    [Senate Hearing 111-63]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 111-63

      DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                               H.R. 2892/S. 1298

     AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
     FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2010, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                        Department of Homeland Security
                           Nondepartmental witnesses

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

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

                                   __________

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    48-299                    WASHINGTON : 2009
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                       DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
    ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
    TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
    HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
    PATTY MURRAY, Washington             ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
    MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    BEN NELSON, Nebraska
    MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
    JON TESTER, Montana
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

                        Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
                      Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

              Subcommittee on the Department of Homeland Security

                    ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
    DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii             GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
    PATTY MURRAY, Washington             RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
    MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    JON TESTER, Montana
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

                               Professional Staff

                                Charles Kieffer
                                  Chip Walgren
                                  Scott Nance
                                Drenan E. Dudley
                                Christa Thompson
                                Suzanne Bentzel
                           Rebecca Davies (Minority)
                            Carol Cribbs (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                             Katie Batte (Minority)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, May 13, 2009

                                                                       Page
    Department of Homeland Security..................................     1
    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   103

      DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2009

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:07 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert C. Byrd (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Byrd, Murray, Lautenberg, Tester,
    Voinovich, Cochran, and Brownback.

                        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

    STATEMENT OF HON. JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

        Senator Byrd. I call this subcommittee to order.
        Welcome, Madam Secretary. I welcome you to this challenging
    and important job. As you may know, I at first opposed the
    creation of a Department of Homeland Security and I'll tell you
    why I did that.
        I figured that it would be a management nightmare, but
    since the Department was established, I've been a strong
    advocate for giving the department all the resources that it
    needs to succeed.
        The Bush administration's official position was that the
    Department could be created at no cost, no cost to the
    taxpayers. Now this translated into a Department with aging
    assets and an inability to be nimble in preparing for future
    threats.
        In response, Congress on a bipartisan basis increased
    homeland security spending by an average of $2 billion per
    year. $2 billion per year. That's $2 for every minute since
    Jesus Christ was born. You got that? $2 for every minute, every
    60 seconds since Jesus Christ was born.
        These increases were invested in border security, chemical
    security, port security, transit security, aviation security,
    and cyber security. We also ensured that State and local
    partners in homeland security received adequate resources to
    equip and train our first responders.
        Now, these investments have paid off, making our citizens
    more secure, making us better prepared for any, any disaster,
    but we have work to do, much more work to do.
        I am pleased to see that President Obama has sent us a
    budget that backs up his promises with real resources. Now,
    having said that, there are some gaps in the budget and we're
    going to explore those gaps today, and we'll work with you,
    Madam Secretary, to identify responsible ways to narrow those
    gaps.
        In 2005, I, Robert Carlisle Byrd, B-Y-R-D, led a bipartisan
    effort to improve the security on our borders and to enforce
    our immigration laws. We increased the number of Border Patrol
    agents and detention beds, and we provided funds for fencing,
    vehicle barriers, and new technology on our Southwest--let me
    say that again--on our Southwest border.
        We also provided funds for fugitive operations teams,
    Secure Community programs and for worksite enforcement.
        Madam Secretary, I have read your testimony. I look forward
    to your continuing and expanding these efforts.
        Madam Secretary, I'm aware, I know that you're aware of the
    recent devastation from flooding in Southern West Virginia.
    That's God's country. Last night, last night, Governor Manchin
    requested a Federal disaster declaration. Today, I sent the
    President a letter urging his approval and I urge you, I urge
    you to recommend to the President and he approve this request
    as soon as possible so that Federal funding can begin flowing
    to West Virginians who are in need of help.
        Madam Secretary, you lead a Department of 208,000 men and
    women. That's a rather large army. You lead a Department of
    208,000 men and women who are on the front line every day
    protecting our citizens. We commend those employees for their
    service and we welcome you to this subcommittee today.
        I also welcome Senator George Voinovich, our new ranking
    member. Welcome, Senator George Voinovich. I'm very proud to
    have you here and be with you today.
        George Voinovich follows in the footsteps of my good
    friends and able colleagues, Senator Thad Cochran and Senator
    Judd Gregg. I look forward to working with all of our
    subcommittee members this year and following Senator
    Voinovich's opening remarks, we will hear from Secretary
    Napolitano. Then we will hear from each member who will be
    recognized by seniority for up to 7 minutes, 7 minutes for
    remarks and questions.
        I now recognize Senator Voinovich for any opening remarks
    that he may wish to make.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE VOINOVICH

        Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much, Chairman Byrd.
        I must say that I am honored to serve as the Ranking Member
    of this subcommittee. You and I have worked together over the
    years on matters that have been mutually beneficial to both the
    State of West Virginia, our neighbor, and my State, the State
    of Ohio.
        Senator Byrd. Yes.
        Senator Voinovich. Madam Secretary, glad to see you and
    look forward to your insights on the priorities of your
    Department during this consideration of your budget.
        I enjoyed meeting with you in my office and I'm pleased
    that you're willing to serve our country at a very critical
    time and I think I share Senator Byrd's concern that you have
    an unbelievable management task when you're talking about
    208,000 people, 22 agencies, that still haven't been really
    brought together, and you're in the situation where you've got
    to take it to the next phase so that it gets done the way we
    anticipated in the beginning. Although, I agree with Senator
    Byrd; I wasn't real happy with the way they put everything
    together, but it's done and so we're going to do our best to
    support it.
        Senator Byrd. We're going to do that, man.
        Senator Voinovich. For fiscal year 2010, the president's
    total discretionary request for the Department is $42.7
    billion. This is a 6.3 percent increase from the fiscal year
    2009 appropriations level.
        It's an increase over the fiscal year 2009, excluding
    emergency supplemental appropriations. Including emergency
    supplemental funding, it's almost a 1 percent decrease from
    below the current year level.
        In other words, when you take in the supplemental, you're
    in about 1 percent below that.
        This is also a 42.3 percent increase since the first
    appropriations act that funded the Department of Homeland
    Security in fiscal year 2004, a 42.3 percent increase in just 7
    years.
        We are quickly approaching the time when we will have
    doubled the resources available to your Department. Within this
    dramatic rise in funding, over the past 4 years we've devoted a
    significant portion of the increase to border security. As a
    former governor of one of the Nation's Southwest border States,
    you are in a unique position of having been on the front lines
    of this issue and I think will be able to offer advice and
    guidance based on your personal experience in terms of what's
    going to work and what you need to get it done.
        This budget proposes to fund U.S. Customs and Border
    Protection at $10 billion. Taking into account all the
    reorganizations of the Department that were executed over the
    years, we're talking about a 93.3 percent increase from fiscal
    year 2004. This is gigantic.
        This budget proposes funding of $5.4 billion for U.S.
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Again, we're talking about
    an increase of, a 120 percent increase, since fiscal year 2004.
        I've often wondered if there was another way we could
    secure the border and deal with the 11 million or so illegal
    immigrants. And, as we talked in the office, I really believe
    that without a comprehensive immigration reform plan, if we
    plan to enforce our current laws, it could require a further
    investment of $272 billion and 31 years to locate and remove
    the estimated 11 million unauthorized aliens in the United
    States and this is something I want to talk to you about as we
    go through this period of time.
        It's important to note that the fiscal year 2010 budget
    proposes adequate resources to pay for the border initiatives
    funded over the past 4 fiscal years and commits to meeting the
    goal of 20,000 Border Patrol agents this December and to
    maintaining that level through fiscal year 2010. Again, is
    20,000 the right number? Should it be more?
        As you know, I've also been interested in improving the
    efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal Government during
    my time here in the Senate and for the Department, and this was
    an area that you also identified right away needed to be done.
    You got some good people working with you. I've seen them. I
    think you've got a good team that you've put together.
        In addition to hearing about your budget initiatives for
    fiscal year 2010, I hope to hear your thoughts on a number of
    issues facing the Department, including the progress being made
    to secure our Nation's borders and prepare this country for
    future emergencies.
        In closing, Madam Secretary, there's a tremendous focus on
    the Southwest but the Northern border also poses challenges to
    enforcing our laws while facilitating trade, and I'd hope to
    invite you one of these days to visit Ohio to gain a better
    understanding of the unique aspects of a State on the Northern
    border with no land border with Canada, only coastline.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you. Thank you very much. And when you
    visit Ohio, West Virginia is just across the river.
        Senator Voinovich. That's right.
        Senator Byrd. I hope you'll come there, too.
        Secretary Napolitano. Thank you. That would be great.
        Senator Byrd. All right. Now, Madam Secretary, please
    proceed.

                         STATEMENT OF JANET NAPOLITANO

        Secretary Napolitano. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
    and Senator Voinovich, members of the subcommittee. Thank you
    for this opportunity to testify on the Department of Homeland
    Security portion of President Obama's budget proposal for
    fiscal year 2010.
        The proposed total budget for the Department is $55.1
    billion which includes $42.7 billion in appropriated funding.
        DHS performs a broad range of activities across a single
    driving mission: to secure America from the entire range of
    threats that we face.
        The Department's leadership in the past several weeks, in
    response to the H1N1 flu outbreak only proves the breadth of
    the Department's portfolio as well as the need to make DHS a
    stronger, more effective Department.
        This budget strengthens our efforts in what I see as the
    five main mission areas where we need to focus in order to
    secure the American people.
        First, guarding against terrorism, the founding purpose and
    perennial top priority of the Department.
        Second, securing our borders, an effort even more urgent as
    the United States looks to do its part to counter a rise in
    cartel violence in Mexico.
        Third, smart and effective enforcement of our immigration
    laws. We want to facilitate legal immigration and pursue
    enforcement against those who violate the immigration law.
        Fourth, improving our preparation for, response to, and
    recovery from disasters, not just hurricanes and tornadoes, but
    also unexpected situations, like the H1N1 flu.
        Pause a moment there, Mr. Chairman, and mention that I
    spoke with Governor Manchin and also Kentucky Governor Beshear
    yesterday with respect to the flooding that has occurred and we
    are working with them on their emergency declaration
    applications, so that we can move those through.
        Senator Byrd. How much did you say your budget is?
        Secretary Napolitano. In appropriated funds, it's $42.7
    billion; total funds, it's $55.1 billion.
        Senator Byrd. And it's $55.10 for every minute since Jesus
    Christ was born, right?
        Secretary Napolitano. Mr. Chair, I haven't done the math,
    but it sounds pretty close.
        Senator Byrd. It's correct. If anybody wants to challenge
    it, raise your hands.
        Secretary Napolitano. I'm going to take it as good as gold.
        The fifth major mission area for us, after preparation and
    response to and recovery from disaster and challenge for us, is
    to create one Department of Homeland Security, to unify these
    22 agencies so that they work together to ensure that we are
    operating always at full strength.
        In addition to these five main mission areas, there are
    three approaches for the Department which crosscut everything
    that we do. First among those is to expand our partnerships,
    our partnerships with States, with cities, with tribal
    governments, who are the first detectors and the first
    responders.
        Second, to bolster our science and technology portfolio,
    investing in new technologies that can increase our
    capabilities while being cognizant of interests, such as
    privacy protection, that must be taken into account.
        And third, to maximize efficiency. Through the efficiency
    review process that we launched in March, we hope to ensure
    that every security dollar is spent in its most effective way.
        This budget adheres to the President's major reform goals,
    government efficiency, transparency and cohesion, and will play
    a major part in bringing about a culture of responsibility and
    fiscal discipline within the Department.
        The Department budget request was based on alignment with
    the Department's priorities and the programs were assessed
    based on effectiveness and on risk.
        First, with respect to budget priorities, to guard against
    terrorism, this budget proposal includes $121 million to fund
    research for new technologies that detect explosives at public
    places and transportation networks. It has $87 million for new
    measures to protect critical infrastructure and cyber networks
    from attack. It enhances information-sharing among Federal,
    State, local and tribal law enforcement.
        With respect to border security, the budget proposal
    includes $116 million to deploy additional staff and technology
    to the Southwest border, to disrupt southbound smuggling of
    drugs and bulk cash which will help combat cartel violence.
        It also provides $40 million for smart security technology
    funding on the Northern border, to expand and integrate our
    surveillance systems there.
        To ensure smart, effective enforcement of our immigration
    laws, this budget proposal includes $112 million to strengthen
    e-Verify to help employers maintain a legal workforce; a total
    of $198 million for the Secure Communities Program which helps
    State, local and tribal law enforcement target criminal aliens;
    and it improves security and facilitates trade and tourism
    through the Western Hemisphere Tribal Initiative, $145 million,
    and US-VISIT, $344 million.
        To help Americans prepare for, respond to, and recover from
    natural disasters, this budget proposal includes doubling the
    funds from $210 million to $420 million to increase the number
    of frontline firefighters. It includes a $600 million increase
    to the Disaster Relief Fund to help individuals and communities
    impacted by disasters, and it strengthens pre-disaster hazard
    mitigation efforts to reduce injury, loss of life and
    destruction of property.
        And finally, to unify the Department, this budget proposal
    includes $79 million for the consolidation of the Department's
    headquarters while we bring 35 different offices together,
    generating significant savings in the long run. It also
    includes $200 million to consolidate and unify our IT
    infrastructure and bring all of DHS into the same system.
        Mr. Chairman, in my few months as Secretary, I have seen a
    number of remarkable accomplishments, in addition to
    challenges, at the Department of Homeland Security. I am seeing
    this Department's potential. I believe we are on the path
    toward realizing it.
        We aim to do even better at achieving this country's
    security mission and this budget will help the Department do
    just that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that my more complete
    statement can be included in the record.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Janet Napolitano

        Mr. Chairman, Senator Voinovich, and members of the subcommittee:
    Let me begin by saying thank you for the strong support you have
    consistently shown the Department, and I look forward to working with
    you to make certain that we have the right resources to protect the
    homeland and the American people and that we make the most effective
    and efficient use of those resources.
        I am pleased to appear before the subcommittee today to present
    President Obama's fiscal year 2010 Budget Request for the Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS). I will also summarize the progress we have
    made since the start of the new administration along with some of our
    key accomplishments from last year.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET REQUEST

        The Department of Homeland Security's Budget will strengthen
    current efforts that are vital to the Nation's security, bolster DHS'
    ability to respond to emerging and evolving threats, and allow DHS to
    embrace new responsibilities in order to secure the Nation. This Budget
    puts forward critical investments in the protection of the American
    people.
        DHS and its many component agencies fulfill a broad mandate and
    conduct many different activities within a single, unified security
    mission. DHS performs critical tasks from protecting transportation
    hubs to conducting maritime rescues, from aiding disaster victims to
    enforcing immigration laws. Within this broad portfolio, the Department
    aims to secure the American people from all hazards--including
    terrorist threats and natural or accidental disasters--and to work
    effectively with its many partners to lead the collaborative effort to
    secure the Nation. DHS undertakes the mission of securing the United
    States against all threats through five main action areas, each of
    which is strengthened by this Budget:
      --Guarding Against Terrorism.--Protecting the American people from
            terrorist threats is the founding purpose of the Department and
            DHS' highest priority. This Budget expands DHS efforts to
            battle terrorism, including detecting explosives in public
            spaces and transportation networks, helping protect critical
            infrastructure and cyber networks from attack, detecting agents
            of biological warfare, and building information-sharing
            partnerships with State and local law enforcement that can
            enable law enforcement to mitigate threats.
      --Securing Our Borders.--DHS prevents and investigates illegal
            movements across our borders, including the smuggling of
            people, drugs, cash, and weapons. In March, the Department
            announced a new initiative to strengthen security on the
            southwest border in order to disrupt the drug, cash and weapon
            smuggling that fuels cartel violence in Mexico. This Budget
            strengthens those efforts by adding manpower and technology to
            the southwest border. This Budget also funds smart security on
            the northern border and facilitates international travel and
            trade. The President's request also makes targeted investments
            to reduce security risk across our Nation's vast maritime
            borders.
      --Smart and Tough Enforcement of Immigration Laws and Improving
            Immigration Services.--DHS welcomes legal immigrants, protects
            against dangerous people entering the country, and pursues
            tough, effective enforcement against those who violate the
            Nation's immigration laws. This Budget contains funding to
            strengthen our employment eligibility verification systems,
            target and crack down on criminal aliens and expedite the
            application process for new legal immigrants.
      --Preparing for, Responding to, and Recovering from Natural
            Disasters.--The Department must aid local and State first
            responders in all stages of a natural disaster--preparing for
            the worst, responding to a disaster that has occurred, and
            recovering in the long run. This budget contains funding to
            strengthen DHS assistance for local first responders and the
            communities and families affected by disasters.
      --Unifying and Maturing DHS.--DHS is a young department. Its
            components must further evolve in order to operate as
            effectively as possible as one agency with a single, unified
            security mission. This Budget contains funding to initiate
            consolidation of mission support activities that will remain
            off-site from the St. Elizabeths campus, reducing the many
            small and widely scattered leased locations and supporting the
            goal to build ``One DHS.''
        DHS is employing several cross cutting initiatives to strengthen
    activities in each of these mission areas.
        First, DHS is working across the board to increase cooperation with
    its partners--State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies,
    international allies, the private sector, and other Federal
    departments. The effort to secure America requires close coordination
    and collaboration; this Budget increases resources dedicated to these
    critical partnerships.
        Second, the Department is bolstering its science and technology
    portfolio. This will lead to the development of new techniques and
    technologies that will expand DHS' law enforcement capabilities while
    minimizing law enforcement's impact on everyday, law-abiding citizens.
    This Budget contains important investments in technologies that will
    allow DHS officers to perform their security tasks more quickly and
    with greater accuracy.
        Third, the Department continually aims for greater efficiency in
    its operations. Through the Department-wide Efficiency Review
    Initiative launched in March, DHS is ensuring all its resources are
    used in the most effective way possible to secure the Nation.
        The total fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Department of
    Homeland Security is $55.1 billion in funding; a 5 percent increase
    over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level excluding supplemental funding.
    The Department's fiscal year 2010 gross discretionary budget request
    \1\ is $45.8 billion, an increase of 6 percent over the fiscal year
    2009 enacted level excluding emergency funding. The Department's fiscal
    year 2010 net discretionary budget request is $42.7 billion.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Gross discretionary funding does not include funding such as
    Coast Guard's retirement pay accounts and fees paid for immigration
    benefits.
        \2\ This does not include fee collections such as funding for the
    Federal Protective Service (NPPD), aviation security passenger and
    carrier fees (TSA), credentialing fees (such as TWIC--TSA), and
    administrative cost of the (National Flood Insurance Fund, FEMA).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The following are highlights of the fiscal year 2010 Budget
    Request:

    Guarding Against Terrorism
        State and Local Fusion Centers.--Full support and staffing by the
    end of fiscal year 2011 are requested for the 70 identified State and
    Local Fusion Centers, facilities where information and intelligence is
    shared between Federal, State, local and tribal authorities. Funding is
    dedicated to IT maintenance, support, and training.
        Explosives Detection Systems (EDS) Procurement and Installation.--
    An increase of $565.4 million to accelerate the Electronic Baggage
    Screening Program (EBSP) at the Nation's airports to ensure 100 percent
    of all checked baggage is screened with an in-line explosive detection
    capability system, or a suitable alternative. This funding will support
    facility modifications, recapitalization efforts, as well as
    procurement and deployment of electronic baggage screening technology
    systems.
        Bomb Appraisal Officers.--$9 million for an additional 109 Bomb
    Appraisal Officers (BAOs) to provide expertise in the recognition of
    and response to improvised explosive devices at airports to enhance
    aviation security. The request will provide BAO coverage at 50 percent
    more airports including all Category X, I, and II airports, and will
    provide a BAO in every hub-spoke airport system, and to airports that
    currently have only one BAO assigned.
        Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response Teams.--An increase of
    $50 million is requested to fund 15 Visible Intermodal Prevention and
    Response (VIPR) teams dedicated to guarding surface transportation. The
    VIPR teams contain multi-skilled resources, including Transportation
    Security Inspectors, canine teams, Transportation Security Officers,
    Bomb Detection Officers, and Federal Air Marshals. These teams enhance
    the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) ability to screen
    passengers, identify suspicious behavior, and act as a visible
    deterrent to potential terrorists in surface transportation
    environments.
        Vulnerability Assessments.--A $3.0 million increase is requested to
    provide for new nuclear reactor security consultations with the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission. The budget request will also support
    vulnerability assessment pilot projects, which provide State and local
    stakeholders with a comprehensive understanding of vulnerabilities and
    critical infrastructure resiliency.
        Bombing Prevention.--$4.2 million is requested to enhance improved,
    coordinated national bombing prevention and improvised explosive device
    (IED) security efforts. Additionally, this funding will provide
    resources to enhance national awareness of the threat, facilitate
    multi-jurisdiction planning, and conduct additional capabilities
    assessments for 132 high-risk urban area detection, deterrence,
    response, and search elements. These elements include canine units,
    bomb squads, SWAT teams, and dive teams.
        Cybersecurity for the Federal Government.--A $75.1 million increase
    is requested to enable DHS to develop and deploy cybersecurity
    technologies to counter on-going, real world national cyber threats and
    apply effective analysis and risk mitigation strategies to detect and
    deter threats.
        Explosives Detection Research.--Total funding of $120.8 million, an
    increase of $24.7 million, is requested to support DHS' Science and
    Technology Directorate (S&T) in addressing critical capability gaps in
    detecting, interdicting, and lessening the impacts of non-nuclear
    explosives used in terrorist attacks against mass transit, civil
    aviation, and critical infrastructure. Of the $24.7 million, $10.0
    million will develop high-throughput cargo screening technology through
    automated, more efficient equipment. The remaining $14.7 million will
    build on fiscal year 2009 efforts to counter the threat of hand-carried
    improvised explosive devices to mass transit systems by detecting all
    types of explosive threats such as homemade, commercial, and military
    explosives.
        Cybersecurity Research.--Total funding of $37.2 million, an
    increase of $6.6 million, is requested to support Science and
    Technology in addressing critical capability gaps identified in the
    Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI). Specifically,
    this effort will develop technologies to secure the Nation's critical
    information infrastructure and networks.
        Transformational Research and Development (R&D).--A $7.2 million
    increase is requested for Transformational R&D to improve nuclear
    detection capabilities, address enduring vulnerabilities, and reduce
    the operational burden of radiation and nuclear detection. The increase
    in fiscal year 2010 will further these efforts to accelerate material
    optimization and production techniques, and establish a low-rate
    production capability for these materials. Additional funding could
    have a tremendous impact on the ability to uncover threats by detecting
    radiation sources.
        Bio Watch.--Total funding of $94.5 million is requested for the
    BioWatch program in the Office of Health Affairs, which provides the
    capability for early detection and warning against biological attacks
    in over 30 of our Nation's highest-risk urban areas through placement
    of a series of biological pathogen collectors. The request sustains the
    baseline capability of Gen-1/Gen-2 collectors while moving into the
    next generation of equipment. The funding would complete field testing
    for the Gen-3 prototype unit, secure IT architecture to facilitate
    networking between the biodetection systems, and procure production
    units to support the Gen-3 operational test and evaluation.
        Vetting Infrastructure Modernization.--An increase of $64 million
    is requested to modernize vetting infrastructure data management,
    adjudication workflow, and integration of all vetting systems in the
    third and final phase of the Vetting Infrastructure Improvement Plan.
    Modernization will enable a universal fee mechanism that will reduce
    duplicative background checks and fees for transportation workers, and
    provide the capability to process new populations using existing
    enrollment and vetting infrastructure, while continuing to ensure
    privacy and security.
        Information Integration and Technology.--Total funding of $34
    million is requested for U.S. Secret Service information technology.
    Funding would provide for a secure cross-domain IT application,
    engineering and architecture activities to modernize and improve Secret
    Service systems, information-sharing environments, database
    performance, cyber security, and continuity of operations through
    robust backup and recovery procedures.
        Intermodal Security Coordination Office (ISCO).--A $10 million
    increase is requested for the Intermodal Security Coordination Office
    within DHS Policy to support integrated planning between DHS and the
    Department of Transportation in the area of maritime transportation, as
    well as in other homeland security mission areas. The Intermodal
    Security Coordination Office will develop a strategic plan and metrics
    to guide development and modernization of intermodal freight
    infrastructure that links coastal and inland ports to highways and rail
    networks; an assessment of intermodal freight infrastructure needs and
    capability gaps; and recommendations to address the needs and
    capability gaps. The recommendations to address intermodal freight
    infrastructure needs and capability gaps will be incorporated into DHS'
    5-year programming and budgeting guidance, and tracked to ensure they
    are achieved.
        Electronic Crime Task Forces (ECTFs).--Total funding of $2.0
    million is requested to support the operational costs of 13 ECTFs and
    DHS-mandated Certification and Accreditation of the Secret Service
    online reporting system.
        Train 21.--Total funding of $4.1 million is requested for Train 21,
    a business operations and training transformation initiative that
    advances the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center's mission to
    provide training for law enforcement personnel.
        Uniformed Division Modernization.--Total funding of $4.0 million is
    requested to support a restructuring of the U.S. Secret Service
    Uniformed Division's (UD) legal authorities governing pay and
    compensation to bring the UD in line with the rest of the Federal
    Government and to more effectively recruit and retain the talent
    necessary to carry out its protective mission
        National Technical Nuclear Forensics.--A $2.8 million increase is
    requested to expand efforts to develop the capability to improve
    technical nuclear forensics on U.S.-made nuclear and radiological
    materials. The increase will also expand international collaborative
    efforts to collect and share relevant nuclear forensics information.

    Securing Our Borders
        Combating Southbound Firearms and Currency Smuggling.--An increase
    of $26.1 million is requested to enhance DHS' capability to combat
    southbound firearms and currency smuggling through additional personnel
    at and between the ports of entry and along the southwest border. This
    funding will support an additional 44 Border Patrol agents and 8
    support staff as well as 65 Customs and Border Protection officers and
    8 support staff. Resources are also requested to expand and maintain
    the Licensed Plate Reader (LPR) program to help establish and maintain
    effective control of the border. Additionally Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement (ICE) requests an additional $70 million to hire 349
    positions (specifically Special Agents, Intelligence Analysts, and
    Criminal Investigators) to increase enforcement staffing, improve
    cooperative efforts with the Mexican Government, and establish another
    Border Violence Intelligence Cell. This cross-program initiative will
    increase national security by expanding activities to secure our
    borders.
        Maritime Border Security Enhancements.--$700 million is requested
    to purchase five new Coast Guard Cutters, two Maritime Patrol Aircraft
    and one aircraft flight simulator to increase surface and air asset
    presence in the maritime domain and vastly improve threat detection and
    interdiction capabilities. $103 million is requested to purchase 30 new
    Coast Guard small boats to replace aging, obsolete assets with more
    capable, multi-mission platforms. $1.2 million is requested to
    establish a permanent Biometrics at Sea System, an investment which
    enables Coast Guard boarding teams to identify dangerous individual
    documented in the US-VISIT database and yields the type of cross-
    component operational integration sought through creation of DHS and
    that must continue to be built upon.
        Northern Border Technology.--$20.0 million is requested to assist
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in providing improved
    situational awareness along the northern border through the design,
    deployment, and integration of surveillance, sensing platforms,
    detection technologies and tactical infrastructure. This technology
    will expand DHS capabilities, increase the effectiveness of our agents,
    and increase the ability to detect unlawful border activity
    successfully.
        CBP Air and Marine (A&M) Personnel.--A $19.1 million increase is
    requested to support Border Patrol agents by providing air cover as
    well as expanding maritime assistance along the borders. Funding is
    requested to hire an additional 68 pilots, 20 marine and 56 support
    personnel. During fiscal year 2010, A&M plans to continue the expansion
    of its capabilities across the northern and coastal border and place
    heavy emphasis on the maritime requirements along the southeast and
    Caribbean borders. The additional personnel resources are requested as
    new marine vessels are deployed to marine branches at strategic
    locations along the coastal borders.
        Research and Development for Border and Maritime Security.--A $7.1
    million increase for Science & Technology is requested to fund a new
    research effort to provide advanced detection, identification,
    apprehension, and enforcement capabilities along borders, increasing
    the security of the border and lowering the risk of a successful
    terrorist attack. Additionally, funding will provide new technologies
    to the United States Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and other components operating in
    the maritime environment.

    Smart and Tough Enforcement of Immigration Laws and Improving
            Immigration Services
        E-Verify.--Total funding of $112 million and 80 new positions are
    requested to support improvements to the employment eligibility
    verification system, E-Verify. The growth of the E-Verify program will
    increase the need for monitoring and compliance activities to protect
    employees from discriminatory practices, safeguard privacy information,
    and enhance program efficacy. The fiscal year 2010 program increase is
    primarily for monitoring and compliance activities, as well as IT-
    related business initiatives to improve system use.
        Secure Communities.--Total funding of $39.1 million is requested to
    hire, train, and equip 80 new enforcement personnel who will identify
    suspected criminal aliens, determine subjects' alien status, prioritize
    ICE enforcement actions against the highest threat criminal aliens, and
    assist in the removal of apprehended criminal aliens. Funding will also
    support the continued investment in information technology to improve
    efficiencies within ICE criminal alien identification prioritization
    and removal processes.
        Detention and Removal Operations Modernization (DROM).--Total
    funding of $25 million is requested for improvements to the system of
    detaining and removing illegal immigrants. The funding will be
    dedicated to developing and deploying the Detainee Location Tracking
    Module as part of the Bed Space and Transportation Management System,
    expanding the ICE Data warehouse data capacity and reporting capability
    to support the DRO IT data, and expanding Web services to allow the
    Electronic Travel Document application to communicate with other
    internal or external applications. DROM will effect improvements in the
    areas of real-time dynamic data reporting, detainee management,
    management of detention beds and tracking detainees, bed-space
    availability management, and transportation management for improved
    efficiency in detention and removals.
        Law Enforcement Systems Modernization.--Total funding of $49
    million is requested to fund the ICE Law Enforcement Systems
    Modernization initiative, including a number of case management,
    information sharing, and operational support service projects that will
    improve access to law enforcement information. For example, the case
    management Traveler Enforcement Communication System (TECS) system
    modernization effort will support the investigative arm of ICE and
    update a 20-year-old system, giving ICE improved capabilities for case
    management, money laundering tracking and reporting, telephone
    analysis, intelligence reporting and dissemination, Bank Secrecy Act
    data access, information sharing of subject record data, and
    statistical/performance reporting. The funding will also support the
    design and development for the integration of ICE-Agreements of
    Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security (ACCESS) and
    Information Sharing.
        Immigrant Integration.--Total funding of $10 million is requested
    for an Immigrant Integration program within USCIS, in order to improve
    the integration of immigrants into the United States. This program
    allows USCIS and the Office of Citizenship to work across the Federal
    Government and with State and local Governments, U.S. businesses, non-
    profits, academia, and faith-based organizations to support effective
    integration efforts across the country. USCIS will provide grants to
    community-based organizations for citizenship preparation programs;
    facilitate English language learning through improved web resources;
    build volunteer capacity by developing a training certification
    framework for volunteers and, promote citizenship with integration
    messages at the workplace, among Federal agencies, and the general
    public.
        US-VISIT Identity Management and Screening Services.--An $11.2
    million increase is requested to support the increased workload demands
    associated with the transition from 2 to 10 fingerprint biometric
    capture for foreign visitors. The increase will support biometric
    identifications and verifications, latent print processing, data
    sharing with other agencies, and the growing Secure Communities
    initiative, which shares biometric information with local law
    enforcement. The funding will also support information sharing and
    technical assistance to select foreign governments to promote the
    adoption and use of common biometric identity management standards in
    order to advance the ability to screen travelers to and workers within
    the United States.
        Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI).--A $20.9 million
    increase is requested to continue maintaining and operating the WHTI
    program that supports Departmental efforts to facilitate the efficient
    movement of people at the land border POEs. WHTI provides a tool to
    conduct the necessary authentication at the time of crossing and it
    also accelerates the verification process mandated by law to the extent
    possible with Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Technology and
    communications technology.

    Preparing for, Responding to, and Recovering From Natural Disasters
        Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM).--A $60 million increase is requested
    for Pre-Disaster Mitigation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    Funding will assist in the implementation of pre-disaster hazard
    mitigation measures that are cost-effective and are designed to reduce
    injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction of property,
    including damage to critical services and facilities.
        Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Staffing for Adequate Fire and
    Emergency Response (SAFER) Grants.--Total funding of $420 million is
    requested to double the funds devoted to SAFER grants administered by
    the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which help fire departments
    increase the number of frontline firefighters. Funding will enable fire
    departments to increase their staffing and deployment capabilities,
    ensuring around the clock protection.
        Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).--Total DRF funding of $2 billion, an
    increase of $0.6 billion, is requested. The DRF, administered by the
    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), provides a significant
    portion of the total Federal response to victims in declared major
    disasters and emergencies. This increase will provide relief for non-
    catastrophic disaster activity.
        First Responder Technology.--Total funding of $12 million is
    requested to develop and design technologies to address capability gaps
    identified by Federal, State, local and tribal first responders. This
    program will test technologies, assess usability, and commercialize
    them to increase availability across all first responder communities.
        Gap Analysis Program.--An additional $3.0 million is requested for
    the Gap Analysis Program to supplement programs that evaluate the
    strengths and weaknesses of each State's emergency plans and evacuation
    plans and expand beyond earlier focus on hurricane-prone regions and
    rural and suburban areas to all hazards.

    Maturing and Unifying DHS
        DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project.--An additional $75.0
    million is requested in fiscal year 2010 to initiate consolidation of
    mission support activities that will remain off-campus, reducing the
    amount of small and widely scattered leased locations.
        Strategic Requirements Planning Process.--An additional $5.0
    million and five FTE are requested for the DHS Strategic Requirements
    Planning Process (SRPP) to establish tangible Department-wide targets
    and goals to help integrate DHS components' efforts and ensure that the
    Department fulfills its homeland security mission. The SRPP is designed
    to coordinate with the Department's resource allocation and investment
    processes and ensure that both of these processes address the most
    critical homeland security needs and capability gaps. The SRPP is
    designed to utilize risk assessments to prioritize analysis of
    capability gaps, and risk would also be used to inform the
    prioritization of investment in capability gaps and needs identified
    through the SRPP.
        OIG Auditors.--An increase of $5.1 million is requested to hire an
    additional 60 staff. The increase of staffing will better position the
    Office of Inspector General to assist in supporting the Department's
    integrated planning guidance (IPG) of strengthening border security and
    interior enforcement. In addition, the increase will expand oversight
    of activities relating to DHS issues on immigration and border
    security, transportation security, critical infrastructure protection,
    Federal and State/local intelligence sharing, Secure Border Initiative
    (SBI), and acquisition strategies. The OIG's oversight activities add
    value to DHS programs and operations by providing an objective third
    party assessment to ensure integrity and transparency.
        Data Center Development/Migration.--A $200.0 million increase is
    requested to support further migration of component systems,
    applications and disaster recovery to the DHS Enterprise Data Centers
    for central DHS management. Select DHS component budgets include funds
    to migrate their component specific applications to the DHS Data
    Center. The Data Center consolidation efforts will standardize IT
    resource acquisitions across DHS components, as well as streamline
    maintenance and support contracts, allowing for less complex vendor
    support and expediting response times in the event of an emergency.
    Benefits derived from consolidation include enhanced IT security,
    improved information sharing with stakeholders, and enhanced
    operational efficiencies over time.
        Information Security and Infrastructure.--$23.0 million is
    requested to support: Network Security Enhancements, Internet Gateway
    Enhancements, and Single Sign-On Capability.
        Network Security Enhancements.--This funding is requested to
    mitigate high-risk areas within the DHS firewall. This request will
    establish critical Policy Enforcement Points across the DHS Network,
    improve DHS Security Operation Center capabilities (i.e., remediation,
    forensics), and establish robust classified facilities with highly
    skilled analysts. Network Security Enhancements will identify all
    internet connections for remediation by migrating separate, legacy
    component connections behind the DHS Trusted Internet Connections
    (TICs).
        Internet Gateway Enhancements.--This request will implement a High
    Assurance Guard to support mission requirements for accessing social
    networking sites and establishing the DHS Email Disaster Recovery
    capability where 100 percent of all e-mail traffic will be behind the
    two DHS TICs.
        Single Sign-On (SSO) Capability.--Increased fiscal year 2010
    funding will be utilized to initiate the application integration and
    establishment of the core infrastructures for AppAuth, eAuth, the SSO
    Gateway, and Service Oriented Architecture required under the SSO
    project. Through the close alignment with HSPD-12, DHS employees and
    Federal, State, local and private-sector partners will be able to log
    in to their systems with only a single set of credentials in order to
    access multiple applications.

        Fiscal year 2010 Gross Discretionary funding increases by $2.6
    billion, or 6 percent, over fiscal year 2009.
        There is an increase of $8.6 million, or .1 percent, in estimated
    budget authority for Mandatory, Fees, and Trust Funds over fiscal year
    2009.
        Does not include supplementals or rescissions of prior-year
    carryover funds.

        The following offices are less than 1 percent of the total budget
    authority and are not labeled in the chart above: Office of the
    Inspector General, Office of Health Affairs.
        Departmental Operations is comprised of the Office of the Secretary
    & Executive Management, the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf
    Coast Rebuilding, the Office of the Undersecretary for Management, the
    Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and the Office of the Chief
    Information Officer.

                                         TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY BY ORGANIZATION
                                  [Gross Discretionary & Mandatory, Fees, Trust Funds]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           2010 +/-
                                                                             2010       2010 +/- fiscal  fiscal year
                                            2008 Revised  2009 Enacted    President's      year 2009         2009
                                             Enacted \1\       \2\        Budget \3\        enacted        Enacted
                                                                                                          (percent)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Departmental Operations \4\...........     $573,983      $644,553         $904,673        $260,120            40
    Analysis and Operations...............      304,500       327,373          357,345          29,972             9
    Office of the Inspector General.......      108,711        98,513          127,874          29,361            30
    U.S. Customs & Border Protection......    9,285,001    11,274,783       11,436,917         162,134             1
    U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement    5,054,317     5,928,210        5,762,800        (165,410)
    Transportation Security Administra-       6,809,359     6,990,778        7,793,576         802,798            11
     tion.................................
    U.S. Coast Guard......................    8,631,053     9,623,779        9,955,663         331,884             3
    U.S. Secret Service...................    1,629,496     1,637,954        1,709,584          71,630             4
    National Protection and Programs            896,476     1,158,263        1,958,937         800,674            69
     Directorate..........................
    Office of Health Affairs..............      118,375       157,191          138,000         (19,191)          -12
    Federal Emergency Management  Agency..    5,515,178     5,985,805        6,612,287         626,482            10
    FEMA: Grant Programs..................    4,117,800     4,245,700        3,867,000        (378,700)          -99
    U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Serv-      2,822,012     2,690,926        2,867,232         176,306             7
     ices.................................
    Federal Law Enforcement Training            273,302       332,986          288,812         (44,174)          -13
     Center...............................
    S&T Directorate.......................      830,335       932,587          968,391          35,804             4
    Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.....      484,750       514,191          366,136        (148,055)          -29
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL...........................   47,454,648    52,543,592       55,115,227       2,571,635          4.89
    Less Rescission of Prior Year              (124,985)      (61,373)  ..............         -61,373          -100
     Carryover Funds: \5\.................
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ADJUSTED TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY.......   47,329,664    52,482,219       55,115,227       2,633,008             5
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SUPPLEMENTAL \6\......................   15,129,607     2,967,000   ..............      (2,967,000)  ...........
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Fiscal year 2008 revised enacted reflects net reprogramming/transfer adjustments for CBP ($2.6 million); TSA
      (-$10.5 million); USSS ($34.0 million); NPPD (-$5.6 million); OHA ($1.9 million); FEMA (-$23.0 million); US
      CIS ($282.167 million); FLETC ($5.636 million) FEMA--DRF to OIG($16 million). Reflects technical adjustments
      to revise fee estimates for TSA Aviation Security--General Aviation Fee ($.050 million); TSA Aviation
      Security--Passenger & Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee ($96.025 million); TSA Transportation Threat
      Assessment and Credentialing--Registered Traveler (-$31.601 million); TSA Transportation Threat Assessment and
      Credentialing--Transportation Worker Identification Credentials ($37.9 million); TSA Transportation Threat
      Assessment and Credentialing--HAZMAT (-$1.0 million); TSA Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing--
      Alien Flight School ($1.0 million); and FEMA--Radiological Emergency Preparedness (-$492 million). Pursuant to
      Public Law 110-161 reflects a scorekeeping adjustment for rescissions of prior year unobligated balances from
      USCG--AC&I (-$137.264 million) and a rescission of current-year appropriations for USM (-$5.0 million).
    \2\ Fiscal year 2009 enacted reflects technical adjustments to revise fee estimates for TSA--Transportation
      Threat and Credentialing--Registered Traveler (-$10.0 million), TSA--Transportation Threat and Credentialing--
      Transportation Worker Identification Credentials ($22.7 million); TSA--Transportation Threat and
      Credentialing--HAZMAT (-$3.0 million); TSA--Transportation Threat and Credentialing--Alien Flight School ($1.0
      million). Reflects USCG realignment of Operating Expenses funding and Pursuant to Public Law 110-53 reflects
      TSA realignment of funds for 9/11 Commission Act implementation ($3.675 million--Aviation Security, 13.825
      million--Surface, $2.5 million--Support). Reflects a scorekeeping adjustment for a rescission of prior year
      unobligated balances from USCG--AC&I (-$20.0 million).
    \3\ Fiscal year 2010 President's Budget reflects the proposed transfer of Federal Protective Service from ICE to
      NPPD ($640.0 million).
    \4\ Departmental Operations is comprised of the Office of the Secretary & Executive Management, the Office of
      the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding, the Office of the Undersecretary for Management, the Office
      of the Chief Financial Officer, and the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    \5\ Pursuant to Public Law 110-161, reflects rescission of prior year unobligated balances: fiscal year 2008--
      Counter-Terrorism Fund (-$8.480 million); TSA (-$4.5 million); Analysis and Operations (-$8.7 million); FEMA--
      Disaster Relief Fund (-$20.0 million); USCG--Operating Expenses (-$9.584 million); CBP (-$2.003 million); US
      CIS (-$.672 million); FEMA (-$2.919 million); ICE (-$5.137 million); FLETC (-$.334 million); OSEM (-$4.211
      million); USM (-$.444 million); CFO (-$.380 million); CIO (-$.493 million); DNDO (-$.368 million); OHA (-$.045
      million); OIG (-$.032 million); NPPD (-$1.995 million); S&T (-$.217 million).
    Pursuant to Public Law 110-161, reflects fiscal year 2008 rescissions of start-up balances: CBP (-$25.621
      million); FEMA (-$14.257 million); Departmental Operations ($12.084 million); Working Capital Fund (-$2.509
      million).
    Pursuant to Public Law 110-329, reflects fiscal year 2009 rescissions of prior year unobligated balances:
      Analysis and Operations (-$21.373 million); TSA (-$31.0 million); FEMA--Cerro Grande (-$9.0 million).
    \6\ In order to obtain comparable figures, Total Budget Authority excludes:
      --Fiscal year 2008 supplemental funding pursuant to Public Law 110-161: CBP ($1.531 billion); ICE ($526.9
      million); USCG ($166.1 million);
      --NPPD ($275.0 million); FEMA ($3.030 billion); US CIS ($80.0 million); FLETC ($21.0 million).
      --Fiscal year 2008 supplemental funding pursuant to Public Law 110-252: USCG ($222.607 million); FEMA ($897.0
      million).
      --Fiscal year 2008 supplemental funding pursuant to Public Law 110-329: OIG ($8.0 million); USCG ($300.0
      million); FEMA ($8.072 billion).
      --Fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding pursuant to Public Law 110-252: USCG ($112 million).
      --Fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding pursuant to Public Law 111-5: USM ($200 million); CBP ($680 million);
      ICE ($20 million); TSA ($1.0 Billion); USCG ($240 million); FEMA ($610 million); OIG ($5 million).
      --Fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding pursuant to Public Law 111-8: USSS ($100 million).

                               EFFICIENCY REVIEW

        As the Department highlights its spending priorities in this
    Budget, it is simultaneously conducting a bold and far-reaching
    Efficiency Review initiative to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent
    in the most effective way possible. Efficiency Review encompasses both
    simple, common-sense reforms and longer-term, systemic changes that
    will, over time, make DHS a leaner, smarter department better equipped
    to protect the Nation.
        I launched the Efficiency Review on March 27, 2009 announcing
    sixteen Department-wide initiatives beginning within 120 days,
    including:
        30 Days:
      --Eliminate non-mission critical travel and maximize use of
            conference calls and web-based training and meetings
      --Consolidate subscriptions to professional publications and
            newspapers
      --Minimize printing and distribution of reports and documents that
            can be sent electronically or posted online
      --Maximize use of Government office space for meetings and
            conferences in place of renting facilities
        60 Days:
      --Implement an electronic tracking tool for fleet usage data to
            identify opportunities for alternative fuel usage; heighten
            vigilance for fraud, waste or abuse; and optimize fleet
            management
      --Conduct an assessment of the number of full-time, part-time
            employees and contractors to better manage our workforce
      --Utilize refurbished IT equipment (computers and mobile devices) and
            redeploy the current inventory throughout DHS
      --Leverage buying power to acquire software licenses for Department-
            wide usage (estimated savings of $283 million over the next 6
            years)
        90 Days:
      --Develop cross-component training opportunities for employees
      --Develop a process for obtaining preliminary applicant security
            background data for candidates referred for final consideration
            (savings of up to $5,500 per avoided full background check)
      --As replacements are needed, convert new printers, faxes, and
            copiers into all-in-one machines (estimated savings of $10
            million over 5 years)
      --Streamline decision-making processes in headquarters offices to
            eliminate redundancies
        120 Days:
      --Establish a plan to ensure the DHS workforce has employees
            sufficient in number and skill to deliver our core mission
      --As replacements are needed for non-law enforcement vehicles,
            initiate acquisition and leasing of hybrid vehicles, or
            alternative-fuel vehicles in cases where hybrids are not
            feasible (estimated mileage improvement of above 30 percent)
      --Maximize energy efficiencies in facility management projects
            (estimated savings of $3 million a year)
      --Standardize content for new-employee orientation and mandatory
            annual training modules department-wide.
        I have issued formal guidance to all DHS employees regarding the
    30-Day initiatives, and planning for the remaining initiatives is
    underway. Beyond the first 120 days, Efficiency Review will become a
    central element of budget development and the long term strategic
    vision of the Department.
    Progress
        The initiatives strengthened by this Budget would build atop what
    the Department has already accomplished since the start of the new
    administration.
        To secure the border, DHS has launched a major new initiative to
    combat drug, cash and weapons smuggling that support drug cartels in
    Mexico in their efforts against law enforcement. The initiative
    includes hundreds of new personnel at the border and increased
    technological capabilities. These efforts have resulted in significant
    seizures of smuggled items headed into Mexico.
        The Department has distributed $970 million to bolster transit and
    port security. The Recovery Act signed by President Obama contains $1
    billion for the development of new explosives-detection technologies to
    increase safety at transit hubs and public places. To guard against
    terrorism, I signed a new agreement with Germany to cooperate in
    developing new counter-terrorism technologies.
        In terms of increasing preparedness for, response to, and recovery
    from natural disasters, DHS has led the national effort in response to
    and preparedness for the 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak. Furthermore, the
    Department has responded quickly and effectively to severe ice storms
    in Kentucky, Arkansas, and Missouri, as well as to record flooding on
    the Red River in North Dakota and Minnesota. The Department has also
    taken critical steps to speed recovery in the Gulf Coast communities
    still struggling due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, including the
    extension of critical programs.
        The Department has also taken important steps toward building a
    single identity and culture. The Recovery Act contained $650 million
    for a new, consolidated headquarters for DHS, which is now scattered in
    buildings throughout the Washington, DC area. In March, I announced a
    moratorium on new branding for DHS components, which will now all use
    the established DHS seal.
        Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I look
    forward to answering your questions and to working with you on the
    fiscal year 2010 Budget Request and other issues.

                 REDUCTIONS FOR STIMULUS BILL FUNDED ACTIVITIES

        Senator Byrd. Without objection, that will be done, and I
    thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Now, when President Obama worked with the Congress to enact
    the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he, President
    Obama, stressed the need to provide funding for programs that
    would create jobs and make long-term investments in the growth
    of the economy. He did not talk about using the stimulus bill
    simply to pre-fund fiscal year 2010 activities.
        Therefore, I was distressed to see that the President has
    proposed to cut, C-U-T, cut funding for over $750 million of
    programs in fiscal year 2010 that we funded in the stimulus
    bill.
        We included funding in the stimulus bill for fire station
    construction, port and transit security, the Emergency Food and
    Shelter Program, for Coast Guard facilities, and for deploying
    checkpoint security equipment at our airports. We argued that
    these investments would create over 5,000 jobs while improving
    security.
        I simply don't understand, no, I don't understand why the
    President, this President, your President, my President, our
    President, has proposed these reductions. I don't understand
    why.
        I cannot fathom reducing funds for the Emergency Food and
    Shelter Program by $100 million when the unemployment rate is
    above 8 percent. You get that? And it continues to go up. I
    cannot fathom reducing fire, port or transit grants by $485
    million when there is a continuing need to improve our
    security. I do not accept the notion that these cuts are
    justified by the availability of stimulus funds which, in most
    cases, were provided for different purposes.
        I have a question for you now and I'm going to listen to
    your answer.
        Will you work with me to identify ways to restore these
    funds?
        Secretary Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, of course we'll work
    with you and your staff on this budget as it moves through the
    process.

                        SECURITY OF CHEMICAL FACILITIES

        Senator Byrd. All right. On August 28, 2008, there was a
    chemical explosion at the Bayer Crop Science Chemical Plant in
    Institute, West Virginia, just outside Charleston. The
    explosion took the life of--the lives of--two workers and it
    sickened several first responders to the incident.
        The explosion occurred in a unit where the chemical company
    makes MIC. MIC is an extremely toxic chemical and most notably
    associated with the catastrophic leak that occurred in 1984 at
    a similar pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, killing over 4,000
    people.
        The West Virginia chemical facility includes a tank that
    can hold up to 40,000 pounds of MIC. That storage tank is
    located 50 to 75 feet, 50 to 75 feet, from the location of the
    August explosion. That's about as far as it is from here to
    your table or just a little bit beyond.
        Needless to say, the explosion caused a resurgence of
    anxiety about the chemical industry in the Kanawha Valley, the
    great Kanawha Valley.
        After the explosion, the company failed to provide critical
    information to first responders about the nature of the
    explosion. In the months, during the months, since the
    explosion, we learned that no one Federal agency is responsible
    for the safety of chemical plants.
        Among the agencies with responsibility are your National
    Programs and Protection Directorate, the Coast Guard, the EPA,
    the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the
    Chemical Safety Board.
        Now, this leaves us, it leaves you and me with the classic
    Washington question, who's in charge here? Who is in charge
    here? Can you answer that question? Will you look into this
    matter and see if there's a better way for our Government to
    secure our chemical facilities and investigate accidents; Do
    you care to respond?
        Secretary Napolitano. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we will look
    into that particular accident and sympathies to the families
    and workers; and first responders involved.
        Second, we are in the process and have been issuing the
    first set of rules governing chemical and chemical storage
    facilities. They're known as CFATs, and working with the
    private sector all over the country on rules that allow us to
    have greater knowledge about what is contained in these various
    plants around the country which have multiple uses, including
    forewarning of first responders as to what they are dealing
    with.
        [The information follows:]
                 Accident at Bayer Crop Science Chemical Plant
        There are multiple agencies which Congress has given jurisdictional
    authority over the BCS facility in Institute, West Virginia. Included
    among the Federal Agencies with regulatory oversight are the Coast
    Guard, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Occupational Safety
    and Health Administration. Other Federal agencies have specific fact
    jurisdiction such as the Chemical Safety and Hazards Investigation
    Board which continues to conduct the investigation into the August 28,
    2008, explosion at the facility.
        Which agency serves as the lead Federal agency on a specific issue
    is dependent upon the issue and the facts. This is actually an
    appropriate situation, as it ensures that the organization with the
    necessary technical expertise has the leadership role. For instance, in
    incidents involving the maritime transfer portion of an inland
    facility, the Coast Guard is the logical Incident Commander just as it
    is the logical regulatory agency. For incidents involving the internal,
    non-maritime portion of an inland facility, the EPA is the appropriate
    Incident Commander, just as they are the logical regulatory agency.
        It is especially worth noting that in the case of these two
    agencies there exists a close working relationship and most incidents
    are actually responded to under a Unified Command Structure, in keeping
    with the National Response Framework and National Incident Management
    System precepts. Through a Unified Command, while one organization does
    provide a leading role, the expertise of both are leveraged.

        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Senator Voinovich.

                              DISASTER RELIEF FUND

        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As you know, the administration has worked hard to break
    the cycle of requesting emergency funding for the wars in Iraq
    and Afghanistan. Yet no one has suggested fixing the way we
    budget for our natural disasters.
        Using a 5-year average and excluding any large-scale
    disasters has condemned us to a guaranteed cycle of using
    emergency supplementals to fund disasters. Last year alone, we
    provided almost $12 billion in supplemental appropriations.
        The budget request in front of us includes $2 billion for
    the Disaster Relief Fund. According to FEMA, just to pay for
    the declared disasters we have on the books today, the Disaster
    Relief Fund needs $5.8 billion in fiscal year 2010, not $2
    billion. That's a gap of $3.8 billion in your request already
    and hurricane season is just around the corner.
        And the question I've got is when are we really going to be
    forthright about putting money aside for disasters because you
    don't have enough money in this budget to take care of the
    commitments that have already been made, and we know probably
    after August some time we'll probably have other requests
    coming in, so that means another emergency supplemental.
        I'd be interested in how you're going to deal with this.
        Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Senator. You're right.
    This budget request follows a process by which the request for
    the DRF is $2 billion, which is based on a 5-year rolling
    average.
        The practice has been to come in later and get separate
    appropriations that are almost disaster-specific on the theory
    that it is difficult to predict at the beginning in the budget
    process what you're actually going to need by the end of the
    next fiscal year.
        Senator Voinovich. Yeah. But in this particular case, you
    know that it's inadequate right now by $3.8 billion because
    you're already committed.
        Secretary Napolitano. We're more than willing to work with
    you and the committee if there's a better way to fund disaster
    relief, but under the circumstances and given where we stand,
    we thought this was the best thing to put forward for the
    committee's consideration.

               NEED FOR NATIONAL GUARD TO SECURE SOUTHWEST BORDER

        Senator Voinovich. Okay. The House marked up its version of
    the fiscal year 2009 war and pandemic influenza supplemental
    appropriations bill and they put in $250 million for the
    National Guard.
        The question I have is this. Is the National Guard
    essential? This $250 million supposedly goes to the Department
    of Defense and they're going to hire people to go and, I guess,
    work on the borders and we allowed that to happen. I'm sure
    your State was involved.
        The question then was do we need the National Guard until
    we could get the additional border agents onboard. So we have
    now close to 20,000 border agents, and the question is do we
    need the National Guard to supplement our Border Patrol in
    order to secure the border, and if we do, how long are we going
    to need them, and would it be more prudent for us to hire more
    border patrol agents than to put the money into the National
    Guard who, you know, have other responsibilities in their
    respective States?
        Secretary Napolitano. Yes, Senator. Yes, your memory is
    correct. I did call for the National Guard at the border. I was
    the first Governor to do so and that led to the creation of
    something called Operation Jump Start which involved 6,000
    Guard to help with facilities construction, back office work.
        It was designed to really free up Border Patrol officers
    between the ports of entry, so that they could increase their
    interdiction work for illegal immigration. That project lasted
    2 years and it was very helpful and very effective.
        The marker in the supplemental, the $250 million, is to
    give us flexibility to look at whether there's another role for
    the Guard at the border in light of the increased drug-related
    violence in the northern states of Mexico. So that as we look
    at that operation, what options are available to us.
        Without making a final decision, there at least is a
    designated sum that would be available for that.
        Senator Voinovich. So at this stage of the game, you're not
    confident that with the additional Border Patrol agents, you're
    going to be able to tackle the problem that we've got right
    now?
        Secretary Napolitano. I think--I think I would put it
    another way, which is to say that we want to be sure that the
    Border Patrol agents can keep focused on their work between the
    ports of entry and that we may need some back-up capacity to
    deal with this particular situation in Mexico.
        Senator Voinovich. So you may not use the--the Defense
    Department may not use the $250 million if you don't think it's
    necessary?
        Secretary Napolitano. We will--it's a marker. It's to hold
    money so that we have the option to use it, yes.
        Senator Voinovich. Well, I'd like to have you keep us
    informed about what's going on with that, with that money.
        Secretary Napolitano. Pleased to do so. Yes, sir.

                         FUNDING FOR BIOMETRIC AIR EXIT

        Senator Voinovich. We talked about this--I was very much
    involved in the visa waiver legislation and now it's kind of in
    limbo because of the fact that we're supposed to develop a
    biometric air exit, and I noticed that there is no money in
    your budget to implement that program.
        We have two pilot tests that are going to start, one with
    CBP and one with the TSA. I talked to some CBP people. They
    said TSA should do it. We're not interested in it. That's local
    opinion.
        But, what I'm concerned about is that until this is in
    place, this program of visa waiver as I say is going to be in
    limbo, and I'd just like to find out from you when do you think
    that you're going to be in a position to go forward with this
    and if you are, if you don't have any money in your budget, how
    are you going to take care of buying the equipment that you're
    going to need, whether TSA uses it or CBP?
        Secretary Napolitano. Yes, Senator. There are two pilots. I
    believe they are scheduled to terminate in July so that we can
    study what happened.
        In my view, having been at the Department now a hundred and
    some odd days and looking at all of the infrastructure we have
    in place now to keep track of people entering the country, one
    of our large gaps is we have not determined nor paid for what
    it costs when they leave the country and therefore we haven't
    really completed the loop, the system that we need to have, and
    I believe it deserves a kind of more general look than a
    particular budget item.
        So we are--and I've asked the staff at the Department to
    really think about an exit measurement strategy that would be
    affordable and employable. These two pilots, I think, may get
    us there, at least for air exit.
        Senator Byrd. Senator Voinovich, your time is up, but I'll
    give you an opportunity to ask another question, if you wish.
        Senator Voinovich. Well, it's just a follow-up. Please keep
    me informed on this because this is not only for security but
    it's also a big public diplomacy issue and I've talked to the
    Secretary of State about it. A lot of countries want to get in
    and now it's on hold.
        Secretary Napolitano. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
        Senator Byrd. I stated earlier that we would proceed on the
    basis of seniority.
        Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate that
    consideration. Senator Lautenberg has been since 2 o'clock and
    I would defer to him with your acquiescence since he's been
    here so long.
        Senator Byrd. Senator. Thank you, Madam. Senator
    Lautenberg.

                     CUTS TO PORT AND RAIL SECURITY GRANTS

        Senator Lautenberg. First, I want to thank Senator Murray
    for being so gracious. All of us have time pressures, but I
    will not refuse to take the courtesy that she's offered.
        And Madam Secretary, we're pleased to see you. We think
    that you were kind of the ideal person to take this job. You
    may not agree with that after you've been on the job a bit
    more, but we're comforted by your experience and your
    determination. We urge you to continue.
        My State, the State of New Jersey, has a high degree of
    vulnerability. We have a 2-mile distance between the airport,
    Newark Airport, and our very busy Port of New York-New Jersey,
    and the FBI has declared that that's the most dangerous 2-mile
    target in the country for a terrorist attack.
        So when we look at a couple of the cuts that have been
    taken, very frankly, we look at them with a degree of deep
    concern. The administration requests $250 million each--port
    security grants and rail security grants--and that represents a
    38 percent cut from last year's funding.
        The port security grants were provided in the Economic
    Recovery Act and they were intended to supplement funds
    provided through the regular budgetary process, and I, frankly,
    am at a bit of a loss to understand why it's happening, and I
    will not ask you to contradict what's being done, but I would
    bring the fact that we have this vulnerability and in our area,
    9/11 took place. 700 people from the State of New Jersey
    perished that day and we find ourselves, even with the
    responsibility of 9/11 for the creation of the Department of
    Homeland Security, find ourselves somewhat bewildered by this
    choice for cuts. So I'd throw that out to you as something to
    think about and we can talk about some more. I will call on you
    to review it.

                                     PIRACY

        In recent months, there have been a number of pirate
    attacks on U.S. flag ships off the coast of Somalia. The
    Transportation Security Administration requires Federal
    Marshals, Air Marshals, to fly on high-risk international and
    domestic flights, but just yesterday, the Coast Guard announced
    a directive that essentially States that U.S. flagged vessels
    should consider the use of armed private security guards, again
    placing the onus on the security industry.
        You know, when I look at an American flag and it flies from
    a ship, I see that as a piece of sovereign territory. It's the
    kind of ship that brought me home from my service in the
    military and I don't understand why such a distinguished heroic
    figure like General Petraeus says that the private sector ought
    to invest more in its own security.
        If we can't count on the Navy to jump in here at times, or
    other branches of the military to protect our fleets of marine
    cargo, then I think we're suffering from a delusion and I would
    hope that you would kind of agree with us that the--we might
    take on the responsibility of protecting these vessels when the
    cargo they're carrying in this area, oddly enough, is
    humanitarian cargo and military cargo.
        Those are the two--it's almost 100 percent of the cargo
    that's carried there and I don't know how we can turn our back
    on that.
        I would ask whether there's anything that your Department
    would like to add to the understanding of what's taken place.
    Again, I'm not going to press you now on this.

              TRANSFER OF SENSITIVE TECHNOLOGY TO HOSTILE NATIONS

        Your Department's Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Agency, responsible for helping to prevent the transfer of
    sensitive technology from the United States to hostile nations.
        Now, given Iran's nuclear ambitions, what is ICE doing to
    help stop Iran from having those materials available to it?
    That's the question.
        Secretary Napolitano. That's the question?
        Senator Lautenberg. Yes, indeed. I saved the easiest one.
        Secretary Napolitano. Well, thank you, because I'd be happy
    to respond on the port security grants and others, but we'll
    get--we'll work with you and get you that information that you
    need as the budget moves toward a markup, Senator.
        But we are--we have several initiatives with respect to the
    illegal export of contraband, it would be contraband, to
    countries that can't get it and particularly to Iran and I'd be
    happy to inform you or give you the staffing on how we are
    doing those initiatives, but we've had some success there, I
    must say.
        [The information follows:]
                 Cuts to Port Security and Rail Security Grants
        We do appreciate the criticality of the Nation's port and transit
    systems, to include a number of systems within New Jersey. However, we
    believe the monies provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment
    Act of 2009 (ARRA) will be well utilized by our transportation and port
    partners as they continue to secure our Nation's transit systems and
    ports and build additional capabilities. As the fiscal year 2010 budget
    was developed, we did consider the ARRA funds and where ARRA funds were
    available, and we made reductions on the basis of competing DHS
    priorities.

                         UASI GRANT PROGRAM REDUCTIONS

        Senator Lautenberg. We'll talk to you about that. In pre-
    confirmation hearing questions, you said, I quote you, ``I
    strongly support the idea that homeland security grants must be
    allocated in a manner and form by risk.''
        I remind everybody that the 9/11 Commission in its report
    on what took place on 9/11 was very specific. Yet the
    President's request for the Urban Area Security Initiatives,
    called UASI, falls $163 million below the authorized level for
    2010.
        UASI is a grant program totally based on risk and
    consistent with the 9/11 Commission's recommendation. Why are
    we seeing this kind of a reduction?
        Secretary Napolitano. First of all, a couple of things,
    Senator. One is with respect to many of these grant programs,
    not specifically UASI, but there was money in the stimulus bill
    for that.
        Chairman Byrd disagrees that that should be able to be
    counted against the 2010 number, but there was some reasoning
    there.
        Second, you are right. We have adopted within our granting
    process something we call cost of capability, our phrase for
    really evaluating risk, and if you look at the overall grant
    proposals and add them all together, UASI plus all of the other
    grants, you'll see that the Department has actually given you a
    real grant funding number that we think can beneficially be
    used by the recipients this year.
        Senator Lautenberg. Well, will it reach last year's--the
    current budget's--level?
        Secretary Napolitano. It depends on the grantees. I'll
    share with you, Senator, one issue----
        Senator Lautenberg. I'm comforted by that.
        Secretary Napolitano. And one issue we're going to need to
    confront, Senator, is some of the communities are talking to us
    about matches. Most of our grants require some form of local or
    State matching funds and with their budgets stretched the way
    they are, they're looking for waivers of the match. That may be
    something that we need to bring up with the committee at some
    point.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. Thank you.
        Senator Byrd. Senator Cochran.

                            HOUSING CASE MANAGEMENT

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to join you in
    welcoming the Secretary to this subcommittee hearing to review
    the budget request of the Department of Homeland Security.
        Madam Secretary, I was very pleased that one of your first
    initiatives was to visit the gulf coast areas that were so
    severely damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I know that
    Governor Haley Barbour appreciates your attention to the
    problems that remain in Mississippi and Louisiana, in
    particular, which continue to suffer from the serious need to
    rebuild and recover from this terrible disaster.
        We look forward to working with you and the Department to
    help ensure that the continuing needs in the gulf coast region
    are met.
        I have a few questions, some of which I will submit for the
    record, but I would like to specifically express my
    appreciation to FEMA and the Department for the assistance it
    provided through the Disaster Case Management Pilot Program for
    Temporary Housing.
        This program has helped non-profit organizations in our
    State reduce the number of families remaining in temporary FEMA
    housing due to Hurricane Katrina from nearly 8,000 in August of
    2008 to just 2,000 today.
        But in the case of these Hurricane Katrina victims, housing
    case management continues to be required to assist some
    families in returning to permanent housing. I hope you will
    work with our Governor and help explore the possibility of
    further Federal assistance for this purpose.
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, yes, we are working with
    both States on this. This is the last remaining portion of FEMA
    housing associated with Katrina.
        FEMA has actually placed well over 100,000 families now and
    between the two States, there are about 5,000--maybe a few
    more--left. Each of the families has had opportunities or
    options presented to them for a substitute for the FEMA
    housing. We have offered, as well, to Louisiana.
        I don't know about Mississippi. I'll follow up, but I know
    we offered Louisiana case workers, whether they needed money
    for more case workers because the case management is supposed
    to derive from the State offices, not from the Federal offices.
    Louisiana turned down that offer.
        So we proceed, but, unfortunately, while my sympathies go
    to these remaining, last remaining, occupants of the FEMA
    housing, it is several years past the actual deadline that was
    supposed to be closing and it's time now to begin closing this
    chapter.
        [The information follows:]

        In July 2008, FEMA approved the State Mississippi Disaster
    Case Management Pilot Program proposal and granted funding. The
    Mississippi Case Management Consortium is administering this
    program on behalf of the State of Mississippi. The original end
    date was March 1, 2009, but FEMA granted a 3 month extension
    until June 1, 2009. FEMA recently approved Mississippi's
    request to extend their Disaster Case Management Pilot Program
    until August 1, 2009.

                        ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTER GRANTS

        Senator Cochran. On another subject, I want to bring to
    your attention or invite your attention to the strict training
    and certification requirements that are placed on fire
    departments who wish to apply for assistance to firefighters
    grants.
        It leaves small volunteer fire departments with little
    ability to compete for these funds. These are primarily rural
    departments providing service which are in areas where there's
    far more land area. They're often in more need of resources
    than their urban counterparts.
        In our State, professional fire departments are even
    advocating for resources to help the volunteer departments in
    outlying areas because cooperation with these departments is
    often critical to their successful missions.
        If you believe that the current distribution of assistance
    to firefighter grants is inequitable or should include
    volunteer fire departments, I hope you will explore something
    akin to a set-aside that would allow the use of these funds and
    grants to send those firefighters to training sessions with the
    more urban and better-organized professional fire departments.
        Secretary Napolitano. Well, thank you, Senator. That's the
    first time I've heard that suggestion made and it's an
    interesting one and we will pursue it.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
        Senator Byrd. Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let the record show I offered Senator Tester to go ahead of
    me. He declined. I think he has something back in his office he
    doesn't want to do, but he graciously said no.
        Senator Tester. Just wanted to hear your question, Senator.
        Senator Murray. Yeah.
        Madam Secretary, thank you so much for being here today.
        First of all, before I ask my questions, I do want to say
    to you that you have some great people working in your agency,
    from Coast Guard to FEMA folks. We've had a lot of weather-
    related disasters in my State and these people have saved lives
    and been there time and again. So I just want to remind all of
    us that some really amazing people work for you and they make
    huge differences in our States and I appreciate it.
        Secretary Napolitano. Thank you.

                         PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LAB

        Senator Murray. I did want to start by thanking you for
    finally budgeting some adequate levels of funding for the
    Pacific Northwest National Lab which is in my State. The
    Department has a large portfolio of research and touches on
    almost every aspect of your Department's priorities, from cargo
    import security to border security projects. And,
    unfortunately, PNNL has had to build some new facilities or
    modify some of their current ones at the 300 area at the
    Hanford Nuclear Reservation to accommodate about 600 staff who
    are going to be forced out of the current offices that they're
    in in order to accommodate the clean-up that is ongoing at
    Hanford.
        Any disturbance of those facilities or disruption of the
    construction schedule will have a significant impact on those
    agencies that are under your jurisdiction.
        So because of that, DHS, Science and Technology, signed a
    memorandum of understanding with DOE to budget funding for PNNL
    and every year we have had to fight DHS and this year we did
    not. Thank you very much for including that in your budget.
        Our Chairman has been most generous to provide it within
    our appropriations process here, but I appreciate that and I
    hope I have your commitment to continue to budget that $12
    million for the PNNL (Lab) in the budget you sent us.
        Secretary Napolitano. Yes.

                                 2010 OLYMPICS

        Senator Murray. Thank you very much. The second topic I
    wanted to bring up was the 2010 Olympics and the Northern
    border.
        The Winter Olympic Games are going to be held in Vancouver,
    British Columbia. It's less than a year away. We've got 7,000
    athletes from 80 countries who are going to be participating. A
    quarter million people will be attending those games. We have
    about 10,000 reporters and members of the media who are going
    to be there to report and televise that, up to about 3 billion
    people.
        These games are obviously in Canada, but I think most
    people don't realize how significant that is to my State of
    Washington. The distance from downtown Vancouver, which is
    central to the games, is about--to our border--is about the
    same distance as Salt Lake City to Park City during the 2002
    Olympics. So we've been very involved in the key transportation
    planning and the security planning relating to that.
        And I also need to mention that Whatcom County where the
    border crossing is the third busiest crossing with Canada,
    which is our largest trading partner. We've had the Department
    and representatives from DHS, Customs and Border Protection,
    Immigration, Customs Service, everybody, Secret Service, FEMA,
    been working with our State for a long time on preparing for
    this and last year our chairman was very supportive in funding
    the 2010 Olympics Coordination Center in Bellingham,
    Washington, which is right on the border and I am happy to see
    that--to tell you today that project is going well and we are
    working very hard to make sure we've got the security in place
    for a very significant event in less than a year away.
        I just wanted to remind us of all of that and your
    Department, your agencies, that will be involved, and I extend
    to you a visit, extend to you a warm invitation to come and
    visit the Northern border, specifically, as we prepare for the
    2010 Olympics to see the challenges that we have for that.
        Secretary Napolitano. Well, thank you, Senator, and that
    would be a lovely invitation to accept, particularly for August
    in Washington, DC, I suspect.
        Senator Murray. Perfect time.
        Secretary Napolitano. But we are, and do have personnel
    that are, working on both sides of the border in preparation
    for the games. So we definitely have it on our radar screen.
        Senator Murray. Okay. And we talked with Secretary Chertoff
    before about maintaining that coordination center following the
    Olympics. So I'd like to have a conversation with you in the
    future about the possibility of doing that, as well.
        Secretary Napolitano. Absolutely.
        Senator Murray. Okay. Well, we will have much more to talk
    about as that gets closer, but I just wanted to make sure that
    we're still on your radar.
        Secretary Napolitano. Absolutely.

                      COAST GUARD'S ICEBREAKER POLAR STAR

        Senator Murray. The final question I wanted to bring up was
    I was disappointed to see that the President's budget didn't
    contain the second half of the funding required to retrofit the
    Coast Guard Icebreaker Polar Star. Two of the Coast Guard's
    icebreakers, Polar Star and Polar Sea, have now exceeded their
    30-year intended service lives and Polar Star's now not
    operational and it's been in caretaker status since 2006.
        The third icebreaker, the Healey, is primarily a research
    vessel and doesn't offer the same capabilities as the Polar Sea
    and Polar Star.
        We are watching as Russia and Canada and Norway and other
    countries have invested a lot of money right now in their ice-
    breaker capabilities. Not surprisingly, the changing global
    climate has increased the possibilities of a vessel like this
    with oil and gas exploration and a lot of research that's very
    important, and I'm very concerned that if the United States
    doesn't have the proper tools and doesn't have a presence, we
    are going to be behind a lot of people very quickly.
        I know that the Coast Guard Commandant Allen has been very
    forceful about this need and--last year, in fact, Congress
    appropriated $30.3 million of the about $63 million, so about a
    half of it, to retrofit the Polar Star. So I was surprised to
    see that the Coast Guard didn't include any of the funds in its
    spending plan for the Recovery Act or in the budget to finish
    this project and wondered if you could respond.
        Secretary Napolitano. Yes, and we can get back to you with
    further detail on that, but the view is with the additional
    money that the Congress appropriated last year and the backed-
    up funds that that retrofit--it's in dry dock right now.
        Senator Murray. Correct. And it's ongoing.
        Secretary Napolitano. While we examine more generally,
    Senator, what is needed for that capacity for the Coast Guard
    moving forward and rather than rush that decision process which
    is a long-term capital process for the Coast Guard, we are
    really looking at what is, in light of all of the myriad
    missions the Coast Guard is being asked to perform, what we
    should come to the Congress for in the 2011 budget.
        Senator Byrd. Senator Brownback.

                                      NBAF

        Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Secretary, glad to have you here. Got a big job
    and Godspeed to you on getting it done.
        I want to talk with you about two areas, if I can do that
    in the time I've got on the NBAF facility that the DHS and USDA
    will be doing, constructing in Kansas and then also on flood
    map.
        I was looking. We obviously want to get this facility
    moving forward. I know you want to get this facility moving
    forward. The zoonotic diseases keep coming. The H1N1 is a
    zoonotic disease. So we want to move this forward as fast as we
    can, yet we've got this kind of dance we've got to do on the
    movement on Plum Island and then the money to be able to move
    this on forward.
        I was looking in your budget and I wanted to get this--make
    sure I'm clear on this and just to clarify on this--because it
    comes to my attention in the CBO baseline score, the sale of
    Plum Island in fiscal year 2015--2015--and if that's the case,
    it will be a large problem to be able to get the offsetting
    collections by 2011 to start the funding on the construction of
    the facility.
        So to clarify for this committee and for the CBO, do you
    intend to sell Plum Island in calendar year 2010 and use the
    proceeds from this sale as an offsetting collection for the
    funding of the construction of the NBAF in fiscal year 2011?
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, again I'll get back to you
    on that. I don't know if we are dependent on the sale of Plum
    Island in 2010, but what we are trying to do is make sure that
    there is a funding stream for NBAF so that as the State of
    Kansas puts in its own resources that facility continues.
        We are still awaiting--I think it's a GAO report about
    moving the facility with respect to one or two of the diseases
    on to the mainland as opposed to Plum Island. We expect that
    shortly. Everybody that looked at that issue has concluded that
    that shouldn't be a problem and that Kansas is a very good
    place to place the NBAF facility.
        But some of those things have to happen, as well. So we're
    working on the funding stream and making sure we take care of
    any safety concerns that might arise.
        [The information follows:]

        Using the authority granted by Congress in the fiscal year 2009 DHS
    Appropriations Act (Public Law 110-329), the Department is working with
    the General Services Administration (GSA) to sell Plum Island. GSA
    expects to put the island on the market in fiscal year 2010 with a
    final sale and closing date in fiscal year 2011. The sale proceeds will
    be an offsetting collection to the appropriation for National Bio and
    Agro-defense Facility (NBAF) construction and all other associated
    costs including Plum Island environmental remediation. The Science and
    Technology (S&T) Directorate plans to request an appropriation in
    fiscal year 2011, the fiscal year in which S&T plans to sell Plum
    Island, as well as begin construction of the actual building that will
    house the NBAF.

        Senator Brownback. Okay. And if you could get back to
    myself, more importantly to CBO, because of the way that
    statute is written, so that we do have a funding stream to move
    forward in 2011 and maybe just to get at that, I noticed in the
    budget tables for future year expenditures for NBAF
    construction, you lumped the 2011 to 2014 into the same column
    and I know this is a lot of detail, but I do want to get it out
    because it's a very particular issue on NBAF.
        Just to clarify, do you intend to budget the entire $584
    million for the 2011 fiscal year budget for NBAF, do you know?
    Are you familiar with that particular line?
        Secretary Napolitano. I'm very familiar with NBAF because
    of our conversations and some meetings I had in Kansas earlier
    this year. It depends, sir, on a number of things whether we
    actually plug that full number in 2011 or not.
        So what I would like to do is keep you and your office
    informed as we move along as we're keeping the State of Kansas
    informed, as well.
        Senator Brownback. Okay. Just obviously I think it is
    something that matters, has some urgency to it, needs to move
    forward as quickly as we can. The State is prepared to move
    forward, is moving forward as rapidly as it can, and so to the
    degree that the agency can move forward and make decisions on
    this, it'd be, I think, to the security of the country a very
    high-priority item, but also I think it can move forward on a
    good basis, on a rapid basis, so we can get the facility up and
    going.
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, I couldn't agree more. We
    actually have a team of people working with the State of Kansas
    and all the players on this particular project. So we've made
    it a high priority within our department, as well.

                                 FLOOD MAPPING

        Senator Brownback. Good. Thank you very much.
        I also want to note to you, and this is a flood map issue,
    that actually I would think being from Arizona you would
    recognize this and the reason I raise it is it's coming up in
    my State but I gotta think it's coming up in a lot of places.
        Garden City, Kansas, has just been told that there's a
    region in their city where 800 to 1,000 are now in the flood
    plain that haven't been in the flood plain previously. It's in
    the western part of the State, fairly dry, too often very dry,
    and they built two drainage ditches in the city to connect with
    a dry river that doesn't have water in it, and for four
    different iterations of flood insurance maps they've not said
    this is in a flood plain and now they're saying that it is.
        And the odd thing is if they hadn't been responsible and
    built the manmade drainage ditches, it wouldn't be in a flood
    plain. So I've said to them, ``Well, I guess we should fill in
    the drainage ditches. Is that the idea?'' Well, no, you'll
    probably get more flooding. I said, ``That's my whole point. If
    we hadn't been responsible, we wouldn't be in the floodplain
    and now you're making us do this,'' and I can't imagine there
    aren't really quite a few cities in the country that are
    getting caught in a fairly similar situation, that being the
    same sort of--you get a heavy rainfall--event. It's a fairly
    flat area. Okay. This is going to flood and you're looking at
    it, going it hasn't flooded in several hundred years and it's
    drier now than it's been.
        I would ask you, if you could, or have your office to look
    at this because this is going to cause us quite a bit of
    additional expense for my city and I really think it's probably
    going to affect a fair number of cities from Kansas on west
    that get into a semi-arid region and then get caught in this
    zone of, well, it might be a flash flood that will happen, and
    then they have to buy the flood insurance where they haven't
    ever had to any time previously and for prior iterations of
    flood insurance maps.
        We'll get you some more specifics on that. If you could
    look at it, it would be really appreciated.
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, I'm familiar with that--I
    became familiar with that issue as the Governor of a State not
    known for rain and yes, we will keep you informed on that.
        I just want to say, however, that those--the mapping
    process that is being used, our direction is use the best
    science available to make these determinations and that will
    guide us as we move forward, but then we have to temper that
    with what people are actually seeing, experiencing, and all of
    the rest.
        So we will look forward to working with a number of members
    of the Congress and of the Senate on this issue. It's been
    raised by several.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you. Thank you.
        Senator Tester.
        Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Secretary Napolitano, for being here. Senator
    Byrd, I want to tell you it's a real pleasure and honor for me
    to serve on this subcommittee with you.
        Senator Voinovich, I serve with you on Homeland Security
    and that, too, is an honor and I look forward to serving with
    you on this committee, too.
        Secretary Napolitano, I see that you have Sarah Cuban on
    staff. Is she doing a good job?
        Secretary Napolitano. Excellent job, Senator.
        Senator Tester. Well, good. Then we don't have to deal with
    that budget line item.
        Madam Secretary, as----

                            SOLE SOURCE CONTRACTING

        Senator Tester. As we try to help to ensure that the
    American people are kept safe, we also need to protect their
    tax dollars. When we talk about IT initiatives with the things
    that we buy in the name of homeland security, it is easy to
    lose track of our needs to be smart about how we spend our tax
    dollars.
        In our conversations, you have always acknowledged that
    balance. I appreciate that, and I appreciate your interest in
    trying to do right by the taxpayer in a very difficult job.
        However, I do have a number of questions. Stemming from a
    recent conversation, these won't come as a surprise to you.
    They deal with small business.
        I understand the need to move recovery dollars to the
    ground very quickly. However, I am concerned that the decision
    to use existing no-bid sole source contracting to begin
    planning and design for reconstruction of land ports of the
    entry from Canada to Montana in particular sent the wrong
    message signal to small businesses interested in this work.
        As you know, I have talked about it is vital to the
    Recovery Act work, as well in rural America as it does on the
    coasts.
        With that concern in mind, what is the Department doing to
    ensure that interested small businesses are aware of the
    subcontracting opportunities that may be available on some of
    this work?
        I understand that there are small businesses, small
    business subcontracting requirements. How is the Department
    going to ensure compliance? And one of the real good efforts
    underway in tracking recovery dollars is that the agencies are
    required to track how the dollars are spent. Should prime
    contractors be disclosing publicly how they are sharing the
    wealth on some of these contracts?
        Several questions. Have at it.
        Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Senator. Yes, this
    involves the Recovery Act monies for construction and
    improvements on land ports,----
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Secretary Napolitano [continuing]. And you're right, in the
    effort to get that money out quickly, it went to general
    contractors, basically who had done work before and were known
    quantities.
        But the requirements do include the requirement to
    subcontract because we're focused on jobs, job creation in the
    areas where those ports are going to be. We are going to be
    monitoring that very closely. We're going to be making
    information available to small businesses through the Internet
    and other sources so that they can apply and compete for those
    subcontracts and other channels, as well, and then, yes, we are
    making our process in terms of what we're spending those
    Recovery Act dollars very, very transparent and posting them on
    our website, among other things.
        Senator Tester. I need to be clear that I think we need to
    get the most bang for the buck and we need to be competitive,
    but is there something your department's doing specifically
    with the prime contractors to encourage them to use local
    contractors when the bid is competitive?
        Secretary Napolitano. We have a direct connection. We're
    actually putting together a joint office with CBP and GSA
    together, working on these and other port projects, so that we
    have direct connect with the generals, general contractors.

                            TSA ACQUISITIONS PROCESS

        Senator Tester. Okay. I have a TSA question. I will leave
    it to you to decide whether or not the Screening Partnership
    Program is the best bang for the taxpayer buck.
        However, the inability of TSA to follow through on the
    acquisitions process indicates a need to reform within this
    agency. There are seven airports that have waited 15 months. I
    would really like a commitment from you or at least a
    commitment to investigate what's going on here.
        The contract for security at these seven airports in
    Montana will be awarded, it's scheduled on June 7. I was told
    last night, as a matter of fact, that no way that's going to
    happen. We have been put off several times before. It's costing
    us a lot more money than if we just put the contract out and
    get somebody to do it that really does it.
        Can you make me any sort of--give me any sort of vision or
    commitment on what the process is going to be there? And I know
    this is a big agency and this is a small thing, but it's a big
    thing to me.
        Secretary Napolitano. No, I can understand why. Of course,
    I'm going to get a commitment from TSA not to call Senators or
    committees the day before my hearing.
        Senator Tester. No, no, no. They----
        Secretary Napolitano. I'll start there. But in any event,
    no. Senator, I will look at this directly. We'll follow up
    directly with you. We'll see what we can do.
        [The information follows:]

        The Request for Proposals for seven airports in Montana was
    released February 7, 2009. Proposals were received March 19 and
    reviewed. The Office of Acquisitions' estimate for Montana contract
    award is at the end of July. All seven airports included in the RFP
    currently have commercial service with security screening provided by
    TSA's National Deployment Office (NDO). TSA is committed to providing
    security screening until the contractor is able to provide screening
    operations.

        Senator Tester. TSA didn't call me, actually. It was----
        Secretary Napolitano. Oh, somebody else.
        Senator Tester. Exactly right. That was in the know. So
    thanks.
        Senator Byrd. Senator, is that satisfactory?

                                US-VISIT PROGRAM

        Senator Tester. All right. On another topic, I'm deeply
    concerned how DHS has done with procurement on IT ventures,
    kind of rolling back over the last few years.
        The US-VISIT Program was originally supposed to cost $3
    billion. To date, GAO can't tell us what the actual cost is
    going to be because it's far from full operating capacity.
        Can you give us any insight there on what's going on with
    the Visit Program and if it's effective and if there is a light
    at the end of the tunnel as far as how much it's going to cost?
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, that's one of the areas that
    we're looking at and drilling down deeply on now, not just in
    terms of what's already happening and what it's costing our US-
    VISIT but where is the light at the end of the tunnel, and I
    don't think it would be appropriate for me to answer that
    question now because I don't know the answer. We're still
    looking at it, but we'll get back to you.
        [The information follows:]

        Insight on the US-VISIT program, if it's effective and if there is
    light at the end of the tunnel as far as how much it's going to cost?
        For fiscal years 2004 through 2009, US-VISIT has been appropriated
    $2.18 billion. These funds have been effectively managed. US-VISIT has
    delivered biometric entry screening capabilities to our air, land, and
    sea ports of entry on time and within budget, and not only meeting but
    actually surpassing performance expectations. These nationwide
    deployments of cutting-edge biometric technologies have resulted in a
    number of significant achievements.
        Success of the system has been proven with sustained positive
    performance. US-VISIT has screened more than 100 million travelers
    applying for entry to the United States since its inception, and it has
    provided homeland security decision makers on the front lines
    information with which to take adverse actions against more than 5,000
    travelers seeking entry into the United States. US-VISIT has also
    supported the Department of State in preventing visa applicants from
    obtaining visas through deception or fraud.
        Over time, US-VISIT has transitioned from a program that supports
    the screening of international travelers entering the United States to
    a more robust program that supports a wider array of Federal agencies
    engaged in supporting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
    mission. Some examples of other DHS efforts US-VISIT supports include:
      --The U.S. Coast Guard and its ``biometrics at sea system,'' which
            has reduced illegal migration from the Dominican Republic to
            Puerto Rico by 75 percent.
      --Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Secure Communities
            initiative, which will greatly enhance immigration enforcement
            by using technology to automate sharing with law enforcement
            agencies and by applying risk-based methodologies to focus
            resources on assisting all local communities to remove high-
            risk criminal aliens.
        Because biometric exit will most likely be the highest cost factor
    to the program, US-VISIT has undertaken substantial testing, planning,
    and analysis of biometric exit. US-VISIT has conducted prototype
    testing of possible air, land, and sea exit scenarios, with a second
    round of air exit pilots now underway in Detroit and Atlanta. The
    Department will use the results of these pilots to inform deployment of
    Air/Sea Biometric Exit. A second round of land exit pilots is planned
    for later this year to help identify the best approach to exit at the
    land ports.
        DHS will not submit appropriations requests until the Department is
    certain it has identified a viable path forward for implementing
    biometric exit in the air, sea, and land environments. Future funding
    requests for biometric exit will be produced during the formal
    Administration budgeting cycle as appropriate.

        Senator Tester. Well, I appreciate that. I've got some
    other questions we can put into the record for the Secretary,
    but I just want to echo something that many other people said
    before.
        You've got a big job. There's a lot of money that hits the
    ground that, quite frankly, if we can hold some folks
    accountable, and I will be the first and I hope I don't hurt
    anybody's feelings in this room, but I'm going to tell you some
    of the big contractors, I don't think we're getting the bang
    for the buck for, and they need to step up to the plate and be
    accountable for what they're doing and, quite frankly, I think
    that if the small contractors were in there being able to get a
    piece of the pie, not only would we get better work but it'd
    bring the big guys around and say, you know what, we gotta be
    competitive, we've gotta make sure we deliver, and it's a big
    agency and I don't envy your position, but I will tell you
    this. If there's one person in the Obama administration that
    can run an agency like I think it should be run, it's you.
        So thank you very, very much for your public service and
    very good luck to you in running this very important agency.
        Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Byrd. That's a great compliment.
        Secretary Napolitano. That was very nice. Thank you. And we
    will follow up on all of those matters.

                         DECLARATION OF MAJOR DISASTER

        Senator Byrd. All right. Madam Secretary, West Virginia,
    with its mountainous terrain, floods occur, unfortunately, all
    too often. Nearly a year ago, Governor Joseph Manchin requested
    the declaration of a major disaster for the State of West
    Virginia in response to heavy rains and high winds that
    resulted in severe flooding in many areas of the State.
        Inconceivably, inconceivably, it took nine days for the
    disaster to be officially declared. Critical Federal assistance
    to victims who were facing immediate hardships needed to be
    made available as quickly as possible. Each day the funds were
    held up resulted in real suffering for many families and small
    business owners.
        May I have your commitment that you will do everything in
    your power to ensure that such unnecessary delays will not
    occur again, particularly with regard to the most recent
    request received from the State of West Virginia?
        Secretary Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, yes, we are doing
    everything we can to eliminate unnecessary delay in that grant
    process. It goes, of course, from the field to FEMA to me to
    OMB to the White House and we have been able to turn around
    declarations very rapidly in my tenure as Secretary. We will
    continue to work to improve even on that record.

                            SOUTHWEST BORDER FENCING

        Senator Byrd. All right. Do the best you can do, do the
    best you can.
        Since fiscal year 2007, Congress has provided over $3
    billion, that's $3 for every minute since Jesus Christ was
    born, Congress has provided over $3 billion to construct 670
    miles of fencing and other barriers on our Southwest border and
    to deploy cameras, radar, and sensors.
        Madam Secretary, in your opinion are the fence and new
    technology working?
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, we have and intend to
    complete the fencing that the Congress has appropriated for. We
    are now deploying the first major stretch of what is called SBI
    net which is virtual fencing. It will go on the Mexico-Arizona
    border.
        There were, as you remember, some glitches and significant
    problems with that technology. It was not operationally
    interfaced with our Border Patrol agents. It now is. Those
    towers are now going in. The environmental issues have been
    addressed and the like. So we have fencing. We have virtual
    fencing.
        We have and will have 20,000 boots on the ground, among
    other things, and so what we're seeing now, Senator, is the
    numbers of illegal crossings going down and it's been going
    down fairly significantly over the last 2 years.
        I think that's partially due to these enforcement efforts
    and probably partially due to the American economy, as well,
    but we have, in my view, a process and are embarked on a plan
    that gives us operational control on that Southwest border and
    it's very different down there now than it was, say, 8 or 10
    years ago.

                        ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTER GRANTS

        Senator Byrd. I am disturbed, Madam Secretary, by the
    proposed cut in funding for our firefighters. The budget
    request proposes a major shift in the distribution of grants to
    firefighters. It significantly reduces the funding for
    equipping and training our firefighters and it significantly
    increases the amount for hiring firefighters.
        Now, this is a question I ask of you. Was the decision made
    based on risk, on need, or effectiveness of the programs?
        Secretary Napolitano. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and if I might,
    let me explain how we arranged that or how we looked at the
    grant process for fire.
        Senator Byrd. All right.
        Secretary Napolitano. We have the grant program that is--
    was funded in the Recovery Act. That is for the construction of
    fire stations. That's the same program that they use for
    equipment and training and then you have another grant program
    that's used to actually hire firefighters or retain
    firefighters. It's a personnel program.
        There was money in the stimulus act for fire stations and
    there has been money appropriated before for equipment and
    training. Our exploration and consultation with localities was
    that, in this day and age of very tight, tight budgets, they
    preferred money to actually pay for personnel, for salaries,
    because they didn't want to have to lay people off and so we
    rearranged the budget to reflect that priority.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you. Senator Voinovich.

                                     SBINET

        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The U.S. Customs and Border Protection is working to finish
    the pedestrian and vehicular fence along the Southwest border,
    and what I'd like to know is what further tactical
    infrastructure projects are going to be needed, roads or
    pedestrian fence and so forth that have been identified that
    need to be undertaken.
        I think it would be worthwhile for you, I'd like to have it
    and I'm sure maybe the chairman would, to tell us just where we
    actually are in fulfilling the strategic plan to secure the
    border in terms of the physical things that need to be done.
        We've had lots of problems with this SBInet Program, on-
    again/off-again, and the real question for you is: do you have
    enough in this budget to take you as far as you need to go and
    once you've gone that far, what more are you going to need in
    future budgets to get us in a position where you can tell the
    American people we've done the job that you expect us to do to
    secure the border?
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, in--we have enough in this
    fiscal year 2010 request to do what I believe we need to do at
    the Southwest border, particularly given that we have plussed-
    up for some equipment, personnel and things, such as K-9 teams,
    to help us on the Southwest border on our initiative to begin
    looking at southbound trafficking.
        If we have a particular need this year on sort of a surge
    sort of theory, I believe I have enough resources in my back
    pocket in order to deal with that, as well. So I'm very
    comfortable with the fiscal year 2010 budget request for CBP.
        Now, the harder question is what's the end goal? When can
    we say we're done? And we are, and I am, relooking at that now.
    There was some work done on that by the prior administration. I
    want to take an independent look at it, based on my own
    experience, and I'm doing that work right now.
        I will close with one final thought, however, Senator,
    which is this. One thing I think we need to avoid is backing
    off of our work on the border because numbers are going down,
    apprehensions are going down and the like. This is precisely
    the time when we should keep at our current efforts, keep at
    everything that we're doing and then estimate and plan that
    we're going to have to sustain these efforts over time.
        Part of the problem at that border historically has been
    there's a lot of money put in 1 year and then the next year
    there wasn't and there was no continuity and one of the things
    that we're going to have to have is a sustainment and
    continuity.
        Senator Voinovich. Well, there's been a lot of speculation
    about are we having less people coming across the border
    because our economy's in the tank. Are there people here that
    have worked and are now going home? I mean, there's----
        Secretary Napolitano. Lots.

                             COORDINATION WITH DOJ

        Senator Voinovich [continuing]. A lot of questions that you
    can ask about what's impacting on people's behaviors. So I
    think that's something that we have to be guarded against. The
    point you're making is let's stay with it, stay the course and
    get the job done the way it's supposed to be done.
        One of the things around here that bothers me is that so
    often we look at things in silos and you got the Justice
    Department involved. There's that wonderful program we talked
    about in the office where they bring people in, hold them and
    book them and charge them and it seems that once that's done,
    they usually don't come back because if they do, they're going
    to be arrested for something significant.
        Secretary Napolitano. Operation Streamline, yes.
        Senator Voinovich. Right, yeah. And have you looked at the
    other budgets that are impacting on yours to make sure that
    they're up to snuff in terms of what you think needs to be done
    there? Do you coordinate with these folks at all and talk about
    that? Do you have a special group that meets together?
        Secretary Napolitano. The Attorney General and I have met
    together because that's really the closest phase of interaction
    on a lot of these things, and we're working on trying to break
    down some of the silos that still exist.
        For example, there are memoranda of understanding, some of
    which date back to the mid 1970s, about what kind of legal
    authorities ICE, INS really, the predecessor to ICE, has in
    investigations and if they turn up drugs in the context of a
    human smuggling ring and the like, and the Attorney General and
    I are working to revise those memoranda to reflect modern day
    reality where everything is interrelated and law enforcement
    needs to be interrelated, as well.
        Senator Voinovich. If you think that there is some more
    that needs to be done, you know, in terms of the Justice
    Department, I think you ought to let us know about that in
    terms of our consideration, in terms of their budget.
        Secretary Napolitano. Thank you.

                                    E-VERIFY

        Senator Voinovich. E-Verify. The Appropriations Committee
    uses E-Verify, Homeland Security uses E-Verify, but Federal
    contractors are still not required to use E-Verify.
        Is the rule to require Federal contractors to use E-Verify
    going to go into effect on June 30 or is it going to be delayed
    again?
        Secretary Napolitano. My understanding is it's not complete
    there. I do not know the answer. I can say, however, that I
    believe E-Verify is an important part of our ongoing
    immigration enforcement to make sure that employers are hiring
    those who are lawfully qualified to work within our country.
        I was--when I was Governor, I signed probably the Nation's
    toughest employer sanctions law and it pushed employers into
    the E-Verify system, incentivized them to use it, and it's no
    surprise that a quarter of the employers of the whole country
    that are on E-Verify right now are Arizona employers.
        I've seen it work. I used it as a Governor. We intend to
    make it, like I said, an integral part of our ongoing workplace
    enforcement.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Byrd. Senator, you made the remark ``up to snuff.''
    Are you talking about Copenhagen?
        Senator Voinovich. Pardon me?
        Senator Byrd. Are you talking about Copenhagen?
        Senator Voinovich. No, I'm not talking about--I think,
    Senator, you understand what that means. Maybe some people that
    haven't been around as long as you have don't understand that,
    but we sure do know what that means.
        Secretary Napolitano. Skoal.
        Senator Byrd. Would you say that again?
        Secretary Napolitano. Skoal. It's another brand.
        Senator Byrd. Madam Secretary, I thank you for your
    testimony today.
        We plan to mark up our fiscal year 2010 bill in mid-June.
    Therefore, it will be essential that we receive responses to
    our questions for the record by May 27.
        Do you have anything further, Madam Secretary?
        Secretary Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, did you say May 27?
        Senator Byrd. Yes, I did.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Secretary Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, we will do everything
    humanly possible to meet your requirements and your deadline.
        Senator Byrd. Very well. I thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Senator, do you have any closing remarks?
        Senator Voinovich. No, I haven't.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd

                            Departmental Management
                                  acquisitions
        Question. Nearly 40 percent of the Department's annual budget is
    spent on contracts. The Department has been heavily criticized for its
    oversight of those contracts. The Government Accountability Office
    reported in November 2008 that senior department officials did not
    provide the oversight to ensure that acquisitions needed to help meet
    important national security objectives meet specifications and stay
    within budget. GAO found that 45 of 48 major acquisitions were not
    reviewed regularly by a Homeland Security oversight board created to do
    the reviews.
        To increase oversight and efficiency of its major contracts, the
    Department of Defense is planning to increase the size of its defense
    acquisition workforce by converting up to 33,400 contract employees to
    Federal employees by 2015 and by hiring 3,669 additional government
    acquisition professionals by fiscal year 2010. What measurable goals
    and incentives do you have for improving contracting by the Department
    of Homeland Security?
        Answer. DHS is focused on quality contracting created by a well
    trained, professional acquisition workforce, monitored through active
    oversight from program initiation through contract completion. The DHS
    Workforce (including Contracting Officers, Contracting Officer
    Technical Representatives and Program Managers) are all Federal
    employees with Federal certifications. They perform inherently
    governmental functions that have never been performed by contractor
    employees, thus there are no conversions planned for these career
    fields.
        For other career fields, DHS is taking an aggressive approach to
    determining the appropriate balance between Federal and contract
    employees. All components' professional services contracts over the
    simplified acquisition threshold are being reviewed before a new
    contract is awarded or an option on a contract is exercised to ensure
    that the proposed contract awards do not include inherently
    governmental requirements or personal services. In addition, the
    Components are reviewing their current service contract workload to
    determine whether (a) any work can and should be justified for
    conversion as inherently governmental, (b) any work should be justified
    for conversion to in-house performance by Federal employees in order to
    maintain a minimum residual core capability, or (c) any contract work
    costs appear excessive.
        If any one or all of these criteria exist, the Component will
    submit, by July 3, 2009, a list of such activities by contract number,
    function, location, FTE and associated justification for review and
    approval. The analysis will culminate on DHS's planned conversion of
    contract positions to Federal employee positions for fiscal year 2010.
        DHS uses the following metrics and measurable goals to improve its
    contracting capability:
      --DHS has initiated the Acquisition Professional Career Program
            (APCP) to improve fill critical shortages with trained
            acquisition professionals (this is not a conversion of
            contractors to Federal employees; rather it identifies needed
            positions and from creation fills the position with an
            appropriate Federal employee). Currently, DHS has more than 300
            vacancies in Contracting, Program Management and Contracting
            Officer's Technical Representative Positions. To fill this gap,
            DHS has hired 64 APCP employees. An additional 36 employees
            will be hired by the end of fiscal year 2009 to further close
            the vacancy gap. DHS is adding four additional acquisition
            career fields to those it centrally manages. During fiscal year
            2010 DHS will measure the current vacancies and future need for
            Federal employees in the career fields of Test and Evaluation,
            Logistics, Business and Financial Management and Cost
            Estimating. DHS will use the intern program to fill critical
            vacancies with Federal employees.
      --DHS measures its quality in contracting by the number and dollar
            value of its competitively awarded contracts. Fiscal year 2008
            marked a recovery by DHS to pre-Katrina levels of competition.
            fiscal year 2008 was the third, over a six fiscal year period,
            in which DHS achieved a level of competition equaling or
            exceeding 70 percent. DHS's fiscal year 2007 and 2008
            competitive accomplishments exceeded the Government-wide
            average of 64 percent and 67 percent, respectively. DHS
            establishes and monitors competition goals by contracting
            activity. The following are the recent accomplishments.

                                                      [In Percent]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Fiscal year
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------
                DHS Component/Contracting Activity                    2008              2007              2006
                                                                 Accomplishment    Accomplishment    Accomplishment
                                                                 in Competition    in Competition    in Competition
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CBP (Includes SBI)........................................                74                65                60
    DHS-HQ. (OPO and CIS).....................................                80                66                54
    FEMA......................................................                79                81                37
    FLETC.....................................................                74                77                85
    ICE.......................................................                79                70                57
    TSA.......................................................                71                62                61
    USCG......................................................                68                73                53
    USSS......................................................                47                49                42
    Department wide...........................................                75                69                48
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      --Annually, DHS also establishes goals for contract awards to small
            businesses and for small business participation at the sub
            contract level. Since SBA instituted the annual small business
            procurement scorecard for fiscal year 2006, DHS received the
            highest ranking or distinction with a score of green for fiscal
            year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 based on DHS's quantity and
            quality of contracting performed by small businesses; another
            favorable score is likely when SBA releases the annual
            scorecard for fiscal year 2008 in June, 2009. The current
            metrics for fiscal year 2008 are as follows:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Accomplishment   Accomplishment
                               Category                            Goal (percent)      (dollars)         (percent)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Procurement Dollars....................................             N/A    $13,905,538,042             N/A
    SB Prime Contracts...........................................            31.9      4,524,001,365           32.53
    8(a) Contracts...............................................             4.0        838,369,605            6.03
    SDB Prime Contracts [other than 8(a)]........................             4.0      1,006,019,811            7.23
    SDB Prime Contracts [overall; including 8(a) contracts]......             8.0      1,844,389,417           13.26
    HUBZone SB Prime Contracts...................................             3.0        424,655,973            3.05
    SDVOSB Prime Contracts.......................................             3.0        264,303,028            1.90
    VOSB Prime Contracts.........................................             N/A        660,369,837            4.75
    WOSB Prime Contracts.........................................             5.0        921,484,775            6.63
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      --In addition, DHS performs oversight reviews of specific contracts
            as well as overall assessments of its ten contracting
            organizations using the GAO reviewed Oversight Program. These
            reviews collect metrics and discern best practices as well as
            organizational weaknesses. Where appropriate, targeted learning
            and corrective action are immediately instituted to correct
            problems and improve future contracts. Specifically DHS is
            performing reviews on the fleet purchase card program, use of
            Time and Materials contracts, performance based contracting,
            award fee contracts.
      --In order to improve the entire acquisition process, DHS has
            developed and implemented an acquisition policy and process
            under Directive 102.01. This directive instituted an issue and
            decision focused acquisition governance process for DHS
            programs.
      --DHS is piloting a department-wide web hosted metrics application
            known as nPRS which will provide information on the cost,
            schedule and performance status of DHS's major development
            contracts. Currently approximately 40 of the 52 major
            acquisition programs are reporting their metrics in the new
            system. By the end of fiscal year 2009 DHS intends to have all
            52 major acquisition programs reporting all of their cost,
            schedule and performance data in this automated system.
      --Finally DHS reviews all of its acquisition programs through a
            ``portfolio review'' process to achieve a common situational
            awareness of what each Component within DHS is acquiring and
            allow early identification and correction of problem contracts
            within the Components.
        Question. The Department of Homeland Security released revised
    acquisition oversight procedures in November 2008. Have these
    procedures made a difference?
        Answer. The re-engineered acquisition management procedures have
    made a significant difference to DHS' ability to oversee and control
    acquisition programs. As more programs transition to the revised
    acquisition management procedures, the Department is better able to
    assess program status and proactively identify and mitigate risks. The
    following are some of the key differences as a result of the revised
    acquisition procedures:
      --The new acquisition governance framework addresses the entire
            acquisition portfolio, including capital assets, information
            technology, and services. Through this broader perspective, the
            Department has a full understanding of its acquisition
            portfolio.
      --The new framework provides for the appointment of a Component
            Acquisition Executive (CAE), who is responsible for a given
            Component's portfolio of acquisition programs. Documentation
            and process are core components of the new framework. Programs
            are required to request approval to proceed at key milestones
            in the acquisition life cycle. At these Acquisition Review
            Boards, decision makers focus on key decisions and issues, and
            issue an Acquisition Decision Memorandum which provides
            authority and direction for each ARB conducted.
      --Additionally, each program is required to have an approved
            Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) which documents the
            program's cost, schedule and performance baseline. Each Level 1
            and 2 program is expected to have an approved APB by the end of
            the year.
      --Through the DHS-wide metrics program, new Periodic Reporting System
            (nPRS), DHS gathers and analyzes the cost, schedule and
            performance metrics for all of DHS' major acquisition programs.
            By the end of May, all Level 1 programs are expected to have
            their information in the system.
        Although much work remains to fully implement the acquisition
    management reforms identified in Directive 102-01, the Department is
    encouraged by the gains realized to date and expects to see
    corresponding improvements in the end-State outcomes of the acquisition
    programs as they are fielded under the new process. This new process in
    concert with the Procurement Oversight Process provides DHS with a full
    view of acquisition from beginning through mission completion.

                            RELIANCE ON CONTRACTORS

        Question. The Department has been criticized for being too
    dependent on contractors in performing its mission. This leaves the
    Department vulnerable to decisions which reflect a conflict of interest
    from contractors. It also limits the Department's ability to create an
    in-house workforce, which is critical to preventing terrorism and
    responding to natural disasters. The Defense Department is requesting a
    significant increase in its acquisition workforce.
        What percent of your Department's workforce is made up by
    contractors? Do you have an aggressive plan to reduce your Department's
    reliance on contractors?
        Answer. As discussed between DHS/USM and Committee staff in April,
    pursuant to Section 519 of the fiscal year 2009 DHS Appropriations Act
    (Public Law 110-329), the Department is taking an aggressive approach
    to determining the appropriate balance between Federal and contract
    employees. Effective immediately, all Components' professional services
    contracts are being reviewed before a new contract is awarded or an
    option on a contract is exercised to ensure that the proposed contracts
    do not include inherently governmental, nearly inherently governmental
    or personal services requirements. The program office will demonstrate
    that there are sufficient Federal employees within the organization to
    provide adequate direction and oversight to the service contractor--
    before the contract is awarded. Components have also begun to review
    their current service contract workload to determine whether; (a) any
    work can and should be justified for conversion as inherently
    governmental, (b) any work should be justified for conversion to in-
    house performance by Federal employees in order to maintain a minimum
    residual core capability, or (c) any contract work costs appear
    excessive. If any one or all of these criteria exist, the Component
    shall submit, by July 3, 2009, a list of such activities by contract
    number, function, location, FTE and associated justification for review
    and approval to the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer. CPO/CHCO
    will issue policies regarding the actions needed to achieve the most
    effective and balanced workforce of contractor and Federal employees
    while maintaining appropriate management and oversight.
        To better identify the total workforce and the current balance
    between in-house and contract workload, DHS will combine its FAIR Act
    inventory of work performed in-house by Federal employees with
    estimated Contractor Work Year Equivalents using the same process
    applied to DOD's Section 807 reporting requirements. This requirement
    involves an automated review all of the estimated 19,500 DHS contracts
    captured in the Federal Procurement Data System for fiscal year 2008.
    The percent of the overall DHS contract workforce can then be
    estimated. More importantly, the question of question of whether
    requirements should or can be performed by Federal employees or
    contractors is best answered on a function by function and business
    line level or review. Components have developed plans for these reviews
    and will conduct reviews, in accordance with CPO/CHCO requirements, to
    determine the proper and cost effective balance of contractor and
    Federal resources in the performance of mission and mission support
    requirements.
        Question. Please provide an agency by agency list of conversions
    from contractors to Federal FTE's for fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year
    2010.
        Answer. DHS has approved plans to convert approximately 500
    contractor FTE to performance by Federal employees over the course of
    the fiscal year 2009-fiscal year 2010 timeframe. This number may change
    in fiscal year 10 and the out-years as a result of one or more of the
    analyses discussed above.
        Approximately 350 FTE are planned for conversion from contractor to
    Federal in-house performance at the National Protection and Programs
    Directorate (NPPD). Within the NPPD, 110 FTE of the 350 FTE have been
    successfully converted from contract to in-house performance (on-
    board).
        An additional 188 FTE have been identified and approved for
    conversion from contractor to Federal in-house performance at the Coast
    Guard associated with food preparation requirements. The USCG has
    determined that this work needs to be performed by military billets in
    order to protect their sea-share rotational requirements.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                On Board/In
                            NPPD Org.                             Process
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Infrastructure protection (IP)..........................           47/29
    Cybersecurity and Communications (CS&C).................           17/29
    US-VISIT................................................           35/20
    Office of Risk Management and Analysis (RMA)                         5/6
    Office of the Under Secretary (OUS).....................             6/8
                                                             ---------------
          Total.............................................         110/92
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The total equals 202 (110 + 92) of the 350 with 148 expected in fiscal
      year 2010.

                transformation and systems consolidation (tasc)
        Question. The Department plans to procure an acquisition management
    system to consolidate and modernize component financial systems. What
    is the current schedule for TASC implementation? Provide an obligation
    schedule associated with available funds and funds requested as part of
    the fiscal year 2010 budget. The schedule should include when each
    component's financial system will be consolidated. A current financial
    management vendor argues that the Department is pursuing a ``high risk/
    high cost'' single system concept versus a ``lower risk/lower cost''
    consolidated approach that leverages existing systems. Why is TASC a
    better solution? What is the lifecycle cost for TASC? Can you quantify
    the benefits TASC will produce? Will there be savings associated with
    the new system over time?
        Answer. Please see the following.

    Overview
        The Transformation and Systems Consolidation (TASC) effort at DHS
    focuses on increasing transparency and reliability of information by
    consolidating the financial, asset and acquisition management systems
    of the Department as well as standardizing business processes and the
    DHS accounting line. TASC gives DHS a way to increase its fiscal
    accountability to the American taxpayer and improve the efficiency of
    its mission-critical financial services while moving DHS Components
    toward becoming ``One DHS.''
        DHS currently maintains 13 separate financial management systems
    resulting in multiple business processes and accounting lines. Mission
    support requires a real-time enterprise view of DHS resources, yet some
    of the current systems rely on manual processes. Components maintain
    similar systems with similar functionality, yet the cost for upgrades,
    integration, operations, maintenance and mandated changes are
    replicated across the Department. Currently, the myriad of existing
    systems do not provide consistent internal controls over financial
    reporting.

    Schedule
        DHS is in the midst of conducting an acquisition to select a vendor
    to provide (1) an enterprise solution that integrates end-to-end
    business processes in support of financial, acquisition and asset
    management; and (2) integration services and program management support
    for TASC. As a part of the acquisition process, vendors are to propose
    a recommended migration timeline that includes a schedule for all DHS
    Components to transition to the new TASC system. This proposed schedule
    is closely tied to the vendor's recommended technical solution and is
    subject to negotiation during the acquisition process. A final schedule
    will be established and available upon contract award.

    Fiscal Year 2010 Budget
        The fiscal year 2010 Budget requests $11 million for TASC. DHS is
    currently on target for a second quarter 2010 award. If the Department
    continues to meet the procurement milestones, component migration may
    begin by 2011.
        The information related to the break-out of the fiscal year 2010
    TASC spend plan will be provided to the Committee separately as it is
    procurement sensitive and should not be published in the official
    hearing record.

    Approach and Litigation
        In November 2007, DHS issued a solicitation for services to manage
    the migration and consolidation of DHS Components' financial,
    procurement and asset management systems by leveraging two established
    system baselines within the Department: Oracle and SAP. However, on
    April 15, 2008, the United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC) ruled
    in a pre-award protest filed by Savantage Financial Services, Inc.
    (hereinafter referred to as ``Savantage'') that DHS could not continue
    its acquisition strategy of leveraging existing Departmental systems.
    The Department revised its procurement strategy to conducting a full-
    and-open competition in accordance with the Court's order and Part 15
    of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
        On November 24, 2008, Savantage filed a motion with the COFC
    alleging that DHS was in contempt of the April 2008 order. Savantage
    also filed a pre-award bid protest challenging the terms of the new
    solicitation. The COFC combined all of the allegations into one
    hearing. On April 22, 2009, the Court ruled in favor of the Department
    on all counts, concluding that the Department was not in contempt of
    its prior order and that the current solicitation was compliant with
    law and regulation.
        On April 22, 2009, the Department received a ``Notice of Appeal''
    of the April 2009 decision by Savantage to the United States Court of
    Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As part of the appellate process,
    Savantage can seek a stay or injunction against the procurement
    proceeding pending resolution of the appeal. To date, Savantage has not
    requested a stay. Savantage has 60 days from the date of filing the
    ``Notice to Appeal'' to submit its brief. The Department then has 40
    days to file its response.

    Lifecycle Cost
        TASC will be awarded as an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity
    (IDIQ) contract. Although the system solution is yet to be determined,
    $450 million is the order of magnitude estimate for the total value of
    the work to be performed under this 10-year contract assuming all
    option years are exercised. The order of magnitude is consistent with
    other financial system benchmarks within the Federal Government. The
    actual cost of the work will be determined by the solution selected
    through the competitive acquisition process. However, the aggregate
    dollar value of the work is expected to be fairly consistent from year
    to year while showing a gradual increase over the life of the contract.

    Benefits
        The Department's approach is in line with the guidance of the
    Financial Management Lines of Business (FMLoB), as mandated by
    Financial Systems Integration Office (FSIO). This concept is one of
    cost avoidance while improving the quality and performance of financial
    management systems by leveraging common standards and shared service
    solutions. It also includes implementing other Government-wide reforms
    that foster efficiencies in Federal financial operations. TASC is
    aligned with the FMLoB guidance that enables the Department to reach a
    key goal of becoming compliant with the Office of Management and Budget
    (OMB) Circulars A-123, A-127 and A-130.
        Consolidation benefits include:
      --Eliminate redundancies across DHS
      --Avoid costs associated with inefficiencies
      --Strengthen internal controls
      --Standardize business processes and line of accounting
      --Create consolidated financial reporting capability
      --Reduce manual processes
      --Correct Department-wide material weaknesses
      --Centralize hosting, database integration, upgrades and maintenance

    Cost Benefits
        TASC yields significant cost benefits by eliminating both redundant
    hosting and interface requirements as well as proprietary vendor
    reliance while reducing operations and maintenance costs by supporting
    fewer financial systems. TASC provides the optimal solution for the
    Department to increase the transparency of its financial data and
    accountability to Congress and the American taxpayer.
        As the Department works to resolve fiscal challenges, the TASC
    initiative is more critical than ever, DHS must be relentless in its
    pursuit of fiscal transparency and its ability to report on financial
    data in a timely and accurate way. DHS appreciates the Committee's
    continued vigilance and support of the Department and looks forward to
    providing a briefing on this initiative in the future.

                     DHS CONSOLIDATED HEADQUARTERS PROJECT

        Question. The request includes $75 million to consolidate and
    realign DHS mission support leases currently dispersed throughout the
    NCR. These functions are not planned for transfer to the St.
    Elizabeth's campus. The request says that this is a ``one time
    opportunity.'' Why? What is the total cost of this initiative? Is $75
    million the minimum amount needed in fiscal year 2010 to begin this
    process? What will that amount buy in fiscal year 2010? Has a
    prospectus been approved for this project? Has a prospectus been
    submitted to Congress for consideration? Provide a schedule for this
    project, from initial solicitation to the opening of the facility.
    Provide a schedule for the realignment of DHS offices to this new
    facility. What is the amount GSA needs to initiate a contract for this
    facility in fiscal year 2010? What is the impact if a lower level is
    provided for this initiative? Provide the impact in $15 million
    segments from $75 million to $0.
        Answer. The DHS National Capital Region (NCR) Housing Master Plan
    was developed to provide the strategic vision for facilities that
    support a unified department, organizational structure, operations and
    culture. The plan outlines priorities of implementation and addresses
    the mission fragmentation caused by the Headquarters (HQ) elements
    being scattered throughout the NCR. While St. Elizabeths will
    accommodate the main Department and Component HQ mission execution
    functions, it does not have the capacity to accommodate all of the DHS
    mission support functions. As a result, the DHS NCR Housing Master Plan
    proposes to consolidate and realign the remaining functions that are
    currently dispersed throughout the NCR in more than 40 locations (and
    growing) to enhance performance across the spectrum of operations,
    through improved communications, coordination and cooperation among all
    DHS Headquarters Components. In addition, since DHS will incur
    occupancy costs for leases regardless of the location, consolidation
    will reduce risk of continued dispersal by replacing existing leases
    throughout the NCR as they expire with new occupancies that meet the
    ISC standards. Consolidating locations will foster a ``one-DHS''
    culture, will optimize our prevention and response capabilities and is
    vital for the safety, security and success of DHS in achieving the
    mission of securing the homeland. This question has several parts and
    each is provided below with an answer.
        This is a unique opportunity because forty-five leases for
    approximately 1.2 million RSF are expiring by fiscal year 2010 that
    creates a window of opportunity to consolidate into on to three lease
    of the same RSF. If we do not take advantage of this opportunity now
    the leases will need to be extended or held over on a sole source basis
    at a higher cost and without achieving the goals of the consolidation
    plan.
        DHS projects a need for $251 million over the next 4 years with $75
    million in fiscal year 2010 to complete this initiative. The General
    Services Administration (GSA) Pricing Guide requires tenant agencies to
    fully fund tenant improvements (TI) before GSA will start the
    contracting process. Tenant improvements are the finishes and fixtures
    that typically take space from the ``shell'' condition to a finished,
    usable condition. GSA estimates these costs to be approximately $103
    million. The minimum amount needed in fiscal year 2010 to begin this
    process for a large consolidation is $75 million.
        The total for the initiative is $251 million with the expectation
    that we acquire 1.2 million RSF of space with a two phase
    implementation schedule over a 4 year period. The $75 million gets the
    initiative started for phase 1 move in calendar year 2012.
        No, a prospectus has not been approved. The GSA has developed a
    prospectus and submitted it to the Office of Management and Budget
    (OMB) for review and clearance.
        The schedule below is the current schedule developed by GSA for
    this initiative.
      --Advertise--July 2009
      --Offers Due--September 2009
      --Negotiations--October 2009
      --Best and Final--December 2009
      --Lease Signatures--March 2010
      --Final Lease Award--May 2010
      --Phase 1 & 2 Design and Phase 1 Construction Complete--July 2012
      --Phase 1 Move-In--August/September 2012
      --Phase 2 Construction Complete--July 2013
      --Phase 2 Move-In--August/September 2013
      --Phase 1 of the new lease is scheduled for 2012 and will house
            Citizen Immigration Services (CIS), elements of the
            Undersecretary for Management (USM) and Science and Technology
            (S&T) in approximately 500,000 RSF. Phase 2 is scheduled for
            2013 and will house the remainder of CIS. This plan is pending
            the final prospectus clearance from OMB and may change.
        This initiative is for a leased office space and GSA does not
    require an appropriation. All costs will be passed to the tenant
    agency. The impact of a lower level of funding for this initiative in
    fiscal year 2010 is a delay in the consolidation effort and the planned
    schedule cannot be maintained. The result will require lease
    extensions, hold over and sole source procurements to sustain the
    status quo. It will change the acquisition strategy and require smaller
    blocks of space which will diminish the potential benefits of the
    consolidation effort resulting in higher costs than the strategy
    developed by GSA. The current situation of a dispersed DHS HQ with the
    associated problems stated above will continue.
        The impact to the consolidation initiative in $15 million segments:
      --$75 million will deliver space in 2 phases for a single
            consolidated location. This follows the consolidation strategy
            and will achieve the desired end State of eight to ten
            locations for the DHS HQ.
      --$60 million will either extend the number phases requiring more
            extensions/holdovers, sole source procurement or result in
            greater costs in the future years in an attempt to make-up for
            the shortfall. The attached migration schedule optimizes the
            moves to limit the impact of consolidation and it will need to
            be revised if the requested funding is not provided resulting
            in higher overall costs.
      --$45 million will not significantly reduce the number of locations
            and will not achieve the desired consolidation. DHS HQ will
            continue to lease space without the benefit of a comprehensive
            strategy and will continue to be scattered around the NCR. It
            will require lease holdover, extensions and sole source actions
            that will cost more than the consolidation strategy.
      --$30 million will relegate the initiative to a one for one
            replacement of leases without the benefit of consolidation only
            allowing consolidation of a specific component with the same
            issues as stated in the $45 million segment. It will not be an
            efficient use of resources and could create a vacancy risk that
            will require a backfill from another component continuing to
            scatter the DHS HQ.
      --$15 million will only allow partial replacements of large leases or
            an ad-hoc approach to space management.
      --$0 million is the status quo and is a step back because additional
            locations will continue to be added when components acquire
            additional lease space as they grow.

                             HSPD-12 CARD ISSUANCE

        Question. How many DHS Federal employees and contractors have HSPD-
    12 compliant cards today? What is the gap? Will the $25 million
    eliminate the gap or is there a remaining financial commitment in the
    outyears? What is the impact if DHS doesn't meet the October 2010
    mandate? Does this request fund DHS component requirements? If not, how
    are components paying for the cards? Provide a schedule by component
    (including headquarters offices) to issue smartcards to all DHS Federal
    employees and contractors.
        Answer. As of May 19, 2009, DHS has issued HSPD12 compliant cards
    to 10,060 Federal employees and contractors. There are approximately
    240,000 cards to be issued. The $25 million will cover card issuance
    for 135,000 cards; however, additional funding will be required in
    fiscal year 2011 to complete card issuance and to cover operations and
    maintenance costs. The completion of the card issuance was mandated by
    the Executive Branch. The impact of not completing card issuance in
    2010 will be the delay in obtaining the security benefits provided by
    the HSPD-12 card.
        The $25 million does cover Component requirements. The schedule for
    issuing DHS Headquarters and Component HSPD-12 compliant cards was
    developed based on geographical regions. Using a collaborative,
    enterprise approach, issuance workstations and support will be shared
    across Components. When card issuance begins in a region, the objective
    will be to complete issuance to the majority of DHS employees and
    contractors in the region, regardless of Component affiliation. A
    regional approach, versus a component-by-component approach, was
    selected because of the efficiencies to be gained by doing so. Issuing
    cards by the regions indicated below ensures that the department can
    deliver cards to more employees in a shorter period of time.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Estimated
                 Start Date                      Milestone          End Date
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Q1--fiscal year 2010................  Begin remaining                 Q2
                                           Expanded National
                                           Capital Region
                                           locations and complete
                                           issuance, which
                                           includes remaining
                                           Washington, D.C.
                                           personnel as well as
                                           Virginia, Maryland,
                                           Pennsylvania, West
                                           Virginia, and
                                           Delaware. Estimated
                                           total of 52,500
                                           additional issuances
                                           to DHS employees and
                                           contractors. The
                                           completion of this
                                           region in Q2,
                                           including the initial
                                           Headquarters
                                           issuances, will result
                                           in completing issuance
                                           to approximately 25
                                           percent of the DHS
                                           population.
    Q2--fiscal year 2010................  Begin the South West            Q4
                                           Region, which includes
                                           California, Arizona
                                           and Nevada. Estimated
                                           total of 39,200
                                           additional issuances
                                           to DHS employees and
                                           contractors.
    Q3--fiscal year 2010................  Begin the Mid Atlantic          Q4
                                           Region (for card
                                           issuance purposes,
                                           this will include New
                                           York and New Jersey).
                                           Estimated total of
                                           20,600 additional
                                           issuances to DHS
                                           employees and
                                           contractors.
    Q4--fiscal year 2010................  Begin the New England           Q4
                                           and South Atlantic
                                           Regions. The New
                                           England Region
                                           includes Maine,
                                           Vermont, New
                                           Hampshire,
                                           Massachusetts,
                                           Connecticut, and Rhode
                                           Island. Begin The
                                           South Atlantic Region,
                                           including Georgia,
                                           South Carolina and
                                           North Carolina.
                                           Estimated total of
                                           22,700 additional
                                           issuances to DHS
                                           employees and
                                           contractors. Complete
                                           issuance in the
                                           Expanded National
                                           Capital, South West,
                                           Mid Atlantic, and New
                                           England Regions and
                                           portions of the South
                                           Atlantic Region,
                                           which, with the prior
                                           completion of Region
                                           1, will result in
                                           completing issuance to
                                           approximately 58
                                           percent of the DHS
                                           population (total of
                                           approximately 135,000
                                           and initial 10,000 at
                                           Headquarters). The
                                           remaining States
                                           within the South
                                           Atlantic Region and
                                           remaining regions will
                                           be addressed in fiscal
                                           year 2011.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      USM CONVERSION OF CONTRACTORS TO FTE

        Question. The budget request indicates that there are 25
    contractors to FTE conversions in fiscal year 2009. However, the budget
    shows zero planned for fiscal year 2010. Is this the full extent of
    contractor conversions? Why?
        Answer. The Office of the Under Secretary for Management, like
    other DHS Components, is currently considering the conversion of a
    limited amount of workload from contract to in-house performance in
    fiscal year 2009 and the out years. This review is not yet complete.

                                 ACTION ORDERS

        Question. Shortly after being confirmed, you issued action
    directives instructing specific offices to gather information and
    review existing strategies and programs. Please describe (in summary
    form) what you found. How did the results of these reviews impact the
    allocation of resources for the fiscal year 2010 request? Be specific.
        Answer. The action directives did not impact the fiscal year 2010
    Budget Request because most of the responses were received after the
    budget request was submitted. As I review the reports, I will formulate
    new policies, make changes to existing procedures and launch new
    initiatives. The action directive reports are the first step, as they
    serve as a snapshot of the current challenges, needs and
    recommendations. To that end, they will help inform future resource
    allocation requests, but at this point have not altered the fiscal year
    2010 resource allocation.

                               NON-PAY INFLATION

        Question. The Department is being required to absorb $331million in
    non-pay inflation costs. Please explain how these costs will be
    absorbed without impacting operations.
        Answer. The Department's goal is to find sufficient savings through
    the efficiency review process to absorb the estimated $331 million in
    non-pay inflation. We plan to generate savings in travel costs,
    acquisition of office equipment, software, general supplies and support
    contracts to offset some of the estimated 2 percent increase in prices.
    Our efficiency review is ongoing and we expect to identify additional
    measures that will generate further savings.

                                OUT-YEAR FUNDING

        Question. According to the President's budget, homeland security
    funding would decrease between fiscal year 2010 and 2014. Other
    domestic agencies receive healthy increases over the same period of
    time. Even after adjusting for the assumed enactment of additional
    aviation security fees, there are no increases for homeland security.
    Is this reduction based on a threat analysis? If so, please provide in
    classified form. Can you achieve these reductions without cutting
    personnel or major acquisition programs like the Secure Border
    Initiative or Deepwater? If the increase in air passenger fees is not
    enacted by Congress, how will this impact the need for DHS
    discretionary resources?
        Answer. Through our current programmatic review and internal budget
    build for fiscal year 2011 to 2015, DHS is analyzing how to most
    effectively and efficiently allocate resources including the optimal
    balance of personnel and major acquisition programs. Following this
    review, additional information will be included in our fiscal year 2011
    budget submission.
        Raising air passenger fees increases the portion of existing
    Aviation Security activities offset by direct users of aviation
    transportation, thereby decreasing net discretionary appropriated
    resources. If the increase in air passenger fees is not enacted by
    Congress, DHS will work with OMB to evaluate other options toward
    maintaining current operations.

                       U.S. Customs and Border Protection

                               PROGRAM INTEGRITY

        Question. What was the total fiscal year 2009 level of funding
    provided and what is the total requested fiscal year 2010 level for CBP
    Program Integrity?
        Answer. The total funding level in fiscal year 2009 for the Conduct
    and Integrity program is $19.181 million; in fiscal year 2010 the
    funding level is $20.242 million.
        Question. How many positions related to the integrity program were
    on-board in fiscal year 2008, will be on-board by the end of fiscal
    year 2009, and are requested for fiscal year 2010?
        Answer. As of September 30, 2008 there were 159 (143 agents/16
    support) positions related to the Conduct and Integrity program on-
    board in fiscal year 2008; 255 (227 agents/28 support) positions will
    be on-board by the end of fiscal year 2009. There are no additional
    positions requested for fiscal year 2010.
        Question. From 2007-2009 (to date):
      --How many investigations?
      --How many arrests?
      --And how many convictions?
        Answer. Please see the following tables.

                                           CBP INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATIONS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Fiscal year
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
                                                                           2007            2008            2009
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Investigations Closed...........................................             578             757             113
    Investigations Open.............................................              28             235             569
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          TOTAL INVESTIGATIONS......................................             606             992             682
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  CBP EMPLOYEE ARRESTS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Fiscal year
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
                                                                           2007            2008            2009
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Non Mission Critical Arrests....................................             222             286             179
    Mission Critical Arrests........................................               8              21              17
    Convictions (Mission Critical Arrests Only).....................               7               9              14
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          TOTAL ARRESTS.............................................             230             307             196
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        From October 1, 2006 to present, CBP Internal Affairs (CBP/IA)
    initiated 2,280 investigations involving current or former CBP
    employees or contractors. Of that total, 1,448 investigations (63.5
    percent) are closed. The remaining 832 cases (36.5 percent) constitute
    CBP/IA's open investigative inventory.
        It should be noted that these figures do not include investigations
    into CBP employee misconduct conducted by the DHS Office of the
    Inspector General (DHS/OIG), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's
    Office of Professional Responsibility (ICE/OPR), or the FBI Border
    Corruption Task Forces (FBI/BCTF). The DHS/OIG, ICE/OPR and FBI/BCTF
    maintain separate investigative inventories with respect to cases
    involving CBP employees.
        From October 1, 2006 to present, 720 current and former CBP
    employees have been arrested for (or charged with) criminal misconduct
    ranging from mission critical corruption (e.g., alien or drug
    smuggling, bribery, conspiracy, money laundering, etc.) linked directly
    to the employees' discharge of their official duties to off-duty
    arrests for DUI/DWI, shoplifting, assault, etc. Of the 720 total
    arrests, 46 involved mission-critical corruption.
        CBP is the largest law enforcement agency in the United States with
    more than 56,000 employees, of which approximately 40,000 are sworn law
    enforcement officers. During fiscal year 2008, CBP received more than
    43,00 allegations of criminal and non-criminal misconduct lodged
    against CBP employees.
        The 46 corruption arrests since October 1, 2006 represent less than
    one percent (.08) of the total workforce. Of the 46 CBP employees
    arrested for (or charged with) mission critical corruption, 31 cases
    resulted in convictions and 14 cases are at various stages in the
    judicial process. In one case all charges were dismissed.

                               TRADE REGULATIONS

        Question. Provide a brief description of the details and changes
    contained in the new ``10+2'' regulations.
        Answer. On November 25, 2008, Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
    published in the Federal Register (73 FR 71730), an Interim Final Rule,
    ``Importer Security filing and Additional Carrier Requirements'' (CBP
    Dec. 8-46). Pursuant to Section 203 of the Security and Accountability
    for Every Port Act of 2006 (``SAFE Port Act,'' Public Law 109-347) this
    Interim Final Rule requires the submission of certain information from
    carriers and importers pertaining to cargo destined to the United
    States by vessel, for the most part, prior to lading of such cargo onto
    the vessel at the foreign port. The Interim Final Rule was effective on
    January 26, 2009; however, a 12 month delayed enforcement date (until
    January 26, 2010) was provided to allow industry to determine best
    practices to comply with the new requirements. CBP is conducting an
    extended round of outreach activities to engage with the trade
    community on all aspects of the rule.
        Carriers are generally required to submit two data elements, a
    vessel stow plan and container status messages (CSMs) relating to
    containers loaded on vessels destined to the United States. This is in
    addition to the data elements that carriers are already required to
    electronically transmit in advance of lading pursuant to Section 343(a)
    of the Trade Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 2071 note). Vessel stow plan
    information must generally be transmitted to CBP no later than 48 hours
    after the vessel departs from the last foreign port. CSM information
    must generally be transmitted to CBP no later than 24 hours after a CSM
    is entered into the carrier's equipment tracking system. See 73 FR
    71779-80 for regulatory text and 73 FR 71731-32 for general discussion.
        CBP Dec. 08-46 also requires the submission of an Importer Security
    Filing (ISF). The party required to submit the ISF, known as the ``ISF
    Importer,'' is the party causing the goods to enter the limits of a
    port in the United States. ISF Importers, are generally required to
    submit an ISF containing 10 data elements which include: seller, buyer,
    importer of record number/foreign trade zone applicant identification
    number, consignee number(s), manufacturer (or supplier), ship-to party,
    country of origin, commodity HTSUS number, container stuffing location,
    and consolidator (stuffer). Only five data elements are required,
    however, for shipments consisting entirely of foreign cargo remaining
    on board (``FROB'') and shipments consisting entirely of goods intended
    to be ``transported'' as immediate exportation or transportation and
    exportation in-bond shipments. These include: booking party, foreign
    port of unlading, place of delivery, ship to party, and commodity HTSUS
    number. Generally, an ISF must be transmitted to CBP no later than 24
    hours prior to lading at the foreign port. The regulations allow for
    some flexibility as to timing of transmission and interpretation for
    six of the data elements. [See 73 FR 71782-85 for regulatory text and
    73 CFR 71733-34 for general discussion.] CBP invited public comments on
    these six data elements in the Regulatory Assessment and Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Comments regarding this interim final
    rule are due by June 1, 2009.

                            AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

        Question. Is the lower level of funding requested for ACE and TECS
    an indicator that the agency is backing off of its support for
    automation modernization?
        Answer. CBP is committed to modernizing the import/export process
    through the deployment of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE).
    The successful completion and roll out of this mission critical system
    will ensure that international trade flows smoothly and efficiently
    without sacrificing national security. ACE is an investment that will
    strengthen the agency's anti-terrorism capability through enhanced risk
    assessment, expand coordination with other Federal agencies to ensure
    the safety of imported goods, guarantee the efficient accounting/
    control of over $30 billion in duty/tax/fee collections, and streamline
    the import/export process resulting in real cost savings for the
    international trade community. CBP will continue to aggressively work
    with all stakeholders to ensure that ACE is fully deployed as
    efficiently as possible within available budgetary resources.
        The fiscal year 2010 Budget Request has no impact on TECS, only
    ACE. The fiscal year 2010 Request for TECS Modernization maintains TECS
    funding at $50 million as planned. It is important to note that CBP is
    developing new approaches to improve the efficiency of the overall ACE
    program. CBP is currently working to implement management reforms to
    improve program efficiency. In addition, there are numerous efforts
    underway to drive down the cost of operations and maintenance.
        An important new capability within the ACE was just fielded in
    April 2009. This new capability allows CBP trade partners to file in
    ACE, entry summary information for the most common entry types. Going
    forward, CBP will add other entry summary types to this foundational
    release, achieving an important step in the modernization of the import
    process.
        In the late summer/early fall of 2009, CBP will deploy the
    capability to receive and process vessel and rail manifests in ACE.
    This release has been delayed due to defects discovered during internal
    and trade testing. The defects are being addressed, and CBP continues
    to ensure that the software is tested before deployment. CBP is
    committed to ensuring that this software is thoroughly tested before
    deployment.
        These new capabilities along with the already deployed truck
    manifest, periodic monthly statement, and portal capabilities used by
    both the trade community and over 30 other Federal agencies,
    demonstrates the success that CBP has achieved with ACE and portends
    well for the future of this critical program.
        CBP acknowledges the strong support that the ACE modernization
    effort has received from Congress. This support is greatly appreciated
    and viewed as essential in CBP's effort to successfully finish ACE.

                                  CONSTRUCTION

        Question. Please confirm that no new funds are requested for port
    of entry, Border Patrol station, or checkpoint construction.
        Answer. CBP requested funding to continue many construction
    projects in the fiscal year 2010 Budget Request.

                            AGRICULTURAL SPECIALISTS

        Question. How many agricultural specialists have been brought on-
    board since fiscal year 2004--by fiscal year?
        Answer. The numbers in the following table represent CBP
    Agriculture Specialists brought onboard from fiscal year 2004 through
    April 25, 2009. These numbers include accessions and gains of employees
    in full-time, part-time, and term appointments.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Fiscal year
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2004 \1\................................................           1,523
    2005....................................................             618
    2006....................................................             314
    2007....................................................             371
    2008....................................................             318
    2009....................................................             202
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Fiscal year 2004 includes agricultural specialists moving from USDA
      to CBP.

        Question. How many CBP officers have received basic agriculture
    training?
        Answer. A total of 9,637 CBP officers trained from fiscal year 2004
    to date (May 15, 2009) in CBP Integrated Training (CBPI), the basic
    academy course for officers.
        Question. What does this training consist of, how many hours are
    devoted to it, is there additional training conducted in the field?
        Answer. The basic agriculture training consists of the below three
    classes:
      --``Threats to Agriculture in Passenger Processing'' is an 8 hour
            module given in 2 hour intervals during the 6 week of CBP
            Integrated Training (CBPI).
      --``Threats to Agriculture in Trade Processing'' is an 8 hour module
            given in 2 hour intervals during the 11 week of CBPI.
      --``Agriculture Fundamentals'' is a 3 hour on-line course given to
            CBP officers as well as Agriculture Specialists once assigned
            to the field.
        The terminal objectives for the first two classes are to provide a
    series of scenarios and the use of an agriculture reference card for
    participants to recognize potential threats to United States
    agriculture and ecosystems, and determine if a secondary examination by
    the Agriculture Quarantine Inspector (AQI) is warranted. Both modules
    are instructed by an Agriculture Health Inspection Service (APIS)
    inspector stationed at the Customs and Border Protection Field
    Operations Academy in Glynco, Georgia.
        Question. Prior to the creation of the Department, did any Customs
    Service or Immigration and Naturalization Service personnel receive any
    agriculture training?
        Answer. Yes, prior to the creation of the Department, U.S.
    Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Inspector new hires
    received 2 hours of training during their basic academy. INS Inspectors
    at the southern border received an additional 4 hours of informal
    training on local U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal Plant
    Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine
    (PPQ) procedures. U.S. Customs Inspector new hires received 4 hours
    during their basic academy. Any U.S. Customs Inspectors at southern
    border ports also received 4 hours of informal training on local USDA
    APHIS PPQ procedures

                             LICENSE PLATE READERS

        Question. What is the total number of inbound and outbound lanes on
    the southwest border?
        Answer. There are 234 inbound non-commercial and 91 commercial
    lanes for a total of 335 inbound lanes and 110 outbound lanes on the
    southern border.
        Question. With the fiscal year 2010 funding requested in the budget
    for license plate readers (LPRs) on southbound lanes, how many
    additional existing southbound lanes need to be outfitted with LPRs, if
    any?
        Answer. Fiscal year 2010 funds will begin the requirements process
    for the deployment of the remaining 58 lanes without LPRs, to include
    environmental studies, site surveys and design.

                                    VEHICLES

        Question. With the number of CBP employees increasing, why has the
    requested level for new and replacement vehicles gone down?
        Answer. Fewer new vehicles are needed in fiscal year 2010 because
    fewer new hires are proposed.
      --New Vehicles.--In fiscal year 2010, CBP requests authority to buy
            500 new vehicles; in fiscal year 2009 3,000 new vehicles were
            authorized, a net decrease of 2,500.
      --Replacement Vehicles.--In fiscal year 2010, CBP requests authority
            to buy 4,000 replacement vehicles; in fiscal year 2009 3,300
            replacement vehicles were authorized, a net increase of 700.
      --The combined decrease for new vehicles and increase for replacement
            vehicles, nets to requested authority for 1,800 fewer vehicles
            in fiscal year 2010 than in the previous fiscal year.
        Question. How short is the fiscal year 2010 budget request from
    meeting the requirement in the fiscal year 2009 Act of funding to
    replace a minimum of 20 percent of the CBP fleet?
        Answer. Assuming a 20 percent replacement rate, funding for an
    additional 1,210 vehicles would be required. Over the past 3 years
    during which the 20 percent replacement rate has been a matter of
    discussion, CBP has made significant progress replacing vehicles in the
    fleet, reducing the average age to a manageable level. CBP believes
    that relying solely on a fixed replacement rate may inhibit programs
    from meeting mission requirements. CBP uses analysis of fleet data to
    forecast an appropriate vehicle replacement rate within the constraints
    of funding and vehicle purchase limits (vehicle caps in the
    appropriations bill).

                            ADVANCED TRAINING CENTER

        Question. What is the fiscal year 2010 estimated base request for
    total operations of the Center--within Salaries and Expenses?
        Answer. CBP is budgeting $30.3 million in fiscal year 2010 for
    training, staffing, travel, transportation, utilities, supplies,
    equipment, and contract support. There is no enhancement request for
    the Advanced Training Center in the fiscal year 2010 Budget Request.
        Question. Within the new Facilities Management account?
        Answer. CBP requested $5.955 million in the fiscal year 2010 Budget
    for Maintenance, Repairs, and Operations activities for the Advanced
    Training Center in Harpers Ferry. There is no enhancement request for
    the Advanced Training Center in the fiscal year 2010 Budget Request.

                            NEED FOR MISSION SUPPORT

        Question. One of the benefits of Operation Jump Start was the
    sending of National Guard troops to the four States on the Southwest
    border. Actually, you were the first governor to call for these troops.
    These men and women performed non-law enforcement functions--such as
    watching cameras and fixing vehicles--so that actual Border Patrol
    agents could be on the border stopping illegal aliens and drugs from
    entering our country. Unfortunately, while the National Guard troops
    were performing mission support activities, the last administration was
    not hiring the mission support personnel Congress was funding. So once
    the Guard left, the Border Patrol agents went back to performing
    mission support functions. This was a wasted opportunity to address a
    critical need.
        This budget request includes funding for mission support personnel.
    Can you commit to this Committee that if the Congress gives you the
    funds to hire mission support personnel, you will actually do so? This
    would be a huge morale boost for your troops in the field.
        Answer. OBP is currently funded for 2,260 operational support staff
    employees. By the end of fiscal year 2009 the Office of Border Patrol
    anticipates approximately 2,056 operational support personnel hired (by
    the end of the calendar year CBP anticipates 2,242 operational support
    personnel hired). While the operational support workforce is currently
    comprised of a mixture of government employees and contractors, the
    contractors will be phased out over time.
        In addition to the mission support positions in the field, CBP has
    aligned 140 mission support positions to other CBP offices to provide
    direct support to OBP. The decision to realign these positions to the
    other CBP support offices was made in late March.

                            STATUS OF REALIGNED MISSION SUPPORT POSITIONS (FISCAL YEAR 2009)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Anticipated
                                                             Positions   Hires to      In      Additional  Remaining
                             Office                          Allocated     Date     Process    Selections   to Fill
                                                                                               by 9/30/09
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    HRM....................................................         28          3  .........          25   .........
    OF.....................................................         35  .........         11          24   .........
    IA.....................................................         41          7         28           6   .........
    OIT....................................................         16  .........  .........          16   .........
    COM....................................................         14          3  .........           4           7
    OTD....................................................          6  .........          5           1   .........
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------
          Total............................................        140         13         44          76           7
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A number of recruitment strategies are in place to actively recruit
    for the 140 mission support positions, including open continuous
    announcements, a professional hiring day event, and a virtual Federal
    Career Intern Program job fair.
        End-of-year onboard for the mission support positions is dependent
    upon background investigation clearances. The background investigation
    process averages 3 months from selection date.

                         SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE (SBI)

        Question. The GAO reported in April 2009 that the Border Security
    Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT) fiscal year 2009
    Expenditure Plan did not fully satisfy all of the conditions set out in
    response to a mandate in the Consolidated Security, Disaster
    Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. GAO found that
    three of the conditions were satisfied and nine were partially
    satisfied. If the Committee decides to require an expenditure plan for
    these fiscal year 2010 funds, how will you improve the plan to meet the
    mandated conditions?
        Answer. A strong, good-faith effort was made to meet all of the
    conditions set forth by the Committees for the BSFIT fiscal year 2009
    Expenditure Plan. Extensive discussion and collaboration was conducted
    with the GAO prior to submittal of the plan to the Committees--the
    intent being to submit a compliant plan. Nonetheless, GAO assessed that
    the Expenditure Plan did not fully satisfy all of the conditions, and
    DHS disagreed with some of those findings. We believe that one of the
    root causes of GAO's determination was GAO audit methodology, which
    drew the focus away from a broader assessment of the overall quality of
    the plan and discounted volumes of supporting information that
    augmented the data provided directly in the Expenditure Plan.
        Going forward, we are prepared to provide the Committees with
    embedded supporting source material in the Expenditure Plan. However,
    doing so will increase the difficulty in preparing, coordinating and
    maintaining an already voluminous document. A more streamlined
    approach, which is proposed in the response to the question which
    follows, would be to craft compliance conditions that focus more on the
    substantive quality of the plan. We believe that supporting source
    material which is referenced in the Plan should be considered as part
    of the assessment of the overall quality of the Plan.
        Question. What suggestions do you have for us in considering
    whether to require an expenditure plan and in determining what
    conditions it needs to meet?
        Answer. DHS would be pleased to continue providing additional
    information to assist the Committee in its determination of what
    conditions need to be met, whether that is through an expenditure plan
    for fiscal year 2010 or otherwise. However, given that the preparation
    and coordination of such a large document (192 pages) is labor-
    intensive and time-consuming, and in order to streamline its
    production, review and approval, we recommend that the Committees avoid
    overly technical compliant requirements for the Expenditure Plan.
    Requirements should be limited to the minimum essential information and
    conditions needed to determine the overall quality of the plan. The
    Committees should also permit source material to be referenced and
    otherwise used to assess accuracy and completeness of the Expenditure
    Plan, rather than requiring that it be embedded within the Expenditure
    Plan itself in order to be compliant. In addition, the Committees
    should consider other more flexible and responsive methods for
    obtaining the information needed, such as meetings and presentations to
    the Committees or the Committees' staffs. Finally, to avoid unintended
    programmatic impacts due to funding withholds, we urge consultation on
    the amount of funding being withheld before it becomes legislation. We
    are especially concerned with BSFIT funding for fiscal year 2010, since
    the production decision for follow-on SBInet Block 1 deployments will
    be made in the 1st quarter of 2010.

                              BORDER PATROL AGENTS

        Question. The SBI Director was recently quoted as saying that CBP
    is estimating a need of a total of 25,000 Border Patrol agents assuming
    full deployment of SBI. That is nearly 5,000 more agents than requested
    and funded in this budget. Over what timeframe does CBP plan to grow to
    this level of agents? Is there a plan for funding and hiring a portion
    of them on an annual basis?
        Answer. CBP is in a short term re-assessment mode until full
    activation of the BSFIT and technology demonstrates its maximum impact.
    Effective control is based upon the proper mix of personnel, technology
    and infrastructure. These resources have been appropriated to CBP at
    differing rates over the past several years. Congressional
    appropriations have significantly contributed to doubling the number of
    border miles under effective control (345 miles versus 697) along the
    southwest border since the end of fiscal year 2006. These gains,
    however, which CBP identifies as ``pre-SBInet,'' have been very
    manpower-intensive and relied upon Agents for the detection and
    monitoring capabilities SBInet technology will provide, as well as
    response and resolution. Conversely, as SBInet is deployed in Tucson
    and Yuma sectors, Agents in the field will adapt to SBInet's
    technological capabilities. This adaptation should lessen the need for
    current manpower and facilitate using appreciable numbers of agents
    elsewhere. We will continue to evaluate law enforcement needs in
    conjunction with SBInet technological systems solutions, current
    manpower, and tactical infrastructure.

                                 RADAR COVERAGE

        Question. What level of radar coverage does Montana receive?
        Answer. CBP Air and Marine notes this information as sensitive/
    classified. CBP Air and Marine personnel are willing to brief cleared
    personnel in an appropriate environment to discuss the details of a
    more succinct response.
        Question. In which parts of the United States can CBP see or track
    aircraft flying lower than 5,000 feet?
        Answer. CBP Air and Marine notes this information as sensitive/
    classified. CBP Air and Marine personnel are willing to brief cleared
    personnel in an appropriate environment to discuss the details of a
    more succinct response.
        Question. Which agency (or agencies) is/are responsible for
    providing radar coverage nationally?
        Answer. The three main reasons for radar coverage are Air Traffic
    Control, Homeland Defense and Homeland Security. The Federal Aviation
    Administration operates and maintains both Long Range and Terminal
    radars used for Air Traffic Control. Some of these same radars are part
    of the Joint Surveillance System (JSS) also used by the Department of
    Defense providing both communications and radar data. Terminal radars
    are typically located on or near an airport. The Tethered Aerostat
    Radar System (TARS), which is maintained and operated by the Department
    of Defense, is located along the southwest border and in Florida.
    Radars within this system are attached to moored balloons. CBP's Air
    and Marine Operations Center (AMOC) utilizes TARS to provide radar
    surveillance for DHS to execute a Homeland Security Mission (Law
    Enforcement). The aggregate of the data from these radar systems is
    managed by the FAA's National Airspace System Defense Program (NDP).
    The NDP office utilizes existing FAA infrastructure and human resources
    to expand voice and surveillance services to meet external user
    requirements.
        Question. Do Air Force facilities in Montana have and provide radar
    coverage to CBP or the Air Marine Operations Center (AMOC)?
        Answer. Malstrom Air Force Base located in Great Falls, MT does not
    provide radar feed to the AMOC however a Long Range Radar (LRR) located
    on Bootlegger Ridge outside of the base is received by the AMOC.

                    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

                              WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT

        Question. There has been no stronger supporter in Congress of the
    worksite enforcement program than this Senator. When we met in my
    office, I asked you if you supported the worksite enforcement program
    and you said, yes. On April 30, 2009, you announced new guidelines for
    how worksite enforcement operations are to be conducted. Specifically,
    the guidelines are targeted at the unscrupulous employers who hire
    illegal aliens.
        Please describe to the Subcommittee your plans for the worksite
    enforcement program. What is the requested level of funding for
    worksite enforcement? What was the level provided for worksite in
    fiscal year 2009?
        Answer. Illegal employment draws people to enter the United States
    illegally. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is committed to
    reducing those opportunities.
        On April 30, 2009, ICE announced a new worksite enforcement
    strategy targeting employers who knowingly hire illegal labor while
    continuing to arrest and process for removal any illegal workers.
    Pursuant to this strategy, ICE will do the following: (1) penalize
    employers who knowingly hire illegal workers; (2) deter employers who
    are tempted to hire illegal workers; and (3) encourage all employers to
    take advantage of well-crafted compliance tools and best practices.
    Arresting and removing unlawful workers alone is not sufficient to
    deter employers.
        In addition to prosecuting employers, seizing illegal profits
    through asset forfeiture, and arresting illegal workers, ICE also will
    use other tools to penalize and deter employers who violate the law. In
    particular, ICE will conduct more Form I-9 inspections and pursue civil
    fines as appropriate. ICE also will seek debarment of businesses that
    have violated the employment provisions of the Immigration and
    Nationality Act. Finally, ICE will continue to provide training, tools,
    and information to assist employers who want to comply with the law and
    avoid hiring unauthorized workers.
        As set forth in the projected Office of Investigations (OI)
    expenditure plan for fiscal year 2010, OI requests $128,778,000 for
    worksite enforcement.
        In fiscal year 2009, $126,515,000 has been provided for worksite
    enforcement, consistent with the fiscal year 2009 DHS Appropriations
    Act (Public Law110-329).

                               PROGRAM INTEGRITY

        Question. What was the total fiscal year 2009 level of funding
    provided, and what is the total requested fiscal year 2010 level for
    ICE Program Integrity?
        Answer. For fiscal year 2009, the Office of Professional
    Responsibility's (OPR) budget was $81.9 million and the total requested
    level for fiscal year 2010 is $90.6 million. The overall OPR budget
    funds investigations of allegations of criminal and administrative
    misconduct by ICE and CBP employees, inspections of detention
    facilities, 287(g) programs, and ICE field office and physical security
    management. These investigations and inspections support the integrity
    of ICE and CBP staff and programs.
        Question. How many positions related to the integrity program were
    on-board in fiscal year 2008, will be on-board by the end of fiscal
    year 2009, and are requested for fiscal year 2010?
        Answer. At the end of fiscal year 2008, OPR had 415 employees
    onboard. By the end of fiscal year 2009, OPR anticipates having 493
    positions on-board. OPR has requested 49 additional positions for
    fiscal year 2010. The requested fiscal year 2010 positions will support
    inspections of ICE programs, ICE field offices, and detention facility
    inspections.
        Question. From 2007 to 2009 (to date):
        How many investigations?
        How many arrests?
        How many convictions have there been?
        Answer. As of May 19, 2009, these statistics reflect criminal
    investigations, arrests and convictions of ICE and CBP employees. Note
    that these statistics do not include arrests of civilians for crimes
    such as impersonation of a Federal officer and bribery. Also, the
    investigations category statistics do not reflect administrative
    inquiries or management referrals.
        Investigations:
      --Fiscal year 2007--829
      --Fiscal year 2008--983
      --Fiscal year 2009--824
        Arrests:
      --Fiscal year 2007--11
      --Fiscal year 2008--32
      --Fiscal year 2009--19
        Convictions:
      --Fiscal year 2007--14
      --Fiscal year 2008--22
      --Fiscal year 2009--16

                                 DETENTION BEDS

        Question. There is only a 50 bed increase in the number of
    detention beds (for a total of 33,450). Does the request fully fund
    this bed level for the entire fiscal year? In what State or region of
    the country is there a shortage of accessible detention beds? What is
    the ICE plan to address this regional shortage?
        Answer. ICE current detention funding request, including the $36.2
    million adjustment to the base request, will assist the Office of
    Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) in maintaining detention
    capacity in support of ICE's enforcement efforts for the entire fiscal
    year. This request will also cover the costs associated with:
      --Unforecasted increases in Inter-Governmental Service Agreement
            (IGSA) contract costs
      --Increases in detainee health care costs
      --Increased detention standards monitoring contracts.
        DRO continues to explore short-term and long-term ways to
    streamline and reduce costs associated with detention management while
    maintaining high standards. ICE will also use Secure Communities
    funding to meet additional bedspace needs due to increasing criminal
    alien enforcement efforts.
        ICE is presently experiencing regional bed space shortages in the
    Northeastern United States, California, and its Miami Field Office.
    Although ICE strives to complete the removal process while an alien is
    in the custody of another law enforcement organization, there is
    inevitably a period of time the alien enters ICE custody before his or
    her physical removal from the United States can be affected.
        ICE addresses regional fluctuations in detention space, such as
    those in its California and Miami Field Offices, by transferring ICE
    detainees from locations experiencing an increase in detainees to
    locations where bed space is more readily available. ICE monitors bed
    space on a daily basis. In addition, ICE is in the process of
    initiating a request for proposals for increasing ICE's bed space
    capacity in the southern California region.
        Additionally, ICE competes for bed space with other State and local
    law enforcement agencies, as 70 percent of ICE detention beds are
    currently located within IGSA facilities owned by these State and local
    entities.
        DRO is in the process of establishing the Detention Management
    Strategy Working Group (DMSWG), which will further evaluate ICE's long-
    term detention management strategy. The group will create a 3-4 year
    detention plan for DRO that will meet the needs of both ICE and our
    immigration enforcement partners. The DMSWG will be comprised of
    representatives from all ICE programs, as well as representatives of
    Custom and Border Protection's (CBP) Office of Border Patrol and Office
    of Field Operations and the Department of Justice's Executive Office.

                               SECURE COMMUNITIES

        Question. With the Secure Communities fiscal year 2010 request of
    $195.589 million, to how many counties will this program expand? What
    is the increase in counties covered over fiscal year 2009? How many
    additional counties will remain to receive the Secure Communities
    program after fiscal year 2010? By what date does the Secure
    Communities plan to be operational nationwide?
        Answer. Secure Communities plans to expand coverage by at least 50
    counties during fiscal year 2010 to establish biometric identification
    of arrested criminal aliens in over 140 counties.
        Secure Communities' threat-based deployment schedule prioritizes
    those counties with the highest threat criminal alien populations
    first, consisting primarily of counties in major metropolitan areas
    throughout the country as well as all counties along the Southwest
    Border. Secure Communities estimates that after deploying to these
    counties, ICE will cover over 50 percent of the Nation's criminal alien
    population.
        Secure Communities anticipates that, with continued funding,
    including redeployment of existing resources, it will establish
    biometric identification of arrested criminal aliens in all counties
    that are willing and technically able to participate by the end of
    fiscal year 2012.
        Question. From 2007 to 2009 (to date), how many criminal illegal
    aliens were:
      --Incarcerated?
      --Entered into deportation proceedings?
      --Deported following incarceration?
        Answer. As ICE is not present at every State and local jail, ICE is
    unable to provide the exact number of criminal aliens incarcerated from
    2007-2009. However, as ICE deploys Interoperability nationwide, ICE
    will be able to obtain more reliable estimates. Secure Communities
    developed a 2006 estimate of the total incarcerated criminal alien
    population based on statistical information from the Bureau of Justice
    Statistics. Please see the information and table that follows.
        Entered into removal/deportation proceedings:
      --At the close of fiscal year 2007, there were 164,296 charging
            documents issued to criminal aliens placing them into removal/
            deportation proceedings.
      --At the close of fiscal year 2008, there were 221,085 charging
            documents issued to criminal aliens placing them into removal/
            deportation proceedings.
      --Currently in fiscal year 2009 (YTD), there have been 133,118
            charging documents issued to criminal aliens placing them into
            removal (deportation) proceedings.
      --Figures for fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 are reflective of
            historical statistics related to charging documents issued
            under the Criminal Alien Program (CAP). Figure for fiscal year
            2009 is reflective of year to date CAP statistics.
        Deported following incarceration:
      --fiscal year 2007 Criminals removed (deported): 102,024
      --fiscal year 2008 Criminals removed (deported): 114,415
      --fiscal year 2009 (YTD) Criminals removed (deported): 71,236
      --Figures for fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 are historical.
            The figure for fiscal year 2009 is reflective of year to date
            statistics. All figures include aliens who, after being
            apprehended, may have been allowed to voluntarily depart the
            United States before being placed into removal proceedings.
        Please see the following table.

                                          CRIMINAL ALIEN PROGRAM (CAP) ANALYSIS
                                              [Incarcerated Alien Universe]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Totals      Totals
                                                                        Local Min  Local Max  (including  (including
                                                   Federal     State       \1\        \2\     Local Min)  Local Max)
                                                                                                  \1\         \1\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Daily Population \3\........................    170,000  1,365,438  1,510,000  3,020,000   3,045,438   4,555,438
    Number Foreign Born \4\.....................     34,000    273,088    302,000    604,000     609,088     911,088
    Number of Removable Aliens \5\..............     17,000    136,544    151,000    302,000     304,544     455,544
    Criminality Levels and Types: \6\
        Level 1--Violent and Major Drug Offenses      1,598     71,139     21,442     42,884      94,179     115,621
         \7\....................................
        Level 2--Property and Minor Drug             10,013     55,164     44,847     89,694     110,024     154,871
         Offenses \8\...........................
        Level 3--Other Offenses \9\.............      5,389     10,241     84,711    169,422     100,341     185,052
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------
          Totals................................     17,000    136,544    151,000    302,000     304,544     455,544
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The local daily population figure is based on 755,000 with an average sentence of 6 months. The 6 month
      figure is based on the average sentence for a felon sentenced to local jail.
    \2\ The local daily population figure is based on 755,000 with an average sentence of 3 months. The 3 month
      sentence is an attempt to incorporate the majority of pre-sentenced inmates who are in local jail.
    \3\ Source. The Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, Prisoners in 2006, Year end Report dated December 2007 is
      the source document for the Federal, State and Local daily population and Federal and State criminality
      percentages within this table. The Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Crime in the United States 2005, U.S.
      Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigations is the source document for the local foreign born
      criminality percentages within this table. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Year end 2006 Report on
      Jails and Prisons is a snapshot of the population at yearend, December 2006. All data from the BJS Federal
      Justice Statistics Program is based on all sentenced inmates, regardless of sentence length.
    \4\ Bureau of Prisons (BOP) foreign born population was derived from the BOP SENTRY system. The percentage (20
      percent) of foreign born nationals in the BOP was applied to the State and local daily population to determine
      the foreign born population based on ICE historic data and average annual State Criminal Alien Assistance
      program funding requests.
    \5\ The removable alien population is based on the percentage of CAP screened cases that require a detainer.
      This information is derived from the CAP manual report. On average 50 percent of screened cases will require a
      detainer.
    \6\ The Criminality Levels 1, 2, and 3 and associated crimes from the BJS source document has been applied to
      the Federal and State population while the FBI source document has been applied to the Local population. The
      statistics for each Criminality Level for the Federal, State and Local populations are a percentage of the
      number of removable aliens.
    \7\ Level 1 includes crimes such as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, assault, and major drug offenses.
    \8\ Level 2 includes crimes such as burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, fraud, and minor drug offenses.
    \9\ Level 3 includes crimes such as public order, immigration, weapons or other unspecified offenses.

                                   ICE LEASES

        Question. What will be the additional cost to ICE of renewing
    leases, etc. between fiscal year 2011-2013, if the requested increase
    of $92 million for co-location of ICE facilities is not approved?
        Answer. Over the next 5 years, 72 percent of ICE leases will
    expire. If ICE remained in existing space and renewed these leases on
    an ad hoc basis, it would cost ICE an additional $69 million through
    fiscal year 2013. In fiscal year 2014, the costs will increase by
    another $21 million.
        Currently, most ICE employees are housed in 351 separate leases in
    55 metropolitan areas. ICE averages 6 leases in each metropolitan area.
    Co-location reduces ICE's footprint to 56 leases in these 55 areas,
    providing sufficient, modern space for both employees and detainees who
    come into the agency's custody. The co-location plan also addresses
    inadequate electrical grid capacity in our many older facilities that
    cannot support new technology requirements. It incorporates space for
    holding cells, evidence rooms, and safety features to protect officers,
    detainees and the public. The plan will also allow efficiencies, such
    as shared support and guard services, as well as greater coordination
    on operations.
        Question. Are there tranches of funding less than $92 million that
    will address a portion of the need? Please describe.
        Answer. Given the short remaining life of most of the existing
    leases in these cities, ICE has not developed alternatives for how it
    would manage collocation with less than $92 million. If necessary, ICE
    would likely seek to extend existing leases in some cities, albeit at
    significantly higher cost. ICE would also likely be forced to cover
    these higher costs with base resources, reducing funding available for
    operations.
        ICE identified its top 12 collocation projects based on operational
    needs and looming lease expirations. The President's request of $92
    million would fully fund these projects in the cities listed below. The
    12 projects include cities close to the southwest border such as El
    Centro, CA and Albuquerque, NM, and other key high-priority cities.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         TOTAL Build-
                  No.                     City              State         Project Type    Consolidation   Out Costs
                                                                                            Size (RSF)    (dollars)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1.............................  El Centro.......  CA..............  Non-Prospectus..        61,538        $9,613
    2.............................  Portland........  OR..............  Non-Prospectus..        46,484         9,207
    3.............................  Spokane.........  WA..............  Non-Prospectus..        30,120         4,140
    4.............................  Columbus........  OH..............  Non-Prospectus..        36,914         4,665
    5.............................  Reno............  NV..............  Non-Prospectus..        20,712         2,273
    6.............................  Jacksonville....  FL..............  Non-Prospectus..        45,964         7,864
    7.............................  Albuquerque.....  NM..............  Non-Prospectus..        71,142        19,428
    8.............................  Salt Lake City..  UT..............  Non-Prospectus..        40,527         8,011
    9.............................  Orlando.........  FL..............  Non-Prospectus..        51,048         8,695
    10............................  Raleigh.........  NC..............  Non-Prospectus..        29,251         5,791
    11............................  Greenville......  SC..............  Non-Prospectus..        29,960         3,670
    12............................  Charleston......  SC..............  Non-Prospectus..        53,517         8,897
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Transportation Security Administration

                        TSA AIR CARGO INSPECTOR STAFFING

        Question. I am concerned with the lack of additional funding for
    TSA air cargo and surface inspectors. The DHS Inspector General
    suggested in a February 2009 report that, ``additional surface
    inspectors are needed to perform future tasks and enhance understaffed
    field offices.'' For air cargo, the Government Accountability Office
    reported in March 2009 that, ``TSA's limited inspection resources may
    also hamper its ability to oversee the thousands of additional entities
    that it expects to participate in the Certified Cargo Shipper
    Program.'' This Subcommittee has added significant resources in the
    past to get these programs up and running. We do not believe the
    programs are staffed at a level yet to insure compliance with the
    statutory deadlines for securing air cargo on passenger aircraft, or
    for surface transportation requirements. What actions do you intend to
    take to rectify this shortfall?
        Answer. TSA is working diligently to fill the remaining cargo and
    surface inspector positions by posting job listings both internally and
    externally as well as actively recruiting applicants from both the
    public and private sectors.
        TSA is adding 50 additional surface transportation security
    inspectors using funds provided by Congress in the fiscal year 2009
    appropriations act for 9/11 Act implementation. In recruiting new
    surface inspectors, TSA is targeting individuals that have relevant
    transportation security experience as required by the Implementing
    Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 and notifying key
    surface transportation industry officials of posted job announcements.

                           AIR PASSENGER FEE INCREASE

        Question. The President's fiscal year 2010 budget proposes that
    security fees which airline passengers pay to fly will increase
    starting in fiscal year 2012, generating an additional $2.6 billion in
    aviation security funding by 2014. This plan requires legislative
    authority. Has a legislative proposal been submitted to the appropriate
    authorizing Committee(s)? If Congress rejects this plan, will the
    administration ask to increase funding in the outyears to accommodate
    for this shortfall?
        Answer. A legislative proposal was transmitted to both the House
    and the Senate on May 20, 2009. This adjustment will fulfill the
    original intent of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA)
    by more closely allocating the cost of aviation security services to
    the users of the aviation system, who directly benefit from this unique
    government service, and reducing the burden on the general taxpayer. We
    are hopeful that the Congress will support the President's plan after
    careful consideration. In the event Congress rejects the proposal, the
    administration will consider out-year alternatives.

                               BEHAVIOR DETECTION

        Question. There are 2,860 behavior detection officers budgeted for
    fiscal year 2009. What is the current on board level for BDO's?
        Answer. As of April 25, 2009, there were 2,929 Behavior Detection
    Officers on board.
        Question. There are 3,204 budgeted in fiscal year 2010. Can you
    send us the 5 year cost projection for the program (2007 to 2011)?
        Answer. Please see the chart that follows. The fiscal year 2011
    figure represents a 3.7 percent cost of living adjustment on the fiscal
    year 2010 Request.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Fiscal year                             Cost
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2007....................................................     $20,170,205
    2008....................................................      87,652,230
    2009....................................................     198,336,627
    2010....................................................     225,861,214
    2011....................................................     234,290,953
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. What performance standards are being used to justify such
    a large increase in the program over this 5 year period?
        Answer. TSA maintains a Screening Passengers by Observation
    Techniques (SPOT) database, which lists all referrals by a Behavior
    Detection Officer (BDO). From that we can track the number of referrals
    resulting in arrest, referred to another agency, questioned and
    released by a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO), LEO not responded, LEO
    responded but not questioned, and resolved by SELECTEE screening. TSA
    uses this data, along with information from other sources, such as
    Performance Measurement Information System, to help determine the
    effectiveness of the program at the various locations as well as a
    whole. BDOs are a proactive layer of security in front of the security
    checkpoint and enhance the overall security posture of TSA.

                          COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS

        Question. What is the status of the Secretary's review of
    collective bargaining rights for Transportation Security Officers
    (TSO's)? When will a decision be made by the Secretary?
        Answer. The review is ongoing.
        Question. What are the cost implications if the decision is made to
    provide TSO's with collective bargaining rights? Are sufficient funds
    included in the fiscal year 2010 request to support such a decision?
        Answer. Any budgetary concerns would be contingent upon the outcome
    of the ongoing review. At this time, it is premature to speculate on
    budgetary impacts.

                                U.S. Coast Guard

                         NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER (NSC)

        Question. The Coast Guard is in the middle of a large procurement
    to replace 12 aging high endurance cutters with eight modern ships
    known as National Security Cutters. The costs of this acquisition have
    significantly increased due to the weakening of the dollar, rising
    commodity prices, and rising labor costs. Your budget funds the
    remaining costs for the 4th NSC. Yet, it does not provide any funding
    for NSC number five. This will cause a delay in producing that cutter.
        The NSCs will play a primary role in the Coast Guard's drug
    interdiction strategy, which is focused on transit routes from source
    countries in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean. The legacy fleet
    of 12 cutters loses an average of 250 operational days per year due to
    unplanned maintenance, which is directly impacting the Coast Guard's
    ability to disrupt drug movements headed towards the United States. Is
    it not critical to get the new cutters on line to replace these
    underperforming assets?
        Is the administration considering a budget amendment for NSC #5 (or
    any segment of NSC #5)? If not, why?
        Answer. Completion of the NSC Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) of
    eight hulls to replace the in-service High Endurance Cutter fleet
    continues to be the Coast Guard's highest recapitalization priority.
        At this time there is no plan to amend this portion of the fiscal
    year 2010 Budget Request. The request in 2010 is sufficient to backfill
    the current funding gap and enables Coast Guard to award a contract for
    NSC-4. The Coast Guard anticipates NSC-1 acceptance in early 2010,
    which would allow procurement of the next cutter (NSC-5) to begin in
    2011.

                                  COAST GUARD

        Question. The Commandant consistently says ``demand for Coast Guard
    services outstrips our supply'' and that the Coast Guard workforce is
    ``capable of growing by 2,000 employees a year.'' Under the fiscal year
    2010 request, the Coast Guard workforce would grows by only .05
    percent. In fact, under your request, the size of the military
    workforce actually decreases. Is that really adequate to deal with the
    many demands on the Coast Guard? What mission requirements have been
    reduced to warrant the reduction in military personnel? How does this
    status quo budget for staffing address the significant gaps in meeting
    mission requirements identified in the Coast Guard's Quarterly Abstract
    of Operations Report?
        Answer. The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2010 Budget Request balances
    many important priorities, including marine safety and security
    enhancements, modernization, and asset recapitalization requirements.
    The fiscal year 2010 Budget Request reflects the balance of these needs
    and supports the Coast Guard's highest priorities, including
    substantial personnel growth in several key areas. Specifically, the
    fiscal year 2010 President's Request includes 74 new positions to
    support the Marine Safety improvement plan, 86 new positions to improve
    financial management oversight, and 100 positions for critical
    acquisition program management. These enhancements, build upon the
    significant workforce growth provided in fiscal year 2008 and fiscal
    year 2009 further optimize the military and civilian workforce mix,
    particularly in critical Marine Safety, financial management and
    acquisition programs, where we have identified a need for the stability
    and experience provided by the civilian workforce. The new positions in
    the fiscal year 2010 budget request are partially offset by the
    reduction of 294 FTE as a result of the proposed termination of the
    antiquated loran-C system.
        These enhancements build upon the significant workforce growth
    provided in fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 and further optimize
    the military and civilian workforce mix; particularly in critical
    Marine Safety, financial management, and acquisition programs where we
    have identified a need for the stability and experience provided by the
    civilian workforce.

                           COAST GUARD ASSETS IN IRAQ

        Question. The Coast Guard has well documented readiness challenges
    associated with its aging platforms, such as 110 foot patrol boats.
    These patrol boats are used to stop illegal drugs and illegal aliens
    from coming to our shores. While the Coast Guard has a history of
    ``doing more with less,'' they are stretched thinner than ever because
    their fleet was built for the last century. New patrol boats are being
    built, but the first won't be in service until 2012 at the earliest.
    Six Coast Guard patrol boats are operating in Iraq to protect our
    troops and critical infrastructure. I support the Coast Guard's mission
    to provide force protection for military and civilian personnel.
    However, the President's plan is to have all troops removed from Iraq
    by the end of 2011. As we bring our troops home from Iraq, will DOD ask
    the Coast Guard to increase the Coast Guard presence to protect U.S.
    Naval Assets?
        Answer. It is unknown whether DOD will request increased Coast
    Guard presence to protect U.S. Naval Assets during a large-scale
    demobilization from Iraq. Coast Guard forces operating in Iraq and in
    the Northern Arabian Gulf are under the Operational Control (OPCON) of
    USCENTCOM, which has not addressed Coast Guard force requirements in
    the region beyond 2011.
        Question. Is there currently a plan to bring the Coast Guard boats
    home to help with non-defense Coast Guard missions when our troops are
    out of Iraq?
        Answer. These vessels are currently under the operational control
    of USCENTCOM, which has not yet addressed Coast Guard force
    requirements in the region beyond 2011, so the Coast Guard has not
    finalized a plan for the disposition of the six 110 foot WPBs.

                                 ARCTIC POLICY

        Question. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, over 22 percent
    of the world's undiscovered energy supply is under the Arctic ice cap.
    In pursuit of these energy resources, Russia has literally planted its
    flag underneath the Arctic cap. Russia has a fleet of 20 heavy
    icebreakers and has plans to significantly increase its fleet by 2020.
        By contrast, the United States has only one operational heavy ice
    breaker and it has only seven years of useful life left. It takes seven
    to ten years to build an icebreaker, so we are facing a situation where
    at a time when the Russians will have 20 or more icebreakers to
    facilitate exploration in the Arctic, the United States will have none.
    The Bush administration did nothing during its 8 years to address this
    problem.
        Last year, the leaders of the U.S. Pacific Command, U.S.
    Transportation Command, and the U.S. Northern Command sent a memorandum
    to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stating that, ``the
    effects of climate change and increasing economic activity require a
    more active presence in this maritime domain.'' They specifically
    called for the construction of a new polar icebreaker and funding to
    keep existing icebreakers viable until the new ships enter service.
        This Subcommittee provided $30 million in fiscal year 2009 to begin
    repairing a second icebreaker, the Polar Star, which has been in dry
    dock for 30 months. An additional $32.5 million is necessary to
    complete the repairs in fiscal year 2010. The Department's budget
    provides no funding to complete the repair of the Polar Star and no
    funding for the design of a new icebreaker.
        How can we compete with Russia and other Nations in the region
    without viable icebreaking support?
        Answer. The USCGC HEALY, which is specifically designed for Arctic
    conditions, fulfills the Federal requirements for Arctic exploration
    and has a projected service life of at least 15 more years. The
    administration is assessing the overarching issues facing the Arctic,
    including those associated with impacts of climate change, increased
    human activity, new or additional information needs, and conservation
    of Arctic resources. This approach will necessarily include identifying
    any implementation issues associated with the Arctic policy signed by
    the previous administration. Additionally, the Coast Guard will report
    out the findings of their 2009 High Latitude Study. From these
    activities, the administration will be able to address specific
    operational issues in 2011.

                             GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER

        Question. What is USCG view on the House-passed authorization bill
    for a new Great Lakes Icebreaker? Does it include enough funding to
    build an Icebreaker and is this the right strategy?
        Answer. The Coast Guard is initiating a Great Lakes icebreaking
    Mission Analysis Report (MAR), a prerequisite to the Major Systems
    Acquisition process. Until the MAR is complete, the Coast Guard cannot
    fully assess the need or capability requirements for an additional
    icebreaker on the Great Lakes as authorized in H.R. 1714. Assuming a
    CGC MACKINAW-like icebreaker is the intended platform authorized by
    H.R. 1714, the funding level in the authorization passed by the House
    of Representatives would be insufficient. Initial Coast Guard estimates
    indicate construction costs alone for a MACKINAW-like icebreaker would
    be approximately $200 million. This estimate does not include potential
    homeport facility costs or additional capability requirements
    identified by the aforementioned MAR.

                         INTERAGENCY OPERATION CENTERS

        Question. Why didn't the Coast Guard request funding for fiscal
    year 2010? Has the need for IOC's gone away? Does the request of $0 in
    the fiscal year 2010 budget for IOC's signal a strategy change by the
    Coast Guard? Is the Coast Guard still on track to roll out Watchkeeper
    at the Seahawk in Charleston in September? If not when will it be
    rolled out? Without additional fiscal year 2010, how many Sectors will
    receive Watchkeeper in fiscal year 2009? fiscal year 2010? Are
    additional watchstanders needed as Sector Commands transition to
    Watchkeeper? What is the status of segment 2 (enhancing information
    exchange)? Will it be deployed in fiscal year 2010? Is there a funding
    need for segment 2 in fiscal year 2010? What Sector facilities require
    maintenance/renovation/upgrade/replacement to meet IOC requirements? Be
    specific on costs for each and when funding could be obligated if
    funding were available.
        Answer. Prior appropriations will support continued Interagency
    Operation Centers (IOC) facility upgrades, rollout of the prototype for
    WatchKeeper and testing of the prototype in fiscal year 2010. The Coast
    Guard will continue the IOC project through fiscal year 2010 in
    accordance with the SAFE Port Act.
        DHS remains committed to implementation of IOCs consistent with the
    SAFE Port Act. The Coast Guard will continue its IOC activities through
    fiscal year 2010, including the continuation of IOC activities at
    Seahawk Charleston.
        The U.S. Coast Guard will continue as the DHS executive agent for
    Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA); the strategy remains unchanged. The
    fiscal year 2010 Budget Request supports further MDA investment through
    Long Range Identification and Tracking, Rescue 21, and SeaHawk
    Charleston. IOCs are part of an overall strategy to bolster MDA and
    operational collaboration through virtual or actual collocation of
    interagency, State, and local partners in one facility, improve
    situational awareness, and increase operational efficiency through
    enhanced technology and information sharing.
        The Coast Guard is on schedule to roll out the WatchKeeper
    prototype for testing at SeaHawk in Charleston, South Carolina during
    September 2009.
        Upon successful completion of operational testing and evaluation,
    the Coast Guard will work with the Department of Homeland Security to
    deploy WatchKeeper to the remaining 35 Sectors in fiscal year 2010.
        The deployment of a full-scale system will depend on the results of
    prototype testing.
        The Coast Guard's current work on Interagency Operations Center
    facility modifications includes:
      --Complete or upgrades not required--for nine IOCs: Seattle, San
            Diego, Los Angeles/Long Beach, Long Island Sound, Hampton
            Roads, San Juan, Charleston, Miami, and Key West
      --Underway--for two IOCs: New Orleans and San Francisco

                                    LORAN-C

        Question. The administration made a lot of noise with its list of
    $17 billion in cuts to wasteful programs. One of those programs is the
    termination of loran-C, developed as a radio navigation service for
    U.S. coastal waters and later expanded to include complete coverage of
    the continental United States as well as most of Alaska. According to
    the budget request, the emergence of the Global Positioning System
    (GPS), loran-C is no longer required by the armed forces, the
    transportation sector, or the nation's security interests, and is used
    only by a small segment of the population. In January 2009, an
    independent report commissioned by the Department of Transportation
    concluded that a back-up system is prudent and eloran is the only cost-
    effective backup for national needs. Why then is it prudent to shut
    down loran stations and sell them as your budget proposes?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2010 Budget Request identifies
    potential savings across the Federal Government to reduce the Nation's
    deficit and to discontinue outdated programs.
        As a result of technological advancements, loran-C has become an
    antiquated system that is no longer required by the Armed Forces, the
    transportation sector, or the Nation's security interests. The 2009
    report was based on information dating back to 2006. It was one
    analysis among many that was considered in formulating the 2010
    termination decision.
        The loran-C system was not established as, nor was it intended to
    be, a viable systemic backup for GPS. As stated in the 2008 Federal
    Radionavigation Plan, backups to GPS for safety-of-life navigation
    applications, or other critical applications, can be other
    radionavigation systems, operational procedures, or a combination of
    these systems and procedures. Backups to GPS for timing applications
    can be a highly accurate crystal oscillator or atomic clock and a
    communications link to a timing source that is traceable to Coordinated
    Universal Time.
        With respect to transportation to include aviation, commercial
    maritime, rail, and highway, the Department of Transportation has
    determined that sufficient alternative navigation aids currently exist
    in the event of a loss of GPS-based services, and therefore loran-C
    currently is not needed as a back-up navigation aid for transportation
    safety-of-life users.
        DHS will continue to work with other Federal agencies to look
    across the critical infrastructure and key resource sectors identified
    in the National Infrastructure Protection Plan assessment to determine
    if a single, domestic system is needed as a GPS backup for critical
    infrastructure applications requiring precise time and frequency. If a
    single, domestic national system to back up GPS is identified as being
    necessary, DHS will complete an analysis of potential backups to GPS,
    including appropriately hardened facilities to protect these systems
    (currently, most loran-C sites are not hardened for such purposes). The
    continued active operation of loran-C is not necessary to advance this
    evaluation.
        Question. When the Coast Guard proposed to terminate all loran
    stations in the fiscal year 2007 budget, it proposed a phased approach
    using recurring savings to fund exit costs. The fiscal year 2007 budget
    estimated first year savings of $11.8 million. Would the assumed level
    of $36 million of savings require all 24 stations to be shut down on
    October 1, 2009? A phased approach to closing loran stations appears to
    be more realistic. Provide the Coast Guard loran station
    decommissioning schedule. Based on the schedule, provide the true
    savings in fiscal year 2010.
        Answer. The Coast Guard is currently refining its plan for
    terminating the loran-C system. The approach to termination includes
    both domestic and international notification of signal termination
    followed by signal termination, securing individual sites, and
    destaffing. The process will be phased with the first stations being
    closed in the first quarter of fiscal year 2010 with all sites
    destaffed by the end of fiscal year 2010. In determining the schedule
    for station closures, the Coast Guard is considering factors such as
    climate, international obligations, ease of access, property management
    and personnel matters.
        The actions taken by the Coast Guard will result in annualized
    savings of $36 million in fiscal year 2010 and $190 million over 5
    years. The Coast Guard is currently refining its precise estimates
    regarding the actual direct and indirect fiscal year 2010 savings
    associated with terminating the loran-C system. DHS would be pleased to
    provide the Committee with a brief on its final termination plan when
    those details are available.

                  FEDERAL INFORMATION SECURITY MANAGEMENT ACT

        Question. Please identify the resources you requested for the
    implementation of the Federal Information Security Management Act. How
    does that compare to fiscal year 2009?
        Answer. The Coast Guard is requesting $759,000 in recurring funding
    for Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) implementation
    in fiscal year 2010. The Coast Guard requested the same amount in
    fiscal year 2009.

                          United States Secret Service

                              OVERSEAS ACTIVITIES

        Question. Are any funds requested in the fiscal year 2010 budget to
    open any new overseas offices or start new overseas activities? If so,
    please describe funding, anticipated level of activity, and personnel
    involved.
        Answer. The fiscal year 2010 Budget Request provides an additional
    $700,000 to annualize the cost for one additional international office
    in Tallinn, Estonia, and provides level funding to support operations
    in the Secret Service's existing 22 international offices.
        The fiscal year 2009 DHS Appropriations Act (Public Law 110-329)
    provided the Secret Service with an additional $1,658,000 to expand
    foreign field office operations. Pending approval by the Committees on
    Appropriations, the Secret Service will move forward with the National
    Security Decision Directive-38 (NSDD-38) application to establish an
    international office in Tallinn, Estonia. Once approved, this office
    will be staffed by two Special Agents, one administrative support
    position, and one Foreign Service National Investigator position.
        The Secret Service has seen an increase in financial institution
    fraud, credit card fraud, and counterfeiting of United States currency
    emanating from the Baltic region. To combat this problem, the Secret
    Service will assign highly trained Special Agents to work with our
    international law enforcement partners on criminal investigations,
    while deepening the partnerships that provide critical support to the
    protection mission.
        Overall, in fiscal year 2008, Secret Service international offices
    closed 188 counterfeit cases, 180 financial crimes cases, 444
    protective intelligence cases, 466 protective surveys, and 217 non-
    criminal cases. During this period, Secret Service international
    offices also assisted our law enforcement partners abroad with the
    arrest of 657 suspects, and seized over $31.3 million in counterfeit
    United States currency before it could be introduced into circulation.

                        NATIONAL SPECIAL SECURITY EVENTS

        Question. How have the National Special Security Events funds been
    used in fiscal year 2009?
        Answer. Please see the following table.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Campaign (Inauguration).................................      $5,599,000
    G-20....................................................       1,012,000
                                                             ---------------
          Total.............................................       6,611,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 MAIL FACILITY

        Question. When will the new mail facility become operational?
        Answer. At the present time, construction of the White House mail
    screening facility is ahead of schedule, with GSA estimating that all
    construction will be finished by December 31, 2009. The Secret Service
    is expecting to take possession of the building on January 1, 2010.
    Tenant fit-out is expected to begin in the 2nd quarter of fiscal year
    2010 with the anticipation that the new White House mail screening
    facility will become fully operational between the 3rd and 4th quarter
    of fiscal year 2010.
        Question. What is its anticipated annual operating budget?
        Answer. The anticipated annual operating budget for the new mail
    facility is approximately $25.3 million.

                               FUNDING CROSSWALK

        Question. Provide a crosswalk of the funds requested for the
    Information Integration and Transformation Program with the funds
    provided for these activities in the fiscal year 2009 DHS Act and the
    $100 million in Omnibus Supplemental funds. It should be a chart that
    shows activity, previously provided funding, fiscal year 2010 requested
    funding, and future/unmet needs.
        Answer. The following table provides the requested crosswalk.

                             INFORMATION INTEGRATION AND TRANSFORMATION PROGRAM INITIATIVES
                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Fiscal Year
                                                                        Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year     2010 Budget
                                                                       2009 DHS Act    2009 Omnibus       Request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    WHCA Interoperability...........................................  ..............          23.800  ..............
    Access Control Program..........................................  ..............           7.000  ..............
    Information Assurance...........................................  ..............  ..............           2.400
    Cyber Security..................................................  ..............  ..............           6.400
    IT Modernization................................................  ..............  ..............          14.860
    Database Architecture & Maintenance.............................  ..............  ..............           4.000
    Cross Domain Application/Data Environment--Multi-Level Security.  ..............  ..............           6.300
    COLD (Enterprise Logistics Management & Operations).............  ..............           0.900  ..............
    Funding Crosswalk Totals........................................  ..............          31.700          33.960
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        UNIFORMED DIVISION MODERNIZATION

        Question. Which authorizing Committees have the jurisdiction over
    the Uniformed Division Modernization proposal?
        Answer. The Committees with jurisdiction over the Uniformed
    Division Modernization proposal are the House Oversight and Government
    Reform Committee and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental
    Affairs Committee.
        Question. If the authorizing legislation is not enacted, does the
    budget submission to this Committee need to be modified in any way?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2010 budget impact of the authorizing
    legislation consists of $3.64 million in increased pay and benefits
    costs for Uniformed Division personnel, and $400,000 in associated
    implementation costs related to payroll processing programming changes.
    Should the authorizing language not be enacted, none of these costs
    will be incurred.

                  National Protection and Programs Directorate

                                 CYBER SECURITY

        Question. We are all anxiously awaiting the findings of the cyber
    security review that President Obama ordered on February 17, 2009. The
    budget request follows the same initiatives that were previously
    developed across the Federal Government. Those current initiatives are
    predominately focused on the Federal Government cyber security. However
    many Federal systems connect directly to States to conduct official
    business through Medicaid, TANF, and other programs. The National
    Association of State Chief Information Officers state that, ``the
    digital infrastructure that enables State government to conduct
    business and protect Federal pro
    gams . . . is under attack each day''.
        When the President releases the findings of his review, do you
    anticipate that there will be budget amendments to address issues such
    as having a cohesive plan to coordinate with States on cyber security?
    If not, how will this matter be addressed within the resources
    requested?
        Answer. DHS worked closely with the Homeland Security Council and
    the National Security Council leadership and staff in the development,
    tracking, and coordination of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity
    Initiative. However, at this time, the administration is still
    reviewing the results of the 60-day review. DHS would be happy to
    discuss the results of the 60-day review after it has been released.
        As for working with States on cyber security, States are recognized
    as among the owners and operators of the Nation's Information
    Technology (IT) critical infrastructure under the National
    Infrastructure Protection Plan framework. As such, the National Cyber
    Security Division's (NCSD's) Critical Infrastructure Cyber Protection
    and Awareness (CICP&A) branch has been actively engaged with the
    National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO), as
    well as other government and industry partners, to develop an IT
    sector-wide baseline risk assessment. This assessment, nearing
    completion, will be used to develop and drive mitigation strategies
    including protective programs and research and development activities.
    CICP&A has worked closely with NASCIO to identify priority State IT
    facilities and to provide briefings about DHS cyber programs to the
    State Chief Information Officers. In addition, NCSD has been working to
    clarify and prioritize cybersecurity within the DHS State grants
    process.
        NCSD also funds the Multistate Information Sharing and Analysis
    Center (MS-ISAC) to provide both operational support and outreach to
    State Chief Information Security Officers and their staffs. The MS-ISAC
    is funded under the CICP&A branch to conduct outreach and awareness
    activities, including the Annual MS-ISAC conference, as well as
    targeted efforts such as control systems training and recommended
    practices for acquiring secure control systems. NCSD also funds the MS-
    ISAC as an extension of the United States Computer Emergency Readiness
    Team to facilitate information sharing and analysis with and among
    States and to support incident response.
        A part of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative
    (CNCI), ``Project 12,'' tasked DHS to explore ways to enhance the
    security of the Nation's Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources
    networks. Partnering with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National
    Cybersecurity Alliance, DHS has been conducting a series of regional
    events to increase awareness of the cyber threat and the importance of
    investment in cybersecurity ``outside the Beltway.'' Each of these
    events has included a panel of State government officials.

                               CHEMICAL SECURITY

        Question. With the past administration, it was like pulling teeth
    to get adequate attention to securing our chemical facilities. First--
    only because of Congressional initiative--chemical facility security
    regulations were required in the fiscal year 2007 DHS Appropriations
    Act. Second--and again, only because of Congressional initiative--
    adequate funding was provided for inspectors to carry out the
    regulations. Now, we learn that as of today--7 months into the fiscal
    year--only 150 of the inspectors are on board out of the 223 funded. We
    are missing 30 percent of the very people we need to get the job done.
    While, I am pleased to see that the request proposes an additional 23
    FTE dedicated to this important issue, I am very frustrated with the
    pace at which inspectors have been hired.
        Madam Secretary, can I have your commitment that you will get to
    the bottom of the slow pace of the hiring of chemical security
    inspectors so that we can confirm that chemical facilities are in fact
    being secured? What specific timeframe can be expected?
        Answer. The Department continues to increase the current size of
    its chemical security inspector cadre. Of the total staff currently
    onboard for chemical security, there are 51 chemical inspectors, with
    35 additional new selections in process. The projected total of
    personnel onboard for the Infrastructure Security Compliance Project by
    the end of fiscal year 2009 is 178 positions. This increase reflects
    the Department's recognition of the need for a properly sized inspector
    cadre. In an effort to support this accelerated growth of the inspector
    cadre, DHS proposed funds in the fiscal year 2010 Budget Request to
    increase staffing levels to 246 FTEs. The fiscal year 2010 FTE level
    will provide for 139 chemical facility inspectors and 20 additional
    cross-trained chemical/ammonium nitrate inspectors. The Department is
    working to accelerate and improve its hiring and security clearance
    processes to bring qualified and vetted personnel onboard in an
    expeditious manner.

                        WEST VIRGINIA CHEMICAL EXPLOSION

        Question. On August 28, 2008, there was a chemical explosion at the
    Bayer Crop Science chemical plant in Institute, West Virginia, just
    outside of Charleston. The explosion took the lives of two workers and
    sickened several first responders to the incident. The explosion
    occurred in a unit where the chemical company makes MIC. MIC is an
    extremely toxic chemical, and most notably associated with the
    catastrophic leak that occurred in 1984 at a similar pesticide plant in
    Bhopal, India, killing over 4,000 people. The West Virginia chemical
    facility includes a tank that can hold up to 40,000 pounds of MIC. That
    storage tank is located 50 to 75 feet from the location of the August
    explosion.
        Needless to say, the explosion caused a resurgence of anxiety about
    the chemical industry in the Kanawha Valley. After the explosion, the
    company failed to provide critical information to first responders
    about the nature of the explosion.
        In the months since the explosion, we learned that no one Federal
    agency is responsible for the safety of chemical plants. Among the
    agencies with responsibility are your National Programs and Protection
    Directorate, the Coast Guard, the EPA, the Occupational Safety and
    Health Administration, and the Chemical Safety Board. This leaves us
    with the classic Washington question, who is in charge here? Is there
    is a better way for our government to secure our chemical facilities
    and investigate accidents? How specifically do components within DHS
    coordinate their roles in chemical security within DHS? Will you work
    with the White House Domestic Policy Office to develop a coordinated
    policy for securing chemical facilities?
        Answer. Section 550 of the fiscal year 2007 DHS Appropriations Act
    (Public Law 109-295) grants the Department the authority to regulate
    chemical facilities that ``present high levels of security risk.''
    Under this authority, the Department promulgated the Chemical
    Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) regulation in April, 2007.
    By statute, facilities that are regulated by the Coast Guard under the
    Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA), such as the Bayer facility
    in West Virginia, are expressly exempt from regulation under CFATS.
        Within the Department, the Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP)
    and the U.S. Coast Guard are working in close collaboration to identify
    those facilities that are completely regulated under MTSA and are
    entirely exempt from CFATS, and those that contain some areas regulated
    under MTSA and other areas that might be subject to CFATS regulation.
    IP is also working with the Transportation Security Administration
    (TSA) concerning potential areas of interface, such as security of
    chemicals in those areas of a facility that may be covered under both
    CFATS and under the TSA railroad security regulations.
        IP supports working with the White House Domestic Policy Office,
    and other White House offices, to develop a coordinated and integrated
    approach for securing chemical facilities.

                                    US-VISIT

                      TIMELINESS OF SPEND PLAN SUBMISSION

        Question. The administration has requested $356 million for US-
    VISIT, the Department's program to provide biometric identity
    verification services to authorized DHS, Federal, State and local
    government and law enforcement agencies, an increase of $56 million
    over the $300 million appropriated in 2009. The Committee has been
    concerned with the repeated delays in submitting the statutorily
    required expenditure plans for US-VISIT resulting in larger carryover
    balances from 1 year to the next. For example, the 2008 expenditure
    plan was not submitted until June 12, 2008 which meant that nearly a
    quarter of the program's budget carried over into fiscal year 2009. The
    fiscal year 2009 report was submitted on April 9, 2009. Why does it
    take over half the fiscal year to produce an expenditure plan?
        Answer. National Protection and Programs Directorate and US-VISIT
    leadership is committed to the timely delivery of the expenditure plan
    in fiscal year 2010 and understands the concerns of the House and
    Senate committees about the length of time regarding the submission of
    its expenditure plan in fiscal year 2008 and 2009. US-VISIT has begun
    working with DHS Chief Executive Officers to obtain more expeditiously
    the required program certifications required within appropriations
    language by providing program documentation on a more recurring basis
    throughout the year.
        US-VISIT prepares an expenditure plan each year as required in its
    appropriation. After the fiscal year end, the program office compiles
    and analyzes prior-year performance and milestone data, and includes
    these results and their accomplishments. US-VISIT's goal is to complete
    the expenditure plan within 5 weeks of the end of the fiscal year. Once
    the body of the plan is completed, US-VISIT works with the Chief
    Executive Officers to provide the program documentation needed for
    these certifications. After the certifications are received, the review
    and comment period begins.

                                    AIR EXIT

        Question. In response to questions raised during briefings on the
    fiscal year 2010 budget request, the US-VISIT office responded to a
    question about anticipated fiscal year 2009 carryover funding with this
    statement: ``US-VISIT is currently planning on a carryover balance of
    $34 million. These funds are to support the Air/Sea Exit deployment.''
    However, there are no funds requested in fiscal year 2010 for an air/
    sea exit deployment. The Secretary testified during budget hearings
    that the results of the two air exit pilots being conducted this fiscal
    year will be studied during fiscal year 2010 and that a deployment of
    some sort would occur in fiscal year 2011.
        How much of the fiscal year 2010 request of $356.2 million is
    targeted to deployment of an air/sea exit capability?
        Answer. None of the fiscal year 2010 Budget Request is targeted to
    deployment of an air/sea exit capability. The prior administration's
    proposed solution for air/sea biometric exit, as stated in its notice
    of proposed rulemaking published on April 24, 2008, was for commercial
    air carriers and vessel carriers to collect and transmit biometrics to
    DHS. This solution required no further funding for DHS to implement
    air/sea biometric exit because the commercial air carriers and vessel
    carriers would pay all costs associated with collecting biometric exit
    data at exit. Therefore, DHS did not need to request funding for fiscal
    year 2010.
        Congress directed DHS to conduct at least two biometric exit pilots
    in fiscal year 2009 before proceeding with a final rule implementing
    the proposed solution. The results of those pilots will inform the
    decision as to whether the Government or the carriers will collect
    biometrics at exit. Funding for these pilots is currently in US-VISIT
    base resources.

                                UNIQUE IDENTITY

        Question. How much of the total fiscal year 2010 request is for
    Unique Identity and IDENT/IAFIS interoperability? If need be, please
    break out these funds into their appropriate compartments.
        Answer. Unique Identity accounts for $28.7 million of the total
    fiscal year 2010 request. The breakdown of funds is as follows:
      --$4.5 million for planning and analysis
      --$13 million for increased support to U.S. Immigration and Customs
            Enforcement Secure Communities and development of wrap-back
            capabilities, which will notify authorized agencies of
            subsequent criminal and/or civil data of existing biometric
            records
      --$11.2 million for the acquisition of hardware (matchers)

                                  OBLIGATIONS

        Question. As of May 15, 2009, how much of the $300 million
    appropriated in fiscal year 2009 has been obligated?
        Answer. As of May 15, 2009, US-VISIT has obligated $112.9 million
    of the fiscal year 2009 enacted budget of $300 million.

                                  CONTRACTORS

        Question. How much of the $20.8 million increase for program
    management services goes to contractors?
        Answer. None of the $20.8 million increase will be used for
    contractor support. The $20.8 million program management increase is
    due to a $13.8 million increase for Federal staffing and $8 million for
    the DHS working capital fund. The Federal staffing increase of $13.8
    million will support 199 full-time equivalents/212 full-time positions.
    This increase includes the annualization of the 35 full-time positions
    that were received in the fiscal year 2009 enacted budget. In addition,
    the working capital fund is increasing in fiscal year 2010 by $8
    million because of increases in costs associated with the Department of
    Justice data centers.

                           Federal Protective Service

                            CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

        Question. To clarify a response to a get-back from the fiscal year
    2010 budget briefings, will the anticipated FPS carryover range
    anywhere between $189 million and $237 million depending on procurement
    according to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)?
        Given the potential for cost and efficiency savings to be achieved
    under the CIP discussed during the budget briefing, what is the
    estimated staffing level range for FPS personnel by the end of fiscal
    year 2010?
        Answer. In the response to the original get-back regarding normal
    Federal Protective Service (FPS) carry-forward, the answer provided was
    $45 million. The figure represents only cash carry-forward available
    for investment in the subsequent fiscal year. For budgetary purposes,
    FPS attempts to maintain a contingent liability fund balance of $20
    million for contract claims, requests for equitable adjustment, Merit
    Systems Protection Board, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and
    Labor Union judgments and settlements. Also, $25 million provides
    funding for the security equipment and systems replacements and
    enhancements. The total ``carryover'' in budgetary resources brought
    forward from prior years includes the Unfilled Customer Order (UCO)
    balances on individual Security Work Authorizations (SWAs). Of the $237
    million in budgetary resources brought forward from prior years at the
    beginning of fiscal year 2009, $139 million represented UCO balances.
    These balances are available to FPS only to complete the contract
    support or projects requested by the customer agencies. Once the final
    invoices have been paid and the contract supported by the SWA is
    closed, any UCO balance is automatically returned to the customer
    agency.
        In fiscal year 2009, the $98 million in cash carry-forward will be
    dedicated to a Capital Investment Plan to address the deferred
    infrastructure and equipment investments from prior years and to
    routinely upgrade and replace these items at the end of their useful
    life cycle. FPS expects to obligate or expense $69.9 million of the
    Capital Investment Plan projects with the remainder anticipated for
    award in early fiscal year 2010.
        The Risk Assessment and Management Program (RAMP), Computer-Aided
    Dispatch and Information System (CADIS), and Post Tracking System (PTS)
    systems will provide FPS with the ability to record, analyze and report
    on the full complement of information necessary to better plan its
    resource needs in the future. Through timestamp capabilities, RAMP,
    CADIS and PTS will provide an accurate means to determine, on average,
    how long specific activities take to complete. This validation of
    activity-based costs will inform management decisions to tailor the
    number and allocation of personnel resources to meet mission demands.
    However, the impact of this information on the FPS staffing and work
    planning will not be known until the systems have been fully
    implemented, deployed and tested, sometime in fiscal year 2010.
        FPS is currently operating at a full staffing level of
    approximately 1,225 and, based on current and anticipated revenue
    projections through fiscal year 2010, expects to maintain this level of
    staffing. Given that FPS will be making adjustments in staffing levels
    based on geographic workforce realignments and the hiring for off-sets
    to personnel detailed to other DHS components, total staffing may
    change slightly during the year.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Law
                                                                        Enforcement    Support Staff       Total
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Current Staffing Level..........................................         \1\ 952             273           1,225
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Law Enforcement includes: Law Enforcement Security Officers, Federal Police Officers, Criminal
      Investigators, Supervisory Policy Officers, and Supervisory Criminal Investigators.

                            Office of Health Affairs

                                   BIOSHIELD

        Question. The President's budget proposes to move all
    responsibility for Project Bioshield to the Department of Health and
    Human Services. However, traditionally the Department of Homeland
    Security's role has been to determine what material threats face the
    Nation and therefore which countermeasures we should procure. If all of
    the responsibility for the funding lies in another Department, how will
    you be able to ensure the risks we face are truly being considered in
    future procurements?
        Answer. While the fiscal year 2010 Budget Request will transfer
    unspent balances of the BioShield Special Reserve Fund (SRF) to HHS to
    support advanced development and future procurements of medical
    countermeasures, it will not affect DHS's statutory authority under the
    Project BioShield Act of 2004. Specifically, the DHS responsibility to
    determine and assess the material threats facing the Nation would
    continue, an activity that is funded out of a separate DHS account
    rather than the SRF and therefore not subject to the transfer. HHS
    would continue to use this information as part of the equation in
    determining which countermeasures to procure.
        DHS intends to continue assessing and determining material threats
    as the threat landscape evolves to inform medical countermeasure
    activities at HHS, as well as carrying out its biennial Biological
    Terrorism Risk Assessment, Chemical Terrorism Risk Assessment, and
    integrated CBRN Risk Assessment to guide prioritization of on-going
    investments in biodefense-related research, development, planning, and
    preparedness, including medical countermeasure efforts. While the
    funding for medical countermeasure activities will be consolidated in
    one Department, DHS hopes that HHS will continue to rely upon the
    robust capability DHS has built in the threat and risk assessment and
    characterization fields. DHS will continue to participate in the HHS'
    led Public Health Medical Countermeasure Enterprise (PHEMCE), the
    central coordinating body for medical countermeasure activities at HHS,
    bringing our resources to bear as an ex-officio member. DHS will also
    require either legislative authority or a formal Memorandum of
    Understanding to ensure that HHS procurements are responsive to DHS-
    determined threats.
        Question. In your review of the Strategic National Stockpile and
    Project Bioshield efforts, do you think the Bioshield spend plan
    provides the countermeasures needed for the greatest risks we face and
    what are the specific threats we still need to prepared for?
        Answer. HHS, via coordination with DHS, has been maximizing the use
    of the tools and resources it has been provided to address the greatest
    risks from CBRN agents facing our Nation. Successful BioShield
    acquisitions to date, include medical countermeasures for anthrax,
    smallpox, botulinum toxins and radiological/nuclear agents which are
    among those agents posing the greatest risks and the first for which
    DHS issued Material Threat Determinations in 2004. These
    countermeasures were relatively mature and appropriate for BioShield
    acquisitions.
        In evaluating the BioShield spend plan, it is important to consider
    that it often takes more than one type of countermeasure to counter a
    single agent. For example, a comprehensive medical countermeasure
    strategy to address the anthrax threat involves vaccines, antibiotics
    and anti-toxins. As existing countermeasures in the stockpile start to
    expire, HHS must factor in costs of replenishment to ensure we are not
    left vulnerable to our greatest risks.
        In formulating the acquisition strategy for the SNS and BioShield,
    HHS accounts for these factors weighing the threat and risk (as
    informed by DHS) vs. availability of funding and countermeasures. HHS
    faces a difficult task of balancing the urgency to stockpile medical
    countermeasures across the CBRN threat spectrum against relatively long
    timeframes for drug development, high product failure rates, a finite
    amount of available funding and the lack of incentives to industry
    considering the government is the sole customer. While DHS helps to
    identify and define threats across the CBRN threat spectrum, this is
    only one contributing factor to the HHS' spend plan.

                                    BIOWATCH

        Question. Included within the total $94.5 million requested for
    BioWatch, how much is for the maintenance of Generation 1 and
    Generation 2 and how much is for the procurement of Generation 3?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2010 operations and maintenance of
    Generation 1 and Generation 2 is $79.4 million. The remaining $15.1
    million will be obligated as follows:
      --$8 million on field-testing
      --$4 million on advanced deployment items, engineering changes prior
            to production unit procurement
      --$3.1 million on IT infrastructure procurement
        The Generation 3 procurement process will begin in fiscal year 2010
    with the contract expected to be awarded in early fiscal year 2011.

                      Federal Emergency Management Agency

                                 DISASTER COSTS

        Question. For years I have been critical of the fact that the true
    costs of disasters are not included in the budget request. Since
    Hurricane Katrina, Congress has had to take the initiative on many
    occasions to provide funding for disaster recovery because the Bush
    administration would not ask for funding when the Disaster Relief Fund
    was in jeopardy of running out of money.
        President Obama's budget takes credit for being more honest by
    accounting for the cost of disasters. However, as I look through the
    budget, I do not see a request for the continuing costs of recovery
    from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav and Ike, nor from the
    Midwest floods and the California wildfires. At the rate funds are
    being spent now, even with the $2 billion requested, we estimate that
    the Disaster Relief Fund will be exhausted early in 2010.
        In order to insure that the victims of past and future disasters
    receive assistance, we will need to include emergency funding in the
    Homeland Security bill that we will mark up in June. I will need to
    know your best estimate of the shortfall by the end of May. What is
    your estimate?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2010 Budget Request includes $2 billion for
    the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), a net increase of $600 million over
    fiscal year 2009 enacted. This request is based on a funding
    methodology that uses the 5-year average obligation level for non-
    catastrophic disaster activity. The funding methodology assumes that
    catastrophic events--those with obligations above $500 million--will be
    funded through supplemental appropriations.
        The Budget Request accounts for the estimated cost of future
    emergencies as part of its deficit calculation. The Budget Request does
    that by including more than $20 billion annually (the statistical
    probability of the costs of dealing with these emergencies) in its
    budget and deficit projections. The $20 billion figure should not be
    viewed as a ``reserve fund,'' nor is it a request for discretionary
    budget authority or congressional legislation of any kind. Although the
    administration believes that congressional budget resolutions should
    incorporate this same entry for disaster costs, the budget resolution
    should not allocate these amounts to any committee because the amounts
    are not a request for congressional action.
        The administration's DRF request and funding methodology of seeking
    direct appropriations for the average of non-catastrophic disasters and
    relying on supplemental funding for catastrophic storm complies with
    this policy. Seeking full funding of all estimated DRF obligations
    would result in a large corpus of unused funds pending obligation (DRF
    spendouts are slow--with large obligations still outstanding for
    Katrina 4 years later).
        Based on current funding availability and an expectation of
    Congress fully funding the 2010 request for the Disaster Relief Fund,
    an additional $3 to $4 billion may be necessary in 2010 to fund the
    continuing liabilities associated with prior disasters. However, it is
    premature to assume that this is the true 2010 funding requirement at
    this time.

                             FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE

        Question. Madam Secretary, I am disturbed by the proposed cut in
    funding for our firefighters. The budget request also proposes a major
    shift in the distribution of grants to firefighters. It significantly
    reduces the funding for equipping and training our firefighters and
    significantly increases the amount for hiring firefighters. Were these
    decisions made based on risk (risk = threat  vulnerability
    consequence), need, or effectiveness of the programs? If so, which
    specific system in DHS was used to calculate risk, need, and/or
    effectiveness? Which needs assessment was used? What factors were used
    to gauge effectiveness?
        Answer. When developing the fiscal year 2010 Budget Request, the
    administration developed a set of priorities to guide the next year's
    grant programs. The administration doubled the amount of funding going
    to SAFER grants to support firefighters, a top priority for fire
    service stakeholders.

                              PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

        Question. As you know, the 9/11 Act authorized most of the
    preparedness grant programs under the purview of your Department. Since
    then, Congress has had to include several legislative provisions to
    force the prior administration into following the intent of the law
    after hearing complaints from grant recipients. Today, the grant
    process is cumbersome and delayed, and it is completed without
    understanding all of the needs of the end user. Out of complete
    frustration from Congress and in an effort to improve the system, the
    fiscal year 2009 DHS Appropriations Act includes a provision
    withholding $10 million from your office and $10 million from the FEMA
    Administrator's office until you certify that stakeholders are properly
    included in the development of guidance and the distribution of grant
    funding. While there has been a transition, I still cannot understand
    why 7 months into the fiscal year we have not received such a
    certification.
        You have issued action directives on the very topic of engaging
    State and local governments but there still seems to be a disconnect
    when it comes to grants. As a former Governor and in your short time
    here inside the beltway--I am curious if you think the grant process
    and the guidance that is issued each year is conducive to meeting
    security needs in the best way possible, do you?
        Answer. The Department has been working to improve its stakeholder
    engagement processes over the last 2 years, and this process is
    discussed in the Stakeholder Plan that is currently under review. This
    engagement strategy includes formal, after-action type conferences,
    conference calls and webinars, as well as daily contact between FEMA's
    grants staff and State, local, tribal and private sector grantees
    across this Nation. As we move towards wrapping up the majority of
    fiscal year 2009 grant announcements in the next few weeks, we will
    start to move into that guidance development cycle with our partners as
    we prepare for the fiscal year 2010 grants.
        While I believe that FEMA has made significant strides in this
    area, I believe there is always room for improvement. I have instructed
    both FEMA and my Intergovernmental Programs staff to continue to work
    with our State and local partners as we move into the fiscal year 2010
    cycle.
        Question. When do you anticipate we will receive the certification
    that there is a more inclusive process?
        Answer. The Stakeholder Outreach Plan required by the fiscal year
    2009 DHS Appropriations Act (Public Law 110-329) is currently in
    clearance with DHS and should be moved to the Hill shortly.

                                MASS EVACUATION

        Question. I am concerned that we are not doing enough to prepare
    for a mass evacuation in response to a terrorist attack or a major
    natural disaster. The Department's own Nationwide Plan Review found
    significant weaknesses in evacuation planning. I am profoundly
    concerned, not only about getting people out of harm's way after a
    disaster, but also about how we will take care of those who have to
    evacuate. We must prepare now to care for victims and mass evacuees by
    pre-planning and pre-deploying assets. In fiscal year 2007, at my
    initiative, Congress established the Regional Catastrophic Preparedness
    Grant Program to get at this problem. I was pleased to see that for the
    first time the administration recognized my wisdom and requested
    funding for this program. If this request is approved, it will be the 4
    year of funding for this program but we still have a long way to go.
    Will you work with me to ensure potential host communities are ready to
    assist victims of a mass evacuation? What specific measures are in
    place to gauge our capabilities in mass evacuation? What gaps still
    exist and how will those gaps be filled?
        Answer. We will continue to work with Congress to address the
    concerns related to mass evacuations. In order to support preparedness
    for these events, a number of actions are underway.
        The National Preparedness Guidelines (NPG)--approved by the
    President in September 2007--sets forth eight national priorities
    including ``strengthen Planning and Citizen Preparedness Capabilities''
    which is comprised of Citizen Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place
    capabilities. The NPG is supported by the Target Capabilities List
    which provides the definitions, activities, tasks and performance
    measures for 37 Target Capabilities, including the capability to
    ``Citizen Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place.'' The ``Citizen Evacuation
    and Shelter-in-Place'' Target Capability serves to synchronize at the
    strategic level how the variety of Federal preparedness activities
    (e.g., planning, grants, training, exercises, assessments) perform to
    achieve a consistent goal. Types of measures include the ability to
    Direct Evacuation and/or In-Place Protection Tactical Operations,
    Activate Evacuation and/or In-Place Protection, Implement Evacuation
    Orders, Collect and Evacuate Population Requiring Assistance, Operate
    Evacuation Staging/Reception Area, Manage Incoming Evacuees, and Assist
    Re-Entry.
        A complimentary effort is the FEMA GAP Analysis Program, which is
    designed to provide an understanding of State and local evacuation
    capabilities, among others, at the operational and tactical level in
    order to anticipate potential needs for Federal support. A sample of
    the information sought includes the availability of transportation
    sources, the identification of collection and staging areas, refueling,
    signage and special needs and companion animal planning.
        Planning guidance is also in development by FEMA to address not
    only the operational elements of conducting a mass evacuation but to
    also support the deliberate planning needed prior to an event.
        The Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program has provided
    an enormous amount of focus on issues related to planning. We have
    already begun to see increased cooperation between cities and across
    State lines to address planning shortfalls, including mass evacuation.
    Should the next round of funding be approved, we will begin expanding
    the effort to focus on the larger multi-State and multi-regional
    aspects of mass evacuation and other planning requirements.
        Finally, this year the State Preparedness Report Survey will
    collect quantitative information on the States' capabilities for all 37
    Target Capabilities including Mass Evacuation. The Survey will be sent
    out at the end of August 2009 and the data will be returned to us and
    analyzed in January 2010.

                           PRINCIPAL FEDERAL OFFICIAL

        Question. The budget request proposes to lift the restriction on
    the use of a Principal Federal Official (PFO) during a Stafford Act
    disaster declaration. The restriction was included because the role
    between a PFO and a Federal Coordinating Officer was confusing during a
    declared disaster and led to a serious breakdown of communication in
    previous disasters. State and local governments were left wondering who
    was in charge at the Federal level. A coordinated response cannot be
    well executed without a clear communication and decision-making
    process. Your predecessors had different approaches to using this
    position. Secretary Ridge used PFOs as informal close advisors.
    Secretary Chertoff formalized the position and made it a part of the
    response protocol. How does this administration intend to use this
    position and how can you be sure it will not create a duplicative and
    confusing process, hindering Federal assistance during a response?
        Answer. Role clarity and clear, well-trained and well-exercised
    protocols for communication and decision-making are vital to achieving
    a coordinated response to any domestic incident.
        During catastrophic or unusually complex incidents that require
    extraordinary coordination, with close communication with the
    President, I may elect to deploy an official to assist me in my
    designated role as the Principal Federal Official and focal point for
    domestic incident management. Such an official would supplement the
    Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) (if assigned) by serving as my
    primary source in the field for situational awareness and decision-
    support for overall Federal incident management. The law makes clear
    the FCO coordinates the administration of Stafford Act relief and takes
    other actions within his or her authority to assist local citizens and
    public officials in promptly obtaining assistance to which they are
    entitled. The law makes it equally clear that directive authority over
    the FCO is reserved to the President, the Secretary and the FEMA
    Administrator--not to other deployed officers. Our recent operational
    experiences, training and exercises demonstrate the value and
    necessity, however, in unusually complex incidents of assigning and
    supporting one senior official to provide Washington with strategic
    situational awareness across the entire Federal family, while ensuring
    the FCO remains unencumbered to focus on and lead the vital
    administration and coordination of relief at the operational and
    tactical levels.
        We will rely on strong leadership and ongoing intensive training
    and exercises to achieve an effective Federal response consistently and
    consistent with the law. We will reinforce clarity of roles through
    habitual relationships between our elite cadre of Type 1 FCOs and a
    small group of prospective senior field officials. We will further
    reinforce and refine clear doctrine consistent with the letter and the
    spirit of the law, to ensure that when confronted by unusually complex
    incidents that require extraordinary coordination, everyone involved at
    all levels is clear in advance regarding their respective roles and
    missions in support of the overall effort.
        I do not expect to deploy additional senior officials to the field
    often; indeed, I intend to reserve this measure for catastrophic or
    unusually complex incidents that require extraordinary coordination. In
    times of catastrophic emergency--involving situations and contingencies
    that we cannot predict--I will need the flexibility to coordinate the
    Federal response in a manner that meets the needs of the nation. Thus,
    the administration requests rescission of the current appropriations
    constraint.

                                  ALL-HAZARDS

        Question. In the description of the DHS budget, you listed five
    main action areas: guarding against terrorism, securing our borders,
    enforcement of immigration laws, preparing for, responding to and
    recovering from natural disasters, and unifying and maturing DHS. It
    appears the budget draws a distinction between preparation and response
    for a natural disaster and preparation and response for a manmade
    disaster. I have long advocated an all-hazards approach to disaster
    response. Why did you distinguish between the two types of disasters?
        Answer. While the fiscal year 2010 Budget in Brief described
    specific proposals in five main areas, it was not the intent to make a
    distinction between preparation and response for different types of
    incidents. The Budget Request clearly articulated the continuing all
    hazards nature of the Department's mission, an approach I strongly
    support. For example, in the second paragraph of the Budget in Brief
    overview, we state:

        ``Within this broad portfolio, the Department aims to secure the
    American people from all hazards--including terrorist threats and
    natural or accidental disasters--and to work effectively with its many
    partners to lead the collaborative effort to secure the Nation. DHS
    undertakes the mission of securing the United States against all
    threats through five main action areas, each of which is strengthened
    by this Budget:''

        The Department of Homeland Security remains committed to an all-
    hazards preparedness effort.
        Question. What does the term ``all-hazards'' mean to you?
        Answer. ``All-Hazards'' describes any incident that warrants action
    to protect life, property, environment and public health or safety, and
    to minimize disruptions of government, social or economic activities.
        Question. How do you intend to distribute funding to State and
    local partners as it relates to preparedness and response for all of
    the hazards this Nation faces?
        Answer. The Department will continue to distribute funds to our
    State and local partners in a number of ways. For example, the
    Department has a portfolio of risk based programs, including the State
    Homeland Security Program, the Urban Areas Security Initiative, the
    Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program, the Transit
    Security Grant Program and the Port Security Grant Program. We will
    continue to allocate those funds based on risk and effectiveness, while
    also adhering to the State and territorial minimums as appropriate.
        The Department also has formulaic grants that use a population-
    based formula, such as the Emergency Management Performance Grants
    (EMPG). These grants will be awarded according to the formula codified
    in statute.
        Finally, the Department has purely competitive grant programs such
    as the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, or UASI Nonprofit
    Security Grant Program. These provide opportunities for our broad-based
    constituencies to compete for funding and present the best application
    possible.

                        FIRE GRANT FUNDING DISTRIBUTION

        Question. The authorizing law for firefighter assistance grants, 15
    USC 2229, requires that a portion of the grant funding be reserved for
    volunteer fire departments in an amount not less than the proportion of
    the of the United States population that those firefighting departments
    protect. How is this amount calculated each year (based on what
    factors)?
        Answer. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) annually
    issues a report on the Nation's fire service that includes this
    calculation. FEMA uses this calculation.
        Question. How much of the fiscal year 2006, 2007, and 2008 funding
    was awarded to volunteer departments?
        Answer. The amounts awarded to all volunteer fire departments for
    these years are as follows:
      --fiscal year 2006--$272,875,963
      --fiscal year 2007--$243,812,518
      --fiscal year 2008--$216,969,884 (awards are still ongoing until
            September 30, 2009)
        Question. How much was awarded to ``small community organizations''
    (50,000 or fewer)?
        Answer. The amounts awarded to small community organizations (those
    that have cost shares of 10 percent and 5 percent) are as follows:
      --fiscal year 2006: 4,457 awards for $397,746,273
      --fiscal year 2007: 4,558 awards for $389,594,699
      --fiscal year 2008: 4,285 awards for $349,804,024 (awards are still
            ongoing until 9/30/09)
        Question. For what major activities such as training and vehicles
    (including amounts), were funds applied for and awarded for?
        Answer. Data for vehicle requests are segregated from requests for
    other activities since a maximum amount for vehicle awards is
    specifically addressed in the governing statute:
      --In fiscal year 2006, we received 4,989 requests for vehicles
            reflecting $1,076,229,305 in Federal funds, and awarded 734
            vehicles for $133,625,780.
      --In fiscal year 2007, we received 7,801 requests for vehicles
            reflecting $1,825,920,396 in Federal funds, and awarded 714
            vehicles for $143,787,952.
      --In fiscal year 2008, we received 7,910 requests for vehicles
            reflecting $1,933,921,318 in Federal funds, and have thus far
            awarded 635 vehicles for $131,776,635.
        Data for other activities (training, equipment, etc.) are not
    maintained separately. A special report has been requested from the
    system administrators to provide these data.

                                    GUIDANCE

        Question. Provide a list of guidance documents (by topic and last
    date issued), which are still in effect, that FEMA has issued for
    prevention, preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation for State,
    local, and private sector partners.
        Answer. The following represents input from FEMA's NPD, GPD, and
    DAD directorates:
    National Preparedness Directorate
        National Incident Management System (December 2008)
        National Response Framework (January 2008)
        Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (February 2007)
        National Preparedness Guidelines (September 2007)
        Target Capabilities List (September 2007)
        Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 (April 2009)
        Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual (August 2002)
        Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program Exercise Policy
    and Guidance (September 2004)
        State Preparedness Report guidance (November 2008)
    NIMS Resource Typing Definitions
        Animal Health Emergency (May 2005)
        Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
        Fire and Hazardous Materials (July 2005)
        Incident Management (IM) (July 2005)
        Law Enforcement (July 2007)
        Medical and Public Health (March 2008)
        Pathfinder Task Forces (May 2007)
        Public Works (PW) (May 2005)
        Search and Rescue (SAR) (November 2005)
    NIMS Credentialing Job Titles
        Animal Health Emergency (October 2007)
        Emergency Medical Services (EMS) (March 2008)
        Fire and Hazardous Materials (April 2007)
        Incident Management (IM) (October 2006)
        Medical and Public Health (March 2008)
        Public Works (PW) (May 2007)
        Search and Rescue (SAR) (November 2006)
    Grant Programs Directorate
        GPD issues a number of Information Bulletins (IBs) to grantees and
    the public throughout the year. IBs from 2006 through 2008 can be found
    at the following Web site: http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/
    bulletins/index.shtm
    Disaster Assistance Directorate
        Disaster Specific Guidance includes the following:
                2006
      --Abbreviated Decision Process for the Placement of Mobile Homes,
            Travel Trailers, and Readily
      --Fabricated Dwellings (Direct Disability Lodging Assistance) (DSG)--
            October 24, 2006
                2007
        Sale of Temporary Housing Units to Occupants (Sales DSG)--April 19,
    2007
        Approving Site Requests for Temporary Housing Units Following the
    Initial 18 month Period of Assistance--March 20, 2007
        Hurricane Katrina/Rita Student Recoupment Criteria--April 20, 2007
        Emergency Lodging Assistance for Occupants in Direct Housing (ELA)
    (DSG) August 22, 2007
        Hurricane Katrina/Rita Relocation Assistance (DSG)--October 9, 2007
        Revised Direct Rental Assistance Payment Agreements (CLC Prime)--
    November 6, 2007
                2008
        Emergency Food and Supplemental Assistance (DSG)--March 14, 2008
        Direct Lease Agreements (DSG)--March 25, 2008
        Emergency Pet Management and Sheltering (DSG)--March 20, 2008
        Emergency Packing, Transportation and Storage of Personal Property
    Assistance (DSG) March 27, 2008
        Emergency Furniture Assistance (DSG)--March 27, 2008
        For DAD Declarations, Individual Assistance Public Assistance
    Policies, please visit the following Web sites:
      --Declarations Policies http://www.fema.gov/hazard/
            guidance.shtm_internet
      --IA Policies http://ia.fema.net/contents/policy/
            policies.asp_intranet
      --PA Policies http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pa/
            9500toc.shtm_internet

                              FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

        Question. Provide a list of the total inventory of information,
    reports, and data FEMA requires State and local entities to submit, and
    when the entity must submit it.
        Answer. In February 2009, FEMA's Office of Policy and Program
    Analysis convened a working group, comprised of internal FEMA staff,
    adding external stakeholders from State, local and tribal governments
    in April 2009, to discuss ways to consolidate and/or reduce reporting
    requirements and requests from FEMA. This working group has begun to
    compile a comprehensive list of FEMA reporting requirements. While we
    have identified many of the significant reporting requirements, we
    continue to work on completing the inventory. We hope to have the final
    list compiled later this year. The most current inventory follows.

           SUMMARY OF FEMA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO STATE AND LOCALS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                When Requested/Frequency of
          Name of Report or Data Request                  Request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Planning:
        Emergency Management Accreditation     State and local EMAP
         Program-State and local voluntary      assessments and/or
         assessment and accreditation reports.  accreditation reports are
                                                made available based on the
                                                participants schedule and
                                                completion of process.
                                                (average bi-monthly)
        ``Gap Analysis Program--GAP (Disaster  Gulf/Atlantic Coast States
         Ops)''.                                begin data collection/
                                                updates March 16 (when GAP
                                                Data Collection Tools are
                                                released). This is an annual
                                                process. All other States
                                                can start March 16, but will
                                                have 19 months for the
                                                initial GAP lifecycle,
                                                afterwards lifecycles will
                                                be 1 year, on an opposite
                                                schedule from Gulf/Atlantic
                                                coast States.
        Demonstration Program: Logistics       .............................
         Capability Calculator (Logistics).
        Target Capabilities List (NPD).......  Demonstrating compliance with
                                                NIMS is an annual
                                                requirement to be fulfilled
                                                by the end of each fiscal
                                                year by States and local
                                                jurisdictions through an on-
                                                line NIMSCAST tool.
    Readiness Measurements/Requirements:
        National Fire Department Census......  To be included in the census
                                                database, fire departments
                                                must register with the
                                                census only once, however,
                                                departments are periodically
                                                (about once every 5 years)
                                                contacted to submit updates
                                                or changes to their data.
                                                Again, this process is
                                                voluntary.
        National Fire Department Census......  To be included in the census
                                                database, fire departments
                                                must register with the
                                                census only once, however,
                                                departments are periodically
                                                (about once every 5 years)
                                                contacted to submit updates
                                                or changes to their data.
                                                Again, this process is
                                                voluntary.
        State Preparedness Reports (NPD).....  The SPR is an annual
                                                requirement. The fiscal year
                                                2009 SPR data call was
                                                issued in February and
                                                consisted of merely an
                                                update to prior data
                                                submissions instead of
                                                requiring a wholesale
                                                resubmission of SPR data.
                                                The SPR requirement is
                                                planned to be consolidated
                                                within the PrepCast tool.
        NIMSCAST (NPD).......................  Demonstrating compliance with
                                                NIMS is an annual
                                                requirement to be fulfilled
                                                by the end of each fiscal
                                                year by States and local
                                                jurisdictions through an on-
                                                line NIMSCAST tool.
    Lessons Learned:
        National Fire Incident Reporting       The data is requested monthly
         System (NFIRS).                        although some fire
                                                departments choose to report
                                                on a less regular basis.
        FCO State Evaluation.................  On closure of a declared
                                                disaster
        HSEEP Reports........................  As needed
        After Action Report/Improvement Plans  Through an on-line
                                                Preparedness Portal
    Grant Related Requirements:
        ``Cost-to-Capability--Pilot program    June-August/One-time request
         (GPD)''.                               to pilot Cost-to-Capability
                                                prototype
        NIMS Implementation Reports..........  Annual
        ``Quarterly Progress Reports--By       .............................
         Disaster (DAD via Regions)''.
        Investment Justification (IJ)........  Once--as part of grant
                                                application.
        Detailed Budget Worksheet............  Once--as part of grant
                                                application.
        Initial Strategy Implementation Plan   Once, 45-60 days after grant
         (ISIP).                                award date (date depends on
                                                program)
        Financial Status Reporting (FSR).....  Quarterly, 30 days after end
                                                of calendar quarter
        Biannual Strategic Implementation      Biannually, January 31 and
         Strategy (BSIR).                       July 31
        Categorical Assistance Progress        Biannually, January 31 and
         Report (CAPR).                         July 31
        Programmatic Monitoring..............  Annually/semi-annually
        ``Quaterly Report and Project          AHPP Quarterly Reports are
         Management Plan (DAD)''.               due Jan 30, April 30th, July
                                                30 and Oct 30 of each year
                                                from each grantee for the 4
                                                year life of the program.
        ``State Administrative Plan (DAD via   Annually (amended by
         Regions)''.                            Disaster)
        Community Preparedness Reports.......  Quarterly
        CSEPP Grant Reports..................  Quarterly
        EMPG Reports.........................  Quarterly
        Audit Report.........................  Annually
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  REGULATIONS

        Question. Provide a list of FEMA regulations that State, local, and
    private entities must comply with, including the date of the last
    update to the regulation.
        Answer. FEMA's regulations are located in Title 44 of the Code of
    Federal Regulations. FEMA most recently updated its regulations in a
    comprehensive technical amendment on April 3, 2009 (74 FR 15328).

                         COMMERCIAL MOBILE ALERT SYSTEM

        Question. The Congressionally-mandated improvements to Digital
    Emergency Alert System were still incomplete at the beginning of 2009.
    The FCC has fulfilled its obligations to establish the framework for
    the Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS) that would be able to relay
    alerts through cell phones. In addition to presidential alerts, which
    clearly are a Federal responsibility, the service would transmit
    emergency alerts generated by State, local, and other non-Federal
    authorities. The Federal agency responsible for completing work on this
    project is FEMA's National Continuity Program Directorate, which has
    the role of acting as a gateway and aggregator of alerts for
    dissemination through CMAS.
        What work remains before the CMAS system is functional, and what is
    the timeline for FEMA to complete its work its role in these efforts?
        Answer. FEMA and the Science and Technology Directorate's Command,
    Control and Interoperability Division (CID) are jointly developing the
    C-Interface specification with ATIS/TIA representing the cellular
    industry as defined by the CMSAAC proceedings and formalized by the FCC
    in the CMAS Reports and Orders. At present, the finalization of the
    Government interface specifications is on schedule to be completed in
    October 2009. The following schedule is defined in the FCC Reports and
    Orders and begins when FEMA publishes the Government interface
    specifications: Industry has a 10 month preparation time before the
    beginning of an 18 month ``CMAS Development & Testing'' period. The
    total time from FEMA Government interface publishing to an operational
    CMAS, as defined by FCC report and orders is 28 months.
        Question. In West Virginia, cellular telephone reception is often
    compromised by our beautiful yet rugged terrain, and West Virginians,
    like many Americans, increasingly rely on wireless telecommunications
    devices to receive critical, time-sensitive information.
        How is the Department addressing the limitations of cellular
    communications in rural and mountainous areas in terms of advancing
    more reliable technologies and improvements to the CMAS system?
        Answer. Under the WARN Act (Section 604 and 605 of the 2006 SAFE
    Port Act) the Department's Science and Technology Directorate in
    consultation with NIST are named to address research, development,
    testing and evaluation (RDT&E) with the FCC to increase the number of
    commercial mobile service devices that can receive emergency alerts.
    The RDT&E program will give specific attention to coverage issues and
    addressing underserved populations. To date the program has completed a
    full analysis of current coverage gaps and determined that
    approximately 1.5 million people reside in areas of the United States
    where there is a coverage gap (i.e. no cellular coverage). For
    perspective, approximately 36 million people in the United States are
    not current wireless subscribers. Additional research will be needed to
    discover areas in which there are dead spots and other coverage issues.

               United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

                                    E-VERIFY

        Question. The President's budget requests $112 million for the
    legal employment verification system known as E-verify, a $12 million
    increase over the amount funded in fiscal year 2009. Additionally, the
    budget includes language extending the E-verify program through fiscal
    year 2012. Is this an indication of the administration's continued
    support for this important program?
        This committee supports the E-verify program. But many critics of
    this program claim that it has a very high error rate which may
    jeopardize the jobs of otherwise eligible employees. Are these concerns
    valid?
        Answer. The Department strongly supports E-Verify and is working to
    improve its ability to automatically verify those who are work
    authorized, detect identity fraud, and detect system misuse and
    discrimination. E-Verify is both an essential tool for employers
    committed to maintaining a legal workforce, and a key deterrent to
    illegal immigration. The requested program increase will primarily
    promote monitoring and compliance activities and IT-related business
    initiatives geared toward improved system use.
        USCIS has significantly enhanced E-Verify over the last few years,
    decreasing tentative non-confirmation rates and implementing continuous
    improvements. According to an independent evaluation of E-Verify (by
    the research firm Westat), 96.1 percent of all cases queried through E-
    Verify were automatically verified, in the first instance, as work
    authorized. The 96.1 percent figure (based on data from the third
    quarter of fiscal year 2008) represents a significant improvement over
    earlier evaluation results; the automatic verification rate improved
    from 83 percent in 2002 to 94.7 percent in 2007. Of the remaining 3.9
    percent of queries with an initial mismatch, only .37 percent of those
    were later confirmed to be work authorized. The initial mismatch could
    have been due to data error or someone not notifying SSA of name
    change, etc. The majority of remaining queries that were not
    automatically verified indicate that the program is doing what it is
    intended to do--detect unauthorized workers trying to work unlawfully.
        There is a common misconception that an initial mismatch indicates
    a program or database error. An initial mismatch instead indicates
    either: (1) a discrepancy between the information an employee has
    provided and information in government records; (2) that an employee
    has failed to update their information with SSA or DHS (such as a name
    change after marriage); or (3) an individual without work authorization
    has submitted fraudulent information. These individuals are afforded
    the opportunity to contest the finding by contacting SSA or DHS to
    resolve the discrepancy; however, as indicated, less than half of one
    percent of all individuals run through the program successfully contest
    an initial mismatch. Remaining queries receive a ``Final Non-
    Confirmation'' in the system to inform an employer that they are not
    work authorized. This data indicates the program's success in quickly
    verifying the status of those who are work authorized and detecting
    those ineligible for employment.
        Even with the high level of current performance, USCIS will
    continue to work to enhance the system to further improve performance
    wherever possible.
        Question. USCIS is requesting $112 million for the E-Verify
    program, yet as of February 28, 2009, the program had approximately
    $121 million in funds available. Please detail the agency's plans for
    these unobligated balances, as well as the funds it is requesting for
    fiscal year 2010.
        Answer. The fiscal year 2009 Budget included $100 million in
    appropriated funds and $43.2 million in carryover (no year) funds for a
    total of $143.2 million.
        Planned spending can be summarized in the following categories:
      --$27 million for salaries and expenses
      --$15 million for rent, travel, facilities, and supplies
      --$21 million for SSA operations and enhancements
      --$59 million in information technology operations, maintenance and
            enhancements
      --$4 million for outreach to employers
      --$12 million for administrative, customer service, project
            management, training, and other miscellaneous contract support
      --$5 million for specialized studies and analysis
        The fiscal year 2010 Budget Request includes $112 million. Planned
    spending for current services includes:
      --$31 million for salaries and expenses
      --$13 million for rent, travel, facilities, and supplies
      --$8 million for SSA operations and enhancements
      --$22 million in information technology operations, maintenance and
            enhancements
      --$10 million for outreach to employers
      --$13 million for administrative, customer service, project
            management, training, and other miscellaneous contract support
      --$5 million for specialized studies and analysis
        The additional $10 million in enhancements will support:
      --Verification Information System (VIS) Enhancements.--The program
            will continue to enhance the technology of the program;
            including a focus on identity management and identity assurance
            (for both the employer and the employee), enhancing the photo
            screening tool and document assurance, expanding the data
            sources the program uses, and ensuring aging hardware is
            replaced.
      --Enhanced Data Matching.--E-Verify will continue exploring several
            potential developments aimed at reducing false negatives,
            including the inclusion of the updated Immigration and Customs
            Enforcement (ICE) database that houses student visa data--SEVIS
            II--which will decrease false negatives for foreign students.
      --Staffing Increase.--E-Verify is requesting 80 additional positions,
            (40 FTE in fiscal year 2010) to be located in a new regional
            site to support the following efforts: (a) detecting and
            deterring system misuse and/or discrimination, (b) secondary
            verification, quality assurance and case resolution operations,
            (c) outreach and education efforts, and (d) mission support
            activities.

                                      FEES

        Question. The administration has requested about $206 million in
    appropriated funds to cover the cost of asylum and refugee operations,
    as well as the cost of military naturalizations. Currently, fees are
    not charged on beneficiaries of these services and instead the cost
    burden is spread to applicants for other immigration benefits unrelated
    to those programs. Of the total, what is the anticipated cost in fiscal
    year 2010 for military naturalizations?
        Answer. For the purposes of the budget estimate, USCIS is using the
    current $595 per application naturalization fee as an approximate cost
    for military naturalization. The total budget of $5 million reflects a
    $595 fee multiplied by 8,500 military naturalization applications,
    approximately the level of applications filed in fiscal year 2008.
    USCIS is currently conducting a comprehensive fee review assessing the
    costs and fees for all application types.
        Question. To what extent did DHS consider charging a fee to
    applicants for asylum and military naturalization and what was DHS's
    rationale for not doing so?
        Answer. Applicants for military naturalization are exempt by law
    from fees. Individuals are not charged fees by USCIS for applications
    associated with entry into the United States under asylum claims,
    consistent with USCIS statutory fee authority permitting the recovery
    of asylum program costs through fees without charge to asylum
    applicants. The Department supports current law and practice for both
    categories
        Question. Will approval of the $206 million fee change result in
    other CIS benefit fees being reduced?
        Answer. USCIS is working to complete a biannual fee review to
    assess if current fees are set at an appropriate level to recover the
    costs of providing immigration and services. This and other fiscal year
    2010 budget decisions will be incorporated into the fee review.

                                    REAL ID

        Question. Will the $25 million request for the REAL ID Hub complete
    the planned project?
        Answer. Yes, the fiscal year 2010 funding will be needed to
    complete and deploy the hub verification capabilities. The follow on
    request of $25 million will complete the build out of the verification
    system capabilities, including structured testing and system
    connectivity for participating States. Some fiscal year 2010 funds will
    also be used to support establishment of a concept of operations for
    REAL ID audits of the States after implementation. The concept of
    operations will be developed in collaboration with the Department of
    Transportation (DOT) and will consider relevant DHS and DOT assets and
    interactions with State departments of motor vehicles (DMV).

                             Science and Technology

                                 PROJECT NEWTON

        Question. What is the purpose of Project Newton?
        Answer. Project Newton is an aircraft vulnerability project that is
    developing complex computer models that simulate on-board blast effects
    of different types of explosives threats on commercial aircraft, given
    multiple threat scenarios and other technical variables. The models
    will be used to provide information to the Transportation Security
    Administration (TSA) to verify or revise current explosives detection
    standards. The standards will comply with the Explosives Detection
    System (EDS) Standard section of Public Law 101-604 (Aviation Security
    Improvement Act of 1990). Project Newton is a joint effort between the
    Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate and the Transportation
    Security Administration (TSA).
        Question. What is the status of the program?
        Answer. Project Newton is a three phase program. Phase I, took
    place between May 2007-December 2007 and comprised a modeling and
    simulation effort focused on the Boeing 737-200 commercial aircraft, as
    well as new analyses of explosives equivalencies. The project is
    currently in Phase II, which began in 2008 and is still in progress. As
    part of this current phase, models of the Boeing 737-800 are being
    created in addition to explosive equivalence models. Phase III will
    begin later this year and include the creation of structural models of
    the current air fleet that will be tested to provide information to TSA
    to verify or revise current explosive standards.
        Question. What is the timeline for decisions related to the
    research?
        Answer. Results of the work with the Boeing 737-800 aircraft will
    be provided to TSA in late 2009 to inform their decisions regarding
    explosives standards and their acquisition programs. The S&T
    Directorate's Explosives Division is developing a multi-year program
    strategy for Project Newton. This strategy will include the appropriate
    number of commercial aircraft, scenarios, phenomenology and model
    validation as well as outline the additional explosive testing required
    to improve the understanding of the risk associated with using modeling
    and simulation. This approach has the potential to inform many programs
    beyond the current acquisition of explosives screening equipment. It
    will provide data to help TSA and other DHS components with numerous
    activities, including future requirements development, vehicle
    hardening programs, and the identification of air/land/sea vehicle
    explosive vulnerabilities.
        Question. How will decisions related to Project Newton impact the
    installation of explosives detection equipment at airports?
        Answer. Project Newton will improve the detection standards of TSA
    explosives detection systems (EDS) at airports. It will not impact
    actual installation or schedules. The airframe survivability modeling
    effort is expected to provide better information for setting detection
    standards. TSA is in the midst of planning competitive EDS procurements
    incorporating a tiered detection standard that will evolve to
    accommodate the results for Project Newton and other threat
    information.

                             CONTRACTOR CONVERSIONS

        Question. How many contractor to Federal FTE conversions are
    proposed for fiscal year 2010 out of the total contractor workforce?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2010, the S&T Directorate's target is to
    convert at least 17 FTE from contractor to Federal positions. These
    conversions are part of an ongoing effort to identify positions that
    are more appropriately filled by Federal employees.

                       Domestic Nuclear Detection Office

                    DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE (DNDO)

        Question. No funds are provided for systems acquisition, leaving
    DNDO with only a Research, Development, and Operations mission in
    fiscal year 2010. What is the future DNDO? Are you considering moving
    this function to other DHS components or offices?
        Answer. DNDO's mission has not changed and the Office will continue
    to carry out its research, development, operations, and systems
    acquisition functions. Due to the delay in certifying the Advanced
    Spectroscopic Portal System, DNDO has unobligated balances from past
    year appropriations. As such, DNDO will continue to acquire
    radiological/nuclear detection equipment in fiscal year 2010 using the
    available unobligated balances remaining for this activity.

                              SYSTEMS ACQUISITION

        Question. No funds are provided in fiscal year 2010 for systems
    acquisition. How does this decision impact the Joint CBP/DNDO
    Deployment Strategy for Radiation Portal Monitors (RPMs)? Isn't there
    still a need to deploy Radiation Portal Monitors regardless of any
    decision related to Advanced Spectroscopic Portal monitor deployment
    (ASP)?
        Answer. Yes, regardless of the ASP decision, the Joint CBP/DNDO
    Deployment Strategy calls for additional RPMs to be deployed. DNDO will
    continue to carryout this strategy using the remaining $39 million in
    funds appropriated for current generation RPMs. DNDO will still have
    unobligated balances of $77 million pending ASP certification, of which
    $17 million remains from fiscal year 2008 and $60 million remains from
    fiscal year 2009. Assuming a successful outcome of Secretarial
    certification, these funds will be used to procure a mix of current
    generation and ASP systems. If certification does not occur, these
    funds will be used to procure only current generation systems.
        Question. What is the unobligated balance for RPM acquisitions and
    will this provide enough funding for deployments through fiscal year
    2010?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2009 unobligated balance for current
    generation RPMs, which will soon be obligated for current year
    requirements, is $39 million. The unobligated balance for ASP systems
    is $77 million, of which $17 million remains from fiscal year 2008 and
    $60 million remains from fiscal year 2009. Assuming a successful
    outcome of Secretarial certification, these funds will be used to
    procure a mix of current generation and ASP systems. If certification
    does not occur, these funds will be used to procure only current
    generation systems.
        Question. For Human Portable Radiation Detection Equipment, how
    will the lack of funding impact this program? Isn't there still a need
    to outfit DHS employees, i.e., Coast Guard and CBP?
        Answer. DNDO will use prior year funds to procure additional human
    portable radiation detection equipment for the Coast Guard and TSA's
    Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) team.
        Question. What is the unobligated balance for Human Portable
    Radiation Detection Systems acquisitions and will this provide enough
    funding for deployments through fiscal year 2010?
        Answer. DNDO recently conducted a review of unobligated HPRDS
    funding, which produced sufficient prior year funds and captured
    savings to pay for most TSA requirements and all Coast Guard
    requirements for fiscal year 2010. A residual unobligated amount of
    $1.4 million remains available to fund documented CBP and TSA
    requirements.

                           SECURING THE CITIES (STC)

        Question. No funding is requested for ``Securing the Cities'' in
    fiscal year 2010. Has DNDO fulfilled its requirements stipulated in the
    Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DHS and the New York Police
    Department (NYPD) signed in April 2007?
        Answer. DHS continues to meet all of its responsibilities as
    stipulated in the MOU. The MOU stipulated that DHS will provide current
    and next-generation rad/nuc detection technologies for use by NYPD in
    evaluating current and next generation technologies and developing and
    refining CONOPS. Assets provided to NYPD included one RadTruck and
    three ASP-L Mobile Detection Platforms and associated equipment. The
    RadTruck was a loaned asset and was returned to DHS. In addition, DHS
    has provided scientific and technical training in the use of DHS-
    provided equipment and coordinated activities involving the use of this
    equipment.
        Question. Was the agreement between DHS and NYPD for 3 years--
    fiscal year 2007-2009?
        Answer. The STC Strategic Plan, which was provided to NYPD,
    indicated that STC will be a 3 year engagement in NYC.
        Question. When will fiscal year 2009 funding be awarded to New York
    City? Will this complete the 3-year agreement?
        Answer. Applications for the 2009 STC Funding Opportunity
    Announcement are due May 28, 2009. Depending on the quality of
    applications received, and the results of the review, an award could be
    made as early as July 15, or as late as September 30.
        Beginning in fiscal year 2010, no additional funds are being
    requested for the STC initiative. The 3 year NYC pilot, which will end
    with funds appropriated in fiscal year 2009. NYC regional STC
    stakeholders can continue to fund additional capabilities through other
    DHS grant programs such as the Homeland Security Grant Program. DNDO
    will continue to operate in the NYC region. For example, DNDO is
    planning to actively support a regional full scale exercise in 2010.
    DNDO has a vested interest to reduce the risk of radiological and
    nuclear terrorism to New York City and extract lessons-learned for
    application to other major urban centers.
        Question. Does New York City have additional needs in fiscal year
    2010?
        Answer. The STC initiative is intended to provide the relevant
    regional jurisdictions with the skills, capabilities, and experience to
    expand and continue to support the regional capability over time.
    Homeland Security Grant Program funding could be leveraged to expand
    the capability as deemed useful by the region.
        Question. Since the fiscal year 2009 funding will not be awarded
    until late fiscal year 2009, could additional equipment be deployed to
    New York City if funding was available?
        Answer. While additional funds could provide more equipment, it
    would not necessarily result in a more timely delivery. After fiscal
    year 2009, New York City should look to other funding sources if
    additional equipment is needed.
        Question. The Securing the Cities strategic plan states that ``The
    STC initiative will be a 3-year engagement in NYC, and will likely be
    so for subsequent cities.'' What are DNDO's plans to expand this
    project to subsequent cities?
        Answer. DNDO Red Teaming and Net Assessments (RTNA) will remain
    engaged to assess the effectiveness of the STC initiative. Upon the
    completion of the assessment, DHS will determine whether to terminate,
    expand to subsequent cities, or substantially modify the initiative.
        Question. Did the MOU with New York City require a State or local
    contribution? Did they provide that contribution?
        Answer. No cost sharing contribution is required in STC Cooperative
    Agreements. NYPD continues to meet its responsibilities in the DHS/NYPD
    MOU on STC.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Frank Lautenberg

                              REDUCTION IN GRANTS

        Question. The administration has requested $250 million each for
    port security grants and for rail security grants which represents a 38
    percent cut from last year's funding. The port security grants that
    were provided in the ``American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009''
    (Public Law 111-5) were intended to supplement funds provided through
    the regular budget process. Why does this budget propose reducing the
    funding to secure our ports and railways?
        Answer. The monies provided by the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) will be well-utilized by our
    transportation and port partners as they continue to secure our
    Nation's transit systems and ports. As the fiscal year 2010 budget was
    developed, we considered where ARRA funds were available. We also
    considered the grant applications process and award pipeline for the
    Port Security Grants Program. Due to time it takes for grant recipients
    to drawdown their funds based upon their own financial management
    processes, we were able to reallocate funding for other programs that
    may more urgently need and utilize the funding.

                       PROTECTION OF U.S.-FLAGGED VESSELS

        Question. In recent months, there have been a number of pirate
    attacks on U.S.-flag ships off the coast of Somalia. The Transportation
    Security Administration requires Federal Air Marshals to fly on high-
    risk international and domestic flights. However, the Coast Guard
    recently announced a directive that essentially states that U.S.-
    flagged vessels should consider the use of armed private security
    guards, placing the onus of security on the industry. Doesn't the U.S.
    government have a responsibility to protect U.S.-flag vessels?
        Answer. Similar to other private industries, the security of U.S.-
    flagged commercial vessels is a shared responsibility by the U.S.
    Government and by vessel operators who must take appropriate steps to
    minimize their vulnerability to piracy. The maritime security directive
    requires all vessels in designated high-risk waters to consider
    supplementing ship's crew with armed or unarmed security. Certain
    vessels transiting the Horn of Africa shall supplement the ship's crew
    with armed or unarmed security based on a piracy-specific vessel threat
    assessment conducted by the operator and approved by the Coast Guard.

                          TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER TO IRAN

        Question. The Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and
    Customs Enforcement Agency is responsible for helping to prevent the
    transfer of sensitive technology from the United States to hostile
    nations. Given Iran's nuclear ambitions, what is this Agency doing to
    stop Iran from attaining U.S. weapons and technology?
        Answer. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is
    responsible for overseeing a broad range of investigative activities
    related to exports to sanctioned or embargoed countries such as Iran.
    ICE's strategy focuses on the trafficking of WMD components and
    materials, sensitive dual-use commodities, technologies, illegal
    exports of military equipment, significant financial and business
    transactions and export enforcement training for private industry as
    well as State, local and foreign agencies.
        To combat the proliferation of U.S. origin arms and other sensitive
    commodities by Iran, ICE leverages multiple resources, including 30
    years of experience in criminal export investigations.
        ICE's authorities and historical enforcement are rooted in many of
    our Nation's export laws. The Arms Export Control Act (AECA) gives ICE
    the authority to investigate, detain or seize any export or attempted
    export of defense articles. The Export Administration Act (EAA) gives
    ICE the authority to investigate, detain or seize any export or
    attempted export of dual-use commodities. The International Emergency
    Economic Powers Act relates to trade sanctions violations. Pursuant to
    these statutes, ICE may prevent, prohibit and investigate the transfer
    or exportation of any property subject to the jurisdiction of the
    United States. Through the use of Title 18 USC  554, Outbound
    Smuggling, ICE investigates the smuggling of goods from the United
    States to include sensitive technology and weapons destined for Iran.
        Two of the main strategies that ICE focuses on in stemming the flow
    of sensitive technology to proliferate countries such as Iran revolve
    around the long standing success of its counter-proliferation
    undercover operations, and its unique border search authority. These
    various authorities provide effective tools for ICE agents to form an
    overlapping unilateral export regime to contain the threat posed by
    Iran.
        An additional tool in ICE's arsenal of export enforcement is ICE's
    Project Shield America program. ICE provides training to the high tech
    industry and solicits cooperation with American companies. These
    outreach efforts have led to the identification and dismantling of
    numerous procurement networks operating in the United States and
    throughout the world.
        Cases involving the exportation of sensitive materials by their
    nature involve sensitive information. ICE would be happy to provide a
    law enforcement sensitive briefing about these types of investigations
    as may be requested.

                                  CEDAP GRANTS

        Question. The Department of Homeland Security's Commercial
    Equipment Direct Assistance Program (CEDAP) provides critical equipment
    and training to law enforcement and emergency responder agencies in
    small jurisdictions and certain metropolitan areas. Without CEDAP
    grants, these agencies may not have the resources to prevent or
    properly respond to an act of terrorism in the United States. Why does
    the President's budget request not include any funding for the CEDAP
    program?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2010 Budget Proposal for the
    Department includes over $3 billion for the purpose of assisting small,
    medium and large jurisdictions with funds for planning, equipment
    acquisition, training and exercises to improve their ability to
    prevent, mitigate and respond to incidents of terrorism and other
    hazards. The Budget Request seeks to streamline preparedness assistance
    programs by reducing disparate programs while fully funding the
    Department's mission in support of local, State and tribal government.
    The funding for CEDAP-type investments was actually incorporated into
    the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) and the Firefighter
    Assistance Grant Program. In this way, the funding formerly directed
    for CEDAP can be weighed by State and local entities against other
    homeland security investment priorities.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator George V. Voinovich

                            EFFECTIVENESS OF GRANTS

        Question. The fiscal year 2010 budget request includes $3.8 billion
    for grants to improve the preparedness and response capabilities of
    State and local governments. This is 8.8 percent of the total
    discretionary request of $42.7 billion. More importantly, this $3.8
    billion will be in addition to the $24 billion that has been
    appropriated since fiscal year 2004, including emergency supplemental
    appropriations. This is a significant investment, but we have no
    reliable data or measures to show that the equipment, training, and
    planning purchased to date have made the Nation sufficiently capable of
    responding to disasters. Have you ascertained the effectiveness of
    these grants in accomplishing the Department's mission? What is the
    Department doing to track and measure the effectiveness of these
    grants?
        Answer. The Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) has developed the Cost
    to Capability (C2C) Initiative to develop the tools needed by GPD and
    its grantees, to manage performance across a diverse portfolio of
    preparedness grant programs, and to better demonstrate the historical
    and future effectiveness of GPD's preparedness grant programs in
    building State and local all hazards capabilities outlined in FEMA
    National Preparedness Directorate's Target Capabilities List (TCL).
    Before building a system that could evaluate the use of grants at the
    State and local level, GPD has developed the C2C initiative to support
    the strategic goal of building a robust and standardized data analysis
    capability to quantify benefits and demonstrate the importance of
    grants management to Homeland Security priorities. The C2C Initiative
    is building the tools needed to manage the performance of its grant
    programs in a consistent and transparent manner that can be traced to
    Homeland Security doctrine and policy. C2C will be based upon credible
    capability targets found in TCL, which links all preparedness cycle
    activities to strengthen preparedness capabilities.
        GPD first did a retrospective analysis of grant funding, by
    reviewing existing grantee-reported data to establish the feasibility
    of quantifying its preparedness grant programs' combined
    accomplishments from past fiscal years. These finding in turn created
    the FEMA GPD Grant Programs Accomplishments Report: Summary of Initial
    Findings (fiscal year 2003-2007). This report is the first-ever study
    of how grantee spending builds target capabilities. GPD analyzed
    grantee data spanning the last 5 fiscal years from its core grant
    programs, which accounted for 64.8 percent of GPD's preparedness grant
    portfolio from fiscal years 2003-2007. This Accomplishments Report is
    currently under final review.
        GPD has several additional activities underway regarding C2C. The
    C2C Alpha Prototype, which is still in development, is a conceptual
    capability return-on-investment tool. The Prototype provides the
    analysis needed to inform the stakeholder where, how much and for what
    purpose grant program funding should be allocated. The process involves
    the following steps:
      --Stakeholder prioritization of the target capabilities
      --Creation of an exhaustive list of strategic projects
      --Calculation of project importance based on the target capabilities
      --Creation of multiple portfolios of investment based on the list of
            projects and their importance
      --Giving the stakeholder the choice of selecting the best overall
            portfolio
        In coordination with the National Preparedness Directorate, plans
    have been made to Pilot the alpha prototype July 15-17, 2009. Eighteen
    pilot sites (States, tribes and UASIs) have been selected to
    participate in this effort:
      --Boston UASI
      --Vermont
      --New York State
      --New York City UASI
      --New Jersey
      --US Virgin Islands
      --Delaware
      --Poarch Band of Creek Indians (AL)
      --South Carolina
      --Columbus UASI
      --Arkansas
      --Oklahoma
      --Houston UASI
      --Kansas
      --Utah
      --California
      --Los Angeles UASI
      --Washington State

                            NUMBER OF GRANT PROGRAMS

        Question. When we passed the Department of Homeland Security
    Appropriations Act, 2004, there were six grant programs directed at
    preparing State and local government to respond to disasters. In fiscal
    year 2009, there are 16 separate grant programs. How does this tie your
    hand in terms of putting the money were it will make the most
    difference?
        Answer. The Department does not create grant programs, but rather,
    implements the programs as appropriated by Congress. Although there are
    a larger number of programs than in 2004, FEMA staff works closely with
    Departmental entities, State, local and tribal responders, and other
    Federal agencies (such as Health and Human Services) to ensure that
    each program is aligned against other programs within the preparedness
    portfolio. In addition, FEMA welcomes the opportunity to work with the
    Department, Congress and all of our partners and stakeholders to move
    toward grant program consolidation and allocate precious Federal
    resources using a sound risk-based methodology.

                         REALIGNMENT OF GRANT PROGRAMS

        Question. The President's fiscal year 2010 budget proposes
    realigning the Firefighter Assistance Grants Program and the Emergency
    Management Performance Grants Program into the State and Local Programs
    appropriation. What is the reason for this proposal and what practical
    effect would the proposal have on the administration and management of
    the Firefighter Assistance Grants Program and the Emergency Management
    Performance Grants Program?
        Answer. FEMA/GPD currently manages grants within all three of these
    appropriations. All of them include programs that help to build and
    sustain capacity across our Nation to prevent, protect against, recover
    from, mitigate against and respond to acts of terrorism and other
    hazards. As such, since EMPG and AFG are developed along side the other
    State and local programs to enhance collaboration, it would be
    practical for them to be included as part of the State and local
    appropriations.

                           REAL ID ACT IMPLEMENTATION

        Question. The fiscal year 2010 budget proposes an additional $50
    million in grants to States for REAL ID implementation, and $25 million
    for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for further development
    of system capabilities to verify data against Federal databases. You
    have been working with the National Governor's Association on a
    legislative proposal to amend the REAL ID Act. What changes are being
    recommended?
        Answer. The proposed $50 million to States for REAL ID
    implementation is required to assist States in improving the security,
    privacy protections and integrity of driver's license issuance
    processes consistent with current law and the 9/11 Commission
    recommendation to set national standards for the issuance of driver's
    licenses. The proposal to amend the REAL ID Act maintains the provision
    to set national standards and acknowledges the efforts to date towards
    meeting the standards.
        The current proposal also provides for a demonstration project to
    develop an electronic verification system (hub) capable of verifying a
    State's department of motor vehicle driver's license applicant's
    document information against Federal databases. That provision is
    specifically intended to continue the efforts already begun by the
    States toward that end. The $25 million fiscal year 2010 request within
    USCIS is the administration's promise to complete funding for that
    effort.
        Key changes included in the current legislative proposal include:
      --Adding specific privacy provisions to protect personal data.
      --Adding flexibility for the States in how to achieve security
            improvements.
      --Allowing for continued innovation by setting minimum standards for
            secure driver's licenses and ID cards while providing States
            the flexibility to determine how best to meet or exceed such
            standards.
      --Setting an implementation timeline for states that begins 1 year
            after issuance of final regulations and will be phased in over
            the following 5 years.
        Question. If you endorse the National Governor's Association
    proposal, which I understand eliminates the ``hub'', would the $25
    million proposed within the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
    fiscal year 2010 budget for this purpose be needed?
        Answer. Yes, the funding will still be needed because the National
    Governors Association proposal still provides for a demonstration
    project to develop an electronic verification demonstration system
    (hub) capable of verifying State department of motor vehicle driver's
    license applicant document information against Federal databases. That
    provision is specifically intended to continue the efforts already
    begun by the States toward that end. The project received $50 million
    in fiscal year 2009; the follow on request of $25 million will complete
    the build out of the verification system capabilities, including
    structured testing and system connectivity for participating States.

                          NATIONAL GUARD ON THE BORDER

        Question. The National Guard does provide some routine support of
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection today. How many National Guard are
    on the border today and what activities are they performing? Are they
    supporting both the Northern and Southwest borders?
        Answer. On the Southwest border, National Guard support is in the
    following categories: Aviation--Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR)
    Support; Engineer/Infrastructure; Communication; Intelligence; SBInet
    Support; Camera/Field Support; Checkpoint Support. Due to the Guard's
    short-term 2-week deployments the number of National Guard personnel
    on-the-ground fluctuates. The number has reached a high point of up to
    75 persons. There are no National Guardsmen performing duties with the
    Border Patrol on the northern or coastal borders.

                          UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN

        Question. What increased costs does the Department of Homeland
    Security estimate it might need for fiscal year 2009 due to the new
    changes in law related to the care of unaccompanied alien children? How
    does the fiscal year 2010 address these new requirements?
        Answer. To date, there has been no increase in the average number
    of UAC. In fact, the number of UAC projected to enter the custody of
    the Federal Government has decreased significantly in fiscal year 2009
    compared to fiscal year 2008, and there has been no up-tick since the
    passing of the TVPRA. However, there is not enough data to suggest
    whether this downward trend will continue.
        ICE has historically funded the cost of UAC transfer from base
    resources, and will continue to do so in fiscal year 2010. No
    additional funding was requested for this in fiscal year 2010 above
    normal DRO current operations. New policy officials at HHS and DHS have
    agreed to work cooperatively to review TVPRA implementation and will
    determine whether policy and operational changes are necessary to allow
    HHS to fully assume its statutory responsibilities to ensure proper
    care and custody for UAC.

                           H1N1 SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING

        Question. The Department of Homeland Security has indicated it
    needs an additional estimated $200 million in fiscal year 2009
    supplemental funding for H1N1 pandemic influenza activities.
    Specifically what will these additional funds be for?
        Answer. DHS estimates that costs associated with the H1N1 flu could
    reach approximately $200 million. There are both short and long term
    costs for DHS. We project a need for $61 million in the short term to
    purchase anti-virals and Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) for DHS
    employees and to preposition, distribute and train on proper use of
    PPE's. DHS currently has stockpiles of these items that will cover DHS
    employees into the fall of 2009. However the current stockpiles are not
    sufficient to equip and protect our workforce for a prolonged period.
    In the long term an additional $153 million is needed to restock anti-
    virals and PPE stockpiles of N95 Respirators, surgical masks,
    disposable gloves, disposable garments, splash goggles, and hand
    sanitizer.

                               MEDICAL STOCKPILE

        Question. I understand the Department maintains medical stockpiles
    for its employees identified to be mission critical or at high risk--
    the Office of Health Affairs manages the Department's stockpile and the
    Coast Guard has its own. Is that correct? Are additional funds
    requested in the fiscal year 2010 for these stockpiles (procurements,
    storage, training, etc.)? If not why?
        Answer. The Department maintains medical countermeasure stockpiles,
    or antivirals, for the DHS workforce. DHS maintains one course for each
    DHS employee and additional courses for outbreak prophylaxis for high-
    priority mission critical or essential employees. The Coast Guard
    antiviral stockpile includes high risk military and civilian employees.
    In fiscal year 2006, the President requested and Congress appropriated
    $7.1 billion in supplemental funding for avian and pandemic influenza
    preparedness activities. Though a majority of the funding was
    appropriated to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), DHS
    received $47.3 million which was used for stockpiling and distribution
    of stockpiles to DHS components by DHS's Chief Medical Officer.
        The Department has stockpiled two types of antivirals with the 2006
    appropriation, oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza),
    dedicated for DHS workforce protection. The U.S. Coast Guard purchased
    courses of antivirals through Department of Defense stockpile channels.
    Overall DHS has on hand approximately 540,000 courses of antivirals for
    its workforce (240,000 DHS; 300,000 USCG).
        The non-USCG stockpile (procurements, storage, training, etc.) is
    currently funded with carryover balances from the fiscal year 2006
    supplemental appropriation. Therefore, the Office of Health Affairs
    budget does not include additional funding for pandemic influenza
    activities in fiscal year 2010. The Coast Guard released antivirals
    from its medical stockpile in response to recent events associated with
    the H1N1 outbreak and will work with DHS to replenish them. However,
    its budget also does not include additional funding in fiscal year 2010
    because it considers its stockpile to be sufficient to meet HHS, DHS
    and Coast Guard response guidelines.
        Question. I understand the Office of Health Affairs stockpile
    maintenance and related activities are currently being funded from
    fiscal year 2006 supplemental appropriations carryover balances. Is
    that correct? How are the Coast Guard stockpile activities being
    funded?
        Answer. The Department's stockpile maintenance will continue to be
    funded from the fiscal year 2006 supplemental appropriation carryover
    balance for fiscal year 2010. The remaining funds from fiscal year 2006
    will be obligated in fiscal year 2010.
        The Coast Guard's stockpile activities for a potential pandemic
    influenza event were funded from fiscal year 2008 Operating Expense
    funds. The funding was used to replenish/purchase medication based on
    the projected need and to ensure that mission critical, high risk
    personnel will be protected in a pandemic environment.

                               BIOMETRIC AIR EXIT

        Question. The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
    2009, requires that biometric air exit pilot projects be conducted. I
    understand that those pilots will be conducted from May 28-July 2,
    2009, and after the pilots are reviewed the US-VISIT office anticipates
    issuing a final rule regarding biometric air exit procedures sometime
    between January and March of 2010. However, there is no money in the
    fiscal year 2010 budget request for biometric air exit implementation.
    What is the Department's plan for moving forward with biometric air
    exit implementation during the second half of fiscal year 2010, when we
    anticipate that there will be a biometric air exit final rule, but no
    money to implement the rule or move biometric air exit forward?
        Answer. Approximately $28 million remains available from prior-year
    dollars (for testing technological solutions in the air/sea
    environments with pilot scenarios) to fund the current Air/Sea
    Biometric Exit project.
        On April 24, 2008, DHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking
    (NPRM) in the Federal Register proposing to establish biometric exit
    procedures at airports and seaports of departure from the United
    States. The NPRM incorporated the findings from US-VISIT's initial test
    during 2004-2007 of biometric exit technology and procedures at 14
    airports and seaports, and recommended that commercial air carriers and
    vessel carriers be required to collect and transmit biometric exit
    information to DHS, in conjunction with the passenger manifest
    information they already collect and submit to DHS.
        In the fiscal year 2009 DHS Appropriations Act (Public Law 110-
    329), Congress required US-VISIT to test and report on the collection
    of biometrics from non-U.S. citizens exiting the United States in two
    different settings at airports: (1) air carrier collection of
    biometrics from passengers already subject to US-VISIT entry
    requirements; and (2) collection by U.S. Customs and Border Protection
    (CBP) of those passenger biometrics at the boarding gate. The pilots
    must occur before funding will be released to support the deployment of
    biometric exit procedures to airports and seaports. Currently, no
    airline has agreed to participate in a pilot. Consequently, US-VISIT
    will conduct two pilots: one by CBP at the boarding gate and one by the
    Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at a security checkpoint
    beginning May 28, 2009.
        Based on the results of the pilots and comments to the NPRM, US-
    VISIT plans to publish a final rule, tentatively scheduled for March
    2010, which will direct the implementation of new biometric exit
    procedures for non-U.S. citizens departing the United States via
    airports and seaports.
        If DHS goes forward with a final rule implementing its recommended
    solution as stated in the NPRM--that commercial air carriers and vessel
    carriers will collect and transmit biometrics--no further funding would
    be required to implement Air/Sea Biometric Exit.

                    VISA WAIVER COUNTRY INFORMATION SHARING

        Question. What is the timetable to bring the original 27 visa
    waiver countries up to the same information sharing standards as the
    agreements signed with the countries recently admitted to the program?
        Answer. Under the terms of the 9/11 Act, there is no statutory
    deadline for current VWP member states to come into compliance with the
    security enhancements, including the information sharing agreements.
    However, the VWP law requires a review at least every 2 years to ensure
    that member countries continue to meet the relevant criteria.
    Consistent with previous reforms of the VWP, DHS will address
    compliance with the requirements of the 9/11 Act, as well as all other
    VWP requirements, as part of the ongoing biennial review process. Pre-
    2008 VWP countries are being given a reasonable amount time (not to
    exceed the completion of their next biennial review) to reach full
    compliance with the additional security requirements of the 9/11 Act.

               EFFECT OF ECONOMIC DOWNTURN ON FEE-FUNDED PROGRAMS

        Question. As the economic downtown negatively affects fee-funded
    programs, many Department components (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
    Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and
    Customs Enforcement, e.g.) could encounter problems sustaining their
    activities. How are you monitoring this and what actions have you
    taken?
        Answer. As you note, a number of DHS components rely significantly
    on user fee collections. USCIS, for example, receives almost all of its
    funding from user fees. We are monitoring user fee collections on a
    monthly basis and adjusting our projections with the most up-to-date
    data. We have re-prioritized planned spending to react to the
    uncertainty, and are posed to make spending cuts if necessary. Our goal
    is to avoid disrupting operations, and one strategy we will employ is
    drawing down from carryover balances in the fee accounts. We would also
    consider reprogramming funding within discretionary accounts if
    necessary to meet mission-critical needs.

                              ROLE OF CONTRACTORS

        Question. What steps has the Department taken to determine the
    appropriate role of contractors in meeting its mission requirements and
    to convert contract functions to government personnel functions where
    appropriate?
        Answer. DHS has taken a number of important steps to ensure the
    appropriateness of its use of contractors in meeting DHS's mission
    requirements. Over 2 years ago, DHS began a special review of
    contractor performance at the National Protection and Programs
    Directorate (NPPD). No contractors have been found to be performing
    inherently governmental work, but, as the NPPD matured from start-up
    status and as its mission expanded, the need to expand its minimum core
    competencies became clear. Over 350 contractors are now in the pipeline
    for conversion to Federal employees.
        Since March of this year, and as a part of the DHS 2009 Federal
    Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act data call, DHS Components have
    been engaged in several related actions. An inventory of contractors in
    Federal space within the DHS National Capital Region has been developed
    as a proxy for identifying contractors that are closely related to DHS
    Headquarters activities. As a part of the DHS Efficiency Review
    Process, DHS Components have developed a schedule of functional or
    business line specific studies that will assess the most efficient
    approach to accomplishing mission requirements, including the
    appropriate balance of contractor and Federal resources. These are
    detailed assessments of workload requirements and alternative
    approaches to mission accomplishment, which include a review of the
    balance between in-house and contractor resources. We have begun to
    review these proposals with the Components, and Components have been
    asked to develop lists of individual functions being performed by
    contractors that may warrant the immediate conversion of work to
    performance by Federal employees. The initial data will be submitted to
    the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer in July.
        As part of the DHS Efficiency Review Process, all proposed
    contracts for professional support services with an annual value
    greater than $1,000,000 will be reviewed prior to awarding the
    contract. The Components will review the proposed contracts to ensure
    that only appropriate work is included. If the contract amount is
    greater than $50,000,000 it will also be reviewed by the Chief
    Procurement Officer.
        DHS is also a member of the OMB Multi-Sector Workforce Working
    Group, which is reviewing the definitions of inherently governmental
    work, insourcing policy, and the development of contract workload
    inventories. The Working Group is responding to the President's
    Memorandum dated March 4, 2009 on Government Contracting and a number
    of statutory mandates that suggest the need to better balance Federal
    and contract employees. As this information and Government-wide policy
    develops, DHS will be issuing related policies on the accomplishment of
    mission requirements by Federal and contract employees (expected
    issuance is October 2009).

               CONVERSION OF CONTRACTORS TO GOVERNMENT POSITIONS

        Question. Is there a plan in place to convert contractors to
    government positions? How many contractor conversions are planned in
    fiscal year 2009 and proposed for fiscal year 2010?
        Answer. As part of the annual 2009 Federal Activities Inventory
    Reform (FAIR) Act data call, DHS has directed each Component to review
    its contract workforce to determine whether work is inherently
    governmental or commercial ``core/exempt'' and to evaluate whether
    existing contract prices are excessive or performance is inadequate.
    Components have been directed to provide information on contract
    positions that they believe are justified for conversion to government
    performance. Components have also been instructed to work with the
    Chief Procurement Officer to determine if conversion is authorized or a
    competition is required. DHS components will be submitting their
    ``insourcing'' data (including FTE, functions and justifications) to
    DHS HQ in July 2009.
        DHS currently plans to convert approximately 500 contractor FTE to
    performance by Federal employees over the course of fiscal years 2009-
    2010. This number may change in fiscal year 2010 and the out-years as a
    result of one or more of the analyses discussed in response to other
    questions for the record on this subject.
        Approximately 350 FTE are planned for conversion from contractor to
    Federal in-house performance associated with the NPPD. This workload
    has been reviewed in accordance with the FAIR Act and the OMB Circular
    A-76, which, subject to certain statutory exceptions, provides
    government-wide policy on the conversion of commercial work to or from
    in-house and contract performance. Each of the 350 FTE has been
    justified as required to meet emerging minimum residual core capability
    requirements. An additional 188 FTE have been identified and approved
    for conversion from contractor to Federal in-house performance at the
    USCG associated with food preparation requirements. The USCG has
    determined that this work needs to be performed by military billets in
    order to protect their sea/shore rotational requirements.
        Within the NPPD, 110 FTE of the 350 FTE have been successfully
    converted from contract to in-house performance (on-board).

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                On Board/In
                            NPPD Org.                             Process
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Infrastructure protection (IP)..........................           47/29
    Cybersecurity and Communications (CS&C).................           17/29
    US-VISIT................................................           35/20
    Office of Risk Management and Analysis (RMA)............             5/6
    Office of the Under Secretary (OUS).....................             6/8
                                                             ---------------
          Total.............................................         110/92
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The total equals 202 (110 + 92) of the 350 with 148 expected in fiscal
      year 2010.

                         NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY CENTER

        Question. The National Cyber Security Center was established by the
    Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to Presidential directive and
    stood up last year. I see no funding in the Department of Homeland
    Security's fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Center. Why?
        Answer. The Department did not request funding for the Center in
    fiscal year 2010 because an overall cyber security plan, which will
    include goals, objectives, milestones, and activities, has not yet been
    finalized. To request funding for the NCSC prior to the outcome of the
    cybersecurity review being carried out by the National Security
    Council, would be premature. The results of the Council review will be
    used in establishing a permanent roadmap for cybersecurity. Resources
    for many of the proposed functions of the NCSC are included in the
    budget request for the National Cyber Security Division in the National
    Protection and Programs Directorate.

                       DHS ROLE IN CYBER SECURITY EFFORTS

        Question. What is the Department's role in cyber security efforts,
    as contemplated in the fiscal year 2010 budget request?
        Answer. DHS has responsibility for securing the Federal ``.gov''--
    the networks that support our Executive Branch civilian agencies. In
    addition, DHS is responsible for partnering with private-sector owners
    of the Nation's critical infrastructure and State and local government
    to improve the security of their networks. As the Department builds
    these capabilities and executes strategies to build the ``.gov''
    defense in fiscal year 2010, DHS must also continue its collaboration
    and engagement with the private sector.
        Within the National Cyber Security Division (NCSD), the United
    States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) and others define
    the cybersecurity requirements for the National Cybersecurity
    Protection System (NCPS). Network Security Deployment (NSD) develops,
    acquires, deploys, and operates and maintains the NCPS that is used by
    US-CERT to conduct the DHS cybersecurity mission for the .gov domain.
        NSD efforts are divided into various blocks of capabilities. Block
    1.0, flow collection, will be in an operations and maintenance stage.
    Block 2.0 will consist of procuring and deploying NCPS Block 2.0
    Intrusion Detection System sensors to Phase 4 departments and agencies,
    as well as to any additional Managed Trusted Internet Protocol Service
    vendors awarded. During this block, NSD will also finish the data
    migration to the DHS-approved data center, Electronic Data Systems, and
    provide needed infrastructure upgrades to the US-CERT Mission Operating
    Environment. During NCPS Block 2.1, NSD will expand the capabilities
    and back-end storage of analytical tools that supply automated
    correlation and aggregation capabilities for US-CERT analysts,
    decreasing their overall workload. Block 3.0 will consist of
    deployments, operation, and maintenance of Intrusion Prevention
    sensors.
        Critical Infrastructure Protection and Awareness (CICP&A) will be
    conducting the Cyber Storm III national cyber exercise in fiscal year
    2010. CICP&A activities will also focus on expanding control system
    security efforts among public- and private-sector partners. This will
    include assessing and mitigating risks to enabling technologies such as
    Smart Grid. CICP&A programs work closely with private Critical
    Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR) sector partners under
    frameworks such as the National Infrastructure Protection Plan and
    through forums such as the Cross-Sector Cyber Security Working Group
    and the Industrial Control Systems Joint Working Group. In fiscal year
    2010, CICP&A will expand information sharing with its CIKR sector
    partners.
        Federal Network Services' (FNS's) Trusted Internet Connection (TIC)
    program will manage the continued agency reduction and consolidation
    efforts for internet connections. The continued reduction and
    consolidation of external connections into the Federal Government will
    enable the NCPS intrusion-detection system to efficiently monitor and
    alert on suspicious activity occurring across the Federal enterprise.
        FNS's Compliance and Oversight program will also continue to
    perform Compliance Assessments of TIC Access Providers (TICAPS). The
    TIC Compliance Validation program conducts compliance checks of TICAPs
    to ensure that agencies have the appropriate operational capabilities
    in place to meet the TIC objectives. Correct interpretation and
    implementation of the critical security capabilities identified by the
    TIC initiative will provide a robust, holistic approach to network
    security across the Federal Government.
        US-CERT is charged with providing response support and defense
    against cyber attacks for the Federal Civil Executive Branch (.gov) and
    information sharing and collaboration with State and local government,
    industry, and international partners. To fulfill this mission, US-CERT
    disseminates threat, vulnerability, risk, analysis and mitigation
    strategies, and works with partner organizations to update information
    assurance policies and technologies continually to defend the Federal
    computer network space. Through monitoring, communications and
    coordination activities, US-CERT provides timely and accurate cyber-
    threat mitigation guidance and serves as the focal point for
    collaborative cyber awareness, mitigation and reduction for threats and
    vulnerabilities.
        The Department also has a role in the Federal Government in
    cybersecurity research and development. The DHS Science and Technology
    (S&T) Directorate's Cyber Security Research and Development (CSRD)
    program funds activities addressing core vulnerabilities in the
    Internet, finding and eliminating malicious software in operational
    networks and hosts, and detecting and defending against large-scale
    attacks and emerging threats on our country's critical infrastructures.
    The CSRD program includes the full research and development lifecycle--
    research, development, testing, evaluation and transition--to produce
    unclassified solutions that can be implemented in both the public and
    private sectors. S&T has established a nationally recognized
    cybersecurity research and development portfolio addressing many of
    today's most pressing cybersecurity challenges. The CSRD program has
    funded research that today is realized in more than 18 open-source and
    commercial products that provide capabilities such as secure thumb
    drives, root kit detection, worm and distributed denial of service
    detection, defenses against phishing, network vulnerability assessment,
    software analysis and security for process control systems.
        The program is focused in three main areas:
      --Information Infrastructure Security (IIS) Program--engaging with
            industry, government and academia to ensure that the core
            functions of the Internet develop securely and benefit all
            owners, operators and users. The IIS program ensures that
            Internet naming and routing services are always reliable, even
            in the event of a cyber attack.
      --Cybersecurity Research Tools and Techniques Program--providing
            secure facilities, methods and data for testing and evaluating
            new defensive cybersecurity technologies.
      --Next-Generation Technology Program--addressing cybersecurity
            research and development needs in support of DHS and private-
            sector stakeholders. These needs are aimed at preventing,
            protecting against, detecting, responding to and recovering
            from large-scale, high-impact cyber attacks. Customers of these
            technologies include emergency responders, critical
            infrastructure providers, the banking and finance industry, the
            private industry; and local, tribal, State and Federal
            Governments.

                       DHS ROLE IN CYBER SECURITY EFFORTS

        Question. Reports are that the administration's 60-day cyber review
    is soon to be released. If media reports are accurate, control and
    coordination of cyber security activities is being placed in the White
    House. How will this affect the Department's role in cyber security and
    its ongoing cyber security efforts?
        Answer. DHS worked closely with the Homeland Security Council and
    the National Security Council leadership and staff in the development,
    tracking, and coordination of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity
    Initiative. However, at this time, the Adminstration is still reviewing
    the results of the 60-day review. DHS would be happy to discuss the
    results of the 60-day review after it has been released.

                         DHS HEADQUARTERS CONSOLIDATION

        Question. No additional funding is included in the President's
    fiscal year 2010 budget for the Department of Homeland Security
    Headquarters consolidation at St. Elizabeths. Are the fiscal year 2009
    funds provided for this project in the regular Department of Homeland
    Security Act and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
    sufficient to sustain this project through fiscal year 2010?
        Answer. Yes. The funds provided in the fiscal year 2009
    appropriation and the ARRA will allow DHS to maintain the current 3
    Phase schedule for completion of the DHS Consolidated Headquarters at
    St. Elizabeths by fiscal year 2016 (Phase 1--fiscal year 2013, Phase
    2--fiscal year 2014, Phase 3--fiscal year 2016) subject to receiving
    planned appropriations for the out-years (fiscal year 2011 and beyond).

                            CONSOLIDATION OF LEASES

        Question. The fiscal year 2010 request includes $75 million to
    consolidate the leases of those Department of Homeland Security
    activities that will not relocate to St. Elizabeths. How many current
    lease locations are occupied by the Department? How many will be
    consolidated with the funds requested for fiscal year 2010? Will you
    seek to consolidate other leases in future years?
        Answer. DHS has 40 lease locations currently dispersed throughout
    the National Capital Region (NCR) and growing. The $75 million
    requested for fiscal year 2010 will be used to begin the consolidation
    effort by reducing from 40 locations down to about 30 lease locations.
    We will seek to consolidate the remaining leases in future years. To
    accomplish this, GSA used a national real estate broker to complete a
    study of DHS Headquarters (HQ) real estate requirements and to develop
    a migration strategy to consolidate in the NCR. The study determined
    that keeping the current Federal property housing DHS HQ elements is
    the best course of action because it results in a lower cost versus
    leasing. The strategy will allow DHS HQ to go from more than 40
    locations down to approximately less than 10 using St. Elizabeths as
    the center of gravity and keeping the federally owned locations at the
    Nebraska Avenue Complex (NAC), the U.S. Secret Service HQ and the space
    at the Ronald Reagan Building. DHS has two long-term leases that will
    also be retained--the TSA HQ in Arlington, VA and the ICE HQ in SE
    Washington, DC. The consolidation strategy indicates one to three
    additional leases for approximately 1.2 million Rentable Square Feet
    (RSF) of office space is needed to replace the remaining leases as they
    expire. A prospectus is being submitted to Congress for authority to
    procure this space.
        The 30 year net present value (NPV) difference between continuing
    the status quo versus following a comprehensive strategy that retains
    the federally owned space and has the least amount of short-term lease
    extensions is $163 million cost avoidance. DHS HQ is growing and is
    requesting space from GSA on a fragmented basis. Therefore, after the
    DHS HQ 5 year growth is determined and the leased space needs are
    better defined, GSA will submit a prospectus, as necessary, to Congress
    for leased space authority.

                       OVERSIGHT OF MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

        Question. The Department has had management failures that cut
    across departmental components such as financial management,
    procurement, acquisition and development of large-scale information
    technology, and physical asset programs such as SBInet and Deepwater.
    What role do you see yourself taking as the Secretary in the oversight
    of departmental management functions, such as the acquisition review
    process within the Department?
        Answer. The DHS Acquisition Review Board (ARB), chaired by the
    Deputy Secretary, governs major investment programs across the
    Department. The ARB includes the Departmental functional leaders
    (including the Under Secretary for Management; Chief Procurement
    Officer; Chief Financial Officer; Assistant Secretary for Policy; and
    Director, Operational Test and Evaluation). The ARB examines a
    program's progress and risk to determine if the program should move
    forward to the next phase in its life cycle. The Department re-
    engineered and strengthened its acquisition governance framework in
    2008, and has already conducted more than fifteen ARBs of Level 1 and 2
    programs. I recognize the importance of sound acquisition management in
    support of the mission and intend on continuing the practice of
    conducting ARBs, thereby providing approval and direction for the
    investment programs.
        The DHS Program Review Board, also chaired by the Deputy Secretary,
    is a key step in the Department's annual budget development process. I
    intend to use this process to identify cross-component issues and to
    implement solutions to these issues (or to seize opportunities for
    collaboration).

                           BIODEFENSE COUNTERMEASURES

        Question. The fiscal year 2010 budget proposes to transfer $1.57
    billion in Department of Homeland Security balances of advance
    appropriations for Biodefense Countermeasures (i.e., the BioShield
    program) to the Department of Health and Human Services Advanced
    Development Program. Can you please tell us if these two programs are
    redundant? Are the authorities for the BioShield and Advanced
    Development Program the same? If not, how do they differ? Why does it
    make sense for the Department of Homeland Security to no longer have a
    role in this program?
        Answer. The Project BioShield program, with responsibilities
    managed by DHS and HHS, and the Advanced Development Program, managed
    by HHS, are not redundant but complementary programs. The Project
    BioShield program predated the creation of HHS' Biomedical Advanced
    Research and Development Authority (BARDA) which is charged with the
    unique mission to support the advanced development of novel medical
    countermeasures.
        The Project BioShield Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-276; 42 USC
    Sec. 247d et. Seq), created the framework, mechanisms, and a Special
    Reserve Fund (SRF) for the acquisition of medical countermeasures to
    chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) threats. Congress
    appropriated to DHS in the SRF $5.6 billion over 10 years to be used
    for the purchase of these countermeasures. There have been successful
    BioShield acquisitions to-date, including medical countermeasures to
    address anthrax, smallpox, botulinum toxin and radiological and nuclear
    threats.
        However, in the first few years of executing BioShield, challenges
    arose largely stemming from the inherent risks in pharmaceutical and
    vaccine development--relatively long timeframes for drug development,
    high product failure rates, and the lack of incentives to industry
    considering the government is the sole customer. Congress recognized
    that in order for BioShield to fulfill its promise and intent of
    building a robust stockpile of urgently needed medical countermeasures,
    new tools and resources would be necessary to balance the risk of
    medical countermeasure development. To this end, Congress enacted the
    Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (Public Law 109-417) in
    December 2006, establishing BARDA within HHS as the single point of
    authority within the Federal Government for developing civilian medical
    countermeasures, including drugs and vaccines, in response to CBRN
    threats.
        Under BARDA, HHS was specifically provided the authority to invest
    in advanced development that will carry products across the so-called
    ``Valley of Death'' to meet medical countermeasure requirements, reduce
    risk to both medical countermeasure developers and the Government, and
    promote innovation. By funding advanced development through such a
    dedicated mechanism, the development phases that the SRF was not
    authorized to support could bridge some of the risks assumed by the
    developers and lead to a more robust pipeline of countermeasure
    candidates ripe for procurement. BARDA also has the authority to manage
    procurement programs for vaccines, drugs, therapeutics and diagnostics
    for CBRN threats, including BioShield, and pandemic influenza and other
    emerging diseases that fall outside the scope of BioShield.
        Given the shortage of candidates ready for procurement under
    BioShield, and the likelihood that the entire balance may not be
    obligated prior to expiration, the administration is choosing to
    increase support for BARDA and support the advanced development
    necessary to fill the gaps. This transfer will allow HHS BARDA to
    enhance the pipeline of countermeasure candidates for future
    procurements. It is important to note that if the SRF monies are used
    in this manner, future procurement decisions will be made in the
    context of available appropriations for procurement activities
        Project BioShield provided additional authorities to DHS aside from
    the SRF and approving acquisitions made with this funding. These
    responsibilities include assessing and determining material threats to
    our Nation through Material Threat Determinations (MTDs) and Population
    Threat Assessments (PTAs)--an activity that is funded out of a separate
    DHS account than the SRF and therefore not subject to the transfer.
    Considering the vast spectrum of CBRN threats, DHS helps to identify
    and characterize those threats that pose the greatest risk. HHS uses
    this information as part of the equation in determining which
    countermeasures to pursue.
        DHS will to continue to assess and determine material threats as
    the threat landscape evolves to inform medical countermeasure
    activities at HHS, as well as carrying out its biennial Biological
    Terrorism Risk Assessment, Chemical Terrorism Risk Assessment, and
    integrated CBRN Risk Assessment to guide prioritization of our on-going
    investments in biodefense-related research, development, planning, and
    preparedness, including medical countermeasure efforts. Although the
    funding for medical countermeasure activities would be consolidated in
    one Department with the SRF transfer, HHS will continue to rely upon
    the robust capability DHS has built in the threat and risk assessment
    and characterization fields. Likewise, DHS will continue to participate
    in the HHS-led Public Health Medical Countermeasure Enterprise
    (PHEMCE), the central coordinating body for medical countermeasure
    activities at HHS, bringing our resources to bear as an ex-officio
    member.

                    INTERMODAL SECURITY COORDINATION OFFICE

        Question. For fiscal year 2010, the Department is requesting $10
    million for an Intermodal Security Coordination Office within its
    Office of Policy to support integrated planning with the Department of
    Transportation. Can please provide us a fuller explanation of this
    proposed initiative and its purpose? What will the Department of
    Homeland Security's role be versus that of the Department of
    Transportation in this initiative? Why is this Office proposed to be
    established in the Office of Policy rather than in the Transportation
    Security Administration with transportation expertise?
        Answer. The Intermodal Security Coordination Office (ISCO) is part
    of a Presidential initiative to improve the safety and security of the
    Nation's transportation infrastructure, particularly intermodal hubs
    such as seaports. Ensuring the security of these intermodal
    transportation hubs is critical, since a vast amount of overseas cargo
    flows into the country via these hubs, and we must prevent the hubs
    from being used to convey threats such as nuclear, radiological,
    biological, chemical or explosive terror weapons. These hubs can also
    be the entry points for ``accidental'' threats, such as invasive
    species or agricultural pests, which can cause serious economic damage
    if allowed to enter the country.
        In addition to ensuring the security of goods entering the country
    through these hubs, we must ensure the flow of goods is as efficient
    and safe as possible. Moving cargo through these hubs quickly and
    safely helps maintain our economic well being. Many jobs across the
    country are directly or indirectly dependent on the efficient flow of
    goods through our intermodal transportation hubs.
        The Presidential initiative provides DHS $10 million to address the
    security of our Nation's transportation infrastructure, and the
    Department of Transportation (DOT) $15 million to address safety
    issues. This is consistent with each department's mission. The ISCO
    will work with the DOT to identify ways to coordinate DOT and DHS
    programs to make the best use of available resources to improve both
    safety and security of intermodal hubs, while also improving their
    operational efficiency.
        The ISCO is located in the Office of Policy at DHS headquarters to
    better coordinate the various DHS components and offices with critical
    knowledge and responsibilities for intermodal transportation
    infrastructure security, including the Transportation Security
    Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Office of Infrastructure
    Protection, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Domestic Nuclear
    Detection Office, and the Science and Technology Directorate. The
    Office of Policy is also the most appropriate office for
    interdepartmental and intergovernmental coordination on this
    initiative, with the Department of Transportation as well as with
    State, local and private sector agencies.
        Leveraging the knowledge and experience of all these stakeholders,
    the ISCO will chart a course for improvements in the security of the
    Nation's transportation infrastructure. In fiscal year 2010, the office
    will deliver the following: (1) a strategic plan and strategic metrics
    to guide development and modernization of intermodal freight
    infrastructure linking coastal and inland ports to highways and rail
    networks; (2) intermodal freight infrastructure security needs and
    capability gaps; and (3) program and budget recommendations to address
    critical security needs and gaps. These recommendations will be
    incorporated into DHS's 5-year programming and budgeting guidance as
    appropriate, and tracked to ensure they are achieved. Similar
    recommendations for DOT will be provided to DOT for disposition within
    their programming and budgeting process.

                  INSPECTION OF HIGH-RISK CHEMICAL FACILITIES

        Question. The fiscal year 2010 budget requests funds to expand the
    hiring of chemical site security personnel and initiate inspections of
    high risk chemical facilities nationwide. What is the fiscal year 2009
    on-board level of chemical inspectors and how many additional personnel
    are proposed for fiscal year 2010? When do you expect to initiate
    inspections of high-risk chemical facilities and how many facility
    inspections do you estimate to complete in fiscal year 2010 of the high
    risk facilities?
        Answer. The current Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) level of chemical
    inspectors is 51 onboard, with 35 additional selections in process. The
    projected total of FTEs onboard by the end of fiscal year 2009 is 178.
    In the effort to support this accelerated growth of the inspector
    cadre, the Department realigned base programmatic funding in fiscal
    year 2009 to support hiring above the previously authorized level of 78
    FTEs and in the fiscal year 2010 Budget Request has included funding to
    increase staffing levels of 246 FTEs in fiscal year 2010. The fiscal
    year 2010 FTE level will provide for 139 chemical facility inspectors
    and 20 additional cross-trained chemical/ammonium nitrate inspectors.
    The Department is working to accelerate and improve its hiring and
    security clearance processes to bring qualified and vetted personnel
    onboard in an expeditious manner.
        Initial inspections of final high-risk chemical facilities are
    expected to begin in the first quarter of fiscal year 2010, commencing
    with the final Tier 1 facilities. The Department's current goal is to
    conduct initial inspections of 100 percent of the final Tier 1 high-
    risk chemical facilities and 25 percent of the final Tier 2 facilities
    during fiscal year 2010.

                       IN-LINE BAGGAGE SCREENING SYSTEMS

        Question. The fiscal year 2010 budget requests an increase of
    $565.4 million to support the purchase and installation of in-line
    baggage screening systems at the Nation's airports. This is a
    significant increase following the additional $1 billion investment for
    fiscal year 2009 made in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
    2009 for procurement and installation of explosives detection systems
    and explosives trace detection systems. Why is a significant investment
    in this program a priority for fiscal year 2010?
        Answer. In order to consistently meet the demands of optimal
    systems deployment and stabilize the recapitalization and system
    resizing requirements, the Electronic Baggage Screening Program will
    require an increase in fiscal year 2010 to support this effort. The
    program is responsible for ensuring that 100 percent of all checked
    baggage is screened with an in-line explosive detection capability
    system, or a suitable alternative.
        This request supports the administration's desire to accelerate the
    Electronic Baggage Screening Program to reach full operating capability
    of optimal solutions at all airport terminals nationwide as
    expeditiously as possible. The fiscal year 2010 budget will allow TSA
    to meet this objective by providing the necessary funds for facility
    modifications, recapitalization efforts, and procurement and deployment
    of electronic baggage screening technology systems.

                          EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS

        Question. The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
    2009 (Public Law 110-329) makes $294 million available for purchase and
    installation of explosives detection systems, of which not less than
    $84.5 million is available for the purchase and installation of
    certified explosives detection systems at medium and small-sized
    airports. How much is being allocated for medium and small-sized
    airports of the $294 million appropriated? What is your estimate of the
    dollars which would be allocated purchase and installation of certified
    explosives detection systems at medium and small-sized airports if the
    fiscal year 2010 request is approved?
        Answer. The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
    2009 (Public Law 110-329) makes $294 million available for purchase and
    installation of explosives detection systems, of which not less than
    $84.5 million is available for the purchase and installation of
    certified explosives detection systems at medium and small-sized
    airports.
        NOTE FROM DHS: Of the $294 million appropriated, approximately $90
    million is estimated for allocation for the purchase and installation
    of certified explosives detection systems (EDS) at medium and small
    sized airports. While the specifics of our annual expenditure plan
    remain dynamic and will require adjustments as we continue to work with
    airports in the TSA fiscal year 2010 funding application process,
    current estimates would allocate approximately $99 million for purchase
    and installation of certified EDS at medium and small-sized airports.
    Additionally, facility modifications at airports in this category are
    estimated at approximately $260 million. TSA anticipates finishing its
    review of the initial completed applications by mid-June, and the
    remaining applications (those requiring more data) by the end of July.
    TSA will submit a spend plan for fiscal year 2010 EDS funds to Congress
    before funding is allocated.
        Question. Is all funding for explosives detection systems awarded
    competitively? Please explain what laws and regulations govern these
    procurements.
        Answer. All legacy contracts were awarded in accordance with the
    Acquisition Management System. One of the three legacy Explosives
    Detection Systems (EDS) contracts was awarded competitively and is
    currently active. TSA plans to award two bridge contracts for the
    remaining two legacy EDS and related services on a sole source basis
    under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). These two vendors
    produce the only two medium size EDS that have met the statutorily
    required certification standards. The sole source contracts will serve
    as bridge contracts that allow TSA to continue to meet the mandates for
    screening checked baggage until competitively awarded FAR contracts
    with enhanced detection requirements can be awarded. All fiscal year
    2010 requirements are planned for award from competitive contracts by
    the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2010.

                                   VIPR TEAMS

        Question. The budget requests an increase of $50 million to fund 15
    additional Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams
    dedicated to surface transportation. How many additional mass transit
    and rail VIPR operations do you anticipate this will allow you to
    conduct over the current fiscal year? At how many additional sites?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2008, TSA received funding to support ten
    dedicated Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams.
    These teams are co-located within existing Federal Air Marshal Service
    (FAMS) field offices in the following locations:
      --Boston, MA
      --Chicago, IL
      --Denver, CO
      --Detroit, MI
      --Houston, TX
      --Los Angeles, CA
      --Miami, FL
      --New York, NY
      --Seattle, WA
      --Washington, DC
        The ten teams funded in fiscal year 2008 have conducted a total
    1,437 VIPR operations with 848 (59 percent) in the surface modes and
    589 (41 percent) in the aviation mode.
        TSA plans to establish 15 additional VIPR Teams within existing
    FAMS field offices and Resident Agent in Charge (RAC) offices in the
    following locations:
      --Newark, NJ
      --Philadelphia, PA
      --Charlotte, NC
      --Pittsburgh, PA
      --Cleveland, OH
      --Atlanta, GA
      --Orlando, FL
      --Dallas, TX
      --Las Vegas, NV
      --Minneapolis, MN
      --Cincinnati, OH
      --San Francisco, CA
      --San Diego, CA
      --Phoenix, AZ
      --Tampa, FL
        TSA is committed to both maintaining the number of surface missions
    that are accomplished with existing teams and augmenting missions in
    surface through increased surface operations conducted by the new
    teams. TSA estimates that it will be possible to add approximately
    2,155 additional surface operations.

                PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY AND STANDARDS SYSTEM

        Question. TSA operates one of the largest performance based pay
    systems in the Federal Government. How does the fiscal year 2010
    request support TSA's efforts to further refine the Performance
    Accountability and Standards System (PASS) in order to empower its
    Transportation Screening Officer (TSO) workforce and improve its
    effectiveness?
        Answer. In accordance with the Aviation and Transportation Security
    Act, all employees in the Transportation Security Officer workforce
    must participate in an Annual Proficiency Review (APR) to ensure that
    they meet all of the qualifications and performance standards required
    to perform their duties. The Performance Accountability and Standards
    System (PASS) is 70 percent objective testing. In fiscal year 2009, as
    part of the APR, PASS Technical Proficiency assessments focus on image
    recognition, proper screening techniques, and the ability to identify,
    detect and locate prohibited items.
        In fiscal year 2010, performance assessments and reviews will focus
    on the same. The performance review process will use a menu-based
    approach allowing airports to choose from a series of real-life
    scenarios designed to accurately reflect checkpoint threats.
        In fiscal year 2010, TSA will also continue to align the PASS
    program with new training initiatives (such as Checkpoint Evolution) to
    ensure its workforce is being assessed on the most current threats and
    that the workforce is utilizing all the necessary tools to efficiently
    and effectively screen passengers and personal property.

                             COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

        Question. What is the status of the Department's review of the
    question of extending collective bargaining rights to TSOs? If
    complete, please provide the findings from the review. Will you take
    steps administratively extend collective bargaining rights to TSOs?
        Answer. The review is ongoing.
        Question. Would extending collective bargaining rights to TSOs
    require additional funding not included in the fiscal year 2010 budget
    request?
        Answer. Any budgetary impacts are contingent upon the outcome of
    the ongoing review.

                         OTTAWA COUNTY, OHIO, FACILITY

        Question. Last year U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
    announced plans to construct a new CBP facility in Ottawa County, Ohio
    and locate new CBP employees at that facility. What is the status of
    CBP's plans for a facility in Ottawa County, including a timeline for
    when the facility will be completed and how many CBP employees will be
    based at that facility?
        Answer. The Sandusky Bay Station is currently operating out of a
    temporary facility at 160 East Market Street, Sandusky, Ohio. A
    permanent location has not yet been chosen for the new station.
    However, it is tentatively scheduled to be located in the Ottawa County
    area and is tentatively planned to be a joint CBP facility--housing
    Border Patrol, Office of Field Operations (OFO), and CBP Air and Marine
    (AMO) offices. The projected occupancy date is December 2011.
        The Border Patrol station is planned to be a 50-man station. CBP is
    working on determining the size of the OFO and AMO offices.

                         RADIATION DETECTION EQUIPMENT

        Question. The fiscal year 2010 request does not provide funding to
    support acquisition of radiation detection equipment, including the
    Advanced Spectroscopic Portal (ASP) technology. How will the Department
    fund the acquisition of the ASP, pending Secretarial certification, and
    other radiation detection equipment, such as handheld radiation
    detectors? How will the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection
    acquire such equipment?
        Answer. DNDO has approximately $120 million in prior year funds to
    procure RPM units. After ASP detectors have been certified for
    deployment, approximately 50 units will be acquired. In addition, prior
    year funds will also be used to procure handheld radiation detection
    equipment for the Coast Guard and TSA's Visible Intermodal Prevention
    and Response (VIPR) teams.

                           RADIATION PORTAL MONITORS

        Question. When and if the ASP monitors are certified as providing a
    significant increase in operational effectiveness, how do you plan to
    weigh cost effectiveness in any decision to acquire and deploy these
    portals?
        Answer. DNDO has prepared, and is in the last stages of reviewing,
    a comprehensive Cost Benefit Analysis and Life Cycle Cost Estimate to
    determine the cost effectiveness of ASP detectors. This analysis, along
    with input from the stakeholders, and concurrence from the DHS
    Acquisition Review Board, will form the basis of any acquisition or
    deployment decisions.

                   TRANSFER OF THE FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

        Question. Please expand on the rationale in the fiscal year 2010
    request to transfer the Federal Protective Service (FPS) to the
    National Protection Programs Directorate (NPPD) from Immigration and
    Customs Enforcement (ICE). How will the Department ensure a smooth the
    transition? Will NPPD assume responsibility for support functions
    currently provided to FPS by ICE?
        Answer. The appropriate placement of the Federal Protective Service
    (FPS) within DHS has been a topic of periodic review since the creation
    of DHS in March 2003. The final decision to place the FPS within the
    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was based on aligning
    law enforcement organizations to share and leverage specialized
    equipment, training and support required by all DHS law enforcement
    organizations. In addition, ICE's financial system was identified as
    having the capacity and capability to support the unique FPS offsetting
    collections funding structure through which FPS recovers 100 percent of
    the cost for law enforcement and security at approximately 9,000
    Federal facilities across the Nation from the agencies receiving those
    services. Although the ability of ICE to provide law enforcement and
    financial support was critical to the initial transition of the FPS
    from the General Services Administration to DHS, the FPS mission to
    secure and protect Federal offices and employees is outside the scope
    of ICE's primary mission.
        The proposed transfer of the FPS to the National Protection and
    Programs Directorate (NPPD) will align the FPS mission for protecting
    Federal facilities infrastructure with the NPPD mission of critical
    infrastructure protection and the responsibility for establishing
    government-wide physical security policy for the protection of
    government facilities. The missions of NPPD and FPS are complementary
    and mutually supportive, and their alignment resulting from the
    transfer will improve and advance mission effectiveness of both FPS and
    NPPD. Further, the formulation and execution of building security
    policy will be combined within the same DHS component, as NPPD chairs
    the operations of the Interagency Security Committee (ISC), a group
    that includes the physical security leads for all major Federal
    agencies whose key responsibility is the establishment of government-
    wide security policy.
        To ensure a smooth transition following Congressional approval of
    the transfer, NPPD, ICE and FPS will form a joint transition team. An
    inventory of the financial and administrative support services that ICE
    currently provides for FPS, along with the annual ICE charges for those
    services, has been completed. The transition team will transfer those
    services that can be more efficiently provided by NPPD from ICE to
    NPPD. In those cases in which it is determined that ICE should continue
    to be the service provider, a Service Level Agreement (SLA) between FPS
    and ICE will be established. For example, ICE currently provides
    financial and accounting services to multiple DHS components, including
    NPPD. The costs for financial and accounting services that FPS receives
    now are reimbursed to ICE in the annual budget execution plan. In
    addition, ICE provides procurement support for FPS. If continuation of
    this contracting support is deemed to be most efficient, this
    arrangement could be continued as well. Based on a preliminary review
    of the budget and financial operations, it is not anticipated that the
    transfer of the FPS to NPPD will affect the continuity of support
    services or cause an increase in the current cost of the services.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                      COAST GUARD NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER

        Question. The fiscal year 2010 budget proposes $281.48 million for
    production of the fourth Coast Guard National Security Cutter. The
    Coast Guard has consistently indicated that it plans to produce at
    least 8 National Security Cutters. No funding for long-lead materials
    for additional National Security Cutters is included in the request.
    Are plans for 8 National Security Cutters still in place? Does the
    Department not risk a gap in production and additional costs to the
    program if these additional funds are not provided in fiscal year 2010?
    What additional amount is needed for long-lead materials for the fifth
    National Security Cutter? What additional funds are needed for
    production of the fifth National Security Cutter?
        Answer. Completion of the NSC Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) of
    eight hulls to replace the in-service High Endurance Cutter fleet
    continues to be the Coast Guard's highest recapitalization priority.
        The fiscal year 2010 Budget Request is sufficient to backfill the
    current funding gap and enables Coast Guard to award a contract for
    NSC-4 so there will be no gap in production in 2010. The Budget Request
    does not fund procurement of a fifth NSC, recognizing that future
    procurements will more successfully meet planned costs and schedule
    milestones if risks and unknowns are reduced by fully completing a lead
    ship. Coast Guard is focused on completing NSC-1 to obtain a final,
    stable, per-ship cost estimate before proceeding with additional
    procurements. Coast Guard anticipates NSC-1 acceptance in early 2010,
    which would allow procurement of the next cutter (NSC-5) to begin in
    2011.
        Under the current Acquisition Program Baseline, approved in
    December 2008, $587 million has been allocated for procurement of NSC-
    5.

                 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY DATA MIGRATION

        Question. I am very pleased that the fiscal year 2010 budget
    request contains approximately $200 million department-wide for data
    center migration efforts. Your department's leadership in data
    consolidation is to be commended. Such efforts are critical to our
    future as data operations are scattered throughout Federal agencies
    with little rhyme or reason and are consuming energy at an alarmingly
    growing rate. Of the $152 million requested for Security Activities by
    the Office of the Chief Information Officer, how much would be used for
    power capabilities upgrades at DHS Data Center 1 (DC1)? How critical do
    you believe data center consolidation is to the Department's ability to
    operate effectively and efficiently? Do you intend to choose a Chief
    Information Officer with a commitment to continuing the Department's
    consolidation efforts?
        Answer. Data Center consolidation is very critical to the
    Department's ability to operate effectively and efficiently. I will
    ensure that the Department's CIO shares my commitment to completing
    this critical project. Of the $152 million requested for Security
    Activities, $38.5 million will be used for power capabilities upgrades
    at DC1. These costs are as follows:
      --Power Upgrade Phase II--Upgrade Electrical Service, Entrance,
            Additional Switchgear, Expand Zones E and F to 2.8 Megavolt
            Amperes--$12,600,995
      --Power Upgrade Phase III--Electrical upgrade, 5th UPS/zone, 2
            Additional Generators--$14,439,150
      --Power Upgrade Phase IV--Tier III Mechanical, 2 Additional Chillers,
            4 Additional Generators--$11,500,000
        Consolidating services into two Enterprise Data Centers will enable
    DHS to effectively monitor all information technology (IT) systems for
    IT compliance while reducing the risk of vulnerabilities in our
    information systems in a cost-effective and sustainable manner. The
    main benefits of the data center consolidation project are outlined
    below.
    Reduced Equipment Procurement Costs
        Moving to a virtualized utility model will allow DHS to run
    Windows, Linux, Solaris and NetWare operating systems and software
    applications on the same piece of hardware at the same time. Running
    multiple workloads on highly virtualized servers will allow DHS to
    increase server utilization from 5-15 percent to as much as 80 percent.
        Industry studies show that virtualization reduces overall costs by
    $2,000-$3,000 per server annually.
    Reduced Energy Costs
        Every server virtualized saves 7,000kWh of electricity annually, or
    about $700 in energy costs. DHS has the capacity to virtualize several
    hundred servers if hosted in a DHS Enterprise Data Center.
        Improved server utilization rates from 5-15 percent to 60-80
    percent. Running fewer, highly utilized servers frees up space and
    power.
        Four tons of CO2 are eliminated for every server
    virtualized, or the equivalent of taking 1.5 cars off the highway.
    More Efficient and Denser Use of Data Center Hosting Space Reduces the
            Need for Physical Expansion
        Reducing the overall computing asset footprint will result in
    reduced system maintenance, management, and administration costs, while
    a merging of existing operations and maintenance contracts will
    increase operational efficiency overall.
    Easier and Faster System Management
        DHS will develop a robust, resilient infrastructure by using
    mirrored sites, resource redundancy, data duplication and virtual
    infrastructure hosted in a cloud computing environment between the two
    Enterprise Data Centers. Economies of scale can be achieved by using
    ghost virtual machines (VMs), which participate in application
    clusters; these resources are not activated unless the resource
    management starts up the system (usually within a few seconds with
    negligible overhead).
        Virtualization and Utility computing with allow DHS to unify the
    management of existing different operating systems, including Windows,
    Linux, and Netware systems, by placing them on a single virtual
    hardware platform. This will greatly simplify and streamline the
    existing multiple systems and groups across DHS performing different
    versions of network and system management.
        DHS will be able to eliminate repetitive installation and
    configuration tasks with virtual machine templates. These reusable
    images make it fast and simple to provision new server workloads. When
    coupled with the hardware independence afforded by virtualization, DHS
    can reduce the time it takes to deploy new IT services by as much as 50
    percent-70 percent.
        DHS will also be able to more easily enforce Department standards
    such as anti-virus and management software in any machine connected to
    the network.
        Reduced Wide Area Network (WAN) costs.
        Greater ability to easily share data and information within DHS.
        Server-based computing and self organizing resource utilities
    (server/network/storage farms) are the basis for dependable computing
    in the future. Individual applications can specify their performance
    and availability requirement.
        Software will be hosted off-premise and delivered via web to a
    large number of tenants. This will allow DHS to provide a multitude of
    options and variations using a single code base for each agency to have
    a unique software configuration.
        Access to applications over the Internet using industry-standard
    browsers or web services clients will provide a cost saving benefit of
    no longer relying on COTS/GOTS applications to manipulate data.
    Cybersecurity Enhancements
        The two Enterprise Data Centers were designed with security as a
    top priority. Data center enhancements include the stand-up of Trusted
    Internet Connections (TIC) at both locations, and the department is in
    the process of realigning DHS systems into the data centers, thus
    ensuring that both systems and users may only access the Internet from
    behind one or both TICs. Each TIC includes a comprehensive suite of
    security capabilities that include firewalls and proxy services, for
    enforcing the Department's internet usage policies, and monitoring
    tools that are designed to alert on a wide range of threats. Einstein I
    and Einstein II sensors are also deployed at each TIC to ensure
    visibility for sophisticated threats that regularly target the
    Department.

                  SOUTHEAST REGION RESEARCH INITIATIVE (SERRI)

        Question. Congress has included significant funding for the
    Southeast Region Research Initiative (SERRI) in the last several
    Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bills. Officials in the
    previous administration often expressed to me the value of SERRI in
    addressing the unique Homeland Security challenges faced by the
    Southeastern part of our country. Previous leadership at the Department
    committed to including SERRI in future budget requests, but I see that
    the budget request does not include any funding for SERRI. Do you
    believe that the Department is well served to invest in researching the
    unique Homeland Security challenges faced by the Southeastern part of
    our country?
        Answer. Yes. The Southeast Regional Research Initiative (SERRI) is
    conducting needed research on behalf of the Department of Homeland
    Security. The SERRI research projects have been aligned to the Science
    and Technology Directorate's Infrastructure and Geophysical Division's
    Geophysical research efforts. For example, the Community and Regional
    Resilience Institute (CARRI), within SERRI, works to assist communities
    and regions to prepare for, respond to and recover from natural and
    man-made disasters by developing processes and tools to help
    communities become more resilient across the critical asset protection
    continuum.

                          FEMA HOUSING CASE MANAGEMENT

        Question. I want to express my appreciation to FEMA and the
    Department for the assistance it provided to my State last March
    through the Disaster Case Management Pilot Program for temporary
    housing. This program has helped non-profit organizations in South
    Mississippi to reduce the number of families remaining in temporary
    FEMA housing due to Hurricane Katrina from nearly 8,000 in August 2008
    to just 2,000 today. Could you assess the effectiveness of this program
    in Mississippi? In the case of disasters of the magnitude of Hurricane
    Katrina where tens of thousands of families are displaced, will
    temporary housing case management continue to be required to properly
    assist families in returning to permanent housing?
        Answer. FEMA provided a grant to the State of Mississippi to
    provide case management services to households residing in FEMA-
    provided temporary housing (temporary housing units and emergency
    lodging assistance) until June 1, 2009. An independent evaluation is
    being conducted on the implementation of the Disaster Case Management
    Pilot Program in Mississippi. The evaluator is currently completing
    interviews and analyzing data from the Mississippi Case Management
    Consortium for Hurricane Katrina. The deadline for completion of the
    evaluation is June 1, 2009, with a final report due to FEMA by June 30,
    2009.
        Based on authority granted to FEMA by the Post Katrina Emergency
    Management Reform Act (PKEMRA), FEMA has partnered with the U.S.
    Department of Health and Human Services' Administration on Children and
    Families (ACF) to develop a Disaster Case Management Pilot Program. The
    evaluator working on the evaluation of the Mississippi Disaster Case
    Management Pilot program is also conducting an evaluation of the ACF
    program that was implemented for Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in
    September, 2008.
        FEMA will work with ACF to incorporate lessons learned and best
    practices from each implemented Disaster Case Management program to
    produce workable solutions for meeting the needs of future disaster
    applicants and cultivating partnerships with other Federal and
    Voluntary Agencies.

                         LARGE SPECTATOR EVENT SECURITY

        Question. I recently visited with the directors of security for
    Major League Baseball, the National Football League, and Indy Racing
    League. All three officials expressed to me the urgent need to improve
    the resources available to ensure safety at large spectator events. The
    ability for tens of thousands of Americans to assemble freely in one
    area to collectively enjoy sports or entertainment is an integral part
    of our culture and heritage. Has the Department put together an
    assessment of the vulnerabilities of such events? In what new,
    innovative ways can we go about meeting some of these challenges? What
    additional authorities or resources could Congress provide to help in
    this effort? I understand if you feel it is necessary for you to
    address these questions in a classified setting.
        Answer. Yes, the Department of Homeland Security's Office of
    Infrastructure Protection (IP) works very closely with and has direct
    Sector Specific Agency (SSA) responsibility for the Commercial
    Facilities Sector, including stadiums and arenas. As a result of
    hundreds of assessments, IP has broadly distributed key reports and
    materials to the private sector dealing with common vulnerabilities,
    potential indicators of terrorist activity, and recommended protective
    measures for large spectator events. IP has conducted vulnerability
    assessments via the following methods:
      --Conducted buffer zone plans for 219 stadiums, arenas, and
            racetracks, facilitating the award of approximately $11.228
            million in grant funding to first responders in surrounding
            jurisdictions. The grant funding is used for protection and
            prevention equipment for first responders to mitigate the
            identified vulnerabilities, thereby directly contributing to
            the hardening of stadiums and arenas.
      --Conducted site assistance visits for 61 stadiums, arenas, and
            racetracks. Site assistance visits are ``inside the fence''
            vulnerability assessments jointly conducted by the Department
            in coordination and cooperation with Federal, State, local and
            Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR) owners and
            operators that identify critical components, specific
            vulnerabilities and security enhancements.
      --Conducted computer-based assessments for 23 stadiums, arenas, and
            racetracks. These assessments make use of a 360-degree,
            spherical camera system that captures the facility, routes and
            specific areas, and provides situational awareness during
            vulnerability assessments.
      --Conducted 24 enhanced critical infrastructure protection visits to
            stadiums, arenas, and racetracks, and discussed options for
            consideration and potential protective measures to address any
            identified vulnerabilities.
      --Provided support during four Super Bowls, including Super Bowl
            XLIII in February 2009.
        IP continues to look for and provide innovative initiatives to
    enhance security. IP is working with the Center for Spectator Sports
    Security Management at the University of Southern Mississippi to
    address the myriad of potential and actual threats and risks to the
    ongoing safety and security of fans at sporting events by working to
    expand online and web-based training.
        IP conducts training courses for stadium and arena personnel that
    include the Soft Target Awareness (STA) Course, Surveillance Detection
    (SD) Course, and Protective Measures Course. A total of 1,569
    participants have attended the STA course tailored for stadiums/arenas;
    4,501 State and local law enforcement and CIKR owner/operators and
    security staff have attended the SD course; and nearly 500 CIKR owner/
    operators and security staff have completed the Protective Measures
    Course.
        The Commercial Facilities SSA has developed several innovative
    programs in partnership with the Commercial Facilities Sector
    Coordinating Council and the Government Coordinating Council to address
    the vulnerabilities of large spectator events. The programs include a
    risk self-assessment tool (RSAT) for stadiums and arenas--a web-based
    module for stadiums and arenas that was made available in March 2009.
    RSAT enables facility managers to balance resiliency with focused,
    risk-informed prevention, protection, and preparedness activities so
    that they can manage and reduce their most serious risks.
        The Commercial Facilities SSA developed evacuation planning guides
    to ensure the safety of the public, increase the level of preparedness,
    allow personnel to respond to an incident quickly and appropriately,
    and assist stadium owners/operators with preparing an evacuation plan
    to determine when and how to evacuate, shelter in place, or relocate
    stadium spectators and participants. The NASCAR evacuation guide was
    modified into an evacuation planning guide for stadiums by a working
    group comprising various Federal agencies, members of the Commercial
    Facilities Sector Coordinating Council, other interested private-sector
    security partners, and academia.
        IP also has new initiatives that will have a positive impact on
    addressing the vulnerabilities of large spectator events including
    developing ``best practices'' and standard guidance for conducting bag
    searches and credentialing during a large spectator event. In addition,
    IP has developed guides and materials for general protective measures
    and, specifically, for responding to ``Active Shooter'' situations.
      --Protective measures guides provide an overview of best practices
            and protective measures designed to assist owners/operators in
            planning and managing security at their facilities or events.
            The measures identified in the guides reflect the special
            considerations and challenges posed by specific facility or
            event types.
      --Active Shooter materials are designed to be used as training
            guidance to address how employees, managers, training staff,
            and human resources can mitigate the risk of and appropriately
            react in the event of an active shooter. The final products
            include a desk reference guide, a reference poster, and a
            pocket-size reference card that provides guidance to managers,
            employees, and human resources departments. The following
            materials were distributed to private-sector partners
            electronically through various outreach channels: 10,000 desk
            reference guide books, 10,000 reference posters, 250,000
            pocket-sized reference cards, and copies of the publications.
        Facilities that host large spectator events include a wide range of
    asset types; as a result, facilitating effective protection and
    preparedness at a facility can pose a challenge. The following
    describes some of the challenges in implementing CIKR protection
    programs, activities and tools:
        With a few exceptions, owners and operators bear most of the costs
    of protecting their assets (e.g., equipment and personnel). Budget
    requirements pose a challenge, particularly for smaller facilities that
    have thinner operating margins than major corporations. The Commercial
    Facilities SSA encourages a strategy that promotes security upgrades as
    an investment against a multitude of threats. The Commercial Facilities
    Sector is a very broad sector and covers disparate venues from Super
    Bowls to museums. Although some similarities exist between the various
    events, there is still a wide variance among protection-related
    activities.

                        ASSISTANCE TO RURAL FIREFIGHTERS

        Question. The strict training and certification requirements placed
    on fire departments who wish to apply for Assistance to Firefighters
    Grants leaves volunteer fire departments with little ability to compete
    for these funds. These primarily rural departments service far more
    land area and are often in more need of resources than their urban
    counterparts. In my State of Mississippi, professional fire departments
    even advocate for resources for volunteer departments in outlying areas
    because cooperation these departments is so critical to their mission.
    Do you believe that the current distribution of Assistance to
    Firefighters Grants resources is equitable? Should volunteer fire
    departments be denied access to these grants because they do not have
    the resources or flexibility to send their firefighters to training
    sessions that are often located far away from home and take place over
    the course of several months?
        Answer. FEMA and DHS understand and appreciate the role that
    volunteer fire departments play in the Nation's first response. We also
    recognize the importance of training since consequences can be
    catastrophic if an individual or organization is not properly trained.
        One of the funding criteria of AFG is that no applicant can request
    equipment that the applicant is not trained to use unless the applicant
    is also seeking the necessary training. We believe it would, for
    example, be dangerous to provide hazardous materials handling equipment
    to first responders that are not trained in the use of that equipment.
    This criterion is also true for firefighting vehicles as well as
    breathing apparatus--firefighters should be trained in the use of
    equipment before they use it.
        Accordingly, AFG provides financial assistance for training,
    instructors, training materials, and the cost of any transportation to/
    from training. AFG will also cover lost wages for a volunteer who has
    to take time off from his/her regular job in order to attend training.
        Since 2002, volunteer fire departments have been awarded 29,312
    AFGs totaling $2.2 billion. This is 66 percent of the 44,342 grants
    awarded and 53 percent of the $4.2 billion grant funds awarded. To put
    this in perspective, according to NFPA's U.S. Fire Department Profile,
    volunteer fire departments protect approximately 22 percent of the
    population.

                  COAST GUARD UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS)

        Question. No funding is included in the fiscal year 2010 Coast
    Guard request for the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). Why? Will this
    impact the planned testing schedules?
        Answer. Cutter based UAS testing: Utilizing fiscal year 2008 and
    fiscal year 2009 funding, the Coast Guard will continue progress and
    reduce the risk associated with projected NSC-based UAS field tests.
    The Coast Guard is pursuing 3-pronged testing that includes: (1) shore-
    launched UAS field tests over water, (2) participation in the Navy's
    underway developmental and operational testing of the Fire Scout on
    board the USS McInerney, and (3) field validation of the NSC's air-
    search radar to determine the cutter's ability to manage its own air
    space for UAS operations. These concurrent field tests are the key
    remaining portions of the congressionally directed research funded in
    the fiscal year 2008 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
    (RDT&E) Appropriation to identify the most effective UAS to operate
    from the NSC. These efforts will be completed with available funds with
    completion and final reporting expected in late March 2010 on schedule.
        Consistent with the UAS Acquisition Decision Memo approved by DHS,
    upon completion of the 3-proged test, the next step is to conduct NSC-
    based vertical launch dynamic interface UAS trials, anticipated to
    start in 2011.
        Land-based UAS Testing: Customs and Border Protection is the DHS
    lead for land-based UAS testing and USCG is working closely with CBP to
    incorporate their experience into planning for any additional field
    testing of land-based UAS that may be needed for use in the maritime
    environment.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback

                 NATIONAL BIO AND AGRO-DEFENSE FACILITY (NBAF)

        Question. It's come to my attention that the most recently released
    CBO Baseline scored the sale of Plum Island in fiscal year 2015. As you
    know, if this doesn't change, it would cause a very large problem for
    both you and this committee because we wouldn't have the offsetting
    collections in fiscal year 2011 to offset the large amount of funding
    that we'll need for construction. So, to clarify for this committee and
    for CBO, do you indeed intend to sell Plum Island in calendar year 2010
    and use the proceeds from this sale as an offsetting collection for
    funding the construction of NBAF in fiscal year 2011?
        Answer. Using the authority granted by Congress in the fiscal year
    2009 DHS Appropriations Act (Public Law 110-329), the Department is
    working with the General Services Administration (GSA) to sell Plum
    Island. GSA expects to put the island on the market in fiscal year 2010
    with a final sale and closing date in fiscal year 2011. The sale
    proceeds will be an offsetting collection to the appropriation for
    National Bio and Agro-defense Facility (NBAF) construction and all
    other associated costs including Plum Island environmental remediation.
    The Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate plans to request the
    appropriation from Congress in fiscal year 2011, which is the fiscal
    year in which S&T plans to sell Plum Island as well as begin
    construction of the actual building that will house the NBAF.
        Question. Also, I notice that in the budget tables for future year
    expenditures for NBAF construction, you lump fiscal year 2011-2014 in
    the same column. Just to clarify, do you intend to budget the entire
    $584 million in fiscal year 2011?
        Answer. Yes, the Science and Technology Directorate will budget the
    full cost for constructing National Bio and Agro-defense Facility and
    all other associated costs including Plum Island environmental
    remediation to coincide with the offsetting collection in fiscal year
    2011.
        Question. I've been informed that CBO will resubmit their adjusted
    baseline to Congress on May 29, which is coming up quickly. Will you
    commit to informing CBO as soon as practical of your intentions to
    budget these funds in fiscal year 2011 so that they can adjust their
    baseline when they resubmit it to Congress later this month?
        Answer. In the fiscal year 2010 President's Budget Request, the
    Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate included its intention to work
    with the General Services Administration to sell Plum Island in fiscal
    year 2011 following a model GSA successfully used to sell another piece
    of property, Middle River. The S&T Directorate is working closely with
    the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office
    (CBO) to ensure that the sale of Plum Island is scored in the
    appropriate year.
        Question. According to the Congressional Justification the design
    work for the NBAF is to be completed by the 4th quarter of fiscal year
    2010 and the construction work is scheduled to begin, with $36.3
    million is included in the President Budget request. If the receipts
    from the sale of Plum Island are not available as offsetting
    collections to fund the costs of construction of the NBAF, how will you
    keep this project on schedule?
        Answer. To keep National Bio and Agro-defense Facility on schedule,
    $500 million would need to be appropriated for construction in fiscal
    year 2011, and an additional $200 million would need to be appropriated
    for Plum Island cleanup in fiscal year 2012-2015.
        Question. As the H1N1 outbreak has shown, animal disease and
    zoonotic disease research is an urgent national and international,
    issue. Simply put, in the interest of protecting our agriculture
    economy and public health, America needs to accelerate the NBAF's
    research mission. When can we expect DHS and USDA will initiate NBAF-
    related research in Kansas?
        Answer. The current plan is for National Bio and Agro-defense
    Facility (NBAF) to begin some operations in 2015 and to be fully
    staffed and operational by 2017. Operations will continue at Plum
    Island until all activities are transitioned to NBAF.
        Question. As you may know, the Government Owned- Contractor
    Operated, or Go-Co model is currently being used to manage 19 Federal
    laboratories. In fact, DHS's main research operations, as well as DOE
    and other Federal labs operate in a GOCO environment. Will your
    Department work with the USDA to discuss the advantages and potential
    efficiencies gained by utilizing the GOCO model for the NBAF?
        Answer. The Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate will work with
    U.S. Department of Agriculture to determine the most appropriate and
    efficient arrangement for the operation of and research at the National
    Bio and Agro-defense Facility (NBAF). To make a final decision, the S&T
    Directorate will perform an Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) to determine
    the optimal operating model for NBAF. The S&T Directorate expects to
    complete the AoA by the end of fiscal year 2010.
        The S&T Directorate has experience in managing both government and
    contractor operated laboratories as it currently operates the National
    Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center as a GOCO FFRDC and the
    Transportation Security Laboratory as a government owned, government
    operated lab.
        Question. Would you mind reviewing DHS' construction timeline for
    the National Bio and Agro-defense Facility, specifically addressing the
    current status of the selection of the contract manager, the proposed
    timeline to initiate pre-construction and actual construction and
    facility completion?
        Answer. Bids for National Bio and Agro-defense Facility (NBAF)
    construction were due to DHS on May 14, 2009. The construction manager
    will be selected in September 2009. The construction manager will
    provide pre-construction services and will provide fixed prices for two
    phases of construction. The schedule for these activities is displayed
    in the following table:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Construction Milestone                        Date
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Award Option 1 for site preparation work..  July 2010 (fiscal year 2010)
    Award Option 2 for facility construction..  November 2010 (fiscal year
                                                 2011)
    Complete Construction.....................  December 2014
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   FLOODPLAIN REMAPPING, GARDEN CITY, KANSAS

        Question. FEMA has been instructed to complete floodplain remapping
    nationwide. Of particular concern to me is the lack of common sense
    applied to the remapping process. The city of Garden City in Kansas has
    planned their growth responsibly, avoiding development in those areas
    which have been historically located within the Special Flood Hazard
    Area. The remapping places two drainage ditches and their surrounding
    areas within the redefined 100-year floodplain, even though this area
    was not included in the last 4 Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) that
    date all the way back to 1971. I was informed by FEMA that had the city
    not been responsible and built the two drainage ditches, then the area
    would not have been included in the new floodplain. I am concerned that
    this is not a common sense approach to the floodmapping process.
    Included is a letter from Garden City outlining their specific
    circumstances. Can I count on you to revisit this issue and reconsider
    the inclusion of these ditches in the new floodplain map?

                                           City of Garden City,
                                     Garden City, Kansas, May 13, 2008.
    Senator Sam Brownback,
    303 Hart Senate,
    Washington, D.C. 20510.

        Senator Brownback: The City of Garden City and Finney County have
    always planned our growth responsibly, avoiding development in those
    areas which have been historically located within the Special Flood
    Hazard Area. However our community is confused by the sudden inclusion
    of two stormwater drainage districts in the most recent FEMA updates
    especially considering that:
      --The original study performed in 1971 did not include the drainage
            districts;
      --The 1978 FIRM did not include these ditches;
      --The 1980 FIRM did not include the ditches;
      --The 1997 revised FIRM and Flood Insurance Study did not include the
            ditches.
        FEMA, the Kansas Department of Agriculture (the State agency to
    which FEMA outsourced the map modernization responsibility), and AMEC
    (the private consultant hired by the Department of Agriculture) have
    not provided a reasonable explanation as to why these omissions were
    present on the previous FIRMs submitted since 1978.
        Despite the ``rule'' of including man-made waterways on the books
    for decades, the Federal Government never applied that to the two
    ditches. That made perfectly good sense because the ditches were put
    there to alleviate flash flooding of rain water in an extremely flat
    area. As a result, and because the improvement of the ditches solved
    the rain water issue for the community, the community planned its
    growth toward the north and the east. We have grown and prospered
    consistent with that plan for over 50 years. The DD1 now runs through
    the core of our residential community and our next area for growth is
    in and around DD2. When we first met with FEMA to review the floodplain
    over a year ago, our expectation was that they were updating the map as
    it relates to the Arkansas River. This expectation was based on our
    past experience working with FEMA in 1971, 1978, 1980 and 1997. We
    participated and were attentive to our responsibilities. It was beyond
    anyone's expectation that the preliminary maps we would receive later
    that year would suddenly create two new, overly expansive flood zones.
        Our community has planned, built, maintained and (when necessary)
    improved these ditches to handle the localized rain events that affect
    them. This has nothing in common with an event that would flood the
    Arkansas River, which would only come from extreme events further up
    river.
        The negative economic consequences resulting from the way FEMA and
    the State Department of Agriculture carried out their map modernization
    task are tremendous; potentially draining a million dollars per year
    from the local economy and significantly dropping the market and
    taxable value of a huge portion of our residential property.
        Locally we are perplexed by the notion that the State Division of
    Water Resources and FEMA recognize that this is not an exact science.
    It is an approximation based on aerial photography instead of surveys
    and hydrologic studies. They recognize that those are the more
    appropriate tool to be used, but have neither the time nor the
    resources to be that accurate because of the daunting task of remapping
    the entire country. We provided them aerial photography accurate to the
    2 ft. level. 2 ft. change in elevation in Garden City takes in a
    substantial amount of ground. For most people it is the difference in
    their property being in or out of the supposed floodplain. It is
    shameful that the burden of proof (which includes a considerable
    immediate and long-term financial burden) is placed on them to correct
    the ``approximation'' used by the Federal Government for the sake of
    expedience. You can probably understand why people are angry at FEMA
    and feel over ran.
        FEMA has a process and it appears they are following the minimum
    requirements of it. We feel there is a reasonable expectation on this
    community's part that the Federal Government ought to recognize that
    something that was permitted for 50 years after numerous Federal
    reviews and examinations influenced this community to plan and grow in
    a certain manner. To suddenly change course from a computer screen in
    Topeka or Washington D.C. and not even attempt to give special
    consideration to the devastating impact it would have locally has
    discouraged many folks. I suspect that you have begun to hear from them
    about their dissatisfaction in their government and you will
    undoubtedly get more when they begin paying thousands of dollars in
    unnecessary premiums.
        As for FEMA touting that they took into consideration our local
    aerial photography and redid the maps . . .they did. They did so
    because we had sent them to the Division of Water Resources prior that
    year. When the staff person denied ever receiving them in a public
    meeting, we provided a copy of e-mail correspondence where we had
    followed up with him on the subject and asked for his feedback. We
    never heard from him. I think they redid the maps because they knew
    they had dropped the ball on their end. Nonetheless, we are still left
    with two barriers to local growth and future development which
    shouldn't be there and our counter to five decades of successful
    planned growth in Garden City.
        We are requesting that FEMA re-consider the inclusion of Drainage
    Districts 1 and 2 ditches on the most recently submitted FIRM on behalf
    of the Citizens of Garden City and Finney County. Your assistance and
    support would be greatly appreciated.
                Respectfully yours,
                                                    Matt Allen,
                                                          City Manager.

        Answer. In the 1950's, Garden City, Kansas did do the responsible
    thing of trying to control flood conditions by constructing two
    drainage ditches within their community to alleviate the resulting
    flood conditions that were occurring during the more frequent flood
    events. As the City has been doing, it is important for them to
    continue to utilize all available information to communicate the
    existing flood risks to their citizens and to exercise good floodplain
    management practices to minimize those risks.
        FEMA is charged with identifying the Nation's flood prone areas.
    This information is crucial for communities and citizens to protect
    themselves from the disastrous effects of flooding. In order to best
    update the flood hazards for the communities like Garden City in Finney
    County, FEMA established a partnership with the Kansas Department of
    Agriculture's Division of Water Resources. FEMA recognizes that these
    partnerships between Federal, State and locals bring the necessary
    resources and local knowledge together to more accurately identify the
    existing flood risks. In March 2007, along with the appropriate State
    representatives, FEMA began meeting with Garden City officials to
    discuss our concern that a flood risk may exist within their community
    that had previously not been mapped on our Flood Insurance Rate Maps
    (FIRMs). While the two ditches built in the 50's may be mitigating some
    of the effects of those flood hazards, the initial analysis performed
    by the State indicates that there is still residual risk that should be
    properly communicated.
        As always, FEMA is committed to working with our State and local
    partners to ensure that the most accurate information is presented on
    the FIRMs. FEMA welcomes continued dialog with the officials of Garden
    City to discuss how we as a unified government team can properly
    identify, communicate and mitigate flood risks with the common desire
    to protect the citizens of Garden City.

              ESTIMATING FLOOD ELEVATIONS WITH AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY

        Question. FEMA currently uses aerial photography to estimate flood
    elevations as they modernize county floodplain maps throughout the
    country. This aerial photography is only accurate within 10 ft. of
    elevation, dramatically less accurate than the survey quality
    information previously used to establish these floodplains. Yet in your
    testimony you stated that FEMA uses the best science available when
    updating their floodplain maps. How does using aerial photography with
    this limitation on elevation accuracy allow FEMA to use the best
    science available?
        Answer. For over 30 years, including during Flood Map
    Modernization, FEMA has used more precise mapping methods in higher
    risk areas and other methods in lower risk areas. The National
    Academies of Science has recently completed two assessments of FEMA's
    mapping methods. The reports confirmed that adjusting the precision of
    the mapping approach relative to the risk produced the maximum cost
    benefit for flood hazard mapping and substantially validated FEMA's
    technical approach to flood hazard mapping.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARING

        Senator Byrd. Very well. I thank all the Senators, and the
    subcommittee is recessed.
        Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
        [Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., Wednesday, May 13, the hearing
    was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

      DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

                                  ----------

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

        [The following testimonies were received by the
    Subcommittee on Homeland Security for inclusion in the record.
    The submitted materials relate to the fiscal year 2010 budget
    request for programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]

       Prepared Statement of the International Association of Emergency
                                    Managers

        Chairman Byrd, Ranking Member Voinovich, and distinguished members
    of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
    provide a statement on critical budget and policy issues for the
    Federal Emergency Management Agency/Department of Homeland Security.
        I am Russ Decker, the Director of Emergency Management and Homeland
    Security for Allen County, Ohio. Allen County is a mid-size rural
    county in northwest Ohio with a population of just over 100,000. I
    serve as the President of the United States Council of the
    International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM-USA). I have 19
    years of emergency management experience, with the last ten as a local
    director. I have also served as President of the Emergency Management
    Association of Ohio.
        IAEM-USA is our Nation's largest association of Emergency
    Management professionals, with more than 4,000 members including
    emergency managers at the State and local government levels, tribal
    Nations, the military, colleges and universities, private business and
    the nonprofit sector. Most of our members are city and county emergency
    managers who perform the crucial function of coordinating and
    integrating the efforts at the local level to prepare for, mitigate the
    effects of, respond to, and recover from all types of disasters
    including terrorist attacks. Our membership includes emergency managers
    from large urban areas as well as rural areas.
        We deeply appreciate the support this subcommittee has provided to
    the emergency management community over the past few years,
    particularly your support for the Emergency Management Performance
    Grant Program as well as strengthening FEMA. We have also appreciated
    your continued direction to DHS and FEMA to consult with their primary
    local and State stakeholders.
    Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG)
        The President's fiscal year 2010 includes $315 million for EMPG. We
    urge that EMPG funding be increased to a minimum of $487 million, that
    the program be retained as a separate account, and that Congress
    continue to include language making it clear that the funding is for
    all hazards and can be used for personnel. We are certainly pleased
    that thirty-nine Senators signed a letter to the committee recommending
    that EMPG be funded at $487 million. We are concerned about the
    language in the budget justification which indicates ``the award
    allocation method will incorporate risk methodology''. Since EMPG
    represents the Federal investment in a viable national emergency
    management system, we have serious concerns about any altering of the
    long standing allocation formula.
        EMPG which has been called ``the backbone of the Nation's emergency
    management system'' in an Appropriations Conference Report constitutes
    the only source of direct Federal funding for State and local
    governments to provide basic emergency coordination and planning
    capabilities for all hazards including those related to homeland
    security. The program supports State and local initiatives for
    planning, training, exercise, mitigation, public education, as well as
    response and recovery coordination during actual events. All disasters
    start and end at the local level, which emphasizes the importance of
    building this capacity at the local level. Funding from EMPG frequently
    makes a difference as to whether or not a qualified person is present
    to perform these duties in a local jurisdiction.
        We appreciate that the Subcommittee has recognized that EMPG is
    different from all the other post September 11, 2001 homeland security
    grants. Specifically, EMPG has existed since the 1950s. It was created
    to be a 50-50 cost share program to ensure participation by State and
    local governments to build strong emergency management programs. The
    program has been under funded for decades and remains so today.
        The program is authorized at $680 million in Public Law 110-53. The
    legislation creating EMPG is purposefully broad to allow jurisdictions
    to focus their attention on customizing capabilities for each local
    jurisdiction. Therefore, FEMA's guidance should not try to make one
    size fit all, but should be written so as to allow maximum flexibility
    in meeting the specific capability requirements within each local
    jurisdiction.
        Funding from EMPG has always been important to local government
    emergency management offices, but it is becoming even more so during
    the current economic downturn. Many of our IAEM-USA members have told
    us that their programs are facing budget reductions which will result
    in reduced staffing, reduced or eliminated training, and reduced public
    outreach. Perhaps most importantly, our members have told us that many
    emergency management programs are at the point where local elected
    officials are considering reducing their commitment from a full time
    emergency manager to a part time emergency manager, or moving the
    emergency management functions as added duties to other departments.
    This will have the effect of actually reducing emergency management
    services in many areas of the country--all this at a time when
    disasters and emergencies threaten more people and property than ever
    before.
        Many local emergency management programs have historically provided
    significantly more than the 50 percent match that is required for their
    EMPG allocations. Simply receiving all of the 50 percent Federal match
    of their contributions would make a big difference in maintaining their
    programs.
    Emergency Management Institute (EMI)
        We urge the subcommittee to provide needed additional funding to
    update the key emergency management courses of the EMI curriculum and
    develop new ones, to provide additional personnel required to handle
    the workload associated with updating and developing new courses, to
    support technology upgrades, and to support the Emergency Management
    Higher Education Program. We would also suggest that funding be
    provided to review and modernize the Integrated Emergency Management
    Course (IEMC) which trains the leadership of communities to respond. We
    would respectfully suggest that the Subcommittee request that FEMA
    provide information on the funding necessary to accomplish these tasks.
        We appreciated the additional $1.253 million in EMI funding
    provided by Congress in fiscal year 2009 and the direction that
    detailed budget information on EMI be included in the Congressional
    budget justification for fiscal year 2009.
        The Emergency Management Institute (EMI) provides vitally needed
    training to State and local government emergency managers through on-
    site classes and distance learning. This ``crown jewel'' of emergency
    management training and doctrine has suffered from lack of funding and
    loss of focus on the primary objectives of the Integrated Emergency
    Management System (IEMS).
        A renewed focus on continuing education for professional emergency
    managers is vital. EMI core curriculum, including the Master Trainer
    Program, E-Courses and G-Courses are essential to the professional
    development of career emergency managers and to support State level
    training programs.
        We also continue to support the highly successful Emergency
    Management Higher Education Program at EMI. This program, though
    underfunded, has produced significant improvements in the preparation
    of emergency managers at the over 160 colleges and universities now
    offering emergency management academic programs. In addition they
    interact with over 400 colleges and universities. The program has also
    established and maintained the essential collaboration between
    emergency management practitioners and the academic and research
    disciplines so essential to a comprehensive approach to emergency
    management. To continue to achieve these results and accomplishments
    and further advance the Higher Education Program, it is necessary to
    augment the existing two person staff.
    PreDisaster Mitigation (PDM)
        We support the request for $150,000,000 for the PreDisaster
    Mitigation program and support reauthorization of the program. The
    Budget request proposes to terminate the nation-wide competitive
    program and allocate the funds to States on a base plus risk system.
    These changes were not discussed with the authorizers, the
    appropriators, or stakeholders in advance of the release of the budget.
    It is our understanding that the risk methodology has not yet been
    developed. We will be reviewing the proposal and seeking comments from
    our members and do not have a position on the proposal at this time.
    Principal Federal Official (PFO)
        We urge the Subcommittee to again include the bill language which
    was included in Section 526 of the fiscal year 2009 Appropriations
    prohibiting the funding of any position designated as a Principal
    Federal Official (PFO) for Stafford Disaster Relief Act declared
    disasters or emergencies. The fiscal year 2010 budget request deletes
    the limitation and includes the explanation as follows: ``This
    provision restricts the Secretary's ability to manage disaster
    response.''
        IAEM has consistently opposed the appointment of PFOs. It leads to
    confusion. Instead, our members want the Federal Coordinating Officer
    (FCO) to have unambiguous authority to direct and manage the Federal
    response in the field. It is absolutely critical for State and local
    officials to have one person empowered to make decisions and coordinate
    the Federal response in support of the State.
    New FEMA Leadership
        IAEM-USA applauds the President's selection of Craig Fugate as the
    Administrator of FEMA and Tim Manning as Deputy Administrator for
    National Preparedness. Both of these individuals represent actual
    emergency management practitioners from the local and State government
    arena. They bring a wealth of professional credentials, experience, and
    a seasoned understanding of the importance of the partnerships required
    between local, State and the Federal Government for effective emergency
    management. We look forward to working with Craig and Tim and other
    members of the new leadership team at FEMA and anticipate an expanded
    level of dialogue between FEMA leadership and the stakeholders at the
    local and tribal levels.
    Review of Programs
        The arrival of these new, experienced and professional emergency
    managers to positions of leadership within FEMA offers an ideal
    opportunity for FEMA to do a comprehensive and critical reexamination
    of several functions and programs established and partially implemented
    toward the end of the last Administration. Some of the programs appear
    to be increasing the burden of ``unfunded mandates'' on State and local
    agencies without providing value or meeting the needs of FEMA's
    customers. Over the last two years, IAEM has been asked to review and
    comment on a number of such initiatives. While we took a positive
    attitude and tried to suggest ways to make them more effective and
    ``reality-based'', the underlying concepts driving some of these
    initiatives appeared to us to be fundamentally flawed. Two of the
    initiatives that require immediate review are the GAP analysis and the
    Integrated Planning System (IPS). For example, IPS should be reviewed
    to determine if it fully meets the needs of local, State and Federal
    disaster planners. The current version, based heavily on the DOD Joint
    Operations Planning and Execution (JOPES) model may be a great model--
    if you are the military and funded and equipped with the resources of
    the military. State and local governments do not have that luxury. We
    urge Congress to work with the new leadership of FEMA and to support a
    much needed ``reality check,'' in the form of a comprehensive program
    review, to ensure that FEMA is making the most of its resources.
    Implementing Legislation to Strengthen FEMA
        IAEM-USA strongly supports the full implementation of Post-Katrina
    Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA), Public Law 109-205, and we
    urge the subcommittee to support the efforts of Craig Fugate, Tim
    Manning, and the other new leaders of FEMA by insisting on its
    implementation. There must be a return to established emergency
    management doctrine within FEMA--all hazards, integrated, all phases
    (preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery).
        The FEMA Administrator should have the maximum amount of access to
    the White House and the FEMA Administrator should be clearly
    responsible for the coordination of the Federal response to disasters
    as the legislation clearly requires. Homeland Security Presidential
    Directive-5 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 should be
    revised to conform to the requirements of PKEMRA.
        All elements of preparedness must be returned to FEMA to comply
    with PKEMRA. Functions that are duplicative or possibly competing with
    those of FEMA should not be established and funded in other DHS
    offices. For example, the Office of Operations Coordination was created
    shortly after the enactment of PKEMRA and it was assigned several
    responsibilities that PKEMRA assigned to FEMA notwithstanding PKEMRA's
    prohibition on transferring functions, responsibilities, etc. outside
    of FEMA. These include, but are not limited to coordinating activities
    related to incident management, the national planning scenarios, the
    Integrated Planning System, and duplicating the role of the Office of
    Disaster Operations in FEMA. It is unclear what the roles are of the
    National Operations Center and the National Response Coordination
    Center in managing the coordination of the Federal Response in
    preparation for responding to an event.
        An example of the problems caused by duplication of FEMA services
    within DHS is the discussion regarding the perceived differences
    between Incident Management and Emergency Management. Emergency
    Management is the broader, overarching and systematic approach to the
    issue of dealing with the consequences of all disasters and
    emergencies, whether natural, technological, or homeland security.
    Incident management, while important, is a much more narrowly focused
    sub-element of response, one of the four phases of emergency management
    (mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery). Functions clearly
    and unambiguously assigned to FEMA by law should not be moved out or
    duplicated on the basis that the administrator of FEMA is the lead
    ``only'' in Emergency Management, not incident management.
        Congress made it clear when the Post Katrina Reform Act was passed
    that they want a strong FEMA with an administrator with clear authority
    for managing all aspects of disasters and emergencies. Some specific
    examples from the Act which we believe are not being followed include:
        Section 611(12)(B) is of particular importance. This amended the
    Homeland Security Act of 2002 by ``striking the matter preceding
    paragraph (1)'' which contained the language, ``the Secretary acting
    through . . . and inserted instead the following language. ``In
    General.--The Administrator shall provide Federal Leadership necessary
    to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from or mitigate
    against a natural disaster, act of terrorism and other man-made
    disaster including . . . managing such response.'' Congress acted
    intentionally to transfer these responsibilities from the Secretary to
    the administrator.
        Section 503 Federal Emergency Management Agency
        (b)(2) Specific Activities.--In support of the primary mission of
    the Agency, the Administrator--
                (A) Lead the Nation's efforts to prepare for, protect
            against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate against the
            risk of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-
            made disasters, including catastrophic accidents.
                (H) develop and coordinate the implementation of a risk-
            based, all hazards strategy for preparedness that builds on
            those common capabilities necessary to respond to natural
            disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters
            while also building the unique capabilities necessary to
            respond to specific types of incidents that pose the greatest
            risk to our Nation.
        Section 503 (c)(4)(A) In General.--The Administrator is the
    principal advisor to the President, the Homeland Security Council, and
    the Secretary for all matters relating to emergency management in the
    United States.
        Sec. 503(c)(5) Cabinet Status--
                (A)  In General.--The President may designate the
            Administrator to serve as a member of the Cabinet in the event
            of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, or other man-made
            disasters.
                (B) Retention of Authority--Nothing in the paragraph shall
            be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary under
            this act.
        We believe that DHS frequently and mistakenly quotes Section
    502(c)(5)(B) regarding the authority of the Secretary and the
    Administrator as being applicable across the entire act when, in fact,
    it is limited in scope only to paragraph (5).
        We strongly request the committee to provide continual oversight of
    DHS on these matters to ensure they are following the clear and direct
    law on these issues.
        Congress rejected the DHS Stage 2 Reorganization and clearly and
    unambiguously moved all Preparedness functions and personnel to FEMA.
    IAEM-USA believes that Section 506(c)(1) and (2) of the Homeland
    Security Act as amended by the Post Katrina Reform Act clearly
    prohibits the transfer of any asset, function or mission from FEMA
    without a specific act of Congress. A major function of FEMA is to
    rebuild relationships with State and local officials. Therefore, the
    Intergovernmental Affairs function assumes a much higher level of
    importance. Despite the clear prohibition on moving this function from
    FEMA, we understand there are still 11 positions performing this vital
    role still under the National Protection and Programs Directorate
    (outside of FEMA) on a non-reimbursable detail. The fiscal year 2010
    Budget Request proposes to move the DHS intergovernmental function to
    the Office of Stakeholder Affairs in the Office of the Secretary and
    transfer 17 positions and $2,000,000 from FEMA to fund it. We remain
    concerned about the seriously understaffed and under funded
    Intergovernmental Affairs Office in FEMA and suggest that rather than
    transfer the funding and positions from FEMA that additional funding
    and positions be sought by DHS.
    Conclusion
        In conclusion, we urge the Subcommittee to continue to build
    emergency management capacity by increasing EMPG to $487 million. We
    urge increased funding for the Emergency Management Institute. Congress
    passed the PKEMRA to give FEMA the clear authority and tools to do its
    job and put a fence around it to give protection for its mission and
    resources. We urge the Subcommittee to insist on the appropriate
    implementation of the act.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Emergency Management Association

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Thank you Chairman Byrd, Ranking Member Voinovich, and
    distinguished members of the Committee for allowing me the opportunity
    to provide you with a statement for the record on the Department of
    Homeland Security's (DHS) fiscal year 2010 budget. I am Nancy Dragani,
    President of the National Emergency Management Association and
    Executive Director of the Ohio State Emergency Management Agency. In my
    statement, I am representing the National Emergency Management
    Association (NEMA), whose members are the State emergency management
    directors in the States, the U.S. territories, and the District of
    Columbia. NEMA's members are responsible to their Governors for
    emergency preparedness, homeland security, mitigation, response, and
    recovery activities for natural, man-made, and terrorist caused
    disasters.
        In 2008, FEMA declared 75 major disasters; 17 emergency
    declarations; and 51 fire management assistance declarations. Overall,
    40 States and two territories were impacted. The multi-hazards
    emergency management system continues to be the means to practice and
    exercise for devastating acts of terrorism, while at the same time
    preparing the Nation for hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, hazardous
    materials spills, and floods. We respectfully ask for your Committee to
    consider the role of emergency management as you address the fiscal
    year 2010 appropriations and ask for your serious consideration of
    additional Federal support for the only all-hazards program to build
    State and local emergency management capacity. Emergency Management
    Performance Grant (EMPG) is the only State and local matching grant
    program supporting preparedness efforts.
        The Department of Homeland Security budget provides critical
    support to State and local emergency management programs. NEMA would
    like to address four critical issues regarding the proposed Federal
    budget for the Department of Homeland Security:
      --Addressing the needs for the Emergency Management Performance Grant
            (EMPG) level and maintaining flexibility in State's use of the
            program;
      --Federal support for the Emergency Management Assistance Compact
            (EMAC);
      --Significant deficits for improving State and local Emergency
            Operations Centers (EOCs); and
      --Additional investment is needed for the Nation's mitigation
            programs including the Predisaster Mitigation Grant Program.

                  EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING

    EMPG is the Only Program for All-Hazards Preparedness
        Natural disasters are certain and often anticipated. Every State
    must be able to plan for disasters as well as build and sustain the
    capability to respond. EMPG is the only source of funding to assist
    State and local governments with planning and preparedness/readiness
    activities associated with natural disasters. At a time when our
    country is continuing to recover from one of the largest natural
    disasters in history and making strides to improve the Nation's
    emergency preparedness/readiness, we cannot afford to have this vital
    program be cut or just maintained. EMPG is the backbone of the Nation's
    all-hazards emergency management system and the only source of direct
    Federal funding to State and local governments for emergency management
    capacity building. EMPG is used for personnel, planning, training, and
    exercises at both the State and local levels. EMPG is primarily used to
    support State and local emergency management personnel who are
    responsible for writing plans; conducting training, exercises and
    corrective action; educating the public on disaster readiness; and
    maintaining the Nation's emergency response system. EMPG is being used
    to help States create and update plans for receiving and distribution
    of emergency supplies such as water, ice, and food after a disaster;
    debris removal plans; and plans for receiving or evacuating people--all
    of these critical issues identified in the aftermath of Hurricane
    Katrina and the following investigations and reports. EMPG is the
    program being used to support State and local efforts for Federal
    preparedness initiatives like the Target Capabilities List, Cost to
    Capability, Comprehensive Planning Guide 101, and Gap Analysis.
        The State and local government partnership with the Federal
    Government to ensure preparedness dates back to the civil defense era
    of the 1950s, yet increased responsibilities over the last decade have
    fallen on State and local governments. NEMA's 2008 Biennial Report
    shows that the shortfall in EMPG funding has reached $172 million. The
    total need for the program is $487 million annually. The 9/11
    Implementation Act authorized EMPG at $680 million for fiscal year
    2010.
        We appreciate all of the efforts of members of Congress and the
    Administration to allow for increases to the EMPG program; however,
    adjusted over the last 15 years, the increases have not kept pace with
    inflation at a time when capacity is supposed to be increasing.
    Continued funding increases are necessary to make up for over a decade
    of degradation of funding and increased State and local commitments.
    The President's fiscal year 2010 budget calls for EMPG to be rolled
    into the State and Local Account and eliminates the program's separate
    line item. We strongly support maintaining a separate line item for
    EMPG since the program is all-hazards focused. Additionally, we are
    studying the proposal made in the budget to make the program risk based
    and would like to get back to you with our analysis of how the change
    may impact States.
        EMPG is the only all-hazards preparedness program within the
    Department of Homeland Security that requires a match at the State and
    local level. The 50/50 match is evidence of the commitment by State and
    local governments to make public safety and security a top priority.
    According to the Council of State Governments, 49 of 50 States are
    currently in a recession, and 41 States are looking at shortfalls in
    2009 or 2010. States are faced with an estimated $140 billion overall
    shortfall. The fiscal conditions warrant maintaining the intent of EMPG
    as all-hazards and as a flexible program. States should not be forced
    to set aside arbitrary amounts of EMPG for specific tasks--each State's
    hazards and risks are unique as is the approach to addressing these
    hazards. One size does not fit all in terms of the overall emergency
    management needs. Additionally, many of the EMPG funds help pay for the
    personnel to run key programs and reducing flexibility means that
    critical functions could be lost.
        NEMA surveyed States on the fiscal impact of the current economic
    conditions earlier this month. Some of the statistics that we found
    include:
      --At least 23 State EMAs indicated a budget reduction in fiscal year
            2010. Cuts range from $200,000 to over $6 millions and from 1
            percent budget reductions to 30 percent;
      --Seven States plan to use disaster ``rainy day or related set aside
            emergency funds to cover overall State budget shortfalls;
      --Hiring freezes are in place in 32 States and may impact anywhere
            from 2-31 positions in a given State. Elimination of positions
            is expected in 28 States ranging from 1-17 positions in a given
            State. Emergency management agencies are traditionally
            understaffed and any cut in positions will impact services;
      --States report the greatest impact stemming from budget cuts will be
            their ability to provide the 50 percent match for Federal
            funding provided through the Emergency Management Performance
            Grant (EMPG). This is the single source of funding that
            supports all hazards emergency preparedness at the State and
            local level. Budget cuts also threat the States' abilities to
            support State funded disaster assistance programs for
            individuals and businesses. Other emergency management
            functions that may be most impacted includes planning, training
            and public outreach/education on emergency preparedness.
        At the same time as the fiscal challenges, States are doing more
    with less and finding innovative ways to use EMPG funds to address
    emergency management capacity building. Attached is a recent document
    that outlines how States are using EMPG funds. Some of the key examples
    include:
      --ARIZONA.--The Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) has
            enabled the State of Arizona to achieve a level of
            collaboration between the State, counties, cities, tribes,
            volunteer and faith-based organizations and the private sector
            that never existed before. EMPG recently funded the largest
            full-scale exercise ever conducted in Arizona, the ``Coyote
            Crisis Campaign,'' a mass-casualty incident that over-burdened
            the surge capacity of area hospitals and challenged the ability
            of officials to manage a multi-jurisdiction response. Arizona's
            first responders, health care providers and other emergency
            management partners responded to the terrorist scenario.
          EMPG funds have provided the means to develop the capability to
            respond to bi-national incidents along the Arizona-Sonora
            border. The grant has been used to pay for State and local bi-
            national emergency preparedness activities (planning, training,
            and exercising) and the implementation of bi-national emergency
            alert and notification systems, interoperable communications,
            and IT systems that support the sharing of information and
            maintaining a common operating picture for emergency incidents.
      --CALIFORNIA.--The establishment of the Office for Access and
            Functional Needs (OAFN), in January 2008 is the result of EMPG
            funding. As part of the California Emergency Management Agency
            (CalEMA), the office identifies the needs of people with
            disabilities before, during and after a disaster; and
            integrates disability elements and resources into all aspects
            of emergency management systems. OAFN is currently funded by
            EMPG and provides two employees. In July 2008, OAFN published
            Guidance on Planning and Responding to the Needs of People with
            Disabilities and Older Adults, and released it specifically to
            California emergency managers, planners, and disability and
            older adult service systems, for planning and responding during
            disasters and recovery.
      --CONNECTICUT.--During the past 3 years, the Connecticut Department
            of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS) has used
            EMPG to improve participation in the State's High Band Radio
            System. This is a communications network of last resort during
            a major disaster. Because of EMPG, 96 percent of Connecticut
            communities are connected to the system, as compared to only 24
            percent in 2006. In a serious event, it would help impacted
            areas convey their most urgent life-sustaining needs, such as
            food, water and temporary shelters. The High Band System also
            links regional emergency management offices to local towns and
            to the State EOC.
      --HAWAII.--Emergency shelters can mean the difference between life
            and death in a vulnerable State like Hawaii, which is
            confronted by the possibility of many different types of
            hazards--earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis and volcano
            eruptions. In 2009, the State is dedicating part of its EMPG
            funds to conduct assessments and surveys of public and private
            facilities that could serve as emergency shelters; and support
            State and county participation in the development of a
            catastrophic hurricane disaster plan. EMPG money is also
            contributing to State readiness exercises involving terrorism,
            earthquake, tsunami, and hurricane emergency response
            scenarios.
      --KENTUCKY.--In 2008, the Commonwealth of Kentucky used EMPG dollars
            to develop and exercise a plan in the event of a New Madrid
            earthquake occurring in the western portion of the State. When
            the State was hit with a massive ice storm earlier this year,
            resulting in its worst disaster ever, State emergency
            management used the earthquake plan to support western counties
            decimated by the storm. Though designed for an earthquake, the
            plan was adapted for this disaster and was key in delivering
            aid to 103 counties with hundreds of thousands of citizens who
            had no power, no heat and no food. Also, because the plan had
            been thoroughly exercised--again due to EMPG funds--the State
            had already made adjustments and knew that it would work.
            Advance planning and exercise supported through EMPG saved
            lives in Kentucky.
      --MISSISSIPPI.--Thanks to the current EMPG funding level, all 82
            counties in Mississippi, as well as the Mississippi Band of
            Choctaw Indians, have emergency management programs and
            emergency management directors. This was not always the case.
            Back in 2000, when EMPG funding was significantly lower, there
            were only 43 county emergency management programs. At the State
            level, nine area coordinators--all funded by EMPG--cover
            between six and 11 counties. Each coordinator works closely
            with their respective local emergency managers, responding to
            their requests for support and resources, and conducting
            training for the staff and educational presentations for
            residents. The importance of this integration came into play in
            September 2008 when Hurricane Gustav hit. The Mississippi
            Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) helped coordinate the
            unprecedented evacuation of more than 3 million people from
            South Louisiana and the city of New Orleans. The large number
            of evacuees was able to move easily through Mississippi and
            find shelter thanks to the coordination of all the county
            emergency managers and MEMA.
      --OHIO.--In 2008, the State of Ohio allocated approximately 74
            percent of its EMPG funds directly to local governments to
            focus on sustaining and enhancing emergency management
            capability. Ohio recognizes the critical importance of building
            and sustaining local capabilities throughout the planning,
            response, recovery and mitigation phases of a disaster. As
            such, EMPG grant funds support 170 full time emergency
            management personnel in 88 counties who update and enhance
            county Emergency Operations Plans and applicable annexes that
            serve as the foundation of local capabilities. The State
            supports the counties in all aspects of emergency management,
            including grants management, planning activity identification,
            training and exercise and special projects. These efforts,
            coupled with the detailed guidance established for EMPG funds,
            further enhance the local capabilities and allow for increased
            identification of risks and hazards that threaten the 11 plus
            million residents of Ohio's 88 counties.
          One such threat occurred in September 2008 when Ohio was faced
            with hurricane force wind gusts from the remnants of Hurricane
            Ike. As the winds moved through a large portion of the State,
            more than 5 million Ohioans were impacted and many lost power
            for more than a week. The ability of county emergency
            management agencies to coordinate response and resource support
            for the needs of the residents was a credit to their planning
            and preparedness efforts, supported by Ohio's allocations of
            EMPG funding.
      --WISCONSIN.--EMPG is a major reason for the successful response by
            both the State and local jurisdictions to the severe storms and
            flooding that occurred in Wisconsin in June 2008. Wisconsin
            requires the State, counties and municipalities to develop
            consistent, emergency management programs. To accomplish this,
            Wisconsin Emergency Management provides two-thirds of its EMPG
            grant to county emergency managers. They in turn assist
            municipalities in developing their annual plans of work. These
            documents include areas of planning, training, exercising,
            public education/information, grant administration, and other
            initiatives that focus on specific local needs.
              building our nation's mutual aid system through emac
        The Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) remains a the
    vehicle to utilize mutual aid assistance during disasters. Congress
    enacted EMAC in 1996 (Public Law 104-321). Currently 50 States, the
    U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the District of Columbia
    are members of EMAC. EMAC requires member States to have an
    implementation plan and to follow procedures outlined in the EMAC
    Operations Manual. EMAC addresses issues such as reimbursement,
    liability protections, and workers' compensation issues.
        In the last year, EMAC has provided critical aid to impacted
    States. In support of the 2009 Flooding in North Dakota and Minnesota,
    States deployed equipment, sandbags, and 1,029 personnel to North
    Dakota and 6 personnel to Minnesota. Two individuals were deployed to
    the National Response Coordination Center (NRCC) at FEMA Headquarters
    to coordinate the State response under EMAC with the Federal response.
    In all, 727 National Guard personnel and 302 civilians were sent to
    assist via the compact.
        In February 2009, generators, cots with blankets, and 702 personnel
    were deployed to Kentucky to assist in the response and recovery
    following an ice storm that impacted the majority of the State. 528
    personnel with civilian and 174 personnel were National Guard assets.
        In response to the 2008 Hurricanes Gustav and Ike States deployed
    12,274 personnel under EMAC to support the impacted States of Texas,
    Louisiana, and Florida. The response lasted 63 continuous days with a
    total of 265 completed missions.
        In October 2006, Congress, under The Post-Katrina FEMA Reform Act
    authorized FEMA to appropriate up to $4 million annually in grants in
    fiscal year 2008 to support EMAC operations and coordination
    activities, but no funds have been appropriated.
        Prior to 2004, deployments under EMAC were primarily State
    emergency management and National Guard personnel. The value of EMAC
    was reaffirmed following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita by demonstrating
    that EMAC can be used to deploy ``any resources one State would want to
    share with another''. Combined with the requirements in the Post-
    Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, EMAC has resulted in
    an unprecedented growth and involvement in EMAC across the Nation. EMAC
    has also demonstrated the need for a unified mutual aid system
    (intrastate to interstate) that coordinates with the Federal response.
        EMAC has a 5 year strategic plan to put lessons learned into
    practice. The After-Action process from Hurricane Katrina allowed EMAC
    to examine how to improve the system after unprecedented disasters and
    an unparalleled growth in the use of the system.
        Examples of improvements to be made with current and future funding
    as a result of lessons learned are outlined below:
      --NEMA has been working with first responder disciplines to provide
            EMAC educational and training materials. This includes training
            on EMAC, integration with State Emergency Operations Centers,
            Incident Command Systems, resource typing, and credentialing;
      --NEMA has established an EMAC Advisory Group that is working to
            better integrate mutual aid partners into the EMAC system
            before future disasters occur. The group includes
            representatives from State and local government associations,
            the National Guard Bureau, emergency responder associations,
            public utility associations, the private sector, DHS/FEMA, and
            the Centers for Disease Control. The discussions and
            interactions of this group serve to assist in adding local
            government assets to the scope of resources and other
            disciplines that can be readily plugged into the system;
      --EMAC is evolving the tracking of resources through NEMA
            administrative management. EMAC is working towards an
            integrated system to allow for swifter approvals from the
            requesting and responding States, which will ultimately allow
            for improved tracking and faster response to requests for
            assistance;
      --States are engaged in developing their own resource typed mission
            ready packages and EMAC is involved in assisting with
            responsibilities set in both the Post-Katrina Emergency
            Management Reform Act and the Implementing the 9/11 Commission
            Recommendations Act for resource typing and credentialing; and
      --Building capabilities for A-Team operations to assist during
            disasters outside of State Emergency Operations Centers with
            resource management, integration of EMAC into exercises with
            the development of table-top exercises and inclusion in
            national level exercises such as TOPOFF, as well as address
            reimbursement ahead of mission deployments for both State and
            local resource providers.
        While Emergency Management Performance Grants and homeland security
    grants are helping to build capabilities, the National Homeland
    Security Strategy counts on the fact that mutual aid is going to be put
    to use in a disaster. The support of EMAC is critical to helping offset
    the costs of disasters and building costly infrastructure at the
    Federal level that could sit unused until a disaster. In order to meet
    the ever-growing need for and reliance on interstate mutual aid, NEMA
    is seeking reauthorization at $4 million annually for 2010 and beyond
    and an annual $4 million line item in the FEMA budget for building EMAC
    capabilities and our Nation's mutual aid system.

             IMPROVING STATE AND LOCAL EMERGENCY OPERATION CENTERS

        During emergencies and disasters, emergency operations centers
    (EOCs) serve as the nerve center for State and local coordination.
    Federal agencies as well use these facilities to act as a central point
    for communication during response and recovery phases. States continue
    to require more monies to enhance State primary and alternate EOCs.
    According to data in the 2008 NEMA Biennial Report, it is estimated
    that almost $497 million would be needed to build, retrofit and upgrade
    the facilities. The amount is a 26 percent increase over the 2006
    estimate. For local EOCs, that number increases to $1.1 billion, for a
    total of almost $1.6 billion. This includes the costs to upgrade
    equipment and software, train personnel, and conduct operations during
    emergency and non-emergency situations. We appreciate Congress'
    recognition of the need for EOC improvements in the fiscal year 2008
    and fiscal year 2009 appropriations as these investments are a down
    payment towards addressing this critical shortfall.
        A separate line item for EOC improvements should be continued in
    the budget and the program should not be eliminated as these are both
    critical functions that need adequate resources. Maintaining the
    flexibility of EMPG and having the separate program specific for
    emergency operations centers continue are priorities for emergency
    management.

                      INVESTMENT IN PREDISASTER MITIGATION

        As the Nation continues to recover from the 2004 and 2005 hurricane
    season and the numerous other disasters, mitigation opportunities are
    the only way to take advantage of lessons learned during disasters. The
    Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K and Public Law 106-390)
    authorized a national disaster hazard mitigation program ``to reduce
    the loss of life and property, human suffering, economic disruption,
    and disaster assistance costs resulting from natural disasters and to
    provide a source of predisaster hazard mitigation funding that will
    assist States and local governments in implementing effective hazard
    mitigation measures that are designed to ensure the continued
    functionality of critical services and facilities after a natural
    disaster.'' The title of the bill that authorizes the Predisaster
    Mitigation program is scheduled to sunset on September 30, 2009, after
    a 1-year extension of the program.
        Predisaster Mitigation grants accounts contained significant
    earmarks in fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009, thus reducing the
    amount available for State and local governments to openly apply to be
    considered for the grants. The program funding is sorely under the
    total national need, especially with the original intent of the law to
    provide each State with a portion of funding so lessons learned from
    disasters could be taken advantage of by all States. Each year, FEMA
    typically receives requests for grants averaging over $450 million
    annually. When the program was proposed for the first time in fiscal
    year 2003, the President proposed $300 million annually. The fiscal
    year 2003 figure was derived by taking a decade of mitigation
    opportunities annual averages, but took out the large disaster spikes
    like Hurricane Andrew and the North Ridge and Loma Prieta earthquakes.
        While Federal costs towards disasters remain a concern, significant
    commitments must be made towards both predisaster and post-disaster
    mitigation in order to lower overall disaster costs in the long run.
    With such low levels of funding, the predisaster mitigation program has
    never been fully able to address the intent of DMA2K. In 2005, the
    Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council published a study that found that every
    $1 FEMA invested into mitigation projects saves society approximately
    $4. The key to the value of the programs is that predisaster mitigation
    is coordinated through the Governors and the State hazard mitigation
    plan as required by DMA2K. The program addresses the unique areas of
    greatest need to prepare for and reduce the overall costs of a disaster
    event.
        While NEMA is supportive of the Predisaster Mitigation Program, we
    remain supportive of both pre- and post-disaster mitigation. The Hazard
    Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) must not be changed in order to ensure
    a balanced holistic national mitigation program that includes both pre-
    and post-disaster mitigation. As the Congress considers the Predisaster
    Mitigation program's reauthorization, adequate funding levels are
    needed to give the program the opportunity to demonstrate real value
    for the investments. Additionally, we are studying the proposal in the
    President's budget to make PDM a base plus risk program, however NEMA
    has supported a base plus population formula for the program since the
    program's creation. NEMA supports the program's reauthorization and
    looks forward to working with Congress to improve the program.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Congress has affirmed their support for ensuring preparedness for
    our Nation's continuous vulnerability against all-hazards with
    additional investments to EMPG and emergency operations centers
    improvements. We must continue to build national preparedness efforts
    with a multi-hazard approach. In this year's appropriations process
    Congress will make critical decisions that shape the future of
    emergency management in this country. As you begin your consideration,
    we ask you to recognize the importance of adequately funding the EMPG
    program and maintain the program's flexibility for building capacity
    through people at the State and local level for all disasters. I thank
    you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of NEMA and appreciate
    your partnership.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the National Treasury Employees Union

        Chairman Byrd, Ranking Member Voinovich, distinguished members of
    the Subcommittee; I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the
    opportunity to provide this testimony. As President of the National
    Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), I have the honor of leading a union
    that represents over 22,000 Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
    Officers and trade enforcement specialists who are stationed at 327
    land, sea and air ports of entry (POEs) across the United States. CBP
    employees make up our Nation's first line of defense in the wars on
    terrorism and drugs.
        In addition, CBP trade compliance personnel enforce over 400 U.S.
    trade and tariff laws and regulations in order to ensure a fair and
    competitive trade environment pursuant to existing international
    agreements and treaties, as well as stemming the flow of illegal
    contraband such as child pornography, illegal arms, weapons of mass
    destruction and laundered money. CBP is also a revenue collection
    agency, expecting to collect an estimated $29 billion in Federal
    revenue according to fiscal year 2009 revenue estimates.

                FUNDING FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ENHANCED RETIREMENT

        First, NTEU would like to thank the Committee on Appropriations for
    rejecting the previous Administration's fiscal year 2009 budget request
    to repeal the law and rescind the fiscal year 2008 appropriated funding
    to implement a new enhanced retirement benefit for all eligible CBP
    Officers. The Committee also included $200 million in its fiscal year
    2009 funding bill to cover the conversion costs associated with this
    enhanced retirement benefit.
        NTEU members are extremely grateful that, despite then-President
    Bush's request, the Committee remained firmly committed to this new
    enhanced retirement program. NTEU commends the Committee on its
    forethought and perseverance in enacting and funding this vital
    legislation. Nothing that the Committee has done since the creation of
    the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has had a more positive
    effect on the morale of the CBP Officer.
        The new administration in its fiscal year 2010 budget request seeks
    an increase of $25 million to provide enhanced retirement benefits to
    CBP Officers. An additional $25 million is required in fiscal year 2010
    (for a total of $225 million) as a final increment that will fully fund
    the new retirement coverage. NTEU fully supports this final installment
    of Federal funding of the CBP of Officer enhanced retirement package
    and asks the Committee to include this funding in its fiscal year 2010
    DHS appropriations bill.

               FUNDING FOR DHS HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

        NTEU also commends the Committee for adding a provision, Section
    533, in the Consolidated Security Disaster and Continuing
    Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2009 that prohibits the expenditure
    of funds to apply a new DHS human resources management system to
    employees eligible for inclusion in a bargaining unit. Because of this
    funding prohibition, DHS announced that the agency would rescind
    application of this new human resources system as of October 2, 2008.
        The Department's fiscal year 2010 budget request proposes deletion
    of Section 522 of the DHS fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill. Section
    522 prohibits spending of any appropriated fund for implementation of
    this DHS human resources management system fund (MaxHR). NTEU has great
    concerns about deleting this language. Even though DHS has rescinded
    the application of the human resource system and DHS has no authority
    to issue any new regulations, regulations remain in place for adverse
    actions, appeals, performance management, and pay and classification
    and can be reactivated if the funding prohibition is lifted.
        If the appropriations prohibition language were dropped from the
    fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill, DHS would be free to revive the
    regulatory provisions of MaxHR that were not enjoined by the courts.
    Though DHS could not modify the regulations (since the authority to do
    that expired in January 2009) these regulations remain on the books as
    originally promulgated and could be given effect, if DHS were allowed
    to spend appropriated funds to make them effective.
        Even though the fiscal year 2010 budget request states that old
    section 522 is no longer necessary because ``the department has
    withdrawn its coverage under 5 U.S.C. 9701.'' DHS by itself cannot
    withdraw ``its coverage under 5 U.S.C. 9701.'' Title 5, Section 9701 by
    its terms covers DHS and only Congress can change that. To the extent
    that DHS has decided not to implement MaxHR, as noted above, that
    decision could be revisited if the appropriations ban were lifted.
        In the 110th Congress, the full House voted to repeal Title 5,
    Chapter 97 in its entirety, and any regulations issued under its
    authority. NTEU is working with both the House and Senate DHS
    authorizing committees to achieve enactment of this title 5, Chapter 97
    repeal by the 111th Congress. Until this statutory authority is
    repealed by Congress, inclusion of the of section 522, the fiscal year
    2009 appropriations prohibition language, in the DHS fiscal year 2010
    appropriations bill remains necessary. NTEU therefore requests that
    identical language to Section 522 prohibiting the use of appropriated
    funds to implement any part of the regulations promulgated pursuant to
    Title 5, Chapter 97 is again included in the fiscal year 2010 DHS
    funding bill.

          FUNDING FOR CBP SALARIES AND EXPENSES AT THE PORTS OF ENTRY

    Staffing Southbound Inspections at U.S.-Mexico Land Ports
        In the last year, an epidemic of violence has erupted right across
    the U.S. southern border in Mexico due to an increase in Mexican drug
    cartel activity there. Drug violence in northern Mexico has skyrocketed
    with more than 6,000 homicides since January 2008. This violence is
    fueled by arms smuggling and bulk cash drug proceeds transiting south
    from the United States.
        The last administration fell down on the job of inspecting outbound
    traffic through U.S. land ports and not all U.S.-Mexico passenger
    vehicle, rail and truck port crossings are staffed or equipped to
    conduct southbound inspections. Rightfully, the new administration is
    focused on putting more resources into southbound inspections to help
    curb arms and bulk cash trafficking into Mexico.
        NTEU is providing information to Congress and the administration to
    help formulate this new policy and to assess security equipment and
    other needs to address the increased threat to CBP personnel at the
    southern border. Safety of CBP Officers at the ports of entry is a
    major concern. Appropriate facilities, staffing and equipment are
    necessary at the southern land ports to ensure CBP Officers' safety.
        NTEU supported an amendment offered by the Chairman and Ranking
    Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee
    Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME), to the fiscal
    year 2010 budget resolution, to provide an additional $550 million to
    fight drug violence along the border. This budget amendment, approved
    by Congress, includes $260 million for Customs and Border Protection to
    hire, equip, train and deploy 1,600 additional personnel and 400 canine
    teams to the border to increase the number of inspections of vehicles
    heading south into Mexico.
        This increase in CBP staffing at the ports of entry called for in
    the budget resolution, however, must be in addition to the increase in
    staffing called for in CBP's own staffing allocation models. The
    Department's fiscal year 2010 budget request includes $8.1 million for
    65 CBP Officers and 8 support staff positions to be dedicated to
    ``Combating Southbound Firearms and Currency Smuggling.'' NTEU believes
    that this staffing increase is insufficient to address the staffing
    needs at southern ports of entry and well below the 1,600 additional
    personnel and 400 canine teams sought by the Senate authorizing
    committee. NTEU asks the Committee to increase funding for salaries and
    expenses at the ports of entry to fight drug violence along the
    southern border and increase the number of inspections of vehicles and
    travelers heading south into Mexico.
    CBP Officer Staffing
        NTEU was very grateful that the Committee, in its fiscal year 2007
    DHS appropriations conference report, directed CBP to submit a resource
    allocation model for current and future year staffing requirements. For
    years, NTEU has said that CBP needs several thousand additional CBP
    Officers and CBP Agriculture Specialists at its ports of entry; that
    insufficient staffing and scheduling abuses are contributing to morale
    problems, fatigue, and safety issues for CBP Officers and CBP
    Agriculture Specialists, and that CBP is losing personnel faster than
    it can hire replacements.
        CBP's 2007 staffing model concluded ``that the agency needs 1,600
    to 4,000 more officers and agricultural specialists at the Nation's
    air, land and sea ports, or a boost of 7 to 25 percent, the GAO
    reported.'' (Washington Post, November 6, 2007).
        NTEU is grateful that the Committee, in its fiscal year 2009 DHS
    Appropriations bill, provided funds for 1,373 U.S. Customs and Border
    Protection Officers and CBP Agriculture Specialists at the ports of
    entry--an increase of 834 beyond those requested by the Bush
    Administration. Also, CBP announced in January 2009 that it is hiring
    11,000 new CBP employees; however, the majority of these hires are to
    keep up with attrition, not to address optimal staffing levels as
    determined by CBP's own Resource Allocation Model. According to CBP,
    there are currently 19,726 CBP Officers of which nearly 3,400 are non-
    frontline supervisors--a ratio of one supervisor for every 5 CBP
    Officers.
        NTEU is disappointed that the Department's fiscal year 2010 budget
    outline includes increasing new hires for CBP Border Patrol Agents from
    17, 499 to 20,000--an increase of 1,500, but no increase at all in the
    number of frontline CBP Officer or CBP Agriculture Specialist new
    hires.
        NTEU agrees with the observation of Senate Homeland Security and
    Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Lieberman in his March 13, 2009
    letter to the Senate Budget Committee. Chairman Lieberman states that
    ``[t]he Border Patrol has almost doubled in the last 3 fiscal years,
    while the number of CBP officers at ports of entry has remained
    basically stable despite long wait times at the border. If this trend
    continues, it could lead to a misalignment of resources and the under-
    funding of critical border security priorities, in particular this
    Nation's efforts to enhance the security of our ports of entry through
    the deployment of programs such as the Western Hemisphere Travel
    Initiative (WHTI), the Electronic System for Travel Authorization
    (ESTA), and US&ISIT.''
        Again NTEU calls on the Committee to fund staffing levels for CBP
    Officers at the ports of entry as specified in CBP's own workforce
    staffing model by at least 1,000 new hires in the fiscal year 2010
    appropriations bill, in addition to sufficiently funding an increase in
    CBP Officer staffing needed to expand outbound inspection and address
    the increasing violence at the U.S.-Mexico border.
    Agriculture Specialists Staffing
        NTEU was certified as the labor union representative of CBP
    Agriculture Specialists in May 2007 as the result of an election to
    represent all CBP employees that had been consolidated into one
    bargaining unit by merging the port of entry inspection functions of
    Customs, INS and the Animal, Plant and Health Inspection Service as
    part of DHS' One Face at the Border initiative.
        According to GAO (GAO-08-219, page 31), CBP's staffing model
    ``showed that CBP would need up to several thousand additional CBP
    Officers and agriculture specialists at its ports of entry.'' And GAO
    testimony issued on October 3, 2007 stated that, ``as of mid-August
    2007, CBP had 2,116 agriculture specialists on staff, compared with
    3,154 specialists needed, according to staffing model.'' (See GAO-08-
    96T page 1.) According to CBP, the current number of CBP Agriculture
    Specialists staff is 2,277, of which 312 are non-frontline supervisors.
    This is unacceptable.
        The Department's fiscal year 2010 budget request includes no
    additional funding for CBP Agriculture Specialist new hires. CBP needs
    to dramatically increase frontline Agriculture Specialist staffing
    levels to address current needs as stated in its own workforce
    allocation model. NTEU therefore requests that the Committee include
    funding in its fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill to increase the
    number of CBP Agriculture Specialists by at least 500 new hires.
        NTEU also recommends that Congress, through oversight and statutory
    language, make clear that the agricultural inspection mission is a
    priority. NTEU would support asking DHS to report on how it is
    following U.S. Department of Agriculture procedures on agriculture
    inspections. The report should include wait times for clearing
    agricultural products and what measures could be implemented to shorten
    those wait times.
    One Face at the Border and Training
        In 2006, Congress requested that the Government Accountability
    Office (GAO) evaluate the One Face at the Border initiative and its
    impact on legacy customs, immigration and agricultural inspection and
    workload. GAO conducted its audit from August 2006 through September
    2007 and issued its public report, Border Security: Despite Progress,
    Weaknesses in Traveler Inspections Exist at Our Nation's Ports of Entry
    (GAO-08-219), on November 5, 2007. The conclusions of this report echo
    what NTEU has been saying for years:
      --CBP needs several thousand additional CBP Officers and Agriculture
            Specialists at its ports of entry.
      --Not having sufficient staff contributes to morale problems,
            fatigue, and safety issues for CBP Officers.
      --Staffing challenges force ports to choose between port operations
            and providing training. In these instances--training is often
            sacrificed.
      --CBP's onboard staffing level is below budgeted levels, partly due
            to high attrition, with ports of entry losing officers faster
            than they can hire replacements.
        The Homeland Security Appropriations Committee added report
    language to the fiscal year 2007 DHS Appropriations bill that, with
    regard to CBP's One Face at the Border initiative, directs ``CBP to
    ensure that all personnel assigned to primary and secondary inspection
    duties at ports of entry have received adequate training in all
    relevant inspection functions.'' NTEU asks the Committee to again seek
    this information in report language to its fiscal year 2010 DHS
    Appropriations bill.
        NTEU's CBP members have told us that CBP Officer cross-training and
    on-the-job training continues to be woefully inadequate. In addition,
    staffing shortages force managers to choose between performing port
    operations and providing training. In these instances, it is training
    that is sacrificed.
        It is apparent that CBP sees its One Face at the Border initiative
    as a means to ``increase management flexibility'' without increasing
    staffing levels. NTEU again calls for Congress to end the failed One
    Face at the Border experiment and ensure that expertise is retained
    with respect to customs, immigration, and agriculture inspection
    functions at CBP.
    Trade Operations Staffing
        When CBP was created, it was given a dual mission of not only
    safeguarding our Nation's borders and ports from terrorist attacks, but
    also the mission of regulating and facilitating international trade;
    collecting import duties; and enforcing U.S. trade laws. In 2005, CBP
    processed 29 million trade entries and collected $31.4 billion in
    revenue. In 2009, the estimated revenue collected is projected to be
    $29 billion--a drop of over $2 billion in revenue collected.
        To insure the proper focus by CBP of trade operations staffing
    needs, Congress included Section 402 in the SAFE Port Act of 2006. This
    provision required CBP to prepare a Resource Allocation Model (RAM)
    every 2 years to determine optimal staffing levels needed to carry out
    the commercial operations of CBP, including commercial inspection and
    release of cargo. The first RAM was delivered to Congress in June of
    2007 and proposed significant increases from the Homeland Security
    Act's section 412(b) floor of 2,263 customs revenue function employees,
    which includes Fine, Penalty and Forfeiture Specialists, Import
    Specialists, International Trade Specialists, Customs Attorneys,
    Customs Auditors, Chemists and CBP Technician positions. The next RAM,
    as mandated by the SAFE Port Act, is due on June 30, 2009 and NTEU
    expects to see similar numbers in terms of CBP trade operations
    staffing needs.
        The Department's fiscal year 2010 budget request seeks an increase
    of $9.3 million to hire a total of 103 new positions that includes 12
    scientists, 1 paralegal, 34 international trade specialists, 32
    auditors, 10 attorneys, 3 import specialists and 11 support personnel.
    This increase is well below the number of new hires needed for many of
    these CBP trade operation occupations.
        According to CBP's 2007 RAM, in fiscal year 2010, 1,100 Import
    Specialists are needed to adequately staff CBP's trade enforcement
    mission. The current number of non-supervisory Import Specialists is
    799. The Administration's request for 3 additional Import Specialists
    is well below the number of new hires needed according to CBP's own
    data.
        And, according to the 2007 RAM, 295 International Trade Specialists
    are needed for optimal performance in fiscal year 2010. The current
    number of non-supervisory International Trade Specialists is 54. The
    Department's request in its fiscal year 2010 budget is only 34
    International Trade Specialists new hires, bringing this to a total of
    only 88 non-supervisory positions, well below the 295 optimal
    performance staffing number.
        NTEU, therefore, urges the Committee to ensure that trade
    compliance personnel is increased to the fiscal year 2010 staffing
    levels that CBP itself states in the 2007 RAM are sufficient to ensure
    effective performance of customs revenue functions.
    Conclusion
        Each year, with trade and travel increasing at astounding rates,
    CBP personnel have been asked to do more work with fewer personnel,
    training and resources. The more than 22,000 CBP employees represented
    by the NTEU are capable and committed to the varied missions of DHS
    from border control to the facilitation of legitimate trade and travel.
    They are proud of their part in keeping our country free from
    terrorism, our neighborhoods safe from drugs and our economy safe from
    illegal trade. These men and women are deserving of more resources and
    technology to perform their jobs better and more efficiently. Thank you
    for the opportunity to submit this testimony to the Committee on their
    behalf.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Brownback, Senator Sam, U.S. Senator From Kansas, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    98
    Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia:
        Opening Statement of.........................................     1
        Questions Submitted by.......................................    36

    Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    93

    International Association of Emergency Managers, Prepared
      Statement of...................................................   103

    Napolitano, Hon. Janet, Secretary, Department of Homeland
      Security.......................................................     1
        Prepared Statement of........................................     6
        Statement of.................................................     4
    National:
        Emergency Management Association, Prepared Statement of......   107
        Treasury Employees Union, Prepared Statement of..............   112

    Voinovich, Senator George V., U.S. Senator From Ohio:
        Questions Submitted by.......................................    79
        Statement of.................................................     2

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                                                                       Page
    Accident at Bayer Crop Science Chemical Plant....................    17
    Acquisitions.....................................................    36
    Action Orders....................................................    44
    Additional Committee Questions...................................    36
    Advanced Training Center.........................................    48
    Agricultural Specialists.........................................    47
    Air:
        Exit.........................................................    63
        Passenger Fee Increase.......................................    55
    All-hazards......................................................    69
    Arctic Policy....................................................    57
    Assistance to:
        Firefighter Grants...........................................23, 33
        Rural Firefighters...........................................    97
    Automation Modernization.........................................    46
    Behavior Detection...............................................    55
    BioWatch.........................................................    65
    Biodefense Countermeasures.......................................    87
    Biometric Air Exit...............................................    82
    Bioshield........................................................    65
    Border Patrol Agents.............................................    50
    Building our Nation's Mutual Aid System Through EMAC.............   110
    CEDAP Grants.....................................................    79
    Capital Improvement Plan.........................................    64
    Chemical Security................................................    61
    Coast Guard......................................................    56
        Assets in Iraq...............................................    56
        Icebreaker Polar Star........................................    25
        National Security Cutter.....................................    93
        Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)..............................    98
    Collective Bargaining............................................    92
        Rights.......................................................    55
    Commercial Mobile Alert System...................................    72
    Consolidation of Leases..........................................    87
    Construction.....................................................    47
    Contractor Conversions...........................................    76
    Contractors......................................................    63
    Conversion of Contractors to Government Positions................    84
    Coordination With DOJ............................................    34
    Cuts to Port:
        And Rail Security Grants.....................................    20
        Security and Rail Security Grants............................    21
    Cyber Security...................................................    61
    Declaration of Major Disaster....................................    32
    DHS:
        Consolidated Headquarters Project............................    41
        Data Migration...............................................    93
        Headquarters Consolidation...................................    86
        Role in Cyber Security Efforts...............................85, 86
    Departmental Management..........................................    36
    Detention Beds...................................................    52
    Disaster:
        Costs........................................................    66
        Relief Fund..................................................    17
    Domestic Nuclear Detection Office................................    76
    Effect of Economic Downturn on Fee-Funded Programs...............    83
    Effectiveness of Grants..........................................    79
    Efficiency Review................................................    14
    Emergency Management Infrastructure Funding......................   107
    Estimating Flood Elevations With Aerial Photography..............   101
    Explosive Detection Systems......................................    90
    E-Verify.........................................................35, 73
    Federal:
        Emergency Management Agency..................................    66
        Housing Case Management......................................    95
        Information Security Management Act..........................    59
        Protective Service...........................................    64
        Requirements.................................................    71
    Fees.............................................................    74
    Fire Grant Funding Distribution..................................    69
    Firefighter Assistance...........................................    66
    Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request..................................     6
    Flood Mapping....................................................    28
    Floodplain Remapping, Garden City, Kansas........................    99
    Funding:
        Crosswalk....................................................    60
        For:
            Biometric Air Exit.......................................    19
            CBP Salaries and Expenses at the Ports of Entry..........   113
            DHS Human Resources Management System....................   113
            Enforcement Enhanced Retirement..........................   113
    Great Lakes Icebreaker...........................................    57
    Guidance.........................................................    70
    Housing Case Management..........................................    22
    H1N1 Supplemental Funding........................................    81
    HSPD-12 Card Issuance............................................    43
    ICE Leases.......................................................    53
    Improving State and Local Emergency Operation Centers............   111
    In-Line Baggage Screening Systems................................    90
    Inspection of High-Risk Chemical Facilities......................    89
    Interagency Operation Centers....................................    57
    Intermodal Security Coordination Office..........................    89
    Investment in Predisaster Mitigation.............................   111
    Loran-C..........................................................    58
    Large Spectator Event Security...................................    96
    License Plate Readers............................................    47
    Mail Facility....................................................    60
    Mass Evacuation..................................................    67
    Medical Stockpile................................................    82
    National:
        Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF).........................26, 98
        Cyber Security Center........................................    85
        Guard on the Border..........................................    81
        Protection and Programs Directorate..........................    61
        Security Cutter (NSC)........................................    55
        Special Security Events......................................    60
    Need for:
        Mission Support..............................................    48
        National Guard to Secure Southwest Border....................    18
    Non-pay inflation................................................    44
    Number of Grant Programs.........................................    80
    Obligations......................................................    63
    Office of Health Affairs.........................................    65
    Ottawa County, Ohio, Facility....................................    92
    Out-year Funding.................................................    44
    Overseas Activities..............................................    59
    Oversight of Management Functions................................    87
    Pacific Northwest National Lab...................................    24
    Performance Accountability and Standards System..................    91
    Piracy...........................................................    21
    Preparedness Grants..............................................    67
    Principal Federal Official.......................................    68
    Program Integrity................................................44, 51
    Project Newton...................................................    75
    Protection of U.S.-Flagged Vessels...............................    78
    REAL ID..........................................................    75
        Act Implementation...........................................    80
    Radar Coverage...................................................    50
    Radiation:
        Detection Equipment..........................................    92
        Portal Monitors..............................................    92
    Realignment of Grant Programs....................................    80
    Reduction:
        For Stimulus Bill Funded Activities..........................    16
        In Grants....................................................    77
    Regulations......................................................    72
    Reliance on Contractors..........................................    38
    Role of Contractors..............................................    83
    Science and Technology...........................................    75
    Secure:
        Border Initiative (SBI)......................................33, 49
        Communities..................................................    52
    Securing the Cities (STC)........................................    77
    Security of Chemical Facilities..................................    16
    Sole Source Contracting..........................................    29
    Southeast Region Research Initiative (SERRI).....................    95
    Southwest Border Fencing.........................................    32
    Systems Acquisition..............................................    76
    Technology Transfer to Iran......................................    78
    Timeliness of Spend Plan Submission..............................    62
    Trade Regulations................................................    45
    Transfer of:
        Sensitive Technology to Hostile Nations......................    21
        The Federal Protective Service...............................    92
    Transformation and Systems Consolidation (TASC)..................    39
    Transportation Security Administration...........................    54
        Acquisitions Process.........................................    30
        Air Cargo Inspector Staffing.................................    54
    2010 Olympics....................................................    25
    UASI Grant Program Reductions....................................    22
    Unaccompanied Alien Children.....................................    81
    USM Conversion of Contractors to FTE.............................    44
    Uniformed Division Modernization.................................    60
    Unique Identity..................................................    63
    U.S.:
        Citizenship and Immigration Services.........................    73
        Coast Guard..................................................    55
        Customs and Border Protection................................    44
        Immigration and Customs Enforcement..........................    50
        Secret Service...............................................    59
    US-VISIT.........................................................    62
        Program......................................................    31
    Vehicles.........................................................    48
    VIPR Teams.......................................................    91
    Visa Waiver Country Information Sharing..........................    83
    West Virginia Chemical Explosion.................................    62
    Worksite Enforcement.............................................    50

                                       -