    [Senate Hearing 111-811]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 111-811

      DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

                                    S. 3607

     AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
     FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2011, 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.gpo.gov/fdsys

                                   __________

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
      54-971 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2011
    ___________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer
    Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or
    866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                          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, February 24, 2010

                                                                       Page

    Department of Homeland Security..................................     1

                            Tuesday, April 13, 2010

    Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Coast Guard................   133
    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   167

      DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010

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

                        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

    STATEMENT OF HON. JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY

                  opening statement of senator robert c. byrd

        Senator Byrd. Good afternoon. The subcommittee will be in
    order.
        Secretary Napolitano, you lead a Department of 219,000 men
    and women who are on the front line every day protecting our
    citizens. We commend those employees for their service.
        We welcome you to the subcommittee today.
        I also welcome Senator George Voinovich, our ranking
    member. I look forward to working with all of our subcommittee
    members this year.
        Secretary Napolitano, I thank you for your service to the
    Nation. You took on a Department with many challenges. We share
    the common goal of working to secure the homeland while
    striving to protect the rights and the liberties that our
    Founding Fathers set forth in the Constitution.
        Recently you submitted to the Congress the first
    quadrennial homeland security review, A Strategic Framework for
    a Secure Homeland, and the review lays out a thoughtful
    strategy that details five core missions for the Department. I
    am pleased to say that these five missions are very similar to
    the missions that the committee approved last year.
        Now, it is our responsibility to align those missions with
    the resources necessary to accomplish those missions.
        Quoting from the Strategic Framework--and I quote--``We
    have learned as a Nation that we must maintain a constant,
    capable, and vigilant posture to protect ourselves against new
    threats and evolving hazards.''
        As I review the details of the President's budget, I find
    significant gaps between the mission assignments stated in the
    Strategic Framework and the resources requested in the
    President's budget. The budget includes a modest increase of
    2.6 percent for the Department with most of the increase
    provided to the Transportation Security Administration in
    response to the December 25 attempted attack on Northwest
    Airlines Flight 253. While the proposed increases for
    checkpoint explosives technology and additional Federal Air
    Marshals may be appropriate, it is an example of responding to
    the latest threat rather than anticipating future threats.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget does not request the resources
    necessary to allow the Department to be nimble. You remember--
    the old poem, Jack Be Nimble and Jack Be Quick?--to be nimble
    in responding to known vulnerabilities as well as to future
    threats.
        The President proposes to reduce funding critical to
    maintaining the ability of the Coast Guard to secure our ports,
    interdict illegal migrants and illegal drugs, and to save
    lives. To save lives.
        The budget proposes to reduce the number of Border Patrol
    agents and reduce our ability to secure containers shipped from
    overseas.
        The budget proposes status quo funding--status quo
    funding--for programs that address known vulnerabilities such
    as cyber security, bioterrorism, port security, and transit
    security.
        Last year, with your leadership, the President requested
    significant resources--significant resources--for homeland
    security. I was pleased the Congress sent to him a bipartisan
    bill that the President signed in October. And I look forward
    to working with you again this year. I hope that we will have
    your support in identifying ways to improve upon the fiscal
    year 2011 budget so that necessary resources are available to
    meet the mission requirements established in your Strategic
    Framework.
        Finally, I appreciate the Department's efforts through FEMA
    to help my State as West Virginians dig out from the tremendous
    amount of snow that fell this year. I support Governor Joe
    Manchin's request for Federal assistance in response to the
    December snowstorm, and I look forward to working with you to
    ensure that the February storms that packed a one-two punch are
    handled appropriately.
        Following Senator Voinovich's opening remarks, we will hear
    from Secretary Napolitano. After we hear from the Secretary,
    each member will be recognized by seniority for up to 7 minutes
    for remarks and questions. Now, I recognize Senator Voinovich
    for any opening remarks that he may wish to make.

                    statement of senator george v. voinovich

        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Chairman Byrd. I am pleased
    to join you today in welcoming our witness, the Secretary of
    Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano.
        I appreciate your being here today, Madam Secretary, to
    provide your insights on the Department's priorities as we
    begin the fiscal year 2011 appropriations process. I enjoyed
    our recent meeting, and I look forward to a continuing dialogue
    on improving the management of the Department of Homeland
    Security. These last few months have presented a number of
    challenges for you and all of your Department's employees.
        For fiscal year 2011, the President's total discretionary
    request for the Department is $43.6 billion. This is a 3
    percent increase from the fiscal year 2010 level. To put this
    in a different context, this is a $13.5 billion, or a 45
    percent, increase from the first appropriations act that funded
    the Department in fiscal year 2004. A 45 percent increase in 8
    years. We are quickly approaching the time when we will have
    doubled the resources of your Department.
        Increased security requirements as a result of 9/11,
    including land, border, cargo, transportation, and maritime
    security, have led to Federal spending without offsets or
    revenue increases to pay for it. In other words, during this
    last period of time, we have increased the budget 45 percent,
    but we have not asked the American people to come up with any
    more money to pay for it, on top of everything else that many
    of those agencies that formed the Department did--I think it
    was 22 of them. Given all the new requirements brought about by
    9/11, in my opinion, I think we should have asked the American
    people to help pay for it.
        The Congressional Budget Office projects that if current
    laws and policies remain unchanged, the Federal budget would
    show a deficit of about $1.3 trillion for fiscal year 2010,
    with projected deficits averaging about $600 billion per year
    over the next 10 years. Now, this is not sustainable. If we are
    not careful, we will not have any money for anything.
        These continuing deficits will push the debt to
    increasingly higher levels. It is interesting that foreign
    creditors now own roughly half of our debt, China being lead
    among them.
        Proverbs teaches, chapter 22, verse 7: ``The rich rules
    over the poor, And the borrower is the servant to the lender.''
    I am very concerned about it.
        So, Secretary Napolitano, given all our debt, do we really
    need to make some of the investments your budget calls for? The
    budget request reflects a response to events of the last few
    months, but it is not clear to me that all these investments
    are wise ones. Why is it a budget priority to invest almost
    $500 million in new machines and personnel at the TSA just
    because the Christmas Day bomber boarded a plane in Amsterdam?
    What is really wrong with the current system? The folks in
    Cleveland did not believe the new machine piloted added to
    their ability. They piloted it and they sent it back. Where is
    the cost-benefit analysis of that decision?
        Why are you not applying the same logic to transportation
    security that you applied to biometric air exit, for which no
    funding is requested? You have made a case to me that it would
    not be cost effective to implement a biometric air exit system.
    If this is the situation, why do you not recommend the repeal
    of the statutory requirement for it and make the case that you
    can provide this capability through less costly means? In other
    words, it is a requirement, and if you cannot justify it from a
    cost-benefit standpoint, then get rid of it, get rid of the
    statutory requirement and tell us how you are able to do it
    without spending the money provided for it.
        Another area I question is the connection of the grants we
    are funding to our national security. One of my concerns, when
    we set up the Department, was that such funding would become a
    revenue sharing operation that, in some instances, would have
    nothing to do with homeland security. And I have to tell you,
    like every other Member of the Senate, I just love those news
    releases going out to my State that I am buying a fire engine
    or I am buying this and I am buying that, but I got to ask,
    what has this got to do with our national security?
        Now, we did have that program before 9/11, but it has
    really increased substantially, and we are funding--and I am a
    former mayor and I am a former Governor--but, we are really
    funding a lot of stuff that, frankly, I think is the
    responsibility of State and local government, although they are
    in a tough spot right now.
        After investing over $28 billion in grants to improve the
    preparedness and response capabilities of State and local
    governments, we have no reliable measures to show that this
    investment has improved the Nation's preparedness. I would like
    to know where we are investing this money and how is it helping
    to take care of our Nation's preparedness. And what are you
    doing to examine if some programs are working, making a
    difference, and what portion of grants can be categorized as
    revenue sharing under the guise of national security?
        It is important to note that the fiscal year 2011 budget
    does not propose, as 2010 did, adequate resources to pay for
    border initiatives funded in previous fiscal years, as the
    chairman has pointed out. In fact, the budget proposal is to
    step back from the administration request of only a year ago,
    intended to strengthen border security, eliminating the funding
    in fiscal year 2011, for example, of the 120 additional
    personnel requested by CPB air and marine operations.
        Obviously, you would have not recommended this unless you
    were satisfied the Department can get the job done with this
    level of resources. And you can be assured that if you do not
    make good on this case, this money will be added back, quite
    possibly at the expense of your other priorities. And I would
    ask why increase the grant funding pot at the same time the
    budget that is in front of us cuts the Border Patrol. What is
    the rationale for both of those?
        Although I understand you may be reevaluating your
    priorities. This morning the Department unofficially let us
    know that you are revising the budget request to include full
    funding for 20,163 Border Patrol agents in fiscal year 2011. I
    am most interested to hear what program you will be proposing
    to reduce by $15.5 million in order to do that.
        On a more positive note, I have long been interested in
    improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal
    Government during my time in the Senate. In my role on the
    Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I have
    worked toward reforming how the Federal Government manages its
    most valuable resource, its people. And, I am pleased to see
    you are asking for more money to improve hiring and to
    strengthen the acquisition workforce at the Department.
        In addition to hearing about your budget initiatives for
    the next fiscal year, I hope to hear your thoughts on the
    issues I have raised.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Senator.
        Secretary Napolitano?

                     summary statement of janet napolitano

        Secretary Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, Senator Voinovich,
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    discuss President Obama's 2011 budget for the Department of
    Homeland Security. I want to thank the subcommittee for the
    support you have shown the Department in my year here and for
    the opportunity to work with you on particular issues as we
    have moved through the past fiscal year.
        President Obama's budget for the Department of Homeland
    Security focuses resources where they can be put to the most
    effective and efficient use. As you noted, Chairman Byrd, the
    request for fiscal year 2011 is an increase over the prior
    year's funding, and while we are focused at all times on
    protecting the American people, we are also committed to
    exercising strong fiscal discipline, making sure we are
    investing the resources in what works, cutting down on
    redundancy, eliminating ineffective programs, and making
    improvements across the board.
        I think it is important to note that while this budget will
    not go into effect until October 1, the events of the past
    months underscore the importance of the investments to our
    mission and to our ongoing activities. The attempted attack on
    Flight 253 on Christmas was a powerful illustration that
    terrorists will go to great lengths to try to defeat security
    measures we have put in place since September 11, 2001. We are
    determined to disrupt and thwart those plans and to dismantle
    and defeat terrorist networks by employing multiple layers of
    defense that work in concert with one another to secure the
    country. This effort involves not just the Department of
    Homeland Security but, indeed, many other Federal agencies with
    responsibilities for the Nation.
        As President Obama has also made clear, the administration
    is determined to find and to fix vulnerabilities in our systems
    that allowed the breach on Christmas Day to occur, and the
    President's budget prioritizes security enhancements in order
    to do so.
        I would also just pause for a moment there to say that the
    equipment being purchased in this budget, Senator Voinovich,
    Chairman Byrd, was already designed to be purchased. What we
    have proposed in this budget is accelerating the purchase and
    the installation of AIT, and I look forward to discussing that
    with you.
        As Chairman Byrd noted, the President's budget is focused
    on the five major mission areas determined by our quadrennial
    homeland review to be the focus of our Department: preventing
    terrorism and enhancing security; securing and managing the
    borders; smart and effective enforcement of the immigration
    laws; safeguarding and securing cyberspace. The first I think
    any quadrennial review has singled out cyberspace; and ensuring
    resiliency to disasters. My written statement goes into more
    detail on each of these.
        I have already mentioned to prevent terrorism and enhance
    security, the President's budget request enhances the multiple
    layers of aviation security. In addition to the machines, we
    are also looking to continue deployment of personnel, increases
    for the Federal Air Marshals Service, as well as more explosive
    detection teams, trained K-9 teams, and behavior detection
    officers at the domestic airports.
        To secure and manage our borders, the President's budget
    request strengthens initiatives that have resulted in concrete
    border security successes this past year. For example, it
    includes monies to expand the Border Enforcement Security Task
    Force, known as the BEST teams, a multi-agency model that has
    helped increase our seizures of contraband in every major
    category last year. Using an intelligence-based approach to
    going after the drug cartels, we are able to achieve more
    successes than in any year in history. And to do that and to
    make that approach intelligence-driven, the budget provides
    monies for more intelligence analysts.
        We also have within the budget the money to sustain Border
    Patrol efforts at the border at the levels previously stated.
    If I might just pause here, I cannot say it enough today, but
    we do not anticipate any reduction in Border Patrol staff in
    this budget and certainly no reduction at either the northern
    or the southern border.
        I would also like to pause a moment on the issue of Mexico
    because while we are dealing daily with terrorists who seek to
    injure us from abroad, there is a situation just south of our
    border that requires attention. The President of the United
    States has joined with the President of Mexico to combat the
    drug cartels. This is an ideal and golden opportunity for us to
    do so, and it is an urgent time to do so. The city of Juarez,
    which is just over the bridge from El Paso, the State of
    Chihuahua, which is the state in which Juarez is located, is
    essentially lacking the entire rule of law at this point in
    time. We are, therefore, supporting efforts and working across
    the Government to work with Mexico to achieve greater security
    border-wide in relation to the cartels.
        In response to our mission area to enforce the immigration
    laws, we bolster critical initiatives. E-Verify, which is the
    program necessary to ensure that businesses provide a legal
    workforce--those monies will help us with broad detection
    capabilities, as well as the continued registration of more and
    more employers.
        In addition, the budget includes more money for secure
    communities, which is the program where we insert into local
    jails or State prisons the ability to identify criminal aliens
    who are already incarcerated so that they may be removed from
    the country.
        To safeguard and secure cyberspace, the President's budget
    includes a total funding of $379 million for the National Cyber
    Security Division to identify and reduce vulnerabilities in our
    Nation's key cyber networks. As I mentioned before, we have
    already delineated this as one of our top five mission areas,
    and in addition to the monies that are in the President's
    budget, we have also requested and received the authority to do
    direct hiring of up to 1,000 cyber security experts over the
    next 3 years.
        To ensure resilience to disasters, the President's budget
    request includes an increase for the Disaster Relief Fund. It
    also includes $100 million in pre-disaster mitigation grants to
    support the efforts of State, local, and tribal governments to
    reduce the risks associated with disasters.
        And finally, as I think this subcommittee can appreciate,
    the Department of Homeland Security--in some respects, I liken
    it to building the plane while we are flying it, it is a
    Department that is still being pulled together out of the 20-
    some-odd agencies that were put under the DHS umbrella. This
    requires budget investment. It requires budget investment in a
    consolidated headquarters. I thank the Congress very much for
    putting part of that headquarters money in the ARRA, in the
    Recovery Act. This is the headquarters that will be located at
    St. Elizabeths.
        But in addition to that, we want to consolidate leases. We
    are now spread in almost four dozen locales around the
    District. We want to consolidate to fewer than 10. That will
    save money in the long run. It will make it easier to manage in
    the long run. It requires some investment now. Those are just a
    few of the examples, some of the items that get lumped as
    management, but really are essential to building the bones of
    this organization so it can sustain the muscle around it.
        We are moving full speed ahead with our efficiency review
    initiative that I outlined for you last year, and we have
    identified millions in cost reductions and cost avoidances and
    institutionalized a new culture of efficiency at the
    Department.
        In all of the initiatives I have outlined today with you,
    we are dedicated to making sure not only that we protect the
    American people but that we get the most out of our security
    dollars.

                               prepared statement

        I am happy, Mr. Chairman, to answer questions and to
    provide other information with the subcommittee this afternoon.
        [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
    provided me and the Department this past year. I look forward to
    another year 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 2011 budget request for the Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS).
        As you know, the attempted attack on Northwest Flight 253 on
    December 25 was a powerful illustration that terrorists will go to
    great lengths to try to defeat the security measures that have been put
    in place since September 11, 2001. This administration is determined to
    thwart those plans and disrupt, dismantle and defeat terrorist networks
    by employing multiple layers of defense that work in concert with one
    another to secure our country. This effort involves not just DHS, but
    also many other Federal agencies as well as State, local, tribal,
    territorial, private sector and international partners. As President
    Obama has made clear, this administration is determined to find and fix
    the vulnerabilities in our systems that allowed this breach to occur--
    and the fiscal year 2011 budget request prioritizes these security
    enhancements.
        The Department is also working hand-in-hand with our Federal
    partners to respond to the devastation and loss of life in Haiti
    following the January 12 earthquake. Collaboration within DHS among our
    many components has allowed us to leverage unprecedented resources and
    personnel to assist with the humanitarian efforts in Haiti. once again
    demonstrating what these offices can accomplish together. The fiscal
    year 2011 budget request strengthens the ongoing work in each of our
    Department's offices to fulfill our unified mission.
        I will now summarize the fiscal year 2011 budget request along with
    some of our key accomplishments from last year.
                        fiscal year 2011 budget request
        The fiscal year 2011 DHS budget will strengthen efforts that are
    critical to the Nation's security, bolster the Department's ability to
    combat terrorism and respond to emergencies and potential threats, and
    allow DHS to tackle its responsibilities to protect the Nation and keep
    Americans safe.
        DHS executes a wide array of responsibilities in its unified
    security mission. To bolster these efforts, DHS collaborates and
    coordinates with many partners--State, local and tribal governments and
    law enforcement agencies, international allies, the private sector and
    other Federal departments. These partnerships are essential to DHS'
    ability to fulfill its security mission.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget continues efforts to use our resources
    as efficiently and effectively as possible. We must exercise strong
    fiscal discipline, making sure that we are investing our resources in
    what works, cutting down on redundancy, eliminating ineffective
    programs and making improvements across the board.
        To institutionalize a culture of efficiency across the Department,
    DHS launched the Department-wide Efficiency Review Initiative in March
    2009. One major element of the Efficiency Review is the Balanced
    Workforce Strategy, a three-pronged approach to ensuring that the right
    workforce balance is achieved. First, we are taking steps to ensure
    that no inherently governmental functions are performed by contractors.
    Second, we put in place rigorous review procedures to ensure that
    future activities do not increase our reliance on contractors. Third,
    we are coordinating workforce assessments across the Department to seek
    economies and service improvements and reduce our reliance on
    contractors. In fiscal year 2011, the Department will continue
    executing the Balanced Workforce Strategy by converting contractor
    positions to Federal jobs.
        DHS secures the United States against all threats through five main
    missions, each of which is strengthened by this budget:
      --Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security.--Guarding against
            terrorism was the founding mission of DHS and remains our top
            priority today. A key element of preventing terrorism is
            recognizing the evolving threats posed by violent extremists
            and taking action to ensure our defenses continue to evolve to
            deter and defeat them.
      --Securing and Managing Our Borders.--DHS monitors our air, land and
            sea borders to prevent illegal trafficking that threatens our
            country, while facilitating lawful travel and trade. We will
            continue to strengthen security efforts on the Southwest border
            to combat and disrupt cartel violence and provide critical
            security upgrades--through infrastructure and technology--along
            the northern border.
      --Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws.--DHS is
            responsible for enforcing the Nation's immigration laws while
            streamlining and facilitating the legal immigration process. In
            fiscal year 2011, we will continue to strengthen enforcement
            activities while targeting criminal aliens who pose a threat to
            public safety and employers who knowingly violate the law.
      --Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace.--The Department defends
            against and responds to attacks on the cyber networks through
            which Americans communicate with each other, conduct business
            and manage infrastructure. DHS analyzes and reduces cyber
            threats and vulnerabilities, distributes threat warnings,
            coordinates the response to cyber incidents and works with the
            private sector and our State, local, international, and private
            sector partners to ensure that our computers, networks and
            cyber systems remain safe.
      --Ensuring Resilience to Disasters.--The Department provides the
            coordinated, comprehensive Federal response in the event of a
            terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale
            emergencies while working with Federal, State, local, and
            private sector partners to ensure a swift and effective
            recovery effort. DHS will continue its increased efforts to
            build a ready and resilient nation by bolstering information
            sharing, providing grants and training to our homeland security
            and law enforcement partners and further streamlining
            rebuilding and recovery along the Gulf Coast.
        Ensuring shared awareness of risks and threats, increasing
    resilience in communities and enhancing the use of science and
    technology underpin these national efforts to prevent terrorism, secure
    and manage our borders, enforce and administer our immigration laws,
    safeguard and secure cyberspace and ensure resilience to disasters.
        The total fiscal year 2011 budget request for DHS is $56.3 billion
    in total funding; a 2 percent increase over the fiscal year 2010
    enacted level. The Department's fiscal year 2011 gross discretionary
    budget request \1\ is $47.1 billion, an increase of 2 percent over the
    fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Department's fiscal year 2011 net
    discretionary budget request is $43.6 billion,\2\ an increase of 3
    percent over the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. For purposes of
    comparison the Overseas Contingency Operation funding and transfer from
    the National Science Foundation are not included in the fiscal year
    2010 enacted level.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Gross Discretionary funding does not include funding such as
    Coast Guard's retirement pay account 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 costs of the National Flood Insurance Fund (FEMA).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The following are highlights of the fiscal year 2011 budget
    request:
    Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security
        Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT).--An increase of $214.7 million
    is requested to procure and install 500 advanced imaging technology
    machines at airport checkpoints to detect dangerous materials,
    including non-metallic materials. This request, combined with units the
    Transportation Security Administration (TSA) plans to install in 2010,
    will mean a total of 1,000 AIT scanners are providing AIT coverage at
    75 percent of Category X airports and 60 percent of the total lanes at
    Category X through II airports.
        Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) to Staff AITs.--An increase
    of $218.9 million is requested for additional Transportation Security
    Officers (TSOs), managers and associated support costs to operate
    additional AITs at airport checkpoints. Passenger screening is critical
    to detecting and preventing individuals carrying dangerous or deadly
    objects and materials from boarding planes.
        Federal Air Marshals (FAMs).--An increase of $85 million is
    requested for additional FAMs to increase international flight
    coverage. FAMs help detect, deter and defeat terrorist and other
    criminal hostile acts targeting U.S. air carriers, airports, passengers
    and crew.
        Portable Explosive Trace Detection (ETD).--An increase of $60
    million is requested to purchase approximately 800 portable ETD
    machines ($39 million) and associated checkpoint consumables ($21
    million).
        Canine Teams.--An increase of $71 million and 523 positions (262
    Full-Time Equivalents, or FTE) is requested to fund an additional 275
    proprietary explosives detection canine teams, 112 teams at 28 Category
    X airports and 163 teams at 56 Category I airports.
        Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs).--An increase of $20 million and
    350 BDOs (210 FTE) is requested to further enhance TSA's Screening
    Passengers by Observation Techniques program. The fiscal year 2011
    request includes a total of 3,350 officers to enhance coverage at lanes
    and shifts at high risk Category X and I airports and expand coverage
    to smaller airports.
        Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Systems Engineering and
    Architecture.--An increase of $13.4 million is requested to fund
    systems engineering efforts to address vulnerabilities in the Global
    Nuclear Detection Architecture, the multi-layered system of detection
    technologies, programs and guidelines designed to enhance the Nation's
    ability to detect and prevent a radiological or nuclear attack.
        Radiological/Nuclear Detection Systems.--An increase of $41 million
    is requested for the procurement and deployment of radiological and
    nuclear detection systems and equipment to support efforts across the
    Department.
        Law Enforcement Detachment Teams.--An increase of $3.6 million is
    requested to bring deployable U.S. Coast Guard Law Enforcement
    Detachment (LEDET) teams to full capacity. LEDETs help prevent
    terrorism, secure U.S. borders, disrupt criminal organizations and
    support counter drug missions overseas. In fiscal year 2009, for
    example, LEDETs aboard U.S. naval and partner nation assets accounted
    for more than 50 percent of total maritime cocaine removals.
        2012 Presidential Campaign.--Total funding of $14 million is
    requested for startup costs associated with the 2012 Presidential
    Campaign including training for candidate/nominee protective detail
    personnel. The Secret Service will also begin to procure and pre-
    position equipment, services and supplies to support candidate/nominee
    protective operations throughout the country.
        Secret Service Information Technology.--Total funding of $36
    million is requested for the Information Integration and Transformation
    program. This funding will allow the Secret Service to successfully
    continue its comprehensive Information Technology (IT) transformation
    and provide a multi-year, mission-integrated program to engineer a
    modernized, agile and strengthened IT infrastructure to support all
    aspects of the Secret Service's mission.
    Securing and Managing Our Borders
        Journeyman Pay Increase.--In the spring of 2010, DHS will implement
    the journeyman pay increase, raising the journeyman grade level for
    frontline Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officers (including
    Border Patrol agents and Agricultural Specialists) from GS-11 level to
    the GS-12 level. An adjustment to the base of $310.4 million will fund
    the full-year impact of the salary and benefit requirements associated
    with this implementation.
        CBP Officers.--An increase of $44.8 million is requested to fund
    318 CBP Officer FTEs within the Office of Field Operations and 71
    support FTEs for CBP. The decline in the number of passengers and
    conveyances entering the United States in fiscal year 2009 resulted in
    an almost 8 percent decrease in revenues from inspection user fees.
    CBP, therefore, has fewer resources to maintain critical staffing
    levels for CBP officers. The proposed funding will allow CBP to
    maintain staffing for critical positions to protect the United States
    at its ports of entry.
        Border Enforcement Security Task Forces (BESTs).--An additional $10
    million is requested to establish BESTs in three additional locations;
    Massena, NY; San Francisco, CA; and Honolulu, HI. These multi-agency
    teams work to identify, disrupt and dismantle criminal organizations
    posing significant threats to border security, including terrorist
    groups, gang members, and criminal aliens.
        Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Enforcement.--An increase of $30
    million is requested to support CBP and ICE IPR enforcement efforts.
    This includes information technology systems that support IPR
    activities and implementation of the 5-year IPR Plan. An increase of $5
    million is also requested for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    (ICE)-led National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center
    (IPR Center). The IPR Center brings key U.S. Government agencies
    together to combat IPR violations that threaten our economic stability,
    restrict the competitiveness of U.S. industry and endanger the public's
    health and safety. ICE will also use these funds to focus on disrupting
    criminal organizations through the Internet and support for anti-
    counterfeiting efforts.
        Intelligence Analysts.--An increase of $10 million is requested to
    fund 103 Intelligence Analysts for CBP. This staffing increase will
    support 24/7 operations of CBP Intelligence Watch, Operations
    Coordination and the Commissioner's Situation Room.
        Coast Guard Asset Recapitalization.--A total of $1.4 billion is
    requested to continue recapitalization of aging Coast Guard surface and
    air assets. Included in this request is $538 million for production of
    the Coast Guard's fifth National Security Cutter to continue
    replacement of the 378-foot High Endurance Cutters fleet. Also included
    is $240 million for production of four Fast Response Cutters to
    continue replacement of the 110-foot Class Patrol Boat fleet. The Fast
    Response Cutters have enhanced capability, high readiness, speed, and
    endurance, which will allow them to quickly and effectively respond to
    emerging threats. Additionally, $40 million is requested to purchase
    one Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) HC-144A. The HC-144A will address
    the Coast Guard's MPA flight hour gap by providing 1,200 hours every
    year per aircraft. Finally, $13.9 million is requested for improvement
    and acquisition of housing to support military families.
    Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws
        E-Verjfy.--A total of $103.4 million and 338 FTEs is requested for
    the E-Verify Program. In fiscal year 2011, U.S. Citizenship and
    Immigration Services (USCIS) will develop and implement an E-Verify
    portal that will provide a single-user interface for the program's
    products and services. In addition, USCIS will enhance E-Verify's
    monitoring and compliance activities through analytical capabilities
    that will support more robust fraud detection and improved analytic
    processes and will continue developing system enhancements in response
    to customer feedback, surveys, mission requirements, and capacity
    needs.
        Secure Communities.--Total funding of $146.9 million is requested
    to continue fiscal year 2010 progress toward nationwide implementation
    of ICE's Secure Communities program--which involves the identification,
    apprehension and removal of all Level 1 criminal aliens in State
    prisons and local jails through criminal alien biometric identification
    capabilities. Secure Communities, in cooperation with Federal, State
    and local law enforcement agencies, will provide a safeguard to
    American communities by removing those criminal aliens from the United
    States who represent the greatest threats to public safety and by
    deterring their reentry through aggressive prosecution.
        Immigrant Integration.--A total of $18 million is requested to fund
    USCIS Office of Citizenship initiatives, including expansion of the
    competitive Citizenship Grant Program to support national and
    community-based organizations preparing immigrants for citizenship,
    promoting and raising awareness of citizenship rights and
    responsibilities, and enhancing English language education and other
    tools for legal permanent residents. The Office of Citizenship will
    support the implementation of the Immigration Integration program and
    lead initiatives to educate aspiring citizens about the naturalization
    process, monitor and evaluate the administration and content of the new
    naturalization test, and develop educational materials and resources
    for immigrants and the organizations that serve them.
    Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace
        National Cyber Security Division (NCSD).--Total funding of $379
    million is requested for the NCSD to support the development of
    capabilities to prevent, prepare for and respond to incidents that
    could degrade or overwhelm the Nation's critical information technology
    infrastructure and key cyber networks. These funds will identify and
    reduce vulnerabilities, mitigate threats and ensure that cyber
    intrusions and disruptions cause minimal damage to public and private
    sector networks.
        National Cyber Security Center (NCSC).--A total of $10 million is
    requested for the NCSC to enhance cyber security coordination
    capabilities across the Federal Government including mission
    integration, collaboration and coordination, situational awareness and
    cyber incident response, analysis and reporting, knowledge management,
    and technology development and management.
    Ensuring Resilience to Disasters
        Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).--The budget seeks funding of $1.95
    billion, an increase of $350 million for the DRF. The DRF provides a
    significant portion of the total Federal response to victims in
    declared major disasters and emergencies.
        Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Facilities.--An
    additional $23.3 million is requested to address critical FEMA real
    estate needs. By fiscal year 2011, the capacity of FEMA facilities will
    be unable to accommodate key mission responsibilities and staff FEMA
    also faces a critical need to maintain and repair aging and
    deteriorating national facilities. To address these needs. FEMA has
    developed a 5-year capital plan to begin critical regional facility
    acquisitions and repairs.
        Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants.--Total funding of $100 million is
    requested to provide program support and technical assistance to State,
    local and tribal governments to reduce the risks associated with
    disasters, support the national grant competition and provide the
    required $500,000 per State allocation. Resources will support the
    development and enhancement of hazard mitigation plans, as well as the
    implementation of pre-disaster mitigation projects.
        Flood Map Modernization.--A total of $194 million is requested to
    analyze and produce flood hazard data and map products and communicate
    flood hazard risk. The funding will support the review and update of
    flood hazard data and maps to accurately reflect flood hazards and
    monitor the validity of published flood hazard information.
        Rescue 21.--A total of $36 million is requested for the Rescue 21
    system, enabling the U.S. Coast Guard to enhance preparedness, ensure
    efficient emergency response and rapidly recover from disasters. The
    Rescue 21 system replaces the U.S. Coast Guard's legacy National
    Distress and Response System and improves communications and command
    and control capabilities in the coastal zone. The system is the
    foundation for coastal Search and Rescue and enhances maritime
    situational awareness through increased communications ability with
    mariners and other responders.
    Maturing and Strengthening the Homeland Security Enterprise
        St. Elizabeths Headquarters Consolidation.--To streamline the
    Departments core operations, $287.8 million is requested to consolidate
    executive leadership, operations coordination and policy and program
    management functions in a secure setting at St. Elizabeths, the
    Department's facilities are currently dispersed over more than 40
    locations throughout the National Capital Region (NCR). This
    consolidation at St. Elizabeths will reduce the fragmentation of
    components and will improve communications, coordination and
    cooperation across all DHS headquarters organizations.
        Lease Consolidation--Mission Support.--A total of $75 million is
    requested to align the Department's real estate portfolio in the NCR to
    enhance mission performance and increase management efficiency in
    conjunction with St. Elizabeths Headquarters Consolidation.
        Data Center Migration.--A total of $192.2 million is requested for
    the continuation of system and application migration of legacy data
    centers to two enterprise-wide DHS Data Centers to meet current and
    anticipated data service requirements. Funding will also be utilized
    for upgrading infrastructure requirements.
        Acquisition Workforce.--The fiscal year 2011 request includes an
    increase of $24.2 million to strengthen the Department's acquisition
    workforce capacity and capabilities. The increase is requested to
    mitigate the risks associated with skill gaps of the acquisition
    workforce, ensure that the Department achieves the best terms possible
    in major acquisitions and improve the effectiveness of the workforce.
        Science and Technology (S&T) Safe Container (SAFECON)/Time Recorded
    Ubiquitous Sensor Technology (TRUST) R&D.--A total of $8 million is
    requested for the S&T SAFECON and TRUST programs. These initiatives
    develop high reliability, high-throughput detection technologies to
    scan cargo containers entering the country for weapons of mass
    destruction, explosives, contraband, and human cargo.
        Grants.--A total of $4 billion is requested for grant programs to
    support our Nation's first responders. This funding assists State and
    local governments in the prevention of, protection against, response
    to, and recovery from incidents of terrorism and other events.

        Fiscal year 2011 Gross Discretionary funding increases by $1.1
    billion, or 2 percent, over fiscal year 2010.
        There is an decrease of $123 million, or 1 percent, in estimated
    budget authority for Mandatory Fees, and Trust Funds over fiscal year
    2010.
        Excludes supplemental funding and rescissions of prior-year
    carryover funds.

        Notes: Departmental Operations is composed 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, the Office of
    the Chief Information Officer and the National Special Security Event
    Fund.

                                         TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY BY ORGANIZATION
                                  [Gross Discretionary & Mandatory, Fees, Trust Funds]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           2011 +/-
                                                                                  2011       2011 +/-    fiscal year
                                                  2009 revised  2010 revised  President's   fiscal year      2010
                                                   enacted \1\   enacted \2\     budget    2010 enacted    enacted
                                                                                                          (percent)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Departmental Operations \3\.................     $659,109      $802,931    $1,270,821     $467,890            58
    Analysis and Operations.....................      327,373       335,030       347,930       12,900             4
    Office of the Inspector General.............      114,513       113,874       129,806       15,932            14
    U.S. Customs & Border Protection............   11,250,652    11,449,283    11,180,018     (269,265)           -2
    U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement......    5,968,015     5,741,752     5,835,187       93,435             2
    Transportation Security Administration......    6,992,778     7,656,066     8,164,780      508,714             7
    U.S. Coast Guard............................    9,624,179    10,122,963    10,078,317      (44,646)            0
    U.S. Secret Service.........................    1,640,444     1,702,644     1,811,617      108,973             6
    National Protection and Programs Directorate    1,188,263     2,432,755     2,361,715      (71,040)           -3
    Office of Health Affairs....................      157,621       139,250       212,734       73,484            53
    Federal Emergency Management Agency.........    5,971,159     6,194,268     6,527,406      333,138             5
    FEMA: Grant Programs........................    4,220,858     4,165,200     4,000,590     (164,610)           -4
    U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services.....    2,876,348     2,859,997     2,812,357      (47,640)           -2
    Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.....      332,986       282,812       278,375       (4,437)           -2
    S&T Directorate.............................      932,587     1,006,471     1,018,264       11,793             1
    Domestic Nuclear Detection Office...........      514,191       383,037       305,820      (77,217)          -20
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.................................   52,771,076    55,388,333    56,335,737      947,404          1.71
                                                 ===================================================================
    Less Rescission of Prior Year Carryover           (61,373)      (40,474)  ...........       40,474          -100
     Funds \4\..................................
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------
    ADJUSTED TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY.............   52,709,703    55,347,859    56,335,737      987,878             2
                                                 ===================================================================
    SUPPLEMENTAL \5\............................    3,354,503       295,503   ...........     (295,503)  ...........
    Less Rescission of Prior Year Carryover          (100,000)  ............  ...........  ............  ...........
     Funds \5\..................................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Fiscal year 2009 revised enacted reflects:
      --Net reprogramming/transfer adjustments for OSEM ($17.4 million); OIG ($16.0 million); CBP (-$24.1 million);
      ICE ($16.4 million); TSA (14.4 million); USCG ($.400 million); USSS ($2.5 million); NPPD ($30 million); OHA
      ($.430 million); FEMA (-$39.5 million).
      --Technical adjustments to revise fee/trust fund estimates for ICE--Immigration Inspection User Fee ($7.0
      million); ICE--Detention and Removal Examination Fee ($1.4 million); ICE--Breached Bond/Detention Fund ($15.0
      million); 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); CIS ($185.4 million); USCG ($7.9 million).
      --Realignment of USCG 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).
      --Scorekeeping adjustment for a rescission of prior year unobligated balances from USCG--AC&I (-$20.0
      million).
    \2\ Fiscal year 2010 revised enacted reflects:
      --Technical adjustments for TSA Aviation Security Fees of ($128.9 million); USCG Health Care Fund ($5.0
      million).
      --Scorekeeping adjustment for a rescission of prior year unobligated balances from USCG--AC&I (-$.800
      million).
      --For comparability purposes, excludes USCG Overseas Contingency Operations ($241.5 million) and National
      Science Foundation transfer to USCG of $54.0 million.
    \3\ 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, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, and the National Special Security
      Events Fund (NSSE).
    \4\ 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).
    Pursuant to Public Law 111-83, reflects fiscal year 2010 rescissions of prior year unobligated balances:
      Analysis and Operations (-$2.4 million); TSA (-$4.0 million); Counter-Terrorism Fund (-$5.6 million); FEMA (-
      $5.6 million); S&T (-$6.9 million); DNDO (-$8.0 million).
    \5\ In order to obtain comparable figures, Net Discretionary, Gross Discretionary, and Total Budget Authority
      excludes:
      --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 (ARRA): USM ($200 million); OIG ($5
      million); CBP ($680 million); ICE ($20 million); TSA ($1.0 billion); USCG ($240 million); FEMA ($610 million).
      --Fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding pursuant to Public Law 111-8: USSS ($100 million).
      --Fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding pursuant to Public Law 111-32: CBP ($51.2 million); ICE ($66.8
      million); USCG ($139.5 million); FEMA ($130.0 million).
      --Pursuant to Public Law 111-32 reflects fiscal year 2009 rescissions of prior year unobligated balances: FEMA
      (-$100.0 million).
      --Fiscal year 2010 Overseas Contingency Operations funding provided in Public Law 111-83: USCG ($241.5
      million).
      --Fiscal year 2010 Supplemental funding pursuant to Public Law 111-117: USCG ($54.0 million).

                                       NET DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY BY ORGANIZATION
                [Excludes Discretionary Offsetting Fees & Mandatory, Non-Offsetting Fees, & Trust Funds]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           2011 +/-
                                                                                  2011       2011 +/-    fiscal year
                                                  2009 revised  2010 revised  President's   fiscal year      2010
                                                   enacted \1\   enacted \2\   budget \3\  2010 enacted    enacted
                                                                                                          (percent)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Departmental Operations \3\.................     $659,109      $802,931    $1,270,821     $467,890            58
    Analysis and Operations.....................      327,373       335,030       347,930        2,900             4
    Office of the Inspector General.............      114,513       113,874       129,806       15,932            14
    U.S. Customs & Border Protection............    9,803,667    10,134,554     9,817,117     (317,437)           -3
    U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement......    5,005,615     5,436,952     5,523,800       86,848             2
    Transportation Security Administration......    4,369,358     5,129,505     5,724,000      594,495            12
    U.S. Coast Guard............................    8,104,707     8,541,749     8,466,537      (75,212)           -1
    U.S. Secret Service.........................    1,415,444     1,482,644     1,571,617       88,973             6
    National Protection and Programs Directorate    1,188,263     1,317,755     1,246,715      (71,040)           -5
    Office of Health Affairs....................      157,621       139,250       212,734       73,484            53
    Federal Emergency Management Agency.........    2,777,560     2,963,268     3,292,860      329,592            11
    FEMA: Grant Programs........................    4,220,858     4,165,200     4,000,590     (164,610)           -4
    U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services.....      152,490       224,000       385,800      161,800            72
    Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.....      332,986       282,812       278,375       (4,437)           -2
    S&T Directorate.............................      932,587     1,006,471     1,018,264       11,793             1
    Domestic Nuclear Detection Office...........      514,191       383,037       305,820      (77,217)          -20
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.................................   40,076,342    42,459,032    43,592,786    1,133,754          2.67
                                                 ===================================================================
    Less Rescission of Prior Year Carryover           (61,373)      (40,474)  ...........       40,474          -100
     Funds \4\..................................
    Mandatory, Fees, and Trusts.................   12,694,734    12,929,301    12,742,951  ............  ...........
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------
          ADJUSTED TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY.......   52,709,703    55,347,859    56,335,737      987,878             2
                                                 ===================================================================
    SUPPLEMENTAL \5\............................    3,354,503       295,503   ...........     (295,503)  ...........
    Less Rescission of Prior Year Carryover          (100,000)  ............  ...........  ............  ...........
     Funds \4\..................................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Fiscal year 2009 revised enacted reflects:
      --Net reprogramming/transfer adjustments for OSEM ($17.4 million); OIG ($16.0 million); CBP (-$24.1 million);
      ICE ($16.4 million); TSA (14.4 million); USCG ($.400 million); USSS ($2.5 million); NPPD ($30 million); OHA
      ($.430 million); FEMA (-$39.5 million).
      --Technical adjustments to revise fee/trust fund estimates for ICE--Immigration Inspection User Fee ($7.0
      million); ICE--Detention and Removal Examination Fee ($1.4 million); ICE--Breached Bond/Detention Fund ($15.0
      million); 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); CIS ($185.4 million); USCG ($7.9 million).
      --Realignment of USCG 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).
      --Scorekeeping adjustment for a rescission of prior year unobligated balances from USCG--AC&I (-$20.0
      million).
    \2\ Fiscal year 2010 revised enacted reflects:
      --Technical adjustments for TSA Aviation Security Fees of ($128.9 million); USCG Health Care Fund ($5.0
      million).
      --Scorekeeping adjustment for a rescission of prior year unobligated balances from USCG--AC&I (-$.800
      million).
      --For comparability purposes, excludes USCG Overseas Contingency Operations ($241.5 million) and National
      Science Foundation transfer to USCG of $54.0 million.
    \3\ 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, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, and the National Special Security
      Events Fund (NSSE).
    \4\ 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).
    Pursuant to Public Law 111-83, reflects fiscal year 2010 rescissions of prior year unobligated balances:
      Analysis and Operations (-$2.4 million); TSA (-$4.0 million); Counter-Terrorism Fund (-$5.6 million); FEMA (-
      $5.6 million); S&T (-$6.9 million); DNDO (-$8.0 million).
    \5\ In order to obtain comparable figures, Net Discretionary, Gross Discretionary, and Total Budget Authority
      excludes:
      --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 (ARRA): USM ($200 million); OIG ($5
      million); CBP ($680 million); ICE ($20 million); TSA ($1.0 billion); USCG ($240 million); FEMA ($610 million).  --Fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding pursuant to Public Law 111-8: USSS ($100 million).
      --Fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding pursuant to Public Law 111-32: CBP ($51.2 million); ICE ($66.8
      million); USCG ($139.5 million); FEMA ($130.0 million).
      --Pursuant to Public Law 111-32 reflects fiscal year 2009 rescissions of prior year unobligated balances: FEMA
      (-$100.0 million).
      --Fiscal year 2010 Overseas Contingency Operations funding provided in Public Law 111-83: USCG ($241.5
      million).
      --Fiscal year 2010 Supplemental funding pursuant to Public Law 111-117: USCG ($54.0 million).

                key fiscal year 2009 accomplishments and reforms
        In 2009, our 230,000 employees strengthened existing efforts and
    launched new initiatives to meet our five key responsibilities:
    guarding against terrorism; securing our borders; engaging in smart,
    effective enforcement of immigration laws; preparing for, responding to
    and recovering from disasters of kinds; and building a mature and
    unified Department.
        DIE has emphasized three cross-cutting approaches to achieve these
    aims--increasing cooperation with Federal, State, tribal, local,
    private sector, and international partners; deploying the latest
    science and technology to support our mission; and maximizing
    efficiency and streamlining operations across the Department.
        As a result, we have made major advances in addressing new and
    emerging threats to keep our homeland safe, fostering trade and travel
    and continuing to build a ready and resilient nation able to meet the
    challenges of the 21st century. The following are some key initiatives
    accomplished this past year.
    Guarding Against Terrorism and Threats to Cyber Networks and Critical
            Infrastructure
        Protecting the American people from terrorist threats is the
    founding purpose of the Department and a top priority. Over the past
    year, DHS has continued to guard against terrorism by enhancing
    explosives detection and other protective measures in public spaces and
    transportation networks, working with the private sector to protect
    critical infrastructure and cyber networks from attack, improving
    detection of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear materials,
    and building information-sharing partnerships with State and local law
    enforcement that enable law enforcement to better mitigate threats.
        Fulfilling a key 9/11 Commission recommendation, TSA began
    implementing Secure Flight, which prescreens passenger name, date of
    birth and gender against government watch lists for domestic and
    international flights.
        TSA achieved the 9/11 Act requirement of screening 50 percent of
    air cargo transported on domestic passenger aircrafts by February 3,
    2009. Currently, 100 percent of cargo is screened on more than 95
    percent of flights originating in the United States and 100 percent of
    all baggage is screened for explosives.
        The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office directly trained more than
    3,600 Federal, State and local officers and first responders in
    radiological and nuclear detection and began demonstrating the first-
    of-its-kind Cargo Advanced Automated Radiography System, which aims to
    detect special nuclear materials and shielding material in cargo at
    ports of entry.
        DHS opened the new National Cyber Security and Communications
    Integration Center--a 24-hour DHS-led coordinated watch and warning
    center that will improve national efforts to address threats and
    incidents affecting the Nation's critical IT and cyber infrastructure.
        DHS worked with the Office of Personnel Management to attain new
    authority to recruit and hire up to 1,000 cyber security professionals
    across the Department over the next 3 years to help fulfill DHS' broad
    mission to protect the Nation's cyber infrastructure, systems and
    networks.
        S&T partnered with the U.S. Secret Service, industry and academia
    to digitize more than 9,000 ink samples to expedite the investigation
    of criminal and terrorist activities by reducing matching times from
    days to minutes.
        DHS held the 5-day National Level Exercise 2009 the first national
    level exercise to focus on terrorism prevention--in conjunction with
    Federal, State, local, tribal, private sector, and international
    partners.
        In accordance with the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards
    Act (CFATS), which allows DHS to regulate the security measures at
    high-risk chemical facilities, DHS is working with 2,300 facilities on
    strengthening security measures. In 2009, DHS received Site Security
    Plans from over 900 regulated facilities.
        DHS signed agreements to prevent and combat crime with Italy,
    Greece, Portugal, and Spain. These agreements allow for the exchange of
    biometric and biographic data to bolster counterterrorism and law
    enforcement efforts while emphasizing privacy protections.
        DHS and Spanish Interior Minister Perez Rubalcaba signed a
    Declaration of Principles formalizing the Immigration Advisory
    Program--which identifies high-risk travelers at foreign airports
    before they board aircraft bound for the United States.
        DHS forged partnerships with Germany and Spain to facilitate
    scientific research and collaboration to combat transnational threats.
        DHS and Canadian Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan announced a
    series of cooperative initiatives between the United States and Canada
    to address terrorism and organized crime while expediting the lawful
    flow of travel and trade--including a biometric data sharing initiative
    also involving Australia, the United Kingdom and, eventually, New
    Zealand.
    Securing Our Borders While Facilitating Lawful Travel and Trade
        In 2009, DHS continued to strengthen security on the Southwest
    border through additional manpower and new technology to disrupt the
    flow of illegal drug, cash, and weapon smuggling that fuels cartel
    violence in Mexico. The Department also received security on the
    northern border while facilitating lawful travel and trade.
        The Obama administration announced the Southwest Border Security
    Initiative, a joint effort of the Departments of Homeland Security,
    Justice and State to crack down on Mexican drug cartels by enhancing
    border security through additional personnel, increased intelligence
    capability and better coordination with State, local and Mexican law
    enforcement authorities. As of December 8, 2009, CBP has seized more
    than $38.3 million in southbound currency--an increase of more than
    $29.3 million compared to the same period in 2008. In total thus far in
    2009, CBP and ICE have seized more than $101.7 million and nearly 1.59
    million kilograms of drugs--an increase of more than $48.2 million and
    more than 423,167 kilograms of drugs compared to the same period in
    2008.
        DHS implemented the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative for land
    and sea travel to the United States, increasing border security while
    facilitating lawful travel and trade by requiring U.S. and Canadian
    citizens to present a passport or other approved secure document that
    denotes identity and citizenship when crossing the border.
        DHS and the Department of Justice joined with the Office of
    National Drug Control Policy to release the National Southwest Border
    Counternarcotics Strategy, the Obama administration's strategy to stem
    the flow of illegal drugs and their illicit proceeds across the
    Southwest border and reduce associated crime and violence.
        The Department announced the expansion of Global Entry--a CBP pilot
    program that streamlines the screening process at airports for trusted
    travelers through biometric identification--as a permanent voluntary
    program at airports across the United States. Global Entry reduces
    average wait times by more than 70 percent and more than 75 percent of
    travelers using Global Entry are admitted in less than 5 minutes.
        DHS launched a joint Coast Guard-CBP effort to use Predator
    Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) to provide improved surveillance of the
    United States maritime borders. DHS will conduct the first UAS
    operations along maritime borders in 2010.
        DHS, the Department of Justice and the Government of Mexico signed
    a Letter of Intent to develop a coordinated and intelligence-driven
    response to the threat of cross-border smuggling and trafficking of
    weapons and ammunition. This first-of-its-kind arrangement leverages
    the combined investigative capabilities of ICE the Bureau of Alcohol,
    Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Attorney General of Mexico to
    combat violence and criminal activity along the United States-Mexico
    border.
        Through Global Entry, DHS launched a first-of-its-kind initiative
    with the Netherlands to open membership in U.S. and Dutch expedited air
    travel programs to citizens of both countries in an effort to
    streamline entry processes for pre-screened fliers.
    Engaging in Smart, Effective Immigration Law Enforcement
        Over the past year, DHS has strengthened its immigration
    enforcement activities, targeting criminal aliens and employers who
    violate the Nation's immigration laws, while making improvements to the
    legal immigration system.
        DHS implemented a new, comprehensive strategy to reduce the demand
    for illegal employment and protect employment opportunities for the
    Nation's lawful workforce by targeting employers who knowingly hire
    illegal workers through investigations, prosecution and civil and
    criminal penalties. Since January 2009, DHS' new worksite enforcement
    policies have led to 1,897 cases and 2,069 Form I-9 inspections
    targeting employers, 58 companies and 62 individuals debarred, and 142
    Notices of Intent to Fine totaling $15,865,181 issued.
        DHS is reforming the immigration detention system, enhancing
    security and efficiency nationwide while prioritizing the health and
    safety of detainees. New initiatives include creating an Office of
    Detention Policy and Planning to ensure uniform conditions of
    confinement, medical care and design; implementing a medical
    classification system; centralizing all detention facility contracts
    under ICE headquarters' supervision; developing a plan for alternatives
    to detention; more than doubling the number of Federal personnel
    providing onsite oversight at the facilities where the majority of
    detainees are housed; creating two advisory boards comprised of
    community and immigration advocacy groups; and establishing an
    independent Office of Detention Oversight reporting directly to the ICE
    Assistant Secretary.
        DHS expanded the Secure Communities initiative--which uses
    biometric information to target criminal aliens in U.S. correctional
    facilities--from 14 to 107 locations in 2009, reflecting an increased
    emphasis on identifying and removing criminal aliens who pose the
    greatest threat to public safety. To date, the program has identified
    more than 111,000 aliens in jails and prisons who have been charged
    with or convicted of criminal offenses.
        USCIS and the FBI cleared the backlog of a year or more for
    background checks on people seeking to work and live in the United
    States or become citizens--reflecting DHS' commitment to quick,
    thorough and fair adjudication of immigration applications. The vast
    majority of these checks are now answered within 30 days. At the end of
    fiscal year 2009, USCIS also reduced the backlog of pending immigration
    applications and petitions by more than 90 percent and reduced average
    processing times for naturalization applicants by nearly 5 months as
    compared to fiscal year 2008.
        USCIS launched a redesigned Web site--available in English and
    Spanish--which provides a one-stop location for immigration services
    and information, including real-time alerts on the status of
    immigration applications via text message and e-mail.
        USCIS increased employer participation in E-Verify, the Nation's
    preeminent employment eligibility verification system, from 88,000
    companies at the end of fiscal year 2008 to more than 177,000 employers
    today.
    Preparing for, Responding to and Recovering from Disasters
        In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other
    large-scale emergency, the Department provides a coordinated,
    comprehensive Federal response and works with Federal, State, local,
    and private sector partners to ensure a swift and effective recovery
    effort. This year, DHS increased efforts to build a ready and resilient
    nation by providing grants and training to our homeland security and
    law enforcement partners, coordinating the Federal Government's
    response to H1N1, and streamlining rebuilding and recovery along the
    Gulf Coast.
        DHS led the Federal response to the H1N1 outbreak, creating
    regional coordination teams comprised of representatives from DHS and
    the Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services to oversee,
    coordinate and execute national incident management responsibilities.
    DHS also coordinated outreach efforts to congressional, State, local,
    tribal, private sector and international officials regarding the H1N1
    outbreak.
        Since January 20, 2009, Louisiana and Mississippi have received
    more than $2.1 billion in public assistance from DHS, including $125
    million for debris removal and emergency protective measures, $935.5
    million in public works and infrastructure projects, $258 million for
    mitigation activities to increase resilience and more than $542 million
    for K-12 education. In addition, more than 6,000 displaced households
    in Louisiana and Mississippi have been transitioned to permanent
    housing.
        To cut through red tape and streamline and expedite the decision-
    making process for public assistance for recovery efforts in the Gulf
    Coast, DHS established two joint public assistance teams and a new
    arbitration process to resolve longstanding issues over public
    assistance funding. Over the past 10 months, the Joint Expediting Team
    and the Unified Public Assistance Project Decision Team have resolved
    156 projects, distributing more than $100 million to support the repair
    and replacement of fire and police stations, schools like the Southern
    University of New Orleans and Holy Cross School, libraries and other
    infrastructure critical to the recovery of Gulf Coast communities.
        FEMA has responded to 47 declared disasters since January 21, 2009,
    including the Red River flooding in North Dakota and Minnesota, the
    September flooding in Georgia and the earthquake and tsunami that
    struck American Samoa.
    Unifying and Maturing DHS
        Six years since the Department's creation. DHS' goal remains the
    same: one enterprise dedicated to a shared vision for homeland
    security. Over the past year, DHS implemented a series of wide-ranging
    efficiency initiatives that leverage the economies of scale in DHS in
    order to recover millions of dollars and create a culture of
    irresponsibility and fiscal discipline. At the same time, the
    Department leveraged new technology to improve DHS operations,
    coordination and outreach.
        DHS broke ground on its new headquarters at the St. Elizabeths
    Campus. While DHS currently operates in more than 40 offices around the
    National Capitol Region. The consolidated headquarters will unify DHS'
    many components into one cohesive department and is expected to save
    taxpayers $163 million over the next 30 years.
        DHS launched the Efficiency Review Initiative to improve
    efficiency, streamline operations and promote greater accountability,
    transparency and customer satisfaction through a series of
    initiatives--including eliminating non-mission critical travel,
    renegotiating contracts, utilizing government facilities instead of
    private rentals, reducing printing and postal mail and maximizing the
    use of Web-based communication, training and meetings, implementing
    energy efficiencies in DHS facilities and maximizing DHS' buying power
    to receive the lowest price possible when acquiring office supplies and
    software licenses. These initiatives collectively are expected to lead
    to hundreds of millions of dollars in cost avoidances. This past year,
    DHS identified more than $100 million in cost savings including $22
    million by eliminating non-mission critical travel; $16 million by
    utilizing software licensing agreements DHS-wide; $7 million through
    the mandatory review of contracts; $9 million by eliminating redundancy
    in processing mariner credentials; $8 million by consolidating the DHS
    sensitive-but-unclassified portal system; almost $4 million by posting
    documents online or using e-mail in lieu of printing and postal mail;
    $2 million by streamlining boat maintenance and support schedules; $2
    million by utilizing government facilities instead of private rentals;
    almost $2 million by increasing energy efficiencies at facilities and
    many more examples across the Department.
        S&T launched the Virtual USA initiative, an innovative.
    information-sharing initiative that helps Federal, State, local and
    tribal first responders communicate during emergencies by linking
    disparate tools and technologies in order to share the location and
    status of critical assets and information--such as power and water
    lines, flood detectors, helicopter-capable landing sites, emergency
    vehicle and ambulance locations, weather and traffic conditions,
    evacuation routes and school and government building floor plans--
    across Federal, State, local and tribal governments.
                    selected dhs priority performance goals
    Prevention Terrorism and Enhancing Security
        Improve security screening of passengers, baggage, and employees
    while expediting the movement of the traveling public (aviation and
    surface transportation security).
        Fiscal year 2011 initiatives include deploying new technology, law
    enforcement and canine assets at domestic airports, enhancing
    checkpoint technology, implementing the Transportation Workers
    Identification Credential (TWIC) program--which requires transportation
    workers to obtain a biometric identification card to gain access to
    secure areas of transportation facilities, and strengthening our
    Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams--which use
    unpredictability to deter, detect, and disrupt potential terrorist
    activities, will help us to achieve these goals.
    Securing and Managing Our Borders
        Prevent terrorist movement at land ports of entry and maritime
    borders through enhanced screening while expediting the flow of
    legitimate travel.
        Fiscal year 2011 initiatives include implementing the Western
    Hemisphere Travel Initiative by deploying new technology, upgrading our
    processing capabilities at border checkpoints. and enhancing
    information sharing among law enforcement, as well as continuing
    recapitalization of aging Coast Guard surface and air assets to quickly
    and effectively respond to emerging threats.
    Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws
        Improve the efficiency of the process to detain and remove illegal
    immigrants from the United States.
        Improve the delivery of immigration services.
        Fiscal year 2011 initiatives include increasing our targets for
    detaining and removing dangerous criminal aliens from the United States
    through our Secure Communities program--which uses biometrics to
    identify and remove criminal aliens incarcerated in State and local
    jails--by 4 percent per year. Additionally, we will improve the
    delivery of immigration services by modernizing our adjudication
    process for new immigrants and potential citizens.
    Ensuring Resilience to Disasters
        Strengthen disaster preparedness and response by improving FEMA's
    operational capabilities and enhancing State, local and private citizen
    preparedness.
        In fiscal year 2011, FEMA will continue to enhance its training
    programs to help State and local entities prepare for all types of
    disasters. FEMA is also developing a national strategy to house up to
    half a million households within 60 days of a disaster--increasing
    current capacity by 200 percent.
    Maturing and Strengthening the Homeland Security Enterprise
        Mature and unify the Homeland Security Enterprise through effective
    information sharing.
        Improve acquisition execution across the DHS acquisition portfolio,
    by ensuring key acquisition expertise resides in major program office
    and acquisition oversight staffs throughout the Department.
        In fiscal year 2011, our efforts will focus on information sharing
    across all departmental components. Additionally, the Department is
    undertaking an initiative to enhance the capability and capacity of its
    acquisition workforce to ensure that major acquisition projects do not
    exceed cost, schedule, and performance objectives.
        We will focus on these goals over the next 2 years and continue to
    work closely with the Office of Management and Budget in the monitoring
    and reporting of milestones and performance measures associated with
    them. As we continue the Bottom-Up Review associated with the QHSR, we
    may update these goals and associated measures.
                                   conclusion
        The fiscal year 2011 budget proposal reflects this administration's
    continued commitment to protecting the homeland and the American people
    through the effective and efficient use of DHS resources. As outlined
    in my testimony today, the Department will build on past successes in
    several areas including information sharing with our partners, aviation
    and port security measures and immigration reform efforts.
        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 2011 budget request and other issues.

                         INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SECURITY

        Senator Byrd. Thank you very much.
        Given the fact that the Christmas Day bomber on Flight 253
    was not flagged for additional scrutiny until after he was to
    have landed in Detroit, what steps have you taken to get more
    information through our customs officers earlier so that
    potentially threatening individuals are prevented from boarding
    planes bound for the United States?
        Secretary Napolitano. Yes, Mr. Chairman. One of the things
    that we have done in the wake of December 25 is to change the
    amount of information that we push forward to customs officers
    who are located overseas. They are located in nine airports.
    They are not universally located. But where we have them.
        Now, prior to Christmas, we pushed out the Terrorist
    Screening Database, the TSDB, and we also pushed out the no-fly
    list. Abdulmutallab was on neither. That was a watch-listing
    error. That is part of the watch-listing review process that is
    underway.
        We are now pushing out other data. Specifically we are
    providing overseas the information about anyone who is on a
    State Department list where there is any visa note that has
    been entered that makes any reference to terrorism or to
    extremism. That would have picked up Abdulmutallab in
    Amsterdam, at which point the Amsterdam authorities would have
    subjected him to a secondary inspection. So that is one of the
    several changes that we have already made.
        Senator Byrd. Your budget seeks a significant increase to
    deploy additional transportation security officers, new
    scanning technology, Federal Air Marshals, and K-9 teams at
    airport checkpoints. These measures are in response to the
    failed bombing attack aboard Flight 253 on Christmas Day. Just
    last week, TSA expanded the random explosives detection
    swabbing of passengers at airports.
        The increases you request for the TSA are mainly in
    response to the last attack. What are you doing to address
    future threats?
        Secretary Napolitano. If I might, Mr. Chairman, I would
    differ somewhat in the characterization that these efforts are
    only in response to the Christmas Day terrorist attack. Many of
    these programs were underway and were already in process prior
    to Christmas. What we have done is to accelerate them.
        One of the reasons, of course, we have done so is because
    the intelligence we are receiving shows a consistent effort by
    al Qaeda and its affiliates to target commercial aviation as
    the way to attack the American people. So in response to that,
    we have moved to harden, as you would, security and the use of
    better technology for security at our Nation's airports.
        In addition, we are working around the world globally to
    improve security at international airports that are last points
    of embarkation for the United States.
        So the monies in the 2011 budget are really an acceleration
    of programs, initiatives that had already been begun, but the
    need for urgency is really quite clear.

                                     MEXICO

        Senator Byrd. With regard to the drug cartel violence in
    Mexico, on March 24, 2009, you stated: ``This issue requires
    immediate action. We're going to do everything we can to
    prevent the violence in Mexico from spilling over across the
    border.'' That is the end of the quotation.
        You then announced the redeployment of existing resources
    from elsewhere in the United States to initially respond to
    this violence.
        Congress responded by providing you with $100 million to
    hire new agents and officers and to purchase equipment for a
    response to Southwest border violence. In the past 11 months,
    the violence and the brutal killings in Mexico have continued,
    and yet your budget request provides almost no new resources to
    address the violence and the threat to our Southwest border.
        I am pleased to learn that you intend to modify your
    request in order to maintain the current level of 20,163 Border
    Patrol agents. That is the right thing to do.
        Now, how do you intend to modify the budget request and
    fund these additional agents?
        Secretary Napolitano. Yes, Mr. Chairman. That is about, if
    I recall correctly, $15.5 million. It will be a combination of
    moving some monies that were allocated for Border Patrol
    personnel but who were not on the border itself, to make sure
    that they are deployed at the border. There are some monies
    attributable to some attrition savings that had not been
    previously allocated and that will be allocated now.
        The plain fact of the matter is that if you read the budget
    document we submitted, you would rationally assume that we were
    cutting the Border Patrol by 180-some-odd positions. We are not
    and we will not. It was unfortunate that was presented in that
    way.
        If I might go to the Southwest border and what is happening
    there in terms of the border initiative. You are right. The
    monies that you allocated last year were designed in part to
    prevent spill-over violence. As I mentioned in my opening,
    northern Mexico, particularly in the Juarez area, is a very,
    very troubled place right now. We are doing the following:
        We have deployed more K-9 teams, more explosive detection
    equipment, more mobile radar teams to inspect not just vehicles
    coming north, but vehicles going south and to look specifically
    for explosives and for bulk cash.
        We are also inspecting all of the southbound rail going
    into Mexico.
        We are working very closely with the federal government of
    Mexico--in fact, I was just there last week--on combined
    efforts looking not just at the drug cartel leadership but also
    others who are involved in the drug trade within Mexico and
    also what needs to be done, particularly in Juarez, to help
    with security situations or getting a secure situation there.
        And then finally, Mr. Chair, we are not the only Department
    that is now involved in the Mexico effort. There are monies in
    other Departments and efforts underway by other Departments as
    well that are all being collaborated or brought together to
    assist the federal government of Mexico.
        Senator Byrd. With a weak economy and stronger enforcement,
    the number of illegal aliens trying to enter the country is
    down. But when the economy recovers, we need strong border
    enforcement. How do these proposed reductions help to
    accomplish your mission?
        Secretary Napolitano. Well, Mr. Chair, I think there are no
    proposed reductions. And I fully appreciate, particularly given
    my own background, the need to anticipate what can happen when
    our economy comes back, that there can be another increase in
    illegal immigration into the United States.
        So in addition to boots on the ground, it is better
    technology between the ports of entry, and in addition to that,
    expanding our efforts at work-site enforcement because the big
    incentive to cross and to make that very dangerous illegal
    crossing is to get a job. And if we can clamp down now on the
    ability to get a job, we will, we think, deter some of that
    illegal immigration.
        So we have increased the number of employers who are being
    audited. We are increasing the sanctions on those employers,
    although I must say we would like some more or stronger
    sanctions and fines that we could impose. And we are also
    deporting a record number of criminal aliens and removing a
    record number of other aliens from the United States.
        So we understand that the issue is today but it also very
    well is tomorrow.

                                   CBP BUDGET

        Senator Byrd. The budget proposes to cut CBP by over $300
    million. I am troubled by this proposed cut.
        Secretary Napolitano. Mr. Chair, if I might, we think and I
    think the budget gives the CBP what it needs to secure our
    borders. Some of the monies that were in last year's budget we
    do not need this year. By way of example, we increased the
    number of license plate readers. These are machines that read
    license plates and report lost and stolen vehicles as they move
    back and forth across the border. Well, we bought the machines
    last year. We do not need to buy new machines this year. There
    are a number of other similar types of investments in last
    year's budget that we do not need to replicate.
        Senator Byrd. Senator Voinovich.

                          ADVANCED IMAGING TECHNOLOGY

        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, I would like to have you provide me, not now,
    the background on the advanced imaging technology and when the
    decision was made to go forward with the purchase of it, just
    the whole scenario of how it came about and why you made the
    decision and so forth. Okay?
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator Voinovich, we would be glad
    to. As you know, there was money for the AIT even in the
    Recovery Act funds. So this has been a longstanding movement.
    We have simply accelerated it, but we will get you a good
    briefing on that.
        [The information follows:]

        The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been
    evaluating Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) for almost 3 years.
    Through covert testing, ongoing airports assessments, and operational
    testing at 19 airports in the primary and secondary screening
    positions, AIT has proven itself as an effective tool for the detection
    of metallic and nonmetallic threats in the laboratory and in the field.
        The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recently used ARRA
    funds to purchase 150 Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) units from
    Rapiscan and intends to procure an additional 300 units from Rapiscan
    and L3, the two currently qualified vendors. This next award is
    currently in the final stages of review and TSA intends to announce the
    recipient(s) in the March/April timeframe. TSA proposes to procure an
    additional 500 units using 2011 funding, bringing the total to
    approximately 1,000 units. Further procurement decisions for AIT, as
    with any screening technology, will be based on ongoing risk
    assessments and funding availability.

        Senator Voinovich. Thank you.

                          FIRST RESPONDER PREPAREDNESS

        The other is that the request in front of us includes $4
    billion for grants to improve preparedness and response
    capabilities of State and local government. This is about 9
    percent of the Department's total discretionary request. This
    is $4 billion, and it will be in addition to the $28 billion
    that we have already appropriated since fiscal year 2004.
        The question I have is, does the Department have the
    capacity to ascertain what we are getting for the money that is
    being invested there? Do you have something that looks at it
    and determines whether or not it helps our homeland security
    and also, of course, multi-hazard situations?
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, indeed. And there is a fine
    balance to be struck between homeland security and revenue
    sharing, for example. I will say that we are--actually there
    have been metrics put in place to evaluate how these grant
    monies are being used. I am having the metrics re-examined to
    see whether they really match up with what we need now.
        Now, one of the things the President's budget does is it
    consolidates a number of grant programs. That was in response
    to a request from a number of Governors and mayors that they
    were filing multiple grant applications, had to file multiple
    reports. They wanted fewer grants and more flexibility, and so
    in this year's budget, we attempt to meet those things so that,
    for example, they can use grant monies not just to buy a new
    piece of equipment, but to maintain it. Previously they could
    not use monies in that fashion. So we have tried to make it as
    user-friendly as possible from the recipient perspective.
        But your concern is one that I share. Have we married those
    monies up really with the homeland security perspective?
        Senator Voinovich. I would like to have you share that with
    our folks. Thank you.
        Secretary Napolitano. I would be pleased to do so.
        [The information follows:]

        A review of the Department's efforts in this area revealed the
    existence of multiple Federal assessment efforts that could benefit
    from improved coordination combined with reduced administrative burdens
    on our stakeholders. FEMA is establishing a Preparedness Task Force, as
    outlined in House Report 111-298, the Conference Report to Public Law
    111-83. This Task Force is to be comprised of State, tribal, local,
    private sector and Federal experts who will be charged with, among
    other duties, making recommendations as to the system that should be
    implemented to measure national preparedness. Establishing a
    consolidated framework for the measurement of preparedness is a
    priority. We look forward to working with Congress and our stakeholders
    toward adopting a common assessment methodology that will best inform
    future decisionmaking across all levels of government.

                              DISASTER RELIEF FUND

        Senator Voinovich. The other one, of course, is the one I
    asked about last year, and that is there is a request for $3.6
    billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal
    year 2010. And less than 2 weeks later, the amount went up to
    $5.1 billion for emergency spending. And if you look at--you
    know, the question I have got is, does that emergency request
    include the claims for Katrina that are outstanding?
        Secretary Napolitano. Yes. The $5.1 billion supplemental
    for the DRF takes into account the recent arbitration award for
    Charity Hospital. It also includes $1.1 billion for the schools
    in the New Orleans area, and it includes monies for the
    outstanding arbitrations that have not yet occurred.
        The idea, Senator, is that with that $5.1 billion
    supplemental for the DRF, we will be able to finish out the
    Katrina-related claims.
        Senator Voinovich. Great.

                                    US-VISIT

        Do you believe that the biometric exit system is the most
    cost effective way to track departure of legitimate travelers
    to the United States? It gets back to something you and I have
    been talking about because I am very interested in visa waiver,
    and we have got a stipulation. You know the details.
        Secretary Napolitano. I do.
        Senator Voinovich. If you do not have the biometrics in
    place, then the program is not going to go forward, and if it
    is not required, then what is the substitute?
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, the President's budget does
    not request any dollars for the biometric exit program this
    year. There are $50 million of unspent monies that will be
    used. This is for US-VISIT, the other name for it.
        I think we can and are moving for a biometric entry/exit
    modality for airports. The problem we have as a country is the
    fact that we have huge land borders and lots and lots of ports
    of entry on those borders, and we have not yet ascertained
    whether what we are doing in the airports is feasible at all at
    the land ports. And if it is not, then the Congress and the
    Department and the executive branch really need to have a
    discussion about whether this is the best way to go with the
    monies that we have.
        Senator Voinovich. I would really like to maybe get Senator
    Lieberman and Senator Collins and have a hearing on this or
    maybe Senator Akaka to talk about what are the alternatives and
    how we can change that law so that this program does not end up
    on a clothes line someplace. So I would like to do that.

                       WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT AND E-VERIFY

        According to statistics from the U.S. Immigration and
    Customs, there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of
    administrative and criminal arrests in worksite enforcement.
    Administrative arrests--they have gone from 5,184 in fiscal
    year 2008 to 1,600 in 2009. I mean, how are you measuring the
    outcomes of this worksite enforcement guidance announced on
    April 30, 2009 versus the outcomes of the old policy?
        In other words, it looks to me, if you take E-Verify, which
    some of my colleagues wanted to say should be made available to
    employers so they can go after them, and there was objection to
    that, of using E-Verify. And then you look at the number of
    arrests that are down, there appears to be maybe a different
    approach in terms of dealing with these illegal people that are
    in the workforce.
        I mean, I cannot understand why you do not allow me as an
    employer to take my workforce and put it through E-Verify. It
    has the capacity of, I think, 65 million, and we are only doing
    about 9 million. If you put everything together, it looks like
    maybe you are slacking off or taking the pressure off in terms
    of illegal aliens that are working throughout the United
    States.
        Secretary Napolitano. I think absolutely the opposite,
    Senator. You have to look at the entire program we are doing on
    the workforce. And I say this as someone who as a Governor
    signed the Nation's first basically mandatory E-Verify law.
        E-Verify to me is the tool we have available--and the
    President's budget supports this--for employers to use for
    easy, quick verification of the legal qualifications of someone
    to work. We have around 185,000 employers on it now. We are
    signing up about 1,000 per week. We are joining that with an
    effort to audit more employers to see if they are using E-
    Verify or if they are keeping proper track of their employees
    through what are called I-9 audits. I-9 is the form that is
    used.
        We have greatly increased by multiples of hundreds of
    percent the number of employers who are being asked to perform
    or undergo an I-9 audit. That helps us target who are the
    employers that are really not even making a good faith effort
    to comply with our Nation's immigration laws.
        We have coupled that as well with record deportations of
    illegals this year over the prior year, as well as record
    deportations of criminal aliens this year over the prior year.
        So I think if you had the opportunity to speak with many of
    the employer groups, they are actually quite unhappy with us
    because they feel like we have been clamping down on them. We
    are.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Byrd. Senator Leahy.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                AIRPORT SCANNING

        Madam Secretary, in the airports where they are going to
    put these new virtual scanners, whatever you call them, the
    machines that basically undress people walking through, what do
    you do if you have a passenger who does not want to go through
    one? Does that mean they cannot fly?
        Secretary Napolitano. No, it does not, Senator. They have
    the option of going through a standard magnetometer with a
    possible pat-down, the same as now.
        I think it is important to recognize, first of all, that
    the machines now are very different than the original version
    of the machines so that they are not a virtual strip----
        Senator Leahy. You put the Gumby view now?
        Secretary Napolitano. That is one view. The ones in
    Amsterdam now are just a stick figure, and they are really
    designed to identify where anomalies are. And the readers are
    not where the person is. So they do not even associate the
    image they see with an individual. So it is a very different
    setup than was originally contemplated.
        Senator Leahy. I can imagine you have been asked that
    question by others because I know I get asked it all the time
    by people on airplanes.
        Secretary Napolitano. Correct, yes.
        But I think it is fair to say that this is the new version
    of screening technology. It is objectively better than just the
    magnetometer because it helps us identify liquids, powders,
    other methods that somebody may be trying to take down an
    airplane with.
        And the machines that we are buying now, the contracts are
    written such that as the software improves, it has to be
    designed so it fits within the current hardware that we are
    buying. So we hopefully will not have to keep coming back for
    new machines. The software is part of the package.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you. I would have assumed your
    predecessors would have done that, but I am glad you have done
    that. That makes a great deal of sense.

                                 RAINVILLE FARM

        I talked to you briefly about the Rainville Farm at Morses
    Line. It is a border crossing in Vermont, on the State of
    Vermont/Province of Quebec border. Last spring, DHS announced
    plans to use over $15 million in economic stimulus funds to
    build a new port of entry at Morses Line. I understand the need
    to upgrade the facility. It is a 75-year-old brick house. It is
    not equipped to operate in a post-9/11 environment. But I also
    look at an area where you do not have an awful lot of traffic.
    It is very small, and you also have the tradition of the people
    around there.
        I was concerned when the first plans came out, they were
    going to take 10 acres of prime farmland from an adjacent
    landowner. Since then, they scaled it down, now down to 4.9
    acres and considerably less money. I keep getting asked the
    question back in Vermont, is there a need to keep this port
    open?
        So the letter I handed you goes into more detailed
    questions. But I was wondering what is the current status of
    the project. Are there going to be any public hearings in
    Vermont on this project?
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, I will make sure my staff
    gets you the correct information. My current understanding on
    that particular port is that it is a small port. As you know,
    most of those northern border ports are, maybe 40 cars a day.
    There is a port there because there is a road there, and it is
    as simple as that. It fits within the small business carve-out
    for the Recovery Act funds, and my understanding is that they
    are now choosing among three Vermont businesses to do the
    actual improvement to the port.
        Senator Leahy. Will there be another public meeting on it,
    do you know?
        Secretary Napolitano. I do not know the answer to that.
        Senator Leahy. But you could let me know.
        Secretary Napolitano. Yes, sir.
        [The information follows:]

        CBP personnel have discussed this issue with staff members from the
    Office of Senator Leahy. CBP and USACE met with the landowners on March
    12, 2010 to discuss the matter. A final environmental assessment of the
    project was released on March 12, 2010.

        Senator Leahy. Thank you.

                              AGENCY COORDINATION

        As we all know, a core mission of DHS is to prepare for and
    manage the effects of a major homeland security incident in the
    United States, to coordinate with other Federal agencies. We
    saw in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina what happens when
    they do not coordinate Federal, State, and local resources and
    the tragedy became even worse. Senator Landrieu would
    understand it better than all the rest of us. Now, that was a
    natural disaster, but if you have to respond to a terrorist
    attack using chemical or biological, radiological or even
    nuclear weapons, the whole scenario is not beyond the realm of
    possibilities. But as we know, you are going to have to have
    even better coordination.
        Now, you became Secretary only last year, but DHS is now 7
    years old. I am concerned it still does not have final plans
    and guidance as to how it is going to work with other agencies
    in such an attack.
        DOD just completed its 2010 quadrennial defense review.
    They went forward with a number of plans of what they would do
    in case of such an attack.
        Now, DHS is obviously going to have to call on other
    agencies, State, local, Federal. But do we have an overall
    plan? And I am suggesting this is something that should have
    been done by your predecessors long before you got there. I am
    not trying to dump that all on you, but where are we in getting
    an overall plan?
        Secretary Napolitano. There are plans and there are plans.
    There are plans that----
        Senator Leahy. I do not want a plan just for the sake of a
    plan.
        Secretary Napolitano. Exactly right. And particularly for
    chemical, biological, or radiological, nuclear, the CBRNE, that
    is an area of great concern in part because we now are seeing
    an increase in the number of homegrown extremists.
        There are plans. There is a framework. We also have our own
    quadrennial review. We are now in the process of marrying that
    review to our planning structure so that they come together. We
    have exercised at the White House level what our administration
    would do at the Cabinet level, the Vice President, and the
    President should such an incident occur. And I would have to
    say, Senator, if we have such an attack, the President
    ultimately will be at that point--you know, he will be running
    the event as it were. But there are plans that are in place and
    that have been exercised.
        Senator Byrd. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman----
        Senator Leahy. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I thought because
    the first two questions went an extra minute, I might have a
    chance to put in my final question. But I will send it to you
    to indicate my support for the Law Enforcement Support Center
    in Williston, Vermont. And I thank you very much.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in
    welcoming the distinguished Secretary of Homeland Security to
    this hearing to review the budget request for the Department
    for fiscal year 2011. The responsibilities of this Department
    are the security of our homeland. Madam Secretary, I
    congratulate you on your leadership and applaud your effort to
    procure and deploy advanced imaging technologies to screen
    passengers at our airports.
        One of your first initiatives as Secretary was to visit the
    gulf coast areas which suffered terrible damage from Hurricanes
    Katrina and Rita. I know that our State's Governor, Haley
    Barbour, has been very impressed with your attention to the
    issues that continue to require our best efforts in Mississippi
    and Louisiana as we continue to rebuild and recover from the
    devastating effects of the most destructive natural disaster in
    our Nation's history.
        I was pleased with the rulemaking your Department issued in
    January of this year that outlines how hurricane victims can
    seek forgiveness of community disaster loans. I am hopeful that
    the Federal Emergency Management Agency will continue to work
    closely with our State and the communities along the gulf
    coast, which still have a lot of work to do to recover from the
    devastating effects of that monstrous hurricane.

                                  COAST GUARD

        There are some specific requests that are included in the
    budget with regard to Coast Guard aircraft and some unmanned
    aerial system pre-acquisition activities, although there is no
    specific request or speculation about the needs that exist to
    begin that process. And in every other Coast Guard aircraft
    program, there are specific requests.
        I wonder, is that an oversight or is that going to be part
    of a supplemental request? What is your plan for funding those
    aircraft?
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, I do not have that
    information now. I would have to go back and look at the
    budget.
        I will share with you, however, that our theory in crafting
    this budget where the Coast Guard is concerned was that the
    number one priority is the recapitalization of the Coast Guard
    so that, for example, we have included the funding for national
    security cutter (NSC) number 5 and things of that sort. And
    having now had a year at the Department and having been on
    Coast Guard vessels in places from Charleston to Kuwait, that
    recapitalization is absolutely necessary.
        [The information follows:]

        For fiscal year 2011, Coast Guard aircraft will be funded using the
    Acquisition, Construction and Improvement appropriation for air assets.
    Funds will be distributed according to the Capital Investment Plan. The
    President's budget requests $101 million for the recapitalization and
    enhancement of air assets.
        Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) pre-acquisition activities will be
    funded using the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E)
    appropriation. The total RDT&E request is for $20 million.

        Senator Cochran. The other program of great interest
    because Northrop-Grumman Shipyard is in Pascagoula,
    Mississippi, and it has built the national security cutter in
    the process of developing this most technologically advanced
    ship in the Coast Guard's fleet.
        I wonder if you could tell us about the request. My notes
    show that $538 million is in the fiscal year 2011 budget
    request for production of the fifth security cutter. And the
    future year budget plan includes $640 million over the next 3
    fiscal years to continue that program. Is that program on
    schedule and on track? Are there any difficulties or challenges
    that we need to know about as a subcommittee?
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, right now it is on track. It
    had a rough start. In part, I think Katrina showed that some of
    these Coast Guard assets need to be able to perform functions
    that previously had not been contemplated for the Coast Guard.
        But it is on track. We had a bit of a tussle last year
    getting some of the funding for NSC 4, but that came into
    place, and now we have the funding for 5.
        I think it also important to recognize that as we add on
    these new assets, we are also decommissioning old ones, and
    that is according to a prior schedule of the Coast Guard. And
    that accounts for some of the reduction in Coast Guard
    personnel that you see in the President's budget this year.
        Senator Cochran. Turning again to the specific request for
    assistance to hurricane victims, I think I am compelled to
    point out that our State and Louisiana too, well represented
    here on the subcommittee, are going to continue to need funds
    to rebuild and recover from the devastating effects of that
    hurricane, the most destructive natural disaster in our
    Nation's history.
        Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Cochran. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Byrd. Senator Landrieu.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Secretary Napolitano for
    testifying before the subcommittee today. The fiscal year 2011
    budget request for the Department will bolster emergency
    preparedness and support disaster recovery. I was pleased to
    see increases for the State Homeland Security Grant Program,
    Urban Area Security Initiative, and FEMA management and
    operations, as well as, level funding for the Port Security
    Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, and Emergency
    Management Performance Grants. These programs are very
    important to Louisiana.
        I am concerned however with the proposed cuts to the
    National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, the Emergency
    Operations Centers and the incorporation of the Metropolitan
    Medical Response System (MMRS) into the UASI program. I look
    forward to discussing these issues in more detail today.
        Let me also begin by following up on the comments made by
    my colleague from Mississippi to thank your Department for
    focusing so much effort and attention on fixing FEMA and
    strengthening our response to disasters by actually living up
    to the promise to try to help us, which we want to do, build
    better and smarter and stronger, which actually, as you and I
    have talked so many times, is technically against the current
    law and with the waivers that you are providing with the open
    interpretation that you and your staff are providing are giving
    us an opportunity.

                               ARBITRATION PANEL

        Specifically, the push for the arbitration panel, where in
    the past all the communities could do, as Senator Cochran well
    knows, is to continue to ask FEMA for new decisions over and
    over and over again. There was no third party, independent
    arbiter that could come in say was FEMA right or was
    Mississippi right, or was FEMA right or was Louisiana right.
    And because of your leadership, that arbitration panel is in
    effect. It may not always rule in our behalf. So far, so good.
    We are doing pretty well. But just to have that process now, I
    just cannot thank you enough.
        I want to communicate how many local elected officials have
    said, you know, they may not rule for us, but please tell the
    Secretary at least we are getting our day in court to be able
    to get a decision. So thank you.
        Let me ask, to follow up with what Senator Voinovich said--
    and I thank him for raising this. We are very concerned that
    this fund may run out of money, Madam Secretary, because there
    are still some major projects pending for reimbursement. Are
    you confident that the money that is in the President's budget
    request, which is I think $1.95 billion for fiscal year 2011,
    and the additional $5.1 billion in supplemental will cover the
    outstanding or anticipated request from not just the gulf
    coast, but we have got the California fires and some other
    things that have happened in the last 5 years as well.
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, first off, let me say that
    the arbitration panels in my view have been extraordinarily
    helpful in helping us get to a process closure. And I think you
    should be thanked for your leadership in getting an amendment
    to the statute that would allow those panels to go forward. It
    may be something we want to discuss having added for other
    disasters as well.
        I cannot answer the DRF question without also
    congratulating you on the victory of the New Orleans Saints in
    the Super Bowl.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
        Secretary Napolitano. Well done.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you. I keep raising it myself. So I
    am so happy when others raise it. Thank you.
        Secretary Napolitano. On the DRF issue, it is our judgment
    that the $5.1 billion supplemental, combined with the 2011
    budget request, will be adequate to cover all of those claims.
        Senator Landrieu. And thank you because it is very
    important. And the chairman will be very pleased to know
    because he has been really an extraordinary advocate for our
    recovery on the gulf coast. I have said this publicly many
    times. Without this chairman, I am not sure where we would be.
        But one law that we have passed is to allow both
    Mississippi and Louisiana and some others to receive
    reimbursements en bloc. As opposed to one classroom at a time,
    you could receive it for several schools in a lump sum, which
    helps the communities to rebuild, Mr. Chairman, much more
    smartly. And that is really what is at stake here if there is
    enough money to allow us to do that. So I thank you.
        My second question is the National Domestic Preparedness
    Consortium, which is a group of seven universities--Louisiana
    State University is one of them, which is why I bring it to
    your attention. Over 1,000 courses were taught last year in all
    50 States. It is a consortium that has been in existence now
    for 12 years. It is widely supported and very effective.
    Unfortunately, in this budget it has been cut by 30 percent.
    Yet, the overall budget for State/local programs has been
    increased by 33.
        If you are not familiar specifically with this program,
    would you look into it? Because we believe it is extremely cost
    effective and it is helping us train our first responders
    actually in the communities where they live as opposed to
    expensive transportation to get them to either the capital or
    some other place in the country.
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, yes, we will look into that.
        [The information follows:]

        The fiscal year 2011 administration proposal for NDPC funding is
    consistent with the fiscal year 2010 proposal. States are assuming
    increased responsibility for awareness level, refresher, and
    sustainment training that will allow our institutional partners to
    focus resources on more advanced, specialized training consistent with
    their respective expertise.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.

                                HAITIAN ORPHANS

        And finally, on another subject that is near and dear to my
    heart and also many members, is the issue of orphans in Haiti
    and also orphans around the world. Your Department really
    stepped up with the Department of State to help process about
    900 adoptions that were in process when the earthquake hit. We
    think 700 to 900 is the number. And we believe, because of your
    quick work with Secretary Clinton, that all of those adoptions
    will be processed within the next 30 days.
        But there still is a great need for safe, transparent
    processes as we identify children that are, indeed, orphans and
    have no one, no parents, no extended family, which may not be
    the majority but is a substantial number.
        Do we have your commitment to continue to work with other
    partners, including our Secretary of State, to try to make sure
    that we have the right safeguards so those adoptions cannot be
    halted but processed as appropriate?
        Secretary Napolitano. Absolutely.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Senator Byrd. Senator Brownback.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, good to see you.
        I join with my colleague about the support for orphans in
    Haiti. We had a number as well that were in the adoption
    pipeline and that we were able to clear on through. And your
    agency, your office, was good to work with on this, and I
    appreciate that a lot.
        I thought that was a shameless political statement about
    the Saints, though. I do not know if you noticed but Kansas was
    the top basketball team in the country.
        Senator Landrieu. Oh, you see what it starts?
        Secretary Napolitano. I really like Kansas too, Senator. It
    is the appropriations subcommittee, so I am prepared to be
    flexible.

                    NATIONAL BIO- AND AGRO-DEFENSE FACILITY

        Senator Brownback. I just wanted to note that for you.
        We have talked often about the NBAF facility, the bio-agro-
    terrorism facility, funded last year. I really appreciated the
    subcommittee doing that, a number of steps going on. It hinges
    on the Plum Island assets being sold, which apparently is being
    held up now or the market conditions are poor for that to
    happen. As I understand, DHS is committed to reprogram $40
    million in unobligated balances in the science and technology
    directorate budget to fund that for fiscal year 2011. Is that
    your understanding as well?
        Secretary Napolitano. Yes, sir, Senator, and that would be
    married with $40 million that the State of Kansas will be
    putting in to begin the NBAF design and construction process in
    Kansas. So we are moving ahead with full commitment to that
    project.
        Senator Brownback. It is your understanding that the
    reprogramming request is moving forward in the agency and is
    coming for congressional approval?
        Secretary Napolitano. Yes, sir.
        Senator Brownback. Okay.
        And then that $40 million--you say, well, that will be used
    for the design phase for this?
        Secretary Napolitano. I believe that is the phase that we
    are in. That is absolutely correct.
        Senator Brownback. Do you know the status on the
    disposition of Plum Island? What is taking place on that?
    Because that sale holds the rest of the funding formula for
    this.
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, right now, as you might
    imagine, the market is not optimal. So there are efforts being
    made. Our view is that our number one issue is an NBAF facility
    that really deals with the cutting-edge science that we need
    for biological- and agricultural-related issues and security,
    security of the food chain. You and I have discussed this from
    time to time.
        So our 2011 budget request includes the commitment to
    reprogram the $40 million which will be, as I said, matched
    with $40 million from Kansas for planning. Then depending on
    what happens with Plum Island, that may require an adjustment
    in our 2012 budget numbers. But we think it important that that
    project keep moving ahead.
        Senator Brownback. So these ought to be able to keep that
    project on track at the speed that it can go while we are still
    getting Plum Island sold off into the future.
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, at least through 2011. Now,
    next year at this hearing, we may be having another discussion
    because there may have to be some other options that are being
    pursued. But I just want to make very clear that in our
    judgment that is a very important project for the country and
    we need to move it along.
        Senator Brownback. Good. And the State of Kansas has
    committed a great deal on this, has committed assets, is
    committing assets, and they want to make sure that the Federal
    Government continues to commit its assets on it as well.

                                 FLOOD MAPPING

        I want to raise one other issue with you that I have
    previously, and this is--actually I cannot believe I am raising
    this with you as an issue, but it keeps coming up. I was in
    Garden City, Kansas last week. It is a semi-arid region. I
    mentioned this to you previously. They dug these ditches along
    the Arkansas River 50 years ago to drain water if they got a
    big rainstorm. It is fairly flat. If they got a heavy rain,
    they said they wanted to drain into it.
        In the last reallocation on your flood mapping, they deemed
    these as water courses that could flood and put another 600
    homes in the flood plain. These are manmade ditches. I am sure
    you have seen a fair number of them in Arizona that they would
    have done something similar.
        Well, now they have got 600 more homes that are in the
    flood plain. They got to get flood insurance. They do not have
    their qualifying to do that.
        And then most recently, Gypsum, Kansas--this is a town of
    400 people. They had something similar happen. This is on a
    levee that they put in, and FEMA is requiring them because of,
    again, remapping to upgrade their certification on their levees
    even though the Corps of Engineers already does this, and it is
    going to cost the town $200,000. Well, you got 400 people here.
    This is not something they can afford to do, and the Corps
    already does this.
        I would ask you again, if you could, to look at the flood
    plain mapping and these FEMA regulations on a small community.
    I will get you the specifics of it. But this is what gives the
    Federal Government a bad name because people look at this and
    they go this makes no sense to me. We have had these here for
    50 years. If you want me to go fill them in, I will fill them
    in. But that is dumb because then we are going to have actual
    flooding that would take place instead of the water running off
    the course.
        So we have been very frustrated with this. The city has
    even sued. Garden City has sued FEMA, and the court says, no,
    that is not going to last. We are going to get the regional
    FEMA director out, the new one, to Garden City.
        I met with you previously on this. It would really help if
    you could break through the logjam on these two issues because
    they have been like this for a long time, and it just really
    frustrates people when they happen this way.
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, in my prior life, I was the
    Governor of a State that had some similar issues. So I am very
    familiar with this from the recipient side.
        We are re-looking at flood mapping at large. There are lots
    of issues around the country. Garden City is not unique in this
    regard. My goal is to have the flood mapping and flood zone
    creation based on the best science, but the best science also
    needs to combine with common sense.
        And so what I would like to propose is or offer is that we
    will, if you would find it helpful, have the FEMA Administrator
    come brief your staff or somebody from his staff brief your
    staff on where we are right now on re-looking at how we are
    doing the flood mapping all over, as well as trying to
    troubleshoot these two towns.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        Senator Byrd. Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
    Senator Voinovich. I appreciate your having this hearing today.
        Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. Before I start,
    I want to personally thank you and all the members of your
    staff who do such a great job all the time keeping our Nation
    safe. And I know how hard they work. I just wanted to thank you
    for that.

                                 PORT SECURITY

        I wanted to talk to you today about port security. As a
    Senator from one of the most trade-dependent States in the
    Nation, the security of our Nation's ports has long been a very
    top concern of mine. We know in my home State that seaports are
    the lifeblood of our economy and that our ports move billions
    of dollars of goods each and every year and generate tens of
    thousands of jobs.
        I am reminded of this every time I go home because my
    office sits on the 29th floor of the Jackson Building looking
    down over the Port of Seattle and I recognize so well that one
    container coming in with some kind of nuclear device or other
    explosive could have tremendous damage on people, on property,
    and on the entire Nation's economy if our ports were shut down.
        I worked with Senator Collins and wrote the Safe Port Act
    under the Bush administration, and I am pleased that we passed
    that. But I am following the implementation very carefully, and
    I wanted to raise some concerns with you today.
        Recognizing the unique, catastrophic attack that could come
    from a nuclear device, the Safe Port Act that we wrote required
    that all cargo entering through our top ports be scanned by
    radiation detectors, which your Department has done that. But
    the Department's budget only proposes $8 million for the
    radiation portal monitor program under DNDO so that we can have
    these radiation portal monitors at all of our ports, including
    our smaller ports.
        The funding that has been requested is nowhere near enough
    to meet that goal. It just absolutely does not come close. And
    I wanted to ask you today why, when there is still a lot of
    vulnerable ports in the Nation, in my part of the country in
    the Pacific Northwest and around the country, did you only ask
    for $8 million for these radiation monitors when your
    Department has not yet met its goals on this.
        Secretary Napolitano. Well, Senator, a couple of things,
    and I need to be careful here that I do not tread into some
    areas that are classified. But if I might just say I am very
    cognizant of this issue. There is a plan in place, and I would
    prefer to be able to brief you in a nonpublic setting.
        Senator Murray. Well, I would be happy to do that, but I am
    very concerned that $8 million only provides 10 additional
    monitors. We are far short from the 752 that are supposed to be
    out there. So if you would like to do it in a classified
    setting, I am happy to do that. But I am deeply concerned that
    this part of the Safe Port Act has not been moved forward and I
    am deeply concerned that the budget request is not going to get
    us there. So we will do that.
        Secretary Napolitano. Yes. Put that on your schedule.
        Senator Murray. Okay, good.
        [The information follows:]

        Senator Murray's office was contacted on February 26 to schedule a
    classified briefing on the Radiation Portal Monitoring Program budget
    request.

                                    OLYMPICS

        Senator Murray. And on another topic, as we speak, the
    Winter Olympics are occurring, and I know you were up in my
    home State and saw the coordination center firsthand that has
    been built there on the border. They have done a remarkably
    great job, and I personally want to thank you for your support
    of that effort and all the resources that were available to
    make sure that we had a coordinated security response at this
    time.
        The Olympics are going to be over in a few days, and
    Washington State still has the third busiest border crossing
    across the country. Canada is our largest trading partner. We
    all know the ongoing security challenges that occur at that
    border, a very, very complex border with water, mountains,
    highways, urban areas, rural areas. You name it, we have got in
    our region.

                      NORTHERN BORDER COORDINATION CENTER

        I have thought for a long time, because a lot of our
    attention has been focused on the southern border. Finally,
    with this coordination center, we are getting to the point
    where we are really recognizing that we have got to put the
    resources in, and this coordination center has been a great
    model.
        So I wanted to ask you if you think that we can maintain
    this going forward because of the great success that we have
    had with it.
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, as you know, I was out there
    earlier on looking at the ops center, the coordination center,
    as it was getting up and running. I am going to go back out
    this weekend. Part of my job, or one of the things I want to
    talk to people about, is would this make sense to do because I
    have heard great reports. So my mind is very open. I want to
    just see what have we seen over the past couple of weeks, how
    has it been during the fall, and just get a sense of people on
    the ground about their feelings.
        Senator Murray. Okay, good, because I think this would be a
    great effort to continue with all the complexities that we have
    at the border. People really came out of the woodwork to do a
    good job of coordinating across a lot of different agencies,
    and I think to pull the plug on that and lose that would be, I
    think, the wrong direction. So I look forward to working with
    you on that.

                                   HANSON DAM

        One last issue I wanted to raise with you while you are
    here, and I do not know if you are familiar with the Howard
    Hanson Dam in my home State. Because of heavy rainstorms back
    in January 2009, which resulted in a presidentially declared
    disaster, the Howard Hanson Dam was damaged, and as a result,
    the Corps could not hold back as much water as it normally
    should be doing. We have been very lucky and we have not had
    the rain and snow that this end of the world has had this year.
    The Olympics know that as well. But because of that, we have
    been able to be okay this year.
        But it is a very complex project. It has to be repaired. We
    have been working with FEMA on this, and I know their
    challenges and the limited role that they can do because of
    their scope and funding. It is not imminent, but if we have a
    rainstorm, we literally could take out entire communities below
    that dam.
        One of our cities below the dam, Kent, is trying to use its
    own funding to repair the levees, but they are stuck in this
    horrible bureaucratic mess because in order to reduce the
    impacts of being in a flood plain, which they now are, their
    levees have to be certified. But FEMA will not recognize the
    rebuilt or repaired levees because they have not been certified
    by the Army Corps, and the Army Corps is not going to certify
    them because of measures that are required under NOAA and the
    Endangered Species Act. So this city is caught in the middle of
    all of these agencies. They are trying to do the right thing
    with their own money to get these levees and the protection for
    a very important community there, and they are in this
    bureaucratic mess.
        So I just wanted to ask you if you could sit down with me
    in my office and the agencies and see if we can help them work
    their way through this.
        Secretary Napolitano. We will see if we can troubleshoot
    that problem.
        Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
        Senator Byrd. Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, welcome.
        Secretary Napolitano. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Good to see you.

                          COAST GUARD VESSEL ACUSHNET

        I want to talk just briefly this afternoon about the
    situation with the Coast Guard and the proposal in the fiscal
    year 2011 budget to decommission the Coast Guard cutter
    Acushnet. This is one of the three large Coast Guard cutters
    that is serving up in the Alaska waters and I am greatly
    concerned about the decommissioning of this cutter and the
    negative impacts that we could potentially see on the safety
    and security, particularly within our commercial fishing
    industry.
        The folks up there have 3.5 million square miles of ocean
    that they have got to cover. I mean, I always say it is big,
    but 3.5 million is a pretty good reminder of what the Coast
    Guard District 17 is responsible for, and they do a wonderful
    job of it. We are very, very proud of the men and women who are
    serving us there.
        But with the decommissioning of the Acushnet, along with
    the four other high endurance cutters along the west coast,
    there is a very real concern that it is going to make it
    impossible or exceptionally difficult for the Coast Guard to
    meet its already very challenging mission that it faces in
    Alaska. We have got over 60 percent of the national fishing
    totals for the Nation up there within our industry, and just
    again, a real concern as to the direction that we are taking
    here.
        Now, I do understand that the effort is to mitigate the
    shortfall of this decommissioning by replacing them with
    cutters that are going to be created from the deepwater
    acquisition project, but it is my understanding that at this
    point in time, only two of those national security cutters have
    been accepted by the Coast Guard and neither of them have been
    proven to be able to operate in some pretty challenging
    maritime conditions up north.
        So the concern is that the proposal--as you take the
    Acushnet out, you have vessels that have not yet been accepted,
    not yet--basically we do not have the assurance that they are
    going to be able to meet the needs. And you have clearly a
    resource gap that will impact our ability to provide for the
    level of service necessary and impact the economy there.
        So what I would like to hear from you is, given the
    President's desire to decommission the Acushnet, how do we--how
    do you, through the Department of Homeland Security, and the
    Coast Guard plan to address the mission and the resource
    shortfalls that we anticipate to be created. And is it wise to
    be removing the Acushnet from service before we have
    replacement vessels that are suitable?
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, let me suggest that I will
    get back to you specifically on the Acushnet, but let me add to
    that. The theory underlying the Coast Guard plan of the
    recapitalization of the Coast Guard is actually--we are several
    years into it. In other words, it predates my tenure as the
    Secretary. And the notion was that as we recapitalized with the
    national security cutters, that other vessels would be
    decommissioned, and that schedule is now moving along. We are
    proceeding really on the same basis.
        With respect to the Acushnet, I will have to get back to
    you as to have we somehow left a gap there that is not going to
    be filled. I cannot imagine that we have. I know the leadership
    of the Coast Guard is very focused on Alaska, but I cannot
    right now tell you what is the specific plan for the Acushnet.
    So we will get that back for you.
        [The information follows:]

        The Coast Guard expects to execute its Living Marine Resources and
    Other Law Enforcement responsibilities in the North Pacific and Bering
    Sea in fiscal year 2011.
        We are currently working on our fiscal year 2011 operational
    planning process to best allocate our cutter fleet to maximize
    performance and minimize risk across all statutory missions. The Coast
    Guard will explore strategies to improve Living Marine Resource program
    management by increased targeting of high precedence fisheries and
    continue to leverage international and domestic partnerships to aid in
    coverage of these areas.

        Senator Murkowski. I would like to have a discussion with
    you on that or whoever that you should designate because we do
    want to make sure that these vessels that have been identified
    as the replacement, again, are going to be accepted and that
    you do not have----
        Secretary Napolitano. A gap, yes.
        Senator Murkowski [continuing]. A substantial gap.

                         TRANSPORTATION WORKER ID CARD

        The other issue that I want to bring up is the
    transportation worker identification credentials, the TWIC. I
    do appreciate the Department's effort to make much of the TWIC
    application information available on the Internet and to place
    the enrollment centers in certain parts of south and
    southeastern Alaska. That does help.
        But we are just really struggling with our geography in
    Alaska, as we seem to do. But we have got situations where
    folks that must obtain their TWIC certificate live far from any
    area where they are able to receive that. We have got a TWIC
    center in Juneau, our State's capital now, but if you happen to
    be down in Ketchikan, which is the next community south--it is
    probably equivalent in size or close to approaching Juneau--you
    are an hour flight because both Juneau and Ketchikan are
    islands, no road to drive. It is $200 one way to fly from
    Ketchikan to Juneau to make your application, and then you have
    to come back to pick it up. So you have got to make two trips
    up to Juneau.
        Now, we are getting a lot of complaints. I cannot tell you
    the number of complaints that we get out of southeast, but some
    of the other issues are even worse.
        In Unalaska out in the Aleutian Chain, the Nation's largest
    fishing port, we do not have a facility out there. We are
    trying to get a mobile facility, and I understand that there
    was a unit there but now it is closed. We are not entirely
    certain what the status was on that. But there again, you have
    got a situation where Unalaska is at the end of the Aleutian
    Chain and the next closest place for them to go to get their
    TWIC card is in Anchorage. That is a $600 ticket one way. It is
    over a 3\1/2\ hour airplane trip.
        So we are just really, really challenged by this. We are
    trying to figure out how we can avoid the--we are going to have
    to do the round trips, but not two trips. It is bad enough to
    have to send you to Anchorage to get your card, but it is
    really kind of a poke in the eye that you have to travel back
    to pick it up.
        So the question that I would have for you is whether or not
    with these mobile application centers, whether we can set
    something up to allow the folks who need to get their TWIC
    card, if there is a certified mail option that they could pick
    up that card without having to do a round trip. I am trying to
    figure out some way to make this happen because right now it is
    causing more bad language coming from dock workers and
    fishermen directed toward the Department of Homeland Security.
    We need to try to figure out how we can make this more
    workable. So I would like to work with you to see if we cannot
    come to a better resolve.
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, I will task someone at the
    Department to see, again, if we can troubleshoot this. Maybe
    the answer is to reopen a mobile site. You know, we have issued
    now, I believe, somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.3 million
    TWIC cards, and the process has smoothed out as we have moved
    forward. But I can appreciate the issue and the frustration and
    the cost that you are describing. So I will task somebody to
    work this issue with your office, and let us see if we can fix
    this.
        [The information follows:]

        The TWIC system and compliance to DHS policy do not support direct
    mailing of TWICs to individual transportation workers. The TWIC
    Program, however, has been working with an Alaska Working Group to
    address the unique enrollment and activation challenges in Alaska.
    Currently the options to limit travel costs for transportation workers
    in Alaska include the use of mobile enrollment sites and a concept of
    Enroll Your Own (EYO) centers. There are now four fixed enrollment
    sites supporting Alaska in Juneau, Anchorage, Valdez, and Nikiski. Two
    locations, Ketchikan and Skagway have reached agreements to establish
    an EYO center. The EYO concept allows local ports to purchase
    Enrollment Work Stations and provide fully trained Trusted Agents to
    support enrollment. It provides the capability to modify and change
    operational hours, as well as location, to accommodate enrollments in
    the most economic way. Discussions are also ongoing with Unalaska
    (Dutch Harbor) to establish an EYO center. In addition, the USCG and
    TSA will be meeting with representatives from Alaska to look at the
    possibility of adding an additional fixed site and to again review the
    concerns and issues unique to Alaska.

        Senator Murkowski. I appreciate it greatly. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Senator.

                              CHEMICAL FACILITIES

        On January 23, 2010, there was a chemical leak at a DuPont
    facility in Belle, West Virginia, resulting in a tragic loss of
    life. During the initial investigation, it was determined that
    first responders to the incident had difficulty receiving the
    critical information they needed in responding to the accident,
    such as the nature of the leak and the chemical involved. This
    incident is similar to the August 2008 chemical explosion at
    Institute, West Virginia where first responders were left
    guessing as to the nature of the explosion and the chemicals
    involved and were even refused information by the company.
        The chemical industry has a duty to maintain the utmost in
    safety standards to protect communities, and these two
    incidents indicate that the industry as a whole has a lot of
    work to do to maintain safe operations and provide the
    necessary information to first responders.
        Last October, I asked you to determine what more could be
    done to improve safety at chemical plants, and I look forward
    to receiving your recommendations soon. What is the Department
    doing to ensure that first responders have access to the
    critical information needed in responding to these types of
    incidents?
        Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think one
    of the key tools is the process by which we are putting into
    tiers chemical facilities around the country under the so-
    called CFATS legislation which also provides for inspections
    and information sharing and the like. That is well underway. We
    are going to continue it. Different States do different things
    in addition to CFATS, but that is a primary tool at our
    disposal.

                               COAST GUARD BUDGET

        Senator Byrd. I am troubled by the Coast Guard's budget
    request which reduces military strength by 1,112 billets. The
    Coast Guard is the only branch of the military to see its
    workforce decreased in the President's budget. It is a
    reduction of capacity and capability for an agency that has
    rescued 33,000 people following Hurricane Katrina and was first
    on the scene to evacuate over 1,000 U.S. citizens from Haiti.
        The Commandant said that the cuts to military personnel
    were necessary to pay for capital priorities, particularly the
    fifth national security cutter. No other military service chief
    was faced with this tradeoff of people versus assets. Why was
    the Commandant of the Coast Guard faced with this false choice?
        Secretary Napolitano. Well, Mr. Chairman, several things.
        One is I could not support the Coast Guard more or echo its
    effectiveness and its utilization in the protection of our
    country. It is a valued, and should be valued, branch of our
    service.
        Second, in a budget year where there were tight
    constraints, there was a prior plan to decommission vessels and
    add national security cutters. As we decommissioned, we
    decommissioned the crews associated with those vessels, were no
    longer necessary. On the other hand, as we add new equipment--
    it is not a one-for-one tradeoff--with increased technology for
    every Coast Guard member that we lose, we do not necessarily
    have to replace on a one-for-one basis. But that was the
    process that we went through in terms of the budget.
        Senator Byrd. I share the concern of the able Senator from
    Alaska about decommissioning four Coast Guard cutters when it
    will be over 3 years before we have four national security
    cutters to replace these. Reduction in billets is the wrong
    thing to do.
        Secretary Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, let me just, please,
    suggest that that is the kind of issue that we could continue
    to work with the subcommittee on as we move through the
    appropriations process.

                                    E-VERIFY

        Senator Byrd. Senator Voinovich.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am going to hit a couple of issues that are likely to
    come up when the committee marks up the bill, or as amendments
    I expect may be offered to the bill on the floor, if we do not
    get them clarified.
        Do you support allowing employers to voluntarily apply E-
    Verify to their existing workforce, not just new hires?
        Secretary Napolitano. On a voluntary basis? Yes, I believe
    E-Verify is a very useful tool in terms of deterring or
    ensuring that we have a legal workforce.
        Senator Voinovich. Well, that was a requirement in the
    Senate bill and I think it got knocked out in the conference
    committee, that the employers be able to. So you would be able
    to, this year, support an employer if they want to use E-
    Verify, to----
        Secretary Napolitano. They could do that now. That is not a
    change in existing law, as I understand it.
        Senator Voinovich. Okay.

                                     SBINET

        The other one is that we got into the whole fence issue
    last year, the 670 miles. And my colleague, Senator DeMint, had
    an amendment to put more fencing up. And the question I have is
    that as far as, I think, you are concerned, we have got enough
    fence up, but at the same time, we have had significant delays
    in developing this SBInet. The original schedule was to
    complete it in two areas of the Southwest border by October
    2008, and as of January, CBP delayed operational testing of the
    initial deployment in your State of Arizona until the fall of
    2010.
        Now, the logic here is that if you do not have the fence,
    then what else is out there to make sure these people do not
    come in that are illegal. And I would like you to answer that
    question.
        Secretary Napolitano. Yes. You are right. If I might,
    Senator, divide it into three categories: a fixed fence, SBInet
    which was the virtual fence, and then other technology, such as
    mobile radar systems and the like.
        Fixed fence. We are on schedule to complete what Congress
    appropriated monies for. There are very few miles left. That
    has some utility if it is a part of a plan that includes
    technology and boots on the ground. But a fixed fence in and of
    itself is really simply a bumper sticker in my view in terms of
    actual border protection. The notion that you are going to
    build a fence from San Diego to Brownsville and keep out
    illegal immigration is just not the way the border works. But
    certain areas, a fixed fence, yes, and we are scheduled to
    complete what Congress has appropriated.
        The virtual fence. This is SBInet. This was a project, I
    think, originally undertaken in 2004 or 2005 to build cell
    towers along the border. There would be a fixed radar system.
    It has suffered from a number of problems. One is when it was
    contracted, they contracted and designed it without really
    incorporating what the operational needs of the people who
    actually use it are. So there were those problems. The
    environment is very harsh in that part of the country.
        Senator Voinovich. The question really is, when are we
    going to have it? And second of all, what do you say to some
    other people that we are going to hear from that say we have
    got to have more fence because we have got openings out there
    where people can come across the border?
        Secretary Napolitano. What I say to them is, first of all,
    we are not going to commit right now to finish SBInet across
    the border. I do not want to send good money after bad.
        But this gets to the third area and that is other
    technology. There is mobile radar. There are backscatters.
    There are all sorts of things we can deploy along that border
    to be force multipliers for our boots on the ground, and we are
    fully committed to doing that. That is a much more effective
    way to police that border than any fixed fence sort of
    structure.
        Senator Voinovich. I would like to have a memorandum or
    something from you in a great deal of detail, and I think it is
    really important that the American people understand the good
    job that is being done. Of course, you and I have talked about
    this, that you can have the greatest fence in the world, but we
    are still going to have the problems with a lot of illegal
    immigrants or aliens that are here in the United States that we
    have to go after, which means more people for ICE, more beds,
    and so forth. So that ultimately, even though it is the third
    rail--we will not get it done this year--this country is going
    to have to take on a realistic immigration policy to deal with
    the problem.
        [The information follows:]
    Physical Fence
        There are currently 645.2 miles of physical fence (346.7 miles of
    pedestrian fence and 298.5 miles of vehicle fence) in place along the
    Southwest border.
        DHS/CBP current plans, based on Border Patrol's operational
    requirements, call for an additional 6.4 miles of fence.
    SBInet Technology
        A prototype for a fixed-tower based surveillance system called
    Project 28 (P-28) was deployed to the Tucson area in February 2008.
    Although P-28 was a proof-of concept, the leave-behind capability
    continues to provide operational benefit to Border Patrol.
        The initial deployments of the ``SBInet Block 1'' system are
    Tucson-1 (TUS-1) and AJO-1 (AJO-1).
        TUS-1 construction is complete, but testing has been delayed to
    clean up remaining technical issues.
        Final system acceptance testing should begin in the summer, with
    turnover to the Border Patrol for operational testing in the fall.
        Despite delays to testing, Border Patrol has been operating the
    system since February 6, and have provided positive feedback on the
    system.
        AJO-1 construction is underway, and should be complete this summer.
        Final system acceptance testing should be complete in November.
        SBInet delays have been a source of major concern to the Secretary,
    and as a result she has initiated a program reassessment, which is
    currently ongoing.
        The Secretary also announced a ``freeze'' on all SBInet Block 1
    funding beyond the initial deployments to TUS-1 and AJO-1 until the
    assessment is completed, and a reallocation of the $50 million of ARRA
    funding originally allocated for SBInet technology to other
    commercially available technologies.
        The assessment is intended to be a comprehensive, science-based
    analysis of alternatives to SBInet to ensure that we are utilizing the
    most efficient and effective technological and operational solutions in
    all of our border security efforts.
        In addition to the fixed tower solutions provided by P-28 and
    SBInet Block 1, there are other technology solutions being used to help
    secure the Southwest border. Among those are:
        About 40 Mobile Surveillance Systems (MSS), which are truck mounted
    systems that include cameras and radar. Operators monitor the radar and
    camera images from a terminal in the cab of a truck;
        Remote Video Surveillance Systems (RVSS) which are remote-
    controlled camera systems that display pictures at a central dispatch
    location and allow U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel to keep
    an eye on selected areas;
        Unattended ground sensors (UGS) which are clandestine sensors that
    can detect movement in their vicinity and relay an electronic signal to
    a central location that is monitored by the Border Patrol.

                                 DHS MANAGEMENT

        Senator Voinovich. The Department promised me information
    on management integration initiatives with action plans and
    milestones. On December 31, we received seven of the
    initiatives, but I have yet to see the action plans for the
    initiatives. I would like to see them. How are you going to get
    it done? And maybe also tell me what you have already done. We
    have been on that for a long time.
        Secretary Napolitano. Yes, and I appreciate your focus on
    management. It is one of mine as well. We will continue moving
    along. Some of them, quite frankly, are tied to some of the
    budget decisions for 2011, but we will keep in constant touch
    and be giving you more and more as they are prepared.

                            COAST GUARD ICEBREAKERS

        Senator Voinovich. Great Lakes icebreakers. We asked for a
    study. We are talking about buying a new icebreaker, and the
    Coast Guard said that we could take the money and put it and
    rehabilitate another seven of them. And we are supposed to get
    a report back from you by the 28th of this month on what is the
    best thing to do. Is that report going to--did anybody tell you
    about it?
        Secretary Napolitano. If it is not done, it will be done.
        Senator Voinovich. That is wonderful.
        Secretary Napolitano. Just nod yes. Right?

                                   CYBERSPACE

        Senator Voinovich. Cyberspace was another one. You just
    glibly said we are going to hire 1,000 people. The question I
    have is do we have the flexibilities to find these people
    today? I really think--Senator Byrd talked about the things
    that we know and we do not know. But cybersecurity is one
    area--I have someone in my family that is very familiar with
    it, and he sat down one afternoon and explained to me how they
    are going to shut the country down.
        And the question is these are very smart people that are
    out there, and do you have the flexibilities to go out, in
    terms of human capital flexibilities, to find these people and
    pay them and get them on board?
        Secretary Napolitano. We have direct-hire authority to hire
    up to 1,000 over the next 3 years. That in and of itself is not
    an answer to the problem. This country needs a civilian cyber
    command, just as it needs a military cyber command. And we need
    to pursue that with as much alacrity as possible.
        There are things that are difficult. Cyber individuals, the
    really good ones, tend to be pretty young. They are spread
    around the country. They are used to a different salary
    structure, among a whole host of issues. We are working our way
    through that. That may be something that we need to have
    further dialogue with this subcommittee on.
        Second, even with direct-hire authority, we do not have the
    ability just to snap our fingers and on-board a person. In the
    cyber world, we almost need to be able to work that fast, and
    we are not there yet. So that is another issue that we are
    going to have to continue to work with the subcommittee on.
        So we are not where I would like to see us from an overall
    capacity, but we have moved a great deal forward in the past
    months. It is really front and center as part of our
    priorities.

                              DISASTER RELIEF FUND

        Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
        And the last question I have--a real quick one--is about
    the money that you have requested for FEMA disaster relief--
    fiscal year 2010 supplemental appropriations of $5.1 billion,
    and then you've got $1.9 billion in the 2011 budget request.
    Can you guarantee me and the chairman--I will not be around, he
    will--whether or not next year you are going to be in here with
    a supplemental because you underfunded this budget for fiscal
    year 2011 in terms of dealing with all natural disasters?
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, the DRF by nature, because
    you are dealing with Mother Nature, is difficult to predict.
    The $1.9 billion in the request is the 5-year rolling average
    for non-catastrophic disasters, which we define as disasters
    that are $500 million or less. You have got to have a number
    somewhere I suppose. The supplemental is designed to cover all
    known existing disaster liabilities, including the Katrina/Rita
    liabilities that we know of.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have been very patient.

                         BALANCED WORKFORCE INITIATIVE

        Senator Byrd. In addition to the 220,000 men and women who
    work at the Department, the Department pays for over 210,000
    contractors. This is a hidden workforce. This hidden workforce
    grew exponentially during the last administration with very
    little oversight. Many of these contractors were asked to
    provide services that are inherently governmental, including
    intelligence activities. For years, the Department did not have
    enough procurement personnel to provide responsible oversight
    for these contractors.
        Since I became chairman in 2007, I have pushed the
    Department to end its reliance on contractors, and I have
    worked to provide the resources to provide appropriate
    oversight. I commend you for joining the effort.
        Please describe the actions that you have taken and that
    you are proposing to address this problem.
        Secretary Napolitano. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
    thank you for your efforts in this regard.
        We have an initiative. It is known as the Balanced
    Workforce Initiative. It is designed to identify positions
    currently occupied by contractors that should be brought into
    and handled by full-time employees. There are a number of
    advantages to doing so, fiscal as well as management and
    supervision and all the rest. That is across the Department and
    it is part of not only our budget process but our evaluation
    process, how well different supervisors are doing that. Some
    areas are more susceptible to it than others.
        It is not easy in part because of something I alluded to
    with Senator Voinovich, which is the length of time it takes to
    on-board a Federal employee. It is just way too long even if
    they do not work in the cyber arena. It has become too
    complicated, too long, and people just cannot stand to wait
    that long. So we are working as well across the Federal
    Government through the Office of Personnel Management to see
    what can be done to shorten that process.
        Senator Byrd. The detailed congressional justification
    materials that you submitted to the subcommittee on February 1
    clearly identify proposed reductions of 181 Border Patrol
    agents. Now, I am pleased that you are modifying your proposal,
    but in order to understand the modifications, would you please
    resubmit the justification materials specifying where the
    savings will come from? Will you do that?
        Secretary Napolitano. Yes, sir.
        [The information follows:]

        These materials were provided to the subcommittee on March 9, 2010.

        Senator Byrd. Finally, Madam Secretary, are you prepared to
    predict that the West Virginia Mountaineers will win both the
    men's and the women's NCAA basketball tournaments?
        Secretary Napolitano. Absolutely.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Byrd. Secretary Napolitano, I thank you for your
    testimony and for your responses to the questions. We all share
    the goal of securing this wonderful homeland of ours. We look
    forward to your rapid response to our written questions for the
    record, and we ask that all responses be received by March 30
    to ensure that we have the proper information to prepare the
    fiscal year 2011 Homeland Security appropriations bill.
        Secretary Napolitano. Yes, we will be happy to do so, and I
    appreciate the subcommittee's time this afternoon.
        [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
                     overdue reports and expenditure plans
        Question. It has been over 4 months since the President signed into
    law the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal
    year 2010. Within that Act, Congress required 35 expenditure plans, of
    which 30 are now past due. Congress requires these reports in an effort
    to ensure that the Department is providing the appropriate amount of
    oversight and discipline to these complex programs. Expenditure plans
    that have not yet been received include: TSA's Explosive Detection
    Systems, the Border Security Fencing, and Technology program, the
    Removal of Deportable Criminal Aliens program, Coast Guard Deepwater
    Quarterly Acquisition Report, and the Cyber Security program. It is
    difficult for this Committee to make important resource allocation
    decisions to address critical homeland security issues for fiscal year
    2011 if the DHS has not informed us of how the dollars in the current
    year are being spent. Do I have your commitment that these reports,
    many of which are 2 months or more overdue, will be submitted no later
    than March 31, 2010?
        Answer. The Department and its Components are making every effort
    to prepare and transmit reports required for the Appropriations
    Committees as quickly as possible. I regret the delay we've experienced
    in transmitting a number of our required reports and assure you that we
    are doing our best to provide the Committees with the information
    needed to make resource allocation decisions for our homeland security
    needs as soon as possible.
                                  acquisitions
        Question. For each of fiscal year's 2008-2011, how much funding is
    dedicated to major acquisitions? For each of those years, provide
    details on the classification level of each acquisition, i.e. how many
    are designated as Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3 as defined by the
    Department's Acquisition Management Directive? Provide a DHS Major
    Acquisition Status tracking chart listing each program and milestones
    necessary to achieve approval for full-scale procurement.
        Answer. Total funding dedicated to major acquisition programs is
    displayed in the following table:

                             [Dollars in thousands]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year:
        2008...................................................    7,896,915
        2009...................................................    8,291,734
        2010...................................................    9,174,758
        2011...................................................    7,739,646
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) System Capital
      Investment Plans. Issued on April 24, 2009.

        Following is a list of DHS major acquisitions (Level 1 and 2) that
    are overseen at the Department level. In accordance with Acquisition
    Management Directive 102, non-major programs (Level 3) are overseen by
    the respective Component Head.
        DHS programs have multiple projects in different stages of the
    acquisition life cycle. Consequently, most programs are listed as mixed
    life cycle (or phase) in the OMB Exhibit-300s.
        DHS manages projects as they progress through the acquisition life
    cycle and is currently in the process of compiling a complete list of
    projects and their status in the acquisition life cycle.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Component               Program  acronym       Program name     Threshold level          Type
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USCG............................  OPC................  Offshore Patrol                   1   Non-IT
                                                            Cutter.
    TSA.............................  EBSP...............  Electronic Baggage                1   Non-IT
                                                            Screening Program.
    DHS.............................  ITP................  Infrastructure                    1   IT
                                                            Transformation
                                                            Project.
    USCG............................  NSC................  National Security                 1   Non-IT
                                                            Cutter.
    USCG............................  HC-130H............  HC-130H Conversion/               1   Non-IT
                                                            Sustainment
                                                            Projects.
    CBP.............................  StrAP/A&M..........  Strategic Air Plan/               1   Non-IT
                                                            Air & Marine.
    USCG............................  HH-65..............  HH-65 Conversion/                 1   Non-IT
                                                            Sustainment
                                                            Projects.
    USCG............................  MPA................  HC-144A Maritime                  1   Non-IT
                                                            Patrol Aircraft.
    CBP.............................  SBInet.............  Secure Border                     1   IT
                                                            Initiative net.
    CBP.............................  BPF................  Border Patrol                     1   Non-IT
                                                            Facilities.
    CBP.............................  ACE/ITDS...........  Automated                         1   IT
                                                            Commercial
                                                            Environment
                                                            International
                                                            Trade Data Systems.
    USCG............................  MEC MEP............  Medium Endurance                  1   Non-IT
                                                            Cutter Sustainment.
    FEMA............................  Risk MAP...........  Risk Mapping,                     1   Non-IT
                                                            Analysis and
                                                            Planning.
    CBP.............................  NII................  Non-Intrusive                     1   IT
                                                            Inspection Systems
                                                            Program.
    USCG............................  FRC-B..............  Fast Response                     1   Non-IT
                                                            Cutter (FRC) B
                                                            Class.
    USCG............................  IDS-COP............  C4ISR-COP..........               1   IT
    TSA.............................  PSP................  Passenger Screening               1   Non-IT
                                                            Program.
    USCG............................  R21................  Rescue 21..........               1   IT
    NPPD............................  US-VISIT...........  United States                     1   IT
                                                            Visitor and
                                                            Immigrant Status
                                                            Indicator
                                                            Technology.
    TSA.............................  TOP................  TSA Operating                     1   IT
                                                            Platform.
    NPPD............................  NCPS...............  National                          1   IT
                                                            Cybersecurity &
                                                            Protection System
                                                            (formerly US CERT).
    TSA.............................  IHOPP..............  Integrated Hiring                 1   Non-IT
                                                            Operations &
                                                            Personnel Program.
    DNDO............................  ASP................  Advance                           1   Non-IT
                                                            Spectroscopy
                                                            Portals.
    USCG............................  RB-M...............  Response Boat--                   1   Non-IT
                                                            Medium.
    USCG............................  CPB................  Coastal Patrol Boat               1   Non-IT
    USCG............................  NAIS...............  Nationwide                        1   IT
                                                            Automatic
                                                            Identification
                                                            System for MDA.
    CBP.............................  WHTI...............  Western Hemisphere                1   IT
                                                            Travel Initiative.
    CBP.............................  TECS MOD...........  Traveler                          1   IT
                                                            Enforcement
                                                            Compliance System--
                                                            Modernization.
    ICE.............................  ATLAS..............  ATLAS..............               1   IT
    OHA.............................  BioWatch...........  BioWatch Gen-3.....               1   Non-IT
    USCG............................  HH-60..............  HH-60 Conversion/                 1   Non-IT
                                                            Sustainment
                                                            Projects.
    TSA.............................  SF.................  Secure Flight......               1   IT
    USCG............................  IOC/C21............  Interagency                       1   IT
                                                            Operations Centers
                                                            (Command-  21).
    USCIS...........................  ...................  Transformation.....               1   IT
    NPPD............................  NCCC...............  National Command &                1   IT
                                                            Coordination
                                                            Capabil-  ity.
    TSA.............................  TWIC...............  Transportation                    1   IT
                                                            Worker
                                                            Identification
                                                            Credentialing.
    DHS.............................  TASC...............  Resource Management               1   IT
                                                            Transformation/
                                                            Financial
                                                            Transformation &
                                                            Systems
                                                            Consolidation.
    CBP.............................  FMP................  Fleet Management                  1   Non-IT
                                                            Program.
    CBP.............................  SBI TI.............  Secure Border                     1   Non-IT
                                                            Initiative
                                                            Tactical
                                                            Infrastruc-  ture.
    CBP.............................  SBI Trans..........  Secure Border                     1   Non-IT
                                                            Initiative
                                                            Transportation.
    FEMA............................  eNEMIS.............  eNEMIS.............               1   IT
    USCG............................  UAS................  Unmanned Aircraft                 1   Non-IT
                                                            Systems (UAS).
    USCG............................  PB MEP.............  Patrol Boat                       2   Non-IT
                                                            Sustainment.
    FEMA............................  ...................  Housing Inspection                2   Non-IT
                                                            Services.
    USCIS...........................  IDP................  Integrated Document               2   IT
                                                            Production.
    NPPD............................  ...................  Information Systems               2   ...................
                                                            Security Line of
                                                            Business (LoB).
    CBP.............................  ATS................  Automated Targeting               2   IT
                                                            System Maintenance.
    S&T.............................  NBAF...............  National Bio- and                 2   Non-IT
                                                            Agro-Defense
                                                            Facility.
    DHS.............................  HSDN...............  Homeland Secure                   2   IT
                                                            Data Network.
    USCG............................  HSC-130J...........  HC-130J Fleet                     2   Non-IT
                                                            Introduction.
    DNDO............................  CAARS..............  Cargo Advanced                    2   Non-IT
                                                            Automated
                                                            Radiography System.
    A&O.............................  HSIN...............  Homeland Security                 2   IT
                                                            Information
                                                            Network.
    ICE.............................  DROM...............  Detention and                     2   IT
                                                            Removal
                                                            Modernization.
    S&T.............................  NBACC..............  National Biodefense               2   Non-It
                                                            Analysis and
                                                            Countermeasures
                                                            Center Facility.
    FEMA............................  TAV................  Total Asset                       2   IT
                                                            Visibility (Phase
                                                            I & II).
    FEMA............................  Risk MAP IT........  Risk Mapping,                     2   IT
                                                            Analysis and
                                                            Planning IT.
    USCIS...........................  VIS/EEV............  Benefits Provision--              2   IT
                                                            Verification
                                                            Information System/
                                                            Employment
                                                            Eligibility
                                                            Verification.
    CBP.............................  TAC-COM............  EWP Tactical                      2   IT
                                                            Communications
                                                            (TAC-COM).
    USCG............................  ...................  Small Boats........               2   Non-IT
    CBP.............................  LPR................  License Plate                     2   IT
                                                            Reader.
    DHS.............................  HR-IT..............  HR-IT..............               2   IT
    CBP.............................  APIS...............  Advance Passenger                 2   IT
                                                            Information System.
    NPPD............................  IICP...............  Infrastructure                    2   IT
                                                            Information
                                                            Collection &
                                                            Visualization--IIC
                                                            P.
    A&O.............................  COP................  Common Operational                2   IT
                                                            Picture.
    ICE.............................  SEVIS..............  Student and                       2   IT
                                                            Exchange Visitor
                                                            Information System.
    CBP.............................  SFI................  Secure Freight                    2   IT
                                                            Initiative.
    CBP.............................  ESTA...............  Electronic System                 2   IT
                                                            for Travel
                                                            Authorization.
    A&O.............................  MS.................  Mission Systems....               3   IT
    CBP.............................  APIS...............  Advance Passenger                 3   IT
                                                            Information.
    CBP.............................  AFI................  Analytical                        3   IT
                                                            Framework for
                                                            Intelligence.
    CBP.............................  AES................  Automated Export                  3   IT
                                                            System.
    CBP.............................  ESTA...............  Electronic System                 3   IT
                                                            for Travel
                                                            Authorization.
    CBP.............................  SAP................  SAP................               3   IT
    DNDO............................  JACCIS.............  Joint Analysis                    3   IT
                                                            Center Collective
                                                            Information System.
    FEMA............................  ...................  Consolidated Alerts               3   IT
                                                            & Warning System.
    FEMA............................  DAIP...............  Disaster Assistance               3
                                                            Improvement Plan.
    FEMA............................  ...................  Disaster Management               3   IT
                                                            (e-Gov).
    FEMA............................  IFMIS..............  Integrated                        3   IT
                                                            Financial
                                                            Management
                                                            Information System.
    FEMA............................  NFIP...............  Information                       3   IT
                                                            Technology Systems
                                                            & Services.
    FLETC...........................  SASS...............  Student                           3   IT
                                                            Administration &
                                                            Scheduling Sys-
                                                            tem.
    ICE.............................  FFMS...............  Federal Financial                 3   IT
                                                            Management System.
    NPPD............................  CWIN...............  CIKR Information                  3   IT
                                                            Sharing.
    NPPD............................  IICV...............  Infrastructure                    3   IT
                                                            Information
                                                            Collection Program
                                                            & Visualization-
                                                            iCAV.
    NPPD............................  IICV...............  Infrastructure                    3   IT
                                                            Information
                                                            Collection Program
                                                            & Visualization
                                                            PCII.
    NPPD............................  ISCP...............  Infrastructure                    3   IT
                                                            Security
                                                            Compliance CSAT.
    OHA.............................  BCON...............  BioSurveillance                   3   IT
                                                            Common Operating
                                                            Network.
    TSA.............................  AFSP...............  Alien Flight                      3   IT
                                                            Student Program.
    TSA.............................  ...................  Crew Vetting.......               3   IT
    TSA.............................  MSNS...............  FAMS Mission                      3   ...................
                                                            Scheduling &
                                                            Notification
                                                            System.
    TSA.............................  ...................  FAMSNet............               3   IT
    TSA.............................  FAS................  Freight Assessment                3   IT
                                                            System.
    TSA.............................  HAZMAT.............  HAZMAT Threat                     3   IT
                                                            Assessment Program.
    TSA.............................  PMIS...............  Performance                       3   IT
                                                            Management
                                                            Information Sys-
                                                            tem.
    TSA.............................  STIP...............  Security Technology               3   IT
                                                            Integrated Program.
    USCG............................  ALMIS..............  Asset Logistics                   3   IT
                                                            Management
                                                            Information
                                                            Systems.
    USCG............................  CG-LIMS............  Logistics                         3   IT
                                                            Information
                                                            Management System.
    USCG............................  CGBI...............  Coast Guard                       3   IT
                                                            Business
                                                            Intelligence.
    USCG............................  CAS................  Core Accounting                   3   IT
                                                            System.
    USCG............................  ...................  Direct Access......               3   IT
    USCG............................  MISLE..............  Marine Information                3   IT
                                                            for Safety and Law
                                                            Enforcement.
    USCG............................  PAWSS..............  Ports and Waterways               3   IT
                                                            Safety System.
    USCG............................  VLS................  Vessel Logistics                  3   IT
                                                            System.
    USCIS...........................  BASICS.............  Baseline Automation               3   IT
                                                            Support
                                                            Infrastructure for
                                                            Citizenship
                                                            Services.
    USCIS...........................  CSP................  Customer Service                  3   IT
                                                            Portal.
    USCIS...........................  FIPS...............  ...................               3   IT
    USCIS...........................  ...................  Immigration--CLAIMS               3   IT
    USCIS...........................  NFTS...............  National File                     3   IT
                                                            Tracking System.
    USCIS...........................  ...................  Naturalization                    3   IT
                                                            CLAIMS 4.0.
    USSS............................  TOPS...............  Enterprise                        3   IT
                                                            Financial
                                                            Management System.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. The Department's acquisition policy requires programs to
    have an approved Test and Evaluation (T&E) Master Plan prior to
    commencing associated T&E unless a specific waiver is granted by the
    Science and Technology's T&E Director. How many waivers have been
    granted since acquisition management guidelines were revised in
    November 2008? What were the reasons for the waivers?
        Answer. Since November 2008, no specific program waivers have been
    granted.
        Question. The Department's acquisition policy suggests that
    operational test and evaluation (OT&E) of a system or component be
    conducted by an independent evaluator, and not controlled by the
    program manager. The purpose is to provide objective and unbiased
    conclusions regarding the system's or equipments' effectiveness and
    suitability. Is OT&E for all major DHS acquisitions (levels I, II, and
    III) conducted by an independent evaluator? If not, which acquisitions
    are not and describe why an independent evaluation is not being
    conducted?
        Answer. Since the interim Acquisition Management Directive 102-01
    was approved, all Level I and non-delegated Level II programs use an
    operational test agent independent of the program office to conduct
    operational test and evaluation (OT&E).
                             acquisition workforce
        Question. The request includes $24.2 million and 150 positions to
    strengthen the Department's acquisition workforce. The purpose is to
    increase the capacity of the acquisition workforce by approximately 8
    percent (100 positions) in the contracting functional area and add an
    additional 50 positions in other acquisition series to include systems
    engineers, program managers, logisticians, and business cost
    estimators. Has the Department completed an assessment of its
    acquisition workforce to better understand the need for positions
    described above? Does the request completely fill the gap in
    acquisition workforce needs?
        Answer. In February 2009, the Department completed its first
    acquisition workforce human capital succession plan in accordance with
    guidelines in the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act.
    DHS is currently refining the plan, and we anticipate completion in
    summer 2010.
                                terrorist threat
        Question. Provide a summary of the number of terrorist attacks
    worldwide since 2003 on trains, subways, buses, and airplanes,
    including an estimate of injuries or loss of life.
        Answer. The Department of Homeland Security does not compile data
    on worldwide terrorist attacks. The National Counterterrorism Center
    (NCTC) compiles this data in the Worldwide Incident Tracking System
    (WITS) which serves as the U.S. Government's official data base for
    terrorist incidents. There are two versions of WITS, a restricted
    access site that requires a password and training to access, and a
    public one found on the NCTC.gov Web site. There are two significant
    differences between the publicly available and restricted versions:
    timeliness and vetting. The restricted site is updated daily; the
    public site is about 60-90 days behind on posted incidents. All
    incidents are listed in the restricted site with analysts' comments.
    The public site contains only vetted terrorist incidents and has no
    comments.
        The database was established in 2004 and does not contain many
    incidents before that date. The primary reason for this is that one
    single definition was not accepted by the various government agencies
    prior to 2004 when NCTC established the criteria for inclusion.
    Terrorism incidents captured in the database are only those that meet
    this criteria which NCTC defines as ``when groups or individuals acting
    on political motivation deliberately or recklessly attack civilians/
    non-combatants or their property and the attack does not fall into
    another special category of political violence, such as crime, rioting,
    or tribal violence.''
        I&A enlisted the assistance of researchers at NCTC as well as
    senior management at TSA to compile the response below. NCTC
    researchers have compiled more finite detail at the classified level to
    provide context to the raw numbers shown here should there be any
    follow-on questions regarding attacks on any specific mode to include
    graphics. They stand ready to assist.
        The dates for this data pull are from 1/1/2004 to 1/1/2010. During
    this period there were 1,706 attacks across the sectors represented in
    the query with 4,758 people killed, 15,093 injured, and another 2,555
    taken hostage during the event.
        The specific numbers by mode break out as follows:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Number of
         Mode of transportation           attacks         Killed          Injured         Hostage          Total
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Train/Subway....................             280             744           5,052             314           6,110
    Buses...........................           1,068           3,368           8,994           1,294          13,656
    Airport.........................             188             155             763              10             928
    Aircraft........................             170             491             284             937           1,566
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   test-beds
        Question. There are several test-beds funded by the Department's
    budget. Provide a comprehensive list (by component), the purpose of
    each test-bed, and associated funding level for each. Has the
    Department assessed the need for all of these test-beds and whether
    duplicative services exist?
        Answer. Following is a list of S&T's test-beds, which includes both
    funding and purpose. None of the test-beds are duplicative.
    Borders and Maritime Division
        Test-bed Name: Port Security Test-bed.
        Fiscal Year 2010 Funding: $1,100,000.
        Fiscal Year 2011 Requested Funding: $1,000,000.
        Test-bed Description: The Port Security Test-bed provides an
    environment to demonstrate maturing technologies in an operationally
    relevant environment for customers including U.S. Coast Guard, Customs
    and Border Protection (CBP), and other Federal, State, and local first
    responders in and around a port area.

        Test-bed Name: Maritime Security Technology Pilot.
        Fiscal Year 2010 Funding: $4,000,000.
        Fiscal Year 2011 Requested Funding: $0.
        Test-bed Description: As mandated by Congress, this platform allows
    for the testing and demonstration of new sensors and surveillance
    technologies for improved situational awareness of open waters and
    integration of wide area sensors with data. These funds were
    appropriated in fiscal year 2010 and will be expended over a 12-month
    period in fiscal year 2010-fiscal year 2011.

        Test-bed Name: North East Test-bed (NET-B).
        Fiscal Year 2010 Funding: $1,000,000.
        Fiscal Year 2011 Requested Funding: $1,000,000.
        Test-bed Description: The NET-B provides an environment to evaluate
    new technologies that might enhance CBP capabilities along the Northern
    border.
    Chemical and Biological Division
        Test-bed Name: Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear
    Explosives Test-bed.
        Fiscal Year 2010 Funding: $500,000.
        Fiscal Year 2011 Requested Funding: $0.
        Test-bed Description: This test-bed is currently sponsoring an
    integration test-bed located at the Navy Monterey Post Graduate School
    (MPS), and jointly operated by MPS and the Navy SPAWAR System Center.
    The test-bed serves as a collaboration site for those in the first
    responder and emergency management community seeking to achieve
    interoperability between various detection hardware and information
    systems. The test-bed hosts a number of examples of open interface
    standards developed by the government and industry that enable seamless
    sharing of data and information using non-proprietary methods.

        Test-bed Name: Bioaerosol Test-bed.
        Fiscal Year 2010 Funding: $260,426.
        Fiscal Year 2011 Requested Funding: $282,007.
        Test-bed Description: This test-bed is responsible for determining
    collection efficiency and viability over time for the biological
    collector systems developed in the Viable BioParticle Capture Project.

        Test-bed Name: Detect-to-Protect Test-bed.
        Fiscal Year 2010 Funding: $0.
        Fiscal Year 2011 Requested Funding: $0.
        Test-bed Description: Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center is a
    provider of testing support to Detect-to-Protect project including in-
    lab and field evaluation of trigger and confirmer biological detection
    systems.
    Command, Control, and Interoperability Division
        Test-bed Name: Experimental Test-bed for Cyber Security Research
    Tools and Techniques.
        Fiscal Year 2010 Funding: $2,800,000.
        Fiscal Year 2011 Requested Funding: $3,900,000.
        Test-bed Description: This test-bed is part of the Cyber Security
    Research Tools and Techniques Thrust Area that evaluates defense
    mechanisms against attacks on infrastructure and supports mitigation of
    attacks.
    Transition Division
        Test-bed Name: Homeland Security Science and Technology Test-bed
    (HSSTT).
        Fiscal Year 2010 Funding: $ (User Funded).
        Fiscal Year 2011 Requested Funding: $0 (User Funded).
        Test-bed Description: This test-bed supports S&T research,
    development, test and evaluation efforts of DHS components and
    customers by objectively identifying, exploring, assessing, and raising
    awareness of homeland security challenges and solutions. The HSSTT
    allows technology developers and users to address the real-world
    concerns of new capabilities by conducting field experiments in
    conjunction with regional homeland security operations.
    Explosives Division
        Test-bed Name: Bomb Squad Test-bed (MI State).
        Fiscal Year 2010 Funding: $350,000.
        Fiscal Year 2011 Requested Funding: $750,000.
        Test-bed Description: This test-bed tests and evaluates bomb squad
    technologies that access, diagnose, and defeat vehicle bombs.

        Test-bed Name: Standoff Technology Integration and Demonstration
    Program.
        Fiscal Year 2010 Funding: $3,200,000.
        Fiscal Year 2011 Requested Funding: $3,000,000.
        Test-bed Description: This test-bed tests and evaluates sensors in
    order to integrate them into a system that detects suicide bombers and
    vehicle bombs.
                              working capital fund
        Question. Is the $790.5 million request for the Working Capital
    Fund (WCF) fully accounted for within DHS component budgets? Are any
    components being required to absorb WCF increases in the fiscal year
    2011 request?
        Answer. Major increases in the WCF activities, such as Data Center
    Migration, were requested in the fiscal year 2011 budget and were not
    absorbed. The Working Capital Fund is required by law to recover full
    costs for its services. Whether the components decide to absorb the
    costs or seek funding depends on the individual component, activity,
    and the actual charge.
        Question. The request for subscription services paid from the WCF
    doubles from $11 million to $22 million. Why is there such a large
    increase for subscriptions? What capabilities will be gained from this
    increase?
        Answer. The Department's Efficiency Review has consolidated
    subscriptions that were previously purchased across the Department.
    Components now request them centrally rather than individually,
    leverage the purchasing power of the larger Department. Through the
    consolidation of subscriptions to Dun & Bradstreet, Congressional
    Quarterly, West Government Services and LexisNexis, DHS has avoided
    approximately $2 million in fiscal year 2010 costs. The increase from
    $11 million to $22 million represents the centralization of the
    subscriptions within the Department-wide Working Capital Fund, where
    previously it was decentralized within many components.
        As a result of the Efficiency Review consolidation, DHS will have
    the ability to manage subscriptions through a single financial process
    in the Working Capital Fund thereby reducing the administrative burden
    on the Components, subscriptions program office, the financial system,
    and contracting officers.
                       dhs headquarters at st. elizabeths
        Question. It is our understanding that the budget does not include
    $69 million necessary tenant build-out of IT equipment. Is this funding
    necessary for the Department to stay on schedule to complete Phase 1A
    and Phase 1B by 2013 (Coast Guard Headquarters and shared use
    facilities)? Why would this shortfall delay the construction project?
    What is the amount necessary in fiscal year 2011 to prevent a delay in
    the project? If funding is not provided, what is the estimated delay in
    the project? Are sufficient funds available within component base IT
    budgets to pay for the tenant build-out of IT equipment?
        Answer. DHS is on track to execute the plans as described for the
    new headquarters consolidation at the St. Elizabeths campus with the
    fiscal year 2011 budget we submitted to Congress in February.
        To ensure the most efficient and effective use of resources, DHS is
    looking at IT funding in components' base budgets for equipment
    replacements and other items that will be synchronized with their
    relocation to the St. Elizabeths campus. This will ensure that the
    Department is utilizing its resources in the most efficient manner as
    construction activities at St. Elizabeths continue.
        Question. In accordance with the current plan for St. Elizabeths,
    the majority of space for FEMA will be located on the opposite side of
    Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. from the DHS National Operations Center
    (NOC). Will FEMA have an operations center separate from the NOC? If
    so, how will FEMA's operations center be effectively integrated into
    the NOC?
        Answer. The FEMA Operations Center (National Response Coordination
    Center--NRCC) will be co-located with the National Operations Center
    (NOC) and other component operations centers on the St. Elizabeths West
    Campus. While the NRCC will remain a separate and distinct operations
    center under FEMA control, co-location of the NRCC with the NOC and the
    component operations centers will facilitate improved Departmental
    communications, coordination, and cooperation in the preparation for
    and response to natural disasters and terrorist activities.
                              workforce balancing
        Question. Across departmental components, the request proposes to
    move resources from contract service providers to in-house staff.
    Provide a department-wide chart for this effort by component, including
    the shift in personnel from contractor to Federal FTE and associated
    cost savings. What is the total cost reduction to contractual services
    in the fiscal year 2011 budget as compared to fiscal year 2010? What is
    the total increase in Federal personnel funding as a result of this
    initiative?
        Answer. DHS is strongly committed to decreasing its reliance on
    contractors. In 2009, all DHS directorates, components and offices were
    directed to develop contractor conversion plans, and over the past
    year, the Department has been actively converting contractor positions
    to government positions. A DHS-wide assessment is currently underway to
    build on the Component efforts at an even more aggressive pace while
    sustaining the workforce required to carry out its mission
    responsibilities. Upon conclusion of this assessment, DHS will provide
    a comprehensive plan detailing anticipated conversions in fiscal year
    2010 and fiscal year 2011 to Congress.
                              security clearances
        Question. The Committee continues to hear from DHS components about
    delays in hiring due to the security clearance process. What is the
    current backlog of individuals awaiting a security clearance? In fiscal
    year 2010, Congress appropriated the request to create a Personnel
    Security Adjudication Team of 12 positions. What is the status of this
    effort and are funds included in fiscal year 2011 to enhance the
    Department's capabilities to reduce the existing backlog?
        Answer. Please see the table below.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Individuals awaiting a security clearance
              Component                           by component
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Headquarters.................  12 security clearances
    FLETC........................  13 security clearances
    FEMA.........................  0 security clearances
    CIS..........................  78 security clearances
    ICE..........................  607 security clearances
    TSA..........................  76 security clearances
    CBP..........................  205 security clearances; there are no EOD
                                    delays associated with the pending
                                    clearance actions
    USSS.........................  709 security clearances; there are no EOD
                                    delays associated with the pending
                                    clearance actions
    USCG.........................  2,014 are being adjudicated. NOTE: Coast
                                    Guard normally averages 400, but due to
                                    an end-of-year push to catch up on HSPD-
                                    12 requirements, they experienced a
                                    workload spike to approximately 3,000
                                    individuals per USCG, these are
                                    predominately NACLC investigations which
                                    meet HSPD-12 standards.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Additionally, in fiscal year 2010, the Office of the Chief Security
    Officer (OCSO) received $1 million to fund 10 positions for a Personnel
    Security Adjudication Team. Selections for these positions have been
    completed, and those selected are in the background investigations
    process.
        OCSO also received $2 million to conduct background investigations
    in the fiscal year 2010 budget. In fiscal year 2011, funds in the
    amount of $582,000 were included to annualize these positions.
                               efficiency review
        Question. According to a White House report released on December
    21, 2009, DHS expects to save $87.5 million over 6 years by
    standardizing its office computer system and reducing software
    contracts. What is the projected savings in fiscal year 2011? What
    other specific efficiencies are being achieved at DHS as a result of
    the administration's efforts to streamline Federal contracting
    spending? Include dollar amounts for each initiative.
        Answer. DHS expects to achieve a cost avoidance of approximately
    $14.6 million in fiscal year 2011 in software licensing and maintenance
    costs for its Microsoft Enterprise Licenses contract.
        The Department is aggressively working to achieve additional
    efficiencies, such as securing enterprise licenses for other widely
    used software products and leveraging strategic sourcing. While these
    efforts are still under development, DHS has streamlined and improved
    Federal contract spending in other areas, achieving the following:
      --A DHS program which sets aside contracts for 100 percent Service
            Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business will replace multiple
            individual procurements, avoiding approximately $5 million in
            administrative fees over the 5-year life of the contracts
            beginning in fiscal year 2010.
      --USCG consolidated ten support contracts (accounting,
            administrative, data entry, material handling, packing and
            warehousing) into three new contracts for an anticipated
            savings of $1.7 million.
        The USCG Academy awarded an Energy Savings Performance Contract to
    increase lighting, water, heating, and ventilation efficiency in
    existing facilities at the Coast Guard Academy, generating an estimated
    energy savings of $450,000 a year, which will fully pay for the project
    over 11 years.
                            treasury forfeiture fund
        Question. What percent of Treasury Forfeiture Fund receipts for
    fiscal year 2011 are estimated to be derived from DHS activity?
        Answer. Because of the uncertain nature of the legal process around
    forfeiture, there is no way to accurately project the timing of
    revenue.
        For the past 3 years, the revenue breakdown (in millions) is as
    follows:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year 2007                Fiscal year 2008                Fiscal year 2009
                                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Percent of                      Percent of                      Percent of
                                                                  Dollars          total          Dollars          total          Dollars          total
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IRS.....................................................           165.9            40.4           233.3            41.7           291.6            52.3
    ICE.....................................................           161.4            39.3           241.1            43.1           171.8            30.8
    CBP.....................................................            55.1            13.4            62.9            11.3            65.1            11.7
    USSS....................................................            16.1             3.9            16.2             2.9            29.1             5.2
    ATF.....................................................            12.5             3.0             5.7             1.0  ..............  ..............
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Based on large-scale investigations that TEOAF is following, future
    large forfeitures will be primarily attributed to IRS and secondarily
    to USSS. However, the Secret Service forfeitures are likely to involve
    Ponzi schemes and the revenue will be paid out as remission to the
    victims.
                               small boat threat
        Question. Your budget either cuts or zeroes out many of the
    capabilities the Department has highlighted as critical to countering a
    small boat attack. Five Coast Guard Maritime Safety and Security teams
    are decommissioned, reducing port and waterway security patrols by
    12,000 hours annually. Acquisition funding for port operation centers
    and the National Automatic Identification System is zeroed out. The
    budget reduces assets and funding for the Coast Guard's Maritime
    Security Response Team, which was developed for maritime terrorism
    response. Has the threat environment changed to justify these cuts?
    What impact will this have on the Coast Guard's maritime domain
    awareness? Please be specific on any decrease in capabilities.
        The Department released its small vessel security strategy on April
    28, 2008. Nearly 2 years later, an implementation plan to carry out the
    strategy has not been released. You committed to completing that plan
    in the beginning of 2010. When will that plan be completed? What are
    the budget requirements to execute the plan?
        Answer. The Coast Guard remains committed to performing its
    statutory missions in the most effective, efficient, and professional
    manner possible.
        As shown in the 2011-2015 Capital Investment Plan, the Nationwide
    Automatic Identification System (NAIS) and Interagency Operations
    Centers (IOCs) programs are funded through their completion in 2014. No
    funding is requested for fiscal year 2011 because the Coast Guard plans
    to use $17.8 million of prior year funding to continue the acquisition
    of new capability for IOCs and NAIS, which will enhance maritime domain
    awareness.
        To make the most of current operating capabilities, the fiscal year
    2011 budget request transitions the Maritime Safety and Security Teams
    (MSST) to a regional model, enabling the Coast Guard to rapidly deploy
    teams of skilled professionals to ports and operating areas across the
    country based on risk and threats as needed. The teams were selected
    based on existing Coast Guard presence in their region. Transitioning
    the MSSTs to a regional model will enable the Coast Guard to rapidly
    deploy teams of skilled professionals to ports and operating areas
    across the country based on risk and threats as needed. The Coast Guard
    will also continue to leverage all available intelligence resources and
    partnerships across DHS, the Federal Government and State and local law
    enforcement to collectively mitigate risks and ensure the security of
    the Nation's ports.
        Furthermore, nearly three quarters of the difference in the fiscal
    year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 budget requests for the Coast Guard's
    Ports, Waterways and Coastal Security Mission is attributable to the
    funding profile for specific asset acquisitions (RB-M, MPA, HH-65),
    primarily reflecting year-to-year variation in the planned acquisition
    expenditures. Those changes do not translate into decreased capability
    as the corresponding legacy assets continue to do the job.
        The Department of Homeland Security Small Vessel Security
    Implementation Plan is expected to be released in 2010.
                             chemical plant safety
        Question. On January 23, 2010, there was a chemical leak at a
    DuPont facility in Belle, West Virginia that resulted in a tragic loss
    of life. During the initial investigation, it was determined that first
    responders to the incident had difficulty receiving the critical
    information they needed in responding to the accident, such as the
    nature of the leak and the chemical involved. This incident is similar
    to the August 2008 chemical explosion in Institute, West Virginia,
    where first responders were left guessing as to the nature of the
    explosion and the chemicals involved, and were even refused information
    by the company. The chemical industry has a duty to maintain the utmost
    in safety standards to protect their communities, and these two
    incidents indicate that the industry as a whole has a great deal of
    work to do to maintain safe operations and provide the necessary
    information to first responders.
        Last October, I asked you to determine what more could be done to
    improve safety at chemical plants and I look forward to receiving your
    recommendations soon. What is the Department doing to ensure that first
    responders have access to the critical information needed in responding
    to these types of incidents?
        Answer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is engaged in a
    number of efforts to facilitate information sharing with State and
    local responders.
        High-risk chemical facilities covered under the Chemical Facility
    Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) must submit to DHS Site Security Plans
    (SSPs) that meet the CFATS risk-based performance standards. These
    SSPs, which include exercise, training, and response programs,
    encourage facilities to build meaningful relationships with State and
    local law enforcement and emergency response personnel prior to a
    security incident.
        DHS's Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP) has also developed
    the Chemical Hazardous Material Information Reference Portal (CHIRP),
    which is a collaborative effort between IP and states to provide a
    secure data portal for chemical information. CHIRP links critical site
    information with chemical inventories, chemical hazards information
    based on the inventory, and emergency contact information for each
    site. The secure portal has been a valuable tool during incidents to
    help identify infrastructures in an affected area that may not be
    considered a high security risk but are locally significant.
        DHS also conducts voluntary security seminars and exercises with
    State chemical industry councils to fosters communication between
    facilities and local emergency response teams.
       national special security event state and local reimbursement fund
        Question. Who will determine what an ``unplanned'' event is? How
    many such events were there in fiscal year 2008, fiscal year 2009, and
    fiscal year 2010? What were the estimated costs for State and local law
    enforcement for such events?
        Answer. The Secretary of Homeland Security will determine what
    events are unplanned NSSEs.
        There was one unplanned NSSE each year between fiscal year 2008-
    fiscal year 2010. The details are as follows:
      --Fiscal year 2008--Summit on the World's Economy (G-20--Washington,
            DC). The State and local reimbursements for this event from the
            Department of Justice fund was approximately $1 million.
      --Fiscal year 2009--Pittsburgh Economic Summit (G-20--Pittsburgh,
            PA). The State and local reimbursements for this event from the
            Department of Justice fund was approximately $10 million.
      --Fiscal year 2010--Anticipated NSSE: Nuclear Non-Proliferation
            Summit (Washington, DC). The State and local reimbursements for
            this event are unknown at this time.
                                     haiti
        Question. A number of your agencies have served admirably in
    response to the devastating earthquake in Haiti. The Coast Guard was
    first on scene in Haiti and its operating costs to support the United
    States' humanitarian assistance and disaster response efforts have been
    costly. The Coast Guard estimates that $76 million is necessary to
    cover costs for 90 days. CBP, ICE, and FEMA have also contributed to
    the recovery effort.
        Are you preparing to submit a supplemental budget request to pay
    for the Department's response?
        Answer. On March 24, 2010, OMB submitted a supplemental
    appropriation for $60 million to recoup the costs associated with the
    Department's activities in Haiti.
                          office of inspector general
                                disaster relief
        Question. In fiscal year 2010, $16 million was provided for the
    Inspector General to use on disaster related activities. How much does
    the Office of Inspector General plan to spend on disaster related
    activities in fiscal year 2010, and fiscal year 2011? Also, provide a
    detailed breakdown of the $16 million provided from the DRF in fiscal
    year 2010 (including FTEs).
        Answer. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) plans on spending
    $27 million on disaster related activities in fiscal year 2010. This
    includes $4.6 million carried over from fiscal year 2009, and $6.4
    million from our fiscal year 2010 S&E appropriation. For fiscal year
    2011, the OIG plans to spend $16 million to continue to provide
    adequate oversight of FEMA and its disaster related activities.
        The Emergency Management Office (EMO) has 75 full time equivalents
    (FTEs) and 52 Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery (CORE) temporary
    employees.
        Below is the breakdown for the $16 million.

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal year
                        Item description                       2010 planned
                                                               expenditures
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Personnel Costs:
        Personnel Compensation..............................           8.751
        Personnel Benefits..................................           1.679
                                                             ---------------
          Total Personnel Costs.............................          10.430
                                                             ===============
    Non-Personnel Costs:
        Travel..............................................           1.000
        Rental Payments to GSA..............................           2.838
        Contracts...........................................           1.500
        Other...............................................           0.232
                                                             ---------------
          Total Non-Personnel Costs.........................           5.570
                                                             ===============
          TOTAL.............................................          16.000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

               the american recovery and reinvestment act (arra)
        Question. Five million dollars was provided to the Inspector
    General in ARRA funds. Provide a detailed breakdown of these funds, how
    much has been spent, and on what are the funds being spent? How many
    FTEs are working on ARRA oversight?
        Answer. The Office of the Inspector General plans on using the $5
    million to fund seven full-time temporary positions that are used
    exclusively to review the Department's use of $2.75 billion of American
    Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) funds. This funding will also be
    used to coordinate with the Recovery Accountability and Transparency
    Board, and other OIG staff who are assigned to ARRA projects. As of
    February 28, 2010 $1.575 million of the $5 million has been obligated.
    Below is the breakdown of how these funds have been used.

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal year
                        Item description                       2010 planned
                                                               expenditures
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Salary and Benefits.....................................           1.316
    Travel..................................................           0.163
    Other Services..........................................           0.096
                                                             ---------------
          TOTAL.............................................           1.575
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                measurable outcomes and investigative statistics
        Question. Provide fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010 measurable
    outcomes and investigative statistics.
        Answer. The OIG audits and inspects programs for fraud, waste, and
    abuse. The OIG also reviews programs to promote economy, efficiency,
    and effectiveness. Where appropriate, OIG audit and inspection reports
    include recommendations to improve the respective program. The
    measurable outcomes reflect the percent of recommendations made by the
    OIG that are accepted and implemented by the Department of Homeland
    Security.
        In fiscal year 2009, the OIG issued 111 management reports (audits
    and inspections) and 55 financial assistance grant reports. Currently,
    due to these efforts, $156.7 million of questioned costs was
    identified, of which $46.6 million was determined to be unsupported. In
    addition, $63.6 million was recovered as a result of identifying
    disallowed costs from current and prior year reports.
        In fiscal year 2010, the OIG plans on issuing 115 management
    reports and 55 financial assistance grant reports. The Department of
    Homeland Security management concurred with 93 percent of the OIG's
    recommendations in fiscal year 2009. OIG's target percentage for fiscal
    year 2010's acceptable rate by DHS is 85 percent.
        OIG's Investigative Statistics:

                                                           INVESTIGATIVE STATISTICS--FISCAL YEAR 2009
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              CBP        CIS        FEMA     ICE/FPS      TSA        USCG       USSS      Other      Total
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Number of Complaints Received........................      3,981        667      3,997      2,480        680         69         57        527     12,458
    Number of Investigations Initiated...................        576         64        207        164         35          1  .........         38      1,085
    Reports Issued.......................................        315         46        343        136         47          3          2          9        901
    Arrests..............................................         61         30        173         24          7  .........  .........         18        313
    Indictments..........................................         54         28        177         21         11          1  .........          1        293
    Convictions..........................................         42         14        192         22         10          1  .........  .........        281
    Personnel Actions....................................         27          4          4         14          9          1  .........  .........         59
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fines, Restitution, Administration Cost Savings and Recoveries $85,776,187.

                                                     INVESTIGATIVE STATISTICS--FISCAL YEAR 2010 YEAR-TO-DATE
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              CBP        CIS        FEMA     ICE/FPS      TSA        USCG       USSS      Other      Total
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Number of Complaints Received........................        515        653        520        906        132         16          8      1,902      4,652
    Number of Investigations Initiated...................        279         28        102         77         27         16          1         16        546
    Reports Issued.......................................        209         32        135         58         14          2  .........          7        457
    Arrests..............................................         24          8         86          4          5  .........  .........          6        133
    Indictments..........................................         23          3         68          3          7  .........  .........  .........        104
    Convictions..........................................         23          5         80          3          9  .........  .........          1        121
    Personnel Actions....................................         10          1          3          8          5  .........  .........  .........         27
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fines, Restitution, Administrative Cost Savings and Recoveries $117,595,905.

                                      cbp
                united states-mexico border security cooperation
        Question. Last week, your office announced an agreement you had
    reached with your Mexican government counterparts on securing our
    mutual border and combating transnational threats. The agreement calls
    for intelligence-driven operations to target criminal activity, short-
    and long-term deployment of personnel, infrastructure and technology at
    our ports of entry, and sufficient personnel, infrastructure and
    technology to sustain bilateral efforts to combat threats posed by
    criminal organizations along the border.
        This looks like a good agreement and is something I support. How do
    you intend to pay for it with a budget that is at best a status quo
    budget?
        Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will utilize existing
    resources in an efficient and targeted manner. Because these efforts
    are intelligence-driven, they are target- and location-focused, which
    inherently maximizes operational efficiencies. By engaging in joint
    operations with our law enforcement partners in Mexico, our collective
    efforts will be doubled and our expenditure of resources will be
    shared. DHS expects these programs to largely be cost neutral, but if
    and where there is a requirement to increase funding levels, DHS plans
    to re-allocate from within our current budget.
                            layered border security
        Question. Your budget purports to maintain and enhance the concept
    of ``layered security'' and ``pushing the border out'', yet your budget
    drastically cuts two key programs which are the first layer of defense
    to prevent cargo containers which may contain radiological and
    biological weapons from reaching the seaports which are so vital to our
    country's economic well-being. The budget cuts over $50 million--nearly
    one-third of this year's level--from the Container Security Initiative.
    It also cuts the Secure Freight Initiative by 83 percent. These
    programs station U.S. Government officials at overseas ports to work
    with foreign port officials to target and screen containers before they
    are loaded on a container ship bound for our ports. We cannot base our
    Nation's security solely on technology controlled remotely from
    Washington.
        Based on what threat information can you justify these deep cuts?
        Answer. CBP has made tremendous progress towards securing the
    supply chains bringing goods into the United States from around the
    world, and preventing their potential use by terrorist groups, by using
    cutting-edge technology to increase the ability of front-line CBP
    Officers to successfully detect and interdict illicit importations of
    nuclear and radiological materials; moving resources where they are
    most needed; integrating all CBP offices; sharing information,
    including actionable intelligence, across all aspects of CBP; and
    utilizing a multi-layered approach to ensure the integrity of the
    supply chain from the point of stuffing, through arrival at a U.S. port
    of entry.
        CBP also requires advanced electronic cargo information for all
    inbound shipments for all modes of transportation. This advanced cargo
    information is evaluated using the Automated Targeting System (ATS)
    before arrival in the United States. ATS provides decision support
    functionality for CBP officers working at our ports of entry in the
    United States and Container Security Initiative ports abroad. The
    system provides uniform review of cargo shipments for identification of
    the highest threat shipments. Additionally, the Importer Security
    Filing interim final rule, also more commonly known as ``10+2'', went
    into effect earlier this year and will provide CBP timely information
    about cargo shipments that will enhance our ability to detect and
    interdict high risk shipments. Shipments determined by CBP to be high-
    risk are examined either overseas as part of our Container Security
    Initiative, or upon arrival at a U.S. port.
                                rail inspections
        Question. What percentage of cargo entering the United States via
    rail at our land borders is screened for possible radiation and/or
    nuclear materials through Radiation Portal Monitors?
        Answer. One hundred percent of the rail cars entering from Mexico,
    and 96 percent of the rail cars entering from Canada undergo a non-
    intrusive inspection through large scale, fixed gamma ray systems. CBP
    does not currently screen rail using radiation portal detectors.
                              border patrol agents
        Question. While the budget submitted on February 1, 2010,
    specifically calls for cutting 181 Border Patrol agents, you committed
    during our hearing that this cut will not occur. What other projects/
    activities/personnel totaling $15.5 million do you propose to cut to
    pay for the restoration of these agents?
        Answer. CBP will realign travel funding from across CBP to restore
    the $15.5 million need to fund the 181 Border Patrol Agents. The below
    table identifies funding reductions, by PPA.

                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              PPA                                 Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Headquarters Management and Administration at the Ports            (959)
     of Entry..............................................
    Headquarters Management and Administration between the             (959)
     Ports of Entry........................................
    Inspections, Trade, and Travel Facilitation at the               (2,306)
     Ports of Entry........................................
    International Cargo Screening..........................          (1,007)
    Other International Programs...........................             (61)
    C-TPAT.................................................          (1,102)
    Trusted Traveler Program...............................             (22)
    Inspections and Detection Technology...................             (60)
    Systems for Targeting..................................             (83)
    National Targeting Center..............................            (138)
    Training at the Ports of Entry.........................            (820)
    Border Security and Control between the Ports of Entry.          (6,898)
    Training Between the Ports of Entry....................            (930)
    Air and Marine Operations Salaries.....................            (178)
                                                            ----------------
          Total............................................         (15,523)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            air and marine staffing
        Question. Congress fully funded the President's fiscal year 2010
    request to hire 144 new Air and Marine personnel. We understand,
    however, that you propose to forgo hiring 120 of these positions
    because of ``financial challenges in the CBP Budget''. Notwithstanding
    budget ``challenges'', what would be your priority in hiring at least a
    portion of these personnel fiscal year 2011?
        Answer. In the fiscal year 2011 budget request, OAM will maintain
    24 positions in the following areas:
      --5 UAS pilots/sensor operators;
      --9 AMOC, ASOC & TSS positions;
      --5 field administration/maintenance/support positions; and
      --5 headquarters positions.
               proposed border patrol construction cancellations
        Question. Please provide a list of the Border Patrol construction
    projects proposed for cancellation.
        Answer. Because the likelihood of completion for several Border
    Patrol projects was uncertain, CBP chose to redirect the funds
    originally allocated for them to more immediate fiscal year 2011 needs.
    Since the request has been proposed as a cancellation request, funds
    are not being withheld from any specific project and the proposed list
    will be updated at the time of enactment.
        The table that follows provides the proposed list of projects that
    could be impacted by the cancellation request of prior year unobligated
    balances, once approved by Congress.

                            PROPOSED LIST OF PROJECTS
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Proposed
                                                                  amount to
                Location                 Project description          be
                                                                  cancelled
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Amistad, TX....................  50 Agent BP Station/Co-           3,000
                                      location w/National Parks
                                      Service.
    El Paso, TX....................  Vehicle Maintenance              16,900
                                      Facility.
    Oroville, WA...................  75 Agent BP Station.......       19,100
    Houlton, ME....................  Houlton Sector HQ--100           11,500
                                      Agents/50 Agent BP
                                      Station.
    Colville, WA...................  50 Agent BP Station.......       15,500
    Champlain, NY..................  50 Agent BP Station.......       10,500
    Comstock, TX...................  250 Agent BP Station/             3,200
                                      Checkpoint.
    Freer, TX......................  150 Agent BP Station/             1,500
                                      Checkpoint.
    Various........................  Alterations projects......       18,572
                                                                ------------
          Total Amount Proposed for  ..........................       99,772
           Cancellations.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Please provide a chart showing how many Border Patrol
    agents worked in Border Patrol facilities in fiscal year 2003 and what
    the total square footage of these facilities was in fiscal year 2003
    and compare that to how many agents are now on board in fiscal year
    2010 and to what is the current total square footage of these
    facilities. Also, what is the total planned square footage for the
    Border Patrol construction projects proposed for cancellation?
        Answer. The table that follows provides the requested information.
    Please note that this table only provides a comparison of stations,
    checkpoints, and sector HQs, so the El Paso Vehicle Maintenance
    Facility and the alterations projects are not listed.

                                                                    PROPOSED LIST OF PROJECTS
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      2003 facility        Current facility today       Proposed facility
                                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Location                        Project description                                                                           Office
                                                                                 Number of      Total      Number of      Total       Capacity      space
                                                                                   agents    square feet     agents    square feet               square feet
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Amistad, TX................................  50 Agent BP Station \1\/Co-             12          896           22          896           40        5,400
                                                  location w/National Parks
                                                  Service.
    Oroville, WA...............................  75 Agent BP Station..........           20        3,100           49        3,100           75        7,900
    Houlton, ME................................  Houlton Sector HQ 100 Agent/            26       14,400          113       16,440          150       37,000
                                                  50 Agent BP Station.
    Colville, WA...............................  50 Agent BP Station..........           17        1,700           33        1,700           50        7,000
    Champlain, NY..............................  50 Agent BP Station..........           17        7,845           42        7,845           50        7,000
    Comstock, TX...............................  250 Agent BP Station/                   38        5,470          175       11,870          250       47,000
                                                  Checkpoint.
    Freer, TX..................................  250 Agent BP Station/                   75        6,956          131        9,556          250       45,000
                                                  Checkpoint.
                                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total Amount Proposed for              .............................          205       40,367          565       51,367          865      156,300
           Cancellations.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The BP Station in Amistad, TX is a co-location with the National Parks Service, who will provide space for only 40 Border Patrol agents. Also, the
      current facility was occupied in 2007.

        Question. What are the unobligated balances in the ``Construction
    and Facilities Management'' account for Border Patrol facilities?
        Answer. As of March 5, 2010, the total unobligated balance in the
    ``Construction and Facilities Management'' account for Border Patrol
    facilities for fiscal year 2010 and prior years is $217 million.
        Question. Please provide a list of prior year unobligated balances.
        Answer. The table that follows provides a list of prior year
    unobligated balances for the Border Patrol facilities, as of March 5,
    2010. This includes unobligated balances from the Border Patrol
    construction account, Border Patrol Rapid Response funds, and fiscal
    year 2010 resources provided for maintenance, repairs, operations, and
    alterations activities.

                                  [In millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Unobligated
                 Activity                      Office             balance
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OBP Construction..................  OBP.................             106
    OBP Rapid Response................  OBP.................              10
    OBP Fiscal Year 2010 MRO/           OBP.................             101
     Alterations.
                                                             ---------------
          Total.......................  ....................             217
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            southwest border fencing
        Question. How many miles of pedestrian fencing and tactical
    infrastructure along the Southwest border has the Border Patrol
    identified as being required to gain and maintain effective control of
    that border? As of February 1, 2010, how many of those miles have been
    completed and how many more miles need to be constructed? Are any funds
    in the fiscal year 2011 budget request intended for construction of
    additional miles of fencing and infrastructure?
        Answer. Over 650 miles along the Southwest border were identified
    for fencing. As of February 26, 2010, CBP has constructed 347 miles of
    pedestrian fence and 299 miles of vehicle fence, with approximately 8
    miles of pedestrian fence left to construct. There are funds in the
    fiscal year 2011 budget request for this construction.
                                internal affairs
        Question. How many people are in CBP's internal affairs/officer
    integrity office? How many new positions were added this fiscal year?
    Are any new positions requested in the President's budget for the next
    fiscal year?
        Answer. As of February 13, there are 259 employees in the
    Investigative Operations Division. The fiscal year 2010 DHS
    Appropriations Act (Public Law 111-83) provided $500,000 to expand
    integrity investigations and Internal Affairs staffing. No new
    positions are requested in the fiscal year 2011 budget request.
                 full-time equivalent (fte) increases/decreases
        Question. Please provide a chart listing all FTE increases and
    decreases by position type and activity.
        Answer. Please see the following chart.

                                                                                   U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
                                                                             [Fiscal year 2011 staffing changes (positions)]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Air
                                                                     Border      CBP        CBP     Interdiction     Marine       Import      Intel                  General
                   President's Budget by Initiative                  Patrol    Officer    Officer-      Agent     Interdiction  Specialist   Analyst    Auditor   Investigator    Other      Total
                                                                     Agent                  OTD        (Pilot)        Agent
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Position Increases:
        OIOC.....................................................  .........  .........  .........  ............  ............  ..........        103  .........  ............  .........        103
        Intellectual Property Rights.............................  .........         25  .........  ............  ............          27  .........         16  ............        132        200
        Contractors to Fed FTE...................................  .........  .........  .........  ............  ............  ..........  .........  .........  ............        950        950
        OFO Staff................................................  .........        318         18  ............  ............  ..........  .........  .........  ............         53        389
    Position Reductions:
        Office of Training and Development.......................  .........  .........  .........  ............  ............  ..........  .........  .........  ............        -50        -50
        Office of Administration.................................  .........  .........  .........  ............  ............  ..........  .........  .........  ............        -30        -30
        Human Resource Management................................  .........  .........  .........  ............  ............  ..........  .........  .........  ............         -6         -6
        Fiscal Year 2010 Air and Marine Staffing.................  .........  .........  .........          -52           -18   ..........  .........  .........  ............        -50       -120
                                                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total..................................................  .........        343         18          -52           -18           27        103         16  ............        999      1,436
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 annualizations
        Question. You claim that you will be hiring the additional Border
    Patrol agents and CBP officers funded in the fiscal year 2010
    Appropriations Act. However, your budget request does not annualize the
    funding to maintain these agents and officers in your fiscal year 2011
    budget request. Are you intending to hire these individuals this year
    and let them go next year? Assuming that is not the case, how much
    additional funding is required to annualize these positions?
        Answer. CBP's fiscal year 2011 request sustains the increase in
    Border Patrol requested in the fiscal year 2010 budget request. The
    fiscal year 2011 budget request does not include funding to sustain all
    125 CBPOs and support personnel that were funded in the fiscal year
    2009 War Supplemental. The request supports sustainment of 63 CBPOs and
    11 support personnel.
                          southwest border enforcement
        Question. Please provide specific examples of what CBP is currently
    doing and plans to do in fiscal year 2011 for outbound enforcement on
    the Southwest border (based on the Secretary's March, 2009 surge
    announcement and the Supplemental funds provided by Congress).
        Answer. The security of our Southwest border remains a key priority
    for the Department, and the fiscal year 2011 budget request strengthens
    investments in smart and effective border security initiatives. In the
    past year, DHS increased resources through additional law enforcement
    and technology along the border, and took a more collaborative and
    intelligence-based approach to combat smuggling.
        As part of the administration's Southwest Border Initiative,
    launched in 2009, DHS doubled assignments to Border Enforcement
    Security Task Forces, tripled the number of intelligence analysts, and
    quadrupled the number of Border Liaison Officers working at the border.
    Additionally, DHS started screening 100 percent of southbound rail
    shipments for illegal weapons and cash--for the first time ever. We
    have also increased resources at ports of entry, deploying additional
    Border Patrol agents to augment outbound inspections, technology to
    help identify anomalies in passenger vehicles, and cross-trained canine
    teams to detect both weapons and currency. The Border Patrol is better
    staffed today than at any time in its 85-year history, having nearly
    doubled the number of agents from approximately 10,000 in 2004 to more
    than 20,000 in 2009. DHS has completed 643 miles of fencing of a
    planned 652 miles--including 344 miles of pedestrian fencing and 299
    miles of vehicle fencing. As a result of these efforts, seizures of
    contraband--guns, drugs and cash--have increased across the board and
    illegal crossings continue to decline. Additionally, for the first
    time, DHS began screening 100 percent of southbound rail shipments for
    illegal weapons, drugs, and cash.
        DHS also continues to leverage partnerships with local, State,
    Federal and tribal law enforcement agencies, as well as counterparts in
    Mexico to mutually address threats and combat cartel violence. CBP is
    expanding cooperative law enforcement efforts along the border with
    Mexico to include sharing basic seizure and license plate reader
    information relevant to law enforcement, expanding joint bi-national
    operations and supporting Mexico's law enforcement capacity via the
    Merida initiative.
        In 2008, ICE initiated Operation Armas Cruzadas--a comprehensive,
    collaborative, intelligence-driven and systematic partnership with the
    Government of Mexico to identify, disrupt and dismantle the criminal
    networks that illicitly transport arms across the border into Mexico.
    As part of this operation, DHS initiated a surge operation along the
    Southwest border in an effort to identify, interdict and investigate
    weapons trafficking organizations. Additionally, in 2009 DHS began
    screening 100 percent of southbound rail shipments for illegal weapons,
    drugs, and cash--for the first time. Increased resources will also
    directly support CBP's outbound efforts by ensuring that trained CBP
    Officers and Border Patrol Agents are available to conduct outbound
    operations; that CBP possesses adequate outbound facilities, equipment,
    and technology to conduct these operations; and that CBP Officers and
    Border Patrol Agents have the automated targeting assistance they need
    to identify violators.
        In order to address the escalating violence in Mexico and to
    increase outbound operations throughout the United States, CBP created
    the Outbound Programs Division within the Office of Field Operations in
    March 2009. The Outbound Program works to stem the illegal flow of
    firearms and currency out of the United States; increase the
    interdictions of stolen vehicles and fugitives who are attempting to
    flee the country; and augment compliance with the Nation's export laws.
        The deployment of outbound teams is both random and based on
    intelligence, which maximizes the impact of our resources. In fiscal
    year 2011, CBP will continue to build on the current cooperative
    efforts with Federal, State, local and tribal law enforcement agencies.
    This strategy, further supported by the development of port
    infrastructure, equipment and technology, will greatly enhance CBP's
    ability to target and interdict illicit currency and smuggled firearms.
        Additionally, ICE is utilizing $100 million in fiscal year 2010
    appropriations to augment existing capabilities and take on additional
    tasks in order to confront a surge in illegal activities on the
    Southwest border. This funding allows ICE to deploy additional staff to
    provide a greater level of investigative activity.
                  western hemisphere travel initiative (whti)
        Question. It has been suggested that border security could be
    enhanced if WHTI were extended for use by the Border Patrol at Border
    Patrol checkpoints. Does Border Patrol have the authority to use WHTI
    at its checkpoints? If so, what would be the additional cost of
    extending use of it to the checkpoints?
        Answer. CBP's authority to conduct Border Patrol checkpoints is
    rooted in 8 U.S.C. 1357 and implementing regulations of 8 CFR section
    287. CBP counsel has conducted a legal review of the privacy issues
    surrounding the use of WHTI technology at checkpoints and has given its
    approval. The authority to utilize LPRs at checkpoints, and issues
    related to privacy, are covered by the TECS System of Records Notice
    (SORN) (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-29807.htm). The August
    2009 GAO report entitled Checkpoints Contribute to Border Patrol's
    Mission, references CBP's use of LPRs at checkpoints. The TECS SORN,
    which is the Privacy Act notice that explains CBP's, including Border
    Patrol's, use of the TECS system, specifically covers: ``Owners,
    operators and/or passengers of vehicles, vessels or aircraft traveling
    across U.S. borders or through other locations where CBP maintains an
    enforcement or operational presence,'' and CBP believes applies to LPRs
    and their interface with TECS and TECS queries. LPRs are a tool that
    facilitates the initiation of TECS queries.
        WHTI Technology: The implementation of technology as part of the
    Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) has greatly improved U.S.
    Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) ability to both gather
    intelligence and target suspected smugglers and other violators. WHTI
    has enhanced CBP's ability to capture data on vehicles and occupants
    entering the United States through the land border, allowing for real-
    time analysis of available information and intelligence.
        Newly deployed license plate reader (LPR) technology deployed at
    ports of entry under WHTI improves the accuracy of vehicle license
    plate reads by more than 10 percent compared to the previous
    technology. The Vehicle Primary Client (VPC) application provides the
    capability, for the first time, to link drivers, passengers, vehicles,
    and their registered owners, together into ``packages.'' The VPC also
    provides officers with valuable information by interfacing with DHS,
    Department of State, and State and provincial Enhanced Driver's License
    (EDL) databases, allowing for documents to be verified back to their
    source in real-time.
        Border security can be significantly enhanced through improved
    targeting and intelligence gathering by further extending WHTI
    technology to Border Patrol checkpoints. The VPC was successfully
    piloted to two lanes at checkpoints in June 2009, which resulted in
    over 1,100 law enforcement hits ranging from alien smuggling, narcotics
    smuggling to armed and dangerous subjects. The pilot had minimal impact
    to traffic flow and significantly enhanced agent safety and awareness.
        Estimated Cost.--The following is an estimate of the cost of
    deploying WHTI LPR technology to Border Patrol checkpoints in a phased
    approach:
      --Phase I: 22 lanes @ $175,000: $3,850,000;
      --Phase II: 25 lanes @ $175,000: $4,375,000;
      --Phase III: 55 lanes @ $175,000: $9,625,000;
      --Maintenance (O&M): $10,000 a year per lane;
      --Total cost: For all three phases--$17,850,000/Yearly O&M cost--$
            1,020,000.
                           passenger name record data
        Question. Mandating that a traveler's passport number be added to
    the passenger name record data collected by the airlines would likely
    provide CBP with more information earlier to better determine whether a
    traveler should be allowed to board a plane. What is preventing this
    from being mandatory? Are there costs for the U.S. Government in
    requiring this be added to the field of information submitted to the
    airlines?
        Answer. Mandating passport information as part of a PNR submission
    would present several challenges. It is common for travelers to book
    their reservations well in advance of obtaining a passport for travel
    or book travel and not have their passport information available at the
    time of reservation. Likewise, since PNR information is provided by the
    passenger or their designee and in most cases cannot be validated at
    the time of reservation, there is the possibility of receiving invalid
    information or incorrect information.
                            advanced training center
        Question. How much is requested in the President's budget for
    training activities and training operations at the Advanced Training
    Center (ATC) in fiscal year 2011? Also, what is the staffing target for
    the ATC?
        Answer. The budget requested for training activities and training
    operations at the Advanced Training Center (ATC) in fiscal year 2011
    includes the following:
      --Fiscal year 2011 staffing target--102 positions;
      --Fiscal year 2011 projected programmatic expenses = $20,648,000
            (includes Salaries & Benefits and other programmatic expenses);
      --Fiscal year 2011 projected national training plan budget--
            $14,862,827; and
      --Fiscal year 2011 projected Office of Training Development total =
            $35,510,827.
                    continued dumping and subsidy offset act
        Question. During my tenure in Congress I have worked closely with
    CBP officials on implementation of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy
    Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA). Besides providing a portion of the duties
    to qualifying injured businesses, the program provided reports on the
    amounts of duties collected, disbursed, and uncollected.
        In general, the program worked well over the years before CDSOA was
    repealed in October 2007. Most importantly, it provided CBP with the
    ability to manage the collection and distribution of duties into the
    U.S. General Treasury. However, collections continue to be a challenge
    for the agency.
        One of the leading manufacturing sectors that attach a high
    priority to customs enforcement issues is the domestic steel pipe and
    tube industry. The steel industry has played an important role in the
    development of our country, and today it continues to be a leader in
    our economy. Steel also has a long history in West Virginia, and has
    employed generations of West Virginians.
        Historically the industry has had to pursue trade remedies to stem
    the flow of unfair trade. This is where the role of CBP is paramount--
    in the enforcement of the collection of these duties.
        I have recently heard from U.S. steel pipe and tube producers that
    they are growing concerned about escalating levels of customs fraud
    taking place at U.S. seaports. They tell me these activities are
    primarily taking place at the West Coast seaports of Los Angeles and
    Long Beach in California. What is most troubling is that imports of
    steel pipe and tube from China may be entering into the United States
    with no duty. In fact, one document indicated that the tubing was
    entered as ``used books'' from China. More importantly, this is the
    same pipe and tube from China that is covered by anti-dumping and
    countervailing duty orders from 2008. I further understand that since
    September 2009, the industry has collected the data and has shared it
    with officials at CBP.
        What is the Department's commitment to ensuring that enforcement of
    the collection of duties assessed on unfairly traded imports is given
    the highest priority as it relates to the economic security of the
    United States?
        Answer. The enforcement of AD/CVD laws to protect U.S. industries
    from unfair trade practices is a priority for Customs and Border
    Protection (CBP). CBP uses a strategically layered risk management
    approach to prioritize its focus on trade issues based on the potential
    impact of noncompliance. CBP has designated seven Priority Trade Issues
    (PTI) to focus resources on trade enforcement issues presenting the
    greatest risks; Antidumping and Countervailing Duty is one of these
    PTIs.
        Question. What is CBP doing to track imports and document trade
    anomalies? What is CBP doing to ensure that import specialists at the
    seaports and borders are prepared and trained to intervene to ensure
    that they enforce the law?
        Answer. CBP has designated Priority Trade Issues (PTI) to focus
    resources on trade enforcement issues presenting the greatest risks.
    Each PTI has its own designated National Targeting and Analysis Group
    (NTAG) that is staffed with International Trade Specialist (ITS). ITS
    perform trade analysis and target shipments for a review based on that
    analysis.
        On a local level, Import Specialists monitor their PTI areas and/or
    commodity, and initiate trade enforcement actions. Those actions are
    recorded in CBP systems and available at a national level to other
    Import Specialists and NTAGs for review. NTAGs review these results and
    determine if national and/or further action is necessary.
        Import Specialists receive training through a variety of different
    courses. For example, CBP's National Import Specialists conduct regular
    classification training throughout the country. In addition,
    specifically for the U.S. steel industry, CBP coordinates with the
    American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) to hold seminars to address
    classification of steel products and fraud issues For CBP, U.S.
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and private industry. Formal
    training on fraud is provided through the ICE advanced fraud course at
    the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia.
        Question. How will the Department ensure that appropriate resources
    are dedicated to prosecuting those committing customs fraud and that
    the necessary law enforcement authority is provided to CBP or other
    agencies to conduct prompt review and investigations of the types of
    complaints submitted by the steel pipe and tube industry, and others in
    the business community, that may be experiencing similar problems?
        Answer. CBP and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) work
    jointly to initiate and implement enforcement activities through the
    Commercial Enforcement Allegation Response (CEAR) Process. The
    objective of the CEAR process is to support the CBP commercial
    enforcement program by:
      --effectively prioritizing commercial enforcement issues and
            allocating resources;
      --properly determining and evaluating suitable commercial enforcement
            responses; and
      --responsively following through on commercial enforcement referrals
            made through the CEAR process.
        Each of the CBP Service Ports has a CEAR process which is led by a
    Trade Enforcement Coordinator (TEC) who is a manger experienced in
    fraud matters.
        As to handling complaints submitted by industry, CBP has
    established an online trade violation reporting system called e-
    Allegations. e-Allegations provides a means for the public to
    confidentially report any suspected violations of trade laws. e-
    Allegations also provides a means to report a possible violator who is
    importing substandard steel, claiming that it is of a higher grade,
    therefore creating a potential health and safety issue.
        All allegations are recorded in Commercial Allegation Recording
    System (CARS)--which provides CBP with a standardized methodology for
    recording the review, processing, referral, analysis, and results of
    commercial allegations.
                                 journeyman pay
        Question. Last fall, the Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border
    Protection made a commitment to the hardworking men and women of CBP,
    who daily defend our borders, that the legally mandated journeyman pay
    adjustment would take effect in March of this year. No funds were
    requested in the current year's budget to accommodate this increase.
    This Committee has yet to be informed how this requirement is intended
    to be funded this fiscal year. The full amount for fiscal year 2011 is
    requested in next year's budget, but we understand that approximately
    $150 million is required this year.
        How do you intend to pay for this increase? Did you request of the
    Office of Management and Budget that this unfunded requirement be
    addressed through a Supplemental appropriation? When do you intend to
    honor this commitment and begin implementation of journeyman increase
    for the hardworking men and women of CBP?
        Answer. The CBP fiscal year 2011 budget request includes funding
    required for full implementation of the Journeyman Pay Adjustment. The
    Department intends to fund these costs by the fourth quarter of fiscal
    year 2010.
        Approximately 30 percent of CBP officers--including most
    agriculture specialists at our ports--are funded through fees collected
    on processing passengers and cargo at our borders. Given the downturn
    in the global economy, fee revenue collections across the board are far
    lower than planned for in the current year's budget. You request that
    appropriated dollars be transferred from the Border Patrol, which is
    not fee-funded, and other appropriated activities to meet the fee
    shortfalls and maintain current staffing for CBP officers. Yet I
    understand you intend to pay for the journeyman pay adjustment by
    making additional cuts to CBP operations. This has a direct impact on
    border security.
        Question. Absent additional resources, will you need to make a
    reduction in overall CBP officer staffing this fiscal year?
        Answer. CBP will be proposing a reprogramming from internal sources
    to cover fiscal year 2010 shortfalls from fees to maintain staffing
    levels. In fiscal year 2011, CBP has requested additional appropriated
    dollars to offset the impact of lower fees.
               impact of the lack of a confirmed cbp commissioner
        Question. Given the deep cuts to U.S. Customs and Border Protection
    in the proposed budget, did the fact that it does not have a Senate
    confirmed Commissioner hinder CBP when advocating for its fiscal year
    2011 budget? How important is it to have a Senate confirmed
    Commissioner to lead the frontline agency defending our borders; an
    agency which also happens to be responsible for collecting the 2nd
    largest amount of revenue for the Nation?
        Answer. President Obama recess appointed Alan Bersin as
    Commissioner of CBP on March 27, 2010.
      proposed elimination of the foreign language awards program for cbp
                                   employees
        Question. Since its implementation in 1997, the Foreign Language
    Awards Program (FLAP) has been instrumental in identifying and
    utilizing Customs and Border Protection (CBP) employees who are
    proficient in a foreign language, a skill especially important in their
    role of dealing directly with foreign travelers and trade. Under the
    program, which incorporates more than two dozen languages, CBP Officers
    and Agriculture Specialists who qualify after language proficiency
    testing can earn awards of between 1 and 5 percent of their pay if they
    use a language other than English for more than 10 percent of the time
    during their daily duties. Thousands of frontline CBP employees use
    their language skills in this way every day.
        CBP employees' foreign language skills enhance the agency's
    important homeland security and trade-related missions. Rewarding
    employees for using their language skills to protect our country,
    facilitate the lawful movement of people and cargo across our borders,
    and collect revenue that our government needs makes sense. Congress
    agreed that employees should be encouraged to develop their language
    skills by authoring FLAP. Not only does it improve efficiency of
    operations, it makes the United States a more welcoming place when
    foreign travelers find CBP Officers can communicate in their language.
        At CBP, this program has been an unqualified success, and not just
    for employees but for the travelers who are aided by having someone at
    a port of entry who speaks their language, for the smooth functioning
    of the agency's security mission. For these reasons I am quite
    concerned that the fiscal year 2011 DHS budget proposes to eliminate
    this congressionally authorized program, and was further surprised to
    learn that, on February 4, 2010, CBP notified its employees that it was
    immediately suspending this program citing lack of fiscal year 2010
    funding.
        Why was this program immediately suspended? What budget planning
    went into this decision to immediately suspend and eliminate FLAP at
    CBP? FLAP has a dedicated funding source--customs user fees collected
    from the traveling public and the trade community. How will customs
    user fees that formerly funded FLAP now be distributed? For what
    programs will these user fees be used? And is this customs user fee
    diversion supported by statute?
        Answer. CBP Officers and Agriculture Specialists hired since June
    2004 and initially assigned to the southern border, Puerto Rico and
    Miami have a mandatory Spanish proficiency requirement as a condition
    of employment and are expected to utilize that skill, as needed, in the
    performance of their duties. Officers and Agriculture Specialist
    lacking sufficient proficiency in Spanish are provided five additional
    weeks of language training. Managers will continue to encourage all
    employees to utilize their language skills to accomplish the CBP's
    mission, and will use other traditional awards to appropriately
    recognize and reward employees
        FLAP awards are funded through customs, immigration, and
    agriculture user fees. Due to a substantial reduction of airline travel
    and commercial conveyances entering the United States in recent years,
    there has been a substantial decline in fee revenues. The Customs user
    fee currently supports approximately $10.2 million of the FLAP program.
    By suspending the FLAP program, this funding would be redirected
    towards other requirements that are eligible under the fee legislation.
    The savings in Customs user fees from the FLAP reduction will allow CBP
    to more fully fund overtime and premium pay.
                          border patrol communications
        Question. Along our borders with both Canada and Mexico, there are
    many miles where no communication is possible, neither via cell nor
    land mobile radio. A few Border Patrol agents have the older bulky
    portable satellite phones or some that are mounted in vehicles that
    have no email or text capability. Almost one-third of our 1,900-mile
    border with Mexico has no communication coverage of any kind. Our
    Border Patrol agents face very dangerous situations with smugglers and
    drug and arms cartels which puts them in grave danger. Also, we have
    heard of instances where smugglers have utilized homemade devices that
    disable border agent vehicles, leaving agents with no way to
    communicate. With new smartphones coming on line soon that are capable
    of providing a combination of cellular and satellite communications for
    voice and data, do you plan to provide this type of tool to our Border
    Patrol agents? If not, why?
        Answer. CBP TACCOM is pursuing a digital standards based (i.e.,
    Project 25) Land Mobile Radio (LMR) modernization program to meet user
    requirements and operational needs. The Project 25 solution leverages
    existing LMR infrastructure and subscribers owned and operated by CBP.
    Use of a standards based Project 25 solution promotes interoperability
    with other law enforcement agencies such as other Federal agencies and
    State, local and tribal partners.
                         secure border initiative (sbi)
        Question. Given continued delays in deployment of SBI-related
    technologies on the Southwest border, please describe what is in the
    fiscal year 2011 budget to deploy existing technologies to fill known
    gaps in our border security. If there are no such requests/plans,
    describe why.
        Answer. Not only do we have an obligation to secure our borders, we
    have a responsibility to do so in the most cost effective way possible.
    The system of sensors and cameras along the Southwest border known as
    SBInet has been plagued with cost overruns and missed deadlines. As a
    result, the Department of Homeland Security is redeploying $50 million
    of Recovery Act funding originally allocated for the SBInet Block 1 to
    other tested, commercially available security technology along the
    Southwest border, including mobile surveillance, thermal imaging
    devices, ultra-light detection, backscatter units, mobile radios,
    cameras and laptops for pursuit vehicles, and remote video surveillance
    system enhancements. Additionally, DHS is freezing all SBInet funding
    beyond SBInet Block 1's initial deployment to the Tucson and Ajo
    regions until the assessment Secretary Napolitano ordered in January is
    completed
                                      ice
                                 visa security
        Question. Section 428 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 created
    the Visa Security Program. As you know, this program calls for the
    placement of Homeland Security agents at overseas U.S. consular posts
    to assist in reviewing visa applications for people wishing to travel
    to this country. The program has been effective in pushing out our
    borders and preventing the issuance of visas to individuals who wish to
    do us harm. I am troubled, however, to learn that the assignment of
    agents to posts in such critical countries as Israel, Jordan, and Yemen
    have been pending for months. In the case of Yemen, it has been more
    than a year.
        Given the recent increase in threats to the United States from
    Yemen, what is the reason for the delay? And given the major security
    benefits received from this program at a relatively low cost, why is
    the budget for the program flat?
        Answer. For fiscal year 2011, the President has requested the same
    level of funding and resources as fiscal year 2010: $30.6 million and
    67 FTEs. This funding will cover existing Visa Security Units, the
    planned fiscal year 2010 expansion, as well as a new office in Saudi
    Arabia. The expansion process requires close coordination with the host
    country and the Department of State, and ICE is coordinating with the
    Department of State to collectively further advance visa security.
                              worksite enforcement
        Question. One of the many tools in the immigration enforcement
    toolkit is real worksite enforcement. To ensure that we end the lure to
    foreigners of jobs in this country, we must prevent unscrupulous
    employers from seeking cheap, illegal alien labor. But we must also
    demonstrate to people who may try to cross our borders seeking work
    that we will take action to remove them from this country because they
    are here illegally.
        I have been a strong supporter of this program and have ensured
    that it has the resources it needs to enforce the law by adding funds
    above the request for the past 3 years. I am troubled by the impact I
    am seeing of your April, 2009, announcement of a change in how worksite
    enforcement is conducted. You have moved from aggressive enforcement
    actions at worksite to a paper-based system of auditing employee
    records. The numbers underscore my concerns.
        Administrative arrests dropped from 5,184 in fiscal year 2008 to
    1,654 in fiscal year 2009. That is more than a two-thirds drop. And
    criminal arrests of employees dropped from 968 in 2008 to 296 in 2009.
        Why have you cut back on enforcement actions and retreated to a
    relatively toothless paper-based process?
        Answer. Over the past year, U.S. Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement's (ICE) has implemented smart and effective worksite
    enforcement strategies, prioritizing the identification, arrest and
    removal of criminal aliens that threaten public safety, which has led
    to real results. Overall, criminal and non-criminal removals and
    returns increased by 5 percent between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year
    2009 with criminal removals and returns increasing by 19 percent. This
    year, ICE has already removed 40 percent more aliens convicted of
    crimes in fiscal year 2010 to date as compared to the same time last
    year.
        Additionally, ICE's new, comprehensive worksite enforcement
    strategy targets employers who cultivate illegal workplaces by breaking
    the country's laws and knowingly hiring illegal workers. This strategy
    protects employment opportunities for the Nation's lawful workforce by
    targeting the magnets that attract illegal workers to the United
    States.
        A successful immigration enforcement strategy also includes the use
    of all available civil and administrative tools at our disposal,
    including civil fines and debarment, to deter employers who knowingly
    hire illegal labor. Employers need to understand that the integrity of
    their employment records is just as important to the Federal Government
    as the integrity of their tax files or banking records. Accordingly,
    ICE has increased inspections to ensure that businesses are complying
    with employment laws, and is aggressively pursuing prosecution, fines
    and debarment where justified. In fact, ICE audited more employers
    suspected of hiring illegal labor in a single day in 2009 than had been
    audited in all of 2008.
        These strategies are working. Since January 2009, DHS has audited
    more than 2,300 employers suspected of hiring illegal labor (compared
    to 500 audits in 2008), debarred 70 companies and 63 individuals, and
    issued more than $15 million in fines.
        By targeting the demand side of illegal employment and focusing on
    criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety, DHS is making great
    strides in moving from enforcement actions that look tough to
    immigration enforcement that is truly effective.
        Question. How many I-9 audits for worksite enforcement
    investigations were initiated in each of fiscal years 2007-2009 and how
    many indictments were handed down in each of those years?
        Answer. Please see the following chart.

                      WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT AUDITS INITIATED
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Form I-9
                     Fiscal year                   inspections   Indictments
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2007........................................           254           750
    2008........................................           503           900
    2009........................................         1,444           376
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. How many criminal arrests and how many administrative
    arrests were made in each of fiscal years 2007-2009? Of those arrests,
    how many employers were arrested in each of those fiscal years and how
    many individuals were deported or removed from the United States?
        Answer. Please see the following charts.

                       CRIMINAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ARRESTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Criminal    Administrative    Employer
             Fiscal year             arrests        arrest         arrests
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2007........................           863          4,077             92
    2008........................         1,103          5,184            135
    2009........................           410          1,644            114
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             INDIVIDUALS REMOVED \1\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Fiscal year                            Removed
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2007......................................................       291,060
    2008......................................................       369,221
    2009......................................................       387,790
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Includes returns.

        Question. How much funding is requested in the fiscal year 2011
    budget for Worksite Enforcement?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2010, ICE received $134.5 million in
    appropriations to support worksite enforcement investigations. For
    fiscal year 2011, as is the case for all other investigative case
    categories, ICE is not requesting a specific funding level for worksite
    enforcement. ICE anticipates it will sustain the same level of activity
    from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2011 for its worksite enforcement
    operations.
        Question. Currently, is there a limit on how large a fine can be
    levied against an employer who employees illegal aliens? If so, do you
    have the authority to increase the fine administratively or does it
    need to occur legislatively?
        Answer. ICE can only increase fines to adjust for inflation. The
    Federal civil monetary penalties have a Congressionally mandated cap.
    The civil fine range, per violation, for Form I-9 violations is $110 to
    $1,100. The civil fine range for each count of knowingly hiring or
    continuing to employ an unauthorized worker ranges from $375 to
    $16,000.
        Question. How many on-site worksite enforcement actions occurred
    between January 20, 2009 and June 30, 2009? And how many occurred
    between July 1, 2009 and February 1, 2010?
        Answer. The ICE case management system, Treasury Enforcement
    Communication Systems (TECS), does not specifically track on-site
    worksite enforcement actions; therefore, the exact number of operations
    is unavailable.
                                 detention beds
        Question. The fiscal year 2010 Department of Homeland Security
    Appropriations Act mandates maintaining ``a level of not less than
    33,400 detention beds through September 30, 2010''. However, for the
    week ending February 15, 2010, only 28,027 detention beds were filled.
    That means that 5,373 illegal aliens were not being detained when they
    could have been. In fact, the number of illegal aliens being detained
    has steadily dropped since the beginning of this administration (over
    the past year). Why are you not adhering to the law? Does ICE lack the
    funds to maintain these additional beds?
        Answer. ICE is currently exploring options to increase detention
    efficiencies. Through the Institutional Removal Program at State and
    local detention facilities, ICE is focused on increasing the number of
    criminal aliens who have removal orders by the time they complete their
    criminal sentence, removing the burden to detain these aliens beyond
    their criminal sentences while awaiting removal orders.
                               secure communities
        Question. The focus of the Secure Communities is on Level 1
    (criminal) illegal aliens who are located in Federal, State, and local
    jails and prisons through the use of biometrics (i.e. fingerprints).
    However, if you encounter Level 2 or 3 illegal aliens in these
    facilities--even though you are not targeting them--what do you do with
    them? Are they identified as being here illegally in any event and is a
    detainer put on them for immigration proceedings or for ultimate
    removal from the country upon completion of their sentence?
        Answer. While ICE places the highest priority on the most dangerous
    criminal aliens convicted of level 1 offenses, aliens charged or
    convicted of level 2 or level 3 offenses are also placed in immigration
    proceeding for removal at the completion of their sentence.
        Question. With the funds requested in the budget for Secure
    Communities, how much of the Level 1 population is covered and how of
    the Level 2 population is covered?
        Answer. ICE anticipates that Secure Communities will be deployed in
    locations that cover 96 percent of the criminal alien population by the
    end of fiscal year 2011.
                              bulk cash smuggling
        Question. Last year, Congress provided $30 million above the
    President's request for a number of Southwest border violence-related
    activities--including bulk cash smuggling. How are those funds being
    put to use for bulk cash smuggling efforts? Which agency has the
    primary authority for addressing bulk cash smuggling as it relates to
    our borders?
        Answer. ICE has primary authority for addressing bulk cash
    smuggling as it relates to our borders, but works with the Department
    of Justice to ensure bulk cash smuggling investigations that have a
    border nexus are coordinated government-wide.
        In March 2009, ICE deployed an additional 110 Special Agents to the
    Southwest border as part of the administration's Southwest Border
    Initiative. These agents have been initiating and supporting
    investigations into transnational crime, including bulk cash smuggling
    investigations.
        Additionally, ICE's National Bulk Cash Smuggling Center (BCSC) is
    designed to identify, disrupt, and dismantle criminal organizations
    profiting from financial crime. The BCSC, located in Burlington,
    Vermont, is a 24-hour tactical intelligence and operations facility
    providing real-time intelligence to Federal, State and local law
    enforcement agencies (LEAs) involved in enforcement and interdiction of
    bulk cash smuggling. The BCSC coordinates intelligence information with
    LEAs to refer viable investigative leads to the field and help identify
    smuggling routes and trends to address system vulnerabilities.
        As the lead DHS agency responsible for border enforcement
    activities (to include bulk cash smuggling) at our ports of entry, CBP
    will use CBP officers hired through its fiscal year 2009 appropriations
    to conduct outbound ``pulse and surge'' along the Southwest border. The
    focus of these officers will be to interdict and seize bulk cash,
    firearms, ammunition, stolen vehicles, and arrest fugitives destined to
    Mexico. ``Pulse and surge'' operations are short in duration and
    involve periodic outbound inspections followed by periods without
    inspections. This allows CBP to manage staffing, maintain the element
    of surprise, prevent operations from being predictable, counter the use
    of ``spotters,'' and to control the flow of outbound traffic.
                     transportation security administration
                        passenger screening technologies
        Question. What is the Department's long-term goal for passenger
    screening by means other than a magnetometer? Is it TSA's intention to
    screen every passenger for explosives either through Advanced Imaging
    Technology (AIT), explosives trace swabbing, canines, or pat-downs?
        Answer. TSA's fiscal year 2011 request supports the deployment of
    more than 500 AITs, which, when added to machines purchased with prior
    year funds, will screen approximately 64 percent of the traveling
    public using approximately 1,000 AITs.
        The fiscal year 2011 request also includes funding for
    Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) to staff AIT machines being
    deployed. TSA estimates that 500 machines will be deployed by the end
    of calendar year 2010.
        Question. The fiscal year 2011 request includes funding for
    Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) to staff AIT machines being
    deployed. TSA estimates that 500 machines will be deployed by the end
    of calendar year 2010. How is TSA accommodating staffing needs for AIT
    machines in fiscal year 2010?
        Answer. TSA has reallocated available resources to meet the
    additional AIT staffing requirements in fiscal year 2010.
        Question. Does the request for 5,355 additional TSO's to staff the
    new AIT machines assume that the auto resolution feature will be ready
    for deployment at the beginning of fiscal year 2011? In the event it is
    not available, what adjustments in TSA's staffing requirement are
    necessary?
        Answer. TSA's fiscal year 2011 request assumes Automated Target
    Recognition (ATR) capability will be deployed to the AIT fleet in both
    fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011. TSA's fiscal year 2011 staffing
    request is sufficient to meet the staffing needs of the accelerated
    deployment of AIT units across the country.
        Question. Will there be a need for facility modifications at
    airports to accommodate AIT equipment?
        Answer. The optimal configuration and installation of AIT units at
    the airport will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Depending on
    the airport checkpoint layout, there is the possibility that facility
    modifications may be needed for AIT use.
        Question. Have airport-by-airport estimates on additional space/
    facility requirements been developed?
        Answer. TSA has made preliminary estimates of the required space
    needed for multiple configurations of AIT units. In addition, TSA will
    closely coordinate with local airport authorities to ensure that all
    space/facility requirements and constraints have been taken into
    consideration.
        Question. How do you intend to pay for any additional space or
    facility upgrades that may be required to accommodate AIT equipment?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes funding for
    minor facility upgrades necessary to accommodate AIT equipment.
        Question. Are sufficient resources contained in the fiscal year
    2011 request for facility modifications?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes funding to pay
    for minor facility modifications that may be required to accommodate
    the AIT equipment.
        Question. What efforts will be undertaken to consult and coordinate
    with airport operators regarding deployment plans at individual airport
    facilities?
        Answer. AIT design drawings are prepared in collaboration with
    airport operators and local TSA officials prior to finalization.
    Airport authorities have numerous opportunities to comment on and
    approve designs before any work is started.
        Question. What sort of impact will the greater utilization of AIT
    equipment have on passenger wait times?
        Answer. TSA's fiscal year 2011 request provides the appropriate
    staffing level and equipment to manage passenger loads efficiently and
    expects no negative impact on passenger wait times.
        Question. What are the different requirement ``tier'' levels for
    AIT? Has AIT been certified beyond Tier 1? What is the schedule to
    attain certification for the remaining tiers?
        Answer. The AIT procurement specification outlines different
    ``tiered'' requirements based on security and detection capabilities.
    The specification is classified. The AIT units that have been awarded
    have either met or exceeded stated security requirements in the
    security specification.
        From fiscal years 2002 through 2010, over $1.5 billion has been
    invested in the development and deployment of checkpoint screening
    technologies. Your budget requests an additional $360 million in fiscal
    year 2011. In October 2009, the Government Accountability Office
    criticized the Transportation Security Administration for not having a
    risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, or performance measures to
    guide procurement decisions. Given the significant investment made in
    this area, what are you doing to address the concerns raised by GAO?
    What is the status of the congressionally mandated report on risk
    analysis and resource allocations across all transportation modes? This
    requirement was mandated in the explanatory statement accompanying the
    Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2009 (signed into
    law on September 30, 2008).
        Question. The Office of Inspector General concluded in its review
    of TSA's expenditure plan for the American Recovery and Reinvestment
    Act (ARRA) that the ``unavailability of qualified technology may delay
    projected contract award dates and the expenditure of Recovery Act
    funds.'' Of the passenger screening program acquisitions, how many are
    still undergoing qualification and operational testing? What is TSA's
    schedule for completing this testing and deploying them to the field?
    What is TSA's remaining ARRA balance? Does TSA anticipate lapsing ARRA
    funds given the IG's concerns?
        Answer. TSA is building modeling and simulation tools that balance
    levels of risk (based on current threats) with cost effective
    procurement decisions (based on available technologies). In addition,
    TSA is continuing work on the Aviation Modal Risk Assessment (AMRA),
    formerly known as the Aviation Domain Risk Assessment, as part of a
    larger cross-modal Transportation Systems Sector Risk Assessment
    (TSSRA). The TSSRA is currently undergoing Executive Level review
    within DHS. Once finalized, the TSSRA will be delivered to the
    Appropriations Committees and the Office of Management and Budget. The
    report should be delivered to the committees by the end of third
    quarter fiscal year 2010.
        Of the technologies planned for purchase with American Reinvestment
    and Recovery Act (ARRA) funding, only the Next Generation Advanced
    Technology (AT-2) X-Ray is currently undergoing operational (field)
    testing. The AT-2 is scheduled to complete all testing by June 2010,
    and contract award is anticipated in June/July (resulting in initial
    deployments commencing in July/August 2010). As of March 6, 2010, TSA
    has obligated $581 million, leaving a balance of $419 million in ARRA
    funding. All TSA ARRA funds will be obligated by the September 30, 2010
    deadline.
        Question. For passenger screening technologies, what is TSA's
    process to achieve certification of technologies prior to wide-scale
    deployment? Is each technology reviewed by the acquisition review board
    before a contract is awarded? Is operational testing conducted by a
    non-TSA independent entity for all passenger screening systems or
    equipment?
        Answer. In evaluating and procuring new Passenger Screening Program
    (PSP) technologies, TSA uses a structured methodology and process that
    complies with requirements specified by DHS Acquisitions Directive 102.
    Technology requirements are followed by both laboratory and field
    testing, resulting in the published requirements for each vendor
    submission. The collected testing results are presented at yearly (or
    on an as needed basis) TSA Investment Review Boards and DHS Acquisition
    Review Boards to review the PSP program before contracts are awarded.
        Question. The request includes funding for 350 additional behavior
    detection officers as part of the Screening Passengers by Observation
    Techniques (SPOT) program. What is the justification to increase this
    program given that an independent assessment of the program's
    effectiveness has not been completed?
        Answer. The increase in Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs) will
    allow for additional coverage at high risk Category X and I airports,
    as well as expanded coverage at smaller Category III and IV airports.
    The BDOs provide mitigation deterrence against multiple threat areas,
    and risk modeling and deterrence data strongly suggest BDOs are
    effective at detecting person-based threats.
        Question. Is SPOT training being provided to Federal Air Marshals
    or Customs and Border Protection Officers staffing international
    airports?
        Answer. The Federal Air Marshals receive similar training that
    includes behavior detection recognition and other law enforcement
    techniques. Several of their behavior cues overlap those of the SPOT
    program.
        TSA is actively working with CBP on joint training opportunities.
    The SPOT program, for example, recently trained a small number of CBP
    agents who staff overseas airports in behavioral detection.
        Question. TSA has base funding to purchase 497 advanced imaging
    technology systems (body scanners) for airports. Once deployed, what
    percentage of the flying public will be screened by AIT? If funding
    requested in the fiscal year 2011 request is approved, what percentage
    of passengers will be screened once all 1,000 systems are deployed?
        Answer. By the end of calendar year 2010, the initial 497 units
    will be deployed and approximately 37 percent of passengers will be
    screened with AIT. If the funding requested for fiscal year 2011 is
    approved and an additional 500 units are procured, 64 percent of
    passengers will be screened by AIT. With 1,000 AITs deployed, there
    will be an AIT machine in most Category X, I and II airports, which
    represent approximately 97 percent of all passenger volume. Given this
    system coverage, we estimate that over 90 percent of the traveling
    public will have the potential to be screened by an AIT.
                       explosives detection systems (eds)
        Question. Will TSA comply with congressional direction to move to a
    fully competitive EDS procurement process no later than September 30,
    2010?
        Answer. TSA has already initiated a competitive procurement process
    for the purchase of Explosives Detection Systems (EDS). An announcement
    on the Federal Business Opportunities Web site was posted on December
    11, 2009, initiating a competitive Qualified Products List process for
    the three classes of EDS: high speed, medium speed and reduced sized.
    The current strategy anticipates contract awards in January 2011. The
    current competitive procurement initiative addresses Reduced-Size,
    Medium Speed and High Speed EDS. Currently, TSA only has one
    competitive award for EDS which is for Reduced-Size. ARRA EDS purchases
    were for Reduced-Size EDS.
        Question. When will existing sole source bridge contracts expire?
        Answer. The existing Medium Speed sole-source bridge contracts are
    set to expire July 2011.
        Question. What is TSA's schedule for a competitive EDS equipment
    award?
        Answer. The competitive Explosives Detection Systems equipment
    awards are currently scheduled to be made in January 2011. The current
    competitive procurement initiative addresses Reduced-Size, Medium Speed
    and High Speed EDS. Currently, TSA only has one competitive award for
    EDS which is for Reduced-Size. ARRA EDS purchases were for Reduced-Size
    EDS.
        Question. Was the final RFP released in January 2010?
        Answer. A shift in the acquisition strategy resulted in a revised
    RFP release date of September 2010. The most recent acquisition
    strategy calls for a Qualified Products List (QPL) for Explosives
    Detection Systems (EDS), permitting a greater number of vendor
    opportunities for contract awards. Vendors will be placed on a QPL
    after successfully completing Certification (CERT) testing, Baggage
    Handling System (BHS) Interface testing, and Operational Testing. CERT
    and BHS testing is scheduled to run from May 2010 through September
    2010. Operational Testing is scheduled to run from October 2010 through
    November 2010. The EDS contract award is anticipated in January 2011.
        Question. What security standards will manufacturers have to meet
    to be eligible under the competitive award and how do those standards
    differ from current requirements?
        Answer. EDS proposed under the competitive procurement must be
    certified to the Detection Requirements Version 5.8 and meet other
    specification requirements contained in EDS Specifications Version 3.1.
    The Detection Requirements include additional explosive threats above
    and beyond those of current requirements, including ``home-made
    explosives'' (HME). The specific HME categories included in the
    Detection Requirements were first identified in collaboration with the
    intelligence community.
        Question. Are TSA's new detection capability requirements tiered?
    Please describe the security enhancements each tier requires. What is
    TSA's schedule to require EDS manufacturers to meet the standards
    developed for each tier?
        Answer. The Detection Requirements Version 5.8 are grouped into
    three distinct levels for compliance and include requirements for
    detection probabilities, false alarm rates, and screening. Level C is
    the current threshold requirement in the competitive procurement for an
    EDS to be certified for the planned contract awards in January 2011.
    Level B includes more threats than Level C, and Level A includes yet
    more threats than Level B. Threshold requirements for detection will
    likely be elevated from Level C to Level B within 12 to 18 months of
    the first competitive contract awards. It is anticipated that the
    technology capabilities necessary for Level A detection could take
    approximately 3 to 4 years to develop.
        Question. What is the schedule to receive vendor proposals, test
    and evaluate systems, and make competitive awards?
        Answer. The current schedule calls for vendor proposals to be
    submitted in October 2010. Each system will be required to successfully
    pass certification testing at the Transportation Security Laboratory
    (TSL), baggage handling integration testing at the TSA Systems
    Integration Facility (TSIF), as well as Operational Test and Evaluation
    (OT&E) at selected U.S. airports. The testing cycle is scheduled to
    begin with certification readiness testing in May 2010 and run through
    November 2010, at which time OT&E will end. Contract award is
    anticipated in January 2011.
        Question. Has TSA's Test & Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) been
    approved by the Science & Technology Directorate?
        Answer. The Electronic Baggage Screening Program Test and
    Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) and Checked Baggage Inspection Systems
    TEMP Addendum are currently in review with the DHS Science and
    Technology Directorate (S&T). Final versions are on track for approval
    in April 2010.
        Question. Will test and evaluation of the systems be conducted by a
    non-TSA independent entity?
        Answer. Yes, Electronic Baggage Screening Program systems are
    required to be tested by DHS S&T's Transportation Security Laboratory
    (TSL) and certified by TSA prior to operational testing. TSL will also
    perform technical testing in addition to testing conducted by the TSA
    Systems Integration Facility test team.
        Question. Will delays in the schedule to procure new EDS systems
    impact current EDS balances and funds requested in fiscal year 2011?
        Answer. TSA may carryover some fiscal year 2010 EDS funds as the
    new competitive EDS contracts will not be awarded until January 2011.
    With the new acquisition vehicles in place, TSA anticipates obligating
    the remaining fiscal year 2010 funds and those appropriated in fiscal
    year 2011.
        Question. What is the average life span of an explosives detection
    machine? What is this assessment based on? What is TSA's strategy to
    recapitalize legacy EDS equipment?
        Answer. Based on historical maintenance data collected from TSA and
    other agencies deploying this equipment, the average life spans of an
    Explosives Detection System (EDS) and of an Explosives Trace Detection
    system (ETD) are 10 and 7 years respectively. TSA has strategized to
    create a level annual recapitalization procurement and installation
    process for all existing equipment to minimize funding fluctuations.
    TSA has prioritized recapitalization of legacy EDS and ETD equipment
    based on life-cycle maintenance rankings. Equipment with operational
    performance issues will be replaced first, followed by equipment that
    has reached the end of its useful life.
        Question. Is TSA in compliance with the legislative requirement to
    allocate 28 percent of EDS funding to small and medium sized airports?
        Answer. Yes.
                                   air cargo
        Question. Provide an update on compliance with the requirement for
    100 percent screening of air cargo. If the requirement has not been
    met, provide an estimate of when it will be met and if sufficient
    resources are included in the fiscal year 2011 to ensure industry is
    complying with the mandate.
        Answer. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act
    of 2007 (9/11 Act) stipulated that industry must attain 50 percent
    screening by February 2009 and 100 percent by August 3, 2010. Airlines
    met--and continue to meet--the 50 percent level as of February 1, 2009.
    Compliance with 100 percent screening of cargo uplifted in the United
    States by August 3, 2010 is on track. TSA is continuing to work towards
    establishing a system to enable 100 percent screening of all
    international inbound air cargo.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes sufficient funding to
    support air cargo staffing levels, including the annualization of the
    50 additional Transportation Security Inspectors-Cargo (TSI-Cs)
    provided by Congress in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations. TSA is
    committed to placing these TSI-Cs at airports with the greatest cargo
    oversight needs.
                           airport perimeter security
        Question. Congress appropriated $4 million in each of fiscal year's
    2008 and 2009 for perimeter security projects. Several projects have
    been funded to pilot technologies to secure identified gaps in airport
    perimeters. What is the next step for TSA? Will TSA be funding
    additional projects? Will TSA provide guidance and a qualified
    technology list to airports to use as they develop airport security
    plans?
        Answer. TSA provided funding for nine perimeter security projects
    with fiscal years 2008 and 2009 funding. Four projects have been
    completed, and the final report of these tests will be made available
    to the airport community.
        Question. What is the status of TSA's efforts to place new security
    requirements on general aviation aircraft? Describe differences between
    the proposed rule and final requirements planned.
        Answer. TSA is currently developing a Supplemental Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) for the Large Aircraft Security Program and
    is taking into consideration more than 7,000 public comments received
    from the original Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and input from
    stakeholder meetings. This draft proposal will significantly strengthen
    general aviation security.
        The SNPRM will include measures that protect against acts of
    criminal violence and air piracy; prevent or deter the introduction of
    explosives, incendiaries, or other dangerous articles into the secure
    area of commercial-use airports; and protect the public from the use of
    the aircraft/operation as a weapon or conveyance mechanism.
                        surface transportation security
        Question. The request highlights rulemakings and security standards
    that will be published in either fiscal year 2010 or fiscal year 2011
    with implementation to follow. Provide a summary of these rulemakings
    and security standards. Considering that the budget for surface
    transportation staffing and operations decreases in fiscal year 2011,
    would TSA have sufficient funds to carry out these plans and to oversee
    new regulations? Of the Surface Transportation budget, how much is
    available in fiscal year 2010 for regulation and security standards
    development and oversight? How much is requested in fiscal year 2011?
        Answer. In response to the 9/11 Act, TSA is conducting a rulemaking
    that will require surface mode employers to develop and implement
    programs to provide security training for their employees. TSA is
    conducting this rulemaking to implement sections 1408, 1517, and 1534
    of the 9/11 Act, which require security training programs for frontline
    employees of freight rail, transit agencies, passenger rail, and over-
    the-road-bus (OTRB) operators. The rulemaking will include similar
    requirements for motor carriers transporting Highway Security-Sensitive
    Materials (HSSM).
        In addition, TSA is preparing a second rulemaking to implement
    sections 1405, 1512, and 1531 of the 9/11 Act, which direct TSA to
    issue a rule requiring freight rail employers, public transportation
    agencies, passenger rail carriers, and OTRB operators to develop
    comprehensive security plans and conduct vulnerability assessments.
    TSA's rulemaking would impose similar requirements on motor carriers
    transporting HSSM.
        The fiscal year 2011 request includes sufficient funds to carry out
    these plans and to oversee new regulations.
        The fiscal year 2010 appropriation provides $2.4 million in support
    of regulations development and oversight. The fiscal year 2011 budget
    request includes the same level of funding for this effort.
        Question. In fiscal year 2010, TSA plans to complete 16-20
    Intermodal Security Training Exercise Programs. How many are planned
    for fiscal year 2011?
        Answer. TSA plans to complete 16-20 Intermodal Security Training
    and Exercise Program exercises in fiscal year 2011 as well.
        Question. How much is requested for the Layered Security
    Operational Test-Bed? Provide historical funding for the effort and its
    success in developing technological and operational solutions to
    prevent terrorism in mass transit and passenger rail systems. What
    efforts are planned in fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011?
        Answer. DHS S&T provides funding for the Layered Security
    Operational Test-Bed and the development of the technology and
    operational solutions. TSA provides subject matter support and works
    with S&T, as well as transit agency security partners, to plan and
    facilitate layered operational tests to evaluate the effectiveness of
    new technology and operational practices.
        One of the recent successful operational solutions that have gone
    through this process is bus disabling technology. This technology
    allows for the remote command from an operations center to immobilize a
    bus. This immobilization does not disable vehicle functions such as
    steering and braking, but rather affects the fuel control system
    allowing the bus to slow or stop. This precludes the bus being used as
    a weapon by terrorists. TSA is working with the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency to establish a new category for this technology on
    the Authorized Equipment List (AEL).
        Currently, there are on-going tests with the Blast-Resistant
    Autonomous Video Equipment, which can be used at bus and rail stations.
    The operational tests are being conducted at four locations (San Diego,
    New Orleans, Spokane, and Buffalo) to evaluate the system's performance
    under a wide range of diverse environmental conditions.
                               program integrity
        Question. How much (dollars and FTE) is included in the fiscal year
    2011 request for program integrity efforts compared to fiscal year 2009
    and fiscal year 2010. Please describe these activities.
        Answer. For fiscal year 2009, the Office of Inspection (OOI) had
    197 full-time employees, with a budget of $38.45 million. For fiscal
    year 2010, OOI has 197 full-time employees, with a budget of $40.4
    million. The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $45.15 million
    and 209 FTE for OOI to fund current operations and increase covert
    testing in support of Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) deployment.
        The Office of Inspection is an independent investigative/internal
    affairs component for TSA and reports directly to the TSA Administrator
    and Deputy Administrator. The OOI staff is located within TSA
    headquarters, 5 regional offices, and 18 satellite offices. These
    employees conduct criminal and employee misconduct investigations,
    compliance inspections, internal reviews, vulnerability assessments for
    insider threats, and covert testing.
                              federal air marshals
        Question. Under current procedures, the Federal Air Marshals decide
    which planes to put Air Marshals on based on factors related to the
    arrival and departure locations of the flight. According to recent
    agency briefings, Federal Air Marshals are not put on flights based on
    whether or not specific individuals, who might be a threat, are on a
    flight. CBP gets information 72 hours in advance of flights of
    individuals who have tickets for a flight. While this manifest may not
    include all ticketed passengers, can this information be shared in real
    time with the Federal Air Marshals so that when a selectee is expected
    to be on a flight, the Marshals have time to get on that flight?
        Answer. FAMs do not have jurisdiction on foreign flagged carriers
    and cannot provide in-flight security. Any selectee on a foreign air
    carrier's flight to the United States will undergo enhanced screening
    prior to boarding the flight, pursuant to TSA-mandated measures under
    the foreign air carrier's TSA-accepted security program. CBP will also
    conduct additional screening upon their entrance into the United
    States.
                                  coast guard
                                   workforce
        Question. The Coast Guard's budget request reduces military
    strength by 1,112 billets and cuts recapitalization efforts by 10
    percent. The Coast Guard is the only branch of the military to see its
    workforce decreased in the President's budget. It is a reduction of
    capacity and capability for an agency that rescued 33,000 people
    following Hurricane Katrina and was first on scene to evacuate over
    1,000 U.S. citizens from Haiti.
        The Commandant said the cuts to military personnel were necessary
    to pay for capital priorities, particularly the 5th National Security
    Cutter. No other military service chief was faced with this tradeoff--
    people versus assets. Why was the Commandant of the Coast Guard faced
    with this false choice? If the Coast Guard were provided resources to
    maintain these billets, how would you re-allocate them to other Coast
    Guard priorities?
        Answer. The majority of these billets are associated with legacy
    assets that are being decommissioned as part of overall surface fleet
    recapitalization. Regardless of funding availability, these billets are
    removed once the assets are removed from inventory. Consistent with the
    Deepwater plan, these billet decreases are offset by billet increases
    associated with the new assets coming online. In fiscal year 2009 and
    2010, Coast Guard added 559 full-time positions (FTPs) to staff
    Deepwater assets. The fiscal year 2011 request funds another 336 FTP,
    for a total of nearly 900 new personnel to support Deepwater assets
    alone.
        The remaining billets are associated with several administrative
    and operational consolidation and realignment initiatives that more
    efficiently allocate resources to our highest priorities.
                     unintended loss of critical skillsets
        Question. The Coast Guard's budget request reduces military
    strength by 1,112 billets. This reduction will likely result in slower
    promotion/advancement rates for all levels within the Coast Guard. This
    is of particular concern for the CG members that are retirement
    eligible (20 or more years of service) who typically have more
    qualifications and critical skill sets that are needed to maintain
    integrity of the Coast Guard workforce. These members may decide to
    retire earlier than expected if promotion/advancement are significantly
    delayed, resulting in an unintended consequence that severely degrades
    the Coast Guard's capability even further. With these reductions, will
    the Coast Guard be able to maintain parity with DOD advancement rates?
    What are the projected delays/impacts to promotion rates (by rate/
    rank)? Which CG specialties/ratings will be most significantly
    impacted?
        Answer. Most of the military strength reduction in fiscal year 2011
    will be associated with decommissioning of legacy assets.
        The following outlines the anticipated impacts of the fiscal year
    2011 budget request for both the officer and enlisted workforce:
      --Officer Workforce--.Coast Guard officer promotion points have
            historically maintained parity with DOD promotion timing, which
            are mandated by the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act.
            The Coast Guard will continue to make annual internal
            adjustments as needed to maintain promotion point targets.
      --Enlisted Workforce--.For the past few years, the Coast Guard has
            been growing and advancing to meet the needs of the service.
            The fiscal year 2011 budget will support efforts to increase
            the experience and technical expertise of our workforce.
        The workforce changes reflected in the fiscal year 2011 budget
    request are associated with legacy assets that are being decommissioned
    as part of overall surface fleet recapitalization. The impacted
    positions include Maritime Enforcement Specialist, Electronics
    Technicians and Gunners Mate.
                         coast guard cutter reductions
        Question. How many high endurance cutter hours will be reduced by
    decommissioning four high endurance cutters and one medium endurance
    cutter in fiscal year 2011? How many of those hours be offset in fiscal
    year 2011 by new assets (National Security Cutters)? Is there already a
    gap in operational hours necessary for major cutters? What is the
    current gap? By how many hours will the gap increase in fiscal year
    2011 if the request is enacted? What is the gap (in years) between the
    planned decommissioning of the four HEC's and having four NSCs to
    replace them? Did the cutters proposed for decommissioning contribute
    to the removal of cocaine in fiscal year 2009? By how much and what is
    the estimated street value of this drug?
        The justification states that a disproportionate share of the depot
    level maintenance budget is being used to sustain these aging assets.
    Provide a chart (fiscal year 2004-fiscal year 2009) displaying the
    annual maintenance costs for each HEC cutter and the days out of
    service.
        Answer. The number of operational hours is not a measure of
    performance--while the fully operational fleet of NSC will have fewer
    operational hours, it is expected to perform more effectively than the
    HEC fleet.
        The four WHECs programmed to be decommissioned are CHASE, HAMILTON,
    JARVIS, and RUSH. In fiscal year 2009, these cutters contributed to the
    removal of 35,100 lbs of cocaine (10 percent of total cocaine removed
    by Coast Guard forces) and 400 lbs of marijuana. In 2009, in its first
    operational patrol, the first NSC successfully disrupted a multi-vessel
    drug transfer in the Easter Pacific.
        The justification states that a disproportionate share of the depot
    level maintenance budget is being used to sustain these aging assets.

                                         FISCAL YEAR 2004-2009 LOST CUTTER DAYS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Fiscal  Fiscal  Fiscal  Fiscal  Fiscal  Fiscal
                                                                       year    year    year    year    year    year
                                                                       2004    2005    2006    2007    2008    2009
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CGC BOUTWELL (719)..............................................  ......  ......  ......  ......      34       5
    CGC CHASE (718).................................................  ......  ......      10  ......  ......      40
    CGC DALLAS (716)................................................  ......  ......      27       3       6     185
    CGC GALLATIN (721)..............................................  ......  ......      30  ......      28     185
    CGC HAMILTON (715)..............................................  ......  ......      40  ......  ......      39
    CGC JARVIS (725)................................................  ......  ......     221      51      61       6
    CGC MELLON (717)................................................  ......  ......      73  ......  ......      72
    CGC MIDGETT (726)...............................................  ......  ......      61  ......       6       2
    CGC MORGENTHAU (722)............................................  ......  ......       5  ......  ......  ......
    CGC MUNRO (724).................................................  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......
    CGC RUSH (723)..................................................  ......  ......       1     114      59      14
    CGC SHERMAN (720)...............................................  ......  ......      40      60     110      21
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          WHEC 378 Class (Total)....................................  ......  ......     508     228     304     569
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Per the Cutter Employment Standards COMDTINST 3100.5B: Lost cutter days are defined as any day a cutter cannot
      meet its mission due to unforeseen circumstance; i.e., an engineering casualty, repairs, weather delays, storm
      avoidance thus affecting the readiness of the cutter. Collection for this data did not begin until 2006.

                        HM&E DEPOT OF MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES RECORDED BY FISCAL YEAR (BY HULL)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Total maintenance expense by hull (in fiscal year 2009 $)
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Fiscal year   Fiscal year   Fiscal year   Fiscal year   Fiscal year   Fiscal year
                                      2004          2005          2006          2007          2008          2009
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CGC BOUTWELL................     4,297,727     1,788,692     1,908,875     2,264,376     4,028,012     3,892,417
    CGC CHASE...................     4,260,285     1,828,091     1,827,989     1,754,233     6,531,060     1,954,962
    CGC DALLAS..................     2,187,403     1,897,620     3,218,009     2,554,173     2,158,867     8,598,201
    CGC GALLATIN................     1,839,775     4,364,643     2,563,900     1,962,321     4,223,875    15,900,127
    CGC HAMILTON................     2,113,341     2,812,460     1,426,031     4,828,757     2,481,080     3,283,410
    CGC JARVIS..................     4,975,230     2,411,220     4,629,516     3,938,828     1,646,301     5,730,796
    CGC MELLON..................     2,048,151     1,824,159     3,905,402     1,994,059     1,736,505     1,959,120
    CGC MIDGETT.................     2,374,630     2,442,144     4,147,895     2,747,483     1,117,877       958,602
    CGC MORGENTHAU..............     2,277,219     5,730,534     1,395,674     2,291,549     1,842,569     2,365,969
    CGC MUNRO...................     5,395,923     2,706,633     1,944,422     5,817,612     1,065,122     3,686,054
    CGC RUSH....................     3,213,709     4,038,253     2,902,747     3,803,210     2,133,902     7,238,903
    CGC SHERMAN.................     2,247,616     5,565,939     2,491,801     3,972,786     1.343,174     1,592,630
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          WHEC-378  Total.......    37,231,009    37,410,389    32,362,261    37,929,385    30,308,344    57,161,192
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hull, Mechanical & Electrical (HM&E) Depot Maintenance Expenditures include Depot Spare Funding (LSL), Equipment
      Obsolescence Funding & Engineering Services (CGMAP, SSMEB, TCTO Development, etc.). Does not include unit
      level maintenance, depot level maintenance or C4ISR equipment, or major repair and renovation funded by AC&I.

                    decommissioned assets and surge capacity
        Question. How will the budget request to decommission various
    assets impact the Coast Guard's ability to surge in response to a
    crisis? For instance, what role (if any) did the assets proposed for
    decommissioning play in response to the earthquake in Haiti?
        Answer. None of the planned decommissionings in fiscal year 2011
    eliminate an entire asset type, and these types of assets will be
    available as future surge needs dictate.
                         national security cutter (nsc)
        Question. The budget request includes no funding for long lead time
    materials for National Security Cutter No. 6. What is the estimated
    cost of long lead time materials for NSC No. 6? For some acquisitions,
    longlead materials are funded in advance to maintain a planned
    production schedule. Does the fact that long lead time materials for
    NSC No. 6 are not funded in the request impact the Coast Guard's
    delivery schedule for the cutter? If so, what is the schedule delay? If
    long lead time materials for NSC No. 6 are funded in fiscal year 2011,
    would the full cost of the cutter be less than if the entire cost for
    NSC No. 6 was funded in fiscal year 2012. If so, what are the estimated
    savings?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2011 Capital Investment Plan includes
    funding for a sixth National Security Cutter. No separate request will
    be made for any long lead materials, as this type of incremental
    funding is not consistent with OMB Circular A-11.
                    national automatic identification system
        Question. The budget provides no acquisition funding for the
    Nationwide Automatic Identification System (NAIS). The Maritime
    Transportation Security Act of 2002 required certain vessels operating
    in the navigable waters of the United States to be equipped with and
    operate an automatic identification system (AIS). The Coast Guard has
    been developing NAIS, which is critical to identify, track, and
    communicate with marine vessels that use AIS. The Coast Guard estimates
    that the system won't be completed until 2015; 13 years after Congress
    mandated that vessels be equipped with AIS.
        Why isn't this program a higher priority given the need to enhance
    the Coast Guard's Maritime Domain Awareness?
        Answer. As shown in the 2011-2015 Capital Investment Plan, the NAIS
    program is funded through its completion in 2014. No funding is
    requested for fiscal year 2011 because the Coast Guard plans to use
    $7.8 million of prior year funding to continue the NAIS acquisition.
        Question. According to the Coast Guard, NAIS' Acquisition Program
    Baseline (APB) is under DHS review. What is the status of the APB
    review (by individual NAIS increment)?
        Answer. The Nationwide Automatic Identification System (NAIS)
    Acquisition Program Baseline, including all increments, is currently
    under revision.
        Question. What is the cost to deploy current NAIS capability to the
    remaining 32 sectors (covering the remainder of the existing 58 major
    ports and coastal areas), in addition to the 3 sectors (Mobile, Hampton
    Roads, and Delaware Bay (Philadelphia)) that are funded via prior
    appropriations?
        Answer. The project is currently using prior year funds of $7.8
    million to design and test the new NAIS infrastructure. The projected
    out-year funding of $24 million will enable the Coast Guard to deploy
    this system to the existing 58 major ports and coastal areas.
        Question. Could the Coast Guard make use of these funds in fiscal
    year 2011 if available?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2011 request accurately reflects USCG
    acquisition priorities and we strongly supports the current funding
    profile.
        Question. Are there impediments to obligating funds in fiscal year
    2011?
        Answer. No.
        Question. Provide a chart showing the costs associated with each
    increment, how much has been funded to date for each increment,
    remaining requirements for each increment (by segment), and the
    acquisition review status for each increment and segment.
        Answer. Please see the following chart.

                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Project
                         Increments                          Mgmt      58 ports    Permanent  50-2,000nm     Total
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cost................................................        24.5        38.8        49.7         6.5       119.5
    Funded..............................................        24.5        38.8        25.7         6.5        95.5
    Remaining...........................................  ..........  ..........          24  ..........          24
    Review..............................................     ( \1\ )     ( \2\ )     ( \3\ )     ( \3\ )     ( \1\ )
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Not available.
    \2\ Complete.
    \3\ Under revision.

                         interagency operation centers
        Question. The Safe Ports Act of 2006 requires the Secretary to
    establish interagency operational centers for port security at all
    high-priority ports not later than 3 years after the date of enactment
    of the SAFE Port Act. According to the budget request, IOCs will not be
    completed until 2015. Why hasn't the Department complied with this
    mandate?
        Answer. The Department is meeting this mandate. The Coast Guard
    received its initial appropriation to establish Interagency Operations
    Centers (IOCs) in fiscal year 2008, and the first IOC (Charleston, SC)
    was established in September 2009. The WatchKeeper information
    management system, one of the foundational capabilities of IOCs, will
    be deployed to all 34 remaining high priority ports in fiscal year
    2010-2011.
        Question. Are the Coast Guard's plans for IOCs consistent with the
    legislative intent of section 108 of Public Law 109-347?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. The Coast Guard plans for IOCs include different
    segments. Please describe them and the capabilities they will provide
    to the Coast Guard and its port partners.
        Answer. The IOC acquisition project contains the following
    segments:
      --Information Management.--The ``WatchKeeper'' Web-based software
            will integrate data from existing interagency databases and
            provide a single common display, allowing for joint targeting
            and operations planning, monitoring, and execution between all
            port partners.
      --Sensor Integration.--Existing sensors belonging to multiple
            Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as private
            industry, will be identified and integrated into WatchKeeper to
            provide robust, in depth, real-time monitoring of ports and
            waterways. Integration with port partner databases will also be
            improved.
      --Other critical elements of an IOC include established protocols to
            achieve interagency planning, coordination and operations, as
            well as adherence to the best practices described in the
            Maritime Port Operations Handbook and IOC Concept of
            Operations.
        Question. A final test report for Watchkeeper is to be completed by
    March 2010. Provide a summary of the report's findings.
        Answer. The WatchKeeper schedule was updated to allow more time to
    finish operational testing, mature the WatchKeeper integrated logistics
    support approach, and minimize the impact of the deployment on the
    operations of the receiving IOC units. As such, the operational testing
    and evaluation report for the current version of WatchKeeper is being
    finalized with expected completion in the spring of 2010.
        Question. An acquisition decision to produce, deploy, and support
    the initial segment of Watchkeeper is scheduled for April. Is that
    decision on schedule and what does it entail?
        Answer. This acquisition decision will happen in June 2010, and it
    requires completion of project documentation in accordance with the
    Coast Guard Major Systems Acquisition Manual. The project will also
    meet the DHS Acquisition Decision Memorandum exit criteria for the next
    acquisition phase.
        Question. Originally, Watchkeeper was to be deployed to all Coast
    Guard sectors in fiscal year 2010. The Coast Guard has since delayed
    deployment, which will not be completed until the 3rd quarter of 2011.
    What is the cause of the delay?
        Answer. In accordance with the Coast Guard Commandant's March 2008
    Interagency Operations Center (IOC) Expenditure Plan to Congress,
    WatchKeeper deployment (via training and access) to the first sites
    will begin in the third quarter of fiscal year 2010 with the remaining
    high priority ports receiving the WatchKeeper capability in fiscal year
    2011.
        Question. Provide a chart showing the costs associated with each
    IOC Segment, how much has been funded to date for each segment,
    remaining funding requirements for each segment, and the acquisition
    review status for each increment. Facility cost requirements should be
    included.
        Answer. Please see the following chart.

                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              IOC segments                           WatchKeeper    Sensors   Facilities     Total
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cost...........................................................        28.69        34.6       19.71          83
    Funded.........................................................        28.69        22.6       19.71          71
    Remaining......................................................  ...........          12  ..........          12
    Review.........................................................      ( \1\ )     ( \2\ )     ( \3\ )     ( \4\ )
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Pending ADE-3.
    \2\ Pending ADE-2.
    \3\ Completing.
    \4\ Not available.

                             offshore patrol cutter
        Question. The Coast Guard awarded a contract for an alternatives
    analysis in July 2009. Results of the analysis are expected in Spring
    2010. What is the status of the work and initial findings? Provide the
    acquisition schedule for the OPC. Have requirements for the vessel been
    completed?
        Answer. The Alternative Analysis (AA) study is in progress and is
    expected to be completed in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2010. The
    Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) project is in the Analyze/Select phase of
    the acquisition process; its schedule is being finalized and will be
    dependent upon the approval of the acquisition strategy.
                            patrol boat sustainment
        Question. No funding is included in the budget request (or
    outyears) to send the final three hulls (18-20) that were planned to go
    through the Mission Effectiveness Project (MEP). According to the Coast
    Guard, the MEP dramatically improves the overall mission effectiveness
    of the 110' WPB cutter class until it is replaced with appropriately
    capable assets. What is the justification for discontinuing this
    program? What is the current patrol boat operational gap? Will the gap
    increase because of this decision? If so, by how much?
        Answer. Recapitalization is critical to preserving future surface,
    air, and shore asset capability. The fiscal year 2011 budget focuses
    resources toward recapitalization of aging cutters, aircraft and
    supporting infrastructure, including the replacement of the 110-foot
    Island Class Patrol Boat to address the patrol cutter operational gap.
    Recapitalization is necessary to mitigate the long-term patrol gap,
    and, though the Mission Effectiveness Project will not be pursued,
    hulls 18-20 will continue to operate, and thus not exacerbate the near-
    term operational gap.
                                     c-130s
        Question. Has an alternatives analysis been conducted of the Coast
    Guard's future capital investment in HC-130H and HC-130J? If so, what
    alternatives were studied? What were the conclusions of the study?
    Please include the alternatives considered and the life cycle cost
    estimate and mission effectiveness analysis. Are the findings of the AA
    consistent with the Coast Guard's investment strategy contained in the
    Capital Investment Plan? Is the Coast Guard considering revising its
    investment strategy based on the findings of the Alternatives Analysis?
    What is the mix of HC-130s (Hs & Js) to best meet Coast Guard mission
    requirements?
        Answer. A Business Case Analysis (BCA) was commissioned to
    determine the best investment option for the Coast Guard C-130 fleet.
    An internal study was completed in 2007, and a Naval Air Systems
    Command study was completed in 2008. The BCA showed the following life-
    cycle costs for the below listed three alternatives:
        (a) Current Program of Record (16 HC-130Hs/six HC-130J)--Life cycle
    cost of $8.6 billion;
        (b) Full recapitalization (22 HC-130Js/retire all HC-130Hs)--Life
    cycle cost of $7.1 billion; and
        (c) Hybrid fleet (11 HC-130J/11 HC-130Hs)--Life cycle cost of $8
    billion.
        The life cycle costs of alternatives (a) and (b) are driven
    primarily by the need to replace all C-130s within the next 7 years.
    Sixteen will require recapitalization.
        While alternative (b) presents the lowest life cycle cost, it
    results in an increase in acquisition cost above the current
    Acquisition Program Baselines.
        The Coast Guard is considering revising its investment strategy
    based on these findings. The Capital Investment Plan supports the
    Acquisition Program Baselines for the current programs of record.
               coast guard unmanned aerial system (uas) strategy
        Question. No funding is included in the Coast Guard's Capital
    Investment Plan (fiscal year 2011-2015) for cutter based or land based
    UAS. What is the acquisition strategy for both the cutter based and
    land based UAS? Provide a schedule (by fiscal year) with incremental
    acquisition events and corresponding funding needs (to the extent
    known). Is the Coast Guard scheduled to complete the ``Need Phase''
    (ADE-1) in fiscal year 2011, which authorizes the project to enter the
    ``Analyze/Select Phase'' to explore alternatives? If so, how much is
    necessary in fiscal year 2011 for the ``Analyze/Select Phase''?
        Answer. DHS Headquarters approved the Coast Guard's unmanned
    aircraft system (UAS) strategy to acquire mid-altitude long-range and
    low-altitude cutter-based tactical UAS to meet mission requirements,
    while emphasizing (1) commonality with existing DHS and Department of
    Defense (DOD) programs; (2) project maturity in terms of technology and
    production; (3) using studies and analyses to mitigate risk using
    Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) and Low-Rate Initial
    Production (LRIP); and (4) leveraging UAS development in other
    organizations. Accordingly, the Coast Guard established formal
    partnerships with Customs and Border Protection (CPB) to collaborate
    with their maritime UAS program and the Navy's Vertical Takeoff and
    Landing Tactical Unmanned Air Vehicle (Fire Scout) program office.
        The Coast Guard expects to complete the UAS ``Need Phase'' (ADE-1)
    in fiscal year 2011. Using a disciplined systems engineering approach
    to ensure UAS technology and production maturity, the Coast Guard plans
    to conduct the Analyze/Select phase while the Coast Guard Research &
    Development Center conducts land-based and cutter-based UAS ACTDs in
    support of acquisitions analysis, planning, and decisions.
        The Coast Guard intends to continue its partnership with the Navy
    on the Fire Scout program and with CBP on the Guardian (Maritime
    Variant Predator (land-based UAS)). These activities will provide the
    Coast Guard opportunities to further study and analyze evolving UAS
    capabilities and refine operational and logistical requirements for
    Coast Guard specific applications. These efforts will also
    significantly mitigate the overall risk of the Coast Guard UAS
    acquisition program.
                                 arctic policy
        Question. In his recent State of the Coast Guard address, when
    discussing Arctic policy and the Coast Guard's responsibilities, the
    Commandant said, ``some say it is mission creep and not our duty. I
    disagree and we need to have a serious discussion about it.'' What is
    the administration's position on this ``mission creep'' issue? When
    will a national arctic policy be completed and will it clearly define
    the Coast Guard's role, including the establishment of Federal
    requirements for the polar regions?
        Answer. National Security Presidential Directive-66/Homeland
    Security Presidential Directive-25, Arctic Region Policy, remains the
    administration's policy regarding the Arctic region. Implementation of
    the Arctic Region Policy, including any changes to current roles and
    responsibilities, would proceed through normal interagency coordination
    processes.
                   maritime security and safety teams (mssts)
        Question. If the five MSSTs that are proposed for termination are
    eliminated, provide data on assets available in each of the five
    regions to meet mission requirements for those regions.
        Answer. To make the most of current operating capabilities, the
    fiscal year 2011 budget request transitions the Maritime Safety and
    Security Teams (MSST) to a regional model, enabling the Coast Guard to
    rapidly deploy teams of skilled professionals to ports and operating
    areas across the country based on risk and threats as needed. The teams
    were selected based on existing Coast Guard presence in their region.
    Transitioning the MSSTs to a regional model will enable the Coast Guard
    to rapidly deploy teams of skilled professionals to ports and operating
    areas across the country based on risk and threats as needed.
        The Coast Guard will also continue to leverage all available
    intelligence resources and partnerships across DHS, the Federal
    Government and State and local law enforcement to collectively mitigate
    risks and ensure the security of the Nation's ports.
                     maritime security response team (msrt)
        Question. The Coast Guard originally envisioned three MSRT teams
    (East, West and Gulf Coast). However only one exists today (East Coast)
    and the budget request proposes to eliminate two HH-60's from the
    Chesapeake, VA based team. What operational impact will this reduction
    have on the current MSRT? Prior to the submission of the fiscal year
    2011 budget, had the Coast Guard considered expanding MSRT
    capabilities? Given that the MSRT is east coast based, what
    capabilities does the Coast Guard have to respond to a terrorist event
    or plot on the West or Gulf Coasts? Is the Coast Guard the best Federal
    agency to perform this type of mission?
        Answer. While the Coast Guard is the lead Federal agency for
    maritime security, some high-end capabilities originally envisioned for
    the MRST, such as tactical vertical insertion against hostile vessels,
    already exist in other Federal agencies (e.g., the Departments of
    Justice and Defense). All these capabilities have been, and will
    continue to be, marshaled under the Maritime Operational Threat
    Response (MOTR) process, a paradigm that has proved extremely effective
    and capable of managing the coordinated dispatch of interagency
    resources to respond to maritime security threats and incidents.
                                    loran-c
        Question. The Coast Guard estimates that long-term environmental
    remediation costs are estimated to be between $58 million for the best
    case scenario, to $242 million for the worst case scenario. Given these
    costs, why does the Coast Guard request to non-recur $12 million funded
    in fiscal year 2010 for LORAN? What is the estimate in fiscal year 2011
    to conduct environmental due diligence assessments and commence
    restoration to facilitate divestiture? How will the Coast Guard pay for
    these costs in fiscal year 2011?
        Answer. The $12 million in the fiscal year 2010 budget was for
    operations and maintenance (O&M) funding through January 2010. Since
    the system will not be operating in fiscal year 2011, and O&M funding
    cannot be used for Environmental Compliance and Restoration purposes,
    the funding has been terminated.
        The Coast Guard estimates that up to $12 million could be obligated
    in fiscal year 2010 and into fiscal year 2011 to conduct site
    assessments and begin environment remediation efforts to prepare the
    sites for divestiture.
           national strike force transition from coordination center
        Question. The Coast Guard's budget request eliminates the National
    Strike Force's (NSF) Coordination Center which provides specific
    functions for the three Coast Guard`s specialized response Strike
    Teams. The Coordination Center was created as a direct result of
    lessons learned from the Exxon Valdez spill and Oil Pollution Act (OPA)
    90, the need for coordination and standardization of the NSF Strike
    Teams. What analysis has the Coast Guard conducted to determine the
    benefits/efficiencies achieved by the elimination of the Coordination
    Center? Provide plan of where the authorities and responsibility of the
    coordination center will be transferred to, and what impact, if any,
    will that have on the three strike teams ability to maintain
    consistency. If a study was conducted to determine this decision,
    please provide report.
        Answer. The Coast Guard will continue to perform all functions
    required by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 as amended by the Federal
    Water Pollution Control Act. The Coast Guard plans to align functional
    responsibilities within the Deployable Operations Group and the
    Headquarter's Office of Incident Management and Preparedness.
    Eliminating redundant fiscal, logistics, and administrative support
    already provided through the Deployable Operations Group will generate
    efficiencies in operations, oversight, and program management.
        Co-location of elements of the National Strike Force Coordination
    Center with the Deployable Operations Group and the Coast Guard's
    Office of Incident Management and Preparedness will enhance Marine
    Environmental Protection services and foster better administration of
    Strike Teams established under the National Contingency Plan.
                      uscg oil/hazmat response capability
        Question. What does the Coast Guard intend to do with the remaining
    NSF Strike Teams if the Coordination Center is eliminated? Has the
    Coast Guard conducted a workforce analysis to see if the Strike Teams
    are optimally manned and has there been an analysis of the type of
    response equipment that the Strike teams inventory and maintain
    comparted to what is regionally offered by industry? What impact has
    the CG's Sectorization of major shore units had on the HAZMAT/Oil Spill
    Response and environmental protection mission? Has there been an
    increase/decrease in Federal On-Scene Coordinator capacity and
    expertise, since the Coast Guard has gone to the Sector Model? If so,
    explain why?
        Answer. Co-location of elements of the National Strike Force
    Coordination Center with the Deployable Operations Group and the
    Headquarter's Office of Incident Management and Preparedness will
    enhance Marine Environmental Protection services and foster better
    administration of Strike Teams established under the National
    Contingency Plan. The fiscal year 2011 request does not impact the
    competencies or capacity of the three Strike Teams.
        The formation of Coast Guard Sectors strengthened Marine
    Environmental Protection mission performance. The Sector Command
    combines responsibilities and authorities previously shared by two or
    more commands into a single operational unit. This construct enables a
    Sector Commander to quickly assess a maritime emergency, whether
    terrorist attack, natural disaster or manmade incident, and have the
    assets and authority necessary for a rapid, well-coordinated response.
    Moreover, the same Command through its integrated daily operations is
    responsible for enforcing regulations governing maritime safety, marine
    environmental protection, and maritime security. Federal On-Scene
    Coordinator (FOSC) capacity and expertise remains a core function of
    the Sector organization and the Coast Guard currently has more
    qualified FOSC Representatives than positions requiring the
    qualification.
                       closing of michigan air facilities
        Question. How many individuals have been rescued, and how many
    lives saved with assets deployed from the two air facilities proposed
    for closure?
        Answer. Helicopters attached to Air Facility (AIRFAC) Muskegon
    saved six lives and assisted 21 individuals between 2004 and 2009.
    Helicopters attached to AIRFAC Waukegan saved seven lives and assisted
    sixteen individuals between from 2004 and 2009.
                                 secret service
        Question. The intent of Congress in the fiscal year 2009 Homeland
    Security Appropriations Act was that the Secret Service would establish
    a field office in Tallinn, Estonia--in part to conduct investigations
    and respond to cyber attacks against government computer systems in
    that region. As requested in the President's fiscal year 2010 budget
    request, Congress provided the funds to open this office. To date, the
    Department has yet to submit the required NSDD-38 to the Department of
    State to begin the process of opening the office the President
    requested Congress fund and open. It has been nearly 2 years since
    these cyber attacks began and the Department claims that cyber security
    is a top priority. What is the delay in opening this office? Who in the
    Department is second-guessing the President on this issue?
        Answer. The NSDD-38 for the USSS office in Tallinn, Estonia was
    approved on March 10, 2010 by Deputy Secretary Lute, and the Department
    has now submitted the required NSDD-38 to the Department of State to
    begin the process of opening the office. Approval of the NSDD-38 for
    the USSS office in Tallinn, Estonia was initially delayed as it became
    part of a comprehensive review of the Department's overseas presence
    that the Deputy Secretary ordered in order to rationalize DHS's
    international footprint.
                  national protection and programs directorate
                                 cyber security
        Question. Both the fiscal year 2011 budget request and the
    Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report single out ``safeguarding
    and securing cyberspace'' as a top five priority. Yet, the budget
    request includes a 4.6 percent cut compared to the fiscal year 2010 Act
    for National Protection and Programs Directorate cyber security
    efforts. The budget justification even indicates that the reduction
    will slow the deployment of the intrusion detection system and that we
    are playing catch up on having effective assessment, testing, and
    analysis functions. While some of these programs, like Einstein, have
    had implementation issues, the budget proposal and description does not
    inspire confidence that the necessary improvements will be made to the
    programs or that new programs are in the making. How does this budget
    request meet the necessary cyber security needs of this Nation, which
    is under daily attack from a very dynamic threat acted on by a wide
    range of those who wish to steal information or do us harm?
        Answer. The 2011 budget continues to fund key administration cyber
    security programs to address and counter the threat from cyber attack.
    Programs receiving increases in fiscal year 2011 include Situational
    Awareness (Assessment, Testing, and Analysis)--$9.569 million;
    Cybersecurity Coordination--$5.000 million; Strategic Initiatives
    (Cyber Exercises)--$3.283 million; Strategic Initiatives (Control
    Systems)--$0.700 million; and Outreach Programs (International Affairs
    and Public Policy)--$0.003 million, totaling $18.555 million. These
    increases ensure that core cyber security efforts will continue
    allowing DHS to mitigate the growing cyber threat within the funds
    requested.
        However, some cyber security programs within the National Cyber
    Security Division (NCSD) are reduced in the 2011 budget, totaling
    $38.882 million. The specific reductions include the discontinuation of
    earmarks ($13.600 million); the elimination of non-recurring costs such
    as the DHS Data Center Migration ($8 million); the transfer of the
    National Computer Forensics Institute (NCFI) to the Federal Law
    Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) ($4.000 million); and a reduction
    to the EINSTEIN program ($13.282 million). EINSTEIN procurements and
    deployments will continue at a lower level in fiscal year 2011 as
    EINSTEIN will be deployed to the most critical sites with 2010 funds.
        critical infrastructure/key resources vulnerability assessments
        Question. How many vulnerability assessments have been completed to
    date (by fiscal year--including projected for fiscal 2010), how many
    more need to be completed, and how many are projected to be completed
    in fiscal year 2011?
        Answer. The number of vulnerability assessments conducted by the
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS's) Office of Infrastructure
    Protection (IP) to date by fiscal year, and projected for current and
    future years, is as follows:
      --Fiscal year 2003: 53;
      --Fiscal year 2004: 319;
      --Fiscal year 2005: 391;
      --Fiscal year 2006: 178;
      --Fiscal year 2007: 271;
      --Fiscal year 2008: 399;
      --Fiscal year 2009: 461; and
      --Fiscal year 2010: Annual target is 450.
        As of March 9, 2010, 135 vulnerability assessments have been
    completed and IP is on track to meet or exceed the fiscal year 2010
    target.
        The fiscal year 2011 target is 275.
                   chemical facility anti-terrorism standards
        Question. How many Tier One facilities are there? How many will be
    inspected in fiscal year 2010 and in fiscal year 2011? How many Tier 2
    facilities are there? How many will be inspected in fiscal year 2010
    and in fiscal year 2011?
        Answer. As of March 4, 2010, there are 229 (preliminary and final)
    Tier 1 facilities and 575 (preliminary and final) Tier 2 facilities.
    DHS intends to inspect all final Tier 1 facilities by the end of
    calendar year 2010 and complete inspections on approximately half of
    all final Tier 2 facilities by the end of calendar year 2011.
        Question. Under current law, could the current standards be revised
    to mandate that chemical facilities have dedicated phone lines to the
    local 9-1-1 emergency call center and mandate that certain information
    about a chemical release be made available to first responders? If not,
    please provide appropriate bill language.
        Answer. Under section 550(a) of the fiscal year 2007 DHS
    Appropriations Act, the Department is precluded from disapproving any
    covered (high-risk) chemical facility's Site Security Plan (SSP) based
    on the presence or absence of any particular security measure. Thus,
    DHS cannot require a covered chemical facility to adopt a specific
    security measure, such as a requirement for a facility to have a direct
    link to local 9-1-1 systems.
        The Department may, however, disapprove any SSP that does not
    satisfy the applicable risk-based performance standards adopted in the
    Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards regulations. One of those
    standards (``Response'') requires a covered facility to ``[d]evelop and
    exercise an emergency plan to respond to security incidents internally
    and with assistance of local law enforcement and first responders.'' 6
    CFR-27.230(a)(9). Although covered facilities have flexibility in
    developing specific measures and plans to satisfy these standards, it
    is likely that the specific communications system between each facility
    and appropriate first responders will be one issue considered by DHS in
    reviewing SSPs for compliance with the ``Response'' standard.
              federal protective service--growth in responsibility
        Question. For fiscal years 2006 through 2011: what are the total
    square footage, the total number of buildings, and the number of
    employees in each building for which the Federal Protective Service was
    or is responsible. Additionally, for the same time period, what are the
    total number of FTE, contract guards, and number of posts?
        Answer. Although the Federal Protective Service (FPS) has not
    captured historical data on the number of employees by building and
    guard posts, the available metrics for the years requested are provided
    in the following chart.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                            Fiscal year 2011
                                                  Fiscal year 2006  Fiscal year 2007  Fiscal year 2008  Fiscal year 2009  Fiscal year 2010     (estimated)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Revenue (in dollars)..................      $984,769,261      $836,892,692      $942,458,425    $1,000,520,603    $1,115,000,000    $1,115,000,000
    Number of Square Feet.......................       327,496,779       331,303,747       334,180,480       341,313,905       347,483,459       348,000,000
    Basic Security Revenue Rate.................             $0.35             $0.39             $0.62             $0.66             $0.66             $0.66
    Building Specific Overhead Rate (in percent)             14.96            \1\ 15                 8                 8                 6                 6
    Reimbursable Security Overhead Rate (in                 \2\ :8            \3\ 15                 8                 8                 6                 6
     percent)...................................
    Number of People in Protected Buildings (in                1 +               1 +               1 +               1 +               1 +               1 +
     millions)..................................
    Number of Facilities........................             8,208             8,410             8,915             8,714             9,088             9,251
    Number of FPS Employees (End of Each Year)..             1,277             1,109             1,094             1,241             1,248             1,248
    Number of FPS FTE (Authorized)..............             1,491             1,541             1,200             1,225             1,225             1,225
    Number of FPS Contract Guards...............            15,000            15,000            15,000            15,000            15,000            15,000
    Number Communities with GSA Buildings.......           ( \4\ )           ( \4\ )             2,100             2,100             2,200             2,200
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FPS continued to use the General Services Administration (GSA) budget and accounting system in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 and the specific
      financial records regarding security-related Reimbursable Work Authorizations (FPS instituted the Security Work Authorization in fiscal year 2005 as a
      result of the transfer to the Department of Homeland Security/Immigration and Customs Enforcement financial system) are no longer available.
    \1\ Rates were set individually by FPS Region.
    \2\ Regional Rates were limited not to exceed 8 percent.
    \3\ In fiscal year 2007 and subsequent fiscal years, the Overhead Rates for Building Specific and Reimbursable Security were equalized and set
      nationally in the budget.
    \4\ Unknown.

                  federal protective service--surge capability
        Question. What is the projected costs and needed number of FTE for
    the Federal Protective Service for a surge related to terrorist trials
    in the United States for fiscal year 2011? Please describe the
    estimated timeframe used to determine the costs and provide a range
    that takes into account all reasonable locations.
        Answer. The Federal Protective Service (FPS) Regional Office in New
    York City is coordinating closely with its counterparts from the U.S.
    Marshals and the New York Police Department in planning for the
    possible conduct of the terror trials at the Daniel P. Moynihan U.S.
    District Courthouse.
        If the duration and scheduling for the trials requires heightened
    security measures for 2- to 4-week periods, current FPS Officers can be
    temporarily deployed from other locations. The cost estimate for a 30-
    day deployment is provided in the following chart:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          30-day detail                        Cost estimate
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Temporary Duty Travel Costs for 98 Personnel for 30 days      $1,471,421
    Overtime needed to maintain minimum operational coverage         207,366
     at duty station (10-hours per week, per detailee)......
    Additional 10 Contract Guards (three posts 24/7 for 30            87,000
     days)..................................................
                                                             ---------------
          TOTAL 30-day Estimated Cost.......................       1,765,787
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

               federal protective service--administrative support
        Question. Please provide to the Committee, as soon as it is
    completed, a copy of the signed memorandum of understanding between
    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the National Protection
    and Programs Directorate related to the transfer of the Federal
    Protective Service (FPS) and the responsibility of each to support FPS.
        Answer. A copy will be provided following final signature.
                        federal protective service--fees
        Question. With attacks against Federal employees in 1993 at the
    World Trade Center, 1995 at the Oklahoma City Murrah Building, in 2001
    at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, in 2009 at Fort Hood and
    the Las Vegas Federal Courthouse, and recently against IRS employees,
    why has the administration made no increase in fees to pay for security
    of Federal employees, or proposed to increase the number of security
    personnel?
        Answer. Security levels increased after the first World Trade
    Center bombing in 1993 as well as after the 1995 bombing of the Alfred
    P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Since 2001, the level and quality
    of security provided by Federal Protective Service (FPS) has increased
    significantly.
                                    us-visit
                               biometric air exit
        Question. Fourteen years ago, in the Illegal Immigration Reform and
    Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Congress mandated the development
    and deployment of an entry and exit border control system. Eight years
    ago, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002
    expanded the requirement for collection of biometrics, such as
    fingerprints, as part of an entry/exit system. Almost 3 years ago, the
    9/11 Act mandated the creation of a biometric air exit system at our
    airports to record the departure of Visa Waiver Program participants
    from this country. This Committee has tried to get this
    administration--as well as the last one--to adhere to the laws and
    implement a biometric exit system. This Congress added $22 million in
    the fiscal year 2010 Appropriations Act to begin such deployment this
    year. Your budget includes no funds for biometric air exit and a
    decision on how to deploy such a system has yet to be made.
        The can keeps getting kicked down the road.
        This administration claims that immigration enforcement is a top
    priority. How can you make such a claim when we do not have the
    technological capability to know who has overstayed a visa and is
    residing illegally in this country?
        Answer. DHS currently has programs in place that use airline and
    ship manifest information, border crossing records, document reads
    enabled by the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, and information
    collected under the US-VISIT program to record who enters and exits the
    country for most individuals, and based on this information, assess
    whether an individual has overstayed the terms of their admission.
        The US-VISIT program analyzes entry records to help ICE apprehend
    individuals who remain illegally in the United States; enables CBP to
    deny admission to individuals who are ineligible to enter the United
    States; assists U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in denying
    immigration benefits to individuals who have violated the terms of
    their admission; and assists the Department of State in denying or
    revoking visas to individuals who may have overstayed but are no longer
    in the United States. Since September 2004, US-VISIT has provided
    immigration and border management officials with records of the entries
    and exits of individual foreign nationals. US-VISIT currently tracks
    overstay violator records based on airline and ship manifest
    information, border crossing records, document reads enabled by the
    Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, arrival/departure form I-94 data,
    and other information collected under the US-VISIT program.
        The ICE Compliance Enforcement Unit (CEU) is responsible for
    identifying and investigating foreign students, exchange visitors, and
    other nonimmigrant aliens who violate their authorized terms of
    admission to the United States. The CEU focuses on preventing criminals
    and terrorists from exploiting the U.S. immigration system by
    proactively developing cases for investigation from the Student and
    Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), the National Security
    Entry/Exit Registration System (NSEERS), and US-VISIT. These systems
    allow the CEU to access information on the millions of students,
    tourists, and temporary workers present in the United States at any
    time, and to proactively identify those who violate their status or
    overstay their visas.
        Additionally, over the past several years DHS has made significant
    strides in its ability to identify visa overstays as the percentage of
    air departure records collected has increased from less than 90 percent
    in the 1990s to more than 99 percent today. Continued improvements in
    the systems and processes used to capture automated records of
    nonimmigrant arrivals and departure have also improved DHS's ability to
    identify visa overstays.
                            office of health affairs
                               biowatch schedule
        Question. The BioWatch program has had a controversial history and
    I am not convinced that State and local first responders nor the public
    health community--who are the end users of the system--have become
    comfortable with the effectiveness of this program. The Generation 3.0
    BioWatch technology has been repeatedly delayed. According to the last
    update, it was projected that the field testing and competitive
    procurement phases of Generation 3.0 would be completed in December
    2010 and February of 2011 respectively. Will this timeframe be met? If
    not, what is the new timeframe for each? Further, given the historical
    delays of this program and the lack of agreement by the end users on
    its effectiveness, I am concerned that the aggressive approach in the
    budget with an increase of $84 million to deploy 476 new detectors is
    not realistic or wise. Will the Generation 3.0 technology be fully
    vetted and have the necessary community acceptance in fiscal year 2011?
    Will all of the detectors be deployed in fiscal year 2011? Please
    provide a detailed schedule of the deployment.
        Answer. DHS believes investing in automated detection is a wise and
    important investment, as this technology will reduce the time of
    detection to as little as 4 hours and potentially offer greater costs
    savings in the long-run.
        OHA is revising the schedule to account for prior program delays
    and to ensure the technology is capable of meeting end user
    requirements prior to DHS committing to a procurement decision. The new
    schedule may delay the purchase of the Gen-3 detectors to the first
    quarter of fiscal year 2012, however, DHS and OHA are currently looking
    at options to streamline and award this contract in fiscal year 2011 if
    possible.
        The updated timeline for the Generation 3 (Gen-3) program is
    reflected by the major milestones below:
      --Field Test Program Contract Award (Phase I)--November 12, 2009.
      --Field Test Program Task Order 1 Award--February 2, 2010.
      --Field Test Program Task Order 2 Award--3rd Quarter Fiscal Year
            2010.
      --Completion of Field Testing--2nd Quarter Fiscal Year 2011.
      --Technology Readiness Review--2nd Quarter Fiscal Year 2011.
        Phase II Contract Award for Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) and
    Operational Test & Evaluation (OT&E)--4th Quarter Fiscal Year 2011 or
    1st Quarter Fiscal Year 2012.
      --Conduct OT&E: Start--4th Quarter Fiscal Year 2012, Finish--3rd
            Quarter Fiscal Year 2013.
      --Initial Operational Capability (IOC)--3rd Quarter Fiscal Year 2013.
        Prior to detector deployment, DHS is working with State and local
    public health and emergency response communities to promote community
    acceptance and technical understanding of the Generation-3 detectors.
    This includes working directly with these State and local partners in
    developing guidance and operating procedures, providing all Federal,
    State and local partners with information on our Generation-3 test and
    evaluation program so that they will be confident in the signals, and
    briefing their leadership on how networks are designed and how sites
    are selected for inclusion in the program.
                              bio-threat resources
        Question. The Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass
    Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism recently gave the grade of F to
    the Nation's capabilities for rapid response to prevent biological
    attacks from inflicting mass casualties. The Commission points out that
    rapid detection is the first step in an effective response. Your budget
    does include $174 million--a 94 percent increase--for the BioWatch
    program.
        What worries me is that resources to pay for the other necessary
    steps to respond to a Bio-attack are proposed for cuts. Excluding
    BioWatch, the budget proposes a 21 percent reduction to the Office of
    Health Affairs, a 3.8 percent reduction to State and local homeland
    security grants and training, a status quo budget for preparedness in
    FEMA, and a 2.9 percent reduction to chemical and biological research
    programs.
        The Commission states that within a very few years what is likely
    to occur is ``an attack using weapons of mass destruction--probably a
    bioweapon''. Why does the budget propose to cut the very programs that
    proactively address this threat?
        Answer. The Department takes this report seriously and sees great
    value in the Commission's work. The administration has taken steps to
    enhance the Nation's capabilities to respond to a biological attack.
    After this report was published, DHS Assistant Secretary for Health
    Affairs and Chief Medical Officer Dr. Alexander Garza met with the
    Executive Director of the WMD Commission to discuss the Office of
    Health Affairs' related efforts and to build a relationship that will
    allow DHS to use the report card as a catalyst for continuing to
    improve national capabilities.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request increases funds to proactively
    counter the possibility of an attack from bio weapons or bio agents.
    Specifically, the budget requests $173.5 million for the BioWatch
    program to ensure the Nation has an early detection system in place to
    detect the release of biological agents or use of a bioweapon. Of the
    $173.5 million, $89 million maintains the Generation-1 and Generation-2
    current operational program nationally and enhances the current
    system's capabilities in select jurisdictions. The remainder of the
    request is for the Generation 3 program, for which the procurement
    details are listed above.
                      federal emergency management agency
                            fema's budget priorities
        Question. In the fiscal year 2011 budget, FEMA lays out four goals:
    enhancing coordination between headquarters and regional offices;
    promotion and improvement of personal and citizen preparedness; a
    greater emphasis on underserved populations, including children, the
    elderly, and the disabled; and prioritizing recruitment, retainment,
    and better development of the next generation of emergency management
    professionals. Yet no specific programs or funding levels are tied to
    these important goals. Through what programs, and at what funding
    levels, will these goals be met and how will FEMA determine if it is
    meeting each of the goals in a timely fashion?
        Answer. These goals are meant to drive areas of emphasis within
    existing programs. Administrator Fugate has published his
    ``Administrator's Intent,'' which details the manner in which FEMA will
    achieve its four goals.
                       disaster relief fund--known costs
        Question. The fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Disaster
    Relief fund is based on a 5-year average for non-catastrophic disasters
    and does not include funding for continued costs associated with
    Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike; the Midwest floods of
    2009; or the 2007 California wildfires and other major past disasters.
    Therefore, the Disaster Relief fund will have a short fall in fiscal
    year 2011 for known costs related to past disasters. What is the total
    amount of the estimated shortfall for fiscal year 2011? When will the
    President submit a request to meet this shortfall?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2011 President's budget for the Disaster
    Relief Fund (DRF) is $1.95 billion, an increase of $350 million over
    fiscal year 2010 enacted. As noted above, this amount is based on a
    funding methodology that uses the 5-year average obligation level for
    noncatastrophic disaster activity, and does not take into account
    continued expenditures necessitated by the recent catastrophic
    disasters. The funding methodology assumes that catastrophic events--
    those with obligations above $500 million--will be funded through
    supplemental appropriations.
        The administration's DRF request and funding methodology of seeking
    direct appropriations for the average of noncatastrophic disasters and
    relying on supplemental funding for catastrophic events complies with
    this policy. Costs associated with catastrophic events have great
    variability, both in the amount and timing of obligations. Given these
    circumstances, and the fact that it is extremely difficult to predict
    with any certainty the occurrence of future catastrophic disasters, we
    believe that budgeting annually for the noncatastrophic 5-year rolling
    average and addressing catastrophic disasters through the supplemental
    appropriations process continues to be a reasonable approach. Further,
    seeking full funding of all estimated DRF obligations would result in a
    large corpus of unused funds pending obligation (DRF expenditures are
    slow--evidenced by large obligations still outstanding for Katrina over
    4 years later).
        Based on current funding availability and an expectation of
    Congress fully funding the fiscal year 2011 President's budget and the
    fiscal year 2010 Supplemental for the DRF, an additional $1-2 billion
    may be necessary in 2011 to fund the continuing liabilities associated
    with prior disasters. However, it is premature to assume that this is
    the true 2011 funding requirement at this time.
               principal federal official--policy on the pfo role
        Question. The issue of the role of a Principal Federal Official has
    caused confusion among State and local partners about who is in charge
    when there is Federal level involvement during a disaster. Therefore,
    section 522 under the General Provisions of the fiscal year 2010
    Homeland Security Appropriations Act prohibits the Secretary from using
    funds for any position designated as a Principal Federal Official
    except under certain very limited conditions. What policy has been
    implemented to ensure compliance with this restriction and to provide
    clarity for State and local government partners?
        Answer. The Department is currently reviewing the Principle Federal
    Official (PFO) policy and a decision on its implementation is imminent.
    DHS will provide the results of the review to the Committee prior to a
    formal announcement.
                    grants for emergency operations centers
        Question. How much Federal funding, by fiscal year, have State and
    local governments used for Emergency Operations Center renovation or
    construction in each of the Department of Homeland Security grant
    programs for which it is an eligible expense?
        Answer. State and local governments have used a total of
    approximately $12 million between fiscal years 2005 and 2009 to
    renovate or construct Emergency Operations Centers under a variety DHS
    grant programs in which this is an eligible expense. A detailed
    breakout of this funding by fiscal year and State is marked For
    Official Use Only and has been provided to the Committee separately.
                                  bus security
        Question. How much in State Homeland Security Grant Program and
    Urban Area Security Initiative funding has been provided for bus
    security activities? Does FEMA policy allow grantees to provide such
    funds to private companies?
        Answer. A chart marked For Official Use Only provides a breakout of
    the amount of funding used for bus security activities under the State
    Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative for
    fiscal years 2004 through 2009, and has been provided to the Committee
    separately. Grantees are allowed to provide grant award funds to
    qualified private companies as long as they are in compliance with the
    financial rules and regulations identified in the Homeland Security
    Grant Program, namely part 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
                          training at the ndpc and cdp
        Question. How many first responders have been trained by each of
    the partners in the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium and the
    Center for Domestic Preparedness, by fiscal year, since 2006?
        Answer. The following chart shows how many first responders have
    been trained by each of the partners in the National Domestic
    Preparedness Consortium and the Center for Domestic Preparedness, by
    fiscal year, since 2006.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Louisiana State University--           29,024     19,820     16,177     14,514      6,132  As of 3/8/2010
     National Center for Biomedical
     Research and Training.
    Nevada Test Site--Counterterrorism      7,257     10,824     12,665     15,525      4,525  As of 3/8/2010
     Operations Support.
    New Mexico Tech--Energetic             47,148     37,952     33,402     30,481     14,613  As of 3/8/2010
     Materials Research and Testing
     Center.
    Texas Engineering Extension            19,508     20,963     21,937     27,405      9,749  As of 3/8/2010
     Service--National Emergency
     Response and Rescue Training
     Center.
    The Center for Domestic                61,680     65,832    114,540     98,955     35,981  As of 2/27/2010
     Preparedness.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: The University of Hawaii and the Transportation Technology Center, Inc., are recent inductees to the
      National Domestic Preparedness Consortium and have not yet begun delivering training.

                             intelligence training
        Question. Given that there are approximately 800,000 State and
    local law enforcement personnel Nationwide, it is more likely that a
    non-Federal officer will be the first to encounter terrorist suspects
    or identify criminal behavior at the local level that might provide
    leads to terrorists' activity. How much funding was provided in fiscal
    years 2008, 2009, and 2010, and how much is proposed for fiscal year
    2011 for training State and local law enforcement in intelligence
    matters?
        Answer. DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) serves as
    the two-way interface between the national Intelligence Community and
    State, local, tribal and private sector partners on homeland security
    intelligence and information--including warnings, actionable
    intelligence, and analysis--to ensure that frontline law enforcement
    have the tools they need to confront and disrupt terrorist threats. DHS
    has identified fusion centers as a priority in the Homeland Security
    Grant Program guidance and has recommended that State and local
    grantees prioritize the allocation of grant funding to support fusion
    centers. As such, based upon the self-reported information from State
    and local grantees, it is estimated that State and local jurisdictions
    have leveraged approximately $1.3 billion in support of fusion center-
    related activities, supporting frontline law enforcement between fiscal
    years 2004 and 2009.
        The following chart shows how much funding was provided in fiscal
    years 2008, 2009, and 2010, and how much is proposed for fiscal year
    2011 for training State and local law enforcement in intelligence
    matters.

                                                                            TRAINING
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Training partner                2008            2009          2010 \1\         Catalog number          Course title        Development status
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         .....................  Intelligence           Pilot
                                                                                                                 Awareness for Law
                                                                                                                 Enforcement
                                                                                                                 Executives.
                                                                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         AWR-171..............  Anti-Terrorism         Delivery
                                                                                                                 Intelligence
                                                                                                                 Awareness Training
                                                                                                                 Program.
                                                                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal Law Enforcement Training                           $800,000        $500,000  PER-283..............  Introductory           Delivery
     Center.                                                                                                     Intelligence Analyst
                                                                                                                 Training Program.
                                                                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         AWR-170..............  Leading from the       Delivery
                                                                                                                 Front: Weapons of
                                                                                                                 Mass Destruction
                                                                                                                 Awareness for Law
                                                                                                                 Enforcement
                                                                                                                 Executives.
                                                                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         AWR-181..............  Developing an          Delivery
                                                                                                                 Intelligence
                                                                                                                 Capacity in State,
                                                                                                                 Local and Tribal Law
                                                                                                                 Enforcement
                                                                                                                 Agencies: A Quick
                                                                                                                 Start Program.
                                                                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Michigan State University--Intel                            500,000         400,000  AWR-199..............  Sustaining the         Delivery
     Program.                                                                                                    Intelligence
                                                                                                                 Capacity.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Memorial Institute for the                                1,300,000       2,200,000  .....................  Information            Development
     Prevention of Terrorism.                                                                                    Collection on Patrol
                                                                                                                 (INCOP) 1 & 2.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         .....................  Intelligence Writing   Development
                                                                                                                 and Briefing.
                                                                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         AWR-158..............  Advanced Criminal      Delivery
                                                                                                                 Intelligence
                                                                                                                 Analysis to Prevent
                                                                                                                 Terrorism.
                                                                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------
    National White Collar Crime Center--     $1,799,755                                  AWR-204..............  Foundations of         Delivery
     Intel Program.                                                                                              Intelligence
                                                                                                                 Analysis Training
                                                                                                                 (FIAT).
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total........................       1,799,755       2,600,000       3,100,000
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The spend plan for fiscal year 2011 has not been determined yet; and courses with no number are under development.

                    federal law enforcement training center
                     national computer forensics institute
        Question. The fiscal year 2011 budget proposes to transfer $4
    million for the National Computer Forensics Institute (NCFI) from the
    National Protection & Programs Directorate (NPPD), to the Federal Law
    Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). Why was the NCFI moved from NPPD
    to FLETC? How will the NCFI be paid for? Does FLETC need authority to
    provide training to non law enforcement personnel? Does the current
    language requiring the Director of FLETC to schedule basic or advanced
    law enforcement training, or both, at all four training facilities
    under the control of FLETC to ensure that such training facilities are
    operated at the highest capacity throughout the fiscal year need to be
    updated to include the NCFI?
        Answer. The requested transfer is intended to consolidate law
    enforcement training.
        The intention is to continue operating NCFI in the same manner as
    it is currently operating today, with the Secret Service continuing to
    administer training at this facility under an interagency agreement
    from FLETC to Secret Service.
        Not at this time. The Department's initial intent is to continue
    operating NCFI in the same manner as it is currently operating today.
        Providing funds to FLETC will help better align and coordinate law
    enforcement training.
        Question. Will the Secret Service continue to manage this facility
    under an interagency agreement?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Will the NCFI be moved to a FLETC facility?
        Answer. The Department intends to continue operating NCFI in the
    same manner as it is currently operating today, in Hoover, AL.
                                     uscis
                                    e-verify
        Question. Do you support expanding E-Verify to allow employers the
    ability to use the system to verify the employment eligibility of their
    current employees--not just potential new hires--if they chose to do
    so?
        Answer. E-Verify currently has the capacity to query for work
    eligibility as many as 65 million employees per year, which is the
    estimated number of new employees hired per year. It does not currently
    have the capacity to query an additional 120 million employees, which
    is the estimated size of the existing workforce in the United States.
    To achieve that capacity, DHS would need funding for additional
    hardware to service the expanded use of E-Verify, and both DHS and the
    Social Security Administration would need additional staff to address
    the significantly increased workload that would follow from such a
    sizeable expansion of E-Verify's use.
        In addition, such a sizeable expansion of E-Verify's use would
    require the enhancement of processes and safeguards to reduce errors
    and to ensure that the E-Verify system is not used to improperly screen
    existing workers nor is otherwise abused.
        Substantial progress has been made toward improvements, but the
    existing pattern of growth in E-Verify usage, with 1,300 new employers
    joining each week, allows DHS to refine these systems in a measured
    way. Any new expansions in the coverage of E-Verify should be
    accomplished with a well-considered schedule for additional funding and
    for phased expansion of electronic verification.
        Question. Recent press reports claim that E-Verify is unable to
    identify nearly half of illegal aliens who are applying for a job. Is
    this true? Please explain.
        Answer. The press articles were inaccurate and misleading. The
    Westat report, which was based on a sample from a 3-month period during
    2008, concluded that E-Verify was accurate 96 percent of the time. The
    report found:
      --93.8 percent of workers screened by E-Verify were authorized for
            employment--and the system instantly and accurately confirmed
            more than 99 percent of these eligible workers.
      --The remaining 6.2 percent were not eligible for employment. Out of
            this 6.2 percent, approximately half were told they are work
            authorized when they were not--just 3.3 percent of the overall
            population screened by E-Verify.
      --To be clear, this means that only 3.3 percent of all workers
            screened by E-Verify were incorrectly told they were work
            authorized.
        The system's accuracy and efficiency continues to improve,
    reflecting the changes and improvements to E-Verify that USCIS has made
    over the past year--and continues to make.
        Our anti-fraud efforts are improving E-Verify's ability to prevent
    illegal workers from using stolen identities to obtain employment--
    including a photograph screening capability that allows a participating
    employer to check if photos on Employment Authorization Documents (EAD)
    or Permanent Resident Cards (green cards) are exact matches with the
    images stored in USCIS databases. USCIS has used this process to screen
    more than 300,000 photos and detect more than 1,000 cases of fraud.
        USCIS is also planning additional enhancements to E-Verify that
    will further improve employer compliance, reduce fraud and increase
    efficiency. USCIS is adding U.S. passports to the list of documents
    available to provide photo confirmation, and working with states to
    access State driver's license data--the No. 1 document used to validate
    identity. USCIS is also planning to launch a pilot program to explore
    the use of biometric or biographic-based verification.
                                    real id
        Question. We have not yet received the plan for the REAL ID
    ``hub''. What are your plans for this program?
        Answer. The REAL ID Expenditure Plan is currently being reviewed
    and will be delivered to Congress in the near future. This document
    will detail the plan for the expenditure of the appropriated $60
    million to collaboratively manage the design, development, testing and
    deployment of the required electronic information verification
    capabilities.
                                   h&l fraud
        Question. What are the estimated fee collections for H and L fraud
    in fiscal year 2011?
        Answer. Total fiscal year 2011 fee collections for H and L fraud
    are estimated to be $105 million. The H and L fraud fee collections are
    deposited into the Fraud Detection and Prevention receipt account and
    are then divided evenly (33 percent each) between USCIS, the Department
    of State, and the Department of Labor. As a result, each agency is
    expected to receive approximately $35 million in fiscal year 2011.
                             science and technology
                              proposed reductions
        Question. When compared to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, the
    President's request for Science and Technology research and development
    is cut by 12.3 percent. This is a puzzling cut considering that the
    administration made a concerted effort to boost other Federal science
    budgets. Your budget states that the request represents the ``minimum
    resources needed to provide the technologies to address the
    administration's threat prioritization.'' Why were homeland security
    science and technology efforts singled out for cuts? What research
    portfolios require additional resources to help the Department
    understand how to identify, counter, and respond to emerging threats?
        Answer. The Department remains committed to the mission of the
    Science and Technology Directorate, and the fiscal year 2011 budget
    supports the long-term development and use of new technology.
                          advanced imaging technology
        Question. Provide an assessment of the auto resolution technology
    to accompany the new Advanced Imaging Technology units? Based on S&T's
    assessment of auto resolution, will it be ready for deployment at the
    beginning of fiscal year 2011? What is the schedule for certification?
        Answer. Currently, human screeners are able to interpret AIT images
    more effectively than auto resolution technology.
        S&T is in the process of issuing a broad area announcement to
    competitively award development contracts to third party algorithm
    developers to support auto resolution technology. The pre-solicitation
    announcement was published on March 3, 2010. Further, through its
    research program, S&T is engaging the academic community and
    established parties in the medical, non-destructive evaluation, and
    defense industries to determine if image processing techniques that are
    effective in adjacent domains can also be leveraged in detection
    algorithms for AIT.
        TSA will determine the readiness of technology prior to deployment;
    when the schedule for qualification testing is set, S&T will perform
    these tests in order to determine if automatic detection algorithms are
    sufficiently mature for deployment.
        Question. Based on the current capabilities of Advanced Imaging
    Technology now being deployed to airports, would the machines have
    detected the explosives Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded Northwest Flight
    253 with on December 25, 2009?
        Answer. AIT machines provide added capabilities to detect
    explosives (bulk, liquids, and powders), as well as both metallic and
    nonmetallic weapons and prohibited items. While AIT units provide
    enhanced capabilities to detect person-borne threats, their
    effectiveness is further enhanced through use with other technologies
    and screening processes that are part of TSA's layered security
    approach, such as well-trained Transportation Security Officers,
    Behavior Detection Officers, Bomb Appraisal Officers, Federal Air
    Marshals, canine teams, and an engaged traveling public. More details
    can be provided in a classified setting.
                    national bio- and agro-defense facility
        Question. The request states that the Science & Technology
    Directorate will request a reprogramming in fiscal year 2011 of prior
    year funds to build the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility central
    utility plant. What amount is S&T planning to reprogram? Will the
    funding source for the reprogramming come from just S&T or will other
    components contribute? Have the prior year funds been identified? From
    what projects and fiscal years will the funds be repurposed?
        Answer. S&T plans to submit a reprogramming for an estimated $40
    million to support the fiscal year 2011 construction of the central
    utility plant for the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF).
    This reprogramming will come from S&T prior year unobligated balances,
    most likely the fiscal year 2007 through 2009 balances not currently
    committed to a contracting action. The exact distribution will be
    determined at the time of the reprogramming.
                            explosives trace portals
        Question. Has DHS given up on the explosives trace portals, also
    known as the ``puffers''? Is S&T allocating resources to improve the
    equipment's ability to operate in the airport environment?
        Answer. Several advanced trace sampling and detection technologies
    are currently under development that are possible candidates for the
    next generation of trace detection systems.
                       rad/nuc transformational research
        Question. The request transfers DNDO's Transformational Research
    and Development funding to the Science & Technology Directorate. What
    process will be put in place to make decisions on how the $106 million
    in Rad/Nuc research will be spent? Please describe the involvement of
    DNDO and other DHS components in the selection of transformational
    research priorities.
        Answer. S&T's established Integrated Product Team (IPT) process
    will guide investments in radiological and nuclear (rad/nuc) research.
    Before the transition of rad/nuc research from the Domestic Nuclear
    Detection Office (DNDO), S&T will conduct a program review to determine
    the progress and status of the existing rad/nuc research programs;
    establish a rad/nuc Capstone IPT to bring DHS customers and
    stakeholders together to determine the highest priority capability gaps
    and needs; and survey existing government and industry rad/nuc
    detection and countermeasure technology. After these preparatory steps,
    S&T will make decisions regarding the rad/nuc research portfolio.
                           technology readiness level
        Question. What is the status of the Department's plans to develop a
    formal Technology Readiness Level (TRL) process? The purpose of the
    process is to require TRL assessments of chemical, biological,
    radiological, nuclear detection, and other technologies prior to
    appropriate acquisition decision points. Has a management directive on
    this initiative been finalized? If so, provide a copy to the Committee.
        Answer. The framework for the Technology Readiness Level Management
    Directive is in place, and, before final approval, S&T will test the
    framework to ensure its effectiveness and alignment with Acquisition
    Management Directive (AD) 102-01.
                              performance metrics
        Question. What performance metrics are in place to evaluate the
    effectiveness and value of S&T research projects? Are there plans to
    improve the process? If so, describe them.
        Answer. S&T tracks and measures the effectiveness and value of
    research projects and programs with a high-level and focused set of
    milestones. These milestones show the achievement of critical actions,
    capabilities, and decisions toward program/project goals and
    objectives. They help identify specific and established criteria for
    measuring incremental progress associated with long-term activities and
    program outcomes.
        In addition to the Department-wide Bottom-Up Review of how DHS can
    better align its performance metrics to the strategic vision outlined
    in the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, S&T has begun a review
    process in parallel to this year's budget cycle. S&T has engaged a
    nationally recognized expert in the field of performance to assist in
    establishing more effective outcome based metrics throughout the
    Directorate.
        Question. Please identify which of the S&T accomplishments listed
    in pages 132-135 of the DHS budget in brief have resulted in making
    Americans safer by modifying or improving DHS agency operations or
    programs.
        Answer. Budget in Brief Statement: Transitioned a BorderNet
    capability to CBP to connect law enforcement officers in the field with
    real-time tactical information such as detection, sensor data, agent
    location data, and local geographic features, also providing field
    access to select law enforcement databases using a GPS-enabled P25 land
    mobile radio.
        The BorderNet system is operating in the U.S. Border Patrol Douglas
    sector.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Generated a comprehensive set of Self-
    Propelled Semi-Submersible (SPSS) vessel data from national and
    international field experiments with 14 organizations to evaluate
    potential detection technologies, shape additional field campaigns and
    to better understand U.S. Government capabilities and shortfalls in
    detecting, discriminating, and tracking low-observable maritime vessels
    used to smuggle narcotics into the United States from South America.
        The data collected on SPSS vessels is being used to develop
    detection, identification, and tracking systems for this national
    security threat.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Conducted a 2-week cargo supply-chain
    security demonstration of the Container Security Device, Advanced
    Container Security Device, Marine Hybrid Composite Container, Marine
    Asset Tag Tracking System, and mLOCK technologies in operational,
    performance, and anti-compromise environments.
        CBP and the TSA are both benefiting from these devices. TSA is
    incorporating the mLOCK in their trusted shipper program to secure
    cargo from know suppliers while in transit, and CBP is preparing to
    pilot the container security device in the global supply chain to
    secure shipping containers.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Completed development and testing of
    Bio-Agent Autonomous Networked Detector (BAND), an automated, fully
    integrated ``lab-in-a-box'' biological agent detector that collects
    aerosols, performs molecular analysis and identification, and reports
    results for real-time control of the entire sensor network.
    Demonstrated automatic capture and genetic identification of biological
    agents at threat concentrations.
        The BAND technology was piloted in a major metropolitan area and
    provided aerosol detection capabilities. It has also been selected for
    the BioWatch Gen 3 procurement testing, where it will again be fielded
    in metropolitan areas to provide a reduced notification time in the
    event of a biological release.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Completed a tabletop exercise to refine
    restoration guidance with participation of key Federal, State, and
    local stakeholders as well as a demonstration in the Los Angeles
    International Airport System to promote the range of restoration. This
    project will enable rapid recovery from a chemical agent release in a
    major transportation facility, minimize the economic impact of a
    chemical agent release, and inform defensible public health decisions
    concerning the re-opening of major transportation facilities following
    a chemical agent release.
        The restoration protocols developed by this project are now
    available to airports and other high throughput public venues for
    guidance on decontamination for rapid recovery from a chemical agent
    release.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Developed an integrated laboratory
    response architecture to promote enhanced use of the Nation's
    laboratory networks in response to large-scale CBRN events, developed a
    Standard Operating Procedure for implementing the architecture, and
    assessed the architecture through table-top exercises.
        The integrated lab architecture reduces the time to identify
    chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) contamination,
    which provides more rapid, actionable information to local decision
    makers trying to identify and respond to a CBRN attack.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Determined how quickly next-generation,
    serotype-specific, foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccines provide
    immunity, and how long the immunity lasts. Delivered proof-of-concept
    studies using different vaccine and biotherapeutic countermeasure
    platforms for other non-FMD Foreign Animal Diseases (FADs).
        Unlike current, foreign-manufactured FMD vaccines, the next-
    generation, serotype-specific FMD can be manufactured in the United
    States without live FMD virus and can be deployed within 24 hours
    following an FMD outbreak. Proof-of-concept studies for non-FMD Foreign
    Animal Disease (FAD) targets using vaccine and biotherapeutic platforms
    will allow for development of FAD countermeasures for the National
    Veterinary Stockpile that currently do not exist (Rift Valley Fever,
    African Swine Fever, and Nipah/Hendra).
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Delivered Digital Ink Library to the
    United States Secret Service (USSS) forensic investigators to enhance
    mission effectiveness by digitizing the complete archive of ink
    samples, which reduces time to locate inks and protects inks from
    environmental degradation. As a result, ink-sample matching takes
    seconds as opposed to hours or days, and irreplaceable inks remain
    secure.
        This ink library has reduced the analysis time of USSS
    investigative missions as well as secured their ink library for future
    use.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Initiated 18 new experiments on the
    DETER test-bed, enabling users to study and evaluate a wide range of
    computer security technologies including encryption, pattern detection,
    intrusion-tolerant storage protocols, next-generation network
    simulations; as well as develop and share educational material and
    tools to train the next-generation of cyber-security experts.
        These experiments will result in more robust security technologies
    including malware detection and mitigation, Internet infrastructure
    security improvements, and identity theft technologies that are better
    able to protect users from cyber crime. The benefits from these
    technologies will be available to the public, all levels of government
    and private industry to better protect our cyber/critical
    infrastructures.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Piloted a Virtual USA cross-state
    information (e.g., shelter data, flood data, traffic accident
    information) exchange between Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi,
    and Texas, which demonstrated that states can exchange information
    regardless of what statewide information system they use (ESRI,
    Google).
        S&T is coordinating with FEMA Region X on the Pacific Northwest
    Regional Pilot, a component of Virtual USA, to serve as a single point
    of Federal information exchange with participating states in support of
    FEMA's mission.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Deployed the Critical Infrastructure
    Inspection Management System (CIIMS) to the Los Angeles Police
    Department, which allowed aerial-borne law enforcement officers to
    receive and respond to critical infrastructure and key resource (CI/KR)
    inspection metrics in real time. his inspection process adds a force
    multiplier to the critical infrastructure protection unit and improves
    flight-crew situational awareness.
        The deployment of this system has increased the efficiency of the
    LAPD in conducting their infrastructure inspection mission, reducing
    the amount of time they are kept away from their primary law
    enforcement duties.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Conducted T&E on the large-aperture
    metal detector for air cargo to allow TSA to screen fresh produce,
    fresh flowers, seafood and meats, and printed material quickly,
    effectively, and inexpensively for the presence of metallic IED
    components.
        These systems are being used to screen for explosive devices in
    bulk cargo being shipped on passenger planes.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Completed Homemade Explosives (HME)
    signature characterization of leakage rates of a variety of bottle
    types with hydrogen peroxide and nitromethane to inform TSA HME
    detection requirements for checkpoint and checked baggage liquid bottle
    screening applications.
        Results from these studies were used to inform TSA future detection
    requirements for explosives trace detection technology.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Completed T&E of backscatter x-ray
    system for TSA for the detection of concealed explosive devices worn or
    carried by a person (i.e. suicide bombers).
        Independent Test and Evaluation (IT&E) was conducted for a portion
    of the specifications for the backscatter x-ray system by the
    Transportation Security Lab (TSL), and results were provided to the TSA
    as a portion of the entire test and evaluation (T&E) program for the
    system. Test results and analysis from all phases were used to inform
    TSA's acquisition of Advanced Imaging Technology.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Delivered validated Hostile Intent
    Detection simulation product to TSA, validated the previously
    transitioned courseware prototype, piloted a deception training course
    for first responders (Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department--LVMPD),
    resulting in a $900,000 savings in TSA training costs.
        The training and simulation products improved DHS operations
    through front line user education that saved government resources and
    enabled Transportation Security Officers to identify individuals with
    hostile intent.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Transitioned validated multi-cultural
    indicators of hostile intent, and demonstrated a mobile device that
    enables TSA Behavioral Detection Officers to record observations,
    automatically calculate behavior-based scoring, and share information
    among peers and with supervisors in near-real time. This potentially
    saves TSA an estimated 60-120 FTEs.
        These deployed training protocols and devices have saved government
    resources and are enabling Transportation Security Officers to identify
    individuals trying to deceive security personnel or possibly intending
    to do harm.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Demonstrated three prototypes for
    rapid, non-contact, three-dimensional fingerprint scanning to achieve
    much higher success rates at capturing fingerprints the first time,
    with greater detail, leading to increased speed and accuracy in records
    matching and identification at screening checkpoints with minimum
    impact on throughput.
        These demonstrations are a significant step towards collecting
    fingerprints with increased speed, accuracy, and detail than current
    fingerprint scanning technologies allow.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Demonstrated a real-time malintent
    (desire or intent to cause harm) detection capability at a simulated
    speaking event using indicators such as heart beat, respiration, and
    pore count to develop a screening facility and a suite of real-time,
    non-invasive sensor technologies to rapidly, reliably, and remotely
    detect indicators of malintent to increase throughput and the accuracy/
    validity of referral for secondary screening.
        These demonstrations validated the indicators of malintent in order
    to develop a screening system to help screeners at primary screening
    checkpoints identify potentially harmful individuals based on their
    behavior and send them to secondary screening using non-invasive
    sensors in real time.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Demonstrated liquid explosive detection
    using ultra low-field Magnetic Resonance Imaging technology at the
    Albuquerque Airport. The demonstration showed the system's ability to
    distinguish between numerous threat and benign liquids in an
    operational environment, which will eventually lead to enabling TSA to
    rescind the 3-1-1 rule, allowing airline passengers to carry-on
    liquids.
        This demonstration is a significant step toward the deployment of a
    bag screening system capable of identifying liquid explosives.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Piloted Unified Incident Command and
    Decision Support (UICDS) at the Virginia Department of Emergency
    Management, demonstrating data fusion among 24 commercial-off-the-shelf
    incident management proprietary applications and presenting the
    resulting data sharing through the State-developed VIPER viewer. UICDS
    enables multiple responding organizations (using their own equipment,
    procedures and protocols) to jointly manage personnel, direct
    equipment, and seamlessly gather, store, redistribute, and share, in a
    secure environment, mission-critical information needed by incident
    commanders and emergency responders.
        This project enabled data fusion between 24 commercial software
    applications being used by the State of Virginia that now operate
    seamlessly for incident response management and training purposes.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Demonstrated and tested a Controlled
    Impact Rescue Tool (CIRT) with Fairfax County Fire training Rescue.
    CIRT is a stand-alone tool that creates shock waves that can shatter
    concrete walls in less than half the time as conventional methods.
        The Controlled Impact Rescue Tool (CIRT) has demonstrated
    significant time savings to the Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) team.
    CIRT does not rely on hoses or power cables, operates as a stand-alone
    tool, and will be commercialized in fiscal year 2010.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Delivered more than 200 emergency
    escape hoods to USSS. This one-size-fits-all concealable hood weighs
    under a pound, is easy to carry, and can be donned in ten seconds. In
    addition to being maintenance-free, the hood filters nerve, blood, and
    blister agents, removes toxic industrial chemicals, and fits two-deep
    into a breast pocket--one for the protectee, the other for the
    protector.
        These escape hoods are now carried by Secret Service personnel.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Published the final Environmental
    Impact Statement (EIS) for the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility
    (NBAF) in December 2008 and responded to over 5,000 public comments.
    S&T issued a Record of Decision selecting a site in Manhattan, Kansas
    to construct NBAF, which will house the study of foreign animal and
    zoonotic diseases to protect the Nation's agriculture and public
    health.
        This report is informing the design of NBAF in order to reduce and
    mitigate risk.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Completed facility construction and
    most of facility commissioning for the National Biodefense Analysis and
    Countermeasures Center (NBACC), that will support national security by
    providing the Nation with the capability to understand and counter
    biological threats and conduct bioforensic analysis to attribute their
    use against the American public.
        The National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center will
    house the Bio Threat Characterization Center and National Bio-forensics
    Analysis Center, which provide DHS, as well as other Federal, State,
    and local entities, with forensic and threat analysis capabilities.
    Analysis on the anthrax attack of 2001 was conducted as part of this
    program.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Conducted objective assessments and
    validations on commercial equipment and systems through the SAVER
    Program, and provided those results, along with other relevant
    equipment information, to the emergency response community in an
    operationally useful form.
        SAVER reviews are used by first responders to inform their
    decisions on the purchase of new equipment.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Completed a standard for law
    enforcement specific CBRN protective ensembles, which support the FEMA
    grants programs and the needs of Federal, State and local responders.
        These standards ensure first responders are acquiring personal
    protective equipment that provides the protection that the
    manufacturers claim.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Developed a Universal Biosignature
    Detection Array, which allows rapid detection of biowarfare agents and
    hosts such as Foot-and-Mouth Disease or Rift Valley Fever, cutting
    detection time for early responders down to minutes versus hours.
        This university project has furthered the scientific knowledge base
    in the area of bio-detection and increased the level of United States
    scientific expertise in this area. This work will allow first
    responders to identify the agents to which individuals have been
    exposed.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Developed two new parametric hurricane
    meteorological models allowing for more comprehensive data inputs such
    as variations in storm behavior and forecast information to provide
    better storm surge prediction.
        This university project has furthered the scientific knowledge base
    in the area of storm surge prediction and increased the level of United
    States scientific expertise in this area. This effort will allow
    localities to better prepare for impending storm surges and reduce loss
    of life and property.
        Budget in Brief Statement.--Demonstrated the passive acoustic
    detection system's ability to detect swimmers, underwater vehicles, and
    small vessels under various test conditions and parameters to
    strengthen maritime domain awareness and safeguard populations and
    properties unique to U.S. islands, ports, and remote and extreme
    environments.
        This system will provide increased security in the maritime
    environment.
                       domestic nuclear detection office
                     radiation portal monitor (rpm) program
        Question. Provide a status update RPM requirements by vector
    including total RPMs required by vector, systems deployed, and the
    percentage completed. The request includes $8 million for RPM
    acquisitions. How will this money, in addition to unobligated balances,
    reduce the gap in RPMs necessary at each vector? Provide a plan for RPM
    unobligated balances and the $8 million requested for fiscal year 2011.
    Distinguish between current generation and ASP deployments. How is the
    Helium-3 shortage impacting this program? Can DNDO deploy current
    generation RPMs in fiscal year 2010 with available RPMP balances
    without a solution to the shortage? When does DNDO anticipate a viable
    solution to Helium-3 to be available? Given the gap between vector
    requirements for RPMs and available systems, and delays in developing
    next generation RPMs (Advanced Spectroscopic Portals), why isn't DNDO
    obligating a larger portion of currently available balances for first-
    generation polyvinyl toluene (PVT) systems?
        Answer. The RPM coverage status by vector is detailed in the table
    below. Currently, 65 percent of the total sites defined in the scope of
    the RPM Program are deployed.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Operational RPMS at completion
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
                                                                      Total required              Status
                                                                          \1\ (at    -------------------------------
                                                                        completion)       Systems         Percent
                                                                                         complete      complete \2\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    North Land (Containerized Cargo Volume 100 percent).............             503             491              98
    South Land (Containerized Cargo Volume 100 percent).............             448             391              87
    Seaports (Containerized Cargo Volume 99.3 percent)..............             756             436              58
        Seaport Cargo...............................................             541             436              81
        Seaport Break Bulk..........................................             173  ..............  ..............
        Seaport RO/RO...............................................              42  ..............  ..............
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          TOTAL SEA and LAND........................................           1,707           1,318              77
                                                                     ===============================================
    Mail/ECCF.......................................................              54              53              98
    Rail............................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Airports (Air Cargo)............................................             350               4               1
    Other...........................................................              43              32              74
        PreClearance Airports.......................................              33              22              67
        Testing.....................................................              10              10             100
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.....................................................           2,154           1,407              65
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The number of systems required at completion includes all containerized cargo, break bulk, RO/RO, POV,
      conveyor type systems, and deployment site revisions.
    \2\ The percent complete above is based on the number of completed/deployed RPM systems divided by the number of
      required RPM systems at completion of the RPM Program.

        The $8 million requested for RPM acquisitions in fiscal year 2011
    will be combined with the remaining unobligated fiscal year 2009 funds
    and applied on top of fiscal year 2008/2009 dollars that are already
    obligated but not yet expended.
        Two scenarios are considered for the application of unobligated
    fiscal year 2008/2009 balances and the $8 million fiscal year 2011
    request. In both scenarios, the $8 million fiscal year 2011 request
    will predominantly fund pre-clearance sites at key international
    airports. The 2011 request is targeted at areas that currently have
    little or no radiological/nuclear detection coverage.
        DNDO plans to obligate fiscal year 2008 funds by the end of the 3rd
    quarter fiscal year 2010 to support Advanced Spectroscopic Portal (ASP)
    field validation and operational testing ($3.4 million), fund systems
    engineering support for field validation ($2 million) and further fund
    the RPMP PVT deployments ($11.8 million).
        There is approximately $58 million in fiscal year 2009 unobligated
    acquisition funds in the RPMP PPA. Fiscal year 2009 RPMP funds will be
    used for engineering efforts by the ASP vendor to support field
    validation and operational testing and evaluation ($6 million to be
    obligated in the 3rd quarter of fiscal year 2010); and to procure and
    deploy ASPs after the certification decision point ($52 million which
    will be carried forward to fiscal year 2011).
        As mentioned in the response to question 303, the $8 million
    requested for RPM acquisitions in fiscal year 2011 will be combined
    with the remaining unobligated fiscal year 2009 funds and applied on
    top of fiscal year 2008/2009 dollars that are already obligated but not
    yet expended.
        Based on current funding and guidance for the RPMP, the Helium-3
    shortage has had no appreciable impact on the deployment of systems in
    fiscal year 2010. The program has a sufficient inventory of PVT systems
    with Helium-3 available to support deployments through fiscal year
    2011.
        Early testing has shown that there are multiple viable alternatives
    to helium-3 based neutron detectors. Solutions are expected to be
    available to DNDO for testing in summer of 2010. If these solutions are
    proven successful, a commercial solution could be available by 2012.
        The program is continuing to deploy PVT systems and has a
    sufficient inventory of PVT based systems to meet the current
    deployment plan through fiscal year 2011. In order to ensure that
    sufficient funds are available to support ASP procurement and
    deployment for secondary inspection, DNDO is not obligating the
    currently available balances until the ASP certification decision is
    reached. If ASP is not certified, these funds will be used for PVT
    systems. This strategy ensures, pending successful certification, DNDO
    will be able to take advantage of the added performance of ASP, while
    maintaining the deployment rate for PVTs.
                              systems development
        Question. According to the request, the purpose of systems
    development is ``taking concepts for new detection systems from
    exploratory (or long-range) research into a level of maturity
    sufficient for production and deployment.'' Given that the exploratory
    (long-range) research funding has been transferred to the Science &
    Technology Directorate, please describe the process for determining
    which concepts from exploratory research will be selected for systems
    development funding?
        Answer. DNDO follows DHS Management Directive 102-01 to (1)
    identify and clarify user needs, (2) analyze and select the best
    solution to meet those needs, (3) obtain the solution, and (4) produce,
    deploy, and support the solution. As the exploratory research effort is
    initiated and matures, there are regular discussions about how
    technologies developed in exploratory research can address particular
    stakeholder needs. As an exploratory research effort approaches
    successful completion (i.e. targeted performance is being achieved),
    DNDO assesses the technology against stakeholder needs. During an
    Analysis of Alternatives, solutions that utilize technology developed
    through the exploratory program are assessed along with other
    approaches to the degree to which they can meet stakeholder needs in a
    cost effective manner.
                   human portable radiation detection systems
        Question. Provide the conclusions from the Human Portable Wide Area
    Search Program, which identifies the needs for human portable systems.
    For fiscal year 2010, what is the schedule to achieve full rate
    production of geranium based handheld detectors that will be used for
    small area searches and secondary screenings? The schedule should
    detail progress from low-rate initial production, to operational
    testing, to full rate production. The budget indicates the DNDO will
    enter into ``full-rate production'' in fiscal year 2010. What is the
    budget for this effort? What is the follow-on amount in fiscal year
    2011?
        Answer. The analysis concluded there are four common roles for
    human portable radiation detection capabilities: tripwire detection,
    wide area search, small area search, and secondary screening.
        DNDO is developing High Purity Germanium (HPGe)-based handheld
    detection systems to support advanced operations. DNDO is on track to
    complete Operational Test and Evaluation during the third quarter of
    fiscal year 2010. Following the Operational Test and adhering to the
    guidelines of the DHS 102-01 Acquisition Directive, a decision will be
    made as to the readiness of this system to be acquired. It is
    anticipated that the first purchase of the HPGe-based handheld
    detection systems will be approximately five units in fiscal year 2011.
        DNDO fiscal year 2010 funds are set aside for the procurement of
    the Advanced Handheld Systems (HPGe). For fiscal year 2011, DNDO has
    identified the need for approximately $500,000 to buy these systems for
    Federal users, which is included in the Human Portable Radiation
    Detection Systems (HPRDS) fiscal year 2011 Systems Acquisition budget
    request.
              cargo advanced automated radiography system (caars)
        Question. When does DNDO anticipate completion of its test and
    evaluation campaign of the CAARS prototypes? When does DNDO anticipate
    completion of the cost benefit analysis (CBA) and recommendations with
    regard to future development and testing options? The DNDO budget
    indicates that an Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) will be conducted
    following the CBA. If already completed, what are the conclusions of
    the CBA and AOA? If the CBA and AOA were not completed when the DNDO
    budget request was formulated, how was the $13.3 million request for
    CAARS developed?
        Answer. The CAARS Advanced Technology Demonstration is a technology
    assessment program, designed to assess the maturity of technology for a
    possible application. The CAARS test campaign was completed on March
    12, 2010. The final test report is scheduled to be released in July
    2010 and the final program report is scheduled to be released in
    September 2010. This report will contain recommendations for future
    development and testing options. A cost benefit analysis (CBA) will be
    completed as part of any formal acquisition program utilizing CAARS
    technology. At this point, DNDO is in the process of harmonizing
    lessons learned from the CAARS ATD, user requirements, and the security
    strategy described by the Global Nuclear Detection Architecture (GNDA).
        DNDO has not yet performed a CBA for CAARS. A preliminary CBA will
    be performed as an integral part of an AOA. The AOA process will be
    initiated following the approval of a valid Mission Needs Statement
    (MNS). The $13.3 million represents the cost of executing the initial
    analytical phase of an Acquisition Program most likely to follow from
    this effort. This includes testing of viable alternatives resultant
    from the RFI, completing the MNS, formalizing suitable concepts of
    operations, development of an Operational Requirements Document (ORD)
    and forecasting a Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE). All of the actions
    will contribute to a formal AOA, followed by a decision regarding
    development of an actual system.
         stand-off radiation detection system (sords) follow-on program
        Question. What is the schedule to complete the SORDS Advanced
    Technology Demonstration in fiscal year 2010? What is the timetable for
    DNDO to assess the results and determine if it will pursue a capability
    development program? The request indicates that DNDO has budgeted $11.2
    million for this program in fiscal year 2011 to develop a capabilities
    acquisition plan, complete an Analysis of Alternatives, and develop an
    initial Life Cycle Cost Estimate. How is the $11.2 million request
    allocated to these efforts?
        Answer. The SORDS Advanced Technology Demonstration has finished
    the data collection campaign at Savannah River National Laboratory and
    is currently analyzing the data. DNDO expects to finish the data
    analysis and the final report by the end of summer 2010. As a result of
    the demonstration of long range radiation detection, identification,
    and localization capability by the SORDS ATD, DNDO has initiated the
    Long Range Radiation Detection (LRRD) program. The LRRD program will
    conduct an Analysis of Alternatives in fiscal year 2011. In the
    Analysis of Alternatives, solutions that utilize technology developed
    through the SORDS program will be assessed, along with other
    approaches, on the degree to which they can meet stakeholder needs.
                                  on-dock rail
        Question. The budget indicates that, in fiscal year 2010, DNDO will
    construct a prototype straddle carrier portal and evaluate its
    performance. What is the timetable to complete this effort? What is the
    timetable to evaluate alternative technologies and determine their
    potential in the seaport environment?
        Answer. Assembly of the Straddle Portal Prototype will be complete
    at the end of May 2010. Lab testing, to qualify the system for use at a
    port, will occur June-August 2010; port testing will be at the Port of
    Tacoma, November-December 2010. While the straddle carrier portal
    remains an attractive, cost-effective, near-term solution, we are
    conducting parallel efforts, conforming to DHS acquisition policy, to
    explore alternatives. In this regard, an Analysis of Alternatives is on
    schedule for completion in February 2011, following completion of the
    straddle carrier portal tests. Additionally, an industry-wide Request
    for Information (RFI) was issued in December 2009, resulting in nine
    responses, which we will complete evaluating by the end of March 2010.
                              boat-mounted sensors
        Question. The request includes $14.3 million for the boat-mounted
    sensor program. How close are DNDO, Coast Guard, and CBP to developing
    the operational requirements for the system? Provide DNDO's notional
    schedule leading up to the procurement of developmental systems and
    testing.
        Answer. Based on the outline that follows, operational requirements
    for the boat-mounted sensor program are being developed by DNDO, CBP,
    and USCG throughout fiscal year 2010 with finalization in fiscal year
    2011.
        Per the following outline, developmental systems (Commercial off-
    the-shelf (COTS) and Government off-the-shelf (GOTS)) have been
    procured and are currently undergoing testing in the Dolphin Test
    Campaign. Full characterization is to be completed by June 2010.
        Boat-Mounted Sensor Program.--Results of the fiscal year 2008
    Maritime test campaign (Crawdad) and early deployments of selected
    systems in the West Coast Maritime Pilot in Puget Sound will lead to
    the definition of a boat mounted radiation detection system. The
    Dolphin Test Campaign to characterize several COTS and Government off-
    the-shelf is ongoing and scheduled for conclusion in June 2010. If it
    is demonstrated that operational and technical requirements of the
    maritime mission area can be met by commercially available boat-mounted
    systems, systems may be incorporated into DHS acquisition programs.
    DNDO will develop and test a prototype system if commercially available
    systems cannot meet the requirements.
    Milestones in Systems Development Boat-Mounted Sensors
        Fiscal year 2010 planned milestones include:
      --Collect and compile the mission needs of DHS operational components
            in regards to maritime standoff detection to include boat-
            mounted, aircraft-mounted, fixed, and mobile;
      --Develop operational requirements specific to boat-mounted detection
            systems from USCG, CBP-Air and Marine, and OBP; and
      --Complete an analysis of alternatives to compare cost effectiveness
            and probability of detection of boat and aircraft-mounted
            standoff detection systems with currently fielded detection
            equipment carried by law-enforcement boarding teams.
        Fiscal year 2011 planned accomplishments include:
      --Finalize the requirements documents for a boat-mounted, stand-off
            detector;
      --Develop an acquisition plan to include system specification;
      --Begin the development of boat-mounted systems to support evaluation
            and deployment on selected DHS small boats;
      --Procure early developmental systems against the requirements; and
      --Test Engineering Design Models.
                         worksite enforcement sanctions
        Question. In your testimony at the hearing, you requested authority
    to impose stronger sanctions against employers to knowingly hire or
    employ illegal aliens.
        What is your proposal and will you be submitting it shortly?
        Answer. DHS supports legislation to increase criminal and civil
    penalties against employers who knowingly violate the law, particularly
    those who abuse and/or exploit the workers.
      office of the federal coordinator for gulf coast rebuilding (ofcgcr)
        Question. According to Presidential Directive, the OFCGCR will be
    closed at the end of March. However, the Gulf Coast rebuilding effort
    is on-going and will take years to come.
        How will the needed on-going activities of the OFCGCR be absorbed,
    and who will be responsible for the completion of those activities?
        Answer. From the first day of this administration, rebuilding the
    Gulf Coast communities from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita has been a top
    priority. The President and many members of his Cabinet have visited
    the Gulf Coast, representing the Obama administration's strong
    commitment to solving problems by making the Federal process move
    faster and be more responsive to the needs of the community.
        The closure of OFCGCR is in many ways a milestone in the recovery
    from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The recovery is moving into its next
    phase, and the OFCGCR has worked closely with other Federal agencies,
    as well as the State and local governments to address long term needs.
        Question. How much of the fiscal year 2010 funding for the OFCGCR
    is expected to be unobligated after the termination of the office is
    complete?
        Answer. The OFCGCR is expected to have approximately $843,000
    unobligated. The Department has requested that $100,000 be transferred
    to FEMA for the Long-Term Disaster Recovery Working Group.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
                            immigration enforcement
        Question. Secretary Napolitano, many agricultural producers rely on
    an immigrant workforce and would like to publicly support immigration
    reform, but they are fearful that if they do so they will draw the
    attention of DHS.
        Should agricultural employers in my State be concerned that they
    will become a target for enforcement actions, such as an I-9 audit, if
    they speak out publicly to support comprehensive immigration reform?
        Answer. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) does not initiate
    investigations based on an individual, business or organization's
    political views. ICE initiates worksite enforcement investigations
    based on leads or intelligence information that indicate a possible
    worksite violation.
        Secretary Napolitano, as you may know, the I-9 form is a 2-page
    form with a 65-page manual, making it a complicated form for employers
    to complete. Our employers strive to complete the form accurately,
    including recording documents from potential employees, but they are
    not necessarily experts in verifying inaccurate or falsified documents.
        Question. Other than the E-Verify program, what other Department
    initiatives are available for employers around the country as they try
    to comply with their obligations?
        Answer. In 2007, to combat unlawful employment and reduce
    vulnerabilities that help illegal aliens gain such employment, ICE
    created the Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers (IMAGE)
    program--a voluntary tool for employers to reduce unauthorized
    employment and the use of fraudulent identity documents.
        As part of IMAGE, ICE and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
    (USCIS) provide education and training on proper hiring procedures,
    fraudulent document detection, use of the E-Verify employment
    eligibility verification program, and anti-discrimination procedures.
    Among other participation requirements, the IMAGE program requires that
    its members enroll in E-Verify and the Social Security Number
    Verification Service (SSNVS) which allows employers to match their
    record of employee names and Social Security numbers with Social
    Security records before preparing and submitting Forms W-2.
        Secretary Napolitano, I'm aware of efforts by agencies within your
    Department to conduct I-9 audits around the country. One such audit has
    been completed in my home State and I understand that a few dozen more
    are underway. I've heard concerns from agricultural producers as well
    as community members about the effects of these audits on local
    communities.
        Question. Can you tell me how the Department is planning to move
    forward with I-9 audits in 2010?
        Answer. Form I-9 inspections are an integral part of Immigration
    and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) worksite enforcement strategy, which
    aims to hold employers accountable for their hiring practices and to
    promote compliance with immigration laws. Congress appropriated an
    additional $6 million in fiscal year 2010 for ICE to hire additional
    auditors, the primary personnel within ICE who conduct Form I-9
    inspections. ICE will continue to conduct inspections nationwide based
    on leads or intelligence information that indicates a possible worksite
    violation.
                                 cyber security
        Question. You may be aware of a number of news stories and
    demonstrations in which terrorists or foreign governments are able to
    launch cyber attacks targeted at our Nation's power grid. Many of the
    key components of the power grid are owned and operated by private
    companies and their participation will be critical to prevent cyber
    attacks. But it is still undetermined whether the Department has the
    sufficient authority, the plans in place or the cooperation of private
    sector employees in order to protect critical Bulk Power System
    infrastructure in the case of an imminent, cyber threat.
        Without utility experts at the table, high-ranking government
    officials will be left to make choices with incomplete information and
    without the ability to implement the decisions they did make. And, of
    equal importance, during a crisis government officials may not be able
    to implement mitigation strategies without open lines of communication
    to private sector operators. As you know, Congress and the Department
    are looking at these questions now.
        Do you agree with experts in the utility industry who say that they
    need to receive from the Federal Government specific, actionable
    information in order to respond appropriately to an imminent cyber
    security threat?
        Answer. Yes, we agree. The majority of national critical
    infrastructure (including the Nation's power grid) is owned and
    operated by private industry. These owners and operators are
    responsible for the day-to-day operation and security of their
    infrastructure and, as such, should receive specific, actionable
    information to respond appropriately to an imminent cybersecurity
    threat. Furthermore, information sharing and regular communication
    between government and industry is important to ensure successful
    mitigation and prevention of incidents that might have national
    consequences. To this end, the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)
    National Cyber Security Division and the Office of Intelligence and
    Analysis engage in a variety of activities designed to increase timely
    information sharing between government and private industry.
        Question. How will the Department provide, or make available,
    security clearances to potentially thousands of privately owned utility
    companies and private sector officials in order to allow them to be
    able to receive precise, actionable information about security threats?
        Answer. Actionable information is often unclassified--steps to
    protect networks from threats can be taken without access to classified
    knowledge regarding the origin of those threats.
        Additionally, the National Cyber Security Division is working to
    provide security clearances to representatives of each critical
    infrastructure and key resources sector under the National
    Infrastructure Protection Plan Partnership Framework. These
    representatives of each sector will have sufficient threat context to
    justify the implementation of an unclassified, actionable
    vulnerability-mitigation strategy without the need to disclose the
    classified information throughout the sector.
        In addition, DHS's National Cybersecurity Division is working with
    the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis as well as other partners
    within the Intelligence Community to improve ``tear-line'' processes,
    which will ensure that classified cybersecurity information can be
    brought down to ``Unclassified/For Official Use Only'' levels when
    appropriate to enable broader sharing with critical infrastructure
    representatives.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
        Question. On December 17, Senator Lamar Alexander and I introduced
    the Child Safety, Care and Education Continuity Act of 2010. As you
    know, in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, almost 370,000
    children across the Gulf Coast were displaced from their homes, day
    care facilities, and schools. Kids are the focal point of the family,
    and getting them back into school or child care is essential to
    allowing their parents to get back to work. I appreciate FEMA's
    willingness to move forward on administrative recommendations from the
    National Commission on Children and Disasters, but more must be done.
    Our bill requires Child Care Centers to develop plans for evacuation,
    reunification plans, temporary operating standards, and special needs.
    It also requires the FEMA Administrator to encourage States and
    localities to address childcare services and facilities in their
    response and recovery plans.
        Has the Department been involved in discussions with states and
    localities to emphasize the need to address childcare services and
    facilities in their response and recovery plans?
        Answer. Yes, FEMA has been working with states and localities to
    address the need for preparedness, response, and recovery plans for
    childcare facilities. FEMA has also worked closely with the National
    Commission on Children and Disasters to clarify ways in which Homeland
    Security Grant Program (HSGP) dollars may be used to support
    preparedness and planning activities for children's needs, and several
    additions specifically addressing children were incorporated into the
    fiscal year 2010 HSGP guidance. Additionally, FEMA's Children's Working
    Group and the Department of Health and Human Services are working
    together to improve the overall availability of safe, healthy childcare
    for children during and immediately following a disaster. Through these
    efforts, HHS expects to issue preparedness and response guidance for
    states and child care grantees by the end of 2010.
        Question. Is your Department collaborating with the Department of
    Health and Human Services on joint emergency planning for child care
    facilities or with the Department of Education on joint emergency
    planning for schools?
        Answer. FEMA's Children's Working Group and the Department of
    Health and Human Services are working together to improve the overall
    availability of safe, healthy childcare for children during and
    immediately following a disaster. Through these efforts, HHS expects to
    issue preparedness and response guidance for States and child care
    grantees by the end of 2010.
        FEMA is also working with HHS to disseminate recently published
    guidance clarifying and HHS are also working together to provide
    guidance clarifying reimbursement eligibility for the cost of child
    care services. HHS will share this guidance with their child care
    grantees to help FEMA reach State and local jurisdictions.
        FEMA has also been working with the Department of Education to
    develop emergency planning guidance for schools. Additionally, FEMA
    recently began collaborating with Education and HHS to develop a more
    structured and comprehensive approach to increasing preparedness
    knowledge and behaviors of America's youth from pre-kindergarten
    through high school.
        The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report in March
    2007 revealing significant waste, fraud, and abuse associated with
    payments made by the Department in response to Hurricanes Katrina and
    Rita. FEMA's Individuals and Households Program application process
    resulted in an estimated $1 billion in potentially fraudulent payments
    through February 2006. FEMA also made nearly $20 million in duplicate
    payments to individuals for property damage that submitted claims for
    both Katrina and Rita. I appreciate that the Department has
    significantly improved fraud controls since these problems were first
    discovered, but flaws still exist that leave the government vulnerable
    to additional waste, according to a follow-up report from GAO issued in
    June 2009. That report noted that FEMA had improved measures to verify
    identities but not the existence of claimed addresses. For example,
    FEMA failed to properly inspect a fabricated address that GAO used to
    apply for rental assistance and wound up sending several thousand
    dollars to the address as a result. It is my hope that further reform
    will lead to a Department which can perform nimbly and efficiently
    without squandering limited funding for response and recovery.
        Question. What additional protocols have been implemented to better
    protect the Department against waste, fraud and abuse since the
    issuance of the June 2009 GAO report?
        Answer. FEMA has taken several steps to better protect the Agency
    against waste, fraud and abuse since the issuance of the June 2009, GAO
    report.
        In October 2009, FEMA established an internal Audit Section
    responsible for auditing casework, reviewing how policy or procedural
    guidance affects decisions, conducting random checks on applicant
    documentation, and making recommendations for system changes. The Audit
    Section completed an audit directly associated with applicants who
    failed the automated identity verification process referenced in the
    GAO report. This audit identified improvements for caseworker training
    materials and guidance, as well as casework quality control.
        As a result of these findings, we have improved the document
    validation processes used by our casework staff and new training
    guidance and quality control procedures have been put in place. In
    addition, FEMA is working with the OIG to improve our caseworkers'
    ability to identify potentially fraudulent documents and identify the
    best tools for automated verification of applicant-provided
    information.
        On January 31, 2010, we deployed a new version of the National
    Emergency Management Information System (NEMIS). This updated version
    includes a number of new system controls to help FEMA prevent waste,
    fraud, and abuse.
        The Contract Management and Housing Inspection Services (CMHIS)
    Section has also instituted new quality assurance processes including
    the review of digital photographs of damages taken by the inspection
    contractors. This photo review is used to identify and correct
    inspections that have potential errors that could result in an
    incorrect payment to an applicant. In addition, CMHIS has updated
    inspection guidelines to direct the housing inspectors to flag suspect
    inspections for further review, and has implemented a process by which
    potentially fraudulent cases are referred to the OIG for investigation.
        On February 5, FEMA and the White House Long-Term Disaster Recovery
    Working Group released a preliminary draft of the National Disaster
    Recovery Framework (NDRF). This document is long overdue, and I applaud
    the administration for recognizing that recovery is fundamentally
    different than response, and that it requires intensive coordination
    between Federal agencies and stakeholders to effectively execute. Once
    complete, the Framework will function as a companion document to the
    National Response Framework (NRF) and identify the roles,
    responsibilities, and resources of Federal agencies, State and local
    governments, nonprofits, businesses, and individuals/families before
    and after a disaster with regard to recovery.
        Question. Will FEMA require money to implement the NDRF? If so, how
    much, and are those funds included in the Department's fiscal year 2011
    budget request?
        Answer. The National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) is an
    important initiative that will describe how disaster recovery efforts
    and assistance are coordinated. EMA included the NDRF implementation
    activities within its base fiscal year 2011 budget.
        While the budget requests level funding for most grant programs,
    there are several proposed reductions that concern me. Congress
    appropriated $35 million for Emergency Operations Centers (EOC) grants
    last year, but the proposed budget would eliminate the program
    entirely. EOCs are a critical tool for emergency managers to exert
    command and control, obtain and share information in real time, and
    direct resources to address urgent needs.
        Question. What is the justification for eliminating this program
    entirely?
        Answer. Last year, 80 percent of EOC funds were awarded based on
    earmarks. The fiscal year 2011 Budget Request seeks to consolidate a
    number of grant programs to give states maximum flexibility to
    prioritize their greatest needs. States can continue to fund EOC
    activities under the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) as
    determined by their priorities.
        The budget also eliminates funding for the Metropolitan Medical
    Response System (MMRS) program, which helps localities to prepare for a
    mass casualty public health emergency caused, for example, by a
    biological attack or flu epidemic. As I understand it, the
    justification for eliminating the program is that funding from the
    Urban Area Security Initiative program can be used for this purpose.
    But there are some MMRS jurisdictions that are not designated Urban
    Areas according to the Department.
        Question. Can you explain the justification behind these proposed
    cuts?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2011 Budget Request seeks to consolidate a
    number of grant programs, so that states, territories, and metropolitan
    areas have maximum flexibility to fund their priorities and apply DHS
    grant funding to areas to address the most significant risks. The
    consolidation reduces the number of separate grant programs, which
    decreases the number of applications a State will need to submit. The
    MMRS activities can now be funded under both the State Homeland
    Security Program (SHSP) and the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI).
        Question. How does the Department plan to ensure that funding
    remains available for the MMRS jurisdictions that are not in a UASI
    region?
        Answer. The consolidation of programs means that those activities
    that were formerly allowed under the MMRS grant program are now
    allowable under both the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), which
    provides funding to the District of Columbia, the territories, every
    State, as well as the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI). As such,
    MMRS jurisdictions are not limited if they are not in a UASI
    jurisdiction. In addition, this gives States that do not currently have
    an MMRS jurisdiction the freedom to establish one if they so choose.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
        Question. During the Newark Airport breach, the security of a busy,
    heavily traveled exit was left to just one TSA guard. The suspect was
    able to sneak in when that lone guard was distracted. The President's
    budget provides funding for an increase in the hiring of TSA airport
    security personnel. It's clear that Newark Airport does not have the
    necessary number of TSA personnel to provide the type of security that
    this airport requires.
        How many additional TSA personnel will Newark Airport receive under
    the President's budget request?
        Answer. TSA's staffing allocation model takes into account the
    security of exit lanes. Following the security breach at Newark
    International Airport on January 3, 2010, the Transportation Security
    Administration (TSA) deployed a team of security experts to the airport
    to evaluate, review, and make necessary security changes to the
    existing checkpoint layout. As a result of the review, TSA installed
    glass barricades to minimize the chance of recurrence and reconfigured
    the staffing coverage to address vulnerabilities. Additional personnel
    requirements for the Newark International Airport will be considered as
    part of the fiscal year 2011 Screener Allocation Model process.
        TSA's staffing allocation model to determine the number of TSA
    personnel at airports does not take into account the security of exit
    lanes. The Newark Airport security breach demonstrated the importance
    of securing airport exit lanes.
        Question. Will the TSA revise its staffing model to take into
    account TSA staffing at airport exit lanes?
        Answer. TSA's staffing allocation takes into account the security
    of exit lanes. TSA periodically evaluates staffing configurations at
    all airports as a part of its Screener Allocation Model. During this
    process, TSA assesses staffing and lane configuration at all
    checkpoints and the exit lanes that are co-located with checkpoints to
    optimize staffing and security nationwide.
        Question. In light of the Newark Airport security breach, what
    immediate steps has DHS taken to secure terminal exits at airports
    across the country?
        Answer. Immediately following the Newark International Airport
    security breach, TSA ordered all Federal Security Directors nationwide
    to review the security vulnerabilities at their airport checkpoints and
    make necessary changes, such as ensuring immediate access to closed
    circuit television records.
        In addition, TSA is evaluating Exit Lane Breach Control (ELBC)
    technologies as requested by Congress that are capable of detecting
    unauthorized individuals using exit lanes as a means to bypass security
    checkpoints and gain access into the sterile area. TSA will guide the
    selection, configuration, and evaluation of various technologies under
    a 6- to 18-month laboratory and field assessment to test and evaluate
    the performance capabilities and technical viability of ELBC
    technologies. Once the laboratory and field assessment is complete, TSA
    will determine if the technology provides value to the checkpoint
    environment.
        The President's budget cuts funding for the U.S. Coast Guard and
    proposes to eliminate five Maritime Safety and Security Teams,
    including the team assigned to the New York/New Jersey region. The Port
    of New York/New Jersey is the largest port on the East Coast and the
    second largest port in the country. It is directly linked to what the
    FBI deemed the most dangerous two miles in America for a terrorist
    attack.
        Question. Given the risks and vulnerabilities of this area of the
    country, why would you eliminate critical homeland security resources
    there?
        Answer. The New York Coast Guard Sector has one of the largest
    concentrations of Coast Guard units, boats, and people in the country
    with more than 700 personnel and 35 vessels, and is well equipped and
    prepared to protect the State's waterways and maritime borders. In
    2009, the New York Maritime Safety and Security Team (MSST) spent
    considerable time deployed outside of New York to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
    and the States of Washington, Florida, Michigan, and Connecticut.
    Accordingly, to make the most of current operating capabilities, the
    fiscal year 2011 Budget Request transitions the MSSTs to a regional
    model, enabling the Coast Guard to rapidly deploy teams of skilled
    professionals to ports and operating areas across the country based on
    risk and threats as needed.
        Question. Over 2 years ago, Congress required 100 percent scanning
    of all shipping containers coming to the United States. The last
    administration was only able to scan less than 5 percent of all U.S.-
    bound containers and the GAO found that 100 percent screening has not
    been achieved at even one port.
        Has this administration increased at all the number of U.S.-bound
    containers being scanned?
        Answer. DHS is continuing to address this issue aggressively and
    comprehensively from a risk- and technology-based approach. DHS must
    mitigate threats across all potential pathways, evaluating all points
    of risk and vulnerability across a complex system.
        Question. What percentage of U.S.-bound containers are currently
    scanned?
        Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) employs a risk-
    based, layered approach to ensure the integrity of the supply chain
    through arrival at a U.S. port of entry. This multi-layered approach
    includes:
      --Advanced information under the 24-Hour Rule and Trade Act of 2002
            (supplemented now by CBP's Importer Security Filing (ISF), or
            ``10+2'' requirements);
      --Screening of all cargo information through the Automated Targeting
            System (ATS) and National Targeting Center--Cargo (NTC-C);
      --Scanning of about 5 percent of U.S.-bound containers;
      --Scanning 99 percent of all seaborne containerized cargo upon
            arrival at U.S. seaports;
      --Partnerships with industry and the private sector such as the
            Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT);
      --Partnerships with foreign governments, such as the Container
            Security Initiative (CSI) and the Secure Freight Initiative
            (SFI); and
      --Use of Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) technology and mandatory
            exams for all high-risk shipments.
      --The goal of this layered approach is to combine each of these
            systems to allow us to receive, process, and act upon
            commercial information in a timely manner so that we can
            target, in a very specific fashion, suspect shipments without
            hindering the movement of commerce through our ports.
        Question. The 9/11 Act, which was signed into law over 2 years ago,
    set a number of deadlines for TSA to secure our surface transportation
    networks. Unfortunately, TSA has missed many of these deadlines.
        When will TSA complete the comprehensive risk assessment and
    national security strategy for the rail sector that was due to Congress
    last year?
        Answer. The Freight Railroad Security Risk Assessment and National
    Strategy, as required by section 1511 of the Implementing
    Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, is currently
    undergoing executive-level review within TSA. Once TSA, DHS, and the
    Office of Management and Budget clear the draft it will be delivered to
    the appropriate committees of Congress, expected by the end of third
    quarter fiscal year 2010.
        Question. The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) is currently expected to
    be exhausted in early April and FEMA announced the temporary suspension
    of Public Assistance categories C-G and Hazard Mitigation grants on
    February 4. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget proposes $5.1
    billion in supplemental emergency spending for the DRF; however, the
    current fiscal year 2010 shortfall is estimated to be as much as $6.4
    billion.
        In light of the impact recent snow storms have had on East Coast
    communities, does the supplemental budget request provide sufficient
    funding for the DRF to cover the fiscal year 2010 shortfall and lift
    the suspension of Public Assistance Category C-G and Hazard Mitigation
    grant programs?
        Answer. The $5.1 billion supplemental request will provide
    sufficient funding for the DRF to cover the fiscal year 2010 shortfall
    and lift the suspension of Public Assistance Category C-G and Hazard
    Mitigation grant programs.
        Question. If so, how long will it take to lift the suspension if a
    supplemental becomes law?
        Answer. The suspension can be lifted immediately after the
    supplemental funding is enacted into law.
        Question. Three large snow storms have impacted communities in New
    Jersey since December and FEMA has declared one to be a disaster.
        Will the $5.1 billion supplemental request provide sufficient funds
    to allow FEMA to fund high priority Public Assistance Category B
    programs should a Presidential disaster be declared for the two
    additional storms?
        Answer. Yes, the $5.1 billion supplemental request will provide
    sufficient funds to allow FEMA to fund high priority Public Assistance
    Category B programs should a Presidential disaster be declared for the
    two additional storms.
        Question. A January 2010 report by the DHS Office of the Inspector
    General found that the Department reported 289 firearms as lost between
    fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2008. These guns were lost in bowling
    alleys, public restrooms, unlocked cars, and other unsecure areas, with
    some ending up in the hands of criminals.
        Were any of these lost guns used in connection with any crimes?
        Answer. At the time of the audit, none of the weapons had been
    reported as used in the commission of a crime.
        Question. During this administration, how has the Department
    improved systems for securing and tracking its firearms?
        Answer. DHS is strongly committed to ensuring that weapons utilized
    in support of its law enforcement mission are kept secure and the
    Department took immediate action to correct the deficiencies identified
    in this audit and to improve the overall management of firearms. DHS is
    in the process of implementing new policies and procedures to ensure
    that accurate and timely firearms property records and systems are
    maintained. These new policies and procedures will require the proper
    storage of weapons, annual firearms security requirements awareness
    training for all personnel issued firearms, and accountability and
    requirements for investigation when individuals fail to follow
    procedures.
        In addition to the department-wide activities, several components
    have taken specific actions to improve the securing and tracking of
    firearms.
    ICE
        Ensured that officers and agents store their firearms in secure
    locations, including pistol lockboxes or other approved devices.
        Strengthened and updated its policies regarding firearm transfers,
    reporting lost or stolen firearms and other sensitive property, and
    annual firearm inventories.
        Instituted new procedures and timelines for updating records in the
    automated firearms inventory system.
        Promoting firearms security awareness through bulletins and other
    communications that reinforce firearms storage requirements and
    quarterly qualifications training.
        Expanding the scope of its field office inspection program to
    include a review of firearms security storage practices, and requiring
    supervisory review of firearms inventory.
        Assessing firearm security equipment needs and procuring the
    additional equipment required to ensure each armed officer is issued
    adequate equipment to secure their firearms.
    CBP
        Transitioning to a Web-based firearms accountability system in
    April 2009.
        Created a monthly review process of lost firearms to improve
    oversight and accountability.
        Utilized CBPnet to remind law enforcement personnel of the
    reporting requirements for lost, stolen, or missing firearms.
        Developed a presentation that addresses the proper methods for
    safeguarding and controlling firearms, which CBP plans to use annually.
    United States Secret Service
        Conducting an overall firearms policy review.
        Continues to place a strong emphasis on weapons accountability and
    security with all current employees who carry firearms and new hires
    participating in training.
    TSA
        Accounts for firearms in the Federal Air Marshal Information System
    (FAMIS)--a data system that tracks the issuance, movement, repair, and
    destruction of firearms.
        Question. In 2009, TSA modified FAMIS to track ``In-Transit''
    weapons and generate an electronic notification for all weapons
    shipments.
        At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this past November,
    Attorney General Holder expressed his support for my legislation to
    close the Terror Gap that allows known and suspected terrorists to buy
    guns legally.
        Does the Department of Homeland Security also support closing this
    loophole?
        Answer. The administration does not have an official position on
    this legislation at this time.
        Question. It is estimated that Haiti was home to more than 350,000
    orphans before the devastating January 12 earthquake and many more
    children have lost their parents as a result of this catastrophic
    disaster.
        Does the Department of Homeland Security support expanding the
    humanitarian parole policy to include orphans that have close family
    members in the United States who are willing to provide a temporary or
    permanent location for them?
        Answer. In coordination with the Department of State, on January
    18, 2010, DHS announced a policy for providing humanitarian parole to
    Haitian orphans who were in the process of being adopted by U.S.
    citizens or who had been matched with prospective U.S. citizen parents
    prior to January 12, 2010. These eligible children and the adoptive
    families were previously known to the Haitian and U.S. Governments and
    sufficiently screened such that both governments could proceed with
    confidence on an extremely fast track.
        DHS is engaged in Operation Protect Children, led by the U.S.
    Government Special Advisor on Orphans and Vulnerable Children, which
    focuses on efforts to provide protection and assistance to orphans and
    vulnerable children in Haiti. UNICEF and other aid organizations, in
    coordination with the Government of Haiti, are establishing protected
    areas for children and working to reunite separated children with their
    families. DHS agrees with interagency partners and international child
    protection organizations that these efforts are the most critical area
    in need of U.S. Government support at this juncture.
        Question. Did the department conduct a risk and vulnerability
    assessment in determining the number of Marine Safety and Security
    Teams (MSST) to eliminate?
        Answer. To make the most of current operating capabilities, the
    fiscal year 2011 Budget Request transitions the Maritime Safety and
    Security Teams (MSST) to a regional model, enabling the Coast Guard to
    rapidly deploy teams of skilled professionals to ports and operating
    areas across the country based on risk and threats as needed. The teams
    were selected based on existing Coast Guard presence in their region.
    Transitioning the MSSTs to a regional model will enable the Coast Guard
    to rapidly deploy teams of skilled professionals to ports and operating
    areas across the country based on risk and threats as needed. The Coast
    Guard will also continue to leverage all available intelligence
    resources and partnerships across DHS, the Federal Government and State
    and local law enforcement to collectively mitigate risks and ensure the
    security of the Nation's ports.
        Question. Can you provide that risk and vulnerability assessment on
    the decision to eliminate the MSST for the New York/New Jersey region?
        Answer. The New York Coast Guard Sector has one of the largest
    concentrations of Coast Guard units, boats, and people in the country
    with more than 700 personnel and 35 vessels, and is well equipped and
    prepared to protect the State's waterways and maritime borders.
    Further, the security system of the port of New York is supported by
    significant interagency resources from other State, local, and Federal
    agencies and port facilities, many of which have been substantially
    increased through port security grants. Moreover, the New York region
    is covered by a Maritime Security Response Team in the event of high
    threat-high consequence event and is proximal to the Atlantic Strike
    Team for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear response and
    incident management.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator George V. Voinovich
                             grants--effectiveness
        Question. The Department's fiscal year 2011 request includes $4
    billion for grants to improve the preparedness and response
    capabilities of State and local governments. This is 9.1 percent of the
    Department's total discretionary request of $43.6 billion. More
    importantly, this $4 billion will be in addition to the $28 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 improved or made the Nation
    sufficiently capable of responding to disasters. There is a significant
    difference between knowing how many fire trucks have been bought with
    grant dollars, and being able to draw conclusions that more fire trucks
    means we are better prepared to respond to a nuclear event.
        In October of 2009, Timothy Manning, Deputy Administrator for the
    National Preparedness Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
    testified to the Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. House of
    Representatives:
        ``Given the size of this investment [in grant funding], it is
    critical for us as stewards of Federal dollars, to be able to identify,
    measure and assess what these dollars have bought and what the
    investment has returned. At the end of the day, we need to answer some
    very fundamental questions. The most fundamental of theses is simply,
    `What have we bought?' Once we are able to answer this basic question,
    we should then be able to ask the more important one that logically
    follows, `Are we better prepared?' . . . Intuitively, we could answer
    the question `Are we better prepared?' with a `yes.' We could validly
    point to the amount and type of equipment that has been purchase, [etc]
    . . . However, intuitive conclusions are not good enough. DHS and FEMA
    are committed to answering questions of preparedness with a greater
    degree of accuracy.''
        Clearly Mr. Manning's testimony confirms that we are no closer
    today than we were 5 years ago to being able to measure the effect $28
    billion in grants have had on our Nation's preparedness. Further
    evidence of our inability to measure is confirmed by the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO). In the GAO report entitled ``National
    Preparedness: FEMA has Made Progress but Needs to Complete and
    Integrate Planning, Exercise, and Assessment Efforts'' it states:
        ``The Post-Katrina Act requires that FEMA establish a comprehensive
    system to assess the Nation's prevention capabilities and overall
    preparedness . . . FEMA has established reporting guidance for State
    preparedness and has created a program office to develop and implement
    an assessment approach that considers past efforts and integrates its
    ongoing efforts related to measuring the results of Federal grants and
    assessing gaps in disaster response capabilities. However, FEMA faces
    challenges in developing and completing this approach . . . FEMA faces
    methodological challenges that include deciding how information and
    data from different sources will be used to inform the system and
    developing an approach for coordinating with Federal, State, and local
    stakeholders in developing and implementing the system and reporting on
    its results. Moreover, FEMA has faced similar challenges in three
    previous attempts to assess capabilities since at least 1997. For
    example, from 2006 through 2008, FEMA spent $15 million on a Web-based
    system to identify capability data among States. However, FEMA
    discontinued the effort, in part because the data produced were not
    meaningful.''
        How can the Department continue to request such large sums of money
    for grants when it lacks the capacity to measure whether risk is being
    reduced or mitigated? Secretary Napolitano, you have indicated that the
    Department is reviewing existing performance measures. Please provide a
    copy of the existing measures used by the Department to track and
    measure effectiveness of grants and a timeline for the ongoing review.
    Further, provide a timeline for implementing the findings of the
    review.
        Answer. The grants in the fiscal year 2011 Budget Request are
    critical to the preparedness and response capabilities of State and
    local governments as well as our national efforts to combat terrorism
    and other threats. FEMA continuously monitors grantees, from both a
    financial and programmatic perspective, crafts grant guidance and
    requirements to ensure maximum effectiveness and is in the process of
    developing assessment tools to measure results.
        For reviewing existing measures, FEMA has performance measures that
    are used as part of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),
    which include:
      --Percent of grantees reporting significant progress toward the goals
            and objectives identified in their State homeland security
            strategies;
      --Percent of significant progress toward implementation of National
            Preparedness priorities;
      --Percent of States and territories accredited by the Emergency
            Management Accreditation Program; and
      --Percent reduction in firefighter injuries in jurisdictions
            receiving Assistance to Firefighter Grants compared to the
            national average.
        In addition, FEMA is continuing to work on additional measures for
    measuring grant effectiveness and has also undertaken the larger effort
    on revising its data collection tools and strengthening its assessments
    through the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review and Bottom Up Review.
        With regards to an implementation timeline, FEMA leadership is
    carefully reviewing the products of the data collection review, grant
    effectiveness work, existing performance measures, and assessment tools
    in order to develop a way forward.
                         disaster relief (drf) funding
        Question. The President's fiscal year 2011 Budget includes a
    request for $3.6 billion in supplemental appropriations for fiscal year
    2010 for Disaster Relief. Less than 2 weeks later, the President
    submitted an amendment to increase that request to $5.1 billion.
        Is the current supplemental request for fiscal year 2010 of $5.1
    billion for Disaster Relief adequate to sustain this important function
    through the end of this fiscal year?
        Answer. Yes, the $5.1 billion supplemental request will provide
    sufficient funds to sustain this function through fiscal year 2010.
        Question. Will $5.1 billion in supplemental appropriations for
    fiscal year 2010 cover all of the estimated liabilities from
    arbitration proceedings and the Recovery School District?
        Answer. Yes, the $5.1 billion supplemental request will provide
    sufficient funds to cover the estimated liabilities from arbitration
    proceedings and the Recovery School District.
        Question. How much funding is included in the fiscal year 2011
    request for prior disaster liabilities? How does this match the current
    estimate for these liabilities?
        Answer. DHS projects that approximately $1.6 billion will be
    required for costs related to prior disaster liabilities. Further,
    given the difficulties associated with predicting costs associated with
    future catastrophic disasters, funding was not included in the 2011
    Budget Request for these liabilities. DHS believes that budgeting
    annually for the noncatastrophic 5-year rolling average and addressing
    catastrophic disasters through the supplemental appropriations process
    continues to be the best approach.
                                    real id
        Question. As Governor of Arizona, Secretary Napolitano, you signed
    legislation barring Arizona's compliance with Real ID, calling it an
    unfunded Federal mandate and saying your support of the Real ID Act was
    contingent upon adequate Federal funding for States to implement the
    program. However, many other states are moving ahead with improving the
    security of their driver's license issuance process. One important
    element is linking the databases States need access to for identify
    verification. The Department was appropriated $50 million in fiscal
    year 2009 for REAL ID information sharing and verification systems.
    Additionally, $17 million was awarded to a consortium of States in
    fiscal year 2008 to work on the development of the verification hub
    requirements generation, system development, and deployment project.
    What is the status of developing the various data links and databases
    necessary for the States to verify documents issued by other States and
    the Federal Government?
        Answer. A core team of five States, led by the State of
    Mississippi, in addition to the combined efforts of 25 other States
    have developed the business and technical requirements for the State-
    to-State component of the verification system. These requirements are
    currently being verified and validated prior to being formally
    presented to DHS for approval.
        DHS has also partnered with the Department of Transportation
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the American
    Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators on the verification and
    validation process of business and technical requirements. Once the
    requirements have been validated and approved by DHS, this initiative
    will move forward to the system design phase.
             visa waiver program/biometric air exit implementation
        Question. As you know, I am a strong supporter of the Visa Waiver
    Program and I believe the United States receives untold public
    diplomacy benefits and improved security from this program. I believe
    it should be expanded to more countries. However, Congress has passed
    laws that tie the expansion of the Visa Waiver Program to the
    implementation of a biometric air exit system. Solely in the context of
    passengers arriving and departing the United States by air, Secretary
    Napolitano, do you believe that a biometric air exit system is the most
    cost effective way to track the departure by air of legitimate
    travelers leaving the United States?
        Answer. DHS currently has programs in place that use airline
    manifest information, border crossing records, document readers enabled
    by the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), and information
    collected under the US-VISIT program to record who enters and exits the
    country by air. Based on this information, DHS assesses whether an
    individual has overstayed the terms of their admission.
        Over the past 3 years, DHS has been planning and testing possible
    solutions for integrating biometric exit requirements into the
    international air departure process. Congress required DHS, through the
    fiscal year 2009 DHS Appropriations Act, to test and provide a report
    assessing specific options with respect to collection of biometrics
    from most non-U.S. citizens exiting the United States. DHS conducted
    two pilots from May to July 2009. The results of these pilots are
    contained in a report submitted to the Committee. Cost effectiveness
    and efficiencies are amongst the critical factors that will contribute
    to the decisions made on implementing a biometric exit program, but the
    Department has not made any decisions at this time.
        Question. Again, limiting the discussion solely to passengers
    departing the United States by air, is there a more cost effective and
    better alternative to biometrics to track the departure of these
    travelers?
        Answer. DHS currently has programs in place that use airline and
    ship manifest information, border crossing records, document readers
    enabled by the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, and information
    collected under the US-VISIT program to record who enters and exits the
    country for most individuals, and based on this information, assess
    whether an individual has overstayed the terms of their admission. Cost
    effectiveness and efficiencies are amongst the critical factors that
    will contribute to the decisions we make on implementing a biometric
    exit program, but we have not made any decisions at this time.
        Question. What programs other than a biometric air exit system
    could be funded at the Department of Homeland Security that would be
    equally effective in identifying visa overstays? If we do go down the
    path currently required by law, how much will full implementation
    solely of a biometric air exit system cost? The fiscal year 2011 budget
    request includes no additional funds for implementing biometric air
    exit. When do you anticipate implementation will begin?
        Answer. The US-VISIT program analyzes entry records to help U.S.
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) apprehend individuals who
    remain illegally in the United States; enables U.S. Customs and Border
    Protection (CBP) to deny admission to individuals who are ineligible to
    enter the United States; assists U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
    Services in denying immigration benefits to individuals who have
    violated the terms of their admission; and assists the Department of
    State in denying or revoking visas to individuals who may have
    overstayed but are no longer in the United States. Since September
    2004, US-VISIT has provided immigration and border management officials
    with records of the entries and exits of individual foreign nationals.
    US-VISIT currently tracks overstay violator records based on airline
    and ship manifest information, border crossing records, document reads
    enabled by the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, arrival/departure
    form I-94 data, and other information collected under the US-VISIT
    program.
        The ICE Compliance Enforcement Unit (CEU) is responsible for
    identifying and investigating foreign students, exchange visitors, and
    other nonimmigrant aliens who violate their authorized terms of
    admission to the United States. The CEU focuses on preventing criminals
    and terrorists from exploiting the U.S. immigration system by
    proactively developing cases for investigation from the Student and
    Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), the National Security
    Entry/Exit Registration System (NSEERS), and US-VISIT. These systems
    allow the CEU to access information on the millions of students,
    tourists, and temporary workers present in the United States at any
    time, and to proactively identify those who violate their status or
    overstay their visas.
        Additionally, over the past several years DHS has made significant
    strides in its ability to identify visa overstays as the percentage of
    air departure records collected has increased from less than 90 percent
    in the 1990s to more than 99 percent today. Continued improvements in
    the systems and processes used to capture automated records of
    nonimmigrant arrivals and departure have also improved DHS's ability to
    identify visa overstays.
        Question. With regards to full implementation solely of a biometric
    air exit system cost, based on the pilots conducted over the last
    several years, DHS estimates that implementation of a biometric air
    exit system will cost between $3 billion and $9 billion over 10 years,
    depending on the specific solution implemented.
        A full schedule will be developed pending a decision on a biometric
    exit program before the implementation will begin.
        During the hearing, Secretary Napolitano, you referenced the $50
    million made available in the fiscal year 2010 Department of Homeland
    Security Appropriations Act for implementation of biometric air exit.
    Do you intend to obligate the funding made available for this purpose
    in fiscal year 2010? If so, when? If not, please explain.
        Answer. The Department has not developed a timeline for
    implementation of a new air exit program. A full schedule and plans for
    obligating funds will be developed pending a decision on a biometric
    exit program.
        Question. What progress has been made in bringing the original 27
    visa waiver countries up to the same information sharing standards as
    the agreements signed with the countries recently admitted to the Visa
    Waiver program?
        Answer. DHS--in cooperation with the Departments of State and
    Justice--has made substantial progress in bringing the 27 pre-2008 visa
    waiver countries into compliance with the information sharing
    requirements of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
    Act (9/11 Act). The 9/11 Act requires Visa Waiver Program (VWP)
    countries to enter into an agreement with the United States to report
    lost and stolen passport (LASP) data to the United States. To date all
    36 VWP countries report LASPs to Interpol in some fashion. Thirty VWP
    countries--or 21 of the pre-2008 members--have signed either a
    memorandum of understanding or a diplomatic note memorializing their
    commitment to continue to report LASPs via Interpol according to
    Interpol's best practices, or to report to the United States via an
    equivalent mechanism (e.g., the Regional Movement Alert System (RMAS))
        The 9/11 Act also requires that VWP countries enter into an
    agreement with the United States to share information on travelers that
    may represent a threat to the security or welfare of the United States
    or its citizens. The U.S. Government (USG) pursues two agreements to
    satisfy this requirement: (1) a Preventing and Combating Serious Crime
    (PCSC) Agreement to exchange information on potential criminals and;
    (2) a Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6 (HSPD-6) Arrangement
    to share terrorist screening information with the United States. The
    interagency reviews existing agreements on a case-by-case basis to
    determine if such agreements meet the necessary information sharing
    threshold. To date, five pre-2008 VWP countries have signed PCSC
    Agreements with the United States (Finland, Germany, Italy, Portugal,
    and Spain).
        Additionally, the interagency has determined that the United
    Kingdom has met the criminal information sharing requirement through a
    number of pre-existing agreements. PCSC negotiations with several other
    countries are ongoing and DHS expects to conclude additional agreements
    in the coming months. Details on pre-2008 VWP countries that have
    signed HSPD-6 Arrangements are classified, but if requested, DHS can
    provide this information through appropriate channels.
                              worksite enforcement
        Question. According to statistics from U.S. Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement, there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of
    administrative and criminal arrests in worksite enforcement.
    Administrative arrests--and I want to be clear these are arrests of
    illegal aliens who do not have the right to work in this country--have
    gone from 5,184 in fiscal year 2008 to 1,654 in fiscal year 2009.
    Criminal arrests of aliens, not employers, went from 968 in fiscal year
    2008 to 296 in fiscal year 2009. How is the Department measuring the
    outcomes of the new worksite enforcement guidance announced on April
    30, 2009, versus the outcomes of the old policy?
        Answer. ICE's new, comprehensive worksite enforcement strategy
    targets employers who cultivate illegal workplaces by breaking the
    country's laws and knowingly hiring illegal workers. This strategy
    protects employment opportunities for the Nation's lawful workforce by
    targeting the magnets that attract illegal workers to the United
    States.
        A successful immigration enforcement strategy includes the use of
    all available civil and administrative tools at our disposal, including
    civil fines and debarment, to deter employers who knowingly hire
    illegal labor. Employers need to understand that the integrity of their
    employment records is just as important to the Federal Government as
    the integrity of their tax files or banking records. Accordingly, ICE
    has increased inspections to ensure that businesses are complying with
    employment laws, and is aggressively pursuing prosecution, fines and
    debarment where justified. In fact, ICE audited more employers
    suspected of hiring illegal labor in a single day in 2009 than had been
    audited in all of 2008.
        These strategies are working. Since January 2009, DHS has audited
    more than 2,300 employers suspected of hiring illegal labor (compared
    to 500 audits in 2008), debarred 70 companies and 63 individuals, and
    issued more than $15 million in fines.
        Question. The new policy appears to have had the effect of greatly
    increasing simple paper audits and decreasing the number of employers
    that are being investigated. How many paper audits of I-9's (Employment
    Eligibility Verification forms, required to be kept by employers for
    all newly hired employees) were initiated in fiscal year 2009? How many
    indictments were filed as a result of those audits? How many I-9 audits
    were initiated in fiscal year 2008? How many indictments were filed as
    a result of fiscal year 2008 audits?
        Answer. Form I-9 inspections allow ICE to investigate far more
    employers than was previously possible. As evidenced by the table
    below, the number of worksite enforcement cases continues to increase.
    These I-9 audits have already led to criminal search warrants.

                      WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT CASES INITIATED
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Cases
                           Fiscal year                           initiated
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2007....................................................           1,093
    2008....................................................           1,191
    2009....................................................           1,461
    2010 (as of 2/28/10)....................................           1,530
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In fiscal year 2009, ICE conducted 1,444 Form I-9 inspections.
        In fiscal year 2008, ICE conducted 503 Form I-9 inspections. I-9
    audits have already led to criminal search warrants.
        ICE does not track the correlation between Form I-9 inspections and
    indictments; however, I-9 audits have already led to criminal search
    warrants.
                         tactical border infrastructure
        Question. What is the path forward for SBInet at this time? When do
    you expect to have the results of the joint Science and Technology
    Directorate and U.S. Customs and Border Protection review of SBInet
    technology announced last month?
        Answer. Not only do we have an obligation to secure our borders, we
    have a responsibility to do so in the most cost effective way possible.
    The system of sensors and cameras along the Southwest border known as
    SBInet has been plagued with cost overruns and missed deadlines. For
    this reason, DHS is redeploying $50 million of Recovery Act funding
    originally allocated for the SBInet Block 1 to other tested,
    commercially available security technology along the Southwest border,
    including mobile surveillance, thermal imaging devices, ultra-light
    detection, backscatter units, mobile radios, cameras and laptops for
    pursuit vehicles, and remote video surveillance system enhancements.
    Additionally, DHS is freezing all SBInet funding beyond SBInet Block
    1's initial deployment to the Tucson and Ajo regions until the
    assessment Secretary Napolitano ordered in January is completed.
        The Department-wide review is motivated by two major
    considerations. The first is that the continued and repeated delays in
    SBInet raise fundamental questions about SBInet's viability and
    availability to meet the need for technology along the border. The
    second is that the high cost of SBInet obligates this administration to
    conduct a full and comprehensive analysis of alternative options to
    ensure DHS is maximizing the impact and effectiveness of the
    substantial taxpayer resources we are devoting to border security
    technology.
        Results are expected to be available by August 2010.
        Question. Secretary Napolitano, do you support constructing the
    high priority tactical infrastructure projects identified by the Border
    Patrol, including fencing?
        Answer. DHS is committed to continuing to secure our borders to
    reduce illegal immigration and potential security breaches, and our
    plan to do so includes substantial investments in technology, tactical
    infrastructure (including fencing, roadways, and lighting), and
    enforcement personnel.
        Question. With the delays that have been experienced in the SBInet
    program, what is being done to fill the gaps that exist along the
    border today? Will the Department be evaluating any less sophisticated
    but already in use technology that could be quickly deployed? Does the
    fiscal year 2011 budget support this?
        Answer. The assessment of SBInet ordered in January 2010 has a
    near-term and a long-term phase. The near-term phase is intended to
    address concerns that delays in SBInet have left critical areas of the
    border more vulnerable than they should be. In this phase, DHS is
    reviewing other, stand-alone technology options. Where there is an
    urgent need for technology along the border, and where Block 1 will not
    be available in time to meet that need, DHS is using some of our fiscal
    year 2009 ARRA funding and fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 BSFIT
    funding to ensure these needs are met.
        Yes. DHS is evaluating the procurement and deployment of a range of
    existing technologies such as Remote Video Surveillance Systems, Mobile
    Surveillance Systems, Unattended Ground Sensors, Scope Trucks, and
    thermal imaging devices.
        Yes. The BSFIT fiscal year 2011 request includes funds for existing
    technologies that could be deployed quickly along both the northern and
    southern borders.
        Question. Do you believe the Department can field something in the
    near term that can benefit the frontline Border Patrol agent?
        Answer. Yes. The Department is redeploying $50 million of Recovery
    Act funding originally allocated for the SBInet Block 1 to other
    tested, commercially available security technology along the Southwest
    border, including mobile surveillance, thermal imaging devices, ultra-
    light detection, backscatter units, mobile radios, cameras and laptops
    for pursuit vehicles, and remote video surveillance system
    enhancements. These technology enhancements will increase agents'
    situational awareness in the field and assist them in effectively
    securing the border.
                                    e-verify
        Question. Last year an amendment on the Senate floor to the fiscal
    year 2010 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill would
    have provided private sector employers the option to use E-Verify to
    check the eligibility of current workers and not just newly hired
    employees. The Department indicated it opposed the inclusion of this
    Senate bill language in the conference report on the grounds that this
    would impose large new burdens on the E-Verify system and that those
    duties had not been budgeted for. Specifically, in the materials
    outlining the Secretary's conference position, the following was
    included:

    ``Senate General Provision 576, which provides private sector employers
    the option to use E-Verify to check the eligibility of current workers,
    has significant implementation challenges and would impose large new
    burdens on the E-Verify system that have not been budgeted. I support
    the general intent to expand and improve employers' ability to verify
    the employment eligibility of their workforce, but oppose this
    provision until such an expansion can be implemented in a measured and
    well-planned fashion.''

        Information provided to the Subcommittee does not appear to support
    this objection. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had the
    capacity to run 65 million queries in fiscal year 2009 and was working
    to double that capacity. In all of fiscal year 2009, the Department
    only received 8.7 million queries. As a part of the preparations for
    requiring Federal contractors to verify the eligibility of their
    workers, USCIS developed the capability for the contractors to self
    select to verify their current workforce. Further, the fiscal year 2010
    appropriation for E-Verify was $25 million higher than the requested
    amount primarily for strengthened compliance capabilities and made
    available for 2 years, raising questions about the idea that funding is
    not available to allow employers to voluntarily check their current
    workforce. Don't you agree that employers should have the option to
    verify their entire workforce? Do you now support allowing employers
    the option of verifying their current workforce through E-Verify? What
    message does not providing this option send to employers seeking a
    mechanism to comply with our immigration laws?
        Answer. E-Verify currently has the capacity to query for work
    eligibility as many as 65 million employees per year, which is the
    estimated number of new employees hired per year. It does not currently
    have the capacity to query an additional 120 million employees, which
    is the estimated size of the existing workforce in the United States.
    To achieve that capacity, DHS would need funding for additional
    hardware to service the expanded use of E-Verify, and both DHS and the
    Social Security Administration would need additional staff to address
    the significantly increased workload that would follow from such a
    sizeable expansion of E-Verify's use.
        In addition, such a sizeable expansion of E-Verify's use would
    require the enhancement of processes and safeguards to reduce errors
    and to ensure that the E-Verify system is not used to improperly screen
    existing workers nor is otherwise abused.
        Substantial progress has been made toward improvements, but the
    existing pattern of growth in E-Verify usage, with 1300 new employers
    joining each week, allows DHS to refine these systems in a measured
    way. Any new expansions in the coverage of E-Verify should be
    accomplished with a well-considered schedule for additional funding and
    for phased expansion of electronic verification.
        As noted previously, I support the general intent to expand and
    improve employers' ability to verify the employment eligibility of
    their workforce provided that the proper processes and resources are
    put in place to address issues that would accompany this significant
    change.
        Those employers seeking to comply with our immigration laws are
    encouraged to work with ICE, through its outreach program, IMAGE. IMAGE
    offers training and education for employers who are interested in
    complying with the immigration laws. ICE recommends employers use a
    series of best practices, one of which is E-Verify for new hires, to
    ensure they employ only lawful workers. Other best practices include
    implementing hiring and anti-discrimination policies, training
    employees on the completion of the Form I-9 and E-Verify, and
    periodically conducting independent audits of the hiring process. ICE
    can also provide training for employers concerned about false or
    fraudulent documents. The IMAGE program also contains a partnership
    component, where employers agree to utilize best practices and have
    their workforce vetted by ICE, ensuring the employer has an authorized
    workforce. External to DHS, employers can use the Social Security
    Number Verification Service to ensure the integrity of payroll data of
    current employees by verifying information with the Social Security
    Administration. Additional information on ICE, the IMAGE program and
    best practices can be found at: http://www.ice.gov/partners/opaimage/
    index.htm
                             fee-funded activities
        Question. The fiscal year 2011 budget includes a number of requests
    for appropriated funds to shore up fee-funded programs due to
    shortfalls in revenues and the failure of the administration to press
    forward with fee increase/restricting proposals. Included in these are:
    $152 million to fund the asylum and refugee programs, $34 million to
    fund the Systematic Alien Verification Entitlements program, and $44
    million to shift costs within U.S. Customs and Border Protection from
    the Immigration User Fee to Salaries and Expenses. How have you
    determined that substituting appropriated dollars is the right priority
    here? Can the Department afford to continue to bear the cost of
    shortfalls in fee-funded activities with appropriations? What is the
    Department doing to advocate for fee reform proposals to avoid this?
        Answer. The fee reform included in the fiscal year 2011 budget
    request falls into two distinct categories: (1) Fee reform that will
    improve the linkage between the level of a specific fee and the actual
    costs necessary to implement the activities associated with that fee
    (e.g., the fees associated with a particular naturalization application
    should match the costs associated with the naturalization process); and
    (2) Fee reform that targets programs where fees are currently funding
    activities, such as law enforcement (e.g., nearly 37 percent of CBP
    Officers are funded through fees, but while user fees are impacted by
    the economy, enforcement actions are not). In the second case, the goal
    of the fee reform is to ensure that appropriate dollars are available
    to fund the critical base level of activity.
        In targeting programs to include within these fee reform
    initiatives, the Department used OMB Circular A-25 on user charges.
    This circular sets government-wide policy on determining fees including
    information on the scope and types of activities that should be
    included when setting fees.
        The goal of fee reform is not to bear the cost of shortfalls in
    fee-funded activities with appropriations. The goal of fee reform is to
    ensure compliance with Federal policy on setting user fees by making
    sure that fees are set only at the level necessary to recover the costs
    of providing a benefit or service.
        Comprehensive fee studies performed on a regular basis are
    essential to ensure that fees are set at the appropriate level to avoid
    shortfalls.
        Question. If workload that is funded through fee revenue is going
    down for some organizations--such as air passenger loads--do current
    staffing levels make sense?
        Answer. There are a number of fee-funded programmatic areas within
    DHS where staffing levels are not immediately tied to fee revenue. In
    airport security, for example, a drop in passenger volume (and
    therefore a decrease in fee revenue) may not lead to a proportional
    drop in the need for baggage screeners and other security personnel.
        However, there are some circumstances in which staffing reductions
    may be appropriate. For example, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
    Services reduced its contractor and Federal workforce to bring staffing
    levels in line with existing and anticipated future workloads.
        Start-up costs and the need for a flexible and responsive workforce
    means that this issue must be considered continuously and on a case-by-
    case basis to ensure that staffing levels are appropriate for the
    existing and anticipated workloads.
                           tsa collective bargaining
        Question. We have discussed the Department's consideration of
    whether to administratively extend collective bargaining rights to
    Transportation Security Officers. I remain concerned about the cost of
    the proposed conversion, and have received estimates from the
    Department that include an annual recurring cost of $300 million. Is
    this estimate still accurate? How would these costs be funded? I see no
    additional funding being requested in fiscal year 2011. What is the
    Department's timeline for making a decision? Is the Department
    continuing to hold conversations with union representatives in
    preparation for this decision?
        Answer. Estimates for the cost of administratively extending
    collective bargaining rights to Transportation Security Officers
    continue to be refined. No final decision has been made about
    collective bargaining.
        If a decision is made to extend collective bargaining rights to
    Transportation Security Officers, TSA will review all funding options
    and associated costs and will advise the Committee.
        DHS is waiting for a permanent Assistant Secretary to be confirmed
    to lead TSA. Once confirmed, DHS expects the Assistant Secretary to
    review the issue and make recommendations to the Secretary.
        The Chief Human Capital Officer and representatives of TSA have met
    with leaders from the American Federation of Government Employees and
    the National Treasury Employees Union to respond to their questions
    concerning employee issues and representation rights for the
    Transportation Security Officers (TSOs). The unions have been advised
    that any decisions regarding collective bargaining will be made after a
    new TSA Administrator is confirmed and has had time to consider the
    matter fully before making such a decision.
                                   management
        Question. On December 29, 2009, Under Secretary Duke wrote to me
    about seven initiatives the Department intends to focus on to drive
    management integration across DHS. What are the near and long term
    budgetary needs for each of those initiatives, and how does the fiscal
    year 2011 budget request support those needs?
        The amount requested for Departmental Management and Operations is
    approximately two percent of the Department's fiscal year 2011 budget
    authority. Do you believe this amount is sufficient to meet the major
    management challenges facing the Department?
        Answer. Responses are provided as follows:
    Transformation and Systems Consolidation (TASC)
        The fiscal year 2011 Budget Request for TASC is $11 million. In
    addition to this request, Resource Management Transformation (RMT)
    Division assumes a carryover from fiscal year 2010 of $2.2 million.
    This combined funding in fiscal year 2011 provides for the migration of
    two medium components, data center support services, and purchase of
    software licenses.
        The Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) for the contract is
    $450 million over the 10-year contract life, assuming all option years
    are exercised. This estimate is consistent with other financial system
    benchmarks within the Federal Government. The actual cost of the work
    will be determined by the solution selected through the competitive
    acquisition process.
        The Lifecycle Cost Estimate (LCCE) for TASC includes accounting of
    the cost of people, systems engineering, procurement, operations,
    support and disposal over the 10-year contract life, assuming all
    option years are exercised. This estimate is derived from source cost
    data received from DHS data calls as well as other outside agencies
    including NASA and HHS. The Acquisition Program Management Division is
    utilizing the Cost Analysis Division to independently verify the LCCE.
    This work will be completed by the end of April.
    Human Resources Information Technology (HRIT)
        The Department's Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) and Chief
    Information Officer (CIO) are currently partnering to develop a long-
    term strategic plan for HRIT. This strategy will be completed in 2010
    and will replace the now-defunct MaxHR strategy that assumed
    flexibilities in Title V that are no longer valid. The goal of the new
    strategy is to deliver an enterprise platform for a Title V environment
    that provides core HR functionality across the DHS enterprise in a way
    that optimizes efficiency. While DHS currently operates four enterprise
    solutions, i.e., NFC Corporate (Payroll/Personnel), EmpowHR
    (Personnel), webTA (Time and Attendance); and the eOPF (Electronic
    Personnel Folders), there remains a critical need for enterprise
    solutions in areas such as staffing, learning management, and
    performance management. Implementation of the new strategy will
    commence in fiscal year 2010, with full-fledged efforts in fiscal year
    2011 to move toward department-wide adoption/deployment and full,
    cross-system integration. The fiscal year 2010 enacted and fiscal year
    2011 budget request for this initiative is $17.1 million. The future
    budgets for this initiative remain at this level.
    Balanced Workforce Strategy
        The fiscal year 2011 budget requests $900,000 for the Office of the
    Chief Human Capital Officer to support efforts to reduce the
    Department's reliance on contractors. Specifically, the funds will
    support a program management office focused on balanced workforce
    matters and in sourcing positions that are inherently governmental or
    provide critical core services. This office, which is in the process of
    being established with existing resources, will assess the long-term
    budgetary needs for the balanced workforce initiative.
    Data Center Migration
        In fiscal year 2011, the DHS total request for Data Center
    Migration is $200 million. This includes component and headquarters
    funding for consolidation efforts entailing planning, engineering,
    hardware, and software application alignment, construction, power
    upgrades and other infrastructure requirements. Data Center Migration
    total estimated cost is $574 million. Based on the Migration amounts
    enacted for fiscal year 2010, the balance needed to complete migrations
    beginning in fiscal year 2011 is $424 million. DHS anticipates Data
    Center Migration completion by fiscal year 2014.
    IT Governance Initiative
        Short-term (remainder fiscal year 2010), the Department will re-
    allocate staff to support this effort. Long-term (fiscal year 2011 and
    forward), the Department is determining the outyear IT Governance
    structure and FTE requirements.
    HSPD-12 Deployment
        The Office of Security fiscal year 2011 budget request does not
    include funding for HSPD-12 Deployment. The Department is working with
    components to identify funding, such as component base funding for
    legacy badging systems, to meet fiscal year 2011 and outyear
    requirements. The Department is committed to fulfilling its
    requirements under HSPD-12 utilizing base resources.

                                         FIVE-YEAR HSPD-12 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                        2011 funds      2012 funds      2013 funds      2014 funds      2015 funds
                                         required        required        required        required        required
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    HSPD-12 Deployment..............     $24,236,000     $11,152,000     $11,487,000     $11,832,000     $12,187,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    St. Elizabeths Consolidation
        The DHS Headquarters Consolidation plan will transform the
    dispersed portfolio from 46, and growing, locations down to
    approximately eight locations. The plan consists of the St. Elizabeths
    development for mission execution functions of the department and the
    consolidation of remaining mission support functions to promote
    efficiency and effective management across the National Capital Region.
        The total cost of the St. Elizabeths development is estimated at
    about $3.4 billion inclusive of GSA and DHS costs. GSA's share is about
    $2 billion and DHS about $1.4 billion. To date GSA and DHS have
    received a total of about $1.1 billion.
        A total of $287.8 million is included in the fiscal year 2011
    Budget Request for DHS to continue the development of the DHS
    Consolidated Headquarters at St. Elizabeths. This request will build on
    the fiscal year 2009 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
    funding provided to both DHS and GSA. The funding provides for the
    outfitting of Phase 1, the U.S. Coast Guard and shared use occupancies
    and initiates construction of Phase 2A, the DHS Headquarters, and the
    National Operations Center/Collocation of Component Operations Centers
    immediately adjacent to the USCG site.
        The DHS budget request for St. Elizabeths complements the GSA
    request for buildout of the consolidated campus. The combined total of
    the request in the fiscal year 2011 budget will allow us to maintain
    the current construction schedule, ensuring a timely move of DHS to the
    St. Elizabeths campus. Underfunding either the DHS or GSA request for
    funds for this project may result in construction delays, increased
    costs, and delays in moving DHS employees to St. Elizabeths.
        The mission support consolidation is estimated by GSA to be a total
    cost of about $263 million with the expectation that DHS will lease 1.2
    million rentable square feet of space with a two-phase implementation
    schedule in calendar years 2013 and 2014. In cooperation with DHS and
    OMB, a Mission Support Consolidation Prospectus for lease authority was
    submitted by GSA to Congress in October 2009 that addresses the
    Department's current housing needs. As the prospectus is for leased
    office space, GSA does not require a separate appropriation and all
    costs for tenant fit out requirements will pass directly to DHS. The
    $75 million included in the fiscal year 2011 budget request will
    initiate the mission support consolidation effort by providing the
    necessary funding to acquire 1.2 million square feet of office space
    included in our prospectus. Remaining funding requirements will be
    requested in future budgets to deliver the space in fiscal year 2013
    and fiscal year 2014.
        With regards to the amount request being sufficient: Yes, the
    fiscal year 2011 Budget Request is sufficient to meet the major
    management challenges facing the Department.
                     border patrol station--sandusky, ohio
        Question. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has been
    planning to construct or buy a facility in the Sandusky, Ohio, area for
    more than a year. Reports indicate that the site will house Border
    Patrol, Office of Field Operations, and CBP Air and Marine offices.
    What is the status of this project?
        Will the project be impacted either by the fiscal year 2011
    requests to cancel $99 million of prior-year unobligated construction
    funds, or to forgo hiring 120 Air and Marine staff?
        Answer. CBP is currently in the process of determining whether the
    previously identified Visitors Center property will meet CBP's
    requirements. While this determination is underway, CBP is reviewing
    other available real estate options in Erie County. CBP is targeting
    the completion of land acquisition activities by early 2011.
        Additionally, a planning/design charrette was held in December
    2009, with follow-on work completed in January and February of 2010.
    Some preliminary activity has been initiated for the project's design
    phase; however, these efforts are limited, pending final site
    selection.
        CBP does not anticipate that this project will be impacted by the
    request to cancel the $99 million.
                           federal protective service
        Question. During my time in Congress, I have participated in a
    number of hearings regarding the Federal Protective Service and the
    challenges it faces in protecting our Federal buildings and the people
    who work and visit those buildings. The hearings have demonstrated how
    the lack of resources hinders the Service's ability to get the job
    done. I was surprised to see that the President's fiscal year 2011
    budget recommends a flat funding level for the Federal Protective
    Service. I am further troubled that the administration has requested to
    remove the personnel floor set by Congress in the Appropriations Act.
    What is the rationale for these requests?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2011 Budget Request was determined by
    estimating costs to support operations at the current service level, as
    well as reviewing estimated revenue, collections, and anticipated
    carry-forward of unexpended revenue earned in prior fiscal years.
        Question. It is estimated that the Federal Protective Service will
    need to provide between 100 and 150 full-time employees for the 9/11
    terrorism trials, should they occur in New York or another jurisdiction
    in the United States. There is no indication of the Service's ability
    to perform such a surge in its mission with a flat budget. How will the
    Federal Protective Service meet the surge necessary to support the
    terrorist trails? Especially in light of the fact that the budget
    proposes $200 million in State and local support for increased
    enforcement efforts connected with the terrorist trials in the United
    States.
        Answer. The Federal Protective Service (FPS) Regional Office in New
    York City is coordinating closely with its counterparts from the U.S.
    Marshals and the New York Police Department in planning for the
    possible conduct of the terror trials at the Daniel P. Moynihan U.S.
    District Courthouse.
                                  coast guard
        Question. A total of $16.8 million was included in the fiscal year
    2010 Appropriations Act for Coast Guard Station Cleveland Harbor. No
    additional funding is included in the fiscal year 2011 budget request
    for this project although I understand that additional funding will be
    required for phases two, three, and four of the project. What
    additional funding will be required beyond that provided for fiscal
    year 2010 to complete this project?
        Answer. The Coast Guard's Facilities Design and Construction Center
    is currently in the final stages of completing the Project Proposal
    Report for Phase One of the new facilities at Station Cleveland Harbor.
        In February, the FDCC began development of the Design-Build (D-B)
    Request for Proposal (RFP) for project design and construction with an
    estimated D-B contract award date of September 2010. The estimated
    project cost to design and construct Phase One of the new facility
    funded in fiscal year 2010 remains at $16.8 million. Phase One focuses
    on construction of the Station, Marine Safety Unit and Electronics
    Support Division building and associated site utilities.
        Plans and cost estimates for the remaining phases are still under
    development and not yet budget-ready at this time. The multi-phased
    project is planned to include demolition of the older facilities,
    parking/site improvements, waterfront recapitalization, boathouse/shop
    space, and a Coast Guard Exchange.
        Question. The Great Lakes host nearly 5 million registered
    recreational boaters and are a major transshipment point for people and
    illegal drugs, regardless of the season. Intelligence reports indicate
    that the Northern border may be a more likely transit path for
    terrorists. Given the potential threats along the Northern Border, why
    is the Coast Guard seeking to reduce its air asset footprint on the
    Great Lakes by closing two Air Facilities?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2011 Budget Request provides for
    replacement of five H-65s with four H-60 aircraft to maximize
    capabilities in this region. The H-60 aircraft have greater endurance,
    range, speed, survivor capacity, and all-weather capability. With four
    H-60s, the Coast Guard will meet search and rescue aircraft readiness
    and response standards throughout the region from the single Coast
    Guard Air Station in Traverse City.
        Question. What assurances can you provide to the Committee that
    Search and Rescue (SAR) operations will not be impacted by these
    closures? With the delay of implementation of Rescue 21 on the Great
    Lakes, it would seem prudent to maintain these air assets.
        Answer. The Coast Guard will maintain the search and rescue
    response standard as described in the Coast Guard Addendum to the U.S.
    National Search and Rescue Supplement.
        Question. While the HH-60's may be better suited for the Great
    Lakes mission, it troubles me that 4 of 5 rotary wing aircraft proposed
    to be removed from service were recently upgraded with new engines and
    instrumentation. What type of return on investment is the Federal
    Government earning when new engines and instruments are transferred to
    a warehouse of spare parts?
        Answer. Before removing aircraft from service, the Coast Guard
    conducts an assessment of its entire aircraft inventory to ensure the
    best return on investment is achieved. Aircraft removed from service
    are retained for future needs and/or spares.
        Question. How would the fiscal year 2011 budget proposal to close
    both of the Great Lakes AIRFACs impact both SAR and drug interdiction
    missions with respect to response times?
        Answer. The Coast Guard will maintain the search and rescue
    response standard as described in the Coast Guard Addendum to the U.S.
    National Search and Rescue Supplement.
        Question. If the Congress does not approve the budget proposal to
    close the Great Lakes Air Facilities, but agrees with the proposal to
    replace HH-65s with HH-60s, what would be the appropriate placement of
    those air assets operating on the Great Lakes?
        Answer. Partial implementation of the President's proposal to
    realign rotary wing capability will not result in optimal return on
    investment and is not recommended. The Coast Guard would not be able to
    achieve Search and Rescue operational standards simultaneously at Coast
    Guard Air Station Traverse City and Air Facility Muskegon with only
    four HH-60s.
                                haiti earthquake
        Question. The Department of Homeland Security has made a
    significant contribution to our Government's efforts to assist Haiti
    following last month's devastating earthquake. The Coast Guard, FEMA,
    CBP and ICE, among others, have all lent their assistance and expertise
    to Haiti and its people in the wake of this catastrophe. What
    additional cost has this been to the Department and which expenses are
    being borne by the Department and which are being reimbursed?
        Answer. The Department is paying for this largely out of funding
    appropriated in fiscal year 2010.
        Question. How will the Department cover its additional unfunded
    costs?
        Answer. On March 24, 2010, OMB submitted a supplemental
    appropriation for $60 million to recoup the costs associated with the
    Department's activities in Haiti.
        Question. Will fiscal year 2010 supplemental appropriations be
    required?
        Answer. On March 24, 2010, OMB submitted a supplemental
    appropriation for $60 million to recoup the costs associated with the
    Department's activities in Haiti.
        Question. If so, when do you anticipate a supplemental request will
    be submitted to the Congress?
        Answer. On March 24, 2010, OMB submitted a supplemental
    appropriation for $60 million to recoup the costs associated with the
    Department's activities in Haiti.
                          ports-of-entry modernization
        Question. Both the fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010 Department
    of Homeland Security Appropriations Acts require U.S. Customs and
    Border Protection in consultation with the General Services
    Administration to submit a 5-year plan for all Federal land border port
    of entry projects. No plan has been submitted. The Appropriations
    Committee must make funding decisions without the benefit of all
    relevant information on the state of ports of entry without this plan.
    When will this plan be submitted?
        Answer. The 5-Year LPOE Modernization Plan was transmitted to
    Congress on March 9th, pursuant to the legislative language set forth
    in the fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010 DHS Appropriations Acts.
                            tactical communications
        Question. Funds for upgrading law enforcement tactical
    communications have been provided to U.S. Customs and Border Protection
    and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement through the annual
    appropriations Acts as well as the American Recovery and Reinvestment
    Act of 2009. It is my understanding that much of this funding is still
    being held up and not being put to use improving the operating
    conditions for frontline employees. What is the status of obligating
    the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act appropriations for tactical
    communications? What obstacles have prevented those funds from being
    committed before now?
        Answer. CBP is currently working on the competitive actions to
    award ARRA-funded TACCOM projects in the Houlton Sector (Maine), El
    Paso Sector (Western Texas and the State of New Mexico) and Rio Grande
    Valley Sector (Southeast Texas).
        CBP is performing due diligence to ensure that its TACCOM
    acquisition strategy and procurements are structured to maximize
    competitive opportunities, provide for small business participation,
    and ensure responsible expenditure of taxpayer dollars. The TACCOM
    project includes significant environmental work, civil construction and
    integration of communications systems. CBP is taking prudent steps in
    the procurement process to ensure project success.
                     radiation detection future development
        Question. The fiscal year 2011 budget proposes moving
    transformational research of new methods of detecting radiation from
    the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to the Science and Technology
    Directorate, which will bring all research and development in the
    Department under the umbrella of one component. As the Department
    prepares for this potential transition, will an independent review, by
    an entity such as a Federally Funded Research and Development Center,
    be conducted of the on-going research as well as other technologies
    under development outside of DHS to determine which direction future
    research in radiation detection should go?
        Answer. S&T's established Integrated Product Team (IPT) process
    will guide investments in radiological and nuclear (rad/nuc) research.
    Before the transition of rad/nuc research from the Domestic Nuclear
    Detection Office (DNDO), S&T will: conduct a program review to
    determine the progress and status of the existing rad/nuc research
    programs; establish a rad/nuc Capstone IPT to bring DHS customers and
    stakeholders together to determine the highest priority capability gaps
    and needs; and survey existing government and industry rad/nuc
    detection and countermeasure technology. After these preparatory steps,
    S&T will make decisions regarding the rad/nuc research portfolio.
        S&T will consider an appropriate third party, such as a Federally
    Funded Research and Development Center, to help in program reviews.
                         state and local fusion centers
        Question. Please provide a cross-cut table showing all Department
    of Homeland Security funding that is provided to State and Local Fusion
    Centers, and any grant funds that are used by State or local entities
    for Fusion Centers, for fiscal year 2009 and 2010, and proposed in the
    fiscal year 2011 budget.
        Answer. A chart marked For Official Use Only has been provided
    separately to the Committee. It shows funding that is provided to State
    and Local Fusion Centers for purposes such as hiring intelligence
    analysts and providing equipment and training, all of which supports
    frontline law enforcement activities, and any grant funds that are used
    by State or local entities for Fusion Centers for fiscal years 2009 and
    2010 and proposed in fiscal year 2011. DHS has identified fusion
    centers as a priority in the Homeland Security Grant Program guidance
    and has recommended that State and local grantees prioritize the
    allocation of grant funding to support fusion centers. As such, based
    upon the self-reported information from State and local grantees, it is
    estimated that State and local jurisdictions have leveraged
    approximately $1.3 billion in support of fusion center-related
    activities between fiscal years 2004 and 2009.
                           alternatives to detention
        Question. The Department continues to work on developing a
    Nationwide Alternatives to Detention Plan. Based on information
    received by the Subcommittee, I expect the plan to call for working to
    decrease the average length of stay for participants from the current
    310 days to a target of 180 days. The Department has successfully
    achieved such goals in the past, i.e., the reduction in length of stay
    for aliens apprehended along the Southwest border, through the use of
    high level multi-component work groups studying each step of the
    detention and removal process to re-think how the work is accomplished.
    The elimination of ``catch and release'' shows that this process can
    work.
        Do you intend to bring the same high level focus to streamlining
    the removal process currently used for participants in the alternatives
    to detention program?
        Answer. ICE continues to improve the Alternatives to Detention
    (ATD) program and is monitoring the rate of compliance with removal
    orders among those supervised on ATD. Currently, the Executive Office
    for Immigration Review (EOIR), within the Department of Justice,
    expedites all cases of detained aliens. In collaboration with EOIR, ICE
    is piloting a ``fast-track'' process in an effort to decrease the
    amount of time a participant spends in the ATD program, thereby
    reducing the overall cost of the ATD program.
        Question. What effort is currently dedicated to reviewing the
    removal process used for participants in the alternatives to detention
    program?
        Answer. Please see the previous response.
                           special hiring authorities
        Question. The Department is using special hiring authorities to
    fill approximately 1,000 cyber security positions. Is 1,000 the
    appropriate workforce to adequately meet the Department's cyber
    security needs?
        Answer. The National Cyber Security Division (NCSD) needs the
    flexibility to both match salaries using accelerated pay and provide
    recruitment bonuses and incentives that are competitive with the
    market. NCSD also needs additional direct or Schedule A hiring
    authority for programmatic positions that deal with mission functions
    such as large-scale Information Technology acquisitions and investments
    for cybersecurity systems, supply-chain risk management, software
    assurance, control-systems security, cyber education and awareness,
    international cyber policy, and program management.
        Question. Given the demand for these specialized skill sets, does
    the Department anticipate difficulties in meeting its staffing goals?
        Answer. The Department remains committed to hiring the staff
    necessary to perform its cybersecurity mission.
        Question. What, if any, additional personnel flexibilities does the
    Department believe would help meet its cyber hiring needs?
        Answer. The National Cyber Security Division (NCSD) needs the
    flexibility to both match salaries using accelerated pay and provide
    recruitment bonuses and incentives that are competitive with the
    market. NCSD also needs additional direct or Schedule A hiring
    authority for programmatic positions that deal with mission functions
    such as large-scale Information Technology acquisitions and investments
    for cybersecurity systems, supply-chain risk management, software
    assurance, control-systems security, cyber education and awareness,
    international cyber policy, and program management.
        Question. Other components of the Department indicate that they are
    in need of direct hire authority or other special hiring flexibilities.
    What is the Department doing to work with the Office of Personnel
    Management to meet these needs or, where necessary, to seek required
    statutory authorities?
        Answer. DHS approached OPM in September 2009 in order to request a
    Direct Hire authority for Cyber Security positions across the
    Department. Though Direct Hire was not granted, DHS was provided a
    Schedule A excepted service authority to hire up to 1,000 Cyber
    Security positions nation-wide. DHS has had follow-on discussions with
    OPM about broadening our Direct Hire authority to positions where
    mission failure is a possibility if vacancies are not filled. DHS is
    currently gathering requirements across the Department and will submit
    a request to OPM for Direct Hire authority based on this critical need
    in the near future.
                            cyber security training
        Question. The fiscal year 2011 request proposes to transfer the
    National Computer Forensics Institute (NCFI) from the National
    Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) to the Federal Law
    Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).
        Given that this Institute is actually administered by the United
    States Secret Service (USSS) why aren't these funds being requested in
    the USSS budget in fiscal year 2011?
        Answer. The intention is to continue operating NCFI in the same
    manner as it is currently operating today. The mission-support training
    is better aligned to FLETC's core mission versus Secret Service's
    operational mission.
        Question. What is the benefit of having the NCFI funds appropriated
    to FLETC to reimburse the USSS as NPPD does now?
        Answer. The benefit derived from aligning law enforcement training
    to the training mission is the realization of efficiencies and shared
    best practices.
        Question. Given that FLETC may require additional authority to
    operate NCFI why not give the funds and the authority to USSS?
        Answer. Providing funds to FLETC will help better align and
    coordinate law enforcement training.
                        national special security events
        Question. The fiscal year 2011 budget proposes a new $20 million
    fund to reimburse State and local governments for costs associated with
    ``unplanned'' National Special Security Events (NSSE). How will
    ``unplanned'' be defined for purposes of eligibility for these funds?
    How is ``planned'' defined for NSSE today?
        Answer. An unplanned NSSE is an event that is unknown when planning
    for a particular fiscal year. For example, the G-20 in Pittsburgh was
    not a known NSSE during the budget process and therefore agencies could
    not budget for and request resources from Congress to cover the
    security costs associated with it.
        A planned NSSE is an event that can be budgeted for as it is known
    beforehand that it will occur within a particular fiscal year. Some
    examples include presidential nominating conventions, and presidential
    inaugurations. While the dates may be unknown, we know these occur
    every 4 years.
        Question. What Federal funding is currently available to or
    provided to State and local governments for costs associated with
    ``planned'' NSSEs?
        Answer. Planned NSSEs, such as presidential nominating conventions,
    have received direct appropriations from Congress since fiscal year
    2000. As such, the cities hosting nominating conventions have received
    the funding directly.
        Question. Rather than start anew funding program, why isn't the
    administration proposing to make ``unplanned'' NSSEs eligible for the
    same funding sources available to State and local governments for
    ``planned'' NSSEs?
        Answer. The purpose of the designation of an event as a National
    Special Security Event ensures the coordinated efforts of the U.S.
    Secret Service, the FBI and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to
    plan for the security, response and recovery at an event if an incident
    were to occur.
        NSSEs, planned and unplanned, currently have no DHS source of
    funding. In the past, planned NSSEs such as presidential nominating
    conventions have received direct appropriations from Congress. As such,
    the host cities hosting have received the funding directly.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
        Question. Over the past 20 years, more than $4 out of every $5
    appropriated by Congress to the Disaster Relief fund have been provided
    through supplemental appropriations bills. Over the past 20 years, an
    average of nearly $7 billion annually has been appropriated for
    Disaster relief, yet you requested only $1.95 billion for fiscal year
    2011. Your budget documents state that these requested funds are only
    for ``non-catastrophic disaster activity.'' Meanwhile, communities and
    school districts along the Gulf Coast are still struggling to navigate
    the red tape of the Federal Government nearly 4\1/2\ years after
    Hurricane Katrina.
        Do you believe that budgeting for only non-catastrophic activity on
    an annual basis is a wise way for the Federal Government to do
    business?
        Answer. It is difficult to predict with any certainty future
    catastrophic disasters, or the cost that will be associated with them.
    Given this unpredictability, we believe that budgeting annually for the
    non-catastrophic 5-year rolling average and addressing catastrophic
    disasters through the supplemental appropriation process is a
    reasonable approach.
        Question. Do you believe that our Nation's emergency response laws,
    including the Stafford Act, should be amended to include a new category
    of catastrophic disaster declarations to provide for smarter budgeting
    and reduced bureaucracy in cases like the events of September 11,
    Hurricane Katrina or a potential New Madrid earthquake?
        Answer. The Stafford Act provides flexibility to assist survivors
    regardless of the scale of the disaster. The Post-Katrina Emergency
    Reform Act added important new authorities to the Stafford Act that are
    specific to addressing the needs that are created by extraordinarily
    large and catastrophic disasters such as incident management teams,
    Federally assisted evacuations, semi-permanent and permanent housing
    construction, disaster case management, recovery planning technical
    assistance, and transportation assistance. The National Disaster
    Housing Task Force, State-led Housing Task Forces, and FEMA's Long-Term
    Community Recovery function (ESF-14) provide for the delivery of more
    effective and streamlined recovery assistance to survivors and
    communities.
        Question. While your fiscal year 2011 budget request acknowledges
    that funding for Coast Guard Aircraft will be used for Unmanned Aerial
    System pre-acquisition activities, it does not identify specific
    funding for these purposes as it does for every other traditional Coast
    Guard aircraft asset.
        Of the $101 million requested for Aircraft activities, how much
    would be used for Unmanned Aerial System activities?
        Answer. The $101 million request does not include funding for
    Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) activities. Research, Development Testing,
    and Evaluation funding provided in prior years will be used to continue
    UAS pre-acquisition work in 2011.
        Question. Do you believe the Coast Guard's efforts to assess
    available land-based Unmanned Aerial Systems, including earnest
    participation the DOD SOUTHCOM demo of the Heron UAS, is adequately
    examining the capabilities of a diverse set of vehicles across the
    spectrum of available technologies?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. With regard to cutter-based Unmanned Aerial Systems, how
    much would it cost the Coast Guard to convert existing aircraft
    remaining from the Army's cancellation of the Fire Scout program to a
    Coast Guard configuration?
        Answer. This option is currently under review, and costs will be
    developed as a part of our evaluation.
        Question. With adequate funding, would you entertain the notion of
    converting these currently unused aircraft for use by the Coast Guard
    as soon as possible?
        Answer. This option is currently under review, and costs will be
    developed as a part of our evaluation.
        Question. In 2007, Congress mandated that DHS be able to scan all
    cargo entering our country by 2012. Recent GAO reports describing the
    inadequacies of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office's Advanced
    Spectroscopic Portal (ASP) monitors raise significant concerns about
    our ability to prevent nuclear materials from being smuggled into our
    country. Please describe the current status of ASP testing and whether
    you believe this technology is on a path to be able to perform the
    portal monitoring function.
        Answer. Based on a recent review of data collected to date, the
    Department announced changes to the ASP program in February 2010. In
    order to most effectively enhance security, the ASP program will focus
    on secondary inspections. Performance results to date show that ASP
    RPMs in the secondary position show a significant improvement in
    operational effectiveness over current screening techniques.
        Question. What is ASP's capability for detecting shielded nuclear
    material?
        Answer. The ability of ASP systems--or any other nuclear detection
    system--to detect shielded nuclear materials depends upon a number of
    factors, including shielding type, thickness, scanning speed, and size
    of the source. More details about the performance of ASP systems
    against specific configurations of shielded threats can be provided in
    a classified briefing to review test results, upon request.
        It is important to note that ASP systems are not operated in
    isolation as a sole means for detecting potential nuclear threats. DNDO
    supports a multifaceted approach to cargo scanning, including but not
    limited to analysis of the container information collected by CBP and
    the use of both passive (e.g., radiation portal monitors) and active
    (e.g., radiography) technologies to detect a wide range of potential
    threats.
        Question. Do you consider shielded nuclear materials a significant
    threat?
        Answer. The Department considers the illicit shipment of any
    nuclear materials--including shielded nuclear materials--to be a
    significant threat, and accordingly supports a comprehensive,
    multifaceted approach to detecting them.
        Question. Are there other technologies under consideration by DHS,
    such as Muon Tomography, that could detect both shielded and unshielded
    nuclear materials? I understand if you need to respond to these
    questions in a classified setting.
        Answer. In addition to the technologies currently deployed to
    detect nuclear materials, DNDO is researching a number of technologies
    to detect both shielded and unshielded nuclear materials, including
    muon tomography.
        Question. I, like many members of this body and I assume many
    people at your Department, was troubled by our Nation's inability to
    detect the explosive devices carried on board an airplane by the so-
    called Christmas Day Bomber. I sent you a letter on February 2, 2010
    that included some questions I have about passenger screening
    technologies. I have not yet received a response.
        Can you describe the new Advanced Imaging Technology screening
    systems you are currently reviewing for deployment and implementation
    at our airports?
        Answer. Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) is a passenger screening
    capability that is used at airport checkpoints to screen passengers for
    concealed weapons (metallic and non-metallic), explosives, and other
    prohibited items.
        TSA ensures passenger privacy through the anonymity of AIT images--
    a privacy filter is applied to blur all images; images are permanently
    deleted immediately once viewed and are never stored, transmitted or
    printed; and the officer viewing the image is stationed in a remote
    location so as not to come into contact with passengers being screened.
        The next generation of AIT machines will be deployed as a primary
    passenger screening technology in addition to the Walk-Through Metal
    Detector. These new machines will include the latest security
    enhancements to detect new and evolving threats.
        Question. Based on recent tests, which of the existing
    technologies, backscatter or millimeter wave, would have better
    detected the threat posed by the Christmas Day bomber? Describe
    proposed fiscal year 2011 activities by the Transportation Security
    Administration to assist airports in making room for these devices,
    which are significantly larger than current passenger screening
    equipment.
        Answer. TSA has tested both millimeter wave and backscatter AIT.
    Both systems meet the required detection performance and are considered
    operationally effective and suitable. TSA is working closely with
    airports to deploy AIT units based on risk, airport readiness, and
    operational suitability.
        Question. The fiscal year 2011 budget proposes $538 million for
    production of the fifth Coast Guard National Security Cutter. The
    future-year budget plan includes $640 million over the next 3 fiscal
    years and $70 million in fiscal year 2015. I appreciate very much the
    department's commitment to this platform. It appears that this program
    may be primed to begin a multi-year procurement for NSCs 5 through 8.
        Such a strategy could allow the Coast Guard to buy material for 4
    NSCs and place the ships on construction intervals that would increase
    shipyard performance and efficiency while minimizing cost. Are you
    considering a multi-year procurement for NSCs 5-8? If not, does the
    Department risk a gap in production and additional costs to the program
    if additional funds are not provided in fiscal year 2011 for long-lead
    materials for the sixth National Security Cutter?
        Answer. The Coast Guard is not considering a multi-year
    procurement. As reflected in the fiscal year 2011 Capital Investment
    Plan, the remaining National Security cutters are fully funded at the
    planned rate of one per year.
        Question. What additional funds are needed for long lead materials
    for the sixth National Security Cutter?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2011 Capital Investment Plan includes
    funding for the sixth National Security Cutter. In accordance with OMB
    Circular A-11, no separate request will be made for any long lead
    materials, with the possible exception of the lead asset in a
    procurement.
        Question. I am very pleased that the fiscal year 2011 budget
    request contains significant funding for data center migration efforts
    department-wide. 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 nearly $186 million requested for Security Activities by the
    Office of the Chief Information Officer, how much would be used for
    activities at DHS Data Center 1 (DC1)?
        Answer. An estimated $28 million will be used for activities at DHS
    Data Center 1 including infrastructure, power and Local Area Network
    upgrades. DHS components have requested a total of $178.5 million for
    costs associated with migrating component data centers to the two new
    DHS data centers.
        Question. How critical do you believe data center consolidation is
    to the Department's ability to operate effectively and efficiently?
        Answer. Data center consolidation is essential to improving the
    flow of information among the various elements of the Department.
        Question. Do you and your Chief Information Officer Richard Spires
    intend to continue the Department's commendable consolidation efforts?
        Answer. Yes. DHS will continue to manage, facilitate and monitor
    Components' migration efforts to the two Enterprise Data Centers.
                                     ______

                    Question Submitted by Senator Judd Gregg
        Question. I commend the Department's efforts to accelerate critical
    improvements in our Nation's homeland security apparatus in the wake of
    the Christmas Day bomber's failed terrorist attack. However, I am
    concerned that vulnerabilities remain in several key areas, including
    our document screening capabilities. By improving document screening,
    we may be able to cheaply improve our ability to interdict terrorist
    attacks before they occur. It is my understanding that commercial off-
    the-shelf technology is available, and in some instances is already
    being used in other countries.
        What is the Department doing to improve our ability to accurately
    verify documents that a person might utilize to obtain a government-
    issued ID?
        Answer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) strongly supports
    the validation and verification of identification documents to ensure
    they are authentic. There are several mechanisms through which DHS
    works to identify and prevent the use of a fraudulent documents and the
    use of valid documents by an imposter.
        The Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Fraudulent Document
    Laboratory and the Customs and Border Protection's Fraudulent Document
    Analysis Unit conduct on-the-spot assistance to review suspected
    fraudulent documents.
        The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is also focused on
    identifying and acquiring new technology to combat the use of
    fraudulent documents. TSA is currently testing the Credential
    Authentication Technology/Boarding Pass Scanning System (CAT/BPSS) to
    ensure that only legitimate passengers, airport personnel and
    affiliated airline crews, and embedded Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs)
    or Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) gain access to secure areas in the
    Nation's airports. The CAT/BPSS will be used to extract and read data
    and security features embedded in boarding pass and identification
    documents (e.g., driver's licenses) and automatically authenticate
    whether the document is genuine or suspect and whether any
    discrepancies exist between the data fields stored in the ID and the
    boarding pass.
        DHS also works across the interagency to ensure immigration and
    travel documents incorporate multiple layers of security features, are
    resistant to counterfeiting, and are able to be accurately verified.
    For example, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI),
    established document requirements for travelers entering the United
    States who were previously exempt, including citizens of the United
    States, Canada, and Bermuda. WHTI increases security by requiring
    travelers to present a limited number of approved documents that can be
    electronically verified with the issuing source.
        DHS also strongly supports national standards for identification
    documents to strengthen security while enhancing privacy safeguards and
    protections of personally identifiable information. DHS is committed to
    moving forward both administratively and with Congress to implement
    this key 9/11 Commission recommendation to help prevent terrorism,
    reduce fraud, and improve the reliability and accuracy of personal
    identification documents.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
        Question. The proposed 2011 DHS budget moved $4 million for the
    National Computer Forensics Institute (NCFI) from under the National
    Protection & Programs Directorate (NPPD), where it has been since 2008,
    to under the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). All
    indications and reports have been that the program has been an enormous
    success at its current location in Hoover, AL.
        What is the purpose and intended outcome of moving the NCFI program
    under FLETC?
        Answer. The requested transfer is intended to better align and
    coordinate law enforcement training.
        Question. Is the move of the money an indication of a relocation of
    the program from Hoover to Brunswick, Georgia?
        Answer. No. The intention is to continue operating NCFI in Hoover,
    AL.
        Question. At the time the program was initiated, was there not a
    study done to determine the best site for the program that included
    Hoover and Brunswick? And that Hoover was selected based on the
    facility and partnership in place with the State government? Have any
    factors changed since that time?
        Answer. FLETC was not involved in the studies associated with the
    establishment of the NCFI, but intends to continue operating NCFI in
    Hoover, Alabama, in partnership with the Secret Service.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
                 national bio- and agro-defense facility (nbaf)
        Question. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request contains
    no funding for the construction of the National Bio- and Agro-defense
    Facility, but instead proposes to fund NBAF construction in fiscal year
    2011 through a reprogramming of $40 million in unobligated balances in
    the Science and Technology Directorate's budget.
        Where does this reprogramming request stand now and when will it
    come to the Hill?
        Answer. The Department is currently evaluating prior year balances
    and will submit a reprogramming in fiscal year 2011 to support
    construction of the central utility plant which will begin that year.
        Question. Is it your understanding that the reprogramming request
    is subject to Congressional approval?
        Answer. The Department plans to submit the reprogramming request to
    the Appropriations Committees, in accordance with section 503(b) and
    (c) of the fiscal year 2010 Department of Homeland Security
    Appropriations Act. The Department does not intend to move forward with
    the reprogramming until the Committees' comments have been heard and
    addressed.
        Question. What specific purposes will the $40 million be used for
    and when will those funds be expended?
        Answer. The Science and Technology Directorate intends to use the
    $40 million, in conjunction with $40 million that the State of Kansas
    has raised towards clearing the land where the facility will be built
    and getting it ready for construction., and to build the central
    utility plant at the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility. The funds
    will be obligated in fiscal year 2011 and expended in fiscal year 2011
    through fiscal year 2013.
           national bio- and agro-defense facility (nbaf)/plum island
        Question. Congress has authorized DHS to liquidate the Plum Island
    assets and retain the proceeds of the sale. This authorization provides
    that any proceeds could be used to offset costs associated with
    construction of the NBAF. I note the fiscal year 2011 DHS budget
    narrative states that NBAF construction has been delayed one year due
    to DHS' inability to sell Plum Island.
        Could you detail for the committee the process and current status
    DHS will undertake to sell Plum Island?
        Answer. DHS and the General Services Administration (GSA) have
    signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) outlining the process for
    the sale of Plum Island. Ongoing outreach to stakeholders continues as
    DHS and GSA conduct real estate and regulatory due diligence.
        In January 2010, DHS initiated the National Environmental Policy
    Act (NEPA) process for use of Plum Island. Next steps include
    conducting an independent real estate assessment, developing a
    marketing strategy, and hosting a bidders' conference. The public
    auction will be conducted online and a public Web auction process will
    be established.
        Question. While the level of proceeds is uncertain, what assurances
    can you give us that the necessary DHS and GSA activities to market and
    sell the Island will be completed in a timely manner to facilitate a
    potential sale without further delay?
        Answer. Under the memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by the
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the General Services
    Administration (GSA) outlining the process for the sale of Plum Island,
    a team of GSA and DHS personnel meet frequently to measure progress and
    resolve outstanding issues and have developed a schedule identifying
    the project's critical milestones. In addition, DHS and GSA have
    engaged with local stakeholders to discuss the marketing plans, zoning,
    environmental impacts, and general concerns to allow GSA and DHS to
    mitigate any adverse actions and prevent delay.
        The public auction is the central activity of this process and will
    be supported by a national real estate firm, a public Web auction, and
    a bidders' conference early in the process.
        Question. Has DHS slated any other projects to be funded from the
    proceeds of Plum Island?
        Answer. DHS does not currently intend to use the proceeds from the
    sale of Plum Island for any other purpose than building the National
    Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) until the facility is completed.
    Once NBAF is completed, remaining funds from the sale proceeds may be
    used for the consolidated DHS headquarters facility.
                   floodplain remapping, levee certification
        Question. Last year at this hearing, I discussed with you FEMA's
    floodplain remapping process. In particular, I highlighted the plight
    of Garden City, Kansas and the inclusion of two drainage ditches and
    their surrounding area into the floodplain. Since that time, several
    other communities in Kansas and throughout the Nation have struggled
    with floodplain remapping issues. While the levees in Gypsum, Kansas
    have been inspected every year by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
    FEMA's regulations require a more rigorous process for levee
    certification, leaving a town with a population of 400 people to find
    $50,000 a mile, almost $200,000 total, to certify their levee to FEMA's
    standards. The Army Corps has the authorization to do this
    certification but does not have the funding to do so. It seems to me we
    need to bring a common sense approach to this bureaucratic process as
    we are placing a large financial burden on these communities.
        Has FEMA reexamined the requirements and process for levee
    certification to identify avenues to ease the financial burden on the
    communities?
        Answer. Yes, FEMA is reexamining the requirements and processes for
    levee certification to ease the financial burden on communities. While
    FEMA is statutorily required to revise and update all floodplain areas
    and flood risk zones, it does not have authority nor does it receive
    funding to build or maintain levees, dams or other flood control
    infrastructure.
        Communities with levees can utilize the following programs:
      --Provisionally Accredited Levee (PAL) Program.--Levee owners who do
            not have the necessary paper work to certify that their levee
            meets safety and structural standards--but are willing to
            certify that they are unaware of any problems with their
            levee--can have their levees provisionally accredited for 2
            years. While the levee is provisionally accredited the homes
            protected by the levee are not required to purchase flood
            insurance.
      --Area of Restoration (AR) Zone.--For levee owners who have
            identified defects in their levee, FEMA allows homeowners
            behind the damaged levee to access discounted flood insurance
            rates while repairs are being made. Once ``adequate progress''
            has been made in the repairs to the levee, homeowners are not
            required to purchase flood insurance. Federal statute defines
            ``adequate progress'' as meeting all of the following criteria:
        --100 percent of the project cost of the system has been
                authorized;
        --At least 60 percent of the project cost of the system has been
                appropriated;
        --At least 50 percent of the project cost of the system has been
                expended, and
        --The system is at least 50 percent completed.
        FEMA continues to examine the requirements of the National Flood
    Insurance Program to ensure it meets the legislative direction and
    effectively helps communities and individuals buy down their risk of
    flooding through insurance and other floodplain management activities.
    At present, a FEMA NFIP Reform Working Group is conducting an analysis
    of NFIP issues and developing a portfolio of public policy
    alternatives, with expected completion in early May. In addition, FEMA
    is actively working with USACE on public outreach on levees and flood
    risk management. DHS will continue to meet and work with Congress to
    inform best solutions, and will work within the Department to identify
    short term policy and administrative solutions.
        Question. Has FEMA approached the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    about altering their annual levee inspections to meet FEMA's levee
    certification process?
        Answer. FEMA and USACE coordinate on a regular basis regarding
    national levee issues in an effort to improve transparency and
    efficiency across agencies. Currently, FEMA uses these inspection
    reports as a consideration for determining levee status.
        Question. Can you outline any other steps FEMA has taken to work
    with local communities to address this issue?
        Answer. FEMA works closely with local and community officials
    confronting levee issues, frequently visiting impacted communities to
    address questions and concerns. FEMA has also published outreach
    materials to assist local communities and levee owners in understanding
    the requirements for having a levee recognized. These materials are
    available on the FEMA Web site at: http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/
    fhm/lv_state.shtm

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Byrd. The subcommittee stands in recess, and I
    thank you, Madam.
        Secretary Napolitano. Thank you.
        Senator Byrd. The subcommittee stands in recess subject to
    the call of the Chair.
        [Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., Wednesday, February 24, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

      DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2010

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:33 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert C. Byrd (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Byrd, Lautenberg, Voinovich, Cochran, and
    Murkowski.

                        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                                U.S. Coast Guard

    STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL THAD W. ALLEN, COMMANDANT

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

        Senator Byrd. The subcommittee will come to order. Today I
    welcome, along with my friend the ranking member, Mr.
    Voinovich, I welcome the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral
    Thad Allen--there's a man on my left named ``Thad''. My wife's
    mother was an Allen, from Floyd County, Virginia. And today I
    welcome the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Thad Allen,
    to discuss the fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Coast
    Guard.
        In May, the Commandant will conclude his 4-year term as the
    highest ranking member of the Coast Guard, and he has served
    his Nation with distinction.
        Let the record show that there was applause.
        The importance of our Coast Guard cannot--I say cannot--be
    overstated. It is the fifth branch of the military, and it is
    responsible for the safety and the security of our maritime
    interests in U.S. ports, waterways, and on the high seas.
        The Coast Guard is also a critical first responder to
    natural disasters. While the Nation watched--while the Nation
    watched, the Coast Guard rescued over 33,000 people in the
    aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. This past January, the
    Coast Guard was the first, the first on the scene to evacuate
    over 1,000 U.S. citizens from Haiti following the most
    devastating earthquake ever to strike that country.
        The Commandant of the Coast Guard has made significant
    organizational changes intended to improve Coast Guard business
    practices. In addition, the Commandant has made several changes
    to improve the management of Deepwater, the Coast Guard's
    acquisition program intended to modernize its fleet of ships
    and planes. These changes--these changes, along with
    legislation that this subcommittee, our subcommittee, Senator
    Cochran, initiated in fiscal year 2007 in the Supplemental
    Appropriations Act, have stabilized this previously troubled
    acquisition program.
        Despite these improvements, the Coast Guard is challenged
    with aging fleets, aging assets, a fragile infrastructure, and
    workforce shortfalls. That is why the cuts proposed in the 2011
    President's budget are so puzzling, so puzzling to me. The
    President's budget request for the Coast Guard would cut, c-u-
    t, cut, discretionary funding by $71 million--now, that's not
    just chicken feed; that's $71 million--and would reduce
    military strength by 1,112 billets. The Coast Guard is the only
    branch of the military to experience a personnel decrease in
    the President's budget proposal.
        In addition, funding for acquisitions would be cut by 10
    percent. The President's request does include important funding
    for critical acquisitions, such as the fifth national security
    cutter and four fast response cutters. But these proposals are
    overshadowed by plans to decommission five maritime safety and
    security teams, four high endurance cutters, one medium
    endurance cutter, four fixed wing aircraft, and five HH-65
    helicopters.
        Now, I'm troubled. I'm troubled. I'm very troubled that at
    the same time that the Coast Guard faces significant asset gaps
    in meeting existing mission requirements, the Office of
    Management and Budget is proposing to decommission existing
    assets before new assets come on line to replace them. Let me
    say that again: I'm troubled that at the same time that the
    Coast Guard faces significant asset gaps in meeting existing
    mission requirements, the Office of Management and Budget
    (OMB), is proposing to decommission existing assets before new
    assets come on line to replace them.
        Such reductions raise serious concerns to this chairman.
    Let me say that again for emphasis: Such reductions raise
    serious concerns to this chairman. You better believe it.
        The Coast Guard budget appears to be driven by a budget top
    line rather than by the need to effectively address the Coast
    Guard's mission requirements. Now let me say that once more:
    The Coast Guard budget appears to be driven by a budget top
    line rather than by the need to effectively address the Coast
    Guard's mission requirements.
        Will the Coast Guard be able to maintain current capability
    to secure our ports, intercept illegal migrants, interdict drug
    smugglers, and save lives with this proposed funding plan?
    Sadly, and I repeat it: sadly--the answer is no. Two letters,
    the hardest word in the English language: No. The most
    difficult word. So the answer is no, putting our citizens who
    depend on the Coast Guard at risk.
        We will explore these matters in more detail today.
    Following Senator Voinovich's opening remarks, we will hear
    from Admiral Allen. After we hear from the Commandant, each
    member, each member, will be recognized by seniority for up to
    7 minutes for remarks and questions.
        I now recognize Senator Voinovich for any opening remarks
    he may wish to make.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE V. VOINOVICH

        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Admiral Allen. I share with the chairman of the
    subcommittee that my wife Janet's maiden name was Allan.
        Senator Byrd. Really? Say that again?
        Senator Voinovich. I said my wife's mother's name was
    Allan.
        Senator Byrd. How about that?
        Senator Voinovich. Janet K. Allan, that was my wife's
    maiden name.
        Senator Byrd. My wife's mother's name was Allen. You and I
    may be kinfolk.
        Senator Voinovich. We may very well be.
        Unfortunately, she went from Allan to Voinovich, so she
    used to be called on first and now she's at the end.
        We're pleased that you're here with us this afternoon to
    present your budget request. As the chairman has said at the
    onset, I'd like to note for everyone that you do plan to retire
    after 38 years in the Coast Guard. I think this is quite an
    accomplishment, and I think as Commandant you've been an honest
    broker with the Congress and a great member of the Homeland
    Security team. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts for
    our Nation for the services that you have given our country
    during your years in service.
        The Coast Guard was key to standing up the Department and
    providing continuity at a critical time. As far as I'm
    concerned, the Coast Guard has been the anchor since the
    beginning of the Department of Homeland Security. It is always
    first to respond, as it did following Hurricane Katrina, as the
    chairman has so eloquently mentioned. Recently when a
    devastating earthquake hit Haiti, the Coast Guard was there.
        One of the things that I'd be interested in knowing is the
    impact of your participation there and what it's had on your
    2010 budget. I think so often we compliment the American people
    for their generosity, and we have been generous to Haiti, but I
    think we fail to calculate how much money Haiti has cost to our
    various Federal agencies and how they're able to compensate for
    that and continue to do the other jobs that we have asked them
    to do.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Coast Guard
    totals $8.5 billion in discretionary spending, $71 million less
    than fiscal year 2010. Quite frankly, $71 million is a lot of
    money, but in terms of an $8.5 billion budget--I'm still having
    people trying to figure out what percentage $71 million is to
    $8.5 billion--it's pretty, pretty, pretty small.
        I am one of those who have been very concerned about
    growing debt and unbalancing our budgets, as far as I can see
    they're unbalanced. When I became Governor of Ohio, we were in
    kind of the same fix we are today, and I had a saying that
    said: ``Gone are the days when public officials will be judged
    on how much they spend on a problem. Public officials will be
    judged on whether they can work harder and smarter and do more
    with less.''
        Admiral Allen, you indicate that strong fiscal discipline
    was applied to your request to make sure you're investing your
    resources in, ``what works, cutting down on redundancy,
    eliminating spending on ineffective programs, and making
    improvements across the board.'' You indicate that the budget
    focuses resources on your highest priority, the continued
    acquisition of new cutters, aircraft, and infrastructure to
    replace the Coast Guard's aging assets.
        Facing, as you mentioned, the Federal debt and skyrocketing
    deficits, I do not dispute what you say. We do need to curb our
    appetites and bring discipline to Federal spending. The
    question is do you feel confident that this budget gets the job
    done for the Coast Guard and for the American people, as the
    chairman has so eloquently stated?
        The request proposes to reduce the Coast Guard's military
    strength by 1,112 billets. Many of my colleagues say this is
    too much, that this reduction in people, along with the
    decommissioning of operational assets and units, will seriously
    injure the capacity and capability of the Coast Guard to
    perform its many and varied missions.
        I think that one of the things that you're going to have to
    do in your testimony and thereafter is to convince us that what
    you're suggesting here makes sense from the point of view of
    the Coast Guard. I have no reason to think that a man that's
    been in the Coast Guard for 38 years would be coming before us
    today and presenting a budget that he doesn't think will get
    the job done. But I think there is some real question here
    about whether or not that's the case. So you'll have to make
    that case.
        Your candor will be greatly appreciated. As you know, it's
    the job of this subcommittee to not just look at your budget
    proposal, but at the proposed allocation of resources among all
    of the components in the Department to determine if we agree
    with the tradeoffs. Again, I'd like to say you probably know a
    whole lot more about that than we do because you are closer to
    it and live with it every day.
        So I look forward to hearing your thoughts today as you
    present your budget.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Senator.
        Admiral Allen, before we begin I want to recognize the
    hardworking employees of the Coast Guard Operations System
    Center, the National Vessel Documentation Center, and the
    National Maritime Center, all of which are in West Virginia.
    These West Virginians are proud to support the Coast Guard's
    many missions.
        Admiral Allen, you're now recognized for your opening
    remarks.

                   SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL THAD W. ALLEN

        Admiral Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Voinovich
    and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
    the opportunity to testify today on the Coast Guard's fiscal
    year 2011 budget. I ask that my entire written statement be
    submitted for the record. I have a short oral statement.
        I would like to thank the subcommittee members for your
    continued support of our Coast Guard men and women and for your
    gracious comments here today. Mr. Chairman, on the 12th of
    February I delivered my fourth and final State of the Coast
    Guard Address. I described our current state as ready and
    resilient, and I think this was clearly demonstrated following
    the devastating earthquake in Haiti, as you have noted. One
    hour after the earthquake struck, three cutters were ordered to
    proceed to Haiti. Arriving on scene the following morning, our
    units controlled aircraft movements until the airport tower was
    operational, conducted damage assessments, provided medical
    care and even delivered a baby on the flight deck of a Coast
    Guard cutter. Our aircraft began to evacuate American citizens
    and the most critically injured Haitians.
        As the recovery ramped up, we deployed a reserve port
    security unit and a maritime transportation recovery unit,
    applying lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina. Our forces
    were instrumental in reopening Port au Prince Harbor to allow
    relief supplies to be delivered at a much higher volume via
    container. We partnered with the Department of Defense, State
    Department, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and our
    Homeland Security partners to support the U.S. Agency for
    International Development and our ambassador. At the same time,
    we actively patrolled and monitored departures from Haiti for
    any indication of a mass migration.
        The Coast Guard was the first on scene because our
    operational forces and command and control structure are agile
    and flexible. We are a multi-mission military, whole of
    government, service and agency that is unique to this country
    and the world. We provide tremendous value to the American
    people and the global maritime community.
        Even as we surged into Haiti, other Coast Guard assets were
    breaking ice on the Great Lakes and in New England, medically
    evacuating a heart attack victim 275 miles off San Diego,
    conducting fishing vessel safety patrols in the Bering Sea and
    detaining 12 foreign vessels around the country for violating
    International Maritime Organization conventions.
        Our organizational genius is our operational model that
    emphasizes on-scene initiative and allows our field commanders
    to move resources where they are needed the most. That
    competency will be the key to effective performance as we face
    constrained funding levels.
        As we discuss the fiscal year 2011 budget request, the
    constrained fiscal environment is the overarching issue. In his
    State of the Union Address, the President said: Families across
    the country are tightening their belts; the Federal Government
    should do the same. That sentiment is certainly reflected in
    our 2011 budget.
        In my discussions with Secretary Napolitano, we had to make
    difficult tradeoffs between balancing our current operational
    capacity with the need for new cutters, aircraft, boats, and
    sensors. We made a conscious decision to continue to invest in
    our future. This budget contains nearly $1.4 billion to acquire
    new assets while removing from service aging cutters and
    aircraft that are too costly to maintain. But I would note that
    level is $156 million less than the current year appropriation
    and represents the absolute minimum investment level to sustain
    our future readiness to remain ready and resilient.
        To permit recapitalization at that rate within a fixed top
    line, we also had to limit our operating costs. Accordingly,
    the budget proposes consolidating activities, including the
    regionalization of our maritime safety and security teams and
    decommissioning of aging cutters.
        Mr. Chairman, these were not easy choices, but they were
    necessary, and they result in the reduction of the 1,112
    military personnel that you noted. These reductions will be
    challenging because we have also experienced unprecedented low-
    attrition and high-retention rates within our current
    workforce. As a result, we have higher personnel levels this
    year than were forecasted. To manage the workforce this year
    and next year, depending on the funding appropriated, we will
    be looking at a range of programs from reduced accessions to
    waivers for obligated service so that we can manage the
    workforce at the funded level.
        Because our people are our most valuable asset, we will
    carefully study the impacts on our workforce and their families
    before implementing any measures, and we are committed to
    transparency in this process.
        Sir, the bottom line is we have less capacity in 2011 than
    we did in 2010. As I noted earlier, faced with these
    restraints, we will manage risk and allocate resources provided
    to the highest priority, just as we have always done under our
    business model. Recapitalizing the fleet is my top priority. It
    has to be because our future readiness is at stake. Of the 12
    cutters that initially responded to Haiti, 10 suffered severe,
    mission-affecting casualties. With each passing year our
    operating capability erodes, putting our people at risk and
    endangering our ability to execute our statutory
    responsibilities.
        I might add, the earthquake in Haiti was also the first
    test of our modernized support system, and that was highly
    successful. By providing product line support and forward-
    deploying support personnel through the chain of command, we
    were able to sustain our Haiti relief efforts while still
    executing other missions, despite the casualties I mentioned.
        To fully implement our modernization, however, I ask the
    Congress to pass authorizing legislation so we can move
    forward. I also ask for your support with our authorizing
    committees. In addition to transforming our maintenance and
    logistics processes, we made significant progress toward
    building an acquisition organization capable of assuming the
    lead systems integrator role, not only for Deepwater but all
    Coast Guard programs.
        The contract for the fast response cutter (FRC) was lauded
    by the Government Accountability Office for its thoroughness,
    and last Friday we held a keel-laying ceremony for our first
    FRC, the Bernard C. Weber. The lessons learned from the
    Bertholf, our first national security cutter, were rolled into
    the Waesche, which will be commissioned on the 7th of May.
    Waesche achieved the authority to operate classified systems 1
    year earlier and at 50 percent fewer trial cards, or
    discrepancies after acceptance, than Bertholf. Although these
    are signs of progress, there is certainly more work to be done.
        I understand the subcommittee's frustration with the
    timeliness of acquisition-related reports. We are working at
    best speed to rectify that situation. We delivered the 2009
    Deepwater expenditure report at the beginning of March, and our
    2010 Deepwater implementation plan is under administration
    review. Mr. Chairman, it is my personal goal to give that
    report to you before I retire as Commandant.
        I fully understand the challenges you face in making
    decisions and the importance of information in these reports.
    You deserve to have this information when you receive your
    budget justifications, and we will continue to work with your
    staffs to meet the reporting requirements.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, the state of the
    Coast Guard is ready and resilient, but our fleet is fragile
    and approaching the limits of supportability because of age. We
    must recapitalize our fleet at best speed to ensure we can
    deliver superior service to the Nation. Our guardians deserve
    our best because that's what they give us.
        I'd be glad to answer your questions, sir.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Admiral Thad W. Allen
                                  introduction
        Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee. Thank you for the enduring support you have shown to the
    men and women of the United States Coast Guard.
        I am here today to discuss the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2011
    budget request. Before I discuss the details of the request, I would
    like to take this opportunity to explain how I view the principles of
    Coast Guard operations, our most recent actions in Haiti, and the
    current budget environment.
        For over two centuries the U.S. Coast Guard has safeguarded the
    Nation's maritime interests at home and around the globe. The Coast
    Guard saves those in peril and protects the Nation's maritime
    transportation system, resources, and environment. Over the past year,
    Coast Guard men and women--active duty, reserve, civilian and
    auxiliarists alike--continued to deliver premier service to the public.
    They performed superbly in the heartland, in our ports, and while
    deployed at sea and around the globe. They saved over four thousand
    lives and worked closely with interagency partners to ensure resilience
    to natural disasters at home and abroad.
        The Coast Guard's military, multi-mission, maritime assets provide
    agile and adaptable operational capabilities that are well-suited to
    serve the Nation's interests. The national benefit of this multi-
    mission character is exemplified at the field level by an individual
    asset's ability to seamlessly, and at times simultaneously, carry out
    distinct yet complimentary functions in the maritime domain--law
    enforcement, national defense, facilitation of maritime commerce,
    maritime safety, environmental protection, and humanitarian response.
    In short, whether in our Nation's intercoastal waterways, ports,
    coastal areas, or maritime approaches, the Coast Guard is here to
    protect, ready to rescue.
        The Coast Guard's ability to conduct surge operations and leverage
    partnerships in response to nationally significant safety, security, or
    environmental threats is critical to disaster recovery and exemplifies
    the resiliency of the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland
    Security (DHS).
        At a time when ``whole of government'' approaches are critical to
    achieving national objectives across a broad spectrum of strategic
    challenges, it must be recognized that the Coast Guard provides a
    unique and invaluable contribution to maritime safety and security.
    There is no finer example of the ability of the service to respond to
    all threats and hazards than our recent response to the earthquake in
    Haiti. The first Coast Guard asset was on scene in Port-au-Prince less
    than 18 hours after the earthquake. Coast Guard units were the first on
    scene and have been working around the clock with our interagency
    partners to provide humanitarian assistance, evacuate U.S. citizens,
    and help the most seriously wounded. As Commandant, I could not be more
    proud of our response efforts in Haiti. Our actions were guided by the
    Principles of Coast Guard Operations contained in Coast Guard
    Publication One, U.S. Coast Guard: America's Maritime Guardian. All six
    principles were evident during our efforts in Haiti:
      --Clear Objective.--The first cutters and aircraft that arrived in
            Haiti knew what needed to be done and reconciled their unit's
            competencies with the opportunities.
      --Effective Presence.--We were already in position to respond quickly
            to Haiti and our continued presence in the ports and oceans
            make us critical first responders.
      --Unity of Effort.--We are bureaucratically multi-lingual which
            helped us quickly integrate our operations within DHS as well
            as with U.S. Agency for International Development, Department
            of Defense, and other interagency partners.
      --On-Scene Initiative.--We expect our people to take action without
            having to wait for orders. That is part of our very make up and
            what separates us from other entities.
      --Flexibility.--By our nature, we are multi-mission and this greatly
            enhances our value to the Nation and the global maritime
            community.
      --Managed Risk.--We allocate the right mix of units and people, as
            well as leveraging all partnerships, to achieve desired
            effects.
      --Restraint.--We are sensitive to the broader context of our
            operations. We understand how our operations impact the public
            we serve.
        The principles are as relevant today as they were in 1790, and will
    guide our implementation of the initiatives proposed in the fiscal year
    2011 budget.
                            fiscal year 2011 request
        The fiscal year 2011 budget presents the most efficient and
    effective use our resources. We applied strong fiscal discipline to
    make sure that in 2011 we will be investing our resources in what
    works, cutting down on redundancy, eliminating spending on ineffective
    programs and making improvements across the board. We took as our
    highest priority the continued acquisition of new cutters, aircraft,
    and infrastructure. This commitment is vital to our ability to protect,
    defend, and save well into the 21st century.
        The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2011 budget request focuses resources
    on our top budget priority--continued recapitalization of aging assets
    and infrastructure. In addition to recapitalization, the fiscal year
    2011 budget includes pay and standard personnel costs associated with
    the military workforce, training, operating funds for new assets, and
    unit and depot level maintenance. Highlights from our request are
    included in Appendix I.
                  recapitalizing to preserve future capability
        The fiscal year 2011 budget continues funding for recapitalization
    of aging assets (e.g. cutters, aircraft, boats, Command, Control,
    Communication, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and
    Reconnaissance, and infrastructure). I cannot emphasize enough that
    recapitalization is critical to preserving future surface, air, and
    shore asset capability; this is an essential investment for the Coast
    Guard. What the Coast Guard builds today will help secure the Nation's
    borders, rescue those in peril, preserve our maritime resources and
    vitality, and protect the environment for decades to come.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget continues the disposition of legacy
    assets where new surface and air assets are coming online.
    Additionally, savings from targeted reallocations of operational
    capacity, efficiencies, and consolidation initiatives are redirected to
    support continued recapitalization of aging assets and infrastructure.
    These capacity shifts could create short-term impacts on Coast Guard
    service delivery if recapitalization schedules are not met, however,
    operational commanders will always allocate resources to meet the
    Nation's highest order maritime safety, security, and stewardship
    needs. As such, monitoring performance and adapting through risk
    management will be a key strategic aim for the Coast Guard in fiscal
    year 2011. In general, long-term Coast Guard performance ultimately
    depends on the pace and stability of future recapitalization, which in
    turn depends on our ability to manage the cost, schedule and quality of
    our acquisition programs.
        Preservation of the Coast Guard's maritime capability through the
    recapitalization of surface and air assets is a strategic imperative
    for DHS and the Coast Guard. The fiscal year 2011 budget continues
    major cutter recapitalization by funding production of the fifth
    National Security Cutter (NSC), refurbishment of another 270-foot
    Medium Endurance Cutter, design of the Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC),
    and construction of four more Fast Response Cutters (FRCs). Another
    fiscal year 2011 recapitalization priority is the HC-144A Maritime
    Patrol Aircraft (MPA) which will replace the HU-25 Falcon, approaching
    the end of its service life.
        At the requested funding level of $1.4 billion, we will maintain a
    robust and stable capital investment funding profile, which is my
    highest priority for the Coast Guard. I appreciate Congress' continuing
    efforts to coordinate closely with the Coast Guard to support our
    acquisition reform initiatives.
                         delivering value to the nation
        In fiscal year 2011, the Coast Guard will continue to provide
    exceptional service to the Nation. The fiscal year 2011 budget provides
    $87 million more for the operating expenses of Coast Guard, including
    personnel pay and allowances, training and recruiting, operating funds
    for newly acquired assets delivered through Coast Guard
    recapitalization programs, and unit and depot level maintenance.
    Further, the budget annualizes new funding provided by Congress in
    fiscal year 2010 for marine safety, financial management oversight,
    armed helicopters, Biometrics at Sea, the Seahawk Charleston
    Interagency Operations Center, counternarcotics enforcement, and new
    watchstanders. It also enhances deployable law enforcement capacity to
    mitigate emergent terrorism and border security risks.
                             workforce optimization
        In fiscal year 2011, the Coast Guard will sustain previous
    enhancements to the acquisition, financial management, and marine
    safety workforces, and it will continue to promote a diverse and
    competent workforce that can adapt to employ new and improved assets to
    meet evolving mission demands.
        Maintaining the welfare of our workforce remains one of my top
    priorities. The fiscal year 2011 budget supports our need to improve
    military housing. The Coast Guard currently owns 4,020 military housing
    units, the average age of which is over 40 years. Many of the Coast
    Guard's housing assets require recapitalization due to safety and
    habitability issues. The budget funds the recapitalization,
    improvement, and acquisition of 18 military family housing units in
    critical areas where we struggle to provide suitable and affordable
    housing for our members.
        Through strong efforts and a commitment to the workforce, the Coast
    Guard will continue to foster an environment in which every individual
    has opportunity to prosper. In 2009, the Coast Guard launched its
    Diversity Strategic Plan. This plan builds upon the significant
    progress we have achieved to date and provides direction for our
    collective efforts to make the Coast Guard a leader in diversity
    development and a model for the Nation.
                          savings and decommissionings
        The safety and security of the American people are our highest
    priorities, and the Coast Guard will continue to meet national search
    and rescue standards across the country. The Coast Guard will leverage
    available efficiencies to maximize service delivery and provide the
    Nation with the highest possible return on investment. Proposed
    efficiency highlights include small boat logistics management
    improvements, contract in sourcing, headquarters management
    efficiencies, and the consolidation of intelligence fusion centers
    under a single operational command. The fiscal year 2011 budget also
    includes the decommissioning of legacy assets, the restructuring of
    deployable forces, and the realignment of helicopter capacity to the
    Great Lakes region. Four HECs, which have been in service since
    Vietnam, are being recapitalized with newer, more capable NSCs. A new
    regionalized construct for Maritime Safety and Security Teams (MSSTs)
    will enable the Coast Guard to rapidly deploy teams of skilled
    professionals to ports and operating areas across the country based on
    risk and threats as needed. Rotary wing realignment reallocates
    existing highly capable aircraft to the Ninth Coast Guard District
    where they will be more operationally effective in executing assigned
    missions, thus allowing the closure of two seasonal Air Facilities.
                      modernization of business practices
        Coast Guard Modernization is the centerpiece of an overarching
    strategy to transform our legacy command and control structures,
    support systems, and business processes into an adaptive, change-
    centric, learning organization. This transition from a geographically
    based structure to a functionally aligned organization enables the
    Coast Guard to optimize sustained mission execution and support, and
    increase alignment within DHS and with our fellow Armed Forces. By
    positioning ourselves to be more flexible, agile, and change-centric,
    we will improve our service to the Nation and enhance every Guardian's
    ability to protect, defend, and save.
        Our recent experience and support of Haiti response and relief
    operations is instructive. As I have noted in the past, the Coast Guard
    operates one of the oldest fleets in the world. Of the 12 major cutters
    assigned to Haiti relief operations, 10 cutters, or 83 percent,
    suffered severe mission affecting casualties, two were forced to return
    to port for emergency repairs, and one proceeded to an emergency dry
    dock. We also had to divert air resources away from evacuation efforts
    to deliver repair parts. This process was coordinated flawlessly
    through our new logistics structure, including the creation of a
    forward-deployed logistics structure at Guantanamo Bay. The response
    was a triumph for our modernized mission support organization. It also
    underscores the condition of our fleet and the responsible actions we
    are taking to decommission those assets with liabilities that outweigh
    their service value.
        We are creating a better Coast Guard through modernization, and the
    recent positive endorsement our efforts received from the National
    Academy of Public Administration reinforces the need to continue moving
    forward. As I enter my final months of service as Commandant, I ask for
    your support to provide the Coast Guard with authority to carry out the
    remainder of our modernization efforts.
                                   conclusion
        Regarding our ongoing efforts in Haiti, many have questioned how
    the Coast Guard can do so much so quickly, and I simply reply: ``This
    is what we do.'' Our Guardians are committed to protecting, defending,
    and saving without having to be told to do so. Along with all
    Americans, I am truly inspired by the Coast Guard men and women
    operating in theater, backfilling for deployed units, or providing the
    necessary support to make it all possible. As always, our Guardians are
    here to protect and ready to rescue at a moment's notice. That is who
    we are and why we serve.
        I look forward to working with the subcommittee as we move together
    to achieve our shared goals of a stronger, more capable and effective
    Coast Guard across all of our safety, security and stewardship
    missions. Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
    today. I am pleased to answer your questions.
                  appendix i--fiscal year 2011 budget request
        The fiscal year 2011 President's budget continues funding for
    recapitalization of aging assets (e.g., cutters, aircraft, boats, and
    command, control, computer, communications, intelligence, surveillance,
    and reconnaissance (C4ISR) and infrastructure. Recapitalization is
    vital to preserving future surface, air, and shore asset capability,
    and is an essential investment for the Nation. In addition to
    recapitalization, the fiscal year 2011 President's budget includes pay
    and standard personnel costs associated with the military workforce,
    training, operating funds for new assets, and unit and depot
    maintenance.
                 fiscal year 2011 initiatives and enhancements
    Recapitalize Operating Assets and Sustain Infrastructure
                Surface Assets--$856.0 Million, 0 FTE
        The budget provides $856.0 million for surface asset
    recapitalization or enhancement initiatives: production of National
    Security Cutter (NSC) #5; continued analysis and design of the Offshore
    Patrol Cutter (OPC); production of Fast Response Cutters (FRC) #9-12;
    production of Cutter Small Boats--one Long Range Interceptor and one
    Short Range Prosecutor; and operational enhancement of three Medium
    Endurance Cutters at the Coast Guard Yard through the Mission
    Effectiveness Project.
                Air Assets--$101.0 Million, 0 FTE
        The budget provides $101.0 million for the following air asset
    recapitalization or enhancement initiatives: production of HC-144A
    Maritime Patrol Aircraft #15; HH-60 engine sustainment and avionics,
    wiring and sensor upgrades for eight aircraft; HC-130H avionics and
    sensor development and testing, and the acquisition of components for
    two center wing box replacements; and HC-C130J fleet introduction.
                Asset Recapitalization--Other--$155.5 Million, 0 FTE
        The budget provides $155.5 million for the following equipment and
    services: continued development of logistics capability and facility
    upgrades at shore sites where new assets will be homeported; and design
    and development of C4ISR-integrated hardware and software systems for
    surface and air assets.
                Response Boat Medium (RBM)--$42.0 Million, 0 FTE
        The budget provides $42 million to order 10 boats to replace the
    aging 41-foot utility boat and other non-standard boats with an asset
    more capable of meeting the Coast Guard's multi-mission requirements.
                Rescue 21--$36.0 Million, 0 FTE
        The budget provides $36.0 million to complete deployment at Sectors
    Detroit, MI; Los Angeles/Long Beach, CA; Honolulu, HI; San Juan, PR;
    Guam; and Buffalo, NY; and continue deployment at Sectors Lake Michigan
    and Sault Sainte Marie, MI; Ohio River Valley, KY; Upper Mississippi
    River, MO; and Lower Mississippi River, TN. The Rescue 21 system is the
    Coast Guard's primary communications, command, and control system for
    all inland and coastal missions.
                Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation (ATON) Recap
                        Projects--$69.2 Million, 0 FTE
        The budget provides $69.2 million to recapitalize shore
    infrastructure for safe, functional, and modern shore facilities that
    effectively support Coast Guard assets and personnel. fiscal year 2011
    funding supports:
      --Survey and Design--Planning and engineering of out-year shore
            projects.
      --Minor Shore Projects--Completion of minor shore construction
            projects that are less complex but enable the Coast Guard to
            respond to critical operational and life safety issues
            associated with degraded shore facilities.
      --ATON Infrastructure--Improvements to short-range aids and
            infrastructure.
      --Chase Hall Barracks--Continued renovations to the Coast Guard
            Academy's Chase Hall by modernizing and improving habitability
            of the cadet barracks.
      --Newport, RI Pier--Improving an existing pier face to provide over
            800+ linear feet of moorings for Coast Guard Cutters Juniper,
            Willow, and Ida Lewis, and creates the necessary pierside
            support facilities.
      --Aviation Technical Training Center--Building upon efforts funded
            under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to
            rehabilitate Thrun Hall at the Aviation Technical Training
            Center in Elizabeth City, NC.
                Housing--$14.0 Million, 0 FTE
        The budget provides $14.0 million for the construction, renovation,
    and improvement of Coast Guard military family housing. The Coast Guard
    currently owns 4,020 military housing units, the average age of which
    is over 40 years. Funding is critical to improving Coast Guard-owned
    housing facilities, enhancing the quality of life of the military
    workforce and their families, and reducing the overall shore
    infrastructure maintenance backlog.
                Military Workforce--$86.2 Million, 0 FTE
        The budget provides $86.2 million to maintain parity of military
    pay, allowances, and healthcare with the Department of Defense. As a
    branch of the Armed Forces of the United States, the Coast Guard is
    subject to the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act,
    which includes pay and personnel benefits for the military workforce.
    The Coast Guard's multi-mission military workforce is unique within
    DHS. This request includes funding for basic allowance for housing,
    childcare benefits for Coast Guard members, permanent change of station
    costs, and military healthcare costs.
                Shore Facilities--$4.3 Million, 0 FTE
        The budget provides $4.3 million for the operation and maintenance
    of acquisition, construction and improvement shore facility projects
    scheduled for completion prior to fiscal year 2011. Funding is required
    for daily operating costs for energy, utility services, grounds
    maintenance, routine repairs, and housekeeping. These costs also
    include the operation and maintenance of the ATON's day/night/sound/
    electronic signal, power system, and support structure.
                Response Boat-Medium (RB-M) Maintenance--$2.0 Million, +5
                        FTE
        The budget provides $2.0 million for fiscal year 2011 operations
    and maintenance costs associated with delivery of 18 RB-Ms. This
    request also includes electrical support personnel and associated
    personal protective equipment to support the platform's increased
    capability.
                Rescue 21 Follow-on--$7.1 Million, +1 FTE
        The budget provides $7.1 million for follow-on funding to operate
    Rescue 21, the Coast Guard's primary system for performing the
    functional tasks of command, control, and communications in the inland
    and coastal zones for Coast Guard operations including search and
    rescue and maritime security missions. This funding will support five
    distinct cost categories that sustain Rescue 21: equipment operation
    and maintenance, circuit connectivity, property and power, training,
    and technology refresh.
                Rescue Swimmer Training Facility (RSTF)--$1.9 Million, +7
                        FTE
        The budget provides $1.9 million for the operation and maintenance
    of the RSTF, its Modular Egress Training Simulator, and recurring
    training costs. The RSTF will directly support Aviation Survival
    Technician (rescue swimmer) training and qualification standards, as
    well as egress certification and recertification for air crews and some
    small boat crews.
                Surface and Air Asset Follow-on--$62.5 Million, +173 FTE
        The budget provides a total of $62.5 million to fund operations and
    maintenance of cutters, boats, aircraft, and associated subsystems
    delivered through major cutter, aircraft, and associated C4ISR
    acquisition efforts. Funding is requested for the following assets:
      --NSC--Shoreside logistics support and maintenance funding necessary
            for three NSCs located in Alameda, CA; unit operations and
            maintenance funding for the third NSC scheduled for delivery in
            fiscal year 2011.
      --Training System Personnel--Funding and training personnel for the
            NSC C4ISR training suite at Training Center Petaluma, CA.
      --FRC--Operating and maintenance funding for the first five FRCs
            scheduled for delivery in fiscal year 2011 and homeported in
            Miami, FL; shore-side maintenance personnel needed to support
            FRCs being delivered in fiscal year 2011; and, personnel to
            operate and maintain the seventh and eighth FRCs scheduled for
            delivery early in 2012.
      --Transition Aviation Training Center Mobile and Air Station Miami to
            HC-144A Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA)--Funding to support a
            change in aircraft type, allowance, and programmed utilization
            rates at Aviation Training Center Mobile, AL and Air Station
            Miami, FL.
      --HC-144A MPA--Operating and maintenance funding and personnel for
            aircraft #12 and personnel for aircraft #13; logistics support
            personnel and maintenance funding for the HC-144A product line.
      --Armed Helicopters for Homeland Security Follow-on--Recurring funds
            to maintain Airborne Use of Force (AUF) Kit ``A'' equipment for
            22 HH-65C helicopters.
      --C4ISR Follow-on--Funding to maintain new high-speed Ku-band
            satellite communications systems installed on major cutters
            prior to fiscal year 2011.
       fiscal year 2011 efficiencies, reallocations, and decommissionings
        The fiscal year 2011 President's budget includes efficiencies,
    consolidation initiatives, decommissionings, and operational
    restructuring. Savings associated with targeted efficiencies and
    consolidation initiatives have been redirected to support operations
    and maintenance and recapitalization priorities.
                Maritime Safety and Security Teams-- -$18.2 Million, -196
                        FTE
        In fiscal year 2011, Maritime Safety and Security Teams (MSSTs)
    Anchorage, Kings Bay, New Orleans, New York, and San Francisco will be
    decommissioned. The seven remaining MSSTs will provide the same
    geographic coverage by deploying regionally to mitigate the highest
    prevailing port security risks in the Nation's critical ports.
        MSSTs will continue to escort vessels, patrol critical
    infrastructure, perform counter terrorism activities, enforce laws
    aboard high interest vessels, and respond to unanticipated surge
    operations (e.g., mass migration response, hurricane response,
    terrorist attack, etc.) consistent with regional threats.
        As part of this initiative, the Coast Guard will reinvest partial
    MSST savings in the Law Enforcement Detachment (LEDET) program to
    address increased demand for LEDET services in support of Coast Guard
    missions. The fiscal year 2011 investment increases the roster of all
    17 existing LEDETS from 11 to 12 members per team, and creates one new
    12-person LEDET. LEDETs are high return-on-investment national assets
    that augment defense operations in support of combatant commanders and
    counter drug operations in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.
                High Endurance Cutters-- -$28.2 Million, -383 FTE
        In fiscal year 2011, the Coast Guard will decommission four High
    Endurance Cutters (HEC): RUSH, JARVIS, CHASE, and HAMILTON. The average
    age of the HEC fleet is 42 years. A disproportionate share of the depot
    level maintenance budget is being used to sustain these aging assets.
    With two NSCs anticipated to be operational by 2011, the Coast Guard is
    positioned to begin decommissioning these legacy assets.
                Medium Endurance Cutter-- -$2.8 Million, -43 FTE
        In fiscal year 2011, the Coast Guard will retire the Medium
    Endurance Cutter Acushnet. Acushnet is well past its useful service
    life and has unique systems that are costly and difficult to sustain.
                HU-25 Aircraft-- -$7.7 Million, -32 FTE
        In fiscal year 2011, Coast Guard will decommission four HU-25 fixed
    winged aircraft. Three aircraft will be immediately replaced by the new
    HC-144A aircraft. The fourth HU-25 will be retired from service at
    Coast Guard Air Station (A/S) Cape Cod, MA, reducing aircraft allowance
    at this station from four to three until a replacement HC-144A arrives.
    Three aircraft provide the minimum manning required to maintain 24/7
    Search and Rescue capability.
                Rotary Wing Capacity-- -$5.5 Million, -34 FTE
        In fiscal year 2011, the Coast Guard will realign rotary wing
    capacity to provide four medium-range HH-60 helicopters to the Great
    Lakes region. To facilitate this delivery of enhanced multi-mission
    capability, two HH-60 helicopters from Operations Bahamas Turks and
    Caicos, and two HH-60s from Maritime Security Response Team (MSRT) in
    Chesapeake, VA will be permanently relocated to Coast Guard Air Station
    Traverse City, MI. Upon arrival of the four HH-60s, five HH-65
    helicopters presently stationed at Air Station Traverse City will be
    removed from active service.
        The HH-60 helicopter has the added capability over the HH-65 to
    operate in extreme cold weather conditions, including icing, which
    persist in the Air Station Traverse City area of responsibility
    approximately 5 months per year. In addition, the HH-60 helicopter has
    double the flight time endurance of the HH-65 providing additional
    operational range for search and rescue (SAR) missions and security
    patrols in the Great Lakes region and along the northern maritime
    border. Enhancing the operational capability of Air Station Traverse
    City helicopters will also enable the closure of two seasonal Coast
    Guard Air Facilities at Muskegon, MI and Waukegan, IL while still
    meeting SAR program response requirements.

                      PRIORITIES IF FUNDING WERE AVAILABLE

        Senator Byrd. I thank you for your excellent statement,
    Admiral. My instinct tells me--and I have pretty good instincts
    that when it comes to this budget, you were dealt a bad hand by
    OMB, the Office of Management and Budget. You were told to do
    the best you could with an inadequate top line. You did so.
    But, as Popeye used to say, ``I am what I am and that's all I
    am.'' This budget is what it is and that's all it is.
        I need your candid views, on the consequences of the
    proposed budget. I'm troubled by the budget request to reduce
    Coast Guard military strength by 1,112 positions. The Coast
    Guard is the only branch of the military to see its workforce
    decreased in the President's budget. But--I repeat the
    proposition--but you have said publicly that the Coast Guard
    could grow by as much as 2,000 positions, by as much as 2,000
    positions per year, to meet operational demands.
        I understand that tough choices had to be made because of
    the administration's budget top line for the Coast Guard. But--
    I repeat that conjunction--but if the funding were available,
    how, how would you allocate the 1,112 billets and what could
    those Coast Guard personnel accomplish?
        Admiral Allen. Mr. Chairman, if funding were to be made
    available against that deficit we had right now, my priorities
    would be to retain the five H-65 helicopters that are currently
    offset in the budget, to restore four of the marine safety and
    security teams and two of the high endurance cutters, to
    recover those operating hours pending delivery of new national
    security cutters to replace them and to request critical
    funding for maintenance of our aircraft and our cutters and our
    small boats.

                          OPERATING WITH FEWER CUTTERS

        Senator Byrd. The Coast Guard estimates that with its
    current resources it is unable to provide 6,840 cutter hours
    necessary to secure our ports, interdict illegal migrants,
    seize drugs, and save lives. And yet this budget would
    decommission four high endurance cutters and replace them with
    only two in fiscal year 2011. Let me repeat that: The budget
    would decommission four high endurance cutters and replace them
    with only two in fiscal year 2011.
        In 2009, these cutters that you plan to decommission
    contributed to the removal of 35,100 pounds of cocaine and 400
    pounds of marijuana, with an estimated value of $493 million.
    In addition, one of the cutters that you propose to
    decommission served admirably in response to the Haiti
    earthquake.
        If we decommission four cutters as OMB has proposed, the
    mission hour gap--let me repeat that--the mission hour gap
    would increase from 6,840 to 11,790 hours, almost double.
        Are the existing ships capable of serving another 2 years?
    If Congress were to provide sufficient funds to decommission
    ships only when new assets are available to replace them, what
    additional missions would be undertaken? Let me repeat that: If
    Congress were to provide sufficient funds to decommission ships
    only when new assets are available to replace them, what
    additional missions would be undertaken?
        Admiral Allen. Thank you for the question, chairman. The
    budget as submitted would retire two cutters without
    replacement. You are correct in that statement. The way the
    Coast Guard would handle those reductions would be, frankly,
    assumed risk and managed risk. We do that right now because we
    have multi-mission cutters that can't be everywhere, and we go
    through a risk management process in the current allocation of
    our resources. That would just become more acute and will put
    the onus on our field commanders to establish the highest
    priority to apply the cutter hours that they have.
        Generally, our high endurance cutters conduct directed
    patrol missions in certain mission areas, for instance, long-
    range missions down South in drug interdiction; long-range
    missions in the middle of the Pacific for illegal, unregulated,
    unreported fishing; fishing enforcement in the Bering Sea--in
    places where the high endurance cutters' sea-keeping ability
    and their endurance allow them to stay on scene.
        So the mission areas that will be most impacted would be
    drug interdiction, fisheries enforcement in the 17th District
    and in the 14th District and illegal, unreported and
    unregulated fishing.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you.
        Senator Voinovich.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

               DECOMMISSIONING MARITIME SAFETY AND SECURITY TEAMS

        A large percentage of the reductions in personnel, 400
    full-time positions, come from the decommissioning of maritime
    safety and security teams, the MSSTs. These teams were designed
    to deter potential terrorists, respond to security-related
    incidents, and assist with port vulnerability assessments.
    These teams which your budget proposes to reduce were created
    by the Maritime Transportation Security Act adopted unanimously
    by the Senate in 2002.
        When we passed that legislation, there was an anticipation
    that these would be needed in terms of the security of our
    Nation. Has it been the experience of the Coast Guard that that
    vulnerability or that need in effect did not materialize and
    that these folks are no longer needed to get the job done, or
    in the alternative that those that remain will be able to
    handle the work?
        Admiral Allen. Sir, the proposal to decommission the Marine
    Safety and Security Teams (MSSTs) was not based on any
    significant change in the threat or the vulnerability
    situation. There was an effort to achieve economies and
    regionally provide deployable specialized forces in addition to
    our fixed-base, search-and-rescue stations and aviation
    stations.
        MSSTs are what we call a deployable specialized force. They
    are capable of moving anywhere in the country, anywhere in the
    world that we need them. Although they are based in one
    particular geographical area, they are actually deployed to
    other places in the country.
        So what we are doing is we're expanding the regional
    coverage of the remaining MSSTs in the same manner as operating
    with less cutter hours when you have less deployable MSST days.
    You're just going to manage risk and allocate what you have to
    the highest priority, sir.
        Senator Voinovich. Well, the fact of the matter is that
    you're confident that the remaining teams that are in place can
    continue to get the job done?
        Admiral Allen. They will be able to respond. If you have--
    for instance, we are proposing to remove a team from New York
    and keep one in Boston, which is very close to a field where
    they can be airlifted. There will be a delta or a difference in
    the time to respond to those areas based on the distance they
    have to travel, but there will be a team capable of responding
    in each region, sir.
        Senator Voinovich. I'd be interested to know since this
    group was set up, the number of incidents where they were
    involved. It may not be something you can talk about publicly,
    but even if it's something that's confidential, I'd certainly
    like to know just how much action those teams have had during
    this period of time and what's the current threat assessment.
        Admiral Allen. Yes, sir. We can give you a breakdown on the
    days deployed and where they're deployed and the mission that
    they were deployed upon for all teams. We can give that to you
    for the record, sir.
        [The information follows:]

        MSST ANCHORAGE: Deployed elements 12 times for 124 days to the
    following locations: Anchorage, AK (3 times); Tacoma, WA (2 times);
    Seattle, WA; Juneau, AK; San Francisco, CA; Jacksonville, FL; Beaumont,
    TX; Portland, OR; and Prudhoe Bay, AK. Missions included: VPOTUS
    Protection, High Interest Vessel Boardings, Military Outloads, High
    Value Unit Escorts, PWCS, and Ferry Escorts.
        MSST SEATTLE: Deployed elements 16 times for 214 days to the
    following locations: Tacoma, WA (4 times); Seattle, WA (9 times);
    Corpus Christie, TX; San Francisco, CA; including 136 days in
    Guantanamo Bay, CU. Missions included PWCS: Ferry Escorts, Critical
    Infrastructure Patrols, Military Outloads, and Harbor Security for
    Guantanamo Bay. Additionally K9 teams supported local efforts for 16
    missions in the Seattle Metro Region such as Ferry Sweeps and Terminal
    Security.
        MSST SAN FRANCISCO: Deployed elements 12 times for 189 days to the
    following locations: San Francisco, CA (7 times); Seattle, WA (2
    times); Jacksonville, FL; San Diego, CA; CENTCOM. Missions included:
    High Value Unit Escorts, PWCS, Military Outloads, Flood Relief, and
    Visit Board Search & Seizure.
        MSST SAN PEDRO: Deployed elements 18 times for 153 days to the
    following locations: San Francisco, CA (2 times); Los Angeles, CA (9
    times); Miami, FL; Australia; Corpus Christi, TX; Tacoma, WA; and
    Seattle, WA (2 times); San Diego, CA. Missions included: Fleet Week;
    Republican Governor's Convention; Rose Bowl; PWCS: High Capacity
    Passenger Vessel Escorts, Critical Infrastructure Patrols, Safety/
    Security Zone Enforcement; High Interest Vessel Boardings and
    International Underwater Harbor Security Trial.
        MSST SAN DIEGO: Deployed elements 21 times for 155 days to the
    following locations: San Diego, CA (13 times); Tacoma, WA; Seattle, WA
    (2 times); Charleston, SC; Honolulu, HI (2 times); Pittsburgh, PA; and
    Yokosuka, JA. Missions included Training, Counter Illicit Trafficking,
    PWCS: High Capacity Passenger Vessel Escorts, Critical Infrastructure
    Patrols, Safety/Security Zone Enforcement; High Interest Vessel
    Boardings, G20 Summit and Defense Readiness Exercise Support.
        MSST HONOLULU: Deployed elements 34 times for 321 days to the
    following locations: Honolulu, HI (18 times); Jacksonville, FL (3
    times); Tacoma, WA (2 times); Kahului, HI; Kona, HI; Pago Pago; Guam;
    Saipan; San Diego, CA; Corpus Christie, TX; Hilo, HI; Seattle, WA; and
    Bellingham, WA. Missions included: Critical Infrastructure Patrols,
    High Interest Vessel Boardings, Military Outloads, High Value Unit
    Escorts, Counter Illicit Trafficking, PWCS, and High Capacity Passenger
    Vessel Escorts.
        MSST KINGS BAY (91104): Deployed elements 19 times for 227 days to
    the following locations: Jacksonville, FL (10 times); St Petersburg,
    FL; Tacoma, WA (2 times); New Orleans, LA; Savannah, GA; Hampton Roads,
    VA; Port Canaveral, FL; Seattle, WA; Memphis, TN; including 5 days
    dedicated support to UNITAS (an annual multilateral maritime exercise
    for The Americas). Missions included PWCS, Security Escorts to High
    Value Units, Military Outload Protection, and Naval Protection Zone
    Enforcement.
        MSST GALVESTON: Deployed elements 19 times for 365 days to the
    following locations: Washington, DC; Williamsburg, VA; San Diego, CA;
    Bellingham, WA (2 times); New Orleans, LA; Kings Bay, GA (2 times);
    Houston, TX (2 times); Corpus Christi, TX (2 times); Port Arthur, TX;
    Seattle, WA; Lackland AFB, TX; Boston, MA; New York, NY; San Francisco,
    CA; including 108 days dedicated support to CENTCOM and 25 days for the
    Presidential Inauguration. Missions included: PWCS, Security Escorts to
    High Value Units, Military Outload Protection, and Naval Protection
    Zone Enforcement.
        MSST NEW ORLEANS: Deployed elements 14 times for 262 days to the
    following locations: New York, NY; Seattle, WA; Delaware Bay; St
    Petersburg, FL; Jacksonville, FL (4 times); Tacoma, WA; Machinac
    Island, MI; Long Island, NY; New London, CT, Hampton Rd, VA (2 times).
    Missions included: POTUS Security, PWCS, NSSE, Ferry Escorts, Security
    Escorts to High Value Units, Military Outload Protection, and Naval
    Protection Zone Enforcement.
        MSST BOSTON: Deployed elements 15 times for 102 days to the
    following locations: Boston, MA (8 times); New York, NY (3 times);
    Seattle, WA; Jacksonville, FL; Hampton Roads, VA, including 90 days to
    CENTCOM and 16 days to UNITAS. Missions included PWCS, Ferry Escorts,
    Security Escorts to High Value Units and Military Outloads.
        MSST NEW YORK: Deployed elements 20 times for 175 days to the
    following locations: New York, NY (11 times); Seattle, WA; Delaware
    Bay; St Petersburg, FL; Jacksonville, FL (2 times); Tacoma, WA;
    Machinac Island, MI; Long Island, NY; New London, CT; including 4 days
    dedicated to Super Bowl security in Tampa, FL. Missions included POTUS
    Security, PWCS, NSSE, Ferry Escorts, Security Escorts to High Value
    Units, Military Outload Protection, and Naval Protection Zone
    Enforcement.
        MSST MIAMI: Deployed elements 33 times for 273 days to the
    following locations: Key West, FL (3 times); Homestead, FL (4 times);
    Norfolk, VA (2 times); Miami, FL (10 times); Corpus Christi, TX (2
    times); Washington, DC; Tampa, FL; Memphis, TN; Ft. Lauderdale, FL (2
    times); Cape Cod MA; Jacksonville, FL (2 times); Chesapeake, VA; New
    York, NY; Pittsburgh, PA including 21 days to Cameroon, Africa and to
    CENTCOM. Missions included PWCS, NSSE, Security Escorts to High Value
    Units, Military Outload Protection, and Naval Protection Zone
    Enforcement.

                              HELICOPTER COVERAGE

        Senator Voinovich. I had a visit from Admiral Neffenger,
    who has been in Cleveland, and gotten to know him, and I want
    to say that the folks that you had at the 9th District have
    done a pretty darn good job and we're glad to have them in
    Cleveland in the Celebrezze Building, where I have my office,
    so I've gotten a chance to get to know them.
        He tried to explain the issue of decommissioning some of
    the helicopters in the Great Lakes, four or five of them that
    are available during the summer months, like 3 or 4 months of
    the year, but that for all intents and purposes after that
    period is over aren't that significant because of the weather
    conditions, etcetera, and that by bringing in two of these
    souped-up helicopters, that even though it might take a little
    longer to get to wherever it is they've got to get, that they
    would be available 12 months of the year.
        I'd like you to share with me your observations in regard
    to that. In other words, it gets into the issue of why we have
    these helicopters during 4 months. How often are they called
    upon, and if they can't get there say within 15 minutes what
    difference would that make? I understand that, under the budget
    proposal, even though it takes them longer, when they get
    there, because of the fuel capacity, the Blackhawk helicopters
    are more versatile and they can be more helpful in the
    situation.
        So I'm getting at the need and if the substitute makes
    sense, because I'm sure the people from Michigan are unhappy
    about closing down one of those bases in Michigan.
        Admiral Allen. Yes, sir. The laydown we have right now is
    an air station in Traverse City, MI, that has H-65 helicopters,
    which are medium, generally shipboard, short-range search and
    rescue helicopters.
        Senator Voinovich. And those have been modernized too I
    understand?
        Admiral Allen. Been re-engined, yes, sir, to have better
    endurance and more power.
        We also operate two facilities in the summer, as you
    correctly noted--one at Waukegan, IL, the other one at
    Muskegon, MI--to cover the summer months. Muskegon is supported
    out of Air Station Detroit. Waukegan is supported out of Air
    Station Traverse City.
        In addition to those aviation facilities, we have small
    boat stations that ring Lake Michigan, as you know, every 20 or
    30 miles. So we look at the search-and-rescue system as a
    collective response capability.
        Senator Voinovich. So up in like Lake Erie you've got one
    in Marblehead.
        Admiral Allen. Yes, sir.
        Senator Voinovich. Then I think you've got one in
    Cleveland, and you have one at Fairport Harbor. What you're
    saying is that you do have the capability?
        Admiral Allen. Yes, sir. In fact, the Great Lakes are
    probably our most densely populated coastline with search and
    rescue stations as far as the distance between them in the
    United States.
        Our plan was to replace the H-65 helicopters in Traverse
    City with H-60 helicopters, which have longer range and more
    endurance, but more importantly, they have de-icing capability
    for the winter operations up there. So in the winter, rather
    than having the H-65s, which have shorter range and no de-icing
    capability, we would have long-range helicopters capable of
    covering the entire area much better than the 65s would.
        The offset of that is not having the short-range
    helicopters available where we already have search-and-rescue
    stations in those few months during the summer.
        Senator Voinovich. But the fact of the matter is that
    you're confident that, because we have so many of your----
        Admiral Allen. Small boat stations.
        Senator Voinovich [continuing]. Stations located, where if
    somebody were in need that there's enough of those that they
    could probably get out there and take care of that?
        Admiral Allen. Yes, sir. We look at the entire system and
    the ability to get somebody on scene in a certain period of
    time, and that includes being able to get a boat out there,
    yes, sir.
        Now, I would have to tell you there's a problem with the
    budget submission. The problem is that one of the helicopters
    that was intended to be transferred to Traverse City, the long-
    range H-60, crashed while returning from security operations in
    the Vancouver Winter Olympics in Utah. Right now, the offsets
    that we would make to do that are not available, absent more
    resources and taking a look at our helicopter mix.
        So we're going to have to figure out how to work through
    that. We provided briefings to your staff and are happy to
    answer questions for the record. But we're going to have to
    deal with the current H-60 inventory before we can figure out
    whether or not this remains a viable plan.
        Senator Voinovich. I'd like to have that summary, and so, I
    am sure, would the two Senators from Michigan.
        Thank you.
        Senator Byrd. Senator Lautenberg.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
    this important hearing. But if I might divert for just a minute
    to say to you that our hearts go out to those in West Virginia
    who have lost their lives. It's a terrible tragedy and it's
    heartbreak across America as well as within the State of West
    Virginia. Thank you for your leadership and your service.
        Admiral Allen, I tried retirement and I didn't like it. We
    thank you, sir, for your distinguished service, and all the
    Coast Guard's people for their bravery and courage and ever
    readiness to take on more assignments.
        That's the paradox here. We continue to give the Coast
    Guard more and more assignments.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my opening
    statement be put in the record.
        Senator Byrd. Without objection, it is so ordered.
        [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
        Mr. Chairman, my home State of New Jersey is a prime terrorist
    target. In fact, according to the FBI, the most ``at-risk'' area in the
    entire United States for a terrorist attack is the two-mile stretch
    between Newark Liberty International Airport and the Port of Newark.
        That is why I am concerned about cuts to the Coast Guard in the
    President's proposed budget. In particular, I am concerned about a
    proposal to eliminate five Maritime Safety and Security Teams--
    including one at the Port of New York/New Jersey.
        These teams are vital. They protect sensitive coastal areas from
    terrorists and can be rapidly deployed by air, sea or ground. These
    counterterrorism units were created after September 11th and are
    strategically located at high-risk ports across the country. Without
    this counterterrorism team at the Port of New York/New Jersey--the
    Coast Guard's ability to protect this sensitive area will be curtailed.
        Our port is the largest port on the east coast--and maintaining
    safety there is critical to our whole region and country. Preventing
    another terrorist attack from occurring within our borders is our
    solemn duty--and the Coast Guard plays a vital role in that effort. But
    the Coast Guard is consistently put at the back of the line for
    resources--and it is consistently forced to do more with less. I look
    forward to working with the rest of this subcommittee to make sure the
    Coast Guard has the funding it needs.

                     RESPONSE DURING OIL-DRILLING ACCIDENTS

        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
        I ask you this. Senator Voinovich asked about the marine
    safety and security teams, very, very concerned about that. New
    Jersey has the questionable distinction of having the most
    dangerous 2-mile stretch in the country, declared by the FBI,
    for a terrorist attack, between our airport, Newark, and our
    harbor, the second largest harbor in the country, largest on
    the east coast.
        I'm not happy, as you are aware, sir, that we are closing
    the security unit at the Port of New York. I heard your
    explanation on New York and relying more on a location in
    Boston to take care, to help us protect our area, and I know
    that I heard what you said and there was a term of art,
    Admiral. You said these were necessary reductions. I know that
    you are loyal to the demands made on you, but I think the
    question about whether they were necessary in terms of
    functioning or budget, I'm not going to ask you to answer that,
    but we'll make our own determination here.
        I ask you that if we start drilling off the northeast
    coast, the east coast, do we need more people for containment
    and pollution fighting or in the event of an accident? We know
    that things do happen. Six months ago off the coast of
    Australia, a drilling accident covered 10,000 square miles and
    the pollution traveled hundreds of miles. Would the Coast Guard
    need more people prepared to arrest the effects of a problem
    there?
        Admiral Allen. Senator, that's a great question, and three
    major players involved in an operation offshore like that have
    to be taken into account. By the way, I would tell you I've had
    discussions about this with Department of the Interior
    Secretary Salazar, Department of the Interior Deputy Secretary
    Hayes and the head of the Minerals Management Service, which we
    recently signed a memorandum of understanding with.
        The three big players are the Minerals Management Service,
    which has the responsibility to inspect for proper response
    equipment; the United States Coast Guard, which, as you know,
    has the responsibility under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to
    be the Federal on-scene coordinator and coordinate response
    operations; and the responsible party himself, and that usually
    is exercised through an oil spill response organization.
        So, as the drilling takes place, our captain of the port
    that cover those areas that have the responsibility will have
    to do an assessment, and those operating units will have to
    present adequate oil spill response plans that have to be
    approved by an area committee that is made up by local port
    stakeholders as well as the State and the other interests, Fish
    and Wildlife Service, other trustees.
        We go through that iterative process each time something
    changes in the port zone, and that would be also for something
    like an offshore liquefied natural gas facility or a wind farm
    or things like that. So it is scaleable. It will be required as
    a condition of the plans. If there is enough drilling and
    enough of a requirement for us to do our oversight
    responsibilities, that could drive the personnel requirements,
    yes, sir.

                                     PIRACY

        Senator Lautenberg. We always find ways to give assignments
    to the Coast Guard. First of all, your weakness is your skill.
    You're too good. So we just give it to Coast Guard, whatever it
    is, including pollution, trash in the sea, piracy. Does piracy
    put a little extra requirement for Coast Guard?
        Admiral Allen. Yes, sir. We're augmenting the U.S. Navy off
    the Horn of Africa in doing boarding, sir.

                                ILLEGAL FISHING

        Senator Lautenberg. How about illegal voracious fishing
    within our territorial limits by foreign vessels? Is that a
    problem for you?
        Admiral Allen. I'd say the number one problem is in Senator
    Murkowski's State, where we deal with the boundary line between
    Russia and the United States. And there are fleets on both
    sides watching what's going on up there; also there are safety
    issues associated with the fleet.
        Senator Lautenberg. So Admiral, we look: Wherever Coast
    Guard presence can be of value, your people are there. And I
    salute you. I was in Haiti a few weeks ago and saw the
    devastation that followed the earthquake. I commend you and the
    Coast Guard for their quick response to the needs in Haiti. As
    ever, we look to the Coast Guard to solve our problems. But the
    paradox, Mr. Chairman, is how do you ask more when you give
    less?
        Thank you.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
        Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Admiral Allen, we appreciate your cooperation with our
    subcommittee and your appearance here. I'm personally impressed
    with the service that you have rendered to the country in your
    capacity as Commandant. We appreciate everything you've done
    for the gulf coast, too, in connection with Hurricane Katrina
    and other disasters that have occurred there.
        I think the first time I saw you was aboard an aircraft
    carrier that was anchored right there in New Orleans in the
    Mississippi River. That was your command headquarters and base
    of operation for helping to save lives, people whose lives were
    in danger in that terrible hurricane. But in planning for
    rebuilding and recovery, we appreciate all of your important
    efforts in that regard.

                        NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER PROGRAM

        I know that you're also looking at the Northrop Grumman
    shipyard in Pascagoula which is building the national security
    cutter, which as I understand it will be the most advanced,
    modern, technologically capable ship in the Coast Guard fleet.
    Could you give us a status report on that program? Is it
    proceeding as you had hoped it would and what are the likely
    requests that the subcommittee should consider for funding in
    this next bill that will help sustain that acquisition program?
        Admiral Allen. Yes, sir, and thank you for the question. As
    I noted in my opening statement, we've had a tremendous
    improvement in the overall quality in preparing the second
    ship, the Waesche, to be ready for operations. We will
    commission the Waesche on the 7th of May out in Alameda, so
    we're very pleased with that.
        The third ship, the Stratton, is somewhere between 30 and
    40 percent complete right now. We hope in the third quarter of
    this fiscal year to put the fourth ship under a firm fixed
    price contract. Early on, one of the challenges with this
    program was to establish a technical baseline, make some design
    changes that would ensure a 30-year service life for the hulls
    and then get those ships into a fixed price environment. We are
    trying to do that right now.
        If you were to ask about challenges and things we're
    dealing with, one of them right now is the combination of Navy
    and Coast Guard work that's going on at the shipyard in
    Pascagoula. It's really imperative that the Coast Guard and the
    Navy work very closely together regarding labor rates to make
    sure that we are synchronized, so that one of us is not above
    or behind the other one. There's an unequal loading as far as
    the burden share on the labor cost. We both understand the
    interplay between the Navy construction and the Coast Guard
    construction.
        On the other hand, the shipyard and Northrop Grumman have
    to understand that this is a firm fixed-price contract. They
    have to control costs, and they have to give us an offer that
    is legitimate in response to our proposal. So we're working
    that right now.
        The final challenges we're dealing with are changes to
    outyear funding that change our acquisition program baseline
    and change those assumptions. Our original assumption was that,
    in any particular year, we would fund one ship and a long lead
    time for the next ship so we would not break production. Given
    the constraints on the budget this year, we have one ship
    funded, and that is breaking the pattern in the acquisition
    baseline and will cause us to make adjustments. And we may see
    some cost increases as a result of that. So that is a second
    challenge we're facing, sir.
        Senator Cochran. I know that these ships are replacing I
    guess the high endurance cutters that you are planning to
    retire. Are there maintenance costs that are associated with
    continuing those ships in operation, or what capabilities does
    the national security cutter have that are not available to you
    with the high endurance cutter?
        Admiral Allen. Yes, sir. We're kind of caught between a
    rock and a hard place here. If I could go back to the earlier
    question about decommissioning two cutters without replacement,
    the longer we keep these cutters in operation, the more costly
    they are to maintain. But if we don't maintain them in service,
    then we're going to take a cutter hour gap. We have to make the
    risk tradeoffs and allocate the hours.
        In the mean time, we need the new ships built as quickly as
    possible. So the answer is the high endurance cutters that are
    meant to be replaced by national security cutters are getting
    more expensive every year to maintain. At some point, there's a
    breaking point between how many you keep in commission and how
    many you decommission and when the new ones are coming on.
        From an operational effectiveness standpoint, you would
    like to have a ship be replaced by a ship without a gap. If we
    do that, that's going to require increased funding because the
    maintenance costs are higher. If we don't do that and we
    decommission them to avoid those increases in maintenance
    costs, then we're going to be dealing with a deficit of program
    hours that has to be managed by our operational commanders.
    That's the horns of the dilemma that we're on, sir.

                            UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS

        Senator Cochran. I think one of the ways the Coast Guard
    has been looking at taking up some slack is using unmanned
    aerial systems. What is your assessment of that as an efficient
    and capable system? Do you plan to continue to look to the Fire
    Scout or some of these other platforms? Stark Aerospace has a
    Heron that I understand is performing and is a capable
    platform. What is your assessment of that as a way to deal with
    your problems?
        Admiral Allen. Yes, sir. We've always anticipated that our
    Deepwater fleet would be augmented by high-altitude unmanned
    aerial systems (UASs) and vertically launched UASs off of the
    national security cutter. As you know, we've been partnering
    with the Navy in research and development regarding Fire Scout.
    One of the things we've had to do is convert the Navy's version
    of Fire Scout and put a maritime radar in it for the purposes
    that we would need it for.
        The Navy just deployed Fire Scout on a drug patrol in the
    eastern Pacific and were successful in maintaining covert
    surveillance on a go-fast boat and in getting the first seizure
    ever based on surveillance provided by an unmanned system. So
    we know that it adds value out there.
        On the high-altitude side, we are working with Customs and
    Border Protection (CBP) as CBP is working through its Predator
    program. CBP has put a maritime radar into its maritime variant
    that has been tested off of Florida recently with superior
    results. We need to move these boats to programs of record, get
    a funding stream and decide where we want to go. We're in the
    test and evaluation mode of that. So far, we've had very, very
    close cooperation with the Navy on the vertically launched UASs
    and with CBP on the Predator.
        We are looking at Heron, Eagle Scan, and other types of
    UASs that are out there and will continue to assess all of
    those and mitigate risks as we move forward. But we certainly
    contemplate UASs being involved in the mix, sir.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Murkowski.

                         RESPONDING TO CRISES IN ALASKA

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Admiral, thank you for your service. I don't know that we
    can say it strongly enough. For those of us around the
    subcommittee here, we certainly appreciate it. But on behalf of
    the people of Alaska, I sincerely extend my appreciation.
        There have been a lot of comments about the Coast Guard's
    role in responding to crisis, whether it's in Haiti or
    Hurricane Katrina and Rita, and the exemplary role that you
    fill. I think Alaskans know and love the Coast Guard not just
    necessarily when crisis hits, but on a daily basis. We've got
    some 33,000 miles of coastline and I understand that when we
    get the satellite mapping better and take in all the miles
    around every island we're up to 44,000 miles of coastline. As
    you have indicated, with changes in the Arctic and increasing
    passage in parts of the world where we have not been able to
    travel before, your jurisdiction continues to grow. So your
    contributions again on a daily basis are greatly, greatly
    appreciated.
        You have made the statement, and I appreciate it as it
    relates to the budget, that you've made decisions here to
    invest in the future. And that's good, but I'm very concerned,
    and I think you would probably share my concern, that when we
    don't invest in icebreakers we're not as an Arctic nation
    investing in our future.
        I want to understand a little bit more how we deal with
    this gap that we're referring to when we have the
    decommissioning of assets and waiting until the others come on.
    My particular interest, of course, is the Acushnet and the
    assets that are located in the District 17 region. You've
    indicated that you've got concerns as to how we cover fisheries
    enforcement. But as important as it is to invest for the
    future, we need to be able to respond to the mission of today.
        I'm very concerned as to how we fulfil the existing mission
    in District 17 in the Alaska waters with the fisheries
    enforcement, with the drug interdiction, with the search and
    rescue, and now this new role of patrolling the Arctic,
    providing for a level of security and safety up there. Can you
    give me some level of assurance as to how you do it all?
        Admiral Allen. Very adroitly, ma'am. As I stated earlier,
    one of the conundrums we have in the Coast Guard is explaining
    how we are and what we do to people because we are that
    unusual. We have multi-mission ships that can do five missions,
    so we don't have to have five ships, but we can't do all five
    missions at the same time.
        So even in a very stable or even in an increasing growth
    environment, we're always going to have a risk management
    process for how we allocate resources, because that's part of
    our value proposition to the government. What happens when our
    resources decline, for whatever reason? It's the same process
    by which we manage and allocate resources, but we have to
    decide where to assume risk in different areas.
        I can give you a couple of thresholds to talk about in
    terms of Alaska. We have a commitment to have a cutter on scene
    during parts of the year for fisheries enforcement and for
    search and rescue, what we call a 1-0 requirement. No matter
    what happens, there will be a cutter in the area someplace, and
    we would not back away from that under almost any scenario.
        The question is something else has to give, and it will be
    something like illegal, unreported, unregulated fishing in the
    middle of the Pacific, high seas driftnets or potentially drugs
    or some kind of a migrant patrol. But the theater commanders
    would have to manage that against the intelligence they receive
    and the risks that they have to manage every day. That is
    really as basic as it gets. It's a risk management, resource
    allocation issue that becomes more acute when your resources
    drop. But there are floors and thresholds that we will not go
    below, and those thresholds have to do with search and rescue
    and safety.
        So the minimum threshold for operating in Alaska would make
    sure those cutters are available during those times of year to
    meet our commitment and the forward-deployed helicopters that
    go to Saint Paul are there for rescue. We actually make
    resource tradeoffs to accomplish that. Because to have that
    second helicopter available in those winter months, which are
    the months when we need them up there, we actually move
    helicopters from down in the continental United States up
    because of the lack of helicopters in our inventory. That
    inventory will be further exacerbated by the loss of the one I
    mentioned earlier, ma'am.

                                  HELICOPTERS

        Senator Murkowski. And that was going to be another prong
    to my question, is recognizing the aviation assets that we
    stage out of Kodiak, Air Station Kodiak there, and the need to
    deploy out to the fishing grounds, you've been basically
    piecing it together. I'm assuming that if you had a better
    budget that you would look to put another helicopter in there
    in Kodiak?
        Admiral Allen. In regard to an H-60, which are our long-
    range helicopters with de-icing capability, there are two
    immediate requirements, in my view. The first one is to replace
    the 6028 that we lost in Utah. To do that, it would cost us
    about $15.5 million to take a Navy airframe and basically
    rebuild it to Coast Guard standards.
        Second, if I had one more incremental H-60 that I could get
    my hands on, I would send it to the 17th District to be the
    second standby helicopter for the Saint Paul area, ma'am.

                                  ICEBREAKERS

        Senator Murkowski. Let me ask about the Arctic, because you
    have been truly a phenomenal leader in this area, working with
    us in so many--just really taking the lead in responding as an
    Arctic nation should. I remain concerned, though. We're moving
    forward with the Arctic study that the Coast Guard is moving.
    Navy is looking. We're looking at the deepwater port. There are
    initiatives at play here that are extremely important.
        But I guess my question to you is, recognizing that our
    heavy icebreakers are reaching the end of their service lives,
    is the Coast Guard currently positioned to address the safety
    and security missions that we know we will be faced with in the
    Arctic area as we see increased maritime activity coming up in
    these next few years?
        Admiral Allen. Senator, it's been clearly demonstrated in a
    series of studies that the baseline requirement for icebreakers
    in the United States is three. We have two heavy duty
    icebreakers, the Polar Sea and the Polar Star, and we have an
    ice-strengthened research vessel, the Healy. My problem right
    now is a readiness issue in that only two of those ships are
    operational.
        I want to thank the subcommittee and the leadership of
    Chairman Byrd because, during the last 2 years, you've provided
    us money to get Polar Star into drydock and get it fixed. So by
    2013, we should have three operational icebreakers.
        Some challenges remain after that, including funding a crew
    for the Polar Star once it comes out of drydock. That'll have
    to be dealt with in coming years.
        I think what's misunderstood about icebreakers and the
    Arctic right now is--and you stated it yourself--it's not an
    ice-free Arctic; it's an ice-diminished Arctic. Even in the
    summer up there, very large pieces of ice present a hazard to
    shipping, and wind from the proper direction can come together
    and actually create ice flows that have trapped fishing
    vessels.
        We need ice to be strengthened or icebreakers to be able to
    operate up there and provide us command-and-control platforms
    for forward basing of any mission response we would need to do,
    specifically a mass casualty response to an ecotourism cruise
    ship, as we saw off South America, or a response to an offshore
    oil spill.
        I have raised these issues, again, with Secretary Salazar
    and Deputy Secretary Hayes from the Department of the Interior,
    and we discussed it at your field hearing in Anchorage last
    year.
        The second thing, and you really hit the nail on the head,
    is the lack of deepwater ports up there. With the exception of
    a vessel that draws less than 24 feet of draft, the last two
    places where you can stop and get logistics are either Dutch
    Harbor or Kodiak. I know there's a push in Nome right now to go
    beyond 24 feet, and I've talked to the mayor about that. But
    right now off the North Slope, the lack of infrastructure to
    respond to anything is really inhibiting our ability to be
    effective up there. That ability requires us fundamentally to
    have those icebreakers for command-and-control platforms in
    addition to their ice-breaking capability.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I share your concern about our
    preparedness and we want to work with those that will follow
    you to ensure that we are ready to the fullest extent possible.
        Again, I thank you for your service.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Senator.

                           C-130H VS. C-130J AIRCRAFT

        This has been a good hearing. I only have one more
    question. Over the last 4 years, the Coast Guard has lost two
    C-130 aircraft in accidents. How has the loss of these two C-
    130 aircraft affected your ability to perform critical missions
    and is there a need to replace them with new aircraft?
        Admiral Allen. Senator, our C-130H models right now operate
    at what we would call programmed flight hours of 800 per year.
    When we lost the first aircraft to the accident, we actually
    kept one aircraft that we were going to decommission, so we did
    not lose those flight hours. We now have to deal with the loss
    of the 1705 in Sacramento, which is another 800 hours.
        To bring another H model out of mothballs and renovate it
    would cost about $10 million and take about 18 months. So we
    will go through an hour gap just dealing with--if we were to
    take an old aircraft and refurbish it.
        Frankly, with the six C-130Js we have in our fleet right
    now, if we were to take a look at a life cycle cost standpoint,
    our ability to sustain operations, it would be preferable to us
    if resources were available to look at another C-130J to
    replace the 1705. We start to get to the threshold where we
    could maybe have two C-130J stations, which would significantly
    enhance our performance.
        A good example right now is if a C-130H takes off from
    Hawaii to go to Guam, it's actually a 2-day trip. The C-130H
    has to stop. A C-130J can make that in one flight. So there are
    some significant advantages of the J over the H model, sir.
        Senator Byrd. Do Senators have any other questions?

                       BUDGET FOR REPLACEMENT HELICOPTER

        Senator Voinovich. I have, yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to
    revisit this helicopter thing. You're basically saying that one
    of the two helicopters that you were going to replace when you
    decommissioned these other ones was lost and as a result of
    that you're going to have to compensate for that. So you'll be
    coming back to the subcommittee with some plan to amend the
    budget to some other alternative.
        The question I have is have you asked for money to replace
    the helicopter that you've lost?
        Admiral Allen. Well, we've made those estimates known to
    the subcommittee and the staff that have asked for it, sir.
    Again, a replacement helicopter is critical to our current
    operations and is not budgeted right now. So if there were a
    way to provide those resources, we would appreciate that.
        Senator Voinovich. Well, I think we ought to find out about
    it.
        Then you talked with Senator Murkowski and said that this
    is the same kind of helicopter you need up in her State,
    Alaska?
        Admiral Allen. Yes, sir. We are talking about all-weather
    helicopters that have de-icing capability for harsh
    environments.
        Senator Voinovich. Now, the question is, if you did one of
    them would you stick with the proposal that you have about
    shutting down the five we've got in the Great Lakes and having
    the two?
        Admiral Allen. We'd have to make a tough call there, sir.
    I'll tell you why. There's another dimension to this that I
    didn't bring up earlier. When we don't have those helicopters
    involved in search and rescue during the winter, we actually
    move them down South and put them on the backs of cutters and
    get deployable days at sea out of them to be able to do drug
    interdiction better. So there was going to be a cost in loss of
    days at sea of our deployable helicopters, had we gone ahead
    with the plan.
        So I think we have to sit back and reassess the resources
    that are available, and we need to provide you some
    alternatives, sir.
        Senator Voinovich. We'd like to get that information.
        The other thing is that there was talk about building
    another icebreaker for the Great Lakes, and we asked for a
    report from the Coast Guard in terms of would it be better to
    buy a new icebreaker or to rehab and restore and bring up to
    snuff the current vessels that are now doing icebreaking. I
    guess they're multi-use. They do buoy-tending and so forth, and
    at the same time they are good--they ice-break.
        So the question really is, do you need a new one or would
    we be better off taking the money to bring those up to quality.
    When are we going to get that report?
        Admiral Allen. Sir, we're finalizing that report, just
    going through administration review. But I think I can give you
    some highlights of it right now. I think our position is that,
    rather than go for a single additional icebreaker, taking the
    five 140-foot icebreaking tugs that are on the Great Lakes and
    bringing them up so they can operate another 10 years while we
    assess what we need to do probably is the way forward. But
    we're finalizing those recommendations right now. But that's
    where that study is going, sir.
        Senator Voinovich. The question I have is is there any
    money in the budget, this budget, to do that?
        Admiral Allen. We're just finishing the assessment right
    now, so that would have to be in a future year's budget. I
    think we're looking at, over about a 5-year period, about $131
    million to extend the service life of all 5 for 10 years, sir.
        Senator Voinovich. So basically at this stage of the game
    and in terms of this budget, we're going to stay with the
    status quo, you finish your report, and the money for rehabbing
    these vessels would be in the next budget?
        Admiral Allen. That would be a programming decision in
    either 2012 or beyond, yes, sir.
        Senator Voinovich. Okay.

                                     HAITI

        Admiral Allen. Sir, if I could. You asked an earlier
    question about Haiti and our resource requirements related to
    that. Our costs related to Haiti are $45 million, and they are
    covered in the administration's supplemental request, sir.
        Senator Voinovich. So you're all set in that regard.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Cochran, do you have any further questions?
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further,
    except to congratulate the Commandant for the great job he's
    done.
        We're going to miss you when you retire.
        Admiral Allen. Thank you, sir.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Byrd. Admiral Allen, I thank you for your
    testimony. I thank you for your responses to our questions. We
    look forward to your rapid response to our written questions
    for the record.
        [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
                               small boat threat
        Question. Admiral Allen, you have stated publicly that one of our
    most serious vulnerabilities is a U.S.S. Cole-style attack within one
    of our ports or waterways. Yet the budget either cuts or zeroes out
    many of the capabilities the Coast Guard has highlighted as critical to
    countering a small boat attack.
      --Five Coast Guard maritime safety and security teams are
            decommissioned, reducing port and waterway security patrols by
            12,000 hours annually.
      --Acquisition funding for port operation centers and the National
            Automatic Identification System is zeroed out.
      --The budget reduces assets and funding for the Coast Guard's
            Maritime Security Response Team, which was developed for
            maritime terrorism response.
        Are we no longer vulnerable to a Cole-style attack?
        Answer. The threat environment has not changed. It is highly
    dependent on intent, which has not been discerned by the intelligence
    community.
        As shown in the fiscal year 2011-2015 Capital Investment Plan, the
    Nationwide Automatic Identification System (NAIS) and Interagency
    Operations Centers (IOCs) programs are funded through their completion
    in 2014. No funding is requested for 2011 because the Coast Guard plans
    to use $17.8 million of prior year funding to continue the acquisition
    of new capability for IOCs and NAIS, which will enhance maritime domain
    awareness.
        The new regional construct for MSSTs places teams in proximity to
    international borders, major port complexes, and transportation
    infrastructure to facilitate rapid response times. Transitioning the
    MSSTs to a regional model will enable the Coast Guard to rapidly deploy
    teams of skilled professionals to ports and operating areas across the
    country based on risk and threats as needed.
        Overall, the funding requested for the Coast Guard's Ports,
    Waterways and Coastal Security Mission is $106 million (-5 percent)
    less than fiscal year 2010 enacted. Of this amount, over $75 million or
    nearly three quarters is attributable to the funding profile for
    specific asset acquisitions (RB-M, MPA, HH-65), primarily reflecting
    year-to-year variation in the planned acquisition expenditures. Those
    changes do not translate into decreased capability as the corresponding
    legacy assets continue to do the job.
                                   deepwater
        Question. The original Deepwater plan to modernize the Coast
    Guard's fleet called for a mix of new assets to meet operational
    requirements, such as 8 National Security Cutters, 25 Offshore Patrol
    Cutters, and 58 Fast Response Cutters. That plan was developed several
    years ago. The Coast Guard is in the process of updating this plan
    through a ``fleet-mix'' analysis. My understanding is that the study
    has been completed. Does it suggest changes to the current mix of
    planned assets and can you describe them to us?
        Answer. The contractor has delivered the draft report and the Coast
    Guard is completing its final review. In general, the results of this
    limited study are similar to previous studies and support the Deepwater
    program of record.
                            national security cutter
        Question. Is the Coast Guard still on schedule to deliver the 3rd
    National Security Cutter (NSC) in the 4th quarter of fiscal year 2011?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Is the Coast Guard on schedule to make an award for the
    4th NSC this spring? What is being done on your end to ensure the best
    cost is achieved for the taxpayers?
        Answer. The Coast Guard is working towards awarding the production
    contract for NSC #4 with Northrop Grumman Ship Building (NGSB) in the
    third quarter fiscal year 2010. To accomplish this, the Coast Guard
    with the assistance of the Defense Contract Audit Agency, continues to
    conduct an extensive evaluation of NGSB's proposal using actual project
    data from the first three NSCs. Additionally, the Coast Guard is
    actively collaborating with the Navy on issues impacting affordability
    of ship construction, such as forecasting yard-wide workload to
    estimate probable overhead rates. This evaluation work is necessary to
    thoroughly prepare the contract negotiation team for the complex
    negotiations ahead. The Coast Guard plans to enter into negotiations
    with NGSB in the near future to reach a fair and reasonable price for
    the production work for NSC #4.
        Question. Your fiscal year 2011 request includes full funding for
    the 5th NSC, but includes no funding for long lead time materials for
    National Security Cutter #6. What is the estimated cost of long lead
    time materials for NSC #6?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2011-2015 Capital Investment Plan includes
    funding for a sixth NSC. No separate request will be made for any long
    lead materials.
        Question. For some acquisitions, long lead materials are funded in
    advance to maintain a planned production schedule. Does the fact that
    long lead time materials for NSC #6 are not funded in the request
    impact the cost and delivery schedule for the 6th NSC? Will the Coast
    Guard stay on track with the planned delivery schedule of one NSC per
    year?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2011 Capital Investment Plan includes
    funding for a sixth NSC. No separate request will be made for any long
    lead materials, as this type of incremental funding, with the possible
    exception of the lead asset in a procurement, is not consistent with
    OMB Circular A-11.
        The following table shows the NSC delivery schedule consistent with
    the 2010 Deepwater Implementation Plan and the fiscal year 2011-2015
    Capital Investment Plan.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Projected Contract
        National Security Cutter             Award             Delivery
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NSC 6...........................  Fiscal year 2012..  Fiscal year 2016
    NSC 7...........................  Fiscal year 2013..  Fiscal year 2017
    NSC 8...........................  Fiscal year 2014..  Fiscal year 2018
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             offshore patrol cutter
        Question. Since this Subcommittee was created in 2003, funding has
    been provided at different stages for the Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC).
    These cutters will replace the Coast Guard's fleet of aging Medium
    Endurance Cutters. However, your budget indicates that production
    funding for the first OPC will not occur until fiscal year 2015. Why is
    it taking so long to build this asset? What concerns do you have with
    the prolonged delivery schedule of the OPC's and the impact it will
    have on the legacy fleet, some of which have been operating since the
    1960s? What can be done to address these concerns?
        Answer. Initial Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) requirements were
    developed using fiscal year 2004 funds under the Integrated Deepwater
    Systems contract with Integrated Coast Guard Systems (ICGS) as the
    prime contractor and systems integrator. A stop work order on the
    contract delivery task order to ICGS was issued in 2006 and all
    unobligated funding appropriated for the OPC Project through fiscal
    year 2008 was rescinded.
        The OPC Project was restarted at Milestone One in January 2008 with
    the Coast Guard as the systems integrator. To reduce acquisition risks
    and enhance performance of the Coast Guard's acquisition organization,
    the OPC Project is following the deliberate acquisition process as
    outlined in the Coast Guard Major Systems Acquisition Manual.
        The project schedule depends, in part, on approval of both
    operational requirements and acquisition strategy. The start of actual
    construction depends on the time required for the design process, but
    it is currently planned in 2015. The schedule also prevents significant
    overlap with the NSC program so that these acquisition projects are
    appropriately staffed.
        The primary concern with a prolonged OPC delivery schedule is the
    extended reliance on the legacy Medium Endurance Cutter (MEC) fleet.
    Based on current projections, the 210-foot and 270-foot MECs will
    average 45 and 33 years old, respectively at the time the first OPC is
    being built, as such, it is critical that these cutters are replaced as
    quickly as possible.
        The Coast Guard initiated a Mission Effectiveness Project (MEP) for
    MECs to mitigate the impacts of the OPC delivery schedule. MEP was not
    designed to increase the ships' service lives, but to reduce the
    maintenance expenditures and restore capacity target levels. The Coast
    Guard will continue to develop and execute a maintenance plan that
    bridges the time necessary to deliver OPCs.
                                 workforce plan
        Question. In the explanatory statement accompanying the fiscal year
    2009 Appropriations Act for the Department of Homeland Security, this
    Subcommittee required the Coast Guard to submit a ``Workforce Action
    Plan'' to the Committee. The intent of the directive was to gain a
    better understanding of the Coast Guard's workforce requirements in
    relation to mission responsibilities that have expanded dramatically
    under the intensity of a post 9/11 environment. What we received was an
    incomplete plan that simply summarized the fiscal year 2010 request.
    The plan should have included a complete workforce gap analysis, the
    type of personnel needed to fill the gaps; and a plan, including
    funding and a timeline to fill the gaps. I wrote to you on October 29,
    2009, asking you to revise the plan by fully addressing the
    congressional requirements. To date, we have not received a response.
    Will you commit to submitting a revised plan to the Committee before
    you leave your post as Commandant?
        Answer. The Coast Guard appreciates the continued interest
    regarding staffing levels in a post 9/11 environment, and is currently
    in the final stages of providing a response to Senator Byrd's letter.
                   budget impact of helicopter crash (hh-60)
        Question. Your budget proposes to relocate four H-60 helicopters to
    the Great Lakes region to improve domestic air operations in that
    region. On March 3, 2010, one of these helicopters crashed in the
    mountains of Utah. Fortunately, the crew survived. However, the
    airframe did not. How does this recent event affect your budget
    request? What are your plans to replace the helicopter and what is the
    cost?
        Answer. With the loss of the MH-60 that was planned for re-location
    to Michigan, the fiscal year 2011 proposal to re-allocate only wing
    assets became challenging because Air Station Traverse City requires
    four H-60 aircrafts. The Coast Guard is currently working with the
    Administration to evaluate options with regard to the proposed fiscal
    year 2011 rotary wing budget proposal.
                       high endurance cutter sustainment
        Question. In fiscal year 2010, Congress appropriated $4 million to
    begin work on a maintenance effectiveness project for the Coast Guard's
    High Endurance Cutters. A similar program for the Medium Endurance
    Cutter fleet has been highly successful in increasing its fully-capable
    mission availability. What is the current policy as it pertains to all
    12 of the legacy High Endurance Cutters? Given your significant cutter
    hour shortfall, are you considering a maintenance effectiveness program
    as directed by Congress?
        Answer. The $4 million appropriated in fiscal year 2010 will be
    used to assess and evaluate the High Endurance Cutter (HEC) fleet and
    determine the most effective use of funds to operate the vessels until
    replaced by National Security Cutters. The HEC assessments will
    document the material condition of select cutters and the results will
    determine future maintenance requirements. The Coast Guard recognizes
    the need to invest in sustaining HECs in advance of replacement. Toward
    this end, $20 million was appropriated from supplemental appropriations
    (Southwest Border initiative and Recovery Act) to fund deferred
    maintenance of these vessels. This supplemental funding has targeted,
    for example, the top six mission degraders of the fleet to extend the
    life of those systems.
                         expenditure plans and reports
        Question. It has been 5 months since the President signed into law
    the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Within that
    Act, Congress required several expenditure plans and reports from the
    Coast Guard. The Committee highlighted three such reports as critical:
    a 5-year update for Deepwater, a comprehensive 5-year Capital
    Investment Plan for fiscal years 2011-2015, and Quarterly Acquisition
    Reports. Congress requires these reports in an effort to ensure that
    the Coast Guard is providing the appropriate amount of oversight and
    discipline to complex programs. We are now in the third quarter of
    fiscal year 2010 and we still haven't received these reports.
        It is difficult for this Committee to make important resource
    allocation decisions to address critical homeland security issues for
    fiscal year 2011 if the Coast Guard has not informed us of how the
    dollars in the current year are being spent.
        Do I have your commitment that we will receive these reports no
    later than April 30th?
        Answer. The 5-year Capital Investment Plan was submitted in
    February 2010, with the fiscal year 2011 President's budget. The 2010
    Comprehensive Deepwater Implementation Plan, which contains the 5-year
    update for Deepwater is currently undergoing final review. The Second
    Quarter Acquisition Report to Congress reports on acquisition project
    status through March 31, 2010 and was delivered to your Committee staff
    on May 5, 2010.
                    national automatic identification system
        Question. The budget provides no acquisition funding for the
    Nationwide Automatic Identification System (NAIS). The Maritime
    Transportation Security Act of 2002 required certain vessels operating
    in the navigable waters of the United States to be equipped with, and
    operate, an automatic identification system (AIS). The Coast Guard has
    been developing NAIS, which is critical to identify, track, and
    communicate with marine vessels that use AIS. The Coast Guard estimates
    that the system won't be completed until 2015; 13 years after Congress
    mandated that vessels be equipped with AIS.
        Why isn't this program a higher priority given the need to enhance
    the Coast Guard's Maritime Domain Awareness?
        Answer. NAIS capability has been deployed to 58 port areas around
    the Nation and is providing the Coast Guard and other Federal agencies
    with greater awareness of the vessels operating in and near U.S.
    waters. The project will use prior and future year funding, shown on
    the Capital Investment Plan, to make the current system, deployed as a
    rapid prototype, a permanent solution for enhancing Maritime Domain
    Awareness in the Nation's ports. No funding is requested for fiscal
    year 2011 because the Coast Guard plans to use $7.8 million of prior
    year funding to continue the NAIS acquisition.
                                     ______

                 Question Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
        Question. The Sentinel Class Fast Response Cutters (FRCs) will
    provide the Coast Guard with a new generation of patrol boats to
    support its homeland security, maritime safety, law enforcement, and
    interdiction missions. The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes
    $240 million for acquisition of FRCs.
        Can you please explain the importance of this particular funding
    request, the role these cutters will play within the Coast Guard's
    fleet, and their capability to support the Coast Guard's overall
    mission?
        Answer. The $240 million identified in the fiscal year 2011 budget
    request for the Sentinel Class Fast Response Cutter (FRC) acquisition
    project will permit the continuation of the contract awarded to
    Bollinger Shipyards, Inc. through the award of option #3 for production
    of hulls #9-12, as well as funding for associated initial sparing and
    project costs.
        The FRC project is critical to replacing the Coast Guard's fleet of
    110-foot Island Class patrol boats. The Sentinel class will possess an
    improved sea keeping ability, resulting in better habitability and full
    mission capability in higher sea states. Additionally, enhanced
    interoperability; Command, Control, Communications, Computers,
    Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR); common
    operating picture; and sensors will improve surveillance and
    identification performance over the existing capabilities of the legacy
    110-foot patrol boat.
        With its high readiness, speed, adaptability, and endurance, the
    FRC will respond quickly and effectively to emerging security and
    safety issues, essential to achieving mission success in the Coast
    Guard's following Congressionally-mandated missions:
      --Search and Rescue;
      --Living Marine Resources;
      --Marine Environmental Protection;
      --Ports, Waterways and Coastal Security;
      --Drug Interdiction;
      --Migrant Interdiction;
      --Defense Readiness; and
      --Other Law Enforcement.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator George V. Voinovich
        Question. How will other Coast Guard districts be affected by
    providing the Blackhawk helicopters to the Great Lakes, as proposed in
    the budget? Will their capabilities be significantly diminished?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2011 budget request reallocates two H-60s
    based in Clearwater, FL and two H-60s based in Elizabeth City, NC to
    Air Station Traverse City. These four aircraft replace five H-65s,
    which will be removed from service. Additionally, the proposal closes
    two seasonal (Memorial Day to Labor Day) air facilities in Muskegon, MI
    and Waukegan, IL.
        The aircraft proposed to be moved from Elizabeth City, NC, will
    eliminate tactical vertical insertion as part of advanced interdiction
    organic helicopter support for training and operations with the Coast
    Guard Maritime Security and Response Team (MSRT). Although Coast Guard
    has been training to add this capability to its prototype security
    response force, MSRT, in the event of a significant incident involving
    federal response forces, the responsibility for this capability
    primarily resides with the Department of Justice tactical units.
        While the aircraft proposed to be moved from Clearwater, FL, will
    reduce Seventh District's MH-60 capacity by two, these MH-60
    helicopters are assigned to locations within The Commonwealth of the
    Bahamas to support interagency counterdrug missions for Operation
    Bahamas, Turks, and Caicos (OPBAT). A third MH-60 will remain to assist
    the multiagency OPBAT effort.
        The 2011 Rotary Wing Re-alignment proposal maintains Search and
    Rescue (SAR) mission readiness requirements at these locations,
    enhances CGAS Traverse City capabilities, and enables closure of
    seasonal Air Facilities in Muskegon, MI and Waukegan, IL. However, due
    to the loss of a MH-60 on March 3, 2010, that was planned for re-
    location to Michigan, the fiscal year 2011 proposal to re-allocate
    rotary wing assets becomes challenging because Air Station Traverse
    City requires four H-60 aircraft. The Coast Guard is currently working
    with the Administration to evaluate options with regard to the proposed
    fiscal year 2011 rotary wing budget proposal.
        Question. How will the fiscal year 2011 budget reductions impact
    our participation in critical bilateral agreements like Shiprider,
    which the U.S. Coast Guard and Royal Canadian Mounted Police have
    worked so hard to reach? Will we need to lessen our commitment to such
    programs?
        Answer. The bilateral Shiprider agreement between the United States
    and Canada has not yet entered into force. It will enter into force
    following ratification by the Canadian Parliament, which may occur by
    the end of calendar year 2010. There are currently no foreseen impacts
    on Shiprider or other similar programs under current bilateral
    agreements. The costs associated with embarking Shipriders are minimal
    and the programs should be unaffected.
        Question. Following the earthquake in Haiti, I was not surprised to
    see that the Coast Guard was first on-scene to assist with the rescue
    effort (within 18 hours). It is clear from news reports, and your
    testimony, that the response did not come without a high cost to the
    Coast Guard. What impact did the response have on mission capabilities
    in District 7, and throughout the Coast Guard? Are the severely
    affected assets operational at this time?
        Answer. Numerous cutters, planes and deployable teams responded to
    Haiti during the critical hours, days, and weeks after the earthquake.
    Consistent with Coast Guard's well-developed surge planning and
    capabilities, these assets were shifted from other mission areas within
    District Seven or brought in from other districts. The mission areas
    affected by the shift in assets were counterdrug mission and living
    marine resources in Districts Five and Eight. The majority of these
    assets have been returned to their normal operations.
        The Coast Guard operates one of the oldest fleets in the world. Of
    the 12 major cutters assigned to Haiti relief operations, 10 cutters,
    or 83 percent, suffered severe mission-affecting casualties, two were
    forced to return to port for emergency repairs, and one proceeded to an
    emergency dry dock. Air assets were diverted away from evacuation
    efforts to deliver repair parts. While a majority of the affected
    assets have had immediate repairs completed and all have returned to
    operation, those repairs did not address the longstanding suboptimal
    condition of ships that are well past their service life.
        Question. On March 23, 2010, the President submitted to the
    Congress a request for $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2010 emergency
    supplemental appropriations to provide for costs associated with relief
    and reconstruction support for Haiti following the devastating
    earthquake in January, including an additional $45 million for Coast
    Guard operating expenses for emergency relief, rehabilitation, and
    other expenses related to Haiti. What period of time does this funding
    request cover? Does it go through the date when the Coast Guard expects
    to cease its Haiti operations? If not, how long does the Coast Guard
    expect to maintain these operations and what funds, in addition to
    those requested, are needed to cover that period?
        Answer. The $45 million emergency supplemental request covered a
    90-day period from January 13 through April 14, 2010.
        As part of the Coast Guard's migrant interdiction mission,
    Operation Southeast Watch--Haiti (OPSEW-H) continues as Coast Guard
    assets maintain an increased surface presence to deter potential mass
    migration. The Coast Guard continually monitors indications and
    warnings for mass migration and adjusts assets as required.
        No changes are needed to the supplemental request.
        Question. Last August, the Coast Guard proposed a Ballast Water
    Discharge Standard to combat the introduction and spread of invasive
    species. Does the Coast Guard expect to finalize a rule in fiscal year
    2011? Can you tell me how much money is in the Coast Guard's fiscal
    year 2011 budget to further develop this proposed rulemaking and
    implement it?
        Answer. The Coast Guard is working diligently to finalize its
    proposed Ballast Water Discharge Standard (BWDS) rulemaking. The Coast
    Guard is working towards publishing a BWDS final rule by the end of
    December 2010. For more information please go to Office of Information
    and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) link: http://159.142.187.10/public/do/
    eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201004&RIN=1625-AA32.
        The full cost of the proposed rulemaking and implementation is
    under development. The fiscal year 2011 President's budget provides
    resources commensurate with 2010 enacted for rulemaking activities
    under which BWDS is performed.
        Question. In a January letter that I wrote with some of my other
    Senate colleagues to the Coast Guard, we said that we wanted to be sure
    that the Coast Guard had the necessary resources in its budget to
    ensure that your proposed rulemaking can be implemented in a timely
    fashion. The letter pointed out that the proposed rulemaking relies on
    non-governmental laboratories to test ballast technologies and that the
    Coast Guard has already said that additional installations and
    modifications are needed at these labs in order to comply with the
    Coast Guard type approval test procedures. However, in the Coast
    Guard's response, you stated that it would be inappropriate and a
    conflict of interest for the Coast Guard to fund the development of
    these labs. Can you explain this conflict of interest and why you don't
    believe that the Coast Guard should provide funding even though your
    proposed rulemaking relies on these labs for testing?
        Answer. The manufacturer of ballast water treatment technology must
    use a laboratory to validate compliance with Coast Guard standards and
    protocols. If the Coast Guard funds the laboratory, then a relationship
    between the Coast Guard and the laboratory forms--a relationship that
    could create the appearance of undue governmental influence over the
    laboratory's evaluation of the manufacturer's technology or,
    potentially, actual governmental influence over the laboratory's
    evaluation.
        Question. Last year, the Administration proposed and Congress
    appropriated significant funds for Great Lakes restoration. Several
    agencies, including the Coast Guard, received funding through this
    initiative. How much fiscal year 2010 money will the Coast Guard
    receive and for what activities? How much does the Coast Guard plan to
    receive in fiscal year 2011?
        Answer. Of the appropriated amount to EPA under Public Law 111-88,
    $6.4 million is being executed by the Coast Guard for the following
    activities:
      --Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E) Invasive
            Species--reducing invasive species introductions through
            ballast water treatment ($3.5 million);
      --(RDT&E) Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern--response to spills
            of oil in ice in fresh water ($0.1 million); (RDT&E) Toxic
            Substances and Areas of Concern--recovery of submerged oil
            ($0.3 million); and
      --(Environmental, Compliance & Restoration) Toxic Substances and
            Areas of Concern--investigate and remediate potential sources
            of toxic substances on Coast Guard property in the Great Lakes
            Area ($2.5 million).
        The Coast Guard anticipates it will receive $2.2 million from the
    EPA appropriation in fiscal year 2011.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Byrd. With that, any further questions?
        If not, the subcommittee stands in recess subject to the
    call of the Chair.
        [Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., Tuesday, April 13, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

      DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

                                  ----------

                                           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 2011 budget
    request for programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]

        Prepared Statement of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Marine Conservation
    Biology Institute, based in Bellevue, WA, is a national, nonprofit
    environmental organization whose mission is to advance the science of
    marine conservation biology and protect ocean ecosystems. We advocate
    for effective ocean policy and adequate appropriations for marine
    programs that focus on understanding and conserving marine ecosystems,
    habitats and species. MCBI supports the United States Coast Guard in
    their efforts to reach their goals in providing maritime safety,
    security, mobility, national defense, and protection of natural
    resources.
        I wish to thank the members of the Homeland Security Appropriations
    Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit written testimony on the
    fiscal year 2011 budget regarding appropriations for the United States
    Coast Guard (USCG). The USCG is a multi-mission, maritime agency
    ensuring the safety, security, and conservation of the Nation's
    territorial waters. The fiscal year 2011 President's request has
    decreased USCG's overall budget by over $340 million, including a
    decrease of $3.5 million for marine environmental protection. Without
    adequate funding, the Coast Guard will flounder in its mission and the
    maritime environment will be at risk of further degradation. MCBI
    recommends reinstating the fiscal year 2010 enacted USCG funding level
    of $10.4 billion, to include an additional $2 million for the USCG to
    play its part in preventing marine debris and aiding in its removal.
                             marine debris program
        Marine debris has become one of the most widespread pollution
    problems affecting the world's oceans and waterways. As highlighted by
    the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in the north Pacific gyre, and the
    recently identified garbage patch in the Atlantic, marine debris is a
    growing problem that is manifesting itself in all U.S. waters,
    including Hawaii, Alaska, and the Caribbean. Marine debris fouls
    beaches and marine ecosystems; kills coral reefs; causes death to
    marine mammals, seabirds, and sea turtles by entanglement and
    ingestion; transports non-native and invasive species to marine
    ecosystems; and creates navigation safety hazards by fouling engine
    propellers. Research has proven that debris has serious effects on the
    marine environment, wildlife, the economy, and human health and safety.
    Some of the most common types of marine debris are discarded or lost
    fishing lines and nets, household plastics such as disposable lighters,
    six-pack rings, plastic bags, and Styrofoam pellets. The number of
    marine debris related entanglement deaths of endangered and threatened
    seals, sea turtles, and seabirds continues to grow. Entanglement in
    debris is major cause of death for Hawaiian monk seals (population
    estimate is less than 1,200 individuals).
        The United States Coast Guard (USCG) plays a crucial role combating
    marine debris by monitoring and enforcing compliance with MARPOL Annex
    V and the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships. Under this authority,
    USCG monitors discharge of waste from ships and oversees port waste
    receptor facilities. In addition, USCG provides critical support and
    leadership for a variety of anti-marine debris activities. For example,
    USCG has partnered primarily with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA), starting in 1998, to remove an estimated 600
    metric tons (mt) of marine debris (mostly derelict fishing gear) from
    the Northwest Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) where marine debris continues to
    kill endangered Hawaiian monk seals and seabirds. As of 2006, NOAA has
    shifted marine debris removal in the NWHI to a ``maintenance mode,''
    intended to keep up with new debris accumulation. In fiscal year 2006,
    NOAA and USCG removed an estimated 40 mt of debris. Yet, the annual
    accumulation rate is estimated at 52 mt of marine debris. Therefore,
    ``maintenance'' funding is not keeping up with the problem, and marine
    debris continues to be a perpetual threat to the endangered Hawaiian
    monk seal and seabirds in Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument.
        To combat marine debris, the Marine Debris Research, Prevention and
    Reduction Act was enacted in 2006. The act established a national
    program led by NOAA and the USCG to identify, assess, reduce and
    prevent marine debris and its effect on the marine environment. The act
    authorizes $10 million annually for NOAA's Marine Debris Program and $2
    million for the USCG's program. However, NOAA has been level funded at
    $4 million since 2008; and the USCG has never requested nor received
    any direct funding for its marine debris efforts.
        As the Nation continues to deal with economic challenges, MCBI
    recognizes that allocating new funds for projects may be difficult.
    However, we encourage the subcommittee to (minimally) reinstate USGS
    funding levels to fiscal year 2010 enacted levels to maintain the
    service's operating capabilities, and include an additional $2 million
    for the USCG to meet its responsibilities under the Marine Debris Act.
        Additional monies are needed to enhance the ability of USGC to
    maintain support to current removal projects; develop best management
    practices; reduce derelict fishing gear; and conduct education and
    outreach measures.
        In summary, MCBI respectfully requests that the subcommittee
    augment the United States Coast Guard funding to support the critical
    role they play fighting marine debris.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Association for Public Health
                       Statistics and Information Systems

        The National Association for Public Health Statistics and
    Information Systems (NAPHSIS) welcomes the opportunity to provide this
    written statement for the public record as the Homeland Security
    Subcommittee prepares its fiscal year 2011 appropriations legislation.
    NAPHSIS represents the 57 vital records jurisdictions that collect,
    process, and issue birth and death records in the United States and its
    territories, including the 50 States, New York City, the District of
    Columbia, and the five territories. NAPHSIS coordinates the activities
    of the vital records jurisdictions among the jurisdictions and with
    Federal agencies by developing standards, promoting consistent
    policies, working with Federal partners, and providing technical
    assistance to the jurisdictions.
        The ``near miss'' of Flight 253 on Christmas Day reminds us that we
    must remain vigilant in protecting our Nation from terrorist attacks.
    In 2005, Congress passed the REAL ID Act in response to the 9/11
    Commission's recommendations that the Federal Government ensure a
    person ``is who they claim to be'' when applying for an official ID,
    yet 5 years later its implementation remains stalled due to strained
    State budgets and a lack of Federal investment. NAPHSIS respectfully
    requests that Congress provide the Federal Emergency Management Agency
    (FEMA) $100 million over a period of 3-5 years to modernize the vital
    records infrastructure in support of REAL ID through grants to States.
      preventing fraud, identity theft, and terrorism through verification
        Prior to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September
    11, 2001, all but one of the terrorist hijackers acquired some form of
    identification document, some by fraud, and used these forms of
    identification to assist them in boarding commercial flights, renting
    cars, and other necessary activities leading up to the attacks. In its
    final report, the 9/11 Commission recommended implementing more secure
    sources of identification, stating that ``Federal Government should set
    standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of
    identification, such as driver's licenses. Fraud in identification
    documents is no longer just a problem of theft. At many entry points to
    vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources
    of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are
    who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists.'' \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The 9/11 Commission Report, Final Report of the National
    Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, July 2004, p.
    390.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Heeding the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, Congress
    enacted the REAL ID Act in May 2005. Among other provisions, the REAL
    ID Act and its corresponding regulations (6 CFR Part 37) require that
    applicants for a driver's license present their birth certificate to
    the motor vehicle agency to validate their U.S. citizenship and their
    date of birth, and that birth certificates must be verified by the
    State. Sec. 37.13 of the identification standards regulations
    recommends that States through their departments of motor vehicles
    (DMV) should use the Electronic Verification of Vital Events (EVVE)
    system, operated by NAPHSIS, to verify birth certificates presented by
    applicants.
        EVVE is an online system that verifies birth certificate
    information. It provides authorized users at participating agencies
    with a single interface to quickly, reliably, and securely validate
    birth and death information at any jurisdiction in the country. In so
    doing, no personal information is divulged to the person verifying
    information--EVVE simply relays a message that there was or was not a
    match with the birth and death records maintained by the State, city,
    or territory.
                     verification needed now more than ever
        Many Federal and State agencies rely on birth certificates for
    proof of age, proof of citizenship, identification for employment
    purposes, to issue benefits or other documents (e.g. driver's licenses,
    Social Security cards, and passports) and to assist in determining
    eligibility for public programs or benefits (e.g., Medicaid).
    Unfortunately, there are cases where individuals have obtained birth
    certificates of deceased persons and assumed their identity, created
    fraudulent birth certificates, and altered the information on a birth
    certificate, as documented in a Department of Health and Human Services
    Office of Inspector General Report of 2000.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector
    General, Birth Certificate Fraud, Sept. 2009 (OEI-07-99-00570).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Most recently, the GAO documented several cases in which
    investigators created fraudulent birth certificates and were able to
    obtain passports based upon the fraudulent records because the passport
    office did not verify the birth certificate information.\3\ As a
    result, the Passport Office's Fraud Prevention Managers commenced using
    the EVVE system in March 2009 for birth verifications. In their first 6
    weeks of use, there were two instances where the Fraud Prevention
    Mangers used the EVVE system to electronically verify the birth
    certificates, and EVVE returned a ``no match.'' Upon further follow up
    with the vital records offices that ``issued'' the birth certificates
    it was determined that indeed the birth certificates presented with
    those passport applications were fraudulent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Government Accountability Office, Department of State:
    Undercover Tests Reveal Significant Vulnerabilities in State's Passport
    Issuance Process, Mar. 2009 (GAO-09-447).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                states need federal support to implement real id
        EVVE is currently installed in 19 vital records jurisdictions and
    is used by State DMVs and Medicaid Offices, the Social Security
    Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Department
    of State Office of Fraud Prevention Programs in select jurisdictions.
    Users of EVVE are enthusiastic about the system, citing its capacity
    for:
      --Providing protection against the potential use of birth
            certificates for fraudulent activities.
      --Improving customer service by facilitating rapid access to accurate
            and verifiable vital record data in real-time.
      --Safeguarding the confidentiality of birth and death data.
      --Offering a secure mechanism for communication between agencies and
            vital records offices via the Internet.
      --Easily integrating with current legacy systems that the Federal or
            State agencies may already be using, and for serving as a user-
            friendly interface for agencies that seek a stand-alone query
            system.
        NAPHSIS is working on further upgrades to the EVVE system to meet
    the REAL ID requirements and to ensure that EVVE is installed in all 57
    jurisdictions by May 2011. NAPHSIS is also in the process of procuring
    a data analysis and quality control tool that all jurisdictions can
    utilize to analyze their EVVE databases for anomalies, inconsistencies,
    accuracy, and completeness.
        Despite EVVE's security, speed, and ease of use, the system is only
    as good as the underlying data infrastructure upon which it relies.
    Digitizing paper-based birth and death records, then cleaning and
    linking those records, will provide for secure, reliable, real-time
    identity verification using EVVE. Specifically,
      --The majority of the 57 vital records jurisdictions have electronic
            birth records that extend back more than seven decades. To
            recognize EVVE's full potential to verify birth certificates,
            100 percent of jurisdictions should have their records in
            electronic form.
      --There are cases where an individual has assumed a false identity by
            obtaining a birth certificate of a person who has died.
            Therefore, it is also important that all jurisdictions' death
            and birth records be linked to flag individuals who are
            deceased and identify fraudulent birth documentation.
       recommendation action: invest in infrastructure to facilitate id
                                  verification
        The jurisdictions' efforts to digitize, clean, and link vital
    records have been hindered by State budget shortfalls. In short, the
    jurisdictions need the Federal Government's help to complete building a
    secure data infrastructure and support identity verification required
    by REAL ID. Under the current authority established through REAL ID, we
    ask that Congress provide $100 million to FEMA to support a new grants-
    to-States program for the purpose of modernizing vital records.
    Specifically, these funds would be used by vital records jurisdictions
    to digitize their birth records back to 1945, to clean these data to
    support electronic queries, and link birth and death records. We
    recommend the funding be appropriated over time according to one of two
    schedules:
      --Option 1.--$33 million per year over 3 years. This option would
            provide roughly $580,000 in fiscal year 2011 to each vital
            records jurisdiction, on average.
      --Option 2.--$20 million per year over 5 years, providing roughly
            $350,000 in fiscal year 2011 to each vital records
            jurisdiction, on average. The vital records modernization would
            progress more slowly than under Option 1, but the funding would
            nevertheless significantly enhance the ability of States and
            territories to support the goals of REAL ID.
        As Congressman Bernie Thomson addressed the President earlier this
    year, we need to ``ensure we have the best infrastructure in place to
    counter the threat of terror.'' We feel strongly that an investment of
    $100 million is a small price to pay to strengthen Americans' safety
    and security by accurately, efficiently, and securely verifying birth
    data on the 245 million driver's licenses issued annually. Five years
    after REAL ID's enactment, isn't it time to implement the 9/11
    Commission's recommendations and invest in the goals of REAL ID and
    identity verification?
        NAPHSIS appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement for
    the record and looks forward to working with the subcommittee.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Emergency Management Association

                                  introduction
        Thank you Chairman Byrd, Ranking Member Voinovich, and Members of
    the Committee for the opportunity to submit this statement for the
    record regarding the fiscal year 2011 budget for the Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS).
        As President of the National Emergency Management Association
    (NEMA) I represent the emergency management directors of all 50 States,
    territories, and the District of Columbia. Members of NEMA are
    responsible to the Governors for myriad responsibilities including
    emergency preparedness, homeland security, mitigation, response, and
    recovery activities for natural or terrorism-related disasters.
                    emergency management performance grants
        The highest priority for NEMA within the President's request is
    funding for the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG). This
    program has existed since the 1950s in acknowledgement of the Federal
    interest in creating and maintaining a strong emergency management
    system at the State and local level. EMPG assists State and local
    governments in managing a variety of disasters and hazards providing
    the only source of Federal assistance to State and local government for
    all-hazards emergency management capacity building.
        Grantees utilize EMPG funds for personnel, planning, training,
    exercises, warning systems, public outreach, and other essential
    functions in establishing effective preparedness, mitigation, response,
    and recovery. This program is of considerable economic value to the
    Federal Government as all Federal funds are matched 50-50 by State and
    local governments. Such a matching requirement increases accountability
    and supplements the impact of valuable Federal dollars.
        While the President's request of $345 million marks a significant
    improvement in recognizing the criticality of this program, the amount
    remains far short of the national requirement. According to NEMA's 2010
    Biennial Survey of State emergency management agencies, the total need
    for EMPG funding next year is actually $530 million. The difference
    between the amount requested by the Administration and the results of
    our survey represents the shortfall needed to fund existing
    jurisdictions and establish emergency management programs in eligible
    jurisdictions not currently able to be included. We appreciate the
    resource constrained environment, but when compared to other grant
    programs, the 50-50 match allows EMPG to stand alone as a worthwhile
    investment of Federal funds.
                        homeland security grant program
        The Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) provides funds to build
    capabilities at the State and local levels and to implement the goals
    and objectives included in State homeland security strategies and
    initiatives in the State Preparedness Report. Funding amounts must
    remain at pre-consolidation levels, and these grants must be used in
    support of building an all-hazard capability. We urge the Committee to
    provide States greater flexibility in use of homeland security funds
    for all-hazards activities. Such flexibility allows the grant funding
    to be utilized by each State according to need, existing resources, and
    capabilities. This flexibility will serve to increase preparedness for
    all hazards including terrorism. The effort to enhance and build the
    national emergency response system is a national effort and Federal
    resources should continue at the current level to maintain
    effectiveness. As the Committee considers funding for the HSGP, NEMA
    urges sustained appropriations levels on a multi-year basis to allow
    for long-range planning, maintenance, and implementation.
        Our membership remains concerned regarding the proposed grant
    consolidation of the Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS),
    Citizen Corps Program, Driver's License Grant Program, and
    Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program within the
    President's request. While in theory the proposed combination may
    appear sound; in practice such consolidation remains impractical. For
    example, management of the Driver's License Grant Program occurs in
    various State agencies where consolidation would require added
    administrative burdens on State government. Furthermore, the proposed
    consolidation would bring these grant programs under the required 80-20
    funding split between State and local governments thereby further
    diluting these programs where State coordination is critical. While
    FEMA intends to reduce reporting requirements, the proposed
    consolidation would actually have the opposite effect.
                            pre-disaster mitigation
        The Administration's request demonstrates a welcomed commitment to
    mitigation efforts through the request of $100 million for the Pre-
    Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM). This grant program was
    originally authorized as a program to provide every State with funding
    for mitigation efforts regardless of disaster history or current risk
    assessments, but changed in fiscal year 2002 appropriations legislation
    when PDM became a competitive grant program. The PDM program continues
    to be over-subscribed as more projects become eligible than can be
    funded in any given fiscal year at present funding levels.
        NEMA continues working closely with authorizers to obtain a multi-
    year reauthorization for PDM which we would like to see achieved by the
    end of the fiscal year. In the meantime, NEMA encourages the
    Appropriations Committee to demonstrate a continued commitment to PDM
    and appropriate the requested $100 million.
                          emergency operations centers
        There remains a shortfall in the ability for States to build,
    retrofit, and upgrade primary and alternate Emergency Operations
    Centers (EOC). According to the 2010 NEMA Biennial Survey, an estimated
    $398 million in requirements exist to bridge the shortfall. The current
    EOC Grant Program is intended to improve emergency management and
    preparedness capabilities by supporting flexible, sustainable, secure,
    and interoperable EOCs with a focus on addressing identified
    deficiencies and needs. This program provides funding for construction
    or renovation of a State, local, or tribal governments' principal EOC.
    Fully capable emergency operations facilities at the State and local
    levels stand as an essential element of a comprehensive national
    emergency management system and are necessary to ensure continuity of
    operations and continuity of government in major disasters caused by
    any hazard. The continued viability of a strong and robust EOC Grant
    Program remains in the Nation's best interest.
                    emergency management assistance compact
        Finally, I wish to address funding for the Emergency Management
    Assistance Compact (EMAC). When States and the U.S. territories joined
    together and Congress ratified EMAC (Public Law 104-321) in 1996, it
    created a legal and procedural mechanism whereby emergency response
    resources such as Urban Search and Rescue Teams can quickly move
    throughout the country to meet disaster needs. All 50 States, the
    District of Columbia, and three territories are members of EMAC and
    have committed their emergency resources in helping neighboring States
    and territories.
        To provide a sense of EMAC's value in the context of search and
    rescue, in 2005 the year of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma more
    than 1,300 search and rescue personnel from 16 States searched more
    than 22,300 structures and rescued 6,582 people. EMAC staff stood ready
    to offer support recently during the tsunami threat to Hawaii as well.
    Fortunately the need for mutual aid was never required in Hawaii, but
    the knowledge it remains available as a State asset is invaluable to
    emergency response officials.
        The capabilities of EMAC remain sustained by the efforts of all the
    States and would be bolstered by direct support of EMAC. While EMAC
    currently receives FEMA grant funding, fulfilling NEMA's request for a
    $4 million line item appropriation would codify the program for use in
    future disasters. These funds provide numerous benefits directly to the
    States. As the opportunity is afforded, EMAC intends to develop,
    maintain, and exercise State and regional mutual aid capabilities,
    train State and local emergency response personnel who may be deployed
    through EMAC, support the development of specialized emergency response
    capabilities among the regions, and ensure EMAC remains a viable
    resource for the States now and in the future. In my opinion, $4
    million in Federal funds stands as a minimal investment for maintaining
    a proven national emergency response capacity that day-to-day is
    equipped, trained, and ready to provide critical disaster response
    resources and support between States. All members of EMAC continue to
    rely on this asset as a critical tool in their response and recovery
    arsenal.
                                   conclusion
        Again, I appreciate the opportunity to address these issues
    critical to the emergency management community. This Committee
    regularly affirms support for ensuring preparedness for our nation's
    vulnerabilities against all-hazards with additional investments in EMPG
    and EOCs. As you develop the fiscal year 2011 budget for the Department
    of Homeland Security, I encourage you to utilize our membership as a
    resource and continue efforts to build a strong and robust emergency
    management baseline in our country. Together, we will carry-on the
    initiatives so thoughtfully developed by this Committee over the years.
        I thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of NEMA and
    appreciate your continued partnership.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of National Environmental Services Center

        Chairman Byrd, Ranking Member Voinovich, and Members of the
    Subcommittee: We request an appropriation of $1.45 in fiscal year 2011
    to support West Virginia University's Resilient Communities Initiative
    (RCI). This program is being developed by the National Environmental
    Services Center (NESC) in partnership with the State of West Virginia
    Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety (DMAPS), the Harley O.
    Staggers National Transportation Center, and the Canaan Valley
    Institute to help rural communities and small cities prepare for, and
    respond effectively to, disruptive events such as man-made or natural
    disasters.
        The goal of the Resilient Communities Initiative (RCI) program is
    to improve the resilience capacity and mechanisms for mitigation in
    rural communities and small cities, beginning with the Corridor H
    region in West Virginia. Corridor H is the projected National Capitol
    Region (NCR) mass evacuation route, so communities in this region must
    be prepared for its impact in addition to the impact of potential
    natural disasters.
        Using modeling scenarios, the RCI will predict the impacts of an
    uncontrolled NCR mass evacuation on the Corridor H Region. RCI will
    help communities in this region to address their economic development
    needs and their infrastructure resiliency issues (e.g., water, energy,
    transportation) by implementing a community outreach technical
    assistance program. NESC has 30 plus years working with small and rural
    communities through outreach and technical assistance. NESC and the RCI
    partners will help communities overcome the resource disparities and
    lack of planning capabilities that have historically been obstacles to
    their becoming resilient to disasters and returning quickly to
    normalcy. The outcomes of these efforts can be transferred to
    communities in other regions of the United States having issues similar
    to those of Corridor H in West Virginia.
        Thank you for considering our request for $1.45 million in fiscal
    year 2011 to initiate the Resilient Communities Initiative at West
    Virginia University.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement the National Treasury Employees Union

        Chairman Byrd, Ranking Member Voinovich, distinguished members of
    the Subcommittee: I would like to thank you 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' mission
    is to protect the Nation's borders at the ports of entry from all
    threats while facilitating legitimate travel and trade. 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 2010 estimates.
          funding for cbp salaries and expenses at the ports of entry
        On October 1, 2009, a draft report of the Southwest Border Task
    Force, created by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and
    reported by the Associated Press, recommended the ``Federal Government
    should hire more Customs [and Border Protection] officers.'' The report
    echoes the finding of the Border-Facilitation Working Group. (The
    United States-Mexico Border Facilitation Working Group was created
    during the bilateral meeting between President George W. Bush and
    President Felipe Calderon held in Merida in March 2007.) ``In order to
    more optimally operate the various ports of entry, CBP needs to
    increase the number of CBP Officers. According to its own estimate, the
    lack of human resources only for the San Ysdiro POE is in the
    ``hundreds'' and the CBP Officer need at all ports of entry located
    along the border with Mexico is in the ``thousands.'' (``CBP:
    Challenges and Opportunities'' page 1 and 2. Memo prepared by Armand
    Peschard-Sverdrup for: Mexico's Ministry of the Economy: United States-
    Mexico Border Facilitation Working Group. January 2008.)
        NTEU is disappointed that the Administration's fiscal year 2011
    budget includes no increase in frontline CBP Officer or CBP Agriculture
    Specialist new hires, and instead projects a net decrease of about 500
    positions this year, despite increased appropriations. The fiscal year
    2011 budget request does include $70 million to address ``systemic
    salary shortfalls'' and $45 million for 389 CBP Officers to ``maintain
    staffing for critical positions.'' Rather than funding an actual
    increase in new hires, however, the Administration is seeking
    appropriations to maintain CBP positions funded by user fees. CBP
    states that 37 percent of its inspection workforce at the POEs is
    currently funded by user fees. This is a precarious funding stream
    because user fees decrease during times of economic recession, even
    though security needs of the Nation have not decreased.
        NTEU has become increasingly concerned as the number of positions
    funded by ``surplus'' user fee revenues has grown over time. According
    to GAO/GGD-94-165FS (page 17-18), ``through fiscal 1993, surplus
    revenues have funded 472 full-time permanent positions . . . '' Today
    the number of ``surplus-funded'' positions is over 7,000. Due to the
    recession, user fee collections are falling and CBP is facing a
    structural dilemma in its current funding of CBP inspection personnel.
        NTEU believes that all CBP employees at the POEs should be funded
    by appropriated funds through the appropriations process, not with user
    fees that by statute are to be used primarily to pay for overtime,
    premium pay, agency contributions to the Civil Service Retirement and
    Disability Fund, preclearance services and Foreign Language Awards
    Program. CBP is now facing a serious structural funding shortfall for
    CBP salaries and expenses at the POEs due to its reliance on user fees
    rather than appropriations.
        Also, in 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) created a
    new Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officer position and announced
    the ``One Face at the Border'' initiative that purportedly unifies the
    inspection process for travelers and cargo entering the United States.
    Consolidating immigration and customs inspection functions has caused
    logistical and institutional weakness resulting in a loss of expertise
    in critical homeland security priorities. The ``One Face'' initiative
    should be ended, customs and immigration specializations should be
    reestablished within CBP, and overall CBP inspection staffing should be
    increased.
                   trade enforcement and compliance staffing
        When CBP was created, it was given a dual mission of safeguarding
    our nation's borders and ports as well as regulating and facilitating
    international trade. It also collects import duties and enforces 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. Since CBP was established in March 2003, there has
    been no increase in CBP trade enforcement and compliance personnel and
    again, the fiscal year 2011 budget proposes no increase in FTEs for CBP
    trade operations personnel.
        In effect, there has been a CBP trade staffing freeze at March 2003
    levels and the maintenance of CBP's revenue function has suffered.
    Recently, in response to an Import Specialists staffing shortage, CBP
    has proposed to implement at certain ports a tariff sharing scheme. For
    example, because CBP has frozen at 984 nationwide the total number of
    Import Specialists positions, CBP is reducing by 52 positions (from 179
    to 127) the number of Import Specialists at the New York City area
    ports and shifting those positions to other ports. To address the
    resultant shortage of Import Specialists at New York area ports, CBP is
    implementing tariff sharing between the port of New York/Newark and the
    Port of JFK airport. Currently, each port (Newark and JFK) processes
    all types of entries and all types of commodities via the Harmonized
    Tariff Schedule (HTS). The reduction in trade personnel will result in
    each port being assigned only parts of the HTS. Tariff sharing will
    result in each port only processing half the commodities entering its
    port. Tariff sharing presents a number of operational problems with
    regard to trade personnel performing cargo exams on merchandise that is
    unloaded at the port of Newark, but the only commodity teams that are
    trained to process it are at JFK and, vice versa, when merchandise that
    can only be processed in Newark, is unloaded at JFK. CBP proposes that
    instead of physical examinations of the merchandise, digital photos can
    be exchanged between the ports. This is a short-sighted solution that
    shortchanges taxpayers, trade compliant importers, and the Federal
    treasury. NTEU urges the Committee to increase funding to hire
    additional trade enforcement and compliance personnel, including Import
    Specialists, at the POEs.
        In its fiscal year 2011 budget request, CBP is seeking $25 million
    for Intellectual Property Rights enforcement including $14.1 million in
    human capital investment. This request, however, includes no increase
    in FTEs to implement this new enforcement program. It is also unclear
    if the human capital investment is for the trade policy arm of CBP--the
    Office of International Trade, or the operational arm--CBP Office of
    Field Operations (OFO). NTEU urges the Committee to appropriate the
    requested $14.1 million to increase the number of CBP OFO trade
    operations personnel at the POEs.
                         cbp career ladder pay increase
        NTEU commends the Department for announcing an increase in
    journeyman pay for CBP Officers and Agriculture Specialists, initially
    scheduled to begin in March of this year. However, the funding for this
    increase was not secured and the journeyman pay increase has been
    delayed until late-September 2010. In addition, many deserving CBP
    trade and security positions were left out of this pay increase, which
    has significantly damaged morale. NTEU is relieved that full funding of
    the journeyman pay initiative is in the fiscal year 2011 budget request
    and strongly supports the inclusion of this funding in the fiscal year
    2011 DHS appropriations bill.
        NTEU also strongly supports extending this same career ladder
    increase from GS-11 to GS-12 to additional CBP positions, including CBP
    trade operations specialists and CBP Seized Property Specialists. The
    journeyman pay level for the CBP Technicians who perform important
    commercial trade and administration duties should also be increased
    from GS-7 to GS-9.
                        foreign language awards program
        The fiscal year 2011 DHS budget proposes to eliminate $19.1 million
    to fund CBP's Foreign Language Awards Program (FLAP), a congressionally
    authorized program. Since its implementation in 1997, the Foreign
    Language Awards Program (FLAP), incorporating more than two dozen
    languages, has been instrumental in identifying and utilizing Customs
    and Border Protection (CBP) employees who are proficient in a foreign
    language. At CBP, this program has been an unqualified success, and not
    just for employees, but for the travelers who are aided by having
    someone at a port of entry who speaks their language, for the smooth
    functioning of the agency's security mission.
        Rewarding employees for using their language skills to protect our
    country, facilitate the lawful movement of people and cargo across our
    borders, and collect revenue that our government needs makes sense.
    Congress agreed that employees should be encouraged to develop their
    language skills by authorizing FLAP. Not only does it improve
    efficiency of operations, it makes the United States a more welcoming
    place when foreign travelers find CBP Officers can communicate in their
    language.
        Congress authorized a dedicated funding source to pay for FLAP--
    customs user fees pursuant to title 19, section 58c (f) of the U.S.
    Code. This statute stipulates the disposition of these user fees for
    the payment of overtime, premium pay, agency contributions to the Civil
    Service Retirement and Disability Fund, preclearance services and FLAP.
    Due to the recession, however, user fee collections have fallen and on
    February 4, 2010, NTEU received notice from CBP of the immediate
    suspension of its Foreign Language Awards Program (FLAP) for CBP
    Officers and CBP Agriculture Specialists (CBPAS). NTEU strongly opposed
    the mid-year 2010 suspension of FLAP and asks the Committee to ensure
    that FLAP is fully funded in fiscal year 2011.
               funding for dhs human resources management system
        NTEU also commends the Committee for maintaining a provision,
    section 518, in the fiscal year 2010 DHS appropriations bill 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. 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.
        NTEU requests that identical language to Section 518, 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 2011 DHS funding bill.
                                   conclusion
        NTEU urges the Committee to include in its fiscal year 2011 DHS
    appropriations bill:
      --funding to increase both port security and trade enforcement
            staffing at the Ports of Entry;
      --full funding for the announced career ladder pay increases for CBP
            Officers and CBP Agriculture Specialists;
      --funding to extend career ladder pay increases to additional CBP
            personnel including trade operations specialists, CBP Seized
            Property Specialists and CBP technicians;
      --full funding of CBP's Foreign Language Awards Program;
      --continuing the funding prohibition for implementation of U.S.C. 5,
            Chapter 97--the Homeland Security Act's alternative personnel
            management provisions and a prohibition on the continued
            funding of the One Face at the Border initiative.
        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.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the United States Council of the International
                       Association of Emergency Managers

        Chairman Byrd, Ranking Member Voinovich, and distinguished members
    of the Subcommittee: Thank you for allowing the United States Council
    of the International Association of Emergency Managers the opportunity
    to provide a statement on critical budget and policy issues for the
    Federal Emergency Management Agency/Department of Homeland Security.
        I am Pam L'Heureux, the Director of Emergency Management for
    Waterboro, Maine, and the Assistant Director of Emergency Management
    for York County, Maine. I serve as the President of the United States
    Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM-
    USA). I have 20 years of emergency management experience as a local
    director. I am also the founding President of the Maine Association of
    Local Emergency Managers.
        IAEM-USA is our Nation's largest association of emergency
    management professionals, with 5,000 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 (EMPG) as well as strengthening the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency (FEMA). We have also appreciated your continued
    direction to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FEMA to
    consult with their primary local and State stakeholders.
                 emergency management performance grants (empg)
        The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $345
    million for EMPG. We urge that EMPG funding be increased to a minimum
    of $530 million, that the program be retained as a separate account,
    and that report language be included continuing to make it clear that
    the funding is for all hazards and can be used for personnel.
        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 the post September 11, 2001, homeland security grants.
    Specifically, EMPG has existed, though under different names, since the
    1950s. It was created to be a 50 percent Federal cost share-50 percent
    State or local 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
    $530 million request is based on the documented shortfall as indicated
    by the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) Biennial
    Report.
        The program is authorized at $815 million in Public Law 110-53,
    which also outlines the formula for apportioning EMPG funding to the
    States and Territories as follows: .25 percent of the appropriation
    will be apportioned to each of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
    Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands and .75 percent
    to the States. The Administrator of FEMA will apportion the remaining
    EMPG appropriations in the ratio that the population of each State
    bears to the population of all States. In addition, there is a
    provision holding States harmless from EMPG losses until fiscal year
    2013. However we note that the language in the FEMA Congressional
    Budget Justification on page SLP-10 describes the award allocation
    methodology for EMPG as incorporating risk. This is not consistent with
    the provision of Public Law 110-53.
        The legislation creating EMPG is purposefully broad to allow
    jurisdictions to focus their attention on customizing their
    capabilities. Therefore it is important that FEMA guidance not try to
    make one size fit all but is written so as to allow maximum flexibility
    in meeting the specific capability requirements within each local
    jurisdiction.
        We would particularly and positively note the efforts of the FEMA
    Grants Office to involve key stakeholders in improving the fiscal year
    2010 EMPG guidance. We believe this should be captured as a ``best
    practice'' and incorporated in the process of generating grant guidance
    for each fiscal year in the future.
        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 would have the effect of actually reducing emergency management
    services--and potentially preparedness--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 the entire 50 percent Federal match
    of their contributions would make a big difference in maintaining their
    programs.
                      emergency management institute (emi)
        We appreciate that the Appropriations Conference Committee on the
    DHS fiscal year 2010 budget agreed to increase the funding for the
    Emergency Management Institute (EMI) to $9 million. We also appreciate
    the specific mention of EMI in both your committee and conference
    reports. However, we are disappointed that the President's budget
    request for EMI for fiscal year 2011 is $7.1 million. We request the
    Committee to support an increase in funding for EMI of $4.8 million
    over the President's request for a total of $11.9 million. We urge you
    to again specifically designate funding for EMI in your Committee
    report.
        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 emergency managers is
    vital. The new funds we are requesting will support continued
    enhancement of the field (G) and on-campus (E) courses, the development
    of other vital programs especially an Executive Emergency Management
    Program for State, local and tribal emergency managers, and the
    conversion of 13 CORE positions to full time positions. These courses
    and the personnel to support their development and delivery are
    essential to the professional development of career emergency managers
    and to support State level training programs.
        We are extremely encouraged at the renewed focus and efforts to
    update and enhance training programs over the past year with the
    funding support of Congress. We have observed commendable progress at
    EMI in the review of existing training programs, the revision of
    outdated courses, and the focus on the current and future needs in
    emergency management training. The highest priority for fiscal year
    2011 continues to be the revision and upgrade of the EMI core
    curriculum, including the Master Trainer Program, E-Courses and G-
    Courses essential to the professional development of career emergency
    managers and State level training programs.
        We also continue to support the highly successful Emergency
    Management Higher Education Program at EMI. This program, though under-
    staffed and under-funded, has produced significant improvements in the
    preparation of emergency managers at the over 180 colleges and
    universities now offering emergency management academic programs. In
    addition they interact with over 700 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.
                         pre-disaster mitigation (pdm)
        We support the appropriate funding for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation
    program and its reauthorization. If not reauthorized, PDM will sunset
    on September 30, 2010. Mitigation is an investment. A congressionally
    mandated independent study by the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council, a
    council of the National Institute of Building Sciences, showed that on
    the average, a dollar spent by FEMA on hazard mitigation (actions to
    reduce disaster losses) provides the Nation about $4 in future
    benefits.
        We appreciated the Committee last year rejecting the proposal in
    the fiscal year 2010 budget request to terminate the nationwide
    competitive PDM program and allocate the funds to States on a base plus
    risk system. This year, the budget again includes language that we are
    not aware of having been discussed with the authorizers, the
    appropriators, or stakeholders in advance of the release of the budget.
        We are in need of additional information to understand the meaning
    of the following language from page PDM-1 of the FEMA Congressional
    Budget Justification: ``Through a partnership with the Department of
    Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Sustainable Communities initiative,
    the goal is to support strategic local approaches to sustainable
    development by coupling hazard mitigation with related community
    development goals and activities that reduce risks while protecting
    life, property, and the environment.'' When we have more detail about
    what is intended by this language, we will be happy to provide
    comments.
        We have appreciated the actions of the House and Senate
    Appropriations Committees to extend this program. If an authorization
    bill is not completed this session, we would appreciate your
    willingness to again extend this important program.
                        principal federal official (pfo)
        We would urge the subcommittee to include bill language prohibiting
    the funding of any position designated as a Principal Federal Official
    for a Stafford Act event, or at the very least include the statutory
    language agreed to by the Conferees in Section 522 of the General
    Provisions of the fiscal year 2010 DHS Appropriations Act. This
    language prohibits funding the PFO position except when certain
    conditions are met. The fiscal year 2011 budget request deletes General
    Provision Section 522 and includes the following explanation in the
    Congressional Budget Justification: ``While the Department appreciates
    the modification of this prevision from previous year's appropriation
    act, this provision is still overly restrictive and creates an
    additional administrative burden on the Department, during a Stafford
    Act event.''
        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.
                    fema office of intergovernmental affairs
        We urge the subcommittee to increase the staffing for the FEMA
    Headquarters Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. This office has the
    vital responsibility to provide information to its State and local
    partners, keep the FEMA divisions informed of State and local needs,
    seek input on policies, and solve problems at an early stage. Currently
    this office has a total Permanent Full Time (PFT) allocation at
    headquarters of seven and currently there are three vacancies. A
    minimum of at least 10 in FEMA headquarters are needed to perform these
    critical functions.
               fiscal year 2010 disaster relief fund supplemental
        We strongly support H.R. 4899 which includes the $5.1 billion in
    supplemental funds requested by the President for the Disaster Relief
    Fund. At the time of this statement, H.R. 4899 had passed the House and
    was pending in the Senate.
        On February 4, 2010, FEMA announced a policy of allocating disaster
    relief funds on an ``immediate needs'' basis (assistance to
    individuals, emergency protective measures, and debris removal).
    Funding for repair and replacement of facilities and mitigation unless
    already obligated to the State will be delayed until the supplemental
    is available.
                       review of policies and initiatives
        We applaud the efforts of FEMA leadership to review past policies
    and initiatives. We particularly applaud that the Cost-to-Capability
    and the Integrated Planning System (IPS) are under review.
        In particular, we were pleased that the Administration recognized
    the flawed nature of Cost-to-Capability and is opting to take the time
    to develop a more effective method of determining this information. We
    recognize the need to measure what is being achieved with the funding
    that Congress has provided; however, we simply do not want the
    instrument to be so cumbersome that the information obtained is not
    worth the time to generate it. Creating a system to count ``widgets''
    is easy--creating a system to determine if we're better prepared is
    not. We look forward to working with FEMA as they work to construct a
    valuable measurement tool.
        Our objection to the Integrated Planning System as proposed by the
    last Administration was that it is scenario-based--which is not the way
    State and local government emergency managers plan. We plan for the
    functions and capabilities that are common to all disasters. The IPS,
    originally proposed by the DHS Office of Operations Coordination, was
    heavily based on the Department of Defense (DOD) Joint Operations
    Planning and Execution (JOPES) model. This may be a great model of
    planning if you are the military and funded and equipped with the
    resources of the military. State and local governments do not have
    those resources.
                            stakeholder involvement
        We have appreciated the subcommittee's continued focus on the need
    for key stakeholder involvement and we are happy to report to you today
    that we have had increased opportunities for local emergency managers
    to have substantive and timely input into policies and initiatives. It
    is extremely helpful to have input at an early stage rather than just
    be briefed on decisions.
                               strengthening fema
        IAEM-USA continues to strongly support 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
    Administrator Craig Fugate, Deputy Administrator Richard Serino, Deputy
    Administrator, Protection & National Preparedness Tim Manning, and the
    other new leaders of FEMA by insisting on its implementation. The
    momentum returning FEMA to long-established principles of emergency
    management--all hazards, integrated, all phases (preparedness,
    mitigation, response, and recovery)--must continue.
        The FEMA Administrator should be clearly responsible for the
    coordination of the Federal response to disasters and have the maximum
    amount of access to the White House as the legislation clearly
    requires. We are pleased that the Administration is revising Homeland
    Security Presidential Decision Directive-8 and we certainly hope it
    will be consistent with PKEMRA.
        We remain concerned that the role of the Department of Homeland
    Security Office of Operations Coordination, which was created shortly
    after the enactment of PKEMRA, is unclear. It appears to be assigned
    functions that duplicate or compete with those of FEMA. These functions
    include, but are not limited to coordinating activities related to
    incident management, the national planning scenarios, the Integrated
    Planning System, and duplicating some of the role of the response
    function 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. 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.
        As the new administration is reviewing policies and HSPDs, it will
    be important to examine the following provisions of PKEMRA:
      --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 in the last Administration DHS frequently and
    mistakenly quoted 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.
                                   conclusion
        In conclusion, we urge the subcommittee to continue to build
    emergency management capacity by increasing EMPG to $530 million. We
    urge increasing funding for the Emergency Management Institute to $11.9
    million. We urge elimination of the PFO, or in the absence of that
    continuing the restrictions on its use. We urge the subcommittee to
    continue its efforts to strengthen FEMA and to insist on the full
    implementation of the provisions of PKEMRA.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Allen, Hon. Admiral Thad W., Commandant, United States Coast
      Guard, Department of Homeland Security.........................   133
        Prepared Statement of........................................   139
        Summary Statement of.........................................   136

    Brownback, Senator Sam, U.S. Senator From Kansas, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   129
    Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia:
        Questions Submitted by......................................45, 159
        Statements of................................................1, 133

    Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   125

    Gregg, Senator Judd, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire, Question
      Submitted by...................................................   128

    Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana, Questions
      Submitted by.................................................106, 163
    Lautenberg, Senator Frank R., U.S. Senator From New Jersey:
        Prepared Statement of........................................   150
        Questions Submitted by.......................................   108

    Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Prepared Statement of.....   167
    Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   104

    Napolitano, Janet, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security....     1
        Prepared Statement...........................................     7
        Summary Statement of.........................................     5
    National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information
      Systems, Prepared Statement of.................................   168
    National Emergency Management Association, Prepared Statement of.   170
    National Environmental Services Center, Prepared Statement of....   172
    National Treasury Employees Union, Prepared Statement of.........   173

    Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   128

    United States Council of the International Association of
      Emergency Managers, Prepared Statement of......................   176

    Voinovich, Senator George V., U.S. Senator From Ohio:
        Questions Submitted by.....................................111, 163
        Statements of................................................2, 135

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                         DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECUITY

                                                                       Page

    Acquisition Workforce............................................    48
    Acquisitions.....................................................    45
    Additional Committee Questions...................................    45
    Advanced:
        Imaging Technology...........................................22, 95
        Training Center..............................................    65
    Agency Coordination..............................................    27
    Air:
        And Marine Staffing..........................................    58
        Cargo........................................................    75
    Airport:
        Perimeter Security...........................................    75
        Scanning.....................................................    25
    Alternatives to Detention........................................   124
    Annualizations...................................................    63
    Arbitration Panel................................................    30
    Arctic Policy....................................................    82
    Balanced Workforce Initiative....................................    44
    Bio-threat Resources.............................................    90
    Biometric Air Exit...............................................    88
    BioWatch Schedule................................................    89
    Boat-Mounted Sensors.............................................   103
    Border Patrol:
        Agents.......................................................    58
        Communications...............................................    67
        Station--Sandusky, Ohio......................................   121
    Bulk Cash Smuggling..............................................    70
    Bus Security.....................................................    91
    Cargo Advanced Automated Radiography System (CAARS)..............   102
    CBP..............................................................    57
        Budget.......................................................    22
    Chemical:
        Facilities...................................................    39
        Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards............................    85
        Plant Safety.................................................    53
    Closing of Michigan Air Facilities...............................    84
    Coast Guard.................................................28, 77, 121
        Budget.......................................................    39
        Cutter Reductions............................................    77
        Icebreakers..................................................    42
        Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Strategy........................    82
        Vessel Acushnet..............................................    36
    Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act.........................    65
    Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources Vulnerability Assessments..    85
    Cyber Security..................................................84, 105
        Training.....................................................   125
    Cyberspace.......................................................    43
    C-130s...........................................................    81
    Decommissioned Assets and Surge Capacity.........................    78
    Departmental Management..........................................    45
    Detention Beds...................................................    70
    DHS:
        Headquarters at St. Elizabeths...............................    51
        Management...................................................    42
    Disaster Relief..................................................    54
        Fund.........................................................24, 43
            Known Costs..............................................    90
        Funding......................................................   113
    Domestic Nuclear Detection Office................................   100
    E-Verify....................................................40, 94, 117
    Efficiency Review................................................    52
    Explosives:
        Detection Systems (EDS)......................................    73
        Trace Portals................................................    96
    Federal:
        Air Marshals.................................................    76
        Emergency Management Agency..................................    90
        Law Enforcement Training Center..............................    94
        Protective Service...........................................   121
            Administrative Support...................................    88
            Fees.....................................................    88
            Growth in Responsibility.................................    85
            Surge Capability.........................................    88
    Fee-Funded Activities............................................   118
    FEMA Budget Priorities...........................................    90
    First Responder Preparedness.....................................    23
    Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request..................................     7
    Flood Mapping....................................................    33
    Floodplain Remapping, Levee Certification........................   130
    Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Increases/Decreases...................    61
    Grants:
        Effectiveness................................................   111
        For Emergency Operations Centers.............................    91
    H&L Fraud........................................................    95
    Haiti............................................................    54
    Haitian Orphans..................................................    31
    Hanson Dam.......................................................    35
    Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems.......................   102
    ICE..............................................................    68
    Immigration Enforcement..........................................   104
    Impact of the Lack of a Confirmed CBP Commissioner...............    67
    Intelligence Training............................................    92
    Interagency Operation Centers....................................    80
    Internal Affairs.................................................    61
    International Airport Security...................................    20
    Journeyman Pay...................................................    66
    Key Fiscal Year 2009 Accomplishments and Reforms.................    15
    Layered Border Security..........................................    57
    Loran-C..........................................................    83
    Management.......................................................   119
    Maritime Security:
        And Safety Teams (MSSTs).....................................    82
        Response Team (MSRT).........................................    82
    Measurable Outcomes and Investigative Statistics.................    55
    Mexico...........................................................    21
    National:
        Automatic Identification System..............................    79
        Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF)...................32, 96, 129
            Plum Island..............................................   129
        Computer Forensics Institute.................................    94
        Protection and Programs Directorate..........................    84
        Security Cutter (NSC)........................................    79
        Special Security:
            Event State and Local Reimbursement Fund.................    54
            Events...................................................   125
        Strike Force Transition from Coordination Center.............    83
    Northern Border Coordination Center..............................    35
    Office of:
        Health Affairs...............................................    89
        Inspector General............................................    54
        The Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding (OFCGCR)...   104
    Offshore Patrol Cutter...........................................    81
    Olympics.........................................................    35
    On-Dock Rail.....................................................   103
    Overdue Reports and Expenditure Plans............................    45
    Passenger:
        Name Record Data.............................................    64
        Screening Technologies.......................................    71
    Patrol Boat Sustainment..........................................    81
    Performance Metrics..............................................    97
    Port Security....................................................    34
    Ports-of-Entry Modernization.....................................   123
    Principal Federal Official (PFO)--Policy on the PFO Role.........    91
    Program Integrity................................................    76
    Proposed:
        Border Patrol Construction Cancellations.....................    58
        Elimination of the Foreign Language Awards Program for CBP
          Employees..................................................    67
        Reductions...................................................    95
    RAD/NUC Transformational Research................................    96
    Radiation:
        Detection Future Development.................................   123
        Portal Monitor (RPM) Program.................................   100
    Rail Inspections.................................................    57
    Rainville Farm...................................................    26
    REAL ID.........................................................95, 113
    SBInet...........................................................    40
    Science and Technology...........................................    95
    Secret Service...................................................    84
    Secure:
        Border Initiative (SBI)......................................    68
        Communities..................................................    70
    Security Clearances..............................................    51
    Selected DHS Priority Performance Goals..........................    19
    Small Boat Threat................................................    53
    Southwest Border:
        Enforcement..................................................    63
        Fencing......................................................    61
    Special Hiring Authorities.......................................   124
    Stand-off Radiation Detection System (SORDS) Follow-on Program...   103
    State and Local Fusion Centers...................................   123
    Surface Transportation Security..................................    75
    Systems Development..............................................   102
    Tactical Border Infrastructure...................................   116
    Tactical Communications..........................................   123
    Technology Readiness Level.......................................    96
    Terrorist Threat.................................................    48
    Test-Beds........................................................    49
    The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)................    55
    Training at the NDPC and CDP.....................................    92
    Transportation:
        Security Administration (TSA)................................    71
            Collective Bargaining....................................   119
        Worker ID Card...............................................    38
    Treasury Forfeiture Fund.........................................    52
    Unintended Loss of Critical Skillsets............................    77
    United States-Mexico Border Security Cooperation.................    57
    US-Visit.........................................................24, 88
    USCG Oil/HAZMAT Response Capability..............................    83
    USCIS............................................................    94
    Visa:
        Security.....................................................    68
        Waiver Program/Biometric Air Exit Implementation.............   113
    Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)......................    64
    Workforce........................................................    77
        Balancing....................................................    51
    Working Capital Fund.............................................    50
    Worksite Enforcement............................................68, 115
        And E-Verify.................................................    25
        Sanctions....................................................   104

                                U.S. Coast Guard

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   159
    Budget:
        For Replacement Helicopter...................................   158
        Impact of Helicopter Crash (HH-60)...........................   162
    Coast Guard......................................................   133
    C-130H vs. C-130J Aircraft.......................................   157
    Decommissioning Maritime Safety and Security Teams...............   146
    Deepwater........................................................   160
    Delivering Value to the Nation...................................   141
    Expenditure Plans and Reports....................................   162
    Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request................................140, 142
        Efficiencies, Reallocations, and Decommissionings............   144
        Initiatives and Enhancements.................................   142
    Haiti............................................................   159
        Earthquake...................................................   122
    Helicopter Coverage..............................................   148
    Helicopters......................................................   156
    High Endurance Cutter Sustainment................................   162
    Icebreakers......................................................   156
    Illegal Fishing..................................................   152
    Modernization of Business Practices..............................   141
    National:
        Automatic Identification System..............................   162
        Security Cutter (NSC)........................................   160
            Program..................................................   152
    Offshore Patrol Cutter...........................................   161
    Operating With Fewer Cutters.....................................   145
    Piracy...........................................................   152
    Priorities If Funding Were Available.............................   145
    Recapitalizing to Preserve Future Capability.....................   140
    Responding to Crises in Alaska...................................   154
    Response During Oil-Drilling Accidents...........................   151
    Savings and Decommissionings.....................................   141
    Small Boat Threat................................................   159
    Unmanned Aerial Systems..........................................   154
    Workforce:
        Optimization.................................................   141
        Plan.........................................................   161

                                       -