[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
-