[Senate Hearing 112-838]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-838
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 5855/S. 3216
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2013, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Homeland Security
Nondepartmental Witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-317 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota MARK KIRK, Illinois
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana DANIEL COATS, Indiana
JACK REED, Rhode Island ROY BLUNT, Missouri
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BEN NELSON, Nebraska JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JON TESTER, Montana
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 DANIEL COATS, Indiana
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
PATTY MURRAY, Washington LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
JON TESTER, Montana 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
----------
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Page
Department of Homeland Security.................................. 1
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Coast Guard................ 83
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 123
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:04 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Landrieu, Lautenberg, Tester, 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, everyone. Let me call the
subcommittee to order for homeland security review of the
budget. We welcome Secretary Napolitano.
As is our custom, I will start with an opening statement
and turn to my ranking member, Senator Coats, and then
recognize Senator Lautenberg, who will be joining us in a
minute. Then we will hear from the Secretary and open it up to
questions and comments from our members.
Madam Secretary, it has been a busy week for all of us,
particularly for you, who conducted for us in a classified
session just yesterday afternoon a cyber exercise, and we
appreciate your focus and attention on that very important
mission of your Department and a very present threat to our
Nation.
We welcome you. You lead a Department of 230,000 men and
women who are on the front lines every day protecting our
citizens. Last week, we were reminded of the real danger they
face every day when we lost four Coast Guard personnel in a
training helicopter mission over Mobile Bay.
In fact, ladies and gentlemen, as our subcommittee meets
this morning, a memorial service is being held in Mobile,
Alabama, to honor the crew members who were lost in this tragic
accident. They are Lieutenant Commander Dale Taylor, Lieutenant
Junior Grade John Cameron, Chief Petty Officer Fernando Jorge,
and Petty Officer Andrew Knight.
We send our condolences, Madam Secretary, to their
families, to their loved ones, and to the Coast Guard personnel
who served with them.
We commend the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
employees for their dedication and their service, and I commend
you for your continued leadership. Having been a former
Governor of Arizona, you are well aware of the threats along
our southern border and have been an expert in executing some
of those provisions. But you have developed quite an expertise
across the border.
We welcome you to our subcommittee today.
To my friend from Indiana, Dan Coats, I want to say we
stand with you in supporting the communities and individuals,
families, and businesses that were disaster victims and
survivors. We want to work with you, Senator Coats, the
volunteers, and all of our first responders to do everything we
can to help in Indiana and Ohio.
I know that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
that showed up to help you was a lot better than the FEMA that
showed up many years ago along the gulf coast, and we should
all be proud of the work that we have done to make that happen.
I am sure we still have other things that need to be done, but
it is a much better FEMA. And I hope you will find them to be a
reliable partner with your local governments.
My goal in this bill--and hopefully, it is shared by all of
you--is to produce a bipartisan, fiscally responsible Homeland
Security appropriations bill that provides this Department with
the resources it needs to prepare for, respond to, and recover
from all threats, both manmade and natural.
It is critical that we provide the Department with the
resources it needs to effectively execute its many core
missions, which are preventing terrorism, securing our borders,
enforcing all of our immigration laws, securing our cyberspace,
which is a very complex and difficult and on the front-line
objective right now. Not only preventing cyber attacks, but
being ready to respond to them. Not only protecting the
Government networks, but finding a way to build a strong
partnership with our private infrastructure, which is not
easy--complicated, but necessary to be done. Protecting our
currency, securing our ports and waterways, and enhancing
commerce with our ever-expanding trade laws.
So this Department is being given not just more missions,
but expanding missions in many areas. As the global commerce
expands, as we get more and more commerce coming in through our
waterways, our Coast Guard is being called on in any number of
new ways. The oil spill in the gulf is just one example.
So I want my members to understand that we can sometimes do
more with less. We are going to try to be as efficient and as
effective as we can. But I ask you to look at the mission of
this Department and to make sure that we are giving them the
resources to do their job, and we are not pulling the wool over
the eyes of our constituents by underfunding them in critical
ways. So we are going to work very hard with my ranking member
to make sure that happens.
In our 2012 bill last year, which was the first year that I
chaired this subcommittee, we worked together to accomplish
some important goals. First, we did strengthen the Coast
Guard's capital program. We funded six fast response cutters,
long lead time materials for the sixth national security
cutter, design funding for offshore patrol cutters, and
additional funding for enhanced oil spill response
capabilities, and improved funding for Coast Guard families.
We find the Coast Guard in the 8th district to be a very
effective Federal agency. I don't know what my other members
think about the Coast Guard, but we feel very strongly about
their mission. And as you can see with the spill in the gulf,
they were working 24-7. We need to make sure they can continue
to keep our ports open, our waterways and our oceans clean, and
intercept drug smugglers that are growing seemingly every day.
For the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), to
improve air travel experience, which we get many complaints
about, we included funding for the TSA risk-based trusted
traveler screening program, known as PreCheck
(Pre3TM), which is now operating in 9 airports, will
expand to 35 by the end of 2012. We also funded 250 advanced
imaging technology machines to detect threats; to try to be
more respectful of people's privacy, which is a very big issue;
and expedite the lines, Madam Secretary, in some of our
airports.
We don't have that much difficulty in our New Orleans,
Louisiana, airports. But I do hear horror stories from some of
my other members around the country about the long lines,
particularly on international entry into the country. And I
want to work with Customs and TSA this year on that.
We continue to invest in efforts to improve our disaster
response. We had the Mississippi, Missouri floods. We responded
to the tornadoes in the South and East, Hurricane Irene last
year. As you remember, last year was a catastrophic year for
disasters. We hope this year will be better. We don't know. But
I appreciate the support for funding for disasters.
In just one example of how we better supported FEMA,
because FEMA pre-positioned communications equipment purchased
after 2005, local officials consistently reported no unmet
communication requests during Hurricane Irene. So there are
actual results from the monies that we invest in this bill,
what people see and feel on the ground, whether it is in
Indiana, Ohio, or along the gulf coast, as Senator Cochran so
well knows.
Last year, we were able to enact through the Budget Control
Act a responsible funding mechanism for disaster relief. I want
to particularly thank Senator Cochran for his leadership on
this issue. I don't think it would have happened without him as
a senior member of Appropriations, and I want to give him the
credit for working with me, as well as my ranking member.
It is important to note that every State has its own unique
situation in responding to disasters. It is up to the Governors
to evaluate their situation, decide if they need Federal help,
and ask. Federal help is not mandatory. I just want to let
people know. Federal help is not mandatory.
It only comes if Governors ask. If they need it, we are
here to help them. In our case in the gulf coast, we could not
possibly have recovered from Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike
without substantial Federal help.
If some States can do that, that is fine. But it is
voluntary, and if they ask, we will be there to help them.
We also added funds above the request of the administration
to develop a more aggressive trade enforcement strategy. The
President's request this year builds on our efforts last year
to plus-up that title. We have petroleum products, textiles,
and the automotive/manufacturing sector that has been
threatened by unfair trade practices.
And I hear this from my colleagues. We want to try to be
responsive in this budget, and so we are going to continue to
focus on fair trade practices.
And finally, we increased funding to address cybersecurity
threat, including funding to meet the goal of educating 1.7
million students over the next 10 years.
I want to say to my subcommittee, we don't have
responsibility over the education budget. We just have
responsibility over homeland security. But we have to be in
partnership with the Department of Education to provide support
for the 1.7 million cyber warriors that we are going to need
coming out of our middle schools and high schools to actually
man the cyber stations to protect our Nation.
So please be thinking about some of those ideas. We have
got a very exciting education program that has evolved next to
Barksdale Air Force Base at the Cyber Innovation Center. There
may be other opportunities around the Nation.
In the fiscal year 2012 DHS bill, we made difficult cuts.
We eliminated agencies that were redundant, not meeting our
missions. Senator Coats has been particularly focused on
eliminating inefficiencies, and I appreciate his work in that
regard.
It is essential that this Department have the muscle,
however, to defend this country. We all appreciate the bravery
and skill of our military forces in eliminating Osama bin Laden
and Anwar al-Awlaki last year. However, we must remain vigilant
and nimble in responding to these evolving threats.
The President has proposed a budget for 2013 that, if
approved, would reduce the Department of Homeland Security
budget for a third year straight. While I believe in reductions
and I am pleased that the budget increases include substantial
increases for cybersecurity, science, and technology, I do have
reservations about the inadequate funding requests to replace
Coast Guard ships, planes, Customs air, and maritime aircraft.
Congress has a responsibility to make sure the next
generation of Coast Guard and Customs men and women serving on
the front lines have the equipment they need to process the
billions of dollars of goods that are coming into this country
and leaving our country in order to support our economy. This
isn't mission grab. This is what we do to support the
transactions between millions of businesses that rely on us to
keep those avenues of commerce open.
With regard to the President's proposed reform of the State
and local responders program, I look forward to hearing from
stakeholders and working with the Secretary. He has proposed
$500 million more in funding. I am very grateful for that. We
are going to have to figure out how to allocate it among the
many important programs.
And finally, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge
the tremendous work being done by the Director of U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services. I have mentioned him to
you privately. Director Mayorkas and his staff have been very
forward leaning with me and many Senators in our work around
the world on international adoptions. He has really stepped up
to help make sure that the thousands of Americans that adopt
internationally are getting a better experience.
And, they think they are doing God's work, and they are.
Adopting children who would otherwise die or suffer a very
lonely life, and I really appreciate his respect for that
issue.
prepared statement
I want to turn to Senator Coats now, and then I will turn
to our Vice Chairman Frank Lautenberg for opening statements.
And I now recognize Senator Coats.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Good morning. I call the subcommittee to order.
Secretary Napolitano, you lead a Department of 230,000 men and
women who are on the front lines every day protecting our citizens.
Last week, we were reminded of the danger they face when we lost four
Coast Guard personnel training in a helicopter over Mobile Bay. A
memorial service is being held this morning in Mobile, Alabama to honor
the crewmembers lost in this tragic accident: Lieutenant Commander Dale
Taylor, Lieutenant Junior Grade John Cameron, Chief Petty Officer
Fernando Jorge, and Petty Officer Andrew Knight. We send our
condolences to their families and to the Coast Guard personnel who
served with them.
We commend Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees for
their dedication and their service and I commend you for your continued
leadership. We welcome you to the subcommittee today. I look forward to
working with Senator Dan Coats, our ranking member. I say to my friend
from Indiana that we stand with him in supporting the disaster victims,
the volunteers, and the first responders as they rebuild following the
devastating tornados last week. I also look forward to working with
Senator Frank Lautenberg, our vice chairman, and all of the members of
our subcommittee as we prepare to mark up our fiscal year 2013 bill.
My goal is to produce a bipartisan, fiscally responsible Homeland
Security appropriations bill for 2013 that provides the Department with
the resources it needs to prepare for, respond to, and recover from all
threats, both man-made and natural. It is also critical that we provide
the Department with the resources that it needs to effectively execute
its many core missions--preventing terrorism, securing the borders,
enforcing our immigration laws, safeguarding cyberspace, securing our
ports and waterways, protecting our currency, and enhancing commerce
while enforcing our trade laws.
Securing this Nation is not just a Federal Government
responsibility. We must also serve as leaders, educators, and reliable
partners in helping State and local governments, the private and
nonprofit sectors, and our citizens achieve these goals.
In our fiscal year 2012 DHS act, we worked together to accomplish
these goals. For the Coast Guard, we funded six fast response cutters,
long lead materials for the sixth national security cutter, design
funding for the offshore patrol cutter, additional funding for
enhancing oil spill response capabilities, and funding to improve
housing for Coast Guard families. For the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), to improve the air travel experience, we included
funding for TSA's risk-based trusted traveler screening system known as
PreCheck (Pre3TM), which is now operating at nine airports
and will be expanded to 35 airports by the end of 2012. We also funded
an additional 250 advanced imaging technology units to detect threats
to aviation with software that protects people's privacy.
We continued to invest in efforts to improve FEMA's disaster
response capabilities. Since Congress enacted the Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act in 2006, we have invested considerable
resources in improving FEMA's disaster response capabilities. It is not
a coincidence that in the face of a terrible disaster year in 2011,
with the Mississippi and Missouri River floods, the tornados in the
South and East, and Hurricane Irene, that FEMA got positive reviews
from the State and local communities impacted by those storms. FEMA
catastrophic planning is more integrated, shelter facility data is
better managed, and the disaster acquisition process is proactive, not
reactive. In just one example, because FEMA pre-positioned
communications equipment purchased after 2005, local officials
consistently reported no unmet communications requests during Hurricane
Irene, according to recent testimony by Administrator Fugate. Under my
watch, we will not allow FEMA to lose ground.
Last year, we were able to enact through the Budget Control Act, a
responsible funding mechanism for the Disaster Relief Fund and I am
pleased that the White House is using that authority for fiscal year
2013. Now those communities that responded so well to disasters in 2011
will also have the funds they need to recover.
It is important to note that every State has its own unique
situation in responding to disasters. It is up to the Governors to
evaluate their situation and then decide if they need the Federal
Government's help, or not. There is no mandate that says a Governor
must seek assistance. No one is required to use FEMA's help.
The fiscal year 2012 DHS act also added funds above the request and
required the administration to develop a more aggressive trade
enforcement strategy. The President's request builds on this effort and
focuses investigations in key areas such as petroleum products,
textiles, and the automotive/manufacturing sector. We provided
significant funding to sustain the rapid increases in funding provided
in recent years to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws.
We also provided increased funding to address the cybersecurity
threat, including funding to meet the goal of educating 1.7 million
students over the next 10 years. DHS is teaming up with experts to
produce the cyber warriors of the future. Some of these experts are at
the Cyber Innovation Center in Louisiana, and I commend them.
We also made difficult cuts, eliminating agencies that were
redundant or not accomplishing their missions, and rescinded funds from
low-priority programs.
It is essential that the Department has the muscle it needs to
defend this country. We all appreciate the bravery and skill of our
military forces in eliminating Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki.
However, we must remain vigilant and nimble in responding to evolving
threats. And as the tornados reminded us last week, we must continue to
develop and sustain our capabilities to respond to natural disasters.
The President has proposed a budget for fiscal year 2013 that if
approved, would reduce the Department of Homeland Security budget for
the third straight year. While I am pleased that the budget includes
substantial increases for cybersecurity and science and technology, I
have strong reservations about the inadequate funding requests to
replace aging Coast Guard ships and planes and Customs air and marine
aircraft. Congress has a responsibility to make sure that the next
generation of Coast Guard and Customs men and women serving on the
front lines has the equipment needed to accomplish their many missions.
The President's budget does not pass that test. I will work with my
colleagues to identify resources to restore those cuts.
With regard to the President's proposed reform of the State and
local first responder grant programs, I look forward to hearing from
stakeholders and to working with the Secretary as we develop reform
legislation.
I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the tremendous
work being done by the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services. Director Mayorkas and his staff have been very forward
leaning in working with me and my staff on the issue of international
adoptions, especially in Guatemala. He represents your Department well
on this very important issue and truly cares about its humanitarian
impact.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAN COATS
Senator Coats. Madam Chairman, thank you.
And Secretary Napolitano, thank you for being with us
today, and particularly for that arrangement for the cyber
briefing we had last evening. I thought it was very important.
A lot of members of the Senate showed up for that--showed a
keen interest. And you defined it and others defined it in the
security business as one of the most major threats that the
Nation faces.
So we have got a lot of work to do. I appreciate your
involvement, engagement, and taking the lead on that effort. I
thought it was a very valuable session last evening.
I want to just take a couple minutes to reflect a little
bit on the damage that we had and the lives lost in southern
Indiana. It doesn't begin to compare with what you went
through, Madam Chairman and Senator Cochran, and what all those
along the gulf coast went through. Nevertheless, the first
responders' response and the mechanisms that kicked into gear
right after the storm swept through showed that we made very
significant progress in dealing with these types of
emergencies.
We had an unusual tornado in that instead of bouncing down
and taking out the buildings here and there and so forth, it
touched down and went for nearly 50 miles. About one-quarter
mile to one-half mile wide height, and there was literally
nothing in that path that stayed standing, including trees and
signs, but more importantly, homes and businesses and schools
and so forth.
So that amount of devastation just shows the force of
nature and makes our challenge of addressing funding for
unanticipated--but we know there will be coming disasters--
keeping the funds available to respond to that is a real
challenge.
The other thing I observed there was the role of the State
and the local communities. I think the coordination that took
place would not have happened 5 or 10 years ago. So a lot of
progress has been made.
But then what has traditionally happened all throughout the
history of our country is the fact that the response of the
people themselves--the volunteers, the Red Cross coming in,
people, neighbors helping neighbors, and adjoining counties
coming over and sending aid and as well as security and State
police and so forth--and then even people from other States
rallying to the cause in whatever way they can--is really
emblematic of the American spirit.
We like to handle as much as we can by ourselves in
Indiana. The Governor has yet to make a request to declare a
disaster. He is waiting for the assessment, which is going
forward as we speak. And we understand that the first
responsibility comes from our State and our local communities;
unfortunately, too often in the past, the first question asked
is, ``What is the Federal Government going to do, and how
quickly are they going to show up?''
We have to make sure that we maintain the fact the Federal
Government is the backup for situations like Katrina, for
situations which go beyond the ability of State, local, and
volunteer groups to handle. So we are trying to be conscious of
that, particularly in these days of fiscal discipline. And I
hope that that can serve as an example.
With that, I just look forward to the hearing and
discussing issues of pertinence. And Madam Chairman, thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Welcome, Secretary Napolitano.
We know that you do a lot of good work over there.
Unfortunately, the assignment requires more in resource, and as
a consequence, the job has some constraints that we would like
not to see. More than 10 year after the 9/11 attacks, and we
continue to face evolving threats in our fight against
terrorism.
Now, unfortunately, our ability to prevent and respond to
these threats is weakened by ``cut at any cost'' colleagues in
the Congress. Last year, the majority in the House slashed
funding for several critical programs, including State and
local grants that support first responders and help us prepare
for emergencies.
This subcommittee, under Senator Landrieu's chairmanship,
restored as much funding as possible in the final bill. But if
the other side had gotten its way, these programs would have
been decimated. These cuts underscore the need to increase
funds for grant programs this year to ensure that our families
are kept safe, and that is why we are pleased to see that this
year's budget includes an increase for preparedness grants.
However, we have concerns about the Department's proposal
to administer these funds. We need more information from the
Department about how the proposal might affect high-risk areas,
including our country's ports and public transportation system.
Now, make no mistake. Any proposal must do more to protect
areas like the stretch between Port of Newark and the Newark
Liberty Airport. Law enforcement has identified this area as
the most, the country's most inviting 2-mile stretch in the
country for terrorism. Yet last year, the Urban Areas Security
Initiative (UASI) granted funding for this region--grant
funding for this region was cut by 42 percent.
At the same time, we must remain vigilant on security at
our airports. Now over the past few years, Newark Liberty
Airport has experienced serious security lapses, and we are
pleased to see that TSA has made changes at Newark. But
challenges persist.
The Department has been investigating the airport's
operation for almost a year, and we are eager to see the
results so we can begin putting real reforms into place. The
bottom line, simply the threat of terrorism is real. We have
got to focus our limited resources on protecting the most at-
risk targets.
And to those who are obsessed with cost cutting, you can't
put a price on a human life, and nothing is more important than
keeping our communities, our families, and our economy safe. So
I look forward, Madam Chairman, to hearing from Secretary
Napolitano about how we can continue making the critical
investments that we must do in homeland security.
Thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg, for your
advocacy for these local grant programs.
You, being from New Jersey, of course, can fully appreciate
their importance. So we appreciate it.
Let us turn it over to you, Madam Secretary, for your
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JANET NAPOLITANO
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman
Landrieu, Ranking Member Coats, Vice Chairman Lautenberg, and
other members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to
discuss President Obama's fiscal year 2013 budget for the
Department of Homeland Security.
Before I begin and reiterating the remarks of Chairman
Landrieu, I would like to take a moment to remember the brave
men who lost their lives in the recent crash of Coast Guard
helicopter 6535. This tragic accident reminds us of the danger
and great personal risk that the courageous men and women of
our Department and our armed forces confront every day to
ensure the safety, security, and resilience of our Nation.
Today, as we speak, at the memorial service in Alabama and
throughout the country, our thoughts and prayers are with the
men, the women, and the families of the Coast Guard.
Now, 10 years after the September 11 attacks, America is
stronger and more secure, thanks to the strong support of the
President and the Congress, the work of the men and women of
the Department of Homeland Security, and local, State, and
Federal partners across our homeland security enterprise.
Although we have made significant progress, threats from
terrorism, including, but not limited to, al Qaeda and al
Qaeda-related groups, persist and continually evolve, and the
demands on DHS continue to grow as well. Today's threats are
not limited to any one individual, group, or ideology and are
not defined, nor contained by international borders. Terrorist
tactics can be as simple as a homemade bomb and as
sophisticated as a biologic threat or a coordinated cyber
attack.
We have had success in thwarting numerous terrorist plots,
including the attempted bombings of the New York City subway
and Times Square; foiled attacks against air cargo; and other
attempts across the country. Nonetheless, continued threats
from abroad and at home demonstrate how we must consistently
remain vigilant and prepared.
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget for DHS allows us
to continue to meet these evolving threats and challenges by
preserving core front-line operational priorities through the
redirection of over $850 million in base resources from
administrative and mission support areas. This continues our
unprecedented commitment to fiscal discipline, which has led to
over $3 billion in cost avoidances and reductions over the past
3 years through our efficiency review and other initiatives.
Given the fiscal challenges of the Department's State and
local partners, DHS is also approaching these partnerships in
new and innovative ways. For 9 years, DHS has been supporting
State and local efforts across the homeland security enterprise
to build capabilities, awarding more than $35 billion in
funding.
As we look ahead in order to address evolving threats and
make the most of limited resources, the administration has
proposed a new vision for homeland security grants through the
National Preparedness Grant Program to create a robust national
preparedness capacity based on cross-jurisdictional and readily
deployable State and local assets. Using a competitive, risk-
based model, this grants program will use a comprehensive
process to assess gaps, identify and prioritize deployable
capabilities, and put funding to work quickly, requiring
grantees to regularly support their progress.
My written testimony includes a comprehensive list of the
operational priorities in our budget. I would like today to
highlight just a few.
Preventing terrorism and enhancing security was the
founding mission of DHS. It remains our top priority today. The
fiscal year 2013 budget safeguards the Nation's transportation
systems through a layered detection system, focusing on risk-
based screening, enhanced targeting, and information-sharing
efforts to interdict threats and dangerous people at the
earliest point possible.
The budget supports the administration's Global Supply
Chain Security Strategy across air, land, and sea modes of
transportation by strengthening efforts to pre-screen and
evaluate high-risk containers before they are shipped to the
United States. We also continue our strong support for State
and local partners through training, fusion centers, and
intelligence analysis and information sharing on a wide range
of critical homeland security issues.
To secure and manage our borders, this budget continues the
administration's unprecedented focus on border security,
travel, and trade by supporting our border patrol agents and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers on the front
lines, as well as the continued deployment of proven, effective
surveillance technology along the highest trafficked areas of
the Southwest border and continued security improvements along
the northern border.
To secure the Nation's maritime borders, the budget invests
in recapitalization of Coast Guard assets, including the sixth
national security cutter, fast response cutters, as well as the
renovation and restoration of shore facilities.
The budget request also continues the Department's focus on
smart and effective enforcement of our Nation's immigration
laws. In fiscal year 2013, we will complete nationwide
implementation of Secure Communities. Through this initiative
and our continued collaboration with the Department of Justice,
it is expected to increase the number of criminal aliens and
other priority individuals who are indentified and removed from
this country.
This budget provides the resources needed to address this
changing population while continuing to support Alternatives to
Detention, detention reform, and immigrant integration efforts.
The budget also focuses on monitoring and compliance, promoting
adherence to worksite-related laws through criminal
prosecutions of egregious employers, and expansion of E-Verify.
To safeguard and secure cyberspace, the budget makes
significant investments to strengthen cybersecurity, including
funds to expedite the deployment of EINSTEIN 3 to prevent and
detect intrusions on Government computer systems. It also
includes increased Federal network security across the Federal
Government, and it continues to develop a robust cybersecurity
workforce to protect and respond to national cybersecurity
threats.
In 2011, the Department responded to a record number of
disasters. To ensure continued resilience to disasters, the
President's budget focuses on a whole community approach to
emergency management and includes resources for the Disaster
Relief Fund, the DRF, which provides a significant portion of
the Federal response to victims in Presidentially declared
disasters or emergencies and is funded largely through
authority provided under the Budget Control Act.
The budget also continues to provide essential support to
national and economic security by supporting the Coast Guard's
operations in the polar regions and by continuing to support
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and CBP's
efforts to protect U.S. intellectual property rights and
collection of Customs revenue.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In conclusion, the fiscal year 2013 budget proposal
reflects this administration's strong commitment to protecting
the homeland and the American people through the effective and
efficient use of DHS resources. As outlined in my testimony
today, we will continue to preserve front-line priorities
across the Department by cutting costs, sharing resources
across components, and strengthening operations wherever
possible.
Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Coats, members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I
am pleased to answer your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Janet Napolitano
Chairman Landrieu, Vice Chairman Lautenberg, 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 3 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 2013 budget request for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
Ten years after the September 11th attacks, America is stronger and
more secure today, thanks to the strong support of the President and
Congress; the work of the men and women of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and local, State, and Federal partners across the
homeland security enterprise.
While we have made significant progress, threats from terrorism--
including, but not limited to al Qaeda and al Qaeda-related groups--
persist and continually evolve, and the demands on DHS continue to
grow. Today's threats are not limited to any one individual, group, or
ideology and are not defined nor contained by international borders.
Terrorist tactics can be as simple as a homemade bomb and as
sophisticated as a biological threat or a coordinated cyber attack. We
have had success in thwarting numerous terrorist plots including the
attempted bombings of the New York City subway and Times Square, foiled
attacks against air cargo, and other attempts across the country.
Nonetheless, the recent threat surrounding the 10th anniversary of the
September 11th attacks and the continued threat of homegrown terrorism
demonstrate how we must constantly remain vigilant and prepared.
To continue to address these evolving threats, DHS employs risk-
based, intelligence-driven operations to prevent terrorist attacks.
Through a multi-layered detection system focusing on enhanced targeting
and information sharing, DHS works to interdict threats and dangerous
people at the earliest point possible. DHS also works closely with its
Federal, State, and local law enforcement partners on a wide range of
critical homeland security issues in order to provide those on the
front lines with the tools they need to address threats in their
communities.
Strengthening homeland security also includes a significant
international dimension. To most effectively carry out DHS's core
missions--including preventing terrorism, securing our borders, and
protecting cyberspace--we must partner with countries around the world.
This work ranges from strengthening cargo, aviation, and supply chain
security to joint investigations, information sharing, and science and
technology cooperation. Through international collaboration, we not
only enhance our ability to prevent terrorism and transnational crime,
we also leverage the resources of our international partners to more
efficiently and cost-effectively secure global trade and travel. Today,
DHS works in more than 75 different countries--the third largest
foreign footprint of any civilian U.S. Government agency--in order to
address and respond to evolving threats before they reach our shores.
Domestically, over the past several years, DHS has deployed
unprecedented levels of personnel, technology, and resources to the
Southwest border. At the same time, the Department has made critical
security improvements along the northern border while strengthening
efforts to increase the security of the Nation's maritime borders. DHS
is also focused on smart and effective enforcement of U.S. immigration
laws while streamlining and facilitating the legal immigration process.
To strengthen the Nation's cybersecurity posture, DHS leads the
Federal Government's efforts to secure civilian government computer
systems and works with industry and State, local, tribal, and
territorial governments to secure critical infrastructure and
information systems.
Additionally, DHS continues to coordinate disaster response efforts
nationwide. In 2011, the Department responded to a record number of
disasters, including Hurricane Irene, which impacted 14 States;
wildfires in the Southwest; severe flooding in the Mississippi and
Missouri river systems; and devastating tornadoes that hit the Midwest
and the South. The Department's response to these and other disasters
shows how far it has come in just a few years. Rather than wait until a
request for disaster assistance has been received and approved, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and agencies across the
Federal Government work actively with communities to prepare before
disasters occur and to maintain a constant readiness posture.
maximizing efficiency and effectiveness
The fiscal year 2013 budget for DHS is $58.6 billion in total
budget authority, $48.7 billion in gross discretionary funding, and
$39.5 billion in net discretionary funding. Net discretionary budget
authority is 0.5 percent below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. An
additional $5.5 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) is provided
under the disaster relief cap adjustment, pursuant to the Budget
Control Act of 2011 (BCA).
The Department has implemented a variety of initiatives to cut
costs, share resources across components, and consolidate and
streamline operations wherever possible. To preserve core front-line
priorities in fiscal year 2013, we have redirected over $850 million in
base resources from administrative and mission support areas, including
contracts, personnel (through attrition), information technology,
travel, personnel moves, overtime, directed purchasing, professional
services, and vehicle management. Through the Department-wide
efficiency review (ER), which began in 2009, as well as other cost-
saving initiatives, DHS has identified over $3 billion in cost
avoidances and reductions, and redeployed those funds to mission-
critical initiatives across the Department.
At the same time, the Department challenged its workforce to
fundamentally rethink how it does business--from the largest to
smallest investments. In 2011, DHS conducted its first-ever formal base
budget review for fiscal year 2013, looking at all aspects of the
Department's budget to find savings within our current resources and to
better align those with operational needs. Through its annual ``Think
Efficiency Campaign,'' DHS solicited employee input on creative cost-
saving measures and will implement six new employee-generated
initiatives in early 2012.
Given the fiscal challenges to the Department's State and local
partners, DHS is also approaching these partnerships in new and
innovative ways. The administration has proposed a new homeland
security grants program in fiscal year 2013 designed to develop,
sustain, and leverage core capabilities across the country in support
of national preparedness, prevention, and response. The fiscal year
2013 National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) will help create a
robust national preparedness capacity based on cross-jurisdictional and
readily deployable State and local assets. Using a competitive, risk-
based model, the NPGP will use a comprehensive process for identifying
and prioritizing deployable capabilities, limit periods of performance
to put funding to work quickly, and require grantees to regularly
report progress in the acquisition and development of these
capabilities.
In fiscal year 2011, DHS achieved a milestone that is a pivotal
step toward increasing transparency and accountability for the
Department's resources. For the first time since fiscal year 2003, DHS
earned a qualified audit opinion on its balance sheet--highlighting the
significant progress we have made in improving our financial management
in the 8 years since DHS was founded. Through these and other efforts
across the Department, we will continue to ensure taxpayer dollars are
managed with integrity, diligence, and accuracy and that the systems
and processes used for all aspects of financial management demonstrate
the highest level of accountability and transparency.
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget supports these significant
efforts to increase transparency, accountability, and efficiency.
Following are some key initiatives and proposals included in the budget
that continue to streamline departmental operations:
--US-VISIT.--In order to better align the functions of US-VISIT with
the operational components, the budget proposes the transfer of
US-VISIT functions from the National Protection and Programs
Directorate (NPPD) to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Currently,
CBP operates numerous screening and targeting systems, and
integrating US-VISIT within CBP will strengthen the
Department's overall vetting capability while also realizing
efficiencies.
--Strategic Sourcing.--Through the ER and component initiatives, DHS
has used strategic sourcing initiatives to leverage the
purchasing power of the entire Department for items such as
software licenses, wireless communication devices, furniture,
and office supplies. In fiscal year 2013, DHS expects to save
more than $264 million through the use of these contracts.
--Acquisition Management and Reform.--A major management priority in
fiscal year 2013 is the continued improvement of the DHS
acquisition process. The Under Secretary for Management is
leading an effort to improve the overall acquisition process by
reforming the early requirements development process and
enhancing our ability to manage the implementation and
execution of acquisition programs.
--Strengthening the Efficiency of IT Programs.--The Department is
committed to improving performance of IT programs, implementing
a ``cloud first'' policy, reducing the number of Federal data
centers, and consolidating IT infrastructure. On the basis of
these initiatives, the overall fiscal year 2013 budget
(including all DHS components) for IT infrastructure is reduced
by 10 percent below fiscal year 2012 enacted levels.
--Common Vetting.--In order to increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of its screening efforts and leverage
capabilities across the Department, the budget includes funding
to continue to enhance the Department's biographic and
biometric screening capabilities. As part of this effort, DHS
has initiated implementation of an enhanced biographic exit
program, which will better aggregate the information within
existing data systems, enhance review of potential overstays,
increase automated matching, incorporate biometric elements,
and provide the foundation for a future biometric exit
solution.
--Common Airframes.--DHS is also examining how to leverage joint
requirements for aviation assets between CBP and the U.S. Coast
Guard. A senior leadership working group has performed a
baseline analysis of the various roles and missions of DHS's
aviation assets and is working to increase the effectiveness of
departmental aviation assets through continued coordination and
collaboration. Complementing this effort, DHS recently began an
ER initiative which will increase cross-component collaboration
for aviation-related equipment and maintenance by establishing
excess equipment sharing, maintenance services, and contract
teaming agreements, as well as other opportunities for
aviation-related efficiencies.
--Information Sharing and Safeguarding.--DHS is embarking on a
Department-wide effort to increase efficiencies and reduce
redundancies through the implementation of key information
sharing and safeguarding capabilities such as identity,
credentialing, and access management. Significant future cost
savings will be realized with the continued consolidation of
sensitive but unclassified portals, streamlining of classified
networks and the alignment of common operating picture
investments. Working through a Department-wide information-
sharing governance structure, DHS is addressing requirements
resulting from post-Wikileaks reforms, and ensuring that
information on both classified and unclassified networks is
properly protected to preserve privacy and civil liberties.
--Aviation Passenger Security Fee.--The fiscal year 2013 budget
includes the administration's proposal to restructure the
aviation passenger security fee (security fee) to achieve total
collections of $2.239 billion. The proposal would generate an
additional $317 million in new collections in 2013, of which
$117 million would be used to further offset the cost of
Federal aviation security operations and $200 million would
contribute to Federal deficit reduction. Following the security
fee restructuring, passengers would pay a fee of $5.00 per one-
way trip beginning in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013,
rather than a separate fee for each enplanement under the
current construct. The restructuring would provide TSA with the
flexibility to meet increasing aviation security costs and
better aligns the costs associated with passenger security to
the direct beneficiaries. The security fee has not changed or
been adjusted for inflation since the TSA was established in
2002, even while 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.
budget priorities
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget prioritizes the mission
areas outlined in the Department's 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security
Review and the 2010 Bottom-Up Review, the first complete effort
undertaken by the Department to align its resources with a
comprehensive strategy to meet the Nation's homeland security needs.
The budget builds on the progress the Department has made in each
of its mission areas while also providing essential support to national
and economic security.
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.--DHS is the
Federal Government lead agency for securing 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 mitigates 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.
In addition to these missions, 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 homeland security missions.
The following are highlights of the fiscal year 2013 budget.
preventing terrorism and enhancing security
Guarding against terrorism was the founding mission of DHS and
remains our top priority. The fiscal year 2013 budget safeguards the
Nation's transportation systems through a layered detection system
focusing on risk-based screening, enhanced targeting, and information-
sharing efforts to interdict threats and dangerous people at the
earliest point possible. The budget supports the administration's
Global Supply Chain Security Strategy across air, land, and sea modes
of transportation by strengthening efforts to prescreen and evaluate
high-risk containers before they are shipped to the United States and
annualizing positions that provide the capacity to address security
vulnerabilities overseas. Funding is included for Securing the Cities
to protect our highest risk cities from radiological or nuclear attack
and continues efforts to support national bio preparedness and response
efforts. The budget also continues strong support for State and local
partners through a new consolidated grant program, training, fusion
centers, and intelligence analysis and information sharing on a wide
range of critical homeland security issues.
--Strengthening Risk-Based Aviation Security.--The fiscal year 2013
budget supports DHS's effort to employ risk-based,
intelligence-driven operations to prevent terrorist attacks and
to reduce the vulnerability of the Nation's aviation system to
terrorism. These security measures create a multi-layered
system to strengthen aviation security from the time a
passenger purchases a ticket to arrival at his or her
destination. The fiscal year 2013 budget:
--Supports trusted traveler programs, such as TSA PreCheck
(Pre3TM) and the CBP Global Entry program, which
are pre-screening initiatives for travelers who volunteer
information about themselves prior to flying in order to
potentially expedite screening at domestic checkpoints and
through customs.
--Continues support for passenger screening canine teams included
in the fiscal year 2012 enacted budget, 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.
--Funds the continued operation of technology to screen passengers
and baggage through 1,250 advanced imaging technology
units, which safely screen passengers for metallic and non-
metallic threats, and 155 new state-of-the-art explosives
detection systems to efficiently screen baggage for
explosives which will reduce the number of re-scans and
physical bag searches.
--Expands Secure Flight to cover the Large Aircraft and Private
Charter Standard Security Program, screening an estimated
11 million additional passengers annually. Through Secure
Flight, TSA pre-screens 100 percent of all travelers flying
within or to the United States against terrorist watchlists
before passengers receive their boarding passes.
--Enhancing International Collaboration.--In our increasingly
globalized world, DHS continues to work beyond its borders to
protect both national and economic security. The fiscal year
2013 budget supports DHS's strategic partnerships with
international allies and enhanced targeting and information-
sharing efforts to interdict threats and dangerous people and
cargo at the earliest point possible.
--Through the Immigration Advisory Program and enhanced in-bound
targeting operations, CBP identifies high-risk travelers
who are likely to be inadmissible into the United States
and makes recommendations to commercial carriers to deny
boarding. The fiscal year 2013 budget also supports
initiatives to interdict and apprehend criminals and
persons of national security interest, and disrupt those
who attempt to enter the United States with fraudulent
documents.
--Through the Visa Security Program and with Department of State
concurrence, ICE deploys trained special agents overseas to
high-risk visa activity posts to identify potential
terrorist and criminal threats before they reach the United
States. The fiscal year 2013 budget supports efforts to
leverage IT solutions and the capabilities of our law
enforcement and intelligence community partners to increase
ICE's efficiency in screening visa applications in order to
identify patterns and potential national security threats.
--Through pre-clearance agreements, CBP screens passengers
internationally prior to takeoff through the same process a
traveler would undergo upon arrival at a U.S. port of
entry, allowing DHS to extend our borders outward while
facilitating a more efficient passenger experience. The
fiscal year 2013 budget continues to support CBP's
preclearance inspection efforts, which are designed to
determine compliance with admissibility of agriculture,
customs, and immigration requirements to the United States.
--Supporting Surface Transportation Security.--The transit sector,
because of its open access architecture, has a fundamentally
different operational environment than aviation. Accordingly,
DHS helps secure surface transportation infrastructure through
risk-based security assessments, critical infrastructure
hardening, and close partnerships with State and local law
enforcement partners. The fiscal year 2013 budget supports
DHS's efforts to bolster these efforts.
--The new fiscal year 2013 National Preparedness Grants Program,
described in more detail below, is focused on building
national capabilities focused on preventing and responding
to threats across the country, including the surface
transportation sector, through urban search and rescue
teams, canine explosive detection teams, and HAZMAT
response as well as target hardening of critical transit
infrastructure.
--Conduct compliance inspections throughout the freight rail and
mass transit domains; critical facility security reviews
for pipeline facilities; comprehensive mass transit
assessments that focus on high-risk transit agencies; and
corporate security reviews conducted in multiple modes of
transportation on a continuous basis to elevate standards
and identify security gaps.
--Fund 37 visible intermodal prevention and response (VIPR) teams,
including 12 multimodal teams. VIPR teams are composed of
personnel with expertise in inspection, behavior detection,
security screening, and law enforcement for random,
unpredictable deployments throughout the transportation
sector to prevent potential terrorist and criminal acts.
--Strengthening Global Supply Chain Security.--The fiscal year 2013
budget supports the administration's Global Supply Chain
Security Strategy announced in early 2012, which presents a
unified vision across air, land, and sea modes of
transportation.
--Supports increased targeting capabilities by updating rules in
real time and providing CBP with 24/7 targeting capability.
--Strengthens the Container Security Initiative, enabling CBP to
prescreen and evaluate high-risk containers before they are
shipped to the United States.
--Continues support for positions to improve the coordination of
cargo security efforts, accelerate security efforts in
response to the vulnerabilities, ensure compliance with
screening requirements, and strengthen aviation security
operations overseas.
--Support to State and Local\1\ Law Enforcement (SLLE).--The fiscal
year 2013 budget continues support for State and local law
enforcement efforts to understand, recognize, prevent, and
respond to pre-operational activity and other crimes that are
precursors or indicators of terrorist activity through
training, technical assistance, exercise support, security
clearances, connectivity to Federal systems, technology, and
grant funding. Specifically, the budget focuses on:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Local'' law enforcement includes all law enforcement at the
municipal, tribal, and territorial levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Maturation and enhancement of State and major urban area fusion
centers, including training for intelligence analysts and
implementation of Fusion Liaison Officer Programs;
--Implementation of the nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting
(SAR) Initiative, including training for front-line
personnel on identifying and reporting suspicious
activities;
--Continued implementation of the ``If You See Something, Say
SomethingTM'' campaign to raise public awareness
of indicators of terrorism and violent crime; and
--State, local, tribal, and territorial efforts to counter violent
extremism, in accordance with the Strategic Implementation
Plan to the National Strategy on Empowering Local Partners
to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.
The budget also supports efforts to share intelligence and
information on a wide range of critical homeland security issues. The
budget continues to build State and local analytic capabilities through
the National Network of Fusion Centers, with a focus on strengthening
cross-Department and cross-Government interaction with fusion centers.
Through the Fusion Center Performance Program, DHS will assess
capability development and performance improvements of the National
Network of Fusion Centers through annual assessment and targeted
exercises. Resources also enable the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis, in partnership with the Office of Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties and the Privacy Office to provide privacy, civil rights, and
civil liberties training for fusion centers and their respective
liaison officer programs. The Secretary's focus on SLLE includes
elevating the Office of State and Local Law Enforcement to a stand-
alone office and a direct report.
--Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Threat Detection.--Countering
biological, nuclear, and radiological threats requires a
coordinated, whole-of-government approach. DHS, through its
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) and Office of Health
Affairs, works in partnership with agencies across Federal,
State, and local governments to prevent and deter attacks using
nuclear and radiological weapons through nuclear detection and
forensics programs and provides medical and scientific
expertise to support bio preparedness and response efforts. The
fiscal year 2013 budget supports the following efforts:
--Securing the Cities.--$22 million is requested for Securing the
Cities to continue developing 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.--Supports the procurement and
deployment of radiation portal monitors and human portable
radiation detection systems, providing vital detection
equipment to CBP and the U.S. Coast Guard to scan for
radiological and nuclear threats. Included within the
fiscal year 2013 budget is an increase of $20 million to
procure mobile rad/nuc detection technology for front-line
operators.
--Technical Nuclear Forensics.--Funds for the DNDO National
Technical Nuclear Forensics Center support pre-detonation
nuclear forensics, the integration of nuclear forensics
capabilities across the interagency and national priorities
for deterrence, attribution, and prosecution.
--BioWatch.--Funds continued deployment of 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.
Continues development of the next generation technology to
expedite response times.
--National Bio and Agro Defense Facility (NBAF).--The fiscal year
2013 budget provides $10 million to complement ongoing
research at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center by
accelerating research programs focused on African Swine
Fever and Classical Swine Fever at Kansas State University.
This effort will also identify and prioritize future
research needs for the existing Biosecurity Research
Institute and the proposed National Bio and AgroDefense
Facility. Funding will support identifying high-priority
agents from potential terrorist threats and emerging global
foreign animal diseases; developing and executing the steps
necessary for the facility to receive select agent
certification and the waivers necessary to study the high-
priority agents; and developing public outreach plans to
ensure that all stakeholders surrounding the facility
understand the value of the proposed work and the
safeguards in place. To complement its ongoing research,
beginning in 2012, DHS's Science and Technology Directorate
(S&T) will convene an expert and stakeholder taskforce, in
conjunction with the interagency taskforce, to conduct a
comprehensive assessment of whether and for what purpose a
biosafety level 4 facility should be stood up, taking into
account the current threats from terrorism, foreign
animals, and the global migration of zoonotic diseases to
the United States. The assessment will review the cost,
safety, and any alternatives to the current plan that would
reduce costs and ensure safety within the overall funding
constraints established by the BCA.
--Presidential Candidate Nominee Protection and Inauguration
Protection.--The fiscal year 2013 budget funds critical Secret
Service operations and countermeasures to protect the First
Family and visiting dignitaries, including the conclusion of
the 2012 presidential campaign (October-November 2012) and
presidential inaugural events. The budget also continues
support for 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.
securing and managing our borders
Protecting our Nation's borders--land, air, and sea--from the
illegal entry of people, weapons, drugs, and contraband is vital to
homeland security, as well as economic prosperity. Over the past
several years, DHS has deployed unprecedented levels of personnel,
technology, and resources to the Southwest border. At the same time,
DHS has made critical security improvements along the northern border
while strengthening efforts to increase the security of the Nation's
maritime borders.
The fiscal year 2013 budget continues the administration's
unprecedented focus on border security, travel, and trade by supporting
21,370 Border Patrol agents and 21,186 CBP officers at our ports of
entry as well the continued deployment of proven, effective
surveillance technology along the highest trafficked areas of the
Southwest border. To secure the Nation's maritime borders, the budget
invests in recapitalization of Coast Guard assets and provides
operational funding for new assets coming on line.
--Law Enforcement Officers.--The budget annualizes border security
personnel funded through the fiscal year 2010 Emergency Border
Security Supplemental Act (Public Law 111-230) and the
journeyman pay increase, totaling 21,370 CBP Border Patrol
agents and 21,186 CBP officers at ports of entry who work
around the clock with Federal, State, and local law enforcement
to target illicit networks trafficking in people, drugs,
illegal weapons, and money and to expedite legal travel and
trade.
--Border Intelligence Fusion Section (BIFS).--The budget supports
efforts to integrate resources and fuse information from DHS,
the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Defense, and
the Intelligence Community at the El Paso Intelligence Center,
providing a common operating picture of the Southwest border
and Northern Mexico.
--Technology.--Funding is requested to support the continued
deployment of proven, effective surveillance technology along
the highest trafficked areas of the Southwest border. Funds
will be used to procure and deploy commercially available
technology tailored to the operational requirements of the
Border Patrol, the distinct terrain, and the population density
within Arizona.
--Infrastructure.--CBP is updating and maintaining its facilities
infrastructure to support its dual mission of securing the
border and facilitating trade and travel. Currently, CBP's
facilities plan calls for the following land border ports of
entry (LPOEs) to be completed in fiscal year 2013: Nogales
West/Mariposa, Arizona; Guadalupe, Texas; Van Buren, Maine; and
phase I of San Ysidro, California. Additionally, design and
construction is planned to commence on phase II of San Ysidro,
California, and CBP will begin implementing the Tier III
Outbound Infrastructure program across 10 Southwest border
LPOEs in order to implement a range of outbound infrastructure
improvements. This work bolsters CBP's southbound inspection
capabilities while facilitating processing efficiency and
ensuring port security and officer safety.
--Northern Border Security.--To implement the United States-Canada
Beyond the Border Plan, which articulates a shared vision to
work together to address threats at the earliest point possible
while facilitating the legitimate movement of people, goods,
and services, the budget provides $10 million to support
northern border technologies, such as the continuation of
procurement/testing and evaluation efforts for low flying
aircraft detection, the deployment of maritime detection
project, and aircraft video downlink.
--CBP Air and Marine Procurement.--To support CBP Air and Marine's
core competencies of air and marine law enforcement,
interdiction, and air and border domain security, funding is
requested for the continuation of the P-3 Service Life
Extension Program, a UH-60 A-L Black Hawk helicopter
recapitalization, a new KA-350 CER multi-role enforcement
aircraft, and various marine vessels.
--U.S. Coast Guard Recapitalization.--The fiscal year 2013 budget
fully funds the sixth national security cutter (NSC), allowing
the Coast Guard to replace its aged, obsolete high endurance
cutter fleet as quickly as possible. The budget supports the
procurement of two fast response cutters, funding for a
maritime patrol aircraft, four cutter boats, and makes a
significant investment in the renovation and restoration of
shore facilities. The budget also provides funds to crew,
operate, and maintain two maritime patrol aircraft, 30 45-ft
response boats-medium, and two fast response cutters acquired
with prior-year appropriations.
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. Supporting the establishment of clear enforcement
priorities, recent policy directives, and additional training for the
field, the budget continues the Department's efforts to prioritize the
identification and removal of criminal aliens and repeat immigration
law violators, recent border entrants, and immigration fugitives.
Nationwide implementation of Secure Communities and other enforcement
initiatives, coupled with continued collaboration with DOJ to focus
resources on the detained docket and priority cases on the nondetained
docket, is expected to continue to increase the number of criminal
aliens and other priority individuals who are identified and removed.
The budget provides the resources needed to address this changing
population, while continuing to support Alternatives to Detention,
detention reform, and immigrant integration efforts. The budget also
focuses on monitoring and compliance, promoting adherence to worksite-
related laws through criminal prosecutions of egregious employers, form
I-9 inspections, and expansion of E-Verify.
--Secure Communities.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes funding
to complete nationwide deployment in fiscal year 2013 of the
Secure Communities program, which uses biometric information
and services to identify and remove criminal and other priority
aliens found in State prisons and local jails. Secure
Communities is an important tool in ICE's efforts to focus its
immigration enforcement resources on the highest priority
individuals who pose a threat to public safety or national
security. While we continue to focus our resources on our key
priorities, DHS is committed to ensuring the Secure Communities
program respects civil rights and civil liberties. To that end,
ICE is working closely with law enforcement agencies and
stakeholders across the country to ensure the program operates
in the most effective manner possible. We have issued guidance
regarding the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in
appropriate cases, including cases involving witnesses and
victims of crime, and implemented enhanced training for State
and local law enforcement regarding civil rights issues related
to the program, among other recent improvements.
--Immigration Detention.--Under this administration, ICE has focused
its immigration enforcement efforts on identifying and removing
criminal aliens and those who fall into other priority
categories including repeat immigration law violators, recent
border entrants, and immigration fugitives. As ICE continues to
focus on criminal and other priority cases, the agency
anticipates reducing the time removable aliens spend in
detention custody. Consistent with its stated enforcement
priorities and recent policy guidance, ICE will continue to
focus detention and removal resources on those individuals who
have criminal convictions or fall under other priority
categories. For low-risk individuals, ICE will work to enhance
the effectiveness of Alternatives to Detention (ATD), which
provides a lower per day cost than detention. To ensure the
most cost-effective use of Federal resources, the budget
includes flexibility to transfer funding between immigration
detention and the ATD program, commensurate with the level of
risk a detainee presents.
--287(g) Program.--In light of the nationwide activation of the
Secure Communities program, the budget reduces the 287(g)
program by $17 million. The Secure Communities screening
process is more consistent, efficient and cost-effective in
identifying and removing criminal and other priority aliens. To
implement this reduction in 2013, ICE will begin by
discontinuing the least productive 287(g) task force agreements
in those jurisdictions where Secure Communities is already in
place and will also suspend consideration of any requests for
new 287(g) task forces.
--Detention Reform.--ICE will continue building on current and
ongoing detention reform efforts in 2013. ICE will implement
its new Risk Classification Assessment nationwide to improve
transparency and uniformity in detention custody and
classification decisions and to promote identification of
vulnerable populations. In addition, ICE will continue
implementation of the new Transfer Directive, which is designed
to minimize long-distance transfers of detainees within ICE's
detention system, especially for those detainees with family
members in the area, local attorneys, or pending immigration
proceedings. ICE will also continue implementation of revised
national detention standards designed to maximize access to
counsel, visitation, and quality medical and mental healthcare
in additional facilities.
--Worksite Enforcement.--Requested funds will continue the
Department's focus on worksite enforcement, promoting
compliance with worksite-related laws through criminal
prosecutions of egregious employer violators, form I-9
inspections, civil fines, and debarment, as well as education
and compliance tools.
--E-Verify.--$112 million is provided to sustain funding for the E-
Verify program operations and enhancements to help U.S.
employers maintain a legal workforce. The fiscal year 2013
budget includes funding to support the expansion of the E-
Verify Self Check program, a voluntary, free, fast, and secure
online service that allows individuals in the United States to
check their employment eligibility status before formally
seeking employment. Consistent with funding the continued
operation of E-Verify for the benefit of U.S. employers, the
budget also extends E-Verify authorization for an additional
year.
--Immigrant Integration.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $11
million to continue support for U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) immigrant integration efforts
through funding of citizenship and integration program
activities including competitive grants to local immigrant-
serving organizations to strengthen citizenship preparation
programs for permanent residents.
--Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE).--The fiscal
year 2013 budget includes $20 million in appropriated funding
to continue support for USCIS SAVE operations and enhancements
to assist local, State, and Federal agencies in determining
individuals' eligibility for public benefits on the basis of
their immigration status. The funding will supplement the
collections derived from the SAVE query charges.
--USCIS Business Transformation.--The fiscal year 2013 budget
continues the multi-year effort to transform USCIS from a
paper-based filing system to a customer-focused electronic
filing system. This effort is funded through the Immigration
Examinations Fee account.
safeguarding and securing cyberspace
DHS leads the Federal Government's efforts to secure civilian
government computer systems and works with industry and State, local,
tribal, and territorial governments to secure critical infrastructure
and information systems. The fiscal year 2013 budget makes significant
investments in cybersecurity to expedite the deployment of EINSTEIN 3
to prevent and detect intrusions on Government computer systems;
increases Federal network security of large and small agencies; and
continues to develop a robust cybersecurity workforce to protect
against and respond to national cybersecurity threats and hazards. The
budget also focuses on combating cyber crimes, targeting large-scale
producers and distributors of child pornography and preventing attacks
against U.S. critical infrastructure through Financial Crimes Task
Forces.
--Federal Network Security.--$236 million is included for Federal
Network Security, which manages activities designed to enable
Federal agencies to secure their IT networks. This funding
supports Federal Executive branch civilian departments and
agencies in implementing capabilities to improve their
cybersecurity posture in accordance with the Federal
Information Security Management Act, while enabling improved
continuous monitoring of network activity and other
capabilities to address evolving cyber threats.
--National Cybersecurity Protection System (NCPS).--$345 million is
included for Network Security Deployment, which manages the
NCPS operationally known as EINSTEIN. NCPS is an integrated
intrusion detection, analytics, information-sharing, and
intrusion prevention system that supports DHS responsibilities
within the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative
mission. In fiscal year 2013, the program will continue to
focus on intrusion prevention while taking steps to improve its
situational awareness of evolving cyber threats to Federal
networks and systems through a Managed Security Services (MSS)
solution. Under the MSS solution, each Internet service
provider will use its own intrusion prevention services that
conform to DHS-approved security, assurance, and communication
requirements.
--US-Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT Operations).--$93
million is included for US-CERT Operations. As the operational
arm of the National Cyber Security Division, US-CERT leads and
coordinates efforts to improve the Nation's cybersecurity
posture, promote cyber information sharing, and manage cyber
risks to the Nation. US-CERT encompasses the activities that
provide immediate customer support and incident response,
including 24-hour support in the National Cybersecurity and
Communications Integration Center. As more Federal network
traffic is covered by NCPS, additional US-CERT analysts are
required to ensure cyber threats are detected and the Federal
response is effective.
--Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center.--Funding is
included to expand the Multi-State Information Sharing and
Analysis Center to 25 States to provide the capacity to cover
all States by fiscal year 2015.
--Cybersecurity Workforce.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes
$12.9 million 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.
--Cybersecurity Research and Development.--The fiscal year 2013
budget includes $64.5 million for S&T's research and
development focused on strengthening the Nation's cybersecurity
capabilities.
--Cyber Investigations.--The fiscal year 2013 budget continues to
support cyber investigations conducted through the Secret
Service and ICE. In fiscal year 2013, ICE will continue to
investigate and provide computer forensics support for
investigations into domestic and international criminal
activities, including benefits fraud, arms and strategic
technology, money laundering, counterfeit pharmaceuticals,
child pornography, and human trafficking, occurring on or
through the Internet. The Secret Service's Financial Crimes
Task Forces will continue to focus on the prevention of cyber
attacks against U.S. financial payment systems and critical
infrastructure.
ensuring resilience to disasters
The Department's efforts to build a ready and resilient Nation
focus on a whole community approach to emergency management by engaging
partners at all levels to ensure that we work together to build,
sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against,
respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. In the event of a
terrorist attack, natural disaster, or other large-scale emergency DHS
provides the coordinated, comprehensive Federal response while working
with Federal, State, local, and private-sector partners to ensure a
swift and effective recovery effort.
To ensure that FEMA is able to support these efforts, the DRF,
which provides a significant portion of the total Federal response to
victims in Presidentially declared disasters or emergencies, is funded
largely through an authority provided under the BCA. To support the
objectives of the National Preparedness Goal and to leverage limited
grant funding in the current fiscal environment, the administration
proposes a new homeland security grants program in fiscal year 2013 to
create a robust national response capacity based on cross-
jurisdictional and readily deployable State and local assets. The
fiscal year 2013 budget also funds FEMA's continued development of
catastrophic plans, which include regional plans for response to
biological events and earthquakes.
State and Local Grants.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $2.9
billion for State and local grants, over $500 million more than
appropriated by Congress in fiscal year 2012. This funding will sustain
resources for fire and emergency management grants while consolidating
all other punts into the new, streamlined National Preparedness Grant
Program (NPGP). The fiscal year 2013 NPGP will:
--Focus on the development and sustainment of core national emergency
management and Homeland Security capabilities.
--Utilize gap analyses to determine asset and resource deficiencies
and inform the development of new capabilities through a
competitive process.
--Build a robust national response capacity based on cross-
jurisdictional and readily deployable State and local assets.
Using a competitive, risk-based model, the NPGP will use a
comprehensive process for identifying and prioritizing deployable
capabilities; limit periods of performance to put funding to work
quickly; and require grantees to regularly report progress in the
acquisition and development of these capabilities.
--Assistance to Firefighters Grants.--The fiscal year 2013 budget
provides $670 million for Assistance to Firefighter Grants.
Included in the amount is $335 million for Staffing for
Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grants to retain
and hire firefighters and first responders--totaling more than
1,700 firefighter positions nationwide--and $335 million for
equipment, training, vehicles, and related materials. Whereas
in prior years, a management and administration allowance has
been carved out of the topline, the fiscal year 2013 budget
proposes to fund it elsewhere, effectively increasing the
funding available for actual awards by more than $28 million.
The administration proposed $1 billion as supplemental SAFER
appropriations in fiscal year 2012 as part of the American Jobs
Act. This proposal included the authority for the Secretary to
waive certain restrictions on the award and expenditure of
SAFER grants to assist State and local firefighting agencies in
the current economic environment and prevent unnecessary job
losses. If economic conditions warrant, the administration will
once again work with Congress in fiscal year 2013 to seek
authority to waive these restrictions.
--Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG).--The fiscal year
2013 budget includes $350 million to support emergency managers
and emergency management offices in every State across the
country. Just as with the Assistance to Firefighter Grants, a
management and administration allowance has historically been
carved out of the topline. The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes
to fund management and administration elsewhere, effectively
increasing the funding available for actual awards by
approximately $10.5 million. EMPG supports State and local
governments in developing and sustaining the core capabilities
identified in the National Preparedness Goal and achieving
measurable results in key functional areas of emergency
management.
--Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).--A total of $6.1 billion is provided
for the DRF. Of this amount, $608 million is included in the
Department's base budget with the remainder provided through
the disaster relief cap adjustment, pursuant to the BCA. The
DRF provides a significant portion of the total Federal
response to victims in Presidentially declared disasters or
emergencies.
--National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).--The NFIP is funded
entirely by policy fees and provides funding to reduce the risk
of flood damage to existing buildings and infrastructure by
providing flood-related grants to States, communities, and
tribal nations. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $120
million for three interrelated mitigation grant programs to
increase America's resiliency to floods.
--Training/Exercises.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $183.5
million for training and exercise activities to support
Federal, State, and local officials and first responders. In
fiscal year 2013, the Department expects to train more than
100,000 first responders and will begin the first full 2-year
exercise cycle under the revised National Exercise Program
(NEP). The NEP will leverage more than a dozen exercises across
the country and will build progressively to a capstone exercise
in calendar year 2014.
--Emergency Management Oversight.--The fiscal year 2013 request
includes $24 million in base resources for the Office of the
Inspector General to continue its Emergency Management
Oversight operations.
providing essential support to national and economic security
DHS provides essential support to many areas of national and
economic security. In addition to supporting Coast Guard's current
operations in the polar regions, the budget initiates acquisition of a
new polar icebreaker to address Coast Guard emerging missions in the
Arctic. The budget also continues to support ICE's and CBP's
enforcement and investigative efforts to protect U.S. intellectual
property rights and collect customs revenue.
--Polar Icebreaking Program.--The budget provides $8 million to
initiate acquisition of a new polar icebreaker to ensure the
Nation is able to maintain a surface presence in the Arctic
region well into the future and $54 million to fund operation
and maintenance of Coast Guard's existing polar icebreakers,
CGC Healy and CGC Polar Star (Polar Star to be reactivated in
2013).
--Arctic Mission Support.--New funding is requested for
recapitalization and expansion of helicopter hangar facilities
in Cold Bay and recapitalization of aviation refueling
facilities at Sitkinak, both in Alaska. These investments will
sustain DHS's ability to establish effective presence in the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Chain, the ``Gateway to the Arctic.''
--Collect Customs Revenue.--Funds are requested to support CBP's role
as a revenue collector for the U.S. Treasury--customs revenue
remains the second largest source of revenue for the Federal
Government. These resources support effective internal controls
that protect the duties and taxes (over $37 billion in 2011)
collected by CBP.
--Protect Trade and Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement.--The
fiscal year 2013 budget includes funds to support ICE's and
CBP's enforcement programs to prevent trade in counterfeit and
pirated goods, enforce exclusion orders on patent-infringing
goods and goods in violation of intellectual property rights
(IPR), and investigate the smuggling and distribution of
counterfeit goods and products that pose risks to public safety
and security. The budget also provides $10 million to CBP for
IPR supply/distribution chain management which will transform
IPR risk assessment, increase efficiency, and support U.S.
economic competitiveness. This CBP private-sector partnership
program aims to improve IPR targeting by enabling CBP to
identify and release shipments of authentic goods without
inspection. Additional funds will expand CBP's Industry
Integration Centers to address issues within critical trade
sectors by increasing uniformity of practices across ports of
entry, facilitating the timely resolution of trade compliance
issues nationwide, improving enforcement efforts, and further
strengthening critical agency knowledge on key industry
practices.
conclusion
The fiscal year 2013 budget proposal reflects this administration's
strong commitment to protecting the homeland and the American people
through the effective and efficient use of DHS resources. As outlined
in my testimony today, we will continue to preserve front-line
priorities across the Department by cutting costs, sharing resources
across components, and streamlining operations wherever possible.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I look
forward to answering your questions and to working with you on the
Department's fiscal year 2013 budget request and other homeland
security issues.
CYBERSECURITY: INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
Let me begin with a question on cybersecurity because that
really is on the front line and in the forefront of our minds,
given the exercise yesterday and the growing awareness that
Congress really must act on this.
Tell us why is it essential for the Senate to act on this?
The Lieberman-Collins bill outlines one path forward. I
understand that that bill was built on a memorandum of
understanding that was signed in 2010 between you and Secretary
Gates. And this subcommittee will have the responsibility to
fund a lot of what the authorization committee decides to do.
So could you take just a minute and explain why it is
important for the Senate to act and how the Lieberman-Collins
bill reflects the general agreement between you and the
Secretary of Defense?
Secretary Napolitano. Senator, we find that cybersecurity
is perhaps the fastest growing area of threat that we confront,
and we also think we have a small window of opportunity to act
now to prevent growing damage in the future.
Last year, our Department, through something called the
U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), which is in
the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), one of
the divisions of our Department, responded to 106,000 cyber
incidents. We issued 5,200 actionable alerts. We did 72
industrial control system assessments.
This work is only growing. The budget contains within it
monies to allow us to deploy EINSTEIN 3, which helps protect
Federal-civilian networks and also allows and helps create a
fund for the agencies of the Federal Government and expands our
personnel in the cyber arena.
The bill to which you refer was partially constructed on a
memo of agreement I signed with Secretary Gates, where we both
agreed that we shouldn't duplicate the National Security Agency
(NSA) and that the NSA needed to be accessible both in the
military context and in the civilian context. And so, what it
provides is the ability to basically cross-assign employees
from DHS to the NSA and vice versa and for us, with the rules
regarding civil liberties and privacy, to be able to use the
technology and the information that the NSA gathers.
We need that bill, and we need an approach that requires
the core critical infrastructure of this country to unanimously
reach at least a base level of security. Their effect on the
public, should they be subject to cyber attack, could be
extraordinary.
And the bill has a very light approach to how that is done.
We will do it in conjunction with the private sector. But in
our judgment, it is required to improve information sharing,
create a base level of security throughout the Nation's private
cyber networks, and to maximize our potential to prevent or
minimize an attack.
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Senator Landrieu. And let me ask you this. We always talk
about critical infrastructure, and I think the two that come
immediately to mind for me and for many is the oil and gas
infrastructure, the utility infrastructure. But are there one
or two other major infrastructure, private--banking, that would
be a third, finance infrastructure.
Are there any others that we should be focused on as well
that are complicated to figure out how this partnership would
be developed between that particular industry and the
Government?
Secretary Napolitano. Right. The way the bill is
structured, not all what we would call critical infrastructure
is, indeed, covered. It requires us to do a risk assessment,
and only covered critical infrastructure would be asked to
raise their level to a base standard.
Senator Landrieu. Clearly, major refineries, major
pipelines, utilities.
Secretary Napolitano. Indeed. And so, the second step would
be for us to work with those core critical infrastructure
entities to develop common standards for a baseline of security
and information sharing that we could use to detect and prevent
a cyber attack.
PAY AND HIRING
Senator Landrieu. I want to ask you just to consider the
role that the National Guard--I know it is not under the
Department of Homeland Security, but I am going to send you and
the Department of Defense (DOD) a letter. When you think about
hiring the warriors that are necessary to fight this cyber war,
some of these skills in the marketplace, I mean, people are
paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in these high-skilled
fields.
It is going to be hard for us to hire people at hundreds of
thousands of dollars. What occurs to me is that the National
Guard, along with the Departments of Defense and Homeland
Security, by having basically part-time civilians could play a
significant role in this. And I will broach that with you at a
later date.
Let me ask one more question----
Secretary Napolitano. But if I might, Chairman?
Senator Landrieu. Yes.
Secretary Napolitano. Senator, one of the provisions of the
bill, of the Lieberman-Collins bill would allow the Department
of Homeland Security to be exempted from some of the civil
service limitations on pay and hiring to make us more
competitive in the workforce.
Senator Landrieu. Because that is going to be the real----
Secretary Napolitano. I think the NSA and the DOD already
have that. We would like the same thing.
GRANTS
Senator Landrieu. That is going to be a real challenge, and
we will talk about that.
Let me ask one final question. Then we will go to the
others, and I will come back for a second round. Let us talk
about the FEMA Homeland Security Grant Program reform just a
bit more because this is going to be a big part of our
discussions this year. Tell us in just a minute or two a little
bit more detail.
The President has proposed adding $500 million, but
basically collapsing the four major programs into one. One of
the concerns that I have reading and reviewing it is that the
money looks like it gets distributed to the States on a
formula, part population and part risk. But as you know, our
disaster response systems work from the smallest level of
government up.
Local government is the first one potentially to know, like
the police officer on Times Square that saw the smoke coming
out of the automobile. It wasn't the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) on the ground. It wasn't your good staff on
the ground. It was a local police officer.
So what I want to make sure is that whatever we do, we are
really recognizing the importance of local government in charge
of disasters. The State then steps in, and then the Federal
Government. So could you just give a comment? Do you recognize
that that is the way that these threats are sometimes
recognized at the local level and that we are going to spend
our money helping and supporting that effort?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. And we do that through a number
of ways, through the Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR)
Initiatives, SAR that we support; through the support of the
fusion centers, which share intel and analysis throughout the
country. We recognize through training and other initiatives
that you are exactly right, that that front-line officer is
often the eyes and ears that help us prevent an attack.
The reason we are proposing a new vision for grants is that
we are now in kind of grants phase II. I mean, the Congress has
already distributed $35 billion across the country. We can see
from the disaster response we had last spring and even just
last weekend that States and localities now have a capacity and
capability they didn't have 5 or 10 years ago.
We think it is appropriate to put more money into grants. I
think the Congress cut it too deeply last year. But to
consolidate grant programs so that we can distribute the money
on the basis of risk and analysis, looking at gaps across
localities, across regions, making sure that we have a security
safety net across the country.
Senator Landrieu. I think that makes a lot of sense.
Senator Coats.
Senator Coats. I would just like to follow up on that
because this is obviously a significant part of the budget, and
it is probably the most politically directed part of the budget
that we have to deal with. And I guess my question goes to how
are you going to go forward in terms of identifying those
critical core segments, which, frankly, need a disproportionate
share of the money because they are more critical, and they are
more core.
I think what I heard you say is, is that the expenditures
to date, the $35 billion distributed across the country
regardless of the size of community and so forth, that you are
saying that base capabilities are essentially funded to this
point, and, therefore, we have the luxury now of focusing more
of these grants toward the critical areas?
Secretary Napolitano. Over the past years since the
creation of the Department, the Congress has invested $35
billion, which not just through FEMA, but throughout the
country has enabled us to do training, to help with hiring, to
buy equipment, to sustain the maintenance of equipment so that
now we have capabilities across the country that we didn't have
a few years ago.
However, we continue to face continuing disasters,
emergencies of different types. So we need to be able to
sustain that safety net. We think the $500 million in
additional grant funding the President requested is necessary
to do that, and we also think, however, that we don't need a
dozen different grant programs now.
We can consolidate them, which is an administrative
savings, both for us and for the grantees, and really look at
risk gaps, where we need capabilities, where we don't. By way
of example, not every community needs a search and rescue team.
But you certainly need search and rescue teams in a region that
can get to a place very quickly.
Not every community needs the same type of hazmat team, but
you certainly need to be able to make sure that every region of
the country, every part can be covered. So what we would like
to do in our vision is to consolidate, streamline, and focus on
risk.
There will still be a small base level of grants that will
be distributed according to a population-driven formula. But
beyond that, we really want to move to a risk-based approach.
Senator Coats. And I think we need to do that, and I
commend you for doing so.
Another question I have is how did you assess that we need
$500 million? What metrics did you look at in terms of the
effectiveness of the $35 billion in order to come up with a
number of the additional $500 million being needed?
Secretary Napolitano. We looked at a number of things,
Senator. We looked at unmet needs. We looked at the fact that
States and localities have had to lay off people and postpone
maintenance and other things they normally would have done, but
because of the recession they were not able to do.
We looked at where we think we have gaps across the
country. We looked at the costs that are associated with
keeping a vehicle facility operational over a period of time.
We looked at manpower costs. So we looked at all of that to
come up with the $500 million figure.
Senator Coats. And has there been outside assessment? Has
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) or anybody gone back and
looked at the last 10 years and basically said here is what
works, here is what hasn't worked as well, and here is what
doesn't work at all? Recommendations as to how to better
allocate and distribute the money. Is anything done like that?
Secretary Napolitano. I don't know whether CBO has. I know
that from time to time, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) has looked at different grant programs.
Senator Coats. I meant to say GAO.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, and so forth. And we have agreed
with a number of GAO recommendations and implemented them,
particularly with respect to evaluation and accountability.
Senator Coats. And I would urge you to keep doing that. We
are a big country. Every good member of Congress represents a
particular area and sees that--represents that that is a
critical core. But some are--we need to triage that. We just
simply don't have the money, and we need to go to the core
competitive process.
So I will be happy to support you in that.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you.
CYBERSECURITY BILLS
Senator Coats. The last question I have and just a little
bit of time remaining is, as you know, there is the Lieberman-
Collins bill, which we have discussed in some detail and talked
about last evening also. There is another bill in process out
there. I don't want to call it a competing bill, and members
are going to have to look at the two.
Have you had a chance to look at some of the elements of
that second bill Senator Chambliss and Hutchison and others are
proposing and look at areas where they might dovetail or where
we can coordinate with the Lieberman-Collins bill and other
areas where the one adds more or less? And if you haven't, do
you intend to do that?
Secretary Napolitano. I have looked at it. And I think that
there are some areas where there is a consensus. I think there
is a consensus on the need for more robust information sharing,
a consensus on the need for Federal Information Security
Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) reform.
There are some things in what I will call the McCain bill,
for ease of reference, that we think are misplaced and we would
hope to work through. One is I think it needs and we need a
stronger incentive for critical core infrastructure to have
raised the level of overall cybersecurity because the public
interest needs to be accounted for more fully.
Another concern I have with it is putting a lot of the
cybersecurity effort in the Department of Commerce, which
heretofore really hasn't been involved. It has been DOD and
DHS, and I believe that that is where we decided to put it 2
years ago. That is where we are growing it. That is where the
expertise is. I don't know why we would add another Department.
And last, some of the reforms such as I mentioned to
Chairman Landrieu that would allow us to pay a higher salary
and hire more quickly in the cyber arena I don't think are
included in the second bill, and I believe we need those.
Senator Coats. Okay. Thank you.
My time has expired. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
I think we go to Senator Tester? Yes, Senator Tester.
I am sorry. Senator Lautenberg, go ahead.
GRANT PROGRAMS FUNDING
Senator Lautenberg. If I might, thank you, Madam Secretary.
It is so interesting here and throughout much of our
Government to see that new theories in economics and business
management are developing. Before 9/11, we didn't need all of
the services that you and all of us are responsible for.
And so, when I look at this and I say, if I was in the
retail business and my nearby competitors were cutting prices
or offering more, I would say, we have got to adjust to that
competition. If you are on a football field and you are behind
a couple of touchdowns, you might change your tactics. You
would likely change your tactics or change your jobs. And no
suggestion therein, Madam Chairman.
But the fact is that with all of the threats that we have,
they are not diminishing. No one is saying there are less
threats than we had before. Our competition is getting wiser,
more adept, and we have to step up and meet those challenges
because this isn't the loss on the scoreboard. This is the loss
on the home and the community and our country.
And last year, spending cuts proposed by House members and
mandated by the debt limit deal led to deep reductions in State
and local grant programs, helps keep residents safe, safe in
high-risk States like mine and the metropolitan New York area.
In order to more with less, your budget wisely calls for an
increase in preparedness grants.
What will be the impact on our security if Congress again
cuts funding for these programs?
Secretary Napolitano. We rely for homeland security on a
partnership with States and localities. The Federal Government
cannot do this job alone, and so States and localities have to
have the ability to be the first responders, to be the front
line, to be the eyes and ears on the ground.
That means they need the equipment, the personnel, and the
training with which to do that. That is where the grants
primarily go, and that is why we need to have more funding, as
the President has requested, in the grant program. We need
those partners. They are part of the same team that we are on.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes. Nothing secures more support from
a State or community than a matching fund, a fund that if
matched can be substantially more effective. When distributing
2012 urban area grants, DHS gave special priority to certain
high-risk areas and didn't cut any funds for one region.
The Port of New York/New Jersey region is within the most
at-risk area for a terrorist attack, according to the FBI, and
terrorists have targeted this area on multiple occasions. Now,
as DHS looks ahead to the upcoming 2012 port security grant
process, how does DHS prioritize these areas?
Secretary Napolitano. When we award the port and security
grants, Senator, they will be based on an analysis of risk,
just as we did with the UASI grants. So when I announced the
UASI grants for 2012, as you note, we kept New York City whole,
even though that overall grant program had been cut
substantially. For a few other locations, we cut maybe 10
percent, 12 percent.
But in order to accommodate that, some of the lower risk
areas were cut 40 percent or 50 percent, and then we reduced
the number of funded UASI locations by about half.
Senator Lautenberg. Madam Chairman, can we say to the
public at large don't worry about it? You're going to be safer.
We have less money to deal with the problems. We know that the
threats are ever larger, ever more ominous. Weaponry skills at
doing bad things have improved on their side.
Can we say to the public at large don't worry about it? You
are safer, even though we are forced to spend less on it. I
don't think so, and we have to get that message out there.
I don't want to scare the public, but I do want it to be
realistic out there. So when people go to work or people go to
school or have to take care of a hospital visit, whatever it
is, that they are not at higher risk because we have less to
deal with. And it is a message that has to get out there again.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator.
And because we go back, we have Senator Moran, Tester, and
then Cochran. Is that everybody's schedule?
Senator Moran. Madam Chairman, I yield my time to the
ranking member of the full committee, the Senator from
Mississippi.
Senator Coats. Wise move.
Senator Landrieu. Wise move.
See, this is how he gets special help.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
I appreciate very much the undertaking of this job by our
Secretary, Secretary Napolitano, with her background and
experience. I think you bring to the challenge of this job a
lot of good experience and knowledge and understanding of what
the challenges are that we face in homeland security.
And so, I commend you for the efforts you are making and
also organizing the briefing that we had on cybersecurity,
bringing us up to date on the latest dangers that our country
faces. It really is a sobering and important undertaking that
she is leading on behalf of our Government. So we wish you well
in that regard.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Senator.
COAST GUARD VESSELS
Senator Cochran. For parochial interests, we build ships in
Mississippi.
Secretary Napolitano. I have noticed that.
Senator Cochran. Have a great reputation for excellence of
construction, and we know that some of the Coast Guard cutters
and other vessels used by the Coast Guard to good advantage in
protecting our homeland security are built by our and other
yards around the country. Do you have enough money requested in
this budget to meet the needs for modernizing and keeping up to
date with the needs for ships and boats for the Coast Guard?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, we do. Within the constraints of
the Budget Control Act, where you don't get everything you
could possibly want, the Commandant and I really looked at what
does the fleet need to meet the changing roles of the Coast
Guard? The Commandant's number one priority was funding the
sixth national security cutter, and that is included in the
budget.
With respect to fast response cutters, the Congress
appropriated money for four 2 years ago, for six last year. We
request two for this year, which gives us a 3-year pattern of
four each year, and we believe that fits within our fleet plan.
With respect to other assets of the Coast Guard, again, we
look at the air assets and the small boats and some of those
things, and we think they fit overall within an integrated
mission plan for the Coast Guard.
Importantly, the budget requests $8 million to begin
planning for another polar icebreaker. I believe this is going
to be an important asset for us to have, particularly with
increased drilling up in the Arctic regions, and I would ask
the Congress to favor that request.
DISASTER FUNDING
Senator Cochran. We had some devastating storms in the Deep
South and flooding in the entire Lower Mississippi River
Valley. I know the Coast Guard was actively involved in
assessing damages and trying to protect our commercial
interests along the river system that we have in the Deep
South.
Do you have requests in the budget this year for our
consideration for any needed improvements or modernization of
your fleet?
Secretary Napolitano. As I said, we have in the budget a
request for the sixth cutter. We have requests in the budget
for replacing helicopters with a different type of helicopter.
We have in the budget the assets necessary for that, but also
for FEMA.
And part of what you are referring to goes back to the
grants issue. We want to make sure that we have the monies
available for State and localities in the case of a disaster
such as we had last spring.
Senator Cochran. Yes. Thank you very much for being here
and your cooperation with our subcommittee.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. In the sense of true courtesy and
magnanimity, I would yield to the Senator from Kansas, since he
was here ahead of me.
Senator Landrieu. Do you see how well our subcommittee gets
along? Isn't this great?
Senator Moran. I thank the gentleman from----
Senator Tester. Montana.
Senator Moran [continuing]. Montana. Madam Chairman, thank
you very much.
Secretary Napolitano, I join the Senator from Mississippi
in his kind comments about your job performance and the task
that you face, and I am always impressed by the level of
knowledge and expertise that you have with virtually no notes
in front of you and very few references to the folks who sit
behind you. And so, I appreciate the value you bring to the job
you do.
And one of the significant tasks, the sad fact is that I
probably have about 5 minutes to visit with you today and maybe
10 if we have a second round of questions, and so I want to
focus on a topic of importance to the country, but also to the
State of Kansas.
NATIONAL BIO AND AGRO-DEFENSE FACILITY
You and I have had conversations in every hearing that I
have been in that you have been the witness about the National
Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) and about its importance
of being constructed and completed and meeting our country's
needs for a safe and secure food and animal environment. As I
indicated to you previously, the disappointment that the
President's budget is inadequate--in fact, requests no money
this year for the continuation of that project.
We have appropriated now a significant amount of money, in
the millions of dollars, both the State of Kansas and the
Federal Government, and already available for you to expend is
$40 million to advance the cause of building the utility
features necessary for site construction. My colleague from
Kansas, Senator Roberts, and I, along with the Senator from
Missouri, Mrs. McCaskill, wrote you a letter in March asking
you to proceed, as you are now authorized to do, to release the
$40 million.
As a result of the most recent study being completed, you
are now authorized to release that money so that we can begin
the necessary arrangements to put the utilities in place.
Already Kansas has put its money into that task, and we now
await the promised Federal commitment.
And the President's budget, while it requests no money,
indicates the reason it is not requesting money is that you
want to do a reassessment. You have indicated to me and you
have indicated publicly that that reassessment has nothing to
do with the need to build NBAF and nothing to do with the site
selection. It is a matter of scope, based upon budgetary
issues.
And based upon your commitment that it has nothing to do
with site or with the need to build NBAF, I would again
encourage you, as the Secretary of Department of Homeland
Security, to release the $40 million, the Federal component of
the utility features of the facility, so that the construction
is not delayed even further.
Our conversations, in fact, privately and in the last
hearing in which you and I were together, you indicated that,
again, the reason was related to lack of resources to proceed.
The $40 million is there, and any failure for the Department of
Homeland Security in my view, and I would hope in your view,
who has testified so many times about the value and importance
of this facility, a delay in its completion ought not be
anything that we tolerate.
And as I indicated to you in our last conversation in the
hearing that it makes little sense to me that if your
explanation for why the President's budget requests no money is
that Congress needs to appropriate more money than they have,
there is little value in you asking for nothing. That the idea
that the administration would ask for nothing and use as an
explanation that we really need more money than Congress has
appropriated to date is self-defeating.
We need your help. We need to be able to say to the
Department of Homeland Security that the administration still
believes this is an important priority, as you say in words but
not reflected in the President's budget. And in fact, I heard
you testify today about the Congress' failure to fund grants
adequately, but you are still asking for the grant money
because it is a priority within the Department.
And so, I am disappointed that the budget document doesn't
reflect the priorities that you have but would indicate that
you have an opportunity to make certain that the efforts to
complete this facility are not further delayed by releasing the
$40 million that you now have the authority to release and
would appreciate your response to that request.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Senator.
The NBAF issue is the proverbial rock in a hard place. The
President has asked in prior years for monies for the NBAF that
the Congress has not appropriated. And indeed, the Congress has
asked that we do additional studies with respect to risk and
the like.
Those studies have now been completed. It shows that there
is a de minimis risk of any escape of foot and mouth disease
from a locale in Kansas. I am very strong in my belief that we
need the NBAF and that it should be in Kansas, which was the
winning contestant for the locale.
In light of the Budget Control Act and some of the other
additional layers that have been asked to be looked at by the
Congress, we have decided, let us look at scope and costs now
in light of that, and I have asked the National Academy of
Sciences, who did the most recent risk assessment, to help us
with that.
That will be related to the Central Utility Plant (CUP)
because if there is some change in scope of the project, that
will probably have some relationship to what actually has to be
built for the CUP. But we have $90 million in unexpended funds
for the NBAF, and we are going to move step by step in that
direction.
We could use the help of the Congress in telling us whether
the Congress is serious about ultimately appropriating the cost
of the project, which now because of the time it has taken and
the additional requirements imposed is about 25 percent higher
than was originally projected.
Senator Moran. Madam Chairman? The Department intends to
preserve the $90 million for ultimate construction of the
facility based upon the assessment as to the size and scope?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, we have made no decision what to
do with that $90 million. It is just being held. We know that
there is interest in Kansas in proceeding with the CUP. You and
your colleagues have made that very, very clear.
I have spoken with the Governor. He has another idea for
how we ultimately fund the construction of the NBAF, and he has
promised to get me those materials very quickly. So our ears
are open. Our desire is keen. The problem, quite frankly, is
the money.
Senator Moran. My time has expired. Thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman.
I also want to echo the thoughts of many who have said
today thank you for the work you do. You have got a difficult
job, and I think you have done it well.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you.
LEVEES
Senator Tester. I have got a couple of questions that deal,
first one, with levees. We have talked about this before. I
think every drainage has levees that there are some issues
between the Army Corps and FEMA as far as what their standards
are.
And I know there have been requests to make sure that you
guys can use the information that you both have so the
certification standards are similar. Can you give me an update
as if this work is in process, has been done, and if you have
got any agreement from the Army Corps or you agree with the
Army Corps on what certification standards should be the
standard so we don't have two different sets of rules?
Secretary Napolitano. We are working with the Army Corps.
We are also working with localities on being flexible in terms
of how we adjudicate the levee issues. And after my visit to
Montana, and other places around the country, I have come to
recognize what a hardship some of these levee requirements are.
On the other hand, we need the protection, and we need some
way to make sure that we don't continue building in areas that
are a true danger.
Senator Tester. I understand. What I am talking about is
existing levees and red tape on duplication between the Army
Corps and FEMA, if we could get you both on the same page. And
I do appreciate you working with local communities. I think
that is critical.
Secretary Napolitano. I think we are working through that.
PUBLIC LAND LAWS
Senator Tester. Okay. Thank you very, very much.
In recent months, Congress has considered several different
pieces of legislation, proposals that would waive public land
laws in this country in the name of border security. The most
egregious of these, in my opinion, is a bill called H.R. 1505
in the House.
It would grant you, the Department of Homeland Security,
unprecedented power to do as it sees fit on public lands within
100 miles of the northern border. And Montana happens to have
about 550 or so miles with Canada. And look, I think we have
had conversations about agencies to agree. I think in the past,
you have talked about memorandum of understandings that
currently exist.
I think a one-size-fits-all in this particular instance--
because we both know the northern border and the southern
border are two different borders--is it doesn't fit well. And I
don't think it is about catching bad guys. I think it is about
allowing governmental agents to build roads and watchtowers and
buildings in places where other agencies, even tribal units,
would not have any input. Even the Park Service, Glacier Park
being a huge economic driver in my State, being one.
Could you give me an idea on what you feel about H.R. 1505,
whether it is good policy or bad? And basically, maybe talk
about the interdepartmental relationships that you have
currently?
Secretary Napolitano. In my judgment, H.R. 1505 is
unnecessary, and it is bad policy. We don't need it for our
immediate border control needs. We already have an agreement
with the Department of Interior. If we are doing a chase or
there are exigent circumstances, we can go onto lands without
having to seek prior approval or any of that.
But as you say, we do do construction projects, integrated
fixed towers, watchtowers, roads, and I think it highly
appropriate, given the nature of those public lands, that we
work with the Department of Interior when we do that.
Senator Tester. I want to thank you for that, and I want to
thank you for your work, working with other departments,
breaking down the silos, so to speak, between them. I think it
is critically important.
PLUM ISLAND NATIONAL BIO AND AGRO-DEFENSE FACILITY
Senator Moran would be disappointed if I didn't talk about
NBAF also. So I will.
Senator Moran. I thought your willingness to cooperate
based upon your yielding time to me would suggest you have
taken a new approach.
Senator Tester. It is all about making sure the Government
spends its money wisely and effectively.
Thank you, Senator Moran.
Hey, I want to ask a couple of things because this is a
very serious matter because it deals with disease, disease in
our livestock, making sure that we are ahead of the game that
will give our producers every advantage that they have in a
worldwide market.
You referenced a previous study talked about--I believe it
was 70 percent potential for a release over its 50-year
lifetime. You said that you have done an update to the risk of
the NBAF in Kansas. It is de minimis, less than 0.1 percent,
which is perfectly--we are in the ballpark. So on that line, I
have changed my perspective.
The problem is, is that it is a billion-dollar expenditure
to hit that de minimis amount. Has the Department looked at
other options here? I mean, and it is nothing against Kansas.
It is just that it is in the heartland, and if we are going to
have to spend this kind of money to make it de minimis because
of tornadoes or whatever natural disaster that can occur, has
the Department--we are ping ponging you a little bit, Madam
Secretary, and I apologize.
But has the Department looked at other options, more safe
options? Is the Plum Island facility still an option?
Secretary Napolitano. We have looked. And I have looked
personally. I mean, I spent a day up at Plum Island, met with
the scientists up there. I have spent some real time going
through the NBAF plans.
Here is the problem. Plum Island is not adequate. We can't
build the size of a facility for large animal research that we
need to have to really have a level 4 laboratory that meets the
needs of the country.
The question for the Congress is if the Congress wants to
have a level 4 laboratory that can deal with large animal
zoonotic disease, and we believe that that is an important
thing to have, then at some point there has to be a commitment
to fund it.
Senator Tester. Okay. Just one last thing, if I might,
Madam Chairman?
The Senator from Kansas talked about the kind of millions
that have been invested already. To make it up so that there is
a de minimis likelihood of a release, what kind of money are we
talking about in today's dollars to finish this facility?
Secretary Napolitano. Our estimate is that the total cost
to build will be between $1 billion and $1.1 billion.
Senator Tester. And does that include the billion
additional dollars to make it de minimis?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. That is the cost with the
additional requirements, yes, sir.
Senator Tester. With the additional requirements, $1.2
billion.
Secretary Napolitano. One to $1.1 billion.
Senator Tester. One to $1.1 billion.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes.
Senator Tester. Just want to be clear. Thank you very much.
Senator Landrieu. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Madam Secretary, welcome.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you.
POLAR ICEBREAKERS
Senator Murkowski. I want to take you back up north and
discuss our capabilities in the Arctic, an issue that you and I
have had an opportunity to talk about, and I want to thank you
and your office, your staff, for your support of the recent
Coast Guard mission that helped to escort the Russian fuel
tanker, the Renda, through the ice to Nome to help not only
Nome, but the surrounding villages receive fuel supply for the
winter.
The good news is they are going to make it through the
winter, and the better news is that they are not having to pay
$9 a gallon for their fuel. So that is significant.
I also need to commend you. You helped us address a Jones
Act issue in the midst of holiday time, and it was greatly
appreciated.
But I think that whole episode up north only served to
highlight the need that we have for icebreaking capacity in
this country, the fact that we have only one operational
icebreaker. This is not just an issue that the Alaska
delegation raises here. I was addressing the legislature a
couple of weeks ago. It is a high, high priority.
And Madam Chairman, I have a letter from one of our
representatives in the State house relating to the concern that
Alaskans have for the need for icebreaking capacity, and I
would like to submit his letter as part of this subcommittee
record, if I may?
Senator Landrieu. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Letter From Bob Herron, State Representative, Alaska House of
Representatives
March 8, 2012.
RE: HJR 34--Expressing to Congress the Immediate Need for Coast Guard
Icebreakers and an Arctic Base in Alaska
The Alaska Northern Waters Task Force's final report was released
January 30, 2012. HJR 34 formalizes two prominent recommendations of
the task force and calls for the United States to:
1. Forward base the U.S. Coast Guard in the Arctic; and
2. Fund icebreakers and other ice-capable vessels.
The entire Arctic region is experiencing increased human activity
related to shipping, oil and gas development, commercial fishing, and
tourism and this increased activity leads to a commensurate need for
immediate investment in the United States Arctic to enable the
responsible development of resources; foster maritime commerce,
safeguard the well-being of Arctic residents and ecosystems; facilitate
emergency and disaster preparedness and response; and protect United
States sovereignty.
The Coast Guard's mission in the Arctic is broad and it's becoming
increasingly clear that the Coast Guard lacks the necessary assets to
adequately complete its mission--without a corresponding increase in
Arctic investment by the United States, this deficiency will only
worsen over time. Having a sufficient number of ice-capable vessels
(including shallow-draft vessels with icebreaking capability) is vital
for the Coast Guard to fulfill its expanding mission in the Arctic.
Congress and the administration are mandated by multiple laws and
policies to maintain icebreaking operations, including:
--A 1936 Executive Order from President Franklin Roosevelt;
--The Arctic Research Policy Act of 1984;
--The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010; and
--The 2011 Arctic Search and Rescue (SAR) agreement.
Should a tragedy--such as the recent wreck of the cruise ship Costa
Concordia in Italy--occur in the Arctic, the Coast Guard would be hard
pressed to respond with sufficient assets in a timely fashion given
their single polar class icebreaker and their nearest base being in
Kodiak, over 900 miles away from Alaska's Arctic coast,
Other countries fully understand the need for more icebreakers in
the Arctic:
--Russia has a fleet of eight nuclear powered icebreakers;
--Canada has committed $38 billion to a 30-year plan to build
additional icebreakers and other ice-strengthened ships;
--Sweden, Finland, South Korea, and Japan have recently added
icebreakers to their fleets; and
--China has a large icebreaking research ship and will have a second
vessel operational in 2013.
Considering it will take from 7 to 10 years to design and construct
just one new polar class icebreaker, it is time-critical that the
United States fund and construct additional icebreakers. Delay on this
action will inevitably lead to undesirable consequences for the United
States in the Arctic.
The Coast Guard must have a greater overall presence in the Arctic,
with the ability to stage assets closer to future shipping, oil and gas
drilling, and commercial fishing activities.
Considering all of the above, HJR 34, very appropriately I think,
calls on Congress and the administration to fund all facilities and
vessels necessary to enable the Coast Guard to fulfill its Arctic
missions. This includes at a minimum an Arctic Coast Guard base and a
sufficient number of ice-capable vessels, including shallow-draft
vessels with icebreaking capability and polar class icebreakers--the
latter through refurbishment of current icebreakers or acquisition of
new ones. Naturally, long-term maintenance funding for all of the above
should also be forthcoming.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
And I note that in the President's budget, we have $8
million that is requested for study and design of a new
icebreaker. You and I both know that $8 million does not get
you an icebreaker.
I recognize that the request is $860 million over the next
5 years, and how we are able to meet that schedule, given that
the first year is $8 million, one-tenth, it is something that
causes me a little bit of concern. But I guess the question for
you this morning is whether or not the icebreaker acquisition
has become a higher priority for this administration?
And I further note that the national security cutter Nos. 7
and 8 are not on that funding list. Last year, when we had
discussed this, they were, in fact. So has icebreaking capacity
and our need to move forward aggressively taken a higher
priority within this administration?
Secretary Napolitano. If I might, Senator, let me address
the icebreaker, and then I will address Nos. 7 and 8.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. That is fine.
Secretary Napolitano. But, yes, as I mentioned earlier,
with the growing oil drilling presence up in the north part,
north of Alaska and other greater activity up there, we believe
that the country needs another icebreaker. We have got the
Polar Star. It is in dry dock now. It will be out in a year.
We have the Healy, which is a medium-weight icebreaker and
which helped escort the Renda in. When the Healy comes in for
maintenance with the Polar Star in dry dock, we actually will
not have an icebreaking capability. So that reason alone, I
think, illustrates the need for a third.
The question for the Congress is somewhat similar to the
question for the NBAF. When you have a large asset or capital
expenditure that we know needs to be made, which is a priority,
how does that get funded and appropriated over the construction
life that is necessary?
Finding a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there
in our budget means you would have to take it out of operations
and front-line personnel. So this is a real question for the
Appropriations Committee.
NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTERS
With respect to Nos. 7 and 8, we are--in light of what the
Department of Defense is doing with respect to its budget
reductions under the Budget Control Act, we are coordinating
with the Chief of Naval Operations, looking at what the Navy is
doing with its assets, and then really correlating what Nos. 7
and 8 would do, should they be built.
So we think that, given where we are with the budget and
the fiscal environment, before moving ahead on Nos. 7 and 8, we
want to make sure we are coordinated with the Navy.
COAST GUARD MISSION IN ARCTIC OCEAN
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you this then. Because this
summer, the Coast Guard is going to launch the largest ever
deployment in the Arctic Ocean because, as you note, we have
got much accelerated ship traffic, anticipated oil development
up there. And the district 17 command has stated that these
additional Arctic patrols and the personnel will necessarily
involve diverting assets from elsewhere without a measurable
budget increase.
So they are prepared to make this happen this summer, but
you have got a situation where you pull from one area to divert
the assets north. They are no longer in their regular operating
areas.
And so, I guess the question to you is as we look to the
evolving Arctic, as we look to the assets that we have up
there, as we recognize that even if we weren't able to proceed
this summer with oil exploration, which I certainly hope we
will be, we are seeing a volume of shipping traffic that is
unprecedented. Unprecedented, doubling year after year.
We are seeing tourism. We are seeing cruise ships up north
in an area that nobody ever anticipated.
So for us to be able to respond, for the Coast Guard to
carry out its mission in Arctic waters is--we are going to have
to reassess to look at the situation, and the question to you
this morning would be are you prepared to request that we
provide for these critical assets so that the Coast Guard can
retain its mission in these areas, fill these mission gaps that
we are clearly going to have if we have to divert assets from
one locale to another, and recognizing that some of the assets
just simply cannot withstand the conditions in the North
Pacific and in the Arctic?
Secretary Napolitano. Indeed, and the Commandant is fully
aware of that. The budget request reflects what we believe we
need for the coming fiscal year. But we know that long term,
everything evolves. Everything changes. And we may have to move
other assets into that area.
But, yes, the President's budget request does reflect that.
Senator Murkowski. We will continue working with you,
pressing forward to make sure that not only people on this
subcommittee understand, but that the Nation understands. We
are an Arctic nation, and as such, we have got
responsibilities. And those responsibilities require us to have
the equipment and the assets and the infrastructure to move
forward and maintain that.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
COAST GUARD PERSONNEL
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, for being
such a champion.
And we are going to go through a very short second round
and try to end this meeting at 11:30 a.m. or 11:35 a.m. if we
can, just 3 minutes each.
Let me follow up on the Coast Guard while Senator Murkowski
and Senator Cochran are here. In this budget that you have
presented, Madam Secretary, there is a reduction of 1,000
personnel for the Coast Guard. Following up on what Senator
Cochran said and Senator Murkowski, I think we are going to
have to find a way forward. I am not sure how, but we want to
work with you to provide some additional assets for the Coast
Guard.
Not only is the sector 17 rapidly evolving in Alaska, but I
was just in New Orleans with our sector, which is 8, and the
sector, I think it is sector 7 off the coast of Miami, there is
now drilling going on off the coast of Cuba that is not in
American waters. But should there be an oil spill, it is going
to affect the eastern seaboard of the United States.
So we have got lots, many evolving situations that we could
not have predicted maybe 10 or 15 years ago, and these budget
constraints are really constraining a part of the budget that
at least our States rely on significantly and the whole country
needs. So we are going to be working with you through this
Coast Guard challenge.
I don't know if you want to respond just briefly? I know
you are constrained, but we have got to figure out a way for
these icebreakers and these larger ships that are built in
Mississippi, which we definitely need. The smaller ships are
built in Louisiana.
But to try to find some way forward and perhaps using some
of the new revenues generated from oil and gas might be a smart
way to invest in the equipment necessary for the safety of the
oil and gas industry, which isn't under your budget. But we
might need to think about that because this budget is running
into very significant barriers when it comes to the Coast
Guard.
Secretary Napolitano. If I might? The 1,000 reduction I
think is wise, and we would suggest that it be taken. It is
recruiting personnel that we don't need because we fill our
recruitment in about a quarter or two.
You increased the intelligence division of the Coast Guard
200 percent over the last 3 years. We don't need to keep
increasing that.
And then there is normal attrition in kind of the
administrative and clerical support here in the District of
Columbia that we also think we don't need. So the 1,000
compared to the overall personnel size of the Coast Guard, I
think, is a wise and prudent reduction.
NATIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITIES REPORT
Senator Landrieu. And I appreciate that, and we will look
at that carefully. But we are not in 100 percent agreement yet,
but I will be respectful of those views. But the equipment side
of the Coast Guard is a serious issue, and let me just ask my
next question, then turn it over.
Last year, we had a hearing on the national emergency
response capabilities. We called for an annual assessment. That
assessment is due this March, March 12. Can we expect that
report within the next 30 or 60 days? Are you aware of that
report that you owe us? Because it is very difficult for us to
assess and place our funding without that report from your
Department.
Secretary Napolitano. I believe that report is in the final
stages of clearance. I hope to get it to you very quickly.
Senator Landrieu. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Coats.
AVIATION FEE INCREASE
Senator Coats. Just one question. Like last year's budget,
the 2013 President's budget assumes that the Congress will
introduce and pass an aviation fee increase. I don't know how
much the dynamics have changed versus last year when we weren't
successful in doing that.
But I note that the DHS budget assumes this is passed and
$117 million in additional collections will be available in the
third quarter of the year. If it is not--and I assume that
legislative proposal will be submitted on that--but, if it
doesn't pass this year, what is your thinking relative to that
$117 million shortfall?
Secretary Napolitano. I am hopeful that the Congress will
give it a more favorable response, and we thank the efforts of
the subcommittee there. As you know, that fee hasn't increased
since 2002.
Now, one of the concerns raised by the Congress last year
is that the fee increase was designed per enplanement so that,
for example, people who don't live where there is a hub airport
would always have to pay at least two fees. We took that into
account this year. It is only per trip.
And when you compare what the air carriers are charging for
checking luggage, which has shifted a huge cost over to us in
terms of what we have to do at the gate, among other things, it
really does move us in the right direction.
I would note, last, that I know we all get a lot of GAO
reports, and I can't read them all. But one I did note was that
in the recent report on reforms and redundancies in the Federal
Government, on page 310, it does suggest that the Congress
needs to revisit the issue of the fee.
Senator Coats. I am impressed you knew that page number.
Thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Senator Cochran.
COAST GUARD CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN
Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, when we talked in the
first questions about ship building and the need for Coast
Guard cutters and modernizing and keeping up to date with the
needs for ships and other assets, it occurs to me that we seem
to be on a collision course with the Coast Guard about the
needs for some assets that look to me to be very important.
It seems that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
probably tried to tamp down the request or needs for ship
building against the recommendations of the Coast Guard
leadership. OMB has forced DHS to eliminate ships from its
plan, and the Coast Guard has been forced to devise an
alternate, less preferable way to spend funds on aviation
assets.
These are observations of mine, and my question is that
when you look at the request for the Coast Guard for aircraft
over the 5-year capital investment plan (CIP), it has nearly
doubled from $871 million in fiscal year 2012 to $1.7 billion
in the fiscal year 2013 request. Do you know of any change that
has occurred in the Coast Guard's strategy or needs that
necessitated this dramatic increase for aircraft at a time we
are trying to deal with the challenges of fiscal restraint?
Secretary Napolitano. I would say, Senator, that the CIP to
which you refer is constantly being looked at and revised, and
in fact, we, I think, owe you a revised document very shortly
that should accommodate or go with the 2013 budget.
But again, I think a couple of things to be kept in mind.
Number one, we funded the priorities stated by the Commandant,
and he has testified that we have funded the priorities that he
has for the Coast Guard.
Second, we are all operating under the bill the Congress
passed, the Budget Control Act, and we need to meet those
limitations. We all want to reduce the deficit as we move
forward, and that has required all of us to look for places
where we might not be able to fund everything, but we can fund
the essential things.
And then, last, with respect to DHS, the budget is very
personnel driven. We need border patrol agents. We need port
inspection officers. We need TSA officers. We need FEMA
employees. We need cybersecurity experts.
So, again, we get caught in this tension between buying
long-term assets versus the real driver of the costs of the
Department, which is personnel that are necessary on the front
lines.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Senator Moran.
POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF DISEASE OUTBREAK
Senator Moran. Madam Chairman, thank you very much.
Again, on NBAF, I feel sometimes it is seen as so
provincial because the site is in Kansas. But we care a lot
about this from the livestock aspect, the cost to the economy.
We are an agricultural State. Livestock production is a
significant component of that agricultural economic activity.
And so, this matters in an economic sense, and I understand
in your response to the Senator from Montana's question about
$1 billion to $1.1 billion in spending. But I do know that that
may be a very small expenditure compared to the consequence of
an outbreak of one of these diseases.
And in fact, the analysis when, in 2010, there was a foot-
and-mouth disease outbreak in South Korea, it was estimated
that that was a $3 billion cost then for that one outbreak. Can
you comment on how expensive, what the consequences, economic
and other otherwise, would be in the absence of the ability to
do this research and to be able to prevent or respond to an
either accidental or intentional release of one of these
dramatic occurrences?
Secretary Napolitano. I think the impact could be huge. It
could be interruption of the food supply. It could be reduction
in our ability to export.
Depending on the disease and the type and the outbreak, it
wouldn't surprise me that we would be facing something much
larger than the cost of building an NBAF.
Senator Moran. I noticed that Dr. DeHaven at the Department
of Agriculture said recently that an episode, we would spend
the amount of money that we would spend in building this
facility in about 6 hours as a consequence to our economy.
So while all these efforts to protect our homeland are
expensive, the consequences of our failure to do so are more
expensive in the loss of life and the economic damage to our
economy and our people. Is that true?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes.
Senator Moran. And I look forward to working with you to,
again, continue this conversation about the release of the $40
million and the land transfer that is now appropriate.
Thank you.
Secretary Napolitano. Indeed. Thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Senator Murkowski.
AVIATION FEE STRUCTURE
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the
opportunity for a second question here.
I appreciate the clarification that you gave on the TSA
passenger security fees. Of course, this is something that
raises all kinds of anxiety back home because our costs for air
travel are so considerable, and 80 percent of our communities
are not connected by road. So we just have to fly everywhere.
And so, knowing that there was a potential where you could
see a stepped-up fee on every leg of every journey was
something that is not bearable. But if I understand you
correctly, you are saying that it is a per trip.
So if I am going from Aniak to Bethel to Anchorage to
Seattle----
Secretary Napolitano. It is one fee.
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. That is one fee. Okay. That
helps. It is still going to raise some anxiety, but it helps to
know that.
I understand further that under the President's budget
request, it would allow you, as the Secretary, to raise the
fees through regulation when necessary without coming through
us. I am assuming that that is correct and----
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. Yes, because I think the idea
would be to have a fee structure in place that would rise to a
capped level. In other words, we would never be able to just
willy-nilly raise the fee.
But rather than having to come to Congress every year,
which is sometimes difficult, it would give us the authority to
go ahead and adjust the fee, as we do in other areas of the
Department.
Senator Murkowski. Right. But it would continue to be a
maximum of $5 per trip? That would be the limit?
Secretary Napolitano. No, the plan would be, Senator, to
raise the fee this year to $5.50, and it would increase $0.50
each year until fiscal year 2018 when it would remain capped at
$7.50.
Senator Murkowski. And I guess the concern that I will
express on behalf of my constituents that fly everywhere is be
very cognizant that we have a situation in Alaska where our air
fares will put everybody else to practically tears when you
look at the cost of air travel. And any fee, it may look like a
little bit on a piece of paper, but these fees we all know add
up and are an incredible impediment to most of my constituents.
AIR FREIGHT SECURITY FEES
On a related topic, I was down in a small community that is
accessible only by air. They were talking about the TSA freight
security fees and were giving me the example of how much a
gallon of milk increases because of the security fees that are
attached by TSA.
I am trying to understand a little bit more about how these
are set, whether they are through TSA or through it is the
individual air carriers. But I would like to work with your
office on this in understanding it. Because again, it is adding
to costs that are already close to prohibitively expensive when
we are looking at higher gas prices, and I need to have just
better understanding here.
Secretary Napolitano. If I might, Senator Murkowski?
Senator Murkowski. Yes.
Secretary Napolitano. I am very sensitive to the needs of
Alaskans in this regard, and why don't I have my staff set up a
briefing for you on the fees, the fee structure, and what we
anticipate for the security fee?
Senator Murkowski. I would appreciate that, and I will
share that with my constituents.
FLOOD PLAINS AND MAP
Madam Chairman, I know my 3 minutes have expired. I would
just like to state here that in addition to the passenger fees
and energy issues, I have people all over my State that are
just upset, as upset as they can possibly be, about the FEMA
flood plains and the maps.
I have got folks from Juneau to Fairbanks to the Mat-Su
Borough that are saying we don't understand this. We don't know
whether we have to get a LOMA or a LOMAR. We don't understand
how we could have gone from a situation where we weren't close
to any flood plain, and now, apparently, we are in jeopardy and
we have to hire a civil engineer to basically move through this
process.
Based on what I have heard from folks back home, my
suggestion is you go back to the drawing board on this with
wholesale reform, but really focus on understandability and
customer service. I don't know what kind of heat you are
getting from other quarters of the country, but it sure has
caused a lot of consternation.
Secretary Napolitano. We have heard from other--Senator
Tester's question indicates other areas of the country. And we
are working under a statutory program and mandate. So our
flexibility is limited, and the overall goal is to have in the
country a reasonable set of requirements for when you are in a
flood plain and when you are not. And that makes a difference
for insurance and all kinds of purposes.
Senator Murkowski. And that all sounds reasonable.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, exactly right. So we are working
with communities, and I will go back to FEMA and make sure that
we are looking specifically at some of the communities that you
have, and we will work with you on that.
Senator Landrieu. Can I interject something here? And I
appreciate, Senator Murkowski, first of all, the bill you refer
to as statutory is the National Flood Insurance Program, which
has not been authorized for quite a while over this issue and
other issues. It keeps getting a temporary extension.
And one of the reasons we are not able to get a full
extension is over this issue, and the other thing that is in
that bill that I strongly object to is an automatic rate
increase of 15 percent per year for people that may be in a
flood plain. And it used to be that just Mississippi and
Louisiana were in the flood plain, and we kept yelling and
screaming about it. But now everybody is in a flood plain.
So I want to do a hearing on this, Senator, and I
appreciate how problematic this is. But it is going to take
work from our subcommittee and oversight of the core Committee
to figure this out. But it is a major problem for our country.
I am going to close with just submitting to the record some
response on the TSA aviation security fee because while it is
controversial, the fact is the cost of providing security for
our Nation through TSA has gone up 400 percent. The fee has not
kept up with that, and we really need to look to the modest
increase you have suggested.
But I will say that I have great sympathy for Alaska, and I
am going to work with Senator Murkowski to think about some
exemptions for Alaska that I am going to try to encourage my
colleagues to accept. They are not just rural. They are in a
category by themselves.
And I just think in a big country like ours, one size
doesn't fit all. We try to do it all the time, and it doesn't
work. So she knows that she has got my commitment to work with
her and with the other Senator from Alaska to give them a
little breathing room on some of this.
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE OFFICE
And finally, my final question is the Jones Act. As you
know, I do not support the President's call to release oil from
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Office (SPRO). I don't believe
the SPRO was designed for that purpose. That is contrary to its
intention, in my view.
But worse, last year when the SPRO was released, which had
no impact on the price of oil at the pump, after it was, the
Jones Act got waivers, received waivers from your Department 50
times. And when they get waivers, it means that ships built in
America, owned by Americans, and crewed by Americans are pushed
aside, and foreign vessels are allowed to come in.
So in our bill last year, as you know, I put language in
that said the Jones Act cannot be waived without your
consultation with the U.S. marine industry to determine the
availability of American vessels. The President is
contemplating. I hope he won't do it. But he is contemplating
opening the SPRO again.
Have you been talking with our maritime folks to make sure
that if he does that, which he has the right to do, although I
think it is ill-advised, that you are talking with the U.S.
maritime to see if they have the capability to move this oil
because it is going to come from refineries in Texas and
Louisiana to other places along the country?
Secretary Napolitano. I don't know whether there have been
any specific discussions with respect to moving oil from SPRO.
I do know, however, that before we approve a Jones Act waiver,
there is a survey done.
We get recommendations. They come in from DOD, the
Department of Energy, then up to me ultimately. And part of the
analysis is, are there available marine vessels from the United
States to carry the cargo?
Senator Landrieu. Please look at those U.S. vessels first,
and only if you have to, please, use those foreign vessels. It
is important to the manufacturing base in our country.
I thank the Secretary for her testimony.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Landrieu. Questions for the record should be
submitted by close of business on Tuesday, March 13.
[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
sequestration
Question. If Congress approves the President's request, the DHS
budget will fall for the third straight year. This will necessitate
tough decisions with real consequences for securing the Homeland. These
cuts would be compounded in significant ways if, in January, the so-
called sequestration, a 7.8-percent across the board cut, is
implemented. I know that the President has proposed sufficient savings
that, if enacted, would negate the sequestration, but please give me
four or five examples of what impact such a sequestration will have on
your efforts to secure the Homeland.
Answer. In the Budget Control Act (BCA), both parties in Congress
and the President agreed to tight spending caps that reduce
discretionary spending by $1 trillion over 10 years. Discretionary
spending is reduced from 8.7 percent of GDP in 2011 to 5.0 percent in
2022. The administration's fiscal year 2013 budget submission reflects
that agreement, and difficult trade-offs were made to meet these very
tight caps.
The BCA further specifies future reductions to discretionary and
mandatory spending to achieve deficit savings if the Joint Select
Committee on Deficit Reduction does not reach an agreement. Since these
reductions are not scheduled to begin to take effect until January 2,
2013, their exact impact on the Department is not yet known and will be
dependent upon the fiscal year 2013 appropriations are enacted by
Congress.
In order to sustain front-line operations in recent years while
facing declining budgets, the Department has taken significant
reductions to administrative and mission support functions over the
past 3 years. We've been able to achieve over $3 billion in cost
avoidances and savings.
Additional cuts of the magnitude outlined in the BCA sequestration
would directly impact DHS's front-line operations--rolling back
significant progress in securing our Nation's borders; increasing wait
times at our Nation's land ports of entry and airports; impacting
aviation and maritime safety and security; defending critical
infrastructure from attack; hampering disaster response time; and
eliminating the cybersecurity infrastructure that has been developed in
recent years.
An 8-percent sequester cut, which is roughly the level anticipated
by the BCA, translates to over $3 billion in reductions to DHS
activities and requirements. This cut is larger than the combined
budgets of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the Science and
Technology Directorate, Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Analysis and
Operations, Office of Health Affairs, and the Department's management
and operations (total combined is $2.7 billion).
cybersecurity education--cyber innovation center
Question. In recent testimony on cybersecurity, you emphasized that
increasing cyber education and awareness of the general public creates
a more secure environment. As you have seen in Louisiana, the Cyber
Innovation Center has developed a unique program that sparks students'
interest in a cybersecurity career at an early age. The program also
engages school teachers so the number of young people who will benefit
from cybersecurity awareness is multiplied. Such programs can serve as
a national model and I thank you for coming to Louisiana and seeing it
firsthand.
Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2013 budget proposes a 13-percent
decrease to the DHS Cybersecurity Education National Initiative.
According to the request, this proposal will defer the full assessment
of the national cybersecurity workforce by 2 years. The justification
for the proposed cut is that funding will support higher priorities
such as EINSTEIN and the United States Computer Emergency Readiness
Team. This sounds as if we are relying on tools more than people to
counter this dynamic threat. The DHS goal is to educate 1.7 million
students within 10 years.
Has the goal to educate 1.7 million students changed? Can you
clarify how this proposed cut would impact the timeframe to meet the
goal?
Answer. The Senate Appropriations Committee established a goal for
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in conjunction with the
Department of Education, Department of Defense, the National Institutes
of Standards and Technology, and the National Science Foundation, to
develop a program to educate 1.7 million students within 10 years.
Through the Integrated Cybersecurity Education Communities (ICEC)
project, DHS is currently implementing a cyber education model in
multiple communities across the Nation. The model includes teacher
professional development, summer camps, and access to cyber-related
high school curricula.
The goal to educate 1.7 million students in cybersecurity remains
in place. DHS developed a roll-out schedule to reach two communities in
fiscal year 2012 and two additional communities in fiscal year 2013.
DHS's fiscal year 2012 funding for this project covers a 1-year
demonstration project designed to allow DHS to observe the model in
operation, observe the summer camps in operation, and test model
portability as it is implemented. These projects and models will inform
the overall Federal Government program.
The fiscal year 2013 budget provides funding to roll out the
program to two communities. To reach the goal of educating 1.7 million
students by fiscal year 2023, which represents a 1-year delay from the
original goal,
improving trade processing at our land borders
Question. During my visit to the Southwest border last summer, I
was amazed at the lines of vehicles and trucks extending deep into
Mexico waiting to be inspected at ports in San Diego and Tucson. While
some funding has been provided on a piecemeal basis to address
immediate improvements at a few ports, the vast majority of the major
truck and container trade ports of entry--on the southern and northern
borders--are woefully outdated. A 2008 Government Accountability Office
report estimated that $6 billion is required to modernize and expand
our land ports of entry. Yet there are no funds in your construction
budget for any new port of entry expansion.
These delays at the border slow our national economy and cost
Americans jobs. I recognize that this issue is larger than just this
subcommittee's jurisdiction, but I am deeply concerned that it is not
getting the attention it deserves and I intend to focus attention on it
this year.
Trade processing is an ongoing responsibility of your Department.
Do you share my concern about the lack of funding for land ports of
entry construction and what more can we do about this issue?
Answer. We appreciate your concern about land ports of entry (LPOE)
capital construction and modernization projects. A one-time injection
of $720 million received through the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 provided much needed capital funding to support the LPOE
modernization effort. The $420 million appropriated for the CBP-owned
ports allowed the agency to modernize much of the CBP-owned LPOE
inventory. However, the $300 million provided for the GSA-owned LPOEs
represents only a fraction of what is required to recapitalize the GSA-
owned portfolio. GSA-owned and leased inspection facilities comprise
most of the busiest, larger capacity LPOEs and represent 74 percent of
all land ports operated by CBP, including 38 along the Southwest
border. Additionally, the President's fiscal year 2012 budget requested
$2.2 billion for LPOE modernization as part of the $50 billion targeted
for transportation and infrastructure investments. The President's
fiscal year 2013 budget assumes fiscal year 2012 funding of $28 billion
in Immediate Transportation Investments, as requested in the American
Jobs Act, of which $2 billion is for LPOE modernization.
The Immediate Transportation Investments proposal under the
American Jobs Act includes nearly $1.9 billion in projects to help
address some of the most critical LPOE modernization priorities. The
funding would support the modernization and replacement of LPOE
facilities lacking the infrastructure capacity to fulfill the present
day security and operational requirements of CBP. A list of the
potential LPOE projects is provided below, as coordinated by CBP, GSA,
and the Department of Transportation. CBP continues to explore
alternative LPOE financing vehicles such as public-private and public-
public opportunities outside of its traditional source of U.S. General
Services Administration Federal Buildings Fund appropriations.
LAND PORT OF ENTRY PROJECTS IDENTIFIED FOR POTENTIAL INVESTMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Project description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria Bay, NY..................... Replacement and expansion of
the existing inspection
facilities to add capacity
through one additional inbound
privately owned vehicle (POV)
lane and four additional
commercial lanes
Calexico West, CA (Phase I)............ Reconfiguration and
modernization of the existing
port of entry
Calexico West, CA (Phase II)........... Replace and expand the existing
port facilities to improve
site configuration and traffic
flow to facilitate large
volumes of pedestrian and bus
passengers
Columbus, NM........................... Renovate and expand existing
inspection facilities to add
capacity
Hidalgo, TX............................ Reconfiguration and
modernization of the existing
port of entry
Laredo Bridge I, TX.................... Reconfiguration and expansion
of the noncommercial and
pedestrian areas
Laredo Bridge II, TX................... Reconfiguration and expansion
of the bus processing area
New International Trade Crossing, MI... New International crossing on
the Detroit River
Niagara Falls--Lewiston Bridge, NY..... Reconfiguration and
modernization of the existing
port of entry
Otay Mesa, CA.......................... Reconfiguration and
modernization of the area port
of entry
Peace Bridge, NY....................... Reconfiguration and
modernization of the existing
port of entry
Port Huron--Blue Water Bridge, MI...... Replace existing port with
fully modernized facilities
and infrastructure to support
21st century cross border
travel, trade and security
San Luis I, AZ......................... Reconfiguration and
modernization of the existing
port of entry
San Ysidro, CA (Phase II).............. Construct northbound pedestrian
administration building;
central detention facility
San Ysidro, CA (Phase III)............. Realign Interstate 5, expand
inbound lanes to 34, construct
outbound secondary inspection,
a repatriation building, and
employee parking
GSA Staffing [all projects]............ Project and Program Management
CBP Staffing [all projects]............ Project and Program Management
------------------------------------------------------------------------
land ports of entry
Question. I understand that the Mayor of McAllen, Texas, received
$7 million in Texas State funding for expansion of up to six lanes at
one of the ports of entry. Apparently, at times it takes up to 3 hours
to enter the United States at this port--so having more entry lanes
could make a major impact. However, Customs and Border Protection
rejected the funds because it does not have the manpower--the men and
women officers--to staff additional inspection lanes. This is just one
of many examples. I am frustrated that these short-sighted constraints
result in the Government making penny-wise but pound-foolish choices.
It seems to me having more CBP officers can expedite the legal
entry of people and the processing of goods which contribute to the
Nation's economic well-being. This would result in lower cost products,
fresher produce, and more jobs here at home. Why does your budget (or--
your current system) prohibit the hiring of additional officers and
result in turning away outside funding that could be used to address
critical needs?
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 President's budget offers a
legislative proposal to enter into reimbursable fee agreements for the
provision of CBP services and any other costs incurred by CBP relating
to such services. Current statutory limitations on CBP's authority to
receive outside funding, except in narrowly defined instances, have
prevented CBP from receiving reimbursement from private sector and
international, State, and local partners. Funds collected pursuant to
this section would be deposited in the ``U.S. Customs and Border
Protection--Salaries and Expenses'' account as offsetting collections
and remain available until expended, without fiscal year limitation,
and would be used to pay for any expenses incurred by CBP in providing
CBP services and any other costs incurred by CBP relating to such
services.
The proposed legislation would authorize CBP to receive
reimbursement from corporations, Government agencies, and other
interested parties for inspection services in the air, land, and sea
environments at both the domestic and foreign locations. Also, the
legislation would grant CBP the ability to receive reimbursement at
international and landing rights airports that already receive
inspection services. Finally, the legislation would allow CBP to
collect reimbursable expenses including salaries, benefits, temporary
duty costs, relocation and, as applicable, housing, infrastructure,
equipment and training.
cbp air and marine
Question. I am very concerned by your proposed 52-percent cut in
procurement funding for CBP's Air and Marine program. This is a
critical program designed to push out our borders and interdict all
forms of contraband threatening our country. From cocaine coming though
the gulf to illegal aliens crossing our land border--we need to be able
to find them and respond. Within Central America, the deteriorating
security situation threatens citizen safety. Narcotics traffickers
continue to establish trafficking routes to and through the region.
Organized crime robs citizens of the confidence they need to earn a
livelihood, provide for their families, and trust public officials to
provide solutions. Unlike fixed towers and other types of technology
planted along parts of the border, these planes, helicopters, and
unmanned systems are mobile and rapidly deployable. They can respond to
the threat--whether it is along our northern border, off the California
coast, or deep into the Caribbean.
This $72 million cut will result in fewer replacement aircraft
being purchased and combined aircraft flight hours being cut from
107,000 hours in fiscal year 2010 to only an estimated 65,000 hours in
fiscal year 2013.
Is it the Department's plan to pull away from the drug and other
interdiction missions in the source and transit zones? How can a 52-
percent cut to procurement and no increase in operations be interpreted
any other way?
[Staffing:] Provide the same list of Air and Marine positions to be
lost under the budget proposal and their locations. On the list of Air
and Marine positions being eliminated, indicate which positions are
vacant and which will result from mandatory retirements.
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security remains fully committed
to our counterdrug mission. Regarding CBP's Air and Marine program,
from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2012, Congress provided CBP
with over $1 billion to accomplish the objectives laid out in our long-
range plan to replace/upgrade CBP's aging fleet of aircraft and marine
vessels. The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests an additional
$67 million to continue the recapitalization effort. This level of
funding represents nonrecurring costs from last year's procurements.
Operational impacts will be mitigated by recent equipment upgrades. For
example, our surveillance aircraft can now conduct both short- and
long-range surveillance at the same time, allowing us to fly one
aircraft instead of two. In addition, National Guard support to the
Border Patrol also recently began transitioning from boots on the
ground to air support. The transition to air support is a strategic
move that adds mobile, advanced surveillance and reconnaissance
capability to the Border Patrol's border security operations.
Answer. Since the merger of the legacy U.S. Border Patrol (OBP) and
U.S. Customs Service aviation programs under CBP in 2005, the Customs
and Border Protection Office of Air and Marine (OAM) has dramatically
increased efficiency and effectiveness of CBP air operations in support
of the Department of Homeland Security and its international, Federal,
State, local, and tribal partners. Most of these efficiencies were
captured through the acquisition of technologies that then drove or
facilitated changes in CBP air operations including decreased
operations cycle time, effective asset procurement/modernization, and
innovative sensor system integration. These operations developments
have then resulted in expanded mission functionality, vastly improved
detection capability, real-time customer support/interface, decreased
mishaps and system downtime, and consequently provided a significant
increase in overall CBP aviation mission effectiveness. The CBP Office
of Air and Marine (OAM) recapitalization plan is nearly complete, with
more than $1 billion appropriated by Congress from fiscal year 2006
through fiscal year 2012 to accomplish the objectives laid out in our
long-range plan to replace/upgrade CBP's aging fleet of aircraft and
marine vessels. In the fiscal year 2013 request, funding is included to
continue the P-3 aircraft service life extension effort, continue to
upgrade Black Hawk helicopters, and to purchase the seventh multi-role
enforcement aircraft (MEA). With the funds appropriated in fiscal year
2012, the MEA production line should remain viable through fiscal year
2013.
The table shown below details the specific reductions to OAM staff,
indicating those that resulted from mandatory retirements. As CBP
retires aged, unsupportable aircraft and marine vessels from service,
and new or upgraded assets are received, the work force will be
rebalanced to ensure the most effective alignment of pilots, detection
specialists, marine agents, and support personnel to operational
assets. This will be accomplished without negatively impacting OAM's
ability to provide support to front-line agents and officers.
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICE OF AIR AND MARINE FISCAL 2013 STAFF REDUCTIONS AND TRANSFERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2013 Staff Reductions:
HQ Mission Support (NSLC)........ MSA................. GS-0301-9/10.............
NASOC Jacksonville............... FE.................. GS-2185-12/3.............
Corpus Christi................... MIA................. GS-1801-12/2.............
Bellingham....................... MIA................. GL-1801-9/2..............
NASOC Jacksonville............... DEO................. GS-1801-12/6.............
Rochester........................ MIA................. GL-1801-09/6.............
Miami............................ AIA................. GS-1881-13/10............ Mandatory 2012
Buffalo.......................... MIA................. GS-1801-11/4.............
ASOC............................. IRS................. GS-0132-13/8.............
NASOC Corpus Christi............. AEO................. GS-1801-09/11/12.........
Houma............................ MIA................. GS-1801-11/1.............
San Angelo....................... AIA................. GS-1881-13/7.............
Tucson........................... AIA................. GS-1881-11/12/13.........
Port Angeles..................... MIA................. GS-1801-11/1.............
Tucson........................... AMI................. GS-1801-11/6.............
Houma............................ MIA................. GL-1801-9/1..............
Houston.......................... MSS................. GS-0301-09/4.............
Miami............................ AIA................. GS-1881-13/9............. Mandatory 2012
Great Falls...................... AIA................. GS-1881-13/4.............
ASOC............................. IRS................. GS-0132-13/7.............
New Orleans...................... AIA................. GS-1881-13/9............. Mandatory 2012
HQ Mission Support (Logistics)... MPA................. GS-343-13/4..............
Houston.......................... AIA................. GS-1881-13/5.............
Panama City...................... MIA................. GL-1801-9/6..............
HQ Mission Support (NSLC)........ MSS................. GS-301-7/3...............
HQ Mission Support (HR).......... MPA................. GS-343-12/3..............
San Angelo....................... AIA................. GS-1881-13/2.............
TSS NATC Oklahoma................ Pilot............... GS-2181-13/10............
ASOC............................. IRS................. GS-0132-13/9.............
AMOC............................. MSS................. GS-0301-11/4.............
Marathon......................... MIA................. GL-1801-9/1..............
San Diego........................ AMI................. WG-8852-11/5.............
Erie............................. MIA................. GS-1801-11/6.............
ASOC............................. IRS................. GS-0132-13/7.............
San Angelo....................... AIA................. GS-1881-13/10............ Mandatory 2012
Bellingham....................... MIA................. GS-1801-11/2.............
Miami............................ AIA................. GS-1881-13/6.............
AMOC............................. DEO................. GS-1801-12/6.............
Albuquerque...................... AEO................. GS-1801-12/5.............
Houma............................ MIA................. GS-1801-9/11/12..........
Buffalo.......................... MIA................. GS-1801-11/1.............
NASOC CB......................... DEO................. GS-1801-12...............
NASOC Corpus Christi............. DEO................. GS-1801-12/5.............
HQ Operations.................... PM.................. GS-340-14................
HQ Operations.................... PM.................. GS-340-14................
Fiscal Year 2013 Mission Support
Integration (Three Losses):
HQ Mission Support (NSL)......... MSS................. GS-0301-12/1.............
Miami............................ MSS................. GS-0303-09/2.............
San Diego........................ MSS................. GS-0301-9/1..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms:
AIA--Air Interdiction Agent
AEO--Aviation Enforcement Officer
AMI--Aviation Maintenance Inspector
DEO--Detection Enforcement Officer
FE--Flight Engineer
IRS--Intelligence Research Specialist
MIA--Marine Interdiction Agent
MSS/MSA--Mission Support Specialist
PM--Program Manager
PERMANENT STAFF TRANSFERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joint Operations Directorate (CBP
HQ):
Buffalo (used for salary MIA............ GS-1801-12/2
offset).
Houston...................... AIA............ GS-1881-13/8
Jacksonville................. AIA............ GS-1881-13/5
Miami (used for salary AEO............ GS-1801-12/4
offset).
Rochester (used for salary MIA............ GL-1801-9/1
offset).
San Angelo................... AIA............ GS-1881-13/10
San Antonio.................. AIA............ GS-1881-13/10
Joint Field Command (AZ):
HQ Operations................ AIA............ GS-1801-12/2
Sacramento................... AIA............ GS-1881-13/10
AMOC Phase B Transfer to OTIA
(CBP HQ) (AZ):
HQ Mission Support........... PM............. GS-0340-15/8
HQ Mission Support........... PM............. GS-0340-13
PPBA Programming Staff (HQ--Long
Term Detail):
Tucson....................... SAIO........... GS-1801-14/2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms:
AIA--Air Interdiction Agent
AEO--Aviation Enforcement Officer
AMI--Aviation Maintenance Inspector
DEO--Detection Enforcement Officer
FE--Flight Engineer
IRS--Intelligence Research Specialist
MIA--Marine Interdiction Agent
MSS/MSA--Mission Support Specialist
PM--Program Manager
SUMMARY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Enforcement Staff Reductions........................ 30
Non-LE Front-Line Staff Reductions...................... 7
Support Position Reductions............................. 11
---------------
Total............................................. 48
===============
Permanent Position Transfers............................ 11
===============
Total Reductions to Budgeted Staff................ 59
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Additional staff reductions were needed to meet grade-level
requirements for some transfers; these are noted by the phrase ``used
for salary offset.''
jones act waivers and the strategic petroleum reserve
Question. The Jones Act requires vessels that transport goods
between 2 points in the United States to be built, owned, and crewed by
Americans. Customs and Border Protection waived the Jones Act nearly 50
times last summer to allow foreign-flagged vessels to transport crude
oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) from ports in Louisiana
and Texas to refineries around the country. The SPR drawdown was
authorized in response to the crisis in Libya and the increased cost of
gas during the summertime driving season. I sent a letter to the
President in August of last year, which was also signed by the chairman
and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee and five
others, criticizing the administration's decision to sideline U.S.
mariners and provide Government contracts to foreign fleets when the
primary purpose of the SPR drawdown was to help the U.S. economy.
The administration has indicated it may authorize another SPR
drawdown this year as gas prices are once again on the rise and
tensions with Iran threaten global fuel supplies. The fiscal year 2012
omnibus included provisions that prohibit Jones Act waivers for SPR
shipments unless the Secretaries of Homeland Security and
Transportation consult with representatives from the U.S. maritime
industry to determine availability of American vessels and prioritize
their use. Enforcing the Jones Act is a DHS responsibility, and this
subcommittee looks to you and your Department to provide leadership on
this important issue within the administration. Finger-pointing between
Federal agencies is not acceptable, nor is a repeat of last summer's
events when the Jones Act was unnecessarily waived dozens of times
despite the availability of U.S.-flagged vessels.
Please explain the steps you are taking to comply with the law in
the event of another SPR drawdown.
Will you validate the Department of Energy's shipping
specifications and the Maritime Administration's industry outreach
efforts to guide your decision in the event that additional waiver
requests come before you this year?
Answer. In the event of any future SPR drawdown, DHS intends to
collaborate closely with our colleagues in the Department of Defense,
the Department of Energy, and the Maritime Administration (MARAD) in
the Department of Transportation to ensure that the statutory
requirements attendant to the processing of waivers of the Jones Act
are satisfied.
While not entirely sure as to the context of the term ``validate''
in the question posed, DHS will, in concert with the Department of
Energy and MARAD, endeavor to ensure that as much available U.S.-flag
shipping as possible will provide the requested transportation services
of SPR crude oil in accord with Public Law 112-55 and Public Law 112-
74.
coast guard polar icebreakers
Question. The Coast Guard's two heavy polar icebreakers--Polar Star
and Polar Sea--have exceeded their intended 30-year service lives, and
neither is currently in operational condition. The third polar
icebreaker, the Healy, has less icebreaking capabilities and is used
primarily for scientific missions. Your budget includes $8 million to
begin initial planning and design of a new heavy polar icebreaker--
which is estimated to cost $860 million.
Given the desire for natural resource exploration and the
expectation that more commerce will be transiting through the Arctic in
the coming years, there is no question that the United States has a
pressing need to address its diminishing icebreaking capabilities.
However, my concern is simple math. The Coast Guard has a need to build
two additional national security cutters at a cost of approximately
$750 million each and 25 offshore patrol cutters at a total acquisition
cost of over $8 billion.
The Coast Guard Commandant testified on March 6 in the House that
polar icebreaking is a national priority and multiple Government
agencies would benefit from icebreaking capabilities.
Please elaborate on the various funding approaches the Coast Guard
will explore, such as the possibility of a partnership with other
Government agencies or the private sector.
Answer. The $8 million requested in the fiscal year 2013 budget
will initiate the survey and design of a new polar icebreaker and will
be used to develop required planning documents, as well as to begin the
engineering and design work necessary to initiate the project. Though
pre-acquisition plans are still being developed, the Coast Guard looks
forward to building a new ship as soon as practicable. A funding plan
reflective of this effort will be developed once initial pre-
acquisition work is complete.
oil exploration off the cuban coast
Question. Given the oil exploration taking place and planned in
Cuban waters, what efforts are underway or planned at the Department of
Homeland Security to respond in the event of an oil spill?
Answer. The Department is committed to protecting U.S. interests,
particularly U.S. coastlines and natural resources, from potential
discharges from deepwater drilling in waters of nations adjacent to the
United States. The Coast Guard is the pre-designated Federal on-scene
coordinator (FOSC) under the National Contingency Plan (NCP) for the
coastal zone, and has the authority under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA), and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, to
oversee and direct removal actions for spills within U.S. waters or
threatening U.S. waters and adjoining shorelines, or that may affect
U.S. natural resources. The NCP provides a coordinated, efficient, and
effective whole-of-government response to marine pollution discharges
to protect the waters, shorelines, natural resources, and welfare of
the United States.
The Coast Guard updated its plans to ensure prompt response to a
spill from drilling activities off the coast of Cuba that could impact
the United States. Engagement in this preparedness effort is far-
reaching and includes collaboration with Federal, State, local, and
private-sector entities. As the Coast Guard focuses attention on the
near-term drilling that is to occur off Cuba, the Department is mindful
of the potential for future offshore oil exploration in Bahamian waters
as well. An offshore response plan has been developed to address the
unique characteristics of an oil spill response in the Florida region.
The plan creates an offshore response command and provides a command
and control structure that is accountable to the FOSC to address all
aspects of offshore pollution response from a foreign source. This plan
includes the capability to liaise with foreign governments and
corporations to address communication and coordination issues inherent
with international response efforts.
At the local level, the Coast Guard has expanded and enhanced our
efforts with State and local officials in oil spill response planning.
Beginning in March 2011, in Florida, the Coast Guard conducted
extensive outreach to engage officials in updates to area contingency
plans, including revisions to the geographic response plans and tidal
inlet protections strategies. Our State and local partners have been
and will continue to be an important part of the planning effort. They
have been involved in bi-weekly planning calls and the November 2011
response exercise. These recent updates and strong partnerships have
strengthened our readiness to respond to a spill.
While we are preparing to take response actions necessary to
protect U.S. interests, a major discharge from drilling off the United
States in adjacent nations' waters likely will require a broad
international response. The United States is a party to several
important multilateral treaties on pollution response that promote this
type of multilateral cooperation. A multilateral approach is essential
to ensure common understanding and effective implementation of
international obligations and standards for oil spill preparedness,
prevention and response. The Coast Guard is working with the Bureau of
Safety and Environmental Enforcement to lead the effort to conduct a
series of multilateral seminars focused on regional prevention,
preparedness and response for a potential worst case oil discharge in
the Caribbean. The seminars are designed to build on the existing
framework of our international agreements and the Caribbean Island Oil
Pollution Response and Cooperation Plan and enhance regional readiness
and cooperation related to offshore drilling, with an emphasis on
better preparing us to protect U.S. interests.
The Coast Guard, and our Federal interagency partners, engaged with
the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to participate in a
multilateral planning forum focused specifically on addressing such a
spill. Through that initiative, the Coast Guard is engaged in an
ongoing multilateral engagement with five other Caribbean nations
(Bahamas, Cuba, Curacao, Jamaica, and Mexico). This conduit allows the
Caribbean nations to discuss oil spill prevention, preparedness, and
response issues and to gain an understanding of current and planned
offshore drilling operations throughout the Caribbean, including Cuba.
The first IMO-sponsored workshop was held in Mexico in late November
2011, a second IMO-sponsored workshop was held in the Bahamas from
December 7-9, 2011, the third IMO-sponsored workshop was in Curacao
from January 31 to February 2, 2012, and a fourth is planned for April
11-13, 2012, in Jamaica. The multilateral engagement provided a common
understanding and effective implementation of international obligations
and standards for oil spill preparedness, prevention and response.
In accordance with the NCP, if a spill occurs within Cuban waters
that is projected to impact U.S. waters, shorelines, or natural
resources, the Coast Guard would mount an immediate response, in
partnership with other Federal, State, and local agencies. Such a
response would combat the spill as far offshore and close to the source
as possible, using all viable response tactics consistent with domestic
and international law. The Coast Guard has obtained licenses from the
Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Control and the
Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security, which allow
broad engagement in preparedness and response activities, and positions
us to direct an immediate response in the event of a catastrophic oil
spill.
As was highlighted by the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, any major
spill, regardless of its source, will require unity of effort across
all levels of government, industry, and the private sector. A spill
originating in the Caribbean, in another nation's waters, adjacent to
the United States, undoubtedly will require international cooperation.
The Coast Guard will continue to participate in IMO-sponsored
multilateral discussions to ensure coordinated prevention programs,
contingency planning efforts, and development of robust response
strategies. DHS and the Coast Guard will continue outreach and
coordination of Federal, State, and local efforts for potential oil
spills originating in foreign waters adjacent to the United States.
national domestic preparedness consortium--competition proposal
Question. The fiscal year 2013 request proposes to make funding
awards for training programs for first responders competitive.
Traditionally, much of the first responder training has been provided
through the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC) which is
made up of members with unique training skills in weapons of mass
destruction whether they be biological, nuclear, explosive, or
chemical. To date, this consortium has successfully trained over 1.7
million first responders. The consortium provides training that very
few, if any, other organizations could provide with the same level of
expertise. Further, their facilities can accommodate the high-risk
training that is often completed with live agents.
What specific special skills have first responders gained to date
through NDPC training courses? How many have been trained in each
skill?
For each consortium member how many applications for training were
received and how many were fulfilled, by fiscal year, since 2008?
If the training programs were made competitive, how would FEMA
determine the demand for training needs for first responders in order
to conduct the competition but also match needs in real time (i.e.,
what process would be used to determine how much and what type of
biological training is needed? Nuclear, etc.?)?
What type of capacity has FEMA found in other facilities in the
Nation that could provide the highly specialized weapons of mass
destruction training currently provided through the NDPC?
What would make the competed training more successful?
Answer. Below is a breakdown of the number of responders trained
for the skills taught by existing National Domestic Preparedness
Consortium (NDPC) members:
--Chemical weapons prevention and response--708,312;
--Biological weapons prevention and response--261,173;
--Radiological and nuclear weapons prevention and response--119,392;
--Explosives incidents prevention and response--397,488;
--Incident command--407,300;
--Surface transportation incident response--1,179; and
--Natural hazards events response--1,717.
The individual consortium members do not currently track the number
of applications they receive; however, the following is a breakdown of
how many have been fulfilled:
--Center for Domestic Preparedness--418,039;
--Louisiana State University--65,840;
--Nevada National Security Site/Nevada test site--67,892;
--New Mexico Tech--157,472;
--National Emergency Response and Rescue Center--140,929;
--National Center for Emergency Response in Surface Transportation--
1,179; and
--Natural Hazards Events Response--The University of Hawaii's
National Disaster Preparedness Training Center currently has
two FEMA-certified courses in its curriculum and will begin to
capture student data in the near future.
As part of the National Training and Education System called for in
Presidential Policy Directive-8, FEMA will determine demand based on a
variety of data points, including the Strategic National Risk
Assessment, capability estimation from regional and State threat and
hazard identification and risk assessments (THIRA), and training needs
analysis, as well as corrective actions from real-world events and
exercises.
FEMA is aware of several other facilities that have the unique and
specialized capability to offer weapons of mass destruction training
currently provided through the NDPC.
Further, current NDPC members will be encouraged to compete,
ensuring that existing, unique assets are considered.
By making the training programs competitive in fiscal year 2013,
FEMA hopes to encourage greater efficiencies as well as new ideas and
innovation. FEMA recognizes there are hundreds of institutions ready,
willing and able to provide education opportunities to homeland
security and emergency management officials.
federal flight deck officer program
Question. In 2002, Congress passed the ``Arming Pilots Against
Terrorism Act'' as part of the Homeland Security Act. That act requires
the Transportation Security Administration to deputize volunteer pilots
to carry firearms in the cockpit while flying with the goal of
providing an additional layer of security against terrorists. Your
budget proposes to cut this program in half from $25.5 million to $12.5
million.
Why is there such a significant reduction to this program compared
to other security layers? How will you prioritize demand for pilot
training at this reduced funding level?
Answer. As the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) focuses
its aviation security activities on programs that mitigate the highest
amount of risk at the lowest cost, TSA has prioritized funding in the
same manner. Funds will be redirected from this voluntary program to
other high-priority, risk-based operational initiatives. Since 2001,
many enhancements to aviation security have been made, such as 100
percent screening of all passengers and their carry-on items, the
installation of reinforced and locking cockpit doors on aircraft that
operate in U.S. airspace, and increased passenger and flight crew
awareness to address security risks. Combined, these improvements have
greatly lowered the risk of unauthorized cockpit access and represent a
comprehensive and redundant risk mitigation strategy that begins before
passengers board the aircraft. The program reductions will be
accomplished through a variety of actions intended to focus on
volunteers providing the highest potential security benefit, gaining
efficiencies in training facility consolidation and training contract
restructuring.
While some demand does exist for Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO)
training, the TSA does not anticipate any additional initial training
classes in fiscal year 2013 and beyond.
There are approximately 700 pilots who are fully vetted and
eligible to attend FFDO training, less than 1 percent of the commercial
pilots currently active in the United States. In fiscal year 2012, the
FFDO program is funded to train 250 new FFDOs. Since October 2011, 101
new FFDOs have been trained.
operation stonegarden
Question. During your visit to Texas last month, I understand you
heard from local law enforcement officials about the major benefits
derived by the border communities receiving Operation Stonegarden
grants. While drug cartel-related violence continues to plague Mexican
communities along the border, that violence has not crossed over into
the United States. Local U.S. border officials state that one of the
reasons that violence has not spilled over is due to their ongoing
joint operations and support to the Border Patrol and other Federal law
enforcement agencies--which they would not otherwise be able to do
absent Stonegarden funds.
Your budget proposes to eliminate specific funding for the program.
In your proposed preparedness block grant, would this successful
program be maintained?
Please provide metrics on what Stonegarden grants have purchased
for fiscal years 2008-2011.
Answer. Yes, the program would be maintained. The goals of
Operation Stonegarden (OPSG) are included in the NPGP vision under
``Core Capabilities.''
Core Capabilities
Since the focus of the NPGP is to develop and sustain the core
capabilities identified in the National Preparedness Goal, the program
will prioritize nationally deployable NIMS-typed capabilities. Such
capabilities are identified in the National Preparedness Goal and
include mass search and rescue operations, intelligence and information
sharing, border security and border protection operations,
cybersecurity, community resilience, and economic recovery.
FEMA believes that by consolidating all preparedness grants into
one program, States and territories will be better able to synchronize
all funding into a comprehensive program to develop and sustain core
capabilities across the national preparedness spectrum.
Regarding metrics, the Operation Stonegarden program (OPSG) is a
subprogram within the Homeland Security Grant Program portfolio
specifically focused on border operations. OPSG provides funding to
enhance cooperation and coordination among Federal, State, local,
tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies in a joint mission to
secure the United States' borders along routes of ingress from
international borders, to include travel corridors in States bordering
Mexico and Canada, as well as States and territories with international
water borders. The project level funding, shown below, is categorized
utilizing the POETE (planning, organization, equipment, training, and
exercises) model. OPSG funds two of these categories--organization and
equipment. Of the available funding, approximately 54 percent of the
total funds were consumed under the organizational/operational
category, which is overtime and fringe for law enforcement personnel,
while the remainder, approximately 46 percent, was reported under the
equipment, maintenance, sustainment, and fuel category.
All operations funded under this program are border-centric,
intelligence-driven, and goal-oriented in the reduction and/or
elimination of threat, risk, and vulnerability along our Nation's
borders. Since 2008, some measurable outcomes include but are not
limited to:
--Participating agencies (cooperation/coordination)--291;
--Additional law enforcement workdays (force-multiplier)--65,000;
--Patrol miles (boots on the ground)--5.7 million;
--Suspect vehicle stops--221,771;
--Citations issued--80,747;
--Seizures (guns, drugs, etc.)--4,380;
--Legal cases--11,830;
--Penal code violations--12,737.
national guard
Question. Please provide a description of the current status of the
National Guard deployment on the Southwest border. How many were
stationed in each State at the end of calendar year 2011, currently how
many are there, and how many will be there by the end of March?
Answer. The response to this question is being provided separately,
as it is law enforcement sensitive.
northern border
Question. What is the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) policy on transit
checks (bus, rail, ferries) along the northern border? While there is
authority for using checkpoints within 100 miles of the border--what
specifically is USBP doing? Have such transit checks stopped? If so,
when and why?
Answer. In order to ensure that USBP resources are best focused on
preventing and interdicting illicit cross-border conduct, USBP field
commanders are now utilizing a risk-based strategy, as informed by
credible information and intelligence, when determining whether to
conduct a transit node operation. USBP has longstanding legal authority
to conduct checkpoint operations within 100 miles of the international
border.
us-visit--proposed reorganization
Question. As you know, the US-VISIT program captures the biometrics
of visitors to this country and is intended to make sure we know who is
entering and exiting the United States. The budget proposes to divide
the functions of the US-VISIT program between Customs and Border
Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. However, aside from
cutting $28 million in overall funding for the program and dividing the
remaining funds between the two agencies, there is no specific detail
on the rationale behind this proposal. Some have argued that the
decision was made to move US-VISIT, with the details to be worked out
later.
Please explain the reasoning behind this decision. If we concur
with this proposal, what assurances can you provide that there will be
no disruptions in the vital services performed by US-VISIT starting on
October 1, 2012?
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes the transfer of US-
VISIT functions from the National Protection and Programs Directorate
(NPPD) to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Currently, CBP operates numerous
screening and targeting systems, and integrating US-VISIT within CBP
will strengthen the Department's overall vetting capability while also
realizing efficiencies.
Pending enactment, CBP will assume responsibility for the core US-
VISIT operations and management of the biometric and biographic
information storage and matching and watchlist management services. ICE
will assume responsibility of the US-VISIT overstay analysis services.
CBP uses US-VISIT systems to help determine admissibility of foreign
nationals arriving at all U.S. ports of entry (POEs) and to process
aliens entering the United States illegally between the POEs.
Currently, CBP operates numerous screening and targeting systems,
supporting more than 70,000 users from over 20 Federal agencies that
are responsible for a wide range of programs that rely on CBP
information and systems to determine benefits, process travelers,
inform investigations, support case management, and enhance
intelligence capabilities. The US-VISIT systems will complement the CBP
systems by adding the biometric identification and screening
capabilities, which are also used across and beyond DHS. It will
streamline interactions with the U.S. Department of State and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation for both biographic and biometric
screening.
Although ICE will assume responsibility for US-VISIT overstay
analysis, CBP and ICE will collaborate on system support for the
overstay mission. Transition of the analysis and identification of the
overstay population in ICE clearly aligns with the ICE mission of
administrative immigration enforcement. Additionally, functions of
support to CIS will provide feeder data related to domestic benefit
fraud schemes for ICE investigations.
CBP, ICE, and US-VISIT have established a transition team composed
of senior representatives from each organization. This transition team
is working to identify and prioritize crucial functional areas and
determine the optimal strategy for transitioning each function.
This transition team will identify targets of opportunity for
operational and cost efficiencies. Priority will be placed on those
transition initiatives that focus on increases in efficiency and
effectiveness within mission support and ``corporate'' functions such
as logistics, human resources, and information technology. Once all of
the information is collected and arrayed, it will be analyzed with the
goal of finding efficiencies while maintaining US-VISIT's mission with
no degradation of services.
A final transition plan will be made available to all external
stakeholders by the end of July 2012.
us-visit--delayed fiscal year 2011 expenditure plan
Question. The fiscal year 2011 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations
Act required the submission of an expenditure plan detailing how the
fiscal year 2011 funds for the US-VISIT program would be used--$50
million of the total funds appropriated were withheld until that plan
was submitted. Fiscal year 2011 ended more than 5 months ago--and we
have yet to receive the plan.
How can this subcommittee accurately consider a proposal to
drastically redesign US-VISIT without knowing how previously
appropriated funds have been or will be used?
Answer. I understand the subcommittee's concern. The plan is
currently being revised to report on spending and activities that
occurred in fiscal year 2011, and will be provided to the subcommittee
shortly.
international screening programs
Question. Your full statement for the record claims that the budget
supports and extends a number of pre-screening programs such as the
visa security and immigration advisory programs. However, none of the
programs are proposed to be expanded and some have proposed cuts. Since
the Department was created, one of the goals was to push the border out
and stop individuals or products which would do us harm well before
they reached our shores. One can hardly argue that this budget
continues this record of success.
How does this budget accomplish the mission of interdicting threats
at the earliest possible point?
Answer. In our increasingly globalized world, DHS continues to work
beyond its borders to protect both national and economic security. The
fiscal year 2013 budget sustains funding for core programs and
continues to support DHS's strategic partnerships. These partnerships
strengthen international allies and enhance targeting and information-
sharing efforts that are utilized to interdict threats and dangerous
people and cargo at the earliest point possible.
Visa Security Program
Through the Visa Security Program and with Department of State
concurrence, ICE deploys trained special agents overseas to high-risk
visa activity posts to identify potential terrorist and criminal
threats before they reach the United States. ICE Homeland Security
Investigations (HSI) has expanded its Visa Security Program (VSP) since
fiscal year 2010 by adding new locations and expanding existing
operations in current locations. VSP is currently active at 19 posts
across 15 countries, and is planning, in fiscal year 2012, to expand
the VSP in two additional locations. The fiscal year 2013 budget
supports efforts to leverage IT solutions and the capabilities of our
law enforcement and intelligence community partners to increase ICE's
efficiency in screening visa applications in order to identify patterns
and potential national security threats. This will establish greater
efficiencies to our Visa Security Program, allowing for research and
analytic activities to be carried out in the United States and
investigative and law enforcement liaison work overseas. Also in fiscal
year 2013, along with the aforementioned efficiencies, ICE will be able
to reduce base funding to non-mission critical areas by way of
terminations of one-time cost and attrition of mission support FTE.
Regardless of the type of reduction, there will be no adverse affects
to the program's ability to mitigate treats. Quite the opposite, ICE is
increasing VSP's performance through clarity and standardization of
operations.
Pre-Departure Programs
CBP's Immigration Advisory Program (IAP), Visa Hot List (VHL)
vetting program, pre-departure screening, and developing pre-
adjudicative visa screening program also support the DHS multi-layered
approach to security.
Through the Immigration Advisory Program and enhanced in-bound
targeting operations, CBP identifies high-risk travelers who are likely
to be inadmissible into the United States and makes recommendations to
commercial carriers to deny boarding. The IAP currently operates at 11
locations in nine countries. IAP reductions in fiscal year 2013 are due
to nonrecurring first year start-up costs related to the IAP in fiscal
year 2012 that CBP will not incur in fiscal year 2013. CBP also
reevaluated the overseas footprint for IAP and found that in some
locations there are cost savings for utilizing temporarily detailed
(TDY) officers rather than relocating and permanently placing a CBP
officer for all positions; moving to a footprint of one permanent team
lead; or augmenting TDY personnel or locally engaged staff, where
operationally and administratively appropriate. The fiscal year 2013
budget continues to support initiatives to interdict and apprehend
criminals and persons of national security interest, and disrupt those
who attempt to enter the United States with fraudulent documents.
Through pre-clearance agreements, CBP screens passengers
internationally prior to takeoff through the same process a traveler
would undergo upon arrival at a U.S. port of entry, allowing DHS to
extend our borders outward while facilitating a more efficient
passenger experience. The fiscal year 2013 budget continues to support
CBP's preclearance inspection efforts, which are designed to determine
compliance with admissibility of agriculture, customs, and immigration
requirements to the United States.
For non-IAP and pre-clearance locations, CBP's National Targeting
Center-Passenger (NTC-P) conducts pre-departure screening to identify
high-risk travelers, and coordinates with its regional carrier liaison
groups to communicate no board recommendations to carriers where
appropriate.
Furthermore, CBP's Visa Hot List vetting program conducts
continuous vetting of all issued U.S. non-immigrant visas against
enforcement databases and searches for new records as they are entered
into TECS. Visa Hot List vetting ensures that changes in a traveler's
eligibility are identified in near real time allowing NTC-P to
immediately determine if a person should be denied boarding, if a visa
revocation should be requested, or if other U.S. Government agencies
should be notified because the individual is present in the United
States.
Additionally, in an effort to further enhance visa security
measures, ICE and CBP are engaged in a partnership with DOS on
developing an automated visa screening process that will enable DHS to
identify derogatory information related to visa applicants prior to the
adjudication of their visa application. It is anticipated that a pilot
program designed to test new automated data processing infrastructure
and compatibility could commence in fiscal year 2013, after which an
assessment on the viability of the program would be completed. The
assessment will also identify the funding requirements for additional
personnel and logistical support.
border security technology
Question. Your budget proposes to cut $193 million in development
and deployment of border security technology and proposes $92 million
for integrated fixed towers in Arizona. According to the Department,
Border Patrol apprehensions have decreased 53 percent since fiscal year
2008. In the Tucson sector apprehensions dropped 42 percent between
fiscal years 2010-2011. This is the lowest level of apprehensions in
Tucson in 17 years. Based on briefings your officials have provided,
the earliest a request for proposal for deployment of the first fixed
tower in Arizona will occur is in September--at the end of the current
fiscal year. And the Department has informed us that $359 million
remains available in unobligated prior year balances for border
technology.
As you know better than most of us, drug traffickers and alien
smugglers adjust their routes depending on how hard it is to move their
contraband. Does it make sense to sink expensive infrastructure into
fixed locations when the threat trend in a particular location
continues to go down and can quickly move to another location?
Answer. The question appropriately acknowledges the decrease in
apprehensions and the dynamic nature of the threat along the Southwest
border. CBP attributes these trends, in part, to strategic investment
and deployment of additional personnel, tactical infrastructure and
technology to high risk, priority regions of the border. The Department
recently concluded a comprehensive review of surveillance technologies
that would best complement the personnel and tactical infrastructure in
Arizona. Where practicable, the Arizona plan utilizes mobile and agent
centric technologies which can be re-deployed in response to dynamic
threats. For remote terrain areas, where agent access is limited, fixed
towers support enforcement through persistent, wide-area surveillance.
This infrastructure will help CBP establish better awareness and
enhance our enforcement posture in these difficult areas. Moreover,
CBP's fielding of over 40 mobile surveillance systems to the Southwest
border enables the Border Patrol to augment the fixed surveillance
systems to cover ``blind spots'' created by terrain or foliage in
monitored areas, as well as to relocate surveillance capabilities to
areas where the illicit activity (threat) may move to avoid the fixed
surveillance systems.
Technology and infrastructure also help us to sustain our success.
The presence of technology persists as a strong deterrent against the
return of illicit traffic to areas where we have reduced that traffic.
Therefore, infrastructure investment often makes sense even as we see
improving trends in apprehensions.
This approach is supported by what CBP sees today in Arizona as a
result of recently deployed SBInet Block 1 fixed tower systems. For
example, in the Border Patrol's Ajo area of responsibility--an
expansive remote area previously known for relatively high levels of
trafficking and smuggling--the new Block 1 system illuminated
significant activity levels, the Border Patrol responded effectively,
and consequently, the quantity of apprehensions and contraband seizures
increased significantly upon deployment. The traffic has since
decreased as the fixed surveillance provided a persistent deterrence.
The Border Patrol, too, was able to shift personnel and resources to
other traffic areas while continuing to rely on the Block 1
surveillance and monitoring of the Ajo area. To date, we have not seen
the significant traffic return to the Ajo area.
As we continue to plan and evaluate Southwest border regions beyond
Arizona, we will follow a similar risk-based approach to determine if,
and where, fixed surveillance systems make the most sense. We will look
closely at evolving illicit traffic patterns, regional vulnerabilities,
and existing capabilities already in a region.
The question also asks about unobligated funding balances from
prior years available for border technology. Nearly all of these
unobligated funds are set-aside for pending contract awards based on
approved, previously enacted appropriations requests. For example, $98
million is awaiting award of the remote video surveillance system
contract award later this year. Approximately $35 million is awaiting
contract award of the comprehensive tactical infrastructure maintenance
and repair (CTIMR) for the Southwest border. Approximately $49 million
is awaiting contract award for the next phase of tactical
communications modernization tasks in El Paso, Rio Grand Valley, and
Houlton border patrol sectors. And, there are also numerous smaller
contracts and incremental funding actions planned over the next several
months that will spend the prior year unobligated balances by year's
end.
secure communities
Question. The Secure Communities program initially was proposed and
funded by the Appropriations Committees in fiscal year 2008.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement has successfully rolled out the
Secure Communities program to 72 percent of the Nation and is on target
to be fully deployed nationwide in fiscal year 2013. Secure Communities
has been deployed to 15 parishes in my State of Louisiana. I support
this program which primarily targets criminal aliens for detention and
removal. We need to ensure that our immigration laws are enforced and
that individuals who are here illegally and who pose a threat to the
community are detained and removed. I understand, however, there are
certain locations around the country which refuse to cooperate or
participate in Secure Communities.
What steps are you taking to ensure that you meet your goal of 100
percent coverage in 2013?
Answer. As of March 20, 2012, Secure Communities is operating in
2,504 jurisdictions, 45 States, and one territory. U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) will continue to activate Secure Communities
in other areas nationwide in an orderly manner. ICE expects to complete
nationwide deployment of Secure Communities during fiscal year 2013.
continued cuts to critical cbp operations
Question. Your budget appears to be focused on maintaining front-
line operations--especially people. This is important and I strongly
support it. However, the people on the front lines are only as good and
effective as the systems they have supporting them. For example, at
Customs and Border Protection, the budget proposes a total of $342
million in so-called ``efficiencies'' and other cuts, including nearly
$50 million in additional cuts to information technology infrastructure
and systems support. Between fiscal years 2009-2012, $363 million has
been cut from CBP's IT systems. CBP relies on these systems to, among
other things, target potential terrorists before they reach our shores,
perform database checks on all proposed travelers to this country, and
screen cargo manifests for all good entering the United States via air,
land, or sea. And other Government agencies, such as TSA's Secure
Flight, are increasingly relying on CBP's capabilities to assist them
in performing their security and other functions. It appears that the
Department is eating its seed corn. It is making short term fiscal
decisions which will have long-term costs and consequences.
Given the cuts to the CBP information technology infrastructure,
will CBP be able to effectively perform its mission of securing the
borders of the United States while simultaneously facilitating the flow
of legitimate trade and travel?
What is the potential for another catastrophic failure like the
power outage that occurred at LAX in August 2007 which stranded
thousands of travelers on planes because they could not be processed
through customs and immigration, and what are you doing to properly
balance the requirements for people, technology, and infrastructure
given your tight budgets?
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget provides sufficient funding for
CBP's information technology systems to ensure that the agency will be
able to effectively perform its mission of securing the borders while
facilitating the legitimate flow of trade and travel. The budget
requests $31.0 million in program changes to address resource
requirements for maintenance, enhancements, and improvements to the
Automated Targeting System (ATS), which will maintain current service
levels and ensure sustained operations and performance of ATS and its
sub-systems. The budget also requests $5.0 million for the TECS
Modernization Program, an effort to take advantage of the most current
standards and technologies to support port of entry processing and
vetting services for DHS and other Government agencies.
CBP is also working to minimize operational risk by simplifying and
modernizing its disparate data system platforms and to migrate legacy
mainframe applications to the new environment. This will be
accomplished through a phased approach over multiple fiscal years. Once
fully implemented, this effort is expected to reduce out-year
operations and maintenance costs, increase systems availability, reduce
report run time, and improve failover/disaster recovery capabilities;
thereby minimizing operational risk.
We are committed to directing our resources to our highest mission
priorities. This includes protecting and directing resources to areas
that present the highest risk, and that includes protecting the
security of our IT infrastructure. CBP is currently conducting an in-
depth assessment of our IT infrastructure, which will analyze IT
spending, compare it with other agencies and industry and will
culminate in prioritized recommendations for sustaining IT
infrastructure to meet mission requirements.
detention beds
Question. According to the justification documents submitted to the
subcommittee for your budget request, ``ICE estimates there are 1.9
million removable criminal aliens in the United States today.'' These
are criminal aliens who pose a threat to our communities and are deemed
removable, not the larger estimate of 11 million illegal aliens. In
your testimony, you claim that your Department only has resources to
remove approximately 400,000 aliens a year. Over the years, this
subcommittee has provided ICE with more funding than has been requested
to enforce immigration laws--including removing criminal aliens. In the
appropriations law for this fiscal year, ICE has been given funds to
fill 34,000 detention beds every day. However, since December--when the
appropriations bill became law and the funds became available--ICE has
not filled 1,000 of those 34,000 beds.
I support your efforts for smart enforcement of our immigration
laws. But given that your Department says there are 1.9 million
removable criminal aliens, why are you not filling 1,000 detention beds
that the Congress has given you the resources to fill?
Answer. The Department functioned under a continuing resolution
(CR) during the first quarter of fiscal year 2012, which extended
fiscal year 2011 terms and conditions. Under the CR, ICE was mandated
to maintain a level of not less than 33,400 detention beds, and during
this time ICE supported 33,523 beds. Upon enactment of Public Law 112-
74 on December 23, 2011, the requirement was increased to 34,000
detention beds and it took time to ramp up to the higher number. As of
March 28, 2012, ICE had reached an occupancy of 34,975 beds, and we are
fully committed to maintaining at least 34,000 beds for the remainder
of fiscal year 2012.
cybersecurity increase for the federal network
Question. The fiscal year 2013 budget contains a request for $202
million in new spending authority to ``directly support Federal
departments and agencies in implementing capabilities that will improve
their cybersecurity posture.''
It is understood the funding is to be used for continuous
monitoring so that threats inside the Federal network can be detected
in real time. Please provide a breakdown of the $200 million
demonstrating what projects will be completed, for which Federal
agencies. In what timeframe will the funds be obligated?
Answer. Funding will support cybersecurity improvements in the
departments and agencies highest risk networks and nodes, including the
acquisition and installation of security hardware and software on IT
systems; implementation of continuous monitoring to provide a real-time
common operating picture of cybersecurity threats; and measures to
ensure that identified threats are resolved quickly and any damage is
contained and minimized.
Specifically, the $202 million will support:
--A Federal Enterprise-wide dashboard purchase with daily updates of
agencies' progress and their risks displayed in a prioritized
manner;
--Diagnostic sensors in Federal agencies with data feeds to the
dashboard which focus on Federal priority areas;
--Diagnostic tools and integration for daily threat and impact on the
.gov domain; and
--A DHS security data warehouse structure, reports, integration with
CyberScope.
e-verify extension
Question. This subcommittee tries to avoid carrying authorization
items, because we believe the authorizing committees are the
appropriate place for these proposals to be considered and acted upon.
But sometimes authorizing items are added to our bill. For instance,
during floor debate on the fiscal year 2010 Homeland Appropriations
bill, amendments were adopted authorizing the extension of four
separate immigration programs for 3 years--through the end of this
fiscal year. This included the E-Verify and EB-5 regional center
programs. However, your budget proposes to only extend the
authorization of the E-Verify program for an additional year. The EB-5
program is a very successful program which provides visas for
entrepreneurs who create jobs in this country. There are three EB-5
centers in my State of Louisiana, and the author of the original
legislation creating the program is a member of this subcommittee.
Why did the administration not propose extending the EB-5 program?
Answer. E-Verify authorization is a necessary conforming amendment
to a specific request in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget for
appropriated funding of that program. The three other programs
requiring congressional reauthorization (Conrad 30, EB-5 Regional
Center, and non-minister religious worker immigrant visa program) are
funded through fees paid by the applicants participating in each of
these programs. We fully support these programs and look forward to
working with Congress to ensure they are, indeed, re-authorized.
tsa advanced imaging technology
Question. Describe what specific investments TSA and/or the Science
and Technology Directorate are making to improve the capabilities of
the next generation of advanced imaging technology machines in order to
improve aviation security.
Answer. On February 21, 2012, the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) issued a request for proposal (RFP) for a follow-
on advanced imaging technology solicitation (AIT-2) focused on the
procurement of enhanced full and reduced sized AIT systems. The
procurement specifications contained within the RFP for AIT-2 raises
performance requirements in a number of areas to include reduction in
processing time, increased detection performance, and reduction in
size. The award date for full production AIT-2 systems is scheduled for
March 2013 with all qualified systems from the AIT-2 solicitation
configured with automated threat reduction (ATR) technology to enhance
privacy protections.
In collaboration with TSA, the Department of Homeland Security
Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate is also pursuing the
development of an advanced AIT system with improved image resolution to
allow for the detection of smaller threat items than currently possible
with existing commercial systems. The S&T Directorate is also pursuing
development of next generation AIT systems that will allow a walk-
through passenger screening process for anomaly detection, unlike the
existing systems which require the passenger to remain stationary.
Finally, the original equipment manufacturers (OEM) with currently
fielded advanced imaging technology (AIT) systems remain under contract
with TSA to develop solution upgrades that include an ATR capability
and improvements in detection capabilities.
fema predisaster mitigation
Question. What percent of predisaster mitigation grants in fiscal
year 2008-2011 were awarded to locations that had Presidentially
declared disasters in the year preceding the award?
Answer. Please see below for percentages:
--Fiscal year 2008: 68 percent of predisaster mitigation (PDM)-
awarded projects went to States that had a disaster relief (DR)
declaration in the previous fiscal year (116 of 170 approved
projects);
--Fiscal year 2009: 48 percent of PDM-awarded projects went to States
that had a DR declaration in the previous fiscal year (74 of
154 approved projects);
--Fiscal year 2010: 56 percent of PDM-awarded projects went to States
that had a DR declaration in the previous fiscal year (109 of
193 approved projects); and
--Fiscal year 2011: 70 percent of PDM-awarded projects went to States
that had a DR declaration in the previous fiscal year (78 of
111 approved projects).
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
urban area security initiative grants
Question. The fiscal year 2012 UASI allocation did not cut any
funding for the New York region and cut funding to three regions by
only 13 percent compared to the fiscal year 2011 allocation. The
remaining tier I regions received cuts based largely on their risk
scores beginning with the San Francisco-San Jose-Bay area region at a
38-percent cut, and the cuts increased slightly as risk scores
decreased through the tier II regions. The Newark-Edison area was cut
by 42 percent. Given that the top four risk areas received
disproportionately smaller cuts, or no cut at all, why didn't the
remaining high-risk regions in tier I also receive special
consideration to ensure the smallest cuts possible?
Answer. Fiscal year 2012 UASI allocations were informed by a
comprehensive risk methodology based on threat, vulnerability, and
consequences. Ultimately, the highest risk cities in our country
continue to face the most significant threats, and the fiscal year 2012
homeland security grants focus the limited resources that were
appropriated to mitigating and responding to these evolving threats.
Current intelligence reflects that al Qaeda, its affiliates and its
allies remain focused on carrying out attacks in major U.S. cities
including New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC, and
against our aviation and surface transportation infrastructure. From an
infrastructure protection perspective, these four major cities contain
50 percent of the identified critical infrastructure most likely
targeted by international terrorists and a third of all assets,
systems, and infrastructure clusters.
Question. The fiscal year 2012 UASI allocation did not cut any
funds relative to the previous year for the New York region because of
its high threat level. The New York/New Jersey port region includes New
York and the region between Newark Liberty International Airport and
Port Elizabeth, the area considered by the FBI to be the most dangerous
in America for a terrorist attack. The fiscal year 2012 Port Security
grant process is now competitive but risk will be a factor as DHS makes
awards later this year. When allocating fiscal year 2012 Port Security
grants, will DHS give similar consideration to the highest risk areas
as it did when distributing fiscal year 2012 UASI funds?
Answer. Yes, the Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) will prioritize
port areas that have the highest risk. For fiscal year 2012, PSGP
divided the port areas into four groups. The seven ports with the
highest risk are part of Group I and will compete for 60 percent of the
available funding.
airport security breaches
Question. Last year, there were an unusually high number of
breaches at Newark Liberty Airport. At my request, DHS is in the
process of completing an investigation of the breaches. What steps will
you take to ensure that any issues identified in the investigation are
fully resolved?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is
committed to continuing to strengthen and improve security at Newark
Liberty International Airport (EWR) by ensuring all EWR staff receive
proper training, updating data breach containment plans, and conducting
regular security breach drills.
The national security breach drill requirement includes three
drills of varying complexity per year. TSA EWR's breach drills exceed
the national requirement by requiring each passenger checkpoint to
conduct two drills with varying complexity every other day involving
TSA, stakeholders, and/or law enforcement officers (LEOs).
Additionally, TSA EWR is engaging the airport operator, LEOs, and other
stakeholders in breach drill containment and resolution exercises.
In addition, TSA EWR's Back to Basics campaign and Commitment to
Excellence are programs implemented by the TSA EWR Federal Security
Director (FSD) to continue to strengthen security and customer service:
--TSA EWR's Back to Basics campaign included a focus on lead
transportation security officer (LTSO), supervisory
transportation security officer (STSO), and transportation
security manager (TSM) communications, engagement and
accountability. Results and actions include:
--66-percent reduction in access incidents over the past 11\1/2\
months;
--Dedicated training lanes in passenger and checked baggage
screening;
--Breach drills conducted above required standards; and
--Improved internal communications between TSA management and the
front-line workforce.
--The TSA EWR Commitment to Excellence report was written by TSMs and
STSOs at EWR. The report identified systemic issues and
recommended solutions in security operations, staffing,
training support, administrative support, discipline,
management and workforce communications, and airport community
relations.
SA is also enhancing its performance management and oversight of
FSDs and airport field operations through an internal restructuring of
TSA field leadership into a new regional director (RD) structure. RDs
will monitor specific FSD performance metrics, which will allow TSA
RDs, FSDs, and TSA headquarters leadership to assess airport
performance, correct vulnerabilities, and ensure identified issues are
resolved.
state and local grant funding
Question. How will DHS's distribution of 2012 grant funding reflect
the risk to rail and transit?
Answer. DHS will focus its available transit security grant dollars
on the highest risk systems through a competitive process and will
prioritize funding for operational activities and capital asset
remediation. DHS has identified critical infrastructure assets of
national concern through the Top Transit Asset List (TTAL). Critical
infrastructure assets are those that are vital to the functionality and
continuity of a major transit system such that their incapacitation or
destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national
economic security, public health or safety, or any combination thereof.
With the creation of the TTAL, DHS now can target funding to the
remediation of those assets on the list in an informed and risk-based
approach.
cbp wait times
Question. According to reports at Newark Liberty, arriving
passengers are experiencing long wait times at Customs due to
inadequate staffing. With the busy summer travel season approaching,
there are concerns that wait times will continue to grow. Will you
commit to working with me to provide adequate staffing levels at
Newark?
Answer. CBP is working to ensure the optimal staffing is provided
to the locations of highest need and risk. CBP seeks to process
arriving passengers as quickly as possible consistent with national
security and the enforcement of customs, immigration and agricultural
regulations. Nationally, CBP processed 73.4 percent of international
travelers within 30 minutes during the first quarter of fiscal year
2012, and the rate for Newark was 76 percent. The average wait time
(AWT) for CBP at Newark was 21.2 minutes in the first quarter of fiscal
year 2012, which was lower than the national AWT of 21.7 minutes.
Newark's AWT has consistently been at or below the national average for
the past 13 quarters.
global positioning system
Question. Recent reports have highlighted the risk to the Global
Positioning System (GPS) for interference, jamming or spoofing by
terrorists and criminals. What is DHS doing to address the
vulnerability to GPS?
Answer. The Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Advisory
Board, of which DHS is a member, is currently conducting efforts to
baseline the performance of commercial GPS jammers. DHS's S&T has
facilitated these efforts by helping the PNT establish cooperative
research and development agreements (CRADAs) with industry. During the
summer of 2012, the PNT plans to evaluate the capabilities of
commercially available jammers and systems that can detect them at the
White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. This is an important step to
fully understanding the extent of the problem before developing or
deploying countermeasures. DHS coordinates with other departments,
including the Department of Transportation and Department of Defense,
through the PNT Advisory Board.
smuggling
Question. Last week, CBP caught an inbound passenger at Dulles
airport attempting to smuggle in over 18,000 Vietnamese cigarettes.
Christopher Hess, CBP Port Director for Washington, DC, said in a news
release that this appeared to be a smuggling operation with the intent
of reselling the cigarettes. These foreign cigarettes pose a serious
health threat and violate Federal taxation, importation, and copyright
laws. In addition to screening passengers' luggage at the airports,
what is CBP doing to ensure that foreign cigarettes are not being
smuggled into the United States? Are all inbound mail parcels from
foreign nations being x-rayed and screened for contraband cigarettes?
Answer. CBP takes the smuggling of foreign cigarettes very
seriously. CBP's Office of International Trade has developed rule sets
to identify violations of trade laws within the cargo environment that
endanger public health, restrict the competitiveness of the United
States in the global market, and conceivably damage the United States
economy. In addition to CBP's layered enforcement strategy, CBP
partners with ICE and Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, through
the Fraud Investigation Strike Team (FIST) program, which is designed
as a measure to identify or disrupt fraud associated with CBP's
importation, in-bond, and entry processes. In regards to mail
shipments, CBP x-rays 100 percent of all mail shipment entering the
United States from abroad utilizing this layered approach and targeted
rule sets as identified above.
centers of excellence
Question. The National Center for Secure and Resilient Maritime
Commerce (CSR) at the Stevens Institute of Technology is a DHS Center
of Excellence and its contract is up for renewal in June 2013. What
steps will the Department take to re-compete this contract to allow the
Center to continue its important work?
Answer. DHS continues to leverage the expertise found at our
Nation's universities to strengthen efforts in homeland security-
related science and engineering throughout the academic community. The
Department's Centers of Excellence conduct research and offer
educational programs, which produce technologies and analyses valuable
to the Department and its partners. With the expectation that DHS will
continue to need a Maritime Domain Awareness Center of Excellence
(COE), as mandated in the 2006 Safe Port Act (Public Law 109-347), the
Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) will initiate a re-competition
for this COE beginning in summer 2012.
S&T has a rigorous evaluation and rating process for proposals
received by the funding opportunity deadline. The initial steps are to
assemble a cross-DHS team to write a new funding solicitation with
updated maritime and port security priority research topics and
questions. Then, a panel of outside subject matter experts reviews the
proposals to ensure the proposed research is of the highest quality.
Next, a team of internal reviewers evaluates the proposals to ensure
the research will help S&T and its customers fulfill its mission of
protecting the Nation well into the future. Finally, senior S&T staff
and subject matter experts make site visits to the top-rated
institutions to finalize their recommendations to the Under Secretary
for Science and Technology.
At the end of the proposal review, S&T will select one lead
institution, which will be required to form a coalition of
complementary partner institutions to complete the Center's research
portfolio. As a result, S&T expects there to be a number of potential
roles and contributions for a variety of institutions at a Center.
S&T anticipates the funding announcement to be posted in the fourth
quarter of fiscal year 2012 with an award in the latter part of fiscal
year 2013.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
compact of free association
Question. The conference report accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2012 (Public Law 112-74), directs
the Department to follow Senate Report 112-74, which required the
Department to report to Congress about plans to implement all legally
allowable grounds of inadmissibility under the compact, among other
items. Would you please provide an update on the interagency process, a
status of the report, and what progress is being made to address this
matter?
Answer. Consistent with the direction in the conference report, the
Department is preparing a report for the Congress on those aspects of
these issues that fall under the Department's responsibilities. The
report is near completion and I expect its delivery to Congress soon.
Regarding the interagency process, the Department respectfully defers
to the Department of Interior, which has been leading this broader
effort.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
northern border staffing (cbp)
Question. While CBP has increased overall staffing levels along the
northern border since 2001, it appears that the vast majority of these
new positions are with the Border Patrol, not with CBP officers and
agriculture specialists at the ports-of-entry.
I remain concerned about the low staffing levels at Vermont's
ports-of-entry, where I have received troubling reports involving
overall safety practices, security procedures, and the morale and
welfare of CBP officers.
On top of these issues, Autoroute 35, a new highway under
construction between Montreal and the United States-Canada border at
Highgate Springs, will bring up to 30 percent more traffic to Vermont's
border crossings starting next year.
Please describe the fiscal year 2013 budget request for CBP port-
of-entry staffing along the northern border. How does this request
compare to funding in fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012?
Answer. CBP does not segregate its budget requests by geographic
location. The fiscal year 2013 President's budget funds CBP officers at
21,186 which was enhanced in fiscal year 2012 with additional positions
for staffing new and expanded ports of entry. The fiscal year 2013
budget seeks to maintain the staffing for CBP officers nationwide.
Particular attention is provided to yearly staffing allocations to
ensure that the highest operational needs are covered including
staffing needed for increased volume.
Question. Please provide both targeted and real port-of-entry
staffing levels over the past 10 years at each of the ports-of-entry in
Vermont.
Answer. Data is not available prior to the establishment of CBP.
The table below provides the actual onboard staffing for all OFO
employees in Vermont ports of entry (POE) for end of year fiscal year
2004-current.
TOTAL VERMONT STAFFING FOR ALL EMPLOYEES IN VERMONT PORTS OF ENTRY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End of year Fiscal
------------------------------------------------------------------------ year
2012
2004 2005 2006 9/ 2007 9/ 2008 9/ 2009 9/ 2010 9/ 2011 9/ current
10/2/04 10/1/05 30/06 29/07 27/08 26/09 25/10 24/11 2/25/12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... 290 301 296 290 334 329 309 309 299
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. When is the next strategic resource assessment planned
for ports-of-entry in Vermont?
Answer. CBP is currently restructuring its strategic resource
assessment process. Once that process is complete, it will be possible
to determine a schedule of activities.
Question. With the Canadians opening Autoroute 35 soon, what
planning efforts are underway to address the staffing and
infrastructure needs at Vermont's ports-of-entry?
Answer. At this time, Autoroute 35 is under construction and not
scheduled to be open to traffic until 2017. CBP will continue to
monitor the developments of Autoroute 35 and will evaluate anticipated
staffing and infrastructure needs as construction of the new highway
continues to advance.
disaster assistance to vermont (fema)
Question. Vermont and other the other States still reeling in the
aftermath of Hurricane Irene last August appreciate all of FEMA's
efforts to help the rebuilding process.
Since Vermont is a very small State, our State and local
governments are stretched to their limits now in trying to cover the
enormous response and recovery costs, and Federal assistance is
critical. Can you please provide an update on the Disaster Relief Fund?
Do you anticipate having to reinstitute immediate needs funding this
year?
Ultimately, the final cost-share arrangement between FEMA and
Vermont is very important in terms of the State's overall capability to
respond effectively to this disaster. As we continue to approach the
threshold for a 90-10 split, can you please provide an update on
overall FEMA expenditures in Vermont?
Answer. FEMA closely monitors the use of the DRF budget and
projected balances. At this time, it would be premature to predict the
need for immediate needs funding (INF) during fiscal year 2012. FEMA
will, as in the past, communicate with all key stakeholders if the
administration implements INF restrictions based on the balance of the
DRF relative to FEMA's ability to address a significant, no-notice
disaster.
As of March 16, 2012, FEMA had obligated $88.5 million for Tropical
Storm Irene expenses in Vermont, of which $61.7 million would qualify
for a cost-share adjustment. The remainder of $26.8 million is
administrative costs, which are not applied to the cost-share
calculation.
marriage-based immigration (uscis)
Question. On February 9, 2012, I wrote to you along with the
Vermont congressional delegation to encourage you to reconsider the
Department of Homeland Security's policy regarding marriage-based
immigration petitions for same-sex spouses, including the specific case
of a Vermont couple, Frances Herbert and Takako Ueda, who are lawfully
married under Vermont statute.
Given the administration's decision to no longer defend the
constitutionality of the Defense Against Marriage Act and the pending
challenges to this controversial law in several courts, I previously
recommended that you hold all such petitions in abeyance until the law
is settled. The agency denied the spousal-based petition of Ms. Herbert
and Ms. Ueda rather than holding it in abeyance, even though a denial
of abeyance will force an otherwise law-abiding immigrant to fall out
of lawful status.
Particularly in States such as Vermont, where same-sex marriages
are legally recognized, we believe that family based cases such as Ms.
Herbert's and Ms. Ueda's are deserving of full consideration of
prosecutorial discretion. We believe that USCIS has the legal authority
to hold such cases in abeyance, and ask that you reconsider the agency
position. Will you do so?
Answer. At the direction of the President, the Executive branch,
including DHS is continuing to enforce section 3 of the Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA) until the law is repealed by Congress or the
judicial branch renders a definitive verdict on the law's
constitutionality. Thus, the Department is unable to adopt a
categorical policy of holding in abeyance applications for immigration
benefits affected by DOMA. As in other contexts, USCIS reviews requests
for abeyance or deferred action on a case-by-case basis for urgent
humanitarian considerations or other compelling and unique factors. For
privacy reasons, USCIS cannot comment on individual cases or
applications.
federal employee issues
Question. Over the course of the past year, Congress has considered
numerous personnel-related proposals that would affect the pay and
benefits your Department can provide. These include an extension of the
Federal basic-pay pay freeze, changes to the Federal Employees
Retirement System requiring higher contributions by new hires,
extension of the probationary period for new hires, and a ``hiring
freeze by attrition'' that would allow the Government to replace every
two or three employees who leave Government service with one new hire.
These proposals, if enacted, would likely have a deleterious effect on
Federal employment and employee morale generally.
Given the importance of DHS personnel to our Nation's security, has
your Department examined the potential effects that any of the
abovementioned policy changes would have on its ability to recruit and
retain the best possible workforce? If so, what were the results of
that examination?
Answer. DHS continues to monitor the congressional proposals
concerning pay/benefits for the Federal workforce. We have not analyzed
the impact of these proposals on our future ability to recruit and
retain a high-performing workforce.
Question. In general, how would DHS's critical homeland security
missions be affected if it was only able to replace every three law
enforcement officers in the field who leave Government service with one
new officer? Are there programs or operations that would have to be
canceled or consolidated if DHS's law enforcement workforce was cut by
10 percent as some have proposed?
Answer. Cuts of this magnitude would directly impact DHS's front-
line operations, rolling back significant progress in securing our
Nation's borders; increasing wait times at our Nation's land ports of
entry and airports; impacting aviation and maritime safety and
security; and protecting our Nation's critical infrastructure. The cuts
would include the reduction of:
--Over 2,000 Border Patrol agents--a decrease to below fiscal year
2009 levels;
--More than 2,100 CBP officers--a cut to below fiscal year 2008 on-
board levels, increasing wait times at our Nation's land ports
of entry;
--Approximately 700 Secret Service personnel--a cut to below fiscal
year 2005 force levels from current on-board levels which
affects the work of special agents, uniformed division
officers, and protective detail personnel; and
--Nearly 670 ICE investigators, which would significantly reduce
homeland security investigations.
Question. Since 2009, the Federal Government has operated under a
pay freeze for rates of basic pay under the General Schedule. What
impact, if any, has this policy had on the Department's recruitment and
retention efforts?
Answer. In recent years, DHS has developed ways to more closely
align and integrate its recruitment and outreach strategies between
headquarters, components, and field offices. This enables the
Department to manage recruiting and outreach operations more
effectively in order to achieve efficiencies. At this time, DHS is not
experiencing difficulties in recruiting individuals to apply for our
positions. Moreover, after 2007 DHS realized a significant increase in
retention rates, and has continued to realize a steady increase in
subsequent years. The Department had approximately an 83-percent
retention rate in 2007, and has been above 90 percent since.
Given the current fiscal climate, DHS is focused on recruiting
highly qualified candidates with a diverse set of experiences,
abilities, and attributes, as well as retaining a high performing
workforce. As a result, DHS is working with OPM to collect applicant
flow data to ensure a diverse pipeline of candidates. In addition, DHS
is finalizing its first Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan for
fiscal years 2012-2015. The plan provides the framework for recruiting
a diverse workforce, creating an inclusive workplace, and ensuring
management accountability. It also serves as a dynamic road map to
guide our efforts in making DHS a leader in creating and sustaining a
high-performing workforce and the premier employer for anyone committed
to serving and protecting our Nation.
Question. Can you provide us with an analysis comparing DHS's
recruitment and retention efforts between 2003-2008 and 2009-2012?
Answer. On December 21, 2010, Secretary Napolitano issued the
Department of Homeland Security Workforce Strategy for fiscal years
2011-2016. As a result, OCHCO led the development of the DHS
Coordinated Recruiting and Outreach Strategy for fiscal years 2012-
2017. This underscores the importance of recruiting a highly qualified
and diverse workforce while improving the performance and efficiency of
DHS operations. It is designed to guide outreach and recruitment
efforts across DHS; enabling the systematic development of operational
strategies with action plans that meet our overall objectives, which
include reducing duplication of effort, leveraging all outreach and
recruiting resources, integrating recruiting and outreach plans across
the DHS enterprise, decreasing agency outreach and recruiting costs,
and presenting a unified DHS image. This strategy is being implemented
through a pilot phase beginning in April 2012 through May 2013 in which
DHS will cross-train recruiters to be able to share information about
all DHS employment opportunities, allowing components to leverage
resources and provide a unified DHS image to the public. Prior to 2009,
recruitment across the Department was often fragmented and stove-piped.
DHS' current coordinated recruitment and outreach efforts have brought
more clarity to the recruitment process and furthered the One-DHS
brand.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats
budget priorities
Question. The three largest increases proposed in the President's
budget from fiscal year 2012 are for State and local grants (+$500
million), Cyber (+$325.8 million), and Science and Technology (+$163.4
million). While the three most significant decreases are in Coast Guard
(-$337.7 million), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (-$218
million), and the Transportation Security Administration (-$173
million). Why are these increases a priority for the Department when
they come at the expense of reductions in front-line operations?
Answer. The discretionary budget caps set by the Budget Control Act
require difficult decisions, and every component in DHS will be
impacted in some way by the current fiscal environment. We have focused
on preserving critical front-line operations through administrative
cuts which were made as part of a deliberate process to minimize
operational impacts on the front line within our components. To
preserve core front-line priorities in fiscal year 2013, we have
redirected over $850 million in base resources from administrative and
mission support areas, including contracts, personnel (through
attrition), information technology, travel, personnel moves, overtime,
directed purchasing, professional services, and vehicle management.
The reductions referenced above largely fall into these categories
as well as from nonrecurring expenses in fiscal year 2012. With respect
to the Coast Guard, the request for the operating expenses
appropriation that largely funds front-line operations is $36 million
higher than the fiscal year 2012 enacted budget. The major reductions
relative to the fiscal year 2012 enacted budget include unnecessary
funding for Coast Guard's Medicare-Eligible Health Care Fund
contribution (-$92 million); one-time funding in 2012 for USCG research
and development (-$8 million) and -$272 million in the Coast Guard's
Acquisition, Construction and Improvements (ACI) appropriation. The
request for the zero-based ACI account varies from year to year
depending on project priorities and schedules. In 2013, the budget
directs ACI resources toward the Commandant's highest priorities,
including fully funding the sixth NSC.
The fiscal year 2013 budget reduces TSA funding for Explosive
Detection Systems (EDS) because of the extraordinary investment in EDS
provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and prior
appropriations. TSA is focusing on recapitalizing existing EDS systems
to sustain our current capabilities; front-line operations are not
reduced or scaled back. Additionally, a fiscal year 2012 legislative
change allows Aviation Security Capital Fund fee revenues to be used
for the procurement and installation of EDS equipment as necessary and
will maintain adequate funding for TSA's checked baggage screening.
With regards to a decrease in ICE's budget, we've taken a hard look
at where we can realize additional efficiencies, eliminate redundant
functions and stretch our dollars further. We also look to programs
that may vary in costs year to year based on their implementation
requirements (i.e., Secure Communities). While the ICE budget is below
the fiscal year 2012 enacted budget level, it does not sacrifice front-
line operational capability; instead creating a more efficient and
effective organization. The vast majority of the savings are due to
significant cost-saving measures and efficiencies that allow ICE to
strengthen core front-line operations. In total, the request includes
more than $200 million in costs savings from administrative
efficiencies, such as vehicles, overtime, travel, professional service
contract reductions, as well as a reduction to mission support
staffing, allowing the agency to preserve essential agency operations.
Regarding the areas that were prioritized for increases in fiscal
year 2013, consistent with prior year requests, the administration
continues to focus on support for State and local first responders,
cutting-edge research and development, and cybersecurity.
Grants
The fiscal year 2013 budget requests $1.5 billion to build and
sustain State and local capabilities, enhance terrorism prevention and
protection capabilities and protect critical infrastructure and key
resources. This funding will sustain resources for fire and emergency
management grants while consolidating 16 other grants into the new,
streamlined National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP)--designed to
develop, sustain, and leverage core capabilities across the country in
support of national preparedness, prevention and response.
The administration believes the additional funding is critical to
overall maintenance and sustainment efforts of capabilities built over
the 10 years. In fiscal year 2012, the allocations to State and local
grantees were reduced by as much as 60 percent due to budget cuts. Yet,
the most recent self-assessments of State/territory capabilities show
that on average, grant recipients rate their capability levels between
42 percent and 78 percent for different core capabilities, indicating
that additional funding for filling capability gaps is still a
requirement. Additional reductions going forward will make it difficult
over the long term to maintain the capabilities grantees have built
that support disaster preparedness, response and terrorism protection/
prevention.
Cyber
DHS leads the Federal Government's efforts to secure civilian
Government computer systems and works with industry and State, local,
tribal, and territorial governments to secure critical infrastructure
and information systems. The fiscal year 2013 budget makes significant
investments in cybersecurity to expedite the deployment of EINSTEIN 3
to prevent and detect intrusions on Government computer systems;
increases Federal network security of large and small agencies; and
continues to develop a robust cybersecurity workforce to protect
against and respond to national cybersecurity threats and hazards. The
increased funding will further reduce risk in the Federal cyber domain
by: addressing vulnerabilities in civilian Federal network
cybersecurity; supporting continuous monitoring of Federal agencies;
and improving the common operating picture of threats to the civilian
Federal cyber network. This initiative will directly support Federal
civilian departments and agencies in developing capabilities that will
improve their cybersecurity posture to thwart advanced, persistent
cyber threats.
Science and Technology
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes funding for critical research
and development (R&D) programs to improve homeland security through
state-of-the-art solutions and technology. The proposed R&D funding
level in fiscal year 2013 is commensurate with that in fiscal year 2011
and will enable S&T to support the needs of front-line operational
components, while conducting R&D work in priority areas such as:
explosives (aviation security); bio-threat security; cybersecurity; and
first responders.
st. elizabeths dhs headquarters project
Question. All prior plans for the DHS headquarters project at St.
Elizabeths show that the General Services Administration (GSA) is to
bear the costs of access roads and utilities for the project, including
the Malcolm X/Route 295 interchange required to support phase 2 DHS
population. In the interim, this interchange would primarily benefit
Bolling Air Force Base and the local population in Anacostia. The
President's fiscal year 2013 budget now requests $89 million in DHS
funding for this highway interchange. Why has the funding for the
Malcolm X/295 interchange funding, originally intended to be borne by
the GSA, been shifted to DHS and why is it included in the fiscal year
2013 DHS request since it was originally designated to support phase 2
DHS population at St. Elizabeths?
Answer. This funding will provide for critical transportation
infrastructure necessary to support the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and
additional future occupancies on the St. Elizabeths campus. DHS is the
sole St. Elizabeths occupant, so the funding is being requested by DHS.
The interchange project will additionally benefit Joint Base Anacostia-
Bolling and improve traffic flow for the community in surrounding
neighborhoods, and is expected to provide approximately 2,900 jobs. The
project is being developed collaboratively with other Federal, DC, and
local community partners, but DHS will be the primary beneficiary of
the interchange. Funding for this project is included in the fiscal
year 2013 request to ensure adequate traffic support for the USCG and
future phase 2 occupancies.
financial management controls
Question. After years of being on the high-risk list maintained by
the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Homeland
Security received its first qualified opinion on its fiscal year 2011
balance sheet and statement of custodial activities. This is allowing
DHS to move to a full scope audit in fiscal year 2012. What else can
the Department do to improve its audit results and what are the most
significant obstacles to further improvement?
Answer. Obtaining a qualified opinion is a pivotal step to
increasing transparency and accountability and accurately accounting
for the Department's resources and is a significant milestone that
highlights how we have significantly improved financial management at
DHS. This year's audit results provide clear evidence of continued
management improvements at DHS and we are committed to continuing to
strengthen and mature financial management across the Department to
ensure strong stewardship of the resources entrusted to us and to
improving the systems and processes used for all aspects of financial
management to demonstrate the highest level of accountability and
transparency. We continue to work closely with components to mitigate
risk of new material weaknesses or audit qualifications. In particular,
we are implementing a risk-based focus to managing the audit and
internal controls to ensure we address areas that have the highest
impact first, developing and executing remediation plans to ensure
improvement, establishing risk management progress reviews, and sharing
best practices among components to speed progress by all.
One of the most significant obstacles to further improvement is in
the area of financial systems. DHS is challenged with disparate systems
and is too reliant on manual processes, limiting our ability to
efficiently gather enterprise-level information necessary audit and
internal control successes.
The DHS focus for financial management systems effort is to:
--Prioritize system sustainment and upgrade activities;
--Improve Department financial management incrementally by
implementing core financial functions and adding additional
commodities over time in smaller bursts through agile
development and deployment;
--Increase data accuracy, transparency, and portability; and
--Increase business intelligence capabilities.
DHS is continuing to work to remediate remaining internal control
weaknesses. In fiscal year 2012, working with the auditors, DHS is
identifying areas where efficiencies can be obtained by integrating
management's internal control assessments with the audit. As internal
control weaknesses are remediated and controls are determined to be
effective, this will allow the auditors to place more reliance on
controls and reduce transaction testing for the audit.
management efficiencies
Question. Madam Secretary, the fiscal year 2012 budget request
identified over $800 million in administrative savings and management
efficiencies. The fiscal year 2013 request identifies another $850
million in savings in management efficiencies. Everyone needs to be
looking at ways to run things leaner and more efficiently in this tight
fiscal time. How are you ensuring and monitoring that these savings are
being achieved in fiscal year 2012 and further identified for fiscal
year 2013 to make certain that these don't result in backdoor program
reductions?
Answer. Since the beginning of this administration, the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) has made an unprecedented commitment to
efficiency and has implemented a variety of initiatives to cut costs,
share resources across components, and consolidate and streamline
operations wherever possible in order to best support our front-line
operations and build a culture of fiscal discipline and accountability
at DHS.
With the launch of Secretary Napolitano's Department-wide
Efficiency Review (ER) in March 2009, DHS has been proactive in
promoting efficiency throughout the Department. We have changed the way
DHS does business, identifying over $3 billion in cost avoidances by
streamlining operations and fostering a culture of greater
transparency, accountability and fiscal discipline. To date, ER has
launched 44 initiatives and identified savings achieved through other
Department-wide initiatives, such as the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Acquisition Savings Initiative, which has resulted in $1.3
billion in savings from October 2009 thru June 2011. To preserve core
front-line priorities in fiscal year 2013, we have redirected over $850
million in base resources from administrative and mission support
areas, including contracts, personnel (through attrition), information
technology, travel, personnel moves, overtime, directed purchasing,
professional services, and vehicle management.
The DHS ER requires components to report on their cost avoidances
and progress achieved for the ER initiatives on a quarterly basis
through a Web-based reporting tool (ERQR). The ERQR is used to collect
both quantitative data (through reporting on standardized metrics) and
qualitative data (through narrative descriptions for components to
report other progress and results).
Relating to administrative savings and management efficiencies,
components are responsible for identifying their progress in meeting
efficiency targets. The DHS Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO) periodically reviews component progress.
national guard support for border patrol
Question. At the end of calendar year 2011, the administration
announced that between January 1, 2012, and March 31, 2012, it will
start to transition the support provided by the National Guard to the
Border Patrol on the Southwest border from ``boots on the ground'' to
``boots in the air.'' At the same time, the fiscal year 2013 budget
proposes fewer resources for CBP Air and Marine which supplies air
support to Border Patrol today. From fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year
2012 there has been a decrease of almost 14,000 hours of air support
provided by Air and Marine to the Border Patrol along the Southwest
border. Given that the National Guard is projected to provide the
Border Patrol only 1,200 hours of air support under ``boots in the
air''--where will the remaining 12,800 hours of air support by found so
that Border Patrol can at least be provided with air support equal to
fiscal year 2010?
Has the transition from ``boots on the ground'' to ``boots in the
air'' been completed?
What level of National Guard personnel will perform the air support
mission? How does that compare to the number of National Guard on the
Southwest border today?
What are the specific number of air craft and pilots that will be
dedicated to Border Patrol?
Are the air assets to be used by the National Guard going to be
dedicated to the Southwest border and the Border Patrol or available
only on an ``as needed'' basis?
Where are the National Guard air assets coming from that are going
to be used on the Southwest border--and what impact will that have on
the National Guard counterdrug mission or its other missions?
How long will the National Guard air support last? Through the end
of the current fiscal year? Into fiscal year 2013 or fiscal year 2014?
When will the final handoff to the Border Patrol happen?
Answer. The response to this question is being provided separately,
as it is law enforcement sensitive.
drug transit zone mission responsibilities
Question. Since the mid-1980s, civilian law enforcement agencies
have assisted each other and the military with drug interdiction in the
Caribbean basin and the Pacific Ocean--an area known as the ``transit
zone''--as it is better to stop the drugs in the transit zone than at
the border or inside a U.S. city. After the creation of the Department
of Homeland Security, two agencies continued to support interdiction in
the transit zone--the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) with its P-3 long-range surveillance aircraft.
The fiscal year 2013 budget calls into question the Department's
continued commitment to the transit zone mission--at least within CBP.
With the reductions to the P-3 extension program it is not clear how
rigorous the internal process is that will determine the Department's
future role in transit zone interdiction. Is the Department engaging in
a thorough interagency review on whether or not to continue its
involvement in supporting transit zone enforcement?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security is fully committed to
transit zone enforcement. To that end, we are currently engaged in the
``Blue Force Allocation Mitigation'' process, which will help increase
our presence and effectiveness in the transit zone. This interagency
review, conducted in coordination with the Office of National Drug
Control Policy and the United States Interdiction Coordinator (USIC),
will improve and offer additional support to transit zone enforcement.
Additionally, the Department has made numerous improvements to the P-3
aircraft over the years including the addition of the SEAVUE Maritime
Surveillance Radar, the MX-20 EO/IR system and OSI (Ocean Surveillance
Initiative) which allows CBP OAM aircraft to share ship tracks between
like configured CBP OAM aircraft (i.e., P-3, DHC-8, Guardian unmanned
aerial vehicle).
overseas vetted investigative units
Question. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has seen
success with its overseas vetted units. Currently ICE has no stable
source of funding to ensure that these units can continue to contribute
to making their own countries safer and protecting the United States.
Have you considered requesting appropriated funds for these units?
Answer. In prior years, ICE did not request or receive direct
funding for transnational criminal investigative unit (TCIUs, formally
known as ``vetted units'') because we ICE did not have legal authority;
rather the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Department of the
Treasury, and the U.S. Department of Defense provided financial
resources for the TCIU program on a case-by-case basis. In the fiscal
year 2012 enacted appropriations, ICE received authority to request and
spend its own appropriations on TCIUs. ICE will continue to utilize
funding from State, Treasury, or Defense, while considering future
requests for long-term dedicated funding now that we have ICE has the
authority to do so.
transfer of us-visit
Question. The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes to spilt the
functions and funding of US-VISIT between CBP and ICE. What is your
vision of how this reorganization of US-VISIT will help to improve the
entry-exit process in the United States? How will you ensure that all
of the various customers of US-VISIT--U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, ICE, State Department--will still have their needs met?
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes the transfer of US-
VISIT functions from the National Protection and Programs Directorate
(NPPD) to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Currently, CBP operates numerous
screening and targeting systems, and integrating US-VISIT within CBP
will strengthen the Department's overall vetting capability while also
realizing efficiencies.
Pending enactment, CBP will assume responsibility for the core US-
VISIT operations and management of the biometric and biographic
information storage and matching and watchlist management services. ICE
will assume responsibility of the US-VISIT overstay analysis services.
CBP uses US-VISIT systems to help determine admissibility of foreign
nationals arriving at all U.S. ports of entry (POEs) and to process
aliens entering the United States illegally between the POEs.
Currently, CBP operates numerous screening and targeting systems,
supporting more than 70,000 users from over 20 Federal agencies that
are responsible for a wide range of programs that rely on CBP
information and systems to determine benefits, process travelers,
inform investigations, support case management, and enhance
intelligence capabilities. The US-VISIT systems will complement the CBP
systems by adding the biometric identification and screening
capabilities, which are also used across and beyond DHS. It will
streamline interactions with the U.S. Department of State and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation for both biographic and biometric
screening.
Although ICE will assume responsibility for US-VISIT overstay
analysis, CBP and ICE will collaborate on system support for the
overstay mission. Transition of the analysis and identification of the
overstay population in ICE clearly aligns with the ICE mission of
administrative immigration enforcement.
CBP, ICE, and US-VISIT have established a transition team composed
of senior representatives from each organization. This transition team
is working to identify and prioritize crucial functional areas and
determine the optimal strategy for transitioning each function.
This transition team will identify targets of opportunity for
operational and cost efficiencies. Priority will be placed on those
transition initiatives that focus on increases in efficiency and
effectiveness within mission support and ``corporate'' functions such
as logistics, human resources, and information technology. Once all of
the information is collected and arrayed, it will be analyzed with the
goal of finding efficiencies while maintaining US-VISIT's mission with
no degradation of services.
A final transition plan will be made available to all external
stakeholders by the end of July 2012.
office of health affairs
Question. The role of the Department of Homeland Security's Office
of Health Affairs in biosurveillance vis-a-vis the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
remains unclear. It often appears as though the Department of Homeland
Security is duplicating the much larger efforts in this arena that
other departments perform. How do you define the unique mission space
that is the sole responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security
in biosurveillance vice HHS and USDA?
Answer. Effective national biosurveillance must provide both early
warning and ongoing situational awareness before and during a
biological event of national concern.\1\ The Office of Health Affairs
(OHA) through the National Biosurveillance Integration Center (NBIC)
provides unique biosurveillance capabilities not found in HHS, USDA, or
anywhere else in the civilian agencies through:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A ``biological event of national concern'' is defined in Public
Law 110-53 as ``an act of terrorism involving a biological agent or
toxin; or a naturally occurring outbreak of an infectious disease that
may result in a national epidemic.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Support for the Secretary's coordination and leadership
responsibilities for domestic incidents;
--Integration of biosurveillance information across multiple sources
and domains to establish shared situational awareness among the
biosurveillance community;
--Close coordination with the intelligence community;
--Access to unique DHS data;
--Innovative pilots examining new data sources and analytic
techniques not currently employed in biosurveillance; and
--Integration of multiple early warning programs in the same
organization--systems-based detection (BioWatch) and
surveillance (NBIC, and its support of the interagency National
Biosurveillance Integration System, NBIS).
NBIC's biosurveillance capability supports coordinated disaster
management. The Secretary of Homeland Security, as designated in HSPD-
5, is the Principal Federal Official for domestic incidents involving
the coordination of multiple agencies. As such, the Secretary requires
the ability to maintain situational awareness before a biological
event, during the event, and throughout the subsequent response. DHS's
unique mission space includes disaster management responsibilities, and
no other agency collects and integrates all of the information DHS
needs to carry out these responsibilities. NBIC's mission and
activities help prevent duplication in biosurveillance by integrating,
correlating, and connecting information from disparate sources and
domains, which reduces the likelihood that resources are applied to
answering the same question, or pursuing the same information, by
multiple stakeholders.
In a biological event of national concern, NBIC coordinates with
interagency partners to provide the White House and other crisis
managers in the Federal Government with a consolidated view of the
event with respect to human, animal, plant, food, and environmental
information. In the absence of NBIC to integrate the biosurveillance
information, multiple uncoordinated reports requiring resources for
likely duplicated effort would be submitted by a number of departments
and agencies. Difficulties in Federal coordination following the
Amerithrax attacks in 2001 provide a good example of both the need for
and the unique role of a coordinating entity before and during an
event.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Lack of coordination and management of the Federal response to
the 2001 Anthrax Attack is highlighted in the Government Accountability
Office, BioTerrorism: Public Health to Anthrax Incidents of 2001, GAO
04-152 (Washington, D.C.: GAO, 2003) and the Center for Strategic and
International Studies and Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Anthrax
Attacks: Implications for U.S. Bioterrorism and Preparedness,
Washington, D.C., 2002 (Sponsored by the Defense Threat Reduction
Agency: Contract Number OTRAM-02-C-0013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NBIC partners with HHS, USDA and others who provide input to
national biosurveillance integration. For emerging incidents primarily
restricted to a single domain, the responsible agencies have developed
surveillance systems that fulfill their unique mission
responsibilities. The expert work of HHS, USDA, and other NBIS partners
provide DHS and other stakeholders with baseline and background
information required to detect anomalies, as well as domains-specific
information during events. However, as incidents encompass multiple
domains including human, animal, plant, food, and environmental
systems, shared situational awareness must be established to provide
insights that cannot be gleaned in isolation. Moreover, shared analysis
increases the likelihood of early identification of events. No single
entity outside of NBIC, or the NBIS collaboration NBIC facilitates, is
looking at the overall picture across animal, human, and environmental
health domains. Through NBIC, DHS provides the platform for this
collaboration, in which HHS and USDA serve as full and equal members of
the NBIS.
NBIS and the intelligence community (IC) partnerships have the
additional benefit of fostering shared awareness of biosurveillance
information and assets across the Federal Government. As the 2009 H1N1
influenza pandemic demonstrated, it is not sufficient to only examine
human outbreaks of disease to get a clear situational understanding but
must additionally incorporate surveillance of livestock and wild animal
populations. A bioterrorism attack would likely have even broader
ramifications and require integration of a greater number of
interdisciplinary sources and require coordination across multiple
domains and agencies to support informed decisions regarding
consequence mitigation. In addition to domain integration, NBIC also
coordinates directly with the IC. NBIC staff is physically co-located
with the CBRN intelligence branch of the DHS Office of Intelligence and
Analysis, one of the 17 agencies within the U.S. IC. Direct connection
to the intelligence community confers a unique capability to DHS
biosurveillance efforts, facilitating integration of threat reporting
for potential bioterrorism events into NBIC analysis and products.
DHS provides a unique set of biosurveillance data for NBIC
integration. Another unique aspect of biosurveillance within DHS is its
workforce of over 100,000 operational staff in key travel, trade, and
transmission nodes such as borders, ports, and airports. OHA is
collaborating internally with the DHS Chief Human Capital Office and
chief information officer to identify available information that could
serve as a potential resource for early warning.
NBIC is pursuing innovation. NBIC is in the process of developing
and fielding a number of innovative pilots designed with more
prospective approaches than traditional health surveillance. The pilots
include the application of recent advances in analytic methods to
previously under-utilized data such as social media and Emergency
Medical System (EMS) data, as well as DHS data and information, so
biological events can be detected earlier. As full members of NBIS,
HHS, USDA, and our other interagency partners are helping to develop
the pilots, and will be recipients of all results from the pilots.
OHA provides the integration of multiple early warning programs in
the same organization. Unlike many other potential hazardous events
that are overt, biological events that threaten the Nation may not be
apparent until well into the event, as exposed individuals begin
seeking treatment. Bioterrorism attacks in food or water, naturally
occurring disease events, and bioterrorism aerosol releases that do not
encounter a BioWatch collector can only be detected through diligent
surveillance of public, animal, and environmental health. DHS is the
only civilian agency to integrate detection and surveillance programs
into the same organization; BioWatch and NBIC merge environmental
detection with biosurveillance information from interagency partners,
the intelligence community, and other sources, to provide a layered,
early-warning defense architecture for the Nation. The earlier the
Nation is aware of an event, the more lives can be saved, illnesses
prevented, and economic damage mitigated.
fema disaster relief fund
Question. For the last several years the President has submitted
budget requests that knowingly underfunded the Disaster Relief Fund--
with the expectation that Congress would provide emergency
appropriations to cover the shortfall. This year the President has
requested $6.1 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund--$608 million in
direct appropriations and $5.481 billion under the disaster cap
adjustment as provided for under the Budget Control Act of 2011. Madam
Secretary, can you confirm for us that the total fiscal year 2013
request for the Disaster Relief Fund of $6.1 billion is adequate for
the known liabilities and potential noncatastrophic disasters for
fiscal year 2013?
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 President's budget amount for the
Disaster Relief Fund supports known liabilities and potential
noncatastrophic disasters for fiscal year 2013. The fiscal year 2013
Disaster Relief Fund request is based on a new way to estimate
projected need that enhances our existing budget practices through
increased financial transparency, better projections, and a real-time
budgeting in accordance with the Budget Control Act of 2011.
state and local grants: national preparedness grant program
Question. The fiscal year 2013 request includes a proposal for
Congress to provide funds for one grant program that would be
competitively awarded. The new National Preparedness Grant Program
would take the place of the current State Homeland Security Grant
program, the Urban Area Security Initiative program, the Transit Grant
program, and the Port Security Grant program. Can you expand for us on
the description in the budget on how you see the National Preparedness
Grant Program working?
What is the minimum level of Federal grant dollars needed to
sustain the State and local capabilities that have been built using
Federal homeland security grant dollars?
How did you arrive at the $500 million as the additional amount
needed to cover sustainment costs? Please provide a breakdown of the
$500 million requested increase, how much is based on unmet State and
local needs, State and local reducing emergency personnel, State and
local communities delaying maintenance, etc.?
How much of the $500 million requested increase will be directed
toward filling capability gaps? How was that amount arrived at--as the
necessary funding for filling capability gaps?
Answer. FEMA is currently working with the stakeholder community to
solicit input and feedback on the NPGP proposal. The NPGP broadly
focuses on the development and sustainment of the core capabilities
identified in the national preparedness goal in order to build a
national preparedness capacity based on cross-jurisdictional and
readily deployable State and local assets. As outlined in the fiscal
year 2013 budget proposal, we expect to allocate funds under the NPGP
across three broad-purpose areas:
--Building and sustaining core capabilities;
--Enhancing terrorism prevention and protection capabilities; and
--Critical infrastructure and key resource protection.
As envisioned, minimum allocations will be available to States and
urban areas for the purpose of developing and sustaining core
capabilities. Other funds will be distributed to States and urban areas
on a competitive basis. Funds distributed on a competitive basis will
be validated through the FEMA regional and State threat and hazard
identification and risk assessment (THIRA).
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget requests $1.5 billion to
build and sustain State and local capabilities, enhance terrorism
prevention and protection capabilities and protect critical
infrastructure and key resources, which is $500 million over the fiscal
year 2012 enacted appropriation. The administration believes the
additional funding is critical to overall maintenance and sustainment
efforts of capabilities built with the $35 billion in grant funding
previously awarded. The allocations to our grantees were reduced by as
much as 60 percent in fiscal year 2012 due to reduced funding levels.
Such reductions will make it difficult over the long term to maintain
the capabilities grantees have built that support disaster
preparedness, response and terrorism protection/prevention.
Recent analysis of fiscal year 2011 Homeland Security Grant Program
investment justifications indicated that 64 percent of those
investments were proposed for sustaining existing capabilities and that
the remaining 36 percent of those investments is proposed for building
new capabilities. This data demonstrates the shift to and need for
sufficient funding to sustain capabilities that have already been built
with grant funding. It is expected that sustainment funding will be
utilized for post purchase lifecycle costs including maintenance
contracts, equipment updates and replacement, refresher training and
exercise activities and well as the updating and enhancement of
emergency operations plans. The most recent self-assessments of State/
territory capabilities show that on average, grant recipients rate
their capability levels between 42 percent and 78 percent for the
different core capabilities, indicating that additional funding for
filling capability gaps is still a requirement. It is expected that
additional capability gaps will be identified in the THIRA process that
will be conducted during 2012.
immigrant integration and citizenship grants
Question. Section 551 of the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2012, requires that $10 million of the funds
deposited into the Immigration Examinations Fee account be available
for Immigrant Integration and Citizenship grants. Is the $10 million in
fees required by law to fund these grants being made available? If not,
why?
Answer. Section 551 allows for up to $10 million for the purpose of
providing an immigrant integration grants program. USCIS considers this
$10 million as the maximum amount authorized for this purpose in fiscal
year 2012. Within the parameters of this, USCIS will allocate $4.96
million to continue the program in fiscal year 2012. This amount
recognizes the importance of the grant program to USCIS' civic
integration mission without requiring USCIS to raise user fees.
cybersecurity
Question. From fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2012, DHS' cyber
budget increased over $80 million, or 22 percent. What did that $80
million buy us?
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget requests $769 million, an
increase of nearly $326 million, or 74 percent, over fiscal year 2012.
If enacted, what would that buy us?
The largest portion of the increase proposed for DHS cyber
activities for fiscal year 2013 is $202 million for cybersecurity
capability improvements to support continuous monitoring at high-
priority Federal agencies. What is the importance of this initiative
and what exactly will be accomplished with this funding? Which are the
high-priority Federal agencies and will this be a one-time or multi-
year investment? What are the outyear costs?
If the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, is signed into law, what is the
estimate for the necessary funding to implement that legislation in
fiscal year 2014, fiscal year 2015, and fiscal year 2016? How many more
people will DHS need to hire to implement that bill if it becomes law?
According to a survey commissioned by Bloomberg Government, private
industries said they would be able to improve cyber defenses in the
next 12 to 18 months so that, on average, they can stop 84 percent of
cyber attacks, up from the current level of 69 percent. To reach that
level of security, the 172 companies surveyed reported they would have
to collectively spend almost double what they are currently spending on
cybersecurity ($10.2 billion versus $5.3 billion). According to the
same survey, securing systems to prevent 95 percent of cyber attacks,
considered by security experts as the highest attainable level, would
cost the 172 companies $46.6 billion, or 774 percent more than current
spending. What level of security will the Federal Government require of
private companies under the proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2012?
According to the same survey, companies spend the largest share of
their cybersecurity budget on governance and control activities, which
include regulatory compliance. What can Congress do to alleviate this
burden so that private companies focus more on protection and less on
Government compliance?
Answer. The increase in DHS's cybersecurity budget from fiscal year
2011 to fiscal year 2012 supports increased intrusion detection and
initial intrusion prevention capabilities for Federal agencies. The
additional funds will:
--Increase the Department's analytic capacity and its onsite and
remote incident response capabilities;
--Improve DHS's ability to support Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and private-sector critical infrastructure as they
mature their cybersecurity postures; and
--Enhance supply chain and software assurance practices, educational
initiatives, outreach and awareness activities, and
cybersecurity exercises supporting public and private-sector
operational capacity.
The following are examples of the Department's fiscal year 2012
achievements through the second fiscal quarter:
--Provided onsite and remote incident response support to the public
and private sectors through the Industrial Control Systems
Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT) to respond to and
analyze cyber threats and control systems incidents, conduct
vulnerability and malware analysis, and provide onsite support
for forensic investigations and analysis;
--US-CERT increased actionable, bi-directional information sharing
with critical infrastructure owners and operators through the
Cyber Information Sharing and Collaboration Program (CISCP),
which is increasing the quality and quantity of information
sharing with critical infrastructure through a scalable and
secure analysis and collaboration environment;
--Managed a growing number of EINSTEIN 2 alerts and incidents,
operating a growing network of EINSTEIN 2 sensors, and
providing situational awareness of malicious activity across
Federal networks;
--Performed nine cybersecurity compliance validation (CCV)
assessments of all Trusted Internet Connection Access Provider
and Chief Financial Officer Act agencies to objectively and
quantifiably measure Federal agency implementation of Office of
Management and Budget Cybersecurity Memoranda, the Federal
Information Security Management Act, and the Trusted Internet
Connection Initiative;
--Performed two risk and vulnerability assessments of all trusted
Internet connection access providers and CFO act agencies to
determine the cybersecurity posture of the Federal Government
and enable prioritized risk remediation in a manner maximizing
return on investment;
--Executed the Nationwide Cyber Security Review (NCSR), which
assessed cybersecurity posture across State and local
governments; and
--Conducted components of Cyber Storm IV and National Level Exercise
2012.
The following are examples of the Department's fiscal year 2012
planned activities through the third and fourth fiscal quarters:
--Achieve initial operational capability for EINSTEIN 3 Accelerated
(E3A), the latest evolution of the National Cybersecurity
Protection System;
--Support the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center's
(MS-ISAC) Managed Security Services (MSS) activity, which
enables risk-based and cost-effective security by leveraging a
centralized capability to detect, prevent, and respond to cyber
incidents on State government networks through network
intrusion detection/prevention monitoring and vulnerability
scanning services;
--Complete deployment of a security information and event management
analytical capability and increased data feeds to provide a
more complete view of network activity;
--Finish building and employing mobile digital media analysis (DMA)
kits to support US-CERT partners and constituents with off-site
analytics; and
--Enhance analysis efforts by maintaining a robust DMA laboratory
that permits in-depth forensic analysis of images and
individual files and artifacts that would include unclassified
and classified storage mediums.
In regard to the proposed increase of nearly $326 million, as its
cybersecurity mission continues to evolve, DHS has increased funding of
key programs to keep pace with emerging threats through innovative
technologies and services. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget
request makes significant investments to expedite the deployment of
intrusion prevention technologies 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 national cybersecurity threats and hazards. The increase
cuts across multiple programs within the National Cyber Security
Division. The largest increases are for US-CERT operations, the
National Cybersecurity Protection System, and Federal Network Security.
National Cybersecurity Protection System
The National Cybersecurity Protection System (NCPS), developed by
DHS as the Nation's focal point for cyber activity and analysis,
fulfills a key requirement of the National Cybersecurity Protection
Plan (NCPP) to work collaboratively with public, private, and
international entities to protect infrastructure, enhance situational
awareness, and implement analysis, warning and risk-management
programs. EINSTEIN, a part of NCPS helps block malicious actors from
accessing Federal executive branch civilian agencies while working
closely with those agencies to bolster their defensive capabilities.
E3A represents the latest evolution of protection for Federal
civilian agencies, as it provides active network defense capabilities
and the ability to prevent and limit malicious activities from
penetrating Federal networks and systems. E3A will draw on commercial
and Government information to conduct intrusion prevention and threat-
based decisionmaking on network traffic entering or leaving Federal
civilian networks. E3A will protect Federal departments and agencies
from sophisticated threats that are launched through techniques such as
Botnets and spear phishing attacks. Through the usage of best-in-class
commercial signatures paired with the sensitive and classified
Government information, E3A will be able to block those attacks through
e-mail and domain name service (DNS) intrusion prevention capabilities.
By the end of fiscal year 2013, DHS will deploy an initial level of
intrusion prevention capability across the majority of Federal agency
traffic. To accomplish this, DHS will contract with at least four tier
1 Networx Internet service providers (ISPs) beginning in fiscal year
2012 and continuing in fiscal year 2013. Additionally, the fiscal year
2013 budget request will also fund the continued segregation of dot-gov
traffic and building a core infrastructure to allow for analytics and
information sharing between DHS and the ISPs.
Federal Network Security
An increase of $202 million will enable NCSD to continuously
monitor Federal agencies' networks for vulnerabilities. The EINSTEIN
system is important from the perspective of better understanding and,
when possible, preventing the flow of malicious traffic to and from
Federal networks; a continuous monitoring capability will have
visibility inside agency networks. Instead of analyzing traffic, this
capability analyzes attributes of those networks, including hardware
and software assets, configuration settings, and patch management.
Whereas Federal Information Security Management Act assessment and
reporting generally occur every 1 to 3 years, continuous monitoring
will support assessments every 24 to 72 hours. With this information,
NCSD can guide agencies to take preventive and protective actions by
mitigating vulnerabilities that malicious actors would otherwise
exploit. Continuous monitoring data will be available to agencies along
with their intrusion detection and prevention data. This will enable
NCSD to drive the Federal Enterprise toward a more mature cybersecurity
posture while also empowering individual agencies to target their
limited resources at reducing vulnerabilities based on more complete
information and in a risk-informed manner.
US-CERT Operations
Additional personnel requested in fiscal year 2013 will ensure that
US-CERT's analytic capability keep pace with the increased information
flowing to US-CERT from Federal, State, and local governments, the
private sector, and international stakeholders. The Department projects
that as additional agencies obtain EINSTEIN 2 service, US-CERT will be
required to process an increasing amount of data. As E3A is deployed,
the volume of intrusion and malware information will increase
significantly. US-CERT must be in a position to analyze that data while
generating, implementing, and monitoring an array of new E3A signatures
and countermeasures.
US-CERT will begin staffing DHS's site at Corry Station in
Pensacola, Florida. This site will use a configuration largely
mirroring the capabilities of the main facility in the Washington, DC-
metro area. The facility is specifically designed to accommodate US-
CERT analytical staff, malware lab capabilities, software and hardware
testing labs, video conferencing ability, 24x7 help desk support, and
security operations center and network operations center support
personnel. US-CERT staff will be co-located with the National
Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) and NSD
24x7 network administration support personnel, and the National
Coordinating Center radio room and space. Staffing Corry Station will
meet critical continuity of operations objectives, facilitate continued
monitoring of the Federal networks, provide expanded capability to
analyze malware, and support cross-sector information sharing in the
event of a major disaster affecting US-CERT's operations based in the
Washington, DC area.
In regard to the importance of cybersecurity capability
improvements, the Federal Government has made great strides in
identifying malicious traffic that enters and exits its networks. In
the fourth quarter, NCSD will field an intrusion prevention capability
alongside the EINSTEIN intrusion detection system. While intrusion
detection and prevention is necessary, it is not sufficient to protect
the Federal Enterprise. Other initiatives include enhanced security
capabilities at agencies' perimeters, increased use of personal
identity verification cards for multifactor authentication to Federal
networks, and continuous monitoring of Federal networks.
A defense-in-depth strategy for Federal agencies requires security
improvements not just at agency perimeters, but also within them.
Through continuous monitoring and ongoing EINSTEIN capability
deployments, NCSD will maintain awareness of the Federal Enterprise's
cybersecurity posture as well as the malicious activity targeting
agency networks. Using their individualized continuous monitoring
capabilities, agencies will be able to quickly mitigate vulnerabilities
in a targeted manner using a risk-based assessment of priorities. In
essence, NCSD and its Federal agency stakeholders will be better able
to reduce exploitable weaknesses before malicious actors can take
advantage of them. When combined with risk scoring (included in this
request), this process has been shown capable of helping local network
administrators to quickly make it significantly harder for attackers to
succeed, and to maintain that security capability. It will allow DHS to
carry out its responsibility for protecting the .gov by monitoring
cyber posture and assisting agencies in hardening their networks.
In regard to ``high-priority'' Federal agencies, DHS expects to
cover all civilian Federal agency networks with moderate or high impact
data with five capabilities.\3\ Networks will be prioritized based on a
risk-based process that considers an assessment of current agency
continuous monitoring capabilities, threats, attack patterns, and risk
attributes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The five initial capabilities focus on network management and
include finding and removing unauthorized (a) hardware, (b) software,
(c) configuration settings as well as removing (d) vulnerabilities due
to missing patches and (e) ensuring a strong boundary defense. The
process ensures that the worst problems are addressed first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This initiative is a multi-year investment.
As for out-year costs, DHS is currently preparing its fiscal year
2014 budget request, which will support operations and maintenance
costs and are estimated to be 20 to 30 percent of the initial
investment, as well as additional continuous diagnostics and mitigation
capabilities for networks, including account management for people and
services, event management, and lifecycle management.
While it is premature to speculate on the cost of the proposed
Cybersecurity Act of 2012 legislation, the bill's regulatory provision
would drive better security practices while minimizing the burden on
the private sector. The proposal leverages existing industry best
practices ensuring that companies that already have robust
cybersecurity practices would not be significantly impacted. The
Department is committed to managing this program in an open,
collaborative manner so that critical infrastructure has an opportunity
to contribute to the regulations as they are developed and can provide
meaningful input as to how their businesses would be impacted.
However, it's important to remember that there is a cost to the
economy if we do not act. U.S. companies and individuals are losing
money and intellectual property every day. And there could be an even
greater economic cost if a successful cyber incident significantly
interrupts critical services such as electricity or telecommunications
or causes a lack of confidence in our financial systems.
In regard to staffing, DHS continues to grow its cybersecurity
capabilities and workforce and has requested staffing increases in
fiscal year 2013 to meet the demands of our mission. Section 2105
largely codifies and clarifies activities that DHS is already engaging
in and therefore have already been included in budget submissions.
However, should the Department be given new responsibilities through
legislation that are not already accounted for, we will provide the
staffing levels needed to carry out the legislation when enacted into
law.
Question. According to a survey commissioned by Bloomberg
Government, private industries said they would be able to improve cyber
defenses in the next 12 to 18 months so that, on average, they can stop
84 percent of cyber attacks, up from the current level of 69 percent.
To reach that level of security, the 172 companies surveyed reported
they would have to collectively spend almost double what they are
currently spending on cybersecurity ($10.2 billion versus $5.3
billion). According to the same survey, securing systems to prevent 95
percent of cyber attacks, considered by security experts as the highest
attainable level, would cost the 172 companies $46.6 billion, or 774
percent more than current spending. What level of security will the
Federal Government require of private companies under the proposed
Cybersecurity Act of 2012?
Concerning the level of security the Federal Government will
require of private companies under the proposed Cybersecurity Act, the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has always maintained the
position that private-sector innovation is essential to solving the
cybersecurity challenge. As such, both the administration's May 2011
legislative proposal and section 2105 call for securing critical
infrastructure through the development and implementation of high-level
performance requirements as opposed to mandating specific technical
solutions. The bill would ensure the Nation's most critical
infrastructure owners and operators adopt the cybersecurity practices
and technologies that work best on their networks. Moreover, by working
with industry to set common performance levels, DHS will encourage the
private sector to develop new solutions in those areas. DHS will
initiate a process to update the performance requirements (which will
be detailed in the public rulemaking) in a timely and technology-
neutral, high-level manner. However, it's important to remember that
there is a cost to the economy if we do not act. U.S. companies and
individuals are losing money and intellectual property every day. And
there could be an even greater economic cost if a successful cyber
incident significantly interrupts critical services such as electricity
or telecommunications or causes a lack of confidence in our financial
systems.
In response to the question of what Congress can do, the Department
of Homeland Security works closely with critical infrastructure and
private industry owners and operators to assist in assessing cyber
risks and offering voluntary technical assistance. Sound legislation
that enhances this public-private partnership would be flexible enough
to focus on increasing performance outcomes for the most critical of
covered infrastructure while promoting real and innovative security
solutions. The Cybersecurity Act of 2012, which is similar to the
administration's May 2011 legislative proposal, seeks to enhance the
public-private partnership by establishing risk-based performance
standards for core-covered critical infrastructure while working to
alleviate a possible burden of extra regulatory compliance.
Specifically, section 104 requires the Secretary of Homeland Security
to establish a process for receiving cybersecurity performance
requirements from industry owners and operators to determine if
existing regulations appropriately address identified cyber risks. If
there are regulations already in place that meet this determination,
the President may exempt certain covered critical infrastructure from
the requirements.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
national security cutter
Question. In light of the Coast Guard's historical homeport
designation of Hawaii for two of its high endurance cutters (CGCs Rush
and Jarvis) and the administration's shift in Defense Strategy toward
the Asia-Pacific region, can the Congress expect that two or more of
the NSCs' homeports will be in Hawaii?
Answer. The Commandant's current plan is to homeport NSCs Nos. 1-3
and 6 in Alameda, California and NSCs Nos. 4 and 5 in Charleston, South
Carolina.
Question. Madam Secretary, your recently submitted budget no longer
reflects funding for national security cutters Nos. 7 and 8 in future
years. Can you explain whether this budgetary change reflects a
particular change in the real-world threat environment faced by the
Coast Guard over the last year?
Answer. Recapitalization of the Coast Guard's fleet is a top
departmental priority and the fiscal year 2013 budget fully funds NSC
No. 6. The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2013-17 out-year CIP portrays
acquisition priorities for the next 5 years assuming the limits of
budgetary growth set by the Budget Control Act of 2011. It does not
reflect the impact of the Department of Defense's Strategy, which may
affect operational planning at DHS and the Coast Guard. DHS will work
very closely with the Department of Defense and other partners to
determine impacts to operational planning on the National Fleet Plan as
threats evolve, and evaluate acquisition priorities of all homeland
security and national security policies to ensure we are building
complementary, nonredundant capabilities.
Question. Based on analysis of the fiscal year 2012 Capital
Improvement Plan and the fiscal year 2013 CIP, a balance of $1.785
billion for the national security cutter program has been removed from
fiscal years 2013 and 2017. Should we assume that DHS intends to spend
this total remaining balance in fiscal year 2018 based on the fact that
the fiscal year 2013 CIP shows the same total program cost as the
fiscal year 2012 CIP and the same completion date of the NSC project as
2018?
Answer. No, the 2013-2017 CIP is a planning document based on
budgetary projections at the time of the 2013 budget transmittal. The
Coast Guard's fiscal year 2013-17 out-year CIP supersedes the 2012-2016
CIP and portrays acquisition priorities for the next 5 years assuming
the limits of budgetary growth set by the Budget Control Act of 2011.
Specific to the NSC program, over the next year, DHS will review
acquisition priories in light of the new Department of Defense Strategy
and other relevant information to ensure the Nation is building
complementary, nonredundant capabilities.
Question. Has the Coast Guard's requirement for eight total
national security cutters changed since last year?
Answer. The Coast Guard has not changed its Program of Record for
the NSC. The Program of Record is continuously reviewed as part of
DHS's management and oversight of major acquisition programs. DHS will
work very closely with the Department of Defense and other partners in
light of the new Department of Defense's Strategy to ensure we are
building complementary, nonredundant capabilities. This review will be
informed by various fleet analyses completed to date by the Coast Guard
and DHS.
Question. Madam Secretary, during last year's testimony to this
subcommittee regarding the consequences of delaying national security
cutter acquisitions, Coast Guard Commandant Robert Papp stated, ``When
we pay later, the price is greater.'' Do we know how much the cost of
ships Nos. 7 and 8 will increase if we wait until after 2017 to buy
them?
Answer. Our priority is NSC No. 6 in fiscal year 2013 and we're
focused on following the path set with NSCs Nos. 4 and 5 which are on
schedule and within budget. As DHS continues its oversight of Coast
Guard's major cutter acquisition programs in 2012, we are evaluating
the most cost-effective way to ensure recapitalization achieves Coast
Guard's long-term performance requirements.
Question. Would buying long lead time materials for national
security cutter No. 7 in fiscal year 2013 reduce costs to the taxpayer
for this ship relative to waiting until after fiscal year 2013?
Answer. Our priority is NSC No. 6 in fiscal year 2013 and we're
focused on following the path set with NSCs Nos. 4 and 5 which are on
schedule and within budget. Funding for long lead time materials for
NSC No. 7 is not requested in the budget.
aircraft recapitalization
Question. Madam Secretary, I noticed that the administration's
proposed investment in Coast Guard aircraft over the 5-year Capital
Investment Plan nearly doubled from $871 million in the fiscal year
2012 request to $1.7 billion in the fiscal year 2013 request. Was there
some change in the Coast Guard's real-world operational strategy that
necessitated this dramatic increase for aircraft in these times of such
fiscal restraint?
Answer. No. The overall recapitalization plan for aviation assets
remains the same. The increased funding levels are intended to leverage
currently available production capacity for both the HC-144A maritime
patrol aircraft (MPA) and HC-130J long-range surveillance aircraft,
align the progress of the MPA project back toward the initial program
of record timeline, and expedite the recapitalization of the aging HC-
130H aircraft. This will allow the Coast Guard to save costs and close
the aviation patrol hour gaps.
decommissioning
Question. Madam Secretary, the Coast Guard recently announced plans
to decommission two high endurance cutters, three patrol boats, and
termination of the High Tempo-High Maintenance Patrol Boat Program. If
this happens, will the Coast Guard face challenges with regard to
meeting its statutory operational requirements?
Answer. As a multi-mission force, Coast Guard achieves its
statutory requirements by allocating resources according to an
effective prioritization scheme. The Coast Guard is already preparing
for the program changes and commissioning and decommissioning of assets
proposed in the fiscal year 2013 budget request in order to continue to
invest in critical recapitalization initiatives. For instance, the
Coast Guard will have 10 fast response cutter (FRC) crews on budget at
the end of fiscal year 2013 to ensure personnel are fully trained and
ready to accept and operate the FRCs as they are delivered to the
fleet. Near term impacts will be mitigated as new and more capable
assets become operational; five FRCs and three national security
cutters are expected to be fully operational by the end of fiscal year
2013. Each FRC will provide 20 percent more capacity in terms of
operational hours than the 110-foot patrol boats that they are
replacing.
Moreover, the 110-foot Patrol Boat Mission Effectiveness Project,
which will complete the final hull in summer 2012, has stabilized
patrol boat reliability for the remaining in-service hulls, until
transition to the FRC fleet is completed. As we decommission ships, we
closely evaluate which are costing the most, and are the least
reliable. These are the ships that we remove from service first,
keeping those in the best condition in service.
national security cutter
Question. Madam Secretary, with Coast Guard's announcement on
February 23, 2012, that national security cutter No. 1, Bertholf will
deploy to the Arctic this year, does this mean that national security
cutters will continue to deploy there?
Answer. The national security cutter will continue the missions of
the high endurance cutters (HECs) as these legacy cutters are
decommissioned. The HECs have historically performed key Coast Guard
missions in the Arctic during the ice-free portion of the summer. NSCs
will bring reliable service, enhanced operating capability, and more
effective presence to this region.
unmanned aerial vehicles
Question. Madam Secretary, do you still intend to acquire vertical
takeoff unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for deployment off of the Coast
Guard's national security cutter fleet? How will the range and
capabilities of the fleet by augmented by these assets?
Answer. The Coast Guard's cutter-based unmanned aircraft systems
(UAS) project is in the ``need'' phase of the major systems acquisition
process, awaiting progression to acquisition decision event 1. The
Coast Guard is considering a nonmajor acquisition small UAS (sUAS) in
order to outfit the national security cutter (NSC) with an interim,
cost-effective UAS capability.
When UAS is added to a baseline NSC (i.e., an NSC without any other
air or surface intelligence gathering assets), accredited modeling and
simulations estimate a 225 percent increase in surveillance coverage
within an 80-mile radius of the cutter, and predicts a 90 percent
increase in the number of prosecutions (i.e., interdiction of a suspect
vessel carrying contraband). When UAS is added to an NSC outfitted with
one helicopter, there is a 70-percent increase in surveillance coverage
(i.e., detection/locating a suspect vessel) over what can be provided
by a helo alone.
The UAS allows NSC boarding teams to covertly view suspect vessels
before boarding them, and allows the tactical commander to maintain
over-watch while boarding operations are in progress. Furthermore, UAS
can provide the NSC fleet with a persistent airborne surveillance
capability that could be employed in conditions that would be hazardous
to crews of manned aircraft, including operating in chemical/
biological/radiological/nuclear environments.
coast guard research and development
Question. Congress included $8 million in fiscal year 2012
appropriations for ``procurement of shipboard integration equipment and
to support an advanced concept technology demonstration'' for cutter-
based vertical takeoff unmanned aircraft systems. Congress also
included funding for these purposes in prior appropriations bills. What
has the Coast Guard recently accomplished with regard to these
activities? What does it plan to accomplish in fiscal year 2012? Is the
Coast Guard actively observing the deployment of Navy MQ-8B or MQ-8C in
overseas operations?
Answer. The Coast Guard, utilizing research, development, test and
evaluation funds, is procuring Fire Scout ground control segment (GCS)
long lead time components, including ground control station, tactical
control data link, and UAV common automatic recovery system in fiscal
year 2012. Additionally, contracts are being developed and refined to
secure required Navy technical assistance for Fire Scout shipboard
analysis, equipment maintenance, and installation aboard a national
security cutter (NSC). Completion of these elements will facilitate an
at-sea technical demonstration once a Fire Scout air vehicle becomes
available for Coast Guard use. The Coast Guard projects the GCS
equipment will be delivered and installed on an NSC in fiscal year
2014.
The Coast Guard Research and Develop Center is also executing a
research and development project to conduct a technical demonstration
of the Scan Eagle small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) aboard CGC
Stratton. Shipboard engineering and aviation certification processes
are underway to support a mid-June 2012 system installation with a
follow-on flight and systems capability demonstration in June-July
2012.
The Coast Guard is not currently observing MQ-8B deployments, and
the MQ-8C is still under development. However, Coast Guard unmanned
aircraft system (UAS) personnel did observe MQ-8B deployments aboard
USS McInerney and USS Freedom in 2009 and 2010. The Coast Guard
maintains a liaison officer at the Navy and Marine Corps Tactical
Multi-Mission UAS Program Office (PMA-266) whose duties include
monitoring all MQ-8B/C developmental and operational activities.
cybersecurity
Question. Madam Secretary, I have read estimates that private
industry spends tens, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars on
cybersecurity each year. By contrast, your Department's fiscal year
2013 budget request for cybersecurity is $769 million. Do you believe
increased appropriations will be necessary in future years to carry out
the comprehensive Lieberman-Collins cybersecurity legislation before
the Senate that has been endorsed by the administration?
Answer. It is premature to speculate on the cost of proposed
legislation. DHS will provide a cost estimate to carry out the
legislation when enacted into law.
However, it's important to remember that there is a cost to the
economy if we do not act. U.S. companies and individuals are losing
money and intellectual property every day. And there could be an even
greater economic cost if a successful cyber incident significantly
interrupts critical services such as electricity or telecommunications
or causes a lack of confidence in our financial systems.
levees and dams
Question. Madam Secretary, what challenges would your Department
face if asked to include all areas protected by levees and dams within
the special flood hazard areas? How long would it take you to implement
such a change in statute? Would an increased workforce to carry out
such a directive call for additional appropriations in the future?
Answer. The implementation of a requirement to include all areas
protected by levees and dams would have an impact on the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). In keeping with the best interests of the
general public, the new insurance rating practices would need to be
established in these areas to reflect properly the level of risk. Prior
to implementing any revised insurance rates, we would need to complete
a full map inventory update for all NFIP maps that map levees and dams.
This would be necessary to allow us to reflect the additional flood
zone information that would be needed to implement the new rating
practices. Once the full map inventory is updated, the new approach
could be activated nationally to ensure fairness across all impacted
jurisdictions.
While we have years of experience analyzing and mapping areas
behind levees, and currently are undertaking an initiative to revise
how we analyze and map areas behind nonaccredited levees, we do not
have similar experience nor initiatives underway for those areas
protected by dams. To implement a mapping initiative for areas
protected by dams, we would have to commence an initiative to engage
academia, the private sector, States, and local communities on how to
establish the appropriate procedures to analyze and map those areas
protected by dams.
In order to support the new mapping and insurance practices, we
would have to promulgate regulations to enable the use of the new zones
and other supporting flood hazard information.
With these types of changes, we would also face new outreach and
technical assistance challenges with assisting communities in
determining what these new zones mean for them and how to manage their
flood risk using this new information.
The timeframe for implementation is very difficult to project. The
implementation would depend on funding resources and require the
completion of rulemaking before anything would go into effect.
While, this directive would require additional staff capacity,
without further clarity on the intent of the provision, we cannot
project the specific workforce necessary to accomplish this directive.
nuclear detection
Question. It is my understanding that a system potentially capable
of detecting shielded and unshielded special nuclear material (SNM)
using muon tomography and gamma radiation was tested by National
Security Technologies in August 2011. Is the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (DNDO) aware of the results of these tests?
Answer. Yes, in August 2011, National Security Technologies
evaluated a sub-scale prototype of the Multi-Mode Passive Detection
System (MMPDS) developed by Decision Sciences International Corporation
(DSIC). DNDO received and reviewed a copy of the test report and
discussed the test in person with representative from DSIC. Although
the MMPDS has several operational hurdles, DNDO is encouraged in its
ability to detect shielded nuclear and radiological threats using
natural sources of radiation.
Question. I also understand that this muon tomography system is
being deployed to Freeport, Bahamas for operational evaluation by the
system developer this summer. The Senate Report accompanying the fiscal
year 2012 DHS appropriations act encourages the Department to test
these technologies. Does the Department plan to participate in this
testing in Freeport?
Answer. According to representatives from the Decision Sciences
International Corporation (DSIC), a full-scale Multi-Mode Passive
Detection System (MMPDS) is being installed in Freeport, Bahamas for
test and evaluation during the summer of 2012. The Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office (DNDO) recently released a competitive solicitation
for an advanced technology demonstration of a nuclear and radiological
imaging platform. This ATD will provide the mechanism for DNDO to
evaluate muon tomography as well competing technology to determine the
best overall value for the Government. If DSIC submits a proposal to
this solicitation and if it is selected, DNDO could then perform a
government evaluation and characterization of a full-scale MMPDS at a
mutually agreeable location.
Question. If the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) is
planning to participate in the Freeport operational tests, will this
test be sufficient to ``qualify'' or certify the system? If not, what
would be DNDOs intended process for conducting such tests that might
lead to qualification?
Answer. Through the nuclear and radiological imaging platform
advanced technology demonstration, DNDO will perform a technology
characterization of all relevant technology. The purpose of a
technology characterization is to collect sufficient data to fully
understand the technology, to determine the efficacy of the technology
compared to alternative approaches, to guide future implementations of
that technology if merited, and to support a future cost-benefit
analysis (CBA). A characterization probes the how's and why's of a
technology's potential and limitations. If warranted by the
characterization and CBA, DNDO could then perform qualification testing
of the Multi-Mode Passive Detection System.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Landrieu. It has been a very good hearing, and I
thank the members for coming and paying such close attention to
this important budget.
Thank you very much. Meeting recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., Thursday, March 8, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2012
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, and
Murkowski.
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. It is my pleasure to call
our subcommittee to order, and it is my distinct honor to
welcome the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard,
Admiral Robert Papp, to discuss the Coast Guard's 2013 budget
request.
I particularly want to thank you, Admiral, for being here
today so soon after undergoing a surgery, and I am happy to
know that things are all working out fine. We wish you a speedy
recovery. But we really appreciate the effort.
The Coast Guard, as you know, I have said to you many
times, both in private and public, will forever be in my heart
and the hearts of the constituents that I represent in
Louisiana and that I try to represent along the gulf coast.
Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita particularly, we saw the
Coast Guard in action. The Coast Guard, the best of the Coast
Guard, we saw them in action.
We rescued 33,000 of our citizens during the largest search
and rescue mission in the Coast Guard's history. I like to say
that you all were complemented by our own Cajun flotilla and
the entrepreneurs down in Cajun country that jumped in their
boats to help save the day. It was a very dramatic moment in
our Nation's history. But because of that, 33,000 people were
saved, and the work to rebuild that great part of the United
States is now underway.
The Coast Guard is one of five branches of the military, is
responsible for the safety and security of our maritime
interests in our U.S. ports, waterways, and on the high seas.
As we gather here today to examine the budget request for the
Coast Guard, I can't help but think of the famous quote by Yogi
Berra. ``It is like deja vu all over again.''
Every year, Presidents submit budgets that are inadequate
for the Coast Guard, and every year, Congress steps in to
fortify them. Over the past 6 years, this subcommittee has
increased the Coast Guard's budget by an average of $124
million annually above the White House request. We have done
that to fill operational and recapitalization shortfalls.
In the 2012 bill, which was the first year that I chaired
this subcommittee, Senator Coats, Vice Chairman Lautenberg,
Senator Cochran, and other members of the subcommittee and I
worked very hard together to accomplish some important goals
for the Coast Guard.
First, we strengthened the Coast Guard's capital program.
We funded six fast response cutters (FRCs), long-lead time
materials for the sixth national security cutter (NSC), plans
and designs for new offshore patrol cutters (OPCs), and two
maritime patrol aircraft.
Operationally, we added funding for enhanced oil spill
response capabilities, maintenance of aging assets, and
improved quality of life for Coast Guard families by increasing
access to child care services.
Because I am from Louisiana, I think I have a bird's eye
view of the work that the Coast Guard does day in and day out.
I think that Senator Cochran from Mississippi, a strong
advocate of the Coast Guard, also from his perch as the
Senator, senior Senator, from Mississippi understands the
multiple and important missions of the Coast Guard.
And I do believe that even our Senators, as my colleague
here, from interior States--although they don't have the oceans
lapping up at their shores--understand the importance of
keeping a Coast Guard strong not just for your traditional
search and rescue, which is sometimes what people perceive, but
in your new missions and important missions of drug
interdiction and now with oil spill response, as we hope oil
and gas production will be increasing, not decreasing, off of
our State shores and around the world.
Particularly off the coast of Cuba, which is a whole other
issue, but interesting to know what our Coast Guard's role
might be. Not, of course, in Cuban territory, but so close to
the United States, just 90 miles from the coast of Florida.
The President's 2013 discretionary budget request for the
Coast Guard is $8.4 billion, 3.3 percent below enacted level,
including the reduction of over 1,000 military billets and $200
million less for capital expenditures. The budget includes $658
million for the sixth national security cutter. But other
priorities, like the fast response cutter, aircraft
procurement, Coast Guard housing, and shore infrastructure, are
substantially reduced below the 2012 level.
This budget also signals that funds will not be requested
for the final two national security cutters, Nos. 7 and 8. I am
also concerned about the delays in procurement for the fast
response cutters. The decision to go from acquiring six boats
per year to two boats eliminates $30 million in savings. I want
to say that the budget, as presented to us, decreases saving
opportunities, doesn't increase them, and I am concerned about
that.
Finally, the budget proposes to decommission aging cutters
before replacement assets are available, leaving operational
gaps in important missions like drug interdiction, which I know
is a priority for this Congress, both Republicans and
Democrats. These cuts come at a critical time for the Coast
Guard.
Following 9/11, the Coast Guard received several new
responsibilities that have been carried out with assets, might
I say, built for the last century. For instance, major Coast
Guard cutters average over 43 years in age as compared to Navy
ships of 20 years.
I understand that difficult tradeoffs need to be made in
this particularly tight budget climate, but I believe the top
line given to the Coast Guard in the President's budget is just
not adequate. I believe this subcommittee has a responsibility
to make sure the next generation of Coast Guard men and women
have the tools they need to accomplish their many important
missions, and I know that this goal is shared by our first and
only witness today, Admiral Papp.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Now before I move on, I want to acknowledge, of course, my
vice chairman, Senator Lautenberg. But both Senator Coats and
Senator Cochran have an important intel briefing. So they may
have to slip out. But let me turn it to Senator Coats, and then
when Senator Cochran gets here, if you don't mind, we will go
to Senator Cochran.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Good morning. I call the subcommittee to order.
Today I welcome the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert
J. Papp to discuss the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2013 budget request. I
particularly want to thank you Admiral for being here today so soon
after undergoing surgery. I wish you a speedy recovery so you can get
back to doing the job you love and do so well, leading the men and
women of the Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard will forever be in my heart and in the hearts of my
constituents after its heroic efforts following Hurricane Katrina. The
Coast Guard rescued over 33,000 of our citizens during the largest
search and rescue mission in Coast Guard history.
The Coast Guard is one of the five branches of the military and is
responsible for the safety and security of our maritime interests in
U.S. ports, waterways, and on the high seas.
As we gather today to examine the budget request for the Coast
Guard, I can't help but think of that famous quote by Yogi Berra,
``It's like deja vu, all over again.'' Every year, Presidents submit
their budgets that are inadequate for the Coast Guard and every year
Congress steps in to bail them out.
Over the past 6 years, this subcommittee has increased the Coast
Guard's budget by an average of $124 million annually above White House
request levels to fill operational and recapitalization shortfalls. In
the fiscal year 2012 bill, which was the first year that I chaired this
subcommittee, Senator Coats, Vice Chairman Lautenberg, Senator Cochran,
other members of the subcommittee, and I worked together to accomplish
some important goals for the Coast Guard. First, we strengthened the
Coast Guard's capital program. We funded six fast response cutters,
long lead time materials for the sixth national security cutter, plans
and designs for new offshore patrol cutters, and two maritime patrol
aircraft. Operationally, we added funding for enhanced oil spill
response capabilities, maintenance of aging assets, and improved
quality of life for Coast Guard families by increasing access to child
care services.
The President's fiscal year 2013 discretionary budget request for
the Coast Guard is $8.4 billion, 3.3 percent below the enacted level,
including the reduction of 1,000 military billets, and over $200
million less for capital expenditures. The budget includes $658 million
for the sixth national security cutter, but other priorities like the
fast response cutter, aircraft procurement, Coast Guard housing, and
shore infrastructure are reduced substantially below the fiscal year
2012 level. The budget also signals that funds will not be requested
for the final two national security cutters, Nos. 7 and 8. I am also
concerned about the delays in the procurement of fast response cutters.
The decision to go from acquiring six boats per year to two boats per
year eliminates $30 million in savings and delays the delivery of key
mission capabilities. Finally, the budget proposes to decommission
aging cutters before replacement assets are available, leaving
operational gaps in important mission areas like drug interdiction.
These cuts come at a critical time for the Coast Guard. Following
9/11, the Coast Guard received several new responsibilities and they
have been carried out with assets built for the last century. For
instance, major Coast Guard cutters average over 43 years of age as
compared to Navy ships that average 20 years of age.
I understand that difficult trade-offs need to be made in this
budget climate, but I believe the topline given to the Coast Guard in
the President's budget request is inadequate. I believe this
subcommittee has a responsibility to make sure that the next generation
of Coast Guard men and women has the tools they need to accomplish
their many missions. I know that this is goal shared by our witness
today, Admiral Papp.
I look forward to examining these issues so we can make sound
decisions about the resources and assets Coast Guard men and women need
today and in the future.
Before recognizing Senator Coats for any opening remarks he may
wish to make, I understand that Senator Cochran needs to depart early,
so I recognize Senator Cochran.
I now recognize Senator Coats for any opening remarks he may wish
to make.
Senator Landrieu. Senator Coats.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL COATS
Senator Coats. Madam Chairman, thank you very much.
Admiral, welcome. Good to see you here, and I apologize for
having to not be here.
It is clear that post 9/11, the Coast Guard is now playing
a role in the defense of our homeland security and is part of
the entire package that we need to put together to keep our
people safe from threats both from home and abroad, and we
really appreciate the Coast Guard stepping up to the task here.
So we do want to make sure that you have the assets necessary
for you to continue to be a vital part of that whole national
effort, and so we thank you for your engagement there.
Now, as someone from Indiana, we don't necessarily have the
same direct engagement with the Coast Guard as the chairman,
and I know Senator Murkowski very much appreciates this hearing
also, given the role of the Coast Guard in her State of Alaska.
But we do have some connections. Crane Naval Surface Warfare
Center does some special ops and electronics work that is
important to the Coast Guard, as well as all of our services,
and we do have a small station up in Michigan City.
We do have some water that we look at. Not very much, but a
little bit of slice of Indiana faces, is on the Great Lakes,
and so we are privileged to have at least some connection to
the Coast Guard.
What is important about this hearing is that we continue to
deal with budget situations that put constraints on what we
would like to do, and therefore, we have to pick out those
priorities and make sure that the essential things that we need
to do are adequately funded and carried out. And so, I think
that is really the key here to this hearing.
We know that as part of the submitted budget by the
administration, that earmark is below fiscal year 2012 level
and will require some adjustments on the part of the Coast
Guard in terms of how these funds are allocated. And so, we
want to make sure that while we are facing these difficult
budget realities, we are not compromising the kind of vital and
necessary effective services that you provide.
So, again, with apologizes for having to leave, I thank the
chairman for holding this, and I will get a full down brief on
it from her.
Thank you, Admiral.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. Senator Coats has been a very
strong supporter of the Coast Guard. We appreciate it.
Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
And I am always glad to see the Coast Guard. Admiral, you
represent a terrific unit, and we are proud of you and all of
your people. I see them up close and often.
And New Jersey is the home for the most at-risk area in the
country for a terrorist attack, a stretch that includes the
port, airport, chemical plants, refineries, and railways.
Protecting this region is not only protecting lives, it also
protects the economy.
The Port of New York and New Jersey, the largest on the
east coast, supports more than 270,000 jobs and $37 billion in
business income. Protecting this region not only protects
lives, it protects the economy.
The men and women of the Coast Guard are America's eyes and
ears on the seas, and we are safer because of them. And as you
know, Admiral, I have marveled at the Coast Guard's ability to
stretch, pull, push, and get more things done with fewer
resources. And this is a very untimely thing to see a Coast
Guard budget, in my view, being shrunken further. I am always
surprised at the number of functions that we have the Coast
Guard doing, whether it is as simple as navigational markers,
fishing management.
But today, with security as it is, the Coast Guard part of
homeland security, it is a different ball game. So we ask you
once again to inform your people that we think very well of
them, make sure that we are not going to ignore our
responsibility to the Coast Guard. We need some more funding in
our society, in our budget, and that is where the problem is.
But it is so important to support the Coast Guard and,
again, asking you to do more with less. Unfortunately,
discretionary spending has become the scapegoat of our deficit
problems. This misguided ``cut at any cost'' approach has
forced this year's reduction in the budget request for the
Coast Guard and could lead to even more dangerous cuts next
year.
The brave men and women of the Coast Guard never let us
down, and it is critical that we give you and your people the
resources they need to do the missions that they respond so
effectively to. One important mission for New Jersey is the
Coast Guard's role in upgrading the Bayonne Bridge. The height
of the bridge impedes the ability of larger ships to access the
ports, and the game has changed substantially--with the opening
of the Panama Canal, larger vessels, and we want those vessels
to call on American ports.
This access will become even more critical in 2014 when the
number of large ships will increase significantly. The Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey is working with the Coast
Guard to accommodate these ships by raising the height of the
bridge.
So I look forward to hearing from Admiral Papp on the Coast
Guard's efforts to advance this project and the impact. We are
going to be asking questions, Admiral, as you would expect,
what a reduced budget might do with the agency's operations.
Thank you for your service.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
And Senator Murkowski, if you had a brief opening
statement, and then, of course, we will take questions later.
Thank you for joining us.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI
Senator Murkowski. I do. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman and to the ranking member, thank
you for holding this hearing. Incredibly important. I had asked
that we have a very specific hearing focused just on the Coast
Guard. And I appreciate, Admiral Papp, your leadership, of
course, with all of our fine Coast Guard men and women and all
that you do.
It has been kind of Coast Guard week for me already, and
this is only Wednesday. We had an opportunity yesterday to have
a very impressive presentation by Captain Havlik, who detailed
the escort that the cutter Healy made last winter in escorting
the Russian oil tanker Renda north to supply Nome and other
coastal villages with fuel during a very, very cold winter.
It was a reminder of the capabilities of our Coast Guard.
It is a reminder of what it is that we have available to us.
But it is also a reminder that we have got a lot of work to do,
and as an Arctic nation, that is becoming more and more clear.
I am looking at the threat areas map that has been
presented to each of us at our desks here this morning, and I
look at the threat areas and am very cognizant of my
colleague's statement about the threats that New Jersey faces
as a terrorist threat. But I look at the area around the State
of Alaska and just the size and scope of what it is that we are
facing, whether it is an increased presence in the Arctic
because of resource development, the potential there, whether
it is the activity that we see coming from the cruise industry
coming across the top, whether it is the cargo traffic going
between Alaska and Russia.
There is so much happening in the Arctic, and I see one
very small orange dot there that indicates offshore patrol
cutter. And I look at the area that you are charged with
oversight, and I know that the challenges are great.
I know that from a budget perspective we are always
cognizant of the responsibilities that we have directed toward
the Coast Guard. And yet the resources, the revenues more often
than not do not also accompany that.
I am going to spend most of my time this morning talking
about the opportunities for us when it comes to icebreaking
capacity. As an Arctic nation, we are woefully unprepared. You
have said that we are behind the power curve regarding the
Arctic. I agree with that. We need the assets. We need those
resources up north.
I had an opportunity just yesterday to visit with a
shipbuilder from Louisiana who has just completed an
extraordinary vessel with icebreaking capacity, the Aiviq. It
will be part of Shell's operations up north.
But I look at the opportunities that we have in front of
us. We have got difficult budget decisions. We have an
opportunity to perhaps do something on the private side. And
while you and I have had a discussion about this, I think we
recognize that we have got to figure out how we thread this
needle when it comes to meeting our responsibilities and
dealing with the budget issues and the concerns.
I am looking forward to this summer with the Arctic Shield
deployment, where the Coast Guard will be testing the
capabilities up there in the Arctic. I think we are all most
interested to see that presence and see where our gaps truly
are.
But Madam Chairman, I thank you again for holding this
hearing. And Admiral Papp, I thank you for your leadership.
Once again, the men and women of the Coast Guard continue to do
us proud, and you are very ably leading those men and women. So
I thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. And I am
looking forward to joining you and the Coast Guard in Alaska
this summer to come visit and get a little bit better
experience about what the magnitude and the dimensions of some
of your threats there and challenges.
And let me turn it to Senator Cochran, who also is going to
have to probably leave, I think, shortly for an intel hearing.
But before you came in, Senator, I said that you and I have
two of the best positions really in the country to see the
great work that the Coast Guard does, and we were grateful for
them stepping up and saving about 33,000 of our citizens after
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which was one of the bright
chapters in many bright chapters of the Coast Guard history.
And thank you for your support always of the Coast Guard.
Senator Cochran.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Madam Chair, thank you very much for your
leadership in convening this hearing and in managing the
requests we have for funding that we have to act on and make
recommendations or Senate consideration.
It is a pleasure to see Admiral Papp here and to
congratulate him for his continued excellent leadership as
Commandant of the Coast Guard. We are impressed when we
remember the terrible flooding challenges that we have had on
the Mississippi River and tributaries there, too.
In the last few years, it seems like we have had more than
our share of 100-year floods. Somebody doesn't know how to
count. We have got to change the way we talk about these
things. But the Coast Guard is there.
I remember flying with the Commandant on his plane down to
New Orleans for an inspection, really an overview of the
flooding that we had had on the Mississippi River and the
tributaries there, too. But I was quite impressed with the
dedication to the responsibilities that the Coast Guard has
under the law, and it gives us another opportunity to thank him
and his colleagues in the Coast Guard for the fabulous job they
have done over the years, but particularly in the recent past,
when we have been challenged as we never have before, 100 years
or less.
So we want to be sure we understand the priorities. We
can't fund probably everything at the level that we would like
to because of constraints on the budget and the limitations
that we have imposed by the budget.
But we want to do what we think is best, in the best
interests of the country. And with your assistance, we will
identify those priorities in a thoughtful way and carry out the
missions not only of the Coast Guard, but protect and save a
lot of our valuable human resources and property that is very
valuable to the economic future of our State and Nation.
Thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator.
Admiral, we are prepared now for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP, JR.
Admiral Papp. Thank you, Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member
Coats, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Cochran, and Senator
Murkowski.
It is a real honor for me to be here today and to be able
to testify regarding our fiscal year 2013 budget. And on behalf
of all the men and women of the Coast Guard, I want to thank
you for that strong support that you spoke of in your opening
statement over the last couple of years. It is gratifying to
see the support from this subcommittee to help us to get the
job done for this country.
And as this subcommittee is well aware and you have stated
already, we are facing very serious challenging fiscal times.
But we must not forget that America is, first and foremost, a
maritime nation, and I think the reason why even interior
States understand the value of the Coast Guard is because 95
percent of our foreign trade arrives or is shipped by sea.
The maritime transportation system accounts for nearly $700
billion of the U.S. gross national product and supplies 51
million jobs to the U.S. economy. Our economy, our security,
and our Nation's prosperity depend upon safe and secure
maritime transportation routes.
But these same approaches can be used by criminals as well
or people who choose to do us harm. In the offshore transit
zones, we face growing transnational crime, drug and human
trafficking, and piracy. And just over 1 month ago, one of our
new HC-144 aircraft on its first flight of its first deployment
to the Caribbean used its state-of-the-art sensors to detect a
submersible smuggling vessel, a vessel capable of carrying 5
tons of cocaine inside.
I went to Colombia recently, and I toured a number of these
seized vessels. They can carry anywhere between 5 to 7 or 8
tons of cocaine or other illicit material. Now that aircraft
vectored in two Coast Guard cutters to interdict the sub. This
was the fifth sub we have interdicted in the Caribbean since
July 2001.
And as you can see from the handout that I have provided,
drug subs are just one of the offshore threats that we are
facing. Our natural resources are also threatened by illegal
fishing, which is increasing pressure on our valuable fish
stocks. Offshore exploration, driven by an expanding global
thirst for fossil fuel, is also on the rise. Oil exploration is
planned in the United States Arctic waters this summer, and
even closer to our shores, we face the threat of a possible
transboundary pollution that could be produced by drilling in
Cuba's outer continental shelf.
Our Coast Guard is charged with ensuring the safety,
security, and stewardship of this broad range of maritime
activity. We protect people on the sea. We protect the Nation
from threats delivered by the sea, and we protect the sea
itself. There is no other United States agency that has the
equivalent authorities, competencies, or capabilities to
provide the Nation's maritime security and safety on the water
and in the air and as far offshore as possible and within our
ports.
Now this unique mosaic is a foundational characteristic. It
is what makes the Coast Guard just as effective in dealing with
major catastrophes like Hurricane Katrina and the Deepwater oil
spill as it is at performing our day-to-day operations.
Our layered maritime security strategy focuses on three
regions--overseas, offshore, and in-shore along the coast. This
strategy seeks to optimize the use of our assets and
authorities throughout the maritime continuum.
To ensure the Coast Guard remains capable of confronting
future threats, however, we must judiciously invest in ships,
boats, and aircraft that we need to effectively operate in each
of these three areas or this layered security that I have
talked about. In the decade since 9/11, we have focused on
investing in resources to strengthen our capabilities to
counter risks in our ports and in the coastal zone, the inner
layer.
In the last 10 years, we have replaced almost our entire
small boat fleet. We have added capable aircraft and more
personnel to operate them. We have deployed the Rescue 21
distress communications system. We have unified field
operations through the creation of sectors to fully integrate
and leverage our prevention and response activities. We have
enhanced regulatory inspection and compliance programs, and we
have built effective deployable specialized forces.
We have also strengthened partnerships with the many
agencies that we operate alongside. And although there will
always be more work to do, these near-shore forces are far more
prepared to address our risks than in the offshore layer.
Simply put, what we have done over the last 10 years is we have
built a strong defense in the inner layer--in our ports and
along the coast--but the last place that you want to discover
or confront a threat is near the shore or in your ports. That
is playing goal-line defense.
So we need to now focus on building our offshore forces so
that we can respond in that layer. But the offshore layer is
also where I am most concerned because that is where our aging
fleet is, and that is really the most expensive part of this
layered security that we try to provide.
Our offshore fleet of cutters is aging. It is antiquated,
and it is increasingly less effective. Even with the best
efforts of my crews and the support from this subcommittee, the
state of our major cutter fleet, most of which is in excess of
40 years old, is alarming.
Our 45-year-old average high endurance cutters are
achieving only about 70 percent of their programmed underway
hours, and more than 50 percent of the time, they sail with
major casualties. This is a cause for concern because the key
to interdicting threats offshore is maintaining a persistent
presence to rapidly respond, interdict, and address any of
those threats.
If we don't have capable and reliable offshore cutters, we
can't mount a response. We cannot enforce our laws, and we
cannot adequately protect our national interests. It is that
simple.
This is why we must continue to build our new major
cutters, such as the sixth national security cutter, as quickly
as possible. I am thankful to Secretary Napolitano and the
President for supporting the funding for production of No. 6 in
the fiscal year 2013 budget. Maintaining shipbuilding momentum
is what allowed us to get national security cutters Nos. 4 and
5 on contract this past year for nearly the same price.
We are now reaping the benefits of efficient shipyard
processes and experienced shipbuilders. Now is the time to keep
the production going. Now is the time to deliver these ships as
inexpensively as possible. And now is the time to ensure the
Coast Guard is capable of interdicting offshore threats for the
next 30 to 50 years.
The fiscal year 2013 budget reflects the threshold I need
to acquire new cutters and aircraft designed to address our
greatest threats. Right now, we are delivering these new assets
at minimum production levels. This ensures we keep the most
critical acquisition projects moving forward while at the same
time maintaining our front-line operations.
As this subcommittee clearly recognizes, given your strong
support for the national security cutter program, we are
balancing our investment in the future assets against resources
required to maintain operations today. Doing so requires
tradeoffs, but that is what leaders do. Leaders have to make
tough choices in challenging times.
And leaders also have to look to the future to make sure
their service and their country is prepared for future threats.
As we work together to confront these challenges, the men and
women of the Coast Guard are standing the watch to protect our
Nation. The budget submitted to you seeks to provide them with
the tools they require to continue performing our challenging
maritime missions.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
and for your continuing support of our Coast Guard. And I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The 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 United States Coast Guard, including the
funding provided in the fiscal year 2012 Consolidated Appropriations
Act to recapitalize the aging fleet and sustain front-line operations.
This year marks our 222nd year of protecting Americans on the sea,
America from threats delivered by the sea and the sea itself.
Throughout this period, our unique authorities, capable assets and
determined personnel have adapted to meet the Nation's evolving
maritime safety, security, and stewardship needs. We are locally based,
nationally deployed and globally connected.
I am here today to discuss the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2013
budget request. Before discussing the details of the request, I would
like to take this opportunity to discuss some of the Coast Guard's
recent operational successes, our value and role in the Department of
Homeland Security, and in service to the Nation.
Over the past year, Coast Guard men and women--Active Duty,
Reserve, civilian, and auxiliarists alike--continued to deliver premier
service to the public. In the Midwest, Coast Guard disaster assistance
response teams were among the first responders to residential areas
impacted by severe flooding. In the Western Caribbean, Coast Guard
medium endurance cutters and seagoing buoy tenders interdicted and
supported the multi-agency recovery of self-propelled semi-submersible
vessels. These ``drug subs'' are designed for one specific purpose--to
deliver multi-ton loads of pure cocaine bound for our shores, streets,
and schools. While the use of drug subs is increasingly popular in the
Eastern Caribbean, these interdictions mark the first time we have
encountered drug subs in the Western Caribbean. In the Arctic, the
Coast Guard icebreaker Healy and her crew broke their way through 800
miles of Bering Sea ice to enable the motor vessel Renda to deliver 1.3
million gallons of fuel to the 3,600 people of Nome, Alaska after
extreme weather and ice formation precluded safe delivery of this vital
commodity.
Last year, the Coast Guard responded to 20,510 search and rescue
cases and saved over 3,800 lives; seized over 75 metric tons of cocaine
and 18 metric tons of marijuana destined for the United States; seized
40 vessels, detained 191 suspected smugglers; conducted over 10,400
annual inspections of U.S. flagged vessels; conducted 6,200 marine
casualty investigations; conducted more than 9,000 Port State Control
and Security examinations on foreign flagged vessels; and responded to
3,000 pollution incidents.
I am pleased to report the Coast Guard recently commissioned the
lead Sentinel class fast response cutter, the Bernard C. Webber. Just
over 60 years ago, on February 18, 1952, Boatswain's mate first class
Webber and his three-man 36-foot motorized lifeboat crew rescued 32
souls, one by one, from the 503-foot tank vessel Pendleton after it
broke in two in a nor'easter off Cape Cod featuring 60-foot seas, 70-
knot winds and blinding snow. Petty Officer Webber's seamanship,
courage, and leadership serve as an enduring reminder of the Coast
Guard's value to the Nation.
The fiscal year 2013 budget represents a critical inflection
point--the ships, boats, and aircraft we are investing in today are
vital to ensuring the Coast Guard remains ready to respond to maritime
threats and hazards, well into the future. Indeed, these resources will
not just shape, but in a large part will define the Coast Guard's next
50 years of capability. We are also exercising resource and operational
stewardship while simultaneously preparing for the future. We recently
completed a review of doctrine, policy, and our operations and mission
support structure to ensure we are focusing resources and forces where
they are most needed. This prioritization is reflected in our fiscal
year 2013 budget submission, which focuses on balancing current
operations with our need to recapitalize for the future. However, we
must do so in a manner that sustains our capability to safeguard lives,
protect the environment and facilitate safe and secure commerce
throughout our Maritime Transportation System--a system which carries
95 percent of all U.S. foreign trade and accounts for nearly $700
billion of the U.S. gross domestic product and 51 million U.S. jobs.
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.
fiscal year 2013 request
In recognition of the current fiscal environment, the Coast Guard's
fiscal year 2013 budget strikes the optimal balance between current
operations and investment in future capability to sustain the Coast
Guard's ability to execute its missions, and address the most pressing
operational requirements. This budget request includes investment in
new assets which are critical to ensure the Coast Guard remains capable
of carrying out its missions today and well into the future.
Accordingly, the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2013 budget priorities are
to:
--Responsibly rebuild the Coast Guard;
--Efficiently preserve front-line operations;
--Strengthen resource and operational stewardship; and
--Prepare for the future.
Highlights from our request are included in appendix I.
The Coast Guard cutter Waesche conducts at-sea refueling operations for
the first time in the ship's history.
Responsibly Rebuild the Coast Guard
The Coast Guard continues to focus resources on recapitalizing
cutters, boats, aircraft, and command, control, communications,
computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems,
critical to sustaining the ability to accomplish missions well into the
future. This budget request fully funds the sixth national security
cutter, strengthening the Coast Guard's long-term major cutter
recapitalization effort to replace its aged, obsolete high endurance
cutter fleet as quickly as possible. The fiscal year 2013 investments
are critical to replacing and sustaining aging in-service assets, and
are key to maintaining future capability.
Efficiently Preserve Front-line Operations
To ensure the Coast Guard remains ready to meet the Nation's safety
and security requirements, the fiscal year 2013 budget request provides
a balance between sustaining front-line operational capacity and
rebuilding the Coast Guard. The fiscal year 2013 budget provides
funding to operate and maintain Coast Guard assets and sustain
essential front-line operations. Key investments include funding the
operation of new assets delivered through acquisition programs and
investment in military workforce pay and benefits.
Strengthen Resource and Operational Stewardship
The fiscal year 2013 budget meets essential mission needs while
simultaneously preparing for new and exigent demands. Through a
comprehensive internal review of doctrine, policy, operations and
mission support structure, the Coast Guard has focused resources and
forces where they are most needed, while recognizing the current fiscal
challenges. The fiscal year 2013 budget also proposes administrative
and programmatic reductions to improve efficiency and service delivery,
while continuing investment in Coast Guard activities that provide the
highest return on investment.
Prepare for the Future
The Coast Guard continuously identifies and prepares for emerging
maritime threats facing the Service and the Nation. The fiscal year
2013 budget request recognizes the criticality of the Arctic as a
strategic national priority, given increasing presence and interest by
other nations, the preponderance of natural resources available in this
region, and increasing maritime commercial and recreational activity.
conclusion
The role of the Coast Guard has never been more important. As we
have done for well over two centuries, we remain ``Always Ready'' to
meet the Nation's ever-broadening maritime needs, supported by the
fiscal year 2013 request. I request your full support for the funding
requested for the Coast Guard in the President's fiscal year 2013
budget. Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today. I am pleased to answer your questions.
appendix i--fiscal year 2013 budget request
Responsibly Rebuild the Coast Guard
Surface Assets--$879.5 Million (0 FTE)
The budget provides $879.5 million for surface asset
recapitalization and sustainment initiatives, including:
--National Security Cutter (NSC).--Provides production funding for
the sixth NSC; NSCs will replace the aging fleet of high
endurance cutters, first commissioned in 1967. The acquisition
of NSC No. 6 is vital for performing DHS missions in the far
off-shore regions, including the harsh operating environment of
the Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, as well as providing for
robust homeland security contingency response.
--Fast Response Cutter (FRC).--Provides production funding to procure
fast response cutters (FRC) 19-20. These assets replace the
aging fleet of 110-foot patrol boats, and provide the coastal
capability to conduct search and rescue operations, enforce
border security, interdict drugs, uphold immigration laws,
prevent terrorism, and ensure resiliency to disasters. Hulls
Nos. 17-20 will be procured in fiscal year 2013 using fiscal
year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 funds, maintaining FRC
production at the current rate.
--Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC).--Continues 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.
--Medium Endurance Cutter (MEC).--Completes the Mission Effectiveness
Program for the 270-foot MECs at the Coast Guard Yard.
--Survey and Design.--Initiates survey and design work for a mid-life
availability on the 175-foot Coastal Buoy Tender class.
Air Assets--$74.5 Million (0 FTE)
The budget provides $74.5 million for the following air asset
recapitalization or enhancement initiatives, including:
--HC-144.--Funds production of the 18th HC-144A Maritime Patrol
Aircraft. The HC-144A fleet will provide enhanced maritime
surveillance and medium airlift capability over the legacy HU-
25 aircraft that they replace. The HU-25s will all be removed
from service by the end of their planned service life, in
fiscal year 2014.
--HH-65.--Funds sustainment of key components requiring
recapitalization.
Asset Recapitalization; Other--$76.5 Million (0 FTE)
The budget provides $76.5 million for the following equipment and
services:
--Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR).--Deploys standardized
C4ISR capability to newly fielded NSCs, C-130s and MPAs, and
develops C4ISR capability for other new assets.
--CG-Logistics Information Management System.--Continues development
and prototype deployment to Coast Guard operational assets and
support facilities.
--Nationwide Automatic Identification System (NAIS).--Continues
recapitalizing the existing interim NAIS system in 58 ports and
11 coastal areas by replacing it with the permanent solution
design and technology via the core system upgrade.
Shore Units and Aids to Navigation (ATON)--$69.4 Million (0
FTE)
The budget provides $69.4 million to recapitalize shore
infrastructure for safe, functional, and modern shore facilities that
effectively support Coast Guard assets and personnel:
--Station New York Boat Ramp.--Constructs a boat ramp for launching
small boats at Station New York, New York, for both the Station
and Maritime Safety and Security Team New York.
--Air Station Barbers Point.--Constructs an aircraft rinse rack
facility to properly and effectively rinse C-130 aircraft at
Air Station Barbers Point.
--Major Acquisition Systems Infrastructure.--Commences construction
of piers and support facilities for three FRC homeports;
construction of an MPA training facility at Aviation Technical
Training Center in Elizabeth City, North Carolina; construction
of MPA maintenance facility hangar at the Aviation Logistics
Center at Elizabeth City, North Carolina.
--ATON Infrastructure.--Completes improvements to short-range aids
and infrastructure to improve the safety of maritime
transportation.
Personnel and Management--$117.4 Million (842 FTE)
The budget provides $117.4 million to provide pay and benefits for
the Coast Guard's acquisition workforce.
Efficiently Preserve Front-Line Operations
Pay and Allowances--$88.9 Million (0 FTE)
The budget provides $88.9 million to fund the civilian pay raise
and maintain parity of military pay, allowances, and healthcare with
the 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, which includes pay and personnel benefits for the
military workforce.
Annualization of Fiscal Year 2012--$54.2 Million (260 FTE)
The budget provides $54.2 million to continue critical fiscal year
2012 initiatives.
Operating and Maintenance Funds for New Assets--$47.6
Million (139 FTE)
The budget provides a total of $47.6 million to fund operations and
maintenance of shore facilities and cutters, boats, aircraft, and
associated C4ISR subsystems delivered through acquisition efforts.
Funding is requested for the following assets and systems:
--Shore Facilities.--Funding for the operation and maintenance of
shore facility projects scheduled for completion prior to
fiscal year 2013.
--Response Boat-Medium.--Funding for operation and maintenance of 30
boats.
--Interagency Operations Center (IOC).--Funding for the operation and
maintenance of the Watch Keeper system.
--Rescue 21 (R21).--Funding for the operation and maintenance of the
R21 System in Sector Sault Ste. Marie and Sector Lake Michigan.
--FRC.--Operating and maintenance funding for FRCs Nos. 8-9 and
funding for crews Nos. 9-10. These assets will be homeported in
Key West, Florida. Funding is also requested for shore-side
maintenance personnel needed to support FRCs.
--HC-144A MPA.--Operating and maintenance funding for aircraft Nos.
14-15 and personnel funding to operate and support aircraft
Nos. 15-16.
--Air Station Cape Cod Transition.--Funding to complete a change in
aircraft type allowance, and programmed utilization rates.
--Training Systems for Engineering Personnel.--Funding to support NSC
and FRC training requirements at Training Center Yorktown.
--HC-130H Flight Simulator Training.--Funding to support aircraft
simulator training for HC-130H pilots, flight engineers, and
navigators.
St. Elizabeths Headquarters Consolidation--$24.5 Million (0
FTE)
Provides funding to support the Coast Guard's relocation to the DHS
consolidated headquarters at the St. Elizabeths Campus in Washington,
DC. Funding supports the systematic move of equipment, employees, and
work functions to the new headquarters location, beginning in the third
quarter of fiscal year 2013.
Strengthen Resource and Operational Stewardship
Asset Decommissionings
In fiscal year 2013, in addition to the planned decommissioning of
legacy assets, the Coast Guard will make targeted operational
reductions to prioritize front-line operational capacity and invest in
critical recapitalization initiatives.
High Endurance Cutter (HEC) Decommissionings---$16.8
Million (-241 FTE)
The Coast Guard will decommission the fourth and fifth of the
original fleet of 12 HECs. With the average cutter age at 43 years, the
HEC fleet has become increasingly difficult to maintain and sustain
operationally. The decommissioning of two HECs is critical to support
ongoing major cutter recapitalization efforts. National security
cutters, including the sixth NSC which is fully funded by this budget
request, replace the aging HEC fleet.
110-ft Island Class Patrol Boat Decommissionings---$2.0
Million (-35 FTE)
The Coast Guard will decommission three 110-ft patrol boats in
fiscal year 2013. The 110-ft patrol boats are being replaced by the
FRC.
High Tempo High Maintenance Patrol Boat Operations---$33.5
Million (-206 FTE)
The Coast Guard will terminate the high tempo high maintenance
(HTHM) operations program that facilitates augmented operation of eight
in-service 110-foot patrol boats. Termination of this program coincides
with commissioning of new FRCs which will mitigate this lost capacity.
Close Seasonal Air Facilities---$5.2 Million (-34 FTE)
The Coast Guard will improve the efficiency of domestic air
operations by closing Seasonal Air Facilities and realigning rotary
wing capacity to provide three medium-range H-60 helicopters to the
Great Lakes region to replace the H-65s currently in service. Due to
limited demand for services and improved endurance from the H-60, the
Coast Guard will discontinue operations at two seasonal Coast Guard Air
Facilities at Muskegon, Michigan, and Waukegan, Illinois.
HU-25 Aircraft Retirements---$5.5 Million (-20 FTE)
The Coast Guard will retire the three remaining HU-25 aircraft
assigned to Coast Guard Air Station (CGAS) Cape Cod to allow for the
transition to HC-144A aircraft. In fiscal year 2013, the Coast Guard
will deliver and place in full-operational status three HC-144A
aircraft at CGAS Cape Cod.
Management Efficiencies
The budget proposes administrative and programmatic efficiencies to
improve service delivery, while continuing investment in Coast Guard
activities that provide the highest return on investment.
DHS Enterprise-Wide Efficiencies---$56.3 Million (-24 FTE)
The Coast Guard will seek efficiencies and cost reductions in the
areas of IT infrastructure, Government vehicles, professional services
contracts, non-operational travel, GSA leases, permanent change of duty
station relocation costs for military personnel, and logistics services
by consolidating/centralizing functions in geographically concentrated
areas.
Programmatic Reductions
In fiscal year 2013, the Coast Guard will make targeted reductions
in base program areas. These base adjustments recognize changes in
requirements for selected activities and redirect resources toward
higher priorities, including critical recapitalization projects and
essential front-line operations.
Headquarters Personnel and Support Reduction---$12.7
Million (-131 FTE)
The Coast Guard will eliminate 222 headquarters positions through
attrition and implementation of a civilian hiring freeze in the
Washington, DC area. This reduction preserves the Coast Guard's
critical capabilities to conduct front-line operations; mission
support; and development and implementation of national policies and
regulations.
Recruiting Program Reduction---$9.8 Million (-39 FTE)
The Coast Guard will make reductions to the recruiting program and
selective reenlistment bonuses, which are not needed based on the
current employment outlook.
Other Targeted Program Reductions---$6.2 Million (-62 FTE)
The Coast Guard will make targeted reductions to the intelligence
workforce, organizational performance consultants, and non-reimbursable
detached duty billets.
Targeted Operational Reductions---$3.7 Million (-32 FTE)
Based on an internal review and assessment of operational risk, the
Coast Guard proposes to make targeted operational reductions by
reorganizing the international Mobile Training Team, consolidating PWCS
airborne use of force (AUF) capability at Elizabeth City, North
Carolina; and San Diego, California, and eliminating the Vintage Vessel
National Center of Expertise.
Prepare for the Future
Polar Icebreaker--$8.0 Million \1\ (0 FTE)
Initiates survey and design of a new polar icebreaker to ensure the
Nation is able to maintain a surface presence in the Arctic well into
the future.
Alaska Shore Facilities--$6.1 Million \1\ (0 FTE)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: Funding amounts within this section are included in
totals listed within the Responsibly Rebuild the Coast Guard section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provides funding to recapitalize and expand helicopter hangar
facilities in Cold Bay, Alaska, and recapitalize aviation re-fueling
facilities at Sitkinak, Alaska. These investments will sustain the
Coast Guard's ability to establish effective presence in the Bering Sea
and Aleutian Chain--the ``gateway'' to the Arctic.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Admiral.
Senator, do you have a question? Okay, perfect.
Senator Coats and Senator Cochran will submit questions for
the record, and they have had to leave for an intel briefing.
FAST RESPONSE CUTTERS: PRODUCTION
We will do 5 minutes each of rounds. Let me begin with the
fast response cutters.
Of course, I am familiar with these because they are built
in Louisiana, and I am proud to say in Lockport, Louisiana. I
was there in April with others to commission the first fast
response cutter, the Bernard C. Webber. Now these cutters are
going to provide 2,500 annual operation hours, which will allow
the Coast Guard to close a 25-percent shortfall in patrol boat
hours.
In 2012, we fully funded the Department's request for six
fast response cutters. The Department sold this subcommittee on
the fact that building six maximizes the production line and
actually saves taxpayers $30 million when you get the
efficiency of building a line and keeping the production going.
It also obviously accelerates the delivery of these ships that
are important in your priority.
Last year's budget request indicated that another six were
necessary, but the budget before us includes funding for only
two. Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee released
their draft, and it includes funds for four. If our Senate bill
would include funds for four or more, will you be in a position
to award a contract for six, continuing the savings and the
efficiencies that we tried to create last year, Admiral?
Admiral Papp. Yes, Chairman, absolutely. It is
regrettable--and I understand the confidence and the support
that you gave the Coast Guard by putting six patrol boats in
last year's budget. Unfortunately, in trying to fit within the
top line this year, acquisition funding was reduced by 20
percent.
I was forced into a position of having to maintain the
minimum production levels in all our acquisition projects just
to keep the lines going so that we don't have to restart lines
later on at great cost. So I admit that it is a little bit of a
shell game. What I did was I fit in as many things as I could
and ended up with two FRCs in the fiscal year 2013 budget. And
I was hopeful that we would get permission to be able to use
the 2012 money to keep the production line going at at least
four per year.
But given the scenario that you have suggested here from
the House mark, absolutely. If there are four FRCs in the 2013
budget, that will allow me to execute six this year. And that
is absolutely the way ships should be produced.
You give the shipbuilder a constant stream of funding or a
predictable stream of funding. They can keep their employees
on. They can buy long-lead time parts. It is the most efficient
way to run a shipyard. Much the same way as we need to run the
national security cutter program as well at Huntington Ingalls.
They need to have predictability and a steady funding stream,
so that we can get the best efficiencies and get the best price
for the taxpayer as we build these ships.
NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTERS: POSSIBLE SHARED FLEET WITH NAVY
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, and that leads into my exact
second question with the national security cutter, which is
built across the road in Mississippi. It is the most capable
ship of the Coast Guard's recapitalization surface fleet. Each
NSC is 418 feet long with an operational range of 12,000
nautical miles. It can remain at sea for over 2 months. The
budget request includes funding for the sixth, but no funding
is projected for out-years for the final two.
I know in the past that you have testified that Nos. 7 and
8 are necessary to meet your requirements. When Secretary
Napolitano testified before the subcommittee in March, she
said, ``Before moving ahead on Nos. 7 and 8, we want to make
sure we are coordinated with the Navy.'' Her point was to make
sure the Coast Guard and the Navy fleets are not duplicative
and complement each other.
Have you talked with the Chief of Naval Operations about
your respective fleet plans? Did your conversation provide more
clarity on the need for Nos. 7 and 8? And what are the impacts
to our Nation if Nos. 7 and 8 are not built?
Admiral Papp. The answer to your immediate question,
Chairman, yes, I have spoken with Admiral Greenert. We meet
regularly. We see each other usually about twice per week. But
we held a specific meeting to discuss shipbuilding in
particular to make sure that both of our services are giving
the American citizens the best return on their investment.
And last week, even though I was still recovering, our
staffs got together, and they compared our shipbuilding
programs as well. And what we have determined is that the Navy
is building ships that the Navy needs. The Coast Guard is
building ships that the Coast Guard needs.
And while these fleets are complementary, for best service
to the American people, we need to be able to be interoperable,
share some systems. So that if the worst case happens, Coast
Guard cutters can be used to support the Navy, and likewise
under domestic or security situations, Navy assets can help
supplement the Coast Guard. So what we do is we build
complementary vessels. But I can assure you they are
nonredundant.
If you ask the Chief of Naval Operations, I am sure he will
tell you he doesn't have enough ships to do all the thing he
needs to do. And I will tell you that I don't have enough ships
to do all the things I need to do.
As regards Nos. 7 and 8, I actually see a ray of optimism
there. The fact of the matter is it remains the program of
record, eight national security cutters, and Secretary
Napolitano has confirmed that. And in fact, Nos. 7 and 8 are
listed in the 5-year plan, and it is regrettable there are
zeroes under there. I would like that to be different.
But having said that, when I look at the cumulative figures
that have been projected by the administration and our 5-year
plan, it really brings us closer to the level of funding that I
think is adequate to recapitalize the Coast Guard. In fiscal
year 2014, it calls for almost $1.5 billion.
I have gone on record saying that I think the Coast Guard
needs closer to $2 billion per year to recapitalize, do proper
recapitalization. And over that 5-year period, we build up to
$1.7 billion. So a ray of hope for me is that we are getting
closer to what we need to recapitalize the service.
As regards the figures within the columns for each one of
those years, I think we all know that, year to year, that is a
negotiation process. It is a projection, but every year it
seems to change.
So what the Secretary has done is she has said we need to
compare with the Navy. We need to make sure that we are not
building something that is redundant, that is an unfair burden
on the taxpayers because the Navy can do it or vice versa. And
I think that we have determined in my discussions with the
Chief of Naval Operations that we are not.
Senator Landrieu. Okay. I really appreciate that
clarification.
I am going to turn it over to Senator Lautenberg in a
minute. But because the three of us serve on the Appropriations
Committee, I wanted to say this because I think my colleagues
are well aware of this.
I think the American people will continue to be surprised
that the United States of America does not have a capital
budget. I think the American people are just learning about how
our budgets either operate or don't operate. I think they would
be really shocked and somewhat disappointed that we don't have
a capital budget.
I represented the State of Louisiana for many years. I
served as a legislator and appropriator and a State treasurer.
Senator Lautenberg has experience. Obviously, Senator Murkowski
served as a leader in your house, did you not, Senator?
I mean, we had an operating budget. We had a capital
budget. And so, for long-lead time things that we built, that
took years to build, we would put in our capital budgets,
managed our debt, maintained it, had an operational balanced
budget.
When I look at what I am going to have to fund as the chair
of this subcommittee in homeland security in terms of really
big-ticket items--like finding the funding for your icebreaker
that costs, what, $1 billion plus? Eight hundred to $900
million. We have got to build an icebreaker. We have to build
that icebreaker.
We also have to finish the headquarters complex. Now that
could be some people might think yes or no. But you have got a
new department that is very important. They need to have a
building to operate. That has been put on hold.
So these big capital projects. And then I have got several
members of my subcommittee clamoring to build a $1 billion bio,
what is it, agriculture bio in Kansas. And they want me to fund
this out of our operating budget for homeland security?
I don't know, Senator. I mean, it is not for the
discussion. But you all can appreciate specifically--and I
think we are going to have to do some more things for Alaska,
given the activity that is going on in Alaska, which has not
been there for the last 50 or 100 or ever, I mean, since they
came into statehood.
I could do a whole hearing on offshore Alaska and take up
hours discussing it, which I might do, Senator Murkowski. So we
can explain to people what is actually happening up your way.
But anyway, this is a great challenge for our subcommittee.
I am open to suggestions, and I thank you for trying to be as
efficient as you can be. But at some point, Senator Lautenberg,
we are going to have to bring this to the attention of our
chairman.
But let me turn it over to Senator Lautenberg now.
BAYONNE BRIDGE PROJECT
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Senator Landrieu.
Spoken like a true leader.
I had a long business career before I got here. And capital
budgets, you have an opportunity to amortize your investment
over the life of the article, and so it reduces the need for
cash on a constant basis and is more in keeping with the
standard accounting procedures and giving us some latitude.
I look at the things that you are asked to do in the Coast
Guard, and there is never a place almost that your people and
your organization can't be of help, whether it is moving into a
combat zone, whether it is helping in the case of landings or
knowledge or what have you.
And the world is changing around us. Even though some here
don't believe that global warming is happening, the fact of the
matter is that it is happening, and it is happening in a way
that will create more demand for Coast Guard presence.
And I know that Senator Murkowski is very conscious of what
is happening up near Alaska with the ships of other countries
now getting into places that were not available to them before.
So you have to be a bit of a magician, Admiral, and we are
going to try to help you get the goods.
As mentioned, the Bayonne Bridge in New Jersey is there,
will be there to accommodate larger ships coming through the
Panama Canal 2014, and it is essential to our region's economy
and to our Nation's economy. And while we want a thorough
environmental review, Admiral, we want it done as quickly as
possible.
As a leader of the review process, can you commit to
working with us, with me to expedite consideration of this
project?
Admiral Papp. Senator Lautenberg, I certainly do. We are
committed to working that project as quickly as possible. We
are already at work with the Port Authority and the local
agencies. I, myself, understand the value of that project,
having cut my teeth as a young officer working in Kill Van Kull
and Newark Bay underneath that same Bayonne Bridge that needs
to be replaced.
And I remember how tight it was there for ships even, I
hate to say, 25 to 30 years ago when I was working there to get
through that area. So that bridge, we wondered at that time, it
probably should have been replaced then. So it is certainly in
need of replacement now in order to keep the Port of Newark
viable up there.
So we understand the importance, and I commit to you to
track this and work with my people up in that area to make sure
that we are moving this along as quickly as possible.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. More than 3 million vehicles
cross the Bayonne Bridge every year. They connect two roads in
the National Highway System. The Coast Guard is the lead agency
on the Federal review, but the Department of Transportation
(DOT) also is a key player. What steps are taken to involve DOT
in this review process, Admiral?
Admiral Papp. We work with the Department of Transportation
very closely. Being our legacy department, we still have many
contacts, and we have liaisons over there.
And currently, we are working on a very important project
out on the Columbia River right now. And Secretary LaHood and I
met with the Oregon and Washington State delegations to make
sure that we are keeping that project going along. So we have
contact at the highest levels and at the working level of the
DOT to make sure that these high-priority projects get the
proper attention.
FULFILLING CRITICAL MISSIONS
Senator Lautenberg. This budget has its shortcomings. We
take whatever we can get, but doesn't mean we have to be happy
along the way. You are having a difficult time, you said,
meeting all the Coast Guard's missions under the current
budget.
Now how will the Coast Guard fulfill its critical missions
if automatic spending cuts further reduce your budget next
year?
Admiral Papp. Senator, I simply do not know. I mean, I can
give you a lot of hyperbole right now talking about massive
cuts, massive decommissionings of ships, and all of that is
true. I don't have the details. Quite frankly, it is a
nightmare scenario for us.
It would cause us to have to reduce our force
significantly. I am not talking about 1,000 people like in this
budget. It would be multiple thousands of people from the Coast
Guard and likely front-line operational units that would have
to be decommissioned, perhaps training centers.
It would be going back to some of the things that we were
confronting in the late 1990s as our budget was whittled down
over time.
DRUG INTERDICTION
Senator Lautenberg. Madam Chairman, we have to fight our
way to not let that happen. And I am sure, Senator Murkowski,
you agree. We are both water-contacted States. Not quite as
much as you, but little New Jersey has got a lot of coastline
for the size of the land mass.
The new things that occur outside of your bailiwick that
fall to further responsibilities for you. You mentioned these
drug subs and people out there trying to create ways to get
past the Coast Guard's purview and the rest of our law
enforcement organizations. And according to the military,
limited resources allow for only one-third of the drug
shipments that the United States knows about to be intercepted.
Now you said recently the Coast Guard will likely have to
reduce its drug interdiction role in Latin America with limited
resources. Now we pay for these deficiencies, one way or
another. We pay for it in advance and prepare ourselves to stop
these things before they become problems in both pain and
suffering in so many ways.
Costs continue to be there, whether it is incarceration or
trials or whatever. And if we can cut the supply short before
it gets here, we are a lot better off. If the Coast Guard's
role is reduced, what is going to be the impact on our ability
to prevent drugs from entering?
Admiral Papp. Sir, this is one of those scenarios that
doesn't make sense to me. I talked about the drug sub that we
interdicted just this last month. There was another one just a
couple of weeks ahead of that where we got 2 tons of cocaine,
which we actually seized. We estimate in this sub, because they
scuttled it, but ordinarily those that we have captured carry
around 5 tons of cocaine.
We interdict or stop, the Coast Guard, in the transit zone
between South America and where it enters Central America
annually roughly about 100 tons of pure cocaine. There is about
700 tons that are produced in South America. There is a market
for about 400 tons in the United States. We interdict about 100
tons.
The entire law enforcement establishment of the United
States in the lower 48--Federal, State, and local--only seize
40 tons each year. So if we can take it out of the transit zone
before it reaches Central America, where it destabilizes
countries and creates violence, and that violence is
approaching our southwest borders, I think we are much better
off.
But the only way we can do that is by having substantial
offshore cutters that we can deploy down to the deep Caribbean
and to the Eastern Pacific to sit off Colombia and the other
surrounding countries to interdict those vessels as they try to
make their way up to Central America. Ninety percent of the
cocaine produced goes by maritime routes.
We know at least through South America; it has to transit
the maritime to get into Central America. And as you say, out
of all the intelligence that we have queued, we are only able
to prosecute about 30 percent of that intelligence.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Admiral. Keep the
ports tight and ready, and we will try to give you the
equipment and you bring the spirit. Thank you very much.
Admiral Papp. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Landrieu. Senator Murkowski.
ICEBREAKERS
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And you remind us all, and I think this bears repeating,
that what we are seeing in the Arctic right now is absolutely
unprecedented, unprecedented in our Nation's history, in the
history of the globe. Because what we are seeing is we are
seeing more water up there. And as Admiral Allen said before
you, Admiral Papp, I don't know whether it is climate change or
what it is, but all I know is that the Coast Guard has more
water that we are in charge of.
So what we have done with our Coast Guard is the mission
has expanded because we are seeing a change in the Arctic. We
are seeing more water that the Coast Guard is now charged with,
and yet what we haven't done as a Congress is step up to that
responsibility, acknowledge that as an Arctic nation, we need
to have an icebreaker. We haven't stepped forward with the
resources necessary or the manpower or the assets.
And so, we have got to recognize our role here and provide
the requisite support for our Coast Guard. As I mentioned in my
opening comments, Admiral, you have stated that the United
States is behind the power curve regarding the Arctic. There
was a Naval War College Gaming Department report that found
that the Navy is also woefully unprepared and ill-equipped for
activities in the Arctic.
So we have got a situation here, whether it is potential
for resource development that we are hopeful we will move
forward this summer, or whether it is the increased traffic
that we are seeing with just commercial activities and
container ships moving minerals from Russia, moving through the
straits there, or whether it is cruise ship activity, there is
greatly stepped up activity in the north.
So, Admiral, I would ask you to dream just a little bit for
me. And I know that you are hesitant to say truly what you
need. But as an Arctic nation, we don't have icebreaking
capacity right now. The Polar Sea is being decommissioned. The
Polar Star is being refurbished. She will be back in the waters
in 1.5 years, but she has got a limited life expectancy, I
understand, of just about another 10 years.
We have got the Healy that is our research medium-strength
cutter, but we don't have any icebreakers. What do we need as
an Arctic nation to meet the responsibilities that we have?
Admiral Papp. Senator, part of the problem is, you and I
understand that we are an Arctic nation. It is hard to get the
rest of the Nation's attention on----
Senator Murkowski. So if you and I were in charge?
Admiral Papp. First of all is educating people. This chart
that I put down in front of you, the Chief of Naval Operations
had an equivalent chart as well, and he showed where all his
threats are. And one of the things that I found interesting is
he had a little symbol for chokepoints. In other words, in the
Straits of Malacca, in the Straits of Gibraltar, and other
places, he had these symbols that indicate that they were
chokepoints. And those are very important to freedom of the
seas for the United States.
And when I looked across his chart, I said you missed two
key areas. And he said what do you mean? I said the Bering
Strait and Unimak Pass. For our Nation's prosperity, those are
two key chokepoints, but the Chief of Naval Operations for the
United States didn't even recognize that because there are no
threats for him to deal with up there at present.
Senator Murkowski. And if we could just tell our colleagues
here that with there, the Bering Straits, as I understand, is
about 52, 57 miles, or something like that?
Admiral Papp. That is about it between us and Russia, yes,
ma'am.
Senator Murkowski. Pretty close.
Admiral Papp. And Unimak Pass, which is even less than
that, between two islands is on the great circle route between
the Asian Pacific and our west coast ports, and there are
literally thousands of ships that transit through there,
carrying fuel and other things that put us at risk for
environmental disasters, sinkings, and other things.
So these are key issues for the U.S. Coast Guard.
Senator Murkowski. So how many ships, how many icebreakers
do we need?
Admiral Papp. Icebreakers, we have done a study. Our high-
latitude study said that, optimally, we should have three heavy
icebreakers and three medium icebreakers. But that is also
because we have responsibilities in Antarctica right now as
well.
With our present laydown of icebreakers, we are at an at-
risk position. In fact, I lucked out this particular year or we
lucked out because the National Science Foundation lost their
lease for the Swedish icebreaker that they were contracting to
break out McMurdo in Antarctica this year, and they came to me
and asked if I would change Healy's operational schedule and
deploy Healy down to Antarctica.
And my response was, no, I wanted to keep Healy close
because we are at an at-risk position. And then, lo and behold,
we had Nome freeze in, and we had to do that emergency fuel
delivery----
Senator Murkowski. We appreciate your foresight in not
sending Healy down south.
Admiral Papp. I am delighted that I don't have to sit here
today and explain to you why Healy was in Antarctica when Nome
was starving for fuel. But the truth of the matter is we simply
lucked out.
Senator Murkowski. Let me just finish up then because my
time has expired here. We have got $8 million now in the budget
requested for the study and the design of the new icebreaker. I
have indicated to my colleague that it is somewhere between
$800 million and $900 million, an 8-year build-out for an
icebreaker.
Can you give me a little bit of detail in terms of what is
next in the acquisition process, what we can realistically
expect in terms of a timeframe for a new icebreaker to be
launched?
Admiral Papp. Yes, ma'am. I would say the $8 million is a
good start. Survey and design. We need to survey the
interagency. This is not just a Coast Guard icebreaker. It is a
United States icebreaker and a very valuable asset to this
country.
So we need to make sure that the Department of Defense is
served, the National Science Foundation is served, the
Department of the Interior is served. We need to reach out
across the interagency to make sure we are making
accommodations for everybody. We didn't necessarily do that in
the past.
Although Polar Star and Polar Sea were the best icebreakers
in the world 30 years ago, they weren't really conducive for
some of the things that the National Science Foundation has to
do and other agencies. We built great icebreakers, but they
weren't necessarily great scientific vessels.
So if we are going to invest this much of our taxpayers'
money, we really need the time to go across the interagency.
Nobody really comes together until you have some money in hand.
We now have the money in hand. People will come. We will
consult with the interagency and come up with the design that
best serves the United States.
Given that deliberative process and our current acquisition
rules, I would say that 10 years is probably a reasonable time
period to figure before we have that ship delivered and able to
start operations. That is why we have invested in Polar Star,
to return her to service, so that we can gap that period for at
least 10 years until we get the new icebreaker in the water.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate your statement there,
Admiral, and I recognize the difficulties. I think we do want
to make sure that we have got good design that does fit well
with the needs that are out there.
But I think we are doing a better job in terms of reminding
people that we do have responsibilities as an Arctic nation,
and that we are unprepared. And what can we do to expedite the
process? What can we do to perhaps look to different
alternatives?
And that is why I mentioned in my opening comments, maybe
it is time that we look to some of the other alternatives that
might be out there in the private sector. I know that leasing
is something that the Coast Guard has said you have got some
real reservations about. But given what we are dealing with
with budget issues and dealing with the time period that we are
all talking about here, it causes me to wonder.
Because I don't want us to be sitting 5 years from now not
being able to meet the needs and wishing that we had done
something either interim or had tried to expedite the process.
I think we are all very concerned that we have got some real
gaps currently, and how we deal with that is going to be very,
very critical.
Admiral Papp. Yes, ma'am. And I didn't want to leave you
with the thought that I am not open to other ideas. I am. It
has been suggested on the House side as well, and we will look
at the leasing opportunities and assess how that works.
I have just watched Shell Oil go out and get one built very
quickly. It may not be the type of icebreaker that we would
want. But on the other hand, you can get it done quickly. And
if we can get it done quickly for less money, we are always
open to something like that. So we will investigate that
possibility.
Senator Murkowski. Appreciate that. I will have more
questions in the next round.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator.
INNOVATIVE FINANCING SOLUTIONS
And that really leads into the question that I wanted to
ask about options for meeting the challenge that we have. We
have already made it clear that the need is there. The budget,
as we have been budgeting, is not going to meet that need.
So I am either going to do two things. We are either going
to create a capital budget for this subcommittee, or we are
going to look for some innovative financing solutions. And I
would like you to talk for 1 minute about innovative financing
solutions that either the Coast Guard has considered or you
have observed the Navy.
And you don't have to go into too much detail, but give us
some idea that there might be a way or two out of the situation
that we are in. Take 1 minute or 2 to describe what you are
hearing or what you are observing, what you consider, and if
you have the current authority to do that. And if not, do you
need this subcommittee or another committee to provide you with
the authority you need?
Admiral Papp. Thank you, Chairman.
Going back to your last round of questioning and the
statement you made about the capital investment plan and your
comments now, a point that I would like to make is you
frequently use the word ``leadership.'' And I think that is a
key element to all of this that you are talking about.
Leaders have to be concerned about year-to-year, but if you
are a true leader and not a manager, you are looking out. You
have vision. You have a plan. You take your service or your
agency, you have an objective 10, 20, 30, or 40 years down the
road that you are building toward because you have to have that
vision to take into consideration the potential threats that
your country is going to face along the line.
The challenge for leaders in this town is we are consumed
by people whose vision only goes from year-to-year. And we
spend about 75 percent of our time dealing with people who do
not have vision, that only focus on year-to-year challenges and
how to fit within a top line, and it consumes us.
If we had some way to have stable, predictable, consistent
funding for our projects, you gain the efficiencies of being
able to transfer that to industry, which looks for stable,
consistent, predictable funding for the projects and their
workforces and their capital plans all along the line.
Part of the challenge that I face is in order to comply
with A-11 requirements, we have in the past had to try to fit
entire costs of one ship into one budget year. And when the
total cost, long-lead production and post-production cost for,
let us say, a national security cutter gets up in the vicinity
of about $700 million, and I am only getting $1.2 billion or
$1.4 billion in acquisition money, that is half our acquisition
budget right there.
Senator Landrieu. So what is an alternative? I mean, just
roughly. I mean, some other countries must be experiencing some
of these challenges. The private sector experiences some
similar challenges.
So what are some options that you hear about? Is a leasing
arrangement possible? And if so, are you authorized to consider
it, or do you need new authorizations?
Admiral Papp. I will have to get back to you for the record
on that. We are looking at that because the question has come
up so often, and I think we are----
Senator Landrieu. I appreciate you taking a look at it.
Admiral Papp. We are all a little reluctant. I mean, I have
leased cars in the past. And I spend a lot of money, and at the
end of 3 years, I don't have a car.
So the Coast Guard's practice, because of our funding
levels for two centuries now, is we generally get a lot more
out of our assets than any other agency. There is no other navy
in the world, certainly not the U.S. Navy, that would keep
ships like ours around 40, 45 years. They are generally
decommissioned at about 25 years.
So we have this mindset of taking care of things for long
periods of time. Maybe there is a better way of doing it.
Getting for short term and then turning around and getting
newer things. But we will----
Senator Landrieu. Okay. I just want you to know that this
subcommittee is not interested in managing on the margins. Our
subcommittee is interested in helping you build the Coast Guard
we need for the country. And in that, I need you to provide us
with some options and some information.
[The information follows:]
For purposes of executing the duties and functions of the Coast
Guard, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, under 14
U.S.C. 92, may within the limits of available appropriations ``design
or cause to be designed, cause to be constructed, accept as gift, or
otherwise acquire vessels. . . .'' The Federal Acquisition Regulation
defines ``acquisition'' as ``acquiring by contract with appropriated
funds supplies or services. . . . by and through purchase or lease. .
. .'' The Federal Acquisition Regulation further provides that leasing
is appropriate if entering into a lease is advantageous to the
Government. These basic authorities establish that the Secretary has
the ability to acquire a vessel for the Coast Guard, through a lease
arrangement. Whether a lease is advantageous must be evaluated based on
a host of factors, including the likelihood of sufficient budget
authority and funding to support the lease, and the comparative costs
between leasing and outright purchase.
While there are ways to mitigate risks and costs associated with
leasing, the reality for the Coast Guard is that given the need for a
domestic producer to design and construct a specific vessel unique to
Coast Guard multi-mission requirements, the risks are enormous for the
shipbuilder. The shipbuilder will seek to shift those risks and costs
to the Coast Guard. That dynamic is likely to undermine many of the
advantages the Coast Guard would seek to exploit by pursuing a lease.
The Coast Guard has traditionally acquired its capital assets
through procurement. This approach is undertaken primarily due to the
length of time the Coast Guard maintains these assets in service. For
example, the majority of the Coast Guard's major cutters have been in
service for more than 40 years, which from a business case perspective,
generally makes acquisition more cost effective than leasing.
Senator Landrieu. I think Senator Murkowski and I are in a
great position in the leadership positions that we hold, both
on Appropriations and Energy, et cetera, to think outside of
the box and to make some things happen. I have no intention of
serving as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and
operating around the margins.
I will not be constrained by the current nonsense that I
hear about the budget of the United States. And so, while I
realize that resources are limited, ideas are not limited. And
dreams are not limited, and new approaches aren't limited. And
so, we are going to explore them because I intend to build and
support the Coast Guard the country needs.
We can't close our eyes to the things happening around the
world. I mean, what the Senator described in Alaska, whether
people acknowledge it or not has no bearing on whether it is
true. I mean, it is true, period. Their acknowledgment of it or
their education of it matters nothing to me because we know
what we have to do.
And when I look at the budget that I have, I honestly have
to say I can't do it, and I am not prepared to not do it. So I
have really got a big challenge here, and I need you to help
me.
HOUSING AND CHILD CARE FACILITIES
Let me just move to one more question and then I am going
to submit the rest for writing. But I am very interested in
this issue. First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Biden have spent
a lot of their time on something that I think is very
important, and that is really meeting our commitment to the men
and women in the military by caring for their families.
Everybody I have ever met that served in any service has
said to me over and over again, and I am sure, Senator, to you.
``Please, Senator, don't worry about me. I want you to take
care of my spouse. I want you to take care of my children.''
So I have taken that to heart, and we have tried to focus
some efforts as appropriators on housing, on daycare, on good
education systems for our men and women in uniform. I am sure
that the men and women of the Coast Guard tell you the same
thing.
So, in our budget last year, we plussed up a little bit
what we could on our daycare and our education. But unlike the
Army and the Navy, of which I serve on the Milcon subcommittee,
which are in cities and near urban areas, the Coast Guard finds
itself in very rural areas, just by the nature of your mission.
I mean, you are on the coast. Sometimes there are big
cities there, but sometimes, often--and I am sure this is true
in Alaska--it is very rural. So what are we doing to help our
Coast Guard families? Could we suggest some things, some new
opportunities for financing, and how tough is the situation
that you are facing?
And if you could sort of describe the general housing that
your Coast Guard people and families are living in. Is it very
good? Is it mediocre? Is it very poor? If you could help us
understand what we might be able to do because we want to make
sure our families are safe and that we really do honor their
service by providing them a safe and adequate place to live.
Admiral Papp. Thank you, ma'am.
I think, as you know, my wife Linda and I have taken this
to heart. Two of our highest-priority projects that we have
been working in all the extra time that we have in our visits
as we travel around the country is housing for our people and
getting proper child care facilities for our people as well.
That is why we so deeply appreciated the plus-up that we
received last year, and we have put that to good use. We have
lowered cost for our junior families to be able to put their
children in child care centers. We have brought on new
instructors. We have trained people so that they can do at-home
daycare as well. We have also had the opportunity to take on a
couple of housing projects that we desperately need.
But I would categorize housing for our people, because that
is a specific question, I would say mediocre to poor for the
most part, particularly when you compare it to what the
Department of Defense has. And I will qualify that by saying
that we have been able to take advantage of, in numerous areas
now, the authorities that the Department of Defense has for
public-private ventures.
I was just out in the 14th Coast Guard district, Hawaii,
recently to do some official visits out there. We transferred
property. It used to be the Coast Guard Red Hill housing area.
We transferred that property to the Army, and the Army took it
over as the manager. The Army used its authorities, and it
built brand-new houses. And I toured a couple of those.
Senator Landrieu. Aren't they amazing?
Admiral Papp. I am proud to say our Coast Guard people live
in those houses. I, myself, live in a public-private venture
house. Now we sold the Commandant's home that we had for 40
years, and we went public-private venture with the Air Force
over at Bolling. So I know the benefits of that process.
The challenge for the Coast Guard is we will never have
enough money in our budget to be able to score against
contracts. Plus, it is hard to get contractors to come in
because we are so widely dispersed. They really need a large
focused area. That is why we are using the Department of
Defense, and I think that is the best route for us right now.
We are doing it in Puerto Rico. We are doing it in the
Alameda area, San Francisco area and, as I said, out in Hawaii,
and it is working very well for us.
To take care of that mediocre to poor housing, we have
taken some of our money, and we have done a complete survey of
all our housing across the Coast Guard. We will probably divest
ourselves of some of that poor housing in order to take the
limited resources that we have and improve the mediocre up to
good.
And we are well into that project. We have created a
project line at one of our civil engineering units that is
focused solely on our Coast Guard housing, and we are moving
out smartly to make sure that we do better for our people.
In Alaska, for instance in Juneau, we found that there were
people waiting 6 months for housing up there in some cases. And
we have now instituted Government leases, and we have relieved
that challenge that we face. So it is a multivariable problem
for us that we are confronted with because we are so widely
dispersed and that we don't have the same authorities as the
Department of Defense.
One of the other things that we are very proud of as well
is we have taken our limited money, and some of our commanding
officers out there have initiated self-help projects. Our
people who live in the housing, with limited funding that we
have to buy paint and materials, have done self-help projects
and done significant repairs and improvements to the housing.
We had hoped to be able to take the proceeds from the sales
of Coast Guard properties like the Commandant's house. We sold
the Commandant's house for nearly $2 million. And we thought
that that was going to go in a revolving fund that we would be
able to then take out and use for improvements to the housing
that we already own.
What I have discovered is the way the law was written or
the bill was written, it is a little challenging, and it gets
scored against our other budget. So we have got that money in
escrow right now, and we are investigating to see what we need
to do to----
Senator Landrieu. I am going to help you fix that, and I am
going to put language in my bill to make sure that when you
sell surplus property, you get to keep the proceeds to invest
back into your housing. And I don't know how much pushback I am
going to get, but I am going to try to do it.
Senator Murkowski, go ahead.
SHORE-SIDE SUPPORT ASSETS
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I appreciate that you brought up the quality of life issues
and what we are doing for our families. And Admiral, please
convey my personal thanks to your wife. Linda has taken a true
leadership role and in doing I think a very considerable reach-
out to the families and to look at issues that I think we
recognize is the quality of life things that will keep our men
and women within the Coast Guard. So it is very, very
important.
And I would also be remiss if I did not acknowledge the
very difficult situation that the men and women in Kodiak are
facing currently. We had a double homicide on the Kodiak air
base there that is as yet unresolved. And in a small island
community like Kodiak, it is, I think, quite nerve-wracking for
the families concerned about their security.
I know the Federal agencies are working hard and with the
great help of the Coast Guard to try to resolve this. But when
we talk about the health and safety, I think we are always
concerned when there is something of this nature. So my
thoughts and prayers go out to all those that are working so
hard to resolve this.
I have spent most of my focus this morning on the issue of
icebreakers, but I think we recognize that we are also going to
require some shore-side support facilities, both for surface
and afloat assets. Contained within your budget here is support
for the shore-side facility, $6.1 million to recapitalize and
expand the hangar facilities there in Cold Bay and also the
refueling facilities there at Sitkinak. Very important.
But I think it is important for people to understand that
when we are talking about servicing, using our helicopters
going from Kodiak to respond up to Barrow, it would be the
equivalent, if you will, of basing yourself in Miami and flying
across to San Diego to respond. This is what we are talking
about.
And so, not only are our helicopter assets limited, but
where do you stop to fuel up? How do you get from point A to
point B when the weather is difficult? So having these
additional facilities, I think, is going to be key and will be
part of what we have to move forward in the Arctic.
We have got community leaders, as you know, in spots along
the Northwest that are all advocating for improved
infrastructure, whether it is Nome or Kotzebue, Port Clarence,
the other locations that are willing to help meet the needs of
this changing Arctic, focus on the deepwater port, and the
study that we are all awaiting.
And I guess the question to you this morning, Admiral, on
that is what is the Coast Guard's involvement at this point in
time in the planning for these locations? Are you working with
the Corps of Engineers on this? Where are we with regards to
the deepwater port, as well as some of the onshore
infrastructure, the shore-side assets that we are talking
about?
Admiral Papp. Right. As far as the deepwater port project
goes, certainly that is of interest to me because we are going
to be increasingly sending our ships, our aircraft, our people
up there, and we need a means of support for them as well. I
will admit to you that I don't have the details of where we are
as of today.
Admiral Ostebo and his folks up in Juneau and Anchorage
have been monitoring and working with the Corps of Engineers
and the State to look at recommendations and make
determinations as to where we should go up there.
Senator Murkowski. Who is the lead agency on that? Is it
the Corps of Engineers? Is it Coast Guard? Do you know?
Admiral Papp. My belief--it would be the Corps of
Engineers--is inevitably, whatever you have to do, there is
going to be structures that are placed in the water, perhaps
some dredging that has to occur. And all of that is a challenge
up there for any one of those ports.
Senator Murkowski. And it may just be that I need to visit
with Admiral Ostebo myself and just get a better understanding
in terms of where we are. Because I have streams of folks
coming in, wanting to know where we are, whether or not--
wherever it is Nome, Kotzebue, Port Clarence, wherever, what
the situation is on the ground. And I would like to have a
little better understanding.
At a minimum, I think what I would like is to know what the
requirements are for the deepwater port, the pier service
location because it may be if we know what the requirements are
ahead of time, you will have communities say, we can't meet
that or we can meet that. So that they know whether or not
there is more that they might be able to offer up. Are you
aware of whether or not we have pinned any of that down yet?
Admiral Papp. No, we haven't. And quite frankly, what I
have been focused on is what are the infrastructure needs that
the Coast Guard will need up there operating?
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Admiral Papp. We haven't projected any shore-side
construction. I mean, at a minimum right now, there is a need
for hangar space in Barrow.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Admiral Papp. And we are not talking deepwater port when we
talk that. But in terms of conducting Coast Guard operations,
at some point in time, we are going to need a communications
infrastructure across the North Slope. We are probably going to
need expanded landing strip capability, tarmacs, a hangar,
places to put people, all of which don't exist in Barrow right
now, but that is the optimal spot for it.
The challenge I face is I have probably about, right now as
we speak, a $2 billion shore backlog of repairs and
improvements needed for shore infrastructure, and we haven't
even begun to consider what we might need on the North Slope up
there. In this year's budget, I think we try to get about $200
million a year in the budget to try chipping away at that
backlog.
Last year, we got close to $200 million. We are down to
about $70 million because of tough tradeoffs we had to make in
the budget this year. So, suffice it to say, we aren't making a
lot of progress against that backlog, and it is very difficult
to take on new projects for infrastructure as well.
That is why it is so important for this national security
cutter. For the foreseeable future--I would say the next 5
years--we are going to be safe and secure up there during the
months that Shell and the other companies are up there
drilling, and the influx of people and ships that will bring.
Because a national security cutter, quite frankly, is floating
infrastructure.
It has a flight deck. It has worldwide communications,
command, and control. It can sustain itself for 90 or more days
with fuel, water, and supplies that it brings on. And it is
like having a sector Anchorage and being able to uproot it and
sail it up there off the North Slope. So it will serve us well
for the next 5 years or so as we start putting together plans
for what we need for infrastructure up there in the Arctic.
NUMBER OF FAST RESPONSE CUTTERS
Senator Murkowski. Yes, the national security cutters are
incredibly impressive. Let me ask one more question, if I may,
Madam Chairman, and then I will submit additional questions for
the record.
And this relates, too, to the fast response cutters. I
guess the question would be what the ideal number is. It is my
understanding that if we don't move forward with what I am
assuming would be the ideal number out there, that the proposal
currently, which is Ketchikan receiving two of the FRCs--and I
understand also Hawaii would receive two additionally--that
those are then not necessarily off the table, but for the
foreseeable future we may not be seeing those assets coming
north. Is that your understanding?
Admiral Papp. I have high confidence that this project is
going to continue through to completion. With this budget, we
will be up to 20 of the fast response cutters of the 58 that we
planned to build out in the program of record, and it has got
great support. So I see us continuing.
Now given the funding levels in any particular year, yes,
there could be some delays in how they are and when they are
delivered. We are hopeful that we can keep up the schedule that
we currently have.
Under the scenario that was given earlier, we put six back
into 2012. And if we were to build four or more in 2013, that
keeps us on track and moving along. It also gives us
substantial savings as well. When you are building six per year
down in Lockport, you are saving yourselves probably about,
saving us and the taxpayers about $30 million a year.
Senator Murkowski. And keeping that production moving is
good again for the efficiencies, but there is also a real
concern that if we do reduce it--you are talking about minimum
production levels. If we go below those minimums, I think there
is real concern about how we meet that ideal number, that
number that I think you and I would agree is necessary to
provide for the work that needs to be done.
Admiral Papp. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER COST
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator.
And I have just two brief questions. We are going to close
out by 11:30 a.m.
Following up the long-lead time on the national security
cutter, our subcommittee included $77 million above the request
for the Coast Guard to acquire long-lead time materials for
national security cutter No. 6 in advance of production. We
have talked about this, but I just want to be clear. How has
this funding helped minimize the cost for the national security
cutter?
And if no funding is provided for NSC No. 7, will there be
a likely break in production? And for each delay, what are the
projected cost increases for those cutters?
Admiral Papp. Yes. First of all, we are deeply appreciative
that we received that $77 million last year. And in fact, just
to show the efficiencies of having predictability and a funding
stream and everything else, my recollection is we actually came
in $2 million below that for the long-lead materials because
they were able to gain some efficiencies through their
purchasing processes, and we executed that.
Having those materials on hand allows the ship to be
constructed. Our estimate is between $30 million to $40 million
in savings, and it gets us the ship delivered a year earlier.
So if there is any break in subsequent funding for follow-on
national security cutters, you can expect probably a cost
increase, an every year delay of probably about 10 percent is
what we estimate. And a commensurate delay in delivery.
Senator Landrieu. Okay. Let me just close out with some
comments about the Panama Canal because I think this is
something that is also, Senator Murkowski, just game-changing
for our country. I have some information here that I want to
submit to the record about these new Panamax cruise ships.
The length of the new Panamax cruise ship is 1,200 feet.
The current lock, the length of the current, the old lock is
1,050 feet. So when the new locks are built, the new locks are
going to 1,400 feet to accommodate a new length for these huge
cruise ships of 1,200 feet.
So for people to understand, the cruise ships that are
coming through, that want to come through the Panama Canal,
physically cannot fit through the canal today, and that is why
it is being expanded. In addition to the tremendous potential
growth in cruise ships, which the Coast Guard is responsible--
not the Navy--but the Coast Guard is responsible for the safety
of the souls on these cruise ships, and there are more and more
souls now that are going to be on the cruise ships in the event
that something would happen.
You also, I think, have some obligation for any pollution
or discharges that are illegal. And it is growing industry of
which your State, of course, benefits. So does my State. But
these are the kinds of extraordinary changes that are taking
place that I don't think our budgets, Senator, are preparing us
to accommodate.
This is just one industry. This isn't the cargo. The large,
large containers of cargo that are going to be unloading three
times to four times the amount of the containers. So I know we
have a real challenge before our budget, and I am not going to
spend the next 5 years, 6 years, or 10 years, as long as I am
here, nibbling around the margins. Not going to happen.
So we are going to have to find a way forward that
accommodates the reality of industry and life and challenges in
the United States, and we have a big job to do.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
So I thank you, Admiral, for your testimony. Please submit
anything else about the Panama Canal for the record, about
Alaska, about our lease opportunities, about new ways of doing
things, because we obviously can't continue to put the pencil
to this budget and wake up in 20 years and think we have done
our job. Because our job will not have been done well.
[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
support for military families
Question. Last year, First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden
launched efforts to strengthen support for military families and set
four strategic priorities:
--Enhance the psychological health of the military family;
--Ensure excellence in military children's education and development;
--Develop career and educational opportunities for military spouses;
and
--Improve the quality and availability of child care services.
In fiscal year 2012, we included $9.3 million to help Coast Guard
families offset the costs for child care. We also included $20 million
to address a shortage of military housing in areas where there is a
lack of affordable accommodations.
Can you describe what the Coast Guard is doing to make additional
improvements in these areas?
Answer. The Coast Guard is using the fiscal year 2012 appropriation
of $20 million to build 15 family units and complete initial site work
for future phases of housing construction in Columbia River Astoria,
Oregon and renovate one wing of unaccompanied personnel housing to meet
current construction code and habitability standards in Cape Cod,
Massachusetts. These two initiatives will enable the Coast Guard to
address critical housing shortfalls affecting military family readiness
and provide for the well-being of our junior enlisted personnel.
Additionally, the Coast Guard leases residential housing for military
families in locations that lack adequate affordable housing, and most
recently entered into leases in Juneau, Alaska for single non-rated
personnel assigned to afloat units and not entitled to basic allowance
for housing. The Coast Guard continues to look for situations where we
can partner with DOD and leverage their housing programs. In the past,
we have successfully partnered with DOD and their housing areas, such
as the joint Army-Coast Guard project at Red Hill, Hawaii, and the
Navy-Coast Guard partnership at Belle Chase, Louisiana.
The Coast Guard is using the additional $9.3 million to expand our
Childcare Subsidy Program. The Coast Guard has adjusted income
categories to align with DOD child care programs and increase the total
family income cap, offsetting the cost of child care for additional
Coast Guard families. In addition, the Coast Guard received funding for
seven training and curriculum specialist (TAC) and five child
development services specialist (CDSS) positions. Recruitment efforts
for these positions are currently in progress. The seven TACs will be
assigned to our Child Development Centers (CDC) to ensure the centers'
continued accreditation by providing consistent, enhanced curriculum
for both CDC staff and the children attending the CDCs. The five CDSSs
will allow the Coast Guard to sustain and expand our Family (In-Home)
Child Care Program, increasing the availability and accessibility of
child care for families in Coast Guard-owned and leased housing. The
CDSSs will also assist both the CDCs and Coast Guard families in
addressing child educational and developmental issues.
Question. Has the Coast Guard asked the authorization committees
for authority to spend receipts deposited in the Coast Guard Housing
Fund on military housing without the funds being subject to
appropriation? If so, what is the status of that request? Does the
Coast Guard have an estimate of potential receipts from the sale of
surplus property?
Answer. The Coast Guard has not requested the authority to spend
Coast Guard Housing Fund moneys without an appropriation.
The table below depicts the receipts and expected receipts from the
sale of real properties.
REAL PROPERTY SALES RECEIPTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard
Property Sale status sale proceeds Date sold
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kennedy Drive, Chevy Chase, MD.......... Sold...................... $1,700,000 Sep 2011
Snug Hill Lane, Potomac, MD............. Sold...................... 845,000 Aug 2011
Goldsboro, Bethesda, MD................. Sold...................... 1,400,000 Oct 2011
Clyde Hill, Seattle, WA................. Sold...................... 635,000 Feb 2012
Parcel 1, Maui, HI...................... Sold...................... \1\ 270,000 May 2012
Parcel 2, Maui, HI...................... Sold...................... \1\ 271,400 May 2012
Parcel 3, Maui, HI...................... Sold...................... \1\ 278,000 May 2012
Parcel 4, Maui, HI...................... Sold...................... \1\ 231,100 May 2012
Parcel 5, Maui, HI...................... Sold...................... \1\ 274,000 May 2012
Parcel 6, Maui, HI...................... Sold...................... \1\ 285,000 May 2012
Buxton Housing, Cape Hatteras, NC....... Awarded \2\............... 2,625,000 July 2012 (pending)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Receipts.................... .......................... 8,814,500 ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Receipts from sale have not been transferred to the Coast Guard.
\2\ Awarded indicates the selection of a buyer following the end of the auction period.
Question. Please evaluate existing laws for the Department of
Defense which provide authority or guidelines for incremental funding
of major assets and housing and provide to the subcommittee your
assessment of the value of such authorities or guidelines were they to
be applied to the Coast Guard.
Answer.
Housing.--The Coast Guard is unaware of any instance where Congress
has granted permanent or project-specific authority to the Department
of Defense that would allow for the use of appropriated funds, on an
incremental basis, for the acquisition of real property, the
improvement of undeveloped land, or the rehabilitation or redevelopment
of existing improvements.
Major Assets.--Limitations on the use of funds through the Anti-
Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. section 1341, 31 U.S.C. section 1342 and 31
U.S.C. section 1517) serve as the foundation of the full-funding policy
and preclude incremental funding.
arctic operations
Question. Currently, the Coast Guard has two heavy polar
icebreakers, the Polar Sea and the Polar Star. The Coast Guard is
planning to decommission the Polar Sea and the Polar Star is being
refurbished and will be reactivated in 2013 for another 10 years of
service. The budget request includes initial funding for a new
icebreaker, but it will take 8-10 years to complete, assuming funding
is provided.
Royal Dutch Shell hopes to begin exploratory drilling operations in
U.S. Arctic waters this summer.
Following the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010, over 47,000
personnel and 7,000 vessels were deployed in response.
Can you discuss the Coast Guard's offshore response capabilities in
the Arctic region today?
Answer. A spill response by Coast Guard in the Arctic would
primarily differ compared to a spill in non-Arctic regions because of
the distance to remote spill locations, lack of pre-staged equipment,
and lack of supporting shore-based infrastructure. Adverse weather
conditions such as ice, low visibility, and prolonged darkness also
reduces the effectiveness of a response effort. However, exploratory
drilling in the Arctic is at much shallower depths, with significantly
lower well pressures and therefore smaller worst case discharge as
compared to deepwater wells in the Gulf of Mexico.
Unlike smaller commercial entities operating in the Gulf of Mexico,
drilling projects in the Arctic maritime are currently feasible only
for highly capitalized companies such as Shell. Such companies are able
and committed to bringing substantial resources to the region to
fulfill their regulatory mandate to provide spill response equipment.
Also, the Department of the Interior and the Coast Guard review prior
to approval to move/activate drilling equipment into the drilling
region the following items: whether the rig conforms with international
safety and security standards; performance of safety equipment (i.e.,
the blowout preventer, emergency generators, lifesaving and
firefighting equipment); and crew certifications. Cascading additional
private resources into the region after an incident will be a challenge
due to distances involved and a lack of supporting infrastructure in
the Arctic. Cascading Coast Guard oil spill response resources into the
Arctic would face similar logistical challenges.
In the event of a spill, the responsible party is accountable for
controlling the release and mitigating any damage. As a regulatory
agency and Federal first responder, the Coast Guard has worked closely
with other Federal, State, tribal, and industry stakeholders to review
contingency plans so that if an incident does occur, the Coast Guard
can, with its partners, assist the responsible party to minimize
adverse impacts to the environment, individuals, and commerce.
The Coast Guard has conducted extensive oil spill planning at the
regional response team and local sub-area committee levels to address
the challenges of responding to an incident in the Arctic region. The
Alaska Federal/State Preparedness Plan for Response to Oil and
Hazardous Substance Discharges/Releases is referred to as the Alaska
Unified Plan. The North Slope and the Northwest Arctic Subarea
Contingency Plans are 2 of 10 subarea plans that make up the Alaska
Unified Plan. These plans represent a coordinated and cooperative
planning effort between members of the Environmental Protection Agency,
U.S. Coast Guard, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, U.S.
Department of the Interior, and numerous other Federal, State, local,
and native as well as industry participants. These plans include site-
specific response strategies known as geographic response strategies
that are tailored to protect sensitive areas threatened by an oil
spill. The Alaska Unified Plan and its Sub-Area Contingency Plans
contain extensive guidance on response procedures that have been
developed for the challenges specific to Alaska and the Arctic
including response to oil spills in or near ice conditions. The Coast
Guard, the Alaska regional response team, in coordination with the
private sector and local community, have actively updated these plans
to address the challenges presented by offshore drilling within the
last 6 months.
This summer, the Coast Guard is planning Operation Arctic Shield
2012 that will stage ships and aircraft in the vicinity of proposed
Arctic drilling sites (Chukchi and Beaufort Seas). These assets will be
prepared to respond to and provide command and control for search and
rescue, law enforcement, and oil spill response incidents should they
occur.
Operation Arctic Shield 2012 will be supported by a mixture of
Coast Guard flight-deck equipped cutters, sea-going buoy tenders,
fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, and shore forces.
Question. If a spill of significance occurred in the Arctic, how
long would it take to get response personnel and vessels in place?
Answer. Shell oil spill response vessels and crews, as well as
other private sector resources will be pre-positioned near the proposed
drilling sites available for response to potential oil spills while
drilling activities are underway.
The Coast Guard will have ships and aircraft in the vicinity of
proposed Arctic drilling sites (Chukchi and Beaufort Seas) that, in
conjunction with our partners and industry, can respond to and provide
command and control for an oil spill incident.
Additional response equipment is located throughout Alaska and the
United States, and can be cascaded into the affected area in the event
of a spill but will be a challenge due to vast distances and lack of
supporting infrastructure. Any cleanup operation that occurs beyond
that period into the Arctic winter months would present significant
challenges; due to extremely harsh operating environment, including
adverse weather, cold temperatures, ice, and periods of extended
darkness.
Effective preparedness and response is dependent on the equipment,
capabilities, and logistical infrastructure the private sector (vessel,
facility, and offshore platform operators) has in place coupled with
diligent Federal and State oversight and cooperative exercise to ensure
that systems are in place and manageable during an event.
c-27j aircraft
Question. The U.S. Air Force has targeted over 280 aircraft for
elimination over the next 5 years, including 21 new C-27Js that are
essentially brand new planes that haven't been used. The Coast Guard
has a significant need for similar type planes.
Could these aircraft be used for Coast Guard missions and are you
looking at the possibility of acquiring them from the Air Force?
Answer. The Coast Guard has previously established that the C-27J
meets the key performance parameters of a medium-range surveillance
maritime patrol aircraft. However, in its current state, the aircraft
would require maritime missionization to meet all Coast Guard
requirements. The Coast Guard is conducting a holistic cost analysis to
identify the feasibility and specifically what funding would be
required to operate the aircraft as part of the Coast Guard fleet; the
Coast Guard has communicated our potential intent to the Air Force.
Question. What are the potential budgetary savings if the Air Force
were to transfer these C-27Js to the Coast Guard as compared to buying
new aircraft?
Answer. Coast Guard's preliminary business case analysis estimates
that the transfer of C-27J aircraft to the Coast Guard would result in
an approximately $900 million capital cost avoidance as compared to the
Program of Record. The estimated savings considers only the cost of the
acquisition of those airframes and does not include the net cost to
missionize the asset, infrastructure costs, or cost to crew, operate,
and maintain the C-27.
semi-submersibles ``drug subs''
Question. As you know, there is a troubling trend of semi-
submersible vessels being used by smugglers to transport cocaine to the
United States. The Coast Guard recently intercepted its 31st semi-
submersible in the Western Caribbean. Over the last 6 years the Coast
Guard has intercepted 26 of these vessels in the eastern Pacific and
five in Caribbean waters.
What is the most effective strategy to counter this threat and is
the Coast Guard properly resourced to address it?
Answer. Transnational criminal organizations (TCO) use self-
propelled semi-submersible (SPSS) vessels whenever they believe that
these more costly vessels will have the best chance of successfully
delivering drugs to their initial landside transit point. The Coast
Guard employs specific tactics, techniques, and procedures for
detecting and interdicting SPSS vessels at sea. The Coast Guard
utilizes various surface and air assets for detection of SPSS vessels
including maritime patrol aircraft (MPA), cutter-based helicopters, and
boats and cutters. The Coast Guard also deploys law enforcement
detachments onboard U.S. and Allied Naval vessels that deploy to the
drug transit zones and operate under the control of the Coast Guard or
joint task force. All of these assets possess both day/night optical
detection equipment, including but not limited, to night vision,
infrared cameras, and radars. As the Coast Guard recapitalizes its
aging fleet, we are increasingly effective at implementing these
tactics.
The Coast Guard and Joint Interagency Task Force South (JIATF-S)
partner to conduct the detection and monitoring (JIATF-S led) and
interdiction and apprehension (Coast Guard led) missions against
counter-drug threats, including SPSS vessels. The Coast Guard, U.S.
Navy, and certain Allied Partners deploy surface and air assets to
JIATF-S, which best positions these assets to detect and interdict
SPSS.
The best strategy is to deter TCOs from building and employing SPSS
vessels. The Drug Trafficking Vessel Interdiction Act of 2008 (Public
Law 110-407) criminalizing the operation of and embarkation in
stateless submersible and semi-submersible vessels navigated outside
the territorial seas of any country with intent to evade detection,
provides a necessary legislative tool to counter this threat.
Subjecting the crew of interdicted SPSS to prosecution in U.S. courts
can lead to new intelligence for identifying SPSS points of origin and
positioning assets for future interdictions.
panama canal
Question. The Panama Canal is being widened to accommodate larger
cargo vessels. This expansion is expected to be completed in 2015. Some
U.S. ports are anticipating larger ships and increased ship traffic
after the expansion project is completed.
What is the Coast Guard doing to respond to this development and
are there any budget implications?
Answer. The Coast Guard's Port State Control program is not
anticipating a significant increase in workload as a result of the
arrival of larger vessels that may result from the widening of the
Panama Canal. Larger vessels may reduce the number of calls in certain
ports and increase in others. Workforce adjustments can be made as a
result of workload changes, if necessary.
Coast Guard aids to navigation (ATON) may be affected if channels
are required to be widened to accommodate larger ships. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers would be responsible for providing notification to
the Coast Guard for any congressionally approved channel improvement
project that will affect Federal ATON; this notification will provide
the Coast Guard with time to analyze the current ATON system and assess
impacts. As these impacts are not yet known, there are currently no
estimated budget implications.
unmanned maritime vehicles
Question. Do you support increased use of these alternative
platforms that may provide the potential for cost savings and improved
performance to the Coast Guard for diverse missions such as improved
situational awareness, search and rescue, and oil spill detection and
response?
Answer. The Coast Guard supports the employment of unmanned
capabilities as a complement to manned assets. The Coast Guard is
currently preparing to test a cutter-based unmanned aircraft system
(UAS) onboard a national security cutter this summer. Unmanned aerial
maritime vehicles are expected to provide increased surveillance and
detection capability, and reduce the exposure of Coast Guard personnel
to hazardous operating environments.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. If you do not achieve your National Security Cutter
Program of Record, how will this impact Coast Guard operations? Would
you have to sacrifice execution of some missions as a result?
Answer. There has been no decision to change the current Program of
Record. The major cutter acquisition programs (NSC and OPC) are
currently under review to assess whether alternative mixes of these
assets would achieve similar overall performance or better. The Coast
Guard will continue to assign available resources to address the
greatest risk areas.
Question. Is it feasible and cost-effective to keep the remaining
high endurance cutters running?
Answer. Maintaining the remaining high endurance cutters (HECs) is
necessary to continue front-line operations, but doing so long-term is
not effective from a return on investment standpoint. Built between
1967 and 1972, the HECs are currently operating beyond their economic
service life and experiencing decreased operational availability and
increased maintenance costs. Now approaching 50 years of service life,
the Coast Guard is continuing to spend considerable additional
maintenance funds in order to keep these cutters operational; thus, the
priority of the Coast Guard is recapitalizing the major cutter fleet.
Question. Your fiscal year 2013 budget request reflects plans to
decommission two high endurance cutters, three patrol boats, and
termination of the high tempo high maintenance patrol boat program. If
this happens, will the Coast Guard face challenges with regard to
meeting its statutory operational requirements? If so, how large and
how long will the gap in operational capabilities be? What can be done
to mitigate the effects of these potential gaps?
Answer. The Coast Guard is decommissioning legacy cutters as new
and more capable assets become operational; five fast response cutters
(FRC) and three national security cutters (NSC) are expected to be
fully operational by the end of fiscal year 2013. Each FRC will provide
20 percent more capacity in terms of operational hours than the 110-
foot patrol boats that they are replacing.
In fiscal year 2013 major cutter capacity will drop by 2,498
programmed hours as older in-service assets are decommissioned and
newer, more capable cutters are brought on-line. Also patrol cutter
capacity will drop by 13,750 programmed underway hours, primarily
reflecting cessation of high tempo high maintenance operations.
The 110-foot Patrol Boat Mission Effectiveness Project, which will
complete the final hull in summer 2012, has improved patrol boat
reliability for remaining in-service hulls, until transition to the FRC
fleet is completed. The Coast Guard will continue to assign available
resources to address the greatest risk areas.
Question. Admiral, with your statement in February 2012 that
national security cutter No. 1, Bertholf will deploy to the Arctic this
year, does this mean that other national security cutters will continue
to deploy there? If so, how will that impact other future missions and
major cutter availabilities? What is the long-term strategy with
respect to supporting the myriad of missions the Coast Guard capably
performs given the current resource constraints that you face?
Answer. Similar to the legacy high endurance cutters that operate
in the Arctic, the national security cutter will patrol and provide a
response and command and control platform during the ice-free portion
of the summer, with some enhanced operating capability. The Coast Guard
will continue to utilize the most appropriate assets to balance risk
across all mission areas.
The Coast Guard will continue to allocate resources in a manner
that strikes the optimal balance between sustaining current operations
and investment in future capabilities required to sustain the ability
to execute missions and address the most pressing operational
requirements.
The Coast Guard strategy includes the four following priorities:
--Responsibly rebuild the Coast Guard;
--Efficiently preserve front-line operations;
--Strengthen resource and operational stewardship; and
--Prepare for the future.
Responsibly rebuilding the Coast Guard requires a continued focus
of resources on recapitalizing cutters, boats, aircraft, and command,
control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance systems as quickly and cost-effectively as possible.
To preserve front-line operational capacity, the Coast Guard will
prioritize investments for the operation of new assets delivered
through acquisition programs.
Strengthening resources and operational stewardship is achieved
through a doctrine, policy, operations, and mission support structure
that focuses resources and forces where they are most needed.
To prepare for the future, the Coast Guard continuously assesses
emerging maritime threats facing the Service and the Nation and feeds
that information to the DHS Future Years Homeland Security planning
process.
Question. Please describe the Coast Guard's current acquisitions
strategy for unmanned aircraft systems. What specific challenges are
you facing today with regard to testing and integrating possible
vertical take-off UAS?
Answer. The Coast Guard's unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) strategy
is to acquire existing cutter-based and mid-altitude land-based UASs
while emphasizing commonality with existing Department of Homeland
Security and Department of Defense programs that are technologically
mature. To that end, the Coast Guard's UAS project is now in the pre-
acquisition ``need'' phase.
The Coast Guard established a Joint Program Office with U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to jointly operate the CBP's
Guardian UAS in maritime missions. The Coast Guard has eight pilots and
four system sensor operators qualified in and flying Guardian missions.
The Coast Guard has also established a formal partnership with the
Navy's vertical takeoff unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Fire Scout)
program office to collaborate on a cutter-based solution. Utilizing
fiscal year 2012 Coast Guard research, development, test and evaluation
funds, the Coast Guard intends to procure and install the ground
control segment of a Fire Scout system aboard a national security
cutter (NSC) to facilitate a future at-sea technical demonstration.
Ultimate completion of the underway demonstration is contingent upon
Navy Fire Scout air vehicle accessibility for Coast Guard use. Other
challenges to address include coordinating Navy technical assistance
for Fire Scout shipboard analysis, equipment maintenance and
installation aboard an NSC, logistics support of the MQ-8B as the Navy
begins production of the larger MQ-8C and Fire Scout reliability and
overall system maturity.
The Coast Guard is also pursuing a non-major system acquisition of
a small ScanEagle UAS for the NSC, as an interim, cost-effective UAS
capability. To support this strategy, the Coast Guard plans to conduct
technical demonstrations of the ScanEagle aboard an NSC during fiscal
years 2012 and 2013.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
port clarence loran station
Question. A memo to me from Coast Guard CEU Juneau dated February
7, 2012, states that the Coast Guard ``is proposing to issue a Finding
Of No Significant Impact (FONSI)'' following an environmental
assessment of the divestiture of the LORAN-C station Port Clarence,
Alaska. These actions would result in the relinquishment of the 1962
land withdrawal for Port Clarence and transfer the property back to
BLM. Has the FONSI been issued yet?
Answer. The Loran Station Port Clarence final environmental
assessment and finding of no significant impact has been approved and
signed.
Question. How long do you expect that it will take for the approval
of the Coast Guard's environmental assessment and the acceptance of the
notice of release of property by BLM?
Answer. The Coast Guard plans to submit a notice of intent to
relinquish letter to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in June 2012
stating that the Port Clarence Loran Station is no longer needed by the
Coast Guard. BLM will decide whether to accept the land for return to
the public domain or issue a public land order permanently withdrawing
the land.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, and we will reconvene in a
couple of weeks on another subject.
Admiral Papp. Thank you, ma'am.
Senator Landrieu. The subcommittee stands in recess,
subject to the call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., Wednesday, May 9, 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 2013
----------
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 2013 budget
request for programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]
Prepared Statement of Airports Council International-North America
Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Coats, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of
airport operators on the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) travel
programs. As the president of Airports Council International-North
America (ACI-NA), I am submitting this testimony today on behalf of the
local, regional, and State governing bodies that own and operate
commercial service airports in the United States and Canada. ACI-NA
member airports enplane more than 95 percent of the domestic and
virtually all the international airline passenger and cargo traffic in
North America. More than 350 aviation-related businesses are also
members of ACI-NA.
Madam Chairman, we commend you for holding this important hearing.
Each day, airports work to implement measures to streamline the process
for our passengers. To this end, airports partner with the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), and airlines to develop and maintain a comprehensive,
layered security system that efficiently processes passengers.
risk-based security and trusted traveler programs
We must continue to shift from a rigid process of screening for bad
things to a system that draws upon the vast amount of available data to
focus the most invasive security processes on travelers who have not
been previously vetted. A risk-based system is absolutely what is
needed and TSA should be applauded for its initiative to implement
several risk-based security initiatives involving pilots, passengers
and cargo.
ACI-NA fully supports the TSA PreCheck (Pre3TM) Known
Traveler program. From a practical perspective, this risk-based program
harnesses available data--voluntarily provided by passengers--and
intelligence information to serve as an indicator to guide the
application of screening resources. The most invasive screening
technologies and resources are applied to individuals about whom the
least is known. It not only reduces traveler frustration by providing a
certain level of predictability--while including an essential random
security element--but also streamlines the process today and allows for
the development of a sustainable system in the future.
ACI-NA also strongly supports the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection's (CBP) successful risk-based international trusted traveler
programs which allows prescreened, pre-approved air passengers to use
dedicated lanes and kiosks: Global Entry at certain U.S. airports and
Canadian preclearance airports and NEXUS, which is a joint program
between CBP and the Canada Border Services Agency for U.S. and Canadian
citizens and legal permanent residents entering Canada at Canadian
preclearance airports. These risk-based international trusted traveler
programs provide the dual benefit of enhancing both security and
processing efficiency, since travelers do not have to spend time
filling out paper declaration forms. In addition, participating
travelers do not have to wait in line or visit CBP officers, thus
allowing officers to focus on other, less well-known travelers. We
encourage the subcommittee to support CBP in its effort to deploy
kiosks to additional airport locations and to increase the number of
enrollees in these programs, thus enhancing facilitation and security
for all participating passengers. CBP should fast track its efforts to
make the registration Web site (Global Online Enrollment System) more
user-friendly, so that individuals are not discouraged from joining
these valuable trusted traveler programs.
According to recent CBP testimony, Global Entry has reduced average
wait times for enrollees by more than 70 percent. This program will be
crucial in helping to leverage limited CBP staff resources at airports
during peak travel times, when passenger demand increases
significantly, often resulting in long wait times and missed flight
connections. Efforts to promote the United States as a travel and
tourism destination including improved visa processing is likely to
further exacerbate the strain on limited CBP staffing. Expanding Global
Entry to additional airports and airport terminals will make the
program available to even more travelers and thus promote increased
enrollment, benefiting all passengers, the aviation industry, and CBP.
In order to further enhance security and streamline the process, CBP
should place Global Entry kiosks at all Canadian preclearance airports.
In addition, we encourage CBP to intensify its work with foreign
governments to conclude and implement agreements whereby properly
vetted foreign citizens can enroll in Global Entry and, where
permissible, allow U.S. citizens to enroll in their trusted traveler
programs.
In developing their Known Traveler program Pre3TM, TSA
strategically partnered with CBP to allow members of existing
international trusted traveler programs, Global Entry, SENTRI, and
NEXUS, to participate. As TSA looks at expanding the population of
eligible participants in Pre3TM, ACI-NA encourages TSA to
utilize Global Entry as the primary enrollment platform. This has the
potential to further enhance the security of Pre3TM while
also improving passenger facilitation through increased Global Entry
participation. The ability for Global Entry members to participate in
Pre3TM has already resulted in an increase in Global Entry
enrollments and provides the added benefit of reduced line waits for
international passengers being cleared by CBP officers at U.S. and
Canadian airports. The partnership between TSA and CBP will be
essential in expanding current, and developing new, programs which
utilize available data to better focus limited screening resources.
Going forward, ACI-NA recommends:
--Dedicated queuing lines for Pre3TM-eligible passengers;
--Allowing Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI members, and other known
travelers flying on any participating airline to utilize
Pre3TM; and
--Allowing Canadian citizens who are NEXUS card holders to
participate in Pre3TM.
Although screening checkpoints and Federal Inspection Services
(FIS) facilities may have to be reconfigured somewhat, these risk-based
programs will help mitigate the need for ongoing facility modifications
to accommodate the deployment of screening technology.
planning for the future
We need to begin planning for the future today, designing a
sustainable aviation system capable of efficiently and effectively
processing passengers and baggage. With limited resources, risk-based
programs are essential, and we simply cannot continue the process of
adding security layer after security layer and installing more
screening technology at airports after each new threat. Technology will
always be an essential element of the aviation security system but most
airport security checkpoints do not have space to accommodate the
deployment of additional technology, so its application needs to be
informed by Known Traveler programs.
There are opportunities to further expand the level of data sharing
between TSA and CBP. TSA screens checked baggage and could readily
provide images to CBP so that arriving international passengers
connecting to another domestic or international airport would not have
to reclaim their checked baggage. Eliminating this requirement would
free up TSA resources to focus on other areas.
conclusion
Although there are aspects of the current aviation system that are
effective, there are others which need to evolve to keep pace with the
projected increase in the number of passengers and volume of cargo in
the United States and abroad. The expansion of risk-based trusted
traveler and known-shipper programs that leverage available data and
focus limited screening resources on those travelers and cargo about
which the least is known are essential in ensuring the long-term
sustainability of the aviation system. Such programs allow the United
States and other governments the ability to prioritize threats and make
adjustments to the security posture based upon credible intelligence
information, provide expedited processing for low-risk travelers while
helping to ensure that limited resources are appropriately focused and
allocated. A priority should be placed on deploying the technology
necessary to support the enrollment of travelers and the expedited
processing of previously vetted, low-risk passengers.
Through continued collaboration--both government to government and
government to industry--to expand trusted traveler programs and other
security initiatives, we can better achieve our mutual goals of
enhancing safety, security, and processing efficiency while minimizing
unnecessary operational impacts.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony.
Gregory Principato,
President.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Transportation Association
introduction
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to submit written testimony on the fiscal year 2013 funding
needs for public transportation security programs within the Department
of Homeland Security. The American Public Transportation Association
(APTA) urges Congress to significantly increase appropriations for
transportation security programs. 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). In 2011,
Americans took 10.4 billion trips on public transportation which was
the second highest annual ridership since 1957. Only ridership in 2008,
when gas rose to more than $4 a gallon, surpassed last year's rider
totals. As transit ridership continues to grow, its security needs do
also.
about apta
The American Public Transportation Association (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. Additionally, in
accordance with the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, APTA has
been tasked by Department of Homeland Security to administer the on-
going activities of the Mass Transit Sector Coordinating Council.
greater investments in transit security are required
In 2010, an APTA survey of its transit agency members found
security investment needs in excess of $6.4 billion nationwide. These
are funds that our agencies simply do not have, as overall funding
constraints have led to service cuts, personnel layoffs, and fare
increases. This stated need contrasts the recent trend in cuts to
transit security grant programs. We are very concerned about the recent
decline in transit security funding where, in fiscal year 2012, we see
an allocation of $87 million for transit security. This level is
woefully short of the industry's capital security needs. As recently as
fiscal year 2009, Federal funding for transit security was set at
nearly $400 million. I urge Congress to acknowledge the risk that our
citizens and transit systems continue to face, and restore
appropriations for the Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) in this
and subsequent appropriation bills. Historically, Congress has
permitted the Department of Homeland Security to allocate appropriated
grant funding without specific directive. We recommend that this
subcommittee, in its appropriating capacity, guide DHS regarding
particular program funding allocations to ensure that public
transportation security program needs adequately addressed. Our systems
need the certainty of adequate funding to properly plan and implement
large capital, surveillance, and other security projects to protect our
systems. While there is no indication that our collective security
concerns have diminished and the backlog of needed projects continues
to grow, Federal security grant funds have declined precipitously.
transit security needs are real and require attention
As we and others have stated many times 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 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, the GAO reported to 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 the
Transportation Security Administration (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 (NCTC) 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 (MTI) 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.
security grant program structure
In fiscal year 2012, program changes were made in the Transit
Security Grant Program and additional, significant, changes are
proposed in fiscal year 2013. APTA acknowledges that there are some
sound goals and positive policy provisions represented by these
changes, including:
--Peer Review.--APTA and its members already have a system in place
for conducting peer reviews--we look forward to working with
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to develop such
a program.
--Multi-year Grant Guidance.--APTA supports the approach of a multi-
year grant guidance--previously, the TSGP guidance changed
nearly every year, and APTA believes this to be one of the
reasons that have contributed to delays in grant performance
and drawdown.
Notwithstanding these improvements to the current program, there
are several other program changes that cause us concern and which we
believe could thwart the progress many grantee agencies have made to
improve the security of their systems in recent years.
Program Consolidation
The National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) proposes to
consolidate all grant programs previously categorized as preparedness
grants into one comprehensive grant program. This is a drastic change
that eliminates the standalone TSGP--the exclusive pool of funding for
our Nation's public transportation systems. While this new program may
be designed to meet the needs of the emergency management community and
to more closely align with policy represented in the National
Preparedness Goal, emergency preparedness and core capabilities are
only subsets of the policy that the Transit Security Grant Program was
intended to advance. As previously stated, transit systems and their
assets remain high-risk terrorist targets, and investments in hardening
and other capital security improvements specific to transit agencies do
not appropriately fall within this broader emergency preparedness
policy. APTA calls on Congress to authorize and preserve a sufficiently
funded, segregated grant program for public transportation security as
envisioned in the 9/11 Commission Act. We applaud the work of this
subcommittee, as it recommended a separate Public Transportation
Security Assistance grant program within the Department of Homeland
Security fiscal year 2012 appropriations subcommittee report; we hope
that the subcommittee will recommend the same in fiscal year 2013.
Reduced Grant Performance Period
Of additional concern is the new 24-month period of grant
performance for all projects proposed in the fiscal year 2012 TSGP
Guidance, which is further contained in the proposal for the fiscal
year 2013 NPGP. This is a reduction from the previous 3-5-year
allowable expenditure period. APTA certainly appreciates the concerns
regarding unexpended security grant dollars and is committed to working
with transit agencies to carry out important security projects in a
timely fashion. However, it is important to recognize that capital
projects (security-related or otherwise) require multiple years to
complete, and a reduction in the time allotted to expend funding would
preclude many much needed capital infrastructure security projects from
being pursued and instead compel most grant recipients to apply for
equipment and operational grants. This is not in the best interest of
fortifying our systems against attacks, as the majority of the security
needs identified in the 2010 APTA member survey relate to capital
projects. APTA recommends maintaining the 3-year expenditure window
with the opportunity to receive 6-month extensions up to a maximum of 5
years.
Emphasis on Operational Projects and the Top Transit Asset List
Similarly, the fiscal year 2012 TSGP and fiscal year 2013 NPGP
place a high emphasis on operational activities and operational
packages (OPacks). Congress has previously set a clear priority for
transit security capital investments when enacting the National Transit
Systems Security Act of 2007 (title 14 of the 9/11 Commission Act).
Additionally, the fiscal year 2012 grant guidance states that this
year's funding priorities will be based on a pre-designated ``top
transit asset list'' or TTAL. APTA has testified previously that
security investment decisions should be risk-based, which is the
underlying approach of the TTAL. However, across the entire transit
industry, thousands of assets are not listed on the TTAL and, thus,
would not be eligible to receive funding. While this narrower funding
approach is based on tighter fiscal circumstances and the total Federal
dollars available for security grants, it is also indicative of the
inadequacy of current funding levels. The proposed approach will
preclude important security improvements from receiving funding
consideration. APTA recommends reauthorizing the public transportation
security assistance provisions of the 9/11 Commission Act, and urges
Congress to work to make adequate funding available for the program to
meet national needs.
Inability To Directly Apply for Funding
Finally, under the proposal, while transit agencies would be
eligible for security funding, they would be required to apply for
funding through their State Administrative Agency (SAA), and compete in
this process with other State security priorities. This is a shift from
the current program, where transit agencies are authorized to be direct
applicants for and direct recipients of grant funds. We believe that
under this new proposal sufficient funding would not consistently get
to transit agencies, and in many cases the involvement of the SAA has
the potential to slow the already lengthy grant performance process.
Congress has repeatedly endorsed the position that transit agencies
should be direct Federal grant recipients, as they have been through
the Federal Transit Administration, and we urge Congress to continue
this policy.
conclusion
Madam Chairman, I thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to
share our views on these critical homeland security issues. There is no
greater priority for public transportation systems than the safety and
security of our passengers and workers. I urge you not to wait for the
``wake-up'' call of an attack on our systems to provide transit
agencies the support they need. Transit systems across the country
continue to stand ready, committed, and vigilant in utilizing available
resources efficiently to protect our systems and our riders. We urge
you to sustain the critical partnership between transit agencies,
Congress, and the Department of Homeland Security that helps to keep
our Nation safe and moving toward economic prosperity.
______
Prepared Statement of American Rivers
On behalf of our members and supporters across the Nation, I write
to express our concerns regarding the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's (FEMA) proposed fiscal year 2013 budget. Specifically, we are
concerned about the decreased funding levels for flood hazard mapping,
the elimination of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program and
funding for flood mitigation programs under the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP).
American Rivers is the leading conservation organization standing
up for healthy rivers so communities can thrive. Rivers provide
multiple benefits to people and our economy but when floods happen they
put communities at risk. As we have seen over the past few years,
floods are becoming more frequent and more severe. In 2011 alone, there
were 58 Federal flood disaster declarations in 33 different States. The
combined flood damages from these events are estimated at over $8
billion and caused 113 deaths--both figures exceed 30-year averages. We
support several of FEMA's programs that help communities to mitigate
flood damages before they occur.
flood hazard mapping
The reduction in flood mapping funds from $220 million in 2010 to
$89 million proposed in 2013 hinders the communication of flood hazard
risk to Americans nationwide. Flood hazard mapping is critical to all
sectors of society and across the Nation. These maps provide valuable
information to local public officials who are working to keep the
public safe and to the citizens themselves who want to protect their
families and keep them out of harm's way. In fiscal year 2012, the
flood hazard mapping program sustained a 34-percent cut. While we
understand these are hard fiscal times, investing in flood hazard
mapping is a sound and important use of taxpayers' money. At a minimum,
we recommend maintaining the fiscal year 2012 level of $97 million for
fiscal year 2013.
pre-disaster mitigation
The Pre-Disaster Mitigation program is the sister program to the
Hazard Mitigation program as it provides funding to communities before
a disaster hits. It is less expensive to prepare for a flood than it is
to rebuild over and over. When communities and homeowners take steps to
protect themselves and to reduce the impacts of flooding through
mitigation practices such as elevating or flood-proofing their homes,
moving out of harm's way, and investing in ``natural defenses'' they
can save themselves and taxpayers money. Flood mitigation practices
that reduce the loss of life and damages to properties provide $5 in
benefits for every $1 invested.\1\ We recommend funding the PDM to
fiscal year 2012 levels of $35.5 million in fiscal year 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rose, A. et al. 2007. Benefit-Cost Analysis of FEMA Hazard
Mitigation Grants. Natural Hazards Review 8, 97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
mitigation grants of the national flood insurance program
We applaud the administration for the proposed investment of $120
million in flood mitigation programs under the NFIP. The financial
impacts of floods and natural disasters make it clear that our Nation
cannot afford to continue subsidizing development in places that are
unsafe and it must be more strategic in response and recovery efforts
to incorporate long-term sustainability and resilience when allocating
resources. We support the administration's proposed fiscal year 2013
funding of $120 million for the flood mitigation programs of the NFIP.
We appreciate your leadership in safeguarding the American people
from natural and unnatural hazards. As we continue to witness record
breaking flooding, we are hopeful that the resources are in place to
support public officials and communities alike in becoming more
resilient to the next flood. We look forward to working with you to
protect communities and the rivers they depend upon.
James Bradley, Sr.,
Director of Government Relations.
______
Prepared Statement of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation
May 9, 2012.
Hon. Mary L. Landrieu,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Daniel Coats,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
Re: Comments From Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Hearing on U.S.
Coast Guard Fiscal Year 2012 (Fiscal Year 2013) Budget Request
Dear Chairman Landrieu and Ranking Member Coats: The Arctic Slope
Regional Corporation (ASRC) is pleased to submit written comments for
the record in connection with the May 9, 2012, hearing of the Committee
on Appropriations subcommittee on Homeland Security on the important
topic of the U.S. Coast Guard fiscal year 2013 budget request.
ASRC is an Inupiat-owned Alaska Native regional corporation, formed
pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C. section
1601, et seq. (ANCSA), that represents the interests of the Inupiat
Eskimos of the Arctic Slope, with more than 11,000 shareholders. ASRC's
congressionally mandated mission is to invest in its land base and
business interests to provide for the well-being of our Inupiat Eskimo
shareholders. ASRC owns approximately 5 million acres of land on the
North Slope, including both surface and subsurface estate.
The Honorable Senator Murkowski submitted a letter to the
subcommittee on February 15, 2012, requesting a hearing on the Coast
Guard's fiscal year 2013 budget request, and we thank you for honoring
that request.
The issue of ensuring that the Coast Guard has adequate resources
and infrastructure in the Arctic region is critical, especially as
there is increased interest in and use of resources in the region. We
would like to highlight some issues of which we believe the
subcommittee should be aware, from the perspective of an ANCSA
corporation and our Alaska Native shareholders.
From our observations, ``open water season'' is getting longer each
year as sea ice melts, offering new prospects for resource exploration
and development, tourist vessel transit, and shipping routes (both
point-to-point transit and international) that may reshape the global
transport system. In addition, there are significantly more
international and domestic scientific and research activities in the
region, driven in part by the potential for exploration and development
of Arctic natural resources.
This increased activity, which greatly impacts the North Slope
region and our shareholders, also inevitably leads to more and longer
periods of high activity, with the attendant concerns about the ability
of the Coast Guard to ensure safety and security during these periods
of high vessel activity. We also have concerns with respect to the
potential impacts of high vessel activity on our seasonal subsistence
activities and the ability of the Coast Guard to bring resources to
bear when needed, and in a timely manner.
In order to carry out its missions, the Coast Guard must have
sufficient operational resources, strategically placed to respond to
activity in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, and along the North Slope of
Alaska. Air and sea logistical assets, communications infrastructure,
access to icebreakers and facilities for support vessels, as well as
management and security resources all will be required along our
northern coastline. It is also critical that the location(s) of
infrastructure and support facilities are selected appropriately. We
believe that it is more appropriate to look to site support and
resources at various places across the coastline, dictated by the
local/regional needs and purposes, than to try to identify a single
point where all such resources would be located.
The polar regions that were previously the domain of vessel owners
and operators are now being staked in a global race to energy
resources. The fiscal year 2013 budget request helps the Coast Guard
address its mission requirements, including its mission to safeguard
the United States interests in the Arctic. It is imperative to the
Arctic, the State of Alaska, and the United States to ensure that the
Coast Guard has the financial resources and infrastructure to
effectively carry out its mission. Supporting the Coast Guard in the
Arctic must be a top priority because both United States and
international development will take place in our own backyard. Our open
coastline is at the frontlines of increased marine traffic and
exploration and development activity.
The United States is an Arctic nation. Alaska's strategic location
provides the United States with the opportunity to become the world
leader with regard to Arctic management, as our waters and resources
are being promoted on the global stage. The United States must be
poised to lead in that role. On the international stage, Arctic and
non-Arctic nations alike are such as China, Norway, Japan, Russia, and
Italy, in agreement with Russia, are positioning their countries for
success with respect to Arctic resources and access to global markets.
What the Arctic will be in 20 or 30 years is, and will continue to be,
a critical issue for Alaska, the United States, and the world. Now is
the time to begin planning for the long term, which necessarily
includes ensuring a right-sized and strategically placed Coast Guard
presence.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this very important
matter.
Sincerely,
Tara M. Sweeney,
Senior Vice President, External Affairs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of State Floodplain Managers,
Inc.
federal emergency management agency's hazard mitigation and risk
identification programs
The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM)\1\ welcomes
the opportunity to comment on the fiscal year 2013 budget request for
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Specifically, our testimony
will focus on the proposed budgets for flood risk mapping ($89.3
million), for Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) ($0), for mitigation
programs of the National Flood Insurance Program ($120 million) and for
a new National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) ($1.5 billion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASFPM and its 33 chapters represent over 14,000 State and local
officials and other flood risk professionals--Web site: [http://
www.floods.org].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 2013 FEMA budget request is a mixed bag for hazard
mitigation programs, including additional significant cuts to flood
mapping, elimination of FEMA's only all hazards Pre-Disaster Mitigation
program, but increases in grants for some flood mitigation programs.
Overall, however, the budget reflects a continued downward trend in the
focus on hazard mitigation programs.
Natural disasters in 2011 were record setting, with 14 events in
the United States estimated to have caused over $1 billion in damage.
Four of those were flood events only and others involved significant
flooding. This is the continuance of a trend of increased damages
caused by flooding that has been occurring for over a decade. Flood
damages have jumped from $6 billion per year in the 1990s to nearly $10
billion per year in the 2000s. Unfortunately the trend has been moving
away from investment in hazard mitigation programs that assist
communities to become more resilient following disasters.
Flood Hazard Mapping
Flood hazard mapping is the foundational piece of hazard
mitigation. Not only does it provide data for hazard mitigation plans
and projects but it also provides data for the general public to
understand flood risks, and information for the implementation of local
land use requirements and building codes. With the changing nature of
flood risks and the significant backlog of needed mapping (Some areas
of the country still have flood maps over 30 years old and some have
never been mapped and/or lack engineering data.), the reduction in
flood mapping funds from $220 million in 2010 to $89 million proposed
in 2013 will only delay our identification and understanding of the
risk faced by many Americans. Furthermore, there are demands by the
public and Congress that flood mapping be made more accurate especially
in areas protected by levees. FEMA's ambitious new flood mapping
program, Risk MAP may now be significantly less effective should the
mapping program support not be restored to prior levels of $200 million
or more.
While the Association of State Floodplain Managers acknowledges all
budgets in the Federal Government will likely be reduced to some
extent, the disproportionate reduction in flood mapping funds makes
little sense for a hazard that is the most frequent and one of the most
costly in the United States. Mapping should be funded at earlier levels
because communities need these maps to know where their risks are so
they can take action to mitigate their risks, and thereby reduce the
national risk.
Elimination of Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Even more perplexing is the proposed elimination of the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program. This program has resulted in
numerous successes such as over 18,000 communities having developed and
adopted hazard mitigation plans and all-hazard ``sticks and bricks''
mitigation projects being implemented that have permanently reduced
future risk by getting existing, at-risk development out of harm's way.
It has allowed States who didn't have frequent disasters to tap into
hazard mitigation resources to reduce their risks too. PDM is the pre-
disaster complement to the more well-known Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (HMGP) that is triggered only after a Federal disaster
declaration.
Many States have relied on PDM to support development and
maintenance of hazard mitigation plans, so ASFPM is very concerned
about the effect of the elimination of PDM on hazard mitigation
planning. Approximately 20 percent of PDM funds have been used to
support the hazard mitigation plans required by the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000. These plans are required for eligibility for post-disaster
mitigation assistance and are key to effective expenditure of
mitigation funds. Lack of support for mitigation planning is a major
concern, especially when it is unclear where future funds will come
from to support communities and States in updating mitigation plans.
PDM, which provides resources before an event happens as opposed to
afterwards, is widely considered to be a successful program despite
acknowledged problems with timely obligation of funds. ASFPM recommends
that the administration could and should look to models which would
delegate the program to States to ensure obligation of funds will
happen much more quickly. Studies have shown that investments in FEMA's
hazard mitigation programs yield on average $4 in benefits for every $1
invested. For flood disasters, the ratio is $5 in benefits for every $1
invested. Also, these programs are cost shared with States and
communities ensuring that they, too, are investing in their future
resilience from hazards. ASFPM recommends retention of the program at
least at the minimal fiscal year 2012 funding level of $35.5 million.
Creation of new NPGP
ASFPM also cautions the administration to thoughtfully proceed with
the creation of a large multi-purpose grant program which folds
together 16 grant programs ranging in focus from terrorism preparedness
to natural hazard mitigation. Inclusion of mitigation as an eligible
activity is the rationale for elimination of PDM. However, the
``vision'' document for this program clearly shows priorities are
focused on funding activities that are not mitigation, and under the
proposed framework mitigation priorities will, in reality, be all but
impossible to fund. Ultimately the National Preparedness Grant Program
(NPGP) and National Preparedness Goal are aimed at readiness, not
mitigation. While mitigation is a component of readiness (as it is a
component of response and recovery) readiness is not a substitute for
mitigation.
ASFPM recommends that implementation of a new NPGP be delayed to
allow for consultation with stakeholder groups. As presently
envisioned, the program is likely to result in neglect of key functions
of mitigation and resilience.
Increase in Funding for Mitigation Grants of the National Flood
Insurance Program
ASFPM is very pleased that the administration has proposed
increasing its investment in flood mitigation programs under the NFIP--
from a funding level of $60 million in fiscal year 2012 to proposed
fiscal year 2013 funding of $120 million. These programs are largely,
but not entirely, focused on properties which file repetitive flood
loss claims. ASFPM notes that the budget assumes a streamlining of the
Flood Mitigation Assistance Grants, the Severe Repetitive Loss program
and the Repetitive Flood Claims program to achieve greater
efficiencies. The greater commitment to elimination of repetitive loss
properties from the National Flood Insurance Program is important to
the NFIP's financial integrity.
Larry A. Larson,
Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fleet Reserve Association
introduction
Madame Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, the
Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) appreciates the opportunity to present
its recommendations on the United States Coast Guard's fiscal year 2013
budget.
Prior to addressing these issues, FRA wishes to thank the Congress
for the generous pay, healthcare, and benefit enhancements enacted in
recent years. Improved wounded warrior transition and support services
are very important as are other benefit improvements which are
essential to maintaining the all-volunteer force and military
readiness.
Ensuring Coast Guard funding parity with Department of Defense
(DOD) personnel programs remains a high priority for FRA, and the
association notes continuing challenges within the Coast Guard to
adequately fund previously authorized Active and Reserve people
programs. FRA is also deeply concerned about the impact of
``sequestration'' (automatic cuts) mandated by the 2011 Budget Control
Act on Coast Guard programs effective January 2013 unless Congress
intervenes.
It's also important to note that FRA believes that military service
is unlike any other career or occupation, and requires servicemembers'
compensation commensurate with the demands of service plus a robust
benefits package and retirement system. In addition, FRA fully concurs
with Admiral Robert Papp's State of the Coast Guard comment that, ``The
Coast Guard's value to the Nation has never been greater.''
coast guard authorization
FRA appreciates the enactment of the fiscal year 2011 Coast Guard
Authorization Act (H.R. 3617) in the 111th Congress that addresses
several important personnel-related issues. The association supports
the Coast Guard Authorization Act (S. 1665), sponsored by Senator Mark
Begich, Chairman of the Senate Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast
Guard Subcommittee, that among its other provisions increases Coast
Guard end strength to 49,350. This bill was approved by the Senate
Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and placed on the Senate
legislative calendar.
FRA also supports the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act
(H.R. 2838) sponsored by Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo, Chairman of the Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee. That legislation
extends the U.S. Coast Guard Authorization through fiscal year 2014 and
authorizes $8.6 billion for fiscal year 2013, and $8.7 billion for
fiscal year 2014. The bill passed the House last year and is awaiting
action in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.
Provisions of the bill would establish greater parity with DOD for
the Coast Guard and its personnel. During consideration of the bill,
the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee noted that
Active, Reserve, and retired members of the Coast Guard and their
dependents do not always receive the same benefits available to members
of the other armed services. The legislation also mandates that the
Commandant submit a report to Congress on servicemember housing. FRA
strongly supports timely enactment of Coast Guard authorization
legislation in each Congress and believes the legislation is
fundamental to effective congressional budgeting and effective
oversight of the service and its wide ranging and challenging missions.
healthcare
The FRA strongly supports adequate funding for the Coast Guard
Health Care Fund (HCF) in order to meet readiness needs, fully fund
TRICARE, and improve access for all beneficiaries regardless of age,
status, or location. FRA opposes the administration's proposed retiree
TRICARE fee hikes commencing in 2013. Just last year, the National
Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540) authorized a TRICARE Prime fee
increase of 13 percent for military retirees and future adjustments are
pegged to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) so as to not erode retired
pay.
Healthcare benefits are important to every segment of FRA's
membership. The continued growth in healthcare costs is not just a
military challenge but a challenge for the entire country. FRA believes
that military service is a unique profession and notes minimal
projected savings associated with DOD management efficiencies and other
initiatives in fiscal year 2013 and beyond, while retirees are targeted
for major fee hikes.
Our members are also very concerned about a proposed new TRICARE-
for-Life (TFL) enrollment fee beginning in fiscal year 2013. This is
viewed as another failure to honor commitments to those who served past
careers in the military. These personnel pay Medicare part B premiums
and many have not benefited from the significant pay and benefit
enhancements enacted since 2000.
Due to the unique range of geographic locations to which they are
assigned, Coast Guard personnel and their families often struggle to
find medical providers who accept TRICARE beneficiaries. While
implementation of TRICARE Prime Remote alleviated some of these
problems, costs associated with the TRICARE Standard benefit, and low
reimbursement rates can make finding a healthcare provider an
especially daunting task in many areas. And, Coast Guard personnel who
choose to receive care at DOD military treatment facilities (MTFs) may
be required to travel long distances for care. FRA is committed to
helping address these challenges in order to improve healthcare access
for all Coast Guard personnel, particularly those stationed in remote
locations.
pay increase
It's appropriate that the Coast Guard and other Armed Forces are
excluded from the multi-year pay freeze for Federal employees announced
by President Obama on November 29, 2010. The association strongly
supports the proposed 1.7 percent military pay increase for 2013, based
on Employment Cost Index (ECI) data. Congress has in recent years
improved military compensation that, in turn, enhanced the recruitment
and retention of quality personnel in an all-volunteer environment,
improved retention, morale, and readiness. More than 50 percent of the
uniformed services community is married and adequate compensation helps
relieve stress associated with demanding operational tempos.
FRA consistently supports pay increases that are at least equal to
the ECI to keep pace with civilian pay. FRA urges the subcommittee to
ensure adequate appropriations to fund the pay increase in the Coast
Guard's budget, plus other benefit enhancements that may be authorized
by the respective Armed Services Committees.
housing
The Coast Guard currently owns 4,013 family homes, at an average
age of 40+ years, with an extensive maintenance and recapitalization
project backlog. These costs are compounding and funds are not
available to keep pace with essential maintenance and replacement
requirements. FRA supports authorization and funding of Coast Guard
initiatives to address this situation and to improve family housing.
DOD privatized approximately 85 percent of its homes using public-
private venture (PPV) authorities, however, the Coast Guard is unable
to leverage the same equity due to no authorization and inadequate
resources to do so. The result is that over 12,000 Coast Guard members
and their families are living in aged, substandard housing that are
expensive to maintain and have recurring and costly maintenance issues.
The vast majority of Coast Guard personnel and their families use
private housing and collect basic allowance for housing (BAH) usually
based on different types of housing than the one in which they choose
to live. (FRA supports reform of DOD housing standards that inequitably
depress BAH rates for mid-to-senior enlisted members due to types of
housing they choose to reside in compared to the type of housing
associated with their pay grades which determines their BAH level.)
The Coast Guard is conducting an assessment of its housing needs
that includes a housing market survey to determine availability of
rental housing in lieu of Government-owned housing and FRA understands
that this report on housing will be available at the end of May 2012,
and that the Coast Guard has diverted $8.8 million from other programs
to be used for housing needs.
child care
The availability and accessibility of affordable child care is a
very important quality of life issue for Coast Guard personnel and
their families. The Coast Guard operates nine child development centers
(CDCs) that operate under the same standards as similar DOD facilities.
In addition, a child care subsidy program allows members affordable
access to private sector child care centers, and whenever possible
access to DOD facilities.
High-cost child care can often be attributed to the fact that most
of the duty locations preclude access to DOD and Coast Guard CDCs. The
Coast Guard continues to explore ways to assist with child care costs
for members in remote, high-cost areas and FRA supports these efforts.
Authorization and appropriations to support access to child care plus
updates and enhancements are equally important. The FRA agrees with
Rep. Frank LoBiondo, Chairman of the House Coast Guard and Maritime
Subcommittee, who does not believe there is Coast Guard parity with DOD
in terms of child care and housing.
end strength
``For the third consecutive year the Coast Guard will screen
hundreds of E-5 through E-9 personnel to reduce its enlisted force by
861 coastguardsmen by June 2012.\1\'' The involuntary retirement
screening by a enlisted review board is focused of enlisted personnel
with 20 or more years of service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Navy Times, Feb., 13, 2012, p. 32, Coasties Face Retirement
Screening, Sam Fellman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 2013 Coast Guard budget request reduces Coast Guard
end strength by 1,000. This includes the elimination of 222 positions
from Coast Guard headquarters and reductions to the recruiting program.
Reduced re-enlistment bonuses are also proposed.
The association also notes that the authorized Coast Guard Reserve
end strength is 10,000, however only 8,100 Reserve personnel are funded
and the level has remained unchanged for a number of years. FRA is
concerned that budget-driven, vice mission related cuts create
inadequate end strength that further stresses Coast Guard personnel and
their families. Repeated deployments for Active Duty personnel and
increased reliance on Reserve personnel are associated results.
Although the fiscal year 2013 budget mandates an authorized end
strength reduction, there is no corresponding reduction in Coast Guard
operational demands. End strength must be adequate to meet operational
commitments that limit lengths of deployments and allow sufficient
dwell time between deployments. As Admiral Papp noted in his recent
State of the Coast Guard address, ``We will not allow our service to
become a hollow operational force.''
yellow ribbon program
The Coast Guard in 2011 established a Yellow Ribbon Program, in
partnership with DOD, to enable more than 1,400 deploying
coastguardsmen and their families to connect with resources before,
during, and after deployment. Family support is critical to ensure
there are no unnecessary family problems to distract from duties and
demands of deployment, and adequate resources are essential to
sustaining this important program.
conclusion
Madame Chairman, the FRA appreciates the opportunity to submit its
views for the record on pay, healthcare, and other programs important
to Coast Guard personnel.
The association salutes you, the ranking member, and the other
members of this distinguished subcommittee and your staff for effective
oversight of our Nation's all-important fifth Armed Force, and for your
untiring commitment to the men and women serving so proudly in our
United States Coast Guard.
the fra
The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) is the oldest and largest
enlisted organization serving Active Duty, Reserves, retired, and
veterans of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. It is
congressionally chartered, recognized by the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) as an accrediting Veteran Service Organization (VSO) for
claim representation and entrusted to serve all veterans who seek its
help. In 2007, FRA was selected for full membership on the National
Veterans' Day Committee.
FRA was established in 1924 and its name is derived from the Navy's
program for personnel transferring to the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine
Corps Reserve after 20 or more years of Active Duty, but less than 30
years for retirement purposes.
FRA's mission is to act as the premier ``watch dog'' organization
on Capitol Hill in maintaining and improving the quality of life for
Sea Service personnel and their families. The association also sponsors
a National Americanism Essay Program and other recognition and relief
programs. In addition, the FRA Education Foundation oversees the
association's scholarship program that presented awards totaling over
$120,000 to deserving students last year.
FRA sponsors the annual Coast Guard Enlisted Persons of the Year
program and hosts the annual U.S. Coast Guard Caucus Breakfast on
Capitol Hill each year to recognize Caucus members and increase
awareness about the service's various missions and the work of Coast
Guard personnel.
The association is also a founding member and active participant in
The Military Coalition (TMC), a 34-member consortium of military and
veteran's organizations.
certification of non-receipt of federal funds
Pursuant to the requirements of House Rule XI, the Fleet Reserve
Association has not received any Federal grant or contract during the
current fiscal year or either of the 2 previous fiscal years.
Master Chief Joseph L. Barnes, USN (Ret.),
National Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the Institute of Makers of Explosives
interest of the ime
The Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) is the safety and
security association of the commercial explosives industry. Commercial
explosives underpin the economy. They are essential to energy
production, construction, demolition, and the manufacture of any metal/
mineral product. Explosives are transported and used in every State.
The ability to manufacture, transport, distribute, and use these
products safely and securely is critical to this industry.
The Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD) is standing
up two programs that affect our membership--the Chemical Facility Anti-
Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program and the recently proposed Ammonium
Nitrate Security program (ANSP). Some of our members are regulated
under CFATS, and all will be regulated under the ANSP.
Ensuring the security of commercial explosives and precursor
materials against unauthorized access and use has been a priority of
IME members long before the events of 9/11. As proof of our success,
less than 2 percent of destructive explosives devices used in bombings
and attempted bombings in this country are filled with commercial
explosives.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bomb Center Data, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF), 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iscd issues
CFATS.--Those in our industry affected by this program and been
working hard to meet deadlines for submissions of so-called ``top-
screens'', site vulnerability assessments, and site security plans
(SSP). Our focus has been on identifying and ensuring that we have the
means to meet the 18 specific risk-based performance standards
(RBSP)\2\ required for final SSP approval. While concerns were voiced
about the lack of progress in fully implementing the CFATS program, we
believed a major factor in the delay was the lack of permanent
authorization for the program. We have been proactively working to
achieve that end. In the meantime, we appreciate the efforts of the
subcommittee to be both the appropriator and authorizer for this
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ RBPS are particularly appropriate in a security context because
they provide individual facilities the flexibility to address their
unique security challenges. Using performance standards rather than
prescriptive standards also helps to increase the overall security of
the sector by varying the security practices used by different chemical
facilities. Security measures that differ from facility to facility
means that each presents a new and unique problem for an adversary to
solve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the midst of these efforts, it was revealed that the program
suffers from a number of internal management issues.\3\ Nothing in the
internal review suggests that the legislative framework establishing
CFATS is flawed. Rather, it is DHS' failure to provide adequate
oversight and support that have resulted in program misdirection and
implementation failures. Frankly, we applaud ISCD's new leadership that
identified these issues and developed a plan to address them. Clearly,
DHS has overstepped the role and responsibility Congress gave it. The
result of this unfocused, mission creep is wasted human and financial
capital. ISCD was not supposed to have law-enforcement powers. ISCD was
not supposed to support a culture of cronyism, disrespect, and failed
leadership. ISCD was not supposed to be staffed with individuals
without the skills necessary to run a regulatory compliance program.
ISCD was not supposed to mandate the means to achieve compliance with
its performance standards, as it is attempting to do with the stand-up
of a costly, duplicative personnel surety initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Management memorandum to Under Secretary Rand Beers from Penny
Anderson, Director, and David Wulf, Deputy Director, ISCD, November 11,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We understand that permanent CFATS authorization may have to wait
the outcome of DHS' ability to address the litany of pervasive internal
management failures. During this period of re-evaluation, we cannot
emphasize too strongly that this is not the time to entrust ISCD to
implement a stand-alone personnel surety program. The CFATS personal
surety program is identified in the November 2011 ISCD management
memorandum as the agency's third highest programmatic priority. ISCD
has taken the unorthodox approach of attempting to institute this
program though an information collection request (ICR), rather than
full notice and comment rulemaking as has been the approach used to
establish every other Federal vetting program. This request is pending
at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) has predicted that it will soon be released.
Under CFATS, RBPS 12 establishes a four-part background check for
all facility personnel, and as appropriate, for unescorted visitors
with access to restricted areas. The four-part background check
standards are consistent with the other background check programs
administered by DHS, including measures to verify identity, to check
criminal history, to validate legal authorization to work, and to
identify people with terrorist ties. The latter standard is met by a
check against the terrorist screening database administered by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. ISCD's approach to personnel surety
runs counter to direction from the White House, with industry support,
that DHS consolidate and streamline duplicative vetting programs and
eliminate redundant background checks.\4\ As proposed, ISCD refuses to
reciprocally recognize other, more robust Federal vetting programs as
sufficient to meet the background check requirements of CFATS, and ISCD
does not allow regulated facilities the option to meet its personnel
surety standards by exercising DHS' discretionary authority to open the
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program to
employees at CFATS facilities. ISCD's program will compel facilities to
collect personal identifying information from a myriad of non-employees
who are granted access to restricted areas--a liability many are
unwilling to assume. It is expected that the site-by-site registration
and access verification procedures will unnecessarily encumber facility
access. Acknowledging these flaws, ISCD has said that it will ``slowly
rollout'' the personal surety program with a promise to fix problems in
the ramp up to full implementation after OMB gives clearance--basically
turning initial implementation into a pilot program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This initiative has as its objective leveraging existing
Federal security background checks to implement the principle of
``enroll once, use many'' to reuse the information on individuals
needing multiple access privileges. Transportation Security
Administration's Transportation and Threat and Credentialing office is
working on this goal through its Infrastructure Modernization program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These personal surety program issues have been identified to the
authorizing committees of the House and Senate. Correspondingly, this
subcommittee should bar ISCD from using any funds to implement this
program until the authorizing committees have addressed these concerns.
Ideally, ISCD would withdraw its ICR proposal and enable chemical
facilities to satisfy the personal surety requirements of RBPS 12 by
accepting evidence that individuals seeking access to restricted areas
are appropriately vetted by existing Federal background check programs
that are at least equivalent to the CFATS standards. Additionally,
individuals needing this access should be allowed to apply for and be
vetted under these existing programs. These accommodations would save
Federal and private sector resources without any diminution in
security.
ANSP.--ISCD is also responsible for the ANSP. The November 2011
management memo includes sections relevant to this program. The ANSP
program, even more than CFATS, directly affects IME members.\5\ As
unbelievable as it may seem, ISCD has proposed to institute a separate,
unique chain-of-custody vetting program for those handling AN.\6\ All
of the criticisms that have been raised about the personal surety
program under CFATS could be repeated here and more. The ANSP vetting
proposal would require the registration and face-to-face on-line
verification of registration of anyone with possession of AN or
transferring AN to another individual. This regulatory interpretation
oversteps statutory authority authorizing the ANSP.\7\ This legislation
restricts the registration and vetting requirements to those
transferring ownership and possession. With this understanding,
individuals engaged in the transportation of AN would not be covered,
nor would individuals at facilities that do not have decisionmaking
authority to direct the commerce of this product. The House Homeland
Security Committee has reported legislation, H.R. 3116, that would
exempt those engaged in the transportation of AN, as the security
vetting of those individuals is handled by the Transportation Security
Administration, and would limit vetting under the ANSP to those who
individuals who both possess and transfer ownership of AN. As with
CFATS, ISCD should allow individuals who possess and transfer ownership
of AN to satisfy the vetting requirements of the ANSP through other
equivalent Federal security vetting programs, such as the vetting
program administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives for those that possess commercial explosives. As we
recommended for CFATS, no new authority should be granted ISCD until
the agency gets its internal house in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In the 1950s, the explosives industry migrated away from
nitroglycerin-based to AN-based explosives for safety reasons. Today
about 99 percent of explosives are AN-based. Currently, we estimate
that the explosives industry uses over 2 million metric tons of TGAN
(technical grade AN) annually, 70 percent of the total AN consumed in
the United States. Almost all TGAN is stored, transported, and used in
bulk. The smallest unit of sale in the United States is 1-ton ``super
sacks,'' not man-portable bags. Eighty percent of the AN received by
our members is delivered by railcar (5 percent by barge and 15 percent
by truck). For safety reasons, we estimate that we deliver 85 percent
or more of AN directly to the end user where it is converted into
explosive material. Of the 15 percent of AN prill that is manufactured
into an explosive prior to delivery to the end user, about 90 percent
is manufactured as ``ANFO.''
\6\ 76 FR 46908 (August 3, 2011).
\7\ 6 U.S.C. 488.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do agree with the Action Plan proposal to integrate into a
single cadre ANSP and CFATS inspectors. Dual training inspectors to
function interchangeably under both programs will optimize the use of
these resources. We believe ISCD has the authority to do this
administratively, though union issues may complicate the merger.
Congress should monitor this situation.
conclusion
The commercial explosives industry has a long history of attention
to the safety and security of the products that we produce. We look for
opportunities to partner with DHS and ISCD to address shared concerns.
On the matter of personnel vetting in both the CFATS and ANSP programs,
we regret that ISCD has not yet been responsive to our suggestions to
leverage existing equivalent Federal programs to accomplish this task.
The cost to American taxpayers, industry, and the Government to stand
up redundant vetting programs has not been justified. Thank you for
your attention to these concerns.
Respectfully submitted by,
Cynthia Hilton,
Executive Vice President.
______
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 has taken the most significant step forward to date in
attempting to measure the effectiveness of EMPG. For the past 2 years,
NEMA has released ``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_content&view=article&id=220&Itemid=402].
homeland security grant program
Since the inception of the State Homeland Security Grant Program
(SHSGP), NEMA has maintained support of these grants as critical
resources to help State and local governments build and sustain
capabilities to address the various threats and hazards they face. The
time has come, however, to consider a better way forward in light of
continuing budget cuts to these important programs. During the fiscal
year 2012 budget discussions of last summer, the NEMA leadership
decided on a new approach to the full suite of grants within the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). NEMA subsequently developed the Proposal for a
Comprehensive Preparedness Grants Structure which has been previously
submitted to your subcommittee for review.
NEMA was pleased to see the administration also contribute to the
dialogue of grant reform through the fiscal year 2013 budget proposal.
While we were encouraged to see the administration's vision reflect
many of our recommendations, NEMA strongly believes a continued
dialogue with all stakeholders is necessary to ensure every voice is
heard and every consideration given for the most effective approach to
grants reform. We would suggest several aspects of the President's
budget proposal require additional clarity and further analysis:
--The current planning process must be upgraded to reflect the
maturation of our preparedness efforts in the past 10 years. A
truly comprehensive system must allow for each State and
locality to determine core capabilities, set priorities in a
flexible manner, and measure performance and effectiveness
regardless of available Federal funds.
--Those cities traditionally categorized as ``tier 1'' in the Urban
Area Security Initiative (UASI) program should be directly
funded provided they also participate in the THIRA process and
comprehensive planning process. Furthermore, a process by which
other units of government such as transit and port authorities
or self-organized regions of governments such as other current
UASI participants can apply for funding should be outlined.
Giving direct funding without any requirement to work with or
support an overall State strategy, however, puts the State in
an untenable position as it continues to reward geographic
stovepipes and uncoordinated programs
--The THIRA process must focus on State and local governments and
include consequences of loss in the analysis and provide the
analytical rigor for understanding and problem-solving for
complex issues. The system must also include the full range of
stakeholders including health, law enforcement, public works,
fire, land use, transportation, and the private sector. This
includes collaboration on planning, analysis, project
development, application review, and development of core
capabilities.
--The administration's definition of ``regionalization'' in terms of
application review requires additional clarification. Such peer
review is best handled at the State level and should focus on
setting priorities for projects. Any national review should be
on the State priorities overall and not a micro review of
individual projects. Also, coordination of development of
specific national capabilities such as urban search and rescue
teams is necessary. NEMA addresses this issue through the
recommendation of a multi-disciplinary and multi-jurisdictional
committee comprised of stakeholders across the State to review
all grant applications.
The review committee of Statewide stakeholders is critical to the
development of a governance structure which ensures all
partners and grantees to maintain a voice through a project-
based grants process. The committee would also be responsible
for enabling the range of threats and hazards to be considered
across the full spectrum of State and local activities. Such a
committee promotes fairness, reduces the politicization of
grants, and allows a voice for every constituency.
--Priorities and select projects for local governments, ports, and
other entities, or for those entities to work with each other
within each State and among the States on the highest value
projects cannot be dictated by Washington. The allocation
systems of the past pitted city against city and port against
port with very little consideration of the complex
relationships of our economic system. The NEMA proposal
recognizes and values these relationships. There must be a
marketplace of ideas where value is determined by collaboration
between applicants rather than cutthroat competition between
them with winners and losers.
--NEMA suggests only a small amount of the total grant funding be
held by DHS for competitive pilot projects to spark innovation.
Competition at the project level cannot be calculated by
separate groups or reduced to subjective grading. Up to 5
percent of the funding should be utilized to support innovative
projects. The remainder of the funding from the investment
grant can then be devoted to project-based applications by
State and local grantees. This varies from the administration's
recommendation which continues to address grant funding through
stove-piped programs. By reducing layers of review that impede
the flexibility of the funding, an efficient and effective flow
of funding can be realized for State and local projects.
Overall, the overarching principles and values remain at the heart
of any grant reform. Few seem to disagree with the tenets of supporting
PPD-8; building a culture of collaboration; the ability to be agile and
adaptive to confront changing hazards; building and sustaining
capabilities; encouraging innovation; providing full visibility to all
stakeholders; and recognizing the interdependencies of our national
systems. The importance of these principles and values highlight a
critical point in any retrospective on homeland security grants.
Regardless of our country's fiscal situation, physical security and
economic security are not mutually exclusive and can be achieved with a
more streamlined grant structure. Working with you and our stakeholder
partners, we remain confident a prudent approach forward can be found.
emergency management assistance compact
We appreciate your continued support for the Emergency Management
Assistance Compact (EMAC). NEMA continues to support a budget line item
for EMAC for $2 million so the program may continue providing critical
mutual aid resources across the country.
In fiscal year 2013, specific funding for investment into EMAC is
needed to continue to build capabilities. For example, 26 emergency
management personnel responded to the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks. Conversely, over 66,000 personnel from a variety of
disciplines deployed through EMAC 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. Last year, over 600
personnel were deployed in response to the floods and tornados in
Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Mississippi, Alabama,
and Tennessee.
emergency management and homeland security training and education
Training and education opportunities stand as one of the most
effective ways to ensure the continued professionalization of emergency
management and homeland security personnel as well as to increase their
abilities to best protect our Nation and communities. The two Federal
Government programs representing the pedigree of these efforts are the
Emergency Management Institute (EMI) and the Naval Postgraduate
School's Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS). Not only do
these two institutions provide the ``gold standards'' within their
respective professional education realms, they also provide leadership
and share resources to support a collaborative effort among training
and education efforts throughout the country.
EMI directly supports the professional core competencies of
emergency managers at the Federal, State, local, tribal, public, and
private sectors. The Institute trains more than 2 million students
annually with residential on-site programs, off-site programs in
partnership with State and local emergency managers, and computer based
E-learning. EMI has recently partnered with NEMA and the International
Association of Emergency Managers to develop the National Emergency
Management Academy. The Academy consists of five courses and provides a
structured and progressive approach to acquire skills, knowledge, and
abilities to meet career challenges in emergency management
CHDS programs include a fully accredited master's degree program;
executive education seminars for Governors, locally elected officials,
and their senior department leaders; an Executive Leaders Program; a
Fusion Center Leaders Program; a peer reviewed online academic journal;
a university and agency partnership effort; and the world's largest
online homeland security library. These endeavors by CHDS significantly
advance the strategic and critical thinking abilities of emergency
management and homeland security personnel in their daily
responsibilities, policy deliberations, and relationships with senior
leadership within their jurisdictions.
NEMA supports the President's budget request of $17.8 million for
EMI and the inclusion of language in the fiscal year 2013
appropriations bill supporting the full funding of the Naval
Postgraduate School's Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS)
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
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. As you develop the fiscal year
2013 budget for the Department of Homeland Security, 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.
Mr. Jim Mullen,
President, NEMA.
Director, Washington Military Department Emergency Management
Division.
______
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 over 24,000
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers and trade enforcement
specialists who are stationed at 331 land, sea, and air ports of entry
(POEs) across the United States. CBP employees' mission is to protect
the Nation's borders at the ports of entry from all threats while
facilitating legitimate travel and trade. CBP trade compliance
personnel enforce over 400 U.S. trade and tariff laws and regulations
in order to ensure a fair and competitive trade environment pursuant to
existing international agreements and treaties, as well as stemming the
flow of illegal contraband such as child pornography, illegal arms,
weapons of mass destruction, and laundered money. CBP is also a revenue
collection agency, processing approximately $2 trillion of imports--28
million trade entries a year--at the POEs and collecting more than $32
billion in revenue for the U.S. Government in fiscal year 2010.
cbp staffing at the ports of entry
There is perhaps no greater roadblock to legitimate trade and
travel efficiency than the lack of sufficient staff at the ports.
Understaffed ports lead to long delays in our commercial lanes as cargo
waits to enter U.S. commerce.
Those delays result in real losses to the U.S. economy. According
to a draft report prepared by the Department of Commerce, border delays
in 2008 cost the U.S. economy nearly 26,000 jobs and $6 billion in
output, $1.4 billion in wages, and $600 million in tax revenues
annually. According to the same report, by 2017, average wait times
could increase to nearly 100 minutes, costing the United States more
than 54,000 jobs and $12 billion in output, $3 billion in wages, and
$1.2 billion in tax revenues. The cumulative loss in output due to
border delays over the next 10 years is estimated to be $86 billion.
More than 50 million Americans work for companies that engage in
international trade, according to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
If Congress is serious about job creation, then Congress should support
enhancing U.S. trade and travel by mitigating wait times at the ports
and enhancing trade enforcement by increasing CBP security and
commercial operations staffing at the air, sea, and land ports of
entry.
In October 2009, the Southwest Border Task Force, created by
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, presented the results of
its staffing and resources review in a draft report. This draft report
recommended that the ``Federal Government should hire more Customs [and
Border Protection] officers.'' The report echoes the finding of the
Border-Facilitation Working Group. (The U.S.-Mexico Border Facilitation
Working Group was created during the bilateral meeting between
President George W. Bush and President Felipe Calderon held in Merida
in March 2007.) ``In order to more optimally operate the various ports
of entry, CBP needs to increase the number of CBP officers. According
to its own estimate, the lack of human resources only for the San
Ysidro POE is in the `hundreds' and the CBP officer need at all ports
of entry located along the border with Mexico is in the `thousands.'''
(``CBP: Challenges and Opportunities,'' a memo prepared by Armand
Peschard-Sverdrup for Mexico's Ministry of the Economy: U.S.-Mexico
Border Facilitation Working Group, January 2008, pages 1 and 2.)
Despite these independent studies that state that CBP is
understaffed at ports of entry by thousands of officers, the fiscal
year 2013 budget provides only enough personnel funding to maintain the
current number of CBP officer, CBP agriculture specialist, and CBP
trade operations positions.
NTEU urges the subcommittee to increase funding to hire additional
CBP officers and agriculture specialists to sufficiently staff existing
booths and traffic lanes at the air, sea, and land ports of entry.
Also of concern to NTEU in the fiscal year 2013 budget request is
the decrease of $21 million in funding for inspectional overtime at the
air, land, and sea ports of entry. CBP states that ``this reduction
will not impact operational staffing.''
Overtime is essential when staffing levels are insufficient to
ensure that inspectional duties can be fulfilled, that officers have
sufficient back-up and that wait times are mitigated. In CBP's own
words, ``Overtime allows OFO to schedule its personnel to cover key
shifts with a smaller total personnel number.'' This is one reason that
Congress authorized a dedicated funding source to pay for overtime--
customs user fees, pursuant to title 19, section 58c (f) of the U.S.
Code. CBP collects user fees to recover certain costs incurred for
processing, among other things, air and sea passengers, and various
private and commercial land, sea, air, and rail carriers and shipments.
The source of these user fees are commercial vessels, commercial
vehicles, rail cars, private aircraft, private vessels, air passengers,
sea passengers, cruise vessel passengers, dutiable mail, customs
brokers, and barge/bulk carriers. These fees are deposited into the
customs user fee account. User fees are designated by statute to pay
for services provided to the user, such as inspectional overtime for
passenger and commercial vehicle inspection during overtime shift
hours. In addition, APHIS user fees and immigration user fees also fund
``fee-related'' inspection costs.
User fees have not been increased in years and some of these user
fees cover only a portion of recoverable fee-related costs. For
example, CBP collects the extraordinarily low fee of $437 at arrival of
a commercial vessel to a port to recover personnel and other costs to
process and inspect the vessel's crew and cargo. This fee, however, is
capped at $5,955 per calendar year; no matter how many times the
commercial vessel enters a port that year. This fee was last raised
from $397 to $437 in 2007, but the cap has remained at $5,955 since
1986. In 2010, CBP collected a total of $19.9 million in commercial
vessel user fees, but the actual cost of commercial vessel inspections
in fiscal year 2010 was $33.6 million.
Another example of an extraordinarily low user fee is the fee paid
by railcar owners of $8.25 per car at arrival for processing and
inspection, but the fee is capped at $100 per railcar per calendar
year. In 2010, CBP collected a total of $8.6 million in rail car user
fees, but the actual cost of rail car inspections in fiscal year 2010
was $18.9 million. And commercial vehicles pay only $5.50 per vehicle
at arrival for processing and inspection, but the fee is capped at $100
per vehicle per calendar year. In 2010, CBP collected a total of $13.7
million in commercial vehicle user fees, but the actual cost of
commercial vehicle inspections in fiscal year 2010 was over $113.7
million.
According to Government Accountability Office (GAO), (GAO-12-464T,
page 11), the air passenger immigration inspection user fee should be
reviewed and adjusted to fully recover the cost of the air passenger
immigration inspection activities conducted by U.S. Customs and
Immigration (ICE) and CBP. GAO estimated that fee collections available
to ICE and CBP to pay for costs incurred in providing inspection
services totaled about $600 million in fiscal year 2010, however, ``air
passenger immigration fees collections did not fully cover CBP's costs
in FY 2009 and FY 2010.'' NTEU urges Congress to allow CBP to better
align air passenger inspection fee revenue with the costs of providing
immigration inspection services and adjust the fee as needed so that
collections are aligned with total inspection costs.
Also, according to the GAO, (GAO-12-464T, page 7), CBP has a $639.4
million unobligated balance in its customs user fee account. These
unobligated balances have remained in CBP's customs user fee account
for more than 10 years. NTEU urges the subcommittee to clarify the
purposes for which the nearly $640 million in unobligated balances in
the customs user fee account is available. NTEU supports legislative
changes necessary to allow CBP to use this customs user fee unobligated
balance to fully fund inspectional overtime in fiscal year 2013 and
recover other costs incurred for processing and inspection of
international travelers and trade.
trade enforcement and compliance staffing
CBP has a dual mission of safeguarding our Nation's borders and
ports as well as regulating and facilitating international trade. CBP
personnel are responsible for collecting import duties and fees, and
enforcing U.S. trade laws. In fiscal year 2010, CBP collected $32
billion in revenue. Since CBP was established in March 2003, however,
there has been no increase in CBP trade enforcement and compliance
personnel and again, the fiscal year 2012 budget proposes no increase
in FTEs for CBP trade operations personnel.
In effect, there has been a CBP trade staffing freeze at March 2003
levels and, as a result, CBP's revenue function has suffered. Recently,
in response to an import specialists staffing shortage, CBP has
implemented at certain ports a tariff sharing scheme resulting in
certain ports being assigned only parts of the harmonized tariff
schedule. This is a short-sighted solution that shortchanges taxpayers,
trade compliant importers, and the Federal treasury.
Also, the fiscal year 2013 budget requests $10 million for
intellectual property rights (IPR) enforcement enhancement. The
administration's request, however, includes no increase in CBP trade
operations staff at the ports to implement this trade enforcement
program.
Lastly, the fiscal year 2013 budget request proposes to cut 21
trade operations positions including 14 rulings and regulations
staffers who are responsible for promulgating regulations and rulings,
and providing policy and technical support to CBP, DHS, Treasury,
Congress, and the importing community concerning the application of
customs laws and regulations.
NTEU urges the subcommittee not to cut CBP trade operations staff,
but rather to increase 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 the Department for increasing the journeyman pay for
CBP officers and agriculture specialists. Many deserving CBP trade and
security positions, however, were left out of this pay increase, which
has significantly damaged morale.
NTEU strongly supports extending this same career ladder increase
to additional CBP positions, including CBP trade operations specialists
and CBP seized property specialists. The journeyman pay level for the
CBP technicians who perform important commercial trade and
administration duties should also be increased from GS-7 to GS-9.
ratio of cbp supervisors to frontline cbp officers
CBP is continuing to increase the number of supervisors when a much
greater need exists for new front-line hires. In terms of real numbers,
since CBP was created, the number of new managers has increased at a
much higher rate than the number of new front-line CBP hires. According
to GAO, between October 2003 and February 2006, CBP increased the
number of managers by 17 percent, but increased the number of front-
line CBP officers by only 2 percent (See GAO-06-751R, page 11).
The tremendous increase in CBP managers and supervisors has come at
the expense of national security preparedness and front-line positions.
Also, these highly paid management positions are straining the CBP
budget.
recommendations
Sufficient CBP staffing must be provided to ensure security and
mitigate prolonged wait times for both trade and travel at our Nation's
ports of entry. Therefore, NTEU urges the subcommittee to include in
its fiscal year 2013 DHS appropriations bill:
--funding to significantly increase both port security and trade
enforcement staffing at the ports of entry; and
--funding to extend enhanced pay and retirement recognition to
additional CBP personnel, including import and other commercial
operations specialists, CBP seized property specialists, and
CBP technicians.
The more than 24,000 CBP employees represented by 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,
while ensuring that legal trade and travelers move expeditiously though
our air, sea, and land ports. These men and women are deserving of more
resources to perform their jobs better and more efficiently.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony to the
subcommittee on their behalf.
Colleen M. Kelley,
National President.
______
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 Hui-Shan Walker, the emergency management
coordinator for Hampton, Virginia. I have been a local government
emergency manager for 12 years and before that worked for 5 years in
the Red Cross' Disaster Services. I serve currently as the president of
the U.S. Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers
(IAEM-USA)\1\; and I am providing, on its behalf, this statement on
critical budget and policy issues for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ IAEM-USA is our Nation's largest association of emergency
management professionals, with 5,000 members including emergency
managers at the State and local government levels, tribal nations, the
military, colleges and universities, private business, and the
nonprofit sector. Most of our members are 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding FEMA's fiscal year 2013 budget, IAEM-USA supports funding
the Emergency Management Performance Grant at $350 million and the
Emergency Management Institute at $18,305,000. IAEM-USA opposes the
termination of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program. We urge rejection
of the National Preparedness Grant Program proposal until adequate
details are available and key local stakeholders have had input. 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).
emergency management performance grants (empg)
IAEM-USA respectfully urges that the subcommittee approve the
President's request of $350 million for EMPG, but continue to 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 over 50 years. We further request that language be
included continuing to make it clear the funding is all hazards and can
be used for personnel. The program was authorized at $950 million for
fiscal year 2012 in Public Law 110-53.
EMPG, 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 is
authorized by Public Law 110-53 for the Administrator of FEMA ``to make
grants to States to assist State, local, and tribal governments in
preparing for all hazards, as authorized by the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et
seq.).'' The legislation creating EMPG is purposefully broad to allow
State, local, and tribal jurisdictions to focus their attention on
customizing their capabilities. Therefore, it is important that FEMA
guidance not be written to make ``one size fits all'' but instead to
allow each local jurisdiction maximum flexibility in meeting the
specific capability requirements. The program supports State and local
initiatives for planning, training, exercise, mitigation, public
education, as well as response and recovery coordination during actual
events. EMPG succeeds in achieving its goal. As the 2011 IAEM-USA
survey report, ``Emergency Management Performance Grant Funds: Return
on Investment at the Local Level,'' demonstrated, EMPG funds contribute
to bring about coordination, integration, and collaboration within
local level jurisdictions across the country. The report on our fifth
annual IAEM-USA survey of EMPG is available at: [http://www.iaem.com/
documents/IAEM.EMPG.ROI.Survey.Report3.5.12.pdf]. Since all disasters
start and end at the local level, it is vital that capacity continue to
be built at this level.
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 most 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. Some jurisdictions are terminating the emergency
management position altogether and simply adding the responsibilities
associated with emergency management functions to pre-existing
personnel in 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. EMPG funding
frequently makes a difference as to whether or not a qualified person
is present to perform these duties in local jurisdictions. 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) located at Emmitsburg,
Maryland, by $500,000 to $18,305,000. The additional funds will support
continued development and delivery of the National Emergency Management
Academy foundation classes and support the development of training at
the specialty and executive management levels, to include the
enhancement of the field (G) and on-campus (E) courses. These programs
support both the introductory training and continued professional
development of Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency managers
across the Nation. IAEM-USA urges 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.
EMI provides vitally needed training to State, local, and tribal
government emergency managers through on-campus classes, a curriculum
developed for field deployment and distance learning. This ``crown
jewel'' of emergency management training and doctrine has made progress
over the past 2 years with the funding support of Congress in the
update and development of critically needed programs. Sustained funding
for the continuance of existing programs and funds to complete the much
needed executive management series of courses are vital to supporting
local and tribal emergency management programs. For 2011-2012 EMI had
more than 5.5 million active students; 39,559 classroom course
completions, and 2,275,174 independent study program outline course
completions.
pre-disaster mitigation
We urge the subcommittee to reject the proposal to terminate the
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program and provide a minimum of $35,500,000 as
appropriated in fiscal year 2012. 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.
national preparedness grant program
The proposed National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) would
consolidate 16 homeland security grant programs into a State-centric
block and competitive grant program. The proposal raises concerns and
questions for those at the local level. For example, the proposal
ignores requirements of the 9/11 Act for 80 percent of the State
Homeland Security Grant program to support local governments, the place
where all disasters begin and end. In addition, the proposed use of a
threat and hazard identification and risk assessment (THIRA) does not
describe how local government officials, local emergency managers, and
first responders will participate effectively and efficiently in the
THIRA process.
In response to the proposed NPGP, 12 national organizations of
locals including elected officials, first responders, and emergency
managers sent a letter outlining a set of core principles to guide
grant program reform--principles which we would urge you to consider as
you evaluate reform proposals. This letter is available at the
following site: [http://www.iaem.com/Committees/GovernmentAffairs/
GovtAffairs.htm#CoalitionLetter21Mar2012]. The principles are as
follows:
--Increased Transparency.--It must be clear and understandable to the
Federal Government and the public how the States are
distributing funds, why they are making these decisions, and
where the funds are going.
--Greater Local Involvement.--Local government officials, including
emergency managers and emergency response officials, know best
the threats and vulnerabilities in their areas. The THIRA
process must include the input of local elected and emergency
response officials, and FEMA must be able to audit States by
comparing local risk assessments to the State level THIRA.
Further, local governments should have the opportunity to
challenge a State THIRA that inadequately reflects their needs
or input.
--Flexibility With Accountability.--Any changes to the existing
Federal grant programs should allow Federal funding to meet
individual local needs, and preparedness gaps as identified at
the local level. Effective but sometimes less politically
popular programs, like mitigation, must still receive funding.
--Protect Local Funding.--Since event impact and response are
primarily local in nature, grant funding should support
primarily local prevention and preparedness efforts, as is the
case under the current program structure. It is important that
the vast majority of Federal homeland security grants continue
to fund local prevention and response activities, including
local emergency managers and first responders, and activities
that support their preparedness efforts.
--Sustain Terrorism Prevention.--The current emphasis on supporting
law enforcement's terrorism prevention activities must be
maintained. The Federal grant funds should not be used to
support larger State bureaucracies at the expense of
operational counter terrorism preparedness, threat analysis,
and information-sharing activities.
--Incentives for Innate Regionalization.--FEMA's proposal focuses on
States and multi-State regions (similar to the FEMA regions).
The homeland security grants must also support preparedness in
metropolitan intra-State and inter-State regions.
the path forward on the npgp
The details matter and there are still too many unanswered
questions on how the NPGP would actually work. We recommend that the
dialogue continue with DHS/FEMA, the Congress and all relevant State
and local stakeholders. On April 24, a letter was sent by 12 national
organizations of locals to Secretary Napolitano and Administrator
Fugate suggesting that the Department not rush to make major changes
this year but let the changes being implemented in the fiscal year 2012
budget play out and be evaluated. This would give time for the
Department to work with key local and State stakeholders and the
Congress in a collaborative way to develop reforms which incorporate
the successful elements of the homeland security programs and identify
changes which need to be made.
conclusion
In conclusion, we urge the subcommittee to continue to build State
and local emergency management capacity by funding EMPG at $350 million
and to retain it as a separate account. We urge funding for the
Emergency Management Institute be increased by $500,000 to $18,305,000
and the amount be specifically mentioned in the subcommittee report. We
urge that the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program not be terminated. We
urge rejection of the NPGP proposal until more details are available
and more collaboration with key stakeholders has occurred.
Hui-Shan Walker, CEM ,
President.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Airports Council International-North America, Prepared Statement
of............................................................. 123
American Public Transportation Association, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 125
American Rivers, Prepared Statement of........................... 128
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Prepared Statement of the..... 129
Association of State Floodplacin Managers, Inc., Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 130
Coats, Senator Daniel, U.S. Senator From Indiana:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 66
Statements of................................................ 6, 86
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi:
Questions Submitted by......................................77, 119
Statement of................................................. 89
Fleet Reserve Association, Prepared Statement of the............. 131
Herron, Bob, State Representative, Alaska House of
Representatives, Letter From................................... 35
Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii, Question
Submitted by................................................... 62
Institute of Makers of Explosives, Prepared Statement of the..... 135
Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana:
Opening Statements of........................................ 1, 83
Prepared Statements of....................................... 5, 85
Questions Submitted by......................................44, 115
Lautenberg, Senator Frank R., U.S. Senator From New Jersey:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 60
Statements of................................................ 7, 87
Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 63
Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 120
Statement of................................................. 88
Napolitano, Janet, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.... 1
Prepared Statement........................................... 11
Statement of................................................. 8
National Emergency Management Association, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 137
National Treasury Employees Union, Prepared Statement of the..... 140
Papp, Admiral Robert J., Jr., Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard,
Department of Homeland Security................................ 83
Prepared Statement of........................................ 93
Statement of................................................. 90
U.S. Council of the International Association of Emergency
Managers, Prepared Statement of the............................ 143
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECUITY
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 44
Air Freight Security Fees........................................ 42
Aircraft Recapitalization........................................ 78
Airport Security Breaches........................................ 60
Aviation Fee:
Increase..................................................... 39
Structure.................................................... 41
Border Security Technology....................................... 56
Borders:
Improving Trade Processing at Our Land....................... 45
Securing and Managing Our.................................... 17
Budget Priorities................................................14, 66
Centers of Excellence............................................ 62
Coast Guard:
Capital Investment Plan...................................... 39
Mission in Arctic Ocean...................................... 37
Personnel.................................................... 37
Polar Icebreakers............................................ 50
Research and Development..................................... 79
Vessels...................................................... 29
Compact of Free Association...................................... 62
Critical Infrastructure.......................................... 23
Customs and Border Patrol (CBP):
Air and Marine............................................... 47
Northern Border Staffing..................................... 63
Operations, Continued Cuts to Critical....................... 57
Wait Times................................................... 61
Cybersecurity....................................................73, 80
Bills........................................................ 26
Education--Cyber Innovation Center........................... 45
Increase for the Federal Network............................. 59
Interagency Agreement........................................ 22
Cyberspace, Safeguarding and Securing............................ 19
Decommissioning.................................................. 78
Detention Beds................................................... 58
Disaster Funding................................................. 29
Disasters, Ensuring Resilience to................................ 20
Disease Outbreak, Potential Consequences of...................... 40
Drug Transit Zone Mission Responsibilities....................... 69
Efficiency and Effectiveness, Maximizing......................... 12
E-Verify Extension............................................... 59
Federal:
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA):
Disaster:
Assistance to Vermont................................ 64
Relief Fund.......................................... 72
Predisaster Mitigation................................... 60
Employee Issues.............................................. 64
Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) Program........................... 52
Financial Management Controls.................................... 67
Flood Plains and Map............................................. 42
Global Positioning System (GPS).................................. 61
Grant Programs Funding........................................... 27
Grants........................................................... 24
Immigrant Integration and Citizenship Grants..................... 73
Immigration Laws, Enforcing and Administering Our................ 18
International Screening Programs................................. 55
Jones Act Waivers and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve............ 49
Land Ports of Entry (LPOEs)...................................... 46
Levees........................................................... 32
And Dams..................................................... 80
Management Efficiencies.......................................... 68
National:
And Economic Security, Providing Essential Support to........ 22
Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF)......................... 30
Plum Island.............................................. 33
Domestic Preparedness Consortium--Competition Proposal....... 52
Emergency Response Capabilities Report....................... 38
Guard........................................................ 54
Support for Border Patrol................................ 68
Security Cutters (NSCs)..................................36, 77, 79
Northern Border.................................................. 54
Nuclear Detection................................................ 81
Office of Health Affairs (OHA)................................... 70
Oil Exploration off the Cuban Coast.............................. 50
Operation Stonegarden............................................ 53
Overseas Vetted Investigative Units.............................. 69
Pay and Hiring................................................... 24
Plum Island National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility............... 33
Polar Icebreakers................................................ 34
Public Land Laws................................................. 33
Secure Communities............................................... 57
Security, Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing..................... 14
Sequestration.................................................... 44
Smuggling........................................................ 62
St. Elizabeths DHS Headquarters Project.......................... 67
State and Local:
Grant Funding................................................ 61
Grants: National Preparedness Grant Program.................. 72
Strategic Petroleum Reserve:
Jones Act Waivers and the.................................... 49
Office (SPRO)................................................ 43
Terrorism and Enhancing Security, Preventing..................... 14
Trade Processing at Our Land Borders, Improving.................. 45
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Advanced Imaging
Technolo-
gy............................................................. 59
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Marriage-Based
Immigration.................................................... 64
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs).................................. 79
Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) Grants..................... 60
US-VISIT:........................................................
Delayed Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan.................... 55
Proposed Reorganization...................................... 54
Transfer of.................................................. 70
U.S. Coast Guard
Additional Committee Questions................................... 115
Arctic Operations................................................ 116
Bayonne Bridge Project........................................... 101
Budget Request, Fiscal Year 2013.................................94, 95
C-27J Aircraft................................................... 118
Critical Missions, Fulfilling.................................... 102
Drug Interdiction................................................ 102
Fast Response Cutters (FRCs):....................................
Number of.................................................... 113
Production................................................... 98
Housing and Child Care Facilities................................ 109
Icebreakers...................................................... 103
Innovative Financing Solutions................................... 106
Military Families, Support for................................... 115
National Security Cutter (NSC):
Cost......................................................... 114
Possible Shared Fleet With Navy.............................. 99
Panama Canal..................................................... 118
Port Clarence Loran Station...................................... 120
Semi-Submersibles ``Drug Subs''.................................. 118
Shore-Side Support Assets........................................ 111
Unmanned Maritime Vehicles (UMVs)................................ 119
-