    [Senate Hearing 112-451]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 112-451

      DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                                   H.R. 2017

     AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
     FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                        Department of Homeland Security

                           Nondepartmental witnesses

                                U.S. Coast Guard

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

       Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/

            committee.actionchamber=senate&committee=appropriations

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    64-603                    WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                                   __________

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                       DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
    HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
    PATTY MURRAY, Washington             LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
    MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          MARK KIRK, Illinois
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              DANIEL COATS, Indiana
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      ROY BLUNT, Missouri
    BEN NELSON, Nebraska                 JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    MARK PRYOR, Arkansas                 JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
    JON TESTER, Montana                  RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

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

              Subcommittee on the Department of Homeland Security

                     MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chairman
                 FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey, Vice Chairman
    DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii             DANIEL COATS, Indiana
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    PATTY MURRAY, Washington             RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
    JON TESTER, Montana                  LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
                                         JERRY MORAN, Kansas

                               Professional Staff

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

                             Administrative Support

                                  Nora Martin
                          Courtney Stevens (Minority)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, March 2, 2011

                                                                       Page

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

                             Tuesday, May 10, 2011

    Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Coast Guard................   155
    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   195

      DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Landrieu, Lautenberg, Coats, Cochran,
    Murkowski, and Moran.

                        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

    STATEMENT OF HON. JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY

                 opening statement of senator mary l. landrieu

        Senator Landrieu. Good morning. I would like to call our
    subcommittee to order for the purpose of considering the
    Department's budget for 2012.
        Let me first welcome our new ranking member, Senator Coats.
    I am pleased to work with Senator Coats in the next 2 years and
    really appreciate his leadership in this area.
        Welcome, Madam Secretary. We are happy to have you present
    your budget this morning. You lead a Department of 221,000 men
    and women who are on the front lines every day protecting our
    Nation and our citizens. And we commend those employees for
    their dedication and their hard work. They are in our airports,
    our ports, along our borders, considering the intelligence
    coming in all over our country, we appreciate their work and we
    appreciate your leadership.
        My goal is to produce a bipartisan, fiscally responsible
    Homeland Security bill for fiscal year 2012 that provides this
    Department with the resources it needs to prepare for, respond
    to, and recover from all threats, manmade and natural. I share
    your commitment to the goals established in the Quadrennial
    Homeland Security Review: preventing terrorism, securing our
    borders, enforcing our immigration laws, safeguarding
    cyberspace, and ensuring resiliency in the face of natural or
    manmade disasters.
        Securing this Nation is not just, as you know, Madam
    Secretary, a Federal Government responsibility. State and local
    governments share that responsibility, and frankly, as well as
    many of our corporations who are doing their part and
    individual citizens as they are trained to recognize threats
    that potentially are occurring in their local communities. This
    Department must--I believe--serve as leaders and educators in
    helping our State and local governments and corporations,
    serving as a model for them, as well as encouraging our private
    citizens to do their part.
        As we approach the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks,
    the 8th anniversary of the creation of the Department, and the
    6th anniversary of the catastrophic levee failures which caused
    horrific destruction in and around the city of New Orleans, the
    hurricanes of Katrina and Rita along the gulf coast, we must
    not let our guard down. We must remember the lessons of those
    horrific events and, even without the imminent threat right
    before us, not fail to remember what we learned on those
    terrible occasions. We must have the fortitude and the
    discipline and the tenacity I think, Senator Coats and others,
    to continue to fund adequately this effort and not become lax
    or distracted.
        In the State of the Union Address, the President said that
    al Qaeda and its affiliates continue to plan attacks against
    us. He said, ``as extremists try to inspire acts of violence
    within our borders, we are responding with the strength of our
    communities and with respect to the rule of law.'' Secretary
    Napolitano, you have stated that the terrorism threat is at the
    highest level since 9/11. That is a statement that we should
    pay attention to.
        We will be mindful of those statements as we consider the
    President's request for this 2012 year. I am supportive of
    reducing spending where we can, obviously eliminating mediocre
    programs or duplicative programs. But I do not believe the
    notion of reducing spending arbitrarily to a 2008 level for
    this Department makes any sense.
        The Coast Guard would have to eliminate 2,400 personnel and
    its recapitalization program would be terminated. We saw what
    the Coast Guard did in responding to the BP oil spill. I do not
    believe a cutback there is smart.
        We would have to eliminate the national security cutter
    (NSC), the fast response cutter (FRC), and the marine patrol
    aircraft. The number of customs officers at our ports of entry
    would be reduced by more than 1,600. The number of Border
    Patrol agents--Senator McCain has fought very hard, along with
    others, to secure more personnel at our borders, not less, and
    I will not support a budget that reduces that number by 3,500.
        Reducing funding for the Transportation Security
    Administration to levels before the Christmas Day bombing
    attempt would be reckless. We know that there are attempts to
    take down aircraft in America that are ongoing. We have been
    successful in preventing it so far. This budget supports our
    effort to continue to be successful.
        We would have 775 fewer scanners at our airports, 4,000
    fewer screeners, 330 fewer air cargo inspectors, and 235 fewer
    canine teams. Under my leadership, we will not go in that
    direction.
        I believe the President has submitted a fiscally
    responsible budget for this Department. Of course, we will have
    some issues within the Department. I look forward to working
    with my ranking member to find a way forward that provides the
    resources necessary, however, to keep our Nation and our
    citizens safe.

                               prepared statement

        Following Senator Coats's opening statement, we will hear
    from you Madam Secretary, because our schedule has changed. I
    wanted the members to have time for opening statements, but I
    am going to ask them to submit them for the record because a
    vote has been called for 11 o'clock.
        But let me turn to my ranking member and thank Senator
    Cochran for joining us this morning.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu

        Good morning.
        Secretary Napolitano, you lead a Department of 221,000 men and
    women who are on the front lines every day protecting our citizens. We
    commend those employees for their dedication and their service and we
    welcome you to this subcommittee hearing today. I also welcome Senator
    Dan Coats, our new ranking member. I look forward to working with you
    and hearing from all of our subcommittee members this year.
        My goal is to produce a bipartisan, fiscally responsible Homeland
    Security bill for fiscal year 2012 that provides the Department with
    the resources it needs to prepare for, respond to, and recover from all
    threats, both man-made and natural. I share your commitment to the
    goals established in the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review,
    preventing terrorism, securing the borders, enforcing our immigration
    laws, safeguarding cyberspace, and ensuring resilience to disasters.
        Securing this Nation is not just about the Federal Government. We
    must also serve as leaders and educators in helping State and local
    governments, the private and nonprofit sectors, and our citizens in
    achieving these goals.
        As we approach the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the 8th
    anniversary of the creation of this Department, and the 6th anniversary
    of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we must all learn from history while
    confronting the evolving threats to this Nation.
        In the State of the Union Address, the President said that al Qaeda
    and its affiliates continue to plan attacks against us. He said, ``as
    extremists try to inspire acts of violence within our borders, we are
    responding with the strength of our communities, and with respect for
    the rule of law''. Secretary Napolitano, you have stated that the
    terrorism threat is at its highest level since 9/11.
        We will be mindful of those statements as we consider the
    President's request for fiscal year 2012. While I am supportive of
    reducing spending, I do not believe the notion of reducing spending to
    2008 levels is either appropriate or responsible for the Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS). The Coast Guard would have to eliminate 2,400
    personnel and its recapitalization program would be terminated,
    including the national security cutter, the fast response cutter, and
    the maritime patrol aircraft. The number of Customs officers at our
    ports of entry would be reduced by more than 1,600, reducing security
    and extending wait times. The number of Border Patrol agents would be
    reduced by more than 3,500, reversing the progress we have made in
    securing our borders. Reducing funding for the Transportation Security
    Administration to levels before the Christmas Day bombing attempt would
    be absurd. We would have 775 fewer scanners at our airports, 4,000
    fewer screeners, 330 fewer air cargo inspectors, and 235 fewer canine
    teams. Under my leadership, we will not go down that road.
        I believe the President has submitted a responsible, fiscally
    prudent budget for DHS. Of course, we have some issues with the budget
    which we will discuss today, and I look forward to hearing from the
    Secretary.
        Following Senator Coats' opening statement, each member will be
    recognized for up to 3 minutes for opening remarks. After the opening
    remarks, we will hear from Secretary Napolitano. After, we hear from
    the Secretary, each member will be recognized, based on order of
    arrival, for up to 5 minutes for questions. I now recognize Senator
    Coats for any opening remarks he may wish to make.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL COATS

        Senator Coats. Madam Chairman, thank you. I am pleased to
    join you on this subcommittee, my first venture here. So I will
    probably have more questions than answers, but I look forward
    to the testimony.
        Secretary Napolitano, thank you for being here this morning
    and reaching out yesterday with a courtesy call for me and
    being willing to sit down and talk through difficult,
    challenging issues at a difficult, challenging time. So I
    appreciate that very much.
        I never thought I would be sitting in a superior position
    to Senator Cochran on any committee anywhere, including lunch.
    But it is a pleasure to be with you, Thad, and I appreciate
    your leadership over the years of this subcommittee and ranking
    membership is duly noted.
        Madam Secretary, I do not think any of us question that we
    are in difficult fiscal times. Also no one questions whether or
    not we have security threats that we need to address and need
    to protect the American people from incursions and unwanted
    terrorist activity and to do everything we can to provide for
    homeland security. So there comes the challenge for all of us.
        The current budget that the President has announced is an
    increase over previous years. As you know, the Congress is
    looking for ways to try to do more with less. The question I
    think comes in terms of how we can provide effective service
    and fulfill our obligations in providing for the security of
    our country, at the same time trying to do it in a more
    efficient way. We are not asking for no Government here. We are
    asking for more efficient Government, and working together, I
    think, to try to achieve that should be one of our goals.
        As I look at your budget, a couple of things come to mind,
    and I just might mention those and we can discuss them during
    the hearing and afterwards.
        The budget indicates--I think assumes--that there will be
    an increase in aviation passenger security fees and that those
    fees will start rolling in in the third quarter of fiscal year
    2012. Yet, none of that is assured yet, and I am told that that
    is a mark of nearly $590 million in additional collections. And
    so I would like to pursue that question with you.
        Second, the budget continues to request operations for
    disaster relief based on historical obligations for
    noncatastrophic events and assumes that large catastrophic
    events are rare and should be funded strictly by supplemental
    emergency appropriations. As you know, the reality is that
    those large catastrophic events result in year after year after
    year of follow-up funding, and whether that should be done by
    emergency supplemental or budgeted is, I think, a fundamental
    question that we have to address. My understanding is that for
    fiscal year 2011, the amount necessary to provide for
    continuing work post-Katrina, post other catastrophic
    occurrences is $1.6 billion, an amount that is not put into the
    President's budget. And so when you add all this up, I think it
    totals around $3 billion not included in the 2012 request. How
    we are going to reconcile that, I think, is going to be a
    challenge for us all.
        And of course, those assumptions often come in low. We have
    seen occurrences of more and more violent storms and
    catastrophic events, whether it is flooding, wildfires,
    hurricanes, or other disasters.
        There are a couple of other areas that I would like to talk
    about, but we can wait until question time. Again, I thank you
    for being here and look forward to a year of good, solid work
    in terms of trying to do more with less funds, but do it more
    efficiently. Every family in America, every business in
    America, almost every State in the Union has had to face up to
    this challenge, and the Federal Government is going to need to
    do so also.
        Thank you.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator, for those remarks.
        I want to acknowledge Senator Lautenberg who has joined us.
    He chaired this subcommittee in the interim after the death of
    Chairman Byrd, and Senator, thank you for your leadership.

                              DISASTER RELIEF FUND

        We are going to go right into questions in the order of
    appearance. Let me begin following up on what Senator Coats
    said about the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), Madam Secretary,
    which is particularly of interest to gulf coast leaders. But
    frankly, with the catastrophes in Rhode Island, the flooding in
    Tennessee, and fires and tornadoes in other parts of the
    country, there are many members that are very concerned.
        For fiscal year 2011, the current year we are in, we are
    facing a $1.6 billion gap in the DRF. If the President does not
    request and the Congress does not approve supplemental funding,
    that account under our calculations will literally run out of
    money in June, only a few months from now, just as we are
    entering hurricane season.
        For fiscal year 2012, the problem is even worse because we
    are facing a $3 billion gap based on known costs. These are not
    projections or speculations. These are known costs of past
    disasters.
        In fiscal year 2010, there was a similar shortfall. The
    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had to stop
    providing assistance for rebuilding and recovery projects. Many
    of those were in my home State. Some of them were in Senator
    Cochran's home State of Mississippi, but they were all over the
    country. Unfortunately, this problem looks like it is repeating
    itself, and I would like to head it off, if we can, at the
    pass.
        During the last hearing before the authorizing committee,
    you said it is ``really nonnegotiable'' when asked about the
    looming crisis. You said we have to pay for these disasters. It
    is our responsibility.
        Do you believe that the President is going to send up a
    supplemental to request this funding, and if so, when? Because
    if we have to cut $1.6 billion out of the base Homeland
    Security budget, that will cut the Coast Guard, that will cut
    FEMA, that will cut grants to State and local responders, and
    basically, we will be cutting current disaster response teams
    to pay for past disasters. To me that does not make any sense.
    Do you think the President will send up a supplemental and
    would you support it?
        Secretary Napolitano. Well, thank you, Senator, and thank
    you for this hearing. I am pleased to be here before you,
    Ranking Member Coats, other members of the subcommittee.
        I do have an opening statement and I will just simply ask
    that that be inserted.
        Senator Landrieu. Please go right ahead with your opening
    statement.
        Secretary Napolitano. Well, I am happy to go right to
    questions, if you want to do that.
        Senator Landrieu. No, no, no. You go right to your opening
    statement. I am very sorry. And then you can take that
    question.
        Secretary Napolitano. All right.
        Senator Coats. Maybe it will be happier.
        Senator Landrieu. Yes. Maybe it will be easier than my
    question.
        Senator Landrieu. Go right ahead.
        Senator Coats. Whatever works best.
        Secretary Napolitano. Well, why don't I answer the question
    and then I will give the opening statement?
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
        Secretary Napolitano. You have identified one of the issues
    that we will have to work together on and we look forward to
    working with the subcommittee on.
        One of the things that the numbers do not reflect yet is
    our effort to deobligate funds that have been set aside to pay
    for past disasters that no longer are necessary. In other
    words, we have been able to go backwards and say, well, we set
    aside this amount and in fact we did not need that amount of
    money. So in fiscal year 2010, for example, we restored $2
    billion to the DRF by process of deobligation. That is what it
    is called. And so we look forward to continuing that strategy
    as we move forward to refill the DRF with deobligated funds.
        Now, will that be enough to cover expenses for fiscal year
    2011 and fiscal year 2012? Probably not without a supplemental
    of some sort. So we anticipate that the administration will
    submit a supplemental for the DRF. This has been the historical
    practice under Republican and Democratic administrations. I
    think the reason the practice started was because of the
    difficulty of predicting ultimately what the DRF will be
    required to cover. So the administration has carried forward
    with that historical practice, but nonetheless, I think it is
    fair to say, Madam Chair, that a supplemental will be
    necessary.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you and please go on with your
    opening statement.

                     SUMMARY STATEMENT OF JANET NAPOLITANO

        Secretary Napolitano. Well, let me begin again by thanking
    you for the opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year
    2012 budget for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
        I think it is fair to say that the demands on DHS have
    never been greater. This is especially true as we remember
    those at the Department who have given their lives in service
    of the mission of securing our country, including just in the
    past weeks and months, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Special Agent Jaime
    Zapata.
        Now, Mexico is leading the investigation into the death of
    Agent Zapata. We are supporting them through a joint Department
    of Justice (DOJ)/DHS task force that the Attorney General and I
    announced 2 weeks ago. Recently, Mexican authorities have
    apprehended some of the alleged killers of Agent Zapata, and we
    are conducting a number of operations in the United States
    related to the drug cartels that plague that country.
        I can speak for the entire administration when I say we are
    not only saddened by the loss of an agent, we are outraged by
    this act of violence against an officer of the United States.
    And make no mistake, justice will be brought to all of those
    involved. We owe nothing less to the memory of our agent, Agent
    Zapata, and to those who are still on the job in Mexico.
        But the loss of these great agents is a stark reminder of
    the sacrifices made by the men and women of DHS every day. It
    also strengthens our resolve to continue to do everything in
    our power to protect against, mitigate, and respond to threats
    and to make our Nation more resilient for years to come.
        Today's threat picture features adversaries who evolve
    quickly and are determined to strike us here at home--from the
    aviation system and the global supply chain to surface
    transportation, critical infrastructure, and our cyber
    networks.
        We are leading the administration's unprecedented effort to
    secure our Southwest Border, coupled with a smart and effective
    approach to enforcing immigration laws in the interior of our
    country. And we continue to prepare for, respond to, and
    recover from disasters of all types.
        President Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget for the
    Department allows us to continue to meet these evolving threats
    and challenges by prioritizing our essential operational
    requirements while reflecting an unprecedented commitment to
    fiscal discipline that maximizes the effectiveness of every
    security dollar that we receive.
        Reflecting the current fiscal environment, in building the
    fiscal year 2012 budget, all DHS components identified savings
    associated with the Department's 33 efficiency review
    initiatives, and we cut administration and overhead, including
    my own office's budget, by more than $800 million. Savings were
    realized through efficiencies in acquisition, asset, and real
    property management, as well as employee vetting and
    credentialing, hiring and on-boarding, and information
    technology. We cut professional services contracts, travel, and
    nonmission-critical training.
        We also delayed construction of FEMA at the new DHS
    headquarters at St. Elizabeths and deferred office
    collocations, as well as building maintenance and enhancements.
        My written statement includes a comprehensive list of the
    operational priorities in the budget request, and today I would
    like to highlight a few of them for you here, even as I request
    that the full statement be admitted in your record.
        First, preventing terrorism and enhancing security was the
    founding mission of DHS. It remains our top priority today.
    This budget safeguards transportation modes through a layered
    detection system, including the deployment of additional
    transportation security officers, behavioral detection
    officers, canine teams, and advanced imaging technology
    machines at domestic airports while expanding watch list
    vetting through the secure flight program and enhancing
    screening and targeting of international travelers before they
    board U.S.-bound flights through the immigration advisory
    program.
        The budget also strengthens surface transportation security
    by supporting 12 new multimodal VIPR teams. The acronym stands
    for visible intermodal prevention and response. These teams
    conduct operations throughout the transportation sector to
    prevent potential terrorist activity.
        The request also provides funding for the Securing the
    Cities program to protect our highest risk cities from a
    radiological or a nuclear attack and makes a significant
    investment in the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility which
    will provide enhanced diagnostic capabilities to protect our
    country from foreign animal and emerging diseases.
        The request expands support for the national network of
    State and local fusion centers to enhance baseline capabilities
    and local law enforcement with the tools they need to address
    threats in their communities.
        Now, to secure and manage our borders, the request
    continues the administration's historic border security efforts
    by supporting 21,370 Border Patrol agents and 21,186 Customs
    and Border Protection (CBP) officers, both all-time highs. The
    budget also includes $242 million for the continued deployment
    of proven, effective surveillance technology along the highest
    trafficked areas of the Southwest Border to better meet the
    operational requirements of our agents on the front lines.
        For the Northern Border, this budget request supports
    investments in technology tailored to the maritime and cold
    weather environment, including proven standalone technology to
    provide immediate operational benefits.
        And for our Nation's maritime borders, this budget includes
    funding to continue the essential NSC program and makes
    historic investments to recapitalize the Coast Guard's aging
    assets, including 6 FRCs, 40 response boats, as well as a
    sizable investment in the renovation and restoration of aging
    shore facilities.
        The budget request also continues the Department's focus on
    smart and effective enforcement of our U.S. immigration laws,
    while streamlining and facilitating the legal immigration
    process. Building on our record over the past 2 years, the
    Department will continue to prioritize the identification and
    removal of criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety,
    and target employers who knowingly and repeatedly break the
    law. This request enables ICE to fund 33,400 detention beds,
    remove more than 200,000 criminal aliens, and deploy Secure
    Communities to 96 percent of all jurisdictions nationally in
    fiscal year 2012, while promoting compliance with worksite-
    related laws through criminal prosecution of egregious
    employers. Form I-9 inspections and continued expansion and
    enhancements of E-Verify are included.
        The request funds integration efforts, including programs
    supporting English-language and citizenship education, and
    continues detention reform efforts currently underway.
        Now, to safeguard and secure cyberspace, the budget
    increases resources to identify and reduce vulnerabilities in
    our Nation's key cyber networks. It includes significant
    investments to expedite the deployment of Einstein 3 to prevent
    and detect intrusions on Government computer systems, increase
    Federal network security of large and small agencies, and
    continue to develop a robust cybersecurity workforce to protect
    against and respond to cybersecurity threats. The budget also
    focuses on combating cyber crime and preventing attacks against
    United States critical infrastructure.
        Now, to ensure resilience to disasters, as you mentioned,
    Madam Chair, the budget request focuses on moving resources out
    of Washington, DC, and into the hands of State and local
    responders who are often best positioned to detect and respond
    to terrorism, to natural disasters, and to other threats by
    sustaining Federal funding for State and local preparedness
    grants, providing $3.8 billion in fiscal year 2012. The funding
    also includes $670 million for assistance to firefighter
    grants, including $420 million to rehire an estimated 2,300
    laid-off firefighters and retain veteran first responders.
        Now, to lead and support essential national security and
    economic security efforts, the budget expands the Coast Guard's
    operational capacity by funding 50,682 military and civilian
    positions and establishing the Coast Guard's first incident
    management assistance team, which will be deployed rapidly to
    support incidents of national significance.
        It also continues to support ICE and CBP's enforcement and
    investigative efforts to protect U.S. intellectual property
    rights, as well as the Secret Service's state-of-the-art
    forensic support for the National Center for Missing and
    Exploited Children.
        Madam Chair, this budget is the culmination of a major,
    first-of-its-kind effort by the Department through the
    Quadrennial Homeland Security Review and the associated Bottom-
    Up Review to align our resources with a comprehensive strategy
    to ensure a safe, secure, and resilient homeland while making
    an unprecedented commitment to fiscal discipline.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I would be remiss, however, if I did not note all of this
    progress is at risk in the continuing resolution passed by the
    House. This is the full fiscal year 2011 resolution. That
    proposal cuts technology investments and security improvements
    on the Southwest and Northern Borders. It cuts aviation
    security measures. It cuts funding to sustain the progress that
    has been made in enforcing the Nation's immigration laws. It
    cuts critical cybersecurity tools and operations. It cuts
    intelligence personnel. It cuts Coast Guard funding to support
    our war efforts abroad, and it cuts grants that support
    counter-terrorism and disaster response capabilities at the
    local level.
        Chairman Landrieu, Senator Coats, members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I am
    happy to continue to answer your questions.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Secretary Janet Napolitano

        Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Coats, and members of the
    subcommittee: Let me begin by saying thank you to this subcommittee for
    the strong support you have provided me and the Department over the
    past 2 years. I look forward to continuing to work with you in the
    coming year to protect the homeland and the American people.
        I am pleased to appear before the subcommittee today to present
    President Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS).
        The demands on DHS have never been greater and the threats we face
    pose new challenges that require an innovative and focused response.
    Today's threat picture features an adversary who evolves and adapts
    quickly and who is determined to strike us here at home--from the
    aviation system and the global supply chain to surface transportation
    systems, critical infrastructure, and cyber networks. The Department's
    fiscal year 2012 budget allows us to continue to meet these evolving
    threats and challenges by prioritizing our essential operational
    requirements--while reflecting an unprecedented commitment to fiscal
    discipline that maximizes the effectiveness of every security dollar we
    receive.
        Reflecting the current economic environment, we are preserving
    essential frontline operations and bolstering our operational strength
    by decreasing administration and overhead, including the overall budget
    for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management. All DHS
    components identified reductions associated with the Efficiency Review
    initiatives currently underway as well as administrative savings
    totaling nearly $800 million to strengthen mission-critical activities
    across the Department. Savings were accomplished through efficiencies
    in acquisition, asset, and real property management as well as employee
    vetting/credentialing, hiring/on-boarding, and information technology;
    and administrative savings through reductions to professional services
    contracts, printing, supplies and materials, travel, and training. The
    Department also proposes to delay construction of the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency (FEMA) headquarters at St. Elizabeths as well as the
    deferral of other office colocations, and building maintenance and
    enhancements to prioritize frontline security operations.
                        fiscal year 2012 budget request
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request for DHS is $57.0 billion in
    total funding, $47.4 billion in gross discretionary funding, and $43.2
    billion in net discretionary funding.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ For purposes of comparison to prior year funding levels,
    funding for overseas contingency operations and National Science
    Foundation transfers are not included in these figures.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        DHS's fiscal year 2012 budget request is the culmination of a
    major, first of its kind effort undertaken by the Department to align
    DHS resources with a comprehensive strategy to meet our Nation's
    homeland security needs. Last year, DHS completed the first ever
    Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR), which established a
    unified, strategic framework for Homeland Security missions and goals,
    as well as the first ever Bottom-Up Review (BUR), which aligned DHS'
    programmatic activities and organizational structure to better serve
    those missions and goals. The third and final step of this process is
    the fiscal year 2012 budget submission, which begins the next phase in
    strengthening DHS efforts to ensure a safe, secure, and resilient
    homeland.
        This process identified six DHS missions, each of which is
    strengthened by this budget:
          Mission 1: Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security.--
            Protecting the United States from terrorism is the cornerstone
            of Homeland Security. DHS's counterterrorism responsibilities
            focus on three goals:
        --preventing terrorist attacks;
        --preventing the unauthorized acquisition, importation, movement,
                or use of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear
                materials and capabilities within the United States; and
        --reducing the vulnerability of critical infrastructure and key
                resources, essential leadership, and major events to
                terrorist attacks and other hazards.
          Mission 2: Securing and Managing Our Borders.--DHS secures the
            Nation's air, land, and sea borders to prevent illegal activity
            while facilitating lawful travel and trade. The Department's
            border security and management efforts focus on three
            interrelated goals:
        --effectively securing U.S. air, land, and sea borders;
        --safeguarding and streamlining lawful trade and travel; and
        --disrupting and dismantling transnational criminal and terrorist
                organizations.
          Mission 3: Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws.--DHS
            is focused on smart and effective enforcement of U.S.
            immigration laws while streamlining and facilitating the legal
            immigration process. The Department has fundamentally reformed
            immigration enforcement, focusing on identifying and removing
            criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety and
            targeting employers who knowingly and repeatedly break the law.
          Mission 4: Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace.--By statute and
            Presidential Directive, DHS has the lead for the Federal
            Government to secure civilian government computer systems and
            works with industry and State, local, tribal, and territorial
            governments to secure critical infrastructure and information
            systems. DHS analyzes and reduces cyber threats and
            vulnerabilities; distributes threat warnings; and coordinates
            the response to cyber incidents to ensure that our computers,
            networks, and cyber systems remain safe.
          Mission 5: Ensuring Resilience to Disasters.--DHS provides the
            coordinated, comprehensive Federal response in the event of a
            terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale
            emergency while working with Federal, State, local, and private
            sector partners to ensure a swift and effective recovery
            effort. The Department's efforts to build a ready and resilient
            Nation include fostering a community-oriented approach;
            bolstering information sharing; improving the capability to
            plan; and providing grants and training to our Homeland
            Security and law enforcement partners.
          Mission 6: Providing Essential Support to National and Economic
            Security.--DHS leads and supports many activities that provide
            essential support to national and economic security including,
            but not limited to:
        --maximizing collection of customs revenue;
        --maintaining the safety of the marine transportation system;
        --preventing the exploitation of children;
        --providing law enforcement training; and
        --coordinating the Federal Government's response to global
                intellectual property theft. DHS contributes in many ways
                to these elements of broader U.S. national and economic
                security while fulfilling its other five Homeland Security
                missions.
        The following are highlights of the fiscal year 2012 budget:
                  preventing terrorism and enhancing security
        Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT).--$105.2 million and 535
    positions are included for the Transportation Security Administration
    (TSA) to purchase, install, and operate 275 AITs at airport
    checkpoints. The fiscal year 2012 request, combined with prior
    requests, will result in 1,275 AIT units deployed by the end of 2012.
    The requested funding covers the cost of new Transportation Screening
    officers and managers to operate the new AITs, as well as the
    associated support and airport management costs. Continuing to increase
    AIT deployments while ensuring privacy safeguards are in place is
    critical to address the current threat by safely screening passengers
    for metallic and nonmetallic threats--including weapons, explosives and
    other objects concealed under layers of clothing.
        Explosives Detection Systems (EDS).--$273 million is requested to
    support the recapitalization and deployment of state-of-the-art EDS for
    checked baggage to efficiently screen baggage for explosives, reducing
    the number of rescans and physical bag searches. Beginning in fiscal
    year 2012, more than 800 EDS in our largest airports will exceed their
    planned 10-year service life.
        Assistant Field Security Directors-Law Enforcement (AFSD-LEs).--
    Requested funding of $22.5 million supports 82 AFSD-LEs currently
    deployed and provides 22 additional AFSD-LEs for major airports, where
    they serve as the primary liaison to local law enforcement as AIT
    expansion continues.
        Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS).--The fiscal year 2012 budget
    requests funds to maintain the FAMS surge deployment levels for
    domestic and international flight coverage that began in response to
    the attempted terrorist attack on December 25, 2009. Members of the
    FAMS, TSA's law enforcement entity, are deployed on flights around the
    world and the United States based on risk in order to detect, deter,
    and defeat hostile acts targeting U.S. air carriers, airports,
    passengers, and crews.
        Enhanced Watchlist Vetting.--$12.4 million is proposed for
    maintaining the expanded watchlist vetting initiative, which, through
    the Secure Flight program, enables TSA to identify individuals who may
    present a threat to passenger air travel. Through Secure Flight, TSA
    prescreens passenger name, date of birth, and gender against terrorist
    watchlists before passengers receive their boarding passes. In addition
    to facilitating secure travel for all passengers, the program helps
    prevent the misidentification of passengers who have names similar to
    individuals on government watchlists.
        Immigration Advisory Program (IAP).--A total request of $14.1
    million will permit the IAP to expand in Paris, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and
    Amman. IAP is a part of Custom and Border Protection's (CBP) layered
    risk-based security approach, which includes working with international
    partners to post CBP officers at foreign airports and use advanced
    targeting and passenger analysis information to identify high-risk
    travelers at foreign airports before they board U.S.-bound flights.
        Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs).--The fiscal year 2012 budget
    request of $236.9 million funds 3,336 BDOs, which includes 350 new
    positions. BDOs serve as an additional layer of security in airports by
    providing a nonintrusive means of identifying individuals who may pose
    a risk of terrorism or criminal activity.
        Canine Teams.--Requested funding of $125.7 million allows TSA to
    sustain the deployment of 900 canine teams supported by reallocations
    made under the continuing resolution, providing an important layer of
    security to complement passenger checkpoint screening at airports,
    assist in air cargo screening and enhance security in the mass transit
    environment.
        Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) Teams.--$109
    million requested supports 37 VIPR teams and includes 12 new multi-
    modal VIPR Teams proposed in the fiscal year 2012 request in addition
    to the 10 existing teams in Aviation and the 15 VIPR teams dedicated to
    surface transportation added in the fiscal year 2010 budget. VIPR teams
    are comprised of personnel with expertise in inspection, behavior
    detection, security screening, and law enforcement for random,
    unpredictable deployments throughout the transportation sector to deter
    potential terrorist and criminal acts.
        Passenger Security Fee.--The fiscal year 2012 budget reflects a
    proposal to increase the Aviation Passenger Security Fee by $1.50 per
    enplanement beginning in 2012. The Aviation Passenger Security fee has
    not changed since the TSA was established following the events of 9/11,
    even though the overall cost of aviation security has grown by more
    than 400 percent. The administration's proposal makes progress toward
    fulfilling the intent of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act
    to cover the costs of aviation security through fees and not by the
    general taxpayers.
        BioWatch Gen 1/2.--$90 million is requested to continue operating
    the Gen 1/2 BioWatch detection network, a federally managed, locally
    operated, nationwide bio-surveillance system designed to detect the
    intentional release of aerosolized biological agents in more than 30
    cities.
        BioWatch Gen-3.--The fiscal year 2012 budget provides $25 million
    to continue Gen-3 development, which is expected to significantly
    reduce the time between a release of a biothreat agent and confirmation
    of that release by BioWatch technology. Operational testing and
    evaluation of Gen-3 technology will begin in 1-of-4 test cities in
    fiscal year 2012 with full deployment expected in fiscal year 2014.
        Securing the Cities.--$27 million is requested for Securing the
    Cities to continue the build-out of the domestic portion of 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 in our
    highest risk cities.
        Radiological/Nuclear Detection Systems.--The fiscal year 2012
    budget requests $57 million for the procurement and deployment of
    radiation portal monitors and human portable radiation detection
    systems, providing vital detection equipment to CBP and the Coast Guard
    to scan for radiological and nuclear threats.
        Countermeasures and 2012 Presidential Candidate Nominee
    Protection.--The fiscal year 2012 request funds critical Secret Service
    operations and countermeasures to protect the first family and visiting
    dignitaries, including the 2012 presidential campaign and three
    anticipated National Special Security Events (NSSEs). The budget also
    restores the Secret Service's base funding--supporting the replacement
    of protective equipment, vehicles, training of personnel, and other
    infrastructure to allow the Secret Service to improve the execution of
    its protective and investigatory missions.
        National Network of Fusion Centers.--The fiscal year 2012 budget
    expands support for the national network of fusion centers in order to
    provide State and local law enforcement with the tools they need to
    address threats in their communities. The request focuses on
    integrating and coordinating cross-department and cross-government
    interaction with fusion centers focused on enhancing baseline
    capabilities.
        State and Local Law Enforcement Training.--The fiscal year 2012
    budget provides funding to train 64,000 individual Federal, State, and
    local law enforcement personnel through the Federal Law Enforcement
    Training Center and its total budget of $276 million.
        National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF).--$150 million is
    requested to begin construction of the NBAF, which will serve as a new,
    state-of-the-art biosafety level 3 and 4 facility. Work performed at
    NBAF will lead to the development of vaccines and antivirals and
    enhanced diagnostic capabilities for protecting our country from
    numerous foreign animal and emerging diseases.
                       securing and managing our borders
        CBP Law Enforcement.--The fiscal year 2012 budget supports 21,370
    Border Patrol agents and 21,186 CBP officers at our ports of entry who
    work 24/7 with State, local, and Federal law enforcement in targeting
    illicit networks trafficking in people, drugs, illegal weapons, and
    money. This reflects the largest deployment of law enforcement officers
    to the front line in the agency's history. The request annualizes
    positions supported by the fiscal year 2010 Emergency Border Security
    Supplemental for the Southwest Border, including 1,000 Border Patrol
    agents and 250 CBP officers. Funding is provided to support 300 new CBP
    officers above the fiscal year 2011 budget and additional canine assets
    to support Port of Entry operations. The request supports the mobile
    response surge teams created with the supplemental funding to respond
    rapidly to emergent situations without depleting Border Patrol staffing
    from other locations.
        New Southwest Border Technology.--$242 million is requested to
    support the continued deployment of proven, effective surveillance
    technology along the highest trafficked areas of the Southwest Border.
    Funds will be used to procure and deploy commercially available
    technology tailored to the operational requirements of the Border
    Patrol, distinct terrain, and population density of each border region.
    These funds will allow CBP to fully deploy a mix of integrated fixed
    towers and other mobile equipment in three of the five Border Patrol
    stations' areas of responsibility in Arizona.
        Northern Border Technology.--The request includes $55 million to
    support investments in technology systems which address security needs
    for the Northern Border maritime and cold weather environment, as well
    as innovative technology pilots. It will also deploy proven, standalone
    technology that provides immediate operational benefits. These
    demonstrations and deployments explore how best to integrate various
    sensors, border security organizations, and mission operations in order
    to optimize border security in this challenging environment.
        CBP Journeyman.--The request includes $229 million to fully fund
    the increase in journeyman grade level for frontline CBP officers,
    Border Patrol agents, and CBP agricultural specialists from GS-11 to
    GS-12.
        Tactical Communications (TACCOM).--The fiscal year 2012 budget
    includes $40 million to continue the transition of the TACCOM program
    to a robust, open architecture system that will increase
    interoperability with other law enforcement, expand coverage, and
    improve agent safety in the Houlton, El Paso, Laredo, and Rio Grande
    Valley sectors.
        National Targeting Center-Passenger (NTC-P).--A total of $47
    million is requested to enhance CBP's ability to interdict dangerous
    individuals or terrorists traveling from foreign locations before
    boarding flights destined for the United States. The funds will be used
    to hire additional staff and implement enhancements in targeting
    priorities.
        U.S. Coast Guard Recapitalization.--The fiscal year 2012 request
    fully funds the fifth national security cutter (NSC), supports 40
    response boats and 6 fast response cutters, as well as a sizable
    investment in the renovation and restoration of shore facilities. The
    budget also provides resources to ensure that the Coast Guard's
    aviation fleet is mission-ready through the acquisition of two maritime
    patrol aircraft, one HH-60 helicopter, and conversion and sustainment
    projects of multiple aircraft. Funding for the NSC underscores the
    Department's support of this program which is important to the Coast
    Guard's long-term recapitalization effort and, most importantly, to
    allow the Coast Guard to replace its aged, obsolete high endurance
    cutter fleet as quickly as possible. The total request for Coast Guard
    acquisition, construction, and improvements is $1.4 billion.
        Maritime Safety and Response.--$115.5 million remains in the Coast
    Guard's base resources for 11 maritime safety and security teams and
    their associated 921 personnel, who conduct port security activities
    and provide support to NSSEs.
                enforcing and administering our immigration laws
        Detention Beds.--The fiscal year 2012 budget increases Immigration
    and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Custody Operations funding by $157.7
    million to support 33,400 detention beds and remove more than 200,000
    criminal aliens in fiscal year 2012.
        Detention Reform.--ICE plans to continue building on its detention
    reform efforts in fiscal year 2012 by improving detainee access to
    quality healthcare, reducing the average length of stay, and
    facilitating access to family members and legal representation by
    adding functionality to the recently released online detainee locator
    system.
        Worksite Enforcement.--Requested funds continue the Department's
    focus on worksite enforcement, promoting compliance with worksite-
    related laws through criminal prosecutions of egregious employers, Form
    I-9 inspections, civil fines, and debarment, as well as education and
    compliance tools.
        E-Verify.--The fiscal year 2012 request continues support for E-
    Verify operations and enhancements, including continued funding for new
    monitoring, compliance, and outreach positions necessitated by program
    expansion. The continued success of E-Verify demonstrated by recent
    independent reports reflect the administration's commitment to smart,
    tough, and effective strategies that build a strong foundation upon
    which immigrants can exercise their rights and responsibilities as
    Americans.
        Secure Communities.--A total of $184 million is requested for
    Secure Communities--which uses biometric information and services to
    identify and remove criminal aliens in State prisons and local jails.
    The $64 million program increase will expand deployment to 96 percent
    of all jurisdictions nationally in fiscal year 2012 and provide
    resources to confirm the identification of an estimated 199,000 more
    criminal aliens through interoperability in fiscal year 2012 than
    fiscal year 2010 and transport more than 44,000 criminal aliens from
    State and local jails into the custody of ICE following the completion
    of their sentences. ICE will work with DHS's Office of Civil Rights and
    Civil Liberties and the Department of Justice to develop a robust
    oversight and evaluation process of Secure Communities and to provide
    training to State and local law enforcement. Secure Communities is on
    track for nationwide deployment by 2013.
        Visa Security Program.--The budget requests $29 million to continue
    the Visa Security Program at current locations. This program enhances
    national security by preventing terrorists, criminals, and other
    ineligible applicants from receiving visas.
        Immigrant Integration.--The fiscal year 2012 request expands U.S.
    Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) effort to support
    immigrant integration efforts, including funding for new programs
    supporting English language acquisition and citizenship education.
        Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE).--The fiscal
    year 2012 request continues support for USCIS SAVE operations and
    enhancements to assist State, local, and Federal agencies in
    determining individuals' eligibility for public benefits based on their
    immigration status.
        USCIS Business Transformation.--The fiscal year 2012 request
    continues the multi-year effort to transform USCIS from a paper-based
    filing system to a customer-focused electronic filing system.
                      safeguarding and securing cyberspace
        Federal Network Protection.--$233.6 million is requested to
    expedite the deployment of Einstein 3 to prevent and detect intrusions
    on computer systems and to upgrade the National Cyber Security
    Protection System, building an intrusion detection capability and
    analysis capabilities to protect Federal networks.
        Federal IT Security Assessments.--A total of $40.9 million in
    requested funds will support the Department's efforts to strengthen
    Federal network security of large and small agencies by conducting an
    estimated 66 network assessments to improve security across the Federal
    executive branch.
        Cybersecurity Workforce Needs.--$24.5 million is proposed to
    provide high-quality, cost-effective virtual cybersecurity education
    and training to develop and grow a robust cybersecurity workforce that
    is able to protect against and respond to national cybersecurity
    threats and hazards.
        Cyber Investigations.--The fiscal year 2012 budget continues to
    support cyber investigations conducted through the Secret Service and
    ICE, targeting large-scale producers and distributors of child
    pornography and preventing attacks against U.S. critical infrastructure
    through financial crimes task forces.
        Cyber Mission Integration.--The fiscal year 2012 request includes
    $1.3 million to enable DHS to coordinate national cybersecurity
    operations and interface with the Department of Defense's (DOD)
    National Security Agency (NSA) at Fort Meade, Maryland. This funding
    will support a landmark memorandum of agreement signed by Secretary
    Napolitano and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that aligns and
    enhances America's capabilities to protect against threats to critical
    civilian and military computer systems and networks.
        Cybersecurity Research.--The fiscal year 2012 request includes an
    increase of $18 million for the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity
    Initiative to support research and development projects focused on
    strengthening the Nation's cybersecurity.
                        ensuring resilience to disasters
        State and Local Grants.--The fiscal year 2012 request sustains
    Federal funding for State and local preparedness grants totaling more
    than $3.8 billion, highlighting the Department's commitment to moving
    resources out of Washington, DC and into the hands of State and local
    first responders who are often best positioned to detect and respond to
    terrorism, other threats, and natural disasters.
        Assistance to Firefighters Grants.--The fiscal year 2012 request
    includes $670 million. Included in this amount are $420 million for
    Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grants to
    rehire laid off firefighters and retain veteran first responders--
    totaling 2,300 firefighter positions--and $250 million for equipment,
    training, vehicles, and related materials.
        Disaster Relief Fund.--$1.8 billion is requested for the DRF to
    allow FEMA to continue to address the impacts of a disaster on
    individuals and communities across the Nation. The DRF provides a
    significant portion of the total Federal response to victims in
    presidentially declared disasters or emergencies.
        Regional Catastrophic Event Planning.--$8.5 million is requested to
    continue development of catastrophic plans, with a focus on plans for
    response to biological events and earthquakes.
        National Exercises.--FEMA's participation in National Level
    Exercise-12, an exercise to test FEMA's ability to respond to a
    catastrophic cyber attack, is funded with $3 million through the
    request.
        Emergency Management Oversight.--The fiscal year 2012 request
    includes $20 million for the Office of the Inspector General to
    continue its Emergency Management Oversight operations.
         providing essential support to national and economic security
        Patrolling the Exclusive Economic Zone.--The Coast Guard patrols
    the U.S. exclusive economic zone boundary areas to reduce the threat of
    foreign poaching of U.S. fish stocks and ensure compliance with
    international living marine resource agreements. The budget includes
    $47 million to extend the service life of five medium endurance cutters
    critical in support of this mission.
        U.S. Coast Guard Staffing.--The request strengthens the Coast
    Guard's operational capacity by funding a total of 50,682 civilian and
    military personnel in fiscal year 2012.
        Enhancing Maritime Safety.--The fiscal year 2012 budget requests
    $686.3 million and 4,717 full-time equivalents (FTEs) for the Coast
    Guard's maritime safety activities. The fiscal year 2012 budget
    provides 105 new Marine Safety Inspectors and Investigators to staff
    ship inspections and post-incident investigations.
        Enhancing Marine Environmental Protection and Response.--The fiscal
    year 2012 budget requests $225.2 million and 1,362 FTE to enable the
    Coast Guard to conduct Marine Environmental Response. This includes 87
    new environmental response personnel and creates the Coast Guard's
    first incident management assistance team, a highly trained team that
    will be deployed rapidly to augment the Coast Guard command structure
    when an incident of national significance occurs.
        Investigate Cultural Antiquity Trafficking and Coordinate
    Repatriation.--The fiscal year 2012 budget continues to support ICE
    seizures and repatriation of cultural property, art and antiquities
    illegally imported into the United States and the investigation of
    illegal trafficking of artwork, especially works that have been
    reported lost or stolen.
        Forensic Support for Missing and Exploited Children.--Funding is
    requested for the Secret Service to provide forensic support to the
    National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which provides
    state-of-the-art forensics support for investigations involving missing
    and exploited children and grant funds for activities related to the
    investigations of missing and exploited children.
        Collect Customs Revenue.--Funds are requested to support CBP's role
    as a revenue collector for the U.S. Treasury--customs revenue remains
    the second-largest source of revenue for the U.S. Government. CBP has
    set revenue collection as a priority trade issue to ensure effective
    internal controls that protect the duties and taxes (more than $29
    billion in 2009) collected for the U.S. Government.
        Protect U.S. Intellectual Property Rights.--The fiscal year 2012
    budget request funds to support CBP's enforcement program to prevent
    trade in counterfeit and pirated goods, and enforce exclusion orders on
    patent-infringing and other intellectual property rights violative
    goods. The ICE HSI Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Center
    investigates the smuggling and distribution of counterfeit goods and
    products that pose risks to public safety and security. Counterfeit
    pharmaceuticals and critical technology components, such as computer
    chips for defense systems and airplane equipment, were among the top
    seized commodities in IPR investigations.
          maturing and strengthening the homeland security enterprise
        Maturing and strengthening the Homeland Security enterprise--the
    collective efforts and shared responsibilities of Federal, State,
    local, tribal, territorial, nongovernmental, and private-sector
    partners, as well as individuals, families, and communities--is
    critical to the Department's success in carrying out its core missions
    and operational objectives. This includes enhancing shared awareness of
    risks and threats, building capable communities, and fostering
    innovative approaches and solutions through cutting-edge science and
    technology, while continuing to foster a culture of efficiency,
    sustainability in accordance with Executive Order 13514 and fiscal
    responsibility and streamline management across the Department.
        While the Department proposes significant cuts to administrative
    support across all components in order to maintain frontline
    operations, the following activities are supported through the fiscal
    year 2012 budget:
          St. Elizabeths.--$159.7 million is requested for the St.
            Elizabeths project. This funding enables DHS to complete the
            Coast Guard headquarters facility and to continue work on the
            National Operations Center. The request, however, will defer
            the FEMA headquarters consolidation.
          Transformation and Systems Consolidation (TASC).--The fiscal year
            2012 budget proposes $11 million to fund the TASC program,
            which supports the modernization of the Department's financial,
            asset, and acquisition management systems--a key priority for
            the Department and a step toward addressing recommendations on
            the Government Accountability Office (GAO) high-risk list.
          Acquisition Workforce.--$24.2 million in requested funds will
            increase the Department's acquisition workforce capacity by 150
            positions, including additional systems engineers, program
            managers, logisticians and business cost estimators, to ensure
            operational requirements are properly developed and included in
            DHS contracts and to provide greater oversight and
            accountability. This too, is consistent with previous
            recommendations from GAO and the Inspector General.
          Information Security and Infrastructure.--$32.3 million is
            requested to establish a unified email network for DHS-wide
            use, and provide Single Sign-On and other capabilities. These
            activities will leverage technologies to strengthen DHS
            operations and enhance communications with Federal, State,
            local, and private sector partners.
          U.S. Coast Guard Housing and Child Care.--The health and welfare
            of military families is the heart of Coast Guard operational
            readiness. The fiscal year 2012 budget includes $29 million to
            address critical housing shortfalls and improve access to
            affordable, quality childcare. These initiatives will ensure
            Coast Guard members can maintain both strong families and a
            high state of readiness.
                                   conclusion
        The fiscal year 2012 budget proposal reflects this administration's
    strong commitment to protecting the homeland and the American people
    through the effective and efficient use of DHS resources. As outlined
    in my testimony today, the Department will continue to build upon past
    successes in several areas including securing U.S. air, land, and sea
    borders; safeguarding lawful trade and travel; securing Federal
    networks; and disrupting and dismantling transnational criminal and
    terrorist organizations that engage in cross-border criminal activity
    while maximizing every taxpayer dollar we receive.
        Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I look
    forward to answering your questions and to working with you on the
    Department's fiscal year 2012 budget request and other Homeland
    Security issues.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        And since I have asked one question, I am just going to ask
    two additional ones and then turn it over to my co-chair, to
    the ranking member.

                             CONTINUING RESOLUTION

        I want to follow up on just your last statement--the House
    recently passed a continuing resolution that cut funding by
    $2.5 billion in this Department, which is 6 percent below the
    fiscal year 2010 budget. As you stated, it cuts port security
    grants, deep cuts to the Coast Guard, which are particularly
    troubling to myself and I think Senator Cochran as well. And
    there are other aspects.
        Could you give a little bit more detail, if we are not able
    to modify some of these cuts, what consequences it will
    actually have in your Department?
        Secretary Napolitano. Madam Chair, here are a few of the
    details. It cuts the number of advanced imaging technology
    (AIT) machines we can deploy to our Nation's airports. And
    these are necessary because our adversaries, al Qaeda/al Qaeda-
    related, continue to seek aviation as a target and continue to
    target it by means other than something that would be picked
    only by a magnetometer. So we need to move to the next
    generation, and that is the AIT machine. It cuts those by 250
    and the 500 requested, cuts the number of portable ETD
    machines, explosive trace detection machines, by one-half. It
    cuts the number of canine teams by two-thirds. It cuts the
    personnel responsible for background investigations,
    intelligence redress, and air cargo and surface inspections. It
    will probably result in an increase in wait times for
    passengers in the air environment, and those could be
    significant.
        It cuts the deployment of intelligence personnel to State
    and local fusion centers. This is a network of 72 centers that
    we have installed as really the portals of entry through which
    intelligence can be shared at the Secret and above level out to
    our States and localities, and intelligence can be received
    back so that we really have a Homeland Security intelligence
    capability. It cuts that very, very deeply.
        In addition, it cuts funding for at least 250 ICE agents
    along the border. Agent Zapata, by the way, the agent who was
    just murdered in Mexico, was an ICE special agent. It
    eliminates or if the cuts are annualized in the 2012--and that
    is a concern I have that the House continuing resolution for
    2011 then becomes the budget for 2012. If it does that, it will
    not annualize the additional Border Patrol agents this Congress
    approved of in a supplemental not too long ago. So those will
    go away.
        I could go into more detail, Madam Chair, but you get a
    sense of what this would do to us.
        Senator Landrieu. It gives us a sense of what the challenge
    is. And as I was with you just yesterday at Georgetown for that
    really remarkable gathering of the past two Homeland Security
    Secretaries, as we saw, Secretary Ridge, Secretary Chertoff,
    and yourself there, it reminded me that this was the largest
    reorganization of the Federal Government since President Harry
    S. Truman organized the aspects of the military, the branches
    of the military, into the Department of Defense (DOD). And so
    this is the youngest of all the Federal Departments.
        So as we are looking, Senator Coats, for efficiencies,
    which we all want to look for in streamlining, we have to be
    mindful that we are building, not streamlining this Department.
    We are building and potentially streamlining, but we are not
    taking down. We are building this agency, and that takes
    investments and resources.

                                  AIRLINE FEES

        My final question, if you could answer this very shortly. I
    have been becoming very concerned with the airlines and the
    charges that they are charging to passengers. And particularly,
    I know this is under the Department of Commerce, but under our
    jurisdiction is the way it affects TSA. And I have asked the
    staff to get some information.
        Checked baggage fees are increasing. It looks like, the
    cost to TSA is also increasing because people do not want to
    pay the fees. So they are not checking bags, putting more on
    the planes, slowing down actually the seating, of course. But I
    understand that it is a $250 million annual cost to TSA because
    of those extra bags.
        My question is, do the taxpayers have to pick up this cost
    or should we be looking to the airlines to give us some of the
    profits that they are making from these fees to offset the cost
    to the taxpayer?
        Secretary Napolitano. Madam Chair, the answer is that when
    you have to pay to check a bag, it increases carry-on luggage,
    and that means that there is more to inspect at the gate and so
    forth for passengers getting on the planes. We do have an
    estimate. That is roughly $260 million.
        One of the reasons we requested the ability to charge a
    security fee for travelers--I think, Senator Coats, you
    referenced that in your statement--was because we need to be
    able to pay for this additional security that TSA must have.
    And if we do not have the ability to have a security fee, which
    by the way has not been adjusted since 2002, that is at least a
    $600 million bite that we have to eat somewhere. And as you can
    tell from my opening statement, everywhere you hit in this
    Department, it is going to have an operational impact.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Senator Coats.
        Senator Coats. Thank you.

                             CONTINUING RESOLUTION

        I have got some specific questions here, but really in
    looking at the larger picture, the reality is that we do have
    this significant deficit problem and it is going to be
    addressed one way or another. The Congress can address it as it
    has done through current efforts on the continuing resolution
    for the remainder of the current fiscal year, but also
    structuring how next year's functions of Government will be
    funded.
        The reality is, I think, that no one is going to get
    everything that they would like to get. And the question I have
    for you is--and I know you have scrubbed your budget--but if
    you start with the assumption that you may not get in your
    budget all the requests that have been made, have you scrubbed
    the system to, in a sense, categorize those requests? If you
    have to come back to us and say, okay, this is all we are going
    to get--have you scrubbed your budget in a way that you could
    say we deem these to be absolutely essential? We have the next
    category that are very important but not absolutely essential;
    another category that says these potentially can be deferred
    until revenues increase or we are able to do better with the
    budget; and these are ones that we think could be nice to have
    but not really necessary to have and could potentially be
    terminated to gain those savings. It might be accompanied with,
    say, a provision which you just discussed, an increase in fees
    on the enplaning.
        But I guess my question is, have you done this? Do you
    contemplate having to move to a plan B should the Congress not
    be able to fund the budget as presented? And if you have, can
    you share that with us? And if you have not, is that something
    in the plans?
        Secretary Napolitano. Well, Senator Coats, we went through
    that analysis in working with the Office of Management and
    Budget (OMB) on what the President's budget request would be
    and finding places or things that could be put off or delayed.
        For example, postponing the move to a real Department
    headquarters at St. Elizabeths was something that we
    recommended, going through kind of the analysis you just
    suggested. Now, if you saw where our headquarters are now and
    the office that I have and others have, you would know that we
    made a tough choice there. That means that we cannot have all
    our components collocated. It means that from a managerial
    standpoint, we still are spread out. We postponed all
    collocations in other cities across the country because of the
    associated costs of moving people, and that has a managerial
    impact to it as well.
        So I believe the President's budget reflects the analysis
    that you have just suggested and that real choices have been
    made in it already.

                                     BUDGET

        Senator Coats. Well, I am sure that is what the President's
    budget projects and thinks, but I mean, obviously, we are going
    to have a congressional budget I hope. And we are certainly
    going to have congressional appropriations, and they may not
    match what the President has proposed. Every agency is going to
    come here and say exactly what you have said. We are cut to the
    bone. The President's budget is as low as we can go. The
    reality in this Congress is that we are going to appropriate--I
    believe, going to end up appropriating less than what that
    budget asks for.
        And so it seems to me that it would be prudent for every
    agency to simply kind of red team your current budget and
    basically say if what happens probably happens, then where do
    we go? Will we have something that we can bring back to the
    Congress and present and say we do not like it, but these are
    the consequences, but this is what we will have to do if we
    come in at this number?
        Secretary Napolitano. We look forward to, Senator, to
    working with you on the budget. I just would respectfully
    suggest that this Department is somewhat unique. It is new. It
    is virtually all operations. And so when you look at this
    budget, it really is tied to the five priorities I identified
    for you in my opening statement.
        Senator Coats. Well, I agree with that. I mean, along with
    national defense, homeland security, a couple of others are
    essential functions of the U.S. Government. I could not agree
    more. But there just are fiscal realities that we have to deal
    with, and I think right now the method going forward is to take
    a look at every area to see if we can find efficiencies.
        Doing as much or more with less is something, again, that
    all of America has had to do in these last 2 years, and it is
    easier for some than others. But everyone has been forced to
    make those hard decisions, and I think in this case the reality
    is that there will probably be some hard decisions that will
    have to be made.
        I do not look forward to working on this together; it is
    not something either of us relish, but I think it is something
    that we are going to have to do.
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, I think, first of all, we
    are always willing to supply information. As you go through the
    budget request and have questions about things, we are more
    than happy to work with you on that.
        Senator Coats. My time is about to expire. Given the fact
    that we have a vote coming up and some other members may want
    to talk, I will wait.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator Coats.
        Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, thank you. Congratulations
    on your leadership of this subcommittee.
        Madam Secretary, welcome. We look forward to working
    closely with you to identify our budget needs and to try to
    respond to them in a thoughtful and expeditious manner.
        One of the difficulties I know that you face is the lack of
    predictability about when funds are available for this program
    or that. I wonder if you could share with us some specific
    examples of what problems you might encounter if we do not move
    quickly to provide you certainty with respect to your budget
    needs.
        Secretary Napolitano. Well, I think from a management
    perspective, managing by small continuing resolutions is very
    difficult. It affects your ability to undertake key
    acquisitions. It affects your ability to hire personnel. It
    affects your ability to make investments in things that you
    kind of think will be ultimately in the budget, but those funds
    are not yet available. So from a management perspective, it
    makes a difficult management job even more difficult.

                            COAST GUARD SHIPBUILDING

        Senator Cochran. One of the things we are proud of in our
    State is the fact we have a shipbuilding capability on the
    Mississippi gulf coast at Pascagoula, and part of the mission
    there is to fulfill contracts that are made with the Department
    that you lead for Coast Guard cutters. What is the status of
    our shipbuilding progress in meeting those needs, and what can
    we do to work more effectively with you predicting what the
    future is going to hold?
        Secretary Napolitano. Here is what we are requesting for
    the Coast Guard, that ultimately we have eight large NSCs. The
    budget between 2011 and 2012 fully funds cutter No. 5. We do
    not provide in the 2012 budget what is called long lead funding
    for No. 6. We have instead a commitment--I think it is actually
    in writing--by OMB that we will fund No. 6, but those funds
    will not be spent until fiscal year 2013. So we did not park
    them in fiscal year 2012. We did not think that was an
    efficient use of them.
        So we fully expect to build out the eight cutters. In
    exchange for not funding lead time for No. 6 in 2012, we buy a
    combination of 46 smaller vessels, FRCs and so forth, that
    could be used in other missions for the Coast Guard and for
    their lay-down. And then there is some funding in there for
    aircraft, but those are not made in Mississippi.

                              DISASTER RELIEF FUND

        Senator Cochran. Are you satisfied with the request being
    submitted to the Congress for funding that the FEMA DRF will
    have money to respond to emergencies that occur? We think of
    the hurricanes that hit the Gulf of Mexico, the oil spill that
    occurred down there. We have had some really serious challenges
    in that part of the country. What about that disaster fund? Do
    we have enough money requested in here to meet your needs?
        Secretary Napolitano. The disaster fund request for 2012 is
    based on the historical practice which is to take a 5-year
    average of noncatastrophic disasters and roll that forward as
    the number and then rely on a supplemental for catastrophic
    disasters. So the fiscal year 2012 budget would cover that
    practice.
        As the chair noted earlier this morning, we do have some
    costs that will necessitate a supplemental. We have been
    deobligating money. We have been repaying money into the DRF.
    So what the amount of that supplemental ultimately will need to
    be I cannot tell you right now.
        Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, I think I will reserve the
    balance of my time.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Lautenberg.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, I talk to you now as the vice chairman of
    this subcommittee, and I am happy to serve in that capacity.
        You have unique experience. You have been on the front
    lines in terms of your past service as Governor and know how
    important security, law enforcement is.

                                  FUNDING CUTS

        We face urgent threats to our homeland security. It comes
    from our friends in the House who want to cut funding for
    programs at DHS to keep us safe. While the Republicans want to
    make unreasonable cuts to Government, the fact of the matter is
    when it hits people's lives, it makes a huge difference, and
    their plan would slash funding for valuable Homeland Security
    grant programs like port security, public transportation
    security by 66 percent. These funds go to our States, cities,
    and towns. They are the front lines of protecting our homeland.
    Cuts to these two programs alone would mean approximately $60
    million in Homeland Security support would vanish in my State
    of New Jersey.
        And New Jersey is home to what law enforcement has
    identified as the country's most at-risk 2-mile area for
    terrorists, the stretch between the Port of Newark and the
    Newark Liberty International Airport. It is a region that has
    contact with 12 million persons, and it is irresponsible to
    take vital resources away from our most threatened area.
        Now, President Obama and you, Madam Secretary, recognize
    this, and the administration's request takes a more thoughtful
    approach to funding DHS. The budget recommends slight increases
    for urban area security initiatives, State Homeland Security
    grant programs. These provide vital support to keep our
    residents safe. But the budget request level for funding port
    security and a slight decrease for rail transit and bus
    security accompanies the fact that the Coast Guard, one of our
    most valuable resources in our need to protect ourselves, also
    continues to be asked to do more with less. And we have got to
    provide the Coast Guard with the resources it needs to
    effectively handle its many missions.
        Although I have some concerns about the request I am going
    to address in my questions, it will go to you in writing. We
    are very much out of time. We will go as far as we can right
    now, however.
        This is not a time to cut back on our homeland security. We
    have seen an increased risk of homegrown terrorism, the Fort
    Hood massacre, the Time Square bombing attempt, and the New
    York City subway plot, which was uncovered by our law
    enforcement people. Incidents like this remind us that the
    threat of terrorism is as real as ever and we are doing more
    than skimping on public safety. Are we simply cutting resources
    or are we cutting the throats of the people in our society?
        So, Madam Secretary, I ask how we can continue our work to
    make vital investments in homeland security.
        We talked about the bag charges and what burdens that
    imposes on the screening process. I look at Newark Airport, one
    of the largest in the country, and there have been six security
    breaches at Newark Airport in the last couple of months. Now, I
    understand that TSA is almost 70 employees short of its
    allocated number for Newark Airport. What is DHS doing to fully
    staff Newark Airport and give transportation security officers
    and managers the training they need?
        Secretary Napolitano. Well, I will respond in writing to
    the specific question on Newark Airport.
        [The information follows:]

        In close coordination with the Federal Security Director and staff
    at Newark Airport (EWR), the Transportation Security Administration
    (TSA) has initiated a robust and multi-layered effort to address EWR
    staffing vacancies. EWR is currently scheduled to reach near-100
    percent staffing by May 1, and, in the interim, TSA has been providing
    additional resources as needed. For example, TSA deployed additional
    supervisory training instructors to train new hires, additional AIT-
    certified transportation security officers (TSOs) to conduct daily
    operations while EWR TSOs are being trained, and additional staff
    resources to assist in human resources and training operations.
        Following a breach, a complete review of the incident is conducted
    and each action is broken down in detail to ascertain the reasons
    behind the breach. Every TSA individual involved in the activity and
    their response is included in this review. TSA employees identified as
    not having followed standard operating procedures or whose actions are
    the result of inattention to duty are immediately removed from their
    position, and can only return to their positions if retraining and
    recertification for their positions is determined sufficient and is
    satisfactorily accomplished.

        Secretary Napolitano. But, Senator Lautenberg, I think that
    the President's budget request was designed to meet the threats
    as we see the threats. One of the things we ask for in there to
    achieve an efficiency is combining or consolidating grant
    programs. We have 17 grant programs. We would like to
    consolidate that significantly to reduce overhead to the
    grantees, as well as to the grantor. That was something we
    asked for last year. We did not achieve it, but it is a
    suggestion that we make to the subcommittee as one area where
    we could possibly achieve some savings and yet operationally
    make sure that we are getting money to where it is needed.
        Senator Lautenberg. Well, that is a big stretch. Having to
    do more with less is something we have gotten accustomed to
    here in these years of difficulty. But we also have to
    recognize that there are some minimum resources that we have to
    have to assure the public that we are taking care of their
    safety.
        The House Republicans have proposed cutting port security
    by two-thirds--the grants. The Port of New York/New Jersey, the
    largest port on the east coast, the second-largest port in the
    country, directly linked to what the FBI deemed the most
    dangerous area in America for terrorist attack, and yet we lose
    $33 million in security funding under the House bill. What
    would be the impact on the New Jersey and New York region on
    our Nation's economy if there was to be a terrorist attack on
    one of our largest ports? It is almost unimaginable. The
    financial center of the world is included in that
    circumference, as I mentioned before, 12 million people, a
    large presence of chemical manufacturing in this area, very,
    very dangerous to the surrounding population. And what are we
    doing about that? How can we assure the public that they are
    being well protected, Madam Secretary?
        Because time is precious and fleeting here, I will take an
    answer in writing, and I will have a couple of other questions
    that I will submit to you and ask for a prompt response,
    please.
        Secretary Napolitano. Senator, all I can say about the
    House budget for fiscal year 2011 is that it is not a good
    budget for security. It will have impacts on things like
    protecting the critical infrastructure along that mile in New
    Jersey through reductions in grants, through reductions in our
    personnel. And if that budget becomes the basis for the fiscal
    year 2012 budget, then I think the Congress needs to
    understand--and I think my job is to help it understand--that
    that in all likelihood will have a security impact.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Senator Moran.
        Senator Moran. Chairperson Landrieu, thank you very much
    for the opportunity to join you and Mr. Coats and other members
    of the subcommittee.
        Secretary Napolitano, thank you for your testimony. I look
    forward to being a responsible and diligent member of this
    subcommittee and the Appropriations Committee, and I am honored
    to be here today.

                    NATIONAL BIO- AND AGRO-DEFENSE FACILITY

        In the short time that I have, I wanted to highlight one of
    the things that is included in your budget that I am very
    supportive of and want to give you the chance to comment on.
    You mentioned in your written, as well as your verbal testimony
    about the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF). It is
    my understanding that the request was initially for $200
    million, now in your budget, having been scrubbed by OMB, at
    $150 million. And I would like to express my support and
    willingness to work with you to see that that is accomplished.
        I represent a State in which we are often thought of as the
    Wheat State, and we are clearly that. But we are very much a
    livestock, particularly a cattle, State, and we have genuine
    concern recognized by DHS about the possibility of animal
    diseases. Whether they are naturally occurring, accidental, or
    intentional, they have a dramatic impact upon the economy of
    Kansas and certainly the country.
        We have a very aging facility located on Plum Island that
    your Department, through a selection process, has concluded a
    site. In fact, I was there at the announcement in December 2008
    about the site for this new facility. And I want to make
    certain that this Congress and this administration finally
    fulfill the next step toward building that facility for the
    safety and security of the American consumer and citizen in
    light of the risk that we face in this country.
        So I just would like to have you reiterate the Department's
    position, your position, express to the Congress the value of
    this facility, and how important the timing is for its
    completion.
        Secretary Napolitano. Well, Senator Moran, first of all,
    the NBAF is something that we are very supportive of. In fact,
    I saw Governor Brownback Sunday evening and we talked about it
    and our support for this again.
        I would note, however, for you that the House continuing
    resolution for fiscal year 2011--the part of our Department
    that is hit the hardest in that resolution is the Science and
    Technology Directorate. That is where NBAF is located in our
    budget. It is reduced by one-half in that House continuing
    resolution. That is also where we are doing research on new
    breathing apparatuses for firefighters and research with our
    national labs on an airport checkpoint of the future, you know,
    trying to design something so that people do not have to take
    off their shoes and limit the amount of liquid they can carry
    on, that sort of thing. But the NBAF is in there as well.
        We are very supportive. Plum Island does not meet the
    Nation's needs in this area. Kansas was the winner of a very
    highly contested peer-reviewed competition, and we look forward
    to its continued construction in Kansas. But I must share with
    you that things are at risk based on the House budget.
        Senator Moran. I would respond, Madam Secretary, that a
    piece of good news in the debate on the House floor in
    discussing H.R. 1, the amendment was made to provide that no
    funding be authorized for this project, and that amendment was
    defeated. So I was pleased to see the support by a majority of
    House Members for this project.
        I also would add that the State of Kansas has already
    committed dollars, has already expended resources, and I would
    guess that there is a bit of reluctance on our part to continue
    the funding. We have committed $140 million toward the
    completion of this project, and we would have--I cannot speak
    for Senator Brownback, but I know that there would be reticence
    on the part of many in Kansas in continuing to fund this
    project in the absence of the Federal commitment. We are
    anxious for the day in which the first shovelful of dirt--we
    would love to have you there and join us with the shovels that
    begin the Federal commitment on that day.
        Secretary Napolitano. And, Senator, I think we share that
    commitment. We believe in the NBAF, and it should be in Kansas,
    and we need to get on with it.
        Senator Moran. I appreciate those sentiments and I thank
    the chairperson for allowing me to have this conversation.

                                COAST GUARD CUTS

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator.
        Madam Secretary, the DOD budget this year is being
    increased by $23 billion, a 4-percent increase, and that is
    excluding the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        The Coast Guard's discretionary budget has increased less
    than 1 percent. The Coast Guard is 1-of-the-5 armed forces of
    the United States. Some of us are having difficulty
    understanding how it can be treated almost as a stepchild given
    the work that it is asked to do in direct protection of our
    Nation, whether it is intercepting drugs, responding to
    disasters, responding to catastrophic oil pollution incidents,
    which just occurred.
        Can you shed any light as to why the sixth security cutter
    was deferred? I mean, I understand we have budget constraints
    but could you comment just about the importance of maintaining
    Coast Guard operations for the security of our Nation?
        Secretary Napolitano. Well, Senator, the sixth security
    cutter was not deferred in the sense of unnecessarily delayed,
    but the plain fact of the matter is that by the time we
    actually need to expend money for six, given the time it will
    take to finish four and five, we will be into fiscal year 2013.
    And our plan is rather than set aside unusable money for six in
    fiscal year 2012, that we would request the amount in the year
    we needed to expend it, which would be fiscal year 2013.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Well, let us continue to focus on
    that.

                               GULF COAST DUMPING

        Another issue that is of particular interest--and I hate to
    be so parochial because I do have my eyes on the whole country.
    But right now along the gulf coast, we are having such serious
    issues, you know, with the moratorium, the gulf coast spill,
    still recovering from Katrina and Rita, and this is the whole
    gulf coast from Florida to Texas.
        But another issue--and it may be affecting some of the
    other coastal States as well--is the illegal dumping of seafood
    wrecking our domestic markets. We are having a terrible time in
    this area. Customs in my view is simply not doing enough to
    collect the dumping duties that importers owe to the Federal
    Government. Since 2005, for example, importers of shrimp from
    China have failed to pay more than $58 million in dumping
    duties.
        So, Senator Coats, when we are looking for some additional
    funding, we could be more efficiently collecting some of the
    money that China or Vietnam or others owe us, using that money
    to invest or support or give, if not rebates--according to WTO,
    that may be inappropriate--but in some way capturing those
    funds.
        So could you comment on what is in your budget to enforce
    these antidumping rules and regulations on that subject?
        Secretary Napolitano. Well, I think it would be better if
    we addressed those in writing for you. I know there was some
    concern. I believe there is a rule on crawfish, if I am not
    mistaken, among other types of seafood. I would like to discuss
    with my component heads what the problem is, if there is a
    problem, and come back to you with a detailed answer.
        [The information follows:]

        Antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) enforcement is a
    priority trade issue (PTI) for Customs and Border Protection (CBP). CBP
    takes a concerted, systematic approach to detect and deter
    circumvention of the AD/CVD law, administer entries of AD/CVD
    merchandise, and to issue and collect bills for AD/CVD duties owed to
    the U.S. Government. CBP coordinates its AD/CVD enforcement activities
    through an intra-office AD/CVD PTI Working Group. CBP works closely
    with the Department of Commerce, the administering authority for AD/CVD
    determinations under U.S. law, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    (ICE) to enforce AD/CVD laws and regulations.
        When CBP issues a bill for final AD/CVD duties, CBP makes every
    effort to collect all duties, taxes, and fees legally due to the
    Government. However, some importers, or their agents, are unable to pay
    the final duties. In addition, at least two sureties issuing bonds
    covering substantial amounts of AD/CVD duties are currently in
    receivership, further complicating collection. Other importers are
    simply unwilling to pay, or no longer exist by the time CBP issues a
    bill. CBP pursues collection action against importers and sureties who
    are simply unwilling to pay. CBP's Revenue Division in the Office of
    Administration initiates an administrative collections process in order
    to recover past-due amounts from the importers and sureties. This
    process may include dunning letters and the suspension of the immediate
    delivery process, among other steps. Ultimately, those debts for which
    the Revenue Division's collections process is ineffective are referred
    to CBP's Office of Chief Counsel.
        The Office of Chief Counsel pursues collection from both the
    importers and sureties, after completing a legal review of the
    underlying debt. Further, a review is done to determine if there is a
    viable importer (or available surety coverage) from which the debt may
    be recovered. In part, this is done through dunning letters, searches
    of electronic databases and internal systems, and pursuing available
    leads. In addition, CBP can assess civil penalties pursuant to 19
    U.S.C. 1592 against any party who, by fraud, gross negligence, or
    negligence submits a material false statement or omission on
    importation into the United States, including those cases in which a
    false statement or omission is made concerning the applicability of an
    antidumping duty order to a particular entry. If administrative
    attempts to collect the debt are unsuccessful and a viable importer
    and/or surety can be found, the Office of Chief Counsel drafts a
    complaint and refers the matter to the Department of Justice for
    possible litigation in the Court of International Trade. If the Office
    of Chief Counsel is not successful in locating a viable entity to be
    pursued, the matter will be referred back to the Revenue Division for
    appropriate action. This may include referral to ICE for further
    investigation. If the debt is without legal merit or no viable entity
    can be located to pursue further collection action, CBP may ultimately
    be forced to write off the debt.
        CBP has taken steps to specifically improve the collection of AD/
    CVD duties on shrimp imports and continues to explore statutory and
    nonstatutory changes to enhance bonding requirements. CBP is also
    actively pursuing collection of the balance of the open bills against
    delinquent importers and sureties.

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
        And I want to submit for the record--then I will turn it
    over to Senator Coats. I think he may have another question or
    two. Senator Murkowski has joined us--but for the record about
    the DRF. I asked the staff to provide--and I am going to submit
    for the record--a 20-year history of emergency supplemental
    funding. Out of the $128 billion that has been allocated by the
    Federal Government for emergency response to all sorts of
    disasters, $110 billion has been appropriated through the
    supplemental process. So $110 billion out of $128 billion.
        And when you look at this list, you can understand why that
    occurs because these sums range from a low of $143 million
    budgeted one year to $50 billion another year. So there are
    wild fluctuations and very difficult to predict what is going
    to happen. And as Senator Coats and I were saying, these storms
    seem to be getting more frequent, flooding more frequent,
    levels of flooding higher, more aggressive kind of storms and
    weather patterns.
        So I submit this for the record because I actually think
    this subcommittee is going to have to push hard to get this
    emergency funding in a supplemental and use the base funding of
    Homeland Security to manage the operations of this important
    function of Government. So if I can have unanimous consent to
    submit that to the record.
        [The information follows:]

                                     DISASTER RELIEF NONEMERGENCY/EMERGENCY HISTORY
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Amount
              Fiscal year                Public Law           Annual or     ----------------------------------------
                                                            supplemental        Nonemergency          Emergency
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1992...........................  102-139...........  Annual............        $185,000,000  ...................
    1992...........................  102-229...........  Supplemental......         800,000,000        $143,000,000
    1992...........................  102-302...........  Supplemental......  ..................         300,000,000
    1992...........................  102-368...........  Supplemental......  ..................       2,893,000,000
    1993...........................  102-389...........  Annual............         292,095,000  ...................
    1993...........................  103-75............  Supplemental......  ..................       2,000,000,000
    1994...........................  103-124...........  Annual............         292,000,000  ...................
    1994...........................  103-211...........  Supplemental......  ..................       4,709,000,000
    1995...........................  103-327...........  Annual............         320,000,000  ...................
    1995...........................  104-19............  Supplemental......  ..................       3,275,000,000
    1996...........................  104-134...........  Annual............         222,000,000  ...................
    1996...........................  104-19............  Supplemental......  ..................       3,275,000,000
    1996...........................  104-134...........  Annual              ..................      (1,000,000,000)
                                                          (rescission).
    1997...........................  104-204...........  Annual............       1,320,000,000  ...................
    1997...........................  105-18............  Supplemental......  ..................       3,300,000,000
    1998...........................  105-65............  Annual............         320,000,000  ...................
    1998...........................  105-174...........  Supplemental......  ..................       1,600,000,000
    1999...........................  105-276...........  Annual............         307,745,000  ...................
    1999...........................  105-277...........  Supplemental......  ..................         906,000,000
    1999...........................  106-31............  Supplemental......  ..................         900,000,000
    2000...........................  106-74............  Annual............         300,000,000  ...................
    2000...........................  106-74............  Supplemental......  ..................       2,480,425,000
    2001...........................  106-377 (H.R.       Annual............         300,000,000       1,300,000,000
                                      5482).
    2001...........................  107-38 \1\........  Supplemental......  ..................       1,791,000,000
    2002...........................  107-73............  Annual............         664,000,000       1,500,000,000
    2002...........................  107-117 \2\.......  Supplemental......  ..................       4,356,871,000
    2002...........................  107-206...........  Supplemental......  ..................       2,650,700,000
    2002...........................  107-206...........  Supplemental......  ..................          23,200,000
    2003...........................  108-7.............  Annual............         800,000,000  ...................
    2003...........................  108-69............  Supplemental......  ..................         983,600,000
    2004...........................  108-90............  Annual............       1,800,000,000  ...................
    2004...........................  108-83............  Supplemental......  ..................         441,700,000
    2004...........................  108-106...........  Supplemental......  ..................         500,000,000
    2004...........................  108-303...........  Supplemental......  ..................       2,000,000,000
    2005...........................  108-334...........  Annual............       2,042,380,000  ...................
    2005...........................  108-324...........  Supplemental......  ..................       6,500,000,000
    2005...........................  109-61............  Supplemental......  ..................      10,000,000,000
    2005...........................  109-62............  Supplemental......  ..................      50,000,000,000
    2005...........................  109-148...........  Supplemental        ..................     (23,409,300,000)
                                                          (rescission).
    2006...........................  109-90............  Annual............       1,770,000,000  ...................
    2006...........................  109-234...........  Supplemental......  ..................       6,000,000,000
    2007...........................  109-295...........  Annual............       1,500,000,000  ...................
    2007...........................  110-28............  Supplemental......  ..................       3,400,000,000
    2007...........................  110-28............  Supplemental......  ..................         710,000,000
    2008...........................  110-161...........  Annual............       1,400,000,000  ...................
    2008...........................  110-116...........  Supplemental......  ..................       2,900,000,000
    2008...........................  110-252...........  Supplemental......  ..................         897,000,000
    2008...........................  110-329...........  Supplemental......  ..................       7,960,000,000
    2009...........................  110-329...........  Annual............       1,400,000,000  ...................
    2010...........................  111-83............  Annual............       1,600,000,000  ...................
    2010...........................  111-212...........  Supplemental......  ..................       5,100,000,000
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total....................  ..................  ..................      17,635,220,000     110,386,196,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Amount provided by FEMA law is not specific by agency.
    \2\ From amounts appropriated but not originally specified in Public Law 107-38.

        Senator Landrieu. Let me recognize Senator Coats for a
    second round, then Senator Murkowski, and then Senator Moran.
        Senator Coats. Madam Chairman, thank you. Just one question
    and then I will submit some questions also for you to respond
    back.
        Senator Landrieu. And then we are going to have a break in
    about 5 minutes to----
        Secretary Napolitano. I will try to keep my answers short.
        Senator Coats. I will try to keep my question short.

                      STATE AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES, GRANTS

        Looking at the grants to States and local communities, I
    think the total in the budget request is $3.8 billion, which is
    about 9 percent of the Department's total discretionary
    request. That will be in addition to $28 billion, as I
    understand it, that has been appropriated since fiscal year
    2004.
        The question is, it is my understanding that we have not
    really been able to fully assess--although FEMA is undertaking
    something to this effect--how effective these are and
    particularly whether the distribution of these funds is
    appropriate. The problem usually arises on grants and
    distributions as the political animal raises its head and
    basically says I got to get my share.
        So I am sympathetic to what Senator Lautenberg was saying
    relative to representing an area that is a significantly high-
    threat area with the consequences being very, very significant.
    That obviously is going to be a more significant and higher
    priority area than several of my rural towns or New Jersey's
    rural towns.
        But if we keep insisting on a revenue-sharing program in
    which everybody gets a slice, it may be that given this fairly
    extraordinary amount of money that has been spent to upgrade
    and prepare local responders and so forth needs to be triaged
    in a more effective way.
        Now, I say that meaning that there may be some communities
    in Indiana that might not get what they otherwise would have
    gotten in deference to the fact that we have identified some
    more-highly targeted, more-significant consequences if we have
    an attack here or in a particular area and so forth.
        Could you comment on that in terms of, one, how we best
    assess the impact and the effectiveness of that $28 billion
    that has already been spent and whether or not we need to make
    an effort at looking at prioritizing or triaging areas which
    ought to get more funds and others that should get less?
        Senator Landrieu. Let me interrupt just 1 minute. In the
    spirit of bipartisanship, I am actually going to pass the gavel
    to Senator Coats so he can continue. I am going to go vote and
    in 5 minutes you all could take a recess, and then I will be
    right back. But you all continue.
        Senator Coats [presiding]. All right.
        Secretary Napolitano. I am glad because this requires a
    longer answer I think than perhaps the buzzer would permit.
        In the area of grants, one of the things we need to do as a
    country is--I call it a homeland security architecture that
    begins with small towns, cities, States, et cetera. The Federal
    Government cannot do it by itself. And I think the theory
    underlying a lot of the grants is that being the case, we need
    to make sure that there is a certain baseline capability
    throughout the country.
        And then second, in the area of focusing Federal grants on
    the areas of highest risk, there I think there needs to be and
    can be and should be a dialogue with the executive branch and
    the legislative branch. I will share with you, Senator, that
    one person's rural community is another person's--subject to an
    ag or a bio-attack and the need to have things like the NBAF
    located there.
        So on the issue of interoperability of emergency response
    equipment, rural America is the toughest problem. In urban
    areas, interoperability can be achieved and is being achieved
    because the lines are there, the towers are there, and so
    forth. In rural America or the area along the Southwest Border
    or along the Northern Border, it is some of our most difficult
    areas to cover just because of the lack of capital and
    infrastructure. So these are kind of the nuts and bolts things
    we are going through when we talk about awarding grants for
    interoperability or for this or for that.
        But I think you are right to suggest that there can be a
    useful dialogue on how grants are done. That is why we have
    recommended that some of these programs be consolidated because
    we think that that would be a better way to manage them and so
    forth. So we look forward to working with the subcommittee on
    that.
        Senator Coats. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Coats.
        Secretary, welcome. I apologize I was not here for the full
    hearing. I will make my comments quick, hopefully, and will get
    out of here to the vote. And I do not know whether you have to
    stay until we get back or not. But let me go very, very
    quickly.

                                 TSA PAT-DOWNS

        I was up in Alaska this past weekend, and all of the news
    was centered around one of our State House Representatives,
    Representative Sharon Cissna, a woman that I have served with,
    a woman who has undergone breast cancer and had a mastectomy.
    And you do not need to know her personal history, but her
    personal history is now part of the discussion in Alaska
    because she was subjected to what she felt was a very intrusive
    pat-down coming back from Seattle to go to work in Juneau after
    her medical appointments. And apparently the full-body scanners
    detected some scars, and apparently State Representative Cissna
    is not the only individual where scars from medical procedures
    are picked up and the individual is subjected to what is
    described as a very intrusive pat-down.
        She had made the determination that she was not going to
    put herself through this again. She had done it once. And as a
    consequence, this individual, in order to get back to work,
    drove a car, took a small airplane, went through Canada, and
    eventually got onto the ferry. It took her 4 days to get from
    Seattle to Juneau. Our State's capital is on an island in
    Alaska. We cannot get anywhere without flying.
        I have sent a letter to the Administrator of the TSA asking
    him for clarification as to what the process will be for those
    that have had medical procedures, those that have prosthetics
    that go through this screening process where they are subjected
    to enhanced pat-downs and the intrusion on their dignity is
    such that they are making choices like Representative Cissna
    did to not fly. In my State, as you know, that is a pretty
    difficult decision to make.
        I have not heard anything back from the Administrator about
    this yet, but it is an issue that as we work to protect the
    safety of all Americans and the safety of our skies, the safety
    of our Nation, there is that balancing between how we ensure
    for that and how we ensure for an individual's privacy and
    dignity.
        I wanted to make sure that you were fully aware of this
    because this is an issue that has taken on a life beyond its
    own. And I do not know whether you have an answer for me today
    in terms of what those protocols may be, but it is something
    that I believe the issue will not die down until there is a
    better resolve than what we saw happen, at least with one
    particular constituent in the Seattle Airport.
        Senator Coats. Madam Secretary, if I could, just in the
    interest of time here, I am going to pass the gavel to my
    colleague and let you answer her. I think by the time Senator
    Murkowski is done, the chairman will be back. I just got a note
    she is returning. So if there is a little break, we will just
    take a temporary recess.
        Secretary Napolitano. Fair enough.
        Senator Murkowski [presiding]. Thank you.
        Secretary Napolitano. I can chair the subcommittee if you
    want.
        Just kidding.
        All right. First of all, Senator, we will look into this
    particular matter. It strikes me as a highly unique one, but we
    will----
        Senator Murkowski. I am told it is not and that is why----
        Secretary Napolitano. Well, we will find out.
        Senator Murkowski [continuing]. So I think it is important.
        Secretary Napolitano. We will find out----
        Senator Murkowski. Good.
        Secretary Napolitano [continuing]. Because I will share
    with you that this is not designed to be invasive in the sense
    of unnecessary or a harassment of any sort. And we want to make
    sure we work through this particular issue. So we will do that.
        I will also share with you, however, that overall we are
    finding that the AIT process, which is the new technology we
    are using--99.9 percent of the passengers who have been through
    it since Thanksgiving have gone through it, no opt-outs, no
    anything. People with artificial joints, artificial hips, for
    example, love it because it can clearly distinguish that versus
    the magnetometer where they always were getting pulled aside.
        The particular issue you raised--this is something that I
    am more than prepared to look into. We will provide you with a
    response. No one with a medical condition should feel like
    every time they have to go through the screener, they are going
    to get pulled aside because of their medical condition. What we
    want to pull aside are individuals for whom we cannot resolve
    an anomaly on the screen. This is our last line of protection
    for an aircraft. There are a lot of things that go on before
    you get to that point, but that is our last line. So we will
    get back to you on that.
        [The information follows:]
       tsa screening process for persons who have had medical procedures
        The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) spoke with Senator
    Murkowski's staff and discussed TSA's working relationships with groups
    like Susan G. Komen for the Cure to address issues raised by Alaska
    Representative Cissna for women who've undergone mastectomies and how
    TSA integrates their suggestions into training. Also shared were TSA's
    conference calls and other outreach with Representative Cissna about
    her experience. The following summarizes this information:
        Does scarring from a mastectomy regularly cause an advanced imaging
    technology (AIT) alarm?
        There are many possible factors that may generate anomalies during
    an AIT screening, including breast prosthetics or surgical scarring.
        When an anomaly is discovered during AIT screening, the
    transportation security officer (TSO) must resolve the alarm using
    additional screening procedures. TSA's procedures do not require that
    passengers remove their breast prosthesis as part of the security
    screening process. If a pat-down is required to resolve the anomaly, it
    may be done in a private screening area and will be performed by an
    officer of the same gender. A TSA witness will be present if the pat-
    down is conducted in the private screening area. The passenger may have
    a witness of their choosing accompany them throughout the screening
    process regardless of whether the screening occurs in the public or a
    private screening area.
        What training do TSOs receive related to this issue?
        TSOs are instructed, as part of their training and standard
    operating procedures, to use extreme care and sensitivity when
    screening or performing pat-downs of sensitive or painful areas. We
    also urge travelers to tell TSOs about any specific issues TSOs should
    be aware of before such screening measures begin, including painful or
    sore areas, or past and current medical conditions. To ensure the
    greatest level of privacy possible while conveying sensitive
    information, TSA has also made a notification template available for
    passengers to discreetly provide information about their medical
    condition or disability to TSOs at airports. The template is available
    at TSA.gov and TSA has proactively shared it with a coalition of 70
    advocacy groups representing a variety of segments of the population
    with whom TSA maintains an ongoing dialogue. A number of cancer-related
    groups have been a part of the coalition, including Susan G. Komen for
    the Cure and Cancer Treatment Centers of America. Based on input we
    received from groups such as these over the last year, we have
    augmented the training provided to our TSOs to make them better attuned
    to the needs of cancer survivors and those who have recently undergone
    cancer treatment.

        Senator Murkowski. And I appreciate you looking into that.
    The Alaska State legislature--excuse me--the House of
    Representatives has passed a resolution in support of
    Representative Cissna's effort to get some clarification to the
    process. I will forward all of this to you and look forward to
    working with you, sharing some of the information that I have
    raised.

                            COAST GUARD ICEBREAKERS

        Very quickly then a second question, and then I will submit
    a third for the record. This is as it relates to our Coast
    Guard to our ability to respond in an ever-growing Arctic. I
    was pleased to see that the fiscal year 2012 budget restored
    the funding for the operational control for our icebreaker
    fleet to the Coast Guard. I think that that makes sense. That
    is important.
        But contained within that budget is the decommissioning of
    the Polar Sea in fiscal year 2011. It provides for completion
    for the maintenance of the Polar Star, but that will not be
    complete until 2013. So we have got a situation here where at
    least for the next couple years we have the Healy out there in
    the waters, but we do not have any polar class icebreakers, and
    it leaves us without the capacity to do any heavy icebreaking
    capability until then.
        So the question to you is with the fact that the Coast
    Guard will only have one heavy icebreaker once the Polar Sea is
    down and the Polar Star is up, what are the Department's plans?
    What are the Coast Guard's plans for the future of this
    country's heavy icebreaking fleet? If you can give me the
    status of the Coast Guard's high-latitude study and when you
    might expect that that might be available for release to us
    here in the Congress.
        Secretary Napolitano. Indeed. First of all, my
    understanding is the Healy, which is a medium-sized cutter,
    will remain operational in 2011-2012. The problem is you have
    the Polar Star and the Polar Sea, both of which are old vessels
    and need to have heavy maintenance. And so you have this--it
    looks like a bare period in fiscal year 2012.
        Our plan is during that period for the National Science
    Foundation to lease a heavy icebreaker to take the place----
        Senator Murkowski. Who do we lease from?
        Secretary Napolitano. There are at least two countries that
    we can lease from. I would prefer to give that to you in
    writing--or not in writing, but not in an open session. But we
    have identified at least two countries that we could lease from
    during that fiscal year 2012 period.
        [The information follows:]

        The National Science Foundation (NSF) has leased polar icebreakers
    from both Russia and Sweden in the past. NSF is continuing to negotiate
    their specific polar icebreaking requirements lease plans for 2012 and
    the details of that lease should be directed to NSF.

        Secretary Napolitano. Now, as you said in your question,
    you got the funding for operational control up there, $39
    million moved over to the Coast Guard. That is where it should
    go.
        We also have in the fiscal year 2012 budget a sum set aside
    for an Arctic study. One of the things this country really
    needs is to really look at the Arctic and what is necessary to
    protect U.S. interests there. So that is in the Coast Guard
    budget as well.
        With respect to the work--you wanted to know when the other
    study would be finished. Let me check with the Commandant and
    we will get you the date.
        Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that.
        And I appreciate the information on what we do to fill the
    gap here with the heavy icebreaker. I do hope that we are not
    moving in a direction where we view that as our option to lease
    basically commercially. I think we need to remember that we are
    an Arctic nation. The United States is an Arctic nation, and
    the fact that we have just barely one-and-a-half icebreakers,
    if you will, when you think about the medium and the heavy, it
    is a situation where we look to our ability to respond as an
    Arctic nation whether it is the level of shipping traffic that
    we are seeing going on up north, the level of exploration
    activity that may be at hand. We have got cruise ships going
    back and forth up in the Arctic right now. We are woefully
    unprepared, I believe, at this point in time. So I would love
    to discuss kind of the future of where we go and how we build
    this out so that we are able to respond as necessary. But
    again, we are behaving as an Arctic nation and assuming that
    international role that I think that we should as a Nation.
        Secretary Napolitano. I could not agree more.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        And I guess we are at ease until Senator Landrieu comes
    back.
        Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Landrieu [presiding]. Our meeting will come back to
    order after a brief recess, Homeland Security Subcommittee
    Appropriations meeting.

                              GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

        Let me begin with just another question about the
    potential--and I hope we can avoid this, Madam Secretary, but
    the potential shutdown of the Government and what that might
    mean for DHS. The Government was shut down for 27 days in 1995
    and 1996. The front-line personnel for Customs Service, Border
    Patrol, and Secret Service continued to work, but their workers
    were not immediately paid. I understand their support
    operations or administrative operations did not continue to
    work. So you have to question how effective their work can be
    without any back-office support.
        But if the Government were to shut down again--and again,
    we are all working hard to see that that does not happen and
    coming to some compromise with the House on this--what would be
    the impacts to the Department? I am sure you have given some
    thought to this.
        Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I have
    in part because this Department did not exist in 1995 during
    the prior shut-downs, and so we have had to be looking at this
    afresh, anew because the Department is only 8 years old.
        Thank you again, by the way, for coming to the program
    yesterday. It was really great to see you there.
        I think you put your finger on one of the important points.
    The front-line personnel who are related to security would fall
    within the exception of the shutdown and they would stay on
    duty, but the back-room personnel that are necessary to fully
    utilize the front-line personnel would not in all likelihood.
    And our TSOs, our transportation security officers, our front-
    line personnel, tend to be at the lower end of the pay scale
    and tend to be ones that I would be very concerned about having
    to live paycheck-to-paycheck. And so you would have your front-
    line personnel who were working but not getting paid and being
    under some financial duress because of that. So we have parts
    of the Department that would probably have to shut down
    virtually 100 percent, but the security-related part would
    operate, but as you say, they would not have the full backing
    of the Department that they would otherwise have.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you. I do think that is something
    that we need to keep in mind as we press forward on these
    negotiations.

                               OFFICER CORRUPTION

        My next question--I only have three additional questions,
    and I think we can get through them in the next few minutes--is
    about the officer integrity, the issue of integrity in our
    operations. I think not only in trying to streamline where we
    can is important without undercutting our defense and homeland
    security, but also we want to have an honest and open and
    transparent Government, which is always so important. And of
    course, America is really a model in the world. We are proud of
    that. We are not perfect, but we are a model in that regard.
        But there have been some concerns that this subcommittee
    has expressed, and I want to just state that with the support
    of this subcommittee, CBP has hired 16,000 new employees, a 37-
    percent increase in the last 5 years. ICE has hired more than
    8,200 new personnel. This has been required to stand up this
    Department and meet the goals and objectives of securing our
    borders and enforcing our immigration laws.
        This subcommittee has been concerned, however, due to the
    rapid hiring, that there is a potential increase for officer
    corruption. So toward this end, the subcommittee has provided
    additional resources for integrity training, investigations,
    conducting hearings about misconduct, background
    investigations. I am pleased to see your budget requests an
    additional $26 million for this. This is the right thing to do.
    I support the funding.
        But it is our understanding that some of the people in
    charge of this from CBP to ICE and the Inspector General are
    experiencing some difficulty working together. Could you
    comment about if you are aware of this situation? Do you agree
    that it is somewhat of a problem? And if so, what are you doing
    to correct it? Will you and the Deputy Secretary work with me
    on establishing clear lines of authority for these important
    internal investigations?
        Secretary Napolitano. Madam Chair, I think that it is fair
    to say that with that rapid increase, we need to have
    appropriate oversight and supervision for a number of reasons,
    one of which is related to officer integrity. And so we have
    ramped up efforts there.
        I think it is also accurate to say that we have been
    working both with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and
    with CBP on the implementation of appropriate oversight, what
    does that mean, who does what when. How do we make sure that
    cases are resolved swiftly so that agents are not unduly
    impugned or taken off the line and that if and when we find an
    agent who has become corrupt, that we deal with that
    immediately and very firmly? We will not stand for corruption
    among our troops and we do not want that bad seed to take root
    in this staffing increase. So we are all very committed to that
    goal.
        The issue is how do you operationalize that between the OIG
    and what the CBP does and what ICE does, and that is an issue
    of which I am very aware, have been personally involved in, and
    we continue to work on.
        Senator Landrieu. And do you have the money and resources
    you need for the polygraph and the initial checks before hiring
    people? Are you able to process your hirees pretty quickly, do
    you believe?
        Secretary Napolitano. The President's budget contains
    adequate resources for that, yes.

                                     MEXICO

        Senator Landrieu. My next question--and this is a growing
    concern among, I think, people in our country, and that is the
    escalating violence in Mexico. You alluded to, of course, we
    lost one of our special agents, Zapata, just recently and
    another was wounded. This really brought to light the fact that
    our agents are prohibited from carrying service weapons in
    their defense, which is a side issue.
        But the more important issue--and that is important as
    well--is that 33,000 Mexican citizens have died during the
    Mexican Government's admirable, but very difficult campaign
    against drug trafficking. But what are the top one, two, or
    three directives that you are taking to try to contain this
    violence? And when we are sending agents, is it appropriate to
    send agents into Mexico without being able to defend
    themselves?
        Secretary Napolitano. Well, first of all, I would suggest,
    Madam Chair, that some of this be discussed in a classified
    setting and that includes how the agents are armed and under
    what circumstances.
        I will say that the violence in Mexico is something we are
    very concerned about. It is one of the things that we work on
    very closely with Mexico. President Calderon is scheduled for a
    visit to the United States this week. I believe that will be
    something that he and President Obama discuss. And it is
    something that we are working with Mexico on.
        Some of our priorities are to assist Mexico in any way that
    we can and as requested to defeat the cartels.
        Second, to make sure that we have adequate resources along
    our Southwest Border to prevent the cartels from bringing their
    violence over and trying to take over areas along the Southwest
    Border, so preventing spillover violence.
        And then third, making sure that we have adequate manpower,
    technology, and infrastructure along the Southwest Border as a
    whole so that it can be a safe and secure zone for the trade
    and travel that has to occur between Mexico and the United
    States. This is something that often gets overlooked in the
    discussion, but Mexico is the No. 1 or 2 trading partner of
    something like 23 States in the United States. There are a lot
    of jobs associated with that commerce with Mexico. So both
    countries need to work to make sure that the travel and trade
    that occurs can go smoothly and efficiently through the ports
    of entry.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.

                                  CYBER THREAT

        I think my last question will be about the cyber threat,
    which is something that I am not sure that the public really
    sees. I think they see and read about the violence in Mexico. I
    think they understand some of the border issues. I think they
    understand the challenges of immigration. I think they most
    certainly can understand the airline attacks and the New York
    incident. But cyber is something that I am not sure the public
    really can understand the consequences, really, of such an
    attack, should it occur in a more successful way because we are
    actually being attacked through this new method.
        So my question is, President Obama said that cyber threat
    is one of the most serious economic and national security
    challenges that we face. I actually agree with that. You
    included safeguarding and securing cyberspace as 1 of the 5
    missions. This budget request appears to respond to this alarm
    by requesting a robust level of funding for U.S. operations,
    Federal network, security network, and security deployment.
    These are important areas. I was pleased to see some of the
    upticks that you have.
        As you know, there are several locations around the country
    that are really leaning toward actually working in conjunction
    with non-Federal partners. Corporations have really stepped up.
    The National Guard has shown an inclination to put some
    resources toward this.
        We have created in Louisiana--in Shreveport, in Bossier
    Parish to be exact, in the northwest corner of Louisiana--the
    Cyber Innovation Center. The center has built a strong regional
    network among universities and colleges to leverage
    cybersecurity systems.
        I would like to ask you for a general comment about the
    cyber threat and then ask you if you would join me for a trip
    there and to perhaps a few other locations around the country
    to see what some of the new initiatives are to actually stand
    up the technology and personnel necessary to respond to this
    very serious and I think underestimated threat to our country.
        Secretary Napolitano. Madam Chair, yes, we have increased
    our cyber budget. Between DHS and DOD, you really have between
    those two Departments 95 percent of the cybersecurity
    responsibilities identified by the President's cyber review. So
    you have seen that area of DHS expand fairly dramatically over
    the last 2 years. This is another area where we believe that
    the United States has real security interests involved. We are
    working with the private sector on this. We also are working
    with the universities on this, and we are increasing our
    outreach trying to identify persons who have a cyber background
    to come work at DHS. That is one of our key challenges is to
    get enough personnel who are cyber-experienced to work in the
    public service as opposed to the private sector. So that is
    underway as well.
        With respect to your invitation to come to Shreveport and
    to do some other cyber site visits, I would be happy to do so,
    particularly if there is a good Louisiana meal involved.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I think we
    can rustle one up for you.
        Secretary Napolitano. There you go.

                                    CLOSING

        Senator Landrieu. I am going to end the meeting, but I do
    want to comment that there are a few other issues that our
    subcommittee is going to be focused on.
        The TSA screener cap provision at 46,000. I do not know if
    that is going to be effective.
        International adoptions is an important issue to me to make
    sure that we are doing the very best we can in customs to
    support the great work that our nonprofits and individual
    citizens are doing in that humanitarian area.
        Improving the entry process for visitors to the United
    States I think is important, whether they are just tourists or
    whether they are business people traveling because of just the
    economy of the world, and we have just got to be a very
    forward-leaning service agency to support that work.
        The flood maps are of great concern to myself, Senator
    Cochran, and other Senators up along the Mississippi River
    which comes under this subcommittee's jurisdiction.
        So those are some questions that I will defer and submit to
    you in writing.
        And I believe that will end our session for today. I thank
    you for your testimony and for your patience during the floor
    vote.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Landrieu. Other questions for the record should be
    submitted to the subcommittee staff by close of business on
    Thursday.
        [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 Mary L. Landrieu
                           departmental acquisitions
        Question. For each of fiscal year's 2010-2012, how much funding is
    dedicated to major acquisitions? For each year, 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 of
    Homeland Security's (DHS) acquisition management directive? Provide a
    DHS major acquisition status tracking chart listing each program and
    milestone necessary to achieve approval for full-scale procurement.
        Answer.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal year 2010         Fiscal year 2011         Fiscal year 2012
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Funding dedicated to major             $11,671,000,000........  $11,068,000,000........  $10,457,000,000
     acquisitions.
    Level 1..............................  46 programs............  45 programs............  Information not yet
                                                                                              available.
    Level 2..............................  40 programs............  37 programs............  Information not yet
                                                                                              available.
    Level 3..............................  Not reported \1\.......  Not reported \1\.......  Information not yet
                                                                                              available.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ In accordance with Directive 102-01 (D 102-01), non-IT level 3 programs are not reported; however, guidance
      will be changed April 30, 2011, to require inclusion of all level 1, 2, and 3 acquisition programs in the Next
      Generation Periodic Reporting System (nPRS).

        The following chart lists the 82 DHS level 1 and 2 programs along
    with their current phase in the acquisition life cycle. Programs in
    phase 4 should be considered approved for ``full-scale production''.
        The phases as defined in the D 102-01 are:
      --Phase 1. Need.
      --Phase 2. Analyze/Select.
      --Phase 3. Obtain.
      --Phase 4. Produce/Deploy/Support.
        Please note that the list identifies many programs as being in
    multiple stages. Typically, these programs are comprised of smaller
    projects and these projects are in various stages. Accordingly the list
    identifies such programs as being ``mixed'' and the lists identifies
    each stage the program is in.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Phase
             Program-Project-Service         -------------------------------
                                                 1       2       3       4
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CBP--Advance Passenger Information        ......  ......  ......      x
     (APIS) (P) \1\.........................
    CBP--Automated Commercial Environment     ......  ......      x       x
     (ACE)/International Trade Data System
     (ITDS)  (P)............................
    CBP--Automated Targeting System (ATS)     ......  ......  ......      x
     Maintenance (P)........................
    CBP--Border Patrol Facilities (P).......  ......  ......      x       x
    CBP--Facilities Management and            ......  ......      x       x
     Engineering Tactical Infrastructure
     (FM&E TI) (P)..........................
    CBP--Fleet Management (FMP) (P).........  ......  ......  ......      x
    CBP--Land Ports of Entry Modernization    ......  ......      x       x
     (P)....................................
    CBP--Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII)       ......  ......      x       x
     Systems Program (P)....................
    CBP--SAP (P)............................  ......  ......  ......      x
    CBP--Strategic Air and Marine Plan (P)..  ......  ......      x       x
    CBP--Tactical Communication (TAC-COM)         x   ......  ......      x
     (P)....................................
    CBP--TECS Modernization (P).............  ......  ......      x       x
    CBP--Transportation (P).................  ......  ......  ......      x
    CBP--Western Hemisphere Travel            ......  ......  ......      x
     Initiative (WHTI) (P)..................
    DHS--A&O--Common Operational Picture      ......  ......      x       x
     (COP) (P)..............................
    DHS--A&O--Homeland Security Information   ......  ......      x       x
     Network (HSIN) (P).....................
    DHS--CAO--Electronic Records Management       x   ......  ......  ......
     System (ERMS) (P)......................
    DHS--CAO--St. Elizabeths (P)............  ......  ......      x   ......
    DHS--CFO--Transformation and Systems      ......      x   ......  ......
     Consolidation (TASC) (P)...............
    DHS--CHCO--HR-IT (P)....................  ......  ......      x       x
    DHS--CIO--Infrastructure Transformation   ......  ......      x       x
     Program (ITP) (P)......................
    DNDO--Advanced Spectroscopic Portal       ......  ......      x   ......
     (ASP) Program (P)......................
    FEMA--Grants Management Integrated        ......      x   ......  ......
     Environment (GMIE) (P).................
    FEMA--Housing Inspection Services (HIS)   ......  ......      x       x
     (P)....................................
    FEMA--Integrated Public Alert and             x   ......  ......  ......
     Warning System (IPAWS) (P).............
    FEMA--Logistics Supply Chain Management   ......      x   ......  ......
     System (LSCMS) (previously TAV) (P)....
    FEMA--Risk Mapping, Analysis and          ......  ......  ......      x
     Planning (Risk Map) (P)................
    A&O--National Security System Program     ......      x   ......  ......
     (NSSP) (P).............................
    A&O--Online Tracking Information System   ......  ......      x       x
     (OTIS) \2\ (S) \3\.....................
    ICE--Atlas (P)..........................  ......  ......      x   ......
    ICE--Detention and Removal Operations     ......      x   ......  ......
     (DRO) (S)..............................
    ICE--Detention and Removal Operations     ......  ......      x       x
     Modernization (DROM) (P)...............
    ICE--DRO Electronic Health Record (EHR)       x   ......  ......  ......
     System (P).............................
    ICE--Enforcement Information Sharing          x   ......  ......  ......
     (EIS) (P)..............................
    ICE--Student and Exchange Visitor         ......      x   ......      x
     Information System (SEVIS I and II) (P)
     (SEVIS I=4, SEVIS II=2)................
    ICE--Tactical Communication (TAC-COM)     ......  ......      x   ......
     (P)....................................
    ICE--TECS Modernization (P).............  ......      x   ......  ......
    NPPD--Federal Protective Services (S)...  ......  ......  ......      x
    NPPD--IICV (Infrastructure Information    ......  ......      x       x
     Collection Program and Visualization)--
     IICP (P)...............................
    NPPD--National Cybersecurity and          ......  ......      x       x
     Protection System (NCPS) (P)...........
    NPPD--Next Generation Network (NGN) (P).  ......      x       x   ......
    NPPD--United States Visitor and               x   ......      x       x
     Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
     (US-VISIT) (P).........................
    OHA--Bio Watch Gen-3 (P)................  ......      x   ......  ......
    S&T--National Bio and Agro-Defense        ......      x   ......  ......
     Facility (NBAF) (P)....................
    S&T--National Biodefense Analysis and     ......  ......      x   ......
     Countermeasures Center (NBACC) Facility
     (P)....................................
    TSA--Electronic Baggage Screening         ......  ......      x       x
     Program (EBSP) (P).....................
    TSA--Field Real Estate Management (FREM)  ......  ......  ......      x
     (P)....................................
    TSA--HR Access (P)......................  ......  ......  ......      x
    TSA--Information Technology               ......  ......  ......      x
     Infrastructure Program (ITIP) (P)......
    TSA--National Explosives Detection        ......  ......  ......      x
     Canine Team Program (K9) System (P)....
    TSA--Passenger Screening Program (PSP)    ......  ......      x       x
     (P)....................................
    TSA--Screening Partnership Program (P)..  ......  ......  ......      x
    TSA--Secure Flight (P)..................  ......  ......      x   ......
    TSA--Security Technology Integrated       ......  ......      x       x
     Program (STIP) (P).....................
    TSA--Specialized Training (P)...........  ......  ......  ......      x
    TSA--Transportation Worker                ......  ......  ......      x
     Identification Credentialing (TWIC) (P)
    TSA--TTAC Infrastructure Modernization    ......      x   ......  ......
     Program (TIM) (P)......................
    USCG--C4ISR (P).........................  ......  ......  ......      x
    USCG--CG Logistics Information            ......      x   ......  ......
     Management System (CG-LIMS) (P)........
    USCG--Coastal Patrol Boat (P)...........  ......  ......  ......      x
    USCG--Core Accounting System (CAS) (P)..  ......  ......  ......      x
    USCG--Fast Response Cutter (FRC) (P)....  ......  ......      x   ......
    USCG--HC-130H Conversion/Sustainment      ......  ......      x   ......
     Projects (P)...........................
    USCG--HC-130J Fleet Introduction (P)....  ......  ......  ......      x
    USCG--HC-144A Maritime Patrol Aircraft    ......  ......      x   ......
     (MPA) (P)..............................
    USCG--HH-60 Conversion Projects (P).....  ......  ......      x   ......
    USCG--HH-65 Conversion/Sustainment        ......  ......      x   ......
     Projects (P)...........................
    USCG--Interagency Operations Centers      ......      x   ......  ......
     (IOC) (P)..............................
    USCG--Medium Endurance Cutter             ......  ......  ......      x
     Sustainment (P)........................
    USCG--National Security Cutter (NSC) (P)  ......  ......      x   ......
    USCG--Nationwide Automatic                ......  ......      x       x
     Identification System (NAIS) (P).......
    USCG--Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) (P)..  ......      x   ......  ......
    USCG--Patrol Boats Sustainment (P)......  ......  ......  ......      x
    USCG--Rescue 21 (P).....................  ......  ......  ......      x
    USCG--Response Boat--Medium (RB-M) (P)..  ......  ......  ......      x
    USCG--Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)         x   ......  ......  ......
     (P)....................................
    USCIS--Application Support Centers (ASC)  ......      x   ......  ......
     (P)....................................
    USCIS--Benefits Provision--Verification   ......  ......      x       x
     Information System (VIS) (P)...........
    USCIS--Integration Document Production    ......  ......  ......      x
     (IDP) (P)..............................
    USCIS--Transformation (P)...............  ......      x   ......  ......
    USSS--IT Modernization (ITM) (P)........      x   ......  ......  ......
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ (P) indicates Program.
    \2\ (S) indicates Services.
    \3\ Per I&A, OTIS Program has been canceled.

        Question. The request includes $24.2 million and 150 positions to
    strengthen the Department's acquisition workforce. Based on the
    Department's assessment of its acquisition workforce, does the request
    completely fill the gap in acquisition workforce needs? What is the
    long-term plan to address known gaps?
        Answer. The 150 positions are based on a survey conducted in fiscal
    year 2010 of the major acquisition programs and acquisition oversight
    offices to identify gaps in the acquisition workforce and represent the
    number of positions required to fill gaps to ensure successful program
    execution, including risk mitigation.
        DHS continues our concerted recruitment efforts with the use of
    direct hire authority and centralized vacancy announcements. As of
    December 31, 2010, these efforts have resulted in a 136 percent
    increase in our contracting specialists. We are also graduating the
    first 30 Acquisition Professional Career Program participants in fiscal
    year 2011 who will be trained, certified contracting specialists and
    placed within the Department's nine contracting activities throughout
    fiscal year 2011. Additionally, we have expanded the Acquisition
    Professional Career Program to include additional fields in program
    management, business cost estimating, systems engineering, life-cycle
    logistics, and information technology. DHS has also established new
    certification programs for the test and evaluation (T&E), logistics,
    business cost estimating, and acquisition financial management career
    fields, and will have new programs in place in fiscal year 2012 for
    systems engineers and information technology specialists.
        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
    subcommittee.
        Answer. The Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate Office of
    Acquisition Support and Operations Analysis is dedicated to assisting
    the DHS components with their acquisition programs, including T&E
    master plans, systems integration and technology maturity assessments.
    This office is charged with engaging the components and executing S&T's
    portions of Acquisition Directive 102-01 and facilitating the
    deployment of technology. There is no current plan to create a separate
    TRL Management Directive.
      --DHS S&T Test and Evaluation and Standards Division/Director of
            Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) has been closely
            involved with SBInet throughout the acquisition process:
        --Assisted with developing an integrated T&E strategy for SBInet as
                codified in the DHS DOT&E's approved T&E master plan.
        --Assisted with selection of, and ultimately approved the Army Test
                and Evaluation Command (ATEC) as the Operational Test Agent
                (OTA), an agency with demonstrated capabilities in the T&E
                of command and control and surveillance systems.
        --Observed SBInet user assessment testing at Playas, New Mexico.
                Reviewed developmental testing documentation related to T&E
                at the system and subsystem levels, to help ensure both the
                credibility of T&E results and the confidence in the
                understanding of system performance and overall system
                maturity.
        --Participated in SBInet monthly program reviews.
        --Member of the SBInet AoA Executive Leadership Team and Working
                Group.
        --Participated in SBInet's operational test readiness review and
                Acquisition Review Board providing risk information to
                program executives and decisionmakers.
        --Approved ATECs operational test plan for SBInet Tucson One
                sector.
        --Observed and monitored SBInet TUS1 Operational Testing (OT) and
                OT dry run (mid-October 2010 through mid-November 2010.
        --Participated in ATEC's OT emerging results briefing on March 2,
                2011. The final OT evaluation report is due early April
                2011.
        --Drafting DOT&E's Letter of Assessment (LOA) that assesses the
                adequacy of the Army's independent operational T&E results.
                This LOA will be submitted to the Under Secretary for
                Management and used to support future decisions on border
                technologies.
      --Currently working with Customs and Border Patrol on the Land Border
            Integrated Fixed Tower program to ensure adequate T&E is
            planned, executed and reported as required by DHS directive.
                              workforce balancing
        Question. What is the total number of contractor full-time
    equivalents (FTEs) providing services in support of DHS programs?
    Across departmental components, the request proposes to move resources
    from contract service providers to in-house staff. Provide a
    departmentwide chart for this effort by component for fiscal year 2011
    and fiscal year 2012, including the shift in personnel from contractor
    to Federal FTE and associated cost savings. Since the Balanced
    Workforce Strategy began, how many contractor conversions has the
    Department realized? How will you measure the success of the Balanced
    Workforce Strategy?
        Answer. After the Balanced Workforce Strategy (BWS) Departmental
    Working Group was formed, it reviewed information provided by the firm
    (LMI) that developed the algorithm and identified a math error that
    caused the number of contractors to be significantly overstated. The
    Department worked with the firm to reexamine the algorithm and
    assumptions. The firm informed the Department that the initial 210,000
    contractor work-year equivalent estimate was overstated by 100,000 or
    more.
        The BWS Tool, an automated survey that leads a component official
    through the analysis process of the Department's contracts and mission
    needs, is a key element of our strategy to reduce expenditures on
    professional services contracts in order to more effectively and
    efficiently achieve our mission.
        Some of the results of our efforts thus far include reducing
    spending on professional services contracts by 11 percent, or $420
    million, from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010. The Department's
    fiscal year 2012 budget request includes an additional $106 million in
    cuts to professional services contracts across the Department,
    demonstrating our commitment to better managing contracts and ensuring
    the appropriate mix of personnel.
        Ultimately, the BWS will be considered successful if it:
      --Ensures compliance with current statutes, regulations, and
            Government and DHS policies by documenting components' reviews
            of current contracts; and
      --Objectively assesses the proper sourcing decisions for performing
            work that advances the mission of DHS.
                              small boat strategy
        Question. The Department released its small vessel security
    strategy on April 28, 2008. Nearly 3 years later, an implementation
    plan to carry out the strategy has not been released. In response to a
    question for the record from the Secretary's 2010 budget hearing, the
    subcommittee was informed that DHS Small Vessel Security Implementation
    Plan was to be released in 2010. When will the implementation plan be
    provided to the Congress?
        Answer. The Small Vessel Security Strategy Implementation Plan was
    released on March 11, 2011. The public report is available on the DHS
    Web site at: http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1299623119339.shtm.
                      air domain awareness--c2 gap filler
        Question. The request includes $11 million for an air domain
    awareness initiative called C2 Gap Filler. Does this program replicate
    existing DHS capabilities? If not, what additional benefits to DHS
    would this program provide if successful? The total DHS contribution to
    this multi-agency effort is $16 million, but only $11 million has been
    identified. The Operations Coordination budget request indicates that
    the $11 million is a ``one-time'' cost. How will the Department pay for
    the remaining $5 million? If approved, what are the additional costs in
    fiscal years 2013-2016?
        Answer. [Follows:]
    State and Local Efforts
        DHS's National Cyber Security Division (NCSD) collaborates with
    State, local, tribal, and territorial governments to share and
    implement sound cybersecurity policies, practices, and strategies to
    improve preparedness against cyber threats and attacks.
        Due to the increasingly important role of State, local, tribal, and
    territorial governments in cybersecurity, NCSD has resources committed
    solely to interacting with officials at these levels. The mission of
    NCSD's State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial (SLTT) Engagement program
    is to build partnerships with non-Federal public stakeholders,
    including each State's Homeland Security Advisor, Chief Information
    Officer (CIO) and Chief Information Security Officer (CISO). The
    following provides an overview of NCSD interactions with States.
                United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team
        The United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT)
    maintains a formal relationship and works closely with mission
    partners, including State and local governments, on a daily basis to
    resolve threats, vulnerabilities, and incidents. US-CERT provides a
    variety of daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly communication
    exchanges to maintain situational awareness and share critical
    information with collective cybersecurity partners. Federal and SLTT
    incident response personnel have access to the Government Forum of
    Incident Response and Security Teams (GFIRST) portal for information
    sharing and discussion.
        US-CERT also sponsors the GFIRST National Conference, a forum that
    promotes cooperation among Federal agencies, State, local, tribal, and
    territorial governments, the private sector, and international partners
    across the cybersecurity spectrum, from preparedness and prevention to
    incident response. The conference supports the dissemination and
    promulgation of proactive and preventive security practices. US-CERT
    funding is executed toward planning, preparation, communication, and
    coordination of this conference and other conference expos.
    Specifically, $1.55 million is directed to support requirements such as
    administration, logistics, and security. Additional funding
    (approximately $3 million) provides support to the interactive
    demonstration system at the GFIRST National Conference.
        US-CERT also provides support ($1 million annually) to the
    Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and
    Technology, which provides system integration and product development
    support for enhancement of the National Vulnerability Database and
    search engine. This database enables US-CERT partners, including State,
    local, tribal, and territorial governments, to secure government
    systems.
                Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center
        Created in 2003, the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis
    Center (MS-ISAC) is an invaluable tool when dealing with SLTT
    governments. The MS-ISAC supports NCSD's efforts to secure cyberspace
    by disseminating early warnings of cyber threats to SLTT governments.
    In addition, the MS-ISAC shares security incident information,
    identifies trends, and conducts other analysis for security planning.
    NCSD provides programmatic support ($3.55 million for the 12-month
    period from August 1, 2010, to July 31, 2011) to the MS-ISAC. The
    fiscal year 2010 DHS appropriations act provided an additional $3
    million for DHS to fund and work with the MS-ISAC to provide managed
    security services (e.g., intrusion detection systems, intrusion
    prevention systems firewalls) for 18 State and local governments. The
    MS-ISAC has selected State, county, and local governments for
    participation. The MS-ISAC, consistent with the objectives of NCSD,
    provides a common mechanism for raising the level of SLTT government
    cybersecurity readiness and response. It is a central resource for
    gathering information regarding cyber threats to critical
    infrastructure facilities. Other MS-ISAC programs/activities include:
      --Operation of a 24/7 Cyber Security and Analysis Center.--The MS-
            ISAC runs a 24-hour watch and warning Security Operations
            Center (SOC) that provides real-time network monitoring,
            dissemination of early cyber threat warnings, and vulnerability
            identification and mitigation, along with education and
            outreach aimed at reducing risk to the Nation's SLTT government
            cyber domain. The SOC shares and coordinates real-time risk
            information to support national cybersecurity situational
            awareness with DHS (NCSD and US-CERT).
          The SOC performs 24/7 monitoring of the Internet and other
            sources, including incident reports received from members and
            others regarding cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities. The
            SOC staff evaluates and correlates information and distributes
            advisories and bulletins as appropriate, including mitigation
            strategies and steps that can be taken to protect critical
            infrastructure.
      --Managed and Monitored Security Services.--The MS-ISAC contracts
            with the States of Alaska, Montana, and New York, along with
            the Los Angeles World Airports, to provide cybersecurity
            monitoring and managed services. This collective view across
            multiple entities helps enhance situational awareness regarding
            cyber threats.
          During 2010, the MS-ISAC reviewed more than 78 billion logs
            through the 24/7 operations center. Approximately 138 MS-ISAC
            advisories were issued.
          Additionally, through funding in the fiscal year 2010 DHS
            appropriations act, the MS-ISAC is expanding its monitoring
            services with an additional 10 State governments, 7 local
            governments, and 1 territorial government. This expanded
            infrastructure will provide a representative sample of system
            and network activity for enhancing situational awareness of
            SLTT government networks across the country. It will also
            improve cyber incident identification and response while
            providing more resources for developing and implementing
            appropriate mitigation strategies tailored specifically to SLTT
            government cyber resources.
      --Participation in Cyber Security Exercises--Cyber Storm I, II, and
            III.--The MS-ISAC has participated in each of the three Cyber
            Storm exercises, most recently Cyber Storm III in September
            2010. The MS-ISAC was a full player during the Cyber Storm III
            exercise; its SOC was active, and it coordinated with 11 States
            that participated in the exercise. The MS-ISAC hosted 19
            visitors from five States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
            New York State law enforcement, Homeland Security and military
            personnel, and observers from the University of Texas at San
            Antonio.
                National Cyber Incident Response Plan
        The President's Cybersecurity Policy Review called for ``a
    comprehensive framework to facilitate coordinated responses by
    Government, the private sector, and allies to a significant cyber
    incident.'' DHS coordinated the interagency, State and local
    government, and private-sector working group that developed the
    National Cyber Incident Response Plan (NCIRP). The plan provides a
    framework for effective incident response capabilities and coordination
    among Federal agencies, State and local governments, the private
    sector, and international partners during significant cyber incidents.
    It is designed to be flexible and adaptable to allow synchronization of
    response activities across jurisdictional lines.
        The NCIRP is undergoing final DHS review to incorporate lessons
    learned during the Cyber Storm III exercise. Upon conclusion of this
    review, DHS will send the NCIRP out to State, local, and private-sector
    partners (including the National Governors Association and the MS-ISAC)
    for review. DHS will work with State and local partners (and partners
    in the private sector) to align their incident response plans and
    procedures with the NCIRP. The MS-ISAC and National Governors
    Association will be key partners in this effort.
        DHS has designated the MS-ISAC as the ISAC for SLTT governments and
    has identified the MS-ISAC as a key stakeholder in the development and
    implementation of the NCIRP.
                NCSD Cyber Security Evaluation Program
        Under the 2009 Appropriations Act, NCSD's Cyber Security Evaluation
    Program (CSEP) was tasked with completing a Nationwide Cyber Security
    Review (NCSR). The NCSR is a voluntary self-assessment of State and
    major urban area government Information Technology (IT) services and is
    designed to measure cybersecurity preparedness and resilience. Through
    the NCSR, CSEP examines relationships, interactions, and processes
    governing IT management and the ability to manage operational risk
    effectively. CSEP also conducts voluntary cybersecurity assessments to
    evaluate and enhance the implementation of key cybersecurity capacities
    and capabilities of Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR)
    Sector members. This assessment is the Cyber Resilience Review, which
    is designed for each of the 18 CIKR sectors and for use within SLTT
    governments. Since fiscal year 2009, CSEP has completed 45 cyber
    resilience reviews with SLTT partners.
                NCSD Cyber Exercise Program
        NCSD's Cyber Exercise Program (CEP) works with Federal, State,
    local, international, and private sector partners to conduct regional
    and sector-specific exercises designed to develop and improve the
    capabilities of DHS and its infrastructure partners. Such exercises aid
    participants in preparing for, preventing, mitigating, responding to,
    and recovering from cyber incidents. NCSD plans, coordinates, and
    conducts cyber exercises to develop, evaluate, improve, and refine the
    capabilities of State and local partners. CEP assists State and local
    partners by facilitating the design of tabletop and functional
    exercises at the State and local levels.
        DHS hosted Cyber Storm III from September 26, 2010, through October
    1, 2010. The Cyber Storm exercise series is a key element of ongoing
    efforts to assess cyber preparedness; examine incident response
    processes, procedures, and information sharing mechanisms; and identify
    areas for improvement absent the consequences of an actual incident.
    Cyber Storm III included participation from 11 States.
        In 2009 and 2010, NCSD, the MS-ISAC, and the Microsoft Corporation
    jointly sponsored the Defend the Flag Exercises to provide State
    government network security professionals greater technical security
    skills and practical experience with implementing the principles of
    defense-in-depth while securing Windows-based operating systems.
    Thirteen States participated from 2009-2010.
                Grants
        DHS provides grants for cybersecurity through the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency (FEMA), such as the Homeland Security Grant Program
    (HSGP), which provides States the opportunity to work with DHS to
    acquire cybersecurity capabilities. During the last 2 years, NCSD has
    worked with FEMA to modify the language in the HSGP to better clarify
    how funds can be used to improve cybersecurity.
                National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education
        DHS is engaged in the National Initiative for Cybersecurity
    Education (NICE), leading Track 1 (Cybersecurity Awareness), leading
    Track 3 (Cybersecurity Workforce Structure), and coleading Track 4
    (Cybersecurity Workforce Training and Professional Development).
    Through NICE, DHS is reaching out across the cybersecurity community--
    including academia, the private sector, and Federal, State, local,
    tribal, and territorial partners--to integrate current efforts into a
    foundation of information that creates mutual understanding and
    partnerships across all aspects of national cybersecurity.
        In fiscal year 2010, DHS facilitated the efforts of six State
    government CIOs to develop a State government workforce development
    model, based on the existing DHS-issued Essential Body of Knowledge.
    This State government model was presented to the MS-ISAC, which
    included the model in its membership-based portal and on its public Web
    site.
                Other NCSD SLTT Programs/Activities
      --National Cyber Security Awareness Month.--To recognize the
            importance of cybersecurity awareness, October is designated as
            National Cyber Security Awareness Month. NCSD, with the help of
            the MS-ISAC, works with funded partners and other parties to
            sponsor events and activities throughout the country and
            disseminate Awareness Month key messages and event information
            to State and local partners. Due to the efforts of NCSD and MS-
            ISAC, in 2009 and 2010, all of the Nation's Governors signed
            letters officially proclaiming October as National Cyber
            Security Awareness Month.
      --Stop. Think. Connect. Campaign.--DHS bears primary responsibility
            for raising public awareness about threats to the Nation's
            cyber systems and networks. To that end, in October 2010, DHS
            launched the National Cybersecurity Awareness Campaign, Stop.
            Think. Connect. It is a national public-education effort to
            engage and empower Americans to take charge of their online
            safety and security. By providing Americans with easy-to-
            understand online safety tips and resources, the campaign is
            helping them establish smart habits that will lead to increased
            protection online. Stop. Think. Connect. fulfills a key element
            of President Obama's 2009 Cyberspace Policy Review, which
            tasked DHS to develop a public-awareness campaign to inform
            Americans about ways to use technology safely.
      --Security Clearances for State Information Security Officers.--NCSD,
            in partnership with colleagues from DHS Office of Security,
            initiated a plan to clear, starting at the Secret level, each
            State CIO and CISO, and the MS-ISAC executive committee. NCSD
            is confident this is an important step in sharing valuable
            sensitive information with State partners.
      --Cyber Partner Local Access Plan.--NCSD, in cooperation with the
            Office of Intelligence and Analysis, developed the
            Cybersecurity Partner Local Access Plan (CPLAP) to share
            classified cybersecurity threat information with cleared State
            cybersecurity officials and private-sector partners at State
            and major urban area fusion centers nationwide. The CPLAP
            enables more effective and efficient classified cybersecurity
            information sharing among Federal, SLTT, and private-sector
            partners, and supports an information-sharing model that
            eliminates partners' air travel to and from the Washington, DC,
            area to receive classified cybersecurity briefings. The CPLAP
            will be piloted at five fusion centers by mid-2011, with plans
            to expand the program to a broader audience and additional
            fusion centers on a regional basis by the end of 2011.
      --Cyber Summits.--In an effort to educate SLTT leaders and the
            public, NCSD coordinates and plans Cyber Summits. These
            summits, which are held regularly throughout the year and
            hosted across the country, focus on opportunities and
            vulnerabilities to promote discussion on how public and
            private-sector officials can best leverage technology to reduce
            risk. Frequent attendance and contribution by nongovernmental
            cyber associations, such as the MS-ISAC and National
            Association of State Chief Information Officers, significantly
            contributes to the information sharing, capacity building, and
            coordination efforts necessary to develop robust and effective
            cybersecurity capabilities on all levels. DHS identified
            cybersecurity as a top departmental priority, and Federal,
            State, and local government officials share a responsibility to
            promote a healthy cyber ecosystem and to encourage individuals
            to protect themselves and their families at home, work, and
            school.
      --Virginia Operational Integration Cybersecurity Center of
            Excellence.--NCSD is helping the Virginia Operational
            Integration Cyber Center of Excellence (VOICCE) create a
            Municipal Cyber Lab that will be used to support and train SLTT
            government officials to better understand cybersecurity issues.
            VOICCE focuses on incorporating cyber attacks into the
            mainstream of emergency operations at the local level and
            creating a virtual municipality of randomly generated Internet
            protocol addresses. The concept will allow for development of
            vital cybersecurity capabilities, processes, and procedures.
            The VOICCE node or laboratory will allow local governments and
            first responders to plug into State and Federal entities and
            participate in simulated cyber attacks. The lab will be both
            physical and virtual in structure, allowing many types of
            simulation and providing an effective environment to share
            ideas among stakeholders across the Nation. Participants will
            brainstorm, identify, and respond to diverse cyber attack
            scenarios.
        This activity was required by the fiscal year 2010 Department of
    Homeland Security Appropriations Act.
        NCSD will continue many of the programs listed above. In addition,
    in fiscal year 2012, NCSD will commit funding to expand the MS-ISAC's
    managed and monitor security services.
    Curricula
        The Software Assurance (SwA) curriculum project, which produced the
    Masters of Software Assurance (MSwA) curriculum and associated
    undergraduate course outlines, is a recent NCSD effort to cosponsor
    public-private collaboration for government, industry, and academia
    through its SwA forum. To facilitate implementation, the MSwA project
    team is offering assistance, free of charge, to educational
    institutions looking to launch an MSwA degree program.
        Through the Software Assurance (SwA) forum, the SwA program has
    encouraged Federal, State, and local involvement in public-private
    collaboration efforts associated with the advancement of SwA resources.
    As part of that collaboration, the SwA curriculum project released the
    Masters of Software Assurance (MSwA) reference curriculum and nine-
    course syllabi for public use. The MSwA curriculum is recognized by the
    Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Computer
    Society and the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) as the first
    curriculum of its kind to focus on assuring the functionality,
    dependability, and security of software and systems. The materials are
    available at http://www.cert.org/mswa/.
        More information on the SwA Curriculum Project and the MSwA is
    available at https://buildsecurityin.us-cert.gov/bsi/1165-BSI.html.
    Virtual Education
        The SwA forum, sponsored by NCSD's SwA program, posts Web casts of
    SwA tutorials and pocket guides that are publicly available for free
    online use, including links via virtual training environments.
        One aspect under NICE track 4 is functional area 4, which concerns
    specialized cybersecurity operations. The scope of this effort includes
    those Federal civilian employees, members of the uniformed services,
    and contractor personnel employed by departments and agencies who are
    engaged in highly specialized and largely classified cybersecurity
    operations. Work associated with this functional area is classified,
    but a classified briefing to discuss the work associated with this
    topic can be arranged upon request.
                     homeland security information network
        Question. Please describe the Department's efforts to consolidate
    DHS information portals into the Homeland Security Information Network.
    How many portals will migrate to HSIN in fiscal year 2011 and how many
    are anticipated to migrate in fiscal year 2012? What are the cost
    savings associated with the migrations in fiscal year 2011 and fiscal
    year 2012 as well as the long-term cost savings for other portals?
        Answer. The Department plans to migrate three portals in fiscal
    year 2011, and seven portals in fiscal year 2012. Details on the
    portals to be consolidated, as well as 1-year savings and the 5-year
    savings by portal are provided below. We continue to evaluate other
    portals for migration to HSIN.

                                  HSIN PORTAL CONSOLIDATION AND PROJECTED COST-SAVINGS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Total 5-year
                     Portal name                    Year 1 savings      savings                Target year
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                    FISCAL YEAR 2011

    Fire Services Portal.........................        $200,000       $1,000,000   Fiscal year 2011 (completed)
    TSA--Exercise Information System (EXIS)......         132,760        1,075,092   Fiscal year 2011
    NPPD--Federal Protective Service (FPS) Secure        (350,284)       2,310,491   Fiscal year 2011
     Portal.

                                                    FISCAL YEAR 2012

    I&A--Homeland Security--State and Local Intel         673,368        6,428,728   Fiscal year 2012
     Community  (HS-SLIC).
    NPPD--National Cybersecurity Protection             1,410,103       10,941,546   Fiscal year 2012
     System (NCPS).
    FLETC--FLETC Partners and FLETC Registration       (1,563,498)        (659,896)  Fiscal year 2012
     \1\.
    DNDO--Joint Analysis Center Collaborative             500,000        1,300,000   Fiscal year 2012
     Information System (JACCIS)--Partial
     Consolidation.
    FEMA--Homeland Security Exercise Evaluation         2,148,402        5,713,724   Fiscal year 2012
     Program--Corrective Action Planning System
     (HSEEP--CAPS).
    NPPD--Technical Resource for Incident              (1,575,548)       2,125,952   Fiscal year 2012
     Prevention (TRIPwire).
    USCG--HomePort Portal........................        (680,232)      12,412,802   Fiscal year 2012
                                                  -----------------------------------
          Totals.................................         895,072       42,648,440   ...............................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Pending verification of FLETC portals budget figures.

                        financial systems consolidation
        Question. Please provide an update on the Department's efforts to
    implement the recommendations made in the July 2010 Inspector General's
    report on the transformation and systems consolidation effort.
        Answer. Through extensive efforts with the Chief Financial Officer,
    Chief Procurement Officer, Chief Information Officer, Chief
    Administrative Officer, and DHS components over the past year, we have
    made significant progress in DHS's integrated financial acquisition
    strategy.
        The Department has clearly defined and documented its strategy,
    plan, and concept of operations in the Transformation and Systems
    Consolidation (TASC) program management documentation. To help ensure
    the success of the program, the Department formulated a number of
    cross-functional oversight and management mechanisms for TASC,
    including the TASC Executive Steering Committee which is chaired by the
    Undersecretary for Management, that serves as the governing board
    regarding strategy, policy, funding, and risks for the TASC program.
        The TASC procurement strategy was a single-award indefinite
    delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract allowing multiple contract
    types for task orders (firm fixed price, time and materials, cost plus
    award fee, and cost plus fixed fee).
        On November 19, 2010, DHS issued a contract for the TASC program.
    However, on March 9, 2011, DHS received the decision from the
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) that while two protests to the
    TASC contract had been dismissed, one had been upheld. In light of GAO
    ruling a stop work order was issued for the TASC IDIQ contract and for
    the first task order on that contract. We are currently assessing GAO's
    findings and recommendations to determine the appropriate way forward.
                       icebreaking acquisitions analysis
        Question. The funding request for the icebreaking acquisition
    analysis will not be considered until the Polar High Latitude Study is
    submitted to the subcommittee. Please provide a summary of the
    ``numerous existing and ongoing studies'' referenced in the budget
    request. How will this study be different than those studies? What is
    the $5 million request based on? How will the funding be used? Why has
    the High Latitude Study, which was funded in the fiscal year 2009
    budget request, been delayed? When will it be submitted to the
    subcommittee?
        Answer. The most recent of the studies referenced in the budget
    justification was completed in 2007 at the request of the Coast Guard
    by the National Academy of Sciences sponsored by the National Research
    Council. This study's objective was to assess the Coast Guard's polar
    icebreaker roles and future needs. Additionally, DHS's Office of
    Inspector General recently completed an analysis to assess the Coast
    Guard's polar icebreaking missions.
        This polar icebreaking analysis will differ from those studies by
    taking a broader look at polar icebreaking requirements across all
    Federal agencies, and by taking a deeper look at operational
    alternatives to determine the best method to deliver the required
    capability. The closest model for this effort is the Polar Icebreaker
    Requirements Report prepared for the President in 1990. Fiscal year
    2012 funding will support an interagency working group to define Terms
    of Reference and the approach to be used for the preacquisition
    analysis of 21st century icebreaking capabilities. The working group
    will be under the direction of the Under Secretary for Management.
        The $5 million request for the Icebreaker Acquisition Analysis is
    based on historical costs of analyses with similar size and scope.
        The results of the High Latitude Study have been compiled by the
    Coast Guard and their summary report is currently in the final stages
    of review and will be provided to the subcommittee in the near future.
        Question. Included in the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2010
    for Polar Icebreaker Sustainment was funding for the Coast Guard to
    begin a business case analysis for either a new heavy polar icebreaker
    class or a major service life extension project for exiting polar
    icebreakers. What is the status of this effort?
        Answer. Coast Guard-specific business case analysis directed in the
    fiscal year 2010 appropriation is in final review. The President's
    fiscal year 2012 budget request includes funding for the completion of
    a Government-wide analysis for future icebreaking requirements in the
    polar regions. Acquisition of 21st century icebreaking capabilities
    will be based on these final requirements.
                               officer integrity
        Question. Since fiscal year 2006, with the support of this
    subcommittee, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has hired 16,000 new
    employees--a 37 percent increase. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    (ICE) has hired more than 8,200 new personnel--a 31 percent increase.
    This subcommittee has been concerned that due to the rapid hiring at
    CBP and ICE, there is a potential for increased opportunities for
    officer corruption. Toward that end, for the past 3 years, this
    subcommittee has provided additional resources for integrity training,
    investigations of misconduct allegations, and background
    investigations. I am pleased to see that your budget requests an
    additional $26 million for CBP to address these efforts and meet the
    legislative mandate of the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010.
        This is the right thing to do and I support this funding. However,
    I understand that CBP, ICE, and the Inspector General are experiencing
    difficulties working together on workforce integrity because of an
    apparent lack of clear lines of authority regarding which departmental
    entity is to conduct differing types of investigations and when. There
    have been reports that a Border Patrol agent was charged with harboring
    illegal aliens but because the DHS Inspector General chose not to
    participate in a specific Border Corruption Task Force (BCTF), the
    investigation into the alleged activity was impeded.
        The American taxpayer's trust in the integrity of Federal law
    enforcement officers is too important to be subject to stovepipes and
    petty bureaucratic behavior in Washington. In your response to my
    question during the hearing, you indicated that this was a priority for
    your Department and that you and the Deputy Secretary would commit to
    work with me on establishing clear lines of authority for integrity
    investigations.
        What specific steps have been taken in this regard to date and what
    further actions can your Department take to improve this process?
    Please provide a schedule for this review and a date by which you or
    the Deputy Secretary will report back to the subcommittee on the
    recommendations to improve the process. What additional funds beyond
    the $26 million requested in the fiscal year 2012 request are required
    for full implementation of the Anti-Border Corruption Act?
        Answer. We are fully committed to fighting corruption and
    maintaining the integrity of our workforce across the Department. The
    President's fiscal year 2012 budget request provides sufficient funding
    for workforce integrity in support of the Anti-Border Corruption Act
    (Public Law 111-376). The request includes a $26 million enhancement
    for CBP to enhance its polygraph program and ensure timely background
    and periodic reinvestigations as mandated by the Anti-Border Corruption
    Act of 2010 while maintaining all other aspects of CBP's integrity
    programs, including oversight of CBP operations, personnel, and
    facilities. Resources will also be used to improve the Office of
    Internal Affairs' ability to detect and deter insider and cyber
    threats, including the growing threats posed by Foreign Intelligence
    Services, terrorists, and foreign criminal organizations. Additionally,
    the base budget requests for CBP and ICE include $142 million and $94
    million, respectively, to support anticorruption activities.
        DHS and our components have taken several actions to ensure that
    all parts of the Department are working together effectively to fight
    corruption.
        First, in 2004, CBP and ICE created the Joint Intake Center (JIC),
    which was designed to serve as the central clearinghouse for receiving,
    documenting, and processing all allegations of misconduct involving ICE
    and CBP employees and to ensure that the Office of the Inspector
    General (OIG) receives appropriate and timely notification through the
    Joint Integrity Case Management System (JICMS).
        Second, I have directed CBP and ICE to adhere to the DHS Management
    directive, which requires CBP and ICE to promptly advise the OIG
    regarding allegations of employee misconduct. CBP leadership has taken
    prompt action to ensure strong cooperation between CBP's Office of
    Internal Affairs (CBP IA) and OIG. In October 2009 and July 2010, CBP
    IA issued guidance to all CBP IA special agents-in-charge requiring
    that detailed information regarding any allegation of wrongdoing on the
    part of a CBP employee be entered into JICMS on the same day or the day
    after receiving the information. The guidance extends specifically to
    CBP IA agents serving on BCTFs.
        Third, this past January, CBP and ICE entered into a memorandum of
    understanding (MOU) establishing a program whereby CBP would augment
    ICE investigations of criminal misconduct by CBP employees through the
    detail of CBP IA agents to ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility.
    Since the MOU became effective on January 1, 2011, CBP has detailed 24
    special agents to ICE OPR. Pursuant to the MOU, CBP IA has begun
    working collaboratively with ICE OPR on 160 potential criminal cases
    targeting CBP personnel.
        The Department will continue to work closely with its components
    and OIG to ensure allegations of fraud, waste, and abuse, as well as
    allegations of corruption within the DHS workforce, are addressed in an
    effective and timely manner. We will continually review our processes
    for ensuring officer integrity, and make any adjustments to those
    processes as necessary.
                             real id act compliance
        Question. This subcommittee has committed significant resources to
    make driver's licenses and identification cards more secure. This
    security measure was recommended by the 9/11 Commission and is required
    through the REAL ID Act. Of the $190 million appropriated to FEMA for
    REAL ID-related grants to date, approximately $161.2 million has been
    obligated to individual States for security improvements to individual
    State credentials and licensing processes and $28.8 million to
    information sharing and verification capability improvements. Of the
    $60 million appropriated to USCIS, approximately $6.3 million has been
    obligated by USCIS to immigration status verification projects and
    $28.5 million has been obligated to FEMA to supplement existing FEMA
    grants for information sharing and verification capability
    improvements. On March 7, 2011, the date for final compliance with the
    REAL ID Act was changed from May 11, 2011, to January 15, 2013, through
    a Federal Register notice. The change was made citing the difficulty
    States are still having meeting all of the statutory requirements. The
    notice also recognizes significant progress has been made by States in
    some areas.
        Please provide a copy of the notice for the record.
        How many States are currently in compliance with the act, how many
    are expected to be in compliance this fiscal year, and how many are
    estimated to be in compliance in fiscal year 2012?
        Please outline why the Nation is safer because of the investments
    and progress made to date and detail how the fiscal year 2012 budget
    request continues the progress of this effort. Will the Department
    resubmit PASS ID?
        Answer. [The final rule is available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
    pkg/FR-2011-03-07/pdf/2011-5002.pdf (Federal Register/Monday, March 7,
    2011/Vol. 76/No. 44/pgs 12269-12271/Rules and Regulations).]
        To address concerns raised by the States over various aspects of
    REAL ID, DHS supported PASS ID legislation introduced in the last
    Congress. PASS ID would have made a number of changes to the REAL ID
    Act to facilitate State compliance. Since this bill was not approved by
    the Congress we have made considerable progress in implementing REAL
    ID.
        To date, five States have submitted for DHS review, full-compliance
    certification packages. Additionally, a number of States are making
    progress in meeting the requirements of the REAL ID Act. A majority of
    States have self-certified that they either already or plan to: verify
    lawful status using the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements
    (SAVE) system; conduct background checks and fraudulent document
    training for employees; incorporate safeguards to improve the physical
    security of driver's license production facilities; and implement
    technology linking DMV employees to the credentials they issue.
    Moreover, by the end of 2011, nearly all of the reporting States will
    have implemented additional security enhancements related to DMV
    employees, physical security, technology, and card security. By
    implementing these security enhancements, States can more effectively
    mitigate fraud associated with State-issued credentials, and make it
    more difficult for individuals to obtain identity documents they are
    not entitled to.

                REAL ID STATUS OF STATES AS OF MARCH 29, 2011 \1\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    States that have submitted full          Maryland, Tennessee,
     compliance certification packages to     Connecticut, South Dakota,
     DHS (5).                                 Delaware.
    States issuing materially compliant      Alabama, Florida, Indiana,
     documents with gold star (4) (Self-      Utah.
     certified).
    States that are materially compliant     Arkansas, District of Columbia,
     but not issuing compliant gold star      Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
     documents (7) (Self-certified).          Mississippi, New Jersey.
    States committed to meet material        Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois,
     compliance but need additional time      Nebraska, Ohio, Puerto Rico,
     (12).                                    Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia,
                                              West Virginia, Wisconsin,
                                              Wyoming.
    States with comparable EDL programs (4)  New York (issues EDL), Michigan
                                              (issues EDL), Vermont (issues
                                              EDL), Washington (issues EDL).
    States committed to meet 15 of 18        Arizona, California, Georgia,
     benchmarks (12).                         Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada,
                                              New Hampshire, North Carolina,
                                              North Dakota, Pennsylvania,
                                              South Carolina, Virgin
                                              Islands.
    States that have indicated they will     Alaska, American Samoa, Guam,
     not meet four or more benchmarks         Idaho, Louisiana, Maine,
     within the next 12 months (12).          Massachusetts, Montana, New
                                              Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon,
                                              Northern Marianas.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ This information was compiled from documentation submitted by the
      States in response to DHS requirement to submit Material Compliance
      benchmark data or Full Compliance Certification information. All of
      the information is self-reported by the States so all conclusions
      based on this information may not accurately reflect a State's actual
      progress in complying with the requirements of the REAL ID regulation.

    Note.--Italic text denotes States with legislation preventing REAL ID
      compliance.

        States may use funds provided through the State Homeland Security
    Grants Program to continue to improve the security of their driver's
    license program.
               coordination of federal chemical security efforts
        Question. The Senate Report (111-31) accompanying the fiscal year
    2010 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act (Public Law
    111-83) directed the Department to report quarterly on its efforts to
    coordinate chemical security across departments. The fourth quarter
    report received on March 4, 2011, outlines several memorandums of
    agreements, regulatory reviews, and regulatory amendments that are
    under development. Please provide a specific timeline for each of these
    efforts and identify any obstacles to meeting the timelines
    expeditiously. In particular, please update the subcommittee on efforts
    to establish standardized risk assessments for facilities under the
    Maritime Transportation Security Act and the Chemical Facilities Anti-
    Terrorism Standards.
        Answer. [Follows:]
    Infrastructure Protection/Coast Guard Coordination
        The National Protection and Programs Directorate's (NPPD) Office of
    Infrastructure Protection (IP) and the Coast Guard continue to work
    toward harmonization of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards
    (CFATS) and Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) regulatory
    programs under the auspices of the chartered CFATS-MTSA Harmonization
    Working Group. In November 2010, senior leadership from NPPD and the
    Coast Guard signed the charter. As stated in the activities detailed in
    the Fourth Quarter Report to Congress, the CFATS-MTSA Working Group
    continued ``the development of a full regulatory review of the security
    regimes established under MTSA and CFATS.''
        In November 2010, the Working Group presented a comprehensive
    regulatory review to NPPD Under Secretary Rand Beers and Rear Admiral
    (RADM) Brian Salerno, the Coast Guard Deputy Commandant for Operations.
    This review was designed to inform leadership regarding options for
    seeking consistency of security across all high-risk chemical
    facilities. The findings of this review have been approved by NPPD/IP
    and Coast Guard leadership; NPPD/IP's Infrastructure Security
    Compliance Division (ISCD) and the Coast Guard are currently working to
    further a number of initiatives both independently and through the
    Working Group and designated subgroups. Also noted in the Fourth
    Quarter Report to Congress, NPPD and the Coast Guard are working toward
    the ``Refinement of a [memorandum of agreement (MOA)] to enable data
    sharing and sharing of risk methodologies between ISCD's Chemical
    Security Assessment Tool and the Coast Guard's Maritime Security Risk
    Analysis Model . . . '' Consistent with the findings and
    recommendations of the Working Group, NPPD and the Coast Guard are
    establishing a Risk and Information Sharing Sub-Group designed to
    complete development of the referenced MOA, which will relate to the
    exchange of specific risk information and an assessment of the
    approaches to risk management currently employed by ISCD and the Coast
    Guard for their respective programs. Execution of the MOA is expected
    by summer 2011.
        In order to help DHS develop a more comprehensive picture of
    security issues at the Nation's chemical facilities, and to help DHS
    evaluate whether any regulatory gaps exist that may pose an
    unacceptable security risk, the Department has begun the process, with
    close cooperation between NPPD and the Coast Guard, for determining
    whether and how to require MTSA-covered facilities that possess CFATS
    chemicals of interest to complete and submit CFATS Top-Screens.
        DHS/Federal Bureau of Investigation Coordination.--With regard to
    the Department's efforts to coordinate with the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation (FBI), NPPD is developing an operational-level MOA with
    the FBI specific to chemical security and related national security
    issues. As noted in the Fourth Quarterly Report to Congress, ``This MOA
    will establish proactive guidelines that build upon our current working
    relationships and allow for additional interagency activities (such as
    information sharing on high-risk chemical facilities and field
    component interaction) and will resolve any potential jurisdictional
    issues proactively.'' As the MOA is developed, NPPD/IP and the FBI are
    also leveraging a formal agreement, entered into between the
    Department's Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the FBI in
    September 2010, regarding the development of joint intelligence
    products (such as intelligence bulletins). NPPD/IP and the FBI are
    currently leveraging this agreement in relation to products jointly
    developed for chemical security-related issues.
    DHS/Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coordination
        As stated in the Fourth Quarterly Report to Congress, ``At the
    staff level, DHS and the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)]
    finalized and submitted to DHS and NRC leadership for review and
    execution a jointly developed draft MOU designed to help define the
    types of facilities that are wholly or partially exempt from CFATS due
    to NRC-regulatory authority, as well as processes for identifying those
    facilities.'' NPPD Under Secretary Rand Beers formally endorsed the
    DHS-NRC MOU in August 2010, and the MOU is currently with NRC senior
    leadership for final review and execution.
                        office of the inspector general
        Question. In January 2011, a San Diego-area Border Patrol agent,
    Marcos Manzano was arrested for harboring illegal immigrants. One of
    OIG's missions is to investigate allegations of criminal, civil, and
    administrative misconduct involving DHS employees, and to work with the
    U.S. Attorneys, other law enforcement agencies, and investigate
    activities of DHS Internal Affairs offices to ensure violators are
    prosecuted, fined, and/or civil action is taken. In this particular
    case, the FBI BCTF had the lead on the investigation, but reports show
    that the DHS OIG was not involved due to the fact that the OIG has not
    signed on to the BCTF MOU.
        Why isn't the DHS OIG part of the BCTF?
        Answer. Despite the lack of any formal written agreement, DHS OIG
    has always tried to participate fully with the BCTF. Since its
    beginning in 2003, DHS OIG has worked cooperatively with the FBI and
    other law enforcement agencies on border corruption matters involving
    DHS employees without any formal written agreement. In March 2010, DHS
    OIG assigned a Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations to
    act as a liaison to the FBI's National BCTF in an effort to achieve
    full participation in all of the FBI BCTF's investigations. In
    addition, this Deputy Assistant Inspector General was tasked with
    negotiating an MOU that reflects the OIG's statutory responsibilities
    with respect to:
      --Investigating allegations of criminal misconduct against DHS
            employees and
      --Providing oversight of the internal affairs offices within DHS,
            while ensuring the representation of departmental interests in
            the course of these investigations.
        In May 2010, the FBI in San Diego presented the OIG with an MOU
    that contained provisions that place significant restrictions on the
    OIG's independence, and were therefore unacceptable. We worked locally
    and at FBI headquarters to resolve differences and craft language to
    which all parties could agree. In November 2010, we proposed
    alternative language for the local BCTF MOU that both recognized the
    significance of border corruption offenses committed by DHS employees
    and respected the legislated authorities that define and govern roles
    and responsibilities of the member agencies that include the FBI, CBP
    Internal Affairs (IA), CBP Office of Field Operations (OPO), Border
    Patrol, and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Office of
    Investigations.
        Our proposal was rejected by the FBI because the FBI failed to
    recognize that DHS has a system of tiered authority with respect to the
    investigation of allegations of criminal misconduct against DHS
    employees and that, within that system of tiered authority, OIG has
    primacy. Moreover, we were asked to remove the agent we had assigned to
    the San Diego task force because we had not signed the version of the
    MOU that was unilaterally drafted by the FBI. We honored the FBI's
    request and removed our agent on November 12, 2010. Since that time,
    several significant border corruption cases that DHS OIG has presented
    to the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) in San Diego have been declined
    because the investigations were not conducted by the local BCTF.
        The OIG has been prevented from participating in the FBI BCTF in
    San Diego because of the insistence that we sign an agreement we
    consider to be fundamentally flawed, and in conflict with our
    legislated mandate as the primary authority within DHS for
    investigating allegations that DHS employees have committed criminal
    misconduct. This authority is clearly specified in the Inspector
    General Act of 1978, as amended, and further articulated in the
    Secretary of Homeland Security's Management Directive (MD) 0810.1.
        We have continued to negotiate with the USAO in San Diego to reach
    accord on an MOU that will preserve the OIG's independence and
    authority, but otherwise satisfies the general terms of the BCTF MOU.
    OIG continues to open and aggressively investigate all allegations
    relating to the corruption of DHS employees or the compromise of
    systems related to the security of our borders and transportation
    networks.
        Question.Why hasn't the OIG signed the MOU? Is there something in
    the MOU that is counter to the Inspector General Act or DHS Management
    Directive?
        Answer. The BCTF MOU places serious limitations on the independence
    of the OIG. First it requires that all allegations of DHS employee
    corruption, without exception, be referred to the BCTF. Second, it
    fails to address the authority within DHS to investigate allegations of
    criminal misconduct by DHS employees and the role of the OIG in
    oversight of DHS component internal affairs offices.
        Inspectors General play a critical role in assuring transparent,
    honest, effective, and accountable government. Both the personal and
    organizational independence of OIG investigators is essential to
    maintaining the public trust in not only the work of the OIG, but also
    in the DHS workforce as a whole. The American public wants to know that
    Government employees are held accountable for their misconduct by an
    independent fact finder, such as the OIG.
        The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and the Homeland
    Security Act of 2002, as amended, establish a clear line of authority
    for investigating allegations of criminal misconduct by DHS employees.
    The statutes vest primary criminal investigative authority for employee
    misconduct with DHS OIG. Within DHS, Management Directive 0810.1
    outlines the roles of the various offices of internal affairs with
    respect to support for the OIG, including investigation of noncriminal
    misconduct allegations.
        In contrast, the BCTF MOU specifies that each participating DHS
    agency is an equal partner that shares overall responsibility for
    policy, operation, and direction of the BCTF; coordination of
    investigations; and for providing management and oversight of the BCTF.
    The San Diego BCTF includes the field operational elements of CBP and
    Border Patrol, in addition to CBP internal affairs and TSA's internal
    affairs. In fact, in the investigation of Border Patrol Agent Manzano,
    the FBI assigned a Border Patrol agent member of the BCTF to work as
    the co-case agent along with the FBI.
        This shared management responsibility between DHS OIG and internal
    affairs units (and operational units) of other DHS components usurps
    the OIG's statutory responsibility for supervising, leading, and
    coordinating criminal investigations of DHS employees and interferes
    with our oversight responsibility with respect to component internal
    affairs units. Many aspects of the MOU interfere with the OIG's ability
    to investigate cases independently of the DHS component members of the
    BCTFs.
        With respect to information sharing, the OIG and FBI have a mutual
    responsibility under the Attorney General's Guidelines for Offices of
    Inspector General with Statutory Law Enforcement Authority to promptly
    notify one another upon initiation of any criminal investigation, a
    responsibility the OIG meets in a timely way. Within DHS, all
    allegations of criminal misconduct by employees must be referred to
    OIG. The MOU would require DHS participating agencies to provide the
    same information directly to the FBI. This duplication in reporting is
    not an efficient use of DHS or FBI resources, and opens the door for
    dual parallel investigations.
        The MOU contains a provision under which the Executive Board, which
    is comprised of representatives of all participating agencies (in this
    case DHS components), who vote on whether or not the OIG could
    investigate an allegation unilaterally. Allowing DHS components to vote
    on whether and how the OIG pursues an investigation is contrary to the
    concept of statutory independence, and would result in the erosion of
    public confidence in any outcome.
        Question. Describe the OIG's leadership role as it relates to the
    internal affairs division of each of the Department's agencies.
        Answer. DHS OIG has strong working relationships with most offices
    of internal affairs within DHS. We communicate daily on allegations and
    ongoing cases, and routinely work collaboratively. DHS OIG has an
    established inspection process for reviewing the work of the internal
    affairs units at least once every 3 years. The inspections review
    compliance with investigative standards, personnel training and
    qualifications, and investigative case files in order to ensure that
    the work of the internal affairs units reflects the quality expected by
    DHS senior leadership, the Congress, and the public. Each inspection
    results in a written report and if recommendations are made for
    corrective actions or improvements, OIG follows up to confirm that the
    recommendations in fact have been implemented.
        An OIG agent is assigned as a desk officer to each component
    internal affairs office and reviews allegations referred to OIG by that
    internal affairs office. OIG refers allegations that are purely
    administrative in nature back to the component, who then takes lead on
    the investigation. In certain instances of sensitive or significant
    matters, we exercise active oversight of a case referred back to the
    component and review the findings. DHS OIG also recently initiated a
    program to review case management statistics from each of the internal
    affairs units in order to reconcile OIG's case management records with
    those of the components, to track trends and patterns in allegations,
    and to ensure that components take appropriate action when misconduct
    is found.
        Question. Should all internal affairs personnel work for the DHS
    OIG?
        Answer. When the DHS was initially organized, it was done so on the
    basis of realignment of existing governmental resources. The premise
    was that the DHS would streamline operations by eliminating
    redundancies while increasing communication, information sharing,
    transparency, and accountability. Since that time, the component
    elements have inappropriately stratified operations by devoting
    personnel and resources that compete with, rather than compliment, the
    OIG. Although the internal affairs offices have an important mission to
    conduct noncriminal misconduct inquiries, pre-employment screening of
    applicants, and background investigations of employees and provide
    integrity and security briefings that help employees recognize
    corruption signs and dangers, transferring some number of experienced
    criminal investigators from the internal affairs offices to DHS OIG
    would allow OIG to more effectively address its workload growth
    resulting from increases in DHS component workforces. It is our belief
    that a realignment of these resources by transfer of the positions to
    the OIG would be responsible stewardship. Alternatively, funding for
    increased OIG staffing that reflects the growth within the DHS
    workforce is needed.
        The Department was also founded with intent to forsake
    jurisdictional rivalries in favor of operational efficiency. Just as
    DHS presents one face at the border, the Homeland Security Act mandates
    one face when dealing with criminal allegations against departmental
    employees. The OIG, which has primary authority to investigative those
    criminal misconduct allegations, should be the single point of contact
    with regard to those allegations.
        One of the most important factors in detecting, deterring, and
    discouraging corruption is employee awareness of where and how to
    report and their comfort in doing so. Centralizing complaint intake in
    the OIG, as a separate office from a complainant's agency of
    employment, would provide DHS employees with increased assurance that
    their information will be treated confidentially and acted upon
    professionally; eliminate redundancies in the reporting of allegations;
    and ensure the timely reporting of employee complaints to the OIG
    hotline would more effectively direct resources to combat corruption
    and would promote better intelligence, trend analysis, and
    prioritization of investigative leads.
        The OIG continues to work the vast majority of allegations of the
    most serious criminal misconduct and corruption, and has accounted for
    an overwhelming majority of all arrests and convictions of DHS
    employees since 2003. We believe that DHS's criminal investigative
    resources should be deployed accordingly.
                            cbp--container security
        Question. The 9/11 Act requires 100 percent of U.S.-bound maritime
    cargo to be scanned before departing to our ports. In testimony before
    the Congress last year, CBP Commissioner Bersin stated that only 4
    percent to 5 percent of cargo is currently scanned. The act allows the
    Secretary to waive this 2012 requirement in a 2-year increment if
    conditions indicate this requirement cannot be met, and you have
    indicated that you will do so. However, even before you have officially
    waived these requirements, the budget request for fiscal year 2012--and
    the realities in this fiscal year--show significant reductions to the
    international cargo screening programs. Funds have been eliminated for
    Secure Freight pilots in all places except Pakistan and CBP has closed
    or is ceasing operations at many of the 58 Container Security
    Initiative (CSI) ports. In fiscal year 2009, there were 167 CBP
    officials located overseas at CSI ports. By the end of fiscal year
    2010--and continuing today--the number of individuals has dropped to
    86.
        With overseas personnel for this effort essentially cut in one-
    half, how does this increase cargo security at the same time it appears
    that no real steps are being taken to meet a legislative mandate that
    the Department has known has been coming since September 2006--more
    than 4 years ago?
        Much of this scanning will be handled domestically by the targeting
    center. However, the 2012 budget includes $7.5 million to fund the
    implementation of two pilots to test the 100-percent scanning mandate.
    In fact, one of the proposed pilots appears to replicate the Secure
    Freight Initiative model used in Pakistan in a different, high-threat
    corridor--likely on the Arabian Peninsula.
        What new information does the Department believe it can obtain by
    repeating the same project in a different location? How will this
    information be used to determine the best steps to meet the scanning
    requirement? What developments in scanning technology might lead DHS to
    decide to implement the overseas scanning requirement called for in the
    9/11 Act?
        Answer. Presently, and as required by the SAFE Port Act, DHS and
    other Federal partners are working collaboratively with the National
    Security Staff to develop a national-level strategy that will provide a
    unified vision that the U.S. Government sees for global supply chain
    security across air, land, and sea modes of transportation, which will
    also address the necessary level of cargo scanned to provide effective
    detection and deterrence. The administration anticipates completing
    this strategy development effort in 2011 and DHS remains confident that
    it will include guidance and additional details on how DHS, other
    Departments, and agencies will address the 100 percent cargo scanning
    provision.
        Throughout this process, we will remain mindful of our need to
    properly balance security concerns with facilitating the flow of
    commerce. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding for
    CBP to conduct a cargo screening pilot to assess alternatives to the
    100 percent maritime cargo scanning, enabling CBP to test alternatives
    to extend the zone of security beyond our physical borders, strengthen
    global supply chain security, and enhance CBP's multi-layered security
    strategy. CBP is in a unique position to work toward deterring
    malicious actors from exploiting the system, protecting infrastructure
    and embedding resilience in the system to aid in recovering from
    disruptions by virtue of having access to vast amounts of historical
    and transactional data from all modes of cargo shipments. This data
    includes the parties involved, trade routes and other information which
    can be used in assessing risk. Coupled with this is CBP's expertise in
    risk targeting that has been developed over the past decade. The
    proposed Supply Chain Security Pilot would include next-generation
    targeting to employ predictive models to assess threats and detect
    anomalies in the supply chain; and the utilization of tools and
    technologies that are currently not in use at the National Targeting
    Center. For example, analysts will be provided analytic tools that
    allow them to perform link analysis, commodity analysis, and entity
    resolution, along with visualization tools to represent vessel
    movements, geo-location of addresses, and social network diagrams.
        CBP's multi-layered security strategy seeks to identify high-risk
    cargo as early as possible in the supply chain. The Trade Act of 2002
    and its implementing regulations require industry to submit electronic
    manifest data to CBP 24 hours prior to the cargo being laden on a
    vessel destined for the United States. CBP's predeparture manifest data
    was enhanced further with the implementation of the Importer Security
    Filing and Additional Carrier requirements, commonly known as ``10+2,''
    which requires importers to provide specific information on their cargo
    prior to arrival in the United States. CBP also utilizes the Automated
    Targeting System (ATS) to screen advanced manifest data and assist CBP
    officers in identifying high-risk cargo. Upon screening, CBP can issue
    ``Do Not Load'' messages for shipments deemed high-risk until the risk
    can be mitigated or resolved.
        Through the CSI, CBP works to identify and inspect high-risk cargo
    before it is laden on a vessel destined for the United States. As a
    result of new and improved technology and increased international
    partnerships, CBP is now able to conduct a greater portion of the CSI
    targeting from the National Targeting Center-Cargo (NTC-C)--increasing
    efficiency and reducing cost. As a result, in early fiscal year 2009,
    CSI began reducing the number of CBP officers deployed to foreign
    seaports. While there has been decrease in the staffing of CSI officers
    abroad, CSI has increased the staffing level at the NTC-C to support
    targeting functions in overseas ports. The decrease in the CSI staffing
    at foreign locations has not compromised the CSI mission because CBP
    has been able to accomplish the CSI mission more efficiently and in a
    more cost-effective manner through the increased staffing and resources
    at the NTC-C. The fiscal year 2012 budget continues to fund CSI at the
    same level.
        CBP and DHS are committed to ensuring the security of the
    international supply chain and will work to support the global supply
    chain security strategy utilizing a risk-based, multi-layered approach
    across all modes of transit.
                              air cargo screening
        Question. What specific steps is the Department taking to improve
    the screening of articles entering the United States via air? Is the
    Department taking steps to have shipping manifest requirements for air
    cargo more closely match the current ones for seaborne cargo? Can CBP
    ensure that all cargo information requiring a shippers' export
    declaration is provided to CBP within a reasonable security timeframe?
    If so, what is that timeframe? Does CBP currently have the ability to
    enforce a no-load decision or require additional screening for any
    U.S.-bound air cargo?
        Answer. Today, 100 percent of high-risk cargo on international
    flights bound for the United States is prohibited from being
    transported on passenger aircraft and goes through enhanced security
    procedures before being shipped on all cargo aircraft. DHS and TSA
    recently announced a proposed deadline of December 31, 2011, for
    industry to screen 100 percent of air cargo on international inbound
    passenger aircraft--2 years earlier than previously anticipated.
        DHS is also working closely with industry and international
    partners to expedite the receipt of advanced cargo data for
    international flights to the United States prior to departure in order
    to identify and screen items based on risk and current intelligence
    before they are airborne. In December 2010, CBP, TSA, and the air cargo
    industry launched a new joint technology pilot project to enhance the
    sharing of electronic shipping information to improve the
    identification of high-risk shipments.
        Further, in January, I announced a new partnership with the World
    Customs Organization to enlist other nations, international bodies, and
    the private sector in increasing the security of the global supply
    chain--outlining a series of new initiatives to make the system
    stronger, smarter and more resilient.
        CBP exercises the same border authority over exports and imports
    and has the authority to inspect and detain goods and order their
    redelivery from any person, such as the carrier, in possession of the
    goods. CBP is currently collaborating with TSA to utilize their
    regulatory authority to have high-risk shipments screened prior to
    being laden at last port of departure.
        Question. The Department has been working with industry to develop
    a process for receiving air cargo manifest information prior to
    departure. What is the status of this effort? When will the system be
    operational? What resources are required by CBP and TSA to develop and
    operate this system? Are funds requested in the fiscal year 2012 budget
    for this effort?
        Answer. DHS is working closely with industry and international
    partners to expedite the receipt of advanced cargo data for
    international flights to the United States prior to departure in order
    to identify and screen items based on risk and current intelligence
    before they are airborne. In December 2010, CBP, TSA, and the air cargo
    industry launched a new joint technology pilot project (the Air Cargo
    Advance Screening Pilot) to enhance the sharing of electronic shipping
    information to improve the identification of high-risk shipments.
        CBP and TSA have made significant progress on this pilot and expect
    to have the first phase--which focuses on the express consignment
    environment--fully operational in the late spring 2011. The passenger
    phase of the pilot is tentatively scheduled for implementation in early
    summer 2011.
        CBP and TSA estimate that the total costs for the development and
    maintenance of the Air Cargo Advance Screening system and staffing
    through fiscal year 2012 will be approximately $20 million. Funding is
    included within the CBP salaries and expenses appropriation,
    specifically in the Inspections, Trade and Travel, and Trusted Traveler
    Program PPAs, in the fiscal year 2012 budget request.
             impact of customs enforcement on the seafood industry
        Question. When foreign producers send dumped or unfairly subsidized
    goods into our country, vigorous enforcement of our trade laws is the
    only way that American businesses can compete on a level playing field.
        In Louisiana and the gulf region, the domestic shrimp industry is
    fighting a tough battle against unfairly dumped shrimp imports, and
    they won antidumping orders against shrimp from six countries in 2005.
        Unfortunately, Customs is simply not doing enough to collect the
    dumping duties that importers owe to the Federal Government. Since
    2005, for example, importers of shrimp from China have failed to pay
    more than $58 million in dumping duties, some of which is supposed to
    be redistributed to injured shrimp producers here in the United States.
    Continued failure to collect these duties is fiscally irresponsible,
    and it further threatens a vulnerable gulf seafood industry that is
    struggling to recover from the impact of four major hurricanes and a
    devastating oil spill.
        How can Customs improve its performance to ensure that our laws are
    fully enforced and that importers are held accountable for all of the
    duties they owe? Could we enforce duty payment requirements on
    individuals, rather than companies that often go bankrupt? Will you
    work with me to increase transparency so that domestic producers can
    track the enforcement actions Customs is undertaking against importers
    and the results of those actions?
        Answer. Antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) enforcement is a
    priority trade issue (PTI) for CBP. CBP takes a concerted, systematic
    approach to detect and deter circumvention of the AD/CVD law,
    administer entries of AD/CVD merchandise, and to issue and collect
    bills for AD/CVD duties owed to the U.S. Government. CBP coordinates
    its AD/CVD enforcement activities through an intra-office AD/CVD PTI
    Working Group. CBP works closely with the Department of Commerce (DOC),
    the administering authority for AD/CVD determinations under U.S. law,
    and ICE to enforce AD/CVD laws and regulations.
        When CBP issues a bill for final AD/CVD duties, CBP makes every
    effort to collect all duties, taxes and fees legally due to the
    Government. However, some importers, or their agents, are unable to pay
    the final duties. In addition, at least two sureties issuing bonds
    covering substantial amounts of AD/CVD duties are currently in
    receivership, further complicating collection. Other importers are
    simply unwilling to pay, or no longer exist by the time CBP issues a
    bill. CBP pursues collection action against importers and sureties who
    are simply unwilling to pay. CBP's Revenue Division in the Office of
    Administration initiates an administrative collections process in order
    to recover past-due amounts from the importers and sureties. This
    process may include dunning letters and the suspension of the immediate
    delivery process, among other steps. Ultimately, those debts for which
    the Revenue Division's collections process is ineffective are referred
    to CBP's Office of Chief Counsel.
        The Office of Chief Counsel pursues collection from both the
    importers and sureties, after completing a legal review of the
    underlying debt. Further, a review is done to determine if there is a
    viable importer (or available surety coverage) from which the debt may
    be recovered. In part, this is done through dunning letters, searches
    of electronic databases and internal systems, and pursuing available
    leads. In addition, CBP can assess civil penalties pursuant to 19
    U.S.C. 1592 against any party who, by fraud, gross negligence, or
    negligence submits a material false statement or omission on
    importation into the United States, including those cases in which a
    false statement or omission is made concerning the applicability of an
    antidumping duty order to a particular entry. If administrative
    attempts to collect the debt are unsuccessful and a viable importer
    and/or surety can be found, the Office of Chief Counsel drafts a
    complaint and refers the matter to the Department of Justice for
    possible litigation in the Court of International Trade. If the Office
    of Chief Counsel is not successful in locating a viable entity to be
    pursued, the matter will be referred back to the Revenue Division for
    appropriate action. This may include referral to ICE for further
    investigation. If the debt is without legal merit or no viable entity
    can be located to pursue further collection action, CBP may ultimately
    be forced to write off the debt.
        CBP has taken steps to specifically improve the collection of AD/
    CVD duties on shrimp imports and continues to explore statutory and
    nonstatutory changes to enhance bonding requirements. CBP is also
    actively pursuing collection of the balance of the open bills against
    delinquent importers and sureties.
                            antidumping authorities
        Question. Please detail the legal process for antidumping
    activities (claims, investigations, collections, etc.) under the
    specific jurisdiction of CBP from beginning of the process to final
    resolution.
        What parts of this process are not under the control or
    jurisdiction of CBP? What roles do other U.S. agencies or departments
    play in this process and at what intervals? How long can the duty
    collection process take once a determination is made that a shipper has
    ``dumped'' goods adversely affecting a U.S. producer? What legal
    impediments, if any, prevent CBP from being able to use a portion of
    the fines it collects to cover the costs of increased investigations?
    Are all antidumping fines collected distributed to dumped-upon U.S.
    producers and/or companies?
        Under current law, the U.S. Government assesses antidumping fines
    against a particular company or corporation. What prevents our
    Government from going after the individual owner(s) of the company or
    corporation? If there is a legal prohibition in doing so, what specific
    law prohibits it?
        Answer. [Follows:]
    Legal Process for Antidumping Activities
        Once DOC makes an affirmative determination in an Antidumping or
    Countervailing Duty (AD/CVD) investigation, it issues instructions to
    CBP specifically identifying the covered product and requiring the
    applicable AD/CVD duty rates for each foreign producer. An importer
    must indicate that its entry is covered by an antidumping duty or
    countervailing duty order on its entry forms and deposit the applicable
    cash deposit. Because the United States has a retrospective system for
    determining antidumping and countervailing duties, the liquidation of
    these entries is suspended until DOC reaches a final decision of the
    rate of antidumping or countervailing duty. Thus, the amount deposited
    at the time of entry is only an estimate of what duties may ultimately
    be owed.
        Once DOC sends CBP liquidation instructions indicating the final
    rate of duty that is owed on these entries, CBP liquidates them in
    accordance with those instructions. If additional duties are owed, the
    importer must pay them at that time, with interest. Conversely, if the
    rate of duty decreased, the importer would receive a refund with any
    applicable interest. CBP's role in this process is purely ministerial
    as CBP implements the instructions received from DOC.
        An importer who disagrees with the imposition of antidumping or
    countervailing duties may file a protest with CBP that concerns a
    decision that was made by CBP at the time of entry (not the underlying
    determination by DOC). Such a protest must be filed with the port
    within 180 days of liquidation.
        If the protest includes a request for further review that satisfies
    19 CFR 174.24, CBP headquarters reviews the protest and issues a
    binding decision. If the port improperly denied the request for further
    review, the protestant may seek to have the denial set aside.
    Alternatively, if a protest is denied, the protestant may file suit in
    the Court of International Trade, which is the U.S. Court with subject
    matter jurisdiction over these matters.
        If the protestant does not seek judicial review of a denied protest
    (or if no protest was filed), CBP's Revenue Division in the Office of
    Administration initiates an administrative collections process in order
    to recover past-due amounts from the importers and sureties. This
    process may include dunning letters and the suspension of immediate
    delivery process, among other steps. Ultimately, those debts for which
    the Revenue Division's collections process is ineffective are referred
    to CBP's Office of Chief Counsel.
        The Office of Chief Counsel pursues collection from both the
    importers and sureties, after completing a legal review of the
    underlying debt. Further, a review is done to determine if there is a
    viable importer (or available surety coverage) from which the debt may
    be recovered. In part, this is done through dunning letters, searches
    of electronic databases and internal systems, and pursuing available
    leads. If administrative attempts to collect the debt are unsuccessful
    and a viable importer and/or surety can be found, the Office of Chief
    Counsel drafts a complaint and refers the matter to the Department of
    Justice for possible litigation in the Court of International Trade. If
    the Office of Chief Counsel is not successful in locating a viable
    entity to be pursued, the matter will be referred back to the Revenue
    Division for appropriate action. This may include referral to ICE for
    further investigation.
    Parts of the Process Not Under the Control or Jurisdiction of CBP
        CBP's role in administering the antidumping duty and countervailing
    duty orders is purely ministerial. DOC establishes which products are
    covered by the orders and what the applicable duty rates are for
    foreign producers and U.S. importers. CBP is in charge of the
    collection of the cash deposits, reviewing entries to ensure that
    importers are properly reporting their goods as subject to an order and
    paying the correct rate of duty, and liquidating those entries and
    assessing the final duty rate that is owed for those entries. CBP does
    not, however, liquidate any entry subject to an antidumping duty or
    countervailing duty order until it receives specific instructions from
    DOC indicating that it is appropriate to do so.
    Roles Other U.S. Agencies Play
        DOC, the AD/CVD administering authority under U.S. law, and the
    U.S. International Trade Commission are responsible for investigating
    petitions alleging that goods being imported into the United States are
    dumped or subsidized. DOC determines at what rate the goods are being
    dumped or subsidized and the International Trade Commission determines
    whether the U.S. industry has been injured or whether there is threat
    of injury resulting from the importation of these dumped or subsidized
    goods. If both agencies make affirmative preliminary determinations,
    DOC issues instructions to CBP specifically identifying the covered
    product and the applicable required duty rates for each foreign
    producer. After both agencies make affirmative final determinations,
    DOC publishes an antidumping duty order and/or countervailing duty
    order in the Federal Register. Thereafter, DOC may conduct annual
    administrative reviews to determine the actual rate of dumping or
    subsidization of the previous year's entries.
        Every 5 years, DOC and the International Trade Commission conduct
    sunset reviews of AD/CVD orders to determine if a case should be
    continued or revoked, and DOC instructs CBP accordingly if a case is
    revoked. DOC also has other ad hoc proceedings that may result in
    instructions to CBP to begin or stop collecting AD/CVD duties on
    specified subcategories of merchandise or specific companies.
        ICE investigates criminal violations of AD/CVD laws. CBP works
    closely with ICE and regularly refers suspected criminal violations
    involving AD/CVD circumvention and fraud to ICE for investigation. In
    addition, CBP can assess civil penalties pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1592
    against any party who, by fraud, gross negligence, or negligence,
    submits or aids and abets another in submitting a material false
    statement or omission on importation into the United States, including
    those cases in which a false statement or omission is made concerning
    the applicability of an antidumping duty order to a particular entry.
    Steps in the Process Once a Determination Is Made
        As soon as DOC instructs CBP to collect estimated AD/CVD duties for
    a commodity from a specified country, CBP will collect these estimated
    duties upon entries of the merchandise into the United States. CBP will
    then hold these entries in suspension until DOC instructs CBP to
    collect the final amount of duties due on these entries. CBP often does
    not receive these final liquidation instructions from DOC for several
    years after the original entry of merchandise. CBP then works to take
    timely action to apply the liquidation instructions and bill the
    importers for the final AD/CVD duties due. Importers may legally
    protest the liquidation of an entry and delay paying a bill until the
    protest is decided. If a protest is denied, the protestant may file
    suit in the Court of International Trade.
    Fines as a Funding Source
        Generally speaking, fines must be deposited in the Treasury as
    miscellaneous receipts pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3302(b). Absent statutory
    authority, CBP's use of these funds to cover the costs of
    investigations would constitute an improper augmentation of CBP's
    appropriations. Where goods are seized and forfeited for AD related
    violations, those proceeds from the sale of forfeited goods are
    deposited in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund and available for reimbursing
    costs of the investigations, among other uses.
    Distribution of Fines
        The ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000'' was
    enacted on October 28, 2000, as part of the ``Agriculture, Rural
    Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Act''. The act was repealed by section 7601(a) of the
    ``Deficit Reduction Act of 2005'', but remains in place for AD/CVD
    duties collected on entries made before October 1, 2007.
        Money collected on an entry filed before October 1, 2007, will
    continue to be subject to the distribution procedures under former
    section 1675c. The duty on an entry is not available for distribution
    until the entry is liquidated pursuant to the direction of DOC and the
    duty is collected and deposited into the special account; therefore,
    the distribution process will continue until all entries made before
    October 1, 2007 are liquidated and the duties are collected. As a
    result of the statutory constraints in the assessment of antidumping
    and countervailing duties, the distribution process will continue for
    an undetermined period; however, the amount of money available for
    distribution can be expected to diminish over time.
    Enforcement on Individuals Rather Than Companies
        The law makes it difficult to impose personal liability. While
    there is no express legal prohibition against taking collection action
    against individuals involved with corporate importers that incur
    dumping duty debts, most individuals involved with such debtor
    corporations are in other countries outside the jurisdiction of the
    United States, as is their valuable real and personal property.
        However, CBP does have the authority to assess civil penalties
    against individual owners of particular companies or corporations.
    Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1592, CBP is authorized to assess penalties and
    recover lost duties (including antidumping duties) against any party
    who, by fraud, gross negligence, or negligence, enters or introduces,
    or attempts to enter or introduce, any merchandise into the commerce of
    the United States by means of a false statement or omission, or aids or
    abets another person to do so. See 19 U.S.C. 1592(a)-(d). CBP may
    exercise this authority in cases in which a false statement or omission
    is made on an entry involving merchandise subject to an antidumping
    duty order.
                    improved antidumping revenue collections
        Question. In March 2008, GAO reported that, as of September 2007,
    CBP has been unable to collect more than $600 million owed in
    antidumping and countervailing duties imposed to remedy injurious
    unfair foreign trade practices. These include duties imposed on
    products exported to the United States at unfairly low prices (i.e.,
    dumped) and duties on products exported to the United States that were
    subsidized by foreign governments. In addition to the substantial
    amount of lost revenue, the uncollected duties cause concern that the
    U.S. Government has not fully remedied the unfair trade practices.
        Since 2005, GAO has reported several times on the U.S. Government's
    inability to collect substantial amounts of antidumping and
    countervailing duties and, in 2008, proposed a variety of options for
    improving the system for collecting these duties. Two key components of
    the antidumping and countervailing duty system have received particular
    attention. One is its retrospective nature, which means that-- though
    importers pay estimated duties at the time of importation--final duties
    are not assessed until after products enter the country. Another
    component is the ``new shipper'' review process that allows new
    manufacturers or exporters to petition for their own separate
    antidumping and countervailing duty rate. Despite other efforts by the
    Congress and CBP, these components of the system have not been
    addressed and the collection of antidumping and countervailing duties
    remains a problem.
        The March 2008, GAO report identified several options for the
    Congress to consider for improving the collection of antidumping and
    countervailing duties. And by adjusting features of the antidumping or
    countervailing duty system that create the risk that companies can
    evade paying duties, the Congress could further protect Government
    revenue, while also minimizing incentives for companies to pursue
    unfair trade practices. These options included eliminating the
    retrospective component of the U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty
    system and adjusting requirements for new shipper reviews.
        What specific laws does CBP recommend should be changed or amended
    to enhance CBP's antidumping investigations and increase antidumping
    collections? Can CBP take administrative actions to improve antidumping
    collections in the absence of legislation? In the absence of changes in
    legislative authorities to existing laws and practices, can CBP do more
    to collect and distribute antidumping receipts to injured U.S.
    businesses if it was provided with additional resources? If so, what
    resources would be required and what more could be achieved?
        Answer. CBP has a longstanding administrative collection process
    that employs all of the authority available to CBP. CBP makes every
    effort to collect all duties, taxes and fees legally due to the
    Government.
        In appendix V of the March 2008, GAO report, DHS commented that of
    the options identified by GAO to improve the collection of AD/CVD
    duties, the first option CBP preferred for addressing uncollected AD/
    CVD duties would be for the U.S. Congress to change U.S. law to
    eliminate the retrospective component of the U.S. AD/CVD system and
    make the U.S. AD/CVD system prospective. DHS noted that a prospective
    AD/CVD system would alleviate the collection issues faced by CBP since
    the amount of duty assessed at entry would be the final amount owed.
    This would also substantially alleviate the administrative burden on
    CBP resources associated with a retrospective system, and allow CBP
    resources to more fully focus on AD/CVD enforcement issues, such as
    circumvention of the AD/CVD law. In this appendix to the March 2008,
    GAO report, DHS also commented that the majority of the other options
    identified by GAO to improve the collection of AD/CVD duties would
    perpetuate and exacerbate the shortcomings of the U.S. retrospective
    system.
                             jones act enforcement
        Question. CBP is charged with enforcing our Nation's cabotage laws,
    including the Jones Act, which requires that any goods transported by
    water between two coastwise points in the United States must be carried
    on ships that are built in America and crewed by Americans. This law
    promotes our economic and national security by ensuring the existence
    of a robust merchant marine fleet.
        The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1974 extended Jones Act
    requirements to offshore points within the exclusive economic zone of
    the United States. It is therefore imperative that CBP have both the
    resources and the authorities it needs to enforce the Jones Act
    offshore, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico, where more than 25
    percent of America's domestic energy production occurs.
        Does CBP have the resources, authorities, and information it needs
    to investigate alleged Jones Act violations offshore? How is CBP
    partnering with the Offshore Supply Vessel (OSV) industry, which
    supports offshore energy facilities and operations, to carry out its
    enforcement mission?
        Answer. Yes, CBP has the resources, authorities, and information
    needed to take appropriate action for alleged Jones Act violations
    committed offshore.
                                 air and marine
        Question. What are the operational impacts on performing CBP's
    mission of the CBP plan to retire 18 single-engine, fixed wing aircraft
    in fiscal year 2011?
        Answer. CBP is scheduled to retire 16 single-engine, fixed wing
    aircraft, 15 PA-18s and 1 C-172 in fiscal year-2011. The decision to
    retire these aircraft was based on their advanced age and the desire to
    operate more efficient, effective, and capably equipped aircraft. The
    PA-18 and C-172 have limited capability to fly low-level missions over
    hazardous terrain during the day and virtually no capability for
    operational missions at night. Recently purchased light enforcement
    helicopters (AS-350) are equipped with sophisticated sensors and are
    considerably better suited to perform the variety of required law
    enforcement missions supported by OAM.
                    when will we know the border is secure?
        Question. Debates have raged in the Congress and around the country
    over how secure our border is--especially our border with Mexico. Many
    people assert that they will not support immigration reform until they
    are confident the borders are ``secure''. I look forward to visiting
    the border this spring to see what has been accomplished and to listen
    to the men and women who work to secure the border about what more
    needs to be done.
        But there appears to be no consensus on what constitutes a secure
    border. As I understand it, the Border Patrol for years has used
    metrics such as ``effective control'' or ``less monitored'' in defining
    border security. Approximately 657 miles of fencing and vehicle
    barriers have been constructed along the Southwest Border to date. And
    as of June 30, 2010, the Border Patrol determined that 774 miles of
    that border were under ``effective control''.
        In testimony earlier this year, you stated ``the term `operational
    control' is a very narrow term of art, and it does not reflect the
    infrastructure and technology and all the other things that happen at
    the border''. I would assume that 657 miles of fencing would certainly
    contribute to control of the border.
        Are you modifying the metrics used to define ``border control''? Do
    you believe our borders are secure? Which agency or entity determines
    where, how much, and what kind of tactical infrastructure is required
    to obtain control of our borders? What is the required number of miles
    of fencing to be constructed mandated by the Secure Fence Act, as
    amended?
        Answer. The ``Operational Control'' measure did not accurately
    represent the Border Patrol's significant investments in personnel,
    technology, and resources or the efforts of other DHS components who
    are engaged in border security such as ICE and the Coast Guard. The
    Border Patrol is currently taking steps to replace this outdated
    measure with performance metrics that more accurately depict the state
    of border security.
        This administration has made unprecedented investments in border
    security and on every metric that measures progress, we're heading in
    the right direction. Apprehensions are down and seizures--across the
    board--are up.
        The types, amount and location of tactical infrastructure are
    determined through a combination of the operational assessment made by
    Border Patrol agents conducting daily operations in the field,
    available funding, and an overall determination of current operational
    priorities.
        To date, DHS/CBP has constructed a total of 649 miles out of nearly
    652 miles required by the Congress. The fence mileage language of the
    Secure Fence Act, as amended, is currently the subject of pending
    litigation (United States v. The State of Arizona; United States
    District Court, District of Arizona; Case No. 10-cv-01413).
                              border patrol agents
        Question. Your budget request supports funding to sustain the
    21,370 Border Patrol agents which CBP intends to hire by the end of
    this fiscal year. This number reflects the additional 1,000 agents the
    Congress funded as part of the Fiscal Year 2010 Emergency Border
    Security Supplemental Appropriations Act enacted last August. No new
    agents, however, are requested in the President's budget.
        Are 21,370 Border Patrol agents the right number of agents needed
    to protect our borders? What happens when the 1,200 National Guardsmen
    and women currently assisting our border agencies along the Southwest
    Border leave as planned this summer?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2012 budget request supports 21,370 Border
    Patrol agents and 21,186 CBP officers--the largest deployment of law
    enforcement officers to the front line in the agency's history. The
    request annualizes positions supported by the fiscal year 2010
    Southwest Border supplemental, including 1,000 new Border Patrol agents
    and 250 new CBP officers. Additional funding is provided to support 300
    more CBP officers and canine assets at ports of entry. The request also
    supports the mobile response surge teams created with the supplemental
    funding to respond rapidly to emergent situations without depleting
    Border Patrol staffing from other locations. The 1,200 National Guard
    deployed to the Southwest Border have been contributing additional
    capabilities and capacity to assist law enforcement agencies including
    providing intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and
    counternarcotics enforcement support as CBP hires and deploys the 1,000
    BP agents included in the Southwest Border supplemental.
         improving the entry process for visitors to the united states
        Question. In your statement, you say the second Homeland Security
    mission is to secure the Nation's borders ``to prevent illegal activity
    while facilitating lawful travel and trade.'' We want to welcome
    visitors to the United States, but I frequently hear from constituents
    who travel internationally that the entry process coming into this
    country is lengthy and daunting. It often takes hours for passengers to
    be processed once arriving at an airport. There are long lines, not all
    lanes are open and staffed, and the information provided to arriving
    passengers is often confusing. I understand that your Department has
    initiated a few programs to try and address some of these symptoms,
    such as the Model Ports of Entry program and the Global Entry Program.
        Your budget proposes funding to add more than 300 new CBP officers
    to staff newly opened or expanded land border ports. What is being done
    to make the entry process for visitors and U.S. citizens more welcoming
    without degrading security? Please explain how these existing programs,
    and others, have reduced wait times and made the process more welcoming
    for travelers. How much money has been directed to these improved entry
    programs for each of fiscal years 2008-2011, and how much is requested
    for these and other programs for 2012?
        The Department has implemented a number of the recommendations
    proposed by the Secure Borders and Open Doors Advisory Committee
    (SBODAC)--such as the International Registered Traveler program and
    those programs listed above. In an October, 28, 2008, letter to now
    former Secretaries of State and Homeland Security, Rice and Chertoff,
    respectively, the SBODAC urged that additional actions recommended in
    the Committee's January 2008 report also be implemented.
        Has the Department implemented any additional recommendations of
    that Committee since 2008? If so, please describe them. If not, please
    explain why it has not?
        One of the frequent complaints made by visitors to the United
    States, especially in the air environment, concerns the way they are
    treated by CBP officers upon arrival at the airport. The visitors are
    often tired and there may be language barriers, but unfortunately what
    makes the media reports is that the CBP officers are brusque and treat
    the visitor as if he or she is guilty while performing the entry
    inspection. Understanding that the CBP officers' primary duty is
    security and ensuring that the individual before them is eligible for
    entry into the country, the officer is also the first impression the
    traveler has of America and Americans.
        Please describe the training CBPOs are provided regarding
    ``welcoming'' visitors as they are being processed. Are aspects of
    courtesy and customer service, in addition to security, stressed as
    part of their training? Are they instructed to greet the visitor with a
    statement such as ``Welcome to the United States'' as the traveler
    approaches the inspection kiosk? If not, are there reasons why the
    officer should not be provided such instruction?
        Answer. [Follows:]
    Programs To Welcome Travelers
        CBP developed the Model Ports Initiative in partnership with
    industry stakeholders, launching the pilot program in 2007 at
    Washington/Dulles and Houston International Airports. The program
    expanded to 18 additional model ports in 2008, including Atlanta,
    Boston, Dallas/Fort Worth, Chicago, Detroit, Fort Lauderdale, Honolulu,
    Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, New York (JFK), Orlando,
    Philadelphia, Sanford (FL), San Juan, San Francisco, and Seattle
    airports.
        The Model Ports Initiative is the key component of efforts to
    strengthen border security through advanced technologies and procedures
    while providing a more welcoming experience, reduced wait times and
    better customer service. CBP has increased staffing and professional
    training at ports of entry, installed new bilingual signage, updated
    the travel section of its public Web site and introduced a variety of
    trusted traveler programs, such as Global Entry, to expedite entry into
    the country.
        The Passenger Service Manager (PSM) program continues to be an
    important focus of the Model Ports Initiative to welcome travelers,
    provide appropriate assistance, and explain CBP procedures in order to
    minimize wait times.
        All Model Ports signage have been completed and delivered. These
    signs inform travelers of the CBP mission, pledge to treat people with
    respect and provide clear directions to travelers to minimize delays.
        The audio and video displays which run the updated ``Welcome to the
    United States'' video, and a 1-minute Global Entry promotional video,
    have been installed at all locations. These videos provide a welcome
    experience to arriving travelers, inform them of CBP procedures to
    reduce delays and burdens for legitimate travelers, and promote the
    Global Entry program to reduce wait times. Global Entry, one of CBP's
    trusted traveler programs designed to expedite clearance of
    preapproved, low-risk, recurrently vetted air travelers entering the
    United States, is available at all 20 model ports. This program
    utilizes automated kiosks that scan members' fingerprints to bypass the
    regular passport control queues (unless chosen for a selective or
    random secondary referral).
        In order to make meaningful and responsive changes to the arrivals
    processes where practical, and apply resources where needed, CBP is
    conducting a traveler satisfaction survey in the spring of 2011 to
    benchmark passenger satisfaction at the 20 model ports of entry.
        Working with the Department of State, CBP improved the diplomatic
    arrival processes and has ensured that every model airport and terminal
    has dedicated diplomatic processing lanes to welcome and expedite the
    entry of foreign dignitaries and diplomats. This represents at least 36
    dedicated passport primary lanes at the Nation's airports.
        As part of the emergency border security appropriations in fiscal
    year 2008 CBP received $40 million for the Model Ports of Entry
    program, which included 235 additional CBP officers, and funding for
    overtime, video equipment, and services at the model ports. CBP spent
    $22,900,000 to hire the additional staff, $2.1 million for training,
    $8.5 million for equipment and $6.5 million for overtime at the model
    ports. Excluding the continuing resources used to maintain the
    additional CBP officers, CBP spent approximately $692,000 for Model
    Ports program in fiscal year 2009 and an additional $250,000 in fiscal
    year 2010. For fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 there is an
    annualization in the base for the position costs as well as $1.3
    million for nonpersonnel costs for Model Ports.
        For Global Entry, CBP spent approximately $800,000 in fiscal year
    2009 and $1.7 million in fiscal year 2010, including for kiosks, IT,
    and video. In addition, CBP spent $2.1 million for fiscal year 2008-
    2009 for fingerprinting applicants for all Trusted Traveler programs.
    The cost for fingerprinting for Trusted Traveler programs was $4.1
    million in fiscal year 2010, and CBP anticipates it will cost
    approximately $5 million in fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012.
    Although CBP recovers a portion of the costs in the fees for this
    program, it does not recover the full amount.
        In November 2009, CBP issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that
    established an application fee for participants in the Global Entry
    program. This fee was authorized to recover the full cost of processing
    an application. The chart below shows the collections from Global Entry
    applicants in fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010 and projected
    revenues in fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012.
      --Fiscal year 2009 actual: $1,993,546.
      --Fiscal year 2010 actual: $4,989,847.
      --Fiscal year 2011 (estimate): $5,099,624.
      --Fiscal year 2012 (estimate): $5,201,616.
    Secure Border and Open Doors Advisory Committee
        The Secure Border and Open Doors Advisory Committee (SBODAC) was an
    ad hoc subcommittee of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC),
    an advisory body to the Secretary of Homeland Security that was
    established under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
    (5 U.S.C. Appendix). The SBODAC prepared and provided reports to the
    HSAC on important issues that affect our country's ability to attract
    and treat visitors in a secure and welcoming manner, completing its
    work on December 1, 2008. The HSAC recommended, and DHS is continuing
    to implement, recommendations from the HSAC's final report, including:
                Visa Policy and Processing
      --The Departments of Homeland Security and State should fix a
            longstanding obstacle to reliable business traveler entry from
            Canada by increasing visa training for CBP officers and
            establishing an optional pretravel approval process for
            qualified Canadian business visa applicants.
          Status.--The NEXUS program allows prescreened travelers expedited
            processing by United States (CBP) and Canadian (Canada Border
            Services Agency) officials at dedicated processing lanes at
            designated Northern Border ports of entry, at NEXUS kiosks at
            Canadian preclearance airports, and at marine reporting
            locations. Individuals approved to participate in NEXUS receive
            an identification card.
      --The Departments of Homeland Security and State should continue to
            improve the reliability, responsiveness, and integration of
            processes to ensure that visa-related errors in the consular
            and port-of-entry systems are corrected in a timely and
            effective manner.
          Status.--DHS has a strong relationship with the Department of
            State and the two agencies continue to work together to improve
            the systems that transmit and receive visa data. Errors in
            transmission are quickly detected and resolved through
            interagency technical working groups.
                Ports of Entry
      --Airports.--DHS should establish a pilot program for International
            Registered Travelers as soon as possible and promptly expand
            the program to the top 20 international airports.
          Status.--CBP has established and currently operates such an
            international trusted traveler pilot program: Global Entry.
            Global Entry began operations on June 6, 2008 at 3 airports,
            and has since been expanded by CBP to the top 20 U.S. airports.
            Additionally, CBP has implemented arrangements with the
            Governments of the Netherlands and Mexico to expand eligibility
            for Global Entry to qualified citizens of those countries who
            meet program requirements, as well provided access to Global
            Entry benefits to Canadians who are members of the NEXUS
            trusted traveler program.
          CBP has enrolled more than 120,000 participants, as well as
            390,000 persons able to use Global Entry as members of NEXUS
            and 89,000 as members of Secure Electronic Network for
            Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI).
          DHS conducted a statistical analysis of wait times for Global
            Entry pilot participants, which indicated that Global Entry
            reduces a passenger's wait time by up to 70 percent--or an
            estimated 7 minutes on average. Wait time is defined as the
            time interval between the arrival of the aircraft (the block
            time) and the processing of the passenger by a CBP officer at
            the primary booth, less the walk time.
      --Airports.--DHS and State should accelerate and expand the Model
            Ports program and fully include TSA to eliminate redundant
            rescreening of baggage and passengers.
          Status.--CBP continues to expand the Model Ports program, which
            provides a more welcoming arrival experience at the 20 top U.S.
            airports for international arrival. Since the SBODAC report was
            issued, the Model Ports program has launched and expanded
            several initiatives. Improved signage communicates clear,
            accessible instructions to incoming passengers as they enter
            the CBP area. A new, improved airport wait-time monitoring
            system gives the traveling public better information on
            expected wait times upon arriving at the airport. CBP has
            deployed additional officers at the Model Ports, as well as
            provided enhanced professionalism training as part of the
            officer academy and field refresher training curricula. CBP has
            deployed Passenger Service Managers to greet travelers and
            serve as a point of contact at the airport to deal with
            passenger complaints and concerns. CBP has completed deployment
            of audio and video equipment that displays a welcome video
            donated by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts called ``Welcome:
            Portraits of America'' and a CBP instructional video called
            ``Welcome to the United States: Simple as 1, 2, 3.'' CBP
            continues to collaborate with its partners in the private
            sector, municipalities, and the Federal Government to improve
            the entire arrivals process, including making the queuing area
            more welcoming, improving wait-times and baggage delivery and
            being available to address travelers' questions and concerns.
      --Airports.--DHS should continue to improve security performance
            while reducing the average amount of time CBP officers spend
            with each traveler to less than pre-September 11 levels and
            staff ports of entry sufficiently to complete primary
            inspection of foreign passengers in less than 30 minutes by
            December 2009.
          Status.--CBP is committed to processing incoming travelers as
            efficiently as possible consistent with meeting the Nation's
            security needs. In the first quarter of fiscal year 2011, the
            vast majority of air passengers admitted into the United States
            experienced wait times of less than 30 minutes at the CBP
            inspection area.
      --Land Borders.--CBP should increase the effectiveness of NEXUS,
            SENTRI, and FAST trusted traveler programs.
          Status.--Our NEXUS, Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid
            Inspection (SENTRI), and Fast and Secure Trade (FAST) trusted
            traveler programs are very effective, and enrollment has been
            growing. CBP has increased effectiveness by harmonizing
            enrollment infrastructure, as well as expanding membership
            benefits. All programs use the Global Enrollment System, as
            well as harmonized requirements for enrollment data, vetting,
            and disqualifying offenses. TSA now recognizes trusted traveler
            identity documents at domestic airport checkpoints. NEXUS and
            SENTRI members can automatically use Global Entry kiosks, where
            available, when entering the United States by air.
      --Land Borders.--The Departments should implement the Western
            Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) and US-VISIT on the land
            border without degrading the travel experience.
          Status.--DHS implemented WHTI at the land ports of entry in June
            2009. Compliance with document requirements is high, and many
            individuals (almost 9 million so far) are obtaining documents
            enhanced by radio frequency identification (RFID) technology
            that increases the efficiency of the inspection process. This
            technology allows law enforcement queries 60 percent faster
            than relying on manual entry and 20 percent faster than
            ``swiping'' the document's machine readable zone. New license
            plate readers have been installed, reducing erroneous reads and
            saving 10 million manual corrections per year. WHTI also
            supports lane flow optimization that can adapt to traffic
            patterns and port needs, is installing new signage to help
            travelers advance more smoothly, and is instituting ``ready
            lanes'' used by travelers with RFID-enabled documents to
            further facilitate border crossing.
          Implementation of WHTI has made travel more secure by limiting
            the number of documents that can be presented at the port of
            entry and allowing CBP to conduct law enforcement queries on an
            increased number of higher risk travelers.
      --DHS should assess its traveler screening programs within 9 months
            to share and harmonize best practices and technology among
            agencies.
          Status.--DHS continually reviews its traveler screening programs
            to ensure that the business processes and underlying systems
            support the mission needs and to pursue harmonization. In July
            2006, DHS established the Screening Coordination Office (SCO)
            in the Office of Policy to identify and promote best practices
            and ensure a coordinated approach to investments in screening
            programs.
    Training
        CBP officers receive extensive training on professionalism and
    cultural diversity awareness, including appropriately greeting
    travelers, to ensure they interact with the traveling public with
    courtesy and respect. This begins as soon as new hires enter on duty
    and continues throughout their career. Incumbent officers and
    supervisory officers are reminded of these core values through Web-
    based training, classroom training, and musters to ensure personnel
    treat travelers with dignity and respect. Professionalism is also a
    performance evaluation measure for the officer position. Officers are
    instructed through training and musters to be courteous to the
    traveler, emphasizing establishment of rapport as a key interview and
    observation techniques tools for the detection of admissibility,
    counter-terrorism, and/or smuggling issues.
                              overtime pay reform
        Question. The budget includes a placeholder for a legislative
    proposal to reform overtime pay for CBP. This is an authorization issue
    which must first be addressed by the appropriate authorizing
    committees.
        Please provide a copy of the legislative proposal. Please provide
    copies of any formal requests to the authorizing committees to take
    action on this proposal. What is the long-term impact on agents of
    implementing this proposal? Will implementation of this proposal have
    cascading effects on future pay costs for agents or other CBP or DHS
    personnel in the out-years and have any impacts been considering in
    formulating this proposal? What cuts to the budget, if any, would you
    propose be made if overtime pay reform is not enacted?
        Answer. The administration continues to work to develop the
    legislative proposal referenced in the President's budget request for
    fiscal year 2012 regarding CBP's personnel system. The reforms being
    proposed eliminate redundancies and other inefficiencies that resulted
    from merging three different workforces from three different legacy
    agencies and make it easier for CBP employees to take positions across
    the agency, ensuring that CBP makes the most efficient use of taxpayer
    dollars. DHS will provide the legislative proposal as soon as it is
    finalized.
                           border patrol construction
        Question. Are any funds requested in the budget for construction of
    new Border Patrol facilities, including checkpoints?
        Answer. Fiscal year 2012 budget does not include resources for the
    construction of new facilities.
                            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 2012? Also, what is the staffing target for
    the ATC?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2012 projected programmatic expenses for
    the ATC total $47,663,341, which includes salaries and benefits and
    other programmatic expenses. The fiscal year 2012 staffing target is
    157 positions.
                                 air and marine
        Question. What specific types of aircraft and in what quantities
    are proposed to be procured by this budget request? Will all of the
    previously funded unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) be fully outfitted
    with prior year funds and the funds requested in this budget? If not,
    what additional funds are required to make these systems fully
    operational?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2012 proposed budget provides funding for
    two P-3 replacement wing sets in continuation of the P-3 Service Life
    Extension Program, six AS-350 light enforcement helicopters, and to
    induct two UH60 Black Hawk helicopters in the A to L model conversion
    program. The two replacement wing sets funded in the fiscal year 2012
    budget will complete the acquisition objective for 14 new sets for the
    16 P-3 aircraft in the OAM fleet.
        In addition, funds provided in the fiscal year 2010 Southwest
    Border supplemental are being used to acquire two additional UASs. The
    fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $4 million to complete this
    acquisition. The first of the two Predator B UASs purchased with the
    supplemental funding should be delivered in October 2011.
                            ice--violence in mexico
        Question. The tragic and senseless murder of ICE Special Agent
    Zapata and the wounding of his partner Special Agent Avila on February
    15, brought to light the fact that our agents are prohibited from
    carrying service weapons for their own defense. More than 33,400
    Mexican citizens have died during the Mexican Government's admirable
    campaign against the drug trafficking organizations. It is our
    Government's policy to assist the Mexicans in this effort. But as we
    put United States personnel in Mexico to help that government, our
    people can become targets.
        Why are our special agents and other personnel not allowed to carry
    weapons to protect themselves? Is this prohibition limited to ICE
    personnel, all Homeland Security personnel, or does it apply to all
    American Government law enforcement working with Mexican authorities in
    that country? I want to ensure that the same rules apply to all U.S.
    law enforcement. Do ICE special agents receive hazardous duty pay
    during their assignment in Mexico, the way that other United States law
    enforcement do when working in war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan?
    Are special agents permitted to turn down overseas assignments such as
    these if they fear for their personal safety? What has been the special
    agent force reaction to serving in Mexico since the Zapata killing?
    Media reports claim that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
    Explosives (ATF) estimates that 90 percent of the guns seized by the
    Mexican Government are eventually found to have been purchased in the
    United States. Is this a valid statistic? Does this represent all guns
    seized by the Mexican Government, or only the portion of seized guns
    United States officials are given access to? Are guns used by the drug
    cartels found to come from countries other than the United States? If
    so, from which countries are these guns coming?
        Answer. Sadly, the tragedy you mention involving two special agents
    assigned to ICE's attache office in Mexico City is a stark reminder of
    the dangers confronted and the sacrifices made every day by our
    Nation's law enforcement officers. Special Agent Jaime J. Zapata lost
    his life and Special Agent Victor Avila, Jr. was critically injured in
    service of our country. While these remain ongoing investigations,
    Mexican authorities have apprehended some of the individuals involved
    in the murder of ICE Agent Jaime Zapata. We will continue to assist the
    ongoing Mexican investigation with every resource at our disposal and
    to ensure that all those responsible for these murders face justice. In
    coordination with the Departments of State and Justice, we have
    announced a reward of up to $5 million for information leading to the
    arrest and/or conviction of additional individuals responsible for the
    murder of Special Agent Jaime Zapata and the attempted murder of
    Special Agent Victor Avila. In addition, the FBI, in conjunction with
    ICE, has established a 24-hour tip line based in the United States to
    process the information.
        It is our understanding that, in general, the Department of State
    (DOS), through the Chief of Mission (Ambassador), determines whether
    U.S. law enforcement officers may carry firearms overseas and under
    what conditions, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. 3927 and host country
    laws and agreements, and that the Chief of Mission's authority would
    apply to all American law enforcement personnel.
        While DOS is the authority on specific questions regarding their
    policy for hazardous duty pay in war zones, ICE personnel do receive
    the same hardship pay as other United States civilian personnel in
    Mexico. However, ICE personnel only receive danger pay in certain
    locations in Mexico (Tijuana, Ciudad Juarez, and Monterrey). Location
    based danger pay varies among the United States law enforcement
    agencies with personnel in Mexico due to the statutory authority for
    danger pay allowance, which is set forth in 5 U.S.C. 5928. Currently,
    there are locations in Mexico, specifically Mexico City and Hermosillo,
    where Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation (FBI) personnel receive danger pay and ICE personnel do
    not. The following table shows the current rates established by DOS of
    hardship pay and danger pay received by personnel assigned to Mexico:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Post
                                                (hardship)      Danger pay
                                               differential     percent of
                    Location                    percent of         basic
                                                   basic       compensation
                                               compensation
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico........              10              20
    Mexico City, D.F., Mexico...............              15  ..............
    Tijuana, Mexico.........................               5              15
    Hermosillo, Mexico......................              15  ..............
    Monterrey, Mexico.......................               5              20
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        All ICE overseas positions are considered voluntary. ICE posts
    announcements to advertise overseas positions and interested personnel
    respond to the announcements and undergo the necessary application
    procedures. Applicants may withdraw from the selection process at any
    time.
        In response to Special Agent Zapata's murder, ICE has sent 29
    special agents, 1 criminal research specialist, 2 victim/witness
    counselors, and 2 technical enforcement officers on temporary duty
    assignments to Mexico City and Monterrey to directly assist the FBI and
    the Government of Mexico in the investigation. ICE personnel in Mexico
    also implemented rigorous security measures designed to protect ICE
    employees and their families. Additionally, ICE met with other Federal,
    State, and local law enforcement agencies in the United States to
    coordinate a domestic investigative and law enforcement response
    against the organization believed to be responsible for the attack, and
    its criminal associates.
        In regard to the ATF statistic, we respectfully defer to the ATF.
                               removal statistics
        Question. Some have called the administration's claim of achieving
    a ``record'' number of deportations for fiscal year 2010 inflated,
    citing findings from the Center for Investigative Reporting. Those
    findings allege that ICE included 19,000 immigrants who departed the
    previous year, and 6,500 from a Mexican repatriation program that ran 5
    weeks longer than it had previously. They also claim that nearly 65,000
    of the deportations were voluntary and that the agency pushed the
    voluntary-departure option in deportation figures just long enough to
    make its annual goal for removals.
        Are these allegations accurate? Please provide the statistics for
    each of these categories for fiscal years 2008-2010. Also, please
    provide the metrics used by the administration to measure increased
    rates of removal for the same 3 fiscal years.
        Answer. In fiscal year 2010, ICE set a record for overall removals
    of illegal aliens, with more than 392,000 removals nationwide. One-half
    of those removed--more than 195,000--were convicted criminals. The
    fiscal year 2010 statistics represent increases of more than 23,000
    removals overall and 81,000 criminal removals compared to fiscal year
    2008--a more than 70 percent increase in removal of criminal aliens
    from the previous administration.
        When compared to fiscal year 2009, ICE returned 6,527 more aliens
    through fiscal year 2010's Mexican Interior Repatriation Program
    (MIRP). Since 2008, MIRP statistics have been included in ICE's overall
    removal numbers. MIRP is a seasonal program designed to run during the
    summer months; however, the actual dates of the program fluctuate each
    year dependent upon completion of annual negotiations between DHS and
    the Government of Mexico, and the identification of requisite funding.
        Please see the charts below which address statistics for removal
    categories in fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2010 and metrics
    used by the administration to measure increased rates of removal for
    fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2010.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                                                           2008            2009            2010
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL ICE REMOVALS/RETURNS

    Actual Fiscal Year Removals/Returns.............................        $369,221        $387,790        $373,440
    Case Closure Lag \1\............................................         ( \2\ )           2,044          19,422
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
    Total ICE Removals/Returns......................................         369,221         389,834         392,862
                                                                     ===============================================
                HISTORICAL STATISTICS FOR VOLUNTARY RETURNS AND THE MEXICAN INTERIOR REPATRIATION PROGRAM
       (Voluntary returns and Mexican repatriation program removals/returns are a subset of the actual fiscal year
                                    removals/returns included in the previous chart.)

    Voluntary Returns...............................................          84,466          70,211          64,876
    Mexican Interior Repatriation Program Removals/Returns..........          18,464          10,560         23,384
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal years 2008-2010 data is historical and remains static. Fiscal year 2010 data is as of October 5, 2010.
    \1\ Fiscal year data lag/case closure lag is defined as the physical removal of an alien that occurs in a given
      fiscal year but the information is not recorded in EARM nor is the case closed in EARM during that fiscal
      year. Because the data in EARM is locked at the end of each fiscal year, the removal is recorded for the month
      the case was closed but reported in the following fiscal year removals.
    \2\ Not available.

                               secure communities
        Question. There is confusion as to whether ICE considers local
    participation in Secure Communities mandatory. What is your policy? If
    it is not mandatory, on what basis do you assert that all communities
    will be enrolled by 2013?
        Answer. There has been confusion as to what is meant by ``opting
    out'' in the context of Secure Communities and whether ``opting out''
    is possible. Once a State signs an agreement with ICE to implement
    Secure Communities, it is mandatory that all fingerprints collected by
    law enforcement agencies in that State and submitted to the FBI be
    shared with ICE. Once Secure Communities is activated in a
    jurisdiction, the fingerprints that jurisdiction submits to the
    Department of Justice's biometric system to check for criminal history
    records are automatically sent to DHS's biometric system to check
    against its immigration and law enforcement records. The U.S.
    Government has determined that a jurisdiction cannot choose to have the
    fingerprints it submits to the Federal Government processed only for
    criminal history checks. Nor can a jurisdiction demand that the
    identifications that result from DHS's processing of the fingerprints
    be withheld from local ICE field offices in that jurisdiction. The ICE
    local field office, and not the State or local law enforcement agency,
    determines what immigration enforcement action, if any, is appropriate.
        A jurisdiction may, however, choose not to receive the
    identifications that result from processing the fingerprints through
    DHS's biometric system. A jurisdiction's decision not to receive this
    information does not affect whether the local ICE field office in that
    jurisdiction will or will not take enforcement action based on those
    identifications. In that sense, jurisdictions may ``opt out'' of
    receiving the results of Secure Communities biometrics checks.
                                detention reform
        Question. The Department has made impressive gains in detaining and
    removing criminal aliens who pose a danger to people lawfully present
    in the United States. I understand your budget request provides
    sufficient funds to maintain the mandated level of 33,400 detention
    beds. And the request also includes an increase of $6.5 million for the
    alternatives to detention program to expand the number of individuals
    who need to be monitored but not necessarily held in custody prior to
    resolution of their immigration status. But while the administration
    has claimed it is pursuing detention reform, your budget for this
    activity is essentially flat.
        How can you achieve improvements in meeting your third mission
    goal--enforcing and administering our immigration laws--if your budget
    request remains flat for a third year in a row? How does the
    administration define ``detention reform'' and what specific programs,
    changes, and other activities does the administration are directed to
    implement detention reform? What specific increases in the ICE budget
    does the administration count as meeting the planned detention reforms?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes the resources
    necessary to meet ICE detention and removal goals, including detention
    reform. In order to make the most efficient use of taxpayer resources,
    ICE is seeking efficiencies in detention and removal through targeted
    efforts that allow ICE to use its resources as efficiently and
    effectively as possible. These efficiencies include the suspension of
    detention operations at costly facilities, converting contractors to
    Federal staff where this will improve service and cut costs, and
    reducing the average length of stay to allow more detainees to be
    removed using the same number of beds.
        Detention reforms facilitate the detention of individual aliens in
    settings commensurate with factors such as threat to the community,
    criminal history, risk of flight, immigration status, stage in the
    removal process, and medical and mental health. ICE has made
    substantial progress in a number of critical areas, including access to
    family and legal visitation, consolidation of facilities, aligning bed
    space with apprehensions, reducing transfers, improving medical
    delivery, reducing costs, and developing safe and secure civil
    detention principles. The following reflect accomplishments and
    continuing work on detention reform:
      --Established an Office of Detention Policy and Planning (ODPP) to
            plan and design a detention system better tailored to ICE's
            needs and reforms.
      --Consolidated the number of facilities at which ICE detains
            individuals from 341 to 270 based on state-of-the-art
            forecasting tools.
      --Developed a procurement plan to ensure that future bed space is
            aligned with apprehensions, thus limiting the need for
            transfers and ensuring detainees remain closer to their
            families and attorneys.
      --Launched the online detainee locator system, a public, easy to use
            Internet-based tool designed to assist family members,
            attorneys and other interested parties in locating detained
            aliens in ICE custody.
      --Hired and trained 42 full-time equivalent (FTE) detention service
            managers to monitor conditions at detention facilities, which
            house 85 percent of the detained population.
      --Improved medical services by simplifying the process for the
            delivery and auditing of authorized healthcare treatments.
      --Initiated the creation of a new civil detention facility in Karnes
            County, Texas, through an intergovernmental service agreement,
            incorporating new civil detention principles.
      --Opened two new facilities in Orange County, California, to reduce
            the number, costs, and deportation delays associated with
            detainee transfers.
      --Formed two advisory groups of local and national organizations that
            are stakeholders in the immigration detention system to provide
            feedback and input to the ICE Director.
      --Established an ICE Office of Detention Oversight (ODO) within the
            Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). ODO has regional
            offices to ensure agents and personnel have more ready access
            to facilities to conduct routine and random inspections more
            frequently.
      --Evaluated and initiated procurements for securing new detention bed
            space where it is needed most.
      --Designed and tested a new detainee intake risk assessment process
            to provide transparency and uniformity in the detention and
            classification processes to ensure the prioritization of
            detention resources.
      --Drafted a policy to reduce out-of-region transfers of detainees who
            have community ties or attorneys of record.
      --Drafted revised performance-based national detention standards, in
            collaboration with members of the Assistant Secretary's
            Detention Advisory Group, which detail guidelines for the
            custody and care of ICE detainees.
        ICE is committed to instituting detention reform in a fiscally
    responsible manner that represents the most efficient use of taxpayer
    resources.
                              worksite enforcement
        Question. The administration claims that significant strides have
    been taken in the past 2 years to increase worksite enforcement
    efforts. These have focused almost exclusively on the so-called I-9
    (employment form) document inspections. While it is important to target
    and take punitive legal action against unscrupulous employers who
    knowingly hire illegal aliens, this is largely a paper-based
    enforcement process. In many cases, the employers claim innocence and
    fire the undocumented workers. But as one employer commented to the
    media during the recent investigations of a national fast food
    company's hiring practices, ``The illegal workers just go down the
    street and get a job at the next food place.'' In order to ensure that
    enforcement serves as a deterrent, the administration must also take
    action against the illegal workers as well as those who seek to
    knowingly employ them.
        Please describe the I-9 process. For the record, please describe
    the difference between a criminal and administrative arrest in the
    context of worksite enforcement. How many of each occurred in fiscal
    years 2006-2010, and how many are estimated to occur in fiscal years
    2011 and 2012? How many employers received jail time/sentences as a
    result of these actions in each of these fiscal years? How many workers
    were removed or otherwise left the country as a result of these actions
    in each of these fiscal years (estimates, if necessary). How much in
    fines was collected as a result of these actions in each of these
    fiscal years? For fiscal year 2010, the Congress directed ICE to
    achieve a level of worksite enforcement effort of $134 million. Is it
    ICE's intention to meet this goal in fiscal year 2011 as well? Please
    describe how the agents achieve this level of effort?
        Answer. [Follows:]
    Form I-9 Inspection Overview
        Section 274A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),
    codified in 8 U.S.C. 1324a (b), requires employers to verify the
    identity and employment eligibility of all individuals hired in the
    United States after November 6, 1986. 8 C.F.R. 274a.2 designates the
    Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 (Form I-9) as the means of
    documenting this verification. Employers are required by law to
    maintain for inspection original Forms I-9 for all current employees.
    In the case of former employees, retention of Forms I-9 are required
    for a period of at least 3 years from the date of hire or 1 year after
    the employee is no longer employed, whichever is longer.
        The administrative inspection process is initiated by the service
    of a Notice of Inspection (NOI) upon an employer resulting in the
    facilitation of Forms I-9 to ICE officials. ICE typically will allow
    the employer 3 business days to present the Forms I-9. Often, ICE will
    request the employer provide supporting documentation, which may
    include a copy of the payroll, list of current employees, Articles of
    Incorporation, and business licenses.
        ICE agents or auditors then conduct an inspection of the Forms I-9
    for compliance. When technical or procedural violations are found, an
    employer is given 10 business days to make corrections. An employer may
    receive a monetary fine for all substantive and uncorrected technical
    violations.
        Employers determined to have knowingly hired or continued to employ
    unauthorized workers will be required to cease the unlawful activity,
    may be fined, and may be prosecuted criminally. Additionally, an
    employer found to have knowingly hired or continued to employ
    unauthorized workers may be subject to debarment by ICE, meaning that
    the employer will be prevented from participating in future Federal
    contracts and from receiving other Government benefits. Monetary
    penalties for knowingly hire and continuing to employ violations range
    from $375 to $16,000 per violation, with repeat offenders receiving
    penalties at the higher end. Penalties for substantive violations,
    including the failure to produce a Form I-9, range from $110 to $1,100
    per violation. In determining penalty amounts, ICE considers five
    factors:
      --the size of the business;
      --good faith effort to comply;
      --seriousness of violation;
      --whether the violation involved unauthorized workers, and
      --history of previous violations.
        ICE will notify the audited party, in writing, of the results of
    the inspection once completed.
        In instances where a Notice of Intent to Fine (NIF) is served,
    charging documents will be provided specifying the violations committed
    by the employer. The employer has the opportunity to either negotiate a
    settlement with ICE or request a hearing before the Office of the Chief
    Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) within 30 days of receipt of the
    NIF. If the employer takes no action after receiving a NIF, ICE will
    issue a Final Order. If a hearing is requested, OCAHO assigns the case
    to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), and sends all parties a copy of a
    Notice of Hearing and Government's complaint, thus setting the
    adjudicative process in motion.
        The Notice of Hearing spells out the procedural requirements for
    answering the complaint and the potential consequences of failure to
    file a timely response. Many OCAHO cases never reach the evidentiary
    hearing stage because the parties either reach a settlement, subject to
    the approval of the ALJ, or the ALJ reaches a decision on the merits
    through dispositive prehearing rulings. Employers determined to have
    knowingly hire or continuing to employ violations shall be required to
    cease the unlawful activity and may be fined.
    Employer Arrests
        ICE tracks criminal arrests of employers (inclusive of managers,
    supervisors, and owners) for worksite enforcement related crimes:
      --Fiscal year 2010 = 196 criminally arrested.
      --Fiscal year 2009 = 114 criminally arrested.
      --Fiscal year 2008 = 135 criminally arrested.
      --Fiscal year 2007 = 92 criminally arrested.
      --Fiscal year 2006 = 110 criminally arrested.
        In fiscal year 2010, ICE's Office of Homeland Security
    Investigations (HSI) arrested 196 employers for worksite related
    crimes. As of February 8, 2011:
      --42 were sentenced to prison. Sentences ranged from time served to
            42 months.
      --Note.--125 cases are still pending a disposition.
        DHS defers to the Department of Justice to answer jail time/
    sentences prior to fiscal year 2010, as criminal sentencing falls under
    the auspices of the U.S. Attorneys' Offices and ICE did not track
    sentencing of worksite enforcement violators prior to fiscal year 2010.
    Removals
        ICE does not track the specific number of illegal aliens removed as
    a result of being identified during a worksite enforcement operations.
    Due to the complexity of analyzing the data--hand tabulation and
    manually crosschecking against several unique law enforcement
    databases--identifying the removals that resulted from worksite
    enforcement actions is not available to be included in this response.
    Fines Collected
        Civil fines resulting from Form I-9 inspections (the final judgment
    is referred to as a Final Order).
      --Fiscal year 2010 = 237 Final Orders $6,956,026.
      --Fiscal year 2009 = 52 Final Orders $1,033,291.
      --Fiscal year 2008 = 18 Final Orders $675,209.
      --Fiscal year 2007 = 2 Final Orders $26,560.
      --Fiscal year 2006 = 0.
        Criminal investigations worked in coordination with the Department
    of Justice, (worksite judicial fines, forfeitures, or restitutions).
      --Fiscal year 2010 = $36,611,320.
      --Fiscal year 2009 = $32,578,945.
      --Fiscal year 2008 = $21,978,917.
      --Fiscal year 2007 = $31,426,443.
      --Fiscal year 2006 = $233,044.
    Worksite Enforcement
        Since January 2009, ICE has audited more than 4,600 employers
    suspected of hiring illegal labor, debarred more than 315 companies and
    individuals, and imposed approximately $59 million in financial
    sanctions--more than the total amount of audits and debarments than
    during the entire previous administration.
        ICE expended $127,436,000 for worksite enforcement related
    investigations in fiscal year 2010. ICE is projecting for fiscal year
    2011 it will expend approximately $135.2 million. ICE has communicated
    to the field that worksite enforcement is a high investigative priority
    for fiscal year 2011.
                                tsa screener cap
        Question. The House passed a continuing resolution for fiscal year
    2011 includes a provision that would limit the number of TSA screeners
    at 46,000 FTE screeners. The budget request for fiscal year 2012
    includes 48,537 FTE screeners, not including managers. How would this
    cap limit TSA's ability to provide security at airports? Explain how
    advances in technology have allowed screener resources to be used more
    efficiently. Please quantify how screeners have been reassigned to
    other security duties as a result of these efficiency gains.
        Answer. The continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011 contains a
    provision limiting the number of FTEs and does not include part-time
    personnel. Since TSA employs a substantial number of part-time
    personnel, its fiscal year 2012 budget request for additional
    transportation security officers (TSOs) to staff advanced imaging
    technology (AIT) machines will not be affected. Future growth of full-
    time personnel may be limited because of the cap, thus restricting
    TSA's options to reduce attrition and improve the workforce.
        Advances in technology most often result in improved effectiveness
    of the TSOs more so than improved efficiency. One area that TSA has
    seen improvements in effectiveness and efficiency is the installation
    of inline baggage screening systems. Inline explosive detection systems
    are the main technology used in the checked baggage screening process.
    This equipment automates what was previously a manually intensive
    baggage inspection, allowing faster bag throughput (up to 300 percent)
    and improved threat detection capabilities. These savings have been
    used to fund other security initiatives and have been considered in the
    budget request.
        The below reflects examples of other security initiatives that
    efficiency savings have been applied as of fiscal year 2010:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Percent
                                               Total      Self-      of FTE
                                              budgeted    funded     self-
                                                FTE        FTE       funded
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Travel Document Checker................      2,001      1,086         54
    Target Random Security Plays...........      1,654        904         55
    Behavior Detection Officers............      2,986      2,326         78
    Bomb Appraisal Officers................        352        297         84
                                            --------------------------------
          Total............................      6,993      4,613         66
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          automated target recognition
        Question. TSA has a delicate balance to maintain when it comes to
    security and maintaining the privacy of passengers. According to TSA,
    AIT units being deployed to airports across the country are the most
    effective passenger screening technology currently available because
    they can detect metallic and nonmetallic threats. However, the images
    these machines produce of the human body are revealing. TSA is testing
    a software upgrade to the AIT machines, called Automated Target
    Recognition (ATR), that would do away with the more revealing image and
    replace it with a generic outline of a person. How is this testing
    progressing and when do you expect this software to be deployed to
    airports? TSA's budget request includes funding for 275 additional AIT
    units in fiscal year 2012 for a total of 1,275. What percentage of
    passengers will be screened by AIT if the request is funded?
        Answer. ATR is currently being tested at Las Vegas McCarran
    International Airport (LAS), Ronald Reagan National Airport (DCA), and
    Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL). This testing
    allows TSA to ensure the new software continues to provide a high level
    of security, while further enhancing privacy protections. By the end of
    fiscal year 2012, TSA estimates that 1,275 AITs will be deployed.
                                  baggage fees
        Question. In recent years, airlines began to charge fees for
    services that did not previously exist, such as charges for checked
    baggage. As a result of the new checked baggage fees, more passengers
    are opting to carry their bags onboard the aircraft causing a strain on
    security operations at airport checkpoints.
        When you testified before the subcommittee, you mentioned that the
    cost of additional staffing and equipment required to handle the
    increase in carry-on bags is approximately $260 million annually. I
    asked if you thought the airlines should help defray the additional
    security costs associated with their baggage fees. You responded by
    saying passenger security fees needed to be adjusted upward. What is
    your position on whether the airlines should help defray the additional
    security costs associated with their baggage fees? Without adding more
    staff and equipment to handle the increase in carry-on bags, will wait
    times increase because of the baggage fees?
        Answer. TSA agrees that increased aviation security costs should
    not be paid solely by air travelers. When TSA was created, the Congress
    authorized the establishment of two separate security fees to fund the
    Federal aviation security costs. One fee was to be paid by air
    passengers and the other paid by air carriers.
        The September 11th Security Fee (Passenger Fee), to be paid by air
    passengers, was authorized by the Congress to not exceed $2.50 per
    enplanement. The revenue generated from this security fee was intended
    to offset the Federal cost for passenger and property screening. To the
    extent that revenue derived from the Passenger Fee was not sufficient
    to cover the Federal cost of passenger and property screening, the
    Congress authorized the collection of a second security fee to be paid
    by air carriers.
        The Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee (Carrier Fee) was
    authorized in an amount not to exceed the costs air carriers incurred
    for passenger and property screening in calendar year 2000. That exact
    cost total, which TSA originally estimated at $750 million, has been
    the subject of much debate and multiple legal proceedings. After an
    April 2005 GAO review of the costs in question, TSA established the
    overall cap of the Carrier Fee at $448 million. The Congress then made
    this TSA determination subject to judicial review. TSA is still working
    through the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
    Circuit to achieve a final resolution of the overall Air Carrier Fee
    industry cap that currently stands at $420 million.
        With respect to adjusting the Air Carrier Fee, it is clear that the
    aviation security enhancements implemented by the TSA since 2001 have
    made commercial air travel safer for passengers, air carriers and the
    United States in general. Further, TSA has seen a notable change in
    carryon baggage volume--increasing checkpoint requirements and
    processing times--since baggage fees were introduced by air carriers.
    Under TSA's current staffing model, wait times will likely increase and
    remain above historical levels that were achieved prior to airline
    baggage fees. This air carrier action could result in growing passenger
    wait times and larger concentrations of passengers waiting at
    checkpoint. To sustain passenger throughput, TSA would need to divert
    resources from other important security layers or add new personnel to
    open lanes faster and keep them open longer. TSA has taken some steps
    to assist in managing wait times. TSA estimates it would cost
    approximately $260 million in additional resources to support passenger
    throughput rates and not detract from other security programs.
                               dhs fee proposals
        Question. The President's budget proposes that the Appropriations
    Committee increase aviation security fees on airline passengers by $590
    million and border inspection fees by $110 million. Both of these are
    legislative matters under the jurisdiction of other committees.
        Your entire $459 million proposed increase for TSA and $55 million
    of your CBP budget are predicated on our approving these requests.
        If the House fails to include these fee increases in their bill,
    our entire bill would be out of order on the Senate floor if we
    approved them. The border inspection fee could result in our bill being
    blue-slipped in the House.
        This is a high-risk strategy to support needed security
    improvements, such as additional AIT machines at our airports and
    improved passenger and cargo inspections on our borders.
        What specific steps are you taking to get the House and Senate
    authorizing committees to request that the House and Senate
    appropriations subcommittees to approve these legislative proposals?
        If the authorizing committees object to our approving these changes
    in law, will you modify your budget requests to either provide more
    funding or identify proposed cuts?
        Please submit for the record the letters written to the committees
    of jurisdiction requesting the legislative changes for these requests.
        Answer. The President's budget request includes closely related
    fiscal and policy matters for the Congress's consideration, and the
    Department looks forward to working with the Congress to provide
    funding to meet these important security needs.
        I fully appreciate the constraints of the current fiscal
    environment, and it is precisely because of the current economic
    situation that nothing should be left off the table to fund the
    Department's critical frontline operations. While airlines have
    increased fees across the board--from checked baggage and extra leg
    room to refreshments, we have never adjusted how we fund security
    measures to protect the traveling public.
        Despite the Congress's original intent that the Security Fee covers
    nearly all costs related to passenger and property screening, the fee
    currently offsets less than one-third of the total cost of aviation
    security. At the same time, costs of security have continued to
    increase. In 2000, it cost less than $1 to screen each passenger. In
    fiscal year 2010, the average cost for TSA to screen a passenger and
    baggage has increased to nearly $9, in part to airline imposed checked
    baggage fees that have resulted in TSA screening 56 million additional
    carry-on bags at airport checkpoints annually.
        As such, I have personally discussed with members of congressional
    authorizing committees the request to permit DHS to increase the
    Security Fee, and the Department will continue this outreach. The
    Department will also continue to engage members of the authorizing
    committees on all legislative provisions necessary to support the
    budget request to ensure passage of stand alone legislation or to help
    secure support for provisions which may be carried in appropriations
    measures, whichever occurs first.
        With regard to the proposed CBP fee change, the country exemptions
    currently in place for Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean cost the
    Government $110 million annually in user fees that would otherwise be
    collected for customs inspections at the border. While travelers from
    other countries are subject to this fee, the costs of processing the
    travelers coming from Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean are subsidized
    by United States taxpayers. CBP's budget assumes elimination of these
    exemptions by the third quarter of fiscal year 2012, equating to $55
    million in fiscal year 2012 (half-year cost).
                         aviation security capital fund
        Question. The request includes a legislative proposal to alter the
    manner in which offsetting collections from the Aviation Security
    Capital Fund are allocated. Has the Department made a request to the
    subcommittee with jurisdiction over this matter? If so, please submit
    the request for the record. The language states that the funds ``may be
    distributed in any manner deemed necessary to ensure aviation
    security.'' Would any of these funds be used for purposes other than
    checked baggage security? Please be more specific on how the funds
    would be distributed to support aviation security in fiscal year 2012.
    What is the impact of not receiving this language adjustment in fiscal
    year 2012?
        Answer. The Department's request for this legislative proposal to
    provide the Department with the required flexibility to sustain current
    security measures and adapt to emerging threats was transmitted to each
    committee with oversight of DHS along with the fiscal year 2012
    President's budget request. Due to the importance of this proposal, I
    have had discussions with members of the authorizing committees and
    representatives of the Department's Office of the Chief Financial
    Officer have briefed committee staff on the request to permit the
    Department to increase the Security Fee. We will continue to engage
    members of the authorizing committees on all legislative provisions
    necessary to support the budget request as long as necessary to ensure
    passage of stand alone legislation or to help secure support for
    provisions which may be carried in appropriations measures, whichever
    occurs first.
        The current law requires that the first $250 million derived from
    passenger and air carrier security fees in each of the fiscal years
    2004 through 2028 be deposited in an Aviation Security Capital Fund
    (ASCF) to be available for grants to airport sponsors for airport
    security improvement projects such as facility modifications. The
    language currently does not allow for the procurement and installation
    of EDS equipment for the security improvement projects. The legislative
    proposal included in the fiscal year 2012 budget request would permit
    approximately $125 million of the ASCF to support the recapitalization
    and deployment of state-of-the-art EDS for checked baggage to
    efficiently screen baggage for explosives, reducing the number of
    rescans and physical bag searches. The remaining $125 million would be
    used for airport facility modification projects. The current notional
    plan is summarized in the following table:

                    BREAKDOWN OF PLANNED ACSF OBLIGATIONS \1\
                              [Dollars in millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Projects/equipment                         Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Medium Speed EDS Purchase....................................         94
    Medium Speed EDS Installation................................         31
    Facility Modifications.......................................        125
                                                                  ----------
          Total..................................................        250
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Numbers based on notional plans as of February 9, 2011, and are
      subject to change.

        By 2013, nearly one-half of the 2,000 EDS units deployed nationwide
    will have exceeded their planned 10-year service life. Limiting TSA's
    ability to purchase and install equipment as needed could increase the
    risk of equipment failure and lead to increased delays at airports due
    to the need to rescan baggage and conduct physical bag searches.
                          explosives detection systems
        Question. The request states that of the 2,000 explosives detection
    system units currently deployed nationwide, almost one-half will have
    reached the end of their useful life of 10 years by 2013. How much of
    the $273 million discretionary request for explosives detection systems
    would be used for this purpose in fiscal year 2012. How many machines
    would be replaced? If the legislative proposal to adjust the manner in
    which offsetting collections from the Aviation Security Capital Fund
    are allocated is approved, how much of the $250 million would be used
    for this purpose in fiscal year 2012. How many machines would be
    replaced?
        Answer. Of the $273 million in discretionary funding requested in
    fiscal year 2012, TSA would use $14 million to replace 26 reduced size
    explosives detection system (EDS) units that have reached the end of
    their useful life. With approval of the Aviation Security Capital Fund
    (ASCF) legislative proposal, TSA would use $125 million of the $250
    million fund to replace the 63 medium-speed EDS units that have reached
    the end of their useful life.
        The remaining $259 million of the EDS discretionary funds would be
    used for the following manner:
      --$130 million for the purchase and installation equipment for
            facility modifications that have already been executed or plan
            to be executed in fiscal year 2012.
      --$129 million for technology and engineering initiatives and program
            operations and management (PO&M) support, which includes $40
            million for testing and engineering support; $24 million for
            program support to include warehouse leasing and TSIF
            operations; $18 million to support cargo and surface; and $19
            million for Federal personnel compensation and benefits.
        If the legislative proposal is not adopted TSA's recapitalization
    of equipment would be delayed.
        Question. The budget request indicates that 55 of the top 85
    airports had optimal checked baggage screening systems throughout the
    entire airport and another 22 have optimal screening systems in some
    part of the airport. With the $523 million in discretionary and
    mandatory funds requested in 2012, how will these figures change? When
    does TSA estimate having optimal systems at all 85 airports? What are
    the main drivers preventing completion of systems at the remaining
    airports?
        Answer. Given that more than two-thirds of the explosives detection
    systems (EDS) in the field will reach the end of their useful life in
    the next 5 years, TSA has shifted its priorities from completing
    optimal systems to the recapitalization of the aging EDS fleet. The
    $523 million in fiscal year 2012 funding and prior year carryover funds
    will primarily be used to accommodate airport growth, recapitalization
    and/or optimization of existing equipment at multiple airports. Optimal
    systems are expected to be completed at two additional category X and I
    airports with fiscal year 2012 and prior year funds.
                          behavior detection officers
        Question. The request includes funding for an additional 350
    Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs). GAO released a critical report on
    this program in 2010. Please explain the steps TSA has taken to address
    the concerns raised by GAO.
        Answer. TSA's BDOs are an important layer of aviation security.
    Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT) builds on and is
    based on other established, successful behavioral analysis programs
    that have been employed by law enforcement and security personnel both
    in the United States and around the world. DHS's S&T Directorate led a
    comprehensive study to validate the validity of TSA's SPOT Referral
    Report. Data collection was completed by TSA in late 2010 and provided
    to the American Institutes for Research for analysis and reporting. The
    validation study report is undergoing final review and S&T testified
    before the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Subcommittee
    on Investigations and Oversight on this topic on April 6. Preliminary
    briefings on the validation study data indicated that SPOT identifies
    high-risk travelers at a significantly higher rate than random
    selection.
        Additionally, TSA's risk analysis of SPOT indicates that the
    program can be effective in multiple threat scenarios and expanding the
    SPOT program increases TSA's ability to adapt to evolving threats. S&T
    completed a preliminary study on suicide bomber indicators in July 2009
    that illustrates overlap between some operationally reported suicide
    bomber indicators and certain TSA SPOT behaviors. As such, SPOT
    represents the best practices from defense, intelligence, and law
    enforcement organizations.
        TSA also began piloting SPOT refresher training for BDOs in March
    2011 and plans to deploy this training to all BDOs during fiscal year
    2011 and fiscal year 2012.
                              screening procedures
        Question. The Administrator has said publicly that he intends to
    introduce new screening measures this year that would be different than
    the ``one-size-fits-all'' approach. Does the fiscal year 2012 budget
    request account for these changes? Please explain in more detail how
    this new screening process will work and the schedule to implement it.
        Answer. TSA will introduce new risk-based screening procedures and
    enhance current technology for passenger screening as it continually
    evolves its layered approach to transportation security. TSA is
    exploring the possibility of piloting these concepts later this year.
    The fiscal year 2012 budget request will not require adjustment to
    incorporate additional risk-based screening principles.
                              checkpoint security
        Question. TSA is in the process of updated its checkpoint security
    strategic plan. What is the timeline for its completion?
        Answer. TSA anticipates completing the updated Passenger Screening
    Program Strategic Plan by summer 2011.
                        civil rights and civil liberties
        Question. What is the funding level and associated staffing for
    TSA's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties? Describe TSA's
    coordination with the Department's Office for Civil Rights and Civil
    Liberties? How many civil rights and civil liberties investigations did
    TSA conduct in 2010? How many of those investigations were conducted
    jointly with the Department Office for Civil Rights and Civil
    Liberties? What training standards must a TSO meet with regard to civil
    rights and civil liberties?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2011 budget includes $8.7 million total
    funding for TSA's Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (OCRL)
    which demonstrates our commitment to ensuring the traveling public's
    civil rights and civil liberties are protected throughout the screening
    process. The TSA OCRL coordinates closely with DHS CRCL to address
    concerns and complaints of the traveling public through meetings with
    community groups, employee training, policy reviews, and investigations
    into traveler complaints. In fiscal year 2010, TSA conducted 217
    internal investigations and 42 external investigations. There were no
    investigations conducted jointly in fiscal year 2010 by the Department
    and TSA. To date in fiscal year 2011, there are four joint
    investigations open. TSOs must complete training annually focusing on
    cultural awareness, civil rights and civil liberties. Additionally, No
    FEAR Act Training must be completed within 90 days of entering service.
    This training is required pursuant to the Notification and Federal
    Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 and provides an
    overview of Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection
    laws. This training regimen is repeated every 2 years.
                              tsa internal affairs
        Question. How many people are in TSA's Internal Affairs Office? Is
    TSA adding new positions in fiscal year 2011? Are any new positions
    requested in the President's budget for fiscal year 2012? Is TSA
    creating an Office of Professional Responsibility? What role will this
    office serve? How is TSA funding this effort and how many people will
    staff the office?
        Answer. TSA currently has 130 personnel that conduct internal
    investigations in the Office of Inspection (OOI). Under the proposed
    fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution, no new positions will be funded
    and there are no new positions requested for the OOI in the fiscal year
    2012 President's budget.
        TSA established the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in
    the fall of 2010 to provide greater consistency in misconduct penalty
    determinations and a more expeditious and standardized adjudication
    process. Through a combination of adjudication and oversight, OPR
    ensures that discipline is appropriate and fair for all TSA employees,
    regardless of the assignment or seniority of the employee involved.
        In addition, to promote consistency, TSA is transferring to OPR
    from the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) the responsibility for
    resolving TSO's appeals of adverse actions, including suspensions of 15
    days or greater, removal, or reduction in pay band or basic rate of
    pay. This will preserve the rights of TSOs to appeal actions taken by
    management while enabling OPR to ensure that discipline is consistent
    across the board, from senior-level officials to TSOs.
        TSA is funding OPR from within existing sources. OPR has 15
    positions that are being filled through a combination of vacancy
    announcements and internal detail opportunities. OPR is also absorbing
    four positions from the Disciplinary Review Board, for a total of 19
    OPR positions.
                             surface transportation
        Question. How much of TSA's surface transportation appropriation is
    dedicated to each surface transportation mode for fiscal year 2011
    compared to the fiscal year 2012 estimate?
        Answer. Under the funding that is currently available, the TSA
    surface transportation appropriation is dedicated to each surface mode
    in the following ways:
      --28 percent to surface inspectors and program oversight;
      --25 percent to visible intermodal prevention and response teams;
      --13 percent to freight rail and pipeline;
      --12 percent to ports (maritime) and intermodal security;
      --11 percent to highway and motor carrier;
      --8 percent to mass transit; and
      --3 percent to other services.
        The fiscal year 2012 President's budget request includes $134.7
    million to support TSA's surface transportation efforts and also
    includes $300 million for the Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) to
    support State and local surface transportation efforts. TSA will
    allocate the funding to each surface transportation mode based on
    current security efforts to reduce risk once the funds have been
    appropriated.
        Question. How much of TSA's budget in fiscal year 2010 and fiscal
    year 2011 was dedicated to mass transit enhanced screening? Where the
    pilots successful? Does TSA have plans to continue the pilots? Does the
    fiscal year 2012 budget include funding for this purpose?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2010, the Congress provided TSA $25 million
    for partial year funding to stand-up an additional 15 visible
    intermodal prevention and response (VIPR) teams for dedicated surface
    transportation operations. This was in addition to TSA's 10 multimodal
    VIPR teams already operational. During fiscal year 2010, approximately
    51 percent of TSA's VIPR resources were spent conducting operations in
    the surface modes of transportation, which equates to approximately $22
    million. The primary objective of VIPR operations is to prevent acts of
    terrorism through the exercise of random, unpredictable security asset
    deployments in all modes of transportation and this may include mass
    transit enhanced screening.
        In fiscal year 2010, TSA entered into an agreement with New York
    City to conduct pilot or proof of concept operations with New York City
    law enforcement for mass transit screening. This effort involved
    approximately 35 TSA TSOs teamed with New York City law enforcement
    officers operating in shifts with approximately 3 TSOs. This proof of
    concept was successful in terms of demonstrating the ability to work
    together in teams and build expertise in the environment to allow for
    improved security in response to specific threats requiring surge
    operations or in response operations. TSA has no plans to continue or
    expand this proof of concept.
        Such efforts will continue to be supported by other TSA surface
    transportation initiatives, including the additional VIPR teams and
    funding available through the TSGP, which supports local efforts to
    conduct enhanced screening. Such physical screening can be conducted as
    necessary by applicable State, local, or private personnel with
    equipment available through the TSGP (e.g., explosives trace detection
    equipment).
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request seeks funding for 12 new multi-
    modal VIPR teams. With these additional teams, the VIPR program
    anticipates an increase in tempo for a total number of 11,500
    operations to be conducted annually beginning with fiscal year 2013.
    These operations would be conducted throughout the transportation
    sector to deter potential terrorist acts.
                              federal air marshals
        Question. Please provide the most recent definitions of high-risk
    flight categories for flights covered by Federal Air Marshals (FAMs).
    Are these definitions being revised, and if so, how will the changes
    impact the deployment of FAMs.
        On March 8, 2011, the Department submitted a report on Federal Air
    Marshals (FAMS) long-term staffing levels in response to a fiscal year
    2010 congressional requirement in the joint explanatory statement
    accompanying the fiscal year 2010 DHS Appropriations Act. The report
    failed to address the congressional requirements for a long-term
    staffing plan and pointed to an assessment TSA will undertake to review
    FAMS risk-level definitions in order to inform an assessment of the
    long-term staffing needs of the FAMS. When will this assessment be
    completed? The results of this assessment and associated staffing
    impacts are to be supplied to the subcommittee expeditiously.
        Answer. The TSA has commenced a review of FAMS risk-level
    definitions, which will be provided to the subcommittee upon its
    completion. The review will inform any decisions pertaining to the
    long-term staffing levels needed in the future.
                      coast guard--administrative savings
        Question. The fiscal year 2012 request for the Coast Guard's
    operating budget includes a reduction of $83.5 million as part of the
    Department's Administrative Savings Initiative. When you read the fine
    print, the Coast Guard's budget states that these cuts ``do not come
    without impact to readiness and operations.'' The Coast Guard is
    already facing readiness challenges and operational shortfalls. How are
    these cuts prudent? Can you provide more specifics on how these cuts
    will impact readiness and operations?
        Answer. The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2012 budget leverages savings
    generated through management efficiencies and offsets to prioritize
    frontline operations and investments in vital recapitalization
    projects. The Coast Guard will not reduce front-line operations to
    achieve these savings. The fiscal year 2012 budget request addresses
    the long-term recapitalization needs of the Coast Guard and expands its
    operational capacity by funding 50,682 military and civilian positions,
    including additional personnel focused on strengthening Marine Safety
    inspections and investigations as well as a new Incident Management
    Assistance Team, which will be deployed rapidly to support large-scale
    emergencies.
                  impact of 2010 coast guard surge operations
        Question. In 2010, the Coast Guard's operational budget was
    stretched with two significant surge operations, the Haiti earthquake
    and Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Given the size of these surge
    operations, what was the impact on spending for other priorities? What
    was deferred or eliminated to pay for these response efforts?
        Answer. The Coast Guard allocates its multi-mission assets to the
    Nation's highest order needs. In the cases of the operational responses
    to the Haiti earthquake and Deepwater Horizon oil spill, assets were
    diverted from other lower priority mission assignments at the time to
    provide the initial search and rescue response and long-term mission
    support for the disasters.
        The Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-212)
    provided $50 million in operating expenses for the Coast Guard related
    to expenses for disaster response activities for the Haiti earthquake.
    The funding provided relief to the Coast Guard for operating and
    personnel costs expended for the response.
        For the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Coast Guard's direct
    costs, including supplies purchased for the spill, contractors hired,
    travel orders, and reservist pay and benefits were reimbursed from the
    Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) Emergency Fund and the Fund
    recovered those costs from the Responsible Party. Consistent with the
    Coast Guard's multi-mission responsibilities, costs to operate assets
    diverted from regular operations to the oil spill response were funded
    by regular appropriations. Due to the unusually long engagement period
    for response, regular maintenance for some assets was deferred, which
    could result in higher maintenance costs.
                       coast guard asset decommissionings
        Question. Provide a chart of all assets proposed to be
    decommissioned in the fiscal year 2012 budget, including the name and
    location of each asset and timeline for decommissioning.
        Answer. The chart below depicts Coast Guard assets proposed for
    decommissioning in fiscal year 2012 President's budget.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Asset type                     Vessel name                Homeport           Decommissioning date
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    179-ft patrol coastal (WPC) \1\......  USCGC Shamal...........  Pascagoula, Mississippi  WPCs will be returned
                                           USCGC Tornado                                      to the United States
                                           USCGC Zephyr                                       Navy no later than
                                                                                              October 1, 2011.
    378-ft high endurance cutter (WHEC)    To be determined.......  To be determined.......  To be determined.
     \2\.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Three vessels are being decommissioned per a signed memorandum of agreement with the Navy in January 2007.
    \2\ The Coast Guard is conducting and updated engineering assessment on the 10 remaining WHECs (2 decommissioned
      in fiscal year 2011) to determine which WHEC will be decommissioned in fiscal year 2012. Factors being
      considered include operational capabilities and effectiveness of the current fleet and existing structural and
      engineering conditions of the ships.

                               polar icebreakers
        Question. The budget request includes $39 million for operations
    and maintenance of the Coast Guard's polar icebreaking fleet. The
    Commandant of the Coast Guard has expressed concern that he doesn't
    have the resources to respond to a major emergency in the Arctic. He
    has publicly stated that funding is needed to repair or replace its two
    heavy icebreakers that are currently out of service. But the Coast
    Guard's budget indicates that one of the Coast Guard's two heavy polar
    icebreakers, the Polar Sea, will be decommissioned in fiscal year 2011.
    The other heavy polar icebreaker, the Polar Star, is not scheduled to
    be reactivated until 2013. Why is the Department planning to
    decommission the Polar Sea when long-term requirements for the polar
    regions have not been determined? If an emergency occurs in the Arctic,
    is the Coast Guard prepared to respond? What other response
    capabilities exist? Has the Coast Guard considered leasing polar
    icebreakers to meet mission requirements?
        Answer. Based on current Federal requirements, maintaining and
    operating one icebreaker (U.S. Coast Guard cutter (USCGC) Healy) will
    allow the Coast Guard to meet current operational requirements in the
    Arctic. Based on the rising costs to maintain the polar icebreakers,
    which have exceeded their life expectancy, the current condition of
    USCGC Polar Sea and her limited remaining service life, leveraging
    resources to reactivate USCGC Polar Star as a backup is the proper
    course of action until long-term requirements decisions are made and
    capabilities are acquired. The fiscal year 2012 budget includes $5
    million for an analysis of Government-wide icebreaking requirements in
    the polar regions.
                           deployable security teams
        Question. Section 804 of the Fiscal Year 2010 Coast Guard
    Authorization Act requires no less than two enhanced deployable
    security teams. The Coast Guard currently has one maritime security
    response team located in Portsmouth, Virginia. What are the Coast
    Guard's plans to comply with section 804? Has a second location been
    determined?
        Answer. The Coast Guard has not determined a location for a second
    enhanced team.
                                  canine teams
        Question. What is the Coast Guard doing to comply with section 805
    of the 2010 Coast Guard Authorization Act regarding canine teams? How
    many certified canine teams does the Coast Guard currently have and
    where are they located? Does the Coast Guard have plans to increase
    capacity in fiscal year 2012? If so, what locations will receive
    additional canine teams?
        Answer. There are currently 12 canine teams certified for duty in
    the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has programmed for 14 canine teams
    that are located in pairs at seven locations:
      --MSST Seattle, Washington.
      --MSST San Francisco, California.
      --MSST Los Angeles, California.
      --MSST Galveston, Texas.
      --MSST King's Bay, Georgia.
      --MSRT Chesapeake, Virginia.
      --MSST New York, New York.
        Maritime Safety and Security Teams (MSSTs) San Francisco and King's
    Bay currently have one of their two teams certified. Expected
    completion of training and certification for the remaining two teams is
    early calendar year 2012. The Coast Guard does not have plans to
    increase canine capacity beyond these levels in fiscal year 2012.
                        marine environmental protection
        Question. Please provide more details on the Coast Guard's
    investment in the National Center of Expertise. How much of the $11.5
    million increase for Marine Environmental Protection is dedicated for
    this purpose? How is the funding for the National Center of Expertise
    allocated in the request, to what organization, and where?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes funding to
    establish the National Incident Management Assist Team (IMAT). Although
    the National IMAT could be a core component of a future MER National
    Center of Expertise (NCOE), as a stand-alone unit, the National IMAT
    will also significantly enhance the Coast Guard's ability to respond to
    complex, large-scale events in the maritime domain. Specifically, the
    IMAT investment provides dedicated, trained, and experienced personnel
    to directly respond to oil and hazardous substance spill incidents, and
    to support the Coast Guard Federal On Scene Coordinators during such
    incidents. They will also provide planning, training, and exercise
    support across the Coast Guard. Through establishment of the IMAT, the
    Coast Guard will improve standardization and proficiency in MER across
    the Coast Guard and its partners.
        The fiscal year 2012 cost of the IMAT enhancement is approximately
    $5.5 million. Of that, approximately $3 million will be budgeted to
    cover personnel expenses associated with 33 full-time positions, and
    $2.5 million will be budgeted for operations and maintenance.
                             port security training
        Question. Describe the process for complying with section 821 of
    the Coast Guard Authorization Act regarding port security training and
    certification.
        Answer. The Coast Guard plans to implement the training provisions
    discussed in section 821 via the rulemaking process, pending DHS's
    review and approval to the Updates to Title 33 Code of Federal
    Regulations Subchapter H--Maritime Security Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM is scheduled for publication in calendar
    year 2011. Once published, the Final Rule, along with clarifying
    guidance from the Coast Guard, will be the basis for third party
    providers' course development and Quality Standards System review and
    acceptance on behalf of the Coast Guard.
                            coast guard acquisitions
        Question. The budget request includes a significant increase for
    shore facilities improvements when compared to previous requests. The
    Coast Guard estimates that the current backlog of shore facility
    infrastructure improvements is $600 million. Is the entire request
    associated with this backlog?
        Answer. $94.5 million of this request is to support shore facility
    infrastructure modifications and construction associated with the
    delivery of new cutters, boats, and aircraft. The remaining $99,200,000
    of the $193.7 million request for shore facilities, plus the $20
    million requested for military family housing, help address the backlog
    in the prioritized Shore Facility Requirements List.
        Question. The budget proposes to eliminate the Integrated Deepwater
    Construct. Is there a plan for tracking the Coast Guard's ongoing
    acquisition costs in relation to the original Deepwater baseline? If
    so, what assets will be included in the baseline?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget proposes the
    elimination and disaggregation of the Integrated Deepwater System (IDS)
    subappropriation from the Coast Guard's Acquisition, Construction and
    Improvement (AC&I) appropriation. The restructuring of this
    appropriation better enables the service to justify and meet a
    sustainable, stable, and continuous recapitalization program while
    effectively managing cost, schedule, and performance of individual
    asset-based acquisitions. Enacting this proposal will further enhance
    acquisition management and accountability by aligning the
    appropriations structure with how the projects are managed. This
    initiative improves transparency and accountability by establishing a
    stronger linkage between appropriations and specific asset acquisition
    projects, and will better enable the Coast Guard, DHS headquarters, and
    the Congress to monitor cost, schedule and performance of individual
    projects. Finally, disaggregation of the IDS subappropriation will
    improve the efficiency and effectiveness of cross-cutting functions,
    such as systems integration, testing, and performance monitoring,
    enabling uniformity across all acquisition projects. The Coast Guard
    will retain its ability to track to the Deepwater baseline in
    aggregate.
        Question. What is the rationale for changing funding availability
    for all Acquisition, Construction and Improvements appropriations to 5
    years?
        Answer. The Integrated Deepwater System (IDS) appropriation (which
    included ``deepwater'' vessels, aircraft and other equipment), was
    available for 5 years. The proposal to disaggregate the IDS
    subappropriation in fiscal year 2012 is intended to standardize funds
    availability for each of the individual vessel, aircraft, other and
    shore subappropriations, which will ensure consistency in funds
    availability across the entire portfolio of projects, and enhance the
    Coast Guard's ability to maintain project cost, schedule and
    performance goals.
        Specifically, the Coast Guard has increased its use of fixed-price
    contracts for major acquisitions, moving away from cost-reimbursement
    contracts. This change in strategy decreases overall risk to the
    Government, but requires the Coast Guard to set aside funds for
    antecedent liability (a requirement that does not exist for cost-
    reimbursement contracts). GAO's Redbook cites that fixed-price contract
    antecedent liabilities shall be funded by the appropriation that funded
    the original transaction, to cover within-scope changes associated with
    the original contract. The amount of unobligated funding (set aside for
    antecedent liability) can be adjusted and reallocated over time as the
    contract nears completion, provided that the funds are used within the
    scope of the project and Congressional intent. The net effect is to
    avoid the need for additional future appropriations by minimizing
    expired, unused funds. Moreover, given the complexity of many of the
    Coast Guard's vessel, shore, aircraft and electronics systems
    acquisitions, 5-year availability is particularly beneficial
    considering the time it takes to design, contract, and deliver these
    assets.
        Question. Has the Coast Guard spent any of the $45 million
    anticipated for the offshore patrol cutter (OPC) in fiscal year 2011?
    Is it premature to fund another $25 million in fiscal year 2012 if none
    of the fiscal year 2011 money has been obligated? Is the Coast Guard on
    track to release the request for proposal for the preliminary contract
    and design in fiscal year 2011?
        Answer. The offshore patrol cutter (OPC) is a critical aspect of
    the Coast Guard's long-term recapitalization plan. Of the funding made
    available to the OPC project to date under the current series of
    continuing resolutions, $1 million has been obligated. The majority of
    the fiscal year 2011 funding, approximately $36 million, will support
    preliminary and contract designs; the remaining funding will support
    project management activities, acquisition studies and life-cycle cost
    analysis still planned in fiscal year 2011. The fiscal year 2012 budget
    request of $25 million will support the award of Preliminary and
    Contract Design contracts to three industry teams in fiscal year 2012.
    The Coast Guard plans to release a draft Request for Proposal in fiscal
    year 2011.
        Question. Will DHS' requirement for the Coast Guard to conduct a
    verification study of the OPC requirements affect the timeframe for the
    request for proposal?
        Answer. No, the project has proceeded in parallel with the
    verification study of OPC requirements.
        Question. Based on the fiscal year 2012 Capital Improvement Plan
    (CIP), the cost of the OPC is $640 million in fiscal year 2015 and $760
    million in fiscal year 2016. Provide a breakdown of the OPC costs in
    those budget estimates? Why is the second OPC planned to cost $120
    million more than the lead ship?
        Answer. The program amounts shown in the fiscal year 2012-2016
    Capital Investment Plan for the OPC are planning estimates. These
    planning estimates may change as DHS completes the fiscal year HSP.
        Question. In the fiscal year 2011 CIP, the Coast Guard estimated
    the national security cutter's (NSC) completion date as 2016. In this
    year's CIP, the Coast Guard is estimating a completion date of 2018.
    What are the main drivers behind this 2-year delay? To what extent is
    the decision to not request long-lead time materials (LLTM) for NSC No.
    6 in fiscal year 2012 contributing to this delay? Would there be cost
    savings if LLTM were funded in fiscal year 2012? If so, provide the
    estimated savings.
        Answer. The project completion dates shown in the fiscal year 2012-
    2016 CIP are estimated for planning purposes, based on best available
    data at the time of budget preparation. The NSC schedule is derived
    from the Deepwater Implementation Plan Review Report to Congress, dated
    May 13, 2010, which contains a more recent assessment of NSC delivery
    schedules, considering actual appropriations and acquisition status to
    the date of the report. One factor in the delay in the NSC acquisition
    was the transition from a cost-plus contract to a fixed-price
    construct. The Coast Guard spent nearly a year negotiating the
    production contract for NSC No. 4, which was awarded in November 2010.
    As a result of this negotiation and successful transition to a fixed-
    price construct, the Coast Guard believes it is now in a position in
    which future costs are more predictable than they have ever been, which
    is in the best interests of the program and of taxpayers.
        The funding associated with NSC No. 6 is not required until fiscal
    year 2013.
        Question. At the hearing, you made reference to a letter from the
    Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that committed funding for NSC
    No. 6. Please provide the letter for the record.
        Answer. In accordance with the requirements of Public Law 111-83,
    the Coast Guard submits a future-years capital investment plan at the
    time that the President's budget is submitted. This plan, the fiscal
    year 2012-2016 CIP, was included in the fiscal year 2012 Coast Guard
    Congressional Justification within the Acquisition, Construction and
    Improvements (AC&I) appropriation request. The CIP projects planned
    AC&I funding levels from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2016 for
    the program of record for each AC&I program, including the NSC program.
    These estimates are in accordance with the latest DHS-approved
    Acquisition Program Baseline. As noted in the CIP footnotes, fiscal
    year 2013-2016 funding levels are subject to change based upon
    adjustment to out-year fiscal guidance and finalization of the fiscal
    year 2012-2016 Future Year Homeland Security Program.
        Question. Based on the fiscal year 2012-2016 CIP, the Coast Guard
    is planning the budget for NSC to be $775 million in fiscal year 2013,
    $795 million in fiscal year 2014, and $853 million in fiscal year 2015.
    Provide a breakdown of the NSC costs in those budget estimates? Why are
    NSC costs becoming more expensive for each cutter in the outyears?
        Answer. The program amounts shown in the fiscal year 2012-2016
    Capital Investment Plan are planning estimates and subject to change as
    DHS completes the fiscal year HSP. The following table shows the
    estimated costs used as the basis for NSC projections:

                                                  [Dollars in millions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year          Fiscal year 2015
                                                           2013            2014      -------------------------------
                   NSC cost categories               --------------------------------                  NSC No. 1/No.
                                                         NSC No. 6       NSC No. 7       NSC No. 8           2
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Long-lead time materials (LLTM).................             114             119             124  ..............
    Production contract.............................             578             587             598  ..............
    Production (noncontract) and post delivery                    83              89              93  ..............
     activi-  ties..................................
    Structural enhancement (NSC No. 1 and No. 2       ..............  ..............  ..............              38
     only)..........................................
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................             775             795             815              38
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Assuming the new fixed-price construct, the budget estimates for
    NSCs No. 6-8 are estimated as the production cost for NSC No. 4
    adjusted for inflation. NSC No. 7 and No. 8 costs are projected to
    continue to increase due to labor and material inflation and increases
    in projected overhead rates.
        Question. The budget proposes to fund production of both the NSC
    and OPC in fiscal year 2015. Is this a realistic request given the
    current fiscal environment?
        Answer. DHS is committed to recapitalizing the Coast Guard's cutter
    fleet as quickly as possible through the acquisition of NSC and OPC and
    fast response cutters (FRCs).
        Question. The original plan for the NSC included ship-based UAS to
    expand the NSC's coverage capabilities. The Coast Guard's Capital
    Investment Plan for fiscal years 2012-2016 includes no UAS funding. Has
    the Coast Guard abandoned this effort? What over the horizon search
    capabilities does the NSC provide over that of a WHEC without UAS? The
    Coast Guard expected to complete the UAS ``Need Phase'' (Acquisition
    Decision Event-1) in fiscal year 2011. What is the status of this
    effort and, if completed, what were the conclusions from this event?
        Answer. DHS and the Coast Guard remain committed to employing both
    land and cutter-based UAS to meet mission requirements. The Coast Guard
    is in the preacquisition need phase of the UAS acquisition, which works
    to define the problem through a mission needs statement and the
    development of a Concept of Operations. In addition, the Coast Guard is
    currently leveraging prior-year Research, Development, Test, and
    Evaluation funding to continue UAS technology demonstration. Further,
    within the Federal Government, the Coast Guard has established formal
    partnerships with CBP to collaborate with their maritime Predator UAS
    (Guardian) program and the Navy's UAS program offices to collaborate on
    the Fire Scout program.
        An NSC without a UAS, relying solely on its organic detection
    equipment and manned aircraft patrols, has a far greater surveillance
    area than that of a high endurance cutter (WHEC). The NSC has the
    following organic surveillance capabilities that exceed those of the
    WHEC:
      --Ability to operate with a HH-60 enabling greater cutter-based
            surveillance range and on scene time.
      --Ability to deploy and operate with two HH-65 aircraft instead of
            one from a WHEC.
      --Two over-the-horizon (OTH) small boats instead of one from a WHEC.
      --Three-dimensional capable air search radar instead of WHEC's two
            dimensional air search radar.
      --Sensitive compartmentalized intelligence facility (SCIF) to improve
            sensor and intelligence analysis and fusion.
      --Enhanced electronics surveillance measures (ESM).
        Question. Compare the availability of the national security cutters
    (Bertholf/Waesche) to the 12 WHECs in terms of days away from homeport
    (DAFHP).
        Answer. The operational target for the WHEC fleet is 185 DAFHP
    annually per cutter. In fiscal year 2010, the WHEC fleet achieved 137
    DAFHP primarily as a result of casualties to hull and mechanical
    systems.
        There is not yet substantive DAFHP data for USCGC Bertholf and
    USCGC Waesche. In fiscal year 2010, both assets spent time in planned
    inport availabilities for Secure Compartmentalized Intelligence
    Facility installations and Ready for Operations preparations. The Coast
    Guard will have operational availability data for USCGC Bertholf after
    it completes its first full year of operations in fiscal year 2011 for
    which it is programmed to achieve 185 DAFHP.
        Question. In fiscal year 2010, because of delays in the planned
    delivery of national security cutters, the Congress provided $4 million
    for the Coast Guard to conduct a preacquisition survey and design to
    determine the requirements for a maintenance effectiveness project for
    the Coast Guard's legacy high endurance cutters. What is the status of
    this effort and has any of the $4 million been obligated? What is the
    timeline for completing this effort?
        Answer. A total of $468,819 has been obligated through March 10,
    2011. This funding will be used to adequately assess current WHEC
    material condition, assess requirements of a potential future
    sustainment project and inform decisions pertaining to the WHEC
    decommissioning sequence, and evaluate cutter safety conditions. The
    Coast Guard anticipates it will take approximately 2 years to complete
    this effort.
        Question. The fiscal year 2012 budget includes $129.5 million for
    two maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) airframes and five mission system
    pallets (MSPs) and spares. Does the Coast Guard plan to buys these
    pallets through the ICGS contract, use another contracting source, or
    build them in-house? What is the cost difference for each option?
        Answer. The Coast Guard contract with Integrated Coast Guard
    Systems expired in January 2011 and no additional MSPs will be procured
    using that contract vehicle. The Coast Guard does not currently possess
    sufficient in-house processes and capabilities to be able to produce
    MSPs ``in-house'' by 2012. Therefore, acquiring MSPs through a
    commercial source is the preferred option.
        Question. The fiscal year 2012 CIP indicates a 5-year delay in
    completing procurement of the MPAs when compared to the fiscal year
    2011 CIP. What is the cause of this delay?
        Answer. The project completion dates for the MPA shown in the
    fiscal year 2012-2016 CIP are estimated for planning purposes, based on
    best available data at the time of budget preparation. The MPA schedule
    is derived from the Deepwater Implementation Plan Review Report to
    Congress, dated May 13, 2010, which contains a more recent assessment
    of MPA delivery schedules.
        Question. The request includes funding for five MPA mission
    pallets. What is the cost savings from purchasing multiple mission
    pallets in fiscal year 2012?
        Answer. Ordering five MSPs instead of two is estimated to reduce
    the MSP unit price by as much as 30-35 percent based upon previous
    negotiations.
        Question. Does purchasing six FRCs in fiscal year 2012 maximize the
    contract? What is the cost savings by maximizing the contract in fiscal
    year 2012?
        Answer. Yes, procuring six FRCs in fiscal year 2012 maximizes the
    contract. The average cost savings per hull is approximately $5 million
    including production costs, economic price adjustments associated with
    spare parts, antecedent liabilities and other scalable program costs
    (e.g., project management, testing, certification, etc.).
              united states secret service--presidential campaigns
        Question. Provide the number of candidates and number of protection
    days for Presidential campaigns going back to 1996, including costs.
        Answer. [Follows:]

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Protection      Candidates/    Spouses/adult
                 Campaign (fiscal year)                    days          nominees        children        Cost \1\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2008............................................           1,115               5               6     $70,304,000
    2004............................................             454               3               2      38,686,000
    2000............................................             452               4               3      27,787,000
    1996............................................             364               4               2     16,459,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Presidential campaign costs do not reflect the ``labor shift'' of existing base resources from investigative
      programs to support the protection demands of the campaign.

                 asia-pacific economic cooperation summit costs
        Question. Provide detail on how much funding is needed in fiscal
    year 2011 for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in
    Honolulu, Hawaii.
        Answer. Total estimated cost that the U.S. Secret Service (USSS)
    will incur in fiscal year 2011 for the Asia-Pacific Economic
    Cooperation (APEC) Summit is $5.4 million. These cost include airfare,
    vehicle rental, housing, and per diem cost of personnel who have been
    temporarily reassigned (TDY) to Honolulu, Hawaii since October 2010 to
    prepare for this National Special Security Event (NSSE). Additionally,
    these costs include the rental/build-out cost of the Multi-Agency
    Communications Center (MACC), the Coordinating Center and Credentialing
    Center.
        The USSS will not be able to utilize the Presidential Assistance
    Act and therefore will not have access to military aircraft to
    transport vehicles, critical protective equipment and IT assets to this
    location. We will have to contract with a commercial vendor to
    transport these critical assets and ensure that they are available.
               information integration and transformation program
        Question. Provide a detailed crosswalk of the original
    modernization plan (schedule and budget) for the Information
    Integration and Transformation Program versus where we are with the
    program at current funding levels. Please detail any modernization
    funds that have been redirected for other purposes, including the
    amount and why they were redirected.
        Answer. [The response is For Official Use Only and Procurement
    Sensitive--See FAR 3.104 and the answer will be submitted under a
    separate cover.]
                          operational mission support
        Question. Please prioritize your Operational Mission Support
    requests ($65 million).
        Answer. Here is a list of the highest-priority operational mission
    support requirements. Each of these protective counter measures
    addresses a specific vulnerability or known threat that requires
    mitigation in order to provide a safe environment for the President and
    other national leaders. The protective counter measures are used
    individually and in combination to address specific types of threats,
    creating a high level of interdependence between the proposed systems.
    The counter measures provide enhanced security surveillance
    capabilities and defenses to known threats for the President at the
    White House and while traveling throughout the world. These assets will
    provide not only enhanced situational awareness capabilities, but also
    will enable notification systems to share critical information and
    activate emergency response protocols. They are listed below:
      --Enhanced explosive detection systems, $8,683,000 (51 positions).
      --Enhanced chemical, biological, and radiological detection systems,
            $4,626,000 (3 positions).
      --White House physical protection upgrades, $12,826,000 (3
            positions).
      --Enhanced White House camera system, $6,375,000 (1 position).
      --Development of next generation Presidential limousine, $10,226,000
            (3 positions).
      --Presidential audio countermeasures, $2,451,000 (2 positions).
      --Cyber protection activities, $12,775,000 (1 position).
      --National master plan studies, $1,375,000 (1 position).
      --Protective systems and weapons testing program, $6,477,000 (5
            positions).
                anticounterfeit operations in colombia and peru
        Question. Please describe current anticounterfeit operations in
    Colombia and Peru. Has counterfeiting in Colombia decreased since the
    inception of USSS cooperative presence with the Colombian Government?
    Is opening an overseas office in Peru under consideration?
        Answer. [Follows:]
        Colombia.--The USSS Bogota Resident Office currently oversees the
    Vetted Anti-Counterfeit Force (VACF) composed of approximately 50
    Colombian law enforcement officers divided among 8 offices in Bogota,
    Pereira, Cali, and Medellin. In addition, two Colombian district
    attorneys are exclusively working United States currency counterfeiting
    cases in conjunction with the VACF and USSS.
        While overall statistics indicate steady attempts at counterfeit
    production within Colombia, the combined efforts of the USSS and
    Colombian VACF have been able to greatly reduce or interdict the export
    to, and subsequent passing of counterfeit within, the United States.
    Passing activity has decreased 81 percent since the inception of the
    USSS/Colombian cooperative anticounterfeiting effort.
        Peru.--The Peru Counterfeit Task Force (PCTF) was formed in March
    2009 and is currently working directly with the Peru National Police
    (PNP). The task force is composed of two agents on 2-week TDY
    assignment rotations. The USSS also started the process of selecting
    Peru National Police (PNP) officers with the goal of making a vetted
    anticounterfeit unit that closely mirrors the Colombian model. To date,
    PCTF efforts have led to the arrests of 50 suspects, the suppression of
    22 counterfeit plant operations, and the seizure of more than $36
    million in counterfeit currency.
        On February 15, 2011, DHS approved the National Security Decision
    Directive (NSDD) 38 related to the opening of the Lima, Peru office. On
    March 7, 2011, the NSDD 38 was officially submitted to the U.S. State
    Department. At this time, the USSS is awaiting review and approval from
    the U.S. State Department.
                         state and local cyber activity
        Question. President Obama has said, ``the cyber threat is one of
    the most serious economic and national security challenges we face''.
    Secretary Napolitano, you included safeguarding and securing cyberspace
    as 1 of the 5 missions defined in the Quadrennial Homeland Security
    Review.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request appears to respond to this
    alarm by requesting a robust level of funding for US-CERT operations;
    Federal network security; and network security deployment. These are
    important areas to invest in and I take this request seriously. I was
    especially pleased to see that there is a $9 million increase for
    outreach, education, and training activities. Many State, local, and
    private sector entities are struggling with and finding solutions to
    the same issues the Federal Government faces. Sharing solutions and
    expertise is imperative to our defense.
        Please describe each cyber program underway that includes State and
    local efforts in fiscal year 2010, fiscal year 2011, and proposed
    programs for fiscal year 2012.
        Further, what is the current status of cybersecurity and systems
    assurance curricula; and what capacity does DHS currently have to
    provide virtual education for specialized and classified education
    requirements?
        Answer. DHS's National Cyber Security Division (NCSD) collaborates
    with State, local, tribal, and territorial governments to share and
    implement sound cybersecurity policies, practices, and strategies to
    improve preparedness against cyber threats and attacks.
        Due to the increasingly important role of State, local, tribal, and
    territorial governments in cybersecurity, NCSD has resources committed
    solely to interacting with officials at these levels. The mission of
    NCSD's State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial (SLTT) Engagement program
    is to build partnerships with non-Federal public stakeholders,
    including each State's Homeland Security Advisor, Chief Information
    Officer (CIO) and Chief Information Security Officer (CISO). The
    following provides an overview of NCSD interactions with States.
    United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team
        The United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT)
    maintains a formal relationship and works closely with mission
    partners, including State and local governments, on a daily basis to
    resolve threats, vulnerabilities, and incidents. US-CERT provides a
    variety of daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly communication
    exchanges to maintain situational awareness and share critical
    information with collective cybersecurity partners. Federal and SLTT
    incident response personnel have access to the Government Forum of
    Incident Response and Security Teams (GFIRST) portal for information
    sharing and discussion.
        US-CERT also sponsors the GFIRST National Conference, a forum that
    promotes cooperation among Federal agencies, State, local, tribal, and
    territorial governments, the private sector, and international partners
    across the cybersecurity spectrum, from preparedness and prevention to
    incident response. The conference supports the dissemination and
    promulgation of proactive and preventive security practices. US-CERT
    funding is executed toward planning, preparation, communication, and
    coordination of this conference and other conference expos.
    Specifically, $1.55 million is directed to support requirements such as
    administration, logistics, and security. Additional funding
    (approximately $3 million) provides support to the interactive
    demonstration system at the GFIRST National Conference.
        US-CERT also provides support ($1 million annually) to the
    Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and
    Technology, which provides system integration and product development
    support for enhancement of the National Vulnerability Database and
    search engine. This database enables US-CERT partners, including State,
    local, tribal, and territorial governments, to secure government
    systems.
    Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center
        Created in 2003, the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis
    Center (MS-ISAC) is an invaluable tool when dealing with SLTT
    governments. The MS-ISAC supports NCSD's efforts to secure cyberspace
    by disseminating early warnings of cyber threats to SLTT governments.
    In addition, the MS-ISAC shares security incident information,
    identifies trends, and conducts other analysis for security planning.
    NCSD provides programmatic support ($3.55 million for the 12-month
    period from August 1, 2010, to July 31, 2011) to the MS-ISAC. The
    fiscal year 2010 DHS Appropriations Act provided an additional $3
    million for DHS to fund and work with the MS-ISAC to provide managed
    security services (e.g., intrusion detection systems, intrusion
    prevention systems firewalls) for 18 State and local governments. The
    MS-ISAC has selected State, county, and local governments for
    participation. The MS-ISAC, consistent with the objectives of NCSD,
    provides a common mechanism for raising the level of SLTT government
    cybersecurity readiness and response. It is a central resource for
    gathering information regarding cyber threats to critical
    infrastructure facilities. Other MS-ISAC programs/activities include:
                Operation of a 24/7 Cyber Security and Analysis Center
        The MS-ISAC runs a 24-hour watch and warning Security Operations
    Center (SOC) that provides real-time network monitoring, dissemination
    of early cyber threat warnings, and vulnerability identification and
    mitigation, along with education and outreach aimed at reducing risk to
    the Nation's SLTT government cyber domain. The SOC shares and
    coordinates real-time risk information to support national
    cybersecurity situational awareness with DHS (NCSD and US-CERT).
        The SOC performs 24/7 monitoring of the Internet and other sources,
    including incident reports received from members and others regarding
    cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities. The SOC staff evaluates and
    correlates information and distributes advisories and bulletins as
    appropriate, including mitigation strategies and steps that can be
    taken to protect critical infrastructure.
                Managed and Monitored Security Services
        The MS-ISAC contracts with the States of Alaska, Montana, and New
    York, along with the Los Angeles World Airports, to provide
    cybersecurity monitoring and managed services. This collective view
    across multiple entities helps enhance situational awareness regarding
    cyber threats.
        During 2010, the MS-ISAC reviewed more than 78 billion logs through
    the 24/7 operations center. Approximately 138 MS-ISAC advisories were
    issued.
        Additionally, through funding in the fiscal year 2010 DHS
    Appropriations Act, the MS-ISAC is expanding its monitoring services
    with an additional 10 State governments, 7 local governments, and 1
    territorial government. This expanded infrastructure will provide a
    representative sample of system and network activity for enhancing
    situational awareness of SLTT government networks across the country.
    It will also improve cyber incident identification and response while
    providing more resources for developing and implementing appropriate
    mitigation strategies tailored specifically to SLTT government cyber
    resources.
                Participation in Cyber Security Exercises--Cyber Storm I,
                        II, and III
        The MS-ISAC has participated in each of the three Cyber Storm
    exercises, most recently Cyber Storm III in September 2010. The MS-ISAC
    was a full player during the Cyber Storm III exercise; its SOC was
    active, and it coordinated with 11 States that participated in the
    exercise. The MS-ISAC hosted 19 visitors from five States, the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation, New York State law enforcement, Homeland
    Security and military personnel, and observers from the University of
    Texas at San Antonio.
    National Cyber Incident Response Plan
        The President's Cybersecurity Policy Review called for ``a
    comprehensive framework to facilitate coordinated responses by
    Government, the private sector, and allies to a significant cyber
    incident.'' DHS coordinated the interagency, State and local
    government, and private-sector working group that developed the
    National Cyber Incident Response Plan (NCIRP). The Plan provides a
    framework for effective incident response capabilities and coordination
    among Federal agencies, State and local governments, the private
    sector, and international partners during significant cyber incidents.
    It is designed to be flexible and adaptable to allow synchronization of
    response activities across jurisdictional lines.
        The NCIRP is undergoing final DHS review to incorporate lessons
    learned during the Cyber Storm III exercise. Upon conclusion of this
    review, DHS will send the NCIRP out to State, local and private-sector
    partners (including the National Governors Association and the MS-ISAC)
    for review. DHS will work with State and local partners (and partners
    in the private sector) to align their incident response plans and
    procedures with the NCIRP. The MS-ISAC and National Governors
    Association will be key partners in this effort.
        DHS has designated the MS-ISAC as the ISAC for SLTT governments and
    has identified the MS-ISAC as a key stakeholder in the development and
    implementation of the NCIRP.
    NCSD Cyber Security Evaluation Program
        Under the 2009 appropriations act, NCSD's Cyber Security Evaluation
    Program (CSEP) was tasked with completing a Nationwide Cyber Security
    Review (NCSR). The NCSR is a voluntary self-assessment of State and
    major urban area government information technology (IT) services and is
    designed to measure cybersecurity preparedness and resilience. Through
    the NCSR, CSEP examines relationships, interactions, and processes
    governing IT management and the ability to manage operational risk
    effectively. CSEP also conducts voluntary cybersecurity assessments to
    evaluate and enhance the implementation of key cybersecurity capacities
    and capabilities of critical infrastructure and key resources (CIKR)
    sector members. This assessment is the Cyber Resilience Review, which
    is designed for each of the 18 CIKR sectors and for use within SLTT
    governments. Since fiscal year 2009, CSEP has completed 45 cyber
    resilience reviews with SLTT partners.
    NCSD Cyber Exercise Program
        NCSD's Cyber Exercise Program (CEP) works with Federal, State,
    local, international, and private sector partners to conduct regional
    and sector-specific exercises designed to develop and improve the
    capabilities of DHS and its infrastructure partners. Such exercises aid
    participants in preparing for, preventing, mitigating, responding to,
    and recovering from cyber incidents. NCSD plans, coordinates, and
    conducts cyber exercises to develop, evaluate, improve, and refine the
    capabilities of State and local partners. CEP assists State and local
    partners by facilitating the design of tabletop and functional
    exercises at the State and local levels.
        DHS hosted Cyber Storm III from September 26 through October 1,
    2010. The Cyber Storm exercise series is a key element of ongoing
    efforts to assess cyber preparedness; examine incident response
    processes, procedures, and information sharing mechanisms; and identify
    areas for improvement absent the consequences of an actual incident.
    Cyber Storm III included participation from 11 States.
        In 2009 and 2010, NCSD, the MS-ISAC, and the Microsoft Corporation
    jointly sponsored the Defend the Flag Exercises to provide State
    government network security professionals greater technical security
    skills and practical experience with implementing the principles of
    defense-in-depth while securing Windows-based operating systems.
    Thirteen States participated from 2009-2010.
    Grants
        DHS provides grants for cybersecurity through the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency (FEMA), such as the Homeland Security Grant Program
    (HSGP), which provides States the opportunity to work with DHS to
    acquire cybersecurity capabilities. During the last 2 years, NCSD has
    worked with FEMA to modify the language in the HSGP to better clarify
    how funds can be used to improve cybersecurity.
    National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education
        DHS is engaged in the National Initiative for Cybersecurity
    Education (NICE), leading Track 1 (Cybersecurity Awareness), leading
    Track 3 (Cybersecurity Workforce Structure), and coleading Track 4
    (Cybersecurity Workforce Training and Professional Development).
    Through NICE, DHS is reaching out across the cybersecurity community--
    including academia, the private sector, and Federal, State, local,
    tribal, and territorial partners--to integrate current efforts into a
    foundation of information that creates mutual understanding and
    partnerships across all aspects of national cybersecurity.
        In fiscal year 2010, DHS facilitated the efforts of six State
    government CIOs to develop a State government workforce development
    model, based on the existing DHS-issued Essential Body of Knowledge.
    This State government model was presented to the MS-ISAC, which
    included the model in its membership-based portal and on its public Web
    site.
    Other NCSD SLTT Programs/Activities
                National Cyber Security Awareness Month
        To recognize the importance of cybersecurity awareness, October is
    designated as National Cyber Security Awareness Month. NCSD, with the
    help of the MS-ISAC, works with funded partners and other parties to
    sponsor events and activities throughout the country and disseminate
    Awareness Month key messages and event information to State and local
    partners. Due to the efforts of NCSD and MS ISAC, in 2009 and 2010, all
    of the Nation's governors signed letters officially proclaiming October
    as National Cyber Security Awareness Month.
                Stop. Think. Connect. Campaign
        DHS bears primary responsibility for raising public awareness about
    threats to the Nation's cyber systems and networks. To that end, in
    October 2010, DHS launched the National Cybersecurity Awareness
    Campaign, Stop. Think. Connect. It is a national public-education
    effort to engage and empower Americans to take charge of their online
    safety and security. By providing Americans with easy-to-understand
    online safety tips and resources, the campaign is helping them
    establish smart habits that will lead to increased protection online.
    Stop. Think. Connect. fulfills a key element of President Obama's 2009
    Cyberspace Policy Review, which tasked DHS to develop a public-
    awareness campaign to inform Americans about ways to use technology
    safely.
                Security Clearances for State Information Security Officers
        NCSD, in partnership with colleagues from DHS Office of Security,
    initiated a plan to clear, starting at the Secret level, each State CIO
    and CISO, and the MS-ISAC executive committee. NCSD is confident this
    is an important step in sharing valuable sensitive information with
    State partners.
                Cyber Partner Local Access Plan
        NCSD, in cooperation with the Office of Intelligence and Analysis,
    developed the Cybersecurity Partner Local Access Plan (CPLAP) to share
    classified cybersecurity threat information with cleared State
    cybersecurity officials and private-sector partners at State and major
    urban area fusion centers nationwide. The CPLAP enables more effective
    and efficient classified cybersecurity information sharing among
    Federal, SLTT, and private-sector partners, and supports an
    information-sharing model that eliminates partners' air travel to and
    from the Washington, DC, area to receive classified cybersecurity
    briefings. The CPLAP will be piloted at five fusion centers by mid-
    2011, with plans to expand the program to a broader audience and
    additional fusion centers on a regional basis by the end of 2011.
                Cyber Summits
        In an effort to educate SLTT leaders and the public, NCSD
    coordinates and plans Cyber Summits. These summits, which are held
    regularly throughout the year and hosted across the country, focus on
    opportunities and vulnerabilities to promote discussion on how public
    and private-sector officials can best leverage technology to reduce
    risk. Frequent attendance and contribution by nongovernmental cyber
    associations, such as the MS-ISAC and National Association of State
    Chief Information Officers, significantly contributes to the
    information sharing, capacity building, and coordination efforts
    necessary to develop robust and effective cybersecurity capabilities on
    all levels. DHS identified cybersecurity as a top departmental
    priority, and Federal, State, and local government officials share a
    responsibility to promote a healthy cyber ecosystem and to encourage
    individuals to protect themselves and their families at home, work, and
    school.
                Virginia Operational Integration Cybersecurity Center of
                        Excellence
        NCSD is helping the Virginia Operational Integration Cyber Center
    of Excellence (VOICCE) create a Municipal Cyber Lab that will be used
    to support and train SLTT government officials to better understand
    cybersecurity issues. VOICCE focuses on incorporating cyber attacks
    into the mainstream of emergency operations at the local level and
    creating a virtual municipality of randomly generated Internet protocol
    addresses. The concept will allow for development of vital
    cybersecurity capabilities, processes, and procedures. The VOICCE node
    or laboratory will allow local governments and first responders to plug
    into State and Federal entities and participate in simulated cyber
    attacks. The lab will be both physical and virtual in structure,
    allowing many types of simulation and providing an effective
    environment to share ideas among stakeholders across the Nation.
    Participants will brainstorm, identify, and respond to diverse cyber
    attack scenarios.
        This activity was required by the fiscal year 2010 DHS
    Appropriations Act.
        NCSD will continue many of the programs listed above. In addition,
    in fiscal year 2012, NCSD will commit funding to expand the MS-ISAC's
    managed and monitor security services.
    Curricula
        The Software Assurance (SwA) curriculum project, which produced the
    Masters of Software Assurance (MSwA) curriculum and associated
    undergraduate course outlines, is a recent NCSD effort to cosponsor
    public-private collaboration for government, industry, and academia
    through its SwA Forum. To facilitate implementation, the MSwA project
    team is offering assistance, free of charge, to educational
    institutions looking to launch an MSwA degree program.
        Through the Software Assurance (SwA) forum, the SwA program has
    encouraged Federal, State, and local involvement in public-private
    collaboration efforts associated with the advancement of SwA resources.
    As part of that collaboration, the SwA curriculum project released the
    Masters of Software Assurance (MSwA) reference curriculum and nine-
    course syllabi for public use. The MSwA curriculum is recognized by the
    Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Computer
    Society and the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) as the first
    curriculum of its kind to focus on assuring the functionality,
    dependability, and security of software and systems. The materials are
    available at http://www.cert.org/mswa/.
        More information on the SwA curriculum project and the MSwA is
    available at https://buildsecurityin.us-cert.gov/bsi/1165-BSI.html.
    Virtual Education
        The SwA Forum, sponsored by NCSD's SwA Program, posts Web casts of
    SwA tutorials and pocket guides that are publicly available for free
    online use, including links via virtual training environments.
        One aspect under NICE Track 4 is Functional Area 4, which concerns
    Specialized Cybersecurity Operations. The scope of this effort includes
    those Federal civilian employees, members of the uniformed services,
    and contractor personnel employed by departments and agencies who are
    engaged in highly specialized and largely classified cybersecurity
    operations. Work associated with this functional area is classified,
    but a classified briefing to discuss the work associated with this
    topic can be arranged upon request.
              risk assessment process for informed decision making
        Question. NPPD began development of the Risk Assessment Process for
    Informed Decision Making (RAPID) to aid the Department in making policy
    and budgetary decisions based on risk. Which DHS components (or other
    entities) have used RAPID to date? What impact did it have on
    operations? What proposals in the fiscal year 2012 budget used RAPID as
    the foundation for the request? What is the next phase for RAPID and
    when will it be used departmentwide?
        Answer. [Follows:]
    Components That Have Used RAPID to Date
        The Risk Assessment Process for Informed Decision Making (RAPID) is
    the Federal Government's first quantitative, multi-mission, multi-
    hazards assessment of homeland security risk. RAPID assesses the risk
    of various types of terrorism, natural disasters, and transnational
    crimes in terms of annualized expected fatalities and economic losses.
    The goal of RAPID is to provide information about these homeland
    security risks and the extent to which DHS programs and activities
    contribute to the reduction of these risks to support DHS leadership
    decisionmaking during the annual planning, programming, budgeting and
    execution (PPBE) process cycle and supporting processes.
        To date, RAPID analysis has supported the planning phase of the
    annual DHS PPBE cycle through the development of the Office of Policy's
    Integrated Planning Guidance by highlighting key risks and providing
    qualitative analysis of possible risk-mitigation strategies. In
    addition, RAPID analysis has proven helpful in facilitating more robust
    evaluation of alternatives within the Program Review Board issue teams.
        In addition to supporting the departmentwide PPBE process, RAPID
    has supported a number of DHS components in prioritizing their
    activities, as described below.
                Coast Guard Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security Program
        The Coast Guard's ports, waterways, and coastal security (PWCS)
    risk-based performance module has been developed to:
      --Assess risk in the PWCS mission;
      --Evaluate Coast Guard performance within the mission; and
      --Evaluate the effectiveness of Coast Guard planning, programming,
            and budgeting recommendations in terms of risk reduction.
        To achieve those objectives, the model considers a wide array of
    maritime terrorism scenarios. The risk data for the vast majority of
    scenarios comes directly from the Coast Guard's Maritime Security Risk
    Analysis Model; however, the risk of transferring terrorists and
    weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) through the maritime domain is
    currently outside of the model's scope.
        To establish the risk associated with these scenarios, the Coast
    Guard/PWCS team requested RAPID data from the National Protection and
    Programs Directorate's (NPPD) Office of Risk Management and Analysis
    (RMA) related to the following:
      --Frequency estimates from RAPID's structured elicitation of the
            intelligence community in the following areas:
        --Maritime-related WMD transfers, both through ports of entry and
                between ports of entry;
        --Maritime-related terrorist transfers, both through ports of entry
                and between ports of entry;
        --Maritime-related direct attacks; and
        --Maritime-related direct exploitation attacks.
      --Casualty and economic consequence estimates for a variety of WMD
            attacks.
                DHS Office of Policy's Office of Strategic Plans
        The Office of Strategic Plans within the Department's Office of
    Policy requested information and analysis related to:
      --The overall flows of four types of drugs that malefactors are
            attempting to introduce into the United States;
      --Estimates of drugs seized based on the reported sources; and
      --How these reported estimates compare with RAPID estimates.
    In response to this request, RMA provided overall drug-flow estimates,
    as well as drug-seizure estimates from both RAPID and other reported
    sources.
                Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security
                        Investigations
        In response to the GAO report, ``Better Management Practices Could
    Enhance DHS's Ability to Allocate Investigative Resources'' (GAO-06-
    462T), the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security
    Investigations has been seeking a way to use risk management to inform
    its resource allocation decisions (i.e., analyze its primary
    enforcement areas and allocate its resources according to the
    likelihood of potential consequences to the United States). As a
    result, ICE developed a strategic risk assessment whose methodology was
    peer-reviewed at multiple stages by RMA, and RMA provided RAPID
    analysis for use in this assessment. Specifically, RMA provided RAPID
    analysis of residual drug-flow estimates, consequences as a result of
    foreign-produced drugs, and consequences due to illegal migration. ICE
    used the RAPID data to augment and validate its own estimates.
                CBP Agro/Bio-Terror Countermeasures
        RMA has been asked by CBP's Agro/Bio-Terror Countermeasures (ABTC)
    to provide bioterrorism/agroterrorism risk information to inform its
    targeting processes. Specifically, ABTC is interested in using RAPID in
    the following areas:
      --Assist in improved use of targeting resources by either:
        --Using existing RAPID risk results tailored to provide information
                regarding risk by ``mode and point of entry'' for
                biological material to inform ABTC's decisions regarding
                the allocation of its resources among air, land, and sea
                border crossings; or
        --Building a new ``risk factor'' category into ABTC's existing
                targeting rulesets that includes RAPID ``mode and point of
                entry'' risk data; and
      --Help design probabilistic red-team scenarios to test targeting and
            response procedures.
    Impact on Operations
        As noted in the Secretary's policy statement on Integrated Risk
    Management signed in May 2010, DHS uses risk information and analysis:

    ``. . .  to inform decisionmaking, striving to better understand risks
    and capabilities to manage them, while remaining flexible to changing
    risks. Homeland security risks are inherently uncertain, and risk
    analysis will not always yield precise answers. The Department uses
    risk information and analysis to make its assumptions more transparent,
    encourage creative thinking, and provide defensible decisions, made
    with the best available tools and information, for the best achievable
    outcomes.''

        Using risk analysis to inform decisions, particularly operational
    ones, is a complicated process that involves making difficult tradeoffs
    among often highly uncertain risk reduction benefits, costs, the unique
    risk tolerance of the decisionmaker, logistical constraints, and policy
    priorities. Terrorism risk analysis in particular involves a great deal
    of uncertainty that affects our ability to estimate the range of
    potential benefits of different alternatives.
    Fiscal Year 2012 Proposals That Used RAPID as the Foundation for the
            Request
        During the fiscal year 2012 budget build, RAPID was not completed
    in time to serve as the foundation for any specific budget requests. It
    is expected in the future, however, that RAPID will reach a sufficient
    level of maturity to be leveraged more broadly and will increasingly
    provide greater input into the budgeting process.
    Next Phase for RAPID
        Following the execution of RAPID 2010, NPPD/RMA conducted a formal
    lessons-learned process to prioritize enhancements to future iterations
    of the assessment. This process led to a formal confirmation of
    strategic requirements and reinforced the focus for RAPID in 2011-2012
    to better understand customer needs and the decision environment.
    Initial RAPID 2010 analysis provides a baseline view of homeland
    security risk and risk reduction across the Department's mission-
    oriented programs, portfolios, and activities. In 2011, RMA plans to
    invest most of its effort in improving model and data quality, bringing
    all RAPID analysis in house so that it can be conducted by Federal
    staff on Federal computing equipment, and conducting tailored analysis
    to support the fiscal year 2013-2017 budget build, including support to
    NPPD's budget request, study of the effectiveness of chemical,
    biological, radiological, and nuclear countermeasures, and more
    effective allocation of aviation security and air domain awareness
    resources.
                          progress in interoperability
        Question. The 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on
    September 11, 2001, is only 6 months away. The failure of
    communications during that incident has been cited in the 9/11
    Commission report and has been the subject of many recommendations for
    improvement. During Hurricane Katrina, we once again witnessed a
    failure in communications during a catastrophe. The Federal Government
    and DHS have devoted significant resources to solving the interoperable
    communications problem; more than $4.5 billion in Federal homeland
    security grants alone. State and local governments have contributed an
    untold amount. Progress has been made; however, interoperable emergency
    communications remain inadequate.
        The emergence of broadband services provides emergency responders
    with new opportunities to improve communications. Despite this
    potential, public safety officials face several challenges in
    integrating new technologies and proving their reliability. What
    progress has been made since September 11, 2001, to improve emergency
    communications and what challenges lie ahead? Does the National
    Emergency Communications Plan need to be updated for emerging
    technologies and services? What is the plan to develop and disseminate
    training and best practices on governance, standard operating
    procedures, equipment purchases, and related issues for emerging
    technologies and services and to deliver technical assistance to public
    safety agencies on broadband technologies?
        Answer. [Follows:]
    Progress Made Since September 11, 2001
        Improving communications for the Nation's emergency responders has
    been a top priority for DHS. Since its establishment, DHS has worked
    with its partners at the Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial
    levels to build and sustain the communications capabilities that public
    safety personnel require at all times to coordinate response and
    recovery operations effectively. Creation of the Office of Emergency
    Communications (OEC) within the National Protection and Programs
    Directorate in 2007 and its subsequent release of the National
    Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) have been key drivers of progress
    in this mission. To date, the Department has achieved 78 of the 92
    milestones in the NECP, or 85 percent.
        The Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) within the
    S&T Directorate was created in 2004 to strengthen and integrate
    interoperable communications. Working closely with the emergency
    response community, OIC developed foundational tools, methodologies,
    and standards to strengthen interoperability. For example, OIC improved
    command-level interoperability capabilities in 10 high-threat urban
    areas through the RapidCom initiative. OIC also supported RapidCom 2
    which accelerated the completion of Tactical Interoperability
    Communications Plans in the largest 75 urban/metropolitan areas across
    the Nation. A scorecard was developed to help all levels of government
    measure their current state of interoperability and lay the foundation
    for establishing accountability for future progress. Additionally, OIC
    launched two regional communications interoperability pilots in Nevada
    and Kentucky which resulted in guidance documents on governance,
    funding, and procurement that now serve as tools for States and
    territories in support of their statewide planning efforts.
        Prior to the creation of OEC and release of the NECP, emergency
    response agencies often pursued disparate emergency communications
    activities and lacked coordinated solutions and protocols. Few plans
    existed at the State level to guide activities within or across States
    and with Federal efforts, and inter-agency coordination at the Federal
    level was not as effective as it needed to be. In addition, Federal
    grant programs supported the acquisition of communications equipment--
    but without common governance and statewide plans in place, individual
    communities often made equipment investments without coordinating with
    their neighboring communities or regions.
        To address these and other interoperability challenges, OEC
    developed the NECP in coordination with more than 150 representatives
    from all major emergency response organizations across the country,
    including the SAFECOM Executive Committee/Emergency Response Council,
    Federal departments and agencies through the Emergency Communications
    Preparedness Center (ECPC), and private-sector and nongovernmental
    organizations. The NECP set out a clear strategy for building
    capabilities in key areas identified by public safety as needed for
    improving emergency communications and has since greatly influenced
    planning, governance, operating procedures, and training for responders
    nationwide.
    Indicators of Emergency Communications Progress
        NPPD/OEC's efforts to coordinate with stakeholders from the
    Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial responder communities
    and the private sector to improve interoperable emergency
    communications capabilities have resulted in:
      --Enhanced Statewide Coordination.--The creation of 56 statewide
            communication interoperability plans (SCIPs) and 44 statewide
            interoperability coordinators (SWICs) is improving coordination
            of emergency communications activities and investments
            throughout all 56 States and territories. All 56 States and
            territories have identified a point of contact for statewide
            interoperability coordination, and 44 States and territories
            have full-time SWIC or equivalent positions. These important
            leadership roles and planning mechanisms are critical for the
            continued funding, accountability, and execution of emergency
            communications activities at the State, local, tribal, and
            territorial levels.
      --Common Plans and Procedures.--The creation and increased use of
            standardized plans, protocols, and procedures is driving
            improved command, control, and communications among emergency
            response agencies in the field. NPPD/OEC and the Federal
            Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have worked with more than
            140 jurisdictions to develop Tactical Interoperable
            Communications Plans (TICPs) that document formalized
            interoperability governance groups, standardized policies and
            procedures, and emergency communications equipment inventories.
            DHS continues to work with stakeholders to update, implement,
            and develop new TICPs as part of the NECP. In addition, more
            than 30 States are implementing plain-language protocols to
            simplify and standardize the language used to share information
            and communicate during an emergency.
      --Targeted Technical Assistance.--As part of the NECP, NPPD/OEC has
            implemented a technical assistance strategy to ensure that all
            States and territories can request and receive emergency
            communications assistance while also focusing support on the
            States and urban areas most in need. This technical support
            provides improvements in all areas of emergency communications,
            including the development of governance structures, tactical
            and strategic planning, and a variety of engineering services.
            Since 2008, the 56 States and territories have requested more
            than 750 individual technical assistance services from NPPD/
            OEC. These services support the priorities in each State or
            territory's SCIP and the objectives of the NECP.
          The 2011 Technical Assistance Catalog has 13 new or updated
            offerings to provide support to States across the entire
            Interoperability Continuum, one of which is focused on the
            planning for and incorporation of 700MHz Wireless Broadband
            technologies into the Public Safety community. In addition,
            NPPD/OEC is conducting at least five focused Technical
            Assistance engagements with jurisdictions granted waivers by
            the Federal Communications Commission for conditional use of
            currently allocated 700 MHz spectrum to help them migrate to
            the new 700MHz Long-Term Evolution network and share best
            practices with the Nation. Last, NPPD/OEC facilitates a weekly
            call with the Public Safety Spectrum Trust Operator Advisory
            Committee, a group comprising all the jurisdictions receiving
            such FCC waivers, to encourage information sharing and
            collaboration.
      --Increased Training Opportunities.--To improve emergency responders'
            capabilities in this area, OEC's communications unit leader
            (COML) training program has resulted in the training of more
            than 3,500 responders, technicians, and planners to lead
            communications during incidents across the Nation, including
            local floods, blizzards, and wildfires. Effective training and
            exercise programs can increase emergency responders'
            proficiency with equipment and help them coordinate roles and
            responsibilities more effectively during an event. Trained
            COMLs also contributed to recovery efforts outside of the
            United States, such as the response to the 2010 earthquake in
            Haiti.
      --Improved Governance and Coordination.--Building on the success of
            governance and coordination mechanisms such as the SAFECOM
            Executive Committee/Emergency Response Council, NPPD/OEC has
            worked with Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial
            agencies to stand up formal decisionmaking structures that
            increase coordination, information sharing, and oversight of
            interoperability:
        --Statewide Interoperability Governing Bodies now exist in every
                State and territory and include representatives from all
                levels of government to coordinate and support statewide
                interoperability. In addition, many States have created
                regional interoperability committees to provide insight
                into the statewide strategy from an operational
                perspective.
        --NPPD/OEC established the National Council of Statewide
                Interoperability Coordinators to serve as a governing body
                for SWICs. The council meets twice a year to share best
                practices, lessons learned, successes, and challenges
                related to SCIP implementation.
        --DHS established Regional Emergency Communications Coordination
                Working Groups and placed individual regional coordinators
                from FEMA, NPPD/OEC, and the National Communications System
                in each of the 10 FEMA regions to coordinate interstate
                emergency communications efforts.
        --The Emergency Communications Preparedness Center represents the
                Federal Government's broad role in emergency
                communications, including regulation, policy, operations,
                and grants. The ECPC, which comprises members from 14
                Federal departments and agencies, is driving more effective
                coordination of grants, technical assistance, and planning
                activities for emergency communications.
        NECP Goals Performance Measurement.--The NECP goals serve as
    performance benchmarks for assessing public safety agencies' progress
    toward achieving a baseline-level of interoperable emergency
    communications. OEC is measuring them through a process that engages
    Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial emergency responders.
    The three NECP goals are as follows:
        Goal 1.--By the end of 2010, 90 percent of all high-risk urban
    areas designated within the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) can
    demonstrate response-level emergency communications within 1 hour for
    routine events involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies.
        Goal 2.--By the end of 2011, 75 percent of non-UASI jurisdictions
    can demonstrate response-level emergency communications within 1 hour
    for routine events involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies.
        Goal 3.--By the end of 2013, 75 percent of all jurisdictions can
    demonstrate response-level emergency communications within 3 hours of a
    significant event, as outlined in the department's national planning
    scenarios.
      --To evaluate NECP goal 1, NPPD/OEC conducted an assessment of
            response-level emergency communications among public safety
            agencies during a planned event held in each UASI region. Based
            on the interoperable communications capabilities documented at
            each event, all 60 UASI regions were able to demonstrate
            response level communications, achieving NECP goal 1. The goal
            1 assessments also identified areas for continued improvement.
            NPPD/OEC will use the results of the goal assessments--
            including goal 2, scheduled for completion in 2011 and goal 3,
            scheduled for completion in 2013--to better target resources,
            such as training and planning, for improving interoperable
            emergency communications nationwide.
    Updating the National Emergency Communications Plan
        NPPD/OEC is leading efforts to update the NECP to address the
    integration of broadband with traditional Land Mobile Radio (LMR)
    technologies. OEC is coordinating with Federal, State, local, tribal,
    and territorial agencies, major public-safety organizations, and the
    private sector to develop a strategy for incorporating new technology,
    such as broadband, while maintaining the mission-critical voice-over
    LMR that responders use every day to save lives. The NECP update will
    focus on key issues that must be addressed, such as partnerships,
    planning, user requirements, standards, research and development, and
    funding.
    Acceleration of Standards and Technology Developments
        OIC has worked to provide stakeholders (local, State, and Federal),
    with the optimal mix of standards, tools, technologies, methodologies,
    and guidance to enable improved communications interoperability at all
    levels. For example, OIC facilitates the development of Emergency Data
    Exchange Language (EDXL) standards through a practitioner-driven
    approach. These standards enable the emergency response community to
    share data seamlessly and securely during an incident. Once
    standardized, any technology vendor or organization can easily develop
    EDXL-based applications and products to facilitate information exchange
    across disparate public safety systems across local, tribal, State,
    Federal, and nongovernmental emergency response and management
    disciplines. The EDXL family of standards is developed through input
    from the OIC-Sponsored Practitioner Steering Group (PSG) and Standards
    Working Group (SWG). The PSG and SWG represent multiple disciplines,
    ensuring that the requirements reflect an all-hazards perspective. The
    standards are then vetted by an international standards development
    organization. The EDXL project is a public-private partnership
    established to create an information sharing capability between
    disparate emergency response software applications, systems, and
    devices.
        An example of the Department's promotion of voice standards is
    OIC's Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program (P25 CAP), which
    established a process for ensuring that emergency communications
    equipment complies with P25 standards and is capable of interoperating
    across manufacturers. P25 standards make it possible for radios to
    interoperate regardless of manufacturer, enabling emergency responders
    to communicate. Currently, P25 CAP has 12 participating manufacturers,
    representing more than 80 percent of the land mobile radio market. The
    program, a partnership between DHS S&T and the National Institute of
    Standards and Technology, provides local, State, and Federal emergency
    responders with an independent and transparent process to formally
    assess communications equipment against a select group of requirements
    within the suite of P25 standards. The results from this testing are
    published on FEMA's Responder Knowledge Base Web site. The P25 CAP will
    allow emergency responders to purchase and use P25-compliant products.
        Recognizing the emergency response community's need for standards-
    based, Internet protocol-enabled backbones that improve mission-
    critical information sharing and allows for the interconnection of
    Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) based networks with neighboring
    agencies, OIC established a Public Safety VoIP Working Group. This
    Working Group, consisting of public safety practitioners, industry
    representatives, and Federal partners, created the Bridging System
    Interface (BSI) core profile. The BSI allows emergency response
    agencies to seamlessly connect radio systems over an IP network--
    regardless of the manufacturer. Thirteen manufacturers voluntarily
    adopted the BSI platform and others have committed to doing so in their
    next product cycle. Ultimately, the BSI core profile provides emergency
    response agencies with a reduction in cost for system design and
    installation.
        The introduction of Multi-Band Radio (MBR) technology to the
    emergency response community offers an opportunity to improve
    interoperability across agencies, disciplines, and jurisdictions by
    providing the capability to communicate on all public safety radio
    bands. OIC's MBR technology project evaluates, tests, demonstrates, and
    pilots MBR technology to ensure that equipment meets the mission
    requirements identified by the emergency response community. Finally,
    compiling the data and user feedback from the T&E phases, OIC will
    produce a detailed procurement guide that will assist emergency
    response agencies in the identification of equipment functionality
    offered by various manufacturers that meets their radio communication
    interoperability requirements. DHS believes that their efforts with
    this project will continue to stimulate the marketplace and encourage
    additional manufacturers to research, develop, design, and manufacture
    similar technology.
        OIC also developed a Technology Roadmap for Interoperable
    Communications to provide stakeholders with a strategy to incorporate
    new and emerging technologies into existing communications
    capabilities.
    Broadband
        DHS is deeply involved in coordinating public-safety broadband
    efforts at the Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial levels.
    NPPD/OEC is helping to set the broad policy framework for public-safety
    broadband networks and ensuring that it aligns with existing emergency
    communications policy. NPPD/OEC is offering technical assistance to the
    jurisdictions that received FCC waivers to allow early deployment of
    broadband public safety facilities and other early adopters of
    broadband solutions to ensure that their activities remain aligned with
    the vision of a nationally interoperable network. NPPD/OEC is also
    developing guidance documents geared toward elected officials, SWICs,
    and UASI/regional coordinators within a State to provide an overview of
    broadband technology, guidance on interoperability planning for
    broadband, best practices from the waiver jurisdictions, and regional
    governance considerations. NPPD/OEC is also coordinating Federal
    broadband efforts to develop requirements and influence standards
    associated with potential Federal user participation in the National
    Public Safety Broadband Network.
              private sector coordination and information sharing
        Question. NPPD has various methods for coordinating and sharing
    information with the private sector related to critical infrastructure.
    The fiscal year 2012 budget proposal indicates that NPPD will
    streamline the process. Please provide a list of each coordination
    group (i.e., national infrastructure protection plan management,
    critical infrastructure key resources coordination, sector-specific
    agency management); their authority or reason for creation (law,
    regulation, Presidential directive, department initiative); how often
    each group meets; and what each produces or accomplishes. Please
    describe in detail how the fiscal year 2012 budget will streamline the
    current process and how it will be coordinated with the private sector
    coordination office in FEMA.
        Answer. The following chart lists each coordination group,
    authority, engagement frequency, products/accomplishments, and
    membership. In addition, the Partnerships project has tracked the
    following growth in the use of the National Infrastructure Protection
    Plan (NIPP) partnership structures:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal
                                             year 2008  year 2009  year 2010
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Partnership member institutions........        492        643        861
    Partnership councils and working groups         57         78         79
    Individual meeting participants........      1,530      1,723      2,197
    Council and working group meetings.....        258        475        628
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                       CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE COORDINATION GROUPS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Engagement         Products and
              Organization                 Authority           frequency        accomplishments       Membership
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Education, training and outreach  National            Meets three times   Information         DHS and SSAs
     awareness working group.          Infrastructure      per year.           sharing with
                                       Protection Plan                         sector-specific
                                       (NIPP).                                 agencies (SSAs)
                                                                               on education,
                                                                               training and
                                                                               outreach
                                                                               activities.
    IP-SSA biweekly coordination      Department          Occurs every other  Regular             SSA
     call.                             initiative          Thursday.           communication and   representatives
                                       supporting HSPD-                        coordination
                                       7, NIPP.                                mechanism between
                                                                               IP and the SSAs
                                                                               to discuss
                                                                               ongoing
                                                                               initiatives and
                                                                               issues.
    Risk Management Enhancement       Department          Monthly...........  Supports the        SSA
     Initiative Working Group.         initiative                              development of      representatives
                                       supporting HSPD-                        the improved NAR/
                                       7, NIPP.                                SARs/metrics, the
                                                                               new Critical
                                                                               Infrastructure
                                                                               Risk Management
                                                                               Plan (CIRMP), and
                                                                               the National Risk
                                                                               Profile (NRP).
    North American Electric           Supports NIPP and   Ad hoc............  Provides insight    DHS, NERC
     Reliability Corp (NERC) Pilot     HSPD-7 reporting                        into measuring
     Program.                          requirements.                           and evaluating
                                                                               resilience within
                                                                               the electric
                                                                               industry.
    Sector Annual Report/National     Supports NIPP and   Annually..........  Meetings are        DHS, SSA
     Annual Report (SAR/NAR)           HSPD-7 reporting                        conducted at the    representatives
     technical assistance sessions     requirements.                           beginning of the
     (for each sector-specific                                                 SAR/NAR reporting
     agency).                                                                  cycle in order to
                                                                               discuss sector
                                                                               writing,
                                                                               development, and
                                                                               metrics guidance
                                                                               as it applies.
    SLTTGCC and RCCC technical        Supports NIPP and   Annually..........  Meetings are        DHS, SLTTGCC, RCCC
     assistance sessions.              HSPD-7 reporting                        conducted to        representatives
                                       requirements.                           discuss SLTT
                                                                               writing,
                                                                               development, and
                                                                               metrics guidance.
    Federal Senior Leadership         HSPD-7, NIPP......  Quarterly.........  Cross-sector        SSA leadership or
     Council meetings.                                                         coordination.       their
                                                                                                   representatives
    CIKR Cross-Sector Council         HSPD-7, NIPP......  Quarterly.........  Cross-sector        SCC leadership
     meetings.                                                                 coordination.
    Agriculture and food sector.....  HSPD-7, NIPP......  Each quarterly at   Various sector      SCC: Trade
    SCC meetings                                           minimum.            products (annual    Associations and
    GCC meetings                                                               report, sector      Owner/Operators
    Joint SCC, GCC CIPAC                                                       roadmaps, etc.).    GCC: government
                                                                                                   representatives
    Banking and finance sector......  HSPD-7, NIPP......  Each quarterly at   Various sector      SCC: trade
    SCC meetings                                           minimum.            products (annual    associations and
    GCC meetings                                                               report, sector      owner/operators
    Joint SCC, GCC CIPAC                                                       roadmaps, etc.).    GCC: government
                                                                                                   representatives
    Chemical sector.................  HSPD-7, NIPP......  Each quarterly at   Various sector      SCC: trade
    SCC meetings                                           minimum.            products (annual    associations and
    GCC meetings                                                               report, sector      owner/operators
    Joint SCC, GCC CIPAC                                                       roadmaps, etc.).    GCC: government
                                                                                                   representatives
    Commercial facilities sector....  HSPD-7, NIPP......  Each quarterly at   Various sector      SCC: trade
    SCC meetings                                           minimum.            products (annual    associations and
    GCC meetings                                                               report, sector      owner/operators
    Joint SCC, GCC CIPAC                                                       roadmaps, etc.).    GCC: government
                                                                                                   representatives
    Communications sector...........  HSPD-7, NIPP......  Each quarterly at   Various sector      SCC: trade
    SCC meetings                                           minimum.            products (annual    associations and
    GCC meetings                                                               report, sector      owner/operators
    Joint SCC, GCC CIPAC                                                       roadmaps, etc.).    GCC: government
                                                                                                   representatives
    Critical Manufacturing sector...  HSPD-7, NIPP......  Each quarterly at   Various sector      SCC: trade
    SCC meetings                                           minimum.            products (annual    associations and
    GCC meetings                                                               report, sector      owner/operators
    Joint SCC, GCC CIPAC                                                       roadmaps, etc.).    GCC: government
                                                                                                   representatives
    Dam, Locks, and Levees sector...  HSPD-7, NIPP......  Each quarterly at   Various sector      SCC: trade
    SCC meetings                                           minimum.            products (annual    associations and
    GCC meetings                                                               report, sector      owner/operators
    Joint SCC, GCC CIPAC                                                       roadmaps, etc.).    GCC: government
                                                                                                   representatives
    Defense Industrial Base sector..  HSPD-7, NIPP......  Each quarterly at   Various sector      SCC: trade
    SCC meetings                                           minimum.            products (annual    associations and
    GCC meetings                                                               report, sector      owner/operators
    Joint SCC, GCC CIPAC                                                       roadmaps, etc.).    GCC: government
                                                                                                   representatives
    Emergency Services sector.......  HSPD-7, NIPP......  Each quarterly at   Various sector      SCC: trade
    SCC meetings                                           minimum.            products (annual    associations and
    GCC meetings                                                               report, sector      owner/operators
    Joint SCC, GCC CIPAC                                                       roadmaps, etc.).    GCC: government
                                                                                                   representatives
    Energy sector...................  HSPD-7, NIPP......  Each quarterly at   Various sector      SCC: trade
    SCC meetings                                           minimum.            products (annual    associations and
    GCC meetings                                                               report, sector      owner/operators
    Joint SCC, GCC CIPAC                                                       roadmaps, etc.).    GCC: government
                                                                                                   representatives
    Healthcare and Public Health      HSPD-7, NIPP......  Each quarterly at   Various sector      SCC: trade
     sector.                                               minimum.            products (annual    associations and
    SCC meetings                                                               report, sector      owner/operators
    GCC meetings                                                               roadmaps, etc.).    GCC: government
    Joint SCC, GCC CIPAC                                                                           representatives
    Information Technology sector...  HSPD-7, NIPP......  Each quarterly at   Various sector      SCC: trade
    SCC meetings                                           minimum.            products (annual    associations and
    GCC meetings                                                               report, sector      owner/operators
    Joint SCC, GCC CIPAC                                                       roadmaps, etc.).    GCC: government
                                                                                                   representatives
    Nuclear Reactors, Materials, and  HSPD-7, NIPP......  Each quarterly at   Various sector      SCC: trade
     Waste sector.                                         minimum.            products (annual    associations and
    SCC meetings                                                               report, sector      owner/operators
    GCC meetings                                                               roadmaps, etc.).    GCC: government
    Joint SCC, GCC CIPAC                                                                           representatives
    Postal and shipping sector......  HSPD-7, NIPP......  Each quarterly at   Various sector      SCC: trade
    SCC meetings                                           minimum.            products (annual    associations and
    GCC meetings                                                               report, sector      owner/operators
    Joint SCC, GCC CIPAC                                                       roadmaps, etc.).    GCC: government
                                                                                                   representatives
    Transportation systems sector...  HSPD-7, NIPP......  Each quarterly at   Various sector      SCC: trade
    SCC meetings (sub-SCCs for                             minimum.            products (annual    associations and
     aviation, maritime, rail,                                                 report, sector      owner/operators
     highway and motor carrier)                                                roadmaps, etc.).    GCC: government
    GCC meetings                                                                                   representatives
    Joint SCC, GCC CIPAC
    Water sector....................  HSPD-7, NIPP......  Each quarterly at   Various sector      SCC: trade
    SCC meetings                                           minimum.            products (annual    associations and
    GCC meetings                                                               report, sector      owner/operators
    Joint SCC, GCC CIPAC                                                       roadmaps, etc.).    GCC: government
                                                                                                   representatives
    National monuments and icons      HSPD-7, NIPP......  Each quarterly at   Various sector      Government
     sector GCC.                                           minimum.            products (annual    representatives
                                                                               report, sector
                                                                               roadmaps, etc.).
    Government facilities sector GCC  HSPD-7, NIPP......  Each quarterly at   Various sector      Government
                                                           minimum.            products (annual    representatives
                                                                               report, sector
                                                                               roadmaps, etc.).
    State, local, tribal, and         NIPP, NIPP........  Biannual..........  Various products    Representatives
     territorial government                                                    (annual report,     from State,
     coordinating council meetings.                                            etc.).              local, tribal,
                                                                                                   and territorial
                                                                                                   governments
    Regional Consortium Coordinating  NIPP, NIPP........  Ad hoc............  Various products    Members of
     Council meetings.                                                         (annual report,     regional
                                                                               etc.).              consortiums with
                                                                                                   missions related
                                                                                                   to critical
                                                                                                   infrastructure
                                                                                                   protection and
                                                                                                   resilience
    National Council of Information   NIPP..............  Monthly...........  ..................  Information
     Sharing and Analysis Centers                                                                  Sharing and
     (NCI) meetings.                                                                               Analysis Centers
    National Infrastructure Advisory  NIAC Charter        Quarterly.........  19 reports since    Critical
     Council (NIAC) meetings.          (Presidential).                         inception.          infrastructure
                                                                                                   stakeholders
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Regarding the fiscal year 2012 budget, information sharing and
    coordination activities for the National Protection and Programs
    Directorate's Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP) planned for
    fiscal year 2012 are designed to improve the effectiveness and
    coordination of the councils and expand the participation in
    information-sharing activities by critical infrastructure stakeholders.
    One key aspect is enhancing the critical infrastructure information
    sharing environment and the use of the Homeland Security Information
    Network-Critical Sectors.
        NPPD/IP routinely coordinates with the Federal Emergency Management
    Agency's Private Sector Division and others, especially related to
    training and education activities that are appropriate for the full
    private-sector community. In addition, NPPD/IP, in coordination with
    DHS's Private Sector Office and the Office of Intelligence and
    Analysis, began a private-sector information-sharing improvement
    initiative in the spring of 2010. The initiative focuses on adopting a
    ``One DHS'' private-sector information-sharing approach and seeks to:
      --Enhance strategic communications coordination;
      --Strengthen regionally focused information-sharing efforts; and
      --Enhance information sharing and accountability.
        Through this initiative, DHS will work to increase coordination
    with interagency private-sector information-sharing efforts, evaluate
    and enhance existing processes and methods of information sharing with
    critical infrastructure owners and operators, and improve cross-sector
    information visibility and collaboration within the Critical
    Infrastructure Key Resources Information Sharing Environment. All DHS
    components with private-sector information-sharing activities are
    participating in this initiative.
                 federal protective service workforce analysis
        Question. Recent events demonstrate that Federal employees are at
    greater risk. The Federal Protective Service (FPS) is charged with
    protecting employees on Federal property from those who threaten harm
    to the workforce. Yet, FPS has struggled with providing optimal
    service. Balancing its workforce needs against risk is critical to
    ensuring FPS evolves into a premier agency. Senate Report 111-222,
    accompanying the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
    2011 directs the National Protection and Programs Directorate to
    provide a workforce staffing model to the subcommittee and to GAO
    within 45 days. To date, the staffing model as not been provided.
    Please provide a copy of the staffing model to the subcommittee and to
    GAO.
        Answer. The National Protection and Programs Directorate prepared a
    Federal Protective Service staffing plan which is currently being
    finalized.
                          us-visit--carryover balances
        Question. A portion of the fiscal year 2012 budget request assumes
    that a significant level of carryover balances of prior year funds will
    be available to hire staff and perform other activities.
        What impact will there be on US-VISIT if the assumed carryover
    balances are not available for these intended purposes? What changes to
    the program or to US-VISIT operations will have to be made?
        Answer. In this fiscally constrained environment, some difficult
    choices had to be made--one of which was to use the $25.642 million as
    an offset to provide funding for other departmental priorities. Looking
    toward fiscal year 2012, a realignment of funds will be necessary in
    order to enhance the collection and use of biographic exit data and the
    review of potential overstay records--both of which will increase our
    current capabilities and lay a strong foundation for other exit
    measures in the future. The President's budget proposes the realignment
    of $24.358 million in carryover balance in order to hire temporary
    staff to eliminate the existing overstay backlog, as a prerequisite for
    any future biometric exit capability. If the carryover balances were
    not available for this purpose, US-VISIT will not be able to clear the
    existing backlog.
                             fema--disaster relief
        Question. The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) provides financial support
    for both response and recovery in States that are overwhelmed by the
    devastation of a disaster. For fiscal year 2011, we are facing a $1.6
    billion gap in the DRF. If the President does not request and the
    Congress does not approve supplemental funding, the account will run
    out of money in June, just as we are entering the hurricane season. For
    fiscal year 2012, the problem is even worse because we are facing a $3
    billion gap between the President's request and the known costs of past
    disasters. These shortfalls are specifically the result of past major
    disasters, such as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike, the
    Midwest floods of 2008, and the Tennessee floods of 2010.
        In fiscal year 2010, there was a similar shortfall. FEMA had to
    stop providing assistance for rebuilding and recovery projects to
    ensure it had enough for immediate needs for disaster response to new
    events. For 5 months, recovery projects all over the Nation stopped. In
    this economy it was not welcome news. Plus, the delays only make the
    projects more expensive.
        Unfortunately, history is repeating itself.
        Please provide a report with quarterly estimates of funding
    requirements for the DRF for the current fiscal year, fiscal year 2012,
    and fiscal year 2013. The report should include an estimate for the
    costs of all previously designated disasters by quarter; the cost of
    future disasters based on a 5-year average, excluding catastrophic
    disasters, by quarter; and a projected date on which the DRF will reach
    a balance of $500 million.
        When will the President submit an emergency supplemental request
    for the known shortfalls?
        In lieu of a supplemental request, the House responded to this
    shortfall by cutting $1.6 billion out of the base Homeland Security
    budget in H.R. 1. They cut the Coast Guard. They cut FEMA. They cut
    grants to State and local first responders and emergency managers. Do
    you believe the House approach to funding the shortfall is the right
    approach?
        If we do not receive an emergency supplemental request, what
    specific cuts will the President propose below his requests for fiscal
    year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 to pay for this shortfall? Or is it your
    policy that FEMA should do what it did last year and simply stop making
    recovery payments?
        Answer. The $1.8 billion requested for the DRF, per standard annual
    practice, reflects the 5-year rolling average of historical obligations
    for noncatastrophic events (those less than $500 million in estimated
    obligations), less estimated recoveries for fiscal year 2012. This
    methodology is one that the administration has proposed in its fiscal
    year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 budgets and represents the best use of
    available information in developing the DRF request. We also have a
    robust strategy in place to deobligate funds from past contracts and
    projects that are now complete and where we did not spend all the money
    originally obligated. Based on our experience in actively managing the
    unliquidated contract obligations in fiscal year 2010, we are taking
    the same approach for Individual Assistance and Public Assistance
    grants in fiscal year 2011, and anticipate that our projected
    recoveries may be higher than previously estimated. Regardless, we are
    committed to working with the Congress to ensure that the DRF remains
    solvent through fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012.
                             proposed cuts to fema
        Question. I am very pleased to see that you have taken a hard look
    at the budget and found places to save on administrative cost such as
    travel and supplies. While I encourage you to continue to find ways to
    create efficiencies, I am concerned that some areas go beyond
    efficiencies and become deep cuts that inhibit performance.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget proposes a $68 million cut to FEMA's
    Management and Administration account (including all transfers). No
    other component in the Department was subjected to such a significant
    cut to its base operations. This proposal looks like the beginning of a
    trend of previous cycles that FEMA has been through. In tough budget
    times and when major disaster responses are a distance memory--at least
    for some inside the beltway--we trim back our readiness efforts.
        The budget proposal cites cuts to facility improvements,
    information systems, and communications systems. Deferred maintenance
    of facilities, turns into deferred maintenance of programs, turns into
    deferred capabilities. Unfortunately, this has not worked well in the
    past.
        In fact, there are a series of reports that show a disturbing cycle
    of building up an emergency management capacity after a failed disaster
    response, letting the capacity wither away when there hasn't been a
    major event for awhile, and then building the capacity back up again
    after another failed response.
        For example, in 1983, a GAO report found that FEMA suffered from a
    variety of management and program problems. Ten years later and after
    the devastation of Hurricane Andrew, the National Academy of Public
    Administration--citing the 1983 GAO report--found many of the same
    problems. Twelve years after Hurricane Andrew, a myriad of reports
    found that the very same problems crippled the response to Hurricane
    Katrina.
        Immediately after each of these disasters, FEMA improved only to
    devolve again within a 10-year period. This is a costly way to do
    business.
        This subcommittee has done its part to ensure the resources FEMA
    needs to rebuild itself once again have been provided since Hurricane
    Katrina. Since 2005, FEMA's workforce has been increased by 50 percent
    to 4,700 strong. Catastrophic planning is more integrated among the
    levels of government. Shelter facility data is better managed between
    the public and private sectors. The disaster contract acquisition
    process is now proactive, not reactive.
        But we have to maintain these improvements. And we still have
    serious work to do--FEMA is not done rebuilding itself. The national
    disaster recovery framework has not been completed; an effective risk
    and preparedness assessment system is not in place; FEMA information
    systems are not sufficient; and the human resources study is not
    complete.
        While not all of these are big expenses, each effort requires a
    strong FEMA base. I am afraid this budget marks the beginning of
    letting FEMA wither on the vine again--just as it did before Hurricane
    Katrina.
        Please provide a complete breakdown of the cuts by FEMA component,
    an explanation of the impact, and a distinction between which cuts are
    onetime costs from fiscal year 2010 and which cuts will delay programs
    and by how long. Why are you satisfied that FEMA can sustain such cuts
    and not only maintain its recent improvements but also keep pace with
    evolving risks?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget provides the
    resources required to support the Agency's ability to fulfill its
    emergency management mission. In light of the current fiscal climate
    and through pursuit of identified efficiencies, FEMA cut administrative
    costs and professional services contracts by streamlining current
    business processes, harnessing the use of innovative technologies, and
    eliminating nonmission-critical spending in order to preserve essential
    operational activities.
        For example, the proposed decrease of $1.6 million in fiscal year
    2012 to FEMA's Office of the Chief Component Human Capital Officer
    (OCCHCO) programs in the Management and Administration (M&A) account
    will not adversely affect the regional offices' abilities to handle the
    expected workloads with regard to hazard mitigation or grants
    management activities, nor does the decrease directly affect any
    staffing levels in the agency.
        Specifically, $900,000 of the decrease represents the elimination
    of funding for the Building Engagement, Strengths, and Talent (BEST)
    contract. FEMA found that the data garnered from the BEST surveys and
    analysis is available from other agency workforce development data
    sources.
        The balance of the budget cuts are split equally between the
    following three areas:
      --Finding general operational efficiencies within less costly general
            operational requirements, such as enhanced use of video
            teleconferencing vs. travel expenditures;
      --Leveraging training cost savings by deconflicting separate but
            similar agency training offered in the separate FEMA
            Qualification System training programs; and
      --By shifting contract support costs, which directly support the
            disaster workforce, to the DRF appropriation.
        The proposed funding in the fiscal year 2012 budget request
    supports robust oversight of emergency management operations; national-
    level exercises to test FEMA's ability to respond to a catastrophic
    cyber attack; the development of catastrophic plans focused on response
    to biological events and earthquakes; and emergency preparedness,
    coordination, and planning at the local level.
        The following chart provides the requested information. Unless
    otherwise noted, all cuts are reoccurring.

                                FISCAL YEAR 2012 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION REDUCTIONS
                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal year
                                                        2011 to
                   Directorate/office                 fiscal year                   Impact statement
                                                          2012
                                                       reductions
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Office of Response and Recovery (ORR)--Front
     Office:
        Disaster Management Support Environment           (2,690)  FEMA will move as much of the activity as
         (DMSE).                                                    possible to other sources of funding, leveraging
                                                                    the assistance of DHS S&T, and sharing the
                                                                    burden across applicable appropriations.
    Response:
        Travel......................................      (2,645)  While mission-critical travel will not be
                                                                    affected, this cut will reduce general and
                                                                    conference attendance by leveraging Web
                                                                    conferencing and other technology tools.
        Contracts...................................      (5,562)  In-source several Directorate-wide contracts and
                                                                    convert onsite contractor support positions to
                                                                    FTEs.
    Recovery:
        Travel......................................        (812)  Eliminate nonmission-critical travel; maximize
                                                                    use of conference calls and Web-based training
                                                                    and meetings.
        Contracts...................................      (6,578)  Reduce selected projects funding through
                                                                    efficiencies.
        Equipment...................................        (454)  $453,800 reductions to Quality Assurance
                                                                    Recording System (QARS) because procurement is
                                                                    complete.
        Salary......................................      (2,437)  Reduce overtime and level of awards, specifically
                                                                    funding for merit promotions and regional
                                                                    overtime.
    Logistics:
        Contracts...................................      (2,360)  No anticipated impact due to significant progress
                                                                    made in enhancing logistics capability.
        Salary......................................      (1,626)  Institute systemwide salary cap, limiting
                                                                    overtime, awards, etc.
    Mitigation:
        Contracts...................................      (2,524)  While this will not impact operations, this cut
                                                                    will reduce research, assessment, technology,
                                                                    and support contracts.
        Grants/cooperative agreements...............        (826)  Reduce dam safety and earthquake assistance
                                                                    funding.
        Salary......................................      (1,624)  Institute systemwide salary cap, limiting
                                                                    overtime, awards, etc.
    National continuity programs:
        Travel......................................        (760)  Reduce general and conference travel.
        Contracts...................................     (13,740)  Nonrecur funding for one-time costs for IPAWS and
                                                                    classified program; reduce program support to
                                                                    discussion--based exercises.
    Office of the Administrator:
        Travel......................................      (1,816)  Reduce general and conference travel by
                                                                    leveraging Web conferencing and other technology
                                                                    tools to continue outreach activities and
                                                                    sustain training with State and local partners.
        Contracts...................................      (2,046)  Reduce program support contract and professional
                                                                    services, specifically for OCFO by leveraging
                                                                    existing in-house capabilities.
        Equipment...................................        (596)  Reduce nonmission-critical equipment purchases.
        Salary......................................        (236)  Institute system wide salary cap, limiting
                                                                    overtime, awards, etc.
    Mission Support Bureau:
        Facilities enhancement......................     (23,300)  Nonrecur one-time increase.
        Business systems investment.................      (5,000)  Reduce investment--operate in maintenance mode.
        Contractual in-sourcing.....................      (7,503)  Convert contracts to permanent positions/in-
                                                                    source.
        Travel......................................      (1,428)  Reduce general and conference travel by
                                                                    leveraging Web conferencing and other technology
                                                                    tools to continue outreach activities and
                                                                    sustain training with State and local partners.
        Contracts...................................      (5,808)  Reduce program office support and contract
                                                                    services by leveraging existing in-house
                                                                    capabilities.
        Equipment...................................      (4,106)  Reduce non mission-critical equipment purchases;
                                                                    institute telecommunications efficiencies.
    Office of National Capital Region Coordination:
        Contracts...................................      (1,200)  Nonrecur funding for the completion of knowledge
                                                                    management system (a la Wikipedia) for risk and
                                                                    reduce contracts.
        Salary......................................        (302)  Institute system-wide salary cap, limiting
                                                                    overtime, awards, etc.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note.--Annual national level exercises may be funded differently depending upon the exercise. Integrated Public
      Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) retrofitting would be delayed.

                                 fema staffing
        Question. What method is used to calculate FEMA full-time
    equivalent (FTE) usage? Does it vary from the simple calculation of
    number of hours worked divided by an FTE? Is there a unique calculation
    for FTE usage funded from disaster relief?
        Answer. FEMA FTE usage is based upon actuals (for fiscal year 2010)
    and projections (for fiscal year 2011 and 2012) of hours worked divided
    by the number of hours for one FTE. There is no unique calculation for
    FTE usage funded from the DRF.
                  categories of expenditure for grant programs
        Question. For the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban
    Area Security Initiative (UASI), the Port Security Grant Program, and
    the Public Transportation Security Assistance Program please provide
    the amount spent in each capability category such as communications;
    planning; chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives
    (CBRNE) detection; intelligence and information sharing; and volunteer
    management and donations for fiscal years 2005-2009.
        Answer. The State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), UASI, Transit
    Security Grant Program (TSGP), TSGP Supplemental, and TSGP ferry grant
    funding are comprised of 38 principal capabilities that provided more
    than $6.5 billion in funding from fiscal year 2006-2009.
        The table below provides the information requested to the extent
    possible under the Grant Reporting Tool:

             SELECT GRANT PROGRAMS TARGET CAPABILITY FUNDING REPORT
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Fiscal year  2006-
                       Capabilities \1\                      2009  Funding
                                                                 amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Animal disease emergency support.....................     $20,743,442.08
    CBRNE detection......................................     386,704,474.13
    Citizen evacuation and shelter-in-place..............      31,075,070.88
    Communications.......................................   1,367,698,117.53
    Community preparedness and participation.............     185,274,333.67
    Counter-terror investigation and law enforcement.....     304,083,757.85
    Critical infrastructure protection...................   1,116,113,358.21
    Critical resource logistics and distribution.........      75,601,714.40
    Economic and community recovery......................      10,568,637.65
    Emergency operations center management...............     191,436,101.57
    Emergency public information and warning.............      41,524,731.18
    Emergency public safety and security.................     248,819,560.09
    Emergency triage and pre-hospital treatment..........      25,344,823.98
    Environmental health.................................       1,764,190.73
    Epidemiological surveillance and investigation.......      11,453,350.84
    Explosive device response operations.................     138,614,977.97
    Fatality management..................................      13,842,672.26
    Fire incident response support.......................     133,775,284.91
    Food and agriculture safety and defense..............      18,742,044.82
    Information gathering and recognition of indicators        68,173,961.12
     and warnings........................................
    Intelligence analysis and production.................      98,482,865.34
    Intelligence and information sharing and                  282,124,151.92
     dissemination.......................................
    Isolation and quarantine.............................       3,479,732.45
    Laboratory testing...................................       4,893,098.88
    Mass care (sheltering, feeding, and related services)      46,925,998.01
    Mass prophylaxis.....................................      28,444,288.70
    Medical supplies management and distribution.........      25,236,254.98
    Medical surge........................................      92,422,098.42
    Onsite incident management...........................     169,964,547.36
    Planning.............................................     898,629,834.82
    Responder safety and health..........................      54,272,195.33
    Restoration of lifelines.............................       6,585,975.25
    Risk management......................................      33,036,019.11
    Search and rescue (land-based).......................      70,162,612.74
    Structural damage assessment.........................       1,039,802.34
    Volunteer management and donations...................       4,143,404.68
    Weapons of mass destruction and hazardous materials       307,023,005.21
     response and decontamination........................
                                                          ------------------
          Grand total....................................  6,518,220,491.41
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ This table includes FEMA SHSP and UASI.

           grants to state and local governments for first responders
        Question. In this Nation we have set up a system whereby, the
    smallest level of government is responsible for responding to a
    disaster until it is overwhelmed and then it must work with other
    communities, States, the private sector, and the Federal Government
    depending on the size of the disaster. No doubt, State and local first
    responders will be the first on the scene during an incident. When
    there is a catastrophic event, the whole Nation will have to respond.
    Because of this, few disagree that each level of government has to
    contribute resources to prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, and
    recover from such events. However, many disagree on how much should be
    contributed and from what entity. This disagreement has been further
    highlighted as resources at all levels become more limited. Each year
    the President's budget is submitted with the same proposal purporting
    to streamline grant programs. Each time that proposal has been rejected
    due to a lack of understanding of how it will actually be implemented,
    its inconsistency with the underlying authorization law, and concerns
    from stakeholders. Further, the Department has yet to submit a metric
    to demonstrate how the grants are best targeted to needed capabilities.
    Since our emergency management environment is continually evolving, the
    issue of Federal grants to support State and local preparedness is also
    dynamic. For this reason, the report accompanying the Department of
    Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 created a preparedness task
    force which made specific recommendations related to funding grants and
    measuring their performance. Further, the specific authorized funding
    levels for many of the grant programs authorized in the 9/11 Act will
    end in fiscal year 2012. The next step is for the executive branch to
    provide leadership for an innovative approach to grant programs that
    can be supported by stakeholders. Yet there is very little evidence
    that a commitment to this effort is real by FEMA or the Department.
    Secretary Napolitano, this issue is not only one of citizen safety and
    security but it is also an economic imperative to make the Nation more
    resilient through better preparedness and more efficient recovery.
        Will the Department propose legislation to reform the grant
    programs?
        What innovative approaches can you introduce which will also be
    supported by stakeholders, to ensure our State and local partners in
    homeland security and emergency management are sustaining the right
    capabilities for our known and anticipated risks?
        Who specifically in your agency is responsible to lead the issue of
    preparedness and Federal grants and what products will you require of
    them in fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 to ensure policy and
    requested funds are meeting the Nation's needs? What timeframe will you
    hold them to on these products?
        Answer. In its last two budgets, the administration has proposed
    consolidating grant programs where activities are allowable under
    multiple grants. Specifically, the fiscal year 2011 and 2012 budgets
    propose to consolidate a number of individual grant programs (including
    driver's license security/REAL ID, interoperable emergency
    communications, emergency operations centers, and buses) and make them
    part of larger/broader grant programs such as UASI and SHSP. This
    consolidation will reduce the number of separate grant programs, which
    provides the Secretary flexibility to direct funding to the most urgent
    priorities and reduces the number of applications a State will need to
    submit and that FEMA will need to process.
        FEMA agrees with recommendation No. 14 in the Local, State, Tribal,
    and Federal Preparedness Task Force's report to the Congress, which
    calls for ``Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
    (THIRA) processes at all levels of government to establish a foundation
    to justify preparedness improvements.'' The detailed recommendation
    came directly from the stakeholder community.
        FEMA's Deputy Administrator for Protection and National
    Preparedness (PNP), Timothy Manning, is responsible for the Agency's
    preparedness and Federal grant responsibilities. Within FEMA/PNP, the
    Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) is responsible for the administration
    of preparedness grants; and the National Preparedness Directorate (NPD)
    is responsible for preparedness activities, including individual and
    community preparedness, planning guidance, technical assistance,
    training, exercises, preparedness doctrine and policy, and preparedness
    assessments.
        FEMA has taken the recommendations from the Local, State, Tribal,
    and Federal Preparedness Task Force report into consideration while
    working to improve coordination and consolidation of FEMA's grant
    programs, including coordinating interagency grant programs and more
    closely linking capability assessments to grant activities. FEMA has
    also contracted with the National Association of Public Administration
    (NAPA) to conduct a study to develop a core set of performance measures
    that can be used to track performance of the SHSP and UASI grants.
                   national domestic preparedness consortium
        Question. The President's budget request proposes deep cuts, 56
    percent, to first responder training through the National Domestic
    Preparedness Consortium (NDPC). It proposes to cut funding for four
    members of the NDPC who train emergency personnel from all over the
    country to respond to weapons of mass destruction, including chemical,
    biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives attacks. Further, it
    completely eliminates funding for two members: one that provides
    training for response to natural disasters and one that provides
    training specific to transit related incidents. I do not understand
    these cuts, especially when the NDPC uses a cost-effective model that
    sends instructors to the community receiving training when possible
    reducing the travel, accommodations, and backfill expenses of first
    responders. What is the Department's justification for cutting funding
    to this highly regarded training for first responders? Further, in
    light of the fact that the United States was struck by more than 106
    natural disasters last year and there have been more than 1,300
    attacks, killing or injuring more than 18,000 people worldwide on
    trains and subways over the last 7 years worldwide why is training
    funding eliminated for natural disaster response training and transit
    response training when these are clearly known risks?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget is consistent with
    the fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 proposals, and the resources
    requested are sufficient to meet training needs. The two recipients
    whose funding was eliminated represent congressional earmarks. In
    addition, States are assuming increased responsibility for awareness
    level, refresher, and sustainment training, allowing our institutional
    partners to focus resources on more advanced, specialized training
    consistent with their respective expertise. Further, States are
    permitted to support hazard-specific training efforts with SHSP and
    UASI grant programs funds, both subject to proposed fiscal year 2012
    increases overall.
                         urban area security initiative
        Question. The House fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution includes
    a provision that limits the number of UASI grant recipients to 25. Some
    argue that the list should be even shorter and only support the cities
    in the top tier of risk. The 9/11 Act requires the FEMA Administrator
    to complete an annual risk assessment of the 100 most populous urban
    areas and to determine grant awards based on that risk review. Last
    year 64 urban areas received funding based on your risk assessment.
        What specifically led you to determine that risk is more widespread
    than some others believe? What is your position on the House amendment
    to reduce the number of urban areas from 64 to 25? How will the House
    amendment impact how risk is addressed in the Nation?
        Answer. Historically, al Qaeda has focused on prominent political,
    economic, and infrastructure targets to produce mass casualties,
    visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and
    fear among the population. The UASI program was authorized and
    implemented to reduce the vulnerabilities of our key metropolitan areas
    to these types of terrorist threats. While mostly outside the scope of
    the UASI program, recent events suggest a trend in which terrorists
    seek to conduct smaller, more achievable attacks against easily
    accessible targets. Within the past year, attempted attacks and plots
    in the United States progressed to an advanced stage largely because of
    these groups' ability to use operatives that have access to and
    familiarity with the United States as well as their use of new and
    varied attack patterns.
        DHS and FEMA leadership have awarded grants to UASI-eligible cities
    using an allocation methodology that was a continuation of prior
    approaches to awarding these types of grants. To determine the UASI-
    eligible cities, DHS and FEMA apply a risk formula that incorporates
    threat, vulnerability, and consequence. The administration is committed
    to working with the Congress, as it seeks to improve upon current risk-
    informed approaches.
        The fiscal year 2011 Homeland Security full-year appropriations
    bill did not limit the number of eligible UASI cities to 25. As
    directed in section 101 of the 9/11 Act, which amends title XX,
    sections 2003 and 2007 of the Homeland Security Act, FEMA will continue
    to assess on an annual basis the relative risk of the 100 most populous
    metropolitan statistical areas.
                       emergency food and shelter program
        Question. I understand the Emergency Food and Shelter Program uses
    a very specific formula to distribute funding based on unemployment
    data and poverty figures. While there are signs that the economy is
    improving, the recovery has not yet reached those who are the hurting
    the most the unemployed and the poor. What economic data was used as
    the basis for the proposed reduction to $100 million?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget for the Emergency
    Food and Shelter (EFS) Program at the $100 million level is consistent
    with the level requested in the President's budget for fiscal year 2010
    and fiscal year 2011.
        FEMA awards the total funds appropriated by the Congress to the
    National Board for the EFS Program, as required by the McKinney-Vento
    Homeless Assistance Act. The National Board then allocates the funding
    to approximately 2,500 local jurisdictions in all States and
    territories using a formula based on the latest 12-month statistical
    data on national unemployment and poverty provided by the Bureau of
    Labor Statistics.
                national flood insurance program and flood maps
        Question. Annual flood losses in the United States total more than
    $2.4 billion. More than 5.5 million people currently hold flood
    insurance policies in more than 20,500 communities across the United
    States.
        The Nation's flood maps, managed by FEMA, help us assess the risk a
    community faces and determine how to insure against that risk.
    Unfortunately, the process used to develop these maps is cumbersome and
    lacks an ability to apply common sense solutions to a community's
    unique factors. I understand that we have to insure against floods, but
    in this day and time, it also has to be affordable.
        Recognizing that the Congress, through the Banking Committee which
    has jurisdiction over this matter, is considering significant reform to
    the National Flood Insurance Program, FEMA began a critical review of
    the program. The review is projected to be completed as late as June
    2012. I just don't think people can wait that long for reform. The
    National Committee on Levee Safety, which was established by the
    Congress and includes representatives from FEMA and the Corps of
    Engineers, issued recommendations for reforms back in January 2009.
    Some have called for stopping the mapping process altogether and others
    want to move forward but include measures that improve local capacity
    and map accuracy. Twenty-seven Senators, including myself, and 49 House
    Members, wrote to you last month to express concerns about the program
    and to propose specific reforms.
        Are you satisfied that the Nation is moving as quickly as possible
    on this matter? What can be done to expedite the executive branch's
    proposal for reform?
        Answer. Currently, FEMA is executing the National Flood Insurance
    Program (NFIP) Reform work plan, and is evaluating changes to the
    program. This process was designed to engage program stakeholders from
    a variety of perspectives, and to date has included hundreds of
    stakeholders in a series of public meetings and generated thousands of
    public comments on reform possibilities.
        The original NFIP reform work plan envisioned an 18-month process,
    to ensure thorough and transparent engagement with a wide variety of
    program stakeholders. Based on feedback from the Congress, FEMA has
    accelerated this schedule, and hopes to report findings before the end
    of this 18 months timeframe. This will allow for consideration of
    program reforms by decisionmakers prior to the expiration of the
    current NFIP authorization in September 2011.
                flood hazard map risk analysis and modernization
        Question. To date, $1.65 billion has been provided to digitize
    flood maps, and in many cases, improve the data used to create maps.
    How many maps, by State, still need to have significantly improved
    engineering data/validated data added to the maps? Please provide a
    comparison of the number of maps that will be produced if the budget
    request of $103 million is provided for Flood Hazard Map Risk Analysis
    (FHMRA) compared to the fiscal year 2010 level.
        Answer. FEMA tracks the flood hazard inventory by stream and
    coastal miles. Our total modernized inventory is comprised of about
    900,000 miles. The national need stands at 59 percent of stream miles
    (currently 41-percent valid). This means about 530,000 miles of the
    inventory needs updating to reach 100 percent valid. The goal in the
    Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) Multi-Year Plan was
    to reach 80 percent valid. This equates to 350,000 miles. As a
    percentage of the modernized map inventory of about 100,000 maps, about
    59,000 maps need updating to reach 100 percent, 39,000 maps need
    updating to reach 80 percent valid.
        At the fiscal year 2010 funding level, FEMA would begin updating
    9,000-12,000 maps. Under the proposed funding level for fiscal year
    2012, FEMA estimates 6,000 to 8,400 maps less per year will be
    produced. FEMA will adapt its project sequencing process in an aim to
    keep pace with the eroding reliability of the flood hazard analyses and
    maps.
        The data presented below is from a data collection done on January
    28, 2011, and shows the percentage of miles by State that are currently
    invalid. This information is improving regularly. The national need
    stands at 59 percent of stream miles (currently 41-percent valid).

                      FEMA NATIONAL FLOOD HAZARD INVENTORY
       [Percentage of stream and coastal miles by State currently needing
                                    updates]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Percentage of
                                                              miles needing
                                                              significantly
                             State                               improved
                                                               engineering
                                                              data/validated
                                                                   data
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama................................................              42
    Alaska.................................................          ( \1\ )
    Arizona................................................              99
    Arkansas...............................................              69
    California.............................................              93
    Colorado...............................................              70
    Connecticut............................................              98
    District of Columbia...................................              12
    Delaware...............................................              58
    Florida................................................              88
    Georgia................................................              39
    Hawaii.................................................              99
    Idaho..................................................              99
    Illinois...............................................              93
    Indiana................................................              85
    Iowa...................................................              13
    Kansas.................................................              30
    Kentucky...............................................              14
    Louisiana..............................................              86
    Maine..................................................              99
    Maryland...............................................              37
    Massachusetts..........................................              98
    Michigan...............................................              30
    Minnesota..............................................              37
    Mississippi............................................              51
    Missouri...............................................              47
    Montana................................................              81
    Nebraska...............................................              10
    Nevada.................................................              92
    New Hampshire..........................................              96
    New Jersey.............................................              73
    New Mexico.............................................              43
    New York...............................................              38
    North Carolina.........................................              57
    North Dakota...........................................              72
    Ohio...................................................              39
    Oklahoma...............................................              60
    Oregon.................................................              95
    Pennsylvania...........................................              38
    Rhode Island...........................................              98
    South Carolina.........................................              37
    South Dakota...........................................              92
    Tennessee..............................................              23
    Texas..................................................              83
    Utah...................................................              94
    Vermont................................................              94
    Virginia...............................................              79
    Washington.............................................              95
    West Virginia..........................................              75
    Wisconsin..............................................              83
    Wyoming................................................             99
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Not yet available.

      citizenship and immigration services--international adoptions--haiti
        Question. The Help HAITI Act, which was enacted in December 2010,
    responded to the need for the families of the 1,400 Haitian orphans who
    were granted humanitarian parole in the aftermath of the January, 2010,
    earthquake, to immediately apply to adjust the immigration status from
    parolee to legal permanent resident. Prior to the enactment of the Help
    HAITI Act, these orphans, upon finalizing their adoptions by American
    families in U.S. State courts, would have had to wait for 2 or more
    years to adjust their immigration status to legal permanent resident.
    During this 2-year period, these vulnerable children would have
    remained in limbo, leaving them with fewer legal protections,
    potentially ineligible for critical resources, and at risk of being
    returned to Haiti.
        Several Members, including myself, sent you a letter asking for the
    swift implementation of the Help HAITI law, to ensure that families are
    able to move toward naturalization as soon as possible. You responded
    to our letter on February 7, 2011, and noted that many of the
    suggestions we had made to streamline the process for the adoptive
    families have already been implemented by the Department. I appreciate
    what has been done to date in this regard.
        Can you please identify the specific steps you have taken toward
    the implementation of the Help HAITI Act? Are there additional steps
    that the Congress needs to take legislatively to assist these families
    with these adoptions?
        As you know, I am deeply concerned about how the Congress can work
    with your Department--and other Departments involved in the
    international adoption process--to safely and efficiently improve this
    process so that adoptive parents can be joined with children eligible
    for adoption. I hope you will commit to working with me on this issue.
        Answer. The following is a timeline of steps U.S. Citizenship and
    Immigration Services (USCIS) took to implement this law:
      --Sent a letter to each of the parents/sponsors of paroled Haitian
            children to advise them of the passage of the act. The letter
            also informed them that additional information would be sent to
            them and that the USCIS Web site would be updated with
            information about filing under the act. (12/16/2010)
      --Implemented an interim policy for implementation of the act. (12/
            21/2010)
      --USCIS Web site announcement posted about the act's implementation.
            (1/3/2011)
      --Filing instructions posted on the USCIS Web site. (1/4/2011)
      --A follow-up letter was sent out to the parents/sponsors of paroled
            Haitian children with instructions on how to apply under the
            act. (1/5/2011)
      --Teleconference held for families of paroled Haitian children and
            other external stakeholders. (2/9/2011)
      --USCIS systems updated to produce the Green Cards reflecting the
            newly established class of admission code HH-6. (2/27/2011)
        Through March 14, 2011, approximately 30 individuals had filed
    applications to adjust status under the act. The act established a cap
    of 1,400 through December 9, 2013. USCIS is closely monitoring the
    number of applicants and approvals. USCIS will contact at a later date
    the parents/sponsors of the children that have not yet filed to remind
    them of the act.
        As the provisions of the act will permit all children authorized
    parole under the Special Humanitarian Parole Program to obtain lawful
    permanent status in the United States, the Department does not believe
    additional steps or legislation is needed.
                  international adoptions--cambodia and nepal
        Question. USCIS has played a central role in the processing of
    orphan visas for the nearly approximately 200,000 children adopted by
    United States citizens over the last decade. I know that this role is
    not one that is taken lightly and appreciate the work that you and your
    Department have done to make the adoption of children from other
    countries both efficient and ethical. That being said, I remain
    concerned that USCIS has felt there was no alternative in at least two
    countries, almost 10 years ago in Cambodia and most recently in Nepal,
    than to suspend orphan visa processing altogether. To me, suspending
    adoptions in response to allegations of fraud is like shutting down the
    international banking system because of a bank robbery. We need to find
    a better more targeted way of using the law to preventing abuse and
    then actively prosecuting those who abuse the law.
        Please provide the subcommittee with examples of ways we might work
    together to provide the Department with alternative measures to protect
    children, their birth families, and their potential adoptive families?
        Answer. The Department believes that the best way to respond to
    concerns about abuse in the intercountry adoption context is through
    implementing better safeguards and protections in the process. I share
    your concerns about the total suspension adoption processing in certain
    countries. Where possible, the better approach is to identify and seek
    to address specific problems in adoption programs without suspending
    them completely. The Hague Adoption Convention, which entered into
    force for the United States in 2008, implements procedures for
    intercountry adoption processing that include many important safeguards
    helping guarantee the transparency and integrity of the adoptions
    process.
        The Department supports a U.S. Government approach of working
    proactively with countries of origin that have not yet signed or
    ratified the Hague Adoption Convention to assist them in developing the
    appropriate child welfare infrastructure needed for Hague
    implementation. In the meantime, DHS also supports making changes to
    U.S. non-Hague adoption immigration processing policy and procedures
    that include some of the protections of Hague policy and processing,
    particularly those that enhance transparency and integrity in
    intercountry adoption.
        In August 2010, the Department of State (DOS) identified a serious
    concern in the processing of adoption cases from Nepal involving
    children presented as abandoned--namely that the documentation provided
    by the Nepali police validating the abandonments of the children was
    unreliable and not credible. DOS and USCIS conducted a joint
    investigation which resulted in the suspension of processing of new
    abandonment cases for Nepali children. Since then, DOS and USCIS have
    been processing the 64 abandonment cases that were already in progress
    as of the suspension date, all but 6 of which have required detailed
    Requests for Additional Evidence because the initial documentation
    provided with the adoption petitions failed to establish that the
    children could be defined as orphans under U.S. law. This suspension
    affected only abandonment cases in Nepal, and the program remains open
    for cases involving relinquished children. The processing of the 64
    abandonment cases is ongoing.
        The Department will continue to look for ways to strengthen
    international adoption policies and operational practices to the
    benefit of children and families, and looks forward to working with
    closely with the Subcommittee on this issue.
                                    e-verify
        Question. What activities did funds provided to E-Verify for
    Monitoring and Compliance support in fiscal year 2010? What metrics are
    in place to track the success of the Monitoring and Compliance division
    in ensuring employer compliance with system rules?
        What steps can a worker currently take to challenge an erroneous
    final nonconfirmation? Are there any forms of redress, reconsideration,
    or protections in place for workers who lose their job as a result of
    an erroneous final nonconfirmation? What is the estimated cost of
    making E-Verify mandatory nationally?
        A recent GAO report called USCIS's prior cost estimate ``minimally
    credible''. What steps are being taken to further improve the accuracy
    of cost assessments? What fiscal impact would making E-Verify mandatory
    have on small businesses?
        Bloomberg Government reported that if E-Verify had been mandatory
    for all employers in 2010, it would have cost businesses $2.7-$2.6
    billion of which would have been borne by the small businesses that
    drive our economy. Does USCIS concur in that estimate? If not, please
    explain why?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2010, the E-Verify Monitoring and Compliance
    (M&C) program continued to expand in terms of capacity, compliance and
    initiatives to enhance the integrity of the E-Verify system. Hiring and
    recruitment were underway for an additional 44 M&C staff. As of the
    beginning of March 2011, 13 were on board and 20 are in clearance. To
    increase M&C staff's capacity to process more cases, an enhancement was
    made to the Compliance Tracking and Management System, which helped to
    streamline processing and decrease manual data entry. System
    requirements for an enhanced data analytics tool were completed in
    fiscal year 2010 in anticipation of fiscal year 2011 procurement,
    allowing more detailed and full analysis of employer behavior. In terms
    of compliance activities, M&C contacted approximately 15,000 employers
    related to noncompliance.
        M&C also started tracking additional employer actions. These
    actions include monitoring for:
      --Duplicate Social Security numbers (two reports);
      --Verifying employees hired before November 7, 1986 (employers must
            complete the Form I-9 before using E-Verify, and employers may
            not use the Form I-9 for employees hired before November 7,
            1986);
      --Nonuse of E-Verify;
      --Terminating employees following a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC);
      --Verifying an employee more than 3 days after he or she was hired;
            and
      --Verifying existing employees.
        M&C also executed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) related to
    sharing of information and monitoring employer actions referred to it
    by the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division's Office of Special
    Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices.
        More than 45,000 employers who have signed new agreements with E-
    Verify have been vetted through Dun & Bradstreet to ensure that
    companies enrolling in E-Verify are legal and active corporate
    entities. This further strengthens the integrity of the system by
    verifying the legitimacy of employers using the system. USCIS plans to
    ensure all of the 250,000 employers are vetted in the coming year.
        E-Verify system enhancements have also included new closure codes
    to be used by employers to ensure resources are devoted to cases that
    may point to possible misuse of the system. For example, this change
    helps M&C analysts have more insight as to whether an employee run
    through E-Verify was terminated as a result of an E-Verify finding or
    if they quit voluntarily.
        An important enhancement to E-Verify was the addition of passport
    data and photos as part of our continuing efforts to address identity
    fraud and employee use of falsified documents.
        Regarding metrics, M&C monitors employers who were subject to
    compliance action. Fiscal year 2010 data indicate that 90 percent of
    employers corrected past processes and are now in compliance with E-
    Verify program rules and policies for which they received compliance
    assistance.
        USCIS is committed to ensuring that workers who receive a final
    nonconfirmation in error are treated equitably. Even if an employee
    receives a final nonconfirmation, the employer may retain the employee
    provided that it notifies DHS. Section c.6 of the E-Verify MOU signed
    by the employer states, ``The employer must notify DHS if it continues
    to employ any employee after receiving a final nonconfirmation, and is
    subject to a civil penalty between $550 and $1,100 for each failure to
    notify DHS of continued employment following a final nonconfirmation.''
    The employer may notify DHS by selecting the following option when
    closing out the case in the E-Verify system:
      --The employee continues to work for the employer after receiving a
            final nonconfirmation result. E-Verify cannot verify that this
            employee is authorized to work in the United States. The
            employee had contested the tentative nonconfirmation, but was
            unable to resolve it. The employer chooses to exercise its
            legal right to allow the employee to continue to work.
        Employees who believe that they received a final nonconfirmation in
    error have called either the E-Verify employee hotline or the Office of
    Special Counsel (OSC) for Unfair Immigration-Related Employment
    Practices. USCIS and OSC have a coordinated process for intervening on
    the employees' behalf. Both telephone numbers are found on employee
    tentative nonconfirmation notices and referral letters.
        E-Verify staff will assist the small number of employees who
    receive a final nonconfirmation in error and intervene on their behalf.
    Specifically, USCIS and OSC have helped employees return to their jobs
    after they were terminated for receiving a final nonconfirmation by
    contacting their employers and explaining to them that the final
    nonconfirmation was issued in error. In a minority of overturned final
    nonconfirmation cases, OSC was also able to get back pay for employees
    in addition to getting them reinstated.
        To help employees avoid the adverse consequences associated with
    erroneous final nonconfirmations, USCIS will begin a phased deployment
    of Self Check in March, 2011. Self Check provides individuals with the
    ability to confirm their own employment eligibility status. For those
    individuals who will be working for an E-Verify employer, Self Check
    will enable them to identify any potential data mismatches before
    employment begins and the employer runs an E-Verify check. E-Verify
    Self Check is not for employer use. Employers may not require workers
    to use Self Check or show Self Check results.
        The estimated cost of making E-Verify mandatory would depend on the
    details of legislation making the system mandatory, fully considering
    all relevant factors and cost drivers.
        The recent GAO findings were based solely on cost estimates related
    to the Verification Information System's (VIS--the IT system that
    supports E-Verify) Life Cycle Cost Estimates (LCCE). Significant
    revisions have been made since the review by GAO. In addition to
    performing sensitivity and risk analyses of the data, an independent
    reviewer (i.e., the MITRE Corporation) analyzed the revisions to
    determine whether the new estimates possessed the four characteristics
    identified by GAO as being reliable cost estimates:
      --Comprehensive.--According to MITRE's analysis, the current version
            of the estimate now breaks each enhancement project into
            smaller elements using the phases of the Systems Engineering
            Life Cycle (SELC) as a model. The estimate now incorporates
            historical cost data, but still does not include some external
            program costs for activities such as Operation and Maintenance
            (O&M) and security costs which are funded by the USCIS Office
            of Information Technology (OIT). There is ongoing effort
            related to this evaluation to include these costs.
      --Well Documented.--Methods used to develop the estimate are now
            clearly documented and presented in a manner as to be recreated
            by someone unfamiliar with the estimate. The current version of
            the estimate now contains an accompanying workbook detailing
            the data and calculations used in deriving all estimates and a
            risk register was created that identifies specific program
            risks.
      --Accurate.--The current LCCE has been updated to reflect
            programmatic changes as of the second quarter of fiscal year
            2011, including actual Social Security Administration (SSA)
            cost projections.
      --Credible.--The estimate now contains both sensitivity and risk
            analysis sections consistent with best practices outlined by
            GAO. The MITRE review also found that an underestimation of the
            cost risk. This issue has been addressed and a more realistic
            method of correlation estimation has been used.
        Regarding the fiscal impact on small businesses of making E-Verify
    mandatory, at this time, USCIS does not have data and analysis that
    would specify the potential impact. USCIS will consider conducting
    analysis on this matter in the future.
                    federal law enforcement training center
        Question. At the February 17, 2011, Homeland Security and
    Governmental Affairs hearing, the Secretary said the Federal Law
    Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) recently piloted a test curriculum
    on homegrown violent extremism with participation from local police and
    sheriff departments. Please provide more information about this pilot
    program. How will this change or expand FLETC's current missions and
    curricula focus? What is the plan to continue pilot testing, rolling
    out the program? Who will the training focus on? State and local?
    Rural, urban, Federal law enforcement?
        Answer. In February 2010, I tasked the Homeland Security Advisory
    Council (HSAC) to work with State and local law enforcement as well as
    relevant community groups to develop recommendations on how the
    Department can better support community-based efforts to combat violent
    extremism domestically. To this end, HSAC established a Countering
    Violent Extremism (CVE) working group consisting of law enforcement,
    community leaders, State and local government officials, youth leaders,
    academic leaders, and other subject-matter experts to provide a series
    of recommendations.
        In response to these recommendations, DHS has been working with
    Federal partners as well as State and local law enforcement
    organizations to develop guidance for the development of CVE training.
        A proof of concept session, based on the newly drafted curriculum
    guidance, was hosted at FLETC in Glynco, Georgia from February 8-10 and
    included State, local, and tribal law enforcement officials from around
    the country. Participants received preexisting FLETC CVE related
    training, after which they discussed the training and provided
    feedback. A training needs assessment was conducted during the session
    to identify the appropriate scope and direction of the CVE training.
    Findings were compared against nationally recognized and emergent best
    practices for similar topics. The participants identified four crucial
    topical areas:
      --Community-oriented policing;
      --Cultural awareness;
      --Information sharing, including suspicious activity reporting and
            intelligence-related information processes; and
      --Civil rights and privacy.
        In addition, the participants identified the need for at least two
    versions of the CVE training: an executive level course, targeting
    command level law enforcement leadership; and a line officers course,
    targeting patrol officers and investigators.
        As a result of the curriculum development session, the FLETC will
    develop the Countering Violent Extremism Training Program (CVETP), in
    collaboration with State and local police stakeholders and subject
    matter experts. The training will focus on State, local, and tribal law
    enforcement officers who serve in urban and/or rural environments. In
    addition, CVE training will be incorporated into existing training
    programs for Federal officers and agents conducted at the FLETC.
        Next steps in rolling out the program include the Design Phase,
    which involves a Curriculum Development Conference (CDC) to finalize
    training topics, write performance objectives and outline the training
    schedule; the Development Phase, which will encompass resource
    identification, lesson plan and training materials development, and
    determination of instructional methodologies; and the pilot program,
    which will test the validity of the established CVETP goals and
    objectives. Delivery of the pilot program is expected within 120 days
    following the CDC.
        Following delivery of the pilot program, the CVETP will begin the
    Evaluation Phase to determine program content and criterion validity.
    Participant feedback will be collected, instructors will be evaluated,
    and any adjustments to the curriculum identified as a result of the
    delivery of the pilot will be incorporated into the CVETP prior to full
    implementation. Using a combination of delivery mechanisms, 400-600
    students are expected to be trained during fiscal year 2011 and 2,400-
    3,600 in fiscal year 2012. By fiscal year 2013, instructor-led content
    will be converted to a digital format to allow interactive delivery
    using an electronic learning portal. As a result, an unlimited number
    of law enforcement students can potentially be trained using available
    technologies.
                 science and technology--laboratory facilities
        Question. Provide the distribution of the $276.5 million request
    for laboratory facilities, by facility and purpose.
        Answer. The table below provides the distribution of the $276.5
    million request for laboratory facilities, by facility and purpose.

                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal year
                                                                   2012
                                                                President's
                                                              budget request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Construction:
        Infrastructure upgrades \1\.........................            18.2
        National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF).......           150.0
    Operations:
        Chemical Security Analysis Center (CSAC)............             0.8
        National Urban Security Technology Laboratory                    2.3
         (NUSTL)............................................
        Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC)...........            40.8
        Transportation Security Laboratory (TSL)............            13.4
        National Biodefense and Analysis and Countermeasures            30.9
         Center (NBACC).....................................
    Laboratory salaries and benefits........................            20.1
                                                             ---------------
          Total.............................................          276.5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ In fiscal year 2012, S&T plans infrastructure upgrades at TSL.

            aviation security research--automated target recognition
        Question. Provide an assessment by the S&T Directorate of the
    Automated Target Resolution (ATR) technology that is being tested as a
    software upgrade to advanced imaging technology units? Based on S&T's
    assessment of this technology, will it be ready for deployment in
    fiscal year 2011? What is the schedule for certification?
        Answer. The S&T Directorate's Automated Target Recognition (ATR)
    project develops advanced software capabilities for AIT units to detect
    explosives and concealed weapons. This project also will introduce new
    standalone or adjunct imaging technologies, such as computed
    tomography, to continue the improvement of detection performance and
    the detection of novel explosives. This is critical to improve
    detection, lower false alarm rates, and reduce privacy concerns. S&T is
    currently evaluating advanced threat recognition software to guide
    further enhancements to reach full-scale development and deployment.
        One millimeter-wave based ATR system recently completed
    qualification testing at the DHS Transportation Security Laboratory.
    Based on these results, the TSA granted authority to pilot the system
    for passenger screening purposes at three aviation checkpoint test
    sites (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Ronald Reagan
    Washington National Airport, and Las Vegas-McCarran International
    Airport). S&T has approved the system's T&E master plan addendum and
    the operational test plan. TSA has concluded operational testing and
    evaluation and the results are currently being compiled and reviewed.
    The final operational test report is scheduled for May 2011. Once all
    reports are received, S&T will complete a letter of assessment for the
    testing.
                     dndo--radiation portal monitor program
        Question. Provide a status update of Radiation Portal Monitor (RPM)
    requirements by vector including total RPMs required by vector, systems
    deployed, and the percentage completed. Indicate gaps where solutions
    do not exist. The request includes $37.4 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 $37.4 million requested for fiscal year
    2012. Distinguish between current generation and ASP deployments. How
    is the Helium-3 shortage impacting this program? Has a solution been
    identified?
        Answer. The response to this question is designated as For Official
    Use Only. The Department will submit the response under separate cover.
                   human portable radiation detection systems
        Question. For Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems (HPRDS),
    provide a chart showing the notional fiscal year 2012 acquisition plan
    by technology, the quantity, and by DHS component. What is the total
    number of HPRDS needed by each component?
        Answer. The chart below provides the notional fiscal year 2012
    acquisition plan by technology, the quantity, and by DHS component.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Total (in
                           Fiscal year 2012                             Cost          Quantity        millions of
                                                                                                        dollars)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CBP:
        (LaBr) next generation handhelds.........................         $30,000             340             $10.0
        (HPGe) next generation advanced handheld (upgrade).......         100,000               2               0.20
    USCG:
        (LaBr) next generation handhelds.........................          30,000             100               3.00
        Personal radiation detectors.............................           2,800             700               1.94
    DNDO:
    TSA-VIPR Procurement: \1\
        Recapitalization.........................................  ..............  ..............               1.00
    MDDP Procurement:
        Radio-Isotope Identification Devices (RIID) handhelds....          23,000              51               1.17
        Personal radiation detectors.............................           2,800              72               0.20
        Backpacks................................................          34,000              33               1.12
        Communication equipment..................................  ..............  ..............               0.37
    \3\ He Procurement...........................................  ..............  ..............               1.00
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------
          Total..................................................  ..............  ..............              20.00
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Equipment replacement is due to damage. If substantive damage does not occur, new next gen handhelds will be
      procured.

        Based on present requests, the following is the estimated number of
    HPRDS needed by component and type of equipment for fiscal year 2011-
    2017:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal year
                                                                 2011-2017
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CBP:
        Next generation advanced handhelds..................              20
        Next generation advanced handheld (upgrades)........               2
        Next generation handhelds...........................           3,200
        Personal radiation detectors........................           4,400
        HPT \1\.............................................             150
    TSA:
        Backpacks...........................................              80
        Next generation handhelds...........................             160
        Personal radiation detectors........................             300
        HPT \1\.............................................             150
    USCG:
        Next generation advanced handheld (upgrades)........               8
        Next generation handhelds...........................           1,000
        Personal radiation detectors........................           4,000
        Backpacks...........................................             250
        HPT \1\.............................................           1,600
    DNDO (MDDP): Upgrade equipment (number of teams)                      3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Note.--Human Portable Tripwire (HPT).--The current-generation of
      human portable systems is predominantly composed of personal radiation
      detectors (PRDs). The tripwire role is intended to increase the
      opportunity and likelihood of detecting radiological and nuclear
      materials (rad/nuc) through constant, nondeliberate rad/nuc scans. HPT
      detection systems used to perform passive monitoring should be
      considered standard operational equipment capable of being worn by
      operators at all times. These systems should also be easy to use and
      cost-effective so they can be easily deployed to a large number of
      operators, increasing the opportunity for detection. These units will
      likely occur between fiscal year 2011-2017, subsequent to the
      completion of HPT development efforts.

           small boat stand-off detection system/on-dock rail program
        Question. According to the request, the Domestic Nuclear Detection
    Office (DNDO) will complete an Alternatives of Analysis (AoA) for the
    Small Boat Stand-Off Detection system and the On-Dock Rail (ODR)
    program in fiscal year 2011. When will the AoA be completed? If
    completed, provide a summary of the AoA findings.
        Answer. The Small Vessel Stand-Off Detection (SVSD) AoA is
    scheduled for completion in December 2011. Due to funding delays
    associated with the continuing resolutions for fiscal year 2011, this
    project was delayed by 3 months.
        As described in DNDO's CJ, the ODR AoA is planned for completion in
    fiscal year 2012 and is currently scheduled to be completed on March
    2012.
                      radiation detection straddle carrier
        Question. According to the request, DNDO will complete an
    Operational Assessment of a Radiation Detection Straddle Carrier at the
    Port of Tacoma, Washington in fiscal year 2011. Has this assessment
    been completed? What did DNDO conclude from this assessment?
        Answer. DNDO is poised to begin this assessment immediately,
    pending settlement of final support details with operational users.
    Once begun, the assessment will last about 6 weeks. DNDO will provide
    the results of this assessment when completed.
             radiation detection for air cargo and checked baggage
        Question. Describe the work DNDO is conducting with TSA or on
    behalf of TSA to detect illicit nuclear material in air cargo and
    baggage.
        Answer. In close collaboration with the DHS S&T Directorate's
    Transportation Security Laboratory, DNDO is evaluating whether computed
    tomography (CT) x ray systems, currently deployed throughout aviation
    pathways to detect explosives, can also be used to detect radiological
    and nuclear (rad/nuc) materials in baggage and small cargo. The program
    will begin with a baseline system evaluation to determine the basic
    technical feasibility of supporting our rad/nuc mission. The initial
    tests, currently underway, will focus on determining if the existing,
    certified CT systems may be able to be leveraged to also detect rad/nuc
    materials and test objects of interest. Following analysis of test data
    and determination of feasibility, DNDO, S&T, and TSA will discuss
    options for potential next steps.
                   research and development project summaries
        Question. For each individual project funded under DNDO's Research,
    Development, and Operations appropriation, submit quad charts that
    include a project description, the technology readiness level, planned
    demos and deliverables, and a timeline for transition.
        Answer. Research and development project summaries follow.
                       dndo--systems engineering program
    Program Description/Objectives
        Program Description.--This program provides assistance to maintain
    the high quality and consistency of the application of systems
    engineering principles across the multiple DNDO programs, and in
    implementing both the DHS acquisition directive 102-1 and DNDO's
    solutions development process. This includes program management,
    financial administration, customer service and quality assurance tasks,
    as well as an on-site liaison to facilitate customer service and
    coordination for the Systems Engineering Support Program contract.
        Objectives:
      --Institutionalize a systems engineering mindset across DNDO programs
            and mission areas.
      --Assist DNDO program managers and mission area managers in
            compliance with systems engineering requirements found in DHS
            Acquisition Directive 102-01.
      --Provide engineering support for Aviation Ports of Entry (APOEs).
    Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones
        Key Deliverables:
      --Leadership and administration will satisfy the commitments of the
            systems engineering support contract.
      --Development of alternatives analysis and operational requirements
            document for limited deployment of existing technologies to
            APOEs.
      --Conduct analysis of alternatives, characterization testing, and
            modeling and simulation activities for development of systems
            for other APOE operational environments.

        RD&O--Systems Engineering and Architecture PPA.--Systems
    engineering program, $5,400,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        Timeline for Transition.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        GNDA Alignment:
      --GNDA performance goals 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3,
            and 9.3.
      --This task supports all GNDA detection development and deployment
            goals.
                       dndo--rad/nuc detection standards
    Program Description
        Program Description.--Support for the development and maintenance
    of domestic and international consensus standards as well as
    Government-unique standards for rad/nuc detection systems. DNDO was
    directed by the Safe Port Act of 2006 to collaborate with NIST and
    develop Technical Capability Standards (TCS) for nonintrusive imaging
    and radiation detection equipment to be published by the Secretary of
    Homeland Security as Government-unique standards. TCS focus on the
    capability to detect special nuclear material. DNDO and NIST lead an
    inter-agency standards working group that aims to produce a suite of
    TCS for various detection systems.
        Objectives:
      --Aid U.S. Government leadership in the development of national and
            international standards relating to rad/nuc detection.
      --Develop Government-unique TCS for nonintrusive imaging and rad/nuc
            detection systems.
      --Develop and maintain national consensus standards for rad/nuc
            detection systems.
    Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones
        Key Deliverables.--Guidance on required rad/nuc detection
    capability for users and development programs. Informed by classified
    threat information not available to entire consensus standard
    community.
        Schedule Goals:
      --Develop and revise rad/nuc consensus standards as appropriate.
      --Draft two technical capability standards annually until all
            required standards are published (estimate approximately 12
            needed).
      --Goal is to complete each TCS in 2 years.

        RD&O--Systems Engineering and Architecture PPA.--Rad/Nuc detection
    standards, $1,840,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        Timeline for Transition.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 1.3, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2,
    5.1, 5.2, and 9.3.
             dndo--information sharing, mission critical messaging
    Program Description/Objectives
        Program Description.--The DNDO Information Sharing Program
    establishes and maintains the necessary enterprise and data
    architectures that enable programs in DNDO, DHS, and our Federal,
    State, local, and commercial partners to effectively share rad/nuc
    information for the purpose of preventing terrorism and enhancing
    National Security. Mission Critical Messaging (MCM) will connect
    Federal, State, local, and tribal radiological and nuclear detection
    systems to share information for the purpose of increasing the
    effectiveness of counter terrorism capabilities and facilitate the
    development of a rad/nuc information-sharing environment. MCM will
    leverage existing information sharing standards, commercially available
    technology, and DNDO's Joint Analysis Center Collaborative Information
    System (JACCIS) to connect elements of the GNDA together to share
    situational awareness and enable a managed coordinated response.
    Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones
        Key Deliverables:
      --Create and update cost-effective, compliant enterprise
            architecture, data management, and systems engineering
            artifacts.
      --Update and maintain the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM)
            chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear domain, in
            conjunction with the domain co-steward.
      --Update and maintain Information Exchange Package Documentation
            (IEPD) N.25 standard for rad/nuc information exchange.
      --Stand-up the Mission Critical Messaging Project: Plan, analyze, and
            develop the project approach.
      --Establish a test interface between the DNDO Joint Analysis Center
            (JAC) and at least one Federal, State, local or tribal entity.
        Objectives:
      --Provide architecture guidance and support to the DNDO programs that
            support GNDA definition and implementation.
      --Improve rad/nuc threat situational awareness among Federal, State,
            local, and tribal partners.
      --Enhance system interoperability to enable faster mission-critical
            integration.

        RD&O--Systems Engineering and Architecture PPA.--Information
    sharing, MCM, $5,160,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--TRL will be assessed as part of SDP
    stage 2a.
        Timeline for Transition.--Stage 2a scheduled for fiscal year 2012.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 4.2, 5.2, 6.3, 7.1, and
    7.2.
        dndo--gnda development: annual planning, modeling, and analysis
    Program Description/Objectives
        Program Description.--Strategic planning and evolving risk
    evaluations contribute to an a Joint Inter-agency Annual Review and
    Annual Report on the GNDA that provides:
      --Status of current detection architecture capabilities.
      --Strategic direction for further GNDA enhancements.
        Objectives.--The strategic planning, modeling and risk analyses are
    intended to:
      --Reduce the technical and programmatic risk of new efforts.
      --Enhance the integration and interoperability of new efforts within
            the GNDA.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones:
      --Annual GNDA development study plan.
      --Update GNDA ``baseline'' architecture.
      --Implement Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) process:
        --Study plan;
        --Inter-agency working group meetings; and
        --Gaps and solutions.
      --Risk-based architecture gaps and solutions prioritization.
      --Joint Annual Review and Annual Report.
      --Update GNDA strategic plan as required.

        RD&O--Systems Engineering and Architecture PPA.--Annual planning,
    modeling, and analysis, $5,100,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        Timeline for Transition.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 1 through 10.
                  dndo--gnda development: international domain
    Program Description/Objectives
        Program Description.--The goal of the international layer is to
    improve the ability to detect nuclear and other radioactive materials
    by increasing the national and regional-level detection capability
    efforts and encouraging the development and implementation of PRND
    capabilities in other countries. Emphasis is placed on detection
    efforts in all pathways (air, land, maritime, commercial, and private
    transportation). International engagement fosters national-level
    detection architectures in other countries/regions that compliment and
    reinforce the detection capabilities of the United States.
        Objectives:
      --Foster bilateral and multilateral relationships to enhance national
            and regional-level architecture development and PRND
            capabilities.
      --Build on U.S. Government and international assistance efforts to
            create a multi-layered rad/nuc detection capability.
      --Leverage international engagement efforts to further enhance the
            domestic implementation of more robust rad/nuc detection
            architectures that contribute to an expanded GNDA.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones:
      --Conduct two ``Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism
            Implementation Workshops'' to follow on Model Guidelines
            Document (MGD) development and implementation.
      --Conduct one regional GNDA workshop.
      --Conduct three regional architectural analyses.
      --Continue bilateral and multilateral engagements with key foreign
            partners on nuclear detection architectures, to include the
            International Atomic Energy Agency, and Global Initiative to
            Combat Nuclear Terrorism and other partners.
    International GNDA Studies
        Work on international geographical architectural analyses to
    recommend improvements in our national or regional-level detection
    capacity in foreign countries is expanding.
        International engagements are prioritized and conducted in both
    bilateral and multilateral fora through agreements and arrangements
    (e.g., S&T Agreements, UNSCR 1540, GICNT) and with existing
    institutions (e.g., IAEA, World Customs Organization, Interpol,
    International Civil Aviation Organization, International Maritime
    Organization, etc) as a means to bolster the GNDA.
        RD&O--Systems Engineering and Architecture PPA.--GNDA development--
    international, $3,530,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        Timeline for Transition.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4.
                   dndo--gnda development: land border domain
    Program Description/Objectives
        Program Description.--DNDO develops time-phased strategies and
    plans for improving the probability of preventing and deterring rad/nuc
    attacks through the land border pathway. In general, studies will be
    commissioned to identify and characterize trade-offs, risks, and costs
    before deciding on specific implementation paths. DNDO works with our
    front-line end-user components to assess and implement solutions to
    mitigate these threats.
        Objectives:
      --Continue to support analyses of detection strategies between the
            Ports of Entry (POEs) and remaining vulnerabilities at POEs.
      --Continue to support modeling and risk assessments focused on
            characterizing the threat and identifying opportunities for
            detection and interdiction at the border.
    Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones
        Land Border GNDA Requirements Development Studies:
      --Complete the Land Border Optimum POE Strategy study.
      --Document gaps and priorities based on the Land Border Optimum POE
            Strategy study and the Probability of Encounter study.
        Land Border Pathways:
      --Develop supporting documentation (e.g., mission needs statement)
            for at least one concept, including giving consideration to
            those concepts for which analysis plans were developed in
            fiscal year 2011.
      --Develop a final report describing radiation detector types,
            operational procedures, and policy provisions that might be
            suitable for improving the land border elements of the GNDA.
    Land Border GNDA Studies
        The Land Border Pathways is an iterative program that leverages
    existing and emerging technologies and findings from laboratory and
    field evaluations against capability gaps and mission requirements
    generated from studies and direct input from user representatives.
        Objective.--Continue to support the CBP Office of Border Patrol
    (OBP) with improvements to its rad/nuc detection capabilities, both in
    developing the next generation of detectors as well as procuring
    detectors for OBP, as funds are available.
        RD&O--Systems Engineering and Architecture PPA.--GNDA development--
    Land border pathways, $3,330,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        Timeline for Transition.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 2 and 3.
                    dndo--gnda development: aviation domain
    Program Description/Objectives
        Program Description.--This effort determines the bounding
    requirements for critical Aviation mission area projects to optimize
    mobility, agility, and adversary cost; to develop holistic airport
    solutions; and to address International General Aviation (IGA) and
    domestic general aviation scanning.
        Objectives:
      --Examine the intersection of International Commercial Aviation (ICA)
            Pax/Bag, ICA Air Cargo, and IGA pathways, including the
            commonality of systems and processes that can be leveraged and
            shared.
      --Reduce long-term burdens of system acquisition, maintenance, and
            operation by seeking cumulative benefits gained from enhanced
            efficiencies across national and global operations.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones:
      --Begin regional, cross-border aircraft vulnerability mitigation
            analysis of Northern Border and Caribbean aviation traffic.
      --Assess feasibility of developing software that will assist
            operations centers in detecting flight anomalies that pose
            direct-to-target threats.
      --Begin development of IGA security gap solutions (for inbound IGA).
      --Complete DHS-AMD-102-1 activities to document capability gaps for
            domestic APOEs, and document solution options.

        RD&O--Systems Engineering and Architecture PPA.--GNDA development--
    Aviation domain, $2,470,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        Timeline for Transition.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 2.1, 2.2, and 5.1.
                    dndo--gnda development: maritime domain
    Program Description/Objectives
        Maritime GNDA Requirements Development Program Description.--
    Conduct architectural studies and Capability-Based Assessments (CBAs)
    to ascertain gaps and define the interagency PRND capabilities needed
    to strengthen maritime pathways against rad/nuc threats (materials,
    weapons, and conveyances) and formulate recommendations to mitigate
    waterway/seaport vulnerabilities to achieve the maximum risk reduction
    within the constraints of the available budget.
        Objectives:
      --Determine gaps and vulnerabilities.
      --Formulate recommendations and plans to deny entry of unauthorized
            rad/nuc materials and weapons into the United States at
            seaports, waterways, and between POEs.
      --Develop a well-coordinated network to integrate the GNDA with the
            national plan to achieve maritime domain awareness (MDA) and
            understand interrelationships within the multi-layered
            structure of GNDA.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones:
      --Continue MDA CBAs that design and integrate maritime PRND data and
            information into the MDA enterprise-wide network; recommend
            options that improve small vessel surveillance, detection,
            analysis, and awareness of incidents and activities.
      --Initiate CBA of the cruise line industry (cruise ships and terminal
            operations).
      --Continue maritime modeling and operations analysis framework that
            integrates a wide range of threats and countermeasures; conduct
            tradeoff studies to support future planning decisions; and
            integrate estimates of detection/interdiction probabilities and
            consequences of attack.
        Maritime Capability Development Program Description.--This program
    builds on lessons learned from the West Coast Maritime Pilot (WCMP) to
    develop or enhance State, local, and tribal PRND capabilities.
    Programmatic support includes CONOPS and SOP development, training
    program assistance, exercise and drill support, and assistance with
    equipment selection decisions.
        Objectives:
      --Assist Federal, State, local, and tribal government stakeholders
            and area maritime security committees on operational protocols,
            training, and exercises that support small vessel PRND
            capabilities.
      --Assess geographic port configurations to maximize interdiction.
      --Improve scanning of small maritime craft by planning to increase
            detection systems for maritime forces.
      --Increase port security grant requests for PRND programs.
        RD&O--Systems Engineering and Architecture PPA.--GNDA development--
    Maritime domain, maritime PA, $3,350,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        Timeline for Transition.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 2 through 10.
                    dndo--gnda development: interior domain
    Program Description/Objectives
        Program Description.--Guided by the GNDA, DNDO supports the
    assessment and mitigation of threats in the land borders, aviation,
    maritime and interior mission areas through the development of specific
    architecture studies, CONOPS analyses, detector modeling studies, and
    enterprise architecture support that are specific to each mission area.
    These studies typically focus on specific programs and directly support
    DNDO pilot and Research and Development (R&D) initiatives. These
    preliminary studies are intended to reduce the technical and
    programmatic risk of new efforts and enhance their integration and
    interoperability with the overall GNDA.
        Objectives:
      --Determine gaps and vulnerabilities and formulate recommendations
            and plans to mitigate them.
      --Develop a well-defined and carefully coordinated network of
            interrelationships by studying the multi-layered structure of
            the rad/nuc detection architecture.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones:
      --Conduct three foundational analyses on the application of PRND
            capabilities, including whether or where to employ 100 percent
            or randomized screening concepts at strategic locations. Three
            studies related to the domestic layer are expected to be
            completed by the end of fiscal year 2012.
      --Continue work on detection modeling, data fusion, and analysis to
            enhance detection capabilities in support of various fixed and
            mobile operational detection programs and in the support of
            ``surge'' operations.
        Interior Studies:
      --DNDO will focus efforts to develop capabilities to detect threats
            with limited or imperfect intelligence.
      --These capabilities rely on the multiple State and local law
            enforcement agencies that are available to perform rad/nuc
            detection operations using mobile and human-portable sensors.
      --U.S. Government surge efforts will require interactions with
            relevant State and local and Federal agency activities to
            develop coordinated architectures and CONOPs.
      --Foundational architecture analyses will be performed to identify
            and prioritize PRND capabilities and deployment and search
            strategies based on the effectiveness of each.
        RD&O--Systems Engineering and Architecture PPA.--GNDA development--
    Interior domain, $1,680,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        Timeline for Transition.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 2 through 10.
              dndo--state and local initiatives rad/nuc challenge
    Program Description/Objective
        Program Description.--The SAFE Port Act charges DNDO with enhancing
    and coordinating the nuclear detection efforts of Federal, State, and
    local officials in order to ensure a managed, coordinated adjudication
    of rad/nuc threats.
        DNDO is promoting an opportunity to emphasize the rad/nuc detection
    capabilities and operations at the State, local, and tribal levels
    through a competition among the PRND community, with industry
    demonstrations and information exchange forums.
        Objective.--Measurably advance the operational expertise and
    technical capabilities of those assets that would be involved in
    coordinated surge or intelligence informed deployments.
    Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones
        Competition Rodeo.--Creates productive, spirited competition among
    individuals and teams at all levels of the PRND community.
        Information Exchange Forum.--Scheduled activities including
    workshops, briefings, panel meetings, and the presentation of case
    studies and other papers sponsored by members of the PRND community who
    wish to share their lessons learned, ideas, and insights.
        System/Capability Expo.--Includes exhibit booths, system, and
    CONOPS demonstrations, hands-on experiences, and showcases.
        Projected Outcomes:
      --Sharing of successes and lessons learned.
      --Shaping independent research and development programs by exposing
            industry and academia to the Government's needs and upcoming
            opportunities.
      --Encouraging a dialog between the equipment development community
            and State, local, and tribal law enforcement and first
            responders involved in PRND.
      --Fostering more effective community-wide competition and advancement
            by establishing a greater awareness of the current state-of-
            the-art technology and CONOPS.
        RD&O--Systems Development PPA.--Rad/Nuc challenge, $2,630,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        Timeline for Transition.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 4 and 7.
                         dndo--human portable tripwire
    Program Description/Objective
        Program Description.--Investigates the technology around small,
    wearable systems that provide passive monitoring capability to increase
    the likelihood of detecting rad/nuc material through constant,
    nondeliberate rad/nuc scans. The human portable tripwire (HPT)
    detection system should be considered standard operating equipment
    capable of being worn by key operators at all times, cost-effective and
    deployed to a large number of operators to increase the opportunity for
    detection.
        The proposed HPT concept has improved performance and added
    capabilities over commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) personal radiation
    detectors currently used by law enforcement in the field. Additionally,
    it will have capabilities such as isotope identification and data
    communication. The device will also have the capability of ``wired''
    and ``wireless'' interface to networks, laptops, satellite phones, and
    other devices as required. HPT will build on lessons learned from the
    Intelligent Personnel Radiation Locator Advanced Technology
    Demonstration, in addition to many other support COTS technologies such
    as handheld data processor devices, communications and data transfer.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones:
      --Initiate the development of an HPT system designed to meet user
            requirements.
      --Conduct data collection efforts against special nuclear material
            (SNM) to improve algorithm performance of HPT systems.
      --Conduct an Early Operational Assessment of the HPT system in a
            simulated operational environment.
        Objectives.--Develop a low-cost approach to increase passive,
    nondeliberate detection, and provide spectroscopic identification and
    data transfer.

        RD&O--Systems Development PPA.--HPT, $9,060,000.
        Technology Readiness Level:
      --Basic Technology Readiness Level (TRL) is 9.
      --Application to this mission is at TRL 4.
        Timeline for Transition.--Transition to full-scale development, TRL
    7, is funding dependant, but considered feasible by 2014.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 2.1, 2.2, 5.1, 6.1, and
    6.3.
                dndo--cargo imaging for shielded nuclear threats
    Program Description/Objective
        Program Description.--Program will evaluate and develop as
    appropriate nonintrusive inspection radiography capability that can
    identify and discriminate special nuclear materials and shielded
    material contained in full-size trucks, cargo containers, and rail
    cars. In doing so, cargo imaging for shielded nuclear threats (CISNT)
    will leverage the findings from past and current Transformational
    Applied Research programs. This program was initiated as the Advanced
    Cargo Imaging program and included in the President's budget request
    for fiscal year 2011. The name change reflects the objectives of the
    program.
        Objective.--To develop a capability to identify shielded nuclear
    material in cargo to act as a companion capability with passive
    radiation portal monitors.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones:
      --Refine operational requirements and perform an Analysis of
            Alternatives (AoA).
      --Begin the technology demonstration and characterization (TD&C)
            process for a selected set of systems; collect data to
            characterize the operational environment; and determine the
            limits of technical approach.
      --Complete draft AoA for CISNT.
      --Continue to evaluate competing alternatives.
      --Develop an operational requirements document leveraging lessons
            learned from previous related programs and TD&C.

        RD&O--Systems Development PPA.--CISNT, $13,470,000.
        Technology Readiness Level:
      --Basic TRL is 9.
      --Application to this mission is at TRL 6.
        Timeline for Transition.--Transition to full-scale development, TRL
    7, is funding dependant, but considered feasible by 2013.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 2.1, 2.2, 6.1, and 6.3.
                      dndo--long-range radiation detection
    Program Description/Objective
        Program Description.--Determine if a passive long-range rad/nuc
    detection system should be developed and fielded, building upon
    technologies demonstrated by Stand-Off Radiation Detection System and
    Roadside Tracker. To avoid redundancies with preexisting programs,
    long-range radiation detection (LRRD) is focused on Interior needs and
    stakeholders.
        Objective.--Provide detectors with better sensitivity, and with
    ability to identify and localize sources.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones:
      --Develop operational requirements document.
      --Develop concepts of operations.
      --Develop integrated logistics support plan.
      --Develop the acquisition program baseline.
      --Develop the LRRD T&E master plan.
      --Finalize LRRD limited use experiment final report.

        RD&O--Systems Development PPA.--LRRD, $5,480,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--TRL will be assessed as part of stage
    2a.
        Timeline for Transition.--Stage 2a scheduled for fiscal year 2012.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 4.1 and 5.1.
                        dndo--international rail program
    Program Description/Objective
        Program Description.--International Rail is referenced in Public
    Law 110-28 and Public Law 110-53. Previous efforts characterized the
    rail operating environment, identified user needs, conducted stream of
    commerce data collection efforts at a lower volume POE site, and
    conducted evaluations of architecture alternatives. Current efforts are
    focused on an additional stream of commerce characterization,
    Acquisition Management Directive 102-01 documentation development, and
    detector testing.
        Objective.--Develop implementable solution to detect and identify
    illicit rad/nuc materials entering the United States via freight rail
    cargo through the 31 POEs identified in the Trade Act of 2002.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones:
      --Complete an analysis of alternatives for the Rail Cargo Scanning
            project for International Rail.
      --Continue implementation of any cooperative project(s) identified as
            working in concert with Second Line of Defense.
      --Document--in concert with CBP--lessons learned from operational
            experiences with rad/nuc detection system(s) utilizing passive
            and active detection at rail crossings.
      --Document the performance of candidate international rail systems.

        RD&O--Systems Development PPA.--International rail, $3,120,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--No specific technology has been
    identified for this mission; TRL is undetermined.
        Timeline for Transition.--Identification of appropriate technology
    and its transition to full-scale development, TRL 7, is projected to
    occur by 2015.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 2.1, 2.2, and 9.3.
                           dndo--on-dock rail program
    Program Description/Objective
        Program Description.--The On-Dock Rail (ODR) program analyzes
    alternative solutions for scanning the 2 percent of intermodal cargo
    containers arriving in the United States via ship that are directly
    transferred to rail cars at the ports. These containers are currently
    being scanned by mobile radiation portal monitors, which involves a
    time-consuming process of unstacking and restacking the containers. The
    other 98 percent of ship cargo is transferred directly to trucks which
    are subsequently scanned at the exit gates by radiation portal
    monitors.
        Objective.--To develop a capability to effectively and efficiently
    scan containerized cargo that is transferred directly from ship to rail
    at sea ports of entry, without an adverse impact to the flow of
    commerce.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones:
      --Collect straddle portal prototype stream-of-commerce data.
      --Complete alternatives analysis.
      --Perform the system engineering review.
      --Transition from requirements and alternatives analysis to solution
            development.

        RD&O--Systems Development PPA.--ODR, $10,280,000.
        Technology Readiness Level:
      --Basic TRL is 7.
      --Application to this mission is TRL 7.
        Timeline for Transition.--Transition to full-scale development is
    projected to occur in 2012.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 2.1, 2.2, 6.1, and 6.3.
                 dndo--small vessel stand-off detection program
    Program Description/Objectives
        Program Description.--Seeks to develop and field a capability to
    provide standoff boat-to-boat, aerial, and fixed-site rad/nuc detection
    systems in U.S. port areas and maritime regions. This program will
    address the need of Federal, State, and local maritime officers to
    conduct PRND screening missions against the small vessel threat without
    the need to board each encountered vessel.
        Objectives:
      --Initially develop a capability for scanning small vessels from
            maritime law enforcement vessels on the water.
      --Follow-on projects will address aerial and land-based deployment of
            sensors to complement the boat-to-boat system.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones:
      --Complete Acquisition Management Directive (AMD) 102-01 activities
            to receive milestone 2B approval for boat-to-boat systems.
            Systems delivered to the Coast Guard and CBP Office of Air and
            Marine for operational evaluation.
      --Complete AMD 102-01 activities to receive milestone 1 approval for
            aerial-mounted systems.

        RD&O--Systems Development PPA.--SVSD, $6,610,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--TRL will be assessed as part of stage
    2a.
        Timeline for Transition.--Stage 2a scheduled for fiscal year 2014.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 3.2 and 5.1.
           dndo--non-helium-3 neutron detection alternatives program
    Program Description/Objective
        Program Description.--Addresses the impact of the shortage of
    Helium-3 (\3\ He) upon the cost and availability of rad/nuc detection
    systems. Current efforts are focused on the Neutron Detector
    Replacement Project (NDRP), qualifying near-term technologies as
    suitable to replace \3\ He for Neutron Detection Modules (NDM) in
    various applications, including Radiation Portal Monitor Systems (RPMS)
    and backpack systems.
        Objective.--To develop cost-effective alternatives to \3\ He for
    broad-based neutron detection applications.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones:
      --Conduct market research and release a request for information (RFI)
            on backpack systems under development for commercial
            application using non-\3\ He-based neutron detectors.
      --Conduct testing of products responding to the RFI and release
            results of tests to vendors to accelerate non-\3\ HE based
            neutron detection technology for backpack systems.

        RD&O--Systems Development PPA.--Neutron detector replacement,
    $5,180,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--Several TRL 6 and 7 approaches are
    available.
        Timeline for Transition.--Transition of selected approaches to
    full-scale development is funding dependant.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 2.1, 3.1, 5.1, and 6.1.
               dndo--aviation multi-pathway scanning integration
    Program Description/Objective
        Program Description.--The first component of the program is the
    holistic airport deployments effort, which examines international air
    cargo (IAC) and international general aviation (IGA) pathways at
    domestic air POEs. The second component involves evaluating the
    feasibility of using computed tomography (CT) and advanced technology
    (AT) x ray systems, currently deployed throughout aviation pathways to
    detect explosives, to detect rad/nuc materials in baggage and small
    cargo.
        Objective.--Identify options for the aviation pathway to leverage
    existing capabilities, and to improve deterrence against aviation
    threats.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones:
      --Complete analysis for the deployment of RPMs to a limited number of
            APOEs for targeted air cargo scanning.
      --Initiate Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) process for APOEs,
            addressing the full scope of APOE operations.
      --Initiate modeling/simulation activities to support AoA process.
      --Initiate characterization testing of detection systems to support
            AoA process and modeling/simulation activities.
      --Pending feasibility results of baseline CT/AT tests, continue
            partnering with S&T and TSA on path forward.

        RD&O--Systems Development PPA.--Aviation multi-pathway scanning
    integration, $9,660,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--TRL will be assessed as part of stage
    2a.
        Timeline for Transition.--Stage 2a scheduled after fiscal year
    2016.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1,
    5.1, and 9.3.
                          dndo--algorithm improvement
    Program Description/Objectives
        Program Description.--Improves overall mission performance of
    algorithms employed in rad/nuc detection and reporting systems. The
    current effort focuses on developing, deploying and maintaining the DHS
    isotope ID reach-back analysis tool, which enables field agents to
    quickly and easily engage on-call scientific experts to identify
    isotopes that cannot be identified on location. Current efforts also
    include energy windowing and injection studies. Future efforts are
    planned to drive the creation of more robust algorithms by challenging
    industry partners to identify specific isotopes against known spectra
    and have the ability to score their performance.
        Objectives:
      --To cost effectively ensure that rad/nuc detection algorithms are
            improved to remain current with emerging technologies and
            concepts of operations.
      --Provide an infrastructure that makes gamma spectra benchmarks
            available to develop new (or upgrade) isotope identification
            algorithms while allowing the Government to score algorithms
            objectively.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones
      --Define benchmarks to measure algorithm performance.
      --With high-purity Germanium (HPGe) and Sodium Iodide (NaI)
            detectors, collect and validate source spectra for open and
            closed benchmark data sets to develop new algorithms and score
            existing ones.
      --Promulgate benchmarks throughout Government, assess existing
            algorithms, and target improvements.
      --Define algorithm replay tool interface requirements, reference
            electronic packages, isotopes of interest, and algorithm
            scoring criteria.

        RD&O--Systems Development PPA.--Algorithm improvement, $4,200,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--Basic TRL is 9.
        Timeline for Transition.--Initial solutions are deployed. Spiral
    advancements continue.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 2.1, 3.1, 5.1, and 6.1.
                              dndo--t&e operations
    Program Description/Objectives
        Program Description.--Provide operational capabilities needed to
    plan and execute the DNDO T&E program. Capability includes working with
    subject matter experts from national laboratories to ensure
    scientifically defensible test designs and engineering support to plan
    and execute tests, including formal test milestone reviews, oversight
    of field test activities, and analysis support to evaluate performance
    and write test high-quality reports.
        Objectives:
      --Develop timely and credible T&E campaigns in support of internal
            and external (international, Federal, State, local, and other
            entities) customers' rad/nuc detection requirements.
      --Develop repeatable, evolutionary, and controlled processes for
            planning and conducting tests.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones
      --Maintain the expertise and resources necessary to plan and execute
            up to 15 individual test campaigns.
      --Document formal test milestone reviews.
      --Issue test reports within 90 days of completion of data validation.

        RD&O--Assessments PPA.--T&E operations, $8,390,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        Timeline for Transition.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goal 9.3 (also supports 3.1, 3.2,
    and 5.1).
                            dndo--t&e infrastructure
    Program Description/Objectives
        Program Description.--Provide development, operation, and
    maintenance of the infrastructure required to execute DNDO T&E efforts
    including facilities, technical support staff, test equipment, data
    collection technology, and design and fabrication of SNM test objects.
    DNDO test facilities include the Rad/Nuc Countermeasures Test and
    Evaluation Complex (RNCTEC) at the Nevada National Security Site
    (N2S2), the Rail Test Center (RTC) at the Port of Tacoma, and other
    limited-term infrastructure needs at test locations across the national
    laboratory complex.
        Objectives:
      --Establish and develop an integrated T&E infrastructure of
            facilities, equipment, test objects, processes, and personnel
            to meet U.S. Government rad/nuc T&E needs.
      --Engage the multi-agency rad/nuc community for future test
            instrumentation and infrastructure needs.
      --Design and fabricate appropriate SNM and radiological sources and
            materials for realistic threat-based testing.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones:
      --O&M of RNCTEC and RTC.
      --Continue physical security upgrades, including procurement and
            deployment of sensors, vehicle barriers, and perimeter fencing
            to RNCTEC to reduce costs for force protection in preparation
            for testing activities using category I and II SNM sources.
      --Complete fabrication SNM test sources:
        --Two additional sizes (No. 3 and No. 4) of HEU spheres;
        --Two reactor grade Pu sealed sources; and
        --Four additional sizes of weapons grade Pu sealed sources.

        RD&O--Assessments PPA.--T&E infrastructure, $9,500,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        Timeline for Transition.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goal 9.3.
                dndo--t&e data management and algorithm test bed
    Program Description/Objectives
        Program Description.--Provides for the collection, analysis,
    reporting, and archiving of test data collected during DNDO test
    campaigns, as well as the collection of similar test reports by other
    agencies. Includes maintaining and enhancing two data management
    systems: Archive and Retrieval Management System (ARMS) and Report
    Analysis and Archive System (RAAS).
        The Algorithm Test Bed (ATB) provides the capability to evaluate
    the baseline performance of detector algorithms, and compare new and
    existing detector algorithms against standardized sets of both modeled
    and measured threats in a virtual environment.
        Objectives:
      --Develop an independent and peer-reviewed framework for evaluating
            performance of detection and identification algorithms for all
            handheld, mobile, and fixed systems against realistic
            operational threats.
      --Develop, operate and maintain the ARMS and the RAAS.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones:
      --Continue to perform ATB studies that allow programs to make
            informed program-wide decisions for increased performance and
            deployment of detection systems.
      --Accept spectroscopic algorithms from developers and assess using
            the generic algorithm test bed.
      --Review, evaluate, and add 150 radiation and radiograph reports to
            expand the content of RAAS.
      --Continue information sharing of test data, analysis, studies, and
            tools to expand the content and capabilities of ARMS across the
            DNDO user community and with peer organizations.

        RD&O--Assessments PPA.--T&E data management and algorithm test bed,
    $4,200,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        Timeline for Transition.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 3.1, 3.2, 5.1, and 9.3.
                            dndo--t&e-directed test
    Program Description/Objectives
        Program Description.--Planning and execution of test campaigns to
    characterize currently available equipment in operationally relevant
    environments and CONOPS to inform State and local entities in the
    development of effective Preventive Radiological/Nuclear Detection
    (PRND) programs at the State, local, and tribal level.
        Objectives:
      --Provide comprehensive performance data on rad/nuc detection
            systems, based on operationally relevant threats and scenarios,
            to State, local, and tribal users.
      --Provide opportunities for State, local, and tribal users to learn
            from hands-on operation of rad/nuc detections systems against
            actual SNM threat sources in operationally relevant conditions
            and scenarios.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones:
      --Complete test and final report for Gryphon test campaign to inform
            Federal, State, and local operational entities of the
            performance of aerial detection systems.
      --Complete testing and produce joint European Union/United States
            Illicit Trafficking Radiological Assessment Program (ITRAP) +10
            report.
      --Initiate the next directed test dependent on highest priority
            determined in fiscal year 2011.

        RD&O--Assessments PPA.--T&E-directed test, $4,810,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        Timeline for Transition.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 4.1 and 9.3.

       dndo--graduated rad/nuc detector evaluation and reporting (grader
                                 SM)

    Program Description/Objectives
        Program Description.--Provide a vendor-driven framework to
    independently test commercially available radiation detection and
    identification products against standards to help Federal, State, and
    local stakeholders make informed PRND equipment procurements.
        Objectives:
      --Standardize instrument testing and test results reporting to assure
            valid comparisons.
      --Inform State, local, and tribal entities on performance of COTS
            systems in making FEMA grant purchases of rad/nuc detection
            systems.
      --Encourage vendors to develop better radiation detection and
            identification products.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones:
      --Initiate Phase II of GRaDER and begin testing against Technical
            Capability Standards.
      --Continue Phase I of the GRaDER program for manufacturer-financed
            testing of COTS rad/nuc detection systems by National Voluntary
            Laboratory Accredited Program accredited laboratories.
      --Maintain the GRaDER Evaluated Equipment List on the FEMA Responder
            Knowledge Base.
      --Begin implementing the GRaDER postmarket surveillance program to
            verify continued compliance for previously tested COTS
            instruments.
        RD&O--Assessments PPA.--GRaDER, $820,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        Timeline for Transition.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 4.1 and 9.3.
                           dndo--prnd pilot programs
    Program Description/Objectives
        Program Description.--Provide a defensible and repeatable framework
    to evaluate operational utility of mature rad/nuc detection technology
    in new operational environments. Assists users to establish venue
    specific CONOPs and procedures, command and control, and technical
    reachback protocols. Provides an initial set of appropriate rad/nuc
    detection systems to establish an initial operating capability.
        Objectives.--Develop and execute a repeatable and defensible pilot
    program that provides technical and operational assessments resulting
    in the transition of new and improved operational capabilities for
    preventative rad/nuc detection to Federal, State, local, and tribal
    users.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones.--In
    coordination with stakeholders, conduct a series of exercises including
    drills, functional exercises, and full-scale exercises to train, test
    and evaluate CONOPS. Training and equipment deployed during the pilot
    will be provided to the stakeholders.

        RD&O--Assessments PPA.--PRND pilot programs, $3,930,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        Timeline for Transition.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, and
    9.3.
                       dndo--red team and net assessments
    Program Description/Objective
        Red Team Program Description.--Conducts adversarial-based
    assessments from an outside perspective without using any ``inside''
    information of current or planned capabilities. Executes overt and
    covert tests to intentionally introduce radioactive sources against
    known defenses to assess the performance of fielded technology,
    training, and protocols.
        Net Assessments Program Description.--Assesses the effectiveness of
    planned and deployed elements of the GNDA and supporting programs.
        Objective.--Identify vulnerabilities and best practices in deployed
    PRND systems and DNDO programs to include technologies, procedures,
    training, and communication pathways.
    Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones
        Fiscal Year 2012 Focus.--Under IAW Director DNDO Guidance, RTNA
    will work to increase support to State and local PRND programs.

        RD&O--Assessments PPA.--RTNA, $11,460,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        Timeline for Transition.--N/A--Not a systems development effort.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 7.3,
    and 9.2.
                          dndo--joint analysis center
    Program Description/Objective
        Program Description.--Interagency coordination mechanism and
    central monitoring point for the Global Nuclear Detection Architecture,
    maintains situational awareness for the GNDA--to include status of
    radiological and nuclear (rad/nuc) detection assets, visibility into
    the status of rad/nuc alarms, and awareness of rad/nuc-related
    incidents and events.
        Secondary Reachback (SRB).--Accurate and actionable assessments of
    illicit nuclear trafficking events and trends, the credibility of
    nuclear threat communications and other nuclear terrorism indicators.
    The project serves DNDO's entire community of interest and also
    provides deep dive on topics of interest for internal use.
        Objective.--To provide integrated and centralized alarm
    adjudication, data collection, and information-sharing services.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones:
      --Sustained capability.
      --Service metrics (as applicable).
      --Responsiveness to adjudication, responsiveness to RFI, proactive
            event situational awareness, rapid situational awareness of
            given incidents.
      --Support the radiation detection community with rapid spectral data
            analysis and reports.
      --Prepare up to 10 technical reports that inform PRND community on
            detector performance, detection phenomena trends, triggers that
            may indicate threat material is present and operational aspects
            of detector performance.

        RD&O--Operations Support PPA.--JAC Ops, NAP, and SRB, $15,850,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--This is an analytical capability in
    place, TRL 8.
        Timeline for Transition.--Sustained capability.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals 4.1, 4.2, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2,
    6.3, 6.4, 7.1, 7.2, 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3.
          dndo--joint analysis center collaborative information system
    Program Description/Objectives
        Program Description.--To maintain threat-space awareness and
    execute the operational analysis and reporting function of the Global
    Nuclear Detection Architecture.
        Goals.--Analyze, process, and synthesize information collected
    through all detection mechanisms and related intelligence.
        Objectives:
      --Assist State, local, and tribal governments in analyzing and
            reporting on any unauthorized nuclear and radiological
            materials in their jurisdictions.
      --Process and synthesize information collected through detection
            mechanisms.
      --Receive information from, and disseminate information to relevant
            authorities.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones:
      --Complete development.
      --Testing (OT).
      --System migration (SPAWAR to DC2).
      --Test bed migration to DC-2.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Baseline
       Key performance parameters    ---------------------------------------
                                           Threshold           Objective
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #1 Simultaneous users...........  15 users..........  75 users
    #2 Number of Detector Systems     1.................  2
     Connected.
    #3 Number of Situation Awareness  1.................  2
     Display Systems Connected.
    #4 Mean Time Between Operational  4,000 hours         20,000 hours
     Failure (MTBF) (Minimum of 1      (approximately      (approximately
     year of monitoring to verify      5.6 months).        2.3 years)
     threshold. To be annually
     assessed.).
    #5 Operational Availability.....  99%...............  99.9%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        RD&O--Operations support PPA.--JACCIS, $5,030,000.
        Technology Readiness Level:
      --All COTs software, DHS Technology Reference Model (TRM) approved
            TRL8.
      --Basic TRL is 8.
        Timeline for Transition:
      --JACCIS program delivered to user in second quarter fiscal year
            2011.
      --IOC--fiscal year 2011 third quarter.
      --Formal operational testing is planned for first quarter fiscal year
            2012.
        GNDA Alignment:
      --GNDA performance objectives 1, 2, 3, and 4.
      --GNDA performance goals 4.1, 4.2, 5.2, 7.1, 7.2, and 8.1.
                   dndo--prnd training and exercises program
    Program Description/Objectives
        Program Description.--The Training and Exercises Program develops
    and implements rad/nuc training and exercise execution for Federal,
    State, and local law enforcement and public safety professionals to
    increase PRND operational capabilities.
        Objectives.--The program's main objectives are:
      --Increase operational capabilities for Federal, State, and local
            users.
      --Develop and exercise protocols and standards for effective use of
            radiation detection equipment and associated alarm resolution
            and reporting processes.
      --Develop training curricula for emerging detection technologies.
      --Foster organic capabilities by assisting Federal, State, and local
            agencies in institutionalizing training courses in their
            academies.
      --Support national security special events, DHS special events, and
            elevated threat conditions, as required.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones:
      --Computer-based training (CBT) for PRD and RIIDs in July 11.
      --Complete curricula for sbile systems (PRDs, RIIDs, backpacks,
            vehicle model) and fixed systems by end of calendar year 2012.
      --Annually:
        --Directly and indirectly train 5,000 participants in rad/nuc
                detection operations.
        --Assist States in establishing PRND exercise programs.
        --Participate in the Federal national level exercise.
        --Provide domestic State and local exercise support as requested.

        RD&O--Operations Support PPA.--PRND training and exercises,
    $8,100,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--These are current services, TRL 8.
        Timeline for Transition.--Services currently in-place, improving
    and expanding over time.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance objectives 1, 2, 3, and 4.
                     dndo--interior capability development
    Program Description/Objectives
        Program Description.--The Interior Capability Development (ICD)
    program utilizes various levels of engagement and program assistance to
    develop PRND capability among State, local, and tribal jurisdictions.
    Our goal is to provide program assistance and engagements that work
    with all other jurisdictions.
        The SLSWG supports the development of DNDO programs and products
    and serves as the principle collaboration opportunity for members of
    the PRND community to share best practices and lessons learned.
        Objectives.--To catalyze and increase PRND capability nationwide,
    thereby increasing probability of encountering and detecting rad/nuc
    materials.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones.--The National
    Capitol Region is on the verge of purchasing approximately $3.5 million
    worth of PRND equipment using HSPG funds and standing up a regional
    data sharing network for alarm adjudication and tracking. Through
    facilitated workshops, subject matter expertise, and lessons learned
    from other programs across the Nation, DNDO is enabling the NCR to
    execute a program that meets the specific jurisdictional needs that is
    also interoperable with other Federal, State, and local PRND programs.

        RD&O--Operations Support PPA.--Interior capability development,
    $5,120,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--This is a current program development
    service.
        Timeline for Transition.--Currently engage in ICD activities in
    Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee,
    Kentucky, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Washington, and
    reaching out to other States and cities interested in developing PRND
    capabilities.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance objectives 4.1, 4.2, and 7.1.
                   dndo--mobile detection deployment program
    Program Description/Objectives
        Program Description.--In conjunction with DOE/Radiological
    Assistance Program (RAP), provide Mobile Detection Deployment Program
    (MDDP) assets as a national nuclear detection ``surge'' capability to
    provide increased security in periods of heightened alert or if
    specific threats are identified. There are currently five MDDP response
    systems collocated with DOE RAP teams.
        Objectives.--To develop specialized capabilities to augment State
    and local operations, and to foster and develop comprehensive,
    integrated, and regional approaches to PRND programs, including surge
    and intelligence informed events.
        Fiscal Year 2012 Planned Accomplishments/Milestones.--Upgrade three
    small MDDP systems and add additional equipment. Additional funds
    requested to upgrade RIIDS as part of fiscal year 2012 State and local
    options.
        Relevant R&D Programs:
      --Human-portable systems (including tripwire).
      --Long-Range Radiation Detection program.
      --PRND target capability and NIMS resource typing.
      --\3\ He alternative development.

        RD&O--Operations Support PPA.--MDDP (sustainment), $2,740,000.
        Technology Readiness Level.--MDDP is a current operational support
    capability, TRL 8.
        Timeline for Transition.--Five MDDUs will be operational and
    stationed across the Nation by the end of fiscal year 2011.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance objectives 5.1 and 5.2.
         dndo--national technical nuclear forensics center--technology
                                  advancement
    Program Description/Objectives
        Program Description.--National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center
    (NTNFC) leads the development of the U.S. Government capability to
    rapidly, accurately, and credibly identify the origin and history of
    rad/nuc materials obtained or intercepted before a detonation.
        Objectives.--Our focus:
      --Advancing and validating lab analysis methods.
      --Identifying discriminating signatures.
      --Creating foundational standard reference materials.
      --Developing tools to interpret and link lab measurements.
      --Developing predictive models.
              fiscal year 2012 planned accomplishments/milestones
      --Develop standard reference materials that will aid in the
            validation of analytical methodologies, including the standard
            for trace actinides in bulk SNM.
      --Continue development of benchmark analytical methodologies for
            determining trace actinides in bulk SNM.
      --Continue to develop and validate predictive models and techniques
            to improve understanding of how lab-scale uranium processing
            capability for signature development and modeling purposes
            becomes operational.
        GNDA Alignment.--GNDA performance goals--Aligns to national
    strategic 5-year plan for improving the nuclear forensics attribution
    capabilities of the United States (signed by the President April 30,
    2010).
    Methodology Benchmarking

        RD&O--NTNFC PPA
      --Technology advancement, $14,670,000.
      --Operational readiness, $4,360,000. (Not a systems development
            effort.)
      --Expertise development, $5,740,000. (Not a systems development
            effort.)
        Technology Readiness Level.--All activities within the methodology
    development and signature development areas of Technology Advancement
    fall within TRL 3-7. Most of the activities fall within TRL 4-6, with
    transition to DOE or other interagency partners upon completion.
        Timeline for Transition:
      --One analytical method is scheduled for transition to operational
            use per year over the next 5 years.
      --Uranium processing for signature development is scheduled for
            operational implementation in fiscal year 2012.
      --Plutonium processing for signature development is scheduled for
            operational implementation in fiscal year 2016.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
                     transportation security administration
        Question. There have been at least six security breaches at Newark
    Airport (EWR) in the last 2 months. I understand that the
    Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is almost 70 employees
    short of its allocated number for EWR. What is the Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS) doing to fully staff EWR? Based on these
    incidents, what steps has TSA taken to improve training for
    transportation security officers and managers?
        Answer. In close partnership with the Federal Security Director and
    staff at EWR, TSA has initiated a robust and comprehensive effort to
    address EWR staffing vacancies, and EWR is currently scheduled to reach
    near-100 percent staffing by May 1. In the interim, TSA has been
    providing additional resources as needed. For example, TSA deployed
    additional Supervisory Training Instructors to train new--hires,
    additional advanced imaging technology (AIT)-certified transportation
    security officers (TSOs) to conduct daily operations while EWR TSOs are
    being trained, and additional staff resources to assist in human
    resources and training operations.
        Following a breach, a complete review of the incident is conducted
    and each action is broken down in detail to ascertain the reasons
    behind the breach. Every TSA individual involved in the activity and
    their response is included in this review. TSA employees identified as
    not having followed standard operating procedures or whose actions are
    the result of inattention to duty are immediately removed from their
    position, and can only return to their positions if retraining and
    recertification for their positions is determined sufficient and is
    satisfactorily accomplished.
        Question. TSA recently participated in a program at EWR to help
    autistic children and their families prepare for air travel. The
    program included a flight simulation for the families as well as a
    well-attended voluntary training to increase autism awareness among
    TSOs and airline personnel. Currently, I understand that TSA provides 3
    hours of disability-related training for new hires. Does TSA have any
    plans to improve coverage of autism and other types of
    neurodevelopmental disorders and cognitive disabilities in the new-hire
    and ongoing training for TSOs? What steps will be taken to improve the
    travel experience for passengers with autism and other types of
    neurodevelopmental disorders or cognitive disabilities?
        Answer. TSA is in the process of updating all of its training with
    regard to persons with disabilities. In addition, TSA is working with
    Autism Explores and other similar programs to develop core training on
    autism for our screening personnel. This training focuses on the skills
    to screen those with disabilities with compassion, respect, and
    sensitivity while maintaining transportation security. TSA is also
    working with the Administration on Developmental Disabilities to ensure
    that information about TSA's screening procedures is accessible to
    people with cognitive disabilities.
                                  mass transit
        Question. The Department's assessment of the Nation's passenger
    rail and mass transit systems--completed in October 2010--found that a
    significant security risk exists. Yet, surface transportation security
    continues to make up a very small percentage of the TSA's overall
    budget. Why doesn't the budget request for TSA reflect the risk to rail
    and transit?
        Answer. In the aviation sector, the Federal Government has the
    primary role to provide security. This is accomplished primarily by
    funneling traffic at security checkpoints and by screening the
    passengers and baggage. In the surface modes, the primary
    responsibility of providing security rests with the local responders
    and the system operators, who are supported by TSA.
        The President's fiscal year 2012 budget includes funding to enhance
    TSA's surface transportation efforts. The budget supports programs that
    are designed to assist the industry and State and local governments and
    transportation authorities to identify their vulnerabilities and
    provide guidance and tools to help close critical security gaps in
    high-risk systems. Specifically, the fiscal year 2012 request includes
    $109 million to support 37 visible intermodal prevention and response
    teams, including 15 teams dedicated to surface transportation security.
    The request also includes $300 million for the Transit Security Grant
    Program to support State and local surface transportation efforts.
                       transportation security laboratory
        Question. The Transportation Security Laboratory (TSL) in Atlantic
    City, New Jersey creates technology to mitigate impacts of potential
    terrorist attacks against our transportation system, but it is
    currently operating beyond its maximum designed capacity. While the
    budget requests $18 million for facility renovations, the TSL needs
    additional funds to complete the renovations. Will you commit to
    providing all of the funds necessary to upgrade this facility and help
    TSA meet its safety mandates?
        Answer. The Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate has a long-
    term plan for completing necessary upgrades to TSL. S&T's 5-year plan
    for TSL upgrades began in fiscal year 2010 and will continue through
    fiscal year 2014, pending available appropriations. The high-priority
    upgrades are targeted for completion first. The 5-year program will
    provide TSL with the critical infrastructure needed to ensure its role
    as a leader in transportation security, and to meet its mission of
    researching, developing, engineering, testing, and evaluating solutions
    to detect and mitigate the explosives threat and weapons used against
    our Nation's transportation systems.
                              port security grants
        Question. House Republicans have proposed cutting port security
    grants by two-thirds. 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 area in
    America for a terrorist attack. Yet it would lose $33 million in
    security funding under the House bill. What would be the impact on the
    New Jersey-New York region and our Nation's economy if there were to be
    a terrorist attack on one of our largest ports?
        Answer. Various studies indicate that the economic impact of a
    major terrorist attack on one of the Nation's largest ports could total
    in the tens of billions of dollars--though the impact would depend on
    the degree and severity of a terrorist attack. The goal of the Port
    Security Grant Program (PSGP) is to mitigate port security risks and
    address the gaps and vulnerabilities that may expose our ports to
    terrorist attack. Toward that end, the program has been highly
    successful; all large ports have made substantial progress toward
    addressing the risks identified in their port-wide risk management
    plans. Under significant budgetary constraints, DHS must prioritize
    funding allocation to those areas where it is most needed.
        In 2007, our Nation's largest ports areas having the most risk
    developed port-wide risk management plans with PSGP dollars. These
    plans were developed to support the area maritime security plans and
    facility security plans. Through these plans, security vulnerabilities
    were identified and prioritized lists of projects to reduce these
    vulnerabilities were developed (spend plan). More than $1 billion in
    PSGP funding has been allocated to planning and executing projects from
    these plans, with many more security risk mitigation projects yet to
    start and urgently dependent on future year funding. While the majority
    of PSGP funding goes to the largest port areas the program is equally
    vital to the smaller port areas and facilities to offset their
    associated security costs as well.
        Below are examples of security activities and security risk
    mitigation projects that will be in jeopardy if funding is reduced:
      Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives (CBRNE)
            response vehicles, the most common being small boats and the
            associated equipment, such as Forward Looking Infrared Radar.
      --Increasing the security of facilities by improving access control
            systems, monitoring and recording devices such as CCTV,
            fencing, bollards, and other perimeter security measures.
      --Providing new capabilities for maritime law enforcement, including
            K-9 explosives detection teams, maritime security training, and
            patrol vessel tactical operations.
      --Specialized maritime training and exercises such as dive training,
            suicide bomber, and active shooter training, and CBRNE
            response.
      --Interoperable communications projects, including infrastructure
            upgrades, and mobile, portable, and base communications.
      --Creating and enhancing interagency operations centers.
                             state and local grants
        Question. The State and local grant programs put funding where it
    is most critical--on the front lines in the hands of first responders.
    I was pleased to see an increase in both of these programs in the
    President's request, but I was concerned that the House proposal for
    fiscal year 2011 would make cuts to both the Urban Area Security
    Initiative (UASI) and the State Homeland Security Grant Program. What
    kinds of homeland security programs would receive less funding if those
    cuts were to take place?
        Answer. There are two issues related to a potential reduction in
    funding for the UASI and the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP)
    grants. First, because there are statutory minimum allocations in the
    SHSP grants, funding for the highest-risk States could be reduced.
    Furthermore, any reduction in funding for these programs will result in
    the reduction or elimination of funding that historically goes toward
    planning, intelligence analysts, equipment (such as interoperable
    communications equipment), first responder training, and exercises.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats
                             aviation security fees
        Question. The budget proposes a new general appropriations bill
    provision to amend current law to allow aviation passenger security
    fees to be increased above the current statutory maximums. The fiscal
    year 2012 budget assumes the enactment of this provision and a fee
    increase of $1.50 per enplanement beginning the third quarter of the
    fiscal year generating an additional $589,940,000 in offsetting
    collections. Even if the requested authority was granted to you by the
    start of the new fiscal year, how realistic is it that a rulemaking
    could be executed and completed in time to enable an additional
    $589,940,000 in fee collections to be generated in fiscal year 2012?
        If the requested authority to allow you to increase the fee amount
    is not provided, what impact will this have on your fiscal year 2012
    request? What specific reductions would you propose from the levels
    requested to make up for this nearly $590 million budget shortfall?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2012 budget request proposes the fee
    increase in the third quarter of fiscal year 2012 to provide sufficient
    time for the rulemaking process, assuming the Congress passes this
    proposal prior to end of fiscal year 2011.
        Despite the Congress's original intent that the security fee covers
    nearly all costs related to passenger and property screening, the fee
    currently offsets less than one-third of the total cost of aviation
    security. At the same time, costs of security have continued to
    increase. In 2000, it cost less than $1 to screen each passenger. In
    fiscal year 2010, the average cost for the Transportation Security
    Administration (TSA) to screen a passenger and baggage has increased to
    nearly $9, in part to airline imposed checked baggage fees that have
    resulted in TSA screening 56 million additional carry-on bags at
    airport checkpoints annually.
        I fully appreciate the constraints of the current fiscal
    environment, and it is precisely because of the current economic
    situation that I feel nothing should be left off the table to fund the
    Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) critical frontline operations.
    While airlines have increased fees across the board--from checked
    baggage and extra leg room to refreshments, we have never adjusted how
    we fund security measures to protect the traveling public.
        I ask for your support of the administration's proposal to ensure
    that we are able to continue the significant progress we have made in
    enhancing aviation security while fulfilling the Congress's intent to
    do so in a fiscally responsible manner that does not penalize American
    taxpayers. I look forward to working with you on this matter in the
    coming months.
                              grants effectiveness
        Question. What steps has the Department taken and planning to
    implement the recommendations made by the local, State, tribal, and
    Federal preparedness task force regarding developing measurements of
    the effectiveness of grants?
        Answer. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) agrees with
    recommendation No. 14 in the Local, State, Tribal, and Federal
    Preparedness Task Force's report to the Congress, which calls for
    ``Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA)
    processes at all levels of government to establish a foundation to
    justify preparedness improvements.'' The detailed recommendation came
    directly from the stakeholder community.
        FEMA has taken the recommendations from the local, State, tribal,
    and Federal preparedness task force report into consideration while
    working to improve coordination and consolidation of FEMA's grant
    programs, including coordinating interagency grant programs and more
    closely linking capability assessments to grant activities. FEMA has
    also contracted with the National Association of Public Administration
    (NAPA) to conduct a study to develop a core set of performance measures
    that can be used to track performance of the State Homeland Security
    Program (SHSP) and UASI grants.
             visa waiver program/biometric air exit implementation
        Question. When does the administration plan to make a decision on
    implementing biometric air exit, or will it be officially proposing to
    repeal the biometric air exit requirement currently in statute?
        Answer. Since the Congress enacted the statute that included a
    mandate for biometric air exit, DHS has implemented several automated
    systems based on biographic data that much more effectively capture
    arrival and exit information as compared to the processes in use at the
    time.
        Additionally, DHS has conducted a number of pilots and studies
    since 2003 to assess options on how to meet the biometric exit mandate.
    The pilots have demonstrated that while the technology exists to
    collect biometrics--the costs associated with the operational
    facilities and staffing needs necessary to achieve effective compliance
    with biometric air exit requirements using currently available
    technology and processes are quite high, particularly when compared to
    any potential security gains. DHS does not invest money into solutions
    where the benefits are not commensurate with the costs incurred.
        Accordingly, DHS will explore new biometric exit solutions that can
    be implemented in a cost-effective way, while simultaneously
    implementing enhancements to existing biographic exit systems. These
    enhancements will focus on strengthening Customs and Border
    Protection's (CBP) Advance Passenger Information System (APIS)
    information collection and carrier compliance auditing; enhancing US-
    VISIT's automated matching of arrival and departure records, review of
    records of potential overstays, and posting of ``lookouts'' for those
    who have overstayed.
        Question. On December 8, 2010, President Obama met with Polish
    President Komorowski. During a press availability after the meeting,
    the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) came up. President Obama said: ``I am
    well aware that this is a source of irritation between two great
    friends and allies, and we should resolve it. The challenge I have
    right now is, is that there is a congressional law that prevents my
    administration from taking unilateral executive action. So we're going
    to have to work with the Congress to make some modifications
    potentially on the law. In the meantime, what I indicated to President
    Komorowski is that I am going to make this a priority. And I want to
    solve this issue before very long. My expectation is, is that this
    problem will be solved during my presidency.'' How does the
    administration plan to fulfill the commitment President Obama made to
    the President of Poland in December 2010--to resolve the issues
    preventing Poland's entry into VWP--with the fiscal year 2012 budget
    proposal of no funding for biometric air exit?
        Answer. As the President stated, the administration supports the
    inclusion of Poland in VWP. However, as the President also indicated,
    the administration cannot take unilateral action on including Poland in
    VWP due to the current rate of visa refusals from Poland pursuant to
    section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In addition, Poland
    has not yet met the other important requirements for designation in
    VWP, such as concluding agreements to share criminal and terrorism
    screening data with the United States and entering into an agreement on
    reporting lost and stolen passports to Interpol.
     recapitalization of the customs and border protection air and marine
                                     fleet
        Question. At the level of funding requested for fiscal year 2012
    which funds two UH-60 helicopter conversions, CBP will still have to
    take as many as nine UH-60 helicopters out of service by 2014 due to
    age. What is DHS doing to mitigate this situation? Will other assets be
    redeployed?
        Answer. CBP is continuing to pursue the aged aircraft engineering
    analyses, physical inspections, and service life risk assessments
    initiated in late fiscal year 2009 to determine how to keep the
    aircraft flying safely beyond current projections. Through this
    initiative, each aircraft is evaluated to determine if additional
    maintenance can extend the service life the aircraft beyond current
    projections. CBP is also considering an expansion of the mandatory 720-
    flight-hour inspection to include the inspection or replacement of
    selected high stress components and structural components to keep the
    aircraft in service longer. If an aircraft is not operational, it will
    be placed in controlled storage until it can be inducted into the Army
    conversion line, and the remaining assets will be reallocated to the
    agency's highest-priority missions.
        Question. What number of UH-60s would need to be converted from A
    to L in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 to eliminate the need to
    take out of service nine UH-60 helicopters due to age in 2014?
        Answer. CBP will continue its aged aircraft engineering analyses,
    physical inspections, and service life risk assessments to determine
    how to keep the aircraft flying safely beyond current projections. At
    CBP's request, the Army recently provided updated costs and possible
    induction schedules to mitigate the impact of the projected groundings.
    Based on the Army estimates, it is possible to induct up to three
    aircraft per year without a negative impact to the factory production
    schedule.
        Question. What are the results of the investigations conducted by
    CBP into the age-related problems of the UH-60s? Are there revised
    estimates as to the cost of converting two UH-60s from A to L?
        Answer. The Army has recently provided updated costs and possible
    induction schedules to mitigate the impact of the aged-aircraft
    situation. The costs are based on the age of CBP's UH-60 Black Hawks
    and actual experience gained during the conversion of the first two
    aircraft over the past 2 years. The quantity of aircraft per year shows
    how CBPs assets might fit into the planned factory production schedule
    without an impact on the Army's helicopter program. This accelerated
    schedule is expected to reduce the number of age-related groundings of
    CBP aircraft.
                         tactical border infrastructure
        Question. In January of this year, the decision was made not to
    extend the Boeing contract for SBInet. Yet, the budget requests funds
    for three additional deployments of integrated towers with cameras and
    radars for fiscal year 2012. Are the contracts in place today to
    acquire these systems and deploy them?
        Answer. The Integrated Fixed Tower (IFT) systems are not
    ``additional deployments'' of the SBInet Block 1 system that was
    procured under the Boeing contract. Following a departmentwide review
    of the SBInet program, I directed CBP to end SBInet as originally
    conceived and implement a new border security technology plan that will
    utilize existing, proven technology tailored to the distinct terrain
    and population density of each border region. Where appropriate, this
    technology plan will include elements of the former SBInet program that
    have proven successful, such as stationary radar and infrared and
    optical sensor towers. The Department does not intend to use the
    existing Boeing contract for procurement of any of the technology
    systems included in the new Southwest Border technology plan. In the
    future, the Department will conduct full and open competition of the
    elements in the new border security plan, including any expansion of
    the integrated fixed towers.
        Question. If no contracts are in place now, is there a high level
    of risk that CBP will not be able to execute three deployments in
    fiscal year 2012?
        Answer. There are certainly normal risks associated with awarding
    any contract, but we do not believe there is a high risk to being able
    to award the new Integrated Fixed Tower system contract during fiscal
    year 2012. Program planning is under way and CBP has already engaged
    industry and has conducted a significant amount of market research.
    There are multiple companies who have an integrated tower system
    already designed, developed, and in use today.
                         dhs headquarters consolidation
        Question. What is the General Services Administration (GSA) cost
    associated with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) building
    at St. Elizabeths? What is the DHS fiscal year 2012 cost being
    deferred? Show original project phases and funding estimates and how
    these will change with the deferral of the FEMA project. What is the
    impact of deferring the FEMA building? Provide the total current
    estimate of the St. Elizabeths DHS headquarters consolidation project.
    Is it still $3.4 billion or has the estimate been revised?
        Answer. The GSA costs for the FEMA building excluding parking and
    infrastructure on the east campus is approximately $215 million, which
    includes design and management and inspection (M&I).
        The Department deferred $108 million of the DHS costs associated
    directly with FEMA headquarters on the east campus in order to fund
    frontline operations within the current budget environment.
        The current St. Elizabeths development estimate is $3.56 billion
    ($1.37 billion for DHS and $2.19 billion for GSA), subject to receipt
    of fiscal year 2011 appropriations as requested. This is a revision of
    the earlier development estimated costs and is based on the GSA
    prospectus submission for fiscal year 2011.
        While the DHS estimate remains within the original programmatic
    estimate, GSA costs have increased from $2.04 billion to $2.19 billion
    due to the following:
      --Stabilization of buildings as part of the site's designation as a
            National Historic Landmark;
      --Additional east campus infrastructure to disperse the density
            originally planned for the west campus as requested by
            consulting parties;
      --Malcolm X/Interstate-295 highway interchange;
      --Historic preservation measures per the programmatic agreement
            signed with consulting parties;
      --New energy target mandates that were not required when the original
            cost estimates were made.
        Significant delays caused by a lack of funding in fiscal year 2011
    are expected to increase St. Elizabeths project costs GSA and DHS
    continue to evaluate ongoing construction activities in light of
    resources provided in 2011 and will be able to provide new project cost
    estimates at a later date. Without full funding of the President's
    fiscal year 2012 request, the cost and schedule impacts will be even
    greater.

                                                   DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATE AT THE INITIATION OF CONSTRUCTION FUNDING WITH FISCAL YEAR 2009 APPROPRIATIONS
                                                                                        [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal year               Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year
                                            Prior         2009         ARRA         2010         2011         2012         2013         2014         2015         2016        Total         Notes
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GSA................................       64,447      346,639  ...........      447,773      277,875      312,875      288,375      298,375  ...........  ...........    2,036,359     ( \1\ )
    DHS................................  ...........      100,278  ...........      248,116      347,575      209,734      277,860      203,839        9,754       19,405    1,416,561  ( \1\ \2\ )
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total........................       64,447      446,917  ...........  ...........      625,450      522,609      566,235      502,214        9,754       19,405    3,452,920      ( \1\ )
                                        ============================================================================================================================================================
    Phase 1............................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........      ( \6\ )
    Phase 2A...........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........      ( \7\ )
    Phase 2B...........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........      ( \8\ )
    Phase 3............................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........      ( \9\ )

                                         REVISED DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATE BASED UPON FISCAL YEAR 2011 PROSPECTUS AND FISCAL YEAR 2012 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET SUBMISSION

    GSA................................       64,447      346,639      450,000  ...........      380,296      217,706      440,101      290,561  ...........  ...........    2,189,750  (\1\ \3\ \5\
                                                                                                                                                                                                  )
    DHS................................  ...........      100,278      200,000  ...........      287,800      159,643      396,090      211,854        3,508       13,438    1,372,611  (\1\ \3\ \4\
                                                                                                                                                                                               \5\)
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total........................       64,447      446,917      650,000  ...........      668,096      377,349      836,191      502,415        3,508       13,438    3,562,361        (\1\)
                                        ============================================================================================================================================================
    Phase 1............................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        (\6\)
    Phase 2A...........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        (\7\)
    Phase 2B...........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        (\8\)
    Phase 3............................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........       (\9\)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Indicates appropriations received prior fiscal year's through ARRA.
    \2\ Fiscal year 2009 DHS budget request was $120 million. Received $97.578 million in the Coast Guard and $2.7 million in DHS appropriations.
    \3\ Outyear estimates were adjusted based on receipt of ARRA funding.
    \4\ DHS reduction from 2009 to current result of project team salaries and benefits moved to the CAO base.
    \5\ Fiscal year 2012 President's request deferred FEMA by 1 year.
    \6\ Indicates Phase 1 (Coast Guard) completion schedule.
    \7\ Indicates Phase 2A (DHS HQ and DHS operations centers (DOC)) facility completion schedule.
    \8\ Indicates Phase 2B (FEMA) completion schedule.
    \9\ Indicates Phase 3 (remaining components) completion schedule.

                       domestic nuclear detection office
        Question. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget request again
    proposes to transfer the funding for Transformational Research and
    Development from the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) to the
    S&T Directorate. In addition, there have been a number of critical
    assessments of DNDO over the years, including its management of the
    Advanced Spectroscopic Portal program and the Cargo Advanced Automated
    Radiography System (CAARS). Given the difficulties that DNDO has had in
    the past with project management, what steps have been taken to improve
    project management at DNDO?
        Answer. Over the last 2 years, DNDO has implemented a new process
    called the Solution Development Process (SDP) to implement DHS
    Acquisition Directive (AD) 102-01. The SDP provides an effective
    strategy for program oversight by aligning strategic analysis,
    planning, and investment decisionmaking with a complementary process to
    design, develop, test, and deploy specific detection solutions. All of
    the projects within DNDO are being formally reviewed by DNDO senior
    management as part of the SDP process. The reviews are chaired by the
    DNDO Deputy Director, who also serves as the Component Acquisition
    Executive (CAE). These reviews address issues related to funding,
    staffing, scheduling, technical development, and risk. A formal SDP
    training program has been developed by DNDO so that all Program
    Managers fully understand the SDP and implement it correctly to ensure
    improved oversight and governance. The SDP, which is both calendar and
    milestone driven, comprises a series of development stages separated by
    formal stage gate decision reviews.
      --Stage 0.--Key strategic planning and gap identification.
      --Stage 1a.--DNDO-wide budgeting and needs prioritization.
      --Stage 1b.--Needs justification and capabilities development
            planning.
      --Stage 2a.--Alternatives analysis, piloting, operational
            requirements, and solution selection.
      --Stage 2b.--Detailed program planning and cost estimation.
      --Stage 3.--Detailed solution design, development, and testing.
      --Stage 4.--Production, deployment, and operation.
        The first two stages (stage 0 and 1a) are conducted annually when
    the gaps in the Global Nuclear Detection Architecture (GNDA) are
    reviewed and needs are identified. The remaining stages are milestone
    driven and are not completed until all of the requirements of their
    respective stage gates are met. Detailed worksheets inform efforts at
    each stage to ensure that all aspects of the program are properly
    evaluated. The SDP accommodates materiel and nonmateriel solutions.
        Additionally, DHS has implemented a departmentwide initiative to
    ensure that Program Managers are trained and certified at levels
    commensurate with the size, funding, and complexity of the programs
    they manage. This effort, intended to create a cadre of officially
    certified Program Management Professionals, is embraced by DNDO and
    enhanced thought the SDP reviews. Achieving and maintaining the
    appropriate certification is included in the DNDO Program Managers
    performance goals. The combination of increased individual skill of
    those engaged in the acquisition process along with more rigorous
    procedures and oversight, as directed by DHS AD 102-01 and DNDO's SDP,
    help to ensure that DNDO's project management capabilities continue to
    improve.
        Question. How will DNDO formalize the relationship with S&T to
    competently handle the movement of programs from Transformation
    Research and Development to Systems Development, which will remain with
    DNDO?
        Answer. In order to maintain and improve the current levels of
    integration for transformational research and development activities
    and transitions of technologies for use by operators, DNDO will work
    closely with S&T to ensure that the pipeline for technological
    advancements remains coordinated to address gaps in the Global Nuclear
    Detection Architecture and operational needs by utilizing the
    integrated project team process to integrate research projects into
    future acquisition plans and develop formal technology transition
    agreements (TTAs). TTAs define the level of maturity of the technology
    at transition, ranging from commercially available to less mature
    stages, and solidify the expectations of the technology developer and
    the component who receives the technology. This arrangement will ensure
    a smooth integration of S&T developed technologies into the DNDO
    systems development process.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                            departmental management
        Question. Your Department has been operating under a continuing
    resolution for 5 months. Yesterday, Department of Defense (DOD)
    officials testified to our subcommittee that operating in such a manner
    has ``brutal'' effects on the readiness of our Nation's defense. Like
    DOD, your Department's ability to operate efficiently also has
    significant implications on our Nation's security interests. What types
    of effects has operating under a continuing resolution for so long had
    on your Department?
        Answer. The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
    Appropriations Act enacted on April 15, 2011, provides resources to the
    Department for the rest of the fiscal year. The Department of Homeland
    Security (DHS) will be able to accomplish its mission within the
    funding levels provided in the continuing resolution.
        Question. If the Congress is unable to enact some form of a
    Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2011, what are
    some of the specific effects operating under a year-long continuing
    resolution would have on your Department's missions?
        Answer. The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
    Appropriations Act enacted on April 15, 2011, provides resources to the
    Department for the rest of the fiscal year.
                                  coast guard
        Question. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request included
    funding to complete the fifth national security cutter (NSC), yet there
    are funds requested in the fiscal year 2012 budget to finish out NSC
    No. 5. If there was a certainty that the Congress would appropriate
    these funds by October 1 of this year, this might be a reasonable plan.
    But understanding our current condition and recent history, would
    getting NSC No. 5 under contract before the end of fiscal year 2011 as
    previously planned create efficiencies and savings in the shipbuilding
    process?
        Answer. The Coast Guard is prepared to efficiently complete a
    contract for construction of NSC No. 5 as soon as full funding
    authority is enacted by the Congress.
                            national security cutter
        Question. What does the timely acquisition of NSCs mean to the
    Coast Guard's fleet in terms of the retirement of other vessels,
    operations and maintenance costs, and personnel costs? How have the
    current NSCs improved your capabilities?
        Answer. The Coast Guard is committed to meeting its surface
    operational hours baseline to execute statutorily required missions in
    the deepwater environment. The Coast Guard is able to meet this
    baseline through the delivery of new assets to replace aging cutters.
    The sooner the Coast Guard can bring NSCs, offshore patrol cutters
    (OPCs) and fast response cutters (FRCs) online, the sooner it can
    decommission its aging, legacy cutters. Furthermore, maintenance and
    repairs that are increasingly above programmed levels draw critical
    depot level maintenance funds from other assets, thereby impacting
    readiness across the fleet.
        The following specific, unique and improved, operational features
    and capabilities allow NSCs to execute required missions:
      --Long-range exclusive economic zone and border enforcement
            capability, with the endurance to remain on station for
            extended periods along with the speed and range to reach any
            area of operation.
      --Long-range, high-speed counterterrorism, counter-drug intercept
            capability.
      --Capabilities for continued operations in a contaminated environment
            (e.g., chemical, radiation).
      --Three dimensional capable air-search radar, providing the
            capability to manage the air domain during regular or disaster
            operations.
      --Three cutter boats. The stern ramp allows for extremely quick
            launching with only one or two persons on deck to conduct the
            launch. Fast action response teams are ready to respond to a
            tactical situation with very little advance notice.
      --Two aircraft hangars allow the cutter to deploy with two aircraft,
            increasing aviation capabilities for prolonged aviation
            presence and increased redundancy for continued operations.
      --Ability to exploit information on-scene, and exchange secure data
            to and from the national intelligence network. This capability
            is critical in conducting homeland security missions, including
            interdicting drug and human smuggling networks that benefit
            from increasing sophistication of IT systems.
        As an example of the capabilities of the NSC, during her first
    patrol, utilizing advanced sensors, communications, and onboard cutter
    boats, the NSC Bertholf interdicted 12,500 kilograms of cocaine with a
    street value of nearly $400 million and detained nine suspected drug
    smugglers in the Eastern Pacific.
                      acquisition long-lead time material
        Question. How would acquisition of long-lead time materials (LLTM)
    for NSC No. 6 during fiscal year 2012 affect overall acquisition
    efficiency and contractor workload? Does the current plan to buy LLTM
    in fiscal year 2013 at the same time you buy the ship itself and
    conceivably sign a construction contract reduce or raise the overall
    price of the ship as opposed to buying LLTM in advance?
        Answer. The funding associated with the sixth NSC is not required
    until fiscal year 2013.
                                disaster relief
        Question. Over the past 20 years, more than $4 out of every $5
    appropriated by the Congress to the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) 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 and $1.8 billion for fiscal year 2012. Your budget
    documents state that these requested funds are only for
    ``noncatastrophic disaster activity.''
        Many experts I've talked to say that true catastrophes only occur
    once every 20-25 years. What is your definition of catastrophe? Does it
    match the definition of catastrophe as provided in the Post-Katrina
    Emergency Management Reform Act? How often do catastrophes occur in
    your mind? Are we budgeting wisely for disasters?
        Answer. A total of 22 events that qualify as catastrophes have
    occurred in 14 of the last 23 fiscal years. While no hard definition
    currently exists, FEMA currently believes that an event qualifies as a
    catastrophe if the estimated cost-threshold to the Federal Government
    is more than $500 million.
        The $1.8 billion requested for the DRF, per standard annual
    practice, reflects the 5-year rolling average of historical obligations
    for noncatastrophic events (those less than $500 million in estimated
    obligations), less estimated recoveries for fiscal year 2012. This
    methodology is one that the administration has proposed in its fiscal
    year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 budgets and represents the best use of
    available information in developing the DRF request. We also have a
    robust strategy in place to deobligate funds from past contracts and
    projects that are now complete and where we did not spend all the money
    originally obligated. Based on our experience in actively managing the
    unliquidated contract obligations in fiscal year 2010, we are taking
    the same approach for individual assistance and public assistance
    grants in fiscal year 2011, and anticipate that our projected
    recoveries may be higher than previously estimated. Regardless, we are
    committed to working with the Congress to ensure that the DRF remains
    solvent through fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012.
        citizenship and immigration services--data center consolidation
        Question. Your Department has received recognition for its data
    center consolidation efforts. These efforts are particularly impressive
    when considering the number of previously unaffiliated agencies your
    Department has brought together.
        What types of efficiencies will your Department gain from these
    efforts? Can you quantify current or future taxpayer savings as a
    result of these efforts?
        Answer. The following are types of efficiencies that DHS expects to
    gain from the data center consolidation efforts:
      --Provide operational efficiencies and economies of scale through the
            consolidation of more than 30 locations to 2;
      --Facilitate management, sharing and dissemination of data;
      --Provide improved disaster recovery and continuity of operations
            (COOP) capabilities;
      --Enhance Department's ability to quickly launch new departmentwide
            capabilities;
      --Provide components single storefront for ordering of services;
      --Improve server (CPU) utilization (percent); rack space utilization
            (percent); rack floor utilization (percent); power usage/square
            foot; and power usage effectiveness;
      --Standardize IT resource acquisitions across components, as well as
            streamline maintenance and support contracts that will allow
            for less complex vendor support to expedite response times in
            the event of an emergency.
        To date, five legacy data centers have completed their migrations
    to the DHS Enterprise Data Centers of a total of 43 identified primary
    sites for a combined short-term savings of $16.3 million/year. The
    long-term return on investment (ROI) analysis, which factors in legacy
    data center costs, costs to migrate to the two DHS data centers, and
    projected operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, anticipates
    cumulative savings/cost avoidance from our Break Even Point in fiscal
    year 2017 through fiscal year 2030 of $4.8 billion.
                      coast guard unmanned aerial vehicles
        Question. With the successes of unmanned systems in the wars in
    Iraq and Afghanistan, why doesn't your fiscal year 2012 budget request
    contain funding to move the Coast Guard closer to using unmanned aerial
    vehicles (UAVs) in its operations?
        Answer. The Coast Guard continues to work with the Navy and Customs
    and Border Protection to advance application of these capabilities in
    the maritime domain. As these technologies and capabilities are further
    researched and developed for maritime applications, the Coast Guard is
    focusing capital resources toward high priorities within the Coast
    Guard Air Domain, including extending service life and enhancing the
    capability of current airframes such as the H-65, H-60, and C-130H as
    well as recapitalizing aged air assets (e.g., replacing the HU-25
    Falcon with the HC-144A Ocean Sentry).
        Question. As the Coast Guard continues to analyze options for land-
    based UAVs, has it considered any fee-for-service maritime surveillance
    UAV options as demonstrated in SOUTHCOM's Project Cazador that could
    mitigate immediate risk to the Coast Guard with regard to acquisition,
    training, basing, and the like?
        Answer. Yes, the Coast Guard had representatives from the Research
    and Development and Requirement and Capabilities staffs on site during
    the 2010 Project Cazador and considers fee-for-service to be one of
    several means to conduct a land-based unmanned aircraft system (UAS)
    technology demonstration. The Coast Guard continues to work with DHS
    partners to leverage their experience and investments in land-based UAS
    technology.
                        tsa advanced imaging technology
        Question. Following the Christmas Day bombing attempt of 2009, your
    Department moved quickly to aggressively procure advanced imaging
    technology (AIT) in an attempt to keep up with current air travel
    threats. Could you update the subcommittee on the progress of that
    effort and whether these machines are providing both enhanced detection
    capability and sufficient passenger privacy?
        Answer. AIT units detect a wide range of metallic and nonmetallic
    threats, including explosives, on passengers. By the end of fiscal year
    2012, assuming full funding of the Department's fiscal year 2011 and
    fiscal year 2012 budget requests, TSA estimates that 1,275 AITs will be
    deployed.
        Rigorous privacy safeguards are also in place to protect the
    traveling public. All images generated by imaging technology are viewed
    in a walled-off location not visible to the public. The officer
    assisting the passenger never sees the image, and the officer viewing
    the image never interacts with the passenger. The imaging technology
    that TSA uses cannot store, export, print, or transmit images.
    Furthermore, to further enhance privacy protections in place for AIT
    screening, TSA is currently testing Automated Target Recognition
    technology, which generates a generic outline of a person and
    identifies the approximate area on the figure where an anomaly is
    detected.
                            fema's map modernization
        Question. As you know, much of my State of Mississippi and Senator
    Landrieu's State of Louisiana is protected from flood waters by levees.
    Having intimately experienced Hurricane Katrina, we take seriously the
    need of the National Flood Insurance Program to accurately reflect risk
    to the public. However, Senators from all over the Nation are hearing
    from their constituents regarding FEMA's Map Modernization efforts. Do
    you share my view there are practical changes we can make to FEMA
    policy that might mitigate some of the concerns of communities without
    adversely affecting risk identification or the solvency of the National
    Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)?
        Answer. Since fiscal year 2009, we have been implementing the Risk
    Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) program, which not only
    addresses gaps in flood hazard data, but uses that updated data to form
    a solid foundation for risk assessment and floodplain management, and
    to provide State, local, and tribal entities with information needed to
    mitigate flood related risks. Risk MAP is introducing new products and
    services extending beyond the traditional digital flood maps produced
    in Flood Map Modernization, including visual illustration of flood
    risk, analysis of the probability of flooding, economic consequences of
    flooding, and greater public engagement tools. FEMA is increasing its
    work with officials to help use flood risk data and tools to
    effectively communicate risk to citizens, and enable communities to
    enhance their mitigation plans.
        Currently, FEMA is executing the NFIP reform work plan, and is
    considering proposed legislative, regulatory, and administrative
    changes to the program. This process was designed to engage program
    stakeholders from a variety of perspectives, and to date has included
    hundreds of stakeholders in a series of public meetings and generated
    thousands of public comments on reform possibilities.
        The original NFIP reform work plan envisioned an 18-month process,
    to ensure thorough and transparent engagement with a wide variety of
    program stakeholders. Based on feedback from the Congress, FEMA has
    accelerated this schedule by 6 months, and expects to report findings
    by the end of the fiscal year. This will allow for consideration of
    program reforms by decisionmakers prior to the expiration of the
    current NFIP authorization in September 2011.
                                     ______

                  Question Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                    coast guard maritime coverage in alaska
        Question. In Alaska, we are very concerned with the President's
    decision to decommission another high endurance cutter in the fiscal
    year 2012 budget. Given the vast maritime environment that the Coast
    Guard is responsible for protecting in Alaska, I am concerned that the
    decommissioning of these cutters will have significantly negative
    impacts on the safety and security of the Alaskan commercial fishing
    industry. The Coast Guard is tasked with conducting operations in
    Alaska that encompasses more than 3.8 million square miles, which is
    larger than the land mass of the continental United States, and more
    than 33,000 miles of coastline. With the Alaskan fishing industry
    producing more than 60 percent of the national fishing totals each
    year, the cumulative loss of another cutter potentially from the west
    coast could place a significant portion of the Alaskan fishing fleet
    that routinely operate in the Bering Sea and gulf of Alaska in danger
    as well as preventing the Coast Guard from effectively ensuring that
    the safety and commercial fisheries regulations are adequately
    enforced.
        Previously you testified that your Department and the Coast Guard
    were committed to a plan to recapitalize the current high endurance
    cutter (WHEC) fleet with new national security cutters (NSCs), an
    effort that was designed to maintain current cutter coverage levels
    while quickly brining the new class of cutters online. However, the
    fiscal year 2012 proposed budget does not have any funding for the
    long-lead time items for the sixth national security cutter. Yet your
    Department supports the President's proposed budget to decommission
    another high endurance cutter before a suitable replacement comes
    online. By delaying the purchase of the long lead time items, it
    appears to me that your Department and the administration are not fully
    committed to the Coast Guard's recapitalization efforts. It seems
    unfeasible for the Coast Guard to be able to protect the maritime
    public of Alaska with the continued pace of their cutter
    decommissionings. What plan do you have in place to assure that there
    is adequate cutter coverage in Alaska?
        Answer. The Coast Guard has and will continue to serve in Alaska
    with the existing fleet of WHECs and new NSCs. The U.S. Coast Guard
    cutter (USCGC) Bertholf has been certified ready for operations and is
    conducting its first 110-day patrol in Alaska this spring. USCGC
    Waesche will be ready for operations by November 2011. USCGC Stratton
    will be delivered in September 2011 and ready for operations in the
    spring of 2013. These NSCs will be homeported on the west coast and
    will provide greater operational availability than the aging WHEC hulls
    they are replacing. The Coast Guard will leverage these and other
    assets to meet Bering Sea presence requirements in order to execute
    critical living marine resources, other law enforcement, and search and
    rescue missions.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Landrieu. Unless there are further comments or
    questions, which I do not think there will be, this meeting is
    recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., Wednesday, March 2, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

      DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary Landrieu (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Landrieu, Lautenberg, Coats, and Cochran.

                        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                                U.S. Coast Guard

    STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP, JR., COMMANDANT

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

        Senator Landrieu. Good morning. I'd like to call our
    subcommittee to order.
        And the purpose of this meeting is to review the Coast
    Guard budget and priorities for the coming year.
        And I welcome Admiral Robert Papp to discuss these issues.
    And, thank you, Admiral, for being with us today. I'm joined by
    my ranking member, Senator Coats, and the vice chair of the
    subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg. So, I'm really pleased to
    welcome you this morning.
        This is to review the budget request and examine the
    agency's operations and recapitalization requirements.
        This is your first appearance before this subcommittee, so,
    welcome, and congratulations on your new role as Commandant of
    the Coast Guard.
        The importance of the Coast Guard to our Nation cannot be
    overstated. It's 1 of the 5 branches of the military and is
    responsible for the safety and security of our maritime
    interest in U.S. ports, waterways, and on the high seas.
        We will never forget--and, particularly, this Senator--the
    heroic efforts of the Coast Guard men and women who came to our
    aid after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita along the gulf coast and
    rescued 33,000 citizens during the largest search and rescue
    mission in the Coast Guard's history. Last year the Coast Guard
    was first on the scene in response to the earthquake in Haiti,
    coordinated the response and cleanup efforts following the
    explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig and subsequent oil
    spill, which was also the largest of its kind in the history of
    our country. The Coast Guard--gentlemen that I serve with--has
    been extremely busy in missions along the southern part of our
    State and all over the United States.
        However, the Coast Guard's ability to fulfill its mission
    requirements has reached a critical juncture due to
    deteriorating assets, aging infrastructure, and workforce gaps.
    The former Commandant, Admiral Thad W. Allen, who I had a
    tremendous amount of respect for, said, ``With every passing
    year, our operating capacity erodes, putting our people at risk
    and endangering our ability to execute our statutory
    responsibilities.''
        Admiral Papp has been equally candid about the state of the
    Coast Guard and recently said, ``We may need to reduce the
    number and range of our capabilities we've added since 9/11
    until properly resourced.''
        Frankly, the Coast Guard has not been properly resourced in
    its budget requests to the Congress. This has been a failure of
    both the current and previous administrations. Over the past 5
    years, this subcommittee, with my support, has increased the
    Coast Guard budget by $160 million annually above the White
    House request levels to fill operation recapitalization
    shortfalls.
        However, continuing such increases may not be sustainable
    in today's constrained fiscal environments, of which we're all
    aware, and this subcommittee intends to do what it can to
    eliminate the waste and the fat, and focus on our central
    missions. However, we've been calling on the Coast Guard to do
    more and more things with less and less. At some point, which
    you're going to see in this hearing, things start to
    deteriorate.
        With that in mind, today we focus on the Coast Guard's 2012
    request, which is only a 1-percent increase above last year.
    Specifically, we'll be examining whether the Coast Guard is
    properly resourced to execute its many missions.
        Before turning to Senator Coats, I want to take this
    opportunity to stress my concern about the status of the
    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Disaster Relief Fund
    (DRF). For several months I've been pressing the White House on
    the need to submit to the Congress an emergency funding request
    for the DRF. There is currently a $3 billion shortfall for
    2012. If the President does not seek emergency funding, it is
    likely that this fund will be exhausted in spring 2012,
    stopping disaster recovery efforts in 49 States, including the
    States impacted by the devastating and historic recent
    tornadoes, primarily in the South, but in other States as well,
    particularly in the State of Alabama that was so hard-hit, and
    by States currently facing historic flooding along the
    Mississippi River, which is truly the breadth and the width of
    our country.
        It makes no sense to cut funding for agencies that prepare
    for and respond to future disasters to pay for the cost of past
    disasters. Those are clearly emergencies. They are over the
    allotted base amount that we allocate to the best of our
    judgment on a 5-year average. We cannot predict disasters.
    There is no crystal ball sitting on this desk. I cannot predict
    where future storms will be. I could not predict the recent
    tornadoes. I could not predict the Mississippi River flooding.
    All I can do is budget a reasonable amount of money based on a
    5-year average and then expect that the President will send an
    emergency request when it truly is needed. I believe the
    evidence is in to support that action.
        Following Senator Coats' remarks, we'll go to Vice Chairman
    Lautenberg, and then other members will be recognized as they
    come in.
        I thank our ranking member for his support and his
    cooperation. He too is a great supporter of the Coast Guard,
    and I appreciate that.
        Senator Coats.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL COATS

        Senator Coats. Madam Chair, thank you very much.
        Admiral, thank you--first, for your call a few weeks ago,
    and the opportunity to work with you.
        I did have the privilege of serving for 10 years on the
    Senate Armed Services Committee, and I always viewed the Coast
    Guard as the fifth service. But it's as essential as the first
    four. And I think since 9/11 you've had to take on even greater
    responsibilities. So, I commend the Coast Guard for its
    participation in our Nation's defense, and wish you the best in
    your leadership.
        I'm sure that you breathed at least a sharp sigh of relief
    when the Congress finally gave you some direction on what your
    funding would be for the remainder of fiscal year 2011.
    Unfortunately, we may be in a situation for the 2012 budget
    that again leaves some uncertainty in terms of just exactly
    what the funding will be. I'm sorry for that, and I know it
    makes it difficult in terms of planning and preparing your
    goals, and meeting those goals.
        In any event, you're pretty much faced with a no-growth
    budget for this next year. I'm looking forward to your
    testimony in terms of outlining how you're going to have to
    manage your priorities as a result of that. And if you don't
    mind, I'll give you a little spiel that I've said several
    times. I'm sure the chair is tired of hearing me say this, but
    we face the kind of debt and deficit situation today that I
    think none of us had anticipated, and it's going to require
    some pretty serious action in terms of how we deal with it.
        My concern has been, and continues to be, that we are
    limiting our focus on just a small part of the overall budget,
    and therefore, the discretionary--including defense--spending
    is subject to taking a disproportionate share of the burden of
    addressing this debt and deficit problem. So, I've been trying
    to encourage a so-called ``Coalition of the Discretionary''
    that will encourage Members of the Congress and the executive
    branch to broaden the look in dealing with the real drivers of
    our deficit and debt, and that's some of the mandatory
    spending.
        I know this is outside your jurisdiction. I'm just raising
    the point here that you are the recipient of, perhaps, a
    disproportionate share of the burden, and lower funding than
    you need to accomplish some of your priorities, because we have
    not yet come to a consensus in terms of moving forward on
    mandatory spending, so that the focus has continued to be on a
    slice of the budget of which you are a part.
        So, I just say that for the record. I'm not asking you to
    necessarily do anything about that. But I do look forward to
    your testimony.
        Madam Chair, thank you for your leadership with this. You
    certainly have much more at stake relative to the Coast Guard
    than the State of Indiana does. But I do want to state for the
    record that we do have a Coast Guard station in Michigan City--
    small, but necessary. And we're glad to be a State that
    participates just a little bit in the efforts of the Coast
    Guard. Thank you.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much, Senator Coats.
        Senator Lautenberg.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And thank you, Admiral Papp, and all of your colleagues for
    the wonderful service the Coast Guard gives the country. I
    think it's well-known that in all of my years in the U.S.
    Senate, the Coast Guard has been a principal focus of my views
    about what we ought to do to take care of our security--so many
    other responsibilities that the Coast Guard has--I don't know
    whether it goes from fish to fowl. But I start out with
    safeguarding our supplies, fish, protecting the quality of the
    water, being there for security duty.
        It's just an amazing thing, Madam Chair. The Coast Guard is
    one of those organizations that, the more good they do, the
    less we give them. And it's the kind of contrast that gives me
    some cause of concern.
        We are all so proud of what our people did when they went
    to get Osama bin Laden, and proud of the President's decision
    and courage to take that kind of a chance. Because obviously,
    great personal feeling goes along with putting people in harm's
    way. But there we are. And we learned one thing: When we put
    the resources into a mission, we can succeed. And this is a
    mission--the attack on Osama bin Laden was in the works for
    years.
        So when I look at the things that we're asking the Coast
    Guard to do, and see that prior to 9/11 the Coast Guard
    invested only 2 percent of its operating budget in security
    activities--immediately following 9/11, it shifted its
    resources dramatically, spending approximately 50 percent of
    its operating budget on a security mission--there are lots of
    positive things in the budget for the Coast Guard, including
    the funding to modernize the aging fleet and bolster its
    ability to respond to disasters. I'm also pleased that the
    budget includes funding to rebuild the dilapidated pier port at
    the Coast Guard Training Center in Cape May, New Jersey. The
    facility supports the patrol boats that protect our coastline,
    and trains Coast Guard recruits. I hope we can provide the
    resources the training center desperately needs.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        And Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the
    aforementioned statement would go in the record.
        Senator Landrieu. Without objection.
        [The prepared statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
        Madam Chairman, Osama bin Laden is dead--but the fight against
    terrorists who want to harm us is far from over. We must remain
    vigilant and keep our defenses strong to prevent another terrorist
    attack in our country. The Coast Guard is vital to fulfilling that
    mission of protecting our shores.
        This is particularly important in my home State of New Jersey,
    which is a tempting target for our enemies. We are home to the most at-
    risk area in the country for a terrorist attack: A stretch that
    includes Newark Liberty International Airport, the Port of Newark,
    chemical plants, refineries, railways, and more. Protecting this region
    also protects the economy: The Port of New York and New Jersey--the
    largest on the east coast--handled more than $140 billion in cargo last
    year.
        There are a lot of positives in the President's proposed budget for
    the Coast Guard, including funding to modernize its aging fleet and
    bolster its ability to respond to disasters. I am also pleased that the
    budget includes funding to rebuild the dilapidated pier 4 at the Coast
    Guard Training Center in Cape May, New Jersey. This facility supports
    the patrol boats that protect our coastline and trains the Coast
    Guard's recruits. I hope we can provide the resources the training
    center deserves.
        Despite the funding for these projects, the administration's
    overall budget plan doesn't go far enough. The Coast Guard is
    consistently put at the back of the line for resources--and is
    consistently forced to do more with less. The men and women of the
    Coast Guard are America's eyes and ears on the seas, and we remain safe
    because of them.
        So, I look forward to working with this subcommittee to make sure
    the Coast Guard has the funding it needs to keep up the great job that
    it does each day.

        Senator Lautenberg. And I would just say that my respect
    for the Coast Guard continues to evolve. I look from the window
    of my apartment in New Jersey, and I see a small patrol boat
    going around to make sure that things are all right in the
    Hudson River and the harbor, and I can imagine what it's like
    to have to take care of all the ports, the security duties, and
    the military duties. Frankly, the Coast Guard is required to do
    so. Thank you. And we're going to work hard to make sure you
    have the resources.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Cochran.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Madam Chair, thank you very much for
    convening this hearing.
        I want to join you and the other members of the
    subcommittee in welcoming the Commandant to review the budget
    request for the next fiscal year.
        The Coast Guard is really front and center right now on
    everybody's mind and on everybody's TV screen, with activities
    of search and rescue, protecting our coastlines, our inlet
    waterway entrances into our country--a very complex challenge
    that the Coast Guard is facing.
        But from my vantage point, I've been very pleased and
    impressed with the leadership and the hard work that's being
    devoted to the mission of the Coast Guard by everyone involved,
    from the Commandant, throughout the corps of people--men and
    women--who serve so gallantly and impressively in our Coast
    Guard today.
        I look forward to your comments about the budget request,
    and taking our questions that we may have.
        Thank you.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator.
        Admiral, proceed, please.

                SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP, JR.

        Admiral Papp. Good morning, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member
    Coats, and also, two longtime supporters of the Coast Guard--
    Senator Lautenberg and Senator Cochran.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today before
    you, and thank you for your unwavering support of the men and
    women of the Coast Guard.
        It's my great honor and privilege to represent and lead
    these outstanding patriots.
        America is a maritime Nation. Ninety percent of our goods
    arrive by or are shipped by sea. The safety and security of our
    maritime impacts the daily lives of every American, regardless
    of whether they live on or near the water.
        In the past year our citizens have witnessed the Coast
    Guard in action like never before. The Coast Guard has been
    conducting drug and migrant interdictions in the Caribbean, and
    instantly transitioned to respond to the devastating Haitian
    earthquake. Then, with the dust of Haiti still on its boots, it
    responded with agility to the unprecedented Deepwater Horizon
    oil rig explosion and spill. These all-hands-on-deck evolutions
    demonstrated the value of our unique, versatile, and adaptable
    maritime multi-mission and military capabilities.
        While we surged to meet these challenges, we continued to
    perform our many other persistent missions, just as thousands
    of coastguardsmen are doing today as we speak. In the flood-
    ravaged Ohio and Mississippi River valleys, Coast Guard
    personnel are assisting State and local officials to protect
    our citizens. On the Great Lakes, Coast Guard icebreakers freed
    the flow of $2 billion worth of job-sustaining commerce,
    facilitating, among other things, the start of the 41st
    international shipping season into the port of Indiana Burns
    Harbor, allowing stevedores, longshoremen, truckers, and small
    businessmen to get back to work.
        Deep in the eastern Pacific Ocean, the cutter Midgett--one
    of our 40-year-old high endurance cutters (WHECs) based in
    Seattle--interdicted a drug submarine loaded with 6.6 tons of
    cocaine worth $138 million. In the Arabian Gulf, several
    hundred of our coastguardsmen serve, including six patrol boats
    and a port security unit, and they're protecting the oil
    platforms that provide 85 percent of Iraq's revenue.
        Coastguardsmen are also deployed off the coast of Africa as
    part of the joint anti-piracy task force. And in Alaska, Coast
    Guard helicopter crews deployed from Kodiak, Alaska to Cordova
    for the spring and summer fishing season have rescued four
    people in two separate plane crashes just this week. And as I
    speak this morning, the cutter Campbell is off the coast of
    Honduras with a fishing vessel on the Caribbean, and they just
    located 31 bales of cocaine aboard the boat.
        These coastguardsmen, as their predecessors have done for
    more than 220 years, are working tirelessly to safeguard our
    Nation's maritime interests on our rivers, our ports, along our
    coasts, and on the high seas.
        Yet today, we find our Coast Guard at a critical inflection
    point in its history. I'm well aware of our Nation's current
    economic and budget challenges. However, I also know that
    decisions made today will do one of two things: They'll either
    sustain a Coast Guard capable of meeting its missions and
    responding to future manmade or natural disasters. And as you
    mentioned, Madam Chair, we can't predict where and when they
    will happen, so it takes our versatile and adaptable forces, in
    sufficient quantities, to be prepared for those unpredictable
    events.
        The other result could be a Coast Guard that is less
    capable and diminished in force.
        Your steadfast support, as most recently demonstrated to
    the fiscal year 2011 appropriation, enables us to continue to
    perform our challenging maritime missions at the level the
    Nation demands.
        Senator Coats, you said I must have breathed a sigh of
    relief. Quite frankly, I wanted to do a high five when I got
    this budget, because it addresses our most pressing
    requirements--the major cutter recapitalization, and sustaining
    current operations. By fully funding national security cutter
    No. 5, you enabled us to deliver the ship up to 1 year earlier,
    potentially saving taxpayers millions of dollars.
        It was ironic that this morning when I did my daily
    readings, there was a quote in there that says, ``When we pay
    later, the price is greater.'' And certainly, when we buy it
    earlier, we get it at a better price, and we will have savings
    for our taxpayers.
        Our acquisitions momentum must continue. Gaps in funding
    our recapitalization are costly and jeopardize our ability to
    protect the Nation's high seas sovereignty.
        The 2012 budget request responds to our Nation's budget
    challenges. I had to make some tough tradeoffs, and I directed
    management efficiencies, reductions in administrative costs,
    and professional services, totaling about $140 million. I will
    reinvest these savings into sustaining our frontline operations
    as the American citizens expect, to rebuilding the Coast Guard,
    enhancing our maritime incident prevention and response, and
    supporting our Coast Guard families.
        I'm requesting more than $1.4 billion to continue our
    recapitalization effort, including funding for national
    security cutters (NSCs), fast response cutters (FRCs), response
    boats, maritime patrol aircraft (MPA), and sustainment of our
    aging ships and aircraft.
        I recently decommissioned two antiquated WHECs and our
    oldest commissioned cutter--affectionately known as the Queen
    of the Fleet--Acushnet, which was almost 68 years old. Now,
    this allowed me the privilege of bestowing the Queen of the
    Fleet status to another Coast Guard cutter, Smilax, which is
    merely 67 years old.
        But at some point it becomes unfair to keep asking our
    crews to expend countless hours fixing old machinery. Our crews
    deserve state-of-the-art equipment and decent living conditions
    to do their jobs. And the American people deserve the
    capability of a modern Coast Guard fleet to preserve and
    protect our maritime sovereignty.
        The good news is, because of your support, our
    recapitalization is starting to pay dividends. The first of our
    eight NSCs, the cutter Bertholf, is currently conducting its
    first Alaska patrol. Bertholf's patrol marks the beginning of
    decades of service the NSC fleet will provide in the Bering Sea
    and throughout the vast maritime approaches to our shores. And
    the first of 58 FRCs, our new patrol boat fleet, was just
    launched in Lockport, Louisiana. This is a critical step toward
    replacing our tired but venerable workforce, the Iowa-class
    patrol boat fleet.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget also invests $22.7 million to
    ensure the safe and efficient flow of commerce, protecting our
    natural resources, and effectively managing pollution incidents
    when they occur.
        Finally, you can't have a strong military workforce without
    healthy families. This budget also requests funding for
    military housing projects and increases access to childcare
    services for Coast Guard families.
        As the maritime component of DHS, the 2012 budget will
    ensure the Coast Guard is able to continue to perform our vital
    maritime missions.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Admiral Robert J. Papp, Jr.
        Good morning Madam Chair and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee. Thank you for the continuing support you have shown to
    the men and women of the Coast Guard, including the recent passage of
    the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution, which provided full-year
    resources for the Coast Guard.
        I am here today to discuss the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2012
    budget request. Before I discuss the details of the request, I would
    like to take this opportunity to discuss the Coast Guard's value and
    role, some of our recent operations, including our recent response to
    the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and the current budget environment.
        For more than 220 years, the Coast Guard has safeguarded the
    Nation's maritime interests and natural resources on our rivers and
    ports, in the littoral regions, on the high seas, and around the world.
    The Coast Guard saves those in peril and protects the Nation's maritime
    border, marine transportation system, natural resources, and the
    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 saved more than 4,000 lives,
    protected our borders by stopping the flow of drugs and illegal
    migrants, and performed admirably in response to the largest spill in
    our Nation's history--the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
        How does the Coast Guard operating model serve our public? The
    Coast Guard is an adaptable, responsive, military force of maritime
    professionals whose broad legal authorities, assets, geographic
    diversity, and expansive partnerships provide a persistent presence in
    the inland waters, ports, coastal regions, and far offshore areas of
    operations. This presence, coupled with more than 220 years of
    experience as the Nation's maritime first responder, provides our
    Nation with tremendous value in service to the public.
        The Coast Guard's value and role:
      --We protect those on the sea: Leading responses to maritime
            disasters and threats, ensuring a safe and secure maritime
            transportation system, preventing incidents, and rescuing those
            in distress.
      --We protect America from threats delivered by sea: Enforcing laws
            and treaties, securing our ocean resources, and ensuring the
            integrity of our maritime domain from illegal activity.
      --We protect the sea itself: Regulating hazardous cargo
            transportation, holding responsible parties accountable for
            environmental damage and cleanup, and protecting living marine
            and natural resources.
        The Coast Guard, working through DHS, led the administration's
    response to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the first-ever Spill of
    National Significance, leveraging resources from across the country and
    around the world. The Coast Guard was the first agency on scene the
    night the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon exploded,
    searching for those in distress and providing Federal on-scene
    presence. During the response, the Coast Guard worked closely with our
    Federal partners and industry to leverage resources where needed while
    carrying out our other missions throughout the world. From nearly every
    corner of the country, the Coast Guard surged more than 7,000 people,
    including members of the Coast Guard Reserve and Auxiliary, to support
    the response. Coast Guard members served in cutters and boats, in fixed
    and rotary-wing aircraft, and in the shore-side incident command
    system. The Coast Guard's adaptive operational model allowed for the:
      --Integration of Government and industry to contain the spill,
            recover more than 34.7 million gallons of oil-water mix, and
            perform controlled burns to remove more than 11 million gallons
            of oil from open water to protect the shoreline and wildlife.
      --Deployment of 46 cutters and 22 aircraft. Surface assets included
            medium endurance cutters (210-ft and 270-ft); sea-going and
            coastal buoy tenders (225-ft and 175-ft); ice-breaking tugs
            (140-ft); and patrol boats (179-ft, 110-ft and 87-ft). Air
            assets included long- and medium-range surveillance aircraft
            (HC-130 and HC-144A) and short- and medium-range helicopters
            (HH-60 and HH-65).

        While 2010 was another exceptional ``operational year'' by any
    standard, these operations further stressed existing aged and obsolete
    cutters, boats, aircraft, and support infrastructure that are in dire
    need of recapitalization. Furthermore, these extended surge operations
    strained workforce readiness due to increased op-tempo and deferred
    training. Even in the current fiscal environment where resources are
    scarce, we must continue to rebuild the Coast Guard, support frontline
    operations, invest in our people and families, and enhance maritime
    incident prevention and response capabilities to meet mission demands
    and ensure resiliency in the maritime domain.
                            fiscal year 2012 request
        In fiscal year 2012, the Coast Guard will focus resources to
    advance strategic priorities. Through tough decisions and resource
    trade-offs, the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2012 budget leverages savings
    generated through management efficiencies and offsets, and allocates
    funding toward higher order needs to support frontline operations.
    These offsets and reductions supported implementation of the following
    fiscal year 2012 budget priorities:
      --Rebuild the Coast Guard;
      --Sustain frontline operations;
      --Enhance maritime incident prevention and response; and
      --Support military families.
        Highlights from our request are included in appendix I.
    Rebuild the Coast Guard
        The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2012 budget requests $1.4 billion to
    continue recapitalization of cutters; boats; aircraft; command,
    control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems; and infrastructure to improve mission
    readiness by replacing aged, obsolete, and unreliable assets. The
    fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding for 40 response boats and 6
    fast response cutters (FRCs), as well as a sizable investment in the
    renovation and restoration of shore facilities. This budget also
    provides resources to ensure that the Coast Guard's aviation fleet is
    mission-ready through the acquisition of two maritime patrol aircraft
    (MPA), one HH-60 helicopter, and conversion and sustainment projects of
    multiple aircraft. Investment in Coast Guard recapitalization is
    essential to mission execution.

                          sustain frontline operations
        To ensure the Coast Guard is able to meet the needs of the Nation,
    the fiscal year 2012 budget balances resources between investments in
    capital assets, initiatives to sustain frontline operations, and
    measures to enhance mission execution. The fiscal year 2012 budget
    requests $67.7 million to operate new assets delivered through asset
    recapitalization programs and provides funding to support personnel and
    in-service assets. Moreover, funding is included to operate U.S. Coast
    Guard cutter (USCGC) Healy and support the operational reactivation of
    USCGC Polar Star. The Coast Guard plans to decommission USCGC Polar Sea
    in fiscal year 2011 and transition her crew to USCGC Polar Star,
    enabling orderly transition to USCGC Polar Star and facilitating her
    return to operations in fiscal year 2013.
               enhance maritime incident prevention and response
        Coast Guard marine safety and environmental response personnel
    promote safe and efficient travel, facilitate the flow of commerce in
    the maritime domain, and protect our natural resources. The fiscal year
    2012 budget requests $22.2 million to advance implementation of the
    Coast Guard's marine safety performance plan and marine environmental
    response mission performance plan. During the response to the Deepwater
    Horizon oil spill, the Coast Guard incident responders established and
    executed the Incident Command System to lead an effective, unified
    effort. The Coast Guard will enhance these core competencies in fiscal
    year 2012 to keep pace with an ever-growing and evolving maritime
    industry and ensure continued proactive leadership to prevent disasters
    on the Nation's waters and remain ready to respond if they occur.
    Additionally, funding requested in the fiscal year 2012 budget will
    assist in meeting Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 requirements
    regarding dockside examinations by adding examiners to improve fishing
    vessel safety.
                           support military families
        The administration is committed to improving the quality of life
    for military members and their families. The health and welfare of
    families is the heart of operational readiness. The fiscal year 2012
    budget includes $29.3 million to address critical housing shortfalls
    and improve access to affordable, quality childcare. These initiatives
    will ensure Coast Guard members are semper paratus for all hazards and
    all threats.
                                   conclusion
        The demands on the Coast Guard remain high. As we have for more
    than 220 years, we remain ready to meet the Nation's many maritime
    needs supported by the fiscal year 2012 request. We will always fulfill
    our duties and obligations to the American people, true to ``semper
    paratus, always ready.'' I request your full support for the
    President's fiscal year 2012 request. Again, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify before you today. I am pleased to answer your
    questions.
                  Appendix I--Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request
                            rebuild the coast guard
    Surface Assets--$642 Million (0 FTE)
        The budget provides $642 million for surface asset recapitalization
    and sustainment initiatives, including:
      --National Security Cutter (NSC).--Fully funds NSC-5 (anticipates
            $615 million provided for NSC-5 in 2011). The NSC is replacing
            the high endurance class.
      --Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC).--Sustains initial acquisition work
            and design of the OPC. The OPC will replace the medium
            endurance cutter class to conduct missions on the high seas and
            coastal approaches.
      --Fast Response Cutter (FRC).--Provides production funding for six
            FRCs to replace the 110-foot island class patrol boat.
      --Response Boat-Medium (RB-M).--Provides production funding for 40
            boats.
      --Medium Endurance Cutter (WMEC).--Provides for operational
            enhancement of five WMECs at the Coast Guard Yard through the
            Mission Effectiveness Program.
    Air Assets--$289.9 Million (0 FTE)
        The budget provides $289.9 million for the following air asset
    recapitalization or enhancement initiatives, including:
      --MH-60T--Replaces one Jayhawk lost in an operational crash in 2010.
      --HC-144--Funds production of two MPA and procurement of up to five
            mission system pallets and associated spare parts to complete
            outfitting of the fleet.
      --HH-60--Funds service life extension and component upgrades for
            eight aircraft.
      --HH-65--Funds sustainment of key components.
      --HC-130H--Funds avionics upgrade and center wing box (CWB)
            replacements.
    Asset Recapitalization--Other--$166.1 Million (0 FTE)
        The budget provides $166.1 million for the following equipment and
    services:
      --Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence,
            Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR).--Deploys standardized
            C4ISR capability to newly fielded NSCs and MPAs, and develops
            C4ISR capability for the OPC. Interoperable and integrated
            C4ISR is essential to the efficient and effective operation of
            these assets.
      --CG-Logistics Information Management System (CG-LIMS).--Continues
            development and prototype deployment to Coast Guard operational
            assets and support facilities.
      --Rescue 21.--Completes deployment at Sectors Lake Michigan; San
            Juan, Puerto Rico; Honolulu, Hawaii; Guam--and continues
            replacement of legacy VHF systems in the Western Rivers.
      --Interagency Operations Center (IOC).--Deploys WatchKeeper
            information-sharing capability to three IOC locations.
            Commences deployment of the sensor management capability;
            resulting in improved capability to see, understand, and share
            tactical information critical to security and interagency
            coordination in vulnerable ports and coastal areas.
    Shore Units and Aids to Navigation (ATON)--$193.7 Million (0 FTE)
        The budget provides $193.7 million to recapitalize shore
    infrastructure for safe, functional, and modern shore facilities that
    effectively support Coast Guard assets and personnel:
      --Cape May, New Jersey.--Replaces a condemned pier critical to
            execution of patrol boat missions.
      --Corpus Christi, Texas.--Implements Sector/Air Station Corpus
            Christi consolidation in order to properly hangar, maintain and
            operate MPA, and enhance mission effectiveness.
      --Chase Hall Barracks, New London, Connecticut.--Continues
            renovations at the Coast Guard Academy by modernizing cadet
            barracks.
      --Commences construction of Nos. 3-6 FRC homeports, C4ISR training
            facility, and continues modifications to Air Station Miami to
            accommodate new MPA.
      --Station Memensha Boathouse, Chilmark, Massachusetts.--Replaces the
            boathouse destroyed by a fire in July 2010 essential to
            supporting coastal law enforcement, security, and safety
            operations.
      --TRACEN Petaluma, California Wastewater Treatment Plant.--
            Recapitalizes and expands the capability of the Wastewater
            Treatment Plant to ensure compliance with environmental
            regulations.
      --Station Fairport, Ohio.--Recapitalizes multi-mission boat station,
            originally constructed in 1918, to facilitate current-day
            operations.
      --ATON Infrastructure.--Improves short-range aids and infrastructure
            to promote the safety of maritime transportation.
    Personnel and Management--$110.2 Million (794 FTE)
        The budget provides $110.2 million to provide pay and benefits for
    the Coast Guard's acquisition workforce. The budget includes additional
    resources to support the governmentwide Acquisition Workforce
    Initiative to bolster the professional development and capacity of the
    acquisition workforce.
                          sustain frontline operations
    Pay and Allowances--$66.1 Million (0 FTE)
        The budget provides $66.1 million to maintain parity of military
    pay, allowances, and healthcare with the Department of Defense (DOD).
    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
    (NDAA), which includes pay and personnel benefits for the military
    workforce.
    Annualization of Fiscal Year 2011--$53.9 Million (194 FTE)
        The budget provides $53.9 million to continue new initiatives begun
    in the prior year, including increased counternarcotics enforcement
    through enhanced Law Enforcement Detachment (LEDET) capacity and
    follow-on funding for new assets (e.g., NSC, FRC, MPA, etc.).
    Surface and Air Asset Follow-on--$50.8 Million (220 FTE)
        The budget provides a total of $50.8 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:
      --RB-M.--Funding for maintenance, repair, and operational costs.
      --FRC.--Operating and maintenance funding for FRC Nos. 6-8 and
            funding for crew Nos. 9-10. These assets will be homeported in
            Miami and Key West, Florida. Funding is also requested for
            shore-side maintenance personnel needed to support FRCs.
      --NSC.--Signals intelligence capability follow-on and crew rotational
            concept implementation for three NSCs located in Alameda,
            California.
      --HC-144A MPA.--Operating and maintenance funding for aircraft No.
            14; support and maintenance of mission system pallets 1-12.
      --C4ISR Follow-on.--Funding to maintain more than 200 C4ISR systems
            deployed and delivered by the Coast Guard C4ISR program.
      --Helicopter Systems.--Funding to operate and maintain communications
            and sensor systems for HH-60 and HH-65 helicopters.
      --Asset Training System Engineering Personnel.--Funding to support
            NSC and FRC training requirements at training center Yorktown.
    Polar Icebreaking Program--$39 Million (180 FTE)
        The budget requests $39 million in polar icebreaking budget
    authority. Funding will support the operation and maintenance of U.S.
    Coast Guard cutter (USCGC) Healy and prepare for the operational
    reactivation of USCGC Polar Star. The Coast Guard plans to decommission
    USCGC Polar Sea in fiscal year 2011 and transition her crew to USCGC
    Polar Star, enabling efficient transition to USCGC Polar Star and
    facilitating her return to operations in fiscal year 2013.
    Critical Depot Level Maintenance--$28.7 Million (0 FTE)
        The budget provides $28.7 million for critical depot level
    maintenance and asset sustainment for vessels, aircraft, and shore
    infrastructure. Funding will increase support levels for the 140-, 175-
    , and 225-foot classes of cutters, restore aircraft spare parts, and
    provide sustainment for aging shore infrastructure.
    Distress Alerting Satellite System (DASS)--$6.3 Million (1 FTE)
        The budget provides $6.3 million to begin replacement of the Search
    and Rescue Satellite Aided Tracking (SARSAT) system with DASS. This
    multi-agency partnership also includes the National Aeronautics and
    Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Air Force (USAF). Recapitalization
    of the SARSAT system beginning in fiscal year 2012 is critical to
    ensure no loss of coverage in distress notification and life saving
    response during the planned deactivation of the legacy SARSAT system.
    Coast Guard Network Security--$8.6 Million (0 FTE)
        The budget provides funding for the Coast Guard to transition from
    its commercially provided Internet Access Points (IAPs) to DOD IAPs via
    the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to ensure security of
    vital networks and meet cybersecurity requirements.
               enhance maritime incident prevention and response
    Marine Safety Enhancement--$10.7 Million (53 FTE)
        The budget provides $10.7 million and 105 personnel to implement
    the next segment of the marine safety performance plan by investing in
    marine safety inspectors, investigators, and fishing vessel safety
    examiners at Coast Guard sectors. This initiative furthers the Coast
    Guard's efforts to achieve an appropriate mix of military and civilian
    personnel with the necessary skill sets and experience to perform
    marine safety inspections and investigations.
    Marine Environmental Response Enhancement--$11.5 Million (44 FTE)
        The budget provides $11.5 million and 87 personnel to enhance
    Marine Environmental Response (MER) capacity. This initiative supports
    the marine environmental protection mission by providing funding for an
    MER Incident Management and Assist Team (IMAT) and increasing technical
    expertise and strengthening MER career paths at Coast Guard sectors and
    strike teams. The request is the initial investment in the Coast
    Guard's initiative to improve mission performance in accordance with
    the MER mission performance plan.
                           support military families
    Child Development Services--$9.3 Million (6 FTE)
        The budget provides $9.3 million to increase access to childcare
    services for Coast Guard families with dependents under the age of 12,
    better aligning the Coast Guard with the DOD childcare standards.
    Additionally, this request funds 12 new positions critical to ensuring
    continued accreditation of the Coast Guard's nine child development
    centers by the National Association for the Education of Young
    Children.
    Military Housing--$20 Million (0 FTE)
        The budget provides $20 million to build family housing units at
    Sector Columbia River and recapitalize the Air Station Cape Cod
    unaccompanied personnel housing, the highest priority housing projects,
    critical to the well-being of military personnel and their families
    assigned to these geographic regions.
                  decommissionings, efficiencies, and savings
    High Endurance Cutter Decommissioning---$6.7 Million (-92 FTE)
        As part of its long-term recapitalization plan, the Coast Guard is
    decommissioning high endurance cutters (WHECs) as NSCs are delivered
    and made operational. The average age of the WHEC fleet is 43 years and
    these assets are failing at an increased rate resulting in lost
    operational days and increased maintenance costs. The Coast Guard will
    decommission one WHEC in fiscal year 2012.
    PC-179 Patrol Coastal Decommissioning---$16.4 Million (-108 FTE)
        The three remaining 179-foot patrol coastal (PC) vessels will be
    decommissioned per a January 2007, memorandum of agreement with the
    U.S. Navy. These vessels will be returned to the U.S. Navy in fiscal
    year 2012.
    Standard Workstation Help Desk Consolidation---$6.9 Million (0 FTE)
        Consolidates computer workstation support into two regional
    centers, eliminating 56 contractors.
    Program Support Reduction---$13.6 Million (0 FTE)
        Reduction in programmatic support across the Coast Guard including
    support reductions for:
      --small boat replacement,
      --reservist, and
      --contract support for audit remediation, innovation program funding,
            recruiting, and training opportunities.
                       administrative savings initiatives
        In fiscal year 2012 the Coast Guard will seek efficiencies and make
    targeted reductions in order to sustain frontline operational capacity
    and invest in critical recapitalization initiatives.
    Management Efficiencies---$61.1 Million (0 FTE)
        Consistent with the Secretary of Homeland Security's efficiency
    review and building upon efforts in previous fiscal years, efficiencies
    will be generated by leveraging centralized purchasing and software
    licensing agreements, reductions in printing and publications,
    reductions in shipping and the transportation of things, reductions in
    advisory and assistance contracts, minimizing purchases of supplies and
    materials, office equipment consolidation, implementing automation and
    energy conservation/savings measures, and limiting Government usage of
    commercial facilities.
    Professional Services Reduction---$15.2 Million (0 FTE)
        A reduction in professional services contracts for enterprisewide
    mission support and operational support activities.
    Nonoperational Travel Reduction---$10 Million (0 FTE)
        A 25-percent reduction in Coast Guard-wide nonoperational travel,
    including travel for training, professional development, conferences,
    and international engagement.

                            COAST GUARD CAPABILITIES

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Admiral, very much, and I
    appreciate it.
        It's also, I think, appropriate to note Coast Guard facts
    and figures that are available on its Web site, some of the
    extraordinary work that you just touched on in your opening
    remarks about what the Coast Guard accomplishes in an average
    day. Just to say a few, the Coast Guard saves 13 lives,
    responds to 65 search and rescue cases, provides a presence in
    all major ports, and screens 679 commercial vessels and 170,000
    crew passengers. It tracked 1,200 icebergs that had drifted in
    the transatlantic shipping lanes last year. I could go on and
    on. And other testimony the Commandant has put into the record.
        I recently gave a speech on these capabilities, and it was
    an impressive part of what was prepared for me. It really is
    quite amazing, Admiral, the breadth of services the Coast Guard
    provides to our country on a daily basis and looking back over
    last year. We commend you.
        Let me start with a few questions.
        You have publicly expressed, despite your very positive
    statement this morning, some concerns about the Coast Guard's
    ability to carry out its 11 statutory missions. Recently, in
    February you said, ``We need to reduce the number and range of
    capabilities, unless we're properly resourced.''
        I know that you're pleased with several aspects of the
    budget. Can you elaborate on the capabilities to which you were
    referring in that statement? You've ordered a stem-to-stern
    review of Coast Guard capabilities. When will this review be
    completed?
        And if provided additional resources above the requested
    level, where would you invest your next dollar?
        So, it's three questions in one: Elaborate on the
    capability shortfalls, if you would. You've ordered a stem-to-
    stern review. When will that review be completed, and when will
    those recommendations be reported to this subcommittee? And if
    additional resources became available, where would you invest
    your next dollar?
        Admiral Papp. Thank you, ma'am. Those are three great
    questions, the first of which is this review of capabilities
    and whether we need to cut back on some of those capabilities.
        I think we generally acknowledge across the board that
    prior to 9/11, the Coast Guard was under-resourced to do all
    the missions it had then. And since 9/11 we've picked up
    additional responsibilities through the Maritime Transportation
    Safety Act and the Safe Port Act. And we're grateful to the
    Congress for the increase of people, first of all. We gained
    about 6,000 people total, which has brought us back up to where
    the service was in approximately 1990. But we've also picked up
    these additional duties.
        Also culturally, this service, bless it, has this attitude
    of ``can do'', and it's both a blessing and a curse. And as we
    have looked across the security responsibilities and the
    threats facing our country, oftentimes because of this can-do
    attitude, we start doing things that no one really asked us to
    do. Examples of that would be, in some cases, rotary-wing air
    intercept in which we're now training our helicopter pilots to
    intercept low, slow threats that might approach a national
    security event. We are resourced to do that in the Washington,
    DC area, but we're not resourced to do it elsewhere. Yet, we're
    doing it.
        Vertical insertion of coastguardsmen onto ships is among
    other tactical operations that we've looked at, perceived a
    need, and started doing on our own, without the proper
    resources to do it. And, unfortunately, we've experienced some
    accidents over the last couple of years as we've trained for
    these activities.
        This has given me cause for concern and to take a pause,
    and to order this stem-to-stern review, which will look at all
    the capabilities out there, decide which ones are absolutely
    the highest priority, then make sure that we're properly
    resourced to carry out those activities, and properly trained
    to be the best possible to do those things.
        Inevitably, we will find some gaps that exist. And if it's
    a job that the Coast Guard should be doing, it's my
    responsibility to identify that to the administration and to
    the Congress, and to seek the proper resources to do it. If
    it's something that can be filled by another Government agency
    working through partnerships, then I think it's reasonable to
    go out to other Government agencies and ask them to fill that
    void in cooperation with the Coast Guard.
        That's the two first questions I think I've answered. And
    then last is, where would I invest my next dollar? Clearly, in
    recapitalization. We cannot continue to ask these young
    patriots to go out to sea in 40-year-old ships, living in
    conditions that were World War II vintage and stacked three-
    high in berthing areas where there's condensation, darkness,
    and extremes of heat and cold.
        Plus, we need to give them the proper tools to work
    effectively out there. New sensors, new radars, and survivable
    ships that will take them out in these very dangerous
    conditions, like the Bering Sea, the Gulf of Alaska, the vast
    reaches of the Pacific. We need to be about the business of
    getting those ships built as quickly as possible.
        Senator Landrieu. And Admiral, I understand that the
    average age of a Navy ship is 14 years, but the average age of
    a Coast Guard ship is 40. Is that correct?
        Admiral Papp. Yes, ma'am. Generally the Navy plans on a 20-
    year service life, generally. In fact, our WHECs, the Hamilton
    class, were used as a model for the Spruance class for the
    United States Navy, which was built years later. And all the
    Spruance class have been decommissioned. We're still running
    our original 12 WHECs, with the exception of the two--Hamilton
    and Chase--that we just decommissioned.

                                   OIL SPILLS

        Senator Landrieu. Let me ask you one other question. We
    have many, so this will be the first round. Coast Guard policy
    requires an incident-specific preparedness review to assess
    lessons learned from major oil spills. The 2010 review was
    recently completed in March. However, it is reported that many
    lessons learned from prior spills, such as the 2008 Cosco Busan
    spill, and the Cape Mohican spill 11 years earlier, had not
    been addressed or implemented before the Deepwater Horizon
    spill. So now we have those two previous spills, which were
    much smaller; now Deepwater Horizon.
        Where are you in your review of what it's going to take?
    Because it is a priority for, I think, the majority of the
    Members of the Senate--maybe not everyone, but the majority--to
    get deepwater drilling back up and operational in the Gulf of
    Mexico as soon as possible, recognizing that there are some
    additional safety requirements. Where are you in that task? And
    can you explain briefly the role of the Coast Guard in making
    sure that spills are prevented and then responded to
    adequately?
        Admiral Papp. Yes, ma'am. I'm very proud of the Incident
    Specific Performance Review (ISPR). As you've mentioned, we did
    it for Cosco Busan, and we've done it now for the Deepwater
    Horizon spill. It's an introspective review that I order for
    our service to take a look at how we did the job, and to reveal
    all the challenges, problems, and shortfalls that we might
    have.
        I just received that report, and we're in the process of
    evaluating that. We also need to make comparisons to the
    President's Commission report and other reports that are being
    prepared, including our marine casualty investigation, which
    has just been wrapped up.
        We will look across all those reports and come up with a
    comprehensive plan on what we need to do. But we're not sitting
    back, waiting on that. We're already moving ahead. In fact, the
    $22.7 million that we put in the fiscal year 2012 budget builds
    on a plan that we already started after Cosco Busan, which is
    to enhance our marine safety program with additional
    inspectors, marine environmental responders, and other people.
    It's a measured look, making sure that we grow slowly to make
    sure that we're doing the right thing. And the 2012 budget
    continues that process and, in addition, puts in there an
    incident management assist team of about 33 people, which we
    will forward deploy when a spill happens.
        One of the things that came across very clearly in the
    Deepwater Horizon spill is the lack of capacity that we have
    for a sustained operation like that.
        We're also not sitting back in terms of our efforts. We've
    directed all our Captains of the Port to review all their spill
    plans, particularly for those facilities that are offshore, and
    do a complete review of those. We're working with our area
    committees to look at worst-case scenarios and how we bring
    industry, Federal, State, and local together to combat those
    things.
        And all these things are in progress as we continue to
    evaluate and----
        Senator Landrieu. And finally, and specifically, when will
    you have that report to us? Do you think it will be 30 or 60
    days in time for us to consider it in this budget cycle?
        Admiral Papp. I think, certainly, the report has been
    published. It's out there. We made sure that the report itself
    went out. And it has a number of recommendations there.
    Clearly, I can't do every recommendation that's in the report,
    but we're going to assign some priorities to those. But the
    report is available, and we'll make sure you get a copy.
        Senator Landrieu. As soon as you assign your priorities,
    let us know.
        Senator Coats.

                                  BUDGET CUTS

        Senator Coats. Thank you.
        Admiral, thanks for your testimony.
        You mentioned tough tradeoffs, and garnering $140 million
    in savings, which you had to and that you tried to reinvest in
    frontline operations. Give me some examples of those tough
    tradeoffs, particularly that generated that $140 million. What
    did you have to take away?
        Admiral Papp. Sir, we really need to go back to the 2011
    budget. Once again, I have to thank this subcommittee for
    restoring money in the 2011 budget. We were facing some rather
    drastic cuts in there, including maritime safety and security
    teams and cutters. That's a quick way to get savings, but it
    unfortunately cuts back on your frontline operations.
        As we went into the 2012 budget cycle--my first budget in
    preparation to go forward--my guiding principal was, ``We will
    sustain our frontline operations.'' I don't want to lose any
    Coast Guard people or any Coast Guard resources that deliver
    services to the American people. So, we would look at
    administrative overhead, where we could find redundancies and
    some fat to carve away. We didn't find a lot of fat. We're
    scraping a little bit of the muscle. But most of it is in
    administrative services, operational support reductions,
    travel, conferences, and other things that are enhancements
    that we would like to be doing--because I think it helps us to
    keep a healthy workforce--but the alternative is to cut back
    operations or cut back aircraft and ships. And I just don't
    want to do that.

                              ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

        Senator Coats. We've had a lot of interest here, obviously,
    in strengthening the Border Patrol regarding illegal
    immigration. There have been some significant successes at a
    considerable cost.
        There is some thought that, as we strengthen our border
    security on illegal immigration, there may be more attempts to
    use the oceans and the seas as entering points. Is this
    something that you've looked at, and that you anticipate more
    responsibilities coming your way?
        Admiral Papp. Yes, sir. It's like squeezing the balloon. If
    you make the border, the land border, more secure, there is the
    possibility of going around it by going out to sea. But we've
    got that fairly well covered by a persistent presence, both on
    the gulf and Pacific sides of the Mexican-American border. We
    have patrol boats out there, and we have larger cutters further
    out to sea.
        Frankly, most of our migrant vectors are down in terms of
    numbers of people. We've seen a slight rise in the last few
    months in Haitians. But whether it's Cubans, Dominicans,
    Haitians, or migrants from across the Pacific, all those
    numbers are down. I believe everything points back to us having
    a persistent presence out there, maintaining those cutters and
    aircraft out there. And people know they're there--and a policy
    of returning migrants to their home country when we pick them
    up. The Coast Guard is very good at doing this, but we're
    finding ourselves increasingly challenged because of the
    difficulty in keeping these old ships running out there and
    keeping them out on station.
        Senator Coats. Describe the process for me, if you would.
    You're in the gulf, you come across a makeshift boat. There are
    45 illegal immigrants trying to reach land. You intercept that.
        What happens from that point forward in terms of those
    individuals? They're brought on the boat? They're brought on
    shore? Where are they detained? How are they? What's the
    process that you have to go through?
        Admiral Papp. Yes, sir. That is the value of these multi-
    mission cutters we have that have flight decks for landing
    helicopters, but we also can accommodate large groups of
    migrants.
        It's not unusual, first, to find a group of 45, whether
    it's Cubans or Haitians. What we do is we bring them aboard; we
    treat them humanely; we feed them; we make sure they have
    facilities to protect them; and we have agreements in place
    with both Cuba and Haiti to repatriate them to their countries.
        We also interview these migrants to make sure there are not
    any articulable concerns about political repression or
    punishment that they might receive when they go back. Sometimes
    there are people that may have some political concerns in terms
    of going back. We interview these people, and if we find that
    there's an articulable threat or belief, then we will work with
    Customs and Border Patrol, or Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement, and bring them back, and they'll get further
    interviews.
        But for the most part, we repatriate them to their
    countries.
        Senator Coats. I'm new to the subcommittee, so I don't know
    the answer to this, but when you repatriate those immigrants,
    illegal immigrants, you take them back yourself? Or do they go
    through some process system on land first?
        Admiral Papp. No, sir. If they are interdicted at sea we
    bring them on; we treat them; and then we bring them back
    directly. For Haiti, we take our ships into Cap-Haitien, which
    is a delivery point when we turn them over to Haitian officials
    overseen by United Nations people who are there and working
    with the Red Cross. And we have an agreement with Cuba. We
    generally have to transfer them to a smaller Coast Guard cutter
    to go into the Port of Cabanas, which is on the north coast of
    Cuba, to return them there.
        Just this morning, though, we had four Cubans who were able
    to voice what they perceived as a threat. What we did was, we
    took them around to Guantanamo Bay and delivered them there.
    And we have a migrant holding facility that does further
    interviews on shore to decide whether they go back to Cuba or
    they are brought to the United States.
        Senator Coats. I have more questions. But I think we'll do
    a second round, so----
        Senator Landrieu. Yes, we will. Thank you. Senator----
        Senator Coats. Thank you.
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. Lautenberg.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Admiral, you're now a seasoned Commandant, and I can tell
    you that you have won respect for the kind of leadership that
    you have shown with the Coast Guard since the time that you
    have become the Commandant, and we thank you----
        Admiral Papp. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Lautenberg [continuing]. For that.

                               TERRORIST ATTACKS

        According to the FBI, New Jersey is home for the most at-
    risk terrorist attack in the United States. The area has
    targets ranging from a port, to airports, and chlorine gas
    plants. An attack in this area could endanger 12 million who
    live within a fairly short radius.
        With the administration's decreased budget requests, will
    any efforts in the Port of New York and New Jersey area be
    affected in terms of its supervision by the Coast Guard?
        Admiral Papp. No, Senator. As I said earlier, my emphasis
    on the 2012 budget is sustaining at the current level our
    operations in the field, delivering those services that the
    American citizens expect of our Coast Guard.
        New York, I believe, is well covered. As you know, we have
    Sector New York, which is one of our most robust sectors in the
    Coast Guard, located out on Staten Island; Station New York,
    where over the last 10 years we've basically doubled the number
    of boats and the number of people at the station; and the
    Maritime Safety and Security Team New York, which is there to
    provide response to terrorist events or provide additional
    security when there are security events in process.
        The other thing that's very important, though, is the
    active partnerships that we have. Through our Area Maritime
    Security Committee, we bring together all the State and local
    port partners, plus industry. And I would say probably one of
    the biggest allies is Commissioner Ray Kelly of the city of New
    York. They have pretty robust services themselves. But they're
    all complementary. We try not to be redundant. And I think New
    York is well covered.

                  CAPE MAY TRAINING CENTER PIER RECONSTRUCTION

        Senator Lautenberg. The pier, port, the Cape May Coast
    Guard Training Center is in pretty bad shape. It presents a
    safety hazard. The pier supports patrol boats that are
    responsible for performing the critical safety and security
    missions in the mid-Atlantic region. Your budget request
    includes $11 million for the reconstruction of that pier.
        What kind of an impediment might follow on, to a lack of
    funding for that mission?
        Admiral Papp. I've been up there, and I've walked that
    pier, sir, and we cannot take heavy equipment out there. We
    have two major cutters that call that home port. And
    ultimately, you need to take cranes out there to do work on the
    ships when they're in port. As it stands right now, you can't
    move heavy equipment out there, so you actually have to move
    the ships in order to get any work done. And it affects daily
    work like delivering supplies and things if you can't take a
    truck down the pier.
        So, getting that replaced and giving us the versatility to
    be able to do pier-side work, keeping our cutters sustained
    that are in home port there, and not having to put extra
    burdens on our people to have to move the ship if work is to be
    done after they've already come in off long patrols are of
    great benefit to us.

                                 PIRATE ATTACKS

        Senator Lautenberg. Admiral, you know the Coast Guard
    represents the United States before the International Maritime
    Organization in our efforts to prevent and respond to acts of
    piracy. Pirate attacks have been rising steadily in recent
    months, leading to some call for the increased use of arms on
    merchant ships.
        What's the Coast Guard thinking about that? It sounds like
    our ships ought to be able to defend themselves.
        Admiral Papp. What we do know, sir, is that I think the
    pirates are 0 for 12, 13, or 14 whenever they've tried to
    attack and take a ship that has a security team onboard. So, we
    have evidence to validate the fact that if you have a security
    team onboard, you're most likely going to survive.
        How those security teams are provided is what the real
    question is, and some countries still prohibit the use of
    security teams onboard ships that fly their flag. There are
    some shipping companies that are actually changing their flag
    to other countries now so that they can bring security teams
    aboard. And there seems to be a fairly robust activity out
    there in terms of companies that are willing to provide those
    services, and the shipping companies seem to be able to afford
    them.
        I encourage the use of security teams. But we also have
    other measures that work, as well, including safety procedures
    for the crews that are onboard; increasing speed; and trying to
    make the ship less accessible to pirates coming aboard. It's a
    full range of activities that you can do. But ultimately what
    we've found is, security teams work.
        Senator Lautenberg. And I close with this, Madam Chair.
        I would hope that you wouldn't keep using a reference to
    ``as old as World War II.''
        Some of the parts that still remain are functioning quite
    well.
        Admiral Papp. Yes, sir.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
        Senator Cochran.

                            NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER

        Senator Cochran. Welcome again, Commandant, to our hearing.
    We appreciate the fact that in our State of Mississippi we're
    building Coast Guard vessels, and we're very proud of the fact
    that Ingalls Shipbuilding has produced two cutters--I think
    cutter Nos. 5 and 6--and they're looking to continue the
    construction of these cutters. And my question is, what is your
    assessment of the workman contribution to this project? And
    what are your assessments of the efficiencies that are gained
    by long lead procurement of these vessels?
        Admiral Papp. Sir, that's a great question. I have been out
    to San Francisco just a few weeks ago, and I spent a full day
    riding NSC No. 2, the Waesche. It is an outstanding ship. I am
    almost willing to give up these stripes if I could get that job
    to be the captain of one of those ships. It is that
    outstanding.
        On the other hand, it's not extravagant, either. It gives
    us enhanced capabilities to better carry out our mission in a
    broader range of weather conditions, a longer range, and speed,
    and to do it more economically with fewer crew members, better
    fuel efficiency, and better environmental conditions as well.
        I was totally impressed with the smooth functioning of that
    ship and the capabilities that it brings to bear for all Coast
    Guard missions.
        Proving it is another thing. And right now, the cutter
    Bertholf--the first--is up in the Bering Sea. I read a report
    from its commanding officer, Captain John Prince, just this
    morning. They are out in 20-foot seas with up to 60 knots of
    wind, and still are able to launch and recover their
    helicopter--unheard of in the past to be able to do that from
    one of our WHECs up in the Bering Sea. They are launching boats
    in worse conditions than we were able to in the past because of
    the stern-launch capability. They are able to stay out there
    longer because the engines are more economical to run--even at
    higher speeds--than the ships that it replaces. We're doing it
    with about 40 fewer people in the crew. They're living better.
    The ship rides better because we have segregated ballast tanks
    now, instead of fuel tanks that you had to mix water in before,
    which gives you a better, more stable ride. It is proving the
    solid design and all the work that went in. And I couldn't be
    more pleased with these ships.
        No. 3 is nearing completion--the Dorothy Stratton. And
    she'll be delivered to the Coast Guard later this year. We were
    able to award the contract on No. 4 just recently, and because
    of the generosity and the work of this subcommittee, we have
    the money in the 2011 budget now to award the contract on No.
    5.
        And to your final question on long-lead time materials,
    whenever we can keep a stable and predictable flow of funding
    going, the shipyard gains confidence, we gain confidence,
    prices are lower, and we save money in the long run.
        Senator Cochran. That's a very impressive report. And it
    makes me very proud of the workers and officials of Ingalls,
    and the Coast Guard, who've devoted such a strong workman-like
    performance into the building of these ships, and getting them
    to sea where we need them operating.
        I know too that there are plans to build additional
    cutters, and long-lead-time materials are needed for those
    ships. Are those requests contained in your budget request
    before the subcommittee? Or do we need to have a conference
    with you to see what you need, what you can use, and what would
    be efficient and appropriate for this subcommittee to support?
        Admiral Papp. Sir, ultimately, in my original plans and in
    the Coast Guard's overall plans, we would have liked to have
    requested funding for NSC No. 6 in this budget that's going
    forward.
        We were confronted with a very difficult situation. I will
    admit that we had some problems early on because we had a lead
    systems integrator, and we ran into difficulties there. We took
    the contract in-house for the Coast Guard. And the first thing
    we needed to do was negotiate a fixed-price contract for cutter
    Nos. 4-8. It took us a little long to hammer out that deal, to
    get the fixed-price contract. Ultimately, I believe we came up
    with a good price on No. 4. And the shipyard, I think, is
    negotiating in very good faith on No. 5, which we'll see
    awarded here very soon.
        But because we didn't have a price for No. 4, we were
    uncertain what it would cost, what No. 5 would cost, and we
    thought that we would need some additional money, given our
    estimates for NSC No. 5. We could not fit that additional money
    for No. 5 plus the full cost of No. 6 in the 2012 budget.
        So, I made what I thought was a reasonable decision at the
    time, which was just to ask for the additional money to
    complete NSC No. 5, and we would defer the full funding.
        What I'm confronted with now is OMB Circular A-11 requires
    full funding, long-lead production, and postproduction costs
    all in the same year. This is a challenge for us, because it
    eats up almost one-half our acquisition budget. So, I can't fit
    that in until the 2013 budget.
        Now, we did ask for $77 million in the 2012 budget to
    complete No. 5. You gave us the money within the 2011 budget,
    so that leaves a little bit of a bogey there in the 2012 budget
    as it goes forward. The current fixed-price contract is for NSC
    Nos. 4 and 5, and long-lead time materials for NSC No. 6.
        Senator Cochran. What is a fogey bear? What?
        Admiral Papp. I said, a little--a bogey is a target of
    either opportunity or a problem.
        Senator Cochran. Okay.
        Admiral Papp. Because it sits there, originally, as the
    President's budget goes forward, it's $77 million to complete
    the funding for NSC No. 5. So, it sits there right now with no
    assignment.
        Senator Cochran. I hope the subcommittee can work with you
    and your team, the House, and our House counterparts to try to
    figure out the most efficient and effective thing we can do in
    this cycle. But you're open to further consultation and
    discussion of this issue, I hope.
        Admiral Papp. Yes, sir.

                            UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS

        Senator Cochran. Madam Chair, I have other questions, but
    particularly, I'm impressed. If I have time to ask about the
    unmanned aerial systems, the Coast Guard's been analyzing
    various unmanned aerial systems. I wonder what the status is of
    potential requests for next year's budget, or a supplemental
    request dealing with unmanned aerial assets.
        Admiral Papp. Clearly, when we devised the system of
    cutters and aircraft, unmanned aerial systems was a part of
    that--to make it, to enhance the effectiveness of the system,
    and to compensate for having, ultimately, fewer ships out
    there.
        Right now I am searching for room on where we might fit
    that in. Plus, I have to look at other partnerships as well to
    see if we might leverage them. The Navy is experimenting with a
    tactical ship-launched unmanned aircraft system (UAS), Fire
    Scout, which I think holds promise. But I don't have the money
    to move forward with that right now. So, we're leveraging off
    the Navy's work, and we're hopeful that they will work with us
    to experiment with one of the NSCs to see if that's the
    direction to go.
        The other is more a Predator-type UAS that would cover,
    which would do wide-area coverage. And right now, Customs and
    Border Protection is working with some Predators. We're
    experimenting with them, using some Coast Guard pilots to look
    at the effectiveness of that system and how it might be
    employed with our ships and cutters.
        Right now ultimately, we're doing better because the NSC
    gives us better sensors and coverage, and working with our
    current manned aircraft, it makes us no less capable than we
    have been in the past. But we would look forward to the future
    when we can identify the systems we need and then work them
    into our budget.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.

                               DRUG INTERDICTION

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
        Let me just follow up on that. The question is, what is the
    most effective way to catch the bad guys? You know, is it with
    ship patrols? Is it with unmanned aircraft?
        I'm concerned about the increased reliance by these major
    drug dealers to basically build their own submarines.
        Without going into classified information, what is the
    Coast Guard's current response to some of these new, emerging,
    and more sophisticated operations?
        Admiral Papp. They're clearly presenting us with a
    challenge. But the drug trafficking organizations are still
    using a wide range of conveyances. Sometimes just slow fishing
    vessels--sometimes go-fasts. They're also, as we know, using
    semi-submersibles, and now fully submersibles. They will move
    depending--it's basically a chess game. And when we come up
    with a new tactic, they will move to another new tactic, and we
    have to react to that.
        When you ask, what's the most effective? It's really a
    combination of all those things, and then another element,
    which you didn't mention, is intelligence. We can't do nearly
    as well as we do now if it was not for active intelligence,
    working with our partners, bilateral and multilateral
    agreements that we have with South and Central American
    countries that allow us to share information, work together,
    train together, and also actually, conduct operations together
    on the water, and sometimes even allow us to go into other
    sovereign waters based upon the agreements that we've come up
    with.
        So, intelligence is probably one of the most important
    things for us, because it will tell us oftentimes not only
    where to go, but what ship to look at and oftentimes what
    compartment in that ship to look at.
        I'm not divulging--I'm talking in generalities; that's how
    sophisticated our intelligence is. And it's a combination of
    that with our operational assets that are out there.
        Senator Landrieu. I'm so glad you mentioned that, Admiral.
    Because I was recently down in Guatemala on a trip focused on
    another issue, but took the opportunity to get a security
    briefing by our Embassy, and this is exactly what they were
    talking about. The Guatemalan Government was very complimentary
    of the Coast Guard and your partnerships. I want this
    subcommittee to know that we just can't stop drugs at the
    border, along the Southwest Border. They're coming through
    maritime channels, ship channels, oceans, and bayous.
        And getting the right intelligence before they leave the
    ports or intercepting them well before they get into our ports
    is a smart strategy. It's a combination of the right kind of
    materials and platforms. The intelligence aspect and the
    partnership with some of these governments, such as Honduras,
    Guatemala, Nicaragua, and El Salvador are extremely important.
    And do you want to comment on that? And I have one more
    question----
        Admiral Papp. Just to----
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. And then I'll go to Senator
    Coats.
        Admiral Papp. Yes, ma'am. Just a quick one, as well. But
    another thing that I'd like to brag a little bit about is that
    it's not just the Coast Guard cooperating with those South and
    Central American countries. We also facilitate cooperation
    among Federal agencies as well. One of my collateral duties is
    the chairman of the Interdiction Committee, where we bring
    together Justice, the Department of Defense, and a full range
    of the interagency to share and to work together, and to come
    up with strategies.
        At our last meeting we brought in General Fraser, who's the
    Commander of SouthCom. He has a deep and abiding interest in
    what goes on in Central America.
        But at the end of the day, you're absolutely right. We need
    to stop these drugs in the transit zone where we can pick up
    that 6.6 million tons of cocaine at one time, before it gets
    ashore in Central America, is broken down into thousands of
    packages to come across our border at various locations, and of
    course, also fueling the violence that we're seeing down there
    in Mexico.

                                AVIATION SAFETY

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
        And one more question. Since 2008--and you slightly touched
    on this, but I want to go a little deeper--14 Coast Guard
    aviators have died in recent accidents while conducting routine
    missions. Keeping the men and women of the Coast Guard safe,
    I'm sure, is your highest priority. I understand the Coast
    Guard has reviewed the cause of these incidents, the adequacy
    of aviation training, and operational maintenance. But what
    recommendations are you making in this budget? What have you
    recommended that we can support in our efforts to keep these
    men and women safe on these routine training missions?
        Admiral Papp. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for that. I was asked a
    couple of days ago, ``What keeps you awake at night?'' And I
    said, ``Actually, I sleep pretty good. We've got good Coast
    Guard people out there, and good leaders that are getting the
    job done.'' But one of the sleepless nights that I can count is
    the loss of our helicopter 6017 very shortly after I became
    Commandant.
        Fortunately, we had already started our aviation safety
    study. And we are well along in terms of--and I want to thank
    Senator Lautenberg for calling me at the time and pointing us
    toward an investigation that the Army did on some helicopter
    losses.
        What we found out is that there was not a connection. The
    Army was mostly mechanical. Ours is really head work. And what
    I mean by that is, we've seen a lot of rapid cultural change
    within our aviation community over the last 10 years. We've
    picked up additional new responsibilities. The rotary wing air
    intercept that I talked about--tactical vertical insertion and
    other things, other than search and rescue, that we didn't do
    10 years ago.
        You can't necessarily point it on just that either. We've
    also gone through a rapid progression of upgrades and
    instrument and equipment changes within our helicopters. So,
    there's been change there. And I think also perhaps a little
    bit of complacency has slipped into our aviation culture across
    the Coast Guard; perhaps a diversion of focus away from safety
    concerns, leaders getting out on the flight deck and spending
    time with their young pilots, having them focused on their
    qualifications, and crew management within the cockpit. It's a
    whole collection of things that came together and resulted in
    what were very, very unfortunate accidents under very routine
    circumstances. And it was not mechanical. It was human failure.
        We're working very hard right now, taking our most senior
    aviators and going around to every air station. And we've got a
    number of other things in the works to improve upon an aviation
    culture in the Coast Guard that has produced the best maritime
    pilots in the world, making them even better.
        There's no cost in the budget for this. It's something we
    have to take on as leaders, and we're about the business of
    doing that.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Admiral.
        Senator Coats.

                            PERSONAL LOCATOR DEVICES

        Senator Coats. Thank you.
        Admiral, I'm aware that the Navy has placed on every ship
    afloat, and every sailor on that ship, a locating device that
    if there's a man overboard, woman overboard, they have an
    instant alert and GPS location. I mean, we all think of going
    out on a Sunday in the Chesapeake Bay, and someone falls
    overboard, and the boat just simply turns around and picks them
    up. But, obviously that's not the case in the open ocean.
        Do you have a similar system in place?
        Admiral Papp. What we have----
        Senator Coats. With your guardsmen.
        Admiral Papp. I'm not sure if we have something similar
    because I'm not familiar with the system that the Navy has
    employed, and I haven't read anything about that.
        There are a number of small personal systems that are out
    there on the market right now. In fact, we just did a rescue in
    Alaska where an airplane crashed, and somebody was able to
    light off their personal device, which gave us an alert and----
        Senator Coats. A vector.
        Admiral Papp [continuing]. Vectored us into it.
        We put a number of what we call personal protective
    equipment on our people whenever they're involved in dangerous
    operations. There are a full range of things from signaling
    devices to strobe lights and other things. What I'll have to do
    is look at a comparison of what the Navy is issuing right now
    and see if there are any enhancements that we can do for our
    people as well.
        Senator Coats. Yes. I don't even know the name of it, the
    company, or what the market is. It's just that I've run into
    someone that told me about it, and he indicated that there's
    been a dramatic reduction in sailors lost at sea as a result of
    this thing.
        Admiral Papp. I'll look it up, sir, and we'll get back to
    you.
        [The information follows:]

        The Navy's utilizes the Man Overboard Indicator (MOBI). The MOBI is
    a water- or manually activated personal alarm system designed to
    improve the safety of sailors involved in operational situations with
    the potential for falling overboard. MOBI uses a transmitter to aid in
    the detection, location, and recovery of sailors who fall overboard.
    MOBI is a Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)-managed program.
        While the Coast Guard does not utilize the Navy's MOBI, we do
    utilize a similar device, the Personal Locator Beacon (PLB) or
    Personnel Electronic Position Indicating Radio Beacon (P-EPIRB). These
    devices are worn on the boat crew survival vest by all coxswains,
    crewmembers, boarding officers, and boarding team members in accordance
    with the Rescue and Survival Systems Manual (COMDTINST M10740.10F).

                               LIVING CONDITIONS

        Senator Coats. Talk a little bit to me about your living
    conditions. What percent of your forces are married?
        Admiral Papp. We are one of the highest, and I don't have
    the exact figure, but my recollection is, it's up close to 50
    percent, which we actually have the highest rate of people that
    are married, compared to the other four services.
        Senator Coats. And married with children, I assume.
        Admiral Papp. Most of them. Yes, sir.
        Senator Coats. I mentioned then your concerns about
    housing, adequate housing, and childcare. Where are you in that
    process? And where do you rank? We all know the Air Force has
    the best facilities, including golf courses. We all know that
    the Navy does pretty well, and the Army has improved
    dramatically. Marines are happy with a slab of cement and a
    tarp. But where does the Coast Guard fit in the list of
    services here in terms of what you would call the kind of
    housing that you're proud to have your people live in? Are you
    really deficient? Are you bottom of the ladder or----
        Admiral Papp. We're clearly at the bottom of the ladder.
    But what I have to qualify that with is that we have fewer
    people who live on big bases. We are locally dispersed, and
    it's very hard to come up with Coast Guard housing because
    we're at so many small stations around the country. So, we look
    at a combination of Government leases.
        We, of course, have housing allowances for all of our
    people. One of the things that we have picked up--I declared
    this during my state of the Coast Guard speech. This is the
    year of the Coast Guard family. And my wife Linda and I have
    traveled around. She's met with literally thousands of Coast
    Guard people. We've chosen to focus on those things we think we
    can make a difference on, which is housing, childcare,
    ombudsman services, and spouses helping spouses.
        Housing is a challenge for us because where we do have
    bases--for instance, Cape May, New Jersey, or Kodiak, Alaska--
    we have done okay in terms of trying to maintain them. But
    they're very costly.
        The other services were facing the same challenges, and
    they got authorities and the money to enter into public-private
    ventures. That is----
        Senator Coats. Do you have that authority?
        Admiral Papp. We do not have that authority. Also, we've
    had it in the past, but it requires us to escrow a large amount
    of money, which we never are able to get in our budget.
        So what we've done, sir, is we've actually leveraged off
    the other services. Out in Hawaii what we did was we ceded some
    of our land that we had for our old housing to the Army. They
    brought in their public-private authorities and built houses,
    which now our Coast Guard takes part in.
        At the other end of the spectrum, I actually live in a
    privatized house over at Bolling Air Force Base right now.
    We're selling the Commandant's house, which we owned for 40
    years, in Chevy Chase because it costs a lot of money, and we
    do have authorities to take the proceeds from those sales and
    turn them back into housing for our servicemembers.
        So, we're selling the Commandant's house, and I've moved
    into a place that I pay rent on to a private company on Bolling
    Air Force Base, and it is up to Air Force standards, sir.
        That's what we need to do for the rest of our workforce.
    I'd love to be able to have those public-private venture
    authorities, but it costs a lot, so what we're doing is, we've
    got a mixture of Coast Guard-supported housing; we're looking
    where we can leverage off the other services, to take advantage
    of their authorities; and we're coming up with a comprehensive
    plan on the way ahead.
        Senator Coats. I think you should keep us advised. I mean,
    morale and quality of service are directly related to the
    quality of life that is provided for family and children. Your
    people are out doing dangerous work and away from home. And
    they want, they need, to have some sense of comfort that their
    loved ones are taken care of.
        Admiral Papp. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
        Senator Coats. Thank you.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator.
        I'd like to follow up on that as well, and I'll recognize
    Senator Lautenberg in a moment.
        I helped to lead the effort to privatize the Army housing,
    which has been really successful with the family housing. And
    at one point, Senators, it was estimated that it would take
    nearly, at the rate we were going, 200 years or more to provide
    housing for some of our men and women in uniform, according to
    what the budgets look like. So, we had to change the paradigm.
    And this private housing has been phenomenally successful. I'm
    a member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction and
    Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies.
        So perhaps, Senator Coats, you and I could really work
    together on this subcommittee to see new strategies that we
    might be able to employ--the partnerships you suggested and
    other avenues to provide really stepped-up housing
    opportunities for our men and women in the Coast Guard. And I'd
    like to commit to you to try to do that with your help and
    assistance.
        Senator Lautenberg.

                      RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS

        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Madam Chair.
        I can tell you that for the people in the Coast Guard who
    are at Cape May, New Jersey, that it's a wonderful place to be.
    If we could enlarge that facility, then we could take care of
    more. And then this summer--that's right on the beach--we could
    put up some tents and accommodate people, and then the rest of
    the year they'd have the--it's wonderful.
        They deserve better. I can tell you that. And when I look
    at the deteriorated situation with the quarters there now, that
    makes me unhappy. I'm so proud that you're so able to do the
    recruiting that you have to do, as mentioned earlier.
        I want to go on to something a little touchy, Admiral Papp.
    The recent report on the Coast Guard's response to the
    Deepwater Horizon oil spill found that the Coast Guard's
    ability to respond to environmental disasters had ``atrophied
    over the past decade.'' How has the Coast Guard planned? How do
    you respond to that? And what can you do to improve your plans
    for better security missions and the need to improve the
    environmental response?
        Admiral Papp. Sir, I agree that it had atrophied over the
    last, probably, decade to 20 years. And part of that is because
    we've been very good at prevention. You have prevention and
    response. You hope that you don't have to respond because
    you've prevented the spills from happening in the first place.
    And we've been so good at the prevention side that I think, I
    don't know whether we just became complacent--part of it is
    complacency. And once complacency slips in, perhaps you're not
    looking as far forward in terms of new technology and other
    things that might be able to help you in the future for a
    response.
        I think that the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 placed most of
    the responsibility for maintaining equipment with private
    industry, and I don't think private industry has looked that
    far forward either, or considered the implications of a worst-
    case scenario spill like we experienced in Deepwater Horizon.
        So, I think it's incumbent upon us to take a look at what's
    the proper balance between Federal and industry, in terms of
    maintaining equipment and preparation. Ultimately, the answer
    is, working together.
        The Coast Guard has already started----
        Senator Lautenberg. Forgive the interruption. Does that
    include developing better specs for drilling and accident
    prevention? Is that something the Coast Guard would be taking
    on? I don't know how you do the preventive side and make it the
    rule.
        Admiral Papp. Organic to the Coast Guard, we do not have
    the expertise in terms of drilling.
        I think we all learned an awful lot through that. That
    falls under the Department of the Interior right now. And what
    we're doing is we're working very close with the Department of
    the Interior to make sure that we collaborate as we go forward.
        The Coast Guard has expertise in firefighting, stability,
    construction of the mobile platforms, and other things. But
    we've got zero organic technical expertise in the drilling
    operations, particularly in the deep sea.
        I'm unwilling to volunteer to take on additional
    responsibilities to bring that organic technical expertise to
    the Coast Guard. I think it exists within the Department of the
    Interior. And what we need to do is make sure we're doing
    exactly what we do now, which is we work very close with our
    Federal partners----
        Senator Lautenberg. So you can encourage them to
    participate more actively in the prevention side.
        Admiral Papp. Yes, sir.

                                 MARINE ECOLOGY

        Senator Lautenberg. I want to ask you this. We've seen
    incredible changes in our marine ecology as a result of
    changing temperatures. Does the Coast Guard have the ability to
    either recognize changes in marine functioning--the fish, the
    undersea plants, coral, and those kinds of things that all make
    part of the ecology. Is there any awareness of the Coast Guard
    about what is taking place as a result of what is obviously the
    climate change that we're seeing?
        Admiral Papp. We're certainly interested in it. And no, we
    don't have organic expertise or staffs that are applied to
    that. We're more reactive in nature in terms of carrying out
    our current authorities when, for instance, in the Arctic we
    have much more open water now, and the potential for commerce
    and shipping to increase in those areas. We rely upon the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other
    Government agencies that do have that focus of the scientific
    study of our waters and the changes that are happening. The
    results of those changes are something that we have to deal
    with.
        Senator Lautenberg. Now, it's just that you have so many
    people on the sea, and there are changes that are occurring.
    And I don't know whether you see these changes in makeup,
    quantity, or things that just fall your way. I know that when
    we put an embargo on striped bass years ago and so forth, the
    Coast Guard had some part in maintaining the rules for catches.
    And it worked wonders. I mean, we replaced the quantity, and it
    improved the quality as well.
        So, I ask that because I'm like all of us that are
    concerned about what is taking place in the environments and
    the climate change. And if there's any way that there is
    information flow without giving you another task because you're
    so close to the reality out in the sea.
        Thanks very much, Madam Chair.
        Senator Landrieu. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. I have no further----

                             OFFSHORE PATROL CUTTER

        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Thank you.
        I think we're about complete. If you all would just be
    patient, one more question from me, then we're going to end the
    meeting.
        You recently released a draft request for information for
    the offshore patrol cutter (OPC). I understand this is arguably
    the most important acquisition for these particular boats--the
    backbone of the Coast Guard.
        Your future-years capital investment budget includes
    funding for both the OPC and the NSC. It reaches almost $2.3
    billion. You've never requested more than $1.4 billion in any
    fiscal year. Can you just briefly comment? And we'll use that
    question to close the meeting.
        Admiral Papp. Yes, ma'am. It's an interesting turn of
    events because I've watched Commandants come up here for years
    and always being accused of not asking for what they need or
    not asking for enough.
        We're asking for what we need. And we need to be about the
    business of designing and selecting, and then building those
    OPCs--25 of them in our project baseline. They will provide the
    capabilities--the NSC is the high end, with the most
    capabilities. And then of course, the FRC, our patrol boat,
    which will be inshore, doesn't have a flight deck and is less
    capable.
        The OPC will provide the connection between those two and
    in the outer zone of our defenses for security as you come to
    the country. It's got to be capable, though, of operating in
    the north Atlantic, the Bering Sea, and the Gulf of Alaska,
    which most of our medium endurance cutters (WMECs) do not right
    now. They are just not stout or capable enough to survive those
    types of elements.
        So, we need something that's going to probably perform in
    about Sea State 5, be able to launch helicopters, and recover
    boats in more challenging conditions. The OPC is that ship.
    I've looked at the basic specs that we've put out recently. I
    think it will be a very good ship to provide that, to fill that
    gap. We also have to be mindful that ultimately, with the 8
    NSCs and the 25 OPCs, that's 33 ships replacing the 41 that we
    have right now.
        So, we're pressing ahead. My job is to identify what we
    need in those years. And the administration signed off on our
    capital investment plan so I'm very hopeful we'll follow
    through with that.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Admiral. And again, thank you
    for your testimony today, for your forthrightness, for asking
    for what you really need. We look forward to working with you.
    And thank you for what your men and women do, amazing work
    every day. Thank you.
        Admiral Papp. Thank you, ma'am.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        [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 Mary L. Landrieu
             2010 oil spill--incident-specific preparedness review
        Question. Coast Guard policy requires an incident-specific
    preparedness review to assess lessons learned from major spill events.
    The review of the 2010 oil spill in the gulf was recently completed in
    March. A primary conclusion of the independent review was that ``the
    Coast Guard's Marine Environmental Response (MER) preparedness and
    response programs have atrophied over the past decade''. It found that
    the Coast Guard's area contingency plans were inadequate, there was a
    lack of engagement with State and local governments on national
    contingency plan responsibilities, environmentally sensitive areas were
    given uneven and inadequate attention in area contingency plans, and
    more research is necessary for alternative response technologies. The
    report also noted that many lessons learned from prior spills, such as
    the 2008 Cosco Busan spill and the Cape Mohican spill 11 years earlier,
    have not been addressed or implemented effectively by the Coast Guard.
        What is the Coast Guard doing to implement the recommendations of
    the review and ensure the lessons learned are institutionalized?
        How will you oversee and measure the effectiveness of these
    changes?
        The budget request includes $11.5 million to enhance MER capacity.
    Your written testimony notes this is an ``initial investment''. Do you
    have a long-term financial plan for this effort? Please provide the
    plan to the subcommittee when it is completed.
        Answer. While the report does not necessarily reflect the views of
    the Coast Guard, the Incident Specific Preparedness Review's (ISPR)
    process of critical analysis, review, and outside perspective will be a
    useful tool in helping the Coast Guard continuously improve coastal oil
    spill response for the American people. The ISPR is one of several
    reports that have been completed following the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil
    Spill. The Coast Guard is also conducting a comprehensive review of the
    President's National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill
    and offshore drilling's findings, the National Incident Commander's
    Report along with the other Deepwater Horizon reports that provide a
    body of lessons learned, perspectives, and opinions. The Coast Guard is
    carefully reviewing these reports to identify areas of positive and
    effective preparedness improvements to develop effective and
    appropriate national implementation strategies. The Coast Guard has
    already taken several actions to address areas where planning and
    preparedness will be improved, including directing Captains of the Port
    to review oil spill response plans for offshore facilities, requiring
    area committees to include worst case discharge scenarios for offshore
    facilities in their respective area contingency plans, increasing State
    and local outreach and participation in area committee meetings and
    activities, and participating in a Coast Guard, Federal Emergency
    Management Agency, and Environmental Protection Agency workgroup to
    develop recommendations to harmonize the national contingency plan and
    national response framework governance constructs.
        The Coast Guard is carefully evaluating the body of perspectives
    and opinions provided in the various reports. As changes are
    implemented, the Coast Guard will use a formal lessons learned program
    that is designed to document, assess, and implement lessons learned
    from oil spill exercises and real events, including the BP Deepwater
    Horizon oil spill. Coast Guard leadership will leverage this program to
    monitor execution of any changes resulting from the ongoing reviews.
    Developing measures of effectiveness is an important part of evaluating
    and implementing proposed changes. However, effective response is only
    part of the equation. Due to the progress the Coast Guard has made as a
    result of prevention efforts, there has been a consistent reduction in
    the average number of chemical discharge incidents and oil spills in
    the maritime environment between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2010.
        The President's fiscal year 2012 budget request includes funding to
    immediately increase the Coast Guard's marine environmental response
    and marine safety capabilities. Included in the fiscal year 2012
    request are 87 marine environmental response personnel, including 33
    personnel dedicated to an incident management assist team (IMAT),
    additional marine environmental responders at sectors, and additional
    strike team personnel. As part of these efforts, the Coast Guard will
    fully develop an investment plan to ensure these new resources are
    effectively installed. The nature of future investment will depend on
    how the Coast Guard decides to address the recommendations put forth in
    Deepwater Horizon after action reports and to implement the lessons
    learned from other past response efforts. The Coast Guard will work
    diligently within the organization and with government partners and
    industry to implement meaningful improvements for future oil spill
    planning, preparedness, organization, and response.
                               fleet mix analysis
        Question. The Coast Guard recently completed the first phase of a
    study called the Fleet Mix Analysis (FMA) that updated the mix of
    offshore assets necessary to meet mission performance requirements. The
    study took an unconstrained resource approach, resulting in an increase
    in total assets with a cost approaching $65 billion, nearly $40 billion
    higher than the current estimate. A second FMA is underway that
    considers the effects of fiscal constraints.
        According to recent testimony by the Government Accountability
    Office, the second analysis being conducted will not assess options
    lower than the current mix of assets the Coast Guard determined as
    necessary in 2004. With Federal agencies facing a much leaner fiscal
    future, don't you think it would be wise to fully understand the trade-
    offs above and below the current mix?
        I understand that the Department of Homeland Security is conducting
    its own study called the Cutter Fleet Mix Analysis. This appears to be
    a redundant effort to the Coast Guard's FMA. Why are multiple studies
    being conducted, when will the results be shared with the Congress, and
    how will the Coast Guard use the results of the studies?
        Answer. FMA phase 2 was developed to validate key assumptions in
    FMA phase 1 and to take a very specific look at the performance of the
    Program of Record under constrained investment levels. The analysis of
    trade-offs is the focus of the Department of Homeland Security Cutter
    Study.
        While the FMA analyzes the current program, the Department of
    Homeland Security Cutter Study includes an analysis of trade-offs under
    various assumptions for the mission requirements of the fleet. The
    Department of Homeland Security Cutter Study benefits from the FMA
    validation of modeling methodologies and will be used to inform near-
    term investment decisions. The results of these studies do not stand
    alone, but taken together they inform the Department's acquisition
    analysis and will be reflected in fiscal year 2013 and future years'
    budget requests.
                     high endurance cutter decommissioning
        Question. Your budget proposes to decommission a third high
    endurance cutter (WHEC) in fiscal year 2012, but the third national
    security cutter (NSC) won't be ready for operations until fiscal year
    2013. That equates to a net loss of 3,300 operational hours or 185
    steaming days.
        How will this impact the Coast Guard's ability to conduct critical
    missions, such as drug interdiction and migrant interdiction?
        Answer. The fleet of WHECs is achieving approximately 140 of their
    programmed 185 patrol days per year, which is unsustainable for the
    long-term as the costs to keep these vessels operational continually
    increase. The Coast Guard is currently expending more than three times
    what is budgeted to maintain them with diminishing returns on
    investment. The Coast Guard will replace these assets with NSCs as soon
    as possible.
        NSCs offer improved capability over the legacy WHECs. Currently,
    there are two NSCs in service--U.S. Coast Guard cutter (USCGC) Bertholf
    and USCGC Waesche. In April 2011, USCGC Bertholf commenced its first
    patrol in the Bering Sea. USCGC Waesche is currently completing ready
    for operations testing and evaluation, and will be ready to join the
    fleet very soon. USCGC Stratton is nearly complete and we anticipate it
    will be ready for operations in spring 2013. The introduction of NSCs
    will improve operational availability of the major cutter fleet as aged
    and obsolete WHECs are decommissioned.
        The Coast Guard will leverage these and the remaining WHECs and
    medium endurance cutters (WMECs) to meet all statutory mission
    requirements, including drug and migrant interdiction.
                                budget planning
        Question. The Coast Guard's Blueprint for Continuous Improvement
    includes an action item that the Coast Guard develop a list of
    priorities for major acquisitions.
        What steps has the Coast Guard taken to develop this priority list,
    and how will the Coast Guard use it?
        Will the Coast Guard's acquisition, resources, and capabilities
    directorates all be involved equally?
        What additional major investments are on the horizon that will need
    to be factored into Coast Guard acquisition budgets over the next 5
    years?
        Answer. The Coast Guard's Acquisition Blueprint requires completion
    of a project priority list to assist with management of acquisition
    resources and activities within the Acquisition Directorate. The
    assigned completion date for the acquisition project priority list is
    fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011.
        A separate but linked resource governance process, overseen by the
    Coast Guard's most senior leadership, is used to prioritize resources
    needs including requests for acquisition, construction and improvements
    (AC&I) funding, across the entire service. This is an ongoing effort,
    and is part of the Coast Guard's planning, programming, budgeting, and
    execution cycle. Coast Guard recapitalization priorities are included
    in the fiscal years 2012-2016 Capital Investment Plan (CIP).
        Yes, the linked resource governance process, overseen by the Coast
    Guard's most senior leadership with equal representation across all
    Coast Guard directorates, is used to prioritize resources needs
    including requests for AC&I funding, across the entire service.
        Based on the best available information used to develop the Coast
    Guard's fiscal years 2012-2016 CIP, there are no new assets expected to
    join the major acquisition queue beyond those that are already
    specified in the Coast Guard's Program of Record.
                              fast response cutter
        Question. If fiscal year 2012 funding is provided for four FRCs,
    instead of six as requested, would that increase the costs of each FRC?
    What would be the increased cost per ship?
        Answer. Yes. Overall, the average cost increase per hull is
    approximately $5 million, including production costs, economic price
    adjustments associated with spare parts, antecedent liabilities, and
    other scalable program costs (e.g., project management, testing,
    certification, etc.).
                                vessel security
        Question. Please describe Coast Guard activities (assets used,
    location, and associated costs) in support of the mission to protect
    tankers and other vessels in foreign waters.
        Answer. The Coast Guard conducts domestic operations to protect
    tankers or other vessels in or near U.S. ports. However, it does not
    have the authority to conduct such operations in foreign waters. The
    primary responsibility for the protection of tankers and other vessels
    in foreign waters is the port state receiving these vessels.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
        Question. Admiral Papp, the fiscal year 2012 budget justification
    documents indicate that the United States will remove one of our heavy
    polar icebreakers from service and return to contracting with other
    nations for icebreaking operations. As the melting of the polar ice
    caps in the summer months reveals new natural resources, navigational
    routes and introduces new national security considerations, the United
    States will be subcontracting critical icebreaking duties with nations
    who may ultimately be in direct competition with us for these
    resources. Furthermore, we continue to operate without a comprehensive
    assessment or a workable plan to address this lack of a strategic
    asset.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request indicates that ``[t]o help
    define the capability that is needed to meet long-term Federal needs in
    the changing Arctic environment, Coast Guard will participate in the
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS)-led interagency working group,
    funded in fiscal year 2012 to develop final requirements for
    acquisition of the 21st century icebreaking capability.'' As far back
    as 2008, the Coast Guard has indicated that it is assessing the United
    States' national interests in the arctic regions and the corresponding
    capabilities needed in the region. Most notable among these efforts is
    the High Latitude Study, which the Coast Guard has not yet released.
        What is the status of the High Latitude Study, as well as the polar
    business case analysis, and is there a timeframe when these reports
    will be completed and available?
        What are the key differences between the composition of and the
    anticipated outcomes of this working group and the various studies,
    including the High Latitude Study, that the Coast Guard has already
    been tasked to produce?
        Answer. The Coast Guard's contractor has completed the High
    Latitude Study and it will be transmitted to the Congress to meet the
    reporting requirement set forth in Public Law 111-281. In accordance
    with Public Law 111-281, the Coast Guard is conducting a polar business
    case analysis.
        The High Latitude Study is a Coast Guard-sponsored assessment of
    Arctic and Antarctic mission requirements, including the polar
    icebreaking needs.
        The DHS-led acquisition analysis will consider the icebreaking
    requirements across the Government and analyze agency-specific
    solutions, such as those identified by the High Latitude Study, to
    determine whether a coordinated acquisition of new icebreaking
    capability would provide greater benefit to the Nation. The analysis
    will consider a broader set of alternatives, including the mode of
    icebreaker operation and functional ownership across the Federal
    Government. The results of this effort will produce the acquisition
    strategy and funding plan for procuring 21st century icebreaking
    capability.
        Question. The Coast Guard anticipates relying on foreign nations to
    perform ice-breaking duties, some of which may be in competition with
    the United States for energy resources, fishing rights, navigational
    lanes, and national security. This is not the first time that the
    United States has been forced to rely on foreign nations.
        In the past, what was the annual cost to the United States to
    contract polar icebreaking services with a foreign entity?
        What is the estimated annual cost for this activity under the
    President's budget proposal?
        In previous testimony, Secretary Napolitano referenced two
    countries with which we could contract our icebreaking operations.
    Would you please advise the subcommittee of the two countries by name
    and give us your assessment of any conflicting interests they may have
    with the United States in the polar regions, specifically referencing
    energy resources, navigation, fishing rights, and national security?
        Answer. The Coast Guard has not historically contracted polar
    icebreaking services with a foreign entity. The National Science
    Foundation (NSF) has done so the past 4 years to provide the McMurdo
    break-out in Antarctica in support of scientific activities and for
    other scientific studies, and for scientific studies in the Arctic
    Ocean.
        There are no funds included in the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2012
    budget proposal to lease foreign icebreakers. Specific questions on
    icebreaker leasing should be directed to NSF.
        The two countries referenced by Secretary Napolitano are Russia and
    Sweden. No U.S. agency has contracted polar icebreaking services to
    perform duties, to the extent they exist, related to energy resources,
    fishing rights, navigational lanes, and national security. The Coast
    Guard is not in a position to comment on specific competing interests
    that foreign countries may have with the United States in the Arctic.
    This question would be better addressed by the State Department.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
        Question. Please describe the ways in which the Coast Guard is
    involved in response to the ongoing Mississippi River flooding.
        Answer. The Coast Guard continues to conduct statutory missions on
    the Western Rivers and respond to ongoing flooding events. To date, the
    Coast Guard has activated 47 reservists to support 2011 flood response
    operations. During the most recent Mississippi River flooding, the
    Coast Guard has deployed assets (e.g., personnel, boats, aircraft) in
    support of Search and Rescue (SAR), Marine Environmental Response
    (MER), and Aids to Navigation (ATON) missions. The Coast Guard is
    coordinating with Federal, State, local, and tribal organizations to
    render assistance to persons in distress, as well as to protect
    property.
        The Coast Guard Marine Transportation Recovery Unit (MTSRU)
    monitored impacts and kept the maritime industry appraised and briefed
    on developments through the dissemination of a daily summary report.
    The Coast Guard was very proactive in coordinating all potential
    actions with industry through daily River Industry Executive Task
    Force, New Orleans Port Coordination Team, and Lower Mississippi River
    Commission conference calls.
        Additionally, Coast Guard Captains of the Port (COTP) are
    continually reviewing and implementing, when necessary, safety zones.
    The COTP are also issuing marine safety information bulletins to ensure
    the safe navigation of marine traffic. The Coast Guard continues to
    monitor the water levels and is implementing river closures and re-
    openings, as appropriate, and working closely with the U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers as they manage their responsibilities for flood control.
        Question. Please describe the ways in which Coast Guard assets were
    used to respond to the Deepwater Horizon incident.
        Answer. The Coast Guard was involved in every phase of the response
    to the Deepwater Horizon incident, including the initial SAR response.
    Sixty Coast Guard vessels were used to respond to the Deepwater Horizon
    incident. These vessels included 210-foot and 270-foot WMECs, sea-going
    and coastal buoy tenders, icebreaking tugs, and patrol boats. After the
    explosion, Coast Guard vessels were engaged in SAR operations. When
    operations shifted from rescue to oil spill response, Coast Guard
    vessels were used in the recovery of oil, using onboard assets such as
    the Spilled Oil Recovery System (SORS) and Vessel of Opportunity
    Skimming System (VOSS).
        Twenty-two Coast Guard aircraft, including long- and medium-range
    surveillance aircraft and short- and medium-range helicopters, were
    used to respond to the Deepwater Horizon incident. Initially, as with
    Coast Guard vessels, Coast Guard aircraft were used in SAR operations,
    evacuating injured crew members and searching for missing crew members.
    During the aircraft SAR operations, the first evidence of oil sheen was
    observed. Coast Guard aircraft were then used for surveillance, oil
    spotting, and overflights.
        More than 7,000 Coast Guard personnel, including active duty,
    reserve, auxiliary, and civilians, participated in all phases of the
    response. Today, almost 200 Coast Guard personnel continue to support
    oil spill recovery operations in the gulf. Coast Guard personnel were
    involved in SAR operations, Incident Command System (ICS) coordination
    and staffing, oversight of offshore and onshore cleanup activities,
    public affairs, coordination with Federal, State, and local officials,
    and many other aspects of the response. Specialized personnel and
    equipment were also deployed from the Coast Guard's National Strike
    Force and other deployable support forces.
        Question. Are there any particular stories of heroic activities by
    your men and women during the Deepwater Horizon response that you would
    like to share with the subcommittee?
        Answer. Yes. In particular, the Coast Guard would like to share the
    story of the first men and women on the scene of the Deepwater Horizon
    incident--helicopter pilot Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Tom Hickey,
    Coast Guard rescue swimmer Aviation Survival Technician Third Class
    (AST3) Dustin Bernatovich and the air crews of Coast Guard number
    (CGNR) helicopters 6605, 6508, and 6576. The following is a summary of
    their actions on the evening of April 20, 2010, following the
    catastrophic explosion on the Deepwater Horizon mobile offshore
    drilling unit, 110 miles southeast of New Orleans, Louisiana.
        After a failure of the rig's drilling systems 5,000 feet below the
    sea surface, a rush of oil and flammable gas surfaced and ignited the
    platform, ultimately crippling the structure, killing 11 and forcing
    workers onboard to abandon the rig. The aircrews aboard the CGNR 6605,
    6508, and 6576, led by LCDR Hickey, immediately assumed on-scene
    coordinator duties for numerous aircraft and vessels converging on the
    disaster site. They quickly determined that the offshore supply vessel
    Damon B. Bankston had embarked 115 rig workers in need of rescue.
    Rescue swimmer AST3 Bernatovich was deployed to the vessel, and LCDR
    Hickey then tasked seven additional arriving aircraft to conduct search
    patterns around the rig, and sequenced helicopters to the Damon B.
    Bankston to evacuate the most severely wounded victims. Despite 600-
    foot flames, explosions on the rig, and intense heat felt in the cabin,
    the crews of the CGNR 6605, 6508, and 6576 made numerous low passes
    within 150 feet of the rig to search for any possible survivors as the
    rescue swimmer conducted triage of the injured mariners. While
    communicating constantly with the other aircraft, LCDR Hickey provided
    critical safety pilot duties as Coast Guard helicopters hoisted five
    survivors and transferred them to awaiting paramedics back at Air
    Station New Orleans. The leadership and superior actions of LCDR
    Hickey, AST3 Banatovich, and the aircrews of the CGNR 6605, 6508, and
    6576 ensured the success of a major rescue operation, which saved 14
    lives and assisted 101 others.
        Question. If the Congress provided you with the flexibility of
    multi-year procurement authority and then adequate follow-on
    appropriations, could it provide for savings to the taxpayer in the
    acquisition of NCSs Nos. 6-8?
        Answer. We cannot execute the NSC project under a multi-year
    procurement construct given the current NSC contract structure.
        Question. What are the specific advantages of purchasing long-lead
    time materials (LLTM) in advance of the construction of a Coast Guard
    vessel?
        Answer. Purchasing these materials in advance allows for optimal
    sequencing of production activities by ensuring that LLTM will be on
    hand when needed.
        Question. The Congress provided funding to complete NSC No. 5 in
    fiscal year 2011, rather than in fiscal year 2012 as assumed in the
    budget request. Understanding this change, if the Congress were to
    instead provide funding for LLTM for NSC No. 6 in fiscal year 2012,
    would the Coast Guard be able to purchase these materials in fiscal
    year 2012 and take advantage of the resulting efficiencies?
        Answer. If NSC No. 6 were fully funded in fiscal year 2012, the
    Coast Guard could award NSC No. 6 LLTM in fiscal year 2012.
        Question. Could you characterize the current operations and
    maintenance costs associated with the WHECs you plan to retire as you
    acquire NSCs?
        Answer. The programmed cost to operate and maintain each WHEC is
    approximately $20 million. Of the $20 million, $1.2 million is
    programmed for depot level maintenance. In fiscal year 2010, the WHEC
    fleet expended, on average, $3.96 million per hull on depot level
    maintenance, or $2.76 million above programmed levels.
        Question. Do the Bertholf's recent operations around Alaska provide
    you with additional confidence in the NSC's ability to operate in
    arctic areas of responsibility?
        Answer. Yes. The U.S. Coast Guard cutter (USCGC) Bertholf's current
    Alaskan patrol has subjected the cutter to 20-foot seas, 60 knot winds
    and temperatures below freezing, all testing the NSC's operational
    capabilities in Arctic sea conditions. USCGC Bertholf's economical
    propulsion plant and enhanced endurance allowed for 24 days at sea
    without replenishment and provided for sustained cutter presence
    offshore. The large flight deck and stable sea keeping capabilities
    allowed for a broad weather envelope to launch and recover aircraft,
    and also supported more than 20 safe and effective law enforcement
    boardings in seas up to 8 feet. The Coast Guard is very pleased with
    the operational performance of the NSC in the Bering Sea thus far.
        Question. I understand that the Coast Guard has been analyzing
    various unmanned aerial systems to determine which existing systems
    might provide a solution for both your land-based and ship-based aerial
    missions. What added capabilities and cost avoidance could these
    unmanned systems provide that current manned aircraft platforms are not
    providing?
        Answer. Aircraft persistence; sensor payloads; and command,
    control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance (C4ISR) suites unique to unmanned aircraft systems
    (UASs) are expected to significantly increase maritime surveillance and
    detection capability for strategic and tactical commanders.
    Additionally, unmanned capabilities may permit the Coast Guard to
    employ airborne sensors when and where they are needed most, and for
    extended periods, regardless of risks that would prevent the employment
    of manned aircraft (e.g., areas where chemical, biological,
    radioactive, and other hazards are present). Finally, UASs allow more
    versatile manned aircraft to be employed elsewhere to maximize mission
    outcomes. By one estimate, the UAS has a lower life-cycle cost when
    compared to manned aircraft operations (``Cost Comparison Potential of
    Coast Guard Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Coast Guard Manned Aircraft
    Systems'' study, prepared by Wyle Laboratories, Inc., in support of the
    Coast Guard Office of Aviation Acquisition (CG-931), in August 2010).
    This study estimates a cost per flight hour savings of 15 percent for
    ship-based UAS as compared to the H-65 and 50 percent for land-based
    UAS, as compared to C-130H.
        Question. Do you believe that it is important to make these assets
    available to the Coast Guard as soon as possible?
        Answer. Yes. The UAS acquisition is a significant component of the
    Coast Guard's solution to eliminate the current MPA gap. However, while
    UAS is a priority for the Coast Guard, the highest priorities of Coast
    Guard Air Domain are to extend current aircraft service life, enhance
    the capability of current airframes, and recapitalize aged and obsolete
    air assets.
        Question. What specific funds are requested in the fiscal year 2012
    budget that would move the Coast Guard closer to the acquisition of its
    own unmanned aerial assets?
        Answer. The Coast Guard continues to advance its plan for UAS
    acquisition through its partnerships with other Government agencies
    that are developing and implementing the UAS concept of operations. In
    2012, Coast Guard will apply multi-year funds to continue its UAS
    acquisition research projects.
        Question. What is the Coast Guard's assessment of SouthCom's
    Project Cazador, which was carried out in cooperation with Panama?
        Answer. The Coast Guard did not have any direct involvement with
    the planning and execution phases of Project Cazador; this was a
    SouthCom-led initiative that occurred in summer 2010 over a 120-day
    period. The project was conducted in cooperation with Panama and
    provided additional Detection and Monitoring (D&M) capacity along the
    littorals of Panama. The program complemented Joint Interagency Task
    Force South's D&M efforts that occurred further offshore, which the
    Coast Guard plays a substantial role in. Initiatives such as Project
    Cazador are considered of high value to the Coast Guard given the
    synergy with the aforementioned Coast Guard operations. The UAS, Heron
    I, was demonstrated during Project Cazador. Coast Guard personnel
    deployed to observe Heron I gained valuable UAS experience. It was
    observed that Heron I's slow cruise speed is both a strength and
    weakness. It was observed that Heron I is very capable of long-
    endurance missions in limited areas or over a specific target. When
    attempting to classify and identify targets at the outer edge of its
    radar range, it was observed that airspeed was a limiting factor. As
    such, Heron I would likely have limited operational effectiveness when
    patrolling the extensive smuggling routes south of Panama.
        Question. How do the illicit cargo interdicted during Project
    Cazador compare to amounts seized in recent Coast Guard operations?
        Answer. During the same 4-month period (June 2010 through September
    2010), the Coast Guard sized 28 metric tons (MT) of cocaine in the
    transit zone, while Project Cazador seized a total of 10 MT of cocaine.
        Question. If Coast Guard assets had not been tied up responding so
    bravely to the Deepwater Horizon incident, do you believe Project
    Cazador would have yielded additional interdiction of illicit cargo?
        Answer. Project Cazador could have possibly yielded additional
    interdictions had the Coast Guard not diverted assets to support
    Deepwater Horizon operations. During much of Deepwater Horizon,
    Airborne Use of Force (AUF) helicopters were diverted from counter drug
    deployments to support the response efforts. In one specific case, a
    Project Cazador detection and monitoring asset located and tracked a
    ``go-fast'' in the Western Caribbean near Costa Rica. A Coast Guard
    cutter conducting a Joint Interagency Task Force South patrol was
    diverted to intercept the ``go-fast'', which was suspected of
    trafficking cocaine. The Coast Guard cutter did not have an AUF capable
    helicopter deployed onboard, and the ``go-fast'' evaded the cutter and
    escaped into Costa Rican territorial waters.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                    coast guard maritime coverage in alaska
        Question. In Alaska, we are very concerned with the President's
    decision to decommission another high endurance cutter (WHEC) in the
    fiscal year 2012 budget. Given the vast maritime environment that the
    Coast Guard is responsible for protecting in Alaska, I am concerned
    that the decommissioning of these cutters will have significantly
    negative impacts on the safety and security of the Alaskan commercial
    fishing industry. The Coast Guard is tasked with conducting operations
    in Alaska that encompasses more than 3.8 million square miles, which is
    larger than the land mass of the continental United States, and more
    than 33,000 miles of coastline. With the Alaskan fishing industry
    producing more than 50 percent of the national fishing totals each
    year, the cumulative loss of another cutter from the Coast Guard's
    fleet could place a significant portion of the Alaskan fishing fleet
    that routinely operate in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska in danger
    as well as preventing the Coast Guard from effectively ensuring that
    the safety and commercial fisheries regulations are adequately
    enforced.
        Previously you testified that the Coast Guard was committed to a
    plan to recapitalize the current WHEC fleet with new NSCs, an effort
    that was designed to maintain current cutter coverage levels while
    quickly bringing the new class of cutters online. However, the fiscal
    year 2012 proposed budget does not have any funding for long-lead time
    materials (LLTM) for the sixth NSC. During Secretary Napolitano's
    fiscal year 2012 budget hearing in March, she emphasized her commitment
    to building out eight NSCs. NSC No. 5 is now fully funded. However, I
    note that there is no funding for NSC No. 6 in the fiscal year 2012
    request. The Coast Guard previously funded LLTM for the NSC in advance
    of production. Would the total cost of NSC No. 6 be reduced if LLTM are
    funded in fiscal year 2012 versus fiscal year 2013? If so, by how much?
    Also, what plan do you have in place to assure that there is adequate
    cutter coverage in Alaska?
        As you are aware, there are only seven HH-60 helicopters in
    Alaska--four in Kodiak and three in Sitka. These assets, given their
    durability in harsh weather environments, are essential to the Coast
    Guard's ability to rescue those in need in Alaska. However, each year
    helicopters are repositioned in Alaska to cover the fishing fleets in
    the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. That repositioning moves assets from
    other Coast Guard facilities, leaving those areas with resource gaps.
    What is the Coast Guard's plan to close this aviation resource gap?
    Does the Coast Guard have the aviation assets it requires to complete
    is missions in Alaska and the rest of the United States?
        Answer. If NSC No. 6 were fully funded in fiscal year 2012, the
    Coast Guard could award NSC No. 6 LLTM in fiscal year 2012. The
    possibility for total cost savings would depend on several factors.
        The Coast Guard has a proud history of serving the maritime
    interests in Alaska and will continue to do so, including maintaining a
    major flight deck equipped cutter presence in the Bering Sea. The NSC
    will replace the aging and obsolete WHECs and provide greater
    operational availability to the fleet of major cutters. NSCs are
    already having an operational impact. In fact, the first NSC, USCGC
    Bertholf (maritime security cutter large (WMSL) 750), commenced its
    first patrol in Alaska in April 2011. Additionally, USCGC Waesche (WMSL
    751), also home-ported on the west coast, will be ready for operations
    by November 2011 and available for worldwide assignment. Moreover,
    USCGC Stratton (WMSL 752) will be delivered in September 2011 and ready
    for operations in spring 2013. Patrolling Alaskan waters remains a high
    priority and the Coast Guard is committed to providing coverage to meet
    the most-pressing operational needs, including coverage for missions in
    the Bering Sea.
        The Coast Guard has partnered with the U.S. Navy Sundown program to
    receive, at no cost, retired H-60F model airframes, which can be
    converted to Coast Guard MH-60T helicopters. Funding was provided in
    the Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-222) to
    convert one Navy H-60F airframe to a Coast Guard MH-60T helicopter as a
    replacement for one of two HH-60J Coast Guard helicopters (CGNR 6028
    and 6017) lost in operational crashes. This conversion is expected to
    be completed in November 2011. Funding has been requested in the Coast
    Guard's fiscal year 2012 budget to convert a second H-60F airframe,
    completing the restoration of HH-60 capacity. The Coast Guard continues
    to balance rotary wing needs based on operational risks, which is why
    the Coast Guard continues to rotate HH-60s to Alaska during critical
    fishing and crabbing seasons.
        Of the four rotary-wing aircraft lost due to mishaps in the past 3
    years, to date one has been funded for replacement, and the second is
    requested in the fiscal year 2012 President's budget. With these
    planned replacements, there remains a two aircraft gap in the aviation
    fleet. However, the Coast Guard moves assets to ensure coverage for
    highest priority missions.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Landrieu. The subcommittee stands in recess,
    subject to the call of the Chair.
        [Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., Tuesday, May 10, 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 2012

                                  ----------

                                           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 2012 budget
    request for programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]
      Prepared Statement of the American Public Transportation Association
                                    overview
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
    opportunity to submit written testimony to the subcommittee on the
    fiscal year 2012 funding needs for public transportation security
    within the budgets of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
    State and local grants program, and the Transportation Security
    Administration (TSA), Transportation Sector Network Management Mass
    Transit Division, and throughout the Department of Homeland Security
    (DHS). The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) urges the
    Congress to increase appropriations for the fiscal year 2012 Rail and
    Public Transportation Security grants within the FEMA State and local
    grants. Past appropriations have not come close to the levels
    authorized under the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
    Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-53). We appreciate the funding
    that the Congress has provided to date, but at the recent levels, grant
    allocations to regions, and ultimately the awards to the individual
    transit agencies are inadequate.
        Recent cuts to the public transportation security grant program
    continue a disappointing trend on support for surface transportation
    security programs. These grants are critical to transit agencies in
    meeting security improvement needs. Transit provides 18 times as many
    passenger trips as aviation, but aviation receives 12 times as much
    security funding as surface transportation security. Spending per
    passenger for transit security is 4 cents; for aviation it's $8.67.
    Aviation security receives 215 times as much Federal funding per
    passenger as transit. Threats to public transportation continue to
    exist as we were reminded again last week with the terrorist bombing of
    the subway in Minsk, Belarus. Public transportation security investment
    should be increased, not decreased and I urge the Congress to find the
    resources to appropriate to levels consistent with those authorized in
    the 9/11 Commission Act.
                                   about apta
        APTA is a nonprofit international association of nearly 1,500
    public and private-member organizations, including transit systems and
    commuter, intercity and high-speed rail operators; planning, design,
    construction, and finance firms; product and service providers;
    academic institutions; transit associations and State departments of
    transportation. APTA members serve the public interest by providing
    safe, efficient, and economical public transportation services and
    products. More than 90 percent of the people using public
    transportation in the United States and Canada are served by APTA-
    member systems. In accordance with the National Infrastructure
    Protection Plan, APTA is recognized by DHS as serving in the capacity
    of the Mass Transit Sector Coordinating Council.
              greater investments in transit security are required
        Safety and security have always been the top priority of the public
    transportation industry. Since 9/11, transit systems have taken many
    steps to further improve security. Public transit agencies with State
    and local governments, have invested billions of dollars on security
    and emergency preparedness programs. While we recognize that as an open
    public infrastructure there are limitations on what specific steps can
    be taken to secure transit facilities and operations, I want to
    emphasize that there are still many steps that must be taken and many
    security improvements that can be made to improve the security of our
    systems and enhance the safety of our Nation's transit riders.
        I have testified on numerous occasions of the well-established and
    significant risks that transportation and public transportation
    specifically, continue to face. As detailed below, the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO) and the Mineta Transportation Institute
    have chronicled the history of attacks on public transportation and the
    members of the subcommittee are certainly well aware of the history of
    attacks and the thwarted plots and continuing investigations that
    clearly make the case. However, the Congress continues to look at the
    issue of transportation security in the rigid structure of agency
    budget silos. I urge the subcommittee to evaluate the modal security
    needs independent of history or agency budget structure. While $5.1
    billion in budgetary resources are directed toward aviation security
    within the budget of the TSA, the priority budget for public
    transportation is within the FEMA State and local programs account. The
    Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) is the principal source of
    security assistance for transit agencies and these grant funds can do
    more to enhance security than additional funds directed to the Federal
    agencies. At a level of $250 million in fiscal year 2011, the
    commitment to surface transportation security does not register a fair
    comparison, even when including the TSA Surface Transportation account
    and excluding aviation security fees. The Congress seems to have locked
    Rail and Public Transportation Security grants into a budgetary pattern
    that is not based in any true evaluation of risk or need.
        As I have testified previously, a study released by APTA in 2010
    showed U.S. transit security needs nationwide at $6.4 billion. Despite
    billions of dollars already invested from Federal, State, and local
    sources, these needs persist as our understanding of risk, consequence,
    response and recovery has changed, and technology and operational
    approaches are also different today.
        Despite wide recognition of the risk to surface transportation and
    public transportation security, only $1.25 billion of the $3.4 billion
    authorized by the 9/11 act for public transportation security
    improvements has been appropriated. That legislation authorized $3.4
    billion and authorized additional funding for the security of rail
    carriers (freight, passenger, and commuter rail) over a 4-year period.
    Again, we find ourselves asking, why are important public
    transportation security needs going unfunded?
        In 2010, Americans took more than 10.2 billion transit trips.
    People use public transportation vehicles more than 35 million times
    each weekday. As previously stated, this is 18 times the number of
    daily boardings on the Nation's domestic airlines. The consequences of
    a successful terrorist attack on a single high-capacity urban rail
    system during peak travel time will result in a devastating number of
    fatalities and injuries. It will have a crippling affect on the economy
    of that entire metropolitan area, with a potential ripple effect
    nationwide. We cannot avoid talking about the consequences, as the
    resources are not being dedicated where our needs truly exist.
             transit security needs are real and require attention
        As we have stated before, and as the members of this subcommittee
    well know, authoritative sources have acknowledged that the risk to
    public transportation systems is real, and it has not diminished:
      --GAO released a 2002 report stating ``about one-third of terrorist
            attacks worldwide target transportation systems, and transit
            systems are the mode most commonly attacked.''
      --In 2007, GAO reported to the Congress that ``the characteristics of
            some passenger rail systems--high ridership, expensive
            infrastructure, economic importance, and location (e.g., large
            metropolitan areas or tourist destinations)--make them
            attractive targets for terrorists because of the potential for
            mass casualties and economic damage and disruption.''
      --On February 29, 2008, the Office of Intelligence of TSA released a
            report concluding that public transportation in America remains
            vulnerable to terrorist attack. The report states: ``The volume
            of previous attacks and recent plotting against mass transit
            systems overseas demonstrates continued strong terrorist
            interest in targeting this sector.'' The report further states
            that: ``Previous rail attacks in Madrid, London, and Mumbai
            could inspire terrorists to conduct similar attacks in the
            United States.''
      --On September 30, 2009, the Honorable Michael E. Leiter, Director,
            National Counterterrorism Center, testified in the Senate that
            ``al-Qa`ida continues to pursue plans for Homeland attacks and
            is likely focusing on prominent political, economic, and
            infrastructure targets designed to produce mass casualties,
            visually dramatic destruction, significant economic
            aftershocks, and/or fear among the population. The group also
            likely remains interested in targeting mass transit systems,
            and other public venues, viewed as relatively soft targets as
            evidenced by past al-Qa`ida attacks in London.''
      --The federally funded and chartered, independent Mineta
            Transportation Institute has collected data on worldwide terror
            incidents and found more than 2,000 separate attacks on surface
            transportation--1,223 involving bombs and incendiaries--since
            1970. These attacks caused 6,190 deaths and approximately
            19,000 injuries.
        This history calls for continued vigilance and continued
    investments in surface transportation security.
                grant program structure and other resource needs
        We once again ask that the subcommittee include language that
    directs DHS to award funds directly to transit agencies and prohibits
    DHS from imposing a local match requirement, consistent with
    congressional intent expressed in the conference report of the 9/11
    act. APTA has no objection to language included in the fiscal year 2010
    conference report which directed FEMA to allow transit agencies to
    permit States to act as subgrantees. We believe that as long as transit
    agencies affirmatively choose to have their grants administered by
    their State administrative agencies, they should have that option.
    Fiscal Year 2011 TSGP Grant Guidance
        It is important that we emphasize here that there exist significant
    concerns among our Nation's transit providers concerning the direction
    of the draft fiscal year 2011 TSGP Grant Guidance. APTA believes that a
    proposal to shift the grant program to an approach that targets a pre-
    designated list of specific critical infrastructures is ill-advised,
    and would preclude important system-wide security improvements, while
    also undermining the regional collaboration that exists under the
    current grant program. APTA and its members have urged the TSA to
    reconsider this proposal.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, once again we find ourselves calling attention to
    another major terrorist attack against mass transit riders. The deadly
    bombing of the subway in Minsk, Belarus has left security experts
    confused given the lack of significant ethnic or religious divides, nor
    history of violent political upheaval. Yet, unknown terrorists chose to
    set off a bomb in a crowded metro station in Minsk last week killing 12
    people and wounding more than 150. We urge the subcommittee to never
    forget the several foiled plots against U.S. public transportation
    systems and the attacks on Madrid's commuter trains, on London's
    subways, or the seven bombs on Mumbai's commuter trains. Those three
    international incidents alone resulted in 452 deaths and 3,000
    injuries. We should not ignore those potential incidents that we have
    been fortunate to thwart here in the United States and we urge the
    Congress to recognize the need for continued vigilance in surface
    transportation security, by appropriating funds consistent with the
    levels authorized under the 9/11 Commission Act.
        I thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify and we
    look forward to working with you and the Congress to advance our mutual
    goals of safety and security for the traveling public.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Public Transportation Association
                                    overview
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony
    to the subcommittee on the fiscal year 2011 funding needs for public
    transportation security within the budgets of the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency (FEMA) State and local grants program, and the
    Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Transportation Sector
    Network Management (TSNM) Mass Transit Division, and throughout the
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The American Public
    Transportation Association (APTA) asks the subcommittee to provide
    appropriations for the fiscal year 2011 Transit Security Grant Program
    (TSGP) in the amount of $1.1 billion, the level authorized under the
    Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public
    Law 110-53). We appreciate the funding that this subcommittee has
    provided, but at the recent levels, grant allocations to regions, and
    ultimately the awards to the individual transit agencies have limited
    what projects can be pursued and implemented. We urge the Congress to
    find the resources to appropriate the levels authorized in the 9/11
    act.
                                   about apta
        APTA is a nonprofit international association of nearly 1,500
    public and private-member organizations, including transit systems and
    commuter, intercity, and high-speed rail operators; planning, design,
    construction, and finance firms; product and service providers;
    academic institutions; transit associations and State departments of
    transportation. APTA members serve the public interest by providing
    safe, efficient, and economical public transportation services and
    products. More than 90 percent of the people using public
    transportation in the United States and Canada are served by APTA-
    member systems. In accordance with the National Infrastructure
    Protection Plan, APTA is recognized by DHS as serving in the capacity
    of the Mass Transit Sector Coordinating Council.
              greater investments in transit security are required
        As I will discuss later in my testimony, it is well established
    that transportation and public transportation specifically, continue to
    face significant security risks. One only needs to look to the recent
    attacks in Moscow and the ongoing investigation and prosecution of
    conspirators in New York to be reminded of this. Safety and security
    have always been the top priority of the public transportation
    industry. Since 9/11, transit systems have taken many steps to further
    improve security. Public transit agencies with State and local
    governments, have invested billions of dollars on security and
    emergency preparedness programs. While we recognize that as an open
    public infrastructure there are limitations on what specific steps can
    be taken to secure transit facilities and operations, I want to
    emphasize that there are still many steps that must be taken and many
    security improvements that can be made to improve the security of our
    systems and enhance the safety of our Nation's transit riders.
        In 2009, APTA conducted a new survey of U.S. transit agencies to
    update their security investment needs and their experience with the
    current program. The results of the survey demonstrate that security
    investment needs persist nationwide, with total needs for all transit
    agencies exceeding $6.4 billion. Our previous survey in 2004 identified
    needs in excess of $6 billion. Despite billions of dollars already
    invested from Federal, State, and local sources, it is important to
    understand that facilities have changed and expanded; our understanding
    of risk, consequence, response, and recovery has changed; and
    technology and operational approaches are also different than they were
    in 2004.
        The Congress recognized the need to enhance the focus of DHS on
    surface transportation and public transportation security when it
    enacted the 9/11 act. That legislation authorized $3.4 billion for
    public transportation security improvements, and authorized additional
    funding for the security of rail carriers (freight, passenger, and
    commuter rail) over a 4-year period. And yet, over the period covered
    by the 9/11 act authorizations, only $1.25 billion of the $3.4 billion
    authorized has been appropriated, and even less has ultimately been
    directed in grants to transit agencies. This is simply unacceptable. We
    must increase investments and meet our security needs now--before we
    are forced to ask the question ``what could have been done?''
        The legislation also set in place a number of the structural
    elements that APTA and the Nation's transit systems continue to
    emphasize as priorities, including broad eligibility for capital and
    operational improvements, a rejection of a ``one-size fits all''
    approach to transit security, a recognition of the open nature of
    transit facilities and services, interagency coordination between DHS
    and the Department of Transportation (DOT), consultation and
    coordination at all levels of government and with industry
    stakeholders, and support for information sharing and intelligence
    analysis, standard development, and research and technology
    development.
             transit security needs are real and require attention
        As we have stated before, and as the members of this subcommittee
    well know, authoritative sources have acknowledged that the risk to
    public transportation systems is real, and it has not diminished:
      --The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a 2002 report
            stating ``about one-third of terrorist attacks worldwide target
            transportation systems, and transit systems are the mode most
            commonly attacked.''
      --In 2007, GAO reported to the Congress that ``the characteristics of
            some passenger rail systems--high ridership, expensive
            infrastructure, economic importance, and location (e.g., large
            metropolitan areas or tourist destinations)--make them
            attractive targets for terrorists because of the potential for
            mass casualties and economic damage and disruption.''
      --On February 29, 2008, the Office of Intelligence of TSA released a
            report concluding that public transportation in America remains
            vulnerable to terrorist attack. The report states: ``The volume
            of previous attacks and recent plotting against mass transit
            systems overseas demonstrates continued strong terrorist
            interest in targeting this sector.'' The report further states
            that: ``Previous rail attacks in Madrid, London, and Mumbai
            could inspire terrorists to conduct similar attacks in the
            United States.''
      --On September 30, 2009, the Honorable Michael E. Leiter, Director,
            National Counterterrorism Center testified in the Senate that
            ``al-Qa`ida continues to pursue plans for Homeland attacks and
            is likely focusing on prominent political, economic, and
            infrastructure targets designed to produce mass casualties,
            visually dramatic destruction, significant economic
            aftershocks, and/or fear among the population. The group also
            likely remains interested in targeting mass transit systems,
            and other public venues, viewed as relatively soft targets as
            evidenced by past al-Qa`ida attacks in London.''
      --The TSA Office of the Inspector General released a March 2010
            report highlighting the need for greater attention by TSA in
            surface transportation emergency planning and response
            capabilities.
      --The federally funded and chartered, independent Mineta
            Transportation Institute has collected data on worldwide terror
            incidents and found more than 2,000 separate attacks on surface
            transportation--1,223 involving bombs and incendiaries--since
            1970. These attacks caused 6,190 deaths and approximately
            19,000 injuries.
        DHS has the responsibility to ensure the safety and security. All
    of the official Government and independent analyses of risk and threat
    cite transportation modes as a potential target for terrorism. As a
    result, it is the mission of the TSA to protect ``the Nation's
    transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and
    commerce.'' We couldn't agree more vigorously with that mission
    statement! However, one only needs to look at the TSA Web site to
    realize that the agency continues to focus in a sizable and
    disproportionate manner on one mode of transportation above all others.
    There is no mention of surface transportation anywhere to be found at
    the forefront of the TSA Web site.
        Let me be very clear--and we have been consistent in our views on
    this--no one questions the security requirements of our Nation's
    aviation system. But the scope and scale of the disproportionate
    attention and dedication of resources to one mode of travel over all
    others is hard to ignore. In 2009, Americans took more than 10.2
    billion transit trips. People use public transportation vehicles more
    than 35 million times each weekday. This is 18 times the number of
    daily boardings on the Nation's domestic airlines. Make no mistake; a
    successful terrorist attack on a single high capacity urban rail system
    during peak travel time could result in a devastating number of
    fatalities and injuries. In addition, it would have a crippling affect
    on the economy of that entire metropolitan area, with a potential
    ripple effect nationwide. We do not want to scare anyone, but at the
    same time we cannot continue to avoid talking about the consequences,
    as the resources are not being dedicated where our needs truly exist.
                 other program requirements and resource needs
        We further ask that you again include language that directs DHS to
    award funds directly to transit agencies and prohibits DHS from
    imposing a local match requirement, consistent with congressional
    intent expressed in the conference report of the 9/11 act. APTA has no
    objection to language included in last year's conference report which
    directed FEMA to allow transit agencies to permit States to act as
    subgrantees. We believe that as long as transit agencies affirmatively
    choose to have their grants administered by their State administrative
    agencies, they should have that option.
        We are pleased that many steps have been taken at FEMA and TSA to
    improve the TSGP application and award process, and we appreciate the
    attention that the Congress has placed on the difficulties inherent in
    this process. However, we urge your continued oversight and attention
    to opportunities to simplify and streamline the process. We are hopeful
    that the oversight efforts of the Congress, which have led to recent
    proposed reforms in the TSGP grant process, will achieve the desired
    results and expedite the delivery of funds to transit agencies with
    security improvement needs.
        In addition to grant funding, we urge the Congress to provide
    $600,000 to TSA TSNM Mass Transit Division for the continued operations
    of the Public Transit Information Sharing Analysis Center (ISAC).
    Funding for this program was authorized in the 9/11 act bill under
    section 1410 (d), which provides for the sharing of security
    information between transit agencies and DHS. The ability to share
    vital information is crucial in preventing and mitigating potential
    terrorist attacks. We have been advised by TSA that resources for the
    Public Transit ISAC are part of the TSA budget for TSNM. Further, a
    joint industry/government working group formed under the auspices of
    the Mass Transit SCC/Government Coordinating Council is currently
    refining a proposal for security information sharing that would look to
    the PT-ISAC to becoming a permanent, expanded system that would
    coordinate the dissemination of all relevant security information to
    the public transit industry.
        We also urge the Congress to provide $500,000 to DHS for the
    development of transit security standards. Over the last several years,
    APTA has worked closely with DOT, DHS, and industry leaders to develop
    standards that help transit agencies use available resources as
    effectively as possible. It is our understanding that resources are
    factored into the TSA budget for this continuing effort, but we urge
    the subcommittee to support the TSA in this regard. The ISAC and
    security standards are two important national programs that, although
    modest in funding needs, can significantly enhance transit security at
    the local level.
        Finally, with regard to technology research and development,
    resource allocation issues within DHS have failed to adequately address
    the research and development needs of transit. In September 2008, the
    Mass Transit SCC Security Technology Working Group issued draft
    recommendations which identified concerns over the lack of a formal
    structure that brings the Federal Government and transit industry
    together to discuss transit security technology priorities, needs and
    areas of potential interest for technology advancement and research.
    There is a general view that TSA research and development, and DHS
    science and technology do not conduct adequate early outreach with the
    industry to determine needs ahead of actual technology development and
    deployment efforts. Transit security professionals believe that early
    and active engagement of industry could lead to a better understanding
    of varying transit agency needs, as well as better research and
    development overall.
        Finally, resources such as technical assistance and the like may be
    necessary for support of transit industry efforts in the area of
    cybersecurity. Concerns over cybersecurity have increased across the
    Federal Government and throughout the country over recent years, and
    transit agencies are no different. As significant users of power and
    computerized control systems, cybersecurity will remain a significant
    concern for an industry responsible for the safe and secure movement of
    35 million daily riders.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, the recent suicide bomb attacks in Moscow provided an
    unwanted but graphic reminder of the threats our industry continues to
    face. We cannot forget the attacks on Madrid's commuter trains, on
    London's subways, or the seven bombs on Mumbai's commuter trains. Those
    three incidents alone resulted in 452 deaths and 3,000 injuries. We
    should also not ignore those potential incidents that we have been
    fortunate to thwart. More details have emerged about the plans involved
    in the al Qaeda-inspired New York subway bomb plot, and the reports
    surrounding this plot alone should emphasize the need for continued
    vigilance in surface transportation security.
        I thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify and we
    look forward to working with you and the Congress to advance our mutual
    goals of safety and security for the traveling public.
                                     ______

     Attachment, APTA Survey of United States Transit System Security Needs
                         summary and principal findings
        The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) conducted a
    survey of 35 of its transit agency members during 2009 and early 2010
    to determine agency security funding requirements, grants received in
    prior fiscal years, and the projects advanced through prior year
    grants. The participating transit systems were selected from APTA
    members who are eligible recipients of Federal Emergency Management
    Agency (FEMA) Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) funding. Additional
    estimates of national needs were expanded beyond the survey respondents
    based on the portion of transit operations represented by the
    responding systems in six categories that represent equipment,
    infrastructure, and activity that requires security efforts. The
    principal findings of that survey are:
      --Total security needs far surpass funding provided to date. Transit
            agency security-related investment needs are $6.4 billion. This
            amount is a 5-year estimate and includes $4.4 billion for
            transit agency security-related capital investment plus $2
            billion for security-related personnel and other security-
            related operational expenses. Federal funding provided in
            fiscal year 2010 for public transportation security was $253
            million.
      --Capital security needs remain a top priority, but many agencies
            cite operating needs. Respondents to the survey estimated
            capital needs as exceeding operating needs by more than a 3-to-
            1 ratio. Disparities in priorities between large and small
            systems are indicative of the differences in infrastructure and
            assets requiring protection. Security operations needs are more
            likely to comprise a larger percentage of need for smaller
            systems.
      --Transit security priorities vary from agency to agency. Survey
            responses demonstrate that security priorities are unique to
            each individual agency, just as each individual agency's
            infrastructure, operations and governance is unique. Transit
            agencies seek more flexibility in the uses of funds and a
            streamlined application process. A broad list of eligible
            projects formed the basis for the National Transit Systems
            Security Act of 2007 as contained within the Implementing
            Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act (Public Law 110-53).
      --Transit security resources are required beyond grant funds. Beyond
            the grant funding sought by transit agencies, resources are
            needed in a variety of components within the Department of
            Homeland Security (DHS), including funding for information
            sharing and intelligence, security standards development,
            research and technology development, technical assistance, and
            the broader approaches towards cybersecurity and resiliency
            (all-hazards response).
           apta survey of united states transit system security needs
        APTA conducted a survey of 35 of its transit agency members during
    2009 and early 2010 to determine agency security funding requirements,
    grants received in prior fiscal years, and the projects advanced
    through prior year grants. The participating transit systems were
    selected from APTA members who are eligible recipients of FEMA TSGP
    funding. The sample of systems operates 43.0 percent of all transit
    vehicles that were reported in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
    National Transit Database in 2008, operates 52.4 percent of all revenue
    vehicle miles, operates 64.0 percent of all passenger stations and 62.9
    percent of all rail transit right-of-way measured by directional-route
    miles, and carries 71.8 percent of all passenger trips and 68.1 percent
    of all passenger miles of travel.
                             transit funding needs
        Respondents were asked to report their 5-year security funding
    needs for capital and for operations. Table 1 shows those needs as
    reported by the participating agency and expanded to include other
    transit agencies.

                                       TABLE 1.--FIVE-YEAR SECURITY FUNDING NEEDS
                                                  [Millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Five-year funding needs
                  Transit systems included in estimate               -----------------------------------------------
                                                                          Capital        Operating         Total
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Respondents to survey for these questions.......................           2,204             655           2,859
    Systems eligible for TSGP funds.................................           3,286           1,518           4,804
    All transit agencies in any location............................           4,419           2,018           6,437
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The security funding needs over the next 5 years for all transit
    systems are $6.4 billion, $4.4 billion for capital, and $2.0 billion
    for operating. Among all transit systems eligible for TSGP funding
    these needs are $4.8 billion, $3.3 billion for capital, and $1.5
    billion for operations.
        These needs are based on the 34 survey respondents who were able to
    forecast capital funding needs and the 33 who were able to forecast
    operating funding needs. Respondents which provided needs estimates
    found a total security-related funding need of $2.9 billion for their
    systems, $2.2 billion for capital uses, and $0.7 billion for
    operations. The responses were expanded to estimate needs for other
    transit agencies. The expansions were based on the portion of transit
    operations represented by the responding systems in six categories that
    represent equipment, infrastructure, and activity that requires
    security efforts. These categories are the following:
      --total vehicles operated,
      --vehicle miles in revenue service,
      --unlinked passenger trips,
      --passenger miles,
      --stations, and
      --directional miles of rail routes.
        Data are taken from the 2008 National Transit Database and APTA's
    2009 Public Transportation Fact Book.
        APTA published a survey of transit systems security needs in April
    2004. That survey was used to project security funding needs for the
    entire transit industry. Capital needs to ``maintain, modernize, and
    expand'' the security function were $5.2 billion without a specified
    time period. Annual operating needs were $800 million which included
    existing security operating expenses. Those needs are most comparable
    to the $6.4 billion need for all agencies for the next 5 years
    estimated in this survey.
                security funds received during the past 3 years
        Respondents were asked the amount of funds they received during
    each of fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008 for security-related projects
    regardless of the source. Because these amounts are not expected to be
    of a similar amount for nonparticipating systems in any consistent
    manner, no funding estimates are made for nonparticipating systems.
    Transit security grants were also distributed during fiscal years 2003,
    2004, and 2005; however, this survey limited the request to the most
    recent 3 fiscal years for ease of reporting. Data regarding fiscal year
    2009 grants was not available at the time of this survey.

                               TABLE 2.--SECURITY PROJECT FUNDING FOR SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
                                                  [Millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Funding amount for participating systems only
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
                             Funding source                             Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                                                           2006            2007            2008
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TSGP grants.....................................................           103.8           146.3           143.2
    Agency match for TSGP grants....................................             0.6             5.5             4.8
    State, local security grants....................................            46.6            41.5            41.1
    Agency match for State, local grants............................            26.7            19.7            18.2
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total security funding....................................           177.7           213.0           207.3
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        use of funds defined by project effectiveness group descriptions
        FEMA groups security projects into five categories termed project
    effectiveness group descriptions (PEGD) which are used to prioritize
    investments. The five groups and the project types they include, as
    described in the fiscal year 2010 Transit Security Grant Program
    Guidance and Application Kit December 2009, are:
      --Priority group A, ``training, operational deterrence, drills, and
            public awareness activities'' which includes: developing
            security plans; training (basic before follow-on) for security
            awareness, DHS-approved behavior recognition detection courses,
            counter-surveillance and immediate actions for security
            threats/incidents; operational deterrence for canine teams,
            mobile explosives screening teams, and anti-terrorism teams;
            crowd assessment; and public awareness.
      --Priority group B, ``multi-user high-density key infrastructure
            protection'' which includes: anti-terrorism security
            enhancement measures, such as intrusion detection, visual
            surveillance with live monitoring, alarms tied to visual
            surveillance system, recognition software, tunnel ventilation
            and drainage system protection, flood gates and plugs, portal
            lighting, and similar hardening actions for: tunnel hardening;
            high-density elevated operations, multi-user high-density
            stations, and hardening of supervisory control and data
            acquisition systems.
      --Priority group C, ``single-user high-density key infrastructure
            protection'' which includes: anti-terrorism security
            enhancement measures for high-density stations, and high-
            density bridges.
      --Priority group D, ``key operating asset protection'' which
            includes: physical hardening/security of control centers;
            secure stored/parked trains, engines, and buses; bus/rail
            yards; and maintenance facilities.
      --Priority group E, ``other mitigation activities'' which includes
            interoperable communications, evacuation plans, and anti-
            terrorism security enhancement measures for low-density
            stations.
        In addition, larger systems in high-risk areas meeting activity
    criteria are eligible for funding for operational activities with
    Operational Package (OPack) funds.
        Table 3 reports the number of agencies in the sample which received
    TSGP funds and matching funds for use for each PEGD category for fiscal
    years 2006, 2007, and 2008 in the columns to the left and the use of
    funds from other sources in similar categories for the same years in
    the columns to the right. Thirty-five systems answered each question.

                                         TABLE 3.--USE OF FUNDS BY PEGD CATEGORY
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Use of TSGP--number of grants      Use of non-Federal funding
                                                              by  category           sources, number of grants using
        Project effectiveness group description    ---------------------------------        funds by  category
                       category                                                     --------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal
                                                    year 2006  year 2007  year 2008  year 2006  year 2007  year 2008
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Training, operational deference, drill, public          8         24         20          6          8          8
     awareness....................................
    Multi-user high-density key infrastructure             12         13         16          8          8          8
     protection...................................
    Single-user high density key infrastructure             7          5          5          5          5          7
     protection...................................
    Key operating asset protection................         19         16         11         11         12         10
    Other mitigation activities...................          5          6          7          7          9          8
    Operational Packages (OPacks).................  .........          8          5          5          6          5
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      use of funds by project descriptions
        Participating transit systems were asked an open-ended question to
    list examples of the types of projects for which they used security
    funding. The question was repeated for each year for both TSGP and
    matching funds and State and local funding. Table 4 counts those
    answers in generalized categories into which they appeared to fit. Not
    all answers are included and many participants did not answer for each
    year. This table is thus a list of project types and should not be
    considered a count of the number of each project type actually
    undertaken.

                              TABLE 4.--GENERAL TYPES OF PROJECTS REPORTED BY PARTICIPANTS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Projects implemented--categorized by general types (open-ended
                                                      question, not all systems answered question for each year and
                                                                        not all uses were listed)
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
                    Type of project                     TSGP and matching funds          State and local funding
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal
                                                    year 2006  year 2007  year 2008  year 2006  year 2007  year 2008
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Closed circuit TV and CCTV support............         15          7         10          7          7          7
    Access control................................          5          2          3          2          3          2
    Intrusion/perimeter monitoring/protection.....          2          6          4          2          4          2
    Chemical detection equipment..................          2  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    Awareness training............................          4          1          2  .........  .........  .........
    Behavior recognition software.................          1  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    K-9 related equipment/training................          1  .........  .........          1          1          2
    Training and exercises........................          7         14         15  .........  .........          1
    Public awareness..............................          1          2          3  .........  .........  .........
    Communications improvements and equipment               3  .........          2          2          1          5
     upgrades.....................................
    Tunnel communications.........................          1  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    Security planning.............................          1          1          3  .........          1  .........
    Infrastructure protection/fencing/lighting....          1  .........  .........          2          2          3
    Control center and control equipment                    2          1  .........  .........  .........  .........
     redundancy/improvement.......................
    Tunnel protection and tunnel access equip-              2          3          2  .........  .........  .........
     ment.........................................
    Vehicle location system.......................          1  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    Portal security...............................          1  .........          2  .........  .........  .........
    Station security..............................          1          1          1          1          1  .........
    Passenger information systems.................  .........          1  .........  .........  .........  .........
    Risk assessment...............................  .........          1          3  .........  .........  .........
    License plate recognition equipment...........  .........  .........          1  .........  .........  .........
    Electronic security...........................  .........  .........          1  .........  .........  .........
    Guards, police................................  .........  .........  .........          4          4          4
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         use of funds vs. actual needs
        It is important to note that survey responses on funding uses
    should not be seen as indicators of transit agency security funding
    priorities. Instead they are provided to simply demonstrate where
    funding has been spent. APTA and many of its members continue to have
    concerns that the categorical prioritization of funding within the TSGP
    unnecessarily restricts agencies from applying for security grants for
    projects they would otherwise deem more important to their specific
    agency security mission. The statutory provisions of the Implementing
    Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act which outlined the eligible
    use of funds did so in a broad and generic manner in order to specify
    the wide range of eligible uses, and not in the restrictive and
    prioritized manner prescribed by TSGP grant guidance.
            respondents views on the administration of the tsgp \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Note.--Changes to TSGP administration have been implemented in
    response to grantee concerns since APTA's survey was conducted, some of
    which are reflected in the Fiscal Year 2010 Grant Guidance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The administration of the TSGP has been of significant concern to
    the transit industry over the last several years, with changes to
    policy and priorities occurring each year creating challenges for
    grantees to implement their own security budgets, plans and programs in
    a consistent manner. APTA's survey asked open-ended questions regarding
    grantees views on the TSGP administration.
        Many agencies sought additional availability of funds for
    operational security needs, while other agencies felt the program
    should be limited to capital security improvements. It was widely
    viewed that TSGP grants should be comprised of 100 percent Federal
    funding, so as not to jeopardize important security projects because of
    other budget limitations. Multiple comments were received calling for
    operating and maintenance costs of TSGP-funded equipment to be
    considered an eligible expense.
        The grant process timeline was widely perceived as too long and
    time consuming given the amount of funds available to agencies. Early
    release of grant guidance was a recommendation that would allow for
    timelier grant application submission.
        Concerns were expressed that the TSGP did not allow ``pre-award''
    authority. This inconsistency with Federal Transit Program grants not
    only added to confusion in agency dealings with FEMA and the
    Transportation Security Administration (TSA), but also had the
    potential to lead certain project expenditures to be ineligible because
    of relatively minor administrative details, thereby affecting the
    transit agency's ability to expend the funds as programmed.
        A variety of administrative process recommendations were made in
    the comments section, such as urging DHS to follow the Federal Transit
    Administration (FTA) practice of utilizing annual audits for agencies
    with certified grantees business systems and practices. Many of the
    paperwork requirements and record keeping processes in place were seen
    as duplicative.
        Additional projects that have been excluded or overly restricted
    include consequence management projects, continued sustenance and life-
    cycle maintenance of security projects, interoperable communications,
    and redundant power systems. Current allocations for management and
    administration are not sufficient for long-term capital endeavors.
    Agencies require more flexibility in the assignment of in-house
    flagging and escort crews for work tied to security projects. Some
    agencies argued for allowable costs to include program administration
    and project management. Several respondents argued that the guidance
    was unnecessarily restrictive as to the use of funds, since threats and
    technology are regularly subject to change. As well, needs vary from
    transit agency to transit agency according to inherent risk exposures
    and current state of infrastructure and technological applications.
        Many agencies commented that operational funding should be
    available for projects and purposes other than the currently defined
    OPacks. Not all transit agencies control their own sworn law
    enforcement, and as such often contract for services--often with
    private contractors or sworn forces of surrounding jurisdictions. The
    unavailability of funds for these purposes is seen as an unnecessary
    restriction.
        Some agencies felt that the current grouping of agencies into tiers
    did not adequately correlate their tier to their risk, due to perceived
    unique regional security concerns. Smaller systems complained that
    despite their eligibility under the tier system, they either had not
    been successful at obtaining grant funding. Some smaller agencies felt
    that minimum project amounts should be eliminated.
        The wide variety of comments from agencies supports APTA's
    consistent call for less restrictive security grants and for a process
    that avoid the one-size-fits-all approach.
               other security needs not identified in this survey
        The funding needs and uses identified through this survey do not
    include Department-centric budgetary resources, such as those required
    for intelligence and information sharing, security standards
    development, and research and development.
    Information and Intelligence
        A high priority for the transit industry in the area of information
    sharing and intelligence is the continuation of a small but critical
    amount of annual funding for the annual maintenance of the Public
    Transportation Information Sharing and Analysis Center (PT-ISAC).
    Established in response to Presidential Decision Directive 63 and
    Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7), the PT ISAC is
    seen by transit security professionals as a highly valuable interactive
    resource for the dissemination and sharing of industry specific
    information and intelligence. A joint industry/government working group
    formed under the auspices of the Mass Transit Sector Coordinating
    Council (SCC)/Government Coordinating Council (GCC) is currently
    refining a proposal for security information sharing that would look to
    the PT-ISAC to becoming a permanent, expanded system that would
    coordinate the dissemination of all relevant security information to
    the public transit industry.
    Security Standards
        A similar high priority for the industry requiring continued, but
    relatively small amounts of funding is the transit security standards
    development program. Produced through the consensus-based process
    recommended by the American National Standards Institute and fully
    inclusive of Federal stakeholders including the TSA, FTA, and Federal
    Railroad Administration, the transit security standards program serves
    an extremely important guiding role for future policies and investments
    in transit security.
    Research and Development
        Additionally, resource allocation issues within DHS have failed to
    adequately address the research and development needs of transit. In
    September 2008, the Mass Transit SCC Security Technology Working Group
    issued draft recommendations which identified concerns over the lack of
    a formal structure that brings the Federal Government and transit
    industry together to discuss transit security technology priorities,
    needs, and areas of potential interest for technology advancement and
    research. There is a general view that TSA research and development,
    and DHS science and technology do not conduct adequate early outreach
    with the industry to determine needs ahead of actual technology
    development and deployment efforts. Transit security professionals
    believe that early and active engagement of industry could lead to a
    better understanding of varying transit agency needs, as well as better
    research and development overall.
    Cybersecurity
        Also, resources such as technical assistance and the like may be
    necessary for support of transit industry efforts in the area of
    cybersecurity. Concerns over cybersecurity have increased across the
    Federal Government and throughout the country over recent years, and
    transit agencies are no different. As significant users of power and
    computerized control systems, cybersecurity will remain a significant
    concern for an industry responsible for the safe and secure movement of
    35 million daily riders.
    Technical Support
        Since September 11, 2001, the FTA initially and DHS subsequently
    have offered technical support from time to time to assist transit
    agencies in the ongoing development and strengthening of their security
    plans, processes, procedures and resources. This level of Federal
    support continues to be an imperative need and necessitates DHS to
    ensure that such technical assistance is appropriately funded.
    Resiliency and All-Hazards
        Finally, as DHS and many others in the homeland security policy
    arena discuss issues of resiliency and ``all hazards'' approaches to
    security and emergency management policy, transit agencies are
    increasingly looked to as instruments for disaster response and
    evacuation, and as such have repeatedly responded to major incidents
    ranging from 9/11 to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Views on the
    resources made available to the Department for its overall budget
    should not overlook the potential transit needs in ``all-hazards''
    response to the resiliency question.
                about public transportation in the united states
        The United States transit industry carries more than 10 billion
    riders a year for more than 50 billion passengers miles. In 2008, 7.2
    million people used transit as their primary means of commuting to
    work, 23 percent more than commuted on transit in 2000.
        Transit service is provided by more than 387,000 employees
    operating 137,000 vehicles in the peak service period each weekday.
    Transit rail cars, buses, and vans provide 4.6 billion miles of revenue
    service in a year. Twenty-six commuter rail systems, 15 heavy rail
    systems, and 35 light rail systems provide service more than 11,270
    directional miles of routes, and along with bus service stop at 4,500
    stations and numerous street locations.
        APTA's Security Affairs Steering Committee serves in the role of
    the Mass Transit SCC.
                                     ______

               Letter From Marine Conservation Biology Institute
                                                        April 19, 2011.
    Hon. Mary L. Landrieu,
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC.
        Dear Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee: Marine
    Conservation Biology Institute (MCBI), based in Bellevue, WA, is a
    nonprofit conservation organization whose mission is to protect ocean
    ecosystems. We use science to identify places in peril and advocate for
    bountiful, healthy oceans for current and future generations. I wish to
    thank the members of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee
    for the opportunity to submit written testimony on the fiscal year 2012
    appropriations for the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). MCBI recommends $10.791
    billion for the USCG in fiscal year 2012. This amount would reinstate
    fiscal year 2010 funding levels, with an additional $2 million to
    combat marine debris as mandated by law.
        The USCG is a multi-mission agency, stretched by many demands. MCBI
    supports the USCG in their efforts to reach their goals in providing
    maritime safety, security, mobility, national defense, and protection
    of natural resources. The fiscal year 2012 President's request has
    decreased the USCG's overall budget by more than $450 million,
    including a decrease of $147 million for marine environmental
    protection, one of the USCG's 11 missions. We are concerned about this
    decrease and what it portends in terms of the further degradation our
    oceans.
                                 marine debris
        Marine debris has become one of the most widespread pollution
    problems affecting the world's oceans and coasts. As highlighted by the
    ``Great Pacific Garbage Patch'' in the North Pacific Ocean, and garbage
    patch in the Atlantic Ocean, marine debris is a growing problem that is
    manifesting itself in all United States waters, including in Hawaii,
    Alaska, Louisiana, and the Caribbean. Research has shown that debris
    seriously effects the marine environment, marine wildlife, the economy,
    and human health and safety.
        Marine debris harms marine and coastal communities by damaging
    marine habitat like coral reefs, transporting non-native and invasive
    species to new habitats, causing navigational hazards and vessel
    damage, and harming and entangling wildlife. 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. For example, entanglement in debris is
    major cause of death for Hawaiian monk seals (population estimate:
    <1,200).
        To combat marine debris, the Congress responded in a bipartisan
    manner and enacted the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and
    Reduction Act in 2006 which established national efforts to identify,
    assess, reduce, and prevent marine debris and its effects on the marine
    environment. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    and the USCG work together to undertake these activities. The USCG's
    marine debris efforts fall under its marine environmental protection
    mission, 1 of 11 missions.
        The 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, the USCG monitors discharge
    of waste from ships and oversees port waste receptor facilities. In
    addition, the USCG provides critical support and leadership for a
    variety of anti-marine debris activities. For example, the USCG has
    partnered primarily with NOAA, starting in 1998, to remove an estimated
    667 metric tons (mt) of marine debris (mostly derelict fishing gear)
    from the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands where marine debris kills
    endangered Hawaiian monk seals and seabirds. In 2009, NOAA and the USCG
    removed an estimated 68 mt of debris. With the recent earthquake in
    Japan, an influx of debris has been introduced to the marine
    environment. University of Hawaii scientists believe that we will start
    to see the impacts of this debris in the Hawaiian Islands in about 18
    months.
        The Marine Debris Act authorizes $10 million annually for NOAA's
    Marine Debris Program and $2 million for the USCG's marine debris
    efforts. NOAA has been level funded at $4 million since 2008, but 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, the economic costs of marine debris on our marine resources,
    tourism, human health and safety far outweigh the cost of marine debris
    removal activities. Therefore, we encourage the subcommittee to
    minimally reinstate the 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. Adequate and sustained funding is needed to
    maintain and enhance the ability of the USCG to support 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 USCG funding to support the critical role it plays in
    fighting marine debris.
                Sincerely,
                                      William Chandler,
                         Vice President for Government Affairs,
                                 Marine Conservation Biology Institute.
                                     ______

       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
    Appropriations Subcommittee prepares its fiscal year 2012
    appropriations legislation.\1\ In 2005, the 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, 6 years later implementation remains
    stalled due to strained State budgets and a lack of Federal investment.
    As the nonprofit, national association for the 57 vital records offices
    that are critical partners in the security of our homeland, NAPHSIS
    recommends you provide the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
    $100 million over a period of 3-5 years to modernize vital records in
    support of REAL ID through grants to States.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 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 and
    enhances the activities of the vital records jurisdictions by
    developing standards, promoting consistent policies, working with
    Federal partners, and providing technical assistance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      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.'' \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ 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, the 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. Section 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 operated by NAPHSIS 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.
                         need for verification persists
        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.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector
    General, Birth Certificate Fraud, Sept. 2009 (OEI-07-99-00570).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2009 and 2010, the Government Accountability Office (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.\4\ Just recently, the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation (FBI) arrested Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari for ``attempted use
    of a weapon of mass destruction''. When the FBI searched Aldawsari's
    apartment, agents discovered that Aldawsari had plans to obtain a
    forged U.S. birth certificate and obtain multiple drivers' licenses for
    the purpose of renting several different cars to carry out his attacks.
    Aldawsari recognized that birth certificates can be used to obtain
    multiple identification documents such as passports and driver's
    licenses.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Government Accountability Office, Department of State:
    Undercover Tests Reveal Significant Vulnerabilities in State's Passport
    Issuance Process, Mar. 2009 (GAO-09-447) and State Department:
    Undercover Tests Show Passport Issuance Process Remains Vulnerable to
    Fraud, July 2010 (GAO-10-922T).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Passport fraud prevention managers commenced using the EVVE system
    in March 2009 for birth certificate verifications. In their first 6
    weeks of use, there were two instances where the fraud prevention
    managers 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. Based on these and other
    successes, NAPHSIS is working with the Department of State to integrate
    EVVE into the standard passport adjudication process.
                states need federal support to implement real id
        EVVE is now installed in 30 vital records jurisdictions and is used
    by select State DMVs and Medicaid Offices, the Social Security
    Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Department
    of State fraud prevention managers 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 has completed upgrades to the EVVE system to meet the REAL
    ID requirements and is working to install EVVE in the remaining 27
    jurisdictions before the now extended, REAL ID deadline. NAPHSIS has
    also procured a data analysis and quality control tool that all
    jurisdictions can utilize to analyze their EVVE database for anomalies,
    inconsistencies, accuracy, and completeness. This tool and the analysis
    of EVVE data has been completed in 17 jurisdictions to-date.
        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 7 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.
         recommended 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 the 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 2012 to each vital
            records jurisdiction, on average.
      --Option 2.--$20 million per year over 5 years, providing roughly
            $350,000 in fiscal year 2012 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.
        The terrorist attack the FBI thwarted in the apprehension of Khalid
    Ali-M Aldawsari brings to mind the September 11 tragedy, and reminds us
    of the need to secure official forms of identification. 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. Six 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 for the opportunity to submit this statement for the
    record regarding the fiscal year 2012 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). 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.
        This year, NEMA fully supports the President's requested funding
    level and House Appropriations Committee recommendation of $350 million
    for EMPG. 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. In many ways, EMPG
    offers a cost-savings by allowing States to manage disasters which
    would otherwise need to be addressed by the Federal Government.
        NEMA, in conjunction with the International Association of
    Emergency Managers, has taken the most significant step forward to-date
    in attempting to measure the effectiveness of EMPG. In March 2011, the
    two associations combined to release Emergency Management Performance
    Grants: Providing Returns on a Nation's Investment. The report measures
    the effectiveness of funding provided EMPG in fiscal year 2010. It also
    ties individual State and local efforts into the far larger picture of
    overall preparedness by demonstrating how a truly national emergency
    management system is developed and supported.
        A copy of the report is available online at: http://
    www.nemaweb.org/index.php?
    option=com_pollydoc&format=raw&id=2583&view=doc
                        homeland security grant program
        NEMA members remain alarmed at the significant cuts proposed by the
    House Appropriations Committee to the State Homeland Security Grant
    Program (SHSGP). This program 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. Furthermore, providing sole
    discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security allows far too many
    opportunities for ``politics'' to be played with these critical grant
    programs. While in theory, combining grant programs and consolidation
    may appear sound; in practice such efforts remain impractical.
        We urge the subcommittee 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
    subcommittee considers funding for the SHSGP, NEMA urges sustained
    appropriations levels on a multi-year basis to allow for long-range
    planning, maintenance, implementation, and measurement.
                            pre-disaster mitigation
        The administration's request of $85 million for the Pre-Disaster
    Mitigation (PDM) grant program reflects the amount normally available
    for programmatic activities after congressionally directed funding has
    been allocated out of a $100 million appropriation. Since fiscal year
    2002, PDM has been a competitively awarded 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 supports the President's request of $85 million provided the
    ban on congressionally directed funding from the recent reauthorization
    language is followed. Should targeted funding continue to be a part of
    this program, we would request appropriate funds above the $85 million
    to off-set the programmatic impacts.
                          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. 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 the 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.
        EMAC has grown significantly in size, volume, and the type of
    resources it provides over the years. Since 2004, the volume and types
    of resources requested under EMAC has grown considerably. For example,
    26 emergency management personnel responded to the September 11, 2001,
    terrorist attacks. Conversely, more than 66,000 personnel from a
    variety of disciplines deployed to the gulf coast in response to
    Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and 12,279 personnel to Texas and Louisiana
    during Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. The 2009 spring flooding in North
    Dakota and Minnesota resulted in States deploying equipment, sandbags,
    and 1,029 personnel to North Dakota. In all, 727 National Guard
    personnel and 302 civilians were sent to assist via the compact.
        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
    $2 million line item appropriation would codify the program for use in
    future disasters. In the past, NEMA has advocated for $4 million of 2-
    year funding, but pursuant to an agreement with FEMA programmatic
    personnel, our position is now one of single-year funding of $2
    million. Please note these funds do not represent an earmark as they
    provide numerous benefits directly to the States to build and maintain
    a national mutual aid system.
        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, $2
    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 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 subcommittee
    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 2012 budget for DHS, we
    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 subcommittee over the years. I thank you for the
    opportunity to testify on behalf of NEMA and appreciate your continued
    partnership.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the National Treasury Employees Union
        Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Coats, distinguished members of
    the subcommittee, 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 more than
    24,000 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers, agriculture
    specialists, and trade enforcement and compliance specialists who are
    stationed at 331 land, sea, and air ports of entry across the United
    States.
        CBP entry specialists, import specialists, paralegal specialists
    that determines fines, penalties and forfeitures, customs auditors and
    attorneys and other trade compliance personnel are the frontline of
    defense against illegal imports and contraband. These employees enforce
    more than 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 imports, such as pirated intellectual property and counterfeit
    goods, and contraband such as child pornography, illegal arms, weapons
    of mass destruction, and laundered money. CBP is also a revenue
    collection agency--collecting $32 billion in duties and fees on imports
    valued at more than $2 trillion in 2007.
        Along with facilitating legitimate trade and enforcing trade and
    security laws, CBP trade personnel are responsible for stopping illegal
    transshipments, goods with falsified country of origin, goods that are
    misclassified and for collecting antidumping and countervailing duties.
    According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on Customs
    Revenue Functions (GAO-07-529), CBP collected nearly $30 billion
    customs duties in fiscal year 2006, but did not collect approximately
    $150 million in antidumping duties alone in 2006. In addition, it is
    estimated that $500 million in antidumping duties were left uncollected
    between 2001 and 2006. (See GAO-07-529, page 23 and pages 29-30.)
                   trade enforcement and compliance staffing
        When CBP was created, it was given a dual mission of not only
    safeguarding our Nation's borders and ports from terrorist attacks, but
    also the mission of regulating and facilitating international trade.
    CBP is responsible for collecting import duties and ensuring importers
    fully comply with applicable laws, regulations, quotas, Free Trade
    Agreement requirements, and intellectual property provisions.
        Customs revenues are the second largest source of Federal revenues
    collected by the U.S. Government after tax revenues. This revenue funds
    other Federal priority programs. NTEU is deeply concerned with the lack
    of resources, both in dollars and manpower, devoted to CBP's trade
    functions. Lack of sufficient focus and resources costs the U.S.
    Treasury in terms of customs duties and revenue loss and costs American
    companies in terms of lost business to unlawful imports.
        Because of continuing staffing shortages, inequitable compensation,
    and lack of mission focus, experienced CBP commercial operations
    professionals at all levels, who long have made the system work, are
    leaving or have left the agency. Twenty-five percent of CBP import
    specialists will retire or be eligible to retire within the next few
    years.
        When the Congress created the Department of Homeland Security
    (DHS), the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees included
    section 412(b) in the Homeland Security Act (HSA) of 2002 (Public Law
    107-296). This section mandates that ``the Secretary [of Homeland
    Security] may not consolidate, discontinue, or diminish those functions
    . . . performed by the United States Customs Service . . . on or after
    the effective date of this [a]ct, reduce the staffing level, or reduce
    the resources attributable to such functions, and the Secretary shall
    ensure that an appropriate management structure is implemented to carry
    out such functions''.
        In October 2006, the Congress enacted the Security and
    Accountability For Every (SAFE) Port Act (Public Law 109-347). Section
    401(b)(4) of the SAFE Port Act directed the DHS Secretary to ensure
    that requirements of section 412(b) of the HSA (6 U.S.C. 212(b)) are
    fully satisfied.
        CBP satisfied this statutory requirement by freezing the number of
    many maintenance of revenue function positions at the level in effect
    on the date of creation of the agency in March 2003. As you know, CBP
    was created by the merger of the former U.S. Customs Service, the
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Animal, Plant, Health
    Inspection Service (APHIS). In March 2003, the number of commercial
    operations employees at the former U.S. Customs Service was
    significantly less than prior to 9/11 and significantly less than the
    need as stated in the U.S. Customs Service Optimal Staffing Levels
    Fiscal Years 2000-2002 (February 25, 2000), known as the resource
    allocation model (RAM).
        For example, according to the U.S. Customs RAM, in fiscal year
    1998, the optimal staffing level for import specialists at the U.S.
    Customs Service was 1,249, and based on workload in fiscal year 2002,
    the optimal staffing level for import specialists was 1,489 (pages 2,
    A-1 and M-1 through M-12).
        In actuality, in March 2003 when CBP stood up, there were only 984
    import specialists on-board. That is 265 import specialist positions
    less than the 1998 base total, and 505 less than the fiscal year 2002
    import specialists optimal staffing level. A significant reduction in
    the number of revenue maintenance function positions had occurred at
    the U.S. Customs Service between 9/11 and March 2003 when CBP stood up.
    Section 412(b) of the HSA reflected the Congress's concern regarding
    this diminishment in the number of customs revenue function positions
    versus customs security function positions at the U.S. Customs Service
    and fear that it would continue and be exacerbated by its merger into
    CBP.
        Even though CBP complied with the letter of section 401(b)(4) of
    the SAFE Port Act, it appears to NTEU that CBP views the ``March fiscal
    year 2003 Staff On-Board'' numbers of revenue maintenance function
    positions (see appendix I), including such vital trade facilitation and
    enforcement positions as entry and import specialists, as a ceiling
    rather than a floor.
                  cbp's resource allocation/optimization model
        CBP's adherence to the March 2003 import specialist employment
    number as a ceiling has become evident in the most recent iteration of
    the SAFE Port Act mandated RAM. Section 403 of the SAFE Port Act
    required CBP to complete a RAM by June 2007, and every 2 years
    thereafter, to determine optimal staffing for commercial and revenue
    functions. It directed that the model must comply with the requirements
    of section 412(b) of the Homeland Security Act (HSA) of 2002 and
    required the CBP Commissioner, not later than September 30, 2007, to
    ensure that the requirements of 412(b) of the HSA were fully satisfied.
    The CBP positions covered by section 412(b) include entry specialists,
    import specialists, drawback specialists, national import specialists,
    fines and penalty specialists, attorneys at the Office of Regulations
    and Rulings, customs auditors, international trade specialists, and
    financial systems specialists.
        The rationale for this provision arose from a GAO report (GAO-05-
    663) that stated, ``as of June 2003, CBP has not increased staffing
    levels [at the POEs]'' and ``CBP does not systematically assess the
    number of staff required to accomplish its mission at ports and
    airports nationwide . . . '' Further, GAO observed that ``not
    identifying optimal staffing levels prevents CBP from performing
    workforce gap analyses, which could be used to justify budget and
    staffing requests.''
        The former U.S. Customs Service's last internal review of staffing
    for fiscal years 2000-2002, dated February 25, 2000, shows that the
    U.S. Customs Service needed more than 14,776 new hires just to fulfill
    its basic mission (U.S. Customs RAM, page 2 and A-1)--and that was
    before 9/11. Since then, DHS was created and the U.S. Customs Service
    was merged with the Immigration and Nationalization Service and parts
    of APHIS to create CBP. CBP was given an expanded mission of providing
    for both the first line of defense against domestic terrorism and
    making sure trade laws are enforced and trade revenue collected.
        The first section 403 RAM, dated July 6, 2007, stated that ``CBP
    has over 8,200 employees that are involved in commercial trade
    operations. The model suggests that to carry out these commercial
    operations and to adequately staff the needs for priority trade
    functions, the optimal level of staff in fiscal year 2008 would be over
    10,000 employees'' (page 12 of CBP Report to Congress on Trade Resource
    Allocation Model.) According to the 2007 RAM, 1,100 import specialists
    would be needed for optimal performance in fiscal year 2010, an
    increase of 116 more than the HSA Floor (see page 16).
        In 2009, CBP renamed the section 403 resource allocation model
    (RAM) (the SAFE Port Act mandated Report to Congress). It is now called
    the resource optimization model (ROM). The fiscal year 2009 ROM reduces
    the fiscal year 2010 optimal staffing levels for some revenue
    maintenance function positions, specifically the entry and import
    specialist positions (see appendix II). For example, the fiscal year
    2009 ROM puts the number of import specialist positions needed in
    fiscal year 2010 at the HSA floor number of 984, rather than 1,100 as
    stated in the fiscal year 2007 RAM.
                       import specialist allocation model
        In 2009, CBP Office of Field Operations updated its import
    specialist allocation model (ISAM), ``a decision support tool in the
    allocation of resources''. The number of import specialists allocated
    for staffing the ports of entry, however, was determined to be 984
    prior to the compiling of the ISAM. The allocation model was done with
    the staffing number outcome already pre-determined.
        In the ISAM, CBP states that the Office of Field Operations
    ``manages a set allocation of 984 for import specialists, which is the
    minimum staffing requirement set forth by the Homeland Security Act of
    2002.'' Since the number of import specialist positions is frozen at
    984 nationwide, CBP's ISAM proposed a net reduction of 52 import
    specialist positions (from 179 to 127) at New York City area ports,
    shifting those positions to other ports (see appendix III) in order to
    handle current workload. CBP plans to eliminate positions at the ports
    with the highest number of import specialists--primarily the New York
    City region--to fill needs in other ports. NTEU is concerned that the
    ISAM is a zero-sum model that does not address actual staffing needs.
        Ports specialize in different areas of trade compliance and have
    different needs depending on the operation--air, sea, or land ports.
    Larger ports handle all areas of trade compliance whereas smaller ports
    might see a large amount of one type of commodity or only deal with a
    small range of trade compliance issues.
        Because of these differences between the ports of entry, rather
    than using a one-size-fits-all metric to determine allocation of import
    specialists, the data elements and factors that CBP weighs in
    determining allocation of import specialists should be different for
    each port depending on what type of operation it is and what the
    prevalent trade issues are at that port. Then, staffing should be
    decided using a work-to-staff ratio based on a formula and weighting of
    the elements for that port specifically.
        ``Informed compliance'' is not given any weight at all when
    determining import specialist staffing needs at individual ports.
    Authorized by the Customs Modernization Act (Mod act), ``informed
    compliance'' plays a major role in CBP's trade enforcement and
    compliance operations. Two new concepts that emerged from the Mod act
    are ``informed compliance'' and ``shared responsibility,'' which are
    premised on the idea that in order to maximize voluntary compliance
    with trade laws and regulations, the trade community needs to be
    clearly and completely informed of its legal obligations.
        Accordingly, the Mod act imposes a greater obligation on CBP to
    provide the public with improved information concerning the trade
    community's rights and responsibilities under customs regulations and
    related laws. Both the trade and CBP share responsibility for carrying
    out these requirements. For example, under section 484 of the Tariff
    Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1484), the importer of record is
    responsible for using reasonable care to enter, classify, and determine
    the value of imported merchandise and to provide any other information
    necessary to enable CBP to properly assess duties, collect accurate
    statistics, and determine whether other applicable legal requirements,
    if any, have been met. CBP is then responsible for fixing the final
    classification and value of the merchandise. An importer of record's
    failure to exercise reasonable care could delay release of the
    merchandise and, in some cases, could result in the imposition of
    penalties.
        It is the responsibility of the importers of record to make sure
    that what they submit to CBP is correct and it is the job of the import
    specialist, through informed compliance, to verify that what is being
    submitted is correct. Therefore, when considering import specialist
    staffing allocations at each port, the time the import specialist
    spends meeting with and educating the importing community should be
    part of the equation. NTEU believes that if done in this manner, CBP's
    import specialist staffing allocations would require increased import
    specialist staffing levels nationally.
                                 tariff sharing
        Last year, in response to an import specialists staffing shortage
    and pursuant to the 2009 ISAM, CBP is implementing at certain ports a
    tariff-sharing scheme. For example, because CBP has frozen at 984
    nationwide the total number of import specialist positions, CBP is in
    the process of reducing by 52 positions (from 179 to 127) the number of
    import specialists at the New York City-area ports (see appendix III)
    and shifting those positions to other ports. To address the loss of 52
    import specialist positions at New York City area ports of entry (New
    York-Newark gains 3 import specialist positions, but JFK loses 55
    import specialist positions), CBP has implemented tariff sharing
    between the ports of New York and Newark and JFK Airport. Until last
    year, each port (Newark and JFK) processed all types of entries and all
    types of commodities via the harmonized tariff schedule (HTS). In other
    words, each port had full tariff coverage.
        Because of this reduction in trade personnel, each port has now
    been assigned only parts of the HTS, not the entire HTS, and each port
    only processes only one-half the commodities entering its port. Tariff
    sharing presents a number of operational problems. Because the HTS will
    be split, each port will have one-half the number of commodities teams
    (staffed by import specialists) than they currently have. Certain kinds
    of merchandise will continue to be unloaded at the port of Newark, but
    the only commodity team that is trained to process it will be at JFK.
    And other merchandise will continue to be unloaded at JFK, but the only
    commodity team trained to process it will be in Newark. CBP has
    directed import specialists to, in these cases where there is no longer
    the appropriate commodity team present at the port to do a physical
    examination, take digital photos of the merchandise and email the
    photos to the other port. A digital photo cannot determine lead levels
    in toys or thread count in textiles. This is a short-sighted solution
    to an import specialist staffing shortage that will affect taxpayers,
    trade compliant importers, and the Federal Treasury.
        Rather than hire additional import specialists at ports of entry
    where they are needed, CBP instead is shortchanging the New York City
    trade community. It is clear that the fiscal year 2009 ROM, that states
    that only 984 import specialists are needed nationwide, does not
    adequately reflect the optimal staffing levels for import specialists
    as evidenced by the need to implement a tariff-sharing scheme at New
    York City region ports of entry.
                     tariff sharing and antidumping orders
        Tariff sharing significantly affects import specialists' timely
    disposition of antidumping orders. The problems that arise from tariff-
    sharing centers around the movement of entries between JFK and Newark.
    When liquidation orders are published in the Federal Register, CBP has
    6 months to liquidate and process those entries. There is almost always
    a certain amount of lag time between when the liquidation orders are
    published in the Federal Register and when the import specialists on
    the commodity team associated with that merchandise are actually made
    aware of the liquidation orders. In actuality, the import specialist
    rarely has the full 6-month period to liquidate and process these
    order.
        Prior to the Federal Register posting, the entries are kept in
    files with the commodity team that handles the merchandise. For
    example, under tariff sharing, the entry paperwork of commodities that
    are received at JFK, but are inspected by a commodity team at Newark,
    is supposed to be transferred to Newark and not filed at JFK. In many
    cases, however, when the liquidation order is issued, the commodity
    team in Newark goes through their files of antidumping entries.
    Frequently, there are JFK entries missing that were lost in
    transportation. At that point, Newark import specialists contact JFK to
    see if they can find the lost files. If the lost files can't be found,
    the Newark import specialist makes an inquiry to the Records Department
    to try and to retrieve these entries, which takes time.
        Pressed for time, import specialists then call the broker to ask
    the broker to reconstruct the entries and send these reconstructed
    entries to the commodity team. The commodity team then reviews these
    reconstructed entries to make sure that the entry type codes are the
    correct type for antidumping entries and that the entries were put on
    hold and not previously liquidated. If this happens, CBP could lose its
    ability to liquidate at the antidumping rates that are applied via the
    liquidation order and the extra duties cannot be collected. Recently in
    Newark, CBP lost the extra duty on 17 entries due to this very
    scenario. These liquidation orders encompass hundreds of entries.
    Conversely, JFK has the same problem on their end when they have
    antidumping entries to deal with. This same problem with disposition of
    antidumping orders is occurring at the ports of Detroit and Port Huron
    where CBP has also implemented tariff sharing.
        Under tariff sharing, revenue from antidumping orders is being
    lost. Again, it is clear that the fiscal year 2009 ROM, that states
    that only 984 import specialists are needed nationwide, does not
    adequately reflect the optimal staffing levels for import specialists
    that process antidumping orders.
        Finally, NTEU has just learned that because the import specialists
    at the ports of New York and New Jersey are overwhelmed with work due
    to the loss of the 52 trade positions (that has resulted CBP
    implementing tariff sharing at these ports), CBP has begun assigning
    audits to import specialists at other ports, even though the majority
    of the merchandise and entries associated with the importer being
    audited come into the ports of New York and New Jersey.
                      fiscal year 2012 cbp budget request
        Several years ago, pursuant to the provisions of the SAFE Port Act,
    there was a small increase in the number of CBP trade enforcement and
    compliance personnel. There was no increase in funding for CBP trade
    operations staffing in the fiscal year 2010 DHS appropriations bill and
    again, the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution has no increase in
    full-time equivalents (FTEs) for CBP trade operations personnel.
        In effect, there has been a CBP trade staffing freeze at March 2003
    levels and, as a result, CBP's revenue function has suffered. The
    fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding for CBP's enforcement program
    to ``prevent trade in counterfeit and pirated goods, and enforce
    exclusion orders on patent-infringing and other intellectual property
    rights violative goods.'' This request, however, includes no increase
    in CBP trade operations staff at the POEs to implement this trade
    enforcement program. NTEU urges the subcommittee to appropriate funding
    to hire additional trade enforcement and compliance personnel,
    including import specialists, at the POEs to enhance trade revenue
    collection.
                         cbp career ladder pay increase
        NTEU commends DHS for the recent increase in journeyman pay for CBP
    officers and agriculture specialists. Unfortunately, many deserving CBP
    trade and security positions were left out of this pay increase, which
    has significantly damaged morale. The 23,450 armed, uniformed CBP
    officers and uniformed CBP agriculture specialist will be eligible for
    the increase, but the approximately 2,000 non-uniformed CBP commercials
    operations employees will not.
        NTEU strongly supports extending this same career ladder increase,
    from GS-11 to GS-12, to additional CBP positions, including CBP entry,
    import and paralegal specialists and CBP-seized property specialists.
    The journeyman pay level for the CBP technicians who perform important
    commercial trade and administrative duties should also be increased
    from GS-7 to GS-9. These upgrades are long overdue and would show CBP
    trade personnel that the Congress recognizes the high level of
    expertise that these employees possess.
                           study of dedicated funding
        In 2007, the total value of all imports into the United States was
    more than $2 trillion. Processing these imports meant handling 22
    million entry summaries by CBP entry specialists, import specialists,
    and support staff. In addition to its security and trade missions, CBP
    works with more than 40 Federal agencies to help enforce a wide range
    of laws from consumer product and food safety, to environmental
    protection. It is clear that additional CBP commercial operations
    staffing and training funds are needed. Multiple proposals to increase
    customs fees are currently being promoted to support a great variety of
    proposed programs. Security needs, along with important national trade
    policy goals, require additional financial resources. NTEU encourages
    the subcommittee to request a study of the setting, collection, and
    utilization of these customs and user fees. This study should determine
    the relationship between current fees and monies allocated for CBP
    services and assess the need for additional fees.
                                   conclusion
        Customs revenues are the second largest source of Federal revenues
    that are collected by the U.S. Government. The Congress depends on this
    revenue source to fund priority programs. The subcommittee should be
    concerned as to how much CBP trade enforcement staffing shortages cost
    in terms of revenue loss to the U.S. Treasury.
        And most importantly, for the purposes of this hearing, CBP trade
    personnel are responsible for stopping illegal transshipments, goods
    with falsified country of origin, goods that are misclassified and for
    collecting antidumping and countervailing duties. The ongoing freeze in
    the number of CBP trade compliance and enforcement staff undermines
    this mission.
        In order to prevent customs fraud and duty evasion, NTEU urges the
    Congress to increase the number of trade compliance and enforcement
    staff responsible for enforcing antidumping and countervailing duty
    orders issued under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671
    et seq.) and preventing the importation of merchandise in a manner that
    evades that antidumping and countervailing duty orders issued under
    title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.)--a
    responsibility that falls solely on the shoulders of CBP import
    specialists.
        NTEU urges the subcommittee to fund the hiring of additional needed
    CBP trade staff to enforce the more than 400 U.S. trade and tariff laws
    and regulations for which they are responsible, to end the current
    practice of tariff sharing at several major ports of entry, and to
    ensure full tariff coverage at all major trade ports of entries listed
    on the ISAM (appendix III.)
        The more than 24,000 CBP employees represented by the NTEU are
    proud of their part in keeping our country free from terrorism, our
    neighborhoods safe from drugs, and our economy safe from illegal trade.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony on their
    behalf.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the U.S. Council of the International Association
                             of Emergency Managers
        Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Coats, and distinguished members
    of the subcommittee, I am Eddie Hicks, the director of emergency
    management for Morgan County, Alabama. I serve as the president of the
    U.S. Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers
    (IAEM-USA) and am providing, on their behalf, this statement on
    critical budget and policy issues for the Federal Emergency Management
    Agency (FEMA). I have been a local government emergency manager for 31
    years. I also served three terms as president of the Alabama
    Association of Emergency Managers. We support funding the Emergency
    Management Performance Grant at $350 million, the Emergency Management
    Institute at $11.9 million, and Pre-Disaster Mitigation at $84.9
    million in the budget for FEMA.
        IAEM 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 U.S. 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. 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 FEMA.
                    emergency management performance grants
        We respectfully urge that the subcommittee approve the President's
    request of $350 million for EMPG, but reject combining it with other
    accounts. EMPG is fundamentally different than the post-September 11,
    2001 Homeland Security grants because of its 50-percent Federal and 50-
    percent State- and local-matching requirements and established
    performance measures. It also pre-dates the Homeland Security grants by
    more than 50 years. We also request that language be included
    continuing to make it clear the funding is for all hazards and can be
    used for personnel.
        The program is authorized at $950 million for fiscal year 2012 in
    Public Law 110-53.
        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.
        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.
        Funding from EMPG has always been important to local government
    emergency management offices, and is even more vital during the current
    economic downturn. The programs of many of our local emergency managers
    have faced or will be facing budget reductions resulting in reduced
    staffing, reduced training, reduced public outreach, and reduced
    support to volunteers. Some 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 has the effect of actually
    reducing emergency management services--and potentially preparedness--
    in many areas of the country at a time when disasters and emergencies
    threaten more people and property than ever before. Simply receiving
    the entire 50-percent Federal match of their contributions would make a
    big difference in maintaining their programs. It should be noted that
    many local emergency management programs have historically provided
    significantly more than the 50-percent match that is required for their
    EMPG allocations.
                         emergency management institute
        We respectfully urge the subcommittee to increase the funding for
    the Emergency Management Institute (EMI) to $11.9 million. The fiscal
    year 2010 enacted amount for EMI was $9 million. It is our
    understanding that the request amount for fiscal year 2012 for EMI is
    $9 million although it is not specifically mentioned in the President's
    request. We urge you to again specifically designate funding for EMI in
    your subcommittee report and to require FEMA to include a specific
    request in the budget documents.
        The $2.9 million increase over fiscal year 2010 would support
    speeding the development and implementation of the Foundational
    Academy; continued updating and development of the field (G) and on-
    campus (E) courses; and, the development of other vital programs
    especially an Executive Emergency Management Program for State, local,
    and tribal emergency managers.
        Our disasters and emergencies are becoming more complex, and our
    State, local, and tribal emergency management officials continue to
    assume additional duties and responsibilities.
        To meet these emerging challenges, new and updated training from
    EMI is imperative. Lessons are being learned which must be incorporated
    into our professional body of knowledge. We are extremely encouraged by
    the renewed focus and efforts to update and enhance training programs
    over the past year with the funding support of the Congress. We
    continue to support the highly successful Emergency Management Higher
    Education Program at EMI which has produced significant improvements in
    the preparation of emergency managers at more than 232 college and
    university programs.
                              disaster mitigation
        We support the President's budget request of $84,937,000. 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, $1 spent by FEMA on hazard
    mitigation (actions to reduce disaster losses) provides the Nation
    about $4 in future benefits.
                               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 continue insisting on its
    implementation. The momentum returning FEMA to long-established
    principles of emergency management--all hazards, integrated, all phases
    (mitigation, preparedness, 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
    still reviewing Presidential Policy Directive-8, but are pleased that
    it included language that the directive shall be implemented consistent
    with relevant authorities, including PKEMRA and its assignment of
    responsibilities with respect to the Administrator of FEMA (PPD-8, page
    5).
        We remain concerned that FEMA functions should not be duplicated in
    other parts of DHS. For example, the DHS Office of Operations
    Coordination, created shortly after the enactment of PKEMRA, appears to
    be assigned functions that duplicate or compete with those of FEMA such
    as coordinating activities related to incident management and response.
                            fema response in alabama
        Morgan County, Alabama--my jurisdiction--was one of the 41 counties
    impacted by the Alabama tornadoes that happened on April 27, 2011. We
    were fortunate that we did not receive the same level of destruction
    which occurred in many other counties however we still have sufficient
    damage to have been included in the declaration. Alabama has a total of
    67 counties.
        We have an emergency management system in Alabama--a system of
    strong local programs working with a strong State program, coupled with
    a restored, more confident and nimble FEMA that is making a real
    difference in the lives of our citizens. The foundation of this strong
    local capability is the exercising, training, planning, and experienced
    personnel provided through EMPG. One thing we would like to remark on
    is the restoration of a past practice of assigning a FEMA person to
    serve as a ``county liaison'' for one or more counties included in the
    declaration. This person serves as a conduit to brief us on the latest
    developments related to the Federal portion of the recovery. In turn,
    this person can also field questions or resolve issues related to the
    Federal recovery. We think this is a potential ``best practice''. Some
    of our citizens who lost their homes have already been in temporary
    (mobile home) housing for 1 week or more--and this is just more than 1
    month after our tornado event. This is a nimble response by FEMA, and
    it represents a real improvement from the past.
                           principal federal official
        We would urge the subcommittee to include bill language prohibiting
    the funding of any position designated as a principal Federal official
    (PFO) for a Stafford Act event. IAEM has consistently opposed the
    appointment of PFOs. It leads to confusion. Instead, our members want
    the Federal coordinating officer 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.
                                   conclusion
        In conclusion, we urge the subcommittee to continue to build
    emergency management capacity by funding EMPG at $350 million. We urge
    increasing funding for EMI to $11.9 million. We urge elimination of the
    PFO for Stafford Act events.
        We urge the subcommittee to continue its efforts to strengthen FEMA
    and to insist on the full implementation of the provisions of PKEMRA.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    American Public Transportation Association:
        Attachment, APTA Survey of United States Transit System
          Security Needs.............................................   201
        Prepared Statements of the................................195,  197

    Coats, Senator Daniel, U.S. Senator From Indiana:
        Questions Submitted by.......................................   144
        Statements of...............................................3,  157
    Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi:
        Questions Submitted by....................................150,  190
        Statement of.................................................
          159........................................................

    Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana:
        Opening Statements of.......................................1,  155
        Prepared Statement of........................................     3
        Questions Submitted by.....................................37,  186
    Lautenberg, Senator Frank R., U.S. Senator From New Jersey:
        Prepared Statement of........................................
          158........................................................
        Questions Submitted by.......................................   142
        Statement of.................................................
          158........................................................

    Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Letter From the...........   206
    Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska, Questions
      Submitted by................................................153,  192
    Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................
      189............................................................

    Napolitano, Hon. Janet, Secretary, Department of Homeland
      Security, Prepared Statement of................................     9
        Summary Statement of.........................................     6
    National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information
      Systems, Prepared Statement of the.............................   207
    National Emergency Management Association, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   210
    National Treasury Employees Union, Prepared Statement of the.....   212

    Papp, Admiral Robert J., Jr., Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard,
      Prepared Statement of..........................................
      162............................................................
        Summary Statement of.........................................
          160........................................................

    U.S. Council of the International Association of Emergency
      Managers, Prepared Statement of the............................   217

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                         DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECUITY

                                                                       Page

    Acquisition Long-Lead Time Material (LLTM).......................   151
    Additional Committee Questions...................................    37
    Advanced Training Center (ATC)...................................    63
    Air:
        And Marine..................................................58,  63
        Cargo Screening..............................................    53
        Domain Awareness--C2 Gap Filler..............................    41
    Airline Fees.....................................................    17
    Anticounterfeit Operations in Colombia and Peru..................    82
    Antidumping Authorities..........................................    55
    Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit Costs...................    81
    Automated Target Recognition (ATR)...............................    70
    Aviation Security:
        Capital Fund.................................................    72
        Fees.........................................................   144
        Research--ATR................................................   111
    Baggage Fees.....................................................    70
    Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs)...............................    73
    Border Patrol:
        Agents.......................................................    59
        Construction.................................................    63
    Budget...........................................................    19
    Canine Teams.....................................................    77
    Categories of Expenditure for Grant Programs.....................   101
    CBP--Container Security..........................................    52
    Checkpoint Security..............................................    74
    Citizenship and Immigration Services:
        Data Center Consolidation....................................   151
        International Adoptions--Haiti...............................   106
    Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.................................    74
    Coast Guard......................................................   150
        Acquisitions.................................................    78
        Administrative Savings.......................................    75
        Asset Decommissionings.......................................    76
        Cuts.........................................................    25
        Icebreakers..................................................    31
        Maritime Coverage in Alaska..................................   153
        Shipbuilding.................................................    20
        Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)..............................   152
    Continuing Resolution...........................................16,  18
    Coordination of Federal Chemical Security Efforts................    48
    Cyber Threat.....................................................    36
    Departmental:
        Acquisitions.................................................    37
        Management...................................................   150
    Deployable Security Teams........................................    77
    Detention Reform.................................................    66
    DHS:
        Fee Proposals................................................    71
        Headquarters Consolidation...................................   147
    Disaster Relief..................................................   151
        Fund (DRF)...................................................5,  21
    Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO).........................   149
        Algorithm Improvement........................................   129
        Aviation Multi-Pathway Scanning Integration..................   128
        Cargo Imaging for Shielded Nuclear Threats (CISNT)...........   122
        Global Nuclear Detection Architecture (GNDA) Development:
            Annual Planning, Modeling, and Analysis..................   116
            Aviation Domain..........................................   118
            Interior Domain..........................................   120
            International Domain.....................................   117
            Land Border Domain.......................................   118
            Maritime Domain..........................................   119
        Graduated Rad/Nuc Detector Evaluation and Reporting (GRaDER
          SM).............................................   134
        Human Portable Tripwire (HPT)................................   121
        Information Sharing, Mission Critical Messaging..............   115
        Interior Capability Development (ICD)........................   139
        International Rail Program...................................   124
        Joint Analysis Center (JAC)..................................   136
            Collaborative Information System (JACCIS)................   137
        Long-Range Radiation Detection (LRRD)........................   123
        Mobile Detection Deployment Program (MDDP)...................   140
        National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center (NTNFC)--
          Technology Advancement.....................................   141
        Non-Helium-3 (\3\ He) Neutron Detection Alternatives Program.   127
        On-Dock Rail (ODR) Program...................................   125
        Preventive Radiological and Nuclear Detection (PRND):
            Pilot Programs...........................................   135
            Training and Exercises Program...........................   138
        Rad/Nuc Detection Standards..................................   114
        Radiation Portal Monitor (RPM) Program.......................   111
        Red Team and Net Assessments.................................   135
        Small Vessel Stand-Off Detection (SVSD) Program..............   126
        State and Local Initiatives Rad/Nuc Challenge................   121
        Systems Engineering Program..................................   113
        Test and Evaluation (T&E):
            Data Management and Algorithm Test Bed...................   132
            Directed Test............................................   133
            Infrastructure...........................................   131
            Operations...............................................   130
    Emergency Food and Shelter Program...............................   104
    Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws.................    13
    Ensuring Resilience to Disasters.................................    14
    E-Verify.........................................................   108
    Explosives Detection Systems.....................................    72
    Federal:
        Air Marshals.................................................    75
        Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)......................   109
        Protective Service Workforce Analysis........................    97
    FEMA:
        Disaster Relief..............................................    97
        Map Modernization............................................   152
        Staffing.....................................................   101
    Financial Systems Consolidation..................................    45
    Fiscal Year 2012:
        Budget Request...............................................    10
        Planned Accomplishments/Milestones...........................   141
    Flood Hazard Map Risk Analysis (FHMRA) and Modernization.........   105
    Funding Cuts.....................................................    21
    Government Shutdown..............................................    33
    Grants:
        Effectiveness................................................   145
        To State and Local Governments for First Responders..........   102
    Gulf Coast Dumping...............................................    25
    Homeland Security Information Network............................    45
    Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems.......................   111
    ICE--Violence in Mexico..........................................    64
    Icebreaking Acquisitions Analysis................................    46
    Impact of:
        Customs Enforcement on the Seafood Industry..................    54
        2010 Coast Guard Surge Operations............................    76
    Improved Antidumping Revenue Collections.........................    57
    Improving the Entry Process for Visitors to the United States....    59
    Information Integration and Transformation Program...............    82
    International Adoptions--Cambodia and Nepal......................   107
    Jones Act Enforcement............................................    58
    Marine Environmental Protection..................................    77
    Mass Transit.....................................................   143
    Maturing and Strengthening the Homeland Security Enterprise......    15
    Mexico...........................................................    35
    National:
        Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF)........................    23
        Domestic Preparedness Consortium.............................   103
        Flood Insurance Program and Flood Maps.......................   104
        Security Cutter (NSC)........................................   150
    Office of the Inspector General (OIG)............................    49
    Officer:
        Corruption...................................................    34
        Integrity....................................................    46
    Operational Mission Support......................................    82
    Overtime Pay Reform..............................................    63
    Polar Icebreakers................................................    76
    Port Security:
        Grants.......................................................   143
        Training.....................................................    78
    Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security......................    11
    Private Sector Coordination and Information Sharing..............    92
    Progress in Interoperability.....................................    89
    Proposed Cuts to FEMA............................................    98
    Providing Essential Support to National and Economic Security....    15
    Radiation Detection:
        For Air Cargo and Checked Baggage............................   113
        Straddle Carrier.............................................   112
    REAL ID Act Compliance...........................................    47
    Recapitalization of the Customs and Border Protection Air and
      Marine Fleet...................................................   146
    Removal Statistics...............................................    65
    Research and Development Project Summaries.......................   113
    Risk Assessment Process for Informed Decision Making (RAPID).....    87
    Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace.............................    14
    Science and Technology (S&T)--Laboratory Facilities..............   110
    Screening Procedures.............................................    73
    Secure Communities...............................................    66
    Securing and Managing Our Borders................................    12
    Small Boat:
        Stand-off Detection System/On-Dock Rail (ODR) Program........   112
        Strategy.....................................................    40
    State and Local:
        Communities, Grants..........................................    28
        Cyber Activity...............................................    83
        Grants.......................................................   144
    Surface Transportation...........................................    74
    Tactical Border Infrastructure...................................   146
    Transportation Security Laboratory...............................   143
    TSA..............................................................   142
        Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT)............................   152
        Internal Affairs.............................................    74
        Pat-Downs....................................................    29
        Screener Cap.................................................    69
        Screening Process for Persons Who Have Had Medical Procedures    31
    United States Secret Service (USSS)--Presidential Campaigns......    81
    Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)............................   103
    US-VISIT--Carryover Balances.....................................    97
    Visa Waiver Program/Biometric Air Exit Implementation............   145
    When Will We Know the Border Is Secure?..........................    58
    Workforce Balancing..............................................    40
    Worksite Enforcement.............................................    67

                                U.S. Coast Guard

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   186
    Administrative Savings Initiatives...............................   169
    Appendix I--Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request......................   166
    Aviation Safety..................................................   180
    Budget:
        Cuts.........................................................   172
        Planning.....................................................   188
    Cape May Training Center Pier Reconstruction.....................   175
    Coast Guard:
        Capabilities.................................................   169
        Maritime Coverage in Alaska..................................   192
    Decommissionings, Efficiencies, and Savings......................   169
    Drug Interdiction................................................   179
    Enhance Maritime Incident Prevention and Response.............166,  168
    Fast Response Cutter (FRC).......................................   188
    Fiscal Year 2012 Request.........................................   163
    Fleet Mix Analysis (FMA).........................................   187
    High Endurance Cutter (WHEC) Decommissioning.....................   188
    Illegal Immigration..............................................   173
    Living Conditions................................................   182
    Marine Ecology...................................................   184
    National Security Cutter (NSC)...................................   176
    Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC).....................................   185
    Oil Spills.......................................................   171
    Personal Locator Devices.........................................   181
    Pirate Attacks...................................................   175
    Rebuild the Coast Guard..........................................   166
    Response to Environmental Disasters..............................   183
    Support Military Families.....................................166,  168
    Sustain Frontline Operations..................................165,  167
    Terrorist Attacks................................................   174
    2010 Oil Spill--Incident-Specific Preparedness Review............   186
    Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)....................................   178
    Vessel Security..................................................   188

                                       -