[House Hearing, 113 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2014 _______________________________________________________________________ HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ________ SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY JOHN R. CARTER, Texas, Chairman ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey HENRY CUELLAR, Texas TOM LATHAM, Iowa WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. Ben Nicholson, Kris Mallard, Valerie Baldwin, Cornell Teague, and Hilary May, Staff Assistants ________ PART 3 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Page Department of Homeland Security.................................. 1 U.S. Coast Guard................................................. 521 U.S. Customs and Border Protection............................... 663 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] ________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 82-380 WASHINGTON : 2013 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida \1\ NITA M. LOWEY, New York FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JACK KINGSTON, Georgia PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey JOSE E. SERRANO, New York TOM LATHAM, Iowa ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia KAY GRANGER, Texas ED PASTOR, Arizona MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida SAM FARR, California JOHN R. CARTER, Texas CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia KEN CALVERT, California BARBARA LEE, California JO BONNER, Alabama ADAM B. SCHIFF, California TOM COLE, Oklahoma MICHAEL M. HONDA, California MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania TIM RYAN, Ohio TOM GRAVES, Georgia DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida KEVIN YODER, Kansas HENRY CUELLAR, Texas STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio DAVID G. VALADAO, California ANDY HARRIS, Maryland ---------- /1/ Chairman Emeritus William E. Smith, Clerk and Staff Director (ii) DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2014 ___________ Thursday, April 11, 2013. BUDGET HEARING--UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WITNESS HON. JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Opening Statement: Mr. Carter Mr. Carter. Today we welcome back Secretary Napolitano. That is a little loud, isn't it? Secretary, welcome. We are glad that you are here. We look forward to your testimony on the President's budget for this department and so that we can have homeland security for the fiscal year 2014. Madam Secretary, once again, DHS finds itself at a crossroads. As our budgetary constraints tighten and true threats to the homeland persist, DHS must find a way to accomplish its vital mission with increasingly scarce resources. Specifically DHS must find a way to adequately support its costly workforce and necessary operations including enforcement and also follow through on essential upgrades on border security technology, Coast Guard acquisitions, and necessary research. Budgeting for competing priorities with limited resources is not a new challenge. In fact, it has been the hallmark of the Appropriations Committee work since 1865. And that is why this subcommittee has adhered to three core principles since its establishment more than ten years ago. Unwavering support for our front-line personnel and essential operations is the first, secondly, clear alignment of funding to results and, finally, true fiscal discipline meaning we provide every dollar needed to Homeland Security but not a penny more. And that brings us to the department's budget request for fiscal year 2014, to recent events. First, your fiscal year 2014 budget prioritized and so it defies logic, more money for headquarters' consolidation and research, but deep shameful proposals to cut operations including a proposed reduction of 826 Coast Guard military personnel, a proposed cut of nearly 40 percent to Coast Guard acquisitions, a proposed reduction of 2,200 ICE detention beds, and a proposed reduction of more than 1,000 full-time positions in ICE resulting in substantial decreases to investigation and to everything from threats to national security to child exportation to cyber crime to drug smuggling. Secondly, what I have seen in the last few months, what I believe is apparent with this budget request is a complete lack of candor and that is something that as chairman I cannot and will not tolerate. I am not talking about information on internal policy deliberations or pre-decisional discussions with the Administration. I am talking about facts, facts about what things cost, the facts about actual performance. Madam Secretary, statutory mandates and reporting requirements within our bill are not flexible. They are the law. What I am getting at is the department's repeated failure to submit numerous required plans and reports on time. This includes nearly all the 12 reports and plans that were statutorily mandated to be submitted with the budget yesterday morning. Now, we did receive some late yesterday evening, I understand about three reports required, but quite honestly with the thousands and thousands and thousands of people that you have got over there in your department and the law requiring a priority date for the submission of these reports, I see no good excuse why you cannot find enough people that know how to do their job over there if they cannot get these reports put together. Furthermore, what I am getting at is the department's failure to answer basic factual questions about program cost and performance. We have asked repeatedly about mandatory E- Verify costs. We have asked repeatedly about resource implications of the new USCS programs. We have asked for updated information about the department's sequester impacts given that the fiscal year 2013 appropriation bill was enacted more than two weeks ago. And three weeks after the unwarranted release of thousands of ICE detainees, I had to hold a hearing to get an entirely confusing and incomplete accounting of the incident including that ICE released ten level one criminal aliens and 159 level two criminal aliens. Madam Secretary, let's be blunt. If DHS cannot explain how it is proposing to spend the taxpayers' limited dollars on its programs and on its projects, how are we going to make a decision as to how these funds relate to the mission requirements? We need congressional oversight. We have given congressional oversight authority. This is part of congressional oversight and it should not be ignored. We have little choice other than to hold the department's leadership accountable and to cut requested and unjustified funding. So when DHS has a statutory mission to fulfill, we expect a legitimate and adequate budget to support it. When the law mandates a spend plan, we expect compliance. When we ask a question for factual information, we expect straightforward and prompt answers instead of getting little more than excuses, delays, and outright irresponsiveness. And all that has got to stop and it has got to stop today. Yesterday we were talking. I talked to you on the phone briefly about the plans that we were not receiving and you made the comment you would try to get it to us by May 1st. I thought about that after our conversation and that is not acceptable. Just because the President thinks he gets to be two months late on his budget does not mean that the people who work in his departments get to also ignore deadlines. We have deadlines that we have on this committee and I think those deadlines should be met. And I think May 1st is too long to wait for those reports. So I would appreciate it if you would get whoever you hire or have hired to get the various reports done that we require and if they cannot remember what they are, we will be glad to share that information with them. I would like for them to have that for us by no later than the end of next week, Friday of next week. And, you know, I would also like to know who was assigned that job because if they cannot do the job, then there is a management problem somewhere. And we will talk. I will give you an opportunity to reply to this, but I do not want to play the game. Others are having to, but I do not want to play the game of we will give it to you when we want to. And then honestly we have a statutory mandate on a budget, but we did not get the budget when it was statutorily mandated. We got it two months later. I am not going to play that game. That is pretty simple. At a time when our budget is hemorrhaging with red ink, the department has to get the budgeting right. That means meeting oversight responsibilities and clearly aligning requested funding to intended results for our Nation's security. And that is the commitment I am going to ask of you today. The American people deserve no less. Madam Secretary, I think it is clear that we have a lot to cover here today. Before I recognize you for your testimony, let me turn to our distinguished ranking member and former chairman of this committee for his remarks that he may wish to make. Mr. Price. [The statement of Mr. Carter follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Opening Statement: Mr. Price Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Madam Secretary. It is a pleasure to have you kick off our budget season a little later than usual, but we are glad to have you here. The fiscal year 2014 net discretionary budget request for the Department of Homeland Security is $39.04 billion, not including an additional $5.6 billion in disaster relief funding that does not count toward the discretionary cap. The total is some $550 million below the equivalent number for the current year. This year also marks the tenth anniversary of the creation of DHS and the continuing efforts to make 22 components operate under a common vision and leadership. Complicating these efforts is the reality that, like all federal agencies, you have been asked to do more with less. And this has required some tough decisions. I am pleased that a full year Homeland Security Appropriations Act was included in the final Continuing Resolution for the current year providing an allocation of funds that is more aligned with your current needs. It provided significant and necessary funding increases, for example, for preparedness and anti-terrorism grants, for customs and border protection salaries, and for advanced research. However, you are still under the thumb of sequestration. Sequestration, the very definition of irrational and irresponsible budgeting, which ironically leaves the two main drivers of the federal deficit, tax expenditures and mandatory spending, largely untouched. Today I look forward to exploring how the Department is assessing risk and prioritizing funding in this era of shrinking budgets. It is also time to reflect about where the department has been and where you are heading. This includes the Department's efforts to enforce our Nation's immigration laws which we all know are in need of comprehensive reform. As bipartisan efforts to craft legislation continue, no doubt security at the border will remain center stage. Despite what some opponents of comprehensive immigration reform say, significant progress has been made along the southern border. This subcommittee, under both democratic and republican leadership, has been at the forefront of these changes. We must resist misleading claims about border security by those who simply wish to block reform. Two decades ago, fewer than 4,000 border patrol agents monitored the entire southwest border. By the end of fiscal 2012, there were more than 18,400 such agents. Fencing totaling some 651 miles has also been constructed in targeted areas of the border. Now sensors have been planted, cameras erected, and unmanned aerial vehicles monitor the border from above. Couple these efforts with targeted outbound inspections of vehicles for illegal drugs, weapons, cash, and other contraband heading south into Mexico resulting in some impressive seizures in California, Texas, and Arizona over the past three years and you can see just how successful our border security efforts have been. You should be proud of how far we have come under your leadership and that of your predecessor to secure our border. Recalling our efforts to apply cost-effectiveness criteria to that border fence, I know just how elusive the definition of secure can be. I also know that we cannot simply throw an unlimited supply of money at the southwest border and assume it will solve all the problems. We must continue to look analytically for the right mix of personnel, infrastructure, and technology to find the best path forward and today we hope you can shed some light on your thinking in this regard. In addition, the Administration has taken positive steps to improve its immigration enforcement policies. Here, too, some have been eager to criticize, but I believe it is both prudent and wise for the Administration to focus on the removal of criminal aliens first and foremost while providing prosecutorial discretion on less pressing cases and deferred action in the case of the so-called dreamers. With limited resources, we simply must prioritize our efforts. Much has been made of the release of ICE detainees in February, although following Director Morton's testimony before this subcommittee, I hope we have reached the point where suspicions of a political motive have subsided. In that regard, I hope you can touch on the funding realities ICE must deal with when facing a statutory mandate that ties its hands on the number of individuals it detains. Director Morton has testified that this statutory minimum bed requirement will reduce such priorities as the investigation into human and drug smuggling as well as child pornography. We need to get to the point where ICE decision making about the use of detention is based only on consistent, reviewable, risk-based criteria, and that ICE has full discretion and available funding to use less costly supervision methods and alternatives to detention when risk is low. I also support your effort to better focus the Secure Communities Program to make sure it is fulfilling its intended mission and not being applied indiscriminately. Now that the Secure Communities Program has been implemented nationwide, I look forward to examining how effective this program has been in fulfilling its intended mission. This subcommittee also feels some ownership of that effort to focus on the criminal alien population. I must also commend you on the job FEMA continues to do. Over the past few years, FEMA has faced significant challenges, including an unprecedented 99 presidentially declared disasters in 2011. In comparison, 2012 had about half that number with 47 presidentially declared disasters, but that number included Hurricane Sandy, a storm of historic magnitude. Currently every state in the Nation has pending disaster recovery projects with FEMA. In each of these instances, FEMA has done a remarkable job of working with affected areas to make sure that individuals, families, and localities have the resources to remove damaged structures and debris and to begin the rebuilding process. This recent experience confirms that much of the lost capacity we witnessed following Hurricane Katrina has been restored, yet another success of which this subcommittee claims some ownership. Now, I must say there are some questions, some disappointments in this budget that we are going to want to explore. There is a net reduction in FEMA grants here. There is the same flawed proposal, I believe, for a national preparedness grant program. It was rejected by all sides in the Continuing Resolution. The budget also proposes a significant reduction to coast guard personnel and acquisitions that raises serious questions about future Coast Guard capabilities and recapitalizations efforts. Now, on the face of it at least, this significant reduction in funding for the Coast Guard appears to have been made in order to provide a full $714 million to complete construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility. We know that facility must be constructed, but we have got to consider the implications for the rest of DHS, particularly if there is a viable option to phase in NBAF construction and avoid a tradeoff with the Coast Guard or with other science and technology efforts in the coming fiscal year. So we have a number of questions that will need to be addressed by you and your colleagues as this subcommittee works to produce a bill in the coming weeks. Madam Secretary, I look forward to your testimony and working with you again this year. [The statement of Mr. Price follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Price. I would now like to recognize the chairman of the full committee and the founding chairman of this subcommittee, Harold Rogers, for any comments that he would like to make. Mr. Chairman. Opening Statement: Mr. Rogers Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations on your work on this as the new chairman of this subcommittee. Madam Secretary, it is good to be with you again and good to see you. Tough job. Pardon me. In the past three years now, we have struggled on the committee and on this subcommittee to try to bring regular order to the process where we take up individual bills and debate them and amend them and take them to conference with the Senate and we hash out the differences like the old fashion way which is regular order. And I am very pleased that a couple of weeks ago now, we were able to work that process with our colleagues in the Senate and produce, I think, a fair hybrid Continuing Resolution which included Homeland Security. And I wanted to congratulate Senator Mikulski and her counterparts in the Senate along with my counterpart here, Nita Lowey, for working together to bring out a good bill. I know it is not exactly all that you wanted, but it is the best we could do. So the effort for regular order continues. Now, your budget submissions do not make our job any easier. Like Yogi Bear talked about deja vu all over again, here we go again. The department has produced a proposal to, I think, decimate the coast guard and ICE that supports the men and women who bravely defend our homeland on the front lines in favor of headquarters' pet projects and controversial research programs. Once again, the budget request uses phoney, unauthorized offsets to pay for critical aviation security measures. Once again, the department has failed to submit a number of plans and reports which are required by law, which are essential to help us do our work and do our work well to try to justify every penny that we spend of the taxpayers' money under the constitution appropriated to agencies of the Federal Government. And, once again, this budget submission would add layers of bureaucracy to the already tangled web of agencies under your purview at headquarters. Many of these proposals are recycled directly from last year's budget. Nearly all of these misaligned priorities were patently rejected by the Congress in the fiscal 2013 bills that passed both chambers and the CR. These trends are becoming a sadly predictable asset and tenet of this Administration's budgeting strategy. Particularly where our Nation's security is involved, we need a legitimate budget that ties funding to results and mission requirements. Unfortunately, what I see here is a largely political document which mirrors the fear mongering tactics employed by DHS and others leading up to implementation of sequestration, especially ICE's release, opening the jail doors for several hundred detainees prior to the budget cuts. Needless to say, this gives me great concern. I certainly hope your testimony allays those concerns as we go on today. I hope and trust that it will. But we have rehashed these things ever since you have been the secretary and we have gone over them time and again. And we reject your pleas and you keep coming back and we keep rejecting them. We should be spending this time talking about positive things rather than going over old rehashed, rejected proposals. So I welcome your testimony. [The statement of Mr. Rogers follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are honored to have you here. We are now also honored to have the ranking member of the whole committee, Ms. Lowey. I recognize her for her comments. Thank you, Ms. Lowey, for being here. Opening Statement: Ms. Lowey Ms. Lowey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to also acknowledge that I join with Chairman Rogers in hoping that we could have regular order and go through the process and work together to accomplish our goals. I want to welcome you, Secretary Napolitano. It has been my pleasure working with you over the past four years to secure our borders, prevent acts of terrorism, improve cyber security, and provide our first responders with the equipment and resources they need to protect our communities. I would also like to thank you and Administrator Fugate for your handling of Super Storm Sandy. As our Nation confronted one of the most severe and damaging storms in our history, you managed the federal response to the storm with precision. I also truly appreciate your regular updates for Members so that we could get timely information to our local partners on the ground in the immediate aftermath of the storm. However, you come before us today with a budget that again would consolidate state and local grants into a large pot with little direction without authorization from Congress and expressly against the wishes of this subcommittee. I am concerned that efforts to consolidate these grants in such a way could result in diluting crucial terrorism funds from the areas most at risk of attacks and leaving transit and port security in the Nation's most densely populated areas without the resources necessary to prevent and respond to acts of terror. Again, I would like to thank Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Price for holding this hearing today and you, Secretary Napolitano, for joining us. Thank you. [The statement of Ms. Lowey follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Carter. Thank you, Ms. Lowey, and, once again, welcome. Madam Secretary, your entire written statement, we have that. It will be entered into the record. You are now recognized for five minutes to summarize your testimony. Opening Statement: Secretary Napolitano Secretary Napolitano. Well, thank you. Thank you, Chairman Carter, Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, Ranking Member Price, Members of the committee, subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year 2014 budget for the Department of Homeland Security [DHS]. There have been several points raised by you and others in their opening statements and I look forward to addressing issues like reports and the FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] consolidation with you during the Q&A part of the program. This year marks the 10th anniversary of the creation of DHS, the largest reorganization of the Federal Government since the formation of the Department of Defense. After 10 years of effort, DHS has transformed 22 legacy agencies into a single integrated department, building a strengthened homeland security enterprise and a more secure America better equipped to confront the range of threats that we face. Our workforce of nearly 240,000 law enforcement agents, officers, and men and women on the front lines puts their lives at risk every day securing our land, air, and maritime borders, enforcing our immigration laws, and responding to natural disasters. They work in every state and more than 75 countries strengthening homeland security through cooperation, information sharing, training, and technical assistance with many of our partners. The President's fiscal year 2014 budget for DHS allows us to build on our progress over the past 10 years by preserving core front-line operational priorities. At the same time, given the current fiscal environment, this is the third straight year that our budget request reflects a reduction from the previous year. Specifically, the budget request is 2.2 percent or more than $800 million below the fiscal year 2013 enacted budget. While our mission has not changed and we continue to face evolving threats, we have become more strategic in how we use limited resources focusing on a risk-based approach. This is coupled with an unprecedented commitment to fiscal discipline, which has led to over $4 billion in cost avoidances and reductions over the past 4 years through our Efficiency Review. Before I discuss the department's budget, however, I would like to take a moment to talk about the mandatory reductions imposed by sequestration, which are significant, more than $3 billion in cuts across DHS over 6 months. The recent full year appropriations bill enabled DHS to mitigate to some degree the projected sequestered impacts under the CR [Continuing Resolution] on our operations and workforce, but there is no doubt that these cuts will affect operations both in the short and the long terms. Sustained cuts at these sequester levels will result in reduced operational capacity, breached staffing floors, and economic impacts to the private sector through reduced and canceled contracts. Nonetheless, we continue to do everything we can to minimize impacts on our core mission and employees consistent with the operational priorities in our 2014 budget, which I will briefly highlight for you. First, to prevent terrorism and enhance security, the fiscal year 2014 budget continues to support risk-based security initiatives including TSA PreCheck, Global Entry, and other trusted traveler programs. As a result, we expect one in four travelers to receive some form of expedited screening domestically by the end of the year. The budget supports Administration efforts to secure maritime cargo and the global supply chain by strengthening efforts to interdict threats at the earliest possible point. We continue our strong support for state and local partners through training, fusion centers, and information sharing on a wide range of critical homeland security issues. We also fund cutting-edge research and development to address evolving biological, radiological, and nuclear threats, including construction of the NBAF [National Bio- and Agro- Defense Facility], a state-of-the-art bio-containment facility central to the protection of the Nation's food supply and our national and economic security. Next, to secure and manage our borders, the budget continues the Administration's robust border security efforts while facilitating legitimate travel and trade. It sustains historic deployments of personnel between our ports of entry along our borders as well as continued utilization of proven effective surveillance technology along the highest traffic areas of the southwest border. To expedite travel and trade while reducing wait times at the ports of entry including both land and air ports, the budget requests an additional 3,500 port officers, 1,600 paid for by appropriations and the remainder by an increase to the immigration user fees that have not been adjusted since 2001. To secure our maritime borders, the budget invests in recapitalization of Coast Guard assets including the seventh National Security Cutter and Fast Response Cutters. The budget also continues the department's focus on smart and effective enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws. The budget supports the Administration's unprecedented efforts to more effectively focus the enforcement system on public safety threats, border security, and the integrity of the immigration system through initiatives such as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and greater use of prosecutorial discretion. At the same time, the budget makes significant reductions to inefficient programs like the 287(g) Task Force agreements while supporting more cost-effective initiatives like the nationwide implementation of Secure Communities. The budget invests in monitoring and compliance, promoting adherence to work-site related laws, Form I-9 inspections, the enhancements to the E-Verify program, while continuing to support Alternatives to Detention, detention reform, and immigrant integration efforts. Comprehensive immigration reform will help us continue to build on these efforts and strengthen border security by enabling DHS to further focus existing resources on criminals, human smugglers and traffickers, and national security threats. Next, to safeguard and secure cyberspace, this budget makes significant investments to strengthen cybersecurity including funds to first secure our Nation's information and financial systems and to defend against cyber threats to private-sector and federal systems, the Nation's critical infrastructure, and our economy. Second, the budget includes funds to support the President's executive order on improving critical infrastructure and cybersecurity, and the presidential policy directive on critical infrastructure security and resilience. And, finally, the budget includes funds to expedite the deployment of EINSTEIN 3 to prevent and detect intrusions on government computer systems. Finally, to ensure continued resilience to disasters, the President's budget focuses on a whole community approach through emergency management. It includes resources for the DRF, the disaster relief fund, to support presidentially declared disasters or emergencies. And the Administration is again proposing the consolidation of 18 grant programs into one National Preparedness Grants Program to create a robust national response capacity while reducing administrative overhead. This competitive risk-based program will use a comprehensive process to assess gaps, identify and prioritize deployable capabilities, put funding to work quickly, and require grantees to regularly report on their progress. In conclusion, the fiscal year 2014 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. Chairman Carter, Representative Price, Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today and I am pleased to be able to answer your questions. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION: OPERATIONAL COSTS Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Secretary. We are pleased to have you here today. As you know, fiscal year 2013 request short-changed CBP operations including failing to cover pay and benefits of the workforce. Addressing that shortfall put the subcommittee in a real tough spot. That was all last year. In order to fully fund personnel and operations, we had to make trade-offs in acquisitions, IT, and other initiatives. The bottom line is DHS's budget needs to accurately and legitimately propose funding to cover known costs. I want your personal assurances that fiscal year 2014 budget request include funds necessary to cover known operational costs for CBP including fully funding the essential needs of its front- line personnel, border patrol agents, CBP officers, air and marine interdiction agents. Do I have your assurance on that issue? Secretary Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, I would love to give you that assurance, but we are dealing here with an era where, for example, if sequester were to continue past the beginning of the fiscal year, we are going to continue to have impacts on CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] given the way sequester was drafted. So while I would like to give you that assurance and we will do everything we can in that regard, I cannot give you a 100 percent guarantee. Mr. Carter. Well, I understand that. And I think that is an honest appraisal because I have looked at your budget and I do not see how you could guarantee it to be honest with you, but I wanted to see what you had to say about it. And, you know, I noted something that I think it is important for us to remember and I do not think I have to remind you, but I am going to. Almost the first series of statements that you made you called yourself a law enforcement agency, right? You are about enforcing the law. That is our first and foremost priority in this job is to enforce the law that exists today. If it is a bad law, we are going to work at fixing it. But until it is fixed, you get the law you got and you got to enforce it. And in many ways, you have my sympathy on that issue. I have been there on other laws that are pretty rotten myself and I understand how that works, but that is not our job to question. It is our job to do. And so in looking at this, the money just starting with CBP and it gets a lot worse in other places, especially with the Coast Guard, I have real concerns about the starting point on what we are doing here today. Quite honestly, I hate to come back to those reports, but that is why we want to know the thinking of the people who help put this thing together. It is critical for my team of people, our team of people, and Mr. Price's team and my team to know what you were thinking and what these people who you have given this responsibility to were thinking in proposing the numbers in this proposal you have given us today. So from that standpoint, I am not going to beat that horse anymore or I am going to try not to. Okay. If you want to say something, go ahead. REPORTS, REQUIRED Secretary Napolitano. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We want to be as transparent as possible with the committee and work you through our thought process. I would note that we have just for this subcommittee alone 227 reports that are required. That does not even include the authorizing reports. Report writing has become almost a whole section of the department. But we will move to get the reports. There are 16- some odd that were specified to be due May 1. We will move heaven and earth to get them to you earlier. But I just ask the chairman to recognize that reports unfortunately were not sequestered. Mr. Carter. No. That is life, isn't it? I believe that your list counts monthly, quarterly, and quarterly reports separately. It seems a little bit of an exaggeration. We have been through all this before. If you are saying that monthly budget execution reports and quarterly acquisition reports are too onerous, we probably have a bigger problem than I thought. These are the very same reports I would think that you would demand to manage your department. Secretary Napolitano. Many of the reports that I think the committee has specified it wants really rely on being able to know what your fiscal year 2013 numbers are. Now, the fiscal year 2013 numbers were not available until a couple of weeks ago. That also has some effect. I appreciate the fact this committee is having a prompt hearing after the release of the budget and I hope we can follow up with Chairman Mikulski and Chairman Rogers and get back to some kind of regular order in the budget and appropriations process. It would make all of our jobs much easier. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICERS Mr. Carter. I have been preaching regular order to many people for a long time. It is the backbone of being in Congress. So I am for that. But to finish up on CBP, the budget proposes to bring on 1,600 additional CBP officers in 2014 using appropriated funds. The tail for that increase comes years later. After all the issues DHS has had to maintain staffing increases over the years, can you assure the subcommittee that DHS will support this increase in the out years? Secretary Napolitano. The answer is our out-year budget does. And as I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, in my statement, the President's proposal is for roughly 3,400 more port officers, 1,600 of which are appropriated, the remainder paid for through fees. DETENTION BEDS: NUMBER REQUESTED Mr. Carter. Moving on to something else which is something that I have already gotten in the middle of in the last three weeks is 34,000 detention beds. I found the logic that has been argued to this committee very peculiar over this issue. Last year, you sat before this subcommittee and you testified that you did not need the capacity of 34,000 ICE detention beds mandated in the law. Yet, earlier this year, ICE released detainees because they were operating at an extremely high level reaching as many as 37,000 detainees in custody and with an average daily population for the first quarter of 34,640 detainees. With that, under that consideration, you still think you do not need 34,000? Also, let me ask you this. You still think that number and the fact that the big storm that was created by the release of these detainees across the country from coast to coast, newspapers were screaming about it, TVs were blaring about it and talk show hosts were going crazy, under that circumstance, how do you argue that you do not need 34,000 beds? Secretary Napolitano. Well, if I might, the President's request is for 31,800 beds. The reason for that is we are proposing to make greater uses of alternatives to detention, which are cheaper. The bed cost that we estimate will be about $119 per day. Mr. Carter. Well, let me ask a question---- Secretary Napolitano. If I might, Mr. Chairman---- Mr. Carter [continuing]. On that just a second. You and I talked about this earlier. You told me you would tell me how many of those people were put on that alternative to detention, but I have never gotten that information. Secretary Napolitano. We will supply it. But if I might, I think Representative Price made a very valuable point to this committee, which is we ought to be managing the actual detention population to risk, not to an arbitrary number. Of those released, there were very few, a handful of so- called level one offenders. But when you dig down into those cases, you will find, for example, a 68-year-old who had 10 plus years after he committed an offense and was living with his family in New Mexico. So some of those cases, on a case-by- case basis, are clearly understandable. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT The department, ICE was facing a perfect storm when these releases occurred. We did not know we were going to have a budget. They were estimating we were going to continue under the CR and the CR as sequestered. And so with that and given the way that sequester worked account by account by account, reductions in ERO [Enforcement and Removal Operations] were required. But as we look at it, stepping back and looking at it, really the policy decision for the committee is whether we stick to an artificial number of beds or do we simply require that certain levels of detainees be in beds and that we have those beds available. [The information follows:] Response: As of March 25, 2013, the number of aliens released for budgetary reasons from February 9, 2013, through March 1, 2013, was 2,226.\1\ ICE continues to seek removal on these cases as appropriate. Released individuals were placed on various types of supervision as illustrated in the following table. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ ICE initially reported the release of 2,228 aliens. Upon a review, two cases were found to be duplicates. DETAINEES RELEASED FROM FEBRUARY 9, 2013, THROUGH MARCH 1, 2013 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Number Category Released ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alternatives to Detention.................................. 102 Bonded out................................................. 171 Order of recognizance...................................... 1,640 Order of supervision--final order.......................... 137 Paroled.................................................... 172 Other (terminated, turned over to another law enforcement 4 agency, or relief granted by immigration judge)........... ------------ Total.................................................. 2,226 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Terminated refers to alien immigration cases that completed proceedings before the Department of Justice's Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) and the alien was released from custody. Mr. Carter. I have heard this argument. You and I have had this argument before. I have also talked to the folks at ICE and they follow the President's instructions. But here is the problem I have got with this. Right now, in fact, ICE has 36,000 detainees in custody at this time and 96 percent of them meet the priorities set by this Administration for detention according to the priorities that you set. So, I mean, it is curious that almost the rules start to change in the middle of--and, by the way, I love this argument about we released these people in anticipation, but it was very convenient that that was right during the Administration's the sky is going to be falling campaign and I still question that action because it certainly fell right within the pattern of the world is coming to an end if you have a sequestration vote. Secretary Napolitano. The 31,800 that we request, we believe, will house all mandatory detainees as all level ones and twos. And as I said, level threes are misdemeanants and only certain misdemeanants. And those, we think, are not-- they are not released to the general population. They are put in a different type of supervision. It can be an ankle bracelet. It can be intensive supervision, what have you. Mr. Carter. I am glad with alternatives to incarceration. However, let me point out that you released ten level ones in this release that you did and quickly after it became a national issue rounded them all up again which at least somebody was thinking. But I wonder if it had not been a storm on the horizon from the public whether those ten level one violators would still be on the street. Secretary Napolitano. There is no doubt---- Mr. Carter. My time is running out. Secretary Napolitano. Oh, okay. Mr. Carter. I just want to point out that, you know, I am going to be very cautious about this 31,800 request. Okay. Mr. Price, at this time, I yield to Mr. Price. BUDGET CUT IMPACTS: OVERALL Mr. Price. Thank you. Madam Secretary, let me return to the question of sequestration which you touched on in your testimony. I would like to have you elaborate. Sequestration has been in place for 42 days. However, your department did not receive your final 2013 appropriation until late March. At that time, the Department planned to reevaluate sequestration impacts to see what adjustments needed to be made in its March 1 sequestration plan. Based on OMB's March 1 report, DHS is taking a $2.8 billion reduction, and that includes funding contained in the Sandy supplemental. It exempts, as it should, of course, Coast Guard military pay. Two point eight billion dollars, that is a significant amount. There is no doubt it will have a lasting impact on the department's critical missions and we have a huge stake in getting this federal budget on a different footing by the start of fiscal 2014. Sequestration does not address the main drivers of the deficit at all and, yet, we are saddled with this and we have to deal with it and you have to deal with it. It is a reality that we have got to deal with. So let me ask you a series of related questions. How did the enactment of the 2013 bill--and I commend the subcommittee chairman and full committee chairman for including the DHS bill produced under the regular order, including that in the CR-- affect sequestration as experienced by DHS? For example, originally TSA thought it would need to furlough employees, but backed off from that assessment in late February. Given that the sum of the funding levels for that agency for 2013 are still below 2012, are furloughs back on the table for that agency? What about CBP? There have been some mixed reports about whether we might or might not be able to avoid CBP furloughs. What about that statutory requirement to maintain 34,000 detention beds? With that sitting there, what kind of shifting of sequestration impacts might that require of you? And let me just say in general that I applaud your efforts, the efforts of other cabinet secretaries and agency heads. Applaud the efforts to mitigate this impact, but I know those cuts have to come from somewhere and your discretion is limited. Some apologists for sequestration have taken to saying these days that, oh, well, this does not have to be so bad. And whenever a cut is made, they accuse you or the President of a political motivation. Well, as a matter of fact, sequestration is designed to be unacceptable. It is designed to be a meat ax. It was supposed to force us to a more rational budget plan. Unfortunately, that has not happened. But these cuts have to come from somewhere. And, sure, you are going to be asked to put out fires to avoid furloughs there, to avoid this or that which has a highly visible impact, but then you are going to have to shift to other areas. And I want to know, as you get all this criticism and have to avoid this cut or that, what are those less visible areas? What are those less visible areas that are nonetheless critical that we ought to be worried about because these cuts are going to come from somewhere and we need to know where? And simply playing it politically and pretending that these fires can all be put out with no consequence, I think, is highly misleading. So what can you tell us about your current strategy? Secretary Napolitano. Well, Representative Price, we are a personnel heavy department. That drives our budget. We are trying to work through the fiscal year 2013 numbers we were finally given. The negotiators were able to put back in some more money for CBP, some more money for grants. We are working now with the Office of Personnel Management, the government- wide office, to see how that plays out. But on March 1, pre budget, if I might, we were looking at significant furloughs and reductions in overtime. So now we are working to mitigate those and we do not have a final answer yet for our employees. That is a stress factor that needs to be taken into account. But I think in order to mitigate, we will be asking the Congress for some reprogramming because as you observed, we were given very little discretion on how to--which accounts money went into. So as we unpack that, we believe that money needs to be moved around. So we will under the fiscal year 2013 as enacted be coming back to the Congress for some reprogramming. And once that occurs, I think we will be able to get some final answers. Mr. Price. What are those less visible accounts that are nonetheless critical that we ought to be worried about? I mean, it seems in a number of departments, for example, it is all too easy to put out this fire and that and then shift the cuts, let's say, into research. Secretary Napolitano. Well---- Mr. Price. That is taking place a lot of places. Is it going to happen with DHS? Secretary Napolitano. Things like that, some of the acquisitions get postponed or slowed down. There may not be a reduction in force. But as people retire, we may leave vacancies and not hire new agents or officers. So that is not readily apparent, but the plain fact of the matter is, for example, take CBP, take port officers, that part of CBP. We had a significant shortage of port officers to begin with. What we are already seeing in the major international airports, the ones that have international flights, are wait times significantly higher than last year's wait times for March and April. So we anticipate that that will continue, particularly if CBP does not get the budget the President has requested. Mr. Price. That still does not add up to $2.8 billion, I am afraid, and so we will look forward to continuing to exchange information about this, about what these impacts will be. Secretary Napolitano. We will be happy to give you an inventory, but it ranges across the department. And as I said, some are personnel savings, some are equipment savings, some are program identifications and reductions. [The information follows:] Response: The Department provided a report separately on its post- sequestration operating plans to the Appropriations Committees on April 26, 2013. Mr. Price. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carter. Chairman Rogers, I now recognize you for questions. BUDGET CUT IMPACTS: COAST GUARD, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask you about two pieces. One is cuts to Coast Guard and, two, I wanted to ask you about the CBPs particularly at the Miami Airport which I happened to become acquainted with. First, you propose to cut critical Coast Guard front-line personnel by over 826 military billets, cut the Coast Guard recapitalization programs by almost 40 percent, and decommission various cutters and aircraft while at the same time increasing headquarters' funding and increasing the science and technology division by 83 percent. In addition, you propose to slash current and future capabilities for drug interdiction for the Coast Guard and customs and border protection. CBP Air and Marine procurement is reduced by $87 million. No Coast Guard aviation assets are proposed despite the decommissioning of eight HU-25s and two C13Hs. We have rejected that type of budget slashing of front-line operations in the past and I do not see any reason why we won't do it again. But I really wonder what was in your mind because just, for example, on drug interdiction, the country is overrun with drug problems. The deaths from addiction to prescription medicine exceeds the number of people killed in car wrecks, mainly OxyContin. And then the manufacturer changed the formulation of OxyContin to where it was not crushable and, therefore, you could not crush it and shoot it up and get the 12-hour release into a single jolt. But that patent now expires, has expired, and Canada has six generic manufacturers of the old, original, crushable OxyContin which has hooked and killed thousands of kids in our country. And I am wondering whether you have interdicted any of that new generic drug coming out of Canada and what will happen with the reduction in the Coast Guard assets that you are proposing that would be used to stop this kind of problem coming from Canada. Secretary Napolitano. If I might, and I share your concern about OxyContin, we have not in our drug interdictions been picking up any measurable degree of OxyContin or other prescription drugs, the generic, for example. But if I might, and I will just tick them off, you asked why are we increasing headquarters. Well, we are located in 50 plus different facilities around the National Capital Region. The Coast Guard is moving to the new facility at St. Elizabeths and will have moved by Thanksgiving. The proposal is to keep moving forward on that project and that was put in the headquarters' budget. Every other item in the headquarters' budget, as you will see, has gone down as it went down last year, travel, training, conferences. You name it, it has been reduced. So what we are talking about is finally getting this department a consolidated headquarters, which will assist us in the long term in performing our mission. The increases to the Science and Technology [Directorate (S&T)] are due primarily to the NBAF, and every group that has looked at the issue of biological threat has concluded that the current level four lab we have at Plum Island is inadequate and it will not be adequate in the long term. There was a peer-reviewed competition for the lab. Kansas is now putting in over $320 million to partner with us. So at some point, you know, we had to bite the bullet, so to speak, and that went in the S&T budget. But that is the increase there. With respect to the Coast Guard, the Commandant's number one priority is the completion of the NSC [National Security Cutter] fleet. The budget includes the cost of NSC 7 and that is his number one priority. And, by the way, those ships require fewer personnel than some of the older ships that we are planning to decommission. We have a slightly different production path for FRCs [Fast Response Cutters] than the Congress has seen or has approved, but it ends up with the same number of FRCs. So that is just a budget, you know, in which year do you take the construction for the Fast Response Cutters. With respect to the billets, Chairman Rogers, the billets are mostly billets that are either onshore, administrative, or unfilled billets at this time anyway. Finally, we are working very hard with state and local officials and are able to leverage them in a much better way than perhaps 8 years ago, 7 years ago. So the kind of task forces and Intel-sharing agreements and things we have ongoing now are much more robust and we can depend more on our state and local partners. ARIZONA BORDER SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY PLAN Mr. Rogers. Well, I understand, but I am really puzzled on how you would want to come to us and request that we cut 40 percent of Coast Guard acquisitions and an $87 million cut to CBP Air and Marine when we have got this terrible drug problem not only on the Canadian border but, of course, the Mexican border, with the drug wars on the southwest border. And speaking of which, in January of 2011, you froze the activities of what was then called the SBInet---- Secretary Napolitano. Right. Mr. Rogers [continuing]. And replaced it with what was called the Arizona border technology plan to buy off-the-shelf technology that could be deployed immediately---- Secretary Napolitano. Uh-huh. Mr. Rogers [continuing]. To meet Border Patrol's clear mission needs and, yet, here we are 27 months later. Very little of that technology has actually been deployed. Only the procurement for thermal imaging devices went out on time. The major awards have not been made including continued delays for remote video surveillance systems and integrated fixed towers. Am I correct that it has been four years almost--27 months--I am sorry--since we have had any significant activity? Secretary Napolitano. Well, if I might, Mr. Chairman--Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I do not know how that works--but in any event--I will just call you both chairman. Mr. Rogers. Yeah. Secretary Napolitano. In any event, I said stop on SBInet so that we could avoid throwing good money after bad, I said go back to the drawing board and in each sector develop a technology plan that works for the officers in that sector and meets geographical, topographical, whatever challenges. That was done. Those were reviewed. They are all in place. The plans have been submitted to Congress. The Arizona procurement is well underway and that technology--I was just down on that border at the end of last week--is being purchased and deployed as we speak. We are also, by the way, Mr. Chairman, moving more assets down to south Texas, which is the one area of the border right now that we are seeing some increase in traffic and we want to turn it back. Mr. Rogers. Well, the idea was with the Arizona border technology plan was that you could buy off-the-shelf technology quickly and put it in place quickly and, therefore, solve the mission more expeditiously and, yet, it has been two and a half years. Why couldn't you buy that off-the-shelf stuff and put it in place in a week? Secretary Napolitano. Yeah. That is because when we said off the shelf, that is kind of a misleading phrase, quite frankly. These things do not translate immediately from, say, the war theater in Afghanistan to what we have down on the border. And some of these things need to be ordered and then built even though they are mobile. But that process is well underway and I anticipate, if anything, it is going to be speeding up very rapidly. REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENTS: AIRPORT PILOT PROGRAMS Mr. Rogers. Well, I should hope so. And quickly, Mr. Chairman, and finally, the Customs and Border Protection offices, particularly at our international airports, I am familiar with the Miami Airport which I think is the biggest in volume of international---- Secretary Napolitano. Yes, I think that is true. Mr. Rogers [continuing]. Material transport---- Secretary Napolitano. Uh-huh. Mr. Rogers [continuing]. And, yet, the waiting time there is up to four hours. Secretary Napolitano. Yes. Mr. Rogers. And those companies are now beginning to move offshore that otherwise would--because they cannot stand that big time delay. I am told that the mayor has money to pay for more CBP agents. It will cost you nothing. They will give the money and hire them in order to get this thing expedited because the city sees a looming economic problem. And I think we authorized five locations in the fiscal 2013 bill---- Secretary Napolitano. That is correct. Mr. Rogers [continuing]. To allow private companies to pay---- Secretary Napolitano. Uh-huh. Mr. Rogers [continuing]. For CBP personnel. Have you picked those five airports yet? Secretary Napolitano. We are in the process. I was just down in Miami myself and I spent the better part of a day with the airport authorities, local authorities. But if I might, we are in the process of selecting the five pilots for a reimbursement type partnership. In the President's 2014 budget proposal, it would open it up beyond five so that we would always have the ability to seek that kind of reimbursement. It also provides, as I mentioned before, for the 3,400 new CBP officers, many of whom I think would end up deployed at places like Miami, LAX, JFK where we have a lot of international arrivals. And, finally, with respect to ports, the land ports themselves, it would enable us to go into partnerships with local authorities for things like land exchanges--they build the building, in-kind contributions and so forth. So the whole idea is to increase our capacity in terms of our own personnel, but also increase our ability to seek reimbursement or partnerships with others. REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENTS: UNITED ARAB EMIRATES Mr. Rogers. Well, whatever. But reducing personnel, CBP personnel at an airport like Miami and there are several, of course, like Miami, international---- Secretary Napolitano. Uh-huh. Mr. Rogers [continuing]. Hubs is going to cause some really economic difficulties for the country because the waiting times are just unacceptable and, yet, we read at the same time you are finalizing an agreement with the United Arab Emirates to accept reimbursement to establish pre-clearance operations in Abu Dhabi. The airlines are up in arms because that operation would only benefit Etihad Airlines, a state-owned foreign carrier which has three flights to the U.S. each week and, yet, we cannot get help for American airlines, American---- Secretary Napolitano. If I might---- Mr. Rogers. Yeah. Secretary Napolitano. This really goes into a more holistic, if I can use that word, strategic plan. We believe it is better for the security of the country if we can push our borders out. And one of the areas where it would be helpful to push our borders out, where we could check more passengers prior to even getting on a plane is in the Mideast. So Abu Dhabi has volunteered and they are a pilot in some respects. I think Dubai, assuming Abu Dhabi works, might be in the queue, but we are negotiating these pre-clearance agreements, which basically take our personnel and we do the security clearance and so forth before they even head to the United States. Why the Middle East? Because for obvious reasons, for tactical and strategic concerns, much better for us to do our work overseas than here. Mr. Rogers. Well, I would rather you take the personnel in Abu Dhabi and put them in Miami. Secretary Napolitano. Well, indeed. But I will tell you compared to what Miami needs, it is a drop in a bucket. And what we really need is for the CBP budget as requested, with all of the elements in it that I described, to be supported by the Congress because I agree with you. We have a personnel shortage there. Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Mr. Carter. Mr. Cuellar. GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT REPORT Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Madam Secretary, thank you for being here with us. Let me just follow up. I am going to ask you performance, the GPRA report that is called for you to turn in. But let me ask you. Let me just follow up what the chairman was referring to. I think it is the Section 560 of the H.R. 933 which is the---- Secretary Napolitano. The pilots. Mr. Cuellar [continuing]. The pilot programs, the public/ private partnership. It does call for five. And any way we can work with you to extend that to cover more, we would appreciate it. We are extremely interested. It is not only the airports and not only the seaports, but the land ports is certainly one. As you know talking to some of the folks, we are in the process of turning it into a partnership. I would not just say one port, but would cover the Laredo district, the Laredo, McAllen, Brownsville area as one consortium to do that. There are cities that are ready to put money there. Literally they are working on putting some deposits, ready to show that it is good faith. But my understanding is what they are waiting for, Madam Secretary, I know this just passed, but guidance from DHS to be provided a CBP for the implementation of this new authority. So we are ready to work with you because it is not only airports or the seaports, but certainly covering the largest land port down in the south, the City of Laredo plus the other areas. We would ask you to provide that guidance as soon as possible, number one. That only covers services under the Section 560, but in working with the GSA on transfers of land, I think we finally got the magic language that GSA has been saying that they need to actually provide the transfer. And I think you and I have talked about this, transfer of properties instead of just services. So we are hoping that working with the chairman and the rest of the committee we can actually put the language in there that I think GSA needs, a different committee, but appropriations, so they can actually do the transfer. So I think, Mr. Chairman, we finally got that language there. So the 560 is on services for a pilot program and then the other is for transfer of lands or whatever might be on those. So we certainly want to work with you on that aspect. The other thing has to do with the modernization, GPRA's Modernization Act of 2010, which we passed in a bipartisan way, which calls for statutory requirements. And I get all those numbers on reports that you all have to turn in. But I think this is probably one of the most important, if not the most important report because you have to provide your mission. That is the map or the guidelines for you to go ahead and talk about what your mission is, what your objectives are, what performance measures you are, what efficiencies you are looking at. And I know we were supposed to have gotten one from you yesterday, but according to your folks, it is almost submitted. It is almost to be submitted. We look forward to working with you on that because this will provide an opportunity for your department and Members of Congress to work together on some areas that we can work together. So what is the status of that GPRA report? Secretary Napolitano. My understanding is that it is moving swiftly through. If it has not been submitted already, it is virtually there. I know that it looks at three major areas of our mission responsibilities, aviation, resilience, I want to say immigration, and immigration. So I think we will be in compliance with you and get that information to you. EFFICIENCIES AND STREAMLINING Mr. Cuellar. Yeah. Well, we are appreciative. And I think this will be a way we can work together. The other question, because I think there will be two rounds of questions, but I do want to just add one more thing before I yield my time, I do have to commend you. There is about three or four pages on efficiencies and streamlining operations on your testimony. And I look forward because I have some ideas on those efficiencies and streamlining, but I would ask you if you can have your staff sit down and give us some details as to what proposals you have to streamline. I believe for fiscal year 2014, you are talking about $1.3 billion in savings from administrative and mission supports which covers travel, technology, personnel moves, overtime, purchasing professional services, vehicle management. Could you ask your staff to give the committee ourselves a detail as to how you intend to save $1.3 billion in savings and efficiencies? Secretary Napolitano. Yes, sir. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. I yield back. Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar. We go in the order that people were here at the time of the gavel. So Mr. Latham is next. BUDGET CUT IMPACTS: TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Mr. Latham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Madam Secretary. On March 4th, you warned airline passengers that they should get to the airports extra early because spending cuts had already led to long lines in some security check points and the coming furloughs would only make the situation worse, and that is end of quote. Today we know that the flights have not been grounded, long lines have not materialized, and government workers have not been sent home en masse. And further TSA announces it does not expect to furlough any additional screeners in fiscal year 2013. Can you tell us what changed since your warnings when you said the sky was falling, and are you making future changes to the situation? Secretary Napolitano. Well, the major thing that changed is we got a budget and we got some additional appropriations in the budget after March 4th. And they were specifically for CBP. Mr. Latham. You said it was already happening at that time. Secretary Napolitano. It was because we were well into the fiscal year. We did not know that we were going to get a budget and sequestration was already in effect. If I might, sequestration is still there and it is still, as Representative Price noted, having impacts. And as Representative Rogers just described, the wait times at Miami, we are seeing that at international arrival airports across the board. And let's not mix up CBP and TSA. Mr. Latham. Right. Secretary Napolitano. With respect to furloughs, we are working to minimize any furloughs of personnel as well as reductions in overtime pay, but that is easier said than done given the way sequestration works. Mr. Latham. Right. Secretary Napolitano. So we are still working on that final plan. Mr. Latham. Talking about sequestration, when the President proposed sequestration and insisted on it, were you contacted as to the ramifications for the department before he insisted on including that? Secretary Napolitano. Well, I do not want to get into who started sequestration, so I won't respond on that. But the answer is no one talked to me about sequestration. Mr. Latham. Okay. You said the TSA had gotten additional funding. Secretary Napolitano. No. I said CBP did. CBP got additional funding. Mr. Latham. Okay. Secretary Napolitano. We got some more money for grants. With respect to TSA---- Mr. Latham. Right. Secretary Napolitano [continuing]. In going through, we discovered some balances in some accounts that we were going to be able to move to the TSO [transportation security officer] line in the budget. BORDER SECURITY: ALIEN SMUGGLING Mr. Latham. As you know, alien smuggling has been a problem on the southwest border. Can you tell us what kind of enhancements you have made in the last year or so in dealing with the problem and what still remains to be done? Secretary Napolitano. Well, there are a number of enhancements, technology being one, aerial being a second, and third, we have been in certain areas, highly trafficked areas of the border, actually putting bases physically on the border as opposed to having agents travel out from their central--or from their headquarters. So what we are seeing is that the traffic basically is still going down. We are still at 1970s levels. As I mentioned earlier, we are having a spike right now in the southern part of Texas, excuse me, in the Rio Grande Valley there. We now have, really, the ability to move resources and technology, an ability we really didn't have 6 or 7 years ago, to go ahead and get ahead of that traffic in Florida. I would mention that most of that increase is not Mexican nationals. They are from Central America. They are economic migrants, and that really ties into the need for immigration reform because, as you know, the process for immigrating legally into the country is very backlogged and very cumbersome. Mr. Latham. That is one of the stumbling blocks so that is the idea of securing the border first before you get any immigration reform. Secretary Napolitano. Yeah, I think, and I testified to this, if I might, having spent 20 years on this issue. I think it appropriate not to think of it in terms of a line, but it is really, it is really a system, a system that requires and gives us the ability to do more against employers who hire illegal labor--that is a major driver on the border--a system that opens up the visa process appropriately to more incoming, and then continued efforts along the border, both at the ports of entry and in between the ports. Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carter. Well, thank you, Mr. Latham. Before we go to Mr. Owens, I have a request to recognize Chairman Rogers for a moment. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY REIMBURSEMENTS Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Chairman. I will be very brief. Madam Secretary, we had a terribly devastating tornado in 2012 in my district in East Kentucky. West Liberty was practically erased. It was a terrible disaster. FEMA was prompt, got there quickly, early on, great help. The County Executive now is having big difficulties with FEMA over reimbursements for certain projects. If I gave you this letter that the administrator of the county had written FEMA, would you be able to look into this for me? [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Secretary Napolitano. Yes, sir. Absolutely. Mr. Rogers. It is a tragic case. Thank you. Secretary Napolitano. Yeah, absolutely. I know the tornado you are speaking about. Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PAY SYSTEMS, DIFFERING Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Secretary. Thank you for being here. I am going to focus on the border that usually isn't focused on from a perspective. I am hearing a lot from border patrol agents along the northern border in my district about what they perceive to be a disproportionate reduction in overtime to the border patrol as well as, if you will, a greater number of furloughs. A lot of concern about that at every level, both from a personal but also from a security perspective. And in testimony that we have heard before, ICE seems to have approached it differently. Other agencies within DHS appear to be approaching it differently. Assuming we are working off the same piece of legislation, I am curious as to why that is happening. Secretary Napolitano. Yes, we may be working off the same piece of legislation but we are not working off the same pay systems. Remember, these are legacy agencies that came into the department, so they don't have one unified pay system. With respect to Border Patrol, they get what is called AUO [administratively uncontrollable overtime] as their premium pay. They are not under the LEAP [law enforcement availability pay] system and their pay basically is just calculated very differently than other elements of the department and as sequestration comes into effect, it is account by account by account, so even if I wanted to, I can't take from Peter over here to pay Paul. Now, with the additional money that was added in late March for CBP of which 96 or 97 million was specific for Border Patrol, we are now working that through to see how it can be used to reduce any reductions in premium pay and furlough days. We are doing the same account by account by account, so we are doing the same with port officers who are paid differently. They came out of Customs not out of INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service]. So that is the reason why there is a difference. And we can provide your staff with, if they would like, a detailed briefing of how that works. Mr. Owens. In the short term, about how long will your analysis take and when will that be communicated to the people on the ground? Secretary Napolitano. Well, we sent an email, Tom Winkowski, the acting commissioner, sent an email to staff yesterday saying steady as she goes for right now. As I mentioned, we are working with the Office of Personnel Management, and we are going to have to seek some reprogrammings and OMB has to be involved in that. I would like it to have been done 2 weeks ago because I know the stress level that it causes. We are moving as rapidly as we can to get this settled. Mr. Owens. We will take you up on your invitation for a briefing. Secretary Napolitano. Okay. BEYOND THE BORDER Mr. Owens. Secondarily, can you have your staff, and I would not expect you to have this information in front of you, but in terms of implementation of Beyond the Border, the sense that we have, those of use who are interested in it, those of us who communicate with our Canadian colleagues, is that Canada is moving more deliberately towards implementation, is funding it more directly. That may be simply because our budget is much larger and it is more difficult to see exactly what DHS is doing relative to implementation. If someone could give us a breakdown of implementation, that would be very helpful. Secretary Napolitano. Yes, and I just had a meeting, a bi- lat with my counterparty in Canada, Minister Toews. He did not raise that concern by the way, and we actually have a Beyond the Border team, that is the U.S. and Canadian, and they have a joint time frame and timeline. There are some things we want to move ahead on that Canada can't move ahead on without passing legislation through their parliament, and so we are waiting for the Prime Minister to offer that legislation. So there is give and go on both sides, but I will say overall that Beyond the Border is on time and we have really moved mountains there in the last 2 years. [The information follows:] Response: The December 2012 Beyond the Border the Border Implementation Report was provided separately to the Committee. Mr. Owens. And clearly if it is very important, it also will save us, I think, some dollars in the long run. Secretary Napolitano. It will generate jobs on this side of the border I am confident. REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENTS: CANADA Mr. Owens. One of the other things I wanted to talk to you about relates to the reimbursable agreements. I represent an area that has many small ports, creates a number of issues. Clearly, I think we need to be moving towards a greater use of technology in those ports where we can have them manned by Canadians, in some instances U.S. and other instances. But also, we run into situations where there are a lot of small airports that are just on our side of the border where we do have Canadians coming in and we need access to CBP folks in order to clear them, and we are having some difficulty in that process. The airports are willing to pay for that service. In many cases the available staff is a half hour to forty-five minutes away. We would like to see some more flexibility in that arena, so that in fact we can continue to enhance the utilization of these small airports by our Canadian neighbors. Secretary Napolitano. Yes, Representative. And that is why the President's fiscal year 2014 budget requests universal authority to enter into those agreements. It is not limited to five pilot projects. But these small airports between the FAA and CBP, you are undoubtedly going to see a reduction in capability with sequester, you know, being in effect for the rest of the year. Hopefully it ends soon or at least by the end of the year. But we, like you, recognize the potential of partnerships with some of these smaller communities because these small airports are a part of their economic plan, so we will work with you on that, but I will direct you to that portion of the President's budget. Mr. Owens. Thank you very much. I yield back. Mr. Carter. Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Madam Secretary. PERSONNEL COSTS: CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Madam Secretary, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, we have seen conflicting reports about CBP's plans to furlough and cut overtime pay for border patrol agents and there is obvious concern about the ability to fund the number of CBP personnel that this budget calls for at our ports of entry. With CBP's apparent troubles making decisions about current personnel, as you consider making private reimbursements of CBP personnel, what role do you see the Screening Partnership Program playing at TSA as a way to manage costs? Secretary Napolitano. Well, you have got apples and oranges in there. It is CBP by the way. With respect to CBP as I mentioned, we are in the process now of unpacking what Congress ultimately passed for CBP and we appreciate the additional appropriation there. And running the traps through OPM, OMB [Office of Management and Budget], and we will have to come back, I suspect, as soon as possible with some reprogramming requests. That is why there is no firm answer yet for Customs and Border Protection. With respect to the privatization, the SPP [Screening Partnership Program] for TSA, we have received, I think, 27 total applications and approved, I want to say, 22 or 24; two are pending. So that is moving along. We have not had a great demand for that by airports by the way. It is not as if there is a queue to privatize in that arena. But for those that have applied, we have been moving those very quickly. Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Carter. Mr. Aderholt. STAFFING MODEL: TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, good to have you here today and for the subcommittee and it is encouraging to see a resolve that has moved ahead with a Level 4 lab facility known as IMBAC. This is a capability, as you know and we have discussed many times in the past and it is important for it appear in the President's budget, so that is encouraging, I think, to all of us to see it move forward on that. I want to follow up a little bit with a question that Mr. Fleischmann has asked about the private screening. I know that Chairman Carter's staff has been engaged in the Office of the CFO at TSA in order to determine whether a review of applications from a private screening company really is truly comparing apples to apples. And I am referring to comparing the cost of TSA screeners versus private company screeners when it comes to matters as how many supervisors per screeners are required, how many TSA employees are counted or not counted in the TSA model and when TSA employees perhaps have more than one they do with an airport. Can you give the subcommittee an indication of the progress in getting those metrics back to the committee? Secretary Napolitano. I will follow up with TSA after this hearing. You want the metrics on what TSA's staffing model is? Mr. Aderholt. Right, and how those compare so that when you do a comparison, you are comparing apples to apples as compares to, you know, to truly get a cost of what the real cost in comparing the private screeners as opposed to TSA. Secretary Napolitano. And that is so that we can do the comparison over time because as I mentioned to Representative Fleischmann, if we have denied any agreements, it may only be one, but we have been granting them, so that comparison has not been used as a reason for any kind of miles. But I think over time that is a very useful set of metrics to have, so let me see where we are on that. [The information follows:] Response: When comparing the costs of private screening to Federal screening, TSA uses actual costs from contracts which are currently in place under the Screening Partnership Program (SPP) and looks at comparable Federal screening costs at non-SPP airports to obtain an ``apples to apples'' comparison. When assessing the cost of Federal screening, estimates are based on actual expenditures specific to the airport which directly align with the contracted screening proposal to enable comparison to the actual costs of private screening. The current methodology for estimating the cost of Federal screening incorporates GAO recommendations and has been reviewed by DHS cost estimation experts. The estimated cost of Federal screening accounts for all cost elements and includes:Compensation (pay and benefits, premium pay, bonuses, etc.) Ancillary costs such as uniforms, facilities, and training Overhead costs and Worker's compensation Increased TSA management staff if the airport already participates in SPP Adjustments for liability insurance Adjustments for taxes recouped Adjustments for future retirement liabilities Transition costs (Federal to private and private to Federal) The cost of deploying TSA national deployment force as necessary Lastly, there are some Federal positions that are present at airports regardless if the airport uses private or Federal screeners and are not redundant. These positions provide overall supervision and responsibility for security. The allocation of these positions is determined by established business rules. These types of staff allocations are lower at SPP airports than Federal since they are not responsible for personnel management of security officers. Because these Federal positions are present in both cases, they are not included in the cost analysis comparison. FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICER PROGRAM Mr. Aderholt. Okay. If you could follow up with that and get us the information on that. Administrator Pistole testified before Congress regarding changes to the TSA prohibited items list and the need for TSA to continually mature its risk-based security processes in order to defend against critical threats such as those posed by non-metallic explosive devices. During that testimony with Administrator Pistole, he commented on the value of the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program [FFDO] in positioning TSA to implement other critical needed risk-based measures. In view of the President's proposal for the FFDO program, it seems reasonable to conclude that you either agree with the Administrator's assessment of the value of this program in implementing significant risk-based security strategies or not the need for this. So I just wanted to see what your position on this was in moving forward. Secretary Napolitano. Yes, I think what we have done in President's budget with respect to FFDOs, which is not a risk- based program per se, it is just where you have a pilot you have a pilot who may be on a flight. But nonetheless, we are working through the carriers themselves and offering training for those who seek to be FFDOs, and I think that is the appropriate way to go. Mr. Aderholt. So you would agree with the Administrator that this is an important thing to move forward on? Secretary Napolitano. I would. I wouldn't say it is the most important thing if I had to rank, but it is certainly there. And as I said before in preparing the budget we decided that the way to go was to offer the training through the carriers themselves. Mr. Aderholt. Yeah, well, you know, the concern about it was, as far as the budget zeros out this program, and that is, you know, the thing that, you know, TSA Administrator Pistole says that it is, you know, there is a real value on this and there is zero in the budget for it, so I think that is the concern, so I just wanted to know where you came down as far as between the, you know, thinking this is something that we need to put value on or whether it is not something that needs to be, you know, has little value. Secretary Napolitano. As I said, I think to the extent we offer training, there is a value, but if I had to rank the programs in TSA according to whether they are risk based or not, this would not be of much value. Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Carter. Mr. Culberson. REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENTS: UNITED ARAB EMIRATES Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, I have two areas I wanted to ask about and then I know we are going to have a second round. Airline pilots associations have brought to my attention that in its budget proposals CBP is attempting to establish a preclearance facility at the Abu Dhabi International Airport in United Arab Emirates, yet I am aware that the agency has not been fully funding facilities here in the United States and I understand also from the pilots association that no U.S. airline even serves Abu Dhabi. Could you please talk to us about why you would expand a preclearance facility in a foreign airport benefitting foreign airlines when you are short of money and no U.S. airline even serves that airport and you are not fully staffing, for example, the facility at the Houston Intercontinental Airport and other airports in the United States. What is the logic? Secretary Napolitano. Well, this is--yes. The strategic goal we have in mind is to push borders out because our ability to minimize risk is maximized the further out we can go. It just gives us one more layer. This is in the initial stages of negotiation. It would be a reimbursable agreement. In other words, the U.S. taxpayer would not be paying for it. But it would allow us for the first time in the Middle East where we have a keen interest in making sure the traveling public is safe, to try this out. There are several other countries that are interested in doing the same thing, but again from a security strategy perspective, moving the borders out as well as maintaining what we have here makes all the sense in the world. Mr. Culberson. And you said you have zero cost to U.S. taxpayers? Secretary Napolitano. It would be a reimbursable agreement. Mr. Culberson. At zero cost? Secretary Napolitano. Yes. That is reimbursable. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION: AIRPORT STAFFING LEVELS Mr. Culberson. Yeah, but that is the goal, is to make it zero cost. We have an urgent need for additional agents at facilities, for example, at the Eastern Airport. I know others around the country, and I understand what you are saying about reimbursable and pushing the borders out. What can you tell us about increasing the staffing levels like, for examples, facilities at Houston and other airports so that there is not delay that causes people to miss flights when the flight's coming in from its international origin, lands in Houston, transfers to another flight going overseas? You guys have downsized the staffing levels and it is causing a lot of folks to miss flights. Secretary Napolitano. Well, we haven't downsized staffing levels. The fact is, the traveling public has increased and we haven't increased staffing levels. What the President is requesting in the budget is the ability to add 3,400 more CBP officers for the airports and the land ports, 1,600 to be paid for by Appropriation, the remainder by an increase in the Immigration User Fee and the COBRA fee, a $2 increase, which would cover the costs of that. We believe we have the capacity to bring on board, train and deploy that significant number within fiscal year 2014. That will go a long way based on our calculations and assessment to mitigating lines. We also have Global Entry and PreCheck to expedite travelers, and we have piloted--I actually think one of the Houston airports is part of the pilot--Express Check, as well as One Stop Check to facilitate the movement of passengers. DETAINEES: LAWS Mr. Culberson. Right. Moving on to another subject I want to ask you about--if Congress enacts a law that uses the word ``shall'', what does ``shall'' mean? Secretary Napolitano. Shall means shall. Mr. Culberson. Is there any discretion, if the law says ``shall'', what options does that give a federal agency? I mean ``shall'' means shall. You have to do it. Secretary Napolitano. Well---- Mr. Culberson. It means shall. That is mandatory, right? Secretary Napolitano. It is intended to be mandatory. However, when it says ``shall'' and subsequently doesn't appropriate the money to meet the ``shall'', you have a difficult choice to make. Do you violate the appropriations that you were given and do you violate those laws or do you violate the underlying law? So every time we have a ceiling, floor, or a bed level or what have you, in my view that means shall, subject to appropriations. Mr. Culberson. Well, and if you have two laws, one that says you shall build a new office building or shall expand headquarters and another law that says you shall protect public safety when you are short of money, which one of those would you do first? Secretary Napolitano. Well, obviously public safety is always our number one priority. Mr. Culberson. Particularly if it has a ``shall''. It is not optional. Secretary Napolitano. It is just, we were founded in response to 9/11, and public safety is our number one goal, but if you look at, and I think you are getting to why is there money in here for a headquarters for DHS. Our ability to connect the dots and to work in an integrated fashion is facilitated by having a headquarters where people can actually meet and talk with each other. We are at fifty-plus buildings in the National Capitol Region, so to do our best work, ultimately we are going to need a headquarters. Mr. Culberson. If ``shall'' is not optional therefore, you have to make choices and you don't have enough money to do everything on your plate and your top priority is protecting public safety, would the Department of Homeland Security be doing its job if ICE agents released onto the street a criminal who had been arrested by local enforcement authorities for assault, sexual assault, drug dealing or other crimes? ICE has a mandatory ``shall'' responsibility to hold those people pending the termination of their final disposition, would the Department of Homeland Security be doing its job if they released criminals who had been arrested for assault of other violent crimes in light of the statute that says they shall be held for removal proceedings? Secretary Napolitano. Well, two things. One, there were a handful of level ones released. That was a mistake but, nonetheless, it was a mistake made because when you look at the underlying facts of each arrest and you look at the actual detainee, they were determined not to be a danger to public safety. The President's budget for ICE provides for the detention beds for all those who are mandatory detainees. Mr. Culberson. If I may, excuse me for the interruption because our time is limited and the Chairman has been very generous, but you say the agents determine the criminals are not a threat to public safety. I don't see that determination language in the statute that mandates that ICE hold these folks. The statute is Title VIII, Section 1225 of the United States Code and I don't see language requiring a determination that they are a threat to public safety. The statute is very clear that an ICE agent determines, quoting from the statute that, ``An alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted. The alien shall be detained for removal proceedings.'' There is nothing about a determination of public safety. That is not optional. That is mandatory or in violation of the law and have endangered the safety of the people of the United States that you are sworn to protect by releasing these dangerous criminals. Secretary Napolitano. Well, I think we have to be very careful in our language here, Representative. The individuals that were released by ICE were not released into the general population per se. They were put in an alternative to detention. We believe that alternatives to detention have become much better than they were years ago and, by the way, are more cost effective and efficient. If a mistake was made on a particular release, we will deal with that and with the agent or agents involved with that mistake. Mr. Culberson. So a release, that in this case you admit that was a mistake and I am glad to hear you say that. So you agree that that is a mandatory obligation on the part of ICE, the statute's very clear, ``the alien shall be detained for removal proceedings.'' That is not optional. Secretary Napolitano. Well, again, with respect to how we manage the beds, right, I think Representative Price has it right. We ought to be detaining according to our priorities, according to public safety threats, level of offense and the like, so according to the individual, not an arbitrary bed number. Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time. Mr. Carter. And Ms. Roybal-Allard. PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION ACT Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being late but I was in another hearing. I would like to thank you and President Obama for extending the Prison Rape Elimination Act [PREA] to apply to immigration detention facilities. As you know, according to DHS records obtained by the ACLU more than 180 cases of sexual abuse in detention centers were reported between 2007 and mid-2011, and your extension of PREA will make a huge difference in protecting detained women from sexual assault. However, I understand one of the challenges that you face with implementing the PREA regulations is the fact that the majority of ICE detainees are held in state, local and privately run facilities. Once the regulations are finalized, how long will it take to fully implement these regulations at every facility and how will you assure that contract facilities are complying with the requirements of the PREA? Secretary Napolitano. Yeah, we have a whole implementation plan for PREA. It is an important value. It is important to us that those whom the law is detaining, the government is detaining be done in a safe manner. So we have a whole implementation plan. With respect to the private contractors, many of them are holding inmates for other entities rights, so they already are beginning to deploy PREA because they have to but, nonetheless, as a fairly large consumer in the private prison realm. That is something we will attempt to implement now, but also as their contracts come up for renewal. Ms. Roybal-Allard. So there will be some oversight even if it is based on whether or not they get a contract renewal, but that is part of what will be looked at---- Secretary Napolitano. Yes. ALIEN ABUSE AND DEATHS Ms. Roybal-Allard [continuing]. In determining that? Secretary Napolitano. Yes. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Over the past three years at least 20 different individuals have died in incidents involving CBP personnel. And I personally met with several other families and their stories really are heartbreaking. For example, Anastasio Hernandez Rojas, who is a father of five, died after being beaten and tazed five times near San Diego, even though video footage showed that he was not resisting arrest. Similarly, in Arizona, a man named Jose Gutierrez who was trying to reach his hospitalized U.S. citizen daughter, was beaten into a coma by CBP officers and suffered serious brain damage. The President's immigration reform proposal recognized the need to address this pattern of abuse by calling for increased civil rights and civil liberties training for border enforcement personnel. What steps are you taking in response to the President's proposal to prevent future incidents of abuse and unnecessary deaths at the border and is this one of the priorities? Secretary Napolitano. Yes, and if I might, I think we need to be careful not to extrapolate from individual cases to cases as a whole. As you know, we process hundreds of thousands of individuals every year. With respect to use of force, an appropriate use of force, we examine each and every case in which there is a death to evaluate what happened and whether or not the agent or agents involved should be subject to some sort of disciplinary measure. In extreme cases we involve the Department of Justice and the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] and that really can elongate everything because those investigations take a long time, but our interest is in making sure it is a safe and secure border through which travel and trade can occur. We want to facilitate that, but we want to make sure that we meet our law enforcement responsibilities there. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay, but there will be training? Secretary Napolitano. There is training now. There is absolutely training now, yes. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you. Mr. Carter. Mr. Dent. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION: AVIATION STAFFING Mr. Dent. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you again, Madam Secretary. A couple of questions. Some of my airports were concerned about some issues as it relates to CBP. One question specifically--when can the aviation industry, airlines and airports, expect to get information on the CBP staffing allocation, we can learn that issue, and will CBP share that information with the ports of entry about how many staff are allocated to their POE. Secretary Napolitano. Right now, Representative Dent, what we are trying to do is take the additional money that was ultimately appropriated to CBP and identify how it works, which account it can go in and so forth. We do have a staffing model that we are using and that underlies our request for 3,400 more port officers and will be happy to discuss that with your staff. TRANSPORTATION WORKER IDENTIFICATION CREDENTIAL Mr. Dent. Thank you. I appreciate that. I like to get more updated. Some of my airports are inquiring so thank you for that. On the issue of CFATS, as required by, you know, the CFATS for regulated facilities must implement measures designed to identify people with terrorist ties. The agency's expectation of recurrent vetting may exceed the scope of the regulation. If so, this unnecessarily prohibits the use of every compliant and credentialing program to meet the CFATS requirement, except TWIC card. Industry has maintained that the acceptance of other federal credentials which vet against the terrorist screen database meet the CFATS requirement. What is NPPD doing to address that requirement? Secretary Napolitano. The TWIC card requirement, if I might? Mr. Dent. Yeah. Secretary Napolitano. Well, right now I'm unaware of any effort to change it, but I do know that there are regulations underway. If they haven't been issued already, they will soon be issued on TWIC Readers, as well as on how people can renew their TWIC IDs. We have developed kind of a less expensive TWIC ID that only requires an individual to make one trip, so we are trying to facilitate and streamline the entire process. CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TERRORISM STANDARDS Mr. Dent. Thank you. And under CFATS, once a facility is assigned final tier, it is to submit a site security plan, and the 2011 internal memorandum that discussed various challenges facing the CFATS program stated the process was overly complicated, you know, based on recent testimony by GAO on infrastructure protection. The Infrastructure Security and Compliance Division, ISCD, has improved its security plan review process, but GAO estimates it could take another seven to nine years to review the plans at thousands of these facilities that have already been assigned a final tier. I think we would agree that is not acceptable. How can the ISCD further accelerate the review process at these facilities? Secretary Napolitano. Yeah, we are looking at that. Obviously, we would like to be able to do the review more quickly than that. It is partially a personnel and resource issue quite frankly, but the CFATS program as you know got off to a rocky and slow start and we have had to take a number of measures to improve it, put it on timelines with benchmarks. They are making and have made terrific progress over the last year. They are going to continue to make progress. I hope we can bring down that review number. DETENTION BEDS: POPULATION Mr. Dent. And finally, and I don't know how much time I have left, but I will be real quick on this. With respect to ICE and detention beds and I think Judge Carter probably already spoke about that issue, you know, I too, like Judge Carter, was concerned about the timing of the statements, pre- implementation of sequester with respect to the visa-certain detainees. I understand that this happens from time to time for various reasons. Is our capacity today 34,000 beds and do we have as many as 37,000 detainees on Sundays, is that true? I am trying to get the numbers. I know you were requesting, I think, 31,800 beds in the budget request, and there are 34,000 available detention beds is my understanding. But we have had as many as, is it true, 37,000? Secretary Napolitano. Yeah, detention populations ebb and flow, and that is one of the problems of managing with a bed number as opposed to looking at the actual facts of a particular case as to whether detention is appropriate or not. The President's budget is designed to make sure that all mandatory detainees have a bed and all the costs that go along with being detained. But it is also designed to facilitate alternatives to detention. And just like last year we asked for the flexibility to move money, you know, between those accounts in case we have a spike that needed mandatory detention, we were able to cover that. BORDER SECURITY: TECHNOLOGY Mr. Dent. And this is more comment than question. As we engage in this whole discussion of comprehensive immigration reform, let us face it, the public doesn't trust us when we say the border's operationally secured. They don't trust us on the issue of enforcement. How do you think we should go about verifying or certifying that the border is operationally secure to trigger whatever may come out of any immigration reform bill? What would you advise to this subcommittee? Secretary Napolitano. You know, public perceptions are difficult to change, but anyone who has been at that border recognizes that it is very different now than it was then or when illegal immigration was illegal--I mean, was at record highs. I think we need to continue to look at staffing and technology at the border. I actually think the technology is key. I also believe, however, that we can relieve pressure on the border itself if we had more tools to deal with the two drivers of illegal immigration, work and employers on this side of the border. We need E-Verify or something of that sort, and we need greater penalties for employers who break the law and we need to reform the legal migration system. That all is knit together. Then that would free up resources to focus on the narco and others who are using that border. Mr. Dent. What is the holdup at USCIS on developing a biometric ID for all visitors coming into this country? I go into Disney World, into the Magic Kingdom, and they take a biometric ID of me and they take my thumb print and they process it in all of about 30 seconds and it is biometric and they can do it, processing tens of thousands of folks a day. Why can't we do this? It has been years we have been talking about it and what would you recommend? Secretary Napolitano. Why can't we do it? Because it is very, very expensive and because we are checking more databases than Disneyland is checking. Mr. Dent. Well, the banks, too. I mean, all right. I was going to say the banks and I can take money out and support---- Secretary Napolitano. They are not looking at all the things that we should be and must look at for security reasons. However, we have developed, using the dozens of databases that we have, a very enhanced process for measuring exit that is virtually the same as biometric, and I would be happy to get you briefed on that. Mr. Dent. That would be great. Thank you. Thank you, Judge. Secretary Napolitano. Yeah, sorry to go overtime. Mr. Carter. Madam Secretary, I have talked to my colleague, Mr. Price. We are going to have a brief second round, and you have brought up several--it is like you were reading my mind. You mentioned de-verify. The budget request includes a modest increase in that system, but in the context of immigration reform which you and I have talked about, much more is needed. As most if not all proposals that we see, both the Senate and the House, include mandatory employment verification system which is E-Verify. For that reason, sixteen months ago, DHS was required to formally submit a report on the cost of mandatory E-Verify, a report, the basic cost data and assumptions that DHS has already produced internally. In the media a couple of months ago with you and I personally, you pledged to me to provide me this report. You agreed that months before, there was a discussion, and quite honestly I could use it tonight okay but I don't have it, and there are others that are working on immigration issues. And E- Verify, the number is very critical to the analysis as anyone starts to look at immigration reform. I am not trying to be a horse's ass on this one. I am being serious. We need this one, okay. Secretary Napolitano. Let me follow up on that and see where that is and get back to. Mr. Carter. We really need this. Secretary Napolitano. I got you. Mr. Carter. Give me some idea because I have got scheduled on my secret committee which is not so secret anymore---- Secretary Napolitano. The non-secret secret committee? Mr. Carter. Yeah. So anyway, you know, the very---- Secretary Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, I understand. Let me go track that down. REPORT, COAST GUARD Mr. Carter. Okay. Thank you very much. And finally, I want to just mention the reports that I have been trying to get back, if we could get that Coast Guard report ASAP. The Commandant will be in next week. Okay. Next week he will be in. Secretary Napolitano. It will certainly be in as soon as possible, yes, and no later than May 1. Mr. Carter. Well, if it is any chance we can get it before we have to talk to the Commandant, it certainly would be helpful. Secretary Napolitano. I understand. Mr. Carter. All right. Mr. Price. NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GRANT PROGRAM Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will touch on two topics quickly and submit the other questions for the record. I do want to revisit the question of border security, but first I want to just register a strong concern about the FEMA state and local grant programs. The fiscal 2014 budget request proposes a total of $2.1 billion for state and local and first responder grants. That is a decrease of $367 million from fiscal 2013. And as you know, we worked very, very hard in fiscal 2013 to get that number up from a disastrously low number in 2012, so we have worked on this a long time. And then there is this question of reorganization. Significant restructuring is proposed for the state and local grant programs in the broad categories and that is despite the prohibition of that kind of shift in the fiscal 2013 Act. So I want to ask you a few questions about this and you might want to elaborate for the record. The fiscal 2013 Act did prohibit the department for implementing this broad national preparedness grant program without an explicit authorization and it provided specific funding levels for the urban area grants, port and transit security and fire fighters and other existing programs and this was a broad agreement with Chairman Aderholt, then the chairman of this subcommittee, Chairwoman Landrieu, Ranking Member Coats and myself. We earnestly examined and discussed what we perceived as flaws in that national preparedness grant program concept. Each of these grant programs operates under different authorities, has its own purposes as reflected in different formulas. So they are challenged this year. So just quickly, do you plan on seeking authorization legislation this year for a proposed national---- Secretary Napolitano. Yes. Yes. Mr. Price. All right. That is to that one. I want you to tell me more about the rationale for this proposal. How different is it or is it different from the proposal Congress specifically rejected just a few weeks ago? And are there changes that are responsive to some of the criticisms? Now, I know in the past, you have talked about the desirability of more directly assessing risk and moving quickly to procure deployable assets. I wonder what the implications are for longer term security and hardening projects such as those that we fund through the port and transit grants? Secretary Napolitano. Well, if I might. Going back to the amount that the President requests in the fiscal year 2014 budget, in terms of the actual grant dollars available, it is virtually the same, but we have moved some of the administrative expenses into other line items within the FEMA budget, so we will be happy to walk that through with you. With respect to grant consolidation, yes, we are coming back. We have had over 70 conferences, meetings, et cetera, with stakeholders since our last proposal and we have made some changes in that proposal as a result. We offer it to the committee and we are going to offer it to the authorizers for your consideration because, just as you said, these are legacy grant programs that came from different statutes, different committees. They used different formulas, et cetera, et cetera. What we want and what we believe is better for the country is to put these all under one roof, which by the way diminishes the administrative cost for the grantees, and so we can fairly assess risk across the board and really look at national capacity. And what I mean by that, Chairman, almost Chairman--Ranking Member Price, excuse me--is for example, we want to have the ability to say, you know, every locality should have a grant for its own hazmat team or maybe we can have a hazmat capability for a small region. Does every grantee need the same number of K-9 detection teams, same logic? So I think from an administrative perspective, a simplification perspective, and an ability to get us to a national capacity evaluation as opposed to grantee by grantee by grantee, consolidation should be evaluated. Mr. Price. All right. We, of course, have had the budget only a day, so we will look in more detail at the changes you are proposing and the rationale for them. There was a welter of grants at one point. We use to have many, many more $50 million range grants and I think it was desirable to clean some of that up and to consolidate some of that. But when you talk about legacy programs, some of these aren't such ancient legacies. The Port and Transit Grants actually are fairly recent and they are there for a reason. They are risk based, and they focus on specific vulnerabilities, and I just think there are genuine questions as to the degree to which these efforts should be folded together, particularly when it is accompanied by reductions in funding. Secretary Napolitano. You know, every region is to prepare its own Threat Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. It is designed to take those characteristics of the port and transit security grants and be able to use it more broadly, so I am hopeful. I am always an optimist. I am hopeful that I can begin to persuade the committee that consolidation in this regard makes a lot of sense. But obviously you have more questions. We will be happy to answer those. Mr. Price. Right, and there are questions about an authorization as opposed to doing this simply through appropriations. All right. Secretary Napolitano. And we do intend to submit authorizing language. BORDER SECURITY: IMMIGRATION REFORM Mr. Price. All right. Let me quickly wrap up with a revisiting of this border security issue which, of course, has had you and me in the news accounts and as the bipartisan groups in both chambers work on immigration reform. This question of border security as a precondition for reform has come up and I indicated in my opening statement, that sets off some alarm bells because one could imagine that being a real obstacle to progress and almost an undefinable objective for the way some might interpret it. I am going to ask you to submit for the record as opposed to doing this orally, some of the estimates that you might give us about your preparation for immigration reform more broadly, especially the operations of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the kind of preplanning, and anticipation of expenses and organizational needs. We need to know more about this, but here in just the open session, I want to wrap up by returning to that question of security as a piece of the puzzle. In your response to Mr. Dent just a moment ago, I heard you say, I believe, that border security really is both cause and effect, or the causal areas work both ways. You can say we don't undertake broad reform until a certain level of security is present, but you are clearly depending on reform and all of its aspect to enhance security, and so it is a matter of causal forces working both ways. You are very well positioned. I think you have a lot of credibility on this issue when you factor in your past life as a border state governor and, of course, your current responsibilities. So I want to give you a chance as we close here to reflect on this issue. What does a secure border look like? It can't just be a matter of measuring inputs. We all talk about inputs. I talked about inputs in my opening statement, the number of personnel, the miles of fence, the sensors and all the rest. And we all know it is notoriously difficult to measure the output side. But yet we do need to have some resolution on this and I wonder what your current thoughts are. Secretary Napolitano. You know, it is tempting just to draw an arbitrary number out of the air and say that is the magic number, that is the metric and until you reach that, we can't do reform. But I believe as you have said that we really need interior reform to get the maximum out of all of the border security that we already have and that we are continuing to build upon, which to my mind is manpower and it is infrastructure. It is aerial and it is technology--most important, technology at this point. The border now is so different than the border then, always a work in progress, absolutely big, complicated borders. You can, you know, you can always go down and find somebody who is unhappy or thinks it is unsecure or whatever. What I think we should be doing, however, is looking at a whole universe of things, apprehensions, crime rates, seizures, property values, things of that sort that help tell us whether the border is a safe and secure border zone. And when you look at all of those things, you will see that they are all trending in the right direction overall and border-wide. We want to continue that, and I think one of the suspicions is that after the '86 Act, those enforcement issues were not universally pursued. We want to make sure we continue that, but I think some kind of false border security number doesn't really get us anything in terms of maximizing border safety. Mr. Price. Well, the irony would be if this quest for the holy grail of total security actually stood in the way of enacting the comprehensive measures that would enhance security. Secretary Napolitano. Well, I think for those who are seeking immigration reform, the suspicion quite frankly is that some sort of false border security metric, if you can ever decide on one holy grail, was actually a reason never to get to reform on the underlying system. Mr. Price. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carter. Mr. Culberson. DETAINEES: LAWS Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Napolitano, first, I want to thank you for your admission that that was a mistake to release those individuals that had committed a crime and endangered the public. The American people appreciate that. The Congress appreciates it and I thank you also. If we could, here today, I think it would be very helpful to make sure that everyone listening and our immigration officers out there listening know that they are hearing it from you and from the Congress that when the law says ``shall'', that is not optional, right? Secretary Napolitano. I think we have already had that discussion. Mr. Culberson. I just want to make sure I understand clearly that when you are talking about Title VIII, Section 1225, you agree that is not optional. Secretary Napolitano. Well, you are absolutely right. The statute uses ``shall'', but as I further explained sometimes you have shall, but there is no way to do the shall because the resources haven't been made available and I think that needs to be taken into account. Mr. Culberson. Right. But for the officer in the street, who took an oath to enforce the law and protect the public, this statute says ``shall'' and that is not optional correct? Secretary Napolitano. Well, the safety of the community is something that always needs to be taken into account. Mr. Culberson. That is top priority. Secretary Napolitano. That is a top priority, yes, sir. Mr. Culberson. The top priority. Secretary Napolitano. I would say the top priority, yes. OPERATION STREAMLINE Mr. Culberson. Okay. Very good. Thank you. I appreciate that. I deeply appreciate that. That is important for the public to hear. I also want to be sure with my friend, Henry Cuellar here, my good friend Judge Carter, our new chairman, congratulations, Mr. Chairman, that we, to reiterate and to reenforce the terrific, partnership that we have in Texas, with Mexico, the long history we have, the friendships we have, Henry, the work that we have done over the years, Judge Carter, we look forward to working with you and continuing to strengthen a very successful initiative in Congressman Cuellar's district that we have supported in a bipartisan way, Operation Streamline. No better way to ensure public safety than to enforce the law. It is working beautifully. And I wanted to ask you if you could, to talk about the expansion of Operation Streamline and working with Congressman Cuellar, Judge Carter and I and the Texas delegation in ensuring that the law is enforced, obviously with common sense and a human heart, but that the law is enforced. If you would talk to us about working with us and making sure that we expand that very successful program Operation Streamline up and down the border, starting with Texas? Secretary Napolitano. Well, I think Streamline may have actually started in Arizona, if I might, however, it is a very good program. It has been effective. There are other, we call them consequence delivery programs because there should be a consequence for breaking the law and immigrating illegally. But there are others that are similar to Streamline that we think are also very promising and don't take up as much judicial time, but yeah, I would say that Operation Streamline is very helpful. Mr. Culberson. And I hope you look to Judge Ludlum and her work in the Del Rio sector as a role model for that. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carter. Mr. Cuellar. VEHICLE DISMOUNT AND EXPLOITATION RADAR SYSTEMS Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Could you tell us, are you all planning to order more VADER radar systems? I know that--right. Secretary Napolitano. Yeah, I think it is a very promising technology. It is one that comes to us out of Afghanistan, so we are in the initial stages of testing on how it works. Representative Cuellar, it doesn't really--it is very good in some areas of the border. In other areas of the border, it is not that helpful because you have a lot of, you know, South Texas, for example, where you have a lot of those south seeders and the other brush that impedes sight, but in areas that are more open, it is a very promising technology. COMMUNITY LEADERS, SCHEDULED MEETING WITH Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Well, we certainly want to work with you on that particular area. Number one, the other question I have has to do with the President's budget because it talks about cutting the number of detention beds from 34,000 to 31,800, and some of us have, of course, we want to work with you on that. But at the same time if you are looking at alternatives to detention which is again what we want to keep the low risk folks--and they supported this alternative by, I think it started under President Bush. The problem is that I think there is also a reduction in the alternative by 25 percent, so we got to do one or the other, and you know, we will be happy to work with you on this alternative to detention because I understand it does serve a particular purpose on that. The other thing I would ask also is, I guess this has to do more with down to the border, and I am one of those, I was born on the border. I have lived there and it is now the wild, wild west that people paint it to be. It is certainly not like that. My wife and my two kids are there, and my family, my mom, dad, everybody lives there. It is not the wild, wild west that people paint it, but we do need to do some work without a doubt. I mean, I think the problem is people get to the stream, one, they call it the wild, wild west, and then the other side, you know, they call it a perfect heaven that nobody's coming across. And I think you and I are both that it is probably closer to the middle, that more in the practical aspect of it. But one thing I do ask because I know that I was with you the last time you were at the border several months ago, I think it was last year, and we asked if you could talk to some of the other stakeholders or the business community and all that and you couldn't do it. This last time you sent out a press release and you said you were going to be in Arizona and Texas and then you had an unannounced visit and I asked Congressman Vela, Ruben Hinojosa, then you were going to be there. I didn't know you were going to be there, which is again, you don't have to notify us. I have seen both Republican and Democratic Secretary of States do that to us which is fine. But the problem that I do have is that then you, the day before or the day after you were in Houston and you had a press conference there and you had met with several business folks and other folks, and that puts some of us in a very difficult situation with being on the border because besides you going in and talking to your men and women, which you need to do. But there are other stakeholders, other people, communities, so I would ask the next time you go to South Texas, the border, I would ask you to make time to talk to the other community leaders that quite frankly want to sit down and spend some time and be supportive of the work that you do. Secretary Napolitano. Indeed, and we do try to keep Congress on notice when I am traveling. Representative Shiela Jackson Lee actually was in Houston. Mr. Cuellar. I saw her in the photograph. Secretary Napolitano. Right, and it was primarily designed to meet with business leaders and there were NGO [non- governmental organization] representatives there to talk about the, kind of, business side of immigration as it were, but I meet with different groups, depending on where I am. It is hard to get a schedule where you meet with everybody all in one visit. But by way of comparison, when I went to Douglas, I had a roundtable with all the police chiefs and the next chief's county sheriff and so forth to hear what they were seeing on the ground. So it does vary each time I go. That is primarily driven by schedule. Mr. Cuellar. Correct. Yeah. No, I understand. I am just asking if you could work on your schedule. The third visit you make down there, if you can just spend some time with the other folks. Secretary Napolitano. We will work with your office on that. BORDER PATROL AGENTS Mr. Cuellar. Yes, ma'am. Last thing, Mr. Chairman, on this one. I think you have, and I want to try to have as many men and women on the border, border patrol and I know it is been up and the largest amount we have, but I know at headquarters the last time I talked to you had about 250 border patrol stationed here at headquarters. I don't know how many CBP officers, probably over 200 from what I remember last time, and I understand they serve a purpose working here at headquarters. I understand that. But I would ask you if you could just tell us if you can try to send as many of them. I do understand they serve a purpose, but I was wondering if you can send as many of them down to the front line, you know, we would appreciate having them. It is going to be in our headquarters, number one. And number two, do they get overtime just like the front- line people when they are over here? Is that automatic overtime for border patrol? Secretary Napolitano. No, it depends on whether they are Border Patrol, port officers and what level they are in the system. And with respect to moving people to the actual border, I would point you to another part of the President's budget where we are asking again, this is the second year, the ability to close nine interior border stations so we can move those agents right to the border. Congress rejected that last year, but that is the kind of thing we need to be able to do. Mr. Cuellar. Right. And if you can just--I do understand that, but I do understand, the folks here at the headquarters, I am talking about headquarters, so again I know they are here for training and I understand they serve a purpose but the more we can have away from headquarters down as the front line, a lot of us down there at the border would appreciate that, but I want to say thank you. You have bee more---- Secretary Napolitano. But look at the interior stations as well. Mr. Cuellar. Yes, I agree. It is going to be a balance approach and I appreciate the good work that you are doing. Thank you very much. Secretary Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. Carter. Mr. Frelinghuysen. DISASTER RELIEF FUND Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I always associate high noon with Texas, Mr. Chairman and I know that the Secretary has been here for quite a long time and I want to express my appreciation to her and the good people on FEMA that were on the ground, in the New York, New Jersey, Connecticut region in the aftermath of hurricane Sandy. I think it is a tribute to the good work that they did. A lot of people's immediate needs were met, obviously. The Disaster Relief Fund is pretty important to us. I know there is $6.2 billion in there. I looked at the allocation for Hurricane Sandy. I believe it is in the $1.2 billion region. I don't think that is going to be enough. I hope that you might take a look at that because we have about 40,000 families just in my state, New Jersey, which are displaced, living with relatives and hotels and there are some, pretty immediate needs. I just want to put in a plug. We will welcome you back any time to our neck of the woods. We admire the work you do and especially the work that FEMA has done for a variety of issues. Your department was created out of September 11th, 2001 and we still suffer, you know, from that mightily, and we appreciate what you do. But if you could take a look at the Disaster Relief Fund and understand that our needs continue to be great and the more money we get out on the street to alleviate people's pain and suffering would be extremely beneficial. Secretary Napolitano. Yes, and I enjoy--it was terrible circumstances to be in New Jersey. The people were great to work with and just very impressive and probably were handling this disaster. Two points I would make. One is, Sandy relief efforts are not just in FEMA's budget but they are also in HUD. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And the Army Corps as well. Secretary Napolitano. Exactly, right. And secondly, we currently have a large surplus as it were, unused balance, better way to put it, in the DRF, so if the FEMA expenses exceed what we proceed, we do have a cushion. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Good. Well, I appreciate that. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry to be late. I had other hearings. Thank you, Madam Secretary. AMMUNITION Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Madam Secretary, as we close the hearing, a couple of other things I wanted to talk to you about just for the record. I want to correct the record, first. Our research shows that only 187 of the 2,228 detainees released by ICE recently are 8 percent of the number, were placed on formal alternatives to detention. We still have no definitive answer from the Department of Bonds or on their own recognizance, but neither of those are alternatives to detention so I think that just needs to be made clear. There is an issue out there that is almost the king of the blogosphere. The number one question in all of the town halls that I have been in in the last two weeks, it has been whenever I have come back to Congress and the chairman of this department, I have had numerous members from out of the country come in with this is the same issue. I think you know what it is. It is that the DHS is buying up all the ammunition in the United States. Now, people can smile at that, but there are people who are seriously concerned about that. We have got to get accurate numbers to be able to report this to people because I am telling you, every stop, and I did at least ten public gatherings when I was home, it was first. It was the biggest, most concern in my area. And a lot of those have said the same thing. Can you get us information--and some of this we have gotten--this has gotten some of us, but how many rounds of ammunition has DHS purchase each fiscal year since 2009? Secretary Napolitano. It averages about 150 million. Mr. Carter. At a buy component. In other words---- Secretary Napolitano. Oh, you want it split up. Mr. Carter. By bullet, okay. So I mean, if it's---- Secretary Napolitano. Seventy million for CBP. Mr. Carter. Nine millimeter, we won't know how many nine millimeter. How many rounds of ammunition has DHS utilized each fiscal year by component. I mean, how much have you used? The reason I question is because when we are looking at the preliminary numbers that I got--I don't know whether you are an expert, but I have been around guns all my life, and I didn't-- I went and shot to qualify with sheriff's deputies. A thousand rounds is a pretty chunk of bullets for guys to have a year and the numbers I saw were closer to 1,500 to 2,000. I may be. Talking the Sheriff, I mean, the Chief of Police in Austin. We were discussing this. Maybe even, you have a liberal shooting policy which I am in favor of, quite honestly, to make sure that these are very accurate shooters. I don't, but I like them. Can you also tell us about the training regime by each department? If you got mugged and called security or gun-toting folks, it would just be very helpful because I want to write a letter to everybody that is asking a question about this, and so are all my colleagues, so you are talking about both sides of the aisle, every member of Congress is getting these questions that we are going to try to compose in an intelligent letter that will hopefully solve this rumor which is very important to our people. So that is just---- Secretary Napolitano. We will provide any assistance we can. I think we have gotten a lot of correspondence, too. I know we have done a lot of briefings. There is a two-page white paper that we distributed. The way I explain it to people, Your Honor, Judge, is it is an up-to contract. It is a 5-year contract. It is called strategic sourcing because we get an 80- percent reduction in the per-bullet cost by buying it this way. And we train not just within DHS but other law enforcement agents as well. And as I said, I think our average is about 150 million rounds per year. And I believe in some of our units you have got to qualify several times per years. So whatever information we can give you, we will plug it in. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Carter. Okay. I appreciate it. And I will get Ms. Piato to do some of that work for you. Finally, you are not--you don't have 2,700 or 27,000 tanks that you have? Secretary Napolitano. Not that I know of. Mr. Carter. Okay. Well, that's being recorded. You do have some M-wraps. Secretary Napolitano. We do. Mr. Carter. And they were given to you by the Marine Corps to try out, and they were proven not to be very effective. Secretary Napolitano. They are not ideal for the environment in which we deal, yeah. Mr. Carter. These are some of the other questions that are certainly in this blog---- Secretary Napolitano. I understand. I get some of the same questions. Mr. Carter. Yeah, I just wanted to know the record so if anybody happens to be watching this, they can know we are checking on this. Thanks for being here. I want to say that, you know, in my view, this is one that may be falling down on the job and unfortunately, you got to make this budget work. You got to crunch into it and you've got to take the information you are going to provide me and I am grateful you are going to do that so we can try to make intelligent decisions on your department. I think you know, if you don't know. I am a law enforcement guy and I am going to do everything in my power to see that you have what you need to meet your mission, your primary mission of defending this nation. And you are as important as any of our military components, and I am going to do everything within my power to do that. However, we after having information to make intelligent decisions and so I would ask that you do that and we are going to have to work on some of these harsh cuts in some of the areas we are dealing with. And we will be all shaking it out and quite honestly we may see some different numbers, too, so I don't know what's going to happen. But we are going to work together and I appreciate it if you would do that. Secretary Napolitano. We'll work with you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate the time, you know when your staff, and Representative Price, you and your staff spend on DHS matters. Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Subcommittee is adjourned. [Questions for the record follow:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Tuesday, April 16, 2013. UNITED STATES COAST GUARD WITNESS ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP JR., COMMANDANT, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD Opening Statement: Mr. Carter Mr. Carter. We will call this meeting to order. Before we begin this subcommittee hearing, I think we ought to take a few minutes to reflect upon what happened yesterday in Boston. You know, in the shadow of senseless acts of terrorism we once again saw how courageous our first responders are, as well as the resiliency and the compassion of our fellow Americans. These events are a sobering reminder that there is evil in this world, and our homeland security demands that we be vigilant about that evil. It is a shame that we have to witness this, it is a shame that we have to lose American citizens injured and killed. But today our sincere thoughts and prayers go out to all those who were injured and killed by this senseless act of terrorism at the Boston Marathon. And let's keep all those folks in our hearts and in our prayers as we go forward. Admiral, thank you very much for testifying before us today. No doubt your dedication to service. We think you are doing a great job. And our Active Duty military and civilians that you command are also part of this great war against terror that we are fighting today. We thank you for it. To me, it is just kind of awful to have to sit here and be reminded of what our job is by watching the explosion at the Boston Marathon. As we go forward, we are quick to forget bad things, and always remember the good things in our lives. But it just harkens back to that day on 9/11 when we all realized that there were people who wanted to kill Americans for the sake of killing Americans. And that is where this Department came from, and it is how it was organized, and that is what our job is. And somehow we have got to remind ourselves every single day that there is somebody out there that wants to do harm to Americans. Our charge here today is a challenging one. We are trying to make some sense out of the Coast Guard's latest budget request, a proposal that first cuts more than 850 Active Duty full-time positions and decreases military end strength to under 40,000 people. It decommissions two High Endurance Cutters and numerous air assets. It delays the acquisition of several vital assets and squanders $30 million in savings per year by dragging out the acquisition of the Fast Responder Cutters. So instead of the administration's claimed support for frontline operations or for supporting the mission requirements, this budget submission severely diminishes current, near-term, and future capabilities. Admiral, to put it mildly, this is a budget that is very difficult for us to accept. We fully understand the challenges you face in balancing a shrinking budget while also trying to take care of Coast Guard families, sustaining operations with aging assets, and recapitalizing for the future. This is no small task in today's fiscal environment. But the Congress, and this subcommittee in particular, has never supported a plan that so bluntly guts operational capabilities and so clearly increases our Nation's vulnerability to maritime risk, including more illegal drugs. I believe what is at stake is no less than the future of our Coast Guard. You appear to have arrived at the tipping point between the Coast Guard that you assert is needed and the agency this administration is actually willing to support. Admiral, we know you have a tough job. That is precisely why we are relying upon you to explain how this budget meets our Nation's needs for both fiscal discipline and robust security. Before I turn this over to the Admiral for his statement, let me first recognize the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Price, for any remarks that he might make. [Statement follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Opening Statement: Mr. Price Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral Papp, we are glad to have you before the subcommittee today to discuss the Coast Guard's budget request for fiscal year 2014. Yesterday's events in Boston are on our minds and in our hearts this morning. They serve as a stark reminder of the threats we face as a Nation. The first responders of Boston, as well as the men and women of DHS, responded quickly and heroically. These events do highlight the vital work of DHS, as the chairman has said, and they add even more import to the bipartisan work of this subcommittee. The Coast Guard budget request is for $9.8 billion, a cut of $762 million, or 7.2 percent from the current year appropriation, and that is before sequestration. The fiscal 2014 request for the entire Department is difficult, but the shortfall proposed for the Coast Guard is particularly glaring, and I suspect that you see it the same way. Combined with a few other significant shortfalls in other areas of the Department, I fear this subcommittee will be hard pressed to find a responsible way to patch all the holes that need to be filled. And again, that is before sequestration. Our ability to properly assess the request is made all the more difficult because we have not yet received a 5-year capital investment plan. And given the 41 percent cut to the fiscal 2013 enacted level for acquisition, construction, and improvements, the prospects for capital investment in the outyears indeed appear bleak. You have said before that in order to properly recapitalize the Coast Guard fleet you would require at least $1.5 billion a year, yet here we are with a budget request nearly $600 million below that stated need. Of particular note is the request to procure only two Fast Response Cutters in fiscal 2014, which would not only increase the per-unit cost of these vessels, but would slow the overall pace of Fast Response Cutter procurement to an unacceptable level. The request also leaves out funding for long lead time material for the next National Security Cutter, which would drive up the costs of National Security Cutter construction dramatically. It seems to me that the budget request for new assets, particularly if it is a precursor to similarly low requests in the outyears, raises fundamental questions about the Coast Guard's future capacity as older assets are decommissioned. I would also note the continued reduction in the Coast Guard workforce. Under the fiscal 2014 budget request, you would be down to 49,349 positions by the end of the fiscal year, a reduction of more than 1,600 positions since the end of fiscal 2012, and almost all of those losses are to military positions. These reductions are proposed at the same time the Coast Guard continues to be heavily relied upon by its Department of Defense partners. How many of these reductions will come from achievable efficiencies and right sizing and how much is the result of budget pressures that will reduce operational capabilities? We very much need to know. Admiral, we know the Coast Guard is committed to doing its part to find savings in these lean budget times. We also know you are committed to ensuring that the Coast Guard is able to do more with less. But there is a point beyond which we should not ask you to try to go in this regard, and we rely to a great extent on your judgment in determining just where that point lies. Admiral, no one is more passionate about the Coast Guard than you, and you have always been honest with this subcommittee about the positive and negative aspects of previous budgets. As you can see, we have a number of topics that need to be explored in depth this morning, and we look forward to your testimony and your insight, as always. Thank you. Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Price. [Statement follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Carter. Admiral, we are ready for you to give us your statement at this time. And of course we have a written copy of it, of your whole statement. We will ask you to condense it down to 5 minutes, if you would, please, sir. Opening Statement: Commandant Papp Admiral Papp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Price, Mr. Cuellar. It is an honor for me to be here this morning to testify on the 2014 budget. Before I get into that, though, first I'd like to thank you for your remarks about Boston. We share the same feelings. In fact, I would say that the collective hearts of our Coast Guard family go out to the people of Boston and all the families that were affected by yesterday's tragedy. The Coast Guard is based in Boston as well. We are part of the community, and we are able to respond immediately with boats from Sector Boston, the Maritime Safety and Security Team, an armed helicopter, vessel boarding teams, and an overall enhancement to the maritime transportation security posture. Our ability to do that is a direct result of the support that we have received from the administration and the Congress over the last 12 years, since September 11, 2001. We have significantly reinforced and rebuilt our port and close-to- shore infrastructure, and we are grateful for that. That support has also enabled our successes over this past year. During Hurricane Sandy, we rescued 14 crew members from the HMS Bounty in 30-foot seas and 60-knot winds 80 miles offshore. In the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, our Marine Transportation Recovery Unit surveyed the channels, evaluated the waterfront facilities, restored Aids to Navigation, and worked across government and industry to reopen the port so commerce could flow. To meet the growing demands in the Arctic, we completed Operation Arctic Shield, a 9-month interagency effort, including the deployment of a National Security Cutter [NSC], two light ice-capable buoy tenders, and two helicopters 300 miles above the Arctic Circle. Given the lack of shore infrastructure and the extreme conditions that we find up there, the capabilities provided by that National Security Cutter were critical, and we thank you for your past support for the national security project, including the funding for construction of number 6 and the long lead materials for NSC number 7 in the current year budget. In executing the DHS layered security strategy, the Coast Guard detected and interdicted threats as far offshore as possible. Targeting Central American coastal trafficking routes, our cutters and aircraft teamed with interagency aircraft to detect and interdict drug-smuggling vessels carrying over 107 metric tons of cocaine, with a street value estimated to be about $15 billion, and we disrupted transnational criminal organizations. Closer to shore, we responded to the growing threat of small go-fast vessels that smugglers are using to avoid increased security along the southwest U.S. border. Drug smuggling, human trafficking, and other illicit maritime activity continue to threaten our Nation. Those engaged in this trade are growing smarter and bolder, and they are an increasing danger to our homeland. In December, I presided over the memorial service for Senior Chief Boatswain's Mate Terrell Horne III of Coast Guard Cutter Halibut. He was killed by smugglers when they rammed his response boat near San Diego. Our commitment to the Nation and our duty to honor the memory of Senior Chief Horne strengthens our resolve to defeat these threats. Unfortunately, much like the weather and the seas that we face on a daily basis, the Coast Guard cannot control the fiscal environment in which we operate. We will make best use of the resources you provide to safely and effectively conduct operations in the areas of greatest risk to the Nation, while recapitalizing our cutters, boats, and aircraft to address both the current and emerging threats, particularly in the offshore environment. The 2014 President's budget works in that direction. This past year we made great strides in recapitalizing the Coast Guard's aging fleet. In October, we will christen the fourth National Security Cutter, Hamilton. To date, we have taken delivery of five Fast Response Cutters and 14 HC-144 aircraft. We also contracted for the ninth HC-130J completed a mid-life availability on our patrol boats, and are nearly complete with the mid-life availability on our Medium Endurance Cutters at the Coast Guard Yard. Despite these successes, we have a long way to go to recapitalize the Coast Guard with the ships, boats, and aircraft that the Nation needs. The capital investment plan should inform this discussion, and I look forward to delivering it at the soonest opportunity. As the Department of Defense rebalances forces to the Pacific, the maritime activity increases in the Arctic, and offshore demand for Coast Guard capabilities and authorities is increasing. Our 378-foot High Endurance Cutters have ably served offshore for nearly 50 years, but as I have testified before, they are at the end of their service lives. I am very happy to report that I received strong support from the Secretary and the President on my highest acquisition priorities, including the funding for the seventh National Security Cutter in the 2014 budget. This budget sustains the most critical frontline operations, while funding our most critical acquisition projects. In the current fiscal environment, this required tough decisions, informed by my highest priorities. These were very difficult decisions for me and our service, but they were the best decisions to ensure we provide the next generation of Coast Guardsmen the tools required to protect our Nation. As I look back over our successes of the past year, I have never been more convinced about the value the Coast Guard provides to the Nation, and I have never been prouder of my Coast Guard men and women. Our missions ensure adherence to a system of rules and sustain the mechanisms designed to provide for the security, safety, and prosperity of all who use the maritime domain. This is the daily work of a government that provides us with both order and opportunity on the oceans. What we provide is maritime governance. While realistic and mindful of the current fiscal environment, I remain optimistic about the future of the Coast Guard. It is my duty to look beyond the annual budget cycle, and prepare and adapt the service, keeping it moving forward to address the greatest maritime safety and security risks of the Nation now and into the future. The men and women of the Coast Guard give their all and make sacrifices every day, putting the Nation first. We owe them our very best efforts to provide the support that they need. This subcommittee has long supported the men and women of the Coast Guard, recognizing their sacrifice. And on behalf of my Coast Guard shipmates, I thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. Mr. Carter. Thank you, Admiral. [Statement follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN Mr. Carter. We appreciate your testimony. Let's start out by getting an issue that you have already raised here out of the way. Over the last several years, Congress has directed the submission of a capital investment plan, the CIP, with the submission of the budget. However, today we have got a budget, 2 months late, from the administration, and we see that we do not have the capital investment plan. We have got to have that plan. You are not the only one who is not meeting this requirement. We are having to ask others to do this. But we need that plan. When do you think--I would like a date--that you can provide that plan? Admiral Papp. Sir, I cannot give you an exact date, and I am just as disappointed as everybody else that we do not have that capital investment plan, because as I said in my statement, it helps inform the discussion that we would have in terms of where the Coast Guard is going over the next 5 to 10 years, and puts into context those requests in the fiscal year 2014 budget. I do know that we were working as late as last night nailing down final wording, and I expect that it will be to you very soon. Mr. Carter. Well, is there any chance that with the folks that you have got here with you somebody can make a few phone calls while we proceed today and give me a date before we get through? I would like to have that. Admiral Papp. Yes, sir. DRUG INTERDICTION Mr. Carter. All right. Admiral, I do not have to tell you that the Coast Guard's efforts to interdict drugs being smuggled from source and transit zones are vital to our security. However, your fiscal year 2014 budget will actually diminish your current drug interdiction capabilities by decreasing personnel and decommissioning assets. Based upon your own metrics, this budget will also support the lowest percentage of cocaine removal in 5 years. Also, combined with these proposed reductions, I understand the Navy is moving more and more assets to the Pacific AOR. Admiral, can you discuss how these cuts reduce our current drug interdiction capabilities and how our Coast Guard will mitigate the impact of these cuts? The 2004 mission needs statement created specific requirements for patrol boats, major cutters, fixed wings, operational hours. However, the budget over the last few years does not support these requirements. Admiral Papp. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, the current fiscal environment requires making some very difficult decisions that are based upon the priorities that I have established and stayed consistent with over the 3 years that I have been testifying before this subcommittee. The fiscal climate has clearly changed, but our mission requirements remain the same. In fact, they probably are increasing, given the fact that we have emerging mission space up in the Arctic. Challenging us also is the fact that the Department of Defense has rebalanced toward the Pacific, the Navy is constrained by its own capability of keeping ships deployed, and we are losing the Navy frigates that used to serve us so well in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific in the drug interdiction mission. Exacerbating that is the fact that our allies, the British, the French, and the Dutch, who have traditionally been down there, are down there less, and are retracting from the Caribbean side. We do have some assistance from the Canadians right now, but that is limited, and also they are bound by different rules than we are in terms of their ability to arrest and interdict the smugglers. So what you will see is less cocaine interdicted. There is no way to get around that. The effects of sequestration right now are hurting us in that regard because there are fewer assets that are able to be deployed down there in the Eastern Pacific and in the Caribbean. Mr. Carter. Well, this budget here does not reflect sequestration, as I understand it. We have the 2004 mission statement. At some point, the budget is not matching the mission statement. Somehow, we have got to get a clear picture as to where we are going. I guess a good question to ask you is--This does not reflect sequestration. Sequestration is a fact. With sequestration, can you tell me how much you will further erode the interdiction capabilities and the overall capabilities of the Coast Guard? Admiral Papp. Well, sir, this budget as presented for fiscal year 2014, and we have reviewed this within my staff, we believe that this budget, if approved at its current level, should not be affected by sequestration because it falls underneath the Budget Control Act limits, as our budget has all along. So I believe that there will be no impact from sequestration on this budget. Having said that, this budget does constrain us in our ability to conduct all our missions. And as I have said in the past to this subcommittee, the Coast Guard has never had 100 percent of the assets to do 100 percent of our jobs all the time. That is why we train our commanders in the field to make decisions based upon priorities of missions. It starts with my intent. When we went into sequestration on the fiscal year 2013 budget, I put out a commander's intent message, which gave broad guidance to our operational commanders. And they take the resources that they have and apply those to the highest needs, the highest missions, and other missions will go wanting for lack of resources. Mr. Carter. Mr. Price. ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENT Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, I want to get into this matter further of the acquisition and construction aspect of the budget. You are requesting $951 million for acquisition, construction, and improvement, less a proposed rescission of $42 million, for a total of $909 million. That is almost $636 million, or 41 percent, below the amount provided in fiscal 2013, and it is $554 million below what we provided in fiscal 2012. So the question obviously is, at this reduced funding level will the Coast Guard--or how could the Coast Guard possibly be able to keep acquisitions and procurements on track to replace aging aircraft and vessels? I know you are personally committed to procuring the two remaining National Security Cutters. But the budget request in the last 2 years has not provided the financial commitment needed to do that. Given the known increase in costs associated with not funding long lead time materials, for which the budget provides no funding, does that mean we are faced with the termination of the National Security Cutter program after number seven rather than the number eight on record? National Security Cutter seven represents 65 percent of your total acquisition request. Is its construction coming at the expense of procuring new aviation assets, slowing the development of a heavy icebreaker, reducing the procurement pace for the Fast Response Cutter, as well as the long lead time materials for number eight? So let me just ask you to respond to that, and then I will follow up. Admiral Papp. Sir, there is no doubt that at the funding level that is requested, that pushes all our procurements to the right. It causes us to order less than economic numbers for most of our procurement projects, and in some cases, particularly the HC-144, it causes us to terminate those acquisitions. So ultimately our mission need has not changed. In fact, if we were to do another mission need analysis right now, it would probably indicate increased need, primarily because of the lack of Department of Defense resources in the drug interdiction mission and the fact that we are expanding our mission space up in the Arctic right now. So the mission need is even greater, and I remain committed to the program of record for all these assets. But I have to make reasoned decisions on an annual basis, getting us toward the ultimate goal, which I still believe remains sound in the outyears. The Fast Response Cutter is one of the challenges. And I just simply could not fit any more than two within the limits of the budget. And in response to your question, does the National Security Cutter number seven displace other things, I would have to say there is no guarantee that if the National Security Cutter was not in the budget, we would get all that money back to place on other projects. The Secretary and the administration know that that is my highest priority because I have taken a reasoned approach, looking back over the last 12 years where we have invested. We have invested heavily in our close-to-shore infrastructure, in our ports. That is why we were able to respond so well in Boston. We have additional people, the Maritime Safety and Security Teams. We have bought well over 800 boats over the last 12 years to recapitalize our shore stations. We have increased our number of patrol boats for the close shore environment. Our greatest risk at this time is in the offshore environment, where we need the National Security Cutter, and we need to get that constructed as soon as possible. I said last year, when the capital investment plan that was placed in front of you last year showed zeroes for National Security Cutter number seven and eight, seven is in the budget this year, and I continue to be optimistic that eight will be in the budget next year. We will find a way to work that through the budget. And that is why I am disappointed that the capital investment plan is not here, because that could inform the discussion that we are having today. And we will get that to you as soon as possible. Aircraft is the other thing you brought up. Yes, we are terminating the HC-144 project at 18 aircraft. That replaces the 18 Falcons that we had in service. And I am satisfied that we are providing adequate service through our aviation community right now. And we have invested heavily in our HC- 130s over the last 12 years. This subcommittee has provided funding for now up to 10 HC-130Js. And we have awarded number nine, and are in the process of negotiating number 10. We have recapitalized, renovated, and upgraded both of our classes of helicopters. And as I look at our aviation community, I think we are in good shape for at least the next 15 years. We have more patrol boats today than we have ever had in my career in the Coast Guard. Granted, the Island class is getting old and is in need of replacement, but we are incrementally working forward with the Fast Response Cutter. I would like to build that faster, but we are building as many as we can within the constraints of the budget. So my focus needs to be on the offshore, where those 40- and 50-year-old ships are falling apart. They are the most expensive. And we need to get them built now so that we do not have to pay more in the future. Mr. Price. Thank you. I am certainly not inclined to question your commitment to National Security Cutter number seven and giving that priority. Are we mistaken, though, to see the omission of the long lead time materials as a setback or at least an omission that really is going to, if not throw number eight into doubt, at least greatly increase the cost and delay the timeframe? Admiral Papp. There is no doubt that the omission of long lead money for number eight will increase the costs. We had the same discussion last year, and I was very grateful that the subcommittee put in the long lead money for number seven. It helped us out greatly. It kept the project going. It is predictability for the shipyard and enables them to give us a better price as we negotiate. And we have negotiated some very good prices on number six, and I know we will on number seven. So it is a disappointment to me that we are unable to put the long lead for number eight in there, but it is just one of those tough decisions I had to make based upon priorities on other projects that we have ongoing. Mr. Price. Thank you. Mr. Carter. Mr. Cuellar. RIO GRANDE Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you and the ranking member for having this meeting. Admiral, it is a pleasure having you here. Let me start off with a short little statement. Mr. Chairman, you might be interested in this report since you are doing immigration, part of the immigration reform. Mr. Carter. Yeah, I am. Mr. Cuellar. But back in, I guess it was in 2001, I had added some language to one of the bills asking for the Coast Guard to do a Rio Grande mission requirement analysis. And I think you all came out with that report October 18, 2011. I will be happy to share that with you. What came out of this was rather interesting, because you and I have a perspective what the border is. In some areas we do agree. But on the analysis, and I am just going to summarize on this, basically when their intelligence did the work on narcotics, they said there is a high threat on the Mexican side, but then on this side they called it a moderate threat of violence on the U.S. side itself. Then we asked them about migrants and the smuggling of migrants into the United States, and they said it was a low threat in the region. And this is all in the Rio Grande. I had a different perspective. I did not really agree with your intelligence, but still nevertheless to respect what you all did. Bottom line, what I was trying do with this language was, is there enough of an activity down there to call for more of the Coast Guard? Because I wanted the Coast Guard to work with air and marine and go down there. But basically, their analysis was the way we are working right now, everything is fine, we do not need to add any more assets. And I know it might be a little difficult under the sequestration scenario that we are in, but I always thought that it would be nice, because they are basing in Corpus Christi, and I know they do pulse, maybe once a quarter they will go up there, maybe go to Lake Falcon and maybe Del Rio, the Amistad. But I was hoping that there would be more of a presence from Coast Guard on the Rio Grande, because that is international water. It is brown water, not the blue water, and I know you all prefer blue water over brown water. But still nevertheless, I was hoping that there would be more of a presence. And, Chairman, I would like to work with you to see if we could try to get Coast Guard to have more of a presence. I understand the situation, the financial situation you are in. But especially right now, because if you look at the OTMs, Mr. Chairman, in the southern part of the valley, which is close to Corpus Christi, it has increased by a lot. You have got a lot of other than Mexicans coming in. And I think that is why the Secretary of Homeland has been twice down there to that particular area. So I say that, I guess more as a statement, but, Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with you, and I would be happy to provide this report to you and the ranking member and the staff to look at this report, because it was a rather interesting analysis, that they are basically saying the threat is low, very moderate, and everything is pretty much fine. And I want to give you an opportunity on that. But it was counterintuitive to myself living down there on the border that we do not need any more Coast Guard assets there. It was more of a statement, but I guess to get a response from you and Mr. Chairman on this. And I would be happy to share this. Mr. Carter. Mr. Cuellar, I have always thought it would be a good idea to have the Coast Guard on the Rio Grande, for a long, long time. Mr. Cuellar. Yes, sir. Mr. Carter. Go ahead. Would you like to make a comment on the assessment? Admiral Papp. Yes, sir. You know, Customs and Border Protection [CBP], as you know, has the primary responsibility for the land crossings, the land borders. The fact that there is a river there does not necessarily make it maritime. But that is primarily where Customs and Border Protection works. Mr. Cuellar. But on the northern part of the United States, and I know if we had a definitional issue as to whether it was international water, but in the northern part of the United States, you do have a big presence in the northern part. So that is why I was saying what is wrong with the southern part? And I understand some of it is not navigable. But there is good portions. Admiral Papp. Right. But the CBP has invested significantly over the last 10 years, and they also have an air and marine branch. So while you could get into a discussion of who should run boats and aircraft, the fact of the matter is the Coast Guard has certain resources, and it is primarily for the blue water side. And I would say the Great Lakes on the northern border, if you have been up there, they are like blue water. There is a lot of territory to cover up there, as opposed to the river. So CBP has had significant investment. They have an air and marine division. We work with them from time to time. And we have deployed, we have done pulse ops up to Falcon Lake during periods of violence to show a presence up there and help our partners, just like our partners in CBP help us on the offshore from time to time. In fact, we have coordinated operations going on, on the western side of the border between Mexico and California because of the increased drug smuggling that is going on out there. So while we would like to have the Coast Guard everywhere that we are needed, we are constrained by what we have. And we have to depend on our partners within the Department, CBP, because they have very significant resources down there. Mr. Cuellar. But you have heard from a lot of Members of Congress how--and media--how important the southern border is. And even though you are present in other areas, the southern border is where the emphasis is at right now. And I guess securing the border for immigration reform is going to be very important. Let me, I think my time is up, but just real quickly, do you still stand by the report that your people did that the threat is low in that area? Admiral Papp. Sir, you put a date on that. Did you say---- Mr. Cuellar. October 18, 2011. Admiral Papp. 2011. What I would say is that it would change probably a little bit from that report now because we are seeing increased presence and pressure by CBP along the land border. That is why we are seeing increased traffic, particularly on the Pacific side of go-fast boats, Pangas taking drugs and migrants out to sea and around the land border because of the increased pressure there. So where the Coast Guard rightly performs is on the ocean side. That is where our authorities make the most sense and where we have most of our resources based. So as the smugglers try to do end runs around the land border, that is where we take over, in partnership with CBP and State and local agencies as well. Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. FAST RESPONSE CUTTERS Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar. And I am not going to double team you on that, but I also think, and have always thought, that the show of force that the Coast Guard gives would be very, very helpful on the Rio Grande, because quite honestly we see an awful lot of traffic, especially down in the lower Rio Grande, which is just right close to the coast. And just the fact of the presence of the Coast Guard I think would be a deterrent to some of the people, because it has the quasi-military presence that possibly CBP does not have. And, you know, these guys that do this, it is as much psychological as it is real force sometimes across the border. If they perceive, and we use the Del Rio section when we started with heavy enforcement in the Del Rio section on the criminal justice side, the minute they know there is a spot on the border where there is additional assets and they feel like they are perceived that they are going to have problems, they move. They are not stupid. They move someplace else. And I think that is one of the deterrents that you would offer. But I also understand your resources. And I will say that I was in California, and it is kind of interesting that now we are more or less saying we have done a good job in building a fence and putting resources in California, so they are off the coast and running all the way up to mid, even arguably Northern California, to dodge the Coast Guard's effort. So, you know, these guys are like cockroaches, you know. You stop them someplace, they go run someplace else. That is just the way they work. And I am sure you know that. Let me ask a couple of questions about the Fast Response Cutter. Your fiscal year 2014 budget request includes just two Fast Response Cutters, even though Congress denied this same shortsighted proposal last year. We bailed out the flawed request and fully funded all six cutters. I guess that is maybe what somebody is anticipating that they want us to do this year. As I understand it, by only requesting two cutters you are squandering up to $30 million in savings per year when compared to the procurement of six per year. Can you explain why you made this decision? And you have to some extent already. And do you plan to increase the procurement in our outyears so that we do not continue to squander savings and delay capability? The current requirement for patrol boat hours is 174,000 per year, but this budget supports less than half that requirement. Will we ever close the capability gap from what is funded to what is required for patrol boat hours? Also, what areas are most impacted by these gaps? Admiral Papp. Sir, I would like to be maximizing our production of the Fast Response Cutter. I understand fully, and I agree that it costs more when we do not order in economic order quantities. Our contract calls for a minimum order of four, a maximum order of six. The shipyard is geared up to do six per year. They have to have some sort of consistency and predictability in terms of their production rate. But once again, this was one of those tough decisions that I face in the current fiscal environment, putting in as many as I can, while trying to keep other projects going, and being focused on my highest priority. Fast Response Cutter is one of my highest priorities. National Security Cutter is my highest priority. So starting with that, I was only able to fit two Fast Response Cutters in. That gives us two options. We could renegotiate the contract to change the minimum order to two. And as you recognize, that ends up being a more expensive proposition. In analyzing the fiscal year 2013 appropriation and the multi-year nature of the funding for those six, I believe we can spread out evenly, order four in fiscal year 2013 and take two of the--the funding for two and move that into fiscal year 2014 and do four per year. That is my second option at this point. PRIORITIES: UNFUNDED Mr. Carter. Well, as I have told you, I am a fan of the Coast Guard. I think the Coast Guard shines every time we have a national disaster. I think the American people think the Coast Guard shines. I can tell you, on numerous occasions I have had people tell me if we could get the rest of the Department of Homeland Security operating like the Coast Guard operates we would be in good shape. And I think this committee, we honor the Coast Guard a lot. But I believe right now what is at stake is no less than the future of the Coast Guard. We are truly at a tipping point between the Coast Guard that you assert is needed and the agencies this administration is willing to support. What is the impact on the future of the Coast Guard if your acquisition funding remains at levels requested this year? Bluntly, Admiral, will we ever have a Coast Guard we have today in 5 or 10 years? Will that exist? If I can find additional funds, where do I start? And what are your unfunded priorities? Admiral Papp. Well, sir, clearly, if there were additional funds, the first thing I would add them to is the Fast Response Cutter. We absolutely need that boat. I acknowledge the patrol boat hour gap. But the hour gap is sort of a specious argument in my estimation, because we assign so many hours per the number of hulls that we have out there. Frankly, some of those hulls, particularly on the Island class, are not able to do all the hours that they are supposed to do. In fact, we have one boat right now, the Chincoteague, which is laid up. The hull is so deformed we cannot operate the ship. It would cost $3 million to get the ship back in condition so it could operate, and that is just not money that is wisely spent. Yet we have been unable to decommission any of the older patrol boats simply because we are trying to keep our numbers, which then feed sort of an artificial level of patrol boat hours that are out there. What we really need are the hulls. And ultimately we need to get all 58 of those Fast Response Cutters built, not only because they perform the patrol boat mission, but because they are also a more capable ship. They interface with the Offshore Patrol Cutter, which is our next big project, and the National Security Cutter, which ultimately give us fewer large ships in the offshore environment, but hopefully with a little bit more capability from these patrol boats, we would be able to eliminate that gap. AIR RESOURCES Mr. Carter. What about the air resources? I mean, it seems to me you need an awful lot of air resources. And we keep coming back to the big ship three. What about the fact that we are severely behind with air resources? And one question I want to ask you, Air Force announced plans to retire a fleet of C-27J aircraft. Has the Coast Guard looked into the possibility of getting some of those aircraft? Admiral Papp. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. We are currently negotiating. The language that came out in the Defense Authorization Act divided them between the Department of Interior and the Coast Guard. For the Department of Interior, they are working on behalf of the Forest Service, which would like to get new tankers for fighting forest fires. There are about 21 aircraft that are available. Under the division that they put in there, we would get 14, which is the minimum number that we need because we need to outfit a couple of air stations. And we need a certain number to be able to do that and also keep aircraft in the production line. That is one of the reasons why we have halted the HC-144 at 18 aircraft, because we are hopeful that we can negotiate the C-27J and either get 14 or the entire 21, which would significantly reduce the upfront money that we need within our AC&I funds and would allow us to stay with the program that we have for our fixed-wing aircraft. On the higher end, the subcommittee has been great in supporting us. We are up to 10 C-130Js now. This budget calls for decommissioning a couple of our older H models, which are obsolete and hard to maintain, but keeps us at our program of record of 22 C-130s. And hopefully, we will be able to continue to chip away with getting more C-130Js over the years. So fixed-wing aircraft, I believe we have got a sound plan for moving forward. And as I stated earlier, both of our classes of helicopters, we have upgraded, we have rehabilitated. With our facility down in Elizabeth City, the Aircraft Logistics Center, we can basically take a helicopter frame and turn it into a new helicopter. Our people are that good. So I am confident that with the plan we have for aircraft we are good for at least the next 15 years. Then we will start facing issues of obsolescence there. FUTURE Mr. Carter. Do you have any of the skepticism that I just expressed about the future of the Coast Guard? Admiral Papp. Well, certainly, sir. I do not like being a commandant that is having to serve my term with a reducing budget. But I have to stay firm to the goals that we set out. My obligation is not just to get through the annual budget cycle, but to look out 20, 30, and 40 years in terms of what the Coast Guard is going to need in terms of resources, tools, aircraft, ships, and boats in order to serve the American public and take on the missions that we are doing. The curveballs that I get thrown are the vagaries of the fiscal environment. And within that, on an annual basis I need to adjust and regroup. But that should not change my focus on ultimately where we need to be. So the requirements are sound, our program of record is sound, but the further we push it to the right, the more expensive it is going to be and the longer it takes to get these more effective tools out to our people. And we end up spending more and more money on obsolete, antiquated equipment that costs more and more every year to maintain. Mr. Carter. Mr. Price. OFFSHORE PATROL CUTTER Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, I would like to return to one acquisition item, and then also return to the question of sequestration and exactly what kind of aggregate numbers we are marking this budget to, marking the Coast Guard budget to. Could you just briefly remind us about the place of this Offshore Patrol Cutter, this kind of intermediate-sized vessel, the kind of place that will occupy in your overall mission? And also of course it catches our attention when the number is reduced so markedly for that new vessel. The 2014 request for continued development of the OPC is $25 million. That is half the amount contemplated in the fiscal 2013 CIP. Is that solely a matter of budget pressures, or is there some other reason for this cut? And what do you think the impact on the acquisition schedule is likely to be, assuming that is the amount appropriated? Admiral Papp. No, sir, the amount is just good stewardship. We are looking at unused funds, carryover funds that we can apply on this project. We remain firmly committed to the OPC, the Offshore Patrol Cutter. After we get the National Security Cutter built, it is our most important project going forward because that provides 25 ships to replace close to 30 that are currently in service, the 210-foot Medium Endurance Cutters, which are now approaching 50 years of age, and then later the 270-foot Medium Endurance Cutters, which are approaching 3 decades of service. But by the time they are retired, they will be about 50 years old as well. They are our workhorses. And that ship is even more important because with the number of National Security Cutters, which is eight, compared to their predecessor ships, the High Endurance Cutters, where we had 12, we need to make sure that the Offshore Patrol Cutter is capable of better sea-keeping abilities so that we can use it in Alaska and in the Pacific, where we have not been able to use the current classes of Medium Endurance Cutters. So this is critical to our future. We received a robust response from industry on our request for proposals. We are in the process of working toward a down select of three proposals by the end of this fiscal year, and we remain committed to award the contract for the detailed construction and design for the first ship in the fiscal year 2015 budget. Mr. Price. And this reduced appropriations amount would let you stay on that schedule? Admiral Papp. Yes, sir. There is no decrease to the schedule. And for the record, we will get a breakdown on those funds. I am going from my memory right now. But when I asked that same question, my recollection is that we have, because we have carryover funds and because we have not used all the money appropriated so far. It will supplement the money requested in this budget to keep the project moving forward. SEQUESTRATION Mr. Price. All right. Thank you. Let me turn to the sequestration that you are dealing with right now and what its implications are if we continue to be saddled with this in the new fiscal year. The March 1 sequestration cut the Coast Guard's 2013 appropriation by something like $280 million, as I understand it. Military pay was exempt, as it should be. But your other operating expense categories, and your acquisition, construction and improvement projects were not exempt from sequestration. Let me just ask you what the impact of that is going to be on your operations for the remainder of the year. You addressed that partially earlier, the drug interdiction schedule, the fisheries enforcement, the effects on emergency response operations, and the schedule for planning and production of new vessels. So we are talking about a current year impact. But I think we need to clarify that there is some question about the 2014 impact. The budget that you are proposing and all of our discussion this morning has been about how stringent that budget is. That budget that you are proposing assumes that sequestration is lifted and that we have a budget agreement that would address the real driving forces of the deficit--tax expenditures, entitlement spending--and that this repeated hit on the discretionary budget, the appropriated budget would be lifted. The administration budget, which you are operating from, assumes a budget plan and the lifting of sequestration. As you know, this committee, given the House budget plan, the House budget plan is going to be marking to a different aggregate number, although we do not know quite what the allocation will be for this particular subcommittee. So if you could address that. You are already dealing with a stringent budget. You possibly are going to have something on the order of what you have suffered in 2013 imposed on top of this. What can you say about the flexibility you have, the flexibility you need, the kind of way this might somehow be mitigated? I just want to give you a chance to reflect on the kind of difference this sequestration variable makes in your projected operations. Admiral Papp. Thank you, Mr. Price. Let me address fiscal year 2013 first. Yes, in fact we did suffer the impacts of sequestration. And in order to adapt to that, as I mentioned earlier, I put out my commander's intent to the entire service and gave them the broad guidelines on how we would operate. And the first priority was to make sure that we could do all our critical missions--search and rescue, security operations, contingency response. We wanted to maintain our core capability to do that and not diminish our ability to respond to those types of missions. The types of missions that will see reductions by about 25 percent are drug interdiction, migrant interdiction, and other things in the offshore environment. In order to maintain our long-term ability to respond, we also need to continue training. If you cut training, ultimately you pay the price in the long run, and I am not willing to do that. So we are trying to keep up our mission-essential training. Third thing is sustaining a workforce that is able to respond as well. As both of you have noted, the Coast Guard is fairly lean in terms of our people. We have worked very hard over the last 12 years to get ourselves back up to the strength, our personnel strength, which is identical to what we were in 1990. We have the same number of people that we had in 1990 now. And it took us a long time to build that back up. So part of my commander's intent as well was to minimize disruptions to our workforce to the extent possible. I am aided in that by the fact that military pay was exempt. But our civilians are a part of that team as well. Frankly, these are civilians that have not had a pay raise for 3 years. We have diminished their bonuses. In fact, this year we will pay no bonuses to civilians. We have cut out overtime. And I want to make sure that we can at least keep them employed. And that was one of the mainstays of our commander's intent out there: to keep our workforce intact so if a contingency operation comes up, whether it is a hurricane or a terrorist event, we will be prepared to respond. We will make it through fiscal year 2013. There are things that we will fall short on, particularly I think in drug interdiction. But that is the price we have to pay for the tough times that we find ourselves within. Now, for fiscal year 2014, I have not, sir, and I have made many trips around this town, both within the administration and over here, and I have not found anybody who knows for sure precisely what happens under sequestration. We have general terms we deal within. But no one has been able to tell me, yes, in fact this is definite; this is what will happen. Our analysis within Coast Guard headquarters has been, because we are well below the levels of funding in the Coast Guard that would be required by the Budget Control Act, if these levels are approved, they are not subject to further sequestration. I cannot confirm that. I do not know that. But that was our analysis that has been done. And I do not dispute your opinion or your knowledge of it, but I hope that we can hammer that out and get a definite opinion on it. Mr. Price. Well, it is totally unacceptable that you are laboring under this kind of uncertainty. And it is not as though anyone on this committee or in this institution can totally clear that up at the moment. But the fact is that sequestration comes on top of the Budget Control Act. It comes on top of the Budget Control Act. And the President's budget assumes that the Budget Control Act remains in place and that sequestration is lifted, and presumably that we have some sort of budget agreement going forward. I think the House appropriations bills are going to be marked to a lower figure, a lower aggregate figure that assumes another round of sequestration, assumes the absence of a broader budget agreement. I hope that is not true, but I believe that is where we are headed, with the Senate and the House, by the way, marking to different aggregate numbers, so there again maximizing the uncertainty. Admiral Papp. Well, sir, if that is where we are headed, then all bets are off in terms of our ability to conduct the missions at the level that we predicted. At a minimum, we would have to continue probably this 25-percent reduction in operations in order to preserve our long-term capability to keep going. You start getting into maintenance issues. If you cut back in terms of maintenance funds, you pay a long-term price for that as well. And my biggest concern is we start eating into our family programs, our training programs, and other things that contribute to the long-term health and proficiency of our workforce, which is probably a larger concern to me than the equipment resources that we are trying to get. Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carter. Mr. Fleischmann. VESSELS DEPLOYED TO INLAND WATERWAYS Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, good morning, sir. Thank you for your great service to the Coast Guard and to our United States. I appreciate that very much. I represent the Third District of Tennessee, where the Coast Guard has a tremendous inland water presence. I would like to ask you about the role and condition of Coast Guard vessels that are deployed to inland waterways of the United States. It is my understanding that some of these vessels currently in use are 44 years of age on average, and many are in need of replacement. How long can the current vessels maintaining our internal waters remain in service? And as a follow-up question to that, sir, what do you see as the mission of these vessels and what funding is included in your budget request to upgrade their function and support that mission? Admiral Papp. Sir, their replacement is over the horizon. I don't even see them within my horizon. What we have been doing over the last decade or so is incrementally funding renovations to those ships, replacing systems, whether it is electrical systems, heating, air conditioning, main engine overhauls, to keep them going. The good thing about the inland rivers is those hulls are not subject to salt water like our offshore cutters, so the hulls remain structurally sound. But it is the interior systems that become antiquated and are in need of replacement, and we have been incrementally working on that. I would love to have the wherewithal within our AC&I funding to be able to do mid-life extensions on them or ultimately come up with a project to replace them, but we just don't have the capacity for doing that within the funding levels that we have. Given our significant need in the offshore operations area, our larger cutters that are now 50 years old, that is where my highest priority lies. To the extent that we can, we will continue to work on our inland fleet, but that is, as I mentioned earlier before you came in, that is part of the problem. As we push acquisitions further to the right, we end up spending more money on aging equipment. It is not unusual for the Coast Guard to be running ships that are 60 years old or older. And so I suspect that we are going to have to get a few more years out of those ships that are on the inland rivers. TRAINING Mr. Fleischmann. Another question. This budget proposes significant cuts to Coast Guard training activities, including a cut of over 65 percent to tuition assistance programs. What impacts will these cuts have on training, short and long-term tuition assistance, A and C Schools and the Coast Guard Academy? Admiral Papp. Reductions across the board. Part of it is just reality. Our boot camp at Cape May is now only going to bring in 1,500 new recruits this year. Part of that is driven by the budget, the other thing is by our high retention. We have 94-percent retention in the service right now. In fact last night I put out a message that our officer corps has gone through some significant reductions in promotion opportunities, and thus people are falling out along the way in order to keep us within strength. We are now going to have to apply that against our enlisted workforce, and we have something called high-year tenure. I put out a message last night that we are going to need to impose and start reducing that workforce, more than anything else to keep the flow going through so that the young people that are joining have the opportunity to advance and learn and progress in the service. It used to be the norm for people to go to boot camp and wait for perhaps 1 year at the most before they go to an initial training school for a rating. Now they are waiting 3 and 4 years because of the slowdown in advancement in the service. So we are trying to speed that up a little bit. At the Coast Guard Academy, we have gone from about well over 200 cadets per year, down to 185 cadets this year. It is tough but what we are doing is reducing some of the staff at the Coast Guard Academy. We have reduced some of the staff at Cape May, and we have also reduced numbers of recruiting stations and recruiters out there as well simply because we don't have a need for them right now. Hopefully that will change in the future, and we will be able to reconstitute that hopefully at some time, but right now it is just a slowdown of personnel. What concerns me even more is the reduction in money available for training. We are focusing on our highest priorities in terms of training, our mission execution type training, but there is a whole range of other training that goes on that contributes to the long-term health of our workforce, and that will take some time to show up. We have got a very senior workforce right now that has been staying in, but as those people retire and leave, there are going to be less experienced people who are coming up behind them, and we would like to be able to keep them trained. Tuition assistance, some of those others things, we would love to be able to fund everything we can for our people. The reality is we cannot do that. But there is also a responsibility on the part of our people to train and educate themselves, as well. People can study, they can buy books, they can get courses themselves, and we encourage our people to do self-study to make themselves more valuable to the service and help their advancement as well. And we will try to provide as many opportunities for that as we can. Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Admiral. Mr. Chairman, I yield back, sir. Mr. Carter. Mr. Cuellar. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES, MEASURING Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, what is your--I am certain in your budget you have a mission and a key objective and then you measure those objectives. What are the key objectives and how do you measure that to make sure that you are getting the best bang for the dollar? Admiral Papp. There are different objectives for each program. Aids to navigation, which is one of those, I call that preventive search and rescue because the better we do aids to navigation, keep ships navigating safely, it is less work for us to have to respond to. So we do measures like how many groundings or collisions have there been within the last year as sort of a testament to the effectiveness of our aids to navigation program. We have goals for drug interdiction that are put out by the Office of National Drug Control Policy and our National Drug Control Strategy that we are shooting for. We are falling woefully short. We should be getting closer to 35 percent of the cocaine interdicted in the transit zone, and we are trending down more toward 15 percent right now with the number of assets that we have out there. Mr. Cuellar. So 85 percent of the cocaine is getting to the United States in your lane? Admiral Papp. That would be a good estimate, yes, sir. We have a very elaborate process that takes estimates on the cocaine that is produced in South America. We have good estimates on how much is consumed within the United States, and we have pretty good--well, we have clear numbers on what we interdict in the transit zone and what is also picked up at the border, and we also work with our foreign partners as well because some of that goes to Europe and toward Asia. Mr. Cuellar. For the southern strategy what other measures do you have to make sure that we are getting results? And I am talking about not measuring activity but actually measuring results. What other activities, what other key measures do you all have? And again I appreciate everything you do but I am a big believer in efficiency and effectiveness and how do you measure results. So how else do you measure results? Not activity but results. Admiral Papp. Some of it is looking at trends, for instance, migrant interdiction. We know the numbers that we would get during a mass immigration. We know the numbers that we see typically during a given year, how many times do we intercept boats and the numbers of whether it is Dominicans, Haitians, Cubans or others, and we watch the trends on that. We associate that with climate events, hurricanes and storms in the Caribbean. We look at how many we are picking up going around the border. The maritime issue particularly in terms of migrant smuggling, and we are seeing a pickup on the Pacific side between Mexico and California, is difficult; we don't have any long-term trend lines because most the migration has been across the land border now. So we are seeing an increase there, and we are going to continue to need to measure that. The challenge is how do you measure deterrence? For instance, with Haitians we know that the fact that we have Coast Guard cutters out there and they know that if they are interdicted, they will be directly repatriated, is a deterrent effect that prevents people from leaving. So how do you measure deterrence? That is always a difficult part of the equation. Mr. Cuellar. I understand. But how do you measure get- aways? I guess it is the term that Border Patrol uses. In other words, they measure how many people they catch but they don't measure, I assume, maybe they do, is the get-aways, the ones that actually do get inside. Do you have any measurements to see how many people actually you do miss? Admiral Papp. We have pretty good measurements on landings. Now if they land and are undetected, you will probably find a boat, or if it is a smuggler, then you won't have a boat because they have just dropped off passengers, so we don't have a good handle on that. And once they are shore side that is a Customs and Border Protection job. We have the water side. So it is primarily interdictions, and we know some have got through if we find a boat on the shore or if Customs and Border Protection picks up migrants because they have been reported on shore. Mr. Cuellar. My time is up. If I can just ask this real quickly. Could you submit to us a comprehensive list of any cost saving measures that you might have? I am sure there is always, you do an evaluation besides, in an appropriations process we appropriate and we also look for a cost saving measure, so any cost saving measures, if your staff has done that, could you provide that to us so we can again keep you as efficient and effective as possible. Thank you so much. PATROL BOATS Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar. Since we have got Mr. Fleischmann with us now, we will do a brief third round. Admiral, you say your requirements are sound but you say the patrol boat hours are specious. What is it, sound or specious? Admiral Papp. The patrol boat hours are required, are done by looking across the entire mission set and then figuring out how many patrol boat hours would you need to do 100 percent of everything you are doing. As I said earlier, the Coast Guard has never been in a position to be able to do 100 percent of all the missions that we are assigned to. And I will tell you that on any given day, we don't maybe necessarily have to be doing 100 percent. We have to apply them against the highest- priority issue on any given day. Right now, we say if you have X number of patrol boats out there, you have so many hours and that counts against whatever goal that you are shooting for. And what I am saying is we have 41 110-foot patrol boats out there right now. Not all of them are achieving those hours. So it might look good on paper that we have got 41 boats and the potential for so many hours. But the fact of the matter is in the instance of the Chincoteague, we are getting 0 hours out of that boat right now, and we have been unable to decommission any of the older boats. Last year, we asked to decommission some of them because we have the new FRCs coming on line, and they were put back in the budget so we ended up having to sustain them. We have got to start decommissioning those 110-foot patrol boats at some time, and we have got 18 FRCs on order right now, money for 24. Those boats individually increase hours up to 1,600 hours a piece, so they are very capable boats. We need to get them out there as soon as possible so that we have reliable boats that can produce all the hours that we are looking for. Right now, it looks good on paper to have 41 of those 110-foot boats, but not all of them are able to achieve the hours that we expect of them. PRIORITIES: AFTER NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTERS Mr. Carter. That kind of leads into my next question. We talked about the cutters that we are now going forward. Now, after we get these national security cutters done, what is your next priority? What do you see? Because, we have clearly got a picture that you have got needs. You have got needs in every category that we got. Where do you see the priority should be placed if you are having to choose, the next as we move forward, in funding the Coast Guard? Is it going to be air? Is it going to be people? Is it going to be midsize ships, the fast response cutters? Where is it going to be? Admiral Papp. Sir, air, as I said earlier, I am confident we have come up with a plan that will keep us solid for the next 15 years. Fifteen years from now, whoever the Commandant is at that time is going to be coming up and probably talking about mass obsolescence of the aircraft fleet. I will leave that to somebody else to tackle. I think we have got ourselves in good shape in aircraft right now. Patrol boats, yes, sir, we have got to get the patrol boats. I divide them into what do we use in the ports, what do we use close to shore and what do we do in those offshore waters, which we have got 4.7 million square miles of U.S. exclusive economic zone. It is the largest exclusive economic zone in the world that the Coast Guard has to patrol. And we are woefully in need of those offshore cutters. So the national security cutter has been my highest priority because that gives us the high-end capability. The offshore patrol cutter, which is moving along, and as I said we have a robust response, I am not supposed to know how many people have responded to that, but I am told it is somewhere between eight and a dozen companies responded to that request for proposal. And I am anxious to see what they are proposing, and we will be prepared to down select to three good candidates and then by the end of fiscal year 2015, we will down select to start production on one. So that is moving along. And I remain optimistic and confident that we will be able to keep that project going. The emerging mission spaces in the Arctic, and as I said earlier, the national security cutter has helped us out greatly there because it provides us mobile infrastructure that goes up there in times when there is human activity. Humans are not going to be up there, whether it is drilling operations, cargo or tourists, they won't be up there while it is frozen in. So the national security cutter is a sound investment to help us with our needs now. We also need to be able to have assured access to the Arctic, and that calls for icebreakers. My plan when I came in 3 years ago, I told this subcommittee Healy we will keep sustained, and we needed to get Polar Star reintroduced to the fleet. I am proud to say that Polar Star is now back out in the fleet and operating. Polar Star will be up in the Arctic this summer giving her crew some experience in the ice, and then we will be sending her to Antarctic next February to break into McMurdo Sound for the National Science Foundation. The remaining step, which I told the committee we would need, is to start the construction of a new icebreaker. As you know, we had $8 million to start that process in the 2013 budget. We are asking for another--I am sorry, it just slips my mind right now--I think it is another $2 million to continue that process. Once again, we haven't expended all the money from this current year. It will be enough to keep this project going. We are working with our partners within the government and with the Canadians to come up with the design. And we have had a commitment from the President to continue incremental funding to get that new icebreaker constructed. And that should be coming into service at about the time that Polar Star is at the end of her service life. So I think we have a sound plan for icebreakers as well. So I keep on coming back to that offshore fleet. As I said, we bought probably close to 800 boats for our stations. We have repopulated people at our stations; we have created the maritime safety and security teams [MSSTs]. We are sound in our ports and the near-shore environment. But that is not where we want to address our threats. We don't want to have to put MSST into action in Boston Harbor. We would rather interdict threats further offshore, as far off shore as possible, and that is where you need substantial cutters, and that is why that remains my highest priority. Mr. Carter. Thank you. I believe Mr. Price. ICEBREAKERS Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me follow up on your segue into the Arctic environment. The chairman and I paid a memorable visit with your people in Juneau and Kodiak 3 years ago. I think that visit still sticks in our mind for the enlightenment we received there about the implications of the Arctic Ocean's being navigable increasing parts of the year, and the activities, the various activities going on there, increasing there and the kind of pressures that was going to put on your operations. And so I do have a couple of questions just by way of updating that. The icebreaker plans. You are saying this 2 million for continued pre-acquisition activities, of course that compares to 120 million in fiscal 2014 in last year's CIP for the icebreakers so we are talking about of course early stage activity. I know the late enactment of your 2013 appropriations slowed down the survey and design process for this icebreaker. But it still is a significant drop in the funding requirement for the pre-acquisition activity. So what does this mean, just if you could just clarify what this, what we are on, what we are on track now to do by way of having a new heavy icebreaker operational? Are we talking still about an 8-year time frame approximately? Where does this leave us? And is this 2 million really adequate in terms of what you are able and desirous of doing at this juncture? Admiral Papp. Yes, sir. It is for now. That is all preliminary design work and coming up with the requirements for the new icebreaker. We want to take all parties into consideration. We have the National Science Foundation that will need to use that vessel, we have the Department of Defense that depends upon us to be able to have assured access into the Arctic and Antarctic. So we want to make sure all our partners are involved in this process, and we also want to make sure we work with the Canadians and other Arctic nation partners as well to make sure we are coming up with the absolute best design for the money. I have said that 10 years from the start, so 10 years from the start of funding is when we should have an operational icebreaker, and that was my plan based upon our desire to reactivate Polar Star with a goal of getting 10 more years out of that ship before we have to decommission it. And in terms of the capital investment plan, to me that just demonstrates the challenges of the capital investment plan. As I said, there were no national security cutters in the CIP last year and yet we have one. We have the amount of money you mentioned for the icebreaker. One positive thing I would say is we have had challenges in the past with getting incremental funding, making the argument that we shouldn't have to put all the money in one fiscal year for any one of our assets. I think this is a trend toward perhaps incrementalizing the costs over multiple years at a more reasonable pace for expenditure. And I also wanted to get back to the chairman. I have it directly from Secretary Napolitano that the capital investment plan will be delivered to the Congress on 1 May. ARCTIC OPERATIONS Mr. Price. Finally, let me ask you about your operations in the Arctic during periods of open water, including last year's Arctic Shield oil spill exercise, if I could just ask you to reflect on that. In light, obviously, of Shell's drilling rig incidence of last year and the training and exercises that you have undertaken, has all of this led you to modify or strengthen your contingency plan for accidents, particularly with regard to oil-filled vessels or massive oil spills in the Arctic? We all know these operations demand specialized capabilities, personnel that are specially trained and equipped to operate in extreme climate. How confident are you that Coast Guard personnel are prepared to take on these challenges? What lessons have you learned since the Deepwater incident and these more recent exercises? What can you tell us about the capabilities you have there now and need to develop? Admiral Papp. Yes, sir. Well, incident response plans are something that always evolve. We learned a lot of lessons from Deepwater Horizon. Although Shell's activities in the Arctic have been portrayed, I think generally, in a negative light, I kind of welcome that because it gave us some additional lessons to evaluate and apply toward their incident response plans or any other company that decides to go up there and begin drilling. And also I think the experiences of last summer were good to remind people that it is a very challenging environment up there. The Coast Guard has been involved up in the Bering Sea and the Arctic since 1867. We understand the challenges of the distances, the remoteness, the fact that you have to have substantial ships that can sustain themselves up there. So it is good that the oil companies are learning this and that they will have to reevaluate their plans. And I think that is part of the reason why Shell has decided to delay a year before going back up there again. And I think ConocoPhillips has also decided to delay for a little bit as well. They need to reevaluate their plans. We will evaluate those plans along with them. And this has all been a learning experience. My biggest concern right now is the increase in traffic through the Bering Strait, the 50-mile wide pass there that is some of the most challenging weather on Earth, and the Russians are opening up their North Sea route. We are seeing a fourfold increase of ships going through the Bering Strait. The good news is we are working with our Russian partners. One of the beautiful things about the Coast Guard is we have committees, we have forums where we work with other partners. We are working now to come up with traffic rules for the Bering Strait because a collision between vessels, particularly vessels carrying oil, which are likely to go there, would be just as disastrous if not more or a higher risk for potential as the drilling operations that are going up there. So we are working on all fronts sir. BERING STRAIT Mr. Price. You are saying a fourfold increase in Bering Strait? Admiral Papp. Yes, sir because of the opening up of the North Sea route. And I believe that within the next decade, certainly within the next two decades, the economic incentive of going through the North Sea route above Russia will save the companies millions of dollars and time in terms of transit. And you already have some; for instance, I was in Singapore last year for a visit. They are worried about maintaining their competitive advantage for location because right now they are on a major transit route. When ships start going around the North Sea route, and the Singaporeans believe this is happening as well, it may affect their business. So the Bering Strait is going to see increased, continuous increased activity over the next couple of decades. Mr. Price. What is the international composition of that increased traffic? Admiral Papp. LNG [liquefied natural gas] will be making the transit; oil will be making the transit. But as people start recognizing this competitive advantage, you will see container ships and others that will start transiting above Russia because--and I wish I had the exact figures for you here because I am just not able to retain all of them all the time-- But it significantly cuts down the numbers of days in transit, which equates to fuel, paying your crews and everything else, and time is money for that business. So they will take advantage of it. NORTHWEST PASSAGE Mr. Price. And the passages above Canada, those also? Admiral Papp. That is going to take longer, the Northwest Passage, because it is more difficult. The passage above Russia is relatively open, and with the way the ice flows, that clears out fairly early in the season. A lot of the ice stays in the Northwest Passage above Canada and takes a longer time to melt, and it is a more treacherous transit as you go through all those island passages. There will probably be, I think most people are predicting probably another two or three decades before the Northwest Passage above Canada starts becoming viable. Mr. Price. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carter. Mr. Fleischmann. SEA STATE 5 REQUIREMENT Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, there has been much discussion as to the capability of the Offshore Patrol Cutter, specifically the requirement to operate at Sea State 5. Admiral, why is this requirement important? And if the current proposals come in too high, will you decrease the sea state requirement in order to meet the target price? Admiral Papp. I would not like to do that because that would probably delay the process. We may have to recompete the request for proposals by changing that standard. The reason we need the standard is because we will have only eight national security cutters. And although they are tremendously capable ships, they can't be in the same places that the 12 high endurance cutters were that they are replacing. We have been comfortable with 12 high endurance cutters because that gave us enough to operate in the Bering Sea and in the Gulf of Alaska and the broad ranges of the Pacific. Given the fact that we will have fewer ships, in fact, we will only have six national security cutters out on the West Coast because we need to keep two on the East Coast, we need to make sure that the offshore patrol cutters are capable of operating in Alaska. The 270-foot medium endurance cutters that we have were originally intended to be able to operate everywhere. We have tried to operate them in Alaska. You can't launch and recover boats and you can't launch and recover aircraft. They just cannot survive the sea state up there. And that is our world of work. We have to be able to launch boats for our boarding teams to go aboard fishing vessels. We need to be able to launch helicopters for search and rescue. So this requirement for Sea State 5 has been our highest priority on that ship. I am sorry. It has not been the highest priority. The highest priority has been affordability. And when people have asked me what are the three most important things about the offshore patrol cutter, I have constantly said affordability, affordability, affordability. So that will be the driving factor in our down select for these three candidates, and I am hopeful that all three will not only be affordable but be able to survive in Sea State 5. I am sorry, not survive but operate in Sea State 5. H-65, H-60 HELICOPTERS Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. Admiral, are you concerned that there are no recapitalization plans for either the H-65 or the H-60 helicopters and limited funding for sustainment of the current inventory? Do you plan to address these issues in the out years, sir? Admiral Papp. We will constantly reevaluate. We have, I wish I had the number for you, and we can provide it, but we have invested heavily in our helicopter fleet, the 65s and the 60s, over the last decade. We have taken the H-65 from a alpha model and worked it all the way up to delta model right now. And as I said earlier, I think you were out of the room, sir, our aviation logistics center has and can take a bare frame, in fact we have taken discarded H-60 frames from the Navy and built them into new helicopters. That is how good our technicians are down there. So we have totally rehabilitated all our H-65s and upgraded their avionics and their engines. The H-60s we have upgraded now to a tango model. We have enough funds to complete those conversions, and then we will probably take a pause for a little bit to see what develops in terms of the fiscal environment over the next few years. Even if we did nothing further, we have maintenance funds that allow us to sustain the upgrades that we have done, and my estimate at present is those helicopters are good for the next 15 years. Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Admiral. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Carter. Well, thank you, Admiral, and thank you for your testimony here today. To wrap it up, you have given us a May 1st deadline. That seems to be a favorite day of Ms. Napolitano's. So far, every time I have asked her to fill in the blanks on her tardiness she has given me a May 1st deadline. We may be getting everything we have requested on May 1st. Three months late is not too good a track record for us to be touting as people are attacking our country yesterday and possibly today. It doesn't make us look very good. But I hear you. You tell me what she says, it doesn't seem to bother her. She is in charge of the agency to defend this country and protect this country, and yet she can be 3 months behind on letting us, helping us plan the spending. That is not your fight, that is my fight. I want to thank you for being here and doing what you do. God bless the Coast Guard. You guys have a tough job, and we are going to try our very best to see if we can keep the Coast Guard functioning as best we can. We are going to scrounge for every penny we can to assist the Coast Guard. Thank you. Admiral Papp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Price. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Wednesday, April 17, 2013. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION WITNESSES MICHAEL FISHER, CHIEF, BORDER PATROL, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION RANDOLPH ALLES, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, AIR AND MARINE, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION KEVIN McALEENAN, ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION Opening Statement: Mr. Carter Mr. Carter. Good morning. I will call this hearing to order. This morning we welcome witnesses from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, as we consider the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request to secure our borders to facilitate lawful travel and trade. Now our Acting Deputy Commissioner Kevin McAleenan, Chief Michael Fisher of the Office of Border Patrol, and Assistant Commissioner Randolph Alles of the Office of Air and Marine, gentlemen, we appreciate you being here. Thank you very much for being here. We are looking forward to your testimony. We also want to thank you for your service. You serve us in many, many great ways, and thank you for representing the interests of thousands of frontline officers and agents who risk their lives every day in the service of our Nation. The senseless and cowardly attack in Boston is a sharp reminder that we must be ever vigilant in our efforts to secure the homeland, a reminder that I know is with your folks every day as they carry out their critical mission of border security. The last 2 years have been marked by disingenuous budget requests and painstaking analysis by this subcommittee. It was clear that the CBP budget did not cover its personnel. It appears, upon our initial analysis, as though the fiscal year 2014 request actually supports CBP's baseline staffing levels that includes 21,370 border patrol agents, 21,775 CBP officers and 1,138 Air and Marine interdiction agents, along with 2,383 agricultural specialists. However, the fiscal year 2014 request also proposes to add 1,600 CBP officers through a down payment of $210 million in appropriated funds and 1,877 CBP officers through an unauthorized fee proposal. CBP's budget is now 72 percent salaries and benefits for its more than 60,000 personnel. Is now the right time to increase staffing when it is not clear that we are giving these officers and agents the right tools to do their important mission? That is something we need to think about. The request also assumes massive cuts to ICE and the Coast Guard as well as the reductions to CBP Air and Marine operations. Will investment dollars be better spent to ensure CBP air assets are flying to support border security? We are going to need to think about that. In fiscal year 2012, Air and Marine supported border patrol, drug interdiction and other missions with 81,000 flight hours, which is less than prior years. Given fiscal year 2014 request, the Air and Marine will only achieve 62,000 flight hours. Air and Marine needs the right mix of staffing and assets and operational funds for fuel and routine maintenance to do its job, and it is clear this budget request does not support that need. Border patrol and drug interdiction missions will be impacted. However, CBP has not been particularly good at measuring the impacts of budget tradeoffs on mission capabilities and performance. While I congratulate Field Operations on finally issuing the workload staffing model and developing detailed metrics and measures for its operations, the Border Patrol has not put forth similar measures. If immigration reform is to happen, we need to know the level of border security we can achieve with the right resource mix. This subcommittee faces tough choices in developing the fiscal year 2014 appropriations bill, and for that reason we look forward to hearing from you on all your mission needs. I would like now to recognize the distinguished ranking member Mr. Price for his opening remarks. [Statement follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Opening Statement: Mr. Price Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join Chairman Carter in welcoming our witnesses this morning, Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher, Assistant Commissioner for Field Operations Kevin McAleenan, and Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Air and Marine Randolph Alles. I also want to thank recently retired Deputy Commissioner Aguilar for his tireless work over the past 31 years to secure our border. All of you, like many of your DHS colleagues, have a difficult and sometimes thankless job. Yet you performed it admirably. Thanks to the men and women of Customs and Border Protection, the 1,954 miles of our shared border with Mexico has become increasingly difficult to breach. Two decades ago, fewer than 4,000 border patrol agents manned the entire southwest border. Today, that number is about 18,500, and some 651 miles of fence have been built in targeted areas of the border. Now sensors have been planted, cameras erected, unmanned aerial vehicles monitor the border from above. Couple these efforts with targeted outbound inspections of vehicles for illegal drugs, weapons, cash and other contraband heading south into Mexico, which has resulted in some impressive seizures in California, Texas and Arizona over the past 3 years, and you can see just how successful our border security efforts have been. Now, as I stated in our hearing with Secretary Napolitano, as the former chairman of this subcommittee, I know how elusive the definition of secure can be. I also know that we can't simply throw an unlimited amount of money or technology or anything else at the southwest border and assume that will solve all the problems. We must continue to look analytically for the right mix of personnel, infrastructure and technology to find the best path forward. At the same time CBP has made steady progress in securing our borders, the agency has struggled to keep its financial house in order. Over the past 2 years, CBP has been unable to accurately budget for its salaries and expense requirements, which account for almost 70 percent of its appropriations needs. For example, going into fiscal 2013, CBP found itself with a $324 million salary shortfall, created in part by a budget request that incorrectly assumed CBP access to fee revenue, in part due to assumptions about attrition rates that were off the mark. While CBP should be commended for identifying ways to address this shortfall, it is imperative that the agency avoid such errors in developing future budget requests. Today I want to explore the progress CBP has made in addressing its salary shortfalls as well as the impact of sequestration on your agency. At a time when Congress is considering comprehensive immigration reform with some calling for a secure the border first approach, your agency has a difficult task ahead. It is not a matter of a new task being laid before you. CBP has made steady progress in grappling with border security over the last decade. But there has been a continuing debate about what it means to secure the border, and we will need to develop some consensus on that question in the context of comprehensive immigration reform. We may not be able to resolve that issue here today, I am afraid, but I hope you will be able to give us your perspective on how far we have come on border security, on the current state of our capability and about the challenges that still remain. We need a clear picture of what the budget request for the coming year means for CBP's ability to address the multiple challenges it faces. CBP must have the resources and flexibility to quickly identify threats and then stem the flow of people and drugs coming into our country illegally as well as to process the legal entry of people and goods expeditiously. It is our job to make sure you have the resources to do that successfully. The CBP budget request is for $12.9 billion, an increase of about $1 billion, or 8.6 percent. Perhaps most notably, the budget proposes an increase of $210 million to hire an additional 1,600 CBP officers and 245 mission and operational support positions. It also proposes authorizing language to increase immigration fees and customs user fees by $2 each to support an additional 1,877 CBP officers. I hope you will be working closely with the authorizers regarding the need for these additional officers and the rationale for using additional fee revenue to support them. The budget also proposes a cut of $87.2 million to CBP Air and Marine interdiction, including a cut of $43.9 million to Air and Marine procurement and a cut of $43.1 million to operations and maintenance. This raises serious questions about how CBP would prioritize its interdiction efforts with such limited resources and flight hours. So, to all of you, I commend you for your efforts to make CBP a more agile law enforcement agency and our border communities more secure. We thank you for your service and we look forward to your testimony. [Statement follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Price. Commissioner McAleenan, I am going to now recognize you to make an opening statement for the panel. Your written statement will be placed in the record and we all have a copy of it. Please limit your oral arguments to no more than five minutes to sum up your ideas. Please proceed. Opening Statement: Acting Deputy Commissioner McAleenan Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, Chairman Carter, Ranking Member Price and members of the subcommittee. Good morning. It is an honor for us to be here today representing the men and women of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and to discuss the tremendous work they do each day to protect our Nation. Mr. Chairman, let me offer CBP's congratulations on becoming chairman of the subcommittee, and we look forward to continuing to work with you and other distinguished members in the years and months ahead. Before I begin, I would also like to acknowledge the tragic events in Boston on Monday and briefly reference the work CBP is doing to support the interagency response. CBP is supporting the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] led investigation to the Joint Terrorism Task Force with data and research support as well as scrutinizing outbound international travel for any sign of a suspect fleeing the incident. We have also provided air support to the air and sea effort, and if it is determined that there is an international nexus to the attack, we will bring every asset and capability available to bear in identifying and pursuing those who have perpetrated this atrocity. The victims and their families are front of mind for all CBP personnel and we will do whatever we can to support the investigation. With more than 60,000 employees, CBP is the largest law enforcement agency in the United States. We are responsible for securing America's borders to protect our Nation against terrorist threats and prevent the illegal entry of inadmissible persons, contraband and agricultural pests and animal diseases while promoting the safe and efficient flow of travel and trade. Today we will highlight the fiscal year 2014 budget request and outline the ways in which CBP is optimizing its resources to perform our mission more effectively and efficiently. In the budget request, CBP is requesting funds to enhance frontline operations as well as fund a limited number of improved capabilities in the areas of border security, targeting and trade facilitation and enforcement. I would like to highlight five key aspects of the budget request. First, our fiscal year 2014 budget request supports 21,370 border patrol agents and a record 25,252 CBP officers. This CBP officer staffing level includes the agency's request for 1,600 CBP officers as well as 1,877 officers to be funded by proposed increases to the COBRA [Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985] and immigration user fees. This increase in officers will result in additional enforcement actions, marked decreases in wait times and significant benefits to the U.S. economy. Second, every day, transnational criminal organizations attempt to smuggle people and contraband in the maritime environment. CBP's Office of Air and Marine P3 aircraft have been instrumental in detecting and intercepting vessels with contraband bound for the United States while still thousands of miles away from our borders. CBP's fiscal year 2014 budget request includes $74 million to sustain and enhance CBP's air and maritime operations and patrol capabilities through the procurement of new multi-role enforcement aircraft, the P3 service life extension program, coastal intercepter vessels and sensor upgrades for tactical aircraft. Third, CBP will deploy proven and effective surveillance technology along the highest traffic areas of the southwest border. CBP's fiscal year 2014 budget request will enable CBP to augment and upgrade our existing capabilities with the additional deployment of integrated fixed towers, up to 50 new tower sites in six border patrol station areas of responsibility, and upgraded remote video surveillance systems in critical focus areas along our southwest border. This technology will be incorporated with other border surveillance tools tailored to the southwest and northern border as well as maritime environments and will significantly increase our situational awareness. Fourth, CBP's fiscal year 2014 budget request also supports our targeting framework and with additional system capabilities, including improvements to the automated targeting system and the national targeting centers. Further, the budget request includes $13 million to fund the initial cost of consolidating CBP's targeting centers to more effectively and efficiently meet CBP and interagency mission needs. And finally, we recognize how the increasing volume of international travel benefits our economy. CBP strives to process passengers as quickly as possible while maintaining the highest standards of security. Our budget request includes $8 million to invest in technology to improve processing and ports of entry through the acquisition of 60 kiosks to be employed at eight high-volume ports with over 29 million pedestrian crossings. This investment will allow CBP to better facilitate legitimate travel and focus on higher risk. CBP is continually enhancing facilitation and security efforts to optimize our resources, operations and business processes to increase security and efficiency. The fiscal year 2014 budget request enables CBP to pursue personnel and technology enhancements to improve our effectiveness and streamline our activities to safeguard our borders and promote the safe and efficient flow of travel and trade. Along with my distinguished colleagues, I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning, and we look forward to answering your questions. [The statements of Messrs. McAleenan, Fisher, and Alles follow:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] WORKLOAD STAFFING MODEL: STAFFING, OVERALL Mr. Carter. Thank you very much. Well, I will start off. Mr. McAleenan, you are aware that the fiscal year 2013 request shortchanged CBP operations, including failing to cover pay and benefits for the workforce. I spoke with the Secretary on the record last week about this topic. The DHS budget must accurately and legitimately propose funding to cover known costs, including personnel. Can you clarify for the record that the fiscal year 2014 budget request includes funds, all the funds necessary to cover personnel cost for 21,370 border patrol agents, 21,775 CBP officers? Mr. McAleenan. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can confirm that the fiscal year 2014 request properly funds and supports those personnel levels, and we appreciate the committee's oversight and acknowledge the issues with the estimates of the pay requirements in 2013. Mr. Carter. Anything less than that is unacceptable, and you know we are going to be sending out surveys and investigation staff to ensure that that is the case because we just can't have another shortfall, and I appreciate your taking that challenge. The budget proposes to bring 1,600 additional CBP officers in fiscal year 2014 using appropriated funds and 1,877 CBP officers through unauthorized user fee increase. I will give you a chance to make your pitch for more officers, but given the history of shortchanging how these benefits will look for all border personnel, I am very concerned about the future year commitments associated with this increase. Please outline what the proposal for 1,600 officers entails in 2014 and the future year cost of that investment for the following four fiscal years. Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously this request in the 2014 budget recognizes significant investment needs in CBP officers at our ports of entry. It is based on our workload staffing model, which we have delivered to the committee and look forward to reviewing with you and your staff and which outlines the needs at our ports of entry. This has been many years in the making, as you know. It is a rigorous assessment of what we need to process increasing volume of trade and travel and increasing enforcement efforts at our ports of entry, and it has been reviewed externally. We think it is a solid estimate of how to properly process trade and travel at our ports of entry. The economic impact of what we do at the ports in terms of transaction costs for travelers and trade is very significant. A study just released last week indicated that wait times have a major economic impact and that even adding one additional officer creates $2 million in gross domestic product economic activity as well as avoiding $640,000 in opportunity costs. So I think the recognition here at the department and administration level is that this is a real economic impact and that we need to invest in improving our services at ports of entry while maintaining and enhancing our security level. In terms of the breakdown of the fiscal year 2014 request, Mr. Chairman, the $210 million would fund 1,530 CBP officers and 70 canine officers, which are very effective, especially on the southwest border in our counternarcotics mission. It would also fund 107 operational support personnel, which free up additional officers for frontline activity, and 138 mission- support personnel, which are critical to supporting the expanded workforce. This is a commitment on the part of CBP and the administration to fund these personnel because of their importance to our efforts at ports of entry, and it will be continued in the outyears based on these requirements identified in the workload staffing model. Mr. Carter. I note my information shows that we are trying to fund 245 mission-support personnel. You mentioned 138. Do you know what the discrepancy is there? Mr. McAleenan. Yes. I was providing the specific breakdown. Within that 245, 138 are pure mission support, think of the HR [human resources] or budget functions, while 107 are mission support but in a more operational context. They are out in the ports of entry doing scheduling or---- Mr. Carter. Okay. Mr. McAleenan [continuing]. Cashier work or other operational support. BORDER SECURITY: DEFINITION Mr. Carter. Congress has invested billions of dollars in CBP since September 11th, particularly in bolstering Border Patrol staffing to a record 21,370 agents, deploying tactical infrastructure and improving air assets and technology. Chief Fisher, I believe the Border Patrol is starting to get the tools together to do this job in the right way, but as I see it, Border Patrol is still measuring its effectiveness only in terms of apprehension and seizures. That is not good enough to provide the American people with the confidence that the border is secure. What other measures are you looking at and what does a secure border mean to you? And this is a very important answer because, quite honestly, we just had released last night the Senate's view of the future of immigration policy. The House is working on immigration policy, and I can assure you that everything is going to start with the definition of secure border, and there is a lot of play in words out there, but the American people are not going to fall for play on words anymore. They are going to want reality of border security, and even more so now we have an unknown assailant that has harmed people in Boston and at least we can use our imagination and wonder how they got there and did they come across our border. So, you know, we don't know. We hopefully are going to find out, but the American people are thinking about that, and they are having candlelight vigils and they are praying in churches because they are afraid. Our job is to get rid of that fear. So you know, it is a hard definition. What would be your definition of a secure border? Chief Fisher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. First, I happen to agree with you. Just apprehensions of individuals alone or seizures of narcotics certainly does not give a complete story, nor does it define the security of the border. I would first start with when people ask me the question, well, what does a secure border look like? I generally respond in two ways. First and foremost is the likelihood to reduce attacks to this country. It is based on risk. It is based on information that we have in advance so that we can plan our operations accordingly and put that capability against those areas of high threat. Second is our ability to provide safety and security to the communities in which we serve as a law enforcement organization, very similar to others. Within that broad context, I will give you one specific example because I think it is articulated in the proposed legislation when it talks about effectiveness rates. At the end of the day, when we were designing the new strategy for the Border Patrol, we were looking at how we want to implement that, and more importantly, how we measure it. One overarching concern both within the organization and outside the organization, stakeholders here in the Beltway, community members I talked with out in the field--A very important piece that is really critical to everybody's mind is, at the end, how many people came across the border and, of that number, how many people did you either arrest or were they turned back and went to Mexico, right. The third piece and the general outcome is going to be, well, we didn't apprehend them subsequent to a detection, and so we have looked at that and called that the effectiveness ratio, and we have been working very hard over the last couple of years to be able to increase our ability to do just that. BORDER SECURITY: APPREHENSIONS Mr. Carter. And I have watched the turn-backs at the border. Just curiosity, do you count them? I mean, I have seen border patrolmen stand on the shore of the Rio Grande and people halfway across say go back, and there will be 8 or 10 of them out there and they generally obey and turn around and go back. Now they may go right down the river and try again, but they go back. Do you count those folks? Chief Fisher. If individuals made an entry into the United States, so let's say for instance they are halfway across the river, they see the Border Patrol agents and they start peddling back toward Mexico, they have not made an entry so that would not be counted. If an individual makes an entry and our Border Patrol agents are able to ascertain, either because they see them physically, utilizing technology or they happen to be on the bank of the river, or in cases where we are utilizing tracking operations and we see the footprints of individuals coming into the country--We put out an instruction last year and we are getting better at being able to do end-of- the-shift reports. We are also looking to aggregate all of that data, not just by shift and station and sector but doing it at the national level so we have a strategic assessment on the extent to which we are achieving higher levels of effectiveness. Mr. Carter. The middle of the river is the border, right? Chief Fisher. In most cases, yes, sir. Mr. Carter. Now, once they are on the shore--I mean, just out of curiosity. I know that you have a policy that when you catch people that are Mexicans, you take them back across, right? I mean, if you caught the other than Mexicans, it can be a political problem that you can't take them immediately back across. So if you catch them on dry land, do you have to take them into the office and process them and then take them back across the bridge or can you just say, go back and they go back? Chief Fisher. No. If they are apprehended, we apprehend them in the United States. We have an affirmative duty to make that arrest. We do that in each and every case. Mr. Carter. That is what I thought. Chief Fisher. To the extent that we can, and then we go ahead and process, predominantly to identify who these individuals are. That goes to that first overarching piece to reduce the likelihood. BORDER SECURITY: SITUATIONAL AWARENESS Mr. Carter. What about situational awareness, how can you measure that? Chief Fisher. In two ways. One is the application of technology, and thanks to your leadership and this committee, we have seen an increase over the last few years in technology. Things like integrated fixed towers, remote video surveillance systems, and mobile surveillance systems help. The other areas that we have transitioned just recently this year in our implementation plan are those areas that traditionally we just couldn't get to. They were very remote. We didn't have a requirement for fence or technology, but we still had a responsibility to have a broader sense of situational awareness. The way that we worked that is we are working with the General and some of his high-altitude technology along with other government assets in the intelligence community to be able to look at these areas and do frequent flyovers and then compare using coherent change detection on any change in these particular areas that would notify us for an operational deployment. Mr. Carter. What level of persistent surveillance are you seeking? What level of capability do you feel like you already have? Chief Fisher. Mr. Chairman, that is a little bit difficult. I can tell you on the southern border, we probably have more in terms of situational awareness that informs us based on technology than we do in places on the northern border. However, situational awareness isn't just relegated to the use of technology. It is things like I am going out and working with the community, people who live in the border communities, businesses that operate within the communities. That is why information as the first pillar in our strategy is so critical. It also includes some new technology that we are testing right now with Science and Technology. It is called Border Watch. These are applications that people within the communities can use either on their iPhones or on their computers and be able to report and respond, and so this goes to our community engagement approach within the strategy, to use this force multiplier, things other than just technology to get a broader sense of situational awareness. Mr. Carter. Do you have a metric or measure for this situational awareness, or do you need one? Chief Fisher. Well, obviously the situational awareness, you want to have 100 percent as a goal, right? Mr. Carter. Right. Chief Fisher. And as we look toward doing that, we start filling in the gaps: those areas where we have deployments and can detect based on entries and those areas that we are using in situational awareness to get a better sense of if in fact anything is happening. And what it ends up doing for us is it shrinks the border area reduction. It really goes to trying to prove the negative so that if we have areas where we are doing frequent flights, that based on the algorithms and the computers and the Intel analysis tell us that over a course of say 30 days, the probability is extremely low that anything is moving through here, then we have a broader sense that we don't have to continue to ask for more resources to continue to patrol utilizing Border Patrol agents or putting more technology in areas of very low risk. BORDER SECURITY: SITUATIONAL AWARENESS TOOLS Mr. Carter. Let's focus on technology that has been under way in Arizona. Chief, I shouldn't have to tell you that we are a little bit angry by the delays in getting what is supposed to be commercial-off-the-shelf tools in the hands of your agents. What is the status of those procurements? When will you have metrics establishing or established to measure the return on the investment? Chief Fisher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly share your angst in our inability to put those in the hands of the Border Patrol agents forward in places like Arizona. I can give you a quick update in terms of the two prominent pieces that we have been waiting for for the last couple of years, that is, the integrated fixed towers and the remote video surveillance systems. We have camera poles. These are the cameras to replace that new generation better enhanced capability. Starting this summer, we should start seeing some of the new enhanced cameras come on board, and certainly by the fall we are looking to have integrated fixed towers in those areas where we have prioritized the need for that requirement in a place like Arizona. But broadly, when we look at what we are continuing to add to that suite, both in terms of our ability to detect, apprehend at high proportion as well as add to our ability for broader situational awareness, we also entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Defense a couple of years ago. Through that effort we have identified so far about 2,000 pieces of equipment. Now, this would be equipment that would either have been deployed in theater or in warehouses to be deployed that is no longer going to be deployed based on the drawdown. Those 2,000 right now are in a warehouse in Oklahoma City. We are doing inventory and system checks on those. What we are doing is going to augment. Now, these were systems or requirements that we have identified through the military and we do that right through NORTHCOM, specifically in El Paso, with our direct point of contact with JTF [Joint Task Force] NORTH. We do requirements on a quarterly basis to them and we just roll this process right into that. So in a very short order, we expect to have an enhanced capability in forms of detection, ground sensors and mobile systems, things that the taxpayers have already paid for that we are going to utilize for our border security mission. Mr. Carter. That would be the nature, you are not buying heavy equipment, or you know, there is this big fear factor out there on the Internet that somebody in this government is accumulating tanks and armored vehicles. You are not talking about stuff like that from the military. You are talking about surveillance and sensors and the things we need to locate people as they are coming across. Chief Fisher. That is correct, sir. Mr. Carter. I just want to clarify that because there are those who are preaching that we are storing bullets and buying armor, and I want to clarify that we are not. Mr. Alles. Sir, if I could jump in here a second---- Mr. Carter. Yes, sir. Mr. Alles [continuing]. With Chief Fisher. Additionally, as he has kind of mentioned, we are also using our air assets that are equipped with systems like the VADER [Vehicle Dismount and Exploitation Radar] system and our change detection radar, as he mentioned, to give us better situational awareness, particularly in areas where we can't put fixed towers or it doesn't make sense cost-wise because there is low activity. But that is an additional way we are moving to get better situational awareness along the borders. Mr. Carter. Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate that comment, and I thank you for your honest assessment. That is what it takes for us to work together. Chief Fisher. Yes, sir. Mr. Carter. And I appreciate it very much. Chief Fisher. Thank you, sir. Mr. Carter. Mr. Price. SEQUESTRATION IMPACT: OVERALL Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all again for your testimony. I want to explore the impact of sequestration, present and future, and I hope you can shed some light on what the impact on CBP, in particular, will be of sequestration. I think you might be expected to have something of a whiplash experience here because at the same time, at precisely the same time that a secure border is being held out as a precondition for comprehensive immigration reform you are being sequestered in a way that surely will make that secure border much harder to achieve, much harder goal to attain, and so that is--I guess ``ironic'' is a kind word for those contradictory demands that are being made of you. I would like to know exactly what the impact will be as far as you can tell us today and what especially the impact on your frontline operations is likely to be. CBP's enacted appropriation for fiscal 2013 has been reduced by nearly $600 million by sequestration, as I understand it, and I understand that in response to that you have reduced travel and training expenses, you have deferred facilities maintenance, you have delayed the acquisition of supplies, you have reduced the scope of some contracts, you have reduced so-called administratively uncontrollable overtime for officers and agents and you implemented an agency-wide hiring freeze. Over and above these programmatic reductions CBP initially anticipated it would need to implement an agency-wide furlough of up to 14 nonconsecutive workdays for each employee. Now, I want to get an update on this. I am aware that some of this might have been altered. What can you tell us at this point about the impact of sequestration? Any of the items I mentioned that would no longer hold or other items we should know about, and especially this furlough question. Mr. McAleenan, we originally understood that 10 percent of your employees will be on furlough each day. Do you believe now that CBP will be able to maintain higher staffing levels during the peak travel time or travel days; that is, Friday through Monday at airports, Monday through Friday at ports of entry, what kind of adjustments are you anticipating there? To the extent that a lack of resources will still require furloughs, do you plan to move personnel from small ports of entry to some of the larger ports, for example, or vice versa, to ensure the secure movement of people and goods critical to our economy? And in general, what are you doing to lessen the impact of furloughs on your frontline personnel and frontline operations? Obviously what we are interested in here is the impact especially on frontline operations but also the things that may have changed with the enactment of the CR that hopefully in some ways mitigated the impact but we are still looking, as I understand it, at a $600 million bottom line, and there is clearly a need to understand what that entails. Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, Congressman Price, and I would ask my colleagues to join in to highlight certain aspects of this response as they affect our operations. Certainly we have been tracking closely and there have been some changes in the impacts anticipated from sequestration from what we were facing on March 1st to the results of the omnibus. We appreciate the work of this committee as well as the Senate to mitigate some of the impacts of sequestration on CBP. Congressman Price, you outlined several non-pay categories of cuts from travel and supplies and contracts. We have sustained those cuts and are trying to balance the impact they have on our operations effectively. What the omnibus bill did is it gives an opportunity to reassess and ideally limit the impact on our personnel and staffing, both in terms of the furloughs, which you mentioned and the administratively uncontrollable overtime [AUD]. We have postponed implementation of any furloughs. We have also postponed the deauthorization of AUO as we continue to assess and will be working with the Congress on the structure of the omnibus. It is a little different structure in terms of the PPA [program-project- activity] categories for our budget and how we can most effectively maintain our operational deployments at ports of entry as well as between them. In terms of the impact, on March 1st, at the ports of entry, we immediately undertook overtime cuts, about 17 percent of our overtime out in the field, and that had a direct and immediate impact on wait times. In the air environment, our international gateway airports have seen significant increases, 50 to 100 percent or more on some days. Basically we are able to staff fewer booths. About 20 to 45 for some of our booths are staffed on overtime at peak periods, and with that 17 percent cut, we just haven't been able to keep as many people in the booth processing passengers. We have also seen significant impact on the land border. San Ysidro has had wait times on certain holidays up in the 4- and 6-hour range, which we usually can limit below 3 hours. In Representative Cuellar's district, we had a number of midsize ports where we have had only four lanes open instead of six or eight or 10, which doesn't sound that bad. But as the queuing process ensues, it is an escalating impact that can really take us from a 20- to 30-minute wait to well over an hour, up to 2 hours even at those midsize ports. So, with the omnibus legislation, we are hoping to ameliorate some of that overtime impact, some of that 17 percent and still working to minimize the impact on our personnel. But we are working through our plan in response to the budget, and we will be working with Congress on finalizing that and implementing it in the coming weeks. SEQUESTRATION IMPACT: BORDER PATROL AGENT STAFFING Mr. Price. Thank you. Let me ask about an additional element of that continuing resolution. That is, the statutory requirement that is included there that CBP maintain 21,370 border patrol agents. As you know, that is included in the final bill. As I understand what you are saying, due to sequestration, Congress--and despite the mitigation attempts, Congress did not in the end provide sufficient resources for that staffing level without harming other salaries and expenses priorities. So, will you be able this year to meet that Border Patrol staffing requirement without affecting other needs? And your colleagues may want to join in here. What impact will meeting the--Chief Fisher could address that maybe initially, but General Alles might want to chime in about the impact that meeting the statutory Border Patrol staffing requirement will have on CBP officers or Air and Marine Interdiction agents. Might those people need to be furloughed longer in order to maintain the statutory floor for Border Patrol agents? If so, what does that do to the wait time? Will you need to cut target programs or other national security programs to meet the Border Patrol staffing requirements? Chief Fisher. Congressman Price, thank you very much for that question. Like the chairman mentioned in his opening statement about the percentage of CBP's payroll as it relates to salary and expense, and he used I think it was around between 70 and 72 percent for the Office of Border Patrol. The percent of salaries and expense of our budget is 90 percent, and so when you look at the legislative mandate for 21,370, anytime that we as an organization are asked to make cuts, whether it is 5 percent or 8 percent, it is very challenging not to touch salary and expense. As a matter of fact, it is mathematically impossible for us to do that. So, the first thing that we did is we looked at nonpay, at 10 percent, right, things like fleet, things like contracts. We put things in place, for instance, doubling border Patrol Agents in vehicles, trying to offset the cost of maintaining the fleet so we can slow that process down. I had--part of our strategic implementation plan at the beginning of the year, and actually this is going back to 2012, is to maintain 90-percent fleet readiness. We wanted to make sure that we had those vehicles ready for those Border Patrol agents to go and deploy. We are projecting right now, without relief that that readiness will drop anywhere from 90 percent to as low as 60 percent. Now, what I am explaining here aren't things that are necessarily definitively going to happen. These are things that we are planning right now as the bill was passed and we are looking to offset. What I have asked the team to do is put together, look at the numbers, start building the implementation plan, the budget execution plan and give me a sense of what the operational impacts are going to be, what are the risks against those impacts and how do we minimize, to the extent that we can, each one of those. So for areas like fleet, areas like contract services for transportation services, we are going to look in areas where we can reduce those, and we have continued to do that. But when it gets to salaries and expense, and this is to your point, sir, as it relates to the administratively uncontrollable overtime, we still have a long way to go this year to be able to reduce that. Quite frankly, if left unattended and we continue to operate as we have been, where Border Patrol agents would continue to operate and utilize 25 percent of their base pay in administratively uncontrollable overtime, if we don't change that course direction, we don't have enough funds in that salary and expense to be able to cover that. We have as a matter of fact started making reductions in how we actually start scheduling and utilizing the workforce that we have, even before sequestration levels were starting to be talked about within CBP, doing things like taking a look at how we schedule Border Patrol agents in areas where it made operational sense to go from three shifts to four shifts to alleviate some of the Border Patrol agents waiting to be relieved in a particular location, in areas where we have the staffing now to do that. It is prudent and it makes sense to do that operationally without minimizing our ability to protect this country. SEQUESTRATION'S IMPACT: AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS Mr. Price. General, what does the tradeoff look like with respect to Air and Marine? Mr. Alles. Sir, I thank you, sir. On the actual, specifically the statutory numbers, I can't address specifically because that gets rolled up in a larger budget. I will just address sequester-wise, since you asked about that question. Our impact is going to be primarily in terms of flying hours. So we were appropriated for this year $397 million, which was 106,000 hours. Under sequester that is going to drop us down to $377 million. That is about 80,000 hours roughly. So one of the impacts of the sequester on Air and Marine is that reduction in flight hours. It has some effect in terms of premium pay, since I have to clearly pay my agents if they are working mid or swing shifts. That is having some impacts in my southeast region and my northern region, less so in the southwest because we prioritize toward that zone, and then also in my Air and Marine Operations Center in terms of tracking. So those are some of the impacts that we have seen off of the sequester, sir. SEQUESTRATION IMPACT: FLEXIBILITY, REDUCTION IN Mr. Price. Well, the question remains, I think, to what extent that statutory requirement, as to a personnel level, reduces needed flexibility. You have both made very clear, you have all made very clear some of the adjustments, the unpalatable tradeoffs that are involved in this business. So what extent, though, can you clarify, to what extent that statutory requirement reduces the kind of flexibility or alters the kind of adjustments you would otherwise make? Mr. McAleenan. I will take a stab at that, Congressman Price. You are absolutely right, the staffing floors, you know, it is part of--I think you used the term whiplash or maybe cognitive dissonance in budgeting here, where we absolutely appreciate and want to maintain those personnel levels, but to do so in the face of sequestration does require the difficult tradeoffs as you have noted. It reduces our flexibility to respond to cuts or to balance them throughout the year, and so what we end up having to face is cutting immediate operational capability to maintain the floors that are critical to our future operational capability. So it is definitely a challenge in 2013, but if you look at the 2014 budget and the direction we want to go with our staffing, it is a tough balance to make here. Mr. Price. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Price. Mr. Fleischmann. MISSION-SUPPORT PERSONNEL, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, gentlemen. My first question: the committee has concerns about the potential impacts of the proposed $125 million cut to mission support and the $54 million cut to IT support. What effects will these, ``efficiencies'' have on frontline operations? Mr. McAleenan. I think that is an important question and one that we are monitoring very carefully at the agency-wide level. We have had a staffing freeze in place throughout this year for our mission-support personnel, have attrited over 700. And as the Acting Deputy I am working with the mission-support office to make sure they are able to maintain capability to support the frontline, and that is something we are going to be continuing to assess. We have not had significant impact to date, but as the hiring freeze on mission support continues and as we try to meet additional efficiencies, we are concerned about that and will need to monitor it closely. In terms of our information technology infrastructure, our focus there is on becoming more efficient with the infrastructure we have. We have been working to move off legacy technologies. These are mainframe systems that cost a great deal to maintain in terms of the licenses and the outdated software up to more modern platforms that are most cost effective. NONINTRUSIVE INSPECTION, RADIOLOGICAL DETECTION EQUIPMENT Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Mr. McAleenan, you were forced to make difficult choices for this budget proposal. Hopefully you are not being penny wise and pound foolish at the cost of operational effectiveness in long-term expenses. This budget request proposes to cut both the operating and procurement budgets for the Non-intrusive Inspection, NII, and Radiological Detection Equipment, RDE. First things first, since there is limited to no procurement happening, what is the state of CBP's RDE and NII in terms of availability and reliability, sir? Mr. McAleenan. You are absolutely right, Congressman, in terms of the difficult choices. The current condition of both our nonintrusive inspection technology, our large-scale fleet, as well as our radiation detection equipment is very good. We appreciated the funding in ARRA [American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009], which enabled us to purchase additional NII equipment. Both our NII and our radiation detection equipment, especially the portal monitors, are showing signs of exceeding their initial life expectancies, which is very positive in the current budget climate. That said, we are working with our Science and Technology Directorate at DHS as well as the Office of Technology, Innovation and Acquisition at CBP to identify strategies for how we can maintain, sustain and recapitalize this critical equipment going forward. It ensures that we are doing radiological scans on almost all ocean and maritime cargo, excuse me, all maritime and land border cargo coming into the United States, all personal vehicles. We are able to do a high number of secondary examinations on rail and truck and maritime cargo with a large-scale NII, and it is a tremendously effective resource for us that saves a lot of officer time. So we need to work with Congress, and we will work with our technology professionals to find a solution to sustain that capability in the future. Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Carter. Thank you. Mr. Cuellar. WORKLOAD STAFFING MODEL: PORTS-OF-ENTRY RESOURCES Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I want to thank you and the ranking member for having this meeting and welcome to all of you. Let me, Commissioner McAleenan, let me ask you about your workload staffing model. What does it say about the resources that are needed at the ports of entry? Mr. McAleenan. In short, Congressman, it says we do need more CBP officers to appropriately enforce and secure as well as facilitate trade and travel, which is growing tremendously. As you know, in south Texas the truck cargo traffic is up 6 percent last year and continuing to grow. We have increasing numbers of personal vehicles crossing. Again that traffic is growing as well as pedestrians. In the international airports we have seen 12-percent growth in 3 years and expecting 4 to 5 percent continuing. So to meet that volume and continue and improve our security levels, we do need additional CBP officers as recognized by the model and in the President's budget request. LAND BORDER PORT-OF-ENTRY TRAFFIC Mr. Cuellar. How much, and I am very interested in land ports. I think we have done a good job at airports and seaports, but how much of the trade and people actually come through land ports into the United States? Mr. McAleenan. The land border ports, northern and southern border, account for about 225 million out of 350 million travelers. Mr. Cuellar. Percentage-wise. Mr. McAleenan. Percentage-wise---- Mr. Cuellar. Is it 80, 88 percent of the people and goods come through land ports? Mr. McAleenan. Not quite that high, Congressman, but it is--we can do the math quickly. Mr. Cellar. No, that is fine, but the majority will come through the land ports. Mr. McAleenan. Majority of travel and the majority of trade by volume as well. REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENTS: TIMETABLE Mr. Cuellar. And I certainly feel that, you know, we've got to make sure that Congress not only appropriates for the men and women in green, which you know, we certainly support, but I think the men and women in blue at the ports of entry are extremely important for trade, the economics itself, and I say that. Laredo, I think 38 percent of all the trade between the U.S. and Mexico comes through one land port there in Laredo, so I understand the importance of the work that you do. Now, let's talk a little bit about Section 560. As you know, there is the Laredo sector, instead of having Laredo, Brownsville, McAllen, all those folks competing, we are trying to put a consortium together to be considered as one pilot program out of the five that you all are looking at. How is that coming along? What is the timetable, timelines on the Section 560, which is the one, the public/private partnership for overtime, for extra services. If the City of Laredo or McAllen or Brownsville or a private sector wants to put money to pay for your overtime, I would ask you all to move on that as soon as possible because there are people that are already willing to put that money up there quickly. Mr. McAleenan. Absolutely, Congressman. We appreciate the committee's support on this important authority. We do think it will increase our flexibility, enable us to partner with communities and stakeholders nationally to provide better services at the ports of entry. We are working hard to develop criteria for assessing potential partnerships with the five pilots. We want to make sure that we are selecting partnerships that have the best mission and operational impact as well as allowing us to test the pilot authority in different environments, with land border, air and, if possible, a maritime environment. We are working on that criteria, as I mentioned, and hope to have that done this month, and then have an exchange with those communities or stakeholders that are interested so they understand the cost of our operation, they understand with transparency the types of benefits they could expect from the partnership agreement. Mr. Cuellar. Don't you do a little bit of that already on airports? Mr. McAleenan. We do have a user fee airport authority that is well utilized nationally. Mr. Cuellar. For overtime, right? Mr. McAleenan. Actually, the user fee authority is for full-time personnel. We don't actually have any agreements in place to receive overtime at---- Mr. Cuellar. For full-time efforts. Mr. McAleenan [continuing]. International airports. For full-time, yes. Mr. Cuellar. You have a hybrid already. Mr. McAleenan. Yes, and it has been used effectively by communities. This would be a little larger scale and different type of authority, especially at existing major crossings. UNMANNED AIRCRAFT Mr. Cuellar. My last question. Commissioner Alles, I know that Congressman McCaul and I have gone to your opening when you brought in those Predators to Corpus Christi, and every time we have gone there we haven't seen it land or take off because of bad weather, and I know the former commissioner, we spoke about this, and I am trying to remember the numbers that your folks gave, 50 percent of the time your flights don't take off because of bad weather, and this is something I had gotten from the prior folks. Are you all ever going to look at somewhere outside of Corpus Christi, at least an alternative base besides Corpus Christi with all due respect? And I know Corpus Christi is very important, but McCaul and I, we went twice, and both times we went there we saw video, and it was nice to see the video but we didn't see anything land or take off. Mr. Alles. Yes, sir. Thank you. We would love to find a location with better weather. It is about a 60-percent impact. I shouldn't say impact. About 60-percent of the time they are launching, and about 30, 40 percent there are weather issues for the platform. It is not a platform that operates in icing conditions. That is one of the restrictions. We would love to find a different location. There are a lot of restrictions from the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration], on where we can operate the air vehicles from. They are still maturing the process where we can operate the system, not only in the air space, but takeoff and landing around populated areas continues to be is a big issue for us. Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I just say this because being from Texas, you have got 1,200 miles to find something there, but again, with all due respect to Corpus Christi, but every time the chairman of Homeland and I went, every time we went, it was just a video, and we appreciate going to Corpus Christi. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carter. Thank you. I understand Lubbock has got great flight opportunities, but we won't go there. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always good to follow--I seem to--on this committee I always seem to follow Texas. Mr. Carter. Of course. REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENTS: LEVEL OF INTEREST Mr. Frelinghuysen. Your lead. Of course, we note you are all in uniform, and thank you for the dangerous work you do. I see you don't have black tape on your badges but you have had in the past; is that right? Last year was a difficult year with loss of life. We obviously, as a committee, note that. I would like to also note for the record, and I am sure the chairman and all members would agree, we are on the Appropriations Committee. We are appropriators. We don't like continuing resolutions. We don't like the notion of sequesters. We are not looking for any sympathy from your ranks, but quite honestly we have something called regular order where Republicans and Democrats go through the process, we may disagree, we are not disagreeable, there is a degree of comity, and we do our work. I won't say it is the higher ups that are causing the problem, but we are proud of the work we do, obviously, with this chairman in particular, and a lot of the things that we are concerned about make their way into these bills, and when they don't get passed and, quite honestly, the Administration is in control and that is not all bad, but in fact some congressional direction is very helpful. So I just want to put that in the record. I would like to get, if I could, I guess this goes to the Acting Deputy. Everybody has been struggling with the pronunciation of your name, and since I have a long one myself, I won't try to pronounce it. I would like to know about the authority that our 2013 appropriations act granted you to pilot five reimbursable fee agreements for the costs associated with your services. Can you tell us where that stands? Has there been a lot of interest, and who are those interests, and what are the nature of the services they are seeking? Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, Congressman. We have received a lot of interest in the potential reimbursable agreements under Section 560 of the omnibus bill, and we have received them from a wide variety of potential stakeholders. Congressman Cuellar mentioned the City of Laredo. The City of El Paso has also expressed interest. The airports have expressed interest. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Is it usually, is it the southwest border or is it airports around the country? Mr. McAleenan. We are getting interest from airports as well around the country, and the air environment for our established international gateways. The authority allows us to receive overtime reimbursement to extend hours or to have additional staff at peak periods, which we think could be beneficial to certain airports. Mr. Frelinghuysen. What sort of process are you using to determine which ones to embrace? Mr. McAleenan. As I noted, we are trying to establish criteria that would allow us to pick pilots, given that we have a limit of five. That will have immediate mission impact and will be able to support operations in some key areas where we would like to provide better services but also will give us a chance to assess how this works in the different environments such as land border and air environment as you noted. Mr. Frelinghuysen. How do you respond to concerns from industry that reimbursement for services amounts to them double paying since they are already paying user fees? Mr. McAleenan. Well, I would note that actually this idea came in response to a request from industry and from localities. Mr. Frelinghuysen. But there are some who view this as a double whammy. Mr. McAleenan. Understood. And you know, it has to make sense. It has to have a return on investment for the local community or for the airport. For instance, this can't be unilaterally assessed. It has to be a mutual agreement. So, I would, for those that are concerned about double payment, I would offer they don't have to enter into an agreement. WORKLOAD STAFFING MODEL: PART-TIMERS Mr. Frelinghuysen. Just looking locally in my backyard, I have the Port of Newark, obviously Liberty Airport in Newark. I know that some other Federal agencies use part-time people. Are you locked into some sort of collective bargaining agreement which doesn't allow you to use part-timers, because obviously crowds come in and sometimes there are delays. What is your system here? Mr. Frelinghuysen. I don't equate you with some of the other agencies, but I just wonder, do you utilize part-timers? Mr. McAleenan. Good question. In terms of the bargaining unit, we would certainly have to negotiate any change to the structure of ours, but I think really it goes back. Mr. Frelinghuysen. This is the issue, sort of innovation, we have the sequester. We have the continuing resolution. We commend you for the things you are doing, but is this an area you are looking at? Mr. McAleenan. We are looking at an effective use of staffing, and part-timers for non-law-enforcement personnel is absolutely something---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Your whole workforce is about 65,000, so I assume there are some people that could be moved around in a more effective way. REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS: ABU DHABI Mr. McAleenan. I think that is a fair statement. And part time for those personnel is something we are considering. For law enforcement personnel, it is not an option. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And lastly, moving to Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. What is going on with that preclearance facility? Am I correct in saying the ones we have here are in this hemisphere, and there are no others around the world that we actually staff, and this would be the first one in the Middle East? Mr. McAleenan. This would be the first one in the Middle East. We do have preclearance in two locations in Ireland---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. We have been through, many of us, through Shannon, which you do great job there. But there is obviously some concern here about this, and I think we all are in support of what our domestic airlines are doing, and obviously, our airports have some concern that this would be infringing on their bottom line. Do you have any reaction to that? Mr. McAleenan. I understand we have had a robust exchange of views with both the Congress and the committees as well as with our aviation stakeholders. This is a security program. This is a region where there is a lot of transit travel from areas that are of significant concern for terrorist training and so forth. This gives us an opportunity to project our zone of security closer to those areas. And from an operational perspective, it makes a great deal of sense and would be cost- effective. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, obviously, there is local concern in my State, obviously. Industry representatives have reached out. So this would be a transit center, clearance center in the midst of this region. And you think actually it would benefit our security by having it? Mr. McAleenan. Yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Having it there, how does that happen? Mr. McAleenan. Well, Abu Dhabi---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Might require you to actually have far more in the way of technology; just without profiling, you might have some difficulties consuming all the data that might come in through all the people that are transiting. Mr. McAleenan. Well, actually our targeting systems would be capable of assessing those data for us. And the benefit it would give us is having personnel on site able to do full admissibility inspections, inspect the baggage and any air cargo on those aircraft before they even depart for the United States. Abu Dhabi is a location where we do have terrorist screening database travel at a significant level at the top 10. Mr. Frelinghuysen. But you agree there are no American carriers, domestic carriers that go in there. Mr. McAleenan. There are currently no American carriers. Any agreement would require equal access to any carrier that wanted to fly. Mr. Frelinghuysen. If American carriers wanted to use that facility, they would be able to? Mr. McAleenan. Absolutely. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Even if the host country wasn't particularly enthusiastic about it. But it is being negotiated is it? Mr. McAleenan. It is still being negotiated, yes, sir. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carter. Mr. Owens. BEYOND THE BORDER Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. I have gone through the information you have provided, and it is a little unclear to me whether or not there are specific dollars allocated to the implementation of the Beyond the Border agreement with Canada and the RCC, also entered into with Canada. Can you indicate to me, and then a very specific question I have is to the single portal, which is part of the BTB, where you are in terms of implementation and funding for that? Mr. McAleenan. I can tell you, on the funding side, the single window is part of our automation modernization within our cargo funding and the IT budget. I can get back to you on exactly where we are in implementation. It has been one area that received a lot of effort and interest on both sides, and part, as you noted, of a broad and important set of action items under the Beyond the Border agreement. [The information follows:] Mr. Owens. And could you also indicate to me what the amount of funding is that is dedicated and what the analysis is for the level of funding necessary to implement that portal? Mr. McAleenan. We will get back to you that information. DRONES Mr. Owens. That is great. What is the level of usage of drones on the other three borders that we have, that being the east and west coast and along the Canadian border? Are we utilizing drones in that air space? Mr. Alles. Yes, sir, we are. Our primary zones of operation are along the Rio Grande Valley and in the southwest, and in the Tucson sectors, along the southwest border. We have done some limited operations off the San Diego coast looking for drug activity out there and our other primary site is in Grand Forks, North Dakota. And we use those drones up there for two functions. One is to look at border security along the northern border. That is done mainly as Chief Fisher mentioned via change detection using our SAR, Synthetic Aperture Radar. And then secondly that is our training site for our new pilots. So it is a fairly robust activity in the Grand Forks area and along the northern border for that particular drone site. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Owens. Now does that particular drone site cover the entire Canadian border or only sectors of it? Mr. Alles. It can cover everything from basically Minnesota to Washington State. Our profiles that we fly are dependent on where the Border Patrol are, since we are working in cooperation with them, determines would be our higher-threat zones, and that is where we employ the air vehicles for change detection. Ms. Owens. Do we have any zones in the eastern end of the U.S. Canadian border? Mr. Alles. No, sir, we do not typically employ them in that area. Mr. Owens. Would you have interest in doing that? Mr. Alles. I would, but frankly, given where we are in our flying hour program and other priorities, I think we need to keep our functions where they are. There is much to be done still along the southwest and the southern borders that I think is very consequential. Mr. Owens. I understand. Where I am really going with this is, as I am sure you are aware, Fort Drum which happens to be in my district is seeing a return of drones to the facility, to the installation. It seems to me that they will continue to need to have training activity, and this would seem to me to be an excellent way to accomplish two tasks and save the government money in the process and at the same time develop an environment where we are doing training and getting information. Mr. Alles. Yes, sir, I understand. Fort Drum is one of our emergency relocation sites. We use it for basically nationwide deployment for our drones. That is how we utilize the facility so far, sir. Mr. Owens. And would you be amenable to the idea that I am positing that we would, as they return, we would use them for surveillance purposes on the eastern end of the United States Canadian border? Mr. Alles. Sir, I would have to look at the specifics, and candidly, that one--if you are talking about military versions of the drones, there will be many FAA issues. Some of those drones are not qualified to fly in the air space. Mr. Owens. I understand that there is that issue, but given the proliferation of drones that we now have in the military, I suspect there are opportunities that we might undertake. Mr. Alles. Certainly something we can look at, sir. FOREIGN LANGUAGE AWARDS PROGRAM Mr. Owens. Thank you. I notice that you are focused or the budget reduces significantly the Foreign Language Awards Program, and I am curious as to whether or not that--the reduction in that program is a good idea, given, particularly along the southern border, you have a great number of people who may not speak English, along the U.S.-Canadian border, there are also people who, at least in Quebec, speak French primarily, and whether or not decreasing that is really a good idea for efficiency purposes. Mr. McAleenan. Congressman, we have a significant number of personnel who are fluent in a number of foreign languages. On the southwest border, we have a significantly bilingual workforce that is capable of maintaining that language fluency. On the northern border, there are obviously some French speakers up in your area of the woods as well. At over $16 million per year, it is just not very sustainable for us. We do want to modify it to make sure we can prioritize key languages for security threats that we want to be able to maintain at gateway airports, for instance, or some of our global deployments. But to maintain a broad base for Spanish and other languages that are pretty common in our workforce is not going to be efficient going forward. REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS: OTHER LOCATIONS Mr. Owens. Thanks. One last question, reimbursement agreements have come up. We just talked about the one in Abu Dhabi, but is there a significant opportunity in your mind to use those reimbursement agreements at other locations along any of our borders in terms of putting ourselves in a position where we could save some money and at the same time expand your activities? Mr. McAleenan. I do believe so, especially on the expanded services. What we would like to use these agreements to do is to take our capabilities so we can extend ours, and we can provide additional staffing at key hours and really provide better services at land and airports of entry. We do think, given the level of interest we have received so far, that it could be very fruitful, and we hope to explore these pilots with the committee this year and going forward. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Carter. Mr. Culberson. OPERATION STREAMLINE Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for your service to the country. Chief Fisher, it is good to see you here, sir. I enjoyed the time we spent together visiting in Tucson, and I appreciate so very much the sacrifice that you and your families have made to protect our country. My good friend Henry Cuellar and I served together in the Texas House, have been working together with this subcommittee's help--I am glad to have Judge Carter as our chairman--on a very successful program called Operation Streamline. Chief, I know you are familiar with it; it is in place in some sectors on the border. One of the goals of course is to enforce existing law with a good heart and some common sense. You want the officer to distinguish between women and children and someone who is an economic migrant or someone who is a threat to the public, carrying drugs, weapons, assaults an officer, et cetera. You want the officer to exercise that good judgment in the field, but the fundamental idea is to enforce the law as it is written and to impose some penalty on folks that cross so they are deterred from coming back. And that has been in place in Henry's district in the Laredo sector, and the Del Rio Sector, there has been dramatic decline in the number of people that are re-apprehended, the number of crossings have dropped. Could you talk about the status of that program and where it is most successful and where you think you need help from this subcommittee and the Congress and, frankly, from the U.S. Attorneys to make it more successful? Chief Fisher. Thank you for the question, Congressman. We heard you loud and clear a couple of years ago. You brought it to our attention in terms of Streamline, do more Streamline, and why aren't we doing more Streamline. Not to mention, some of the statistics that you brought forward to the committee in terms of the percentage of individuals that we were prosecuting relative to the population of arrests. I asked the team to start looking at that. How could we do that, to your point, via common sense? What is the best outcome? And as a matter of fact, before we identify the best outcome, what is it that we are trying to achieve on the back end? So we did a couple of things. First, we took a look at Streamline as an independent program. And prior to January 2011, the reason why I put that as a benchmark is because that was the point in time where we developed and implemented first and foremost the Consequence Delivery System. A little more on that later. But when we looked at Streamline as a program, one of the outcomes that we were looking for, any program, was, among other things, the reduction in recidivism. Quite simply, of those individuals that we apprehend, process, and have some final disposition, we want those people not to come back, right? So we thought that would be an important metric to start checking over time. And we did that across the board in a lot of other programs to include Streamline. When we looked at Streamline, we looked at the years preceding, 4 and 5 years preceding the Consequence Delivery System. And what we found out was the rate of recidivism was actually increasing each year. Even though we were putting more people in the Streamline program, the rates of recidivism were actually getting higher; they weren't getting lower. I can tell you today Streamline as a program is a lot stronger as part of the Consequence Delivery System than it was independently prior to January 2011. I can also tell you that where we were looking at single-digit percentages of individuals whom we would apprehend who were subsequently prosecuted, we are now about 22 percent of that population for a couple of reasons. One, the Consequence Delivery System helped us inform our decisions on what the appropriate consequence should be relative to our outcomes, not just what was convenient for the Border Patrol agent at a particular station at a point in time. The other thing is we got smarter in terms of our analytics and the way that we started looking at these programs as a composite, not just independently. And you are right, it is really dependent obviously with the U.S. attorneys; within each of those districts, they certainly have their requirements, and we continue to work with them to try to make sure that we are putting in Streamline and within the Consequence Delivery System the best individuals whom we believe--based on continued analytics, that it is going to reduce the likelihood that once they have been apprehended by CBP, it is less likely we will see them again in the future. Mr. Culberson. Now that you have had a chance to see the entire border, I know in the Tucson sector had you a terrible problem with a huge volume of people coming across and near microscopic levels of prosecution. It was just embarrassing. It was terrible. The U.S. Attorney was not prosecuting virtually anyone. The time I first came out to see you 4 or 5 years ago, the prosecution rate was, as I recall, less than 2 percent. It was unbelievable. And so 98 percent were never prosecuted. They were just released. Does that sound about right, about 4 or 5 years ago? It has gotten a little better. Chief Fisher. Actually, it has gotten a lot better. Just to frame the context a little bit, during that time, Tucson was still seeing the largest levels of activity, even given what the U.S. Attorney and the Marshals Service and the U.S. Government could do in terms of capacity to prosecute more people, what we are finding is, even though we were trying to put more and more people in Federal prosecution, just because of the capacity of the numbers that we were dealing with. Generally, when you look at the sentencing upon conviction for illegal entry, for instance, the time served at that point in time was about 3-\1/2\. So it really wasn't a consequence. Yes, they got a prosecution. Yes, we did a formal removal. And at the time before Consequence Delivery, we would just go ahead and remove them through Nogales port of entry, only to return within the subsequent weeks. Mr. Culberson. I recall going to view the evidence room, and they showed us--I think the U.S. Attorney had, correct me if I am wrong, there was a verbal order from the U.S. attorney if they were carrying less than a certain amount of dope, they just were loose and you had all these loads. I think--how much was it 400, 500 pounds? Chief Fisher. I don't recall at the time. Mr. Culberson. All of the loads were below that level. Remember all the loads, it was like the smugglers got the memo. And they knew exactly what the level was to be prosecuted at and as you showed me the evidence room, every one of the loads was below that level, as I recall, that they be prosecuted, right. Chief Fisher. It seems about right, sir. Mr. Culberson. Yeah. And those guys worked pretty quickly. I mean, they understood, they knew exactly what would happen to them if they stayed below that load, they would be released. They were out the load and out a few hours or a few days of trouble. And your officers' lives were at risk out there in the desert trying to apprehend these guys. And the prosecution rate has gotten better out there in the Tucson sector, but in-- looking up and down the border, Chief, if you could and the chairman is being very generous with the time, what sectors do you need to focus on in making sure you have the backing of the U.S. Attorney to increase the prosecution rate? Chief Fisher. Arizona and south Texas. Mr. Culberson. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carter. Ms. Roybal-Allard. USE-OF-FORCE POLICIES Ms. Roybal-Allard. First of all, let me begin by thanking you for your service and the work that do you to protect our borders. Having a son-in-law in law enforcement, I am very aware of how stressful and dangerous your job can be at times. Having said that, I want to bring--ask some questions with a couple of issues that have gotten a lot of public attention. One is that over the past 2 years, at least 20 individuals have died in incidents involving CBP personnel. And a PBS investigative report that was aired in July documented evidence of physical abuse, sexual assault and depravation of food and water by CBP officers and agents. In addition, a last year report by the NGO, No More Deaths, in a study released this month by the University of Arizona, they all independently found that about 10 percent of people in CBP custody suffer from some form of physical abuse. I was pleased to learn that in addition to the DHS Office of Inspector General investigation that I had requested last year, that you are taking the initiative and are conducting your own internal review of CBP's use of force policies. The IG report is due in August, and when do you expect that you will finalize your report? And in the meantime, have any steps been taken to prevent these incidents of the abuse involving CBP personnel? Has there been additional oversight? More or less, what have you been doing, because I know you are interested in addressing this issue. Mr. McAleenan. Absolutely we take these concerns very seriously. As you noted, Congresswoman, we have actually nearly completed a use-of-force review of some of the incidents that you mentioned and others to assess our policy, our training, our equipment and tactics and how we can be more effective and safer in our law enforcement operations. And we will be looking forward to sharing the results of that study publicly and making appropriate changes in our practices in terms of the results of the study. We have also reinforced the existing policies for how to treat unaccompanied minors, women in our custody to ensure that at-risk populations are protected while they are in CBP custody. So we take these very seriously; we are pursuing this force study and ensuring our policies and monitoring are extensive. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Will that also include some of the incidents that have occurred at the border regarding rocking assaults, where no one disputes that your personnel has to take appropriate action to protect themselves when these things have happened, but there have been a series of unfortunate incidents where CBP personnel has responded with lethal force and even where innocent bystanders have been killed. And I am just wondering if that will include that, or is that something separate that you are looking into and providing additional guidance to your officers? And also, have you looked into or applied any of the applicable best practices that other law enforcement agencies are using in similar cases, such as Los Angeles and in Orange County? Mr. McAleenan. Yes and yes. The use-of-force review will include rocking incidents; all three of our offices participated with the Office of Training and Development and Internal Affairs on assessing this. And yes, we did go externally to seek best practices and an external review from other law enforcement and experts. Ms. Roybal-Allard. That is great. The other thing is along the same lines the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have reported on the increasing use of video cameras by police departments including small cameras that are placed on the lapels of officers' uniforms. And the police departments that are doing this have found that these cameras reduce the number of complaints against officers and the number of incidents in which officers use force against suspects, but it also helped officers to defend themselves against baseless allegations of abuse. I am just wondering what your policy is with regards to the use of video cameras or stations and vehicles and on officers? And have you considered expanding the use of these cameras that would increase transparency, accountability and, as I said earlier, protect officers against baseless allegations? Mr. McAleenan. That is something we are willing to look at. If we can maybe coordinate with your staff to get the result of studies from other departments. Obviously, we would have to assess the cost, the operational impact and the--unit impact, but we would be interested in learning more about that. LAND BORDER, AIR PORTS OF ENTRY ENCOUNTERS Ms. Roybal-Allard. Has my time run, out or can you keep going? Okay. I understand that CBP continues to place undocumented families who are actually leaving the United States into removal proceedings which are really an expense to the American taxpayers. So given the fiscal challenges that have already been described by your agency as a result of sequestration, it seems to me that detaining and deporting people who have no criminal history and who are in the process of leaving the country anyway, that is not the most efficient use of your limited resources. So rather than focusing on those who are trying to enter illegally or those who have committed crimes, I am wondering why CBP is continuing to detain these families and to put them into costly proceedings, since the goal is for them to go back to their country in the first place, which is what they are doing. Mr. McAleenan. I will just start and turn it over to Chief Fisher. If you are talking in terms of out bound at land border or airports of entry, we are not detaining them or putting them in removal. We are documenting the encounter with individuals who were out of status, so we know that they are here legally, and in future encounters, we have that record and information. But we then allowing them to voluntarily depart. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. I will give you the information that I have to get more clarification on that. And just one more question, my office has received complaints from Catholic officials about women and children being deported late at night to unsafe areas along the Mexican border. It is obvious that this is of deep concern because of the prevalence of violent crime in many Mexican border communities. Would you be willing to look at these reports and, perhaps, you know, change the process so that these women and children are not being deported late at night and in dangerous situations? Chief Fisher. Yes, Congresswoman, for those who CBP and specifically the Border Patrol does return to Mexico, we continue to work with the Mexican government each year and specifically with the consuls within those locations. And we basically work with them to identify those locations so it is not just late at night. We try to--first, for most individuals, specifically the women and the children, we actually do a handoff with them. But any other ideas that you would have, we can continue to have that dialogue with the officials in Mexico; we would certainly work with your staff do that. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay, I will also provide you with the information that I was given so we can work on that. Thank you so much. BORDER PATROL STATION CLOSURES Mr. Carter. Chief Fisher, I am going to get off on something kind of local. We see, once again, this administration is again proposing to close nine inland Border Patrol stations, six of which happen to be in Texas. This proposal has twice been denied in fiscal year 2012, the reprogramming, and in the fiscal year 2013 appropriations act. The subcommittee suggested CBP close three locations outside of Texas, but that recommendation has not been taken up. The subcommittee directed CBP to provide a transitional plan outlining all supposed cost savings and details to ensure that the State and local law enforcement and these Texas counties have the support they need from DHS to take illegal aliens into custody. Why hasn't this plan been provided? It has been my understanding that ICE told CBP it would cost several million dollars--cost them several million dollars for CBP to save a portion of $1.3 million annually by closing down the Texas stations. That doesn't sound like it is cost savings. And in addition, I am curious, do you have inland stations in other States besides California, Idaho, Montana and Texas? And I am also curious, I think I can make a pretty valid argument that I-35 is the main artery of trade between Mexico, the United States and Canada, that we probably have more than our share of illegal people crossing the border. I don't know if we can completely compete with Arizona, but I believe we can. And why, all of a sudden, are we targeting Texas inland stations if there are other stations across the country that can be closed? So those are the kind of answers I would like to have. Chief Fisher. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. Let me start first, 3 years ago, when I came back to Washington and had the privilege of serving the men and women in the field as their chief, there were a few things I asked the staff to do. One, as we were developing our new strategy, and we recognized that we had to, with all the increased resources, we wanted to make sure that we were both effective and efficient. I asked them to take a look, a comprehensive review across the board in terms of facilities. Was there anywhere that we could maybe reduce, not completely capability, but reduce the cost, given the transition within our strategy? So there were a couple of frames or parameters that I set. I said, well, let's take a look at--we didn't necessarily call them inland stations, but we set some parameters. Let's start with all Border Patrol stations within 100 miles away from the border. Let's take a look at the staffing. There is a whole host of metrics that went into it. Through an exhaustive process, the staff came back and recommended nine locations. With those nine locations, there were about 41 Border Patrol agents assigned to those nine Border Patrol stations across the board. It looked at the cost benefit in terms of us being able to save approximately $1.3 million annually if we were able to scale back. So, in some cases, we were looking at asking them to look at all options, whether we close the station outright or we deactivate it, recognizing that if we need to open it back up, we would be able to do so. And we could readjust the staffing levels in whole or in part to make sure that we were putting Border Patrol agents in areas closer to the border. So that was kind of the background behind that. Certainly, we are not picking on Texas or any other part of the country. I wanted to make sure that we were looking holistically at the implementation plan against our new strategy. Since that time and working with your staff, we recognized that while in some locations, we want to make sure we did a good enough job at assessing the impact to the operations, not just our immediate border operations, but to the larger requirement that we have in working with our state and locals. The answer not all across the board and some locations was, well, let's see if we can rethink that. What we looked at right now and our plan that we are going to be briefing leadership and moving forward, which I think meets both requirements: one, it reduces the dollar amounts; it also maintains a degree of capability that is required in some of those locations. So in the areas in Riverside, California, and those two up in Montana, we are going to move forward, given what the field commanders have identified the requirements are with respect to the priority mission, and be able to use those resources in a better manner, so to speak. The other locations, we are also looking at exploring the Resident Agent Program. This is a concept that we did up in the northern border, and basically what it is, is instead of having brick and mortar being able--because some of these Border Patrol stations have about four to five Border Patrol agents assigned to it. So the thought is, well, you still need the brick and mortar and paying all the overhead when most of these Border Patrol agents are out on patrol. And so the Resident Agent Program really takes a look at being able to give the Border Patrol agent like a home-to-work vehicle, have them stage and deploy to and from work from their home. They are available on call to be able to enforce Title 8 authority, and in many cases within these programs, the Border Patrol agents are also assigned to task forces. They may be assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force or may be assigned to the Border Enforcement Security Task Force, the BEST for ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]. And so what we have done is scaled and looked at each one of the nine locations, and right now, the proposal moving forward, not yet defined and certainly not decided upon, is to close the one in California, the two up in the north and to maintain capability to a certain degree within those corridors where we have seen higher levels of activity. Mr. Carter. So your standard is 100 miles from the border, okay? Most States 100 miles from the border is all the way across the State; 100 miles from El Paso is Midland. Chief Fisher. Right. Mr. Carter. One hundred miles from Del Rio is Ozona; 100 miles from Laredo is short of San Antonio by about 50 miles. Basically, you just take the whole state of Texas and eliminate 100 miles from the border, because we have 1,200 miles of border, and we have a whole lot of country. We have 254 counties in our State. We have got almost every county in our State, and I can testify to this from personal knowledge has at least one illegal in jail every day, every hour just about, and sometimes hundreds, but several times at least one. There is no Border Patrol access for the people in the panhandle, people in far west Texas. What those people are going to do, let's just assume for the sake of argument, they stop somebody in the car on the highway, the guy has got no driver's license. They seize the vehicle, which is standard operating procedure. They impound it. They put the guy in jail overnight. They look for somebody to move him off into the system. There is nobody available because there is no Border Patrol up there. ICE is not there, and they are claiming it will be tremendous cost to them. So what does the sheriff do? In 254 counties, turn them loose. Chief Fisher. Right. Mr. Carter. Without a vehicle, they don't get their vehicle back, not going to give a vehicle back to an unlicensed driver to drive off in their county. Now that is creating a bad situation in 254 counties in the State of Texas. And I don't see the cost savings. I am totally opposed to the closing of those stations, and law enforcement across our State is opposed to it, too. Chief Fisher. If I may, Mr. Chairman, for point of clarification, the 100-mile limit wasn't a definitive red line if you will; it was a starting spot to preserve anything below that line. There was other criteria that we used for consideration by the way. The other thing and working with--ICE is trying to figure out which one really definitively, within those areas of responsibility for those stations, where does ICE have the coverage? Where in fact do the State and locals operate Secure Communities? Is Enforcement Removal Operations available? And so we are looking for, as opposed to shutting down the station and relocating, if is there a hybrid we can come up with, one in which we are able to have the same cost savings we are looking for in the outyears and yet be able to provide a level of services commensurate to the expectations of the State and locals. And that is kind of the revisiting that we have done over this past year, sir. Mr. Carter. Well, it is of great concern to sheriffs across the State of Texas, and they are expressing their concern to their Members of Congress, and we have a very large delegation in this Congress. Chief Fisher. Yes, sir. AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS, RECAPITALIZATION Mr. Carter. And we are all hearing about it. So this is something we need to rethink, I think. General, let me talk about Air and Marine operations and recapitalization for just a second. CBP's Air and Marine operations provide critical surveillance, interdiction capabilities from border security, including the ability to push out our borders in source and transit zones. This administration has consistently shortchanged--Air and Marine this year, the request supports only 62,000 flight hours, the lowest level yet. I understand the argument of sequestration made by my colleague. As I said in my opening statement, Air and Marine needs the right resource to support all three legs of its stool, pilots and crew capable and maintained assets and operational funding for things such as fuel, maintenance and so forth. The budget request reduces procurement, operations and maintenance by $87 million, but the details behind the cuts are obscured. Why only 62,000 flight hours? Where is Air and Marine short changed? Is it fuel, maintenance or something else? We need to know the costs associated with that shortfall because we want to fund this resource. So we would like the information about that. Chief Fisher, how will this reduction impact Border Patrol operations, both in terms of effectiveness and safety of the agents? So, first, General if you would respond. Mr. Alles. So, yes, sir. I think, clearly, the reduction in flight hours is a reduction in our capability. We have made technology improvements in the past 5 years; VADER is an example that is helping us to mitigate some of that, but I don't want to shortchange. There isn't effect there. For the agency, it is a question of balancing between other operations we have ongoing. And for me, inside Air and Marine, as you mentioned, it is a question of balancing between recapitalization and the flying hours that I have. So there are tough choices that we are making for the budget. I don't want to act like they don't have impacts or they won't have impacts on Chief Fisher in terms of Border Patrol, but they are the choices the agency is making based in its risk assessment, sir. Mr. Carter. Is it there anything we can do to assist in the recapitalization issue that you are talking about? Mr. Alles. I think, sir, in the recapitalization, the main areas we are trying to recapitalize are in terms of our medium lift assets, our Black Hawk helicopters; the UH-60As we have are actually the oldest Black Hawks flying in the United States. So we have a service life extension program going with the Army. It is a fairly low rate of induction, one or two aircraft per year. Obviously, increasing that would be helpful. Our P3 service life extension is on track to finish in fiscal year 2016, so next year would be the last year of funding for that. An then our Multi-Role Enforcement Aircraft is the only new procurement that we are making, and those are likewise at a low rate, a couple of aircraft per year, which keeps the line open. Those are our main efforts, sir. Mr. Carter. In talking with the Coast Guard here yesterday or the day before yesterday or whatever it was, we talked about the fact that the Air Force is decommissioning certain planes, and they are looking to maybe pick up some of those planes. Do you keep your eyes open for those types of things decommissioning from the services where we might could go off and make a good acquisition that might give you a different type of aircraft up close, give you the needs that you need? Mr. Alles. Yes, sir, absolutely. About one-third of our aircraft are either seizures or aircraft we get from the military, so we are always on the lookout for those kinds of opportunities, sir. Mr. Carter. Well, I am a big proponent of the air wing of our--you have given us a special need that we have had, and over the 10 years, I have been looking at the border, that need has been enhanced, and I am proud of that enhancement. Chief, I would like your comments about that, too. Chief Fisher. Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree more in terms of what it has done for our ability to increase levels of security along our border. And quite frankly, as the General mentioned, I will kind of foot stomp, if you will, any time you reduce dollar amounts, there is going to be a reduction in capability. Our job within the leadership is to make sure that we maintain and preserve priority mission; try, to the extent that we can, to lessen the impact to the individual agents and officers on the ground; and be able to execute the budget that we have, not necessarily the budget we would like to have. But thanks to your leadership and this committee, we are further ahead than I thought I would ever see in this uniform, so thank you very much, sir, for that question. Mr. Carter. Mr. Price. BORDER SECURITY: MEASURING EFFECTIVENESS Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me return to this question of border security and how we achieve it and how we define it, first, and how do we achieve it, especially now in the context of comprehensive immigration reform? As you know, in recent months, momentum has been building for enactment of comprehensive reform. Just yesterday, the details of the bipartisan Senate proposal emerged, and there is a heavy focus on border security and resources. Expect the House efforts will be imminent. No department is going to be more affected by immigration reform than Homeland Security, and that is particularly going to apply to your agency. Much of the debate on comprehensive reform is focused on border security, as you well know. We want to make sure that a decade from now or two decades, we are not faced with the same difficult choices about what to do with another large population of undocumented immigrants. Of course, border security is only one piece of the puzzle in this regard. The lure of employment and a better life in America are the most important drivers of illegal immigration, and there are many elements that will go into overall reform and preventing the kind of recurrence of the kinds of dilemmas we are facing now. There is no silver bullet strategy for success on the border and no likely amount of money we could realistically throw at the border and expect 100 percent success. You are the experts so I want to ask you to reflect on this here this morning. What does a secure border look like? How does CBP measure its progress in this area? What kind of measurement do we need to achieve as we address this issue? How important is the achievement reform itself, though, to border security? In other words, we sometimes in our discussions assume that the causality runs one way here; that somehow this goal of a secure border has to be achieved before we can undertake reform, without understanding that reform itself will enhance the security. Obviously, that is one of the main reasons for reform is to relieve some of these pressures and to contribute to the security. So what would you say about that causality running both ways, how important is reform to your goal to secure the border, as opposed to being a certain level of security being a precondition for reform, if you see what I mean? The Senate plan appears to call for a 90 percent apprehension rate at high-risk border crossings as the condition that needs to be met. Chief, I would like to ask you in particular how workable is a threshold like that? How can it be calculated? How precisely can it be calculated? But if not that sort of threshold condition, what might make sense? So let me just invite you to dive in wherever you will and help us think through this. Chief Fisher. Thank you, Congressman Price. If I miss any of these or get them out of order, please interrupt me along the way. First and foremost, with respect to what does a secure border look like? Again, I would frame it very succinctly in two ways: One, it is really low risk, the likelihood of reducing bad people and bad things from coming into this country; and two, providing a level of safety and security for those American people in and along those border corridors and for the Nation for that matter. How do you measure that? Again, we talked about the effectiveness. I will talk a little bit more about that specifically as I get to the 90 percent and what does that look like. Other things, for instance, we look at average apprehension per recidivist. What does that mean? It is important to us in assessing levels of risk and specifically individuals who come across this country, not every individual whom we apprehend in terms of who they are, where they came from, is equal. In 2012, we had approximately 364,000 apprehensions between the ports of entry. Those people represented 142 different countries. And so when you look at the particular threats where people are coming from, we want to assess--it is important for us not just to understand who these people are; what are those trends? We want to differentiate those individuals, over a period of time, who only came in and were apprehended twice versus those individuals who were apprehended perhaps six or more times. It is really important to disaggregate that because they are not all just bunched up as just an apprehension number. So it is really important as we advance our analytical thinking and assigning areas of high risk. Those are the areas where we start making informed decisions and make recommendations on what we think border security is as it relates to those types of things, vulnerability matched with threat. Look at the consequence because it is an overall risk assessment picture. We would be happy to talk with you and your staff more about some of the thought process within this new strategy. Whether you are looking first and foremost as a prerequisite, so to speak, to secure the border, and then the other provisions or vice versa, I will tell you this, over the last few years, what I have seen, anything that this particular committee or we as a government can do in terms of legislation that reduces the flow to the border, in whatever shape, that alleviates what we see and we are able to then respond to those people who otherwise would not be eligible to come to the United States legally. And so if you take what we call the flow rate and no matter how you do that, it reduces those individuals. And so when our Border Patrol agents are deployed between the ports of entry, it reduces those individuals whom they are going to be encountering, so we can identify higher- risk areas and higher-risk people who will continue to come across this border regardless of what the legislation is going to do, quite frankly. These are individuals who are going to continue to come into this country to do us harm. They are going to be members of networks or cartels that are going to continue to bring narcotics. Smuggling has been a long, profitable business for many, many years. And to the extent that we can look at disrupting and dismantling those networks, hit those business models, I think that this committee and as a government, if we can come up with legislation that helps us do that, we would certainly support that. Lastly, you had mentioned the 90 percent. Is that the right number, or I am kind of certainly paraphrasing your question, sir? I will tell you, as a Border Patrol agent, if you are going to set a goal for effectiveness, the men and women of the Border Patrol would be proud to have an A as the goal as opposed to anything less than. And the people I talked to over the years, I think if you are looking at how do you do that and what should be the goal, much like we were talking in the chairman's question in terms of situational awareness, when you want to be aware of those threats coming into this country, really anything less than 100 percent really does not hit the mark. How we measure that in terms of effectiveness, right--what does 90 percent mean? In areas where it makes sense, because what we don't want to do, and I would certainly caution those who are just looking at a new number, whether it is an apprehension or even an effectiveness rate, we don't want to get fixated on a number necessarily, for a couple of reasons. One, 90 percent gets us in areas where we see high levels of cross-border illegal activity. It makes sense there because those are the areas where criminal organizations right now are continuing to exploit us, and we need to be able to move our resources to those areas to reduce the likelihood of attack and to increase the level of safety and security for the people. Those are two overarching pieces in terms of what a secure border looks like. So 90 percent tells us that we have to be able to move those resources there. But how do we measure that? It sounds very simplistic, but it is very difficult, and we are not dissuaded or certainly aren't going to reduce our efforts to get this right. Over the last couple of years, we recognized the importance of trying to track it to the best of our ability. It is quite simply, if you think of the mathematical formula, when people come across the border, three things are generally going to happen; two are good. So they are going be apprehended, or they are going to be turned back. So that now becomes your numerator. You divide that by the total number of entries, and your entries really are the sum total of your apprehensions, your turnbacks and your got-aways. Well, when you put it up on a white board, as my staff did when they were teaching me this over the last couple of years, I said, it looks really easy, but how do you operationalize that? How do you operationalize that in an area of the border that is very desolate, where we may not have the right requisite of detection capability? How do we do this? And so there was a lot of discussion earlier. Because you can't measure everything and you can't see everything, you shouldn't do it. We took a different approach. We said, well, let's see what we can do with what we have and then try to expand it, identify where the gaps are where we can't and let's start at least taking a small bite of this elephant one piece at a time. And I am very proud of the work the staff has done over the last few years. I will tell you, first and foremost-- and please, for the note takers in the audience, this is not a perfect scientific method--but I will tell you, over the last 2 years, I have been very impressed with the amount of work the staff has been able to do, given the end-of-the-shift reports that Border Patrol agents are doing, how that reconciles up into time and space, in terms of what data are you pulling and how are you going to pull that? How do we look at that at the strategic level? Again, probably going way down the rabbit hole here, but it is a really exciting time for us to be able to understand the information and be able to put protocols in place to standardize it across the board and take a look at what does it mean. There has to be a recognition that it is not going to be perfect all the time, but we are making it better and better each day. BORDER SECURITY: EFFECTIVE SURVEILLANCE Mr. Price. Thank you. The question you raise, regarding figuring out what that denominator is, which of course is absolutely essential to calculating a success rate, does raise the question of surveillance, and what does effective surveillance mean? And I just have the news reports of what the Senate has come up with here. But when we talk about 100 percent surveillance, which they put along the 90 percent apprehension rate, the surveillance then, I guess, there is surveillance right? It is not necessarily all equally intense or equally effective? What could a 100 percent surveillance coverage mean, or what should it mean? Chief Fisher. I would go back to the chairman's point about situational awareness. There was a prevalent thought years ago that in order to have a secure border, we needed things called persistent surveillance. In other words, we needed to have a Border Patrol agent posted somewhere. We needed to have a camera pole posted somewhere 24/7. We needed to be as locked down as a corner market somewhere. And quite frankly, as we started looking at how we would be able to do that, we took this approach by saying, forget about, let's see if we had unlimited resources, unlimited money, would it make sense to do it operationally? And we started looking at some of these areas of the borders because of what we knew about the areas of the border. So, in my mind, the vulnerability along our border and you can pick any, whether it is south Texas, you can look at areas of Laredo, you can look to the north, the vulnerability does not exist in the absence of resources alone. So whether we have a Border Patrol agent there or a camera there or not. The vulnerability doesn't exist in the absence of those things. The vulnerability exists when there is a specific and defined threat. And so that is why information now becomes the key. So, for me, there is a distinction between having situational awareness, knowing what the emerging threats are and may be, versus having to surveil, if the intent of the understanding of that phrase is to be able to see everything 24/7, that is a proposition that I think, although I haven't costed it out, quite frankly, it would be very expensive and quite frankly, in a lot of the areas along our border, not necessarily required, mainly because of an area of--I won't pick it out for operational considerations--but think of an area of the border where there is not a lot of infrastructure in Mexico; it is very desolate. And once you cross the border, it is going to take you days to get to even a road. So if you think of the smuggling organizations, and these networks within the cartels as a business, which they are, if you are going to smuggle, you generally don't want to get away from those bases of your operation, extending your supply line. And quite frankly, you generally don't want to be exposed for days and days because it shrinks your profit margin. I am not suggesting they don't use those areas, but when you look at what should we look at all the time and what can we use based on the General's operational tempo in terms of in collection from high altitude, we then start understanding what makes sense in different parts of the border. By the way, I should also mention, it is not just today, we decided and here is what the map looks like, because that is an ongoing assessment that we will always need to do, both in terms of our tactical deployments, which on a 24/7 basis, they are getting through their collection process and their understanding from sources and from everything else what that daily deployment should be. We also take a look at our responsibility at our strategic deployment and what that means. That is an iterative process in which we are getting smarter. And we also recognize we are not probably--the guys in green aren't the ones who are going to figure this out. So, a few years ago, we reached out to experts to help us understand and frame that. Mr. Price. And in that context, surveillance narrowly conceived may not be the most important thing to be doing to understand the threat we are facing and the measures that are required. Chief Fisher. In my judgment, based on some of those areas that I worked over the years, that is correct. Mr. Price. Mr. Chairman, I know we are limited on our time. I would like to give the others a chance to chime in if they wish. Mr. Alles. I was going to piggyback on what Chief Fisher has said here, which is it is a threat-based idea in terms of where we want to deploy our surveillance and where we want to collect. We need collection strategies, which we have internally. I think the other piece of this is levels of coordination inside of intelligence and law enforcement here are critical. So these are areas--just as you think back to 9/11 and some of the failures there--there are areas for us that we need to continue to work at to increase those levels of coordination. I think those are also key. Mr. McAleenan. Sorry, Congressman, our calculations of the ports of entry are a little bit different in terms of measuring our effectiveness. We have a little bit more control of the environment; it is finite. In what we have been discussing in the context of comprehensive immigration reform is how do we ensure that we are the strongest on preventing any potential security threats or inadmissibles from entering through ports of entry. And that is actually the area where we made probably the most mission progress in the last decade, really since 9/ 11. And we also have to look at the ports of entry on facilitative and general entry and travel at the same time. We could, if we stopped every individual and every truck and every car and thoroughly examined it, we could achieve a very high level of security, but that would not be as supportive of the overall economic security in the United States. We do maintain a comprehensive set of metrics as in the volume to the compliance rates, which are very, very high; over 99.5 percent in our land borders and 98.6 percent in our air environment of passengers and travelers are compliant. We then look at our effectiveness and of course our efficiency; our targeting systems are between 9 and 17 times more efficient than random exams. And our facilitation efforts, we measure our wait times to see how well we are achieving the service levels we would like. So all of those are critical to assessing border security, but in the CR context, those security threats and inadmissables are really at the highest level of effectiveness. I agree causality does not run only in one direction in this environment. The types of legislation to be considered could definitely help us by reducing the overall flow and enabling us to focus on risk. Mr. Price. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carter. Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Cuellar. I would like to follow up on what the ranking member was talking about performance. It reminds me of 1991, when I was in the Texas appropriations committee, and we were adding the performance measures for the different agencies. And at that time, I remember the people with robes, the academicians and the judges were the ones who were screaming the loudest; they were saying, you can't measure justice or measure education. But when you really sit down, you can come up with measures, whether it is this decision rates for the cases of the judges or it is graduation rates or retention rates for education. There are different ways of measuring the work that you do. I was listening very carefully to some of the answers that I guess you only--the only measurement that I got from you was apprehension, and you mentioned, well, it is a little bit more complicated; we will go to your office and sit down. And guess it reminds me of a conversation you and I, which I haven't forgotten, 2 years ago or maybe a little bit longer, when you first came in and you were telling me maybe I couldn't understand it, it was a little bit more complicated. I said, I am a Ph.D. and an attorney; give me a shot in helping us understand what you all are doing. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I would, you know, hopefully one of these days I would like to sit down because what I would like to do is basically what we did in Texas, is if we are interested in performance or measurements, we should work with the agencies. Actually the new GPRA law that we passed a couple of years ago calls for that consultation where we can sit down with them, OBM--OMB, should I say--and actually put the performance measures that we want to look at. Instead of a line item, which is what we have in the appropriations, you look at the mission, and all this is already, they already have this stuff there already in the performance.gov, and I know we asked the Secretary earlier, but it is already there already, but you put the mission, the objectives, the strategies that you want to look at, that we ought to work at, and you actually put the performance there, what do you want to measure. And I know there will be a definitional debate. Actually, it is healthy. Do you want to mention apprehensions or do you want to mention threat, or whatever the case is, we can do this. We really can. I saw that back in 1991 saying, oh, you can't measure this, it is a little complicated, you can't do that, but Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I am hoping that soon, and I will be happy to sit down with you all, but if you really want to get to the crux of this, why don't we sit down and actually put their mission under Homeland, and this is only one agency, the other ones might be a little bit more complicated to work on, but mission, objectives and put the performance that you want to measure, and we will have a debate. There was always, you know, this measurement just--this performance measures just activity. We want to measure activity. We want to see the actual results. And I think it will be healthy for all of us to sit down and actually put some performance measures, and then when you look at budgets, you can look at those performance measures and say what were the variances, why was it that you were not able to meet this, should it be at 90 percent, as the ranking member said the Senate is looking at? Should it be at 80 percent or should we be measuring this or should we be measuring this? And I think we ought to do that because otherwise we get caught up and, you know, they know the measures, we are the appropriators, we appropriate the money but we don't measure them and they have got those measures already, I know you do, but we don't see them. They will tell you go to a website or we will go to the office and sit down with you. I would like, with all due respect, I am just a freshman in this new committee, a rookie on this one, but I would like to eventually look at mission, objectives, the performance you want to look at, the results you want to look at, have a healthy debate, work with them, work with the OMB, and I am telling you the budget, instead of being a line item, will be a lot better and we can ask a lot more interesting questions because you actually will be looking at the performance. And we can have a debate amongst us, you know what, we shouldn't be measuring apprehensions only, we ought to look at threats and all that. I would like the committee to consider doing that, and I think it will be healthy because let me give you an example why I say this. Back, Chief Fisher, you remember a conversation we had a couple of years ago, there was a thousand new Border Patrol agents that we added. Half of them went to Arizona and you called it a mobile strike force so we could move them over. Well, in south Texas right now, as you know, the OTMs and you mentioned the OTMs about they are considered a little bit different, there is an increase of OTMs. I hear that they are moving more resources there, but you are taking them from other areas in the Laredo region and other areas, according to Border Patrol, and it might be different. It may be a union saying something different, but nevertheless, you know, what happened to that mobile strike force that you said you could move people immediately from Arizona over to south Texas? If we had performance measures, we could say, hey, you know, you need to move some of those resources up here. So I guess I don't have a question, but I really would ask the chairman and the ranking member to consider--it is very different because for years and hundreds of years we have been working at line items here in the Congress, but just imagine instead of having a line item, objectives, missions, performance measures, it will be very different. We would have a very, very different type of discussion. So, it is just my observation, and I look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member and the other members of the committee. Mr. Carter. Thank you for your observations, Mr. Cuellar. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Roybal-Allard. No further questions. You were very generous. Thank you. Mr. Carter. Well, first of all, I want thank you all for being here, but before I give you my closing statement, I have got to point out this young lady to my right here is leaving us to go to the dark side. She is going over to be the minority clerk in the Senate for the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, which is a big deal if it wasn't the Senate, but it is the Senate. But one must experience slow sometime in their life. We are really proud of Kathy. Kathy is a great resource. You all know that. You have dealt with her. She is one of the top staffers in this whole town. She will take care of the Upper Chamber. She might actually wake them up and get them going, and that would be great. The world's greatest deliberative body could maybe move a little faster, and that is your goal. I challenge you. Ms. Kraninger. Thank you, sir. Mr. Carter. Seriously, the Senate is going to gain a great young lady. We are going to lose a great young lady. We are going to have her come over here and visit us every once in a while because she is a true asset to this subcommittee and to the committee. So Kathy, we are going to miss you. Ms. Kraninger. Thank you. Mr. Carter. Now, gentlemen, I appreciate you being here today. We have challenges. You know, we talk about this--I happen to have a copy of the Senate bill right here that they are proposing. Well, I am not sure that is the bill, but it is something. But the truth is, there is a lot of--there has been--and I think the secret committee is no longer secret, and I think most everybody, at least around here, knows that I have been working on the secret committee on the House side for almost 4 years trying to come up with solutions for immigration, and we are seeing, the one thing we know is by doing polling and talking to and discussing what people want, they want us to have an effective immigration system that begins with a secure border. It has been that poll, it is a 90 percent poll issue. So it puts you in the hot seat, and that is why my colleague is discussing the 90 percent. It is a hot, hot seat at 90 percent. I think everybody would agree with that. But that seems to be the direction that any legislation is going to take. It is going to start in your camp, unfortunately. I say we have come a long, long way from where we started this back in 2002 and 2004. We have come a long, long way. Whether we are there or not is going to be--actually some of the things Cuellar was talking about is true. It is going to be a system that is going to be made, but the American public, they want to be very careful that we do not repeat 1986, that we will have promises of successes on the border that never occur and that another flood of illegal immigrants comes across after whatever form or fashion we handled the 11 to 20 million that may be in this country now. This is a big challenge. The Senate has done their best. The House is going to try to do their best, and this is not what they have written me to say, but I want you to know that you are on the hot seat, and quite honestly, if you have got ideas to share, share them and share them quickly. Off record. We are through talking right now. But if you have got issues, ways for us to have success to be pointed out, we need to know what they are, and you are the guys, you are the experts, you are in the trenches every day. Realistic. So the American people know they are safe. Worse thing that could have happened as we started this immigration debate is Boston, literally. We didn't need that. I mean, as tragic as it is, but from the standpoint of how much more pressure it puts upon those who are looking at immigration policy when we don't know yet whether this is a domestic or a foreign terrorist, but what does everybody presume it is, right? We know what they presume it is, another attack like 9/11. So, with all that, we are now once again on the front page, all of us in this business, and we have to make immigration enforcement. Again, if it had only been a national security issue, but it is again, we are elevated to the front page of every newspaper and every TV program in the news business in the country, and that puts a lot of responsibility on us and it puts a lot of responsibility on you. I have personal concerns about some of the things we do in our world that I don't believe in prosecutorial discretion as is being used by the Department right now. I believe that is an individual case, not an enforcement of categories of law situation, but that argument is for another time, but the pressure is putting on right now. My staff has learned that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, is facing massive increases in asylum claims, particularly in credible fear cases. In addition, due to deferred action cases, USCIS is building a backlog in processing its legitimate applications. The individuals who have been waiting patiently in line to do the right thing are now having to wait longer. So sometimes trying to do something causes consequences for other people, and that line is part of the discussion, those people waiting in line is part of the discussion of what is going to happen on immigration policy in the future, a very serious part of that discussion. There are great challenges ahead of us. I have confidence that we will work in a bipartisan manner to come up with solutions to immigration policy. I think we will do what you ask us to do, which is reduce the flow. If we could reduce the flow, you can increase the enforcement. That is logical. There are ways we can reduce the flow having to do with employment and other issues. I think everybody has that goal in mind, and I am hopeful and prayerful that in the next year we are going to see a really effective immigration policy be created in a bipartisan manner, and I will say thus far the only comment I can make about the group I am working with is it has been a rewarding experience as far as bipartisan work between the two parties. I hope it remains that way. So thank you for what you do. You couldn't have had a worse job, and all of a sudden the spotlight is back on you. So realize it is there. We appreciate what you do, and we will do everything within our power to maintain the security of this country through the appropriations process and try to get you those things that you may have shortfalls on. Somehow we will try to figure out how to come up with that. So we got a lot of work to do. Thank you for what you do. God bless you. [Questions for the record follow:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] W I T N E S S E S ---------- Page Abramson, Cathy.................................................. 512 Alles, Randolph.................................................. 663 Fisher, Michael.................................................. 663 Hilton, Cynthia.................................................. 517 Kelly, C.M....................................................... 818 McAleenan, Kevin................................................. 663 Napolitano, Hon. Janet........................................... 1 Papp, Admiral R.J., Jr........................................... 521 Walker, Jeffrey.................................................. 507 I N D E X ---------- DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) Page Alien Abuse and Deaths........................................... 76 Ammunition....................................................... 87 Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan...................... 52 Beyond the Border................................................ 69 Border Patrol Agents............................................. 86 Border Security: Alien Smuggling.............................................. 63 Immigration Reform........................................... 82 Technology................................................... 78 Budget Cut Impacts: Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection (CBP)............. 51 Overall...................................................... 49 Transportation Security Administration (TSA)................. 62 CBP: Airport Staffing Levels...................................... 78 Aviation Staffing............................................ 76 Officers..................................................... 46 Operational Costs............................................ 45 Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards....................... 77 Community Leaders, Scheduled Meetings with....................... 85 Detainees, laws.................................................. 73 Detention Beds: Number Requested............................................. 46 Population................................................... 78 Disaster Relief Fund............................................. 87 Efficiencies and Streamlining.................................... 56 Federal Emergency Management Agency Reimbursements............... 63 Federal Flight Deck Officer Program.............................. 71 Government Performance and Results Act Report.................... 55 Immigration and Customs Enforcement.............................. 47 National Preparedness Grant Program.............................. 80 Opening Statement: Secretary Napolitano.......................... 18 Operation Streamline............................................. 84 Pay Systems, Differing........................................... 68 Personnel Costs: CBP, TSA........................................ 70 Prison Rape Elimination Act...................................... 75 Reimbursable Agreements: Airport Pilot Programs....................................... 53 Canada....................................................... 69 United Arab Emirates......................................... 54 Report, Coast Guard.............................................. 80 Reports, Required................................................ 46 Staffing Model: TSA.............................................. 70 Transportation Worker Identification Credential.................. 77 Vehicle Dismount and Exploitation Radar Systems.................. 84 UNITED STATES COAST GUARD (USCG) Acquisition, Construction, and Improvement....................... 542 Air Resources.................................................... 548 Arctic Operations................................................ 559 Bering Strait.................................................... 560 Capital Investment Plan.......................................... 541 Drug Interdiction................................................ 541 Fast Response Cutters............................................ 546 Future........................................................... 549 H-65, H-60 Helicopters........................................... 561 Icebreakers...................................................... 558 Northwest Passage................................................ 560 Offshore Patrol Cutter........................................... 550 Opening Statement: Commandant Papp............................... 529 Patrol Boats..................................................... 556 Priorities: After National Security Cutters.............................. 557 Unfunded..................................................... 548 Program Objectives, Measuring.................................... 554 Rio Grande....................................................... 544 Sea State 5 Requirement.......................................... 561 Sequestration.................................................... 550 Training......................................................... 553 Vessels Deployed to Inland Waterways............................. 553 U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) Air and Marine Operations, Recapitalization...................... 718 Beyond the Border................................................ 706 Border Patrol Station Closures................................... 715 Border Security: Apprehensions................................................ 693 Definition................................................... 692 Effectiveness, Measuring..................................... 719 Situational Awareness........................................ 694 Situational Awareness Tools.................................. 695 Effective Surveillance....................................... 722 Drones........................................................... 707 Foreign Language Awards Program.................................. 709 Land Border, Air Ports-of-Entry Encounters....................... 714 Land Border Port-of-Entry Traffic................................ 701 Mission-Support Personnel, Information Technology................ 700 Nonintrusive Inspection, Radiological Detection Equipment........ 700 Opening Statement: Acting Deputy Commissioner McAleenan.......... 673 Operation Streamline............................................. 710 Reimbursable Agreements: Abu Dhabi.................................................... 705 Interest, Level of Other Locations........................... 704 Other Locations.............................................. 710 Timetable.................................................... 702 Sequestration Impact: Air and Marine Operations.................................... 699 Border Patrol Agent Staffing................................. 698 Flexibility, Reduction in.................................... 700 Overall...................................................... 696 Unmanned Aircraft................................................ 703 Use-of-Force Policies............................................ 713 Workload Staffing Model: Part-timers.................................................. 705 Ports-of-Entry Resources..................................... 701 Staffing, Overall............................................ 691