our goal was always 100 

percent. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We always strive for perfection, but let 

me, if I might, make an important point here. We want to focus 

our resources on those who are trying to get into our border for bad 

activities like terrorism, human smuggling, narcotrafficking, et 

cetera. The major drivers across that border are the demand for illegal labor and the fact that our overall visa process is so screwed 

up. That is a technical term. 

Mr. PERRY. I understand. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. So when the Congress takes up CIR, and 

if you deal adequately with those two drivers, that frees us up to 

focus more on where we should be focusing, which are the bad 

guys, as you would describe them. So I hope that as you think 

about this, it is not the border isolated by itself, but see how it fits 

into the overall problem that we are confronting. 

Mr. PERRY. I appreciate your explanation. It is a matter of 

prioritization as well as seeking as close to you can as perfection. 

With that, thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Secretary, just a quick question. 

We have a colleague who is also in the military. Actually served 

during the break and was on the border. 

One of the issues that was raised was the rules of engagement. 

I don’t completely understand it, but they would apprehend people 

at the border, and, in effect, as soon as they went back and put a 

toe in the water, they were then free sort-of to not be further engaged. 

Is there—is—well—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That doesn’t sound—I am not sure what 

he is referring to. Maybe I could follow up with you or your staff? 

Mr. MEEHAN. Yes. Well, I—perhaps, because I can put you in 

touch directly with our colleague. 
59 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Why don’t you do that? 

Mr. MEEHAN. He expressed it from first-hand experience just a 

week ago, and it surprised me. The question is rules of engagement, and what can be done with regard to people who are effectively, you know, on the river line or on the borderline. 

But I will allow him to express it. I don’t want to—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. There are rules of engagement 

with respect to the DoD deployment at the border, and there are 

reasons for that. So we will be happy to follow up as you suggest. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I would love to be able to put that together. Thank 

you. 

At this moment, the Chairman recognizes the gentleman from 

New York, Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I just wanted to—in your 2014 budget request, there is an item in there relative to a Northern Border toll 

for—study. 

Can you provide some background with respect to that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think—I will—let me look into 

that line item specifically for you, but, you know, the issues of the 

Northern Border need to be paid attention to in terms of the trade 

and commerce that happens up there. 

We have a number of things underway with Canada on the ‘‘be 

on the borders’’ initiative. We also—as you know, they are doing 

some pilot projects with pre-inspection and the like, one of which 

will be in New York. So—but I don’t know whether that particular 

town is intended for that or elsewhere. 

So, I will follow up with you. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes, I would just—for the record, I would just like 

to say that, you know, the Peace Bridge that connects Buffalo to 

Southern Ontario I think is the second-busiest border crossing for 

passenger vehicles and third for commercial vehicles. 

It was built 84 years ago with three lanes. So half the time, because they use an alternating lane system, you are down to one 

line for all that traffic. It causes, obviously, volume delays, but it 

has an adverse impact on the environment, as well, relative to the 

air quality in and around that area. 

Our emphasis is to expand the American Plaza, but to also pursue a new bridge span, because we are all economic actors. When 

we are competent, we move. When we are not, we don’t. 

The mindset in Buffalo and Western New York and Southern 

Ontario is to avoid the bridge, because it is not reliable, it is not 

predictable. So the only way you address it is to build in capacity. 

So, I would just, you know, want to emphasize that we are trying 

to remove barriers to access, both physical and in tolls. You know, 

when you look at, you know, the situation with the Peace Bridge, 

a lot of the tolls are used to support their debt service, which will 

be necessary to build and expand the plaza to promote the efficient 

flow of traffic between the United States and Canada. 

So, this is something that obviously would be of concern. Because 

my sense is that it would be a new agency-imposed toll in addition 

to the bridge management tolls that are already in place. 

So, I just wanted to emphasize that to you. I appreciate all of 

your help in helping us address the issues of the Northern Border 
60 

generally, and the Peace Bridge connecting Buffalo and Southern 

Ontario, in particular. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank the gentleman from New York. 

Now turn to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart. 

Mr. STEWART. Madam Secretary, thank you for your service. 

Thanks for what has been, I think for you, probably a long hearing. 

I am sympathetic because you don’t know the line of questioning, 

and it can kind of come anywhere. It requires you to be an expert 

on nearly everything, and that is a great challenge, I know, with 

the tremendous responsibilities that you have. 

I do have a couple things I would like to ask you quickly, if I 

could. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Sure. 

Mr. STEWART. As a former Air Force pilot, like most military officers, I am fairly comfortable with handling a weapon, whether it 

is a weapon system like I flew or, you know, a .9 millimeter handgun. I think that there is something to the idea of self-protection. 

After 9/11, I think that is particularly true in the cockpit, of course. 

I am sure you are familiar with the FFDO—the Federal Flight 

Deck Officer program. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. STEWART. You know, it has been in place for, I guess, 7 or 

8 years, and I think it has been quite effective in training a large 

number of pilots to carry handguns in the cockpit with them in 

order to protect themselves and, of course, their passengers. 

Yet, I—it is my understanding that that program has been entirely defunded in its late—latest budget request. I—and that troubles me. I am wondering if you could just help me understand your 

reasoning for not continuing funding for what I think is very effective, and really, quite cost-effective program. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think two things, Congressman. 

No. 1 is: We have offered FFDO training if the airlines want to 

pay for it. The question is: Should the taxpayer pay for it? 

So if the air carriers want to pay for it, we are open to that. 

The second thing is that it is not a risk-based program. So, in 

contrast to FAMS—air marshals, where we really look at flights 

and risk and where we have concerns before we make an assignment for FAM, FFDOs are happenstance. If a qualified FFDO happens to be on a flight, so be it. Because we are moving to a riskbased approach, FFDO didn’t pass muster. 

Mr. STEWART. You know, and I can accept that explanation if you 

deem that this is not the highest priority. But the one that I really 

have trouble with is this idea that the airlines would be—you 

know, the burden of pay—paying for that would be placed upon 

them because you could make that argument for any of our security arrangements or costs. You know, that we could defer some of 

those costs to essentially the customers or the client, and, of course, 

we don’t do that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, we do. Cybersecurity is a great example of where, in—because industry didn’t want to be—— 

Mr. STEWART. Right. 
61 

Secretary NAPOLITANO [continuing]. And mandated, they—we are 

now involved in a public and voluntary process with them, but they 

will have to pay for—— 

Mr. STEWART. Right. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO [continuing]. Security. 

Mr. STEWART. I understand there are examples of that, of course. 

But, you know, I think the preponderance of it is, this is a Federal 

responsibility. It is a Governmental responsibility, and therefore, 

the Government is going to pay for that. 

Let me shift, if I could, for just a moment, on an unrelated, but, 

I think, still important topic. That is the—I used to president of an 

environmental group. We worked with many different agencies and 

groups that had interest in that. 

One of the things that I became aware of that during that time 

was that there are examples, in the Southwest, particularly, where 

environmental concerns seem to outweigh the concerns of border 

security. There are areas where agents are limited in what they 

can do and how they can control because of, you know, the desire 

to protect species or habitat. 

It seems to me that that opens the door for incursions. I am wondering if you could just comment on that policy, whether you think 

that is a good idea, and whether you would continue to support 

that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think—actually, we have a very 

good MOU with the Department of the Interior on that. As you 

know, there are a number of Federal protected lands along that 

border, as well as Indian country. We have a very good MOU with 

Interior as to those lands. So we are able to patrol. We are able 

to do pursuit on those lands without having to stop and ask for permission and the like. 

So, I think from an operational standpoint, we have dealt with 

the issues, but with—you know, cognizant of the fact that there are 

protected lands in that arena. 

Mr. STEWART. Well, and, of course, none of us want to endanger 

species. But, on the other hand, there is a certain priority here that 

I think many of us would say, ‘‘What is the greater risk? What is 

the greater danger?’’ I can tell you, having spoken with them, there 

is some frustration. Maybe even more than some, but maybe in 

some cases, a great deal of frustration with some of the agents, and 

their relationship, and how they feel like they have been constrained because of those environmental concerns. 

My time is up, madam. Thank you for your time today. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman from Utah. 

I thank the Secretary for your professionalism and leadership, as 

you bring the Department of Homeland Security through its first 

decade, and for your vision as you lay out the plans for the next 

important decade, facing the many challenges that we do. 

As I had stated in my own questioning, I see you again as a symbol of those who are on the front lines each and every day in this 

protection of our homeland, and the resilience and courage of those, 

particularly as we are seeing in Boston. We thank all those on the 

front lines. 
62 

So, I want to thank the witness for her very valuable testimony 

and the Members for their questions. 

The Members of the committee may have some additional questions for the Secretary, and we will ask you to respond to those in 

writing if they are submitted. 

So, pursuant to the committee rule 7E, the hearing record will 

be held open for 10 days. 

Without objection, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(63) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE JEFF DUNCAN FOR JANET NAPOLITANO

Question 1. DHS has asked for almost double the amount of funding for St. Elizabeths from fiscal year 2012 to begin construction of the Center Complex Building, 

including the Secretary’s office. Do you feel it’s appropriate that the Secretary’s office is one of the top construction priorities for the $4 billion St. E’s campus in light 

of other important items? Did DHS consider increasing priority for operation centers 

that will be moving to the campus? Would it have cost taxpayers less if the headquarters had not been on a National historic area? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. You said before House Appropriations that St. Elizabeths is a consolidation effort that could save costs in the long run. My understanding, from our 

Oversight Subcommittee visit in March, is that except for Coast Guard and FEMA 

headquarters, only primarily the component leadership will be moved to the campus. Couldn’t this have a detrimental effect on component morale since their leaders 

will no longer be seated in the same space as the normal staff? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE SUSAN W. BROOKS FOR JANET NAPOLITANO

Question 1. Current grants provided to States, urban areas, ports, and transit authorities require projects to have a nexus to the prevention of, preparedness for, response to, mitigation of, and recovery from acts of terrorism. However, the National 

Preparedness Grant Program proposal seems to step away from that terrorism focus 

for a more ‘‘all hazards’’ approach. As you well know, and as Boston Marathon attack illustrates, the threat of terrorism has not receded. How will the NPGP ensure 

that grant funding is allocated to those areas at the greatest risk of attack? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. Under the NPGP how would urban areas, ports, and transit agencies, 

fusion centers, and non-profits receive funding in the proposed NPGP? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3. For the first time, a peer review process is proposed to evaluate grant 

applications. Who will be involved in the review panels and how the process will 

work? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4. How will the process ensure that projects that are identified as a high 

priority of a State or locality in their THIRA, which may not be as high a priority 

for FEMA, will be given adequate weight during the review process? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 5. The NPGP proposal would eliminate the PSGP grant program as a 

stand-alone program and would require port areas to apply to the State for funding. 

How would the NPGP proposal account for port areas that cover multiple States? 

How would we continue to ensure coordinated investments in these port areas, rather than stove-piped investments in these areas by the State in which they reside? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 6. When I served as U.S. Attorney General for the Southern District of 

Indiana, I very proudly helped establish the Indiana Intelligence Fusion Center. I 

recently had the opportunity to visit it again as a Member of Congress. I was then, 

and I remain, a firm believer in the value of both individual fusion centers and the 

National Network of Fusion Centers. Fusion centers are a vital partner in the vast 

National homeland security mission space including, in many cases, a partner in 

emergency response and recovery efforts. We’re already hearing stories coming out 

of Massachusetts of the great work being done by its fusion centers in the aftermath 

of the attack in Boston this week. Does the new NPGP continue to prioritize fusion 

centers and law enforcement prevention efforts as it has in the past? 
64 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 7. The budget proposes to eliminate the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC) and instead fund a new $60 million competitive Training Partnership Grant Program. The NDPC has been providing training to first responders 

since 1998 and has curricula and facilities in place. The budget anticipates that new 

recipients of training funds will receive multi-year funding for curricula development. Considering that there are current programs with robust training curricula 

already in place, do you believe a reduced amount of training opportunities will be 

available to first responders in fiscal year 2013 if grant recipients are developing 

curricula for the first time? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 8. President’s fiscal year 2014 budget request again proposes to eliminate funding for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program within FEMA. According to the budget documents, FEMA does not believe this elimination will impact 

FEMA’s mitigation efforts due to duplication with other FEMA grant programs, including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). During last year’s appropriations cycle, there was bicameral, bipartisan opposition to eliminating the PDM. 

In a study conducted by the Multihazard Mitigation Council, it was found that for 

every $1 paid towards mitigation, an average of $4 is saved in future recovery costs. 

Are there any other mitigation-related grants or programs that FEMA administers 

to assist States and local governments, universities, and communities with mitigation-related projects prior to a disaster? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 9. For fiscal year 2013, Congress appropriated $44 million for the United 

States Fire Administration (USFA), or approximately $42 million after the mandated rescissions. The administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2014 requests 

$41.306 million for USFA. Among the savings outlined in the budget submission, 

the administration plans to eliminate 18 courses at the National Fire Academy 

(NFA), discontinuing Wildland/Urban Interface-Fire Adapted Communities and reducing support to the National Wildfire Coordinating Group, and ‘‘transferring’’ the 

State Fire Training Assistance Grant Program to the Assistance to Firefighters 

Grant Program. As you know, part of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112–239), reauthorized USFA through 2017. Included in 

this law were instructions for the U.S. Fire Administrator to ‘‘conduct a study on 

the level of compliance with National voluntary consensus standards for staffing, 

training, safe operations, personal protective equipment, and fitness among the fire 

services of the United States.’’ Additionally, that same law charged the Secretary 

of Homeland Security with establishing the Task Force to Enhance Firefighter Safety. With the administration requesting a reduction in USFA’s budget, I am concerned with the agency’s ability to complete the study mandated by Congress and 

the ability of the Secretary of Homeland Security to convene the Task Force. Additionally, USFA is charged with providing ‘‘National leadership to foster a solid foundation for our fire and emergency services stakeholders in prevention, preparedness, 

and response.’’ How can USFA provide leadership if it is eliminating courses at the 

National Fire Academy and reducing support for the National Wildfire Coordinating 

Group? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 10. Additionally, the administration’s proposal to shift the State Fire 

Training Assistance Grant Program from the National Fire Academy to FEMA’s 

Grant Programs Directorate, as part of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, has caused some concern among stakeholders. In 2012, Congress reauthorized 

the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program and made State fire training academies eligible applicants for the grants—but only for apparatus, equipment, and 

personal protective equipment. The administration’s proposal essential eliminates 

funding for the training of firefighters. It is estimated that the elimination of the 

State Fire Training Assistance Grant Program will result in approximately 45,000 

less students trained per year. The amount of funding per State under this program 

is approximately $26,000. It is an extraordinarily efficient and low-cost training initiative. Can you address each of these concerns and explain how the USFA will continue to meet its mission with a reduced budget? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE SCOTT PERRY FOR JANET NAPOLITANO

Question 1. Madame Secretary, you continuously state that the border is more secure than ever; however, the Department has yet to produce a successful border security metric and has inflated its deportation statistics since 2007 by including ‘‘voluntary removals’’. Individuals may voluntarily be removed numerous times, with 
65 

each case included in your record. How do you expect Congress to appropriate funds 

adequately to your Department without knowing Custom and Border Patrol’s overall 

effectiveness rate? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. How do we move forward on comprehensive immigration reform without a legitimate understanding of the degree to which our borders are secure? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3. Do you believe that an increase in the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)—like ‘‘Vader’’—could give us a better understanding as to the efficiency 

of Custom and Border Patrol and aid in the prevention of illegal immigrants crossing our border? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON FOR JANET NAPOLITANO

Question 1. Madam Secretary, at the hearing, we discussed a report published by 

the Office of the Inspector General that indicated that the Department had spent 

$430 million on developing interoperable communications capabilities, but had failed 

to achieve cross-component interoperability (OIG–13–06). The problem was not technology; the problem was management and training. What are you doing to ensure 

interoperability within the Department? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. What entity within the Department is responsible for ensuring crosscomponent interoperability and enforcing Department interoperable communications 

policies? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3. It is my understanding that the Department has expanded CBP 

preclearance operations to Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. In what I believe to be an unprecedented arrangement, the cost of CBP officers and staff for the 

preclearance location will be paid by a foreign entity. Abu Dhabi has a relatively 

low volume of travelers to the United States, with only three flights per day, and 

other locations have a higher number of travelers of potential concern from a security perspective. Given the limited number of personnel, please explain how deploying CBP officers to Abu Dhabi makes sense from a risk-based perspective. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4a. Should we be concerned about a foreign government or entity paying 

for our security operations? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4b. What risks are associated with such an arrangement? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 5. The budget proposes an increase of $77.4 million for integrated fixed 

towers (IFTs) to provide surveillance technology along the highest-trafficked areas 

of the Southwest Border in Arizona. The committee has long conducted oversight 

of the Department’s efforts to deploy security technology to our Nation’s Southwest 

Border, most recently in the largely failed SBInet program. CBP’s efforts to deploy 

IFTs to Arizona have been delayed, and there is growing concern that the project 

may suffer from similar issues that plagued its predecessors. What can you tell us 

about the current status of CBP’s efforts to deploy IFTs and other technology to the 

Arizona border? What is the current time line for deployment of the IFTs? Can you 

assure us the initiative will not be further delayed? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 6a. The budget requests $37.4 million to provide for the continuation of 

the Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) program, which is currently operated 

by the Department of Defense, under CBP. The TARS program provides air surveillance in support of DHS’s counter-narcotics mission through the deployment of tethered aerostats at sites along the Southwest Border and certain coastal areas. Some 

have expressed concern that it may cost DHS significantly more than it did DoD 

to operate the program, and note that not all of the TARS sites are currently operational and utilize older technology and equipment that is difficult and costly to repair or replace. What benefits do the TARS provide to CBP operations that cannot 

be provided through other means? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 6b. Do those benefits justify the cost of the program? Please elaborate. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 7. Are there currently negotiations or plans to expand eligibility for the 

Global Entry Program or any other trusted traveler program to nationals from any 

country not in the program? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 
66 

Question 8. The budget proposes to reduce the number of immigration detention 

beds from 34,000 to 31,800, while increasing the Alternatives to Detention program. 

Can you assure us that this number of beds would be sufficient for ICE to detain 

criminal aliens and other priority and mandatory detainees, while utilizing lowercost alternatives to detention only for low-risk detainees who are most likely to appear for immigration proceedings? Please explain. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 9. ICE recently received a great deal of criticism for releasing from detention a significant number of detainees, including a handful of Level 1 criminal 

violators, ostensibly due to budget concerns. It seems that ICE had been detaining, 

on average, more than 34,000 individuals per day and needed to bring that number 

in line with the authorized number of beds. If ICE cannot adequately manage its 

detainee population when the agency is funded for 34,000 beds, how can we expect 

it to do so with only 31,800 beds? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 10. Under this budget proposal, what assurances can you provide that 

no priority or mandatory detainees, including Level 1 criminal aliens, would be put 

in an alternative to detention rather than being detained? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 11. The President’s fiscal year 2014 budget proposes a savings of over 

$88 million and a reduction of roughly 1,500 Transportation Security Officers by 

transitioning responsibility for staffing exit lanes from TSA to airports. As justification for this transition, the administration has argued that staffing exit lanes is not 

a screening function, but rather, falls under the purview of access control, which is 

the responsibility of the airport operator. When was the determination made that 

staffing exit lanes is an access control function and thus the responsibility of the 

airport operator? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 12. Did the Department engage in formal consultation with airport operators and the exclusive representative for TSOs regarding the decision to remove 

TSA personnel from exit lanes as a cost-savings measure prior to the budget being 

released? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 13. Was there a risk assessment done on this change and its implications for perimeter security? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 14. In section 1615 of the ‘‘Implementing 9/11 Commission Act of 2007,’’ 

Congress mandated that a law enforcement biometric credential be established to 

ensure that law enforcement officers (LEOs) needing to be armed when traveling 

by commercial aircraft would be verified and validated as authorized to do so. It is 

my understanding that TSA screening efforts of flying LEOs today is currently carried out by a TSO in the exit lane. How does this proposal to transfer exit lane staffing to airports impact this statute? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 15. Has TSA established a program using biometric information to track 

armed LEOs when flying commercial aircraft? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 16. The fiscal year 2014 Congressional Justification for TSA’s aviation 

security functions states that over $11 million will be saved in fiscal year 2014 due 

to TSA reducing all non-essential travel by 50 percent.Why would you only reduce 

non-essential travel by 50 percent rather than eliminating it all together? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 17. According to data provided by TSA, the cost of using contract screeners for passenger and baggage screening at domestic commercial airports is consistently higher than if the screening was conducted by the Federal workforce. Indeed, 

it cost 46 percent more to use contract screeners at Rochester International Airport 

in 2012, according the numbers provided to the committee by TSA. At what point, 

in these tight budgetary times, is the cost of using contract screeners deemed detrimental to the cost efficiency of conducting screening operations? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 18. Secretary Napolitano, the President’s budget proposes a restructuring of the September 11 Passenger Security Fee. In short, it proposes to replace 

the current fee structure with a structure that is expected to increase collections by 

an estimated $25.9 billion over 10 years. Of this amount, $7.9 billion will be applied 

to increase offsets to the discretionary costs of aviation security and the remaining 

$18 billion will be treated as mandatory savings and deposited in the general fund 

for deficit reduction. Can you please elaborate as to why you would have the Amer-
67 

ican public foot the bill on deficit reduction instead of streamlining other expenses 

at TSA? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 19a. What types of programs and discretionary costs are covered under 

this fee? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 19b. Can you please provide us with a specific security benefit supported 

from this fund? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 20. Secretary Napolitano, the President’s budget requests that $4.4 million be allocated for use by TSA to continue its assessment of pipeline security efforts. According to the proposal, TSA evaluates the physical security of 90–100 pipeline facilities and conducts 12–15 Corporate Security Reviews of the top 100 natural 

gas and hazardous liquid transmission pipelines and natural gas distribution systems within the United States. Who conducts these pipeline assessments and the 

Corporate Security Reviews? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 21. Is it a Transportation Security Inspector or does the Department use 

a subcontractor for this activity? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 22. In December 2012, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

issued a report raising serious concerns regarding TSA’s oversight and enforcement 

of its 2008 incident reporting regulation. The report indicated that there were several inconsistencies with the data collected by stakeholders and that TSA did not 

offer clear and consistent guidance on what should be reported. The President’s 

budget requests $22 million be allocated for the operational support of the Transportation Security Operations Center, which correlates and integrates real-time intelligence and operational information, ensuring unity of action in the prevention of, 

and response to, terrorist-related incidents across transportation modes. Without 

proper administration and guidelines, however, I am concerned that the TSOC will 

not achieve its full potential. 

What steps has TSA taken to develop a uniformed interpretation of the regulation’s reporting requirements for rail and surface transportation operators? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 23. How is TSA making sure that local TSA inspection officials have provided rail agencies with adequate guidance on what TSA needs from operators? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 24. Has TSA standardized a definition for all rail stakeholders on what 

constitutes a ‘‘nexus to terrorism’’? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 25. What does TSA believe would include incidents that should be reported to TSOC by rail operators and owners? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 26. The fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Coast Guard provides 

the agency with much-needed funding to replace aging assets, but I want to ensure 

that there is no gap in security or available personnel during this period of transition. Please explain the extent to which Coast Guard decommissionings are being 

coordinated with new assets coming on-line. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 27. What, if any, are the operational and response capacity implications 

of these decommissionings? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 28. This committee has a long-established history of oversight and support of the National Security Cutters. The fiscal year 2014 budget requests $616 

million to complete construction of the seventh National Security Cutter. However, 

no funding is requested for Long Lead Time Materials building materials for the 

eighth National Security Cutter. I am concerned that the lack of funding will delay 

the production of the eighth National Security Cutter and increase costs. Please explain why this request makes no requests for future purchases related to the eighth 

National Security Cutter. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 29. The original Coast Guard recapitalization plan called for eight National Security Cutters. Will Coast Guard still seek to build an eighth National Security Cutter? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 30. The fiscal year 2014 request proposes to cut the size of the Coast 

Guard’s workforce by 931 positions. This includes a reduction of 850 service members and 81 civilians. While I understand that most of these reductions represent 
68 

a decline in positions associated with decommissioning assets and the closings and 

or consolidation of facilities, headquarters, and the Coast Guard Academy, I have 

concerns that Coast Guard may be losing years of investment in training, service, 

and institutional knowledge. How will Coast Guard ensure that personnel capabilities remain intact if their workforce is reduced by 931 positions? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 31. Will this personnel reduction take place through attrition or other 

means? Please explain. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 32. Madam Secretary, the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government survey breaks down numerous categories and ranks Federal agencies against 

like-sized Departments to determine where each agency stands. One such category 

is Senior Leaders. According to the survey, this ‘‘measures the level of respect employees have for senior leaders, satisfaction with the amount of information provided 

by management, and perceptions about senior leaders’ honesty, integrity, and ability 

to motivate employees.’’ When compared against other large agencies, the Department only scored 41.4 out of 100 and ranked last at number 19 out of 19. This indicates that any attempt to improve morale and performance must start with changes 

from the top down. 

As the head of the Department, how do you plan on addressing this, either real 

or perceived, problem with senior leaders at DHS? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 33. Madam Secretary, this year, DHS is required to submit its second 

Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) to Congress. Presumably, plans are 

already underway in preparation for the submission. To what extent, if any, did the 

Department’s leadership coordinate with the QHSR team to ensure that the current 

budget reflects the priorities that will be set forth in the QHSR? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 34. Madam Secretary, in August, the U.S. Coast Guard will be the first 

component to move to DHS headquarters at St. Elizabeths. If the Headquarters 

Consolidation project had remained on schedule it would be much further along. The 

total project completion date is now estimated at 2021, and even that is fluid. Funding delays have added an estimated $500 million to the cost, which has now 

ballooned to $3.9 billion. The fiscal year 2014 budget request for St. Elizabeths is 

$92.7 million. How will the current request, along with GSA’s funding, position DHS 

to stay on its current schedule and move forward with this important endeavor? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 35. Please explain how the headquarters consolidation project will aid 

DHS in fulfilling its mission. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 36. If DHS does not receive the fiscal year 2014 request, what impact 

will that have on the project? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 37. Madam Secretary, the budget includes a request for $54.2 million to 

fully complete the consolidation of DHS’s 24 data centers to two enterprise-wide locations, led by the Office of the Chief Information Officer. What is the current status of the consolidation effort and when do you expect its completion, based on the 

current request? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 38. According to the CFO, DHS the consolidation of 10 of the 24 data 

centers has resulted in a savings of 14%, which is equal to $17.4 million in savings 

annually. Once the project is closed out—which this request aims to do—how much 

do you estimate saving on an annual basis? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 39. Madam Secretary, DHS is estimating that it will save $1.3 billion 

in fiscal year 2014 from management-related areas. Although I applaud this effort, 

how will this effort, combined with sequester-related cuts, impact operations? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 40. Madam Secretary, for far too long DHS has relied on an extraordinary number of contractors to fulfill it homeland security missions. This has resulted in a lack of institutional knowledge at DHS, in addition to waste and abuse 

resulting from a lack of proper contracting oversight. DHS recently began implementing the Balancing Workforce Strategy (BWS), which will be used to ‘‘right-size’’ 

the number of Federal employees and contractors at DHS and reduce DHS’ overreliance on outside contractors. The budget contains a request for funding and personnel to staff this effort. How will the Department use the requested funds and 

personnel to implement the BWS program? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 
69 

Question 41. It would be extremely counterproductive for the Department to use 

contractors to determine whether it is over-relying on contractors. Does the Department plan to staff this effort with Federal employees, and to what extent, if any, 

will contractors be used in the BWS effort? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 42a. Madam Secretary, in early March the Department’s Chief Procurement Officer sent a notice to the Department’s contractors advising that sequestration may result in both planned and existing procurements being cancelled, reduced 

in scope, terminated, or partially terminated. 

Did the Department have to take this step? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 42b. If so, how many contracts were cancelled and at what dollar 

amount? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 43. What steps, if any, were taken to ensure that small and minorityowned businesses were not disproportionately harmed? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 44. The fiscal year 2012 Congressional Justification states that Civil 

Rights and Civil Liberties will begin training efforts for Countering Violent Extremism. Please give us an update on this effort. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 45. In an effort to address its acquisition workforce needs, the Depart- ment’s fiscal year 2012 budget request included $24.2 million for an acquisition 

workforce initiative. However, the House Committee on Appropriations declined to 

provide funding for the initiative, stating that the information it received from DHS 

was insufficient to enable the committee to understand the basis for the proposed 

increase. The fiscal year 2014 budget, however, includes a decrease of $14.16 million 

from the fiscal year 2012 base due to reductions that include scaled back of in-residence course offerings and acquisition workforce programs. Given the need expressed in the last budget and the Department-wide benefit that would be result 

in an increased acquisition workforce, this appears to be a step in the wrong direction. Why did DHS take this course? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 46. What resources does the Department of Homeland Security have to 

train State and locals to detect and prevent the detonation of improvised explosive 

devices (IED)? What resources have you sent to communities through your grants 

programs to work with preparedness in the event these bombs are detonated? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 47. Has any of that funding been reduced? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 48. Defending our homeland relies on effective information sharing between various intelligence agencies and also from our international partners. Since 

9/11 how has information sharing improved amongst the intelligence community 

and where is there significant room for improvement? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 49. How can DHS improve intelligence sharing with foreign countries in 

order to ensure that terrorists are not permitted to board a flight to the United 

States? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 50. How effective has the United States been in ensuring that foreign 

countries share vital intelligence and implement crucial security measures at their 

ports and borders? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 51a. In an interview with CNN, President Obama stated that ‘‘the biggest concern we have right now is not the launching of a major terrorist operation, 

although that risk is always there, the risk that we’re especially concerned over 

right now is the lone-wolf terrorist, somebody with a single weapon being able to 

carry out wide-scale massacres of the sort that we saw in Norway recently.’’ Do you 

agree with the President? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 51b. Is there anything DHS is doing to prevent these types of lone-wolf 

attacks? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 52. We have seen a rise of domestic terrorism incidents throughout the 

country, marked most recently by the events during the Boston Marathon. Earlier 

this year, several public servants throughout the country have been targeted and 

killed by people that are presumed to be affiliated with white supremacy. What is 

DHS doing to help State and local officials identify and prevent domestic terrorism? 
70 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 53. This week there have been incidents of letters containing suspicious 

powders, including ricin, addressed to a United States Senator and the President 

of the United States. We know that the FBI will be taking the lead on the investigation involving these letters. However, I believe that DHS has a role in preventing 

attacks such as these. Please tell us how DHS is involved in the prevention of biological attacks. Additionally, if any of these programs are receiving budget cuts, 

please let us know. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 54. Last Congress, this committee held hearings on weapons of mass destruction, which include attacks from biological agents. One of our witnesses, a 

former WMD Commissioner, testified that the United States still lacks preparedness 

for an attack such as these. The Commissioner cited that State and local authorities 

were not equipped to handle preparedness or response to an attack. Madam Secretary, given the cuts to State and local preparedness from the Department of 

Homeland Security grants program, do you think that jurisdictions can ever be adequately prepared from an attack from a biological agent or other weapon of mass 

destruction? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 55. There have been conflicting reports about the explosive devices that 

were found at the scene in Boston. Could you explain in detail what you know about 

the devices so far? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 56. DHS has a bomb detection capability. Has DHS been involved in trying to preserve shrapnel for the investigatory process? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 57a. It has been widely reported that DHS’ Intelligence and Analysis circulated a bulletin back in 2004 warning local law enforcement that pressure cookers 

could be used to develop an improvised explosive device (IED). Could you provide 

more background on that document? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 57b. To whom are these disseminated? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 57c. Have officials found these helpful? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 57d. As we face budget cuts, do releases such as these face danger of 

being reduced? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 58. Recent increases in apprehensions in other areas along the Southwest Border, specifically south Texas, indicate that area may benefit from additional 

technology. What is being done to send technology and other assets to this increasingly active area of the border? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 59. In 2012, this subcommittee and both House and Senate Appropriations Committees rejected the National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) proposal for fiscal year 2013, because the proposed program had not been authorized 

by Congress, lacked sufficient details regarding its implementation, and lacked sufficient stakeholder participation in its development. 

Please inform us of the Department/FEMA’s stakeholder outreach methods regarding the current fiscal year 2014 NPGP proposal. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 60. Which stakeholder organizations were involved in this process? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 61. The goods, services, and jobs from each seaport are relied upon by 

an average of 15 States across the country. By eliminating the Port Security Grant 

Program (PSGP) at the Federal level and giving the particular State in which a seaport happens to reside the sole discretion, based on its own State-created THIRA, 

on how funding for its security is to be allocated, how can we be certain that the 

other States’ reliance on that port is not unduly harmed? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 62. Currently, the Coast Guard Captains of the Port play a key role in 

prioritizing projects submitted for funding under Port Security Grant Program 

(PSGP). 

What role will they play in the proposed National Preparedness Grant Program 

(NPGP) program? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 63. Unlike the other Homeland Security Grant Programs, the Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) funds commercial entities, marine terminal operators, 
71 

to support the Federally-mandated MTSA and the SAFE Port Acts. Are the State 

Administrative Agencies’ (SAA) prepared to deal with these issues? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 64. In the past, funding for State and local grants programs have been 

cut considerably in addition to funding cuts for port security grants. Is this program 

going to be funded at an accumulated level that is as low as funding has been for 

these programs in the past, and if so, how do you expect ports to compete with other 

entities vying for grants in an environment with such little funding to go around? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 65. The ‘‘Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act’’ 

established a segregated public transportation security assistance grant program 

now known as the Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP). As you know, under 

TSGP eligible transit agencies can directly apply for and receive funding from DHS 

and under the NPGP proposal transit agencies are not eligible applicants and must 

include their funding requests ‘‘along with’’ State Administrative Agency (SAA) 

funding applications. Do SAA’s have the final say on whether or not a transit agency’s individual application is included ‘‘along with’’ a State’s larger funding application? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 66. Do you believe that at present, there is NOT sufficient interaction 

between transit agencies and local and State agencies re: planning, etc.? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 67. Do you believe that transit agencies are best able to determine and 

prioritize their own security needs? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 68. DHS has struggled to compete with the private sector and other Federal agencies in attracting a skilled cyber workforce. What effect do you anticipate 

the reduction of cyber vacancies and budget cuts in general having on DHS’s ability 

to attract and retain qualified candidates to work within DHS’s cyber workforce? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 69. Madam Secretary, the President’s budget requests $17.4 million dollars to purchase commercial cyber threat information. I think the average citizen 

would wonder why the mighty Federal Government, with all of its access to intelligence, would need to be purchasing commercial cybersecurity products. Can you 

explain to us why this is necessary? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 70a. The budget requests $197 million dollars for EINSTEIN–3A, which 

will leverage commercial internet service providers to more quickly extend intrusion 

prevention coverage to Federal Government agencies. Can you give us an update of 

how many of our Federal agencies are currently covered by EINSTEIN–2, the previous iteration, and how many are currently covered by EINSTEIN–3? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 70b. What is the path forward to full coverage of the Federal Government? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 71. The President’s budget requests $168 million for the continuous 

diagnostics program, which is DHS’s operations to implement Federal Information 

Security Management Act (FISMA) compliance across the Federal Government. This 

funding will enable DHS to develop a suite of programs that will be deployed at 

Federal agencies to provide DHS with an almost real-time capability to monitor 

what safeguards are in place to protect the .gov. The budget request is light on implementation details, however, and a workable time line. As of now, what is the 

time line for implementing this program? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 72a. Both the recent Executive Order, and current and future legislation, 

are expected to increase DHS’ cyber information sharing with State, local, international, and private-sector partners. How does the budget request reflect the Executive Order’s new initiatives with respect to DHS, including the greatly expanded 

Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program and the development of the Cybersecurity Framework? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 72b. Does DHS have the resources it needs to fulfill its new responsibilities? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 73. In late December 2011, a news outlet obtained a leaked copy of an 

internal memo evaluating the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) 

program. When we finally saw it here at the committee, we found it to be a frank 

assessment of the program’s shortfalls and helped our understanding of why there 
72 

has not been more progress in this program. The memo identified a number of 

human resources, technical, and organizational challenges that have impeded the 

program. The process of approving site security plans has been taking longer than 

anyone would have expected, and GAO in its recent report suggests that it could 

take another 7–9 years to complete. That GAO report, and another from the DHS 

Office of Inspector General, brings to light even more disturbing issues involving 

questions about the risk analysis processes involved in the program, and other sober 

conditions that point to problems with the capability of the program to achieve any 

of its goals and core mission. Do you anticipate the CFATS program to be fully implemented in fiscal year 2014? Specifically, when do you anticipate CFATS moving 

into its compliance phase? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 74. At this time, what are your expectations for this important program? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 75. Do you anticipate needing more resources for the inspector workforce 

to conduct compliance in fiscal year 2014? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 76a. The fiscal year 2014 budget reflects a funding cut in the on-line reporting system (CSAT) used to submit CFATS information. Does this account reflect 

the development of the ammonium nitrate sales, registration and verification process, and field enforcement? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 76b. If so, what is the allocation to each process? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 76c. Is DHS proceeding under the assumption that the sales registration 

and verification process will proceed as stated in the ammonium nitrate rule that 

will be published by the end of this year or has another process been contemplated? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 77. It is well documented that ammonium nitrate has been exploited by 

terrorists to create improvised explosive devices to deadly effect. This committee has 

worked diligently, over the years on legislation authorizing the program and has actively tracked the progress of this rulemaking, and the Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on August 3, 2011. I know that during the comment 

period you heard from a lot of people—particularly in the agricultural, explosives, 

and mining sectors—about some potential unintended consequences and harmful 

impacts of aspects of the proposed rule. 

Can you give us an update on the status today? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 78. When do you expect to finalize the rule? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 79. The same division that oversees the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Act is responsible for this program. Can you tell us how you intend to ensure that this division issues and implements a final rule, given CFATS’ 

other current distractions and shortcomings? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 80. The President’s fiscal year 2013 request contained no funding at all 

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

built in Kansas. This year, the administration is requesting full funding for construction of NBAF in 1 year, $714 million. Given the condition and continued deterioration of the Plum Island laboratory, and the need to have a Level 4 agricultural 

laboratory in the United States even more necessary, please explain your reasoning 

for requesting full construction monies in 1 budgetary year? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 81. How do you intend to proceed on NBAF construction, and what are 

your time lines for completion? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 82. Madam Secretary, there are some discussions about the advisability 

of merging the BioWatch responsibilities of the Office of Health Affairs with DNDO 

to form what would essentially be a Weapons of Mass Destruction division or directorate within DHS. The idea is based on combining the technological R&D and acquisition needs of advanced sensor technologies for CBRN—chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear detection—into one concerted program. I personally think we 

need to examine this policy question with a meaningful and deliberate hearing process. What are your preliminary thoughts on such a merger involving the Office of 

Health Affairs BioWatch program and DNDO? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 
73 

QUESTION FROM HONORABLE LORETTA SANCHEZ FOR JANET NAPOLITANO

Question. At the hearing, we discussed the new production path for Coast Guard’s 

fast response cutter. Please submit the new production plan to the committee for 

our review. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE FOR JANET NAPOLITANO

Question 1. At the hearing, we discussed the Department’s role in the response 

to the chemical facility explosion in West, Texas on April 17, 2013. What resources 

was the Department able to deploy to the area? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. We also discussed the public outcry regarding Transportation Security 

Administration’s (TSA) decision earlier this year to allow certain knives and sports 

equipment in the passenger cabin of airplanes. You noted that you would work with 

the TSA administrator to improve stakeholder outreach in advance of changes in 

TSA’s prohibited items list. How will you ensure that relevant stakeholders are consulted and involved in decisions regarding changes to the prohibited items list and 

other security policies? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE YVETTE D. CLARKE FOR JANET NAPOLITANO

Question 1a. As we discussed at the hearing, although I am supportive of the enhancements to the DHS cybersecurity mission for core programs, such as EINSTEIN, I have been concerned that DHS appears to be placing a lower priority on 

key ‘‘defense-in-depth’’ strategies such as public outreach, education, and workforce 

development. You indicated a willingness to work with me to ensure that proper resources are allocated to public outreach, workforce development, and education. 

Given the relative low cost of these endeavors, how do you justify these cuts? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. Is there no way to slightly decrease funding for the top-priority programs to fully fund education? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. The President’s budget requests more than $27 million for the creation of the Office of Cyber and Infrastructure Analysis to synthesize the analytic 

efforts of the Office of Infrastructure Protection and the Office of Cybersecurity and 

Communications. Can you talk about why you need this new office and how soon 

you think the Office will be fully operational? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTION FROM HONORABLE BRIAN HIGGINS FOR JANET NAPOLITANO

Question. I expressed my concern regarding an item in the fiscal year 2014 budget 

request which would ‘‘study the feasibility and cost related to imposing a crossing 

fee on pedestrians and passenger vehicles along the northern and southwestern borders.’’ Such an increase could devastate commerce along the Northern Border, and 

particularly in the Buffalo-Niagara region which is already struggling to rebuild its 

economy. Please provide any and all materials associated with this proposal. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTION FROM HONORABLE RON BARBER FOR JANET NAPOLITANO

Question. At the hearing, we discussed the effect of sequestration and the fiscal 

year 2013 spending bill on Border Patrol Agents. There remains significant uncertainty among the Border Patrol Agents in my district regarding how their employment and compensation will be impacted. When will the Department give Border 

Patrol Agents concrete information about how sequestration and the fiscal year 2013 

spending bill will affect their employment, overtime, and income? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE DONALD M. PAYNE, JR. FOR JANET NAPOLITANO

Question 1. As we all saw following the Boston Marathon attack, the efforts of 

first responders and State and local authorities were integral in saving lives and 

stabilizing the area. The last appropriations for Homeland Security significantly cut 

grants to State and local governments, transportation security, as well as other Department areas. Further cuts are now imposed due to sequestration. 
74 

Are you concerned that the sequester and cuts to grants to State and locals inhibit our ability to detect and deter possible threats to the homeland? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2a. What resources does DHS have to train State and locals to detect 

and prevent the detonation of improvised explosive devices (IED)? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2b. What resources have you sent to communities through your grants 

programs to work with preparedness in the event these bombs are detonated? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2c. And has any of that funding been reduced? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3. We now have almost a decade of spending money in the homeland 

security arena. I have heard from many in my district that having the tools and 

resources is not the problem, but the necessary manpower and training is the problem. 

Since you have been Secretary, what have you learned about what spending 

works and what does not work? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4. As you continue through the sequester, what areas of homeland security funding have been most successful, and what programs can be cut without damaging our homeland security? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 5a. Secretary Napolitano, Newark Liberty International Airport is one 

of the main engines for economic growth in my District and in the entire region. 

In fact, I was just at the airport touring the Customs and Border Patrol’s inspection 

facility less than 2 weeks ago, learning more about the work they do. The Customs 

officers do a remarkable job, but they have a tough job, especially as a result of 

budget constraints. Considering those problems, I was puzzled when I learned that 

our Government is establishing a preclearance facility in Abu Dhabi. Although I do 

wish to facilitate tourism and trade in my district, I nevertheless have concerns regarding whether this is the best use of our resources considering the relatively low 

volume of travel from Abu Dhabi. Could you please explain how deploying our already-limited CBP officers to Abu Dhabi makes sense considering the present budget constraints being imposed on CBP. Should we be concerned about a foreign government or entity paying for our security operations? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 5b. What risks are associated with this arrangement? This matter is of 

great importance to me and my constituents. I have some reservations about the 

plan considering the speed at which it is moving and the lack of information so far. 

I look forward to learning more about it in the weeks and months ahead. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 6. My district sits directly across the river from New York City and includes an airport, a sea port, rail lines, bus lines, and chemical plants. As such, my 

district relies heavily on several of the Department of Homeland Security’s individual grants like UASI, the Port Grant Program, and the Transit Security Grant 

Program. Therefore, I am particularly concerned about DHS’s proposal to consolidate 16 grant programs into a single National Preparedness Grant Program 

(NPGP). 

In the past, funding for State and local grants programs have been cut considerably, so I am also concerned about a further reduction in the funds available. How 

do you expect ports and transit that rely on their specific grant program to compete 

with other entities vying for grants in an environment with such little funding to 

go around? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 7. According to data provided by TSA, the cost of using contract screeners for passenger and baggage screening at domestic commercial airports is consistently higher than if the screening was conducted by the Federal workforce. In some 

airports the cost is close to even 40 or 50 percent more to use contract screeners. 

At what point, in these tight budgetary times, is the cost of using contract screeners 

deemed unfavorable to the cost efficiency of conducting overall screening operations? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 8a. The administration’s fiscal year 2014 budget proposes a reduction in 

funding for VIPR teams that monitor and detect potential terrorist threats across 

surface and mass transportation hubs. In light of the events occurring in Boston is 

this wise? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 
75 

Question 8b. And if there is a reduction in the number of VIPR teams, will there 

be training to the front-line employees of public transit agencies, rail carriers, and 

intercity bus carriers? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 9. At the hearing, we discussed the impact of grant funding reductions 

on State-wide Interoperability Coordinators (SWIC), noting that States have lost 

SWICs as Federal grant funding has become unavailable. As we make significant 

investments in First Net, I am concerned that interoperability capabilities we have 

developed over the last decade and the capabilities we hope to achieve with First 

Net will be undermined by the fact that States are losing their SWICs. What steps 

is the Department taking to ensure that States without SWICs will continue to 

maintain State-wide Communications Interoperability Plans? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 10. What resources and guidance will the Department provide to States 

without SWICs who will be forced to designate another individual—who will likely 

have primary responsibilities outside of interoperable communications policy—to coordinate the State’s communications with FirstNet? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE BETO O’ROURKE FOR JANET NAPOLITANO

Question 1a. At the hearing, we discussed my concerns about CBP staffing levels. 

I noted that the administration’s proposed budget requests funding for 25,252 CBP 

officers, which includes an increase of 1,600 CBPOs funded by appropriations and 

up to 1,877 CBPOs funded by a proposed increase to customs and immigration user 

fees. Adding CBP officers is necessary to enhance security, facilitate legitimate trade 

and travel, and reduce wait times at our ports of entry. Is this proposed increase 

sufficient to fully meet the staffing needs identified by CBP’s fiscal year 2013 Report 

to Congress on Resource Optimization at Ports of Entry? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. How would these officers be utilized? Please explain. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. I also noted that Members of this committee have repeatedly requested a copy of CBP’s staffing model, including staffing information for each port, 

but that request has never been honored by the Department. At the hearing, you 

agreed to provide a staffing model to the committee. We anxiously await the transmission of that model. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Æ