[Senate Hearing 113-774]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-774
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 4903/S. 2534
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2015, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Homeland Security
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
87-249 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, Chairwoman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Vice
TOM HARKIN, Iowa Chairman
PATTY MURRAY, Washington THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
JACK REED, Rhode Island LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas MARK KIRK, Illinois
JON TESTER, Montana DANIEL COATS, Indiana
TOM UDALL, New Mexico ROY BLUNT, Missouri
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
MARK BEGICH, Alaska MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
Charles E. Kieffer, Staff Director
William D. Duhnke III, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Department of Homeland Security
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont DANIEL COATS, Indiana
PATTY MURRAY, Washington THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
JON TESTER, Montana RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
MARK BEGICH, Alaska LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware JERRY MORAN, Kansas
Professional Staff
Stephanie Gupta
Chip Walgren
Scott Nance
Drenan E. Dudley
Kathy Kraninger (Minority)
Tom Bishop (Minority)
Amber Busby (Minority)
Administrative Support
Colin MacDermott
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Page
Department of Homeland Security.................................. 1
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:07 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Landrieu, Leahy, Tester, Coons, Coats,
Cochran, Murkowski, and Moran.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
STATEMENT OF HON. JEH JOHNSON, SECRETARY
opening statement of senator mary l. landrieu
Senator Landrieu. Welcome to this afternoon's meeting. I
would like to call the Homeland Security Subcommittee of
Appropriations to order to consider the budget of this
Department. Welcome, Secretary Johnson. This is your inaugural
presentation before our Committee on the budget, and we welcome
you.
Let me begin by, of course, noting to the members of the
Committee that the Secretary has been on the job for 3 months.
A lot of this budget was put together before he arrived, but he
will be, of course, presenting it to us today, and we look
forward to a very robust and helpful discussion.
Let me just begin by pointing out just a couple of
priorities that I have as chair. Some of these priorities are
shared by other members of the Committee and we have worked
very well with Democrats and Republicans alike. I want to thank
my ranking member, Senator Coats, for all of his cooperation as
we have built these budgets.
First, let me point out a couple of very important
priorities as I review the budget for this year for me and
others. We talk about Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
which is very, very important. In last year's budget we plussed
up that number to secure our borders. You will hear some
discussion about that this morning. But when we talk about CBP,
we sometimes overlook Customs. And I want you and the members
of the Committee to know, I am going to be focusing on the
resources in this budget that help our Customs officers to make
sure that our business are treated fairly in these global
markets. So when we are talking about crawfish farmers in
Breaux Bridge, Louisiana, Mr. Secretary, I want to make sure
that we are using the tools that are available to us to make
sure that if illegal dumping is occurring, if their businesses
are being constricted, if their abilities to make a profit and
hire people in America are being restricted because Customs
officers are not either bringing cases that are valid or
collecting fees, it is something that this Committee is going
to be focused on this year.
We have had some problems in the past. I know Senator
Cochran has shared those concerns with some fishery issues
along the gulf coast, and I am sure there are members that have
issues with some of their home State products. So we are going
to be focused on that.
Number two, flood insurance. The Senate is right now in the
final stages of passing a reform of a bill that had good
intentions. But in the view of the vast majority of Senators
and over 300 Members of the House of Representatives, the flood
insurance bill that falls under the jurisdiction of this
Committee with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
had good intentions, but it had absolutely draconian
consequences to middle class families, over 5 million flood
insurance policy holders. We have or are in the process of
rebuilding that program, restructuring it to give immediate
relief to middle class families so that they can stay in
communities, whether they are in Vermont, Louisiana,
Mississippi, or New York.
So I am going to be conducting some hearings and expect
your help and cooperation--I know we will have it--to make sure
that as this bill passes and gets signed by the President,
which looks like it will, that we implement it with FEMA,
giving them the resources, flood maps, accurate flood maps, and
accurate community input.
Third, I am going to continue my work as chair here with my
members to continue to help build a smarter and better FEMA.
Now, I came to this as an unwilling participant. As a Senator
from Louisiana, I did not want Hurricane Katrina to hit.
Senator Cochran did not enjoy the experience of Hurricane
Katrina that devastated our two States. But then we have had to
live through that. More recently Superstorm Sandy and some
other terrible storms have struck the east coast, and there are
wild fires out west. And so we feel like we are surrounded here
by disasters. We keep our eyes on trying to mitigate against
them, preventing them from happening where we can, but giving
quick and able help. Our budget is what stands between
communities either rebuilding or not.
I am not going to go through verbally this morning all of
the things that we have done through this Appropriations
Committee and through the authorizing committee on which I
serve to help build a stronger FEMA but you can be sure that
that is a bipartisan priority of this Committee. I am proud of
the arbitration panel that has been created, the ability for
relief of loan forgiveness. We will continue to work on that.
A fourth priority which Senate Coats and I most certainly
share, and you do as well--I noticed in your testimony--is
cybersecurity and cybercrime. The members of this Committee may
be shocked to know that Norton, which is a premier, global
software security company, has estimated that the cost of
cybercrime is $398 billion--$114 billion direct, another $274
billion in consequences concerning that. But what is alarming
about this is that this is more than the total global black
market in marijuana, cocaine, and heroin combined. So again,
this is a priority to deal with cybercrime that is being
committed to try to reduce it, minimize, respond to it, and
protect not only our Government operations, but as far as we
can to help our private sector.
Let me just end 1 or 2 minutes on a few things that are
specifically in the budget that I want to make note of because
this was our work in the past year, too, which I am proud of.
Today, 35 percent of the traveling public receives expedited
security screenings due to a number of risk-based initiatives
being undertaken by the Transportation Security Administration.
This Committee was very aggressive in making sure that we were
screening people smartly for their safety, for their security,
but for their convenience, Mr. Secretary, and for our promotion
of global trade and travel, which to many States, not just
Louisiana, not just Indiana, not just New York and California,
and Illinois, but to many States people being able to travel
freely is important to the development of their business.
This budget includes full funding for future disasters, $7
billion, with an ability to draw down another five if necessary
in the emergency fund. So I believe starting this year, Senator
Coats, that we are prepared for whatever disasters may come our
way. And hopefully if we need additional funding, the Congress
will step up. But we should have adequate funding for us to
deal with what this year may present.
A couple of just comments about concerns. Our budget is
below last year's budget. While it is promoted that it is a
2.8-percent cut, without being able to raise the fees that are
required in the President budget, which are quite a lot--almost
$1 billion. If we are not able to do some of that, which I do
not believe we will be able to do all of it, and perhaps not
even some of it, we will be almost 6 percent below where we
were last year without some important priorities like Coast
Guard recapitalization, et cetera.
I am going to submit the rest of my statement for the
record. Immigration and customs enforcement, Coast Guard aging
fleet continues to be a challenge. And then, of course, the
financial operations of the Department itself, making sure that
we are cutting out waste, fraud, and abuse, streamlining
operations, and moving into the second 10 years of this
virtually newest department of the U.S. Government.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Good afternoon. I call the subcommittee to order.
This afternoon, I am pleased to welcome Secretary Johnson for his
inaugural hearing in front of this subcommittee to kick off our review
of the Department of Homeland Security's fiscal year 2015 budget and
ongoing activities. Secretary Johnson, you have been on the job for
about 3 months now. And you have been tasked with taking a fresh look
at where the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been and setting
its course for the future.
From the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents who make
sure that the crawfish producers in Breaux Bridge, Louisiana, are able
to compete fairly and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
officers who keep travelers secure--whether visiting New York for
business or Florida for vacation--to the communities like Moore,
Oklahoma, and Hoboken, New Jersey, that are still rebuilding after
disasters--this budget impacts Americans' daily lives.
In thousands of community newspapers across the country, there has
been story after story about the impacts one agency of this Department
is having in particular: the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). My office, along with many of my colleagues, has heard from
many of the 5.5 million working, middle-class families facing
skyrocketing flood insurance rate increases due to a well-intentioned--
but flawed--law that Congress passed in 2012 to reform the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). That law, Biggert-Waters, which I
raised objections about before it passed, removed affordability as a
centerpiece of our National Flood Insurance Program.
In January, the Senate--with strong support from Members of both
parties--passed a fix that received 67 votes. Last week, the House
passed a compromise bill that reestablishes affordability as a critical
and necessary cornerstone of the NFIP, and I urge my colleagues to pass
that bill this week.
While far from perfect, the bill will stop the most draconian rate
increases and reestablish affordability as a critical element of the
program. I am proud that we were able to include an annual limit on
individual rate increases and an overall affordability target to
protect people against $20,000 and $30,000 premiums. FEMA will have to
effectively coordinate with local, State and Federal stakeholders
throughout the implementation process, and I will work with you to
ensure FEMA has the resources it needs to accomplish this in a timely
and transparent manner.
Even after this bill passes, it will be the responsibility of this
subcommittee, as well as other Committees in the Senate and House, to
craft a program that works decade to decade so generation after
generation can continue to affordably and safely live along our coasts
and inland waterways where they work to power our Nation's economy.
I look forward to talking more about the NFIP and ensuring that
flood maps are reliable and accurate later in the question and answer
session. As chair of this subcommittee, I intend to hold one of my
first hearings on the implementation of the new flood insurance fix.
I represent a State that has experienced its fair share of
disasters, some natural and others of our own making. During the last 9
years, I have worked tirelessly to create a more agile and responsive
FEMA and provide it with the right tools that allow communities to
recover faster and rebuild smarter. One of those tools is an
arbitration process created to provide Americans impacted by disasters
a fair and unbiased third party to resolve disputes between FEMA and
local communities. Since I established this arbitration panel in 2009,
it has ruled on dozens of cases ensuring the right people receive the
assistance they need to rebuild smarter and stronger. Even today, the
arbitration panel is considering a case involving Livingston Parish in
Louisiana. The long delay has had a serious financial impact on the
parish and local contractors, many of whom are small and family-owned.
It is a victory that we have gotten to this point, but the battle is
not finished. I am confident that the arbitration panel will review the
merits of the parish's claims and find favorably on behalf of the
people of Louisiana.
In addition to the arbitration panel, I changed the way FEMA
calculates the impact of disasters to allow recovering communities the
ability to accurately measure the devastation in the parish, county,
and municipality when Federal funds are loaned to them for recovery.
Through this change, communities in Louisiana have had $233 million in
Community Disaster Loans forgiven, and that total will continue to
rise. Finally, I continue to advocate for smart mitigation programs
that save taxpayers $4 for every dollar spent for actions like
elevating a home or office building. In this budget, I was encouraged
to see a request for $400 million to promote resiliency before disaster
strikes through Predisaster Mitigation Grants--I share this as a
priority of the Administration--however I am disappointed that this
request was not in the base appropriations bill but instead comes from
a proposed funding source that is unlikely to be enacted.
After reviewing some of your recent speeches and trip reports, I
was pleased to find that you and I share many common goals when it
comes to homeland security. I believe we are both firmly committed to
strengthening our borders, deploying an agile and professional Coast
Guard, as well as effectively training and educating our cyber
workforce. In the budget I noticed a $379 million or 4.4-percent
decreases in discretionary spending for the Coast Guard. We must be
careful where we cut our national maritime defense, especially as we
increase exports and trade through our waterways. In Louisiana where
our shipbuilding industry is second to none, we are proud to build some
of the finest cutters in the Coast Guard fleet, and I look forward to
working closely with you to ensure that our Coast Guard has a robust
and modernized fleet.
According to Norton [software security company], the annual cost of
global cybercrime is $114 billion with another $274 billion lost in
terms of time spent on cybercrime and its effects. That total is more
than the global black market in marijuana, cocaine, and heroin
combined. During previous conversations, you expressed the need for a
robust cyber education push from the Department of Homeland Security. I
echo those sentiments and look forward to building on the groundwork
I've already laid in the fiscal year 2014 appropriations bill.
In the last year, we have faced multiple threats to our homeland.
The Boston Marathon bombing was followed by serious chemical incidents
in Texas and West Virginia. A physical attack on electrical substations
in California was also uncovered. Daily, we face a constant onslaught
of cyber intrusions and attacks on our Government networks and critical
infrastructure. While we must defend ourselves against these attacks
and strengthen our borders, those same borders must also welcome travel
and trade. We must strengthen acquisition and procurement practices and
foster research and development partnerships with the private sector
and academia so that we can outpace our adversaries.
[Submit from here to the next bracket for the record if short on
time.]
After reviewing the budget, there are many commendable items and
efforts:
--Currently over 35 percent of the traveling public receive expedited
security screening due to a number of risk-based initiatives
being undertaken by TSA. By moving away from a one-size-fits-
all approach to security, screening is expedited for all,
shortening wait times and improving efficiencies, including a
reduction in screening staff levels. I look forward to further
expansion of this program, with up to 50 percent of the
traveling public receiving some form of expedited screening by
the end of 2014.
--The budget includes full funding to respond to future disasters and
recover from disasters of the past through $7 billion in the
FEMA Disaster Relief Fund.
--The budget includes $75.8 million to begin replacing aging
inspection and detection equipment used by CBP, the Coast Guard
and TSA to keep our ports secure from illicit radioactive and
nuclear materials.
--The budget includes $45 million to continue modernizing the
Department's financial systems for more accurate and timely
reporting of fiscal data. It should be noted that for the first
time ever, DHS received a clean financial audit in fiscal year
2013, which is a significant milestone for this maturing
Department.
[Continue delivery from here forward.]
While this budget proposal is respectable, Secretary Johnson, I
have a number of serious reservations about the fiscal year 2015 budget
you are presenting today. This budget is more than $1 billion below the
level we enacted for your Department less than 2 months ago. Yet what
you claim is a 2.8-percent cut is really just the tip of the iceberg.
The budget before us assumes the collection of new fees and taxes that
have been rejected by this Committee previously. Notably:
--This request reinstates the $420 million air carrier security fee,
which was repealed in the bipartisan budget agreement the
President signed less than 3 months ago. Couple this with an
increase in aviation passenger security fee means that TSA has
a $615 million shortfall that this subcommittee will have to
fill with appropriated funds if these fee proposals are not
adopted.
--The request assumes $332 million more in CBP fees, nearly half of
which are out of this subcommittee's jurisdiction. This means
that in order to hire the additional 2,000 CBP officers you
have requested, we will need to take unacceptably deep cuts in
other DHS accounts.
--The budget reduces funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement
by $255 million as compared to fiscal year 2014. This request
reduces detention beds by over 10 percent when the agency has
shown a need for a substantial number of beds due in part to a
73-percent increase in the apprehension of illegal immigrants
coming through the Rio Grande Valley this year compared to last
year. Many of these individuals are requesting asylum, which
requires longer stays in our detention system.
--Desperately needed acquisitions to update the Coast Guard's aging
fleet continue to receive less funding than is necessary to
keep these upgrades on track. For the second year in a row, the
budget only requests two fast response cutters (FRCs); yet for
the past 3 years, this Committee has funded six FRCs, saving
more than $30 million annually with these block purchases.
--This request assumes a new grant structure, which for the past 2
years Congress has clearly stated must be enacted by the
appropriate authorizing committees before we will consider
change. We need to work together with the Chairman Carper and
Ranking Member Coburn to enact these changes before we can
consider them in the Appropriations Committee. In doing so, we
can provide a clear path for our first responders to acquire
they resources they need to do the hard work we demand from
them every day.
Since this subcommittee was established, we have striven to do our
work professionally, collaboratively, and in a bipartisan fashion. I
look forward to continuing this strong, bipartisan working relationship
with Senator Coats and the Department this year. With that, I will turn
to my ranking member, Senator Coats, for his opening statement.
After that, we will hear from Secretary Johnson. Once the Secretary
concludes his statement, each member will be recognized in order of
arrival for up to 5 minutes for remarks and questions. I now recognize
Senator Coats for any opening remarks he may wish to make.
Senator Coats.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. I appreciate your
commitment to tackling our many diverse and prolific homeland
challenges head on. And I look forward to welcoming you to my great
State of Louisiana in the months to come. Please proceed with your
statement.
[Recognize members in order of arrival for 5 minutes of remarks and
questions.]
Senator Landrieu. So we look forward to having you as a
partner to work with you. We will try to be as honest and as
forthright in our assessments of what this budget is
reflecting. We share some of these priorities, but we will push
you on some other things that are not as, shall I say, high up
on the priority list as I think some of the members of this
Committee would like to have.
And with that, let me turn this over to Senator Coats for
his opening statement, and then we will hear your opening
testimony, Mr. Secretary, and then do a round of questions for
the members that are here.
Senator Coats.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL COATS
Senator Coats. Mr. Secretary, welcome. First of all, I
congratulate you. Though I wonder if it is really
congratulations given the work yet to be done. But
congratulations to you for assuming this vital position, and
best wishes to you as we go forward with a number of important
issues and threats to address.
You know, a year ago when your predecessor was here
testifying before us, it was the week when the Boston Marathon
attack took place. A Texas fertilizer plant exploded. There was
a mysterious attack on a power substation in California and
ricin incidents, and at the time, we were discussing
immigration reform. That was all in 1 week. Are you sure you
want this job? Let us hope you do not have weeks like that
going forward.
But I do appreciate and I know the chairman appreciates the
way you have reached out to us. You have been in my office. You
have been in Senator Landrieu's office. We had breakfast
yesterday. Starting a good relationship, dialoguing with each
other about the breadth of homeland security and all that
encompasses, and working together at a time when budgets are
tight. There are things that we would all like to do that we
cannot afford to do. We have to find a way to do those things
better, more efficiently and in a cost-effective way.
I have a number of things that I want to ask you about. I
want to second the chairman's mention of the passenger security
fees that present a potential budget problem for us over and
above the cuts already taken. It may not be politically
feasible to impose those fees, particularly since the Murray-
Ryan budget that we just enacted included an increase of these
same fees. And that increase has not even kicked in yet. So
imposing new fees on top of the increase being implemented is
very problematic. So we are going to have to look at where we
find money to pay for aviation security, unless we are
successful in advancing fee changes, and I do not believe we
will be.
There are a number of other issues that we have talked
about previously, which I want you to address--first border
security and the Rio Grande Valley issue. A surge of illegal
immigrants is coming across the border there, and a great
number of them are juveniles in particular.
And then I just want to say something about cybersecurity.
I think this clearly has become an essential priority because
of the threat that it poses. Whether you are talking to
military officers in uniform or those representing our
intelligence community or our various law enforcement agencies,
cyber has moved to the top of the list as a threat to America.
And the Department of Homeland Security plays a significant and
essential role in all that. Working through cybersecurity
issues, implementing protective measures, and establishing the
right kind of coordination is very essential.
So I will wait until the question time, and if others do
not bring up these topics, I will, and we can talk through
these issues. Mr. Secretary, we are glad you are here. We look
forward to working with you. Madam Chairman, we look forward to
the hearing today.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you so much.
Mr. Secretary.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. JEH JOHNSON
Secretary Johnson. Thank you very much. And I want to begin
by, first of all, saying you have my prepared statement for the
record. In my 5 minutes, let me just say a couple of things.
First of all, I appreciate the personal courtesy and friendship
that I have received from the members of this Committee in this
new appointment. You probably cannot appreciate how
invigorating it is for someone to step into a public position
like mine when I have your support and friendship and the
various courtesies that you have shown me. It is a
reaffirmation for me. So I very much appreciate that on a
personal level.
I was chatting with Senator Leahy before we got started,
and it reminded me that every time I walk into this office
building, I think back to the summer of 1978 when I was a
college intern for Daniel Patrick Moynihan. We worked in this
building on the first floor on the other side. And one day I
was on mail room duty, and it was a day when I thought the
Senate was in recess. And the Senator's driver convinced me to
take a ride with him on the Senators-only elevator because we
thought no one would be around. It has been 36 years, so any
statute of limitations has probably run out by now.
And so, we pushed the button, and I am dressed in my jeans
and T-shirt. And the door opens, and I am standing in front of
the door, and there--it is one of these moments you will never
forget--and there is Barry Goldwater. And he looks at me eye to
eye, and I cannot remember exactly what he said, but what I
think he said, without batting an eye, was, ``Hello, Senator,''
and just kept right on walking. One of those memorable moments.
Let me say this. You know the basic missions of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It is a large,
decentralized organization. I believe it made tremendous sense
in 2002 to consolidate these various functions under the broad
theme of homeland security. I have already seen, in 2\1/2\
months in office, the various symmetries that are achieved by
having the components that manage land, port, air, maritime
security when we look at threats to the homeland.
The basic missions obviously are counterterrorism, border,
port security. One of the things that has been brought home to
me in my brief time in office is that the job of the Secretary
of Homeland Security is to also facilitate trade at our
various--lawful trade and travel at our various ports of entry.
I appreciate that that is an important mission of the
Department of Homeland Security. It is not just simply
preventing unlawful trade and travel, but promoting lawful
trade and travel.
Cybersecurity is a big priority, which I think is satisfied
by this budget request. Responding to natural disasters, as the
chair mentioned, is obviously an important priority. I believe
that FEMA is doing a better and better job of that, and we have
learned from the days of Hurricane Katrina. I hope to
personally travel to places that have been affected by
hurricanes, like Hurricane Katrina, very soon. I hope to travel
to Louisiana, Mississippi, and other places.
Filling the various vacancies that exist at the senior
levels of our Department is an important priority of mine. I
spend virtually some part of every day filling vacancies,
recruiting highly qualified personnel for these vacancies. I am
very, very happy and pleased that the Senate last week
confirmed three of our nominees to senior leadership positions:
CBP, National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), and
our new inspector general. We have three more awaiting Senate
confirmation. I believe one had his confirmation hearing this
morning. The other had a confirmation hearing last week. So we
are making good progress filling the vacancies there. My
mission is to fill the vacancies with highly talented public
servants because I believe good leadership begins with finding
other good leaders.
Last, because of the environment in which we operate, I
will repeat here what I have said many times. I believe I am
obligated to look for, identify inefficiencies, duplications of
effort wherever they exist within the Department. One of the
things that we are doing is building a budget process that is
very mission oriented, getting away from budget requests that
are made through stovepipes from each component where we begin
the process by developing the basic strategy, the basic
mission; developing the requirements to satisfy that mission,
and then looking at and helping the components develop their
own budget requests based on the larger mission. My hope is
that we reduce inefficiencies in that way.
We are developing a similar approach when it comes to
acquisition, the acquisition process, to try to make it a
little more department-centric so that we avoid duplications in
acquisition requests, the acquisition process. And overall, one
of my goals is to make the Department of Homeland Security a
more efficient place, a more effective place, and to improve
morale, which I believe that we are doing every day through
visible, aggressive, and effective leadership.
So I look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeh Johnson
Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Coats, and members of the
subcommittee: I begin by thanking this subcommittee for the strong
support you have provided to the Department the past 11 years. I look
forward to continuing to work with you in the coming year to protect
the homeland and the American people.
I am pleased to appear before the subcommittee to present President
Obama's fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). The fiscal year 2015 budget request builds on our
accomplishments over the past 11 years while providing essential
support to national and economic security.
The fiscal year 2015 budget reflects President Obama's strong
commitment to protecting the homeland and the American people. It
supports and continues our focus on preserving frontline priorities
across the Department by cutting costs, sharing resources across DHS
components, and streamlining operations wherever possible. It will
ensure our men and women on the frontlines are well trained, equipped,
and supported while continuing to maximize Department-wide
efficiencies. It will also continue to make responsible investments in
personnel, technology and asset recapitalization that are critical to
ensuring our future security, while recognizing that difficult fiscal
choices must be made.
The basic missions of DHS are and should continue to be preventing
terrorism and enhancing security; securing and managing our borders;
enforcing and administering our immigration laws; safeguarding and
securing cyberspace; and strengthening national preparedness and
resilience. The President's fiscal year 2015 budget request provides
the resources necessary to maintain and strengthen our efforts in each
of these critical mission areas.
In all, the fiscal year 2015 budget requests $60.9 billion in total
budget authority, $49.0 billion in gross discretionary funding and
$38.2 billion in net discretionary funding.
The cornerstone of the Homeland Security mission is protecting our
Nation against terrorist attacks. Through the efforts of both the Bush
and Obama administrations, we have put al-Qaeda's core leadership on a
path to strategic defeat. But the terrorist threat has continued to
evolve. We must remain vigilant in detecting and preventing terrorist
threats that seek to penetrate the homeland from the land, sea or air.
We also must continue to build relationships with State and local law
enforcement, and the first responders in our communities, to address
the threats we face from those who self-radicalize to violence, the so-
called ``lone wolf'' who may be living quietly in our midst, inspired
by radical, violent ideology to do harm to Americans--illustrated last
year by the Boston Marathon bombing.
The fiscal year 2015 budget strengthens the Department's
antiterrorism efforts. It requests $3.8 billion for TSA screening
operations to continue improving aviation security effectiveness by
aligning passenger screening resources based on risk. It also requests
more than $1 billion for FEMA's preparedness grants with particular
emphasis on building and sustaining capabilities that address high
consequence events that pose the greatest risk to the security and
resilience of the United States and can be utilized to address multiple
threats and hazards.
Border security is essential to homeland security. Good border
security is both a barrier to terrorist threats, drug traffickers,
transnational criminal organizations, and other threats to national
security and public safety, and a facilitator for legitimate trade and
travel. We are gratified by the support Congress has provided to
improve security at our borders and ports of entry. With that support,
we've made great progress. There is now more manpower, technology and
infrastructure on our borders than ever before, and our men and women
in and around the border are producing results. But we must remain
vigilant.
The fiscal year 2015 budget builds on this progress by providing
$362.5 million to maintain the necessary infrastructure and technology
along the Nation's borders to ensure that law enforcement personnel are
supported with effective surveillance technology to improve their
ability to detect and interdict illegal activity in a safer
environment. The budget invests $90 million in technology that will
improve remote and mobile video surveillance systems and $11.7 million
to recapitalize non-intrusive inspection equipment. The budget will
allow DHS to complete the hiring of up to 2,000 new Customs and Border
Protection officers, which commenced in fiscal year 2014, and an
additional 2,000 officers funded by fees in fiscal year 2015, resulting
in faster processing and inspections of passengers and cargo at U.S.
ports of entry, which is projected to add nearly 66,000 new jobs, add
$4 billion to GDP and result in more seizures of illegal items, such as
drugs, guns, and counterfeit goods. The fiscal year 2015 budget
supports the salaries, benefits, and operating costs for 21,370 Border
Patrol agents and 25,775 CBP officers.
With respect to removals and immigration enforcement, we must
continue to prioritize our resources on those who represent threats to
national security, public safety and border security. The fiscal year
2015 budget will provide $2.6 billion to support Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities to identify, apprehend, and remove
aliens from the United States. The fiscal year 2015 budget also
includes $124.8 million to continue expansion and enhancement of the E-
Verify program.
We will continue to streamline and facilitate the legal immigration
process while enforcing U.S. immigration laws through the smart and
effective use of resources. As I have said many times, we must also
take serious steps forward on immigration reform legislation and find
common sense solutions to a problem we all know we have. I am committed
to working with Congress to achieve that goal.
In addition, we must continue efforts to address the growing cyber
threat to the private sector and the ``.gov'' networks, illustrated by
the real, pervasive, and ongoing series of attacks on public and
private infrastructure. The fiscal year 2015 budget includes $1.27
billion for DHS cybersecurity activities, including $377.7 million for
Network Security Deployment, including the EINSTEIN3 Accelerated (E3A)
program, which enables DHS to detect malicious traffic targeting
civilian Federal Government networks and prevent malicious traffic from
harming those networks. It also includes $143.5 million for the
Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation program, which provides hardware,
software, and services designed to support activities that strengthen
the operational security of Federal civilian networks. In support of
Executive Order 13636, the budget will also provide $8.5 million to
establish a voluntary program and an enhanced cybersecurity services
capability.
DHS also must be vigilant in preparing for and responding to
disasters, including floods, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, and most
recently, chemical leaks like the 2014 spill into the Elk River in West
Virginia that threatened the water supply of hundreds of thousands of
people. We have come a long way since the days of Hurricane Katrina. We
have improved disaster planning with public and private sector
partners, nonprofit organizations, and the American people. With the
help of this Committee, we have also improved the Department's
emergency response agility through important changes to the structure
of the Disaster Relief Fund, which brings immediate help and resources
to our communities in their most dire times of need.
Of particular note, the President's fiscal year 2015 budget funds
production of national security cutter 8, as part of the
recapitalization of the Coast Guard, and requests $300 million to
complete the funding necessary to construct the 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 security.
The fiscal year 2015 budget will provide $10.2 billion to support
disaster resiliency, primarily through the grants programs that are
administered by FEMA and the Disaster Relief Fund. Of this total, $2.2
billion in total grant funding will support State and local government
efforts to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from
incidents of terrorism and other catastrophic events. Also included are
Firefighter and Emergency Management Performance Grants that support
local first responders in achieving their missions, and $7 billion in
DRF funding to provide immediate and long-lasting assistance to
individuals and communities stricken by emergencies and major
disasters.
Lastly, the budget includes the President's Opportunity, Growth,
and Security Initiative, which provides a roadmap for additional
investments to help secure our Nation's future. Specifically, this
initiative funds $300 million for FEMA's reformed, risk-based approach
to increase preparedness, mitigation, and emergency response to
disasters and other threats in communities across the country. The
Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative also dedicates significant
resources to help our communities prepare for the effects of climate
change, including $400 million to support planning and pilot projects
for cities and communities through FEMA hazard mitigation assistance
and national preparedness grants, and $10 million to help the National
Protection and Programs Directorate identify critical infrastructure
facilities and analyze their ability to remain functional after
disasters.
As Secretary of Homeland Security, I am mindful of the environment
in which we pursue each of these important missions. The days are over
when those of us in national and homeland security can expect more and
more to be added each year to our top line budgets. I therefore believe
I am obliged to identify and eliminate inefficiencies, waste, and
unnecessary duplications of resources across DHS's large and
decentralized bureaucracy, while pursuing important missions such as
the recapitalization of the aging Coast Guard fleet. Over the past 2
years, the Department has found innovative ways to reduce cost and
leverage efficiencies, reducing DHS-wide expenses by over $2.7 billion
during that period. We also reached a major milestone last year when
the Department achieved its first unqualified or ``clean'' audit
opinion on its financial reporting. These are important steps in
maturing the Department's management and oversight functions, but there
is more to do.
As part of this agenda we are tackling our budget structure and
process. DHS currently has 76 appropriations and over 120 projects,
programs or activities, and there are significant structural
inconsistencies across components, making mission based budget planning
and budget execution analysis difficult. We are making changes to our
budget process to better focus our efforts on a mission and cross-
component view. I, along with the Deputy Secretary, am personally
engaged to provide the necessary leadership and direction to this
process. I look forward to further discussing these ideas and
strategies with this subcommittee as we develop ways to refine our
planning process and appropriation account structure in order to
improve how the Department resources its missions.
As part of a management reform agenda, I am also doing a top to
bottom review our of acquisition governance process--from how we
develop our strategies, to the development of our requirements, to how
we sustain our platforms, equipment and people and everything in
between. Part of this will include the thoughtful, but necessary,
consolidation of functions to provide the Department with the proper
oversight, management and responsibilities to carry out this task. This
will allow DHS to more fully ensure the solutions we pursue are
responsive to our strategy, technologically mature, and cost-effective.
I look forward to sharing our ideas and strategies with this
subcommittee as we move forward in this area.
In closing, the Department's fiscal year 2015 budget request
recognizes our current fiscal realities and works within them. It is a
responsible plan that will strengthen our Nation's security while
allowing the Department to continue to achieve its core objectives. I
thank the Committee for inviting me to appear today. In the pursuit of
our important mission, I pledge to this Committee my total dedication
and all the energy I possess. I look forward to working with you to
meet our shared priorities.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, very much.
There have been two votes called at 2:30 p.m. I am going to
start the line of questioning, and then I will go vote. Senator
Coats will continue. We will try to keep the hearing moving
through the voting process if we can.
Secretary Johnson. I can stay past 4 p.m. if you need me
to.
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE
Senator Landrieu. Yes, that is okay. We are going to try to
do our work before 4 p.m.
Let me begin where I started, national flood insurance. And
I hate to sound like a broken record, but I have got 400,000
people in Louisiana, 500 million across the country affected by
this. This budget was put together before, Mr. Secretary, as
you know our new bill had passed. So the budget that we are
looking at now was built on an old law, which hopefully will be
old in just a few weeks when the President signs a new one.
It was built on Biggert-Waters, which is happily going out,
and a new bill coming in. The new bill requires limiting annual
individual premium increases, putting affordability back in the
formula, issuing refunds to people that were overcharged in the
last year, and, as I said, reinstating affordability.
You know that only 60 percent of the people in our country
that should be compliant with flood insurance are currently
compliant, which is one of the problems with the program,
limiting the premiums being paid into the program. So I have
questions. Do you agree that increasing program participation
is critical to the long-term solvency of this overall program?
What efforts do you plan to take to accomplish that objective?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, I agree with that basic principle.
The more participants you have in an insurance program, the
healthier the program ought to be. That depends in part on the
nature of who the participants are, but an overall goal ought
to be to broaden the base of those who participate in the
program.
I think the overriding objective has to be, whether it is
through Biggert-Waters or some other law that the Congress may
pass, to ensure that we have a solvent program for the benefit
of everyone who needs it or who might need it. So solvency has
got to be the key. That was an objective of Biggert-Waters, but
there are issues with affordability and I understand that.
I think one of the things that I can do on the executive
branch side is to ensure that communities understand that when
they have issues with the maps, there is a process, under
current law at least, that they raise objections and that they
work with FEMA on any issues they have with resolving the maps.
There is a public process, and there is an appeal process to
that.
I have had conversations with several Governors in which I
thought it was not apparent to them that there was this built-
in process to raise issues like this. And so, I want to make
sure that we are highlighting that. But I support the overall
goal of a solvent program that does not raise all kinds of
affordability issues for people who need it.
COAST GUARD FLEET
Senator Landrieu. Well, I appreciate that because if people
cannot afford to be in the program, then you will not have a
program, and the debt will increase, and the program will
collapse. So the issues of solvency and affordability are two
equally important goals, and that is what our new law attempts
to secure.
On the Coast Guard, your testimony notes the importance of
pursuing important missions, such as recapitalizing the aging
Coast Guard fleet. That is a high priority of several of us on
this Committee, and thank you for mentioning that in our
meetings that we have had.
Can you talk about your efforts to modernize the fleet,
specifically the fast response cutters and others, and what
your impressions are of our efforts to be successful in that
regard? This budget includes only two. Ideally we need six.
Please respond.
Secretary Johnson. I am convinced that there is a need for
all three classes of ships--the national security cutter (NSC),
the offshore patrol cutter (OPC), and the fast response cutter
(FRC). I know that the Coast Guard fleet is supposedly the most
aged fleet of any navy in the world. We need to recapitalize,
so I support the overall goal of recapitalization.
I am pleased that in this budget request, we have made a
request to fund the last NSC. We have a funding request to
continue production down the line toward production of the OPC.
And we had to make some choices, but we wanted to also maintain
each line of recapitalization effort. So in our request is a
request for two additional FRCs. In different times, I would
have preferred that we had asked for more, but I thought it was
important that we maintain that assembly line; we maintain that
flow. So we have asked for two to keep each of these lines
open.
CYBERSECURITY: EDUCATION
Senator Landrieu. We will continue to work. And my final
question is on the cybersecurity education. I was really happy
to hear you say that that is a concern of yours because it is a
concern of mine, that the threats are obviously real and
growing, and the numbers are being calculated each day. But the
kinds of graduates that we see from our high schools, our
technical schools, are they producing what we need to address
these cyber threats? Could you comment about some of your ideas
and thoughts about that? And as we have discussed, we have got
a fairly robust model in Shreveport, Louisiana, actually in
Bossier, a cyber innovation center. I have been pleased to have
the former Secretary there who was very impressed with our
cyber education component that can be scalable and moved to
other areas of the country as well. Would you just take a
minute to comment on your understanding of the challenge before
our Nation in terms of educating the workforce in cyber defense
and offense?
Secretary Johnson. In addition to the basic missions of
securing the dot.gov world and the private cyber world, I think
that a key to all of that is recruitment of the next generation
of cyber specialists. And so I am personally on a recruitment
tour. I have visited various colleges and universities so far
to talk about this issue, to try to recruit young talent who
will not only consider cybersecurity in the private sector, but
also cybersecurity serving their country.
So I am on that personal mission, and I believe cyber
education and recruitment of those in cyber education is
crucial. It is a high priority of mine. And one way or another,
I think we need to fund these programs. And I want to work with
the Committee to ensure that we do that. Senator, you and I
have had conversations about some of the cyber talent that
exists in your State, and I definitely want to tap into that.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, and believe me, there is
talent all over the country outside of what we call the blast
zone, which is the zone that we are sitting in.
I am going to turn it over to Senator Coats, but please
note, members, that there has been an $8 million reduction of
cyber education in this budget, and I think it is very
important for our budget to maintain a commitment, along with
education and defense, on meeting the challenge today and
working cooperatively with those other departments.
So I am going to turn it over to Senator Coats. I am going
to go vote and then come back, and we will try to continue the
hearing.
Senator Leahy. And then after Senator Coats finishes, I
will ask my question.
Senator Landrieu. Senator Leahy, okay.
Senator Leahy. We still have time.
Senator Landrieu. Yes.
Secretary Johnson. That is fine. If you need to break, that
is fine.
Senator Coats. Well, we can kind of juggle back and forth.
Senator Landrieu. Senator Leahy can chair.
Senator Coats [presiding]. The chairman will go and vote,
and then I will go and vote. And I will try to be brief also,
Mr. Secretary.
Since we ended on cyber, let me start on cyber. There is no
question that DHS plays a seminal role in cybersecurity, and
you are responsible for protecting the dot.gov domain, which is
critical, I think, in many, many different ways. But despite
the nature of the threat and the elevation of the threat, in
fiscal year 2014 when it was clear that DHS could not spend all
of the funds that were requested, Congress reduced the level of
funding.
Would you comment on that and tell me where are we in terms
of getting cybersecurity capabilities in place? Are they up and
running, are they effective? If we need more, if you need more,
tell us what is needed. Clearly it is a top priority, and we
ought to make sure that it is adequately funded. There have
been a number of question marks about whether DHS can handle
this mission. I think you can. But what do you need in order to
do it?
Secretary Johnson. We made a funding request for $377
million for the EINSTEIN system to protect the dot.gov world. I
am told that we expect to deploy that system very soon----
Senator Coats. What does ``very soon'' mean?
Secretary Johnson. Perhaps within the next year or so, I
believe.
Senator Coats. Okay.
Secretary Johnson. So we are close to being ready with
that. I, too, believe that DHS should be the coordinator of the
Federal Government's efforts in this regard, both with respect
to the civilian government world and the private sector. I
think DHS is the appropriate interface with the dot.com world
in this regard. But we made a significant funding request so we
can get EINSTEIN up and ready, and I hope to do that soon,
certainly on my watch.
IMMIGRATION REFORM
Senator Coats. And I would just urge you--I think you are
very effective in reaching out to private industry, and I would
urge you to work with them. Information sharing is critical to
cybersecurity. It must be done in a way that protects privacy
while providing security for our Nation. We are going to make
another attempt at legislation this year. I serve on the
Intelligence Committee and the Commerce Committee, and both
Committees feel the urgency of the need to get some legislation
in place.
So I simply want to say we want to work with you. You will
play an essential role in all of this. But we have to assure
members and the public that the role you are playing is going
to be an effective one. So I want you to keep that high on your
list of priorities for the Department.
Let me just address the issue of the proposed passenger
security fee increases. My suggestion is that we start working
together to find a potential plan B. I am not saying that you
ought to give up on the budget proposal. What I am saying is
that having just gone through fee changes in the agreed-upon
budget, the Ryan-Murray budget agreement, I cannot find a lot
of political support for another fee increase. And I'm not
pushing for any such support. So, it is likely we will not see
more fee changes this year.
That creates a hole in the budget, and I think we need to
start looking at where we can try to fill that hole. I am not
asking you for an answer on that now, but that is something we
need to work on.
I would like you to talk to me a little bit about the
reduced funding for detention beds. We talked about border
security and the situation in the Rio Grande Valley. If we are
going to move forward on immigration reform, the public has to
understand and the Congress has to understand the basis on
which we have secured the border. And without that preceding
comprehensive immigration reform, I do not think we are going
to be successful moving forward. At least that is what I hear
from the House of Representatives.
So my question is, with the decrease in funding for
detention beds and with the surge that is coming across,
particularly in the Rio Grande Valley, does that not
potentially jeopardize our ability to arrest, detain and remove
illegal immigrants?
Secretary Johnson. I think comprehensive immigration reform
is critical as a matter of Homeland Security. Others talk about
it in terms of economic growth. I agree with that. But from my
perspective, as a matter of homeland security, it is critical
that we have comprehensive immigration reform.
A component of that is border security. I believe that we
can secure the borders in a number of ways, including detention
space. You are correct that the current law for fiscal year
2014 requires us to maintain 34,000 beds--an average of 34,000
beds in the course of the fiscal year. Our best estimate is
that and our best assessment is that we need space for 30.6
thousand, coupled with other things to promote border security.
We are putting an unprecedented level of assets on border
security, and I think we are making good progress. And we are
also asking for $94 million for a program for alternatives to
detention. So those are a number of ways in which I think we
need to secure the border.
Senator Coats. Thank you. And now onto someone who has had
a lot of experience chairing a committee, Senator Leahy. I am
going to turn it over to you, Senator. I am going to run to the
floor for the vote. Hopefully Mary will be back, but take
charge. You know how to do it.
BORDER PATROL AGENT STAFFING
Senator Leahy [presiding]. I am going to ask and run also,
but, Secretary Johnson, I have enjoyed the times we have met
and talked, including today when you talked about Barry
Goldwater. In 1980, I had the second closest election in the
United States. Back home right after, somebody said, ``Did that
election teach you nothing, the closeness?'' And I said, ``It
must be my philosophy.'' So I said I am going to call the
Senator who had the closest election in the United States. So I
called him up and I said, ``Senator Goldwater, what is the
lesson they are telling us?'' After that, he asked the retiring
Senator from New England, Senator Ribicoff, he said we have to
change--I am moving into Senator Ribicoff's office, you move
into mine. I have been there since 1980. Senator Goldwater, he
was a good friend. I can just imagine him making that comment.
You were very helpful and the Department of Homeland
Security and FEMA were very helpful when we got hit with
Tropical Storm Irene. And I appreciate that. I spent a lot of
time with them. We have some things to be completed yet, so
please tell FEMA do not forget the little State of Vermont.
They have done a wonderful job, and we still have things to get
done.
The other thing, Senator Coats and you talked about border
staffing. Usually when we talk about our border, everybody
thinks of the southern border, and when we add more people,
they go to the southern border. Canada is our biggest trading
partner. It's a very long border. I can drive to the Canadian
border in an hour from my home in Vermont. My wife's family
came from Canada, used to going back and forth. It has become
far more difficult.
We included funds in the omnibus for hiring 2,000 new
agents, and that is good. But we also have agents retiring. I
am afraid they will all go to the southern border, and the
problem we have now, even though they are our biggest trading
partner, we have huge delays. People are just used to going
back and forth easily on that border, even so much so that
radio stations in Montreal are telling people do not go down
and spend in the United States. Here is how long the border
crossing is as of this moment.
They are expanding their Auto Route 35, the U.S. border in
Vermont. A lot of these travelers come to upstate New York, to
Vermont, New Hampshire, Boston. Can you assure me that as you
fill these positions, attention will be given to the northern
border?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, Senator, absolutely.
CYBERSECURITY: COLLABORATIVE EFFORT
Senator Leahy. It has become really worrisome, and I know a
lot of these people--businesspeople in Vermont and others, and
people who are tourists, members of my own family, who suddenly
will sit there for 2 hours to go across the border, but they
are going up for just 2 hours or 3 hours.
Cybersecurity I think is very important. You submitted
budget justification materials for $1.25 billion for
cybersecurity. Will you work with private institutions and
public agencies and try to bring everybody together so that we
do not end up with a situation where all of a sudden the day
after a cyberattack, everybody is coming together?
Secretary Johnson. I agree with that. The request is for
funding across the entirety of DHS, which includes, for
example, Secret Service's law enforcement efforts. Secret
Service is responsible for finance crimes, including the
current investigations of the Target matter and the Neiman
Marcus matter. So the request is significant, and I believe it
should be, for purposes of cybersecurity.
NORTHERN BORDER
Senator, if I could just go back to your other comment
about the northern border, I have had conversations with a
number of Members of Congress about the importance and the
emphasis on the northern border both in terms of trade and
travel and border security. I have had conversations with the
Canadians about this, too. I think a big milestone for us was
what we did at the Peace Bridge in Buffalo a couple of weeks
ago.
So I can assure you that when we make these allocations, we
are paying attention to the northern border as well as the
southern border.
IMMIGRATION: EMPLOYMENT CREATION IMMIGRATION VISA PROGRAM
Senator Leahy. I will invite you to come to Vermont with me
some time, not today. We are having about 20 inches of snow,
and it is so bad that some of the schools will open an hour
late tomorrow with that kind of snow. Some may not open, which
would be unusual.
And lastly, the EB-5 program has been extremely helpful to
us. We used to adjudicate applications within 6 months. It is
now taking 12 to 14 months, which really cripples the program.
I do not expect a full answer here, but will you look into that
and find out why they have gone from 6 months to as much as 14
months to adjudicate applications?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, and I have already begun looking
into that.
Senator Leahy. I am sure. Thank you, and remember that
invite to Vermont at some time.
Secretary Johnson. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. And we will stand in recess subject to the
call of the chair.
[Whereupon, at 2:46 p.m., the hearing was recessed, subject
to the call of the chair.]
Senator Landrieu [presiding]. The subcommittee will come to
order. Let me continue with the line of questioning, and
members will be coming back as the votes continue on the floor
of the Senate. I know that Senator Coats had his questions
asked and answered. Senator Leahy, he brought up another
important program, the EB-5, which is under evaluation and
restructuring. Very promising program, as you know, to create
jobs and spur investment here if it can be worked and improved.
Before I go into my question, could you do another 2
minutes--I can read the testimony, but 2 minutes on the EB-5
program and what you are doing to make it work effectively,
transparently, and what are your hopes for, let us say, the
next 18 months in terms of job creation in America?
Secretary Johnson. Well, we have a review ongoing of the
EB-5 program that several people have asked me to do. And I
agree that it is an important, worthwhile program for job
creation in this country. At the same time, we have to be
mindful of any security concerns that may exist around the
program, which often can lead to delays in the application
process.
So I think that we can always do a better job in terms of
efficiency and security, and I want to look for ways to
accomplish that. And so, I am waiting to hear from my people
about how we might do a better job around the EB-5 program
because I believe that overall, it is a very worthwhile
program.
GRANTS: MITIGATION GRANTS
Senator Landrieu. Okay. Mr. Secretary, I noted in the
President's budget the $400 million in Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Grants was included not as a part of the base budget because of
restrictions, but as part of the aspirational budget, as I
should say, should we be able to identify revenues.
Can you talk for a minute about your views or understanding
of what these mitigation grants might be used for and how they
would be distributed? Is it based on need or competitive
proposals? Do you have any detailed information? If you do not,
you could submit it. But any general ideas about how these
mitigation grants might be used around the country and for what
purposes?
Secretary Johnson. I would like to give you an informed,
detailed answer. So if I could take that question for the
record, I would very much appreciate doing that.
[The information follows:]
Answer. Enactment of the Opportunity, Growth, and Security
Initiative (OGSI) would provide $400 million for this program. Funding
would support competitive grants to State, local and tribal governments
through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program. This program provides
grants for eligible mitigation planning and projects that reduce
disaster losses and protect life and property from future disaster
damages. This includes support for adaptation planning and pilot
projects for cities and communities through hazard mitigation
assistance, building on administration efforts to implement the
National Mitigation Framework. Furthermore OGSI provides cost-effective
project grants to reduce flood losses, structure elevation, retro-
fitting of existing buildings, soil stabilization; and management costs
for the State to help administer mitigation programs.
Projects that propose mitigation to address climate change weather
extremes such as winter storm severity; landslides; flooding;
earthquake; tsunami; and drought, for example, will receive additional
consideration.
Each State will receive a minimum allocation of 1 percent of total
funds available. FEMA will allocate the remaining funds to States,
territories and tribal governments on a competitive basis.
CYBERSECURITY: EINSTEIN PROGRAM
Secretary Johnson. If I could, and I will not take too much
of your time on this, Senator, but I did want to clarify
something I said earlier about the EINSTEIN program. We are
right now at phase three. The program is operational in certain
limited respects. We expect to complete phase three, which is
the last phase, within the next year. But it is operational
with respect to email and denial of services right now, and so,
we are getting to the last phase. So I just wanted to clarify
that. Sorry.
BORDER SECURITY
Senator Landrieu. Okay. Thank you. Let us go to illegal
border crossings, which is a very important issue before our
Committee and the authorizing committee as well. Members that
represent States along the southern border tend to be more
concerned and focused than others, but it is an issue for the
Congress.
I think we have done some extraordinary work in the last
couple of years securing our border, building a smarter fence,
not just a higher fence, but a smarter fence. We have been
apprehending--in the past at least, apprehensions have been up.
But I understand that there has been a recent change--in
apprehensions.
And I would like you to talk about that and explain to the
Committee the ages of people that are being apprehended. Are
they adults? Are they teenagers? Are they children? I
understand undocumented children or unescorted children are an
increasing concern to you and to your Department. The Rio
Grande Valley sector has now surpassed the Tucson sector as the
busiest crossing on the Southwest border. Forty-four percent of
all undocumented aliens are apprehended along this border
entering through the valley. Over the past 6 months, they have
grown by 72 percent compared to the same time in 2013, and
again, one of the increases that is troubling is unaccompanied
children.
So what we can attribute this increase in illegal border
crossings to? It is good that they are being apprehended, but
what are your thoughts on that? And what can we do to get a
handle on it? What are some of the suggestions you have, and
what is represented in this budget to address it?
Secretary Johnson. That is a very good and big question.
Where do I start? I want to say all of the above. Border
security is something that can be very fluid because there are
different magnets that operate at different points of time in
different regions of the border. It is a constantly evolving
situation.
So right now, for example, we are seeing--we have an
overall decrease in the number of apprehensions, which I regard
as a good thing as reflective of overall attempts to cross the
border illegally. But we have seen a recent backup again just
within the last year or two of some small measure, but overall
we have seen a decrease in the level of apprehensions. The
spike upward some would attribute to an improving economy in
the United States.
The phenomenon that I noticed that was called to my
attention very vividly when I was in south Texas not long ago
was the number of third country nationals who were attempting
to cross our borders in south Texas from places other than
Mexico. So the day I visited the detention center in
Brownsville, we had 995 detainees--you and I have discussed
this, Senator--and only 18 percent of those were Mexican. And
there were some from 30 other nationalities there.
Senator Landrieu. What would be the three or four other
countries that were most notable? I think you said Guatemala?
Secretary Johnson. Guatemala is one, but it is not at all
limited to the American continent. It is nationals from the
other continents as well who are coming to the American
continent, working their way up through Mexico, trying to get
into our border. So this is an issue that I am working with the
Mexican Government on.
And the good news here is that we have devoted a lot of
resources to the overall effort, an unprecedented level.
Overall I think we are making good progress, but we have to
remain vigilant. And we have an issue with third country
nationals, as you point out. We have an issue with
unaccompanied minors. By law, when we have an unaccompanied
minor, we are obligated to turn that child over to the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reunite with
his or her family, either in the country of origin or some
family unit in the United States. We try to accomplish that as
quickly as possible.
I am concerned about aspects of the system that may serve
as magnets for additional immigration--illegal immigration, and
so we have to be mindful of that. But overall, we have to
remain vigilant and monitor the challenges as they may migrate
from one part of the border to the other.
And so, this budget request I think accomplishes that with
new personnel and with about $100 million, maybe $90 million
for increased mobile and remote surveillance on the border. I
think that is very important. And our border security
specialists have told me that added surveillance equipment, in
particular, is important.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. I think this is shocking
actually--70 percent of all Southwest border apprehensions are
apprehensions other than Mexican.
So the vast majority are not Mexicans that are being
apprehended. They are people from all other countries.
I noticed on the list, which I do not have in front of me,
but it was over 30 or 40 additional countries. And you are
right, it is not focused just on the Americas. It was from
other countries and continents as well. In addition, the
increase in unaccompanied alien children, that would be defined
as children under the age of 17 or 16, or do we know what the
cut off is? Does anybody know?
Secretary Johnson. I am not sure whether it is 17 or 18 or
16.
Senator Landrieu. Or 18?
Secretary Johnson. I can get that for the record for you.
[The information follows:]
Answer. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 first defined the term
unaccompanied alien child as a child under the age of 18 years with no
lawful immigration status who has no parent or legal guardian in the
United States or no parent or legal guardian is available in the United
States to provide care and physical custody.
Senator Landrieu. Okay. Let us be clear about the ages. And
can you talk about children under the age of, let us say, 10,
what you noticed when you went on your trips down there? Were
there dozens, hundreds of children under the age of 10 that
would be unaccompanied?
Secretary Johnson. I have not personally observed that
phenomenon on my trips to the border. I know it is a phenomenon
of great concern. It should be of national concern to us. And
so, I want to really work on this problem with HHS to make sure
that when it happens, we unite the child with a family member
as quickly as possible, and that there is nothing in our
process that may serve to encourage this type of migration
because it is obviously not a good phenomenon.
Senator Landrieu. And I think it is important for the
record that 65 percent of all the border juvenile
apprehensions, with 65 percent is almost--well, it is 18,500.
So I am assuming that is between the ages of zero and 16 or
zero and 17. We put language in our budget last year on this
subject because this issue came up. We have not had a major
piece of legislation regarding it. I think there might have
been some pieces of the immigration reform that passed the
Senate addressing this.
But in our appropriations bill last year, we put in
language requiring you to work with HHS on this issue because,
you know, that is 19,000, 20,000 very young people. I think
when people think of illegals crossing the border, they are
thinking of 20-, 30-, 40-year-olds. But there are 19,000 that
are under the age of 16, many of them unaccompanied. And we
know what happens when children are not in the protection of
the family. Horrible things happen. So let us stay focused on
that.
I have got to go vote and come back. I have got two
additional questions, but I am going to turn the questioning
now over to Senator Coats. And I will come back, and I just
have a few more questions for the record. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
Senator Coats. Well, Madam Chairman, thank you. It just
occurs to me, the Secretary and I can come to some conclusions
here and wrap this baby up. But I will not do that.
Senator Landrieu. Okay.
Senator Coats. I promise you.
Senator Landrieu. I could ask my two questions.
Senator Coats. Yes, you can.
Secretary Johnson. Senator, really I can be flexible. So if
you need to break for another vote, that is totally fine. It is
at your convenience.
Senator Coats [continuing]. Madam Chairman, you can
probably ask your questions, because they are going to hold the
vote open for you.
Senator Landrieu. Okay. Well, why do we not take a recess
for just a few minutes and vote, and I will have a few when I
come back? Thank you, and if you want to continue you can.
Senator Coats [presiding]. Okay. We will make keep the
hearing going. Well, I do not, Mr. Secretary, know exactly what
you talked about while I was away. My staff has indicated that
you discussed the tragic and complex issue of unaccompanied
minors. And so, I will get back briefed on that discussion.
But talk a little bit about your border security strategy
and how you fight this sort of Whack-a-Mole problem that
happens when you secure the border in California or deal with
issues in Arizona, and they find an opening in the Rio Grande
Valley. How do you attempt to address this so that we put in
place the security we need across the Southwest border?
Secretary Johnson. That is a good question. And I think the
key is--you are correct. If you plug a hole one place, somebody
is going to dig a hole in another place. I think the key is to
stay one step ahead of the problem. Our budget includes about
$90 million for remote and mobile surveillance equipment on
boats that patrol the border and the Rio Grande and other types
of mobile surveillance equipment, in addition to personnel.
That aligns with what patrol border agents have told me when I
visited the border. And I asked them what do you need, and they
talk in terms of more surveillance equipment.
So I think that surveillance is a very important way of
staying one step ahead of the trends that may emerge each time
you concentrate a lot of assets in any one particular place. My
predecessor used to say, build a 50-foot wall, and I will build
a 51-foot ladder or a tunnel. So I think we need to stay one
step ahead of the issue, and I think technology goes a long way
in that regard.
Senator Coats. As you know, there was a run made at that
putting a ``virtual'' border in place with sensors and so
forth, and it did not turn as effectively as people had hoped.
Now we are making a second attempt. What kind of confidence do
you have that that technology has now arrived and can give us
the kind of border security and situational awareness that we
need?
Secretary Johnson. I think our technology is pretty good,
and we need to make further investments in it. I know from my
experience at the Department of Defense (DOD) that technology
in this regard is pretty sophisticated. It exists, and we just
need to invest in it.
Senator Coats. I think it is a great asset for us that you
have experience with the military and with DOD. That you know
who to talk to, and how to track down what works and what would
be most suitable. I think that experience is going to be very
valuable for DHS. Senator Cochran, have you had an opportunity
to ask questions?
Senator Cochran. No, I have not.
Senator Coats. Well, I am going to give you that right now.
Secretary Johnson. Senator, the United States military for
4 years was my client. The military is a very can-do
organization, and I hope I have brought some of that with me to
the Department.
Senator Coats. Good. Thank you.
DATA CENTER CONSOLIDATION
Senator Cochran. Let me ask you this. Mr. Secretary, your
Department has led the Federal Government in finding cost
savings through the consolidation of data centers. This
activity is already resulting in millions of dollars in annual
savings, with even greater savings predicted for the future.
How critical do you believe data center consolidation is to the
Department's ability to operate effectively and efficiently?
And how much can it save the taxpayers?
Secretary Johnson. I think consolidation of data centers
and other resources we have to achieve efficiencies is
important. It is important. It is one of my goals. I know we
are working on data center consolidation right now. I believe
we have funding adequate to complete the projects that we have
in this regard. And I would like to see us do more of this kind
of work for the benefit of the taxpayer.
NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER: FUNDING
Senator Cochran. I noticed, too, in the budget request
submitted by the Department there is included a request for
full funding to construct a seventh national security cutter--
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Senator Cochran [continuing]. And to begin the procurement
of parts of the eighth national security cutter. With
increasing concerns about border security and protection of our
natural resources, the maritime domain's strategic importance
continues to grow. How have the current national security
cutters improved your capabilities to accomplish the missions?
Secretary Johnson. We have an aging fleet. As I said
earlier, I am told that the current Coast Guard fleet is the
most aged fleet of any navy in the world. I tend to believe
that is true when you look at the age of a lot of our vessels.
I have had several conversations with the commandant of the
Coast Guard about how a more modern fleet can promote maritime
security, national security, and border security, and I am
convinced that that is correct. I am convinced that a more
modern fleet can also promote commerce, and it is something
that we need to remain committed to doing.
We exist in a fiscally constrained environment, but I am
determined to continue forward progress on Coast Guard
recapitalization in every respect that we can.
CYBERSECURITY: RESEARCH
Senator Cochran. Mr. Secretary, recent cyberattacks have
highlighted vulnerabilities in our critical infrastructure and
in private companies as well. I think we all recognize the
important role that cybersecurity research and development
plays in keeping head of our adversaries in order to protect
our national computer systems and critical infrastructure.
Because the Department is still a relatively young one and
you do not have a robust laboratory network, how important is
it for you to leverage other departments' laboratories and
existing university capabilities to complete important research
in cybersecurity?
Secretary Johnson. I am also interested in leveraging the
assets, know-how, and experience of other agencies, and I would
like to try to accomplish that. I would note also that in our
budget request, there is within Science and Technology
Directorate a request for an investment of $72 million in cyber
research by the Department of Homeland Security. And I do think
that that is a priority.
But I agree if we can leverage experience, assets from
other departments, like the Department of Defense, we should
try to do that.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Coats. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski.
ARCTIC OPERATIONS
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary,
welcome. Thank you for your leadership in so many different
areas. I will start off my questions to you by inviting you to
Alaska. You do not need to come right now. It is still winter
there, but it is actually going to be a little bit colder here
in Washington, DC, than it will be back home. So any time you
want to come north, it is going to be safe, and we will welcome
you warmly.
I want to ask you the same question that I will be asking
all of the secretaries throughout the appropriations hearings,
and that is to define or clarify from your Department's
perspective where this Administration is placing its budget
priorities when it comes to the Arctic.
You will recall that the President released the
implementation plan for the national strategy for the Arctic
region in January. This plan lists the Department of Homeland
Security as the lead agency for seven different objectives
here, and the supporting agency for a host of others.
As I look through the budget, I see that there is $2.1
million for Arctic operations. Of course, we are going to be
stepping up next year as the United States will be chair of the
Arctic Council, a leadership role that really the rest of the
Arctic world and truly the globe is looking at our leadership.
Very briefly, if you can define for me what level of
emphasis are you placing on the Arctic objectives, and how do
you anticipate that you will implement this Arctic plan in the
next several years--and specifically in the next fiscal year.
Secretary Johnson. First of all, I have no trepidations
about Alaska cold weather. I was in Dead Horse, Alaska exactly
3 years ago----
Senator Murkowski. You are a tough one, I know.
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. To get on a submarine going
to the ice in the Arctic. That was exactly 3 years ago in
March, and I have been to Barrow, Alaska, in December--in the
month of December. So I know cold.
I believe, first and foremost, that our priorities in the
Arctic surround increasing commerce there. I think that people
might debate the cause, but as the Coast Guard has observed
less freezing over of the Arctic, more open water, that leads
to more commerce. Therefore, we need an increased Coast Guard
presence in the Arctic, which is why--it is one of the reasons
why I think recapitalization of the Coast Guard is so
important.
So that, to me, is first and foremost in my mind in terms
of the importance of the Arctic region and the emphasis we
ought to place in investments there.
NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER: HOME PORTING
Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate you saying that, and
I appreciate your response to several different members on the
significance of the recapitalization. I could not agree with
you more. I also acknowledge, as I am sure that you do, the
role the Coast Guard is taking on increased priority and
presence as we are seeing different levels of operations in the
Arctic, whether it is cruise ships coming up over the top, or
whether it is container vessels through the Bering Strait. The
level of activity that we are seeing there is unprecedented,
and how we handle that is going to be key going forward.
We mentioned that one of the aspects of Customs and Border
Patrol that perhaps many folks are not thinking about is you
have some wide open border along the coast of Alaska where you
might have German tourists that are disembarking off of a
cruise ship coming into Barrow. How we handle that going
forward is going to be something of interest. And I just want
to make sure that it truly is on your radar screen.
You have mentioned the national security cutters. I would
agree with you on their significance and that they are a
priority. I have asked for the Coast Guard to look very, very
critically at home porting a national security cutter in
Kodiak. Currently, the closest home port for the national
security cutter is based out of Alameda, California. I am told
that it takes 24 days to get a national security cutter from
Alameda up to the Chukchi Beaufort sea area. That is a long way
to be underway when we have an incident that would require that
type of vessel up there.
So I would ask if you would consider taking another look at
the Coast Guard's home porting strategy and locating a national
security cutter there in Kodiak, really closer to where we are
seeing such a greater degree of activity.
Secretary Johnson. We could look at that, yes.
ICEBREAKERS
Senator Murkowski. I would appreciate that. And then
because probably none of my colleagues are going to be asking
about polar ice breakers, as you know, the Coast Guard high
latitude study back in 2011 identified a need for three heavy
and three medium ice breakers. Currently we have got one heavy
icebreaker in the water. We have one medium strength
icebreaker, the Healy, and then of course we have one heavy
icebreaker that is currently out of service.
This is an issue that as we deal--as we prepare for an
increasing role in the Arctic, quite honestly you have to have
a way to move through the ice. The question to you is three-
fold. How many heavy ice breakers do you think we need to keep
us safe and protect U.S. Arctic interests, whether or not the
Coast Guard has plans for additional ice breaking capability as
we advance the Arctic strategy, and whether or not there are
plans--further plans to recapitalize and repurpose the Polar
Sea, which is currently up in dry dock right now.
Secretary Johnson. Let me try to answer the question this
way. The Polar Star is quite old.
Senator Murkowski. Yes.
Secretary Johnson. We need to replace it. We have a long-
term acquisition plan to do that, which the cost of that will
be considerable because, as you know, heavy ice breakers are
big ships, and they tend to be very expensive. But we recognize
the need to replace the Polar Star. The Polar Sea is not quite
as old, and as you point out, it is dry docked right now. We
have not made a decision yet as to what its future will be.
There have been no decisions at that point.
But overall, I do recognize the importance of having heavy
ice breakers, not just for maritime security, but to keep the
flow of commerce open in the Arctic and other places. That is
the principal reason we have them, and the ones we have are
pretty effective at doing that. So I am not familiar with the
particular assessment that we need three. I am happy to look at
it. But it is something that I have paid close attention to in
listening to the Coast Guard about what their needs are.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary.
I look forward to working with you on many of these Arctic
issues. I think this is an area, again, where in many senses
this is a new frontier out here. We are asking more of the
Coast Guard, and yet we are not giving them sufficient assets
to do what we are asking of them. And so, how we stay on top of
this is going to be key, and I look forward to working with you
on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Coats. Good. Senator Moran, Senator Coons has
graciously offered to let you go first since--we go back and
forth normally, but he has always been a gentleman and
continues to be. He saw that you were here first and said my
friend Jerry ought to go.
Senator Moran. The trouble with that scenario is that now
it makes me feel guilty.
Senator Coats. Good. You owe him one.
NATIONAL BIO- AND AGRO-DEFENSE FACILITY
Senator Moran. That also makes me nervous. Mr. Chairman,
thank you very much. Senator Coats, thank you very much for the
opportunity to question. I am actually going to take advantage
of the offer that you have given me. Secretary Shinseki is
testifying in the Veterans Committee Appropriations
Subcommittee as well at this time, and I am anxious to hear and
question him as well.
Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. It has been a pleasure
to get to know you. I appreciate the outreach that you have
provided to me and my office, and how kind and accommodating
you and your staff have been to us.
Kansans and really the country have a significant issue
that the Department of Homeland Security has been fully engaged
in, and we are very grateful for that. Thank you for your
continued support for a facility called the National Bio and
Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), and we appreciate the President's
budget recommendation of an additional $300 million with the
plan of completing the construction of that project as a result
of this hopefully final appropriation.
Let me just ask the general question because this is the
first time at least on the record that you have been able to
express your opinion about the value of this facility, what is
means to the safety and security of our animal industry, our
husbandry, as well as the food supply, why it is important in
regard to any potential terrorist or accidental threat to the
United States.
Secretary Johnson. Senator, as you and I have discussed
privately, I am fully committed to the NBAF project. I am
convinced of the need for a new facility in this regard, in
part because of the capabilities or better research, more
aggressive research that a brand new facility like this one
would create for us.
And so, we have made a considerable ask of $300 million to
complete this facility. I am fully committed to doing that. And
I very much appreciate that the State will contribute to the
support and the funding of this as well, which is evidence
obviously of the importance of the mission. So I am fully
committed to the mission, and I want to see it get done.
Senator Moran. I appreciate that, and I particularly
appreciate it in respect to your experience and background as
someone who has for a long time been involved in trying to
protect the United States from a variety of threats. So thank
you for your expert as well as your testimony as the Secretary.
Secretary Johnson. Thank you.
Senator Moran. Let me ask the significant question of the
moment. We have appropriated significant amounts of money in
the past in Congress based upon, and the President has
approved, a number of appropriations--last year $404 million;
previous to that $202 million. Now, there is a request for $300
million. And as you indicate, the State of Kansas has made a
significant commitment to this project, initially $105 million,
and then followed by an additional $202 million based upon the
Department of Homeland Security's request that we increase our
commitment--the State of Kansas increases its commitment as a
result of the cost going up.
And it is that cost going up issue that I want to raise
with you, as well as the--based upon your indication of how
important this facility is. If it is important to accomplish
the goals that NBAF will accomplish, my assumption is it is
important to accomplish them sooner rather than later, as early
as possible. As that facility is operational, the safer and
more secure our country will be. Is that accurate?
Secretary Johnson. My experience in the Department of
Defense and the Department of the Air Force, and of the
Department of Homeland Security is that the longer a project
takes, the more expensive it tends to become. The quicker you
can complete the project, the more efficient the cost. And so,
if there are ways to finish this project with funding Congress
has given us sooner, I think that would be a good thing.
Senator Moran. Well, Mr. Secretary, what I would like to
ask you to agree to do is to work with perhaps it is Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), the Administration, the as well as
your folks at the Department of Homeland Security. We are happy
to participate in that process.
What we would like to see happen is the opportunity for a
contract for construction to begin based upon the amount of
money already appropriated, which is that $202 plus $404. So
there's $606 million Congress has already appropriated, plus
Kansas is prepared to release its additional $307 million. And
I think what is missing today is an ability or willingness on
the part of the Department of Homeland Security to secure bids
and enter into the contract.
And what I am hoping that you would agree to do is to work
with us to see that we do not have to prolong that process
while we accomplish the additional $300 million appropriation
that the President has requested.
Secretary Johnson. If it is something that will save the
Federal and State taxpayer money to accomplish the same
mission, then I definitely think we should look into that.
Senator Moran. And based upon your experience, you just
testified that--I do not know that you said never, but I would
guess there has never been an experience in which delaying
actually saves money. So based upon your previous comment, I
assume that you are----
Secretary Johnson. I cannot think of one.
Senator Moran. I cannot either. And we look forward to
trying to accomplish that. If we can have a conversation about
how to resolve this and move forward between you and OMB, let
us see if we can accomplish that we mutually share.
Secretary Johnson. I am going to look into that.
Senator Moran. Thank you very much.
Senator Landrieu [presiding]. Thank you. I believe Senator
Coons is next, and I thank the members for being so cooperative
on attending in between votes.
Senator Coons.
IMMIGRATION: ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION
Senator Coons. Thank you, Madam Chair. And it is always a
delight when I have the opportunity to facilitate Senator Moran
doing his duty on behalf of the people of Kansas, so I was
happy to defer on the previous round. And great to have you
with us, Madam Chair and ranking member. You are next, I know.
If I might, Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for the chance
to be with you again. I would like to start with two questions
around issues relating to immigration that we have discussed
before, but that I think are worth pursuing in a little more
detail given that we now have the budget.
First, alternatives to detention have been proven to be
significantly less costly, incomparably effective in terms of
our larger goals of deporting those who ultimately need to be
deported, and retaining here for trial those who need to be
trained. I think one study suggested $17 for an alternatives to
detention program versus $159 per person per day. And yet DHS
has continued to have imposed upon it or provided to it,
depending on your view of Congress, a bed count.
In the latest budget, you are requesting $1.3 billion for
detention beds and only about $94 million for alternatives to
detention. Do you think that pursuing alternatives more
actively might produce good results? Is there something I am
missing here where alternatives to detention have not proven to
be effective? Would you welcome more resources to work with the
alternatives program?
Secretary Johnson. The answer is yes, which is why we have
asked for $94 million to support an alternatives to detention
program, which I am told has been pretty effective. I have had
many discussions with Members of Congress about the 34,000 bed
requirement, which is an average requirement over the course of
the years. Our request, based on what we assess to be our
current needs for prioritization is 30.6 thousand, but coupled
with that, very importantly, is the request for the
alternatives to detention program.
IMMIGRATION: REPATRIATION
Senator Coons. I would like to support that and work
closely with you on it because, at least my very local
experience, there was an unintended result that there were
people being detained longer than needed to be and in ways that
were not entirely constructive to achieving our law enforcement
goals.
Second, the Alien Transfer Exit Program, known as ATEP, has
in the past led to lateral repatriation, nighttime
deportations, and deportations to dangerous locales in which
families are broken up, some elements of the families bussed
hundreds of miles away, and then folks being forcibly returned
to their country of origin, often at night and sometimes in
ways that have been dangerous for them.
Having conducted a review, do you think lateral
repatriation, nighttime deportations, and deportations in
arguably dangerous circumstances will continue to be a broadly
used practice by the Department?
Secretary Johnson. This is something that--this exact issue
is something that I am looking at right now. In the course of
looking at the issue, I found out that there is 2004 guidance
that says that, in the repatriation process, we should not
break up families.
Senator Coons. Right.
Secretary Johnson. And so, I am contemplating various
things to address this particular issue. It has been raised
with me from a number of different sources, and so we are
assessing it right now.
Senator Coons. I think we have some international
obligations at issue here as well, and I would welcome a chance
to be supportive when you complete your----
Secretary Johnson. That is why I mentioned a number of
sources.
CYBERSECURITY: SECRET SERVICE CAPABILITIES
Senator Coons. Thank you. Third, if I might, on
cybersecurity, others have asked questions on some of the
broader cybersecurity issues I might have brought up. The
Secret Service, relatively smaller in scale than some of the
other elements of the Department, has a highly skilled and
relatively low head count, Electronic Crimes Task Force. And
they make it possible for us to leverage their expertise with
law enforcement and intelligence agencies around the world.
And I wondered, given the scope of the cyber threat and
given the significant demands we have scaling up the workforce
needed to meet the cyber threat, whether you were giving any
thought to scaling the Secret Service's counter cyber
capabilities.
Secretary Johnson. Our total proposed investment in
cybersecurity is $1.2 billion across the entire Department. We
have capabilities in a number of different components. I am
very impressed by the Secret Service's capabilities in this
regard as a matter of law enforcement investigation of
cybercrime. As you probably know, the Secret Service is the
lead investigative agency for the Target investigation. I think
that that is also the case with regard to the Neiman Marcus
investigation, and they are doing an excellent job.
And so, I believe we need the Secret Service to remain
committed to the cybersecurity mission and do so consistently
with the fiscal constraints that we face. But I believe it is
an important mission, and I think the Secret Service needs to
continue to pursue it.
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
Senator Coons. Thank you. Last question, if I might, Mr.
Secretary, about Customs and Border Patrol. My hometown port,
the Port of Wilmington, lands a significant amount of produce,
produce that spoils rapidly and that arrives sort of in a wave
in particular times of the year, whether it is grapes from
Chile or bananas from Central and South America. And one of the
things that surprised me most about the CBP and its role there
was that they literally cannot pay overtime to get inspectors
there at times of the year when it would be particularly
valuable in terms of the timeliness to market.
There is an issue there, a longstanding challenge, between
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and CBP, and
there is an initial authority in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus
to establish public-private partnerships. This is something I
know is at a very small scale, but has significant impact for
those of us who have active ports.
The private sector has repeatedly raised to me that they
are willing, even eager, to pay overtime. Impacts of the
sequester have led to a number of unfilled inspector and other
customs clearance positions. And so, when we have an
opportunity through resolving what is an accounting issue
between two different agencies, we should take it. And if I can
be helpful in advancing this, I would really like to. It would
make a big difference for a few businesses that employ a lot of
people in my home port.
Secretary Johnson. We can look into that, Senator.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator Coons.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I apologize.
Senator Landrieu. No worries.
SURVEILLANCE DRONES: PRIVACY RULES
Senator Tester. And to Senator Coons from Delaware. Senator
Moran and I have had somewhat of a battle over the NBAF, and
the first thing I heard when I walked through the door was a
discussion about NBAF.
I did not have any questions, but I just wanted to say that
I know this project started long before you came on board. In
fact, it started long before President Obama was in office. And
it still mystifies me how a decision was made to do research on
very, very contagious diseases in the middle of Tornado Alley
in the heart of this country. I will just leave it at that. He
has won this battle. It is going to be funded. It is going to
be built. And I hope I am wrong.
I would say that in the area of drones, the Associated
Press reported last month that DHS loaned its drones to other
agencies--local sheriffs, National Guard--700 times over the
last 3 years. It brings up some questions about how many hours
DHS loaned out drones, who paid for the operations and
maintenance, how the missions are related to border security,
and, most importantly, what kind of surveillance was done
potentially on Americans.
DHS was tasked to develop privacy rules governing the use
of drones for surveillance. Could you give me an update on
where the agency is in the development of those rules?
Secretary Johnson. Senator, if you do not mind, I would
like to take that question for the record so I can give you a
more detailed answer. I believe that aerial surveillance is
important----
Senator Tester. Yes.
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. Coupled with adequate
privacy policies and restrictions. And I think that is
something you and I have discussed.
[The information follows:]
Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) employs several
types of aircraft including manned helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft,
and Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) for border surveillance and law
enforcement purposes. These aircraft are equipped with video, radar,
and/or other sensor technologies to assist CBP in patrolling the
border, conducting surveillance as part of a law enforcement
investigation or tactical operation, or gathering raw data that may
assist in emergency response. Video, images, and sensor data collected
through these aircraft systems alone cannot be used to identify a
person, but they may later be associated with a person as part of a law
enforcement investigation or encounter with CBP officers or agents.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently conducted a
Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) to evaluate the privacy impact of
sensor technology use on CBP aircraft, both manned and unmanned. The
PIA concludes that the DHS/CBP collection of data by its aircraft
assets is within the scope of its authorities, but that there are
privacy risks associated with using sensors on aircraft to collect
personally identifiable information (PII). A privacy concern, specific
to UAS, is that they present a perceived risk to privacy because they
are able to fly for longer hours than manned aircraft and conduct
surveillance undetected. CBP manages this risk by following strict
mission priorities, by operating its aircraft in accordance with
Federal Aviation Administration requirements, and by controlling access
to data collected by UAS. The PIA finds that CBP has rules in place to
exercise strict control over the collection, use, retention and
dissemination of information obtained from the deployment of cameras,
radar, and other sensor technology on its air assets. The PIA found
that the raw information collected from technology deployed on aircraft
rarely provides images that may independently identify persons, and is
not maintained in and covered by a Privacy Act System of Records Notice
(SORN) until it is associated with a person as part of a law
enforcement investigation or encounter with CBP officers or agents. The
PIA notes that images associated with case information allow for the
identification of persons in the image and are subject to the full
range of privacy protections (Privacy Act SORNs, PIAs, and Redress)
accorded law enforcement case information. Lastly, the PIA concludes by
noting that as technology improves, DHS and CBP will review and update
the PIA to ensure that it remains current with the use of the aircraft
and the information collection technology.
Personally identifiable information obtained through the sensors/
cameras on an unmanned aircraft is treated no differently by the
Privacy Act of 1974, the E-Government Act of 2002, the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, and departmental privacy policies and directives
than personally identifiable information input into an online form or
handwritten in a proffered document. Nonetheless, the DHS Privacy
Office is working with the DHS components that operate, or may operate,
unmanned aircraft to communicate and clarify unmanned aircraft
operators' privacy obligations. Thus far, the DHS Privacy Office has
conducted two PIAs and has analyzed three prospective acquisitions of
unmanned aircraft. These are the first PIAs addressing Government use
of unmanned aircraft in the Federal Government.
DHS is finalizing a UAS ``best practices'' document that is being
submitted to OMB for comments and clearance. DHS is also working with
other executive agencies to develop common privacy, civil liberties,
civil rights, transparency, and accountability principles that would
apply to all agencies' UAS programs.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Secretary Johnson. I am committed to further refining those
protections. But I would like to take this question for the
record.
Senator Tester. Yes, you absolutely can. I mean, I think
that you touched on it. I think the fact that drone technology
is being loaned out to local agencies is not necessarily a bad
thing, as long as the surveillance and civil liberties are
respected in that process.
Secretary Johnson. That is correct.
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION FACILITIES
Senator Tester. And the other thing is if you can give me
an idea on how much it was not used for border security
purposes. And by the way, I think drones on the border,
particularly the northern border, which is what I know better
than anything, is something that can save some money and
probably some time, and stop some bad guys.
CBP facilities. I recently learned that an under-used
Border Patrol facility--and I am not being critical--in Shelby,
Montana, is costing the Federal Government about $30,000 bucks
a month, and that lease will continue until 2025. Now, $30,000
bucks a month for a facility in Washington, DC, is probably
pretty cheap. In Shelby, you could probably buy a decent house
for $30,000, okay?
The General Services Administration (GSA) has said that due
to the necessity of Border Patrol facilities, remote areas, CBP
specifications, they had a long-running list of things that
were wrong. This also happened on a port when they were talking
about building housing some time ago. And I said--I cannot even
remember how much it was, but it was well, well into the
hundred thousand, maybe even a quarter million for this house.
And I said are you kidding me? You can buy the town for what
you are spending on this house. And do not tell me because it
costs money to get the products up there.
The fact is that I live there. It was way, way, way
overpriced. They were using different metrics than what they
needed to use to determine what the rental fees are supposed to
be.
I guess it is a management issue. I think that as I look at
it, are there things that your Department can do, working with
the GSA, to make sure that we get fair market value for the
money that we are spending when taxpayers are dropping this
kind of money, because quite frankly, I mean, it is one of
those $500 hammer kind of deals.
Secretary Johnson. I cannot argue with anything you just
said.
Senator Tester. Okay.
Secretary Johnson. I cannot. And it is part of my mission
to look for inefficiencies in the Department.
DISASTER RELIEF FUND
Senator Tester. That would be great. I mean, if you could
just take a look at it because it does not--and maybe there is
a perfectly good reason and I just missed it. And there might
be, but I missed it, and I need to figure it out because it
does not make any sense to me.
We have got a winter that started out pretty easy and it
ended up pretty extreme in the last actually 3 weeks. Record
snow. It is going to flood. I do not think there is any doubt
about it. We have seen it with past disasters. There will be
damage whether it is to infrastructure--roads, bridges,
whatever. And given the past decade with more and more costly
weather events--we can have the debate about climate change,
but things are changing.
Do you believe you have allotted enough money for your
Disaster Relief Fund?
Secretary Johnson. We have asked for an additional $7
billion to the Disaster Relief Fund. There is no doubt that we
have seen in recent years weather of a severe nature coupled
with aging infrastructure that causes things like the Brooklyn
Battery Tunnel to completely flood. When I saw that happen
during Hurricane Sandy, I asked myself, well, it is amazing
that it has not happened before in the history of that tunnel.
And there are reasons for those kinds of things.
So we exist in a fiscally constrained environment. I
believe that what we have asked for should be adequate. If
there is an emergency that requires emergency relief, we will
need to come back to Congress for additional funding.
REAL ID PROGRAM
Senator Tester. That is good. I just wanted to make sure
you were thinking about it when you put the budget together.
That is basically where I was coming from.
One last question, and I have got some others I may submit
for the record. I want to talk about REAL ID for a second.
There are 15 States facing this issue mainly because the
national ID issue is a bit of a hot potato. And I know this is
a different world we live in after 9/11, and I know that there
are some out there that have no--they are going to use it for
all the right reasons and not abuse it.
The fact of the matter is, though, that what we are doing
here is at this point in time, DHS will be able to enforce
compliance by denying access to Federal buildings, even getting
on a plane, and residents from other States have opted out of
REAL ID.
I guess the bottom line and the big concern is you have got
one database with all this information. We can talk about
breaches. They happen all the time. And then the fact that
Montanans' personal information could be accessed by somebody
from, say, Louisiana or Indiana, which is scary in and of
itself.
But the fact is that, number one, is that something that we
should be concerned about? Number two, is it really going to
improve national security?
Secretary Johnson. Well, I guess--I recently had a
discussion with my staff about the REAL ID Program because I
wanted to get an update on where we are and understand fully
the nature of the program. At the end of the day, this is a
program enacted by Congress. Congress saw the wisdom of a REAL
ID Program, and it passed by a majority of its members signed
into law. And so, my obligation is to enforce the law. I am
trying to do so in a phased-in, reasonable manner. I understand
the resistance to this program, but it is a Federal legal
obligation that I have been charged with enforcing.
I mean, to answer your question, though, I do see a
national security value to having certain basic standards that
go into how someone obtains a driver's license. So I do not
want to make light of that at all. I do see a value to that.
Senator Tester. Okay. Well, I would just say thank you for
that. I mean, I voted for your confirmation, and I would do it
again. I think you have the toughest job in Government, in the
Administration right now. This is a big department. It has a
lot of issues, a lot of concerns around civil liberties. The
REAL ID issue is a hot button issue. I was going to ask you if
you would support repealing it. Since you said it was law, we
could certainly do something like that, but I think you
answered that question as a no.
So I would just ask that you do all you can do to respect
the States' rights as you move forward with this issue. I think
it may not be able to be done, but I will tell you that it is a
difficult issue, and it is an issue that being a libertarian
tilt in the State of Montana, it is an issue that people are
concerned about. So thank you very much for your service.
GRANTS: CONSOLIDATION PROPOSAL
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator Tester. Mr. Secretary,
I have only two final questions, and as promised we will be out
of here before 4 p.m. I thank the members for their excellent
questions and review of the budget.
My last two have to do with the State and local
preparedness grants reorganization legislation that was
submitted with this budget. You may be familiar with the work
that has gone on to reform the local community preparedness
grants. It combines State, urban area, port, and transit into
one program. It requires participation by previous grantees on
the advisory board to prioritize future investments.
There is a requirement in this new proposal that 80 percent
of the grant funding must be passed onto local communities and
States, local communities not held by States or Federal. And
the requirement that ensures at least 25 percent are committed
to law enforcement is eliminated.
Do you support this proposal? If so, what do you think its
strengths are? If not, why?
Secretary Johnson. My understanding of the grant
consolidation proposal is that it will add efficiencies, both
in terms of Federal oversight and State oversight, such that
the overhead to the administration of the grants program is
reduced, and more grant dollars reach the intended
beneficiaries. I know that there are a number of people in our
Government who think that is a very good idea that will promote
efficiencies, and this Administration supports doing that.
JONES ACT
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. Many Senators, including
myself, strongly support the Jones Act, which has been a very
important part of our maritime infrastructure in this country
for a long time. The Department has over the past several
years, and I think going back some time, but definitely in the
last few years, has requested waivers for the Jones Act
periodically.
And it got to be such an abusive, in my view, situation
that I put language in last year's appropriations bill to
prohibit you all from moving around the Jones Act, which
requires you to use U.S. flag vessels, building ships in
America. Our merchant marines, our maritime industry is a very
important industry to our country, not just to the State of
Louisiana, which is a proud tradition.
So what are your views of the Jones Act, and under what
circumstances can you imagine it would have to be waived, and
can you anticipate--I know we cannot anticipate anything. But
in what circumstances would you think that it would have to be
waived?
Secretary Johnson. I have had occasion to deal with the
Jones Act both at DOD and at DHS. Waivers under the Jones Act
can be granted for reasons of national security and if there is
no--I may not be getting the words exactly right--readily
available U.S.-flagged alternative.
I have had occasion to consider waivers under the Jones Act
and reached the determination that the waiver request did not
meet the legal standard. So I think that there are
circumstances where a waiver would be appropriate. In my
experience as Secretary of DHS, I have not seen that yet. And
so, we have maintained and enforced the general rule that U.S.
port to U.S. port should involve a U.S.-flagged vessel.
Senator Landrieu. Well, excellent because I think that the
vast--I could be wrong, but I think that the vast majority, or
let me just say the majority of members of Congress would feel
strongly about that. And that is the law, and I appreciate that
answer. We will be carefully monitoring it, and thank you for
your response.
I think, Secretary, this has been a very good and complete
hearing and review of the budget. Of course, we will submit
more questions for the record. You have some to submit to us.
This is going to be a challenging year for all of us, but I
am committed to doing what I can to see that your Department
has the resources that it needs to do the job that we have
asked you to do. I look forward to working with my ranking
member. We had a very cooperative and, I think, helpful and
productive year last year.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
So the record will remain open until close of business
Wednesday, March 26.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department subsequent to the hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Jeh Johnson
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
national flood insurance program reform
Question. The current budget proposal includes funding for 331
employees for implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP), an increase of 6 percent over fiscal year 2014. This budget was
formulated after Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform passed but prior
to the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act now enacted into
law.
The Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act places significant
new requirements on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) such
as limiting annual individual premium increases, issuing refunds, and
reinstating affordability as a priority of the program. With only a 60-
percent compliance rate among those required to have a flood insurance
policy, program participation has been a systemic issue for many years.
I included language in the compromise flood bill now directing the
Administrator of FEMA to strive to limit premiums to no more than 1
percent of the value of the policy and report any instances when
premiums exceed that level.
Additional effort will be required to ensure the provisions are
implemented in a timely and transparent process that ensures impacted
homeowners get the immediate relief they deserve. I am committed to
working closely with FEMA to ensure the proper implementation of this
new law.
When will you know the estimated additional number of employees
needed to effectively implement the new legislation?
Answer. It is too early to determine the impact of new legislation
on our resourcing. We were in the process of expanding our workforce
when the new legislation passed. In fiscal year 2014, FEMA was
authorized 14 new staff positions and, in the fiscal year 2015 request,
we have requested an additional 17 new positions. These positions will
support development of the required regulations, provide additional
actuarial support and ensure full implementation of the Biggert-Waters
Flood Insurance Reform Act. FEMA is assessing the use of temporary
measures to support rapidly implementing some of the newer reform
requirements.
Question. What other resources will FEMA need to properly implement
the law (i.e., unique expertise, data collection, etc.)?
Answer. No additional resources are required until a full
assessment of the legislation's impact is completed.
Question. How do you intend to work with Congress to ensure we know
your new requirements as we draft the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) appropriations bill over the coming months?
Answer. FEMA is still assessing the impacts of the new law. We will
keep your office informed of progress and any challenges in
implementing the law.
flood maps
Question. Accurate flood maps are crucial to informing citizens
about their risk and setting their flood insurance rates.
The justification of the fiscal year 2015 budget request touts that
the relationships and flood risk data developed through FEMA's mapping
program had a ``profound impact on the speed and strength of recovery
in New York and New Jersey'' during Hurricane Sandy. While this is a
good news story, not all communities are satisfied with the accuracy of
their maps. Lafourche Parish has been appealing its new FEMA flood map
since 2008 because FEMA cannot figure out how to give them credit for a
16-foot, $450 million, 40-mile ring levee that was initially authorized
by Congress in 1965 and has held through Hurricanes Katrina, Rita,
Gustav, Ike, and Isaac.
The budget justification also highlights stakeholders have
expressed concern about the remainder of areas that do not have
modernized maps. Yet, just like last year, the budget request only
includes $84 million for flood hazard mapping. An 11-percent decrease
from fiscal year 2014 and a pittance compared to the $400 million
annual authorization established in Biggert-Waters. I am happy I was
able to restore the proposed cut in fiscal year 2014.
Are there other resources proposed in the fiscal year 2015 budget
to be dedicated to mapping activity through fees or other accounts?
Answer. Yes, FEMA's Risk MAP program, which encompasses the
National Flood Insurance Program mapping activities, is funded from two
sources--the $84 million in appropriated funds under Flood Hazard
Mapping and Risk Analysis and another $121 million in fee income from
the insurance program under the National Flood Insurance Fund. The
funding from fees advances mapping while also paying for things like
call centers, data management and archive, Web presence, business
functions, internal controls and program management. The appropriated
funding is focused exclusively on map production and update.
Question. If funds are restored to the fiscal year 2014 level of
$95 million--as I was able to accomplish last year--will you commit to
ensuring the mapping effort is implemented with urgency?
Answer. FEMA, through Risk MAP, is committed to addressing the most
urgent flood data update needs. The Risk MAP program is focused on the
importance of making sure communities and property owners understand
their flood risk accurately. However, map updates take time to
complete. The process is designed to allow for public engagement,
careful, technically credible analysis, public review and legal due
process for affected parties.
Question. In the 2012 Risk MAP Progress Report, FEMA was striving
to have quality data that could be relied on to reflect current
conditions for 56 percent of their flood maps in fiscal year 2013. What
percentage of FEMA's flood maps currently meet this definition and how
much funding is needed to bring all the flood maps into compliance?
Answer. The percent of the flood map inventory reflecting current
conditions as defined in the 2012 progress report is 61 percent. Under
this older definition, the percentage was measured as a fraction of the
maps that have been converted to digital format under Map
Modernization. FEMA has transitioned to measuring this percentage
against the full map inventory including the modernized maps and the
legacy paper inventory. Under this definition, the percentage meeting
new, validated, or updated engineering (NVUE) currentness standards is
48 percent.
One of the core goals of Risk MAP is to reach 80 percent NVUE. It
is not possible to have 100-percent compliance because older maps
continually move out of compliance until they are reviewed and because
map updates take several years to complete, resulting in a significant
number of updates in progress. The Risk MAP strategy is to continually
increase the percentage of the inventory that complies with the NVUE
standard over a number of years as proposed in the budget. Under this
approach, the ongoing costs for Risk MAP include both the costs to
validate or update the inventory that is currently not verified as
meeting the standard, and also to revalidate or update the inventory
that is in compliance today, but will expire in future years. They also
include related costs for outreach and coordination, call centers, data
management and archive, Web presence, business functions, internal
controls and program management. The long-term costs have a high degree
of uncertainty. The recent flood insurance reform legislation from 2012
and 2014, calls for implementation of a number of new mapping
requirements in coordination with the new Technical Mapping Advisory
Council (TMAC). Until the coordination with TMAC is completed and the
new mapping requirements are fully defined, the costs will be very
difficult to estimate. The extent to which the preliminary flood maps
are appealed by communities also has an impact on costs, and
advancement in technology and progress in complimentary Federal, State,
and local mapping efforts also affect future costs.
Currently there are about 550,000 miles that do not meet the NVUE
standard and where updates are not underway. Some of these miles have
already been identified as needing new analysis, but most still need to
be assessed. A thorough cost analysis of the remaining miles that
require study has not yet been conducted.
protecting federal cyber networks
Question. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plays a
critical role in protecting Federal civilian cybersecurity networks.
The proposed funding level for cybersecurity programs across DHS is
about $1.25 billion--the same amount as last year. Funding for Secret
Service and ICE investigations is similar to last year and there seems
to be a few prudent, but small, adjustments in some programs due to
timing of contract execution. But, I could not find any proposed new
and innovative efforts or prevention measures.
I am worried that budget constraints are stifling critically needed
proactive efforts to combat a known economic and security threat.
The lead DHS component for protecting the Federal Government--the
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD)--has a budget
request that merely maintains current programs. In last year's act, I
included a requirement to do an in-depth review of the Federal computer
intrusion detection system, known as EINSTEIN, to ensure effectiveness
of design and innovation in developing future requirements. And while I
look forward to those findings, treading water in the meantime is not
acceptable.
Are you satisfied that this budget proposal is as cutting edge as
the issue of cybersecurity demands? If so, what programs specifically
provide you this assurance?
Answer. The fiscal year 2015 builds upon the investments that the
Department has already made in investigating cyber-crimes and
protecting critical infrastructure; Federal civilian agencies; and
State, local, tribal, and territorial partners. DHS leverages its
interagency partnerships to complement its cyber capabilities resident
in the National Protection and Programs Directorate, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Secret
Service, U.S. Coast Guard, and the Science and Technology Directorate.
NPPD has made great strides over the last several years in
developing core cybersecurity capabilities, such as the National
Cybersecurity Protection System (NCPS) (EINSTEIN), Continuous
Diagnostics and Mitigation Program, and the National Cybersecurity and
Communications Integration Center. These capabilities enable DHS to
protect Federal civilian agencies, support the protection of critical
infrastructure, and respond to and mitigate cyber incidents. The fiscal
year 2015 request continues to build on these foundational programs by
providing $746.4 million in funding for NPPD cybersecurity efforts to
drive toward innovative technologies and programs to better understand
the cybersecurity and communications environment, reduce risk, and
build capacity of our partner's capabilities.
The Secret Service is a leading law enforcement agency in
investigating cyber-crime, having first been assigned jurisdiction for
investigating unauthorized access to computers in 1984. Today, the
Secret Service continues to investigate the largest data breaches
experienced by our businesses and bring to justices the sophisticated
cyber criminals responsible. The fiscal year 2015 request builds upon
this by providing the Secret Service $100.4 million for its efforts to
investigate cyber-crime, implement cybersecurity measures as part of
its protective mission, and secure its own computer systems.
DHS deploys a comprehensive cybersecurity approach in which each
part of DHS's cyber efforts contributes to the mission. The programs
and operations run by the Department have matured considerably over the
past several years and lead national efforts to enhance the security
and resilience of the Nation's critical infrastructure; Federal
civilian agencies; and State, local, tribal, and territorial partners.
--The Department has stood up the Critical Infrastructure Cyber
Community Voluntary Program (C\3\ Voluntary Program) to link
critical infrastructure owners and operators to resources and
capabilities that reinforce cyber risk management planning and
promote use of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Cybersecurity Framework.
--The C\3\ Voluntary Program (pronounced ``C-Cubed Voluntary
Program'') is the coordination point within the Federal
Government for critical infrastructure owners and operators
interested in improving their cyber risk management processes.
The goals of the C\3\ Voluntary Program are to support industry
in increasing its cyber resilience, increase awareness and use
of the framework, and encourage organizations to manage
cybersecurity as part of an all-hazards approach to enterprise
risk management.
--DHS established the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services Program to
protect critical infrastructure from cyber threats. This
program enables the private sector to leverage Government
resources to provide enhanced protection to the Nation's
critical infrastructure, which is mostly owned and operated by
the private sector. This program is based upon the capabilities
of EINSTEIN 3 Accelerated, which provides intrusion prevention
capabilities to Federal civilian agencies.
--EINSTEIN 3 Accelerated provides intrusion prevention capabilities
to .gov networks. The program focuses on providing a wide range
of protection capabilities to improve the security of Federal
civilian Executive branch networks.
--The Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) Program provides
tools and services to Federal civilian agencies to
automatically identify known cybersecurity vulnerabilities on
an ongoing basis and prioritize vulnerability mitigation based
upon the likelihood and impact of a cybersecurity incident.
--By identifying basic cybersecurity problems and prioritizing them
for mitigation, CDM will measurably reduce cybersecurity
incidents across .gov.
--The Secret Service has continued to develop and grow its Critical
Systems Protection program, to provide cybersecurity protection
in direct support of Presidential and Vice-Presidential
domestic and international visits, as well as DHS-designated
special security events.
--Both the Secret Service and ICE-HSI continue to partner through the
Secret Service's growing network of Electronic Crimes Task
Forces (ECTFs), to develop innovative means to investigate and
apprehend transnational cyber criminals.
Question. What in the budget before us is most critical to you in
our war against cyber attacks?
Answer. Cybersecurity is an integrated effort that leverages the
strengths of multiple programs and partners. Singling out one program
or aspect of the Department's cybersecurity efforts is impractical due
to the nature of our work and the threat. The Government's
cybersecurity efforts depend on numerous programs and operations that
span multiple agencies. These programs and operations depend upon the
strength of other programs and operations. For instance, the National
Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), which
shares cyber information and analysis, among other things, depends on
programs such as Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation, the National
Cybersecurity Protection System, the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services
program, and the development of frameworks, data models and
specifications for information sharing, including the Structured Threat
Information eXpression and the Trusted Automated eXchange of Indicator
Information. Programs like CDM and NCPS, for instance, depend upon the
NCCIC and the Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team
to disseminate threat information and act on it.
Ensuring that the Government maintains a robust cybersecurity
capability requires continuous integration of the programs and
operations within DHS and across the Federal Government.
disaster spending--federal status and state responsibility
Question. With a record number of disasters in recent years, we
have to plan for spending on response and recovery. Through the FEMA
Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) we obligated $7.5 billion in fiscal year
2012 and $11 billion in fiscal year 2013. Since 2005, a total of $115
billion has been obligated.
After Hurricane Katrina, I had to battle to make sure that DRF
funding was spent in a way that made common sense. We have learned how
to do disaster recovery in Louisiana and through the Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act and the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act
we have modernized disaster recovery.
I am proud to say that 11 of the 18 major requirements in the Sandy
Recovery Act are complete. A legitimate arbitration process is now
available to expedite funding decisions, communities are taking
advantage of the alternate procedures for rebuilding by consolidating
projects, and debris removal procedures have been simplified. And the
law is just over 1 year old.
Can I get your commitment that FEMA will be supported in its
efforts to continue to implement its improved authorities? Further,
please provide a report on the savings in costs and time the new
authorities have produced?
Answer. DHS is committed to continue implementing the improved
authorities provided to FEMA. The authorities allow FEMA new
opportunities to be innovative and to continue to improve ways to
provide disaster assistance to the survivors.
FEMA is collecting data to determine the effectiveness (savings in
costs and time) of the procedures introduced under the new authorities.
The implementation of the most recent programs/authorities has not been
established long enough to be able to provide a report at this time.
FEMA implemented its pilot programs for Alternative Procedures for
Debris Removal and Alternative Procedures for Permanent Work on June
28, 2013, and May 20, 2013, respectively. Most subgrants are in project
formulation and/or the subgrantees are continuing to complete the work.
The Dispute Resolution Pilot Program for Public Assistance Appeals was
effective on August 15, 2013, but to date, no subgrantee has requested
use of this process. The new Simplified Procedures thresholds were
effective on the date of publication in the Federal register, February
26, 2014. Four disasters have been declared since this date.
Question. Do you believe the request of $7 billion is adequate to
respond to future disasters and support recovery from past disasters
such as Hurricane Sandy, recent tornadoes, wildfires, and floods with
these expedited procedures in place?
Answer. Based on current projected resources needs, FEMA believes
that absent a new catastrophic event, the $7 billion requested for
fiscal year 2015 is sufficient to both respond to new events and
continue ongoing support for survivors and communities recovering from
past events.
There is certainly no doubt that Federal assistance is appropriate
when a State is overwhelmed. Of course, the Stafford Act requires a
cost share for the Federal contribution. Our State governments have a
responsibility for disaster response costs. This is a highly
predictable expenditure, especially in light of the fact that every
State has been hit by a major disaster within the last 3 years. It is
frustrating to hear some States rail against spending in Washington
when so few plan ahead for disaster costs.
Question. Will you work with me to incentivize States to plan ahead
for disaster costs? What current ideas do you have to create this
incentive?
Answer. We are committed to working with the Congress to create and
promote incentives to plan ahead for disasters. While traditional
approaches to disaster preparedness, including mitigation, response and
recovery, have leaned heavily toward a Government-centric model, the
evolving nature of disasters in the United States calls for a broader
perspective by bringing the whole community--local, State, tribal, and
Federal governments, along with private sector and voluntary
organizations--together to identify and implement ways of addressing
the escalating financial and social costs tied to these catastrophic
events.
The following are examples of areas in which incentives could be
more closely aligned to promote disaster cost reduction and increased
resiliency across all levels of government, the private sector, and
individuals:
--Consider tying community participation in the NFIP to eligibility
for post-disaster assistance. Currently, if a community with a
special flood hazard area decides not to participate in the
NFIP, the individual residents are not eligible for post-
disaster assistance. However, a strategy could explore
ramifications of limiting post-disaster assistance for both
individual homeowners and public infrastructure within flood-
prone communities that do not participate in the NFIP. This
could generate greater incentives for a community to practice
flood plain management techniques that protect development from
future flooding.
--Explore alternative disaster declaration criteria and reimbursement
approaches, such as a deductible model. Under the Sandy
Recovery and Improvement Act (SRIA) of 2013, FEMA is currently
examining criteria for Individual Assistance (IA) disaster
declarations, while Public Assistance (PA) disaster
declarations are based in part on estimates of per capita
disaster damages to eligible infrastructure and other costs
under the PA program. However, a deductible model might
encourage States and communities to take additional disaster
preparedness measures that could positively affect disaster
planning efforts and contribute to a reduction in costs, lives
lost, or injuries.
--Explore options to align incentives between Government and private-
sector companies to promote risk reduction and resilience
actions. For example, the World Economic Forum's 2012 Global
Risk Report features a special chapter on the global impacts of
the Fukushima, Japan, tsunami and earthquake, citing examples
of disruptions to global supply chains and stating that the
Development Bank of Japan became the first bank in the world to
offer better borrowing terms to companies that take steps to
increase resilience. We should seek to improve understanding of
private-sector incentives and to capitalize on practices that
promote disaster risk reduction and resiliency.
--Promote improved coordination and efficiency measures in all phases
of emergency management. Adopt mechanisms for more effective
funds management at all levels of government. For example, FEMA
could fully implement a strategic funds management approach to
ensure funds are made available once States have the capacity
to execute them.
disaster funding resiliency
Question. Building communities to withstand the disasters they are
likely to face is just common sense. Smart building also saves money--
$4 for every $1 invested. As we watch communities rebuild--from New
York and New Jersey to Louisiana and Mississippi, we are encouraged by
their innovation as they build stronger, smarter and more resilient
communities.
For the third year in a row the budget request proposes eliminating
the $25 million Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program. These grants
help officials plan for and build more resilient communities,
ultimately saving money and lives when the next disaster strikes.
I do note that $400 million in Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants was
included as part of the President's Opportunity, Growth, and Security
Initiative but the funding source for this Initiative is not under the
jurisdiction of this Committee and is not likely to come to fruition.
Through the passage of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act we have
given FEMA authorities to build communities better and stronger after a
disaster. But I am disappointed Pre-Disaster Mitigation funding can
only be found in an initiative that is unlikely to pass.
If not through this program, what viable funds are included in the
request to promote resiliency which will save Federal funds in future
years?
Answer. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program helps officials
plan for and build more resilient communities, ultimately saving money
and lives when the next disaster strikes. The Administration's fiscal
year 2015 request includes $400 million in Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Grants as part of the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative.
Risk MAP and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) also
promote resilience. One of the key features of the NFIP being based on
accurate flood maps is that it builds resilience before disaster hits.
Homeowners with flood insurance are much more likely to quickly and
fully recover from a flooding disaster than uninsured homeowners who
must rely on their own resources and the limited funds available if
there is a Federal disaster declaration. Risk MAP provides communities
data and tools, including a new suite of flood risk analysis products
designed to complement the regulatory flood maps, that can help inform
State and local preparedness, hazard mitigation plans, emergency
response plans, and disaster recovery plans. The NFIP requires
communities to take basic actions to regulate land use and building
codes in the floodplain, and Risk MAP works with communities to
identify other actions to reduce risk and increase resilience. The Risk
MAP program also increases State and local Risk Management capabilities
by building relationships and fostering an ongoing dialog about flood
risk and flood risk management throughout the Risk MAP process. In many
cases, State and local governments build even greater capabilities by
taking the lead in implementing Risk MAP through the Cooperating
Technical Partner program.
state and local preparedness grants reorganization
Question. The legislative proposal to reform the preparedness
grants which accompanied the budget combines the current State, urban
area, port, and transit security grants into one program and requires
participation by previous grantees on an advisory board to prioritize
future investments.
How will this process ensure all security needs receive the
required analysis and consideration?
Answer. Under the proposed National Preparedness Grant Program,
States will submit one application which will address capability
requirements identified at the State and sub-State level, including
those of local governments, ports, transit agencies, and nonprofit
organizations as applicable and appropriate. Separate funding will be
reserved, as is presently the case, to meet the unique needs of high-
risk urban areas.
While FEMA cannot prescribe the makeup of any statewide governance
structure, the agency has issued guidelines on how States should engage
with their various partners to carry out their Threat and Hazard
Identification and Risk Assessments and investment justifications. To
ensure that States are adequately engaging with local governments, port
and transit agencies, urban areas, nonprofit organizations, and other
``whole of community'' partners, FEMA will require that the State
Administrative Agency submit:
--A detailed description of the Senior Advisory Committee's
composition and an explanation of key governance processes,
including how the Senior Advisory Committee is informed by the
State or territory's Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment and State Preparedness Report data reflecting
capability shortfalls and the approach to address shortfalls in
core capabilities;
--A description of the frequency with which the Senior Advisory
Committee will meet;
--How existing governance bodies such as Urban Area Working Groups
and Transit Security Working Groups will be leveraged by the
Senior Advisory Committee;
--A detailed description of how decisions on programmatic priorities
are made and how those decisions will be documented and shared
with its members and other stakeholders as appropriate; and a
description of defined roles and responsibilities for financial
decisionmaking and meeting administrative requirements.
Question. While a specific program for urban areas is no longer
separate, a requirement that 80 percent of the grant funding must be
passed on to local communities is included.
Is that correct?
Answer. While the legislative proposal does eliminate the Urban
Area Security Initiative as a stand-alone program, the Administration
recognizes the on-going requirements of high-risk, high-density urban
areas and intends to set aside funding under the proposed National
Preparedness Grant Program to address the capability requirements of
those urban areas.
The requirement that States pass on to sub-State recipients at
least 80 percent of the non-urban areas grant funding they receive will
remain in effect.
Question. How will this ensure the areas at most risk receive
adequate consideration of their security needs?
Answer. Allocations to States and to high-risk urban areas will
continue to be risk informed, using the formula currently in effect as
prescribed in the 9/11 Act.
Question. The requirement to ensure at least 25 percent of the
grant funds are committed to law enforcement activities would be
eliminated. The requirement to ensure at least 25 percent of the grant
funds are committed to law enforcement activities is eliminated.
Why?
Answer. The proposed National Preparedness Grant Program aims to
strengthen coordination among States, local governments, ports, transit
agencies and other stakeholders to ensure that preparedness grant
dollars are utilized strategically to address the highest priority
capabilities within a State. The Threat and Hazard Identification and
Risk Assessment process and the capability estimation process that
stems from it are essential to that strategic decisionmaking.
Question. States, in collaboration with their partners, will
determine where to apply grant dollars in any given year to address
capability requirements across the five National Preparedness Goal
mission areas of protect, prevent, mitigate, respond and recover. The
proposed National Preparedness Grant Program is designed to provide
States and their partners with the flexibility to allocate dollars to
address their self-identified priorities; requiring that 25 percent of
their funding to be allocated to specific activities removes a
significant amount of that flexibility and is inconsistent with the
overall approach envisioned in the National Preparedness Grant Program
proposal.
How will this impact security investments?
Answer. Maintenance and sustainment of core law enforcement
prevention capabilities--including fusion centers, countering violent
extremism and State, territory and local information sharing--remain
key Administration priorities, and law enforcement activities
previously funded under other grants, such as Operation Stonegarden and
the Port and Transit grant programs, will continue to be eligible
activities under the proposed National Preparedness Grant Program.
The National Preparedness Grant Program also will continue to
support State, territory, and local law enforcement efforts to
understand, recognize, and prevent pre-operational activity and other
crimes that are precursors or indicators of terrorist activity, in
accordance with applicable privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties
protections. Such efforts include:
--Maturation and enhancement of State and major urban area fusion
centers, including training for intelligence analysts and
implementation of Fusion Liaison Officer Programs;
--Implementation of the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting
Initiative, including training for frontline personnel on
identifying and reporting suspicious activities;
--Continued implementation of the ``If You See Something, Say
Something TM'' campaign to raise public awareness of
indicators of terrorism and violent crime.
Question. Great emphasis has been placed on the Threat and Hazard
Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) process to identify risks
and ultimately influence funding distribution. THIRA in its current
form is still relatively new to communities.
What improvements need to be made to THIRA to ensure it is as good
a tool as possible?
Answer. FEMA's ongoing effort to strengthen the Threat and Hazard
Identification and Risk Assessment is focused on developing and
providing tools and technical assistance to support grantees in
refining and updating their Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessments. FEMA's specific efforts include:
--Developing and providing Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment technical assistance which can be delivered to
grantees both virtually and in-person; and
--Streamlining and improving the Unified Reporting Tool to make it
easier for grantees to input their Threat and Hazard
Identification and Risk Assessment information in a consistent
fashion.
Question. What data is still needed to improve the information we
have to work with and who has it (Federal agencies, private sector,
etc.)?
Answer. FEMA believes that data, expertise, and experience of the
whole community is crucial in our collective efforts to prevent,
protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and
hazards that pose the greatest risk to the Nation. FEMA is continuing
to work with partners to enhance the participation of the whole
community in the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
process. Specifically, FEMA is working with the DHS Office of
Intelligence and Analysis to assist jurisdictions with better
understanding their threats of concern. In addition, FEMA is
coordinating with the DHS National Protection and Programs Directorate
to assist jurisdictions with engaging their protection partners,
including Government and non-Government partners--academia and the
private sector in the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment process. Lastly, FEMA is working on the release of the
National Protection Framework, which will provide the whole community
with additional information on the protection core capabilities. This
additional information will help grantees better refine capability
targets and capability estimation within the Threat and Hazard
Identification and Risk Assessments.
Question. What funding is included in the budget to address the two
previous questions?
Answer. FEMA's fiscal year 2015 budget request accounts for the
personnel and activities needed to develop and deliver technical
assistance to support the evolving needs of grantees in improving,
refining and analyzing their Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment. This includes funds for two full-time employees plus
additional subject matter expertise and support staff as needed, travel
for in-person technical assistance delivery and instructional
materials, and required training and equipment for virtual technical
assistance delivery. Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment content development and delivery is funded through TAP
appropriations; staff support is funded through National Integration
Center and TAP salary budget.
aviation security fee proposals
Question. Mr. Secretary, your budget proposes to increase TSA
offsetting collections by $615 million in fiscal year 2015. First, it
reinstates the annual $420 million in aviation fees billed directly to
the airlines, which was eliminated in the Ryan-Murray budget agreement.
Second, your budget would generate $195 million in additional
collections by raising the current per-passenger fee from $5.60 to $6
for a one-way trip. This fee was just increased in the Ryan-Murray
budget agreement.
While there is merit to having users pay for their security rather
than general taxpayers, the reality is that there is little chance
Congress will re-open the bipartisan budget agreement this year and
enact these proposals. So as chairman of this subcommittee, I will
either have cut TSA's budget by $615 million or find scarce
appropriated funds from somewhere else to fund your request.
For the record, will you provide the Committee with the impact in
fiscal year 2015 of cutting TSA's budget by $615 million below what you
are proposing--specifically the impact to security, personnel,
passenger wait times, and procurement of screening technology?
Answer. A reduction of that magnitude would have to be accommodated
across the Department. The proposed reinstatement of the Aviation
Security Infrastructure Fee and increase in the Aviation Security
Passenger Fee is intended to reflect a better alignment of costs to the
direct beneficiaries of aviation security, and thus the total
discretionary funds required for the Department of Homeland Security
programs. It was not the intent of the fee proposal to imply that the
funding requirements of the Transportation Security Administration's
(TSA) programs would be reduced absent the proposed fee changes. This
is especially true given the efficiencies and program savings already
included in the request for TSA.
enhancing tsa officer safety and security
Question. On March 26, 2014, in response to the deadly shooting at
the Los Angeles International Airport in November 2013, TSA released a
report entitled ``Enhancing TSA Officer Safety and Security: Agency
Actions and Path Forward.'' The report's conclusions included the need
for mandatory training, improved communication systems and policies,
and enhanced law enforcement presence.
What is the timeline for ensuring that airports are in compliance
with TSA's updated requirements for law enforcement presence?
Answer. On March 26, 2014, and in accordance with its discretionary
authority under 49 CFR 1542.303, the Transportation Security
Administration issued Information Circular 14-01 (IC 14-01) to all
Airport Operators regulated under 49 CFR part 1542 to notify them of
security concerns. IC 14-01 sets forth recommended standards for
airport operators to increase law enforcement officer or airport
security guard presence at high traffic locations within the airport
such as during peak travel times at checkpoints and ticket counters to
provide visible deterrence and quicker incident response. While there
is no explicit timetable for implementation, the Transportation
Security Administration recommends airports authorities incorporate
these standards as soon as practicable.
Question. Does TSA anticipate any changes to the Law Enforcement
Reimbursable Program as a result of these requirements?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration is beginning the
process of assessing the funding distribution methodology for airports'
law enforcement and will consider the degree that risk can be reduced
as a component of that analysis. Given constrained resources, any
change in the reimbursement distribution to target higher risk airports
may result in less support for lower risk airports.
creative financing for coast guard cutters
Question. Mr. Secretary, given your Defense background and DOD's
use of multi-year procurement authority, I wanted to ask you about
similar authority for Coast Guard cutters. The Coast Guard plans to
build 25 offshore patrol cutters (OPCs) to replace its medium endurance
fleet of cutters that are technologically obsolete and poorly suited
for performing deepwater missions. It is estimated that the total
acquisition cost of 25 cutters will exceed $10 billion. The Coast Guard
recently awarded three design contracts for the OPC, will downselect to
one shipyard in fiscal year 2016, and have the lead ship commissioned
in 2020.
Multi-year procurement authority provides the potential for
significant cost savings in the acquisition of major vessels by using a
single contract to buy multiple ships over a number of years. Savings
are achieved because the shipyard has more certainty in funding, which
allows for efficiencies in planning, a steady workforce, and lower
overhead costs. The Department of Defense has used this type of
contracting for DDG-51 destroyers, Virginia-class submarines, and the
V-22 Osprey. According to a recent CRS report, this type of contracting
arrangement could save more than 15 percent over the life of an
acquisition. For a $10 billion effort like the OPC, that could result
in real savings.
Would you exercise such authority if it was provided for the
acquisition of offshore patrol cutters? Would you please look into this
and follow up with the subcommittee?
Answer. The Coast Guard currently has multi-year procurement (MYP)
authority under 10 U.S.C. section 2306b. While the OPC acquisition
strategy is not currently structured to use this authority, I will
consider all available options to ensure cost efficiencies are
maximized.
unaccompanied alien children
Question. There have been large annual increases in the number of
unaccompanied alien children (UACs) crossing the Southwest border. Many
of the children are smuggled into the United States by individuals,
paid by their parents' who are already in the United States (often
illegally), to get them here.
The majority of these children come from Honduras, Guatemala, and
El Salvador. A smaller number are from Mexico. The most heavily
impacted area is the Rio Grande Valley, which consists of 316 border
miles between Del Rio and Brownsville, Texas.
There has been a 200-percent increase in UACs apprehended in the
Rio Grande Valley sector in fiscal year 2014 compared with the same
time period in fiscal year 2013 (17,708 vs. 5,906).
Under the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013
(Public Law 113-4), these children are to be transferred to the custody
of Health and Human Service's Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR)
within 72 hours of their being encountered. Unfortunately, ORR often
does not have sufficient shelter space to accept these children within
the legal timeframe. This results in children being kept in Border
Patrol and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) facilities which
were never designed for more than temporary detention of children.
When shelter space is found for these children, it is generally in
another State away from the border. This requires DHS law enforcement
personnel to escort these children frequently on a commercial air
flight. On average, it costs $1,622 to escort one child. In fiscal year
2013, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) escorted more than
23,000 children at a cost of more than $37 million. In fiscal year
2012, ICE escorted just over 12,000 children at nearly $19.5 million.
There has been a large and growing increase in the number of
unaccompanied alien children entering this country annually. What are
the major factors driving this increase?
Answer. Generally migration push and pull factors are not static
and can be very fluid and even cyclical. With regard to unaccompanied
alien children (UACs), a myriad of reasons are motivating this
migration, which include but are not limited to family reunification,
violence in the home country, especially due to the rise in
transnational criminal organizations and gangs, poverty in the
countries of origin, and the perception that once they enter the United
States they will be allowed to remain. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) remains committed to working with our partners at U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of State, and
the U.S. Department of Justice to better understand what is motivating
the continued increase of UAC migration. For example, in February 2013,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), through the DHS Working Group
on UACs, launched ``Dangers of the Journey to Cross the Border,'' a
non-branded public awareness campaign in El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras to highlight the dangers of the journey north. Campaign
materials for radio, television and print media were placed in popular
media outlets in all three countries. The goal of this campaign is to
dissuade potential migrants, particularly 12- to 17-year-olds from El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, from embarking on the dangerous trip
north to attempt to enter the United States illegally via Mexico. The
campaign was live in Central America from January to July 2013 and
continues today with assistance from Federal and nongovernmental
organizations (NGO) partners. The campaign was coordinated across DHS
components, and with interagency partners, NGO representatives, and
Central American Embassy representatives to ensure that the message
resonated with the target audience.
Equally important is the U.S. Government's engagement with other
actors. This includes with the countries of origin, especially the
Governments of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras;
international organizations, such as United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees; regional bodies, such as the Regional Conference on
Migration; and non-governmental organizations. These parties are key
players to better understand and address the root causes for migration
and also assist with the safe reintegration for those children who do
not stay in the United States. Continued engagement and programs
tailored to prevention and reintegration are instrumental to deterring
the continued migration of UACs to the United States.
Question. The growth of this issue has a large impact not only on
the Department of Homeland Security's budget, but on the budgets of a
number of agencies and departments funded by Congress. Does this budget
request provide the resources your Department needs to fully meet its
legal obligations to care for these children?
Answer. ICE and CBP are not funded separately for the care or
transportation of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) but rather
accomplish this task through their normal operating budget. Several DHS
components are involved in processing and caring for UAC prior to their
transfer to U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS). The increased inflow
of UACs has significantly impacted operations at CBP and ICE and
resulted in significant increases in costs associated with manpower and
direct travel costs. ICE manpower costs associated with escort services
both domestically and internationally have been impacted.
Question. Given that this issue touches a number of Departments, it
requires a whole-of-Government approach. What additional steps do you
think the Government--not just your Department--needs to take to
responsibly address this issue?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security remains committed to
developing and implementing policies and procedures that take into
account the needs and safety of each unaccompanied child we encounter.
Developing a whole U.S. Government approach remains essential to
addressing these issues whereby the U.S. Government align our existing
policies and procedures in a manner that recognizes the special
vulnerabilities of this population and, uniformly develop new policies
and procedures that build on existing best practices.
As such, DHS is working very closely with the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) to continue to closely track the rising trend
of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) traveling to the United States,
primarily from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. Both departments
are working together to develop short-term and long-term goals. In the
short-term, DHS and HHS operators meet bi-weekly to discuss day-to-day
operations and develop effective measures to streamline existing
procedures and processes to assist with the quick and safe transfers of
UAC. For example, DHS and Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) have
streamlined the UAC referral process by conducting dual notification to
both ORR and ICE to expedite both placement and transport of the UAC.
In addition DHS and HHS have developed effective information sharing
tools to reduce length of stay in CBP facilities, such as daily
capacity reports and interagency access to operational databases, this
level of engagement between the two Departments has been essential to
managing the operational and fiscal impacts on both Departments in
their work along the Southwest border.
Furthermore, in the January 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act,
HHS, in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
DHS and Department of State (DOS) was directed to develop a long-term
interagency strategy to address the challenges presented by the growing
number of UAC arriving in the United States. This group is currently
reviewing the U.S. Government's UAC policies and operations to develop
and/or identify efficiencies within and across agencies. These
discussions include reviewing mechanisms, across the U.S. Government,
to reduce the flow patterns, identify alternative program/process
models to process, transport and transfer UAC that focus on
streamlining the process while ensuring the needs and safety of the
child are considered, and review existing UAC services to address area
of improvement.
Equally important is the U.S. Government's engagement with other
actors. These partners include the governments of the primary countries
of origin, which are Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras;
international organizations such as United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees; regional bodies such as the Regional Conference on
Migration and non-governmental organizations. These partners help the
U.S. Government better understand and address the root causes of
migration and assist with the safe reintegration of those children who
are returned. Continued engagement and programs tailored toward
prevention and reintegration are instrumental to deterring the
continued migration of UACs to the United States.
increase in illegal border crossings
Question. One measure of how well the Government is doing at
securing our borders is tracking the number of apprehensions of illegal
crossers at the border. From a low of just over 340,000 apprehensions
in fiscal year 2011, there has been a steady increase in the number of
aliens apprehended by the Border Patrol to nearly 421,000 in fiscal
year 2013. At this rate, we could expect nearly 500,000 apprehensions
by the end of this year. While this does not compare to the almost 1.2
million apprehensions in fiscal year 2005, this is a disturbing trend.
The Rio Grande Valley sector of the Border Patrol has surpassed the
Tucson sector as the busiest crossing area along our Southwest border.
Now 44 percent of all undocumented aliens apprehended along the
Southwest border are entering through the Valley. Over the past 6
months, these apprehensions have grown by 72 percent as compared to the
same period in 2013.
Most troubling is the skyrocketing increase in the apprehension of
unaccompanied alien children. According to the Department of Health and
Human Services, there is estimated to be an 815-percent increase in
child apprehensions by the end of this fiscal year compared to fiscal
year 2011. There were 6,500 children apprehended in fiscal year 2011
but in fiscal year 2013 that number rose to nearly 25,000 unaccompanied
children.
Clearly this is a growing problem and we must do more to tackle it.
To what can we attribute this increase in illegal border crossings
and what more can we do to get a handle on it?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) remains committed
to developing and implementing policies and procedures that take into
account the needs and safety of each unaccompanied alien child (UAC) we
encounter. Recognizing the unique strains the short-term care of UAC
places on DHS operational components as well as the intricacies of
managing the external relationships, DHS instituted an internal UAC
working group in 2011. This group, co-led by DHS's Office of Policy and
Civil Rights Civil Liberties with representations from U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and other DHS
offices, is tackling several internal topics. External agency
coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services, the
Department of Justice and other agencies as required. DHS continues to
review its contingency planning to ensure that operations are minimally
impacted in the event of an emergency. CBP launched a successful
unbranded public awareness campaign aimed at children, particularly 12-
to 17-year-olds, and their families from El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras. Children, especially young girls, who migrate to the United
States without the protections of their parents or legal guardians
often face myriad dangers on the dangerous trek north to attempt to
enter the United States illegally via Mexico. The campaign was live in
Central America from January to July 2013 and continues today with
assistance from Federal and NGO partners. The campaign was coordinated
across DHS components, and with interagency partners, NGO
representatives, and Central American Embassy representatives to ensure
that the message resonated with the target audience.
The goal of the campaign is to dissuade potential undocumented
migrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras and includes both
the children themselves and their parents or guardians.
Feedback from a survey conducted at the conclusion of the campaign
found it to be highly credible, reaching over 70 percent among every
population segment (Youths: 73 percent, Parents: 73 percent). The
campaign's affinity level was the highest value (86 percent) being
capable of capturing people's imagination and reflect their concerns.
The high level of the campaign's credibility was the result of
reinforcing real instances that respondents had experienced firsthand
or through a close relationship.
DHS has also led a successful public awareness campaign (Dangers of
the Journey), conducted successful ICE Field Office Juvenile
Coordinator training(s) that included a cross section of participants
from the DHS and U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, and
launched nationwide the CBP ``Know What to Expect Video.'' DHS also
continues to assess its operational and fiscal needs to manage this
population by responding to specific influx or emergency events by
implementing and conducting planned operations.
Equally important is the U.S. Government's engagement with other
actors. These include with the countries of origin, especially the
Governments of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras;
international organizations, such as United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees; regional bodies, such as the Regional Conference on
Migration; and non-governmental organizations. These parties are key
players to better understand and address the causes for migration and
also assist with the safe reintegration for those children who do not
stay in the United States. Continued engagement and programs tailored
to prevention and reintegration are instrumental to deterring the
continued migration of UACs to the United States.
Question. Given the increase in crossings, I am concerned about
some of the reductions in your budget to immigration enforcement,
including to detention beds and alternatives. Are we returning to the
bad old days of ``catch and release'' because we will not have the
resources to enforce our immigration laws?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2015 budget request proposes
resources sufficient to fund 30,539 immigration detention beds. This
bed level is consistent with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's
(ICE) stated enforcement priorities and recent policy guidance and will
allow ICE to continue to detain those aliens that fall into ICE's civil
enforcement priorities or are subject to mandatory detention by
statute, while shifting lower risk aliens into Alternatives to
Detention (ATD) programs. Without a mandated minimum number of
detention beds required by past appropriations, ICE is able to avoid
inefficiencies and budget resources based on need. The requested bed
level of 30,539 accommodates the current fiscal year 2014 mandatory
detained population (22,417 year-to-date average as of March 31, 2014)
and provides a sufficient number of beds dedicated to the accommodation
of higher risk, non-mandatory detainees who present a risk to public
safety, while placing lower risk, non-mandatory individuals in lower
cost ATD programs. Although they are not detained, ATD participants are
subject to monitoring and reporting and are placed in proceedings with
the Executive Office of Immigration Review's immigration courts.
Moreover, the President's budget calls for an increase in funding for
ATD programs in the amount of $2.7 million.
cuts to ice transportation and removal program
Question. There has been a growth in the number of people illegally
crossing our Southwest border. Given scarce resources, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) has established detention and removal
priorities. These priorities are criminal aliens, repeat immigration
violators, and recent border crossers.
In fiscal year 2013, 216,180 aliens--or 59 percent--of the total
368,344 aliens removed from the United States by ICE personnel were
convicted criminals. ICE is also responsible for the transportation of
unaccompanied alien children from where they are encountered along our
borders to shelters operated by the Office of Refugee Resettlement
within the Department of Health and Human Services. In fiscal year
2012, ICE escorted just over 12,000 children at a cost of nearly $19.5
million. In fiscal year 2013, that number nearly doubled to more than
23,000 children at a cost of more than $37 million.
Even if Congress agrees to fund a lower number of detention beds
for next year, ICE still will require a robust transportation budget to
remove aliens who meet its immigration priorities as well as transport
even more children to appropriate official shelters. Yet the budget
request for the transportation and removal program within ICE is $48
million less than what was appropriated in fiscal year 2014.
How much of the total Transportation and Removal Program funding
(and what proportion) was dedicated to transporting UACs to ORR in the
past 3 full fiscal years 2011-2013?
Answer. While under the current appropriation structure UAC
transport is funded under the Transportation and Removal Program (TRP)
programs, projects, and activities budget line, ICE has developed a
cost model to assist in breaking out the costs specific to UAC. The
estimated costs fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2013 are as
follows:
FISCAL YEAR 2011 ESTIMATED UAC COSTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man hour cost
# UAC Man hours \2\ Transport cost Total cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encounters...................... 6,068 .............. .............. .............. ..............
Local Transfer to HHS \3\....... 3,042 5,407 $249,277 $539,144 $788,421
Air Charter Transfer to HHS \4\. 980 .............. .............. 514,730 514,730
Commercial Transfer to HHS \5\.. 1,993 7,088 326,746 2,351,592 2,678,338
Transfer to ICE staging \1\..... 816 .............. 386,593 .............. 386,593
Air Charter Removal \4\......... 69 .............. .............. 36,144 36,144
Commercial Removal \6,7\........ 53 1,260 58,102 98,390 156,491
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 6,068 13,755 1,020,718 3,540,000 4,560,718
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2012 ESTIMATED UAC COSTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man hour cost
# UAC Man hours \2\ Transport cost Total cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encounters...................... 11,997 .............. .............. .............. ..............
Local Transfer to HHS \3\....... 6,014 10,691 $492,844 $1,065,937 $1,558,781
Air Charter Transfer to HHS \4\. 1,938 .............. .............. 1,017,668 1,017,668
Commercial Transfer to HHS \5\.. 3,941 14,013 646,007 4,649,316 5,295,324
Transfer to ICE staging \1\..... 1,613 .............. 784,455 .............. 784,455
Air Charter Removal \4\......... 136 .............. .............. 71,460 71,460
Commercial Removal \6,7\........ 104 2,492 114,872 194,526 309,398
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 11,997 27,196 1,253,724 6,998,908 8,252,632
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2013 ESTIMATED UAC COSTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man hour cost
# UAC Man hours \2\ Transport cost Total cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encounters...................... 20,750 .............. .............. .............. ..............
Local Transfer to HHS \3\....... 10,401 18,491 $852,389 $1,843,644 $2,696,033
Air Charter Transfer to HHS \4\. 3,353 .............. .............. 1,760,158 1,760,158
Commercial Transfer to HHS \5\.. 6,817 24,237 1,117,289 8,041,453 9,158,743
Transfer to ICE stagings \1\.... 2,789 .............. 1,373,610 .............. 1,373,610
Air Charter Removal \4\......... 235 .............. .............. 123,598 123,598
Commercial Removal \6,7\........ 180 4,310 198,675 336,452 535,127
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 20,750 47,038 3,541,964 12,105,305 15,647,269
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Man hour costs is detention cost requirement. Detention requirement based upon aliens booked into an ICE
facility with subsequent bookout to an ORR facility; ALOS is assumed to be 3 days per PBNDS standards; fiscal
year 2013 bed rate is $118.88 plus salary requirement of $45.29; fiscal year 2014 bed rate is $119.86 plus
salary.
\2\ Cost per hour based on fiscal year 2013 actual payroll/5,972 officers/2,080 base hours.
\3\ Local transfers are effectuated on buses. Cost per bus seat is $177.26 based upon contract data.
\4\ Air charter costs are estimated at $525 per seat based upon contract costs.
\5\ Cost of commercial tickets estimated at $323; includes costs for two officers for every 2.25 aliens;
includes $300 in other expenses (hotel, rental cars, etc.) per officer estimated from MCA.
\6\ Cost of commercial tickets estimated at $323; includes costs for two officers for every alien; includes $300
in other expenses (hotel, rental cars, etc.) per officer estimated from MCA.
\7\ Assumes 50 percent 2-day trips and 50 percent 1-day trips.
Question. Is ICE deliberately trying to prevent the removal of
convicted criminals by such a deep cut in this program?
Answer. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) prioritizes
the removal of individuals who pose a danger to our national security,
public safety, or border security. These priorities include individuals
convicted of certain crimes, with a particular emphasis on violent
criminals, felons, and repeat offenders. The President's fiscal year
2015 budget requests funding for 30,539 immigration detention beds. The
requested bed level of 30,539 accommodates the current fiscal year 2014
mandatory detained population (22,417 year-to-date average as of March
31, 2014) and provides for a sufficient number of beds to accommodate
the high-risk, non-mandatory detainees who present a risk to public
safety, while placing lower risk, non-mandatory individuals in lower
cost alternatives to detention programs.
As a result, ICE assesses that the President's budget request will
allow it to continue to remove convicted criminals and other priority
aliens who pose a risk to public safety and national security.
Question. Does ICE not anticipate that its transportation costs for
alien children will increase next year, because the rate of growth
indicates just the opposite?
Answer. Currently, the fiscal year 2014 apprehension trend reflects
a significant increase in the removal of unaccompanied alien children
from the fiscal year 2013 level, the transportation and removal program
budget is based on the total number of removals that are projected for
fiscal year 2015. The fiscal year 2015 President's budget assumes an
average daily population (ADP) of 30,539 which is 3,461 below fiscal
year 2014. At 30,539 ADP, we project a savings of $26 million in
transportation and removal program costs.
funding for alternatives to detention
Question. Your budget proposes to reduce detention bed capacity by
more than 3,400 beds with a corresponding savings of $185 million.
Supporting budget documents justify this cut by claiming, ``ICE will
ensure the most cost-effective use of our appropriated funding by
focusing the more-costly detention capabilities on priority and
mandatory detainees, while placing low-risk, non-mandatory detainees in
lower cost alternatives to detention programs.'' There clearly remains
a large illegal alien population which needs to be placed in some kind
of a detention capacity, yet you provide less than a $3 million
increase to the Alternatives to Detention program. Many Members of
Congress are skeptical that this Administration is serious about
securing our borders so we can move forward with legislation to provide
needed reforms to our broken immigration system. Unfortunately, this
budget provides further support to immigration-reform opponents'
beliefs that the Administration will permit illegal aliens to reside in
our communities without any type of supervised release.
Given the proposed reduction in detention beds, why is there not a
higher level of funding requested for the Alternatives to Detention
program?
Answer. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) exercises
its detention authorities in accordance with the requirements of
immigration law, precedent decisions, policy and the Federal courts.
ICE ensures the most cost-effective use of its funding by focusing
detention capabilities on priority and mandatory detainees while
placing lower risk, non-mandatory detainees in lower cost alternatives
to detention. The Alternatives to Detention program is an important
piece of ICE's immigration enforcement strategy. ICE considers
alternatives to detention where appropriate and legally authorized.
These include bond, order of recognizance, order of supervision,
telephonic monitoring, or global positioning system monitoring. Funding
for the program has exponentially increased since fiscal year 2012. In
fiscal year 2013, the President's budget requested an additional $19
million, from $72.4 million to $91.4 million (a 21-percent increase).
ICE was operating under a continuing resolution through fiscal year
2014, which limited ICE's resources. The President's fiscal year 2015
budget requests $2.7 million above fiscal year 2013 and 2014 levels.
Question. Does this funding level reflect the Administration's
skepticism towards detention alternatives?
Answer. The Alternatives to Detention program is an important and
effective piece of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE)
immigration enforcement strategy. To illustrate this, ATD's compliance
court appearance rates are below.
COMPLIANCE RATES BY FISCAL YEAR
[Figures in percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2014 through Fiscal year 2013 Fiscal year 2012
March -----------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
FS TO Total FS TO Total FS TO Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Success Rate................... 92.9 85.3 90.5 93.5 89.5 92.3 93.0 88.0 91.5
Failure Rate................... 7.1 14.7 9.5 6.5 10.5 7.7 7.0 12.0 8.5
Absconder Rate................. 5.9 6.4 6.1 5.3 4.5 5.1 5.6 3.7 5.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COURT APPEARANCE RATES BY FISCAL YEAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2014 Fiscal year Fiscal year
through March 2013 2012
Court Appearance Stats -----------------------------------------------------
FS FS FS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOIR Attendance Rates (percent)........................... 99.4 99.6 99.6
EOIR Non Attendance Rate (percent)........................ 0.6 0.4 0.4
No. of Attended........................................... 6,757 17,822 16,043
No. of Scheduled.......................................... 6,795 17,897 16,101
EOIR Final Hearing Attendance Rates (percent)............. 94.3 96.7 97.6
EOIR Final Hearing Non Attendance Rates (percent)......... 5.7 3.3 2.4
No. of Attended........................................... 626 2,185 2,353
No. of Scheduled.......................................... 664 2,260 2,411
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding for the program has exponentially increased since fiscal year 2012. In fiscal year 2013, the President's
budget requested an additional $19 million, from $72.4 million to $91.4 million (a 21-percent increase). ICE
was operating under a continuing resolution through fiscal year 2014, which limited ICE's resources. The
President's fiscal year 2015 budget requests $2.7 million above fiscal year 2013 and 2014 levels. The
Administration is committed to ensuring alternate detention options are available for whom ICE has determined
traditional detention is neither mandatory nor appropriate.
Data Notes:
--FS = Full service, TO = Technology only
--Compliance Rates are defined as the following--
--Success Rate: The percent of participants who were terminated from ATD and were compliant during their
time in ATD.
--Failure Rate (Absconder and Violator Rate): The percent of participants who were terminated from ATD due
to failure to comply with program policies or absconded from the program.
--Absconder Rate: The percent of participants who absconded from the program.
--Court data is only tracked for full service participants as it is contractually required. ICE cannot provide
technology only participant court data. Data from Behavioral Interventions, Inc.
honoring ice detainers
Question. A number of jurisdictions around the country have opted
not to honor ICE requests to place a person in the custody of local law
enforcement on detainer so that ICE can determine their legal status.
At the same time, ICE claims that local authorities do not have the
right not to honor these detainers.
Recently, a senior ICE official testified that the increase in not
honoring detainers has ``gotten to the point where it's a community
safety issue.''
Please quantify how these decisions are having a potential negative
impact on public safety.
Answer. Thus far in calendar year 2014, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) has identified nearly 1,300 aliens who were
released from State and local jails because ICE detainers were not
honored by law enforcement agencies. This has a serious potential to
negatively impact community safety when criminals are released into the
general public.
These aliens are released into the community where they can
recidivate and not only pose a danger to the public safety but also a
risk to ICE officers as they attempt to locate and arrest them.
Arresting these individuals outside of a secure environment like a jail
when our detainers are not honored poses an increased risk to officer
safety.
Question. Also, please describe the impact on ICE resources,
including agent workload, resulting from these local decisions.
Answer. Immigration detainers are a crucial part of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) efforts to remove criminals
who are in Federal, State, or local custody and whose release into the
community may undermine public safety. The form I-247, Immigration
Detainer-Notice of Action, notifies a Federal, State, or local law
enforcement agency that ICE intends to assume custody of an individual
once he or she is no longer subject to detention by the law enforcement
agency. To enable ICE to assume custody, a detainer requests that the
law enforcement agency maintain custody of an alien for a period not to
exceed 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays)
after he or she would otherwise be released.
Thus far in calendar year 2014, ICE has identified nearly 1,300
individuals who were released from State and local jails because ICE
detainers were not honored by law enforcement agencies. Arresting these
individuals outside of a secure environment if our detainers are not
honored poses an increased risk to officer safety, and equates to an
additional cost of approximately $3,900 per at-large criminal arrest,
requiring approximately 34 work-hours.
immigration data and priorities
Question. One of things that the subcommittee would greatly benefit
from would be more comprehensive and timely data about how the
Department is managing its border and immigration enforcement
responsibilities.
How many individuals are being apprehended, where are they being
apprehended, and how do they fit into the Department's enforcement
priorities?
Answer. Please reference the below chart reflecting U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Enforcement and Removal
Operations (ERO) apprehensions in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 (year-to-
date).
FISCAL YEAR 2013 ENFORCEMENT AND REMOVAL OPERATIONS APPREHENSION THREAT LEVEL BY AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2013 arrests by threat level
-----------------------------------------------------------
Area of responsibility ICE ICE ICE Non-criminal
threat threat threat immigration Total
level 1 level 2 level 3 violator
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta............................................. 5,988 3,429 3,434 4,749 17,600
Baltimore........................................... 731 267 475 1,105 2,578
Boston.............................................. 1,474 356 478 1,640 3,948
Buffalo............................................. 889 204 107 511 1,711
Chicago............................................. 3,395 2,236 2,807 3,573 12,011
Dallas.............................................. 6,422 3,124 4,405 2,022 15,973
Denver.............................................. 1,786 1,366 1,100 625 4,877
Detroit............................................. 1,529 1,160 1,387 1,361 5,437
El Paso............................................. 1,195 415 553 1,106 3,269
Houston............................................. 4,827 2,786 2,622 3,716 13,951
Los Angeles......................................... 9,570 4,531 4,666 6,396 25,163
Miami............................................... 3,813 1,529 1,812 4,196 11,350
New Orleans......................................... 2,234 1,590 2,546 2,745 9,115
New York City....................................... 1,796 811 1,199 1,827 5,633
Newark.............................................. 1,116 326 631 2,380 4,453
Philadelphia........................................ 2,172 583 812 1,416 4,983
Phoenix............................................. 2,886 1,501 2,514 4,166 11,067
Salt Lake........................................... 1,959 1,356 1,863 1,035 6,213
San Antonio......................................... 4,172 3,787 13,262 4,513 25,734
San Diego........................................... 1,607 651 1,781 2,499 6,538
San Francisco....................................... 7,554 3,227 4,134 5,885 20,800
Seattle............................................. 2,183 994 1,430 2,558 7,165
St. Paul............................................ 1,584 1,302 1,342 1,318 5,546
Washington.......................................... 1,545 1,315 1,229 1,554 5,643
Fugitive Operations Support Center.................. 8 ......... ......... 5 13
Unassigned Area of Responsibility................... 275 116 183 942 1,516
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2014 YEAR-TO-DATE U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT AND REMOVAL OPERATIONS APPREHENSION
THREAT LEVEL BY AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2014 year-to-date arrests by threat level
-----------------------------------------------------------
Area of responsibility ICE ICE ICE Non-criminal
threat threat threat immigration Total
level 1 level 2 level 3 violator
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta............................................. 2,662 1,561 1,261 1,864 7,348
Baltimore........................................... 268 159 212 490 1,129
Boston.............................................. 459 168 210 627 1,464
Buffalo............................................. 400 87 54 285 826
Chicago............................................. 1,441 1,194 1,226 1,461 5,322
Dallas.............................................. 2,858 1,647 1,846 969 7,320
Denver.............................................. 699 597 377 230 1,903
Detroit............................................. 751 519 540 570 2,380
El Paso............................................. 477 157 254 482 1,370
Houston............................................. 2,533 1,552 1,385 1,945 7,415
Los Angeles......................................... 4,390 2,224 1,827 2,794 11,235
Miami............................................... 1,393 715 724 1,581 4,413
New Orleans......................................... 1,087 828 841 1,031 3,787
New York City....................................... 800 454 552 829 2,635
Newark.............................................. 513 180 259 1,041 1,993
Philadelphia........................................ 984 284 311 820 2,399
Phoenix............................................. 972 643 1,048 1,495 4,158
Salt Lake City...................................... 744 626 856 439 2,665
San Antonio......................................... 1,607 1,362 4,464 2,380 9,813
San Diego........................................... 862 431 850 1,393 3,536
San Francisco....................................... 2,893 1,079 1,249 1,601 6,822
Seattle............................................. 879 492 604 917 2,892
St. Paul............................................ 653 567 461 436 2,117
Washington.......................................... 575 546 473 523 2,117
FOSC................................................ 4 ......... ......... 3 7
Unassigned Area of Responsibility................... 148 139 121 452 860
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``area of responsibility'' refers to the ERO field office to which the officer conducting the arrest is
assigned. The arrests listed under ``FOSC'' are conducted by officers assigned to the Fugitive Operations
Support Center in Williston, Vermont, although the arrests may take place in another location. The arrests
listed under ``unassigned area of responsibility'' refer to arrests conducted by officers not assigned to an
ERO field office in the ICE case management system.
Fiscal year 2014 year-to-date data was updated as of March 29, 2014, (ICE Integrated Decision Support (IIDS)
v.1.16 as of March 31, 2014, ENFORCE Integrated Database (EID) Extract as of March 29, 2014). Fiscal year 2013
data are historical and remain static.
Arrest criminality is based on apprehension threat level. The apprehension threat level is associated with the
person's ICE arrest and it reports only on convictions for crimes occurring on or prior to the date of that
ICE arrest. ICE began reporting this as of October 1, 2010. Threat levels reflect the priorities outlined in
former Director John Morton's June 2010 memorandum entitled ``ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities
effective October 1, 2010.'' Since fiscal year 2011, ICE has defined criminality as whether or not an alien
has an ICE threat level (convicted criminal) or not (non-criminal immigration violator). For purposes of
prioritizing the removal of aliens convicted of crimes, ICE personnel refer to the following offense levels:
level 1, level 2, and level 3 offenders. Level 1 offenders are those aliens convicted of ``aggravated
felonies'' as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or two or more crimes each
punishable by more than 1 year, commonly referred to as ``felonies.'' Level 2 offenders are aliens convicted
of any other felony or three or more crimes each punishable by less than 1 year, commonly referred to as
``misdemeanors.'' Level 3 offenders are aliens convicted of misdemeanor crime(s) punishable by less than 1
year.
Starting in fiscal year 2013, ERO arrests include all ERO programs. ERO programs include Detention and
Deportation, Fugitive Operations, Alternatives to Detention, Criminal Alien Program, Detained Docket Control,
Non-Detained Docket Control, Violent Criminal Alien Section, Joint Criminal Alien Response Team, Juvenile, Law
Enforcement Area Response, and 287(g). Prior to fiscal year 2013, 287(g) data was not included.
Question. How many meet ICE's statutory or policy criteria for
detention?
Answer. In fiscal year 2013, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations
(ERO) recorded encountered 193,357 encounters after a criminal arrest
by law enforcement agencies criminal immigration violators. Of these
individuals, 192,912 met one of ICE's enforcement priorities (e.g.,
criminal alien, repeat immigration violator, or recent border crosser)
and were booked in for detention. The total average daily population in
ICE detention in fiscal year 2013 was 33,788. Fifty percent of all
fiscal year 2013 ICE book-ins derived from a Customs and Border
Protection apprehension.
In fiscal year 2014 (year-to-date), ICE ERO encountered recorded
82,640 encounters after a criminal arrest by law enforcement agencies
criminal immigration violators. Of these individuals, 77,765 met one of
ICE's enforcement priorities (e.g., criminal alien, repeat immigration
violator, or recent border crosser) and were booked in for detention.
The total average daily population in ICE detention in fiscal year 2014
year-to-date is 31,447. 56 percent of all fiscal year 2014 year-to-date
book-ins derived from a Customs and Border Protection apprehension.
Question. How many are put on Alternatives to Detention or some
other non-detention form of supervision, and which enforcement priority
levels do they fit into?
Answer. Please reference the below chart reflecting Alternatives to
Detention enrollments by priority status from fiscal years 2012-2014
(year-to-date).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority-- non- Non-priority--
Criminal criminal non-criminal Total
enrollments enrollments enrollments enrollments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2014 thru Jan 2014.................. 2,210 1,900 370 4,480
Fiscal year 2013 year-end snapshot \1\.......... 7,268 6,462 1,150 14,880
Fiscal year 2012................................ n/a n/a n/a 15,997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fiscal year 2012, criminality, priority--non-criminal, and non-priority--non-criminal enrollments were not
captured. As a result, this information is designated n/a.
\1\ In fiscal year 2013, a total of 6,240 ``priority--non-criminal enrollments'' and ``non-priority--non-
criminal enrollments'' were not captured between October 2012 and January 2013. As a result, this data is only
available beginning in February 2013. Priority and criminality enrollment statistics were pulled on a monthly
basis and combined to create fiscal year statistics. Monthly enrollments are counts of individuals, but
individuals may have been re-enrolled in subsequent months.
Enrollment data is from ATD service providers. Participant Reports, criminal and priority enrollments are pulled
on a monthly basis from ICE Integrated Decision Support (IIDS). IIDS is a data warehouse that contains dynamic
data extracts from the Enforcement Integrated Database (EID).
Criminal designation is based on an alien's removal case threat level. ATD Enforcement Priorities are defined as
a non-criminal alien with one of the following conditions: charged with a specific subset of IN A code 212 or
237, has a final order, a recommended supervision case category of 3, 10, 11, 12, 16, 8C, 8E, 8F, 8G, 8H, or
8I, was arrested by Border Patrol, or has a pending criminal charge.
Approximately 3.5 percent of submitted A-numbers fail to return a record, the status is unknown, and it is not
included in the data set.
Question. On average, how many days does it take to keep people on
ATD before the cost benefits outweigh the average days of someone who
is physically detained?
Answer. With an average bed per day rate of $119.86 and an average
length of stay in custody of 31.1 days, on average it costs U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) $3,727.65 to detain an alien.
The average cost per participant under the Intensive Supervision
Appearance Program II (ISAP II) contract is $4.50 per participant per
day on average. This translates into 828 \1\ days of alternatives to
detention monitoring before the cost benefit is negated compared to
that of detention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based upon option year 4 ISAP II contract prices for legal
stage, contract management, and assigned technology across both the
full-service and technology-only components, and the use of high-low-
high reporting, which includes recurring case reviews that, depending
on the participant's compliance with release conditions, may result in
higher or lower levels of case management and technology assignment
which in turn affects reporting and associated costs. These days can
also be non-consecutive days of enrollment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How many criminal vs. non-criminal aliens were removed in
fiscal years 2009-2013? (Please provide both actual numbers and the
percent of each).
Answer. Please reference the below chart reflecting removals by
criminality from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2013.
FISCAL YEARS 2009-2013 REMOVALS BY CRIMINALITY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-criminal
Convicted immigration
Convicted criminal Non-criminal violator
Fiscal year criminals percentage of immigration percentage of Total
total removals violator total removals
(percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2009............ 136,343 35 253,491 65 389,834
Fiscal year 2010............ 195,772 50 197,090 50 392,862
Fiscal year 2011............ 216,698 55 180,208 45 396,906
Fiscal year 2012............ 225,390 55 184,459 45 409,849
Fiscal year 2013............ 216,810 59 151,834 41 368,644
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data are historic and remain static. Removals include returns, which include voluntary returns, voluntary
departures and withdrawals under Docket Control.
Starting in fiscal year 2009, ICE began to ``lock'' removal statistics on October 5th at the end of each fiscal
year and counted only the aliens whose removal or return was already confirmed. Aliens removed or returned in
that fiscal year but not confirmed until after October 5th were excluded from the locked data and thus from
ICE statistics. To ensure an accurate and complete representation of all removals and returns, ICE will
include the removals and returns confirmed after October 5th into the next fiscal year. [The number of
removals in fiscal year 2009, excluding the ``lag'' from fiscal year 2008, was 387,790. The number of removals
in fiscal year 2010, excluding the ``lag'' from fiscal year 2009, was 373,440. This number does not include
76,732 expedited removal cases which ICE closed on behalf of CBP in fiscal year 2010. Of those 76,732 cases,
33,900 cases resulted from a joint CBP/ICE operation in Arizona. ICE spent $1,155,260 on those 33,900 cases.
The number of removals in fiscal year 2011, excluding the ``lag'' from fiscal year 2010, was 385,145. The
number of removals in fiscal year 2012, excluding the ``lag'' from fiscal year 2011, was 402,919. Fiscal year
data lag/case closure lag is defined as the physical removal of an alien occurring in a given month; however,
the case is not closed in ENFORCE Alien Removal Module until a subsequent fiscal year after the data is
locked. Since the data from the previous fiscal year is locked, the removal is recorded in the month the case
was closed and reported in the next fiscal year removals. This will result in a higher number of recorded
removals in a fiscal year than actual departures. ICE has defined criminality as whether or not an alien has a
criminal conviction recorded in the Crime Entry Screen of its data system.]
delays in processing applications for immigration benefits of u.s.
citizen spouses
Question. There have been recent media reports claiming Americans
seeking ``green cards'' for their foreign spouses or immediate family
members are experiencing delays in processing of these applications due
in part to the focus of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
adjudicators on processing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
The stories claim that what used to take 5 months has now stretched to
upwards of 15 months--keeping families separated far longer than should
be necessary.
What are the actual facts behind these claims?
Answer. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has
experienced an increase in processing times for numerous benefit types,
including petitions for spouses filed by United States citizens. In
building capacity at USCIS Service Centers to handle the Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals requests, the petitions for immediate
relatives of U.S. citizens were transferred to the National Benefits
Center (NBC) in Missouri. Soon thereafter, the NBC encountered a higher
than anticipated vacancy rate resulting from as many as 50 percent of
qualified job seekers declining offers of employment, which affected
NBC processing times. USCIS has addressed these longer processing times
by continuing to hire staff and by transferring cases to locations
better able to handle additional work. This has improved USCIS's
ability to adjudicate these immediate relative petitions in a timely
manner and we now anticipate reducing the processing time of immediate
relative petitions to an average of 5 months or less by this summer.
While a relatively few cases may have had processing times of 15
months, the average processing time for all immediate relative
petitions filed by U.S. citizens has been well below this figure for
many years.
Question. Currently how long is it taking to process spousal/family
green cards compared with March 2011?
Answer. The current processing time for family-based form I-485 is
6 months. In March 2011 the processing time was 4.6 months. The current
processing time for immediate relative form I-130 is 7.4 months. In
March 2011 the processing time was 5.8 months.
Question. What is needed to reduce this backlog and provide the
level of timely service deserved by people who are adhering to our
immigration laws?
Answer. USCIS has expanded its capacity to adjudicate backlogged
petitions and applications by reallocating workload among our centers,
hiring additional staff, and expanding the use of overtime. USCIS
expects to reduce the processing time of immediate relative form I-130s
to an average of 5 months or less by this summer.
use of increased fees to pay for customs officers
Question. Last year, the President's budget called for hiring 1,877
new Customs and Border Protection officers (CBPOs) through an increase
in the COBRA and immigration user fees and 1,600 new officers through
direct appropriations. The Department made a strong case--validated by
an independent study--for the need for more officers to expedite travel
and trade. According to your budget request, an additional 2,000 CBPOs
is projected to add nearly 66,000 new jobs, add $4 billion to gross
domestic product, and result in 46,000 more seizures of illegal items,
including potentially over $5.5 million in counterfeit and fraudulent
goods.
The Senate version of the fiscal year 2014 bill concurred in one of
the fee proposals. However, due to extremely vocal opposition by
outside special interests, the final fiscal year 2014 bill rejected any
fee increase and ended up funding 2,000 new officers from direct
appropriations. In fiscal year 2016, it will cost more than $350
million just to sustain those 2,000 new officers. While I strongly
support hiring more officers, clearly this Committee cannot afford to
pay for any additional CBP officers through direct appropriations.
As it did last year, your budget proposes to hire 2,000 additional
CBP officers via the same increase in the COBRA and immigration user
fees. Ultimately, Congress was unwilling to accept these increases last
year. How can you convince the Congress to take a different position
this year?
Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection's cost of inspectional
services has steadily increased while the rates for inspectional fees
intended to support key parts of CBP's operations have not been
increased since 2007 for the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1985 (COBRA) fees and 2001 for the Immigration User Fees (IUF).
IUF fees are intended to fully support the cost of CBP's
immigration inspectional activities. However, in fiscal year 2013, CBP
only recovered 76 percent of its costs for immigration inspectional
services from the IUF fees. Had IUF been adjusted annually for
inflation since its creation, the air and commercial vessel passenger
fees would have been $12.31 in fiscal year 2013. CBP is proposing a $2
fee increase from the current $7 rate to $9 for IUF air and commercial
vessel passengers, well below their inflationary level.
While COBRA was not statutorily intended to be full cost recovery,
given the hierarchical framework of those items the fees reimburse; CBP
believes the percentage of cost recovery for COBRA is below what was
originally intended. In fiscal year 2013, CBP only recovered 50 percent
of the costs eligible to be reimbursed by COBRA fee revenue. For
example, had the COBRA fees been adjusted annually for inflation since
its creation, the air and commercial vessel passenger fee would have
been $10.66 in fiscal year 2013. CBP is proposing an increase from the
current rate of $5.50 to $7.50 for the COBRA commercial air passenger
fee in fiscal year 2015, well below its inflationary level, with
proportional increases for the additional fees governed by COBRA.
Current deltas in CBP's cost recovery for the activities supported
by COBRA and IUF fees are made up with CBP's annual appropriations. Not
increasing the fees will continue to burden CBP's appropriated
resources and will result in diminished capabilities for CBP as each
year the buying power of these fees decreases. The proposed fee
increases in the fiscal year 2015 budget, supporting up to an
additional 2,000 CBPOs will not only support CBP's goal to apply the
findings of the Workload Staffing Model identified CBPO requirement at
U.S. Ports of Entry for fiscal year 2015, but will continue to do so
with the goal of more efficiently and effectively accomplishing CBP's
trade and travel facilitation mission, and position CBP to better
address the growing needs associated with increasing trade and travel.
To address these needs, the President's fiscal year 2015 budget
requests funding for new hand-held screening equipment, resources to
begin replacing large and small scale Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII)
systems, and support for new CBPOs and support staff. While these
requests are critical to increase efficiencies (e.g., hand-held
inspection equipment) and prevent the loss of ground gained (e.g.,
replacement of aging NII equipment), the most notable step to address
the workload need is additional CBPOs, along with the appropriate level
of mission and operational support staff. These strategies and the
resources necessary to accomplish this mission have been outlined in
CBP's fiscal year 2014 Resource Optimization Strategy report. With
these proposed fee increases, CBP could potentially recover 99 percent
of current IUF eligible costs, 99 percent of current COBRA eligible
costs for customs inspectional activity in the air environment, 19
percent for COBRA eligible expenses in the land environment, and 98
percent for COBRA eligible expenses in the sea environment in fiscal
year 2015.
The projected cost recovery in fiscal year 2015 assumes fiscal year
2013 costs and service levels and does not take into consideration an
estimated 3-4 percent growth in passenger volume in future fiscal years
or infrastructure requirements assumed in CBP's Resource Optimization
Strategy. Even with increasing volume and requirements in future fiscal
years, the proposed increase in collections, with an increase in the
air passenger environment alone assuming current service levels, will
mean greater security, lower wait times, and increased services for
those traveling to the United States.
Question. What is the status of hiring and training the 2,000 new
CBP officers we funded in the fiscal year 2014 act?
Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Office of Human
Resource Management is planning to publish new CBPO Job Opportunity
Announcements in late spring and summer 2014 to support hiring surge
requirements. Additional vacancy announcements will be opened as
necessary in 2015 to support remaining hiring requirements. A critical
component in supporting this hiring initiative is the Office of
Internal Affairs' (IA) role in conducting polygraph examinations and
background investigations within the required timeframes. We estimate
that IA will need to clear at least 4,300 applicants in total for
fiscal years 2014 and 2015 to meet CBP's hiring requirements. CBP will
meet this requirement and have sufficient candidates to place into
academy classes, to onboard all 2,000 new CBP officers, as well as
address attrition hiring goals by the end of fiscal year 2015.
Question. Do you and FLETC have sufficient resources to perform
polygraphs and background investigations and then train the 2,000 CBPOs
from fiscal year 2014? If not, how much in additional resources do you
and FLETC require?
Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has developed a
plan to have sufficient resources to place all 2,000 new CBPOs into
academy classes and on board by the end of fiscal year 2015 through
additional contract support. A request for proposal was announced on
FedBizOpps on March 18, 2014, for certified polygraph support, and CBP
expects to award the contract this summer. CBP is continuously
monitoring resource needs and progress towards the hiring of the 2,000
new CBPOs and will address any additional resource needs should they
develop.
reduction in cbp flight hours
Question. This Committee strongly supports border security and has
consistently added more funds for critical air and marine assets as
well as funds to operate them. We cannot adequately protect our borders
when your budget cuts funds to fly planes and operate boats. In 2014,
Congress specifically added funds to sustain 107,000 flight hours,
returning you to the fiscal year 2010 level. But the funding level
requested in this budget reduces flight hours to about 73,000 hours,
equaling the unacceptably low fiscal year 2103 level.
Given all of the border security efforts and the counterdrug
mission, how can you justify a $33 million reduction to CBP flight
hours?
Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) air assets have
become more effective and flexible as its 10-year strategic
recapitalization effort has progressed, and the numbers of types of
aircraft have been consolidated as the fleet has been standardized. The
total aircraft population is declining as aged assets are retired. The
flexibility, number, and types of assets are critical components of the
flight hour equation, as are the priorities input to the flight hour
allocation process. Over the years, CBP has noted that there is not
always a consistent correlation between the flight hours allocated in a
given year and mission results, but on average an increase in sorties
can improve results and increase situational awareness across the
borders and maritime patrol lanes. When faced with difficult budget
decisions, CBP chose to manage fluctuating flight hour allocations so
as to take full advantage of the enhanced capabilities of its assets.
Missions with solid intelligence and the highest potential for gain are
emphasized over missions that do not directly contribute to CBPs core
needs, or may require more intensive effort to gain the added
situational awareness. CBP's Office of Air and Marine (OAM) will always
respond to missions where officer safety could be at risk and to
humanitarian missions. However, within the overall CBP priorities that
include the Southwest border, the drug source and transit zone, and
counter-drug operations along the maritime approaches to Puerto Rico,
sorties that strictly enhance intelligence, strictly support other
Federal, State, and local not directly involved with Department of
Homeland Security missions, provide logistical support, or are not
reimbursed, will be limited or eliminated from the mix of missions.
p-3 service life extension program
Question. Congress has supported CBP's long-term plan to extend the
service life of the P-3 aircraft another 18-20 years. The P-3 patrol
aircraft have been conducting counter drug missions in the source,
transit, and arrival zones of the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific for
over two decades. In fiscal year 2013 these patrol aircraft disrupted
shipments of over 119,000 pounds of bulk cocaine transiting from South
America to Mexico and the United States. For this fiscal year, CBP has
allocated the P-3 program 200 flight hours in the Gulf of Mexico to
address the specific threat to the Gulf Coast and Puerto Rico, and 300
hours off the California coast and Baja to stem the flow of drugs to
the California Coast.
The P-3 plan--submitted to Congress in November 2008, and fully
funded at the requested level each year--called for the service life
extension of 14 P-3s, with final funding in fiscal year 2015. To date,
nine P-3s have been completed, two aircraft have been partially
completed, and three more remain to be completed through the first half
of fiscal year 2016. I understand that a small amount of funding is
needed to complete the remaining aircraft, yet no funds are included in
the budget request. It seems pound-wise and penny-foolish to have spent
so much time and money to procure the remaining wing-sets to upgrade
these aircraft only to leave the last two to three unfinished.
Why not complete the program?
Answer. The effectiveness of the CBP P-3 long range patrol aircraft
as a counter-drug asset is well-documented. Over the past 8 years, the
P-3 wing has disrupted over 1.28 million pounds of bulk cocaine
destined for Mexico and the United States, valued at over $96 billion.
The P-3 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) has proven the most
efficient way to ensure that these valuable assets are available for
the next 18-20 years.
In recognition of the strong desirability to finish the SLEP and
retain all 14 aircraft, and taking advantage of the tremendous
efficiencies achieved by the program in the past year and a half, CBP
is determined to find a way forward to complete work on the last three
aircraft. The CBP OAM has been conducting a reconciliation of all SLEP
obligations and expenses, and refining its estimates for the work to be
completed on the last aircraft to ensure that full advantage is taken
of the efficiencies gained to date. CBP expects to develop a potential
way forward to fund the remaining work in fiscal year 2014, combining
internal budget offsets and recoveries from prior year funded
activities with reduced cost estimates and, provided it is successful,
intends to consult with the Committees on the potential solutions.
Question. What are the impacts to the total Federal Government
effort in the counternarcotics mission in the source and transit zone
if CBP reduces its assets?
Answer. Currently CBP is the largest aerial Force Provider to the
Joint Interagency Task Force South providing approximately 39 percent
of the Multi-Role (Air and Maritime Interdiction) Patrol Aircraft. CBP
P-3s were instrumental in 64 percent of the cocaine interdictions. CBP
P-3s currently average over 22 pounds of cocaine seized per flight hour
by tactically position aircraft in only the highest converging threat
vectors within the source and transit zone via a fused intelligence
approach and regional effort through the interagency and participating
Partner and Allied Nations. These efforts to counter illicit
trafficking are a big piece to the overall effort to aid in the
stabilization and reduction of corrosive effects with Mexico, Central
and South America.
dhs morale
Question. Mr. Secretary, DHS continues to rate at the bottom of
employee satisfaction surveys and suffers from low employee morale. The
Office of Personnel Management's 2013 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
showed that the Department's employees have little job satisfaction and
limited faith in their leadership. The Department ranks at the bottom
in both categories.
How can we expect the Department to perform well when it greatest
resource, its people, have little faith in their leaders? As you begin
your tenure at DHS, what will you do to improve job satisfaction and
instill leadership your employees can be proud of?
Answer. I have assigned a high priority to providing the DHS
workforce with the leadership that they need to perform the mission. I
am bringing in a new leadership team, and have already filled the
positions of Commissioner, Customs and Border Protection; the Under
Secretary for National Protection and Programs Directorate; the
Inspector General; Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis; and
Under Secretary for Science and Technology. I am anxious to fill the
remaining key leadership vacancies as quickly as I can.
Despite low leadership scores, it is important to note that DHS
employees have stayed focused on and committed to the DHS mission. The
vast majority of employees report that they like their jobs; derive a
sense of personal accomplishment from their jobs; when needed they put
in extra effort to get the job done; and are constantly looking for
better ways to do their jobs. Recent efforts to strengthen employee
satisfaction and improve faith in leadership include a renewed emphasis
on leader development and a robust communications strategy. The
importance of frequent communication from DHS senior leadership across
the Department in the effort to improve employee morale and engagement
cannot be overstated. Our greatest asset as a Department is our people.
I intend to foster a work environment that promotes the professional
development of our employees, enhances workforce engagement, encourages
innovation and creativity and connects employees to the mission, the
Department and their co-workers.
Since coming on board as Secretary I have been meeting with
employees all over the country to get a sense of what their issues are
and how much they know about efforts underway within the Department to
improve engagement. Two-way communication is key. I also expect the
highest levels of integrity from everyone on the senior leadership team
and am holding them accountable for accomplishing results. Action
planning across the Department has become more robust with a renewed
focus on root causes in order to identify areas of challenge that need
improvement. Once the areas are identified we are soliciting employee
input, at the Component level, to collaborate on solutions.
cohesive dhs structure
Question. In December 2013, the DHS Inspector General released a
report describing management challenges facing the Department of
Homeland Security. One of the major concerns in this report was the
lack of cohesion and a ``stovepiping'' mentality which sometimes occurs
as a result of the current DHS structure. This structure can cause
confusion among the components, hindering the ability of the workforce
to carry out its mission.
While I recognize that you have not been on the job that long Mr.
Secretary, have you noticed a ``stovepipe'' mentality at DHS during
your brief tenure?
Answer. One thing I have observed in my time as Secretary are the
many strengths of the Department, starting with the professionalism,
skill, and dedication of its people and the rich history and tradition
of its Components. As the Secretary, it is my job to maintain these
strengths, which have led to many successes over the Department's
relatively short life, while identifying ways to enhance the cohesion
of the Department as a whole. Although progress has been made, DHS has
yet to reach its full potential as an organization.
Question. If so, how do you plan to develop a cohesive environment
within DHS that supports information sharing, communication and unity
among the components and leadership to further reach the goal of ``One
DHS?''
Answer. Such potential is difficult to achieve and takes even the
best organizations many years. Effective execution of operations is our
goal, but the difficult budget environment provides a catalyst for us
to build and mature our organization into one that is greater than the
sum of its parts--one that operates with much greater unity of effort.
The focus of my efforts is improving our planning, programming,
budgeting, and execution processes through strengthened Departmental
structures and increased capability. We must have better traceability
between strategic objectives, budgeting, acquisition decisions,
operational planning, and mission execution to improve Departmental
cohesiveness and operational effectiveness.
I intend to accomplish this not by centralizing the decisionmaking
authority and processes within an opaque DHS Headquarters, but rather
to transparently incorporate DHS components into unified decisionmaking
processes and the analytic efforts that inform decisionmaking. My goal
is better understanding of the broad and complex DHS mission space and
empowering DHS components to effectively execute their operations.
To accomplish this, I have directed actions ``Strengthening
Departmental Unity of Effort'' in a memorandum to Departmental
leadership on April 22, 2014, along four main lines of effort:
inclusive senior leader discussion and decisionmaking forums that
provide an environment of trust and transparency; strengthened
management processes for investment, including requirements, budget,
and acquisition processes, that look at cross-cutting issues across the
Department; focused, collaborative Departmental strategy, planning, and
analytic capability that support more effective DHS-wide decisionmaking
and operations; and enhanced coordinated operations to harness the
significant resources of the Department more effectively.
These actions, when accomplished, will support the Department's
primary objective, the effective execution of our missions, while
helping us mitigate the impacts of the current fiscal austerity.
securing the cities
Question. I am concerned about the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office's Securing the Cities (STC) program. Through this program, DHS
works with State and local authorities to ensure that our adversaries
cannot use uncontrolled nuclear material to threaten our cities. Your
budget proposes a $10 million cut to STC, while at the same time
suggesting an expansion into a third metropolitan area. I am concerned
that this reduction in funding, which amounts to a 45-percent cut, will
delay the implementation of this initiative in a third location.
Can you provide me with some assurance that you have the necessary
resources and a coherent plan for preventing the unimaginable tragedy
of a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb detonation in one of our cities?
Answer. In May 2012, DNDO delivered a congressionally mandated
report titled Securing the Cities: Strategy and Evaluation. In addition
to programmatic goals, objectives, performance measures and cost
estimates, the report included a plan to implement the program in our
highest risk urban areas using a phased approach. The fiscal year 2015
President's budget reflects difficult choices, but includes funds to
support the program's second implementation (in the Los Angeles/Long
Beach area) and a third implementation (in a region to be selected in
fiscal year 2014). The initiation of a fourth implementation will be
delayed until fiscal year 2016.
However, multiple programs across the United States Government
contribute to reducing the risk of nuclear terrorism. Every program
described in the recently submitted Global Nuclear Detection
Architecture Joint Annual Review (2014) contributes towards protecting
our Nation. As indicated in the review, the total investment for these
programs was $823 million in fiscal year 2013. In addition, other
Government efforts that are outside the scope of the review, contribute
to the prevention of nuclear terrorism. These include: securing
radiological and nuclear materials (e.g., through the Global Threat
Reduction Initiative) and technical nuclear forensics efforts that
deter nations from facilitating rouge actors.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
cybersecurity
Question. What plans exist or have been considered for the
Department to establish a National Cyber Exercise Center to foster
cross-sector and intergovernmental training and collaboration, share
best practices for cyber exercises with the public and private sector,
and develop high-quality training and exercises for use by defenders of
critical infrastructure?
Answer. As part of the DHS/NCCIC, the Cyber Exercise Program's
mission, goals, and approach is to be a source to foster cross-sector
and intergovernmental training and collaboration, share best practices
for cyber exercises with the public and private sector, and develop
high-quality training and exercises for five major constituencies
(Federal Departments and Agencies; Internal DHS (including NCCIC);
State, local, tribal, and territorial governments; private sector; and
international partners). Over that time, we have conducted a
significant number of national and State level exercises.
The NCCIC conducted four major operational floor exercises in
March, May, July, and September 2013 and has continued to do so once
per quarter in fiscal year 2014. The NCCIC also conducted 38 no-notice
floor exercises and three international communications tests in fiscal
year 2013, in addition to 11 NCCIC partner Tabletop Top Exercises (TTX)
(with partners such as DOE, ES-ISAC, TRANSCOM, a telecommunications
company, DC3, GSA, Canada, HHS, NCCIC liaison officers, and others). As
of April 15, 2014, there have been 39 no-notice exercise drills for
NCCIC floor personnel in fiscal year 2014.
Exercises help to better validate policies, plans, procedures,
processes, and capabilities that enable preparation, prevention,
response, recovery, and continuity of operations; and through
exercises, the NCCIC can analyze media and/or malware to determine the
cause and effect of probable intrusions into critical systems.
Exercises also provide indicators to mitigate and prevent future
intrusions.
i-130 application backlog
Question. I understand that stand-alone I-130 applications for the
immediate relatives of United States citizens have been seriously
backlogged, causing very long waits for family reunification.
I understand that USCIS needed to prioritize processing the DACA
applications, but what is the Department's plan to alleviate the
backlog for these other highly deserving applications where U.S.
citizens sometimes have to wait almost a year to receive an
adjudication of their petitions? And what changes to the process is the
Department considering ensuring that once the backlog is eliminated
that this doesn't happen again?
Answer. USCIS is mindful of the need to process a U.S. citizen's
form I-130 carefully and expeditiously. This need is defined by the
immigration system's goal of preserving family unity. It is for this
fundamental reason that USCIS has been focused on reducing delays in
the processing of form I-130s for several months.
Last October, in an effort to expedite the adjudication of these
cases, USCIS began transferring stand-alone form I-130s filed by U.S.
citizens for their immediate relatives from USCIS's National Benefits
Center to its Nebraska, Texas, and California Service Centers. This
shift has improved USCIS's ability to adjudicate the cases in a timely
manner. USCIS expects the processing of form I-130s to return an
average of 5 months or less by this summer.
USCIS is committed to maximizing operational efficiency by
maintaining a flexible and nimble organizational structure that shifts
staff capacity and rebalances workloads to help mitigate the
possibility of backlogs that could result from unforeseen changes in
demand. As more benefit types are added to the Electronic Immigration
System and are entirely paperless, the agency will be able to rebalance
workloads much more quickly and without the shipping of paper files
between field offices, service centers, and the National Benefits
Center. USCIS will also apply lessons learned from its staffing
experience under the DACA program to inform staffing strategies that
may be necessary to handle workload surges or new immigration benefit
types in the future.
comprehensive immigration reform
Question. The Senate Judiciary Committee began debating S. 744, a
comprehensive immigration reform bill, nearly a year ago. I chaired six
hearings, followed by five markups spanning 3 weeks, to consider the
bill, which the Senate passed last June with a strong bipartisan vote.
The sweeping immigration reform legislation will help unite families,
boost the economy, and bring millions out of the shadows and into our
legal immigration system. Since then, the House of Representatives has
drafted immigration reform principles that fall well short of the
bipartisan bill we passed. Since then, our country has lost billions in
potential tax revenue. And since then, more families continue to be
torn apart every day by deportations.
Do you feel as urgently as I do that the House of Representatives
needs to take up the Senate-passed comprehensive immigration reform
bill?
Answer. Yes. As previously stated, the administration is committed
to supporting commonsense reform that creates an earned path to
citizenship, continues to strengthen our border security, holds
employers accountable, and brings our immigration system into the 21st
century.
Question. Can you assure me and the rest of the Nation that
reforming our broken immigration system is a top priority for you and
the Department?
Answer. Comprehensive immigration reform remains a top priority.
The administration is committed to supporting commonsense reform that
creates an earned path to citizenship, continues to strengthen our
border security, holds employers accountable, and brings our
immigration system into the 21st century.
use-of-force policy
Question. On March 7, 2014, U.S. Border Patrol Chief Michael
Fisher, released the agency's use-of-force policy and issued a
directive on how personnel should respond to threats. The memorandum
states that since 2010, agents have been assaulted with rocks 1,713
times, and that deadly force was used 43 times, resulting in 10 deaths.
Among them, was Jose Rodriguez, a 16-year-old who was shot multiple
times, including in the back. I respect that there is an ongoing
investigation in this case. However, as it relates to funding for use-
of-force training:
Is the real impact of the directive? How is it different from the
guidance previously in place that allowed deadly force to be used in a
manner that resulted in 10 deaths?
Answer. The Border Patrol agent position is a demanding job with
great responsibility where agents are required to make split-second
decisions in circumstance that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly
evolving as they encounter not only illegal entrants, but also human
and drug smugglers, cartel and gang members, as well as other
transnational criminal organizations. The job is extremely dangerous
and agents can be placed in life-or-death situations unexpectedly. This
directive was implemented to provide further guidance to the Border
Patrol workforce to lessen the likelihood of deadly force situations
and reduce the risk of injury or death to agents and the public.
Reiterate the directive clarifies existing policies and offers agents
alternate courses of actions and tactics designed to decrease the
likelihood of deadly force encounters.
Question. How much does the Department actually spend on training
Border Patrol agents?
Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has budgeted $23.2
million from its National Training Plan account for basic and advanced
training for Border Patrol agents.
Question. With the change in the use-of-force policy, will all
Border Patrol agents have to renew their training? If not, how are
agents to be educated about the new policy to ensure compliance?
Answer. Border Patrol agents train with their firearms and less-
lethal use of force weapons on a quarterly basis. U.S. Custom and
Border Protection's Office of Training and Development is
collaboratively working with the Office of Border Patrol (OBP) to
design and implement new training scenarios and introduce new equipment
in order to expand agents' readiness and minimize the risk to the
agents, the public and subjects encountered by agents. OBP's
supervisory cadre will continue to ensure that less-lethal equipment is
available for use by line agents. Additionally, supervisors are
implementing Chief Michael Fisher's memo during muster briefings and
agents in training at the academy will receive added use of force
scenarios.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. I am very concerned by reports that individuals held in
short-term Customs and Border Protection custody, including in holding
cells at Border Patrol stations, checkpoints, ports of entry, and
secondary inspection areas, do not always receive basic protections,
and regularly complain of verbal and physical abuse, inadequate food
and water, denial of medical care and other basic human rights. This is
fundamentally unacceptable. I know you share my commitment to ensuring
anyone in Federal custody is treated with the dignity and respect every
human being deserves.
Will the Department consider developing and implementing
enforceable short-term custody standards within the coming months? Is
the Department able to commit to using resources to ensure that
agencies collect and report statistics on the individuals detained in
short-term custody facilities?
Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is committed to
ensuring anyone in Federal custody is treated with the dignity and
respect every human being deserves.
CBP is fully committed to promptly processing all persons in CBP
custody and facilitating their transfer to another agency or entity or
their release, as appropriate. Every effort is made to transfer a
detainee out of CBP custody as soon as operationally feasible. CBP
holds all detainees in rooms that are safe, secure, and clean. If
anyone detained by CBP appears to be ill or injured, or medical
attention is sought, CBP ensures the detainee has access to medical
care. CBP ensures basic necessities, such as food, snacks, drinking
water, properly equipped restrooms, and hygiene supplies are also
available. Aliens are notified of communication privileges with
consular or diplomatic officers of their country of nationality, and
they are provided access to telephones for such purposes, if requested.
The 2008 Hold Rooms and Short Term Custody directive is the
national policy for the short term custody of persons arrested by
Border Patrol agents and detained in hold rooms at Border Patrol
stations, checkpoints, and processing facilities. It also contains
requirements for the handling and processing of juveniles, family units
and Unaccompanied Alien Children. The policy was reviewed by
representatives from both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the DHS Inspector
General. The policy is currently under review and efforts are underway
to update and revise the policy as appropriate.
U.S. Border Patrol uses the e3 database to process all
apprehensions and to record all detainee custodial actions. The
Enforcement Systems Branch, Statistics and Data Integrity Unit use the
metrics captured by the e3 system to generate statistical reports. U.S.
Customs and Border Protection is committed to using the necessary
resources to capture, maintain and evaluate all available data from the
e3 database. Body worn cameras have become a best practice among large
police departments across the country. Evidence indicates these cameras
serve to clear officers from false accusations, improve the judicial
process, and reduce civil rights violations. These devices protect both
law enforcement officers and those with whom they interact. I am
confident our Federal officers and agents would benefit from that
protection.
Question. The number of unaccompanied immigrant children arriving
in the United States continues to rise. As Federal officers and agents
apprehend these children, it is crucial that we promptly identify those
who are escaping persecution, are victims of trafficking, or are
unaccompanied minors so that we can ensure they treated appropriately
and receive the support they need.
What is the Department doing to ensure that our Federal agents and
officers in the Department receive proper training to accurately
identify these individuals?
Answer. Body worn cameras have become a best practice among large
police departments across the country. Evidence indicates these cameras
serve to clear officers from false accusations, improve the judicial
process, and reduce civil rights violations. These devices protect both
law enforcement officers and those with whom they interact. I am
confident our Federal officers and agents would benefit from that
protection.
Question. Do you intend to use funds allocated to Customs and
Border Protection or other agencies to implement the camera pilot
program committed to by the agency? And, if so, when, where, and on
what scale will Customs and Border Protection begin implementing a
pilot program?
Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is looking into
the possibility of using body worn cameras on agents and officers. As a
first step, CBP is preparing to conduct a ``proof of concept'' and has
used funds allocated for this to determine the impact that body worn
cameras have on operations (e.g., time off the line to don/doff/
download cameras; information technology storage requirements), the
potential challenges in integrating body worn cameras into CBP's
diverse work environments, and the technical requirements for those
work environments. As part of this proof of concept, CBP will also
engage in an analysis of other law enforcement agencies that have
adopted the use of cameras. Such analysis will inform us of the
benefits as well as the potential problems related to integrating such
cameras into the operational environment. Many factors must be
considered including privacy concerns related to our officers and
agents as well as the subjects they encounter.
If the proof of concept reveals acceptable/manageable impacts on
U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) field operations, CBP will
engage industry to identify those systems that meet our unique and
varying environmental and operational needs. CBP will continue to keep
you updated as this process proceeds.
Question. Customs and Border Protection staffing shortages at
international airports continue to cause lengthy and persistent delays
for those entering the country. Last year Congress provided Customs and
Border Protection with the resources to hire additional officers, and
your budget request includes a proposal for additional hiring.
What is the Department's plan to address the Customs and Border
Protection staffing shortages at airports and how long will it take the
Department to hire, train, and deploy additional officers?
Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is committed to
ensuring the security of our Nation's borders, while facilitating
legitimate travel and trade. CBP has implemented new initiatives and is
pursuing proposals to increase workforce capability by:
--Maximizing the use of current resources through increased trusted
traveler enrollments; employing mobile technology to streamline
processes and relieve certain infrastructure constraints;
increasing risk segmentation through enhanced targeting/pre-
departure initiatives, and through new automated scheduling
practices;
--Implementing and effectively overseeing new authorities that
provide greater flexibility to work with stakeholders in
funding requests for service and addressing infrastructure
constraints; and
--Continuing to implement business transformation initiatives to
reduce costs and mitigate staffing requirements.
Based on a clear demonstration of staffing needs by CBP--with
support from local governments, business groups and the trade and
travel industry--the recently passed fiscal year 2014 omnibus includes
funding for 2,000 additional CBP officers (CBPOs). Released on March 4,
2014, the President's fiscal year 2015 budget proposes user fee
increases that would fund an additional 2,000 CBPOs.
The additional 2,000 officers provided in the fiscal year 2014
omnibus were allocated based on needs identified by CBP's Workload
Staffing Model across air, land and sea ports with the greatest
demonstrated need, as well as the current operational environment at
time of on-boarding (which involves the overall hiring process
including recruitment, pre-employment vetting, selection, academy
training, port assignment, etc.). CBP announced the allocation of these
officers on March 31, 2014. Overall 44 ports in 18 States will receive
additional staffing that will reduce wait times and help facilitate
legitimate trade and travel.
CBP has an aggressive plan to recruit, hire, and train the highest
caliber individuals to get them to our frontlines by the end of
calendar year 2015. This hiring process accounts for the strict and
rigorous employment standards (medical, fitness, polygraph, and
background investigation) for qualified applicants to become CBPOs.
Additionally, once an applicant is hired, they will begin a training
process that includes pre-academy, basic academy and post-academy
requirements to provide them with the knowledge and skills to
effectively carry out their duties as a CBPO.
The additional CBPOs will make a positive impact for frontline
operations; however, CBP continues to face operational challenges and a
significant portion of the staffing shortage remains. While recognizing
the success in business process improvements and increase in CBPOs, the
Workload Staffing Model results continue to show a need for additional
officers. The President's fiscal year 2015 budget request fully funds
this need through a combination of increases.
Question. The Coast Guard's 2011 High Altitude study determined the
Coast Guard requires three heavy and three medium icebreakers to
accomplish its Arctic missions. Today, the Coast Guard operates only
one heavy icebreaker, Polar Star, and one medium icebreaker, Healy.
Polar Star has between 6 and 9 years of service life remaining and
Healy is aging as well. The Coast Guard's 2013 business case analysis
study of the Polar Sea indicates the estimated cost to refit the Polar
Sea for service is $99.2 million over 4 years. Conversely, the
estimated cost to design and build a new icebreaker is $1 billion, and
the new ship would not enter service for at least 8 years. I'm hoping
you can comment on the path toward recapitalizing our polar fleet while
maintaining a viable bridging strategy between our current fleet and
the construction of a new heavy class icebreaker.
The President's Implementation Plan for the National Strategy for
the Arctic Region designated the Department of Homeland Security as the
lead agency for several vital Arctic objectives. I am particularly
interested in your leadership in sustaining Federal capability to
conduct maritime operations in ice-impacted waters. While the Coast
Guard is the primary provider of icebreaking capability, it is far from
the only stakeholder in the Arctic. The Department of Defense, the
National Science Foundation and other Federal agencies rely on the
Coast Guard's icebreaking capability to accomplish their missions. In
fact, the Department of Defense contributed $329 million of the $365
million cost of constructing Healy.
As the lead agency for sustaining our Nation's presence in ice-
impacted waters, what steps have you taken to explore options to spread
the cost of both refits and new construction across the Federal
agencies that rely on the Coast Guard's icebreaking capability?
Answer. Given the importance of this asset, the functions it
serves, the Coast Guard is working with stakeholders across Government
to capture the input necessary to develop the requirements for a new
polar icebreaker. The resulting Operational Requirements Document is
expected to be completed in the spring of 2015. As the project
develops, we will review the existing MOUs that underlie the current
operational model for providing icebreaking services to the interagency
stakeholders and other users.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
Question. I introduced legislation to give recognized tribal
governments the ability to request disaster relief directly from the
President that was passed as a provision of the Sandy Recovery and
Investment Act. However, Senator Begich and I are concerned that
developing the implementation framework is taking too long. While back
in Montana, I heard from tribal members who had participated in large
teleconferences with FEMA, but were unable to provide meaningful input
due to the size of the calls. We all know resources are tight
throughout the Federal Government, but FEMA has emphasized their
commitment to this provision. It's important that we get FEMA folks out
to tribal lands to help these sovereign nations develop their emergency
management capabilities.
Can you commit to keeping an eye on FEMA in how they continue to
implement this provision and make sure the outreach to our tribes is
there?
Answer. We are committed to engaging and supporting tribal
communities in the areas of emergency management and preparedness. FEMA
is in the process of finalizing a proposed Tribal Consultation Policy,
which will build from the Department's Tribal Consultation Policy, to
better provide guidance on how program offices should engage in regular
and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in
the development of Federal policies that have direct, significant
tribal implications, and to strengthen the government-to-government
relationship between the United States and Indian tribes. FEMA has
developed an extensive and inclusive outreach process to consult with
tribes under both the proposed Tribal Consultation Policy and the Sandy
Recovery and Improvement Act (SRIA) of 2013 initiated Declarations
Guidance through face to face engagement with tribes, whenever and
wherever practical, both from HQ and through the FEMA regions. Tribal
input directly impacted how we are conducting outreach to the tribes
for the draft Pilot Declarations Guidance consultation that began on
April 3, 2014. Our efforts have been improved based on comments
received from previous outreach efforts, and we will be closely
monitoring all future consultations to ensure meaningful engagement.
The SRIA amendment to the Stafford Act, allowing a tribe the option
to request its own declaration, was a significant and historic step
reflecting tribal sovereignty and self-determination. The continued
implementation of this new authority remains a high priority for FEMA.
Upon passage of the law, the Administration's goal was to enable tribal
nations the immediate option of requesting emergency and major disaster
declarations directly. For this reason, FEMA has been using its current
declarations regulations, which govern declaration requests for States,
to process declaration requests from tribal governments, while the
agency developed tribal-specific declaration procedures. On March 1,
2013, just over a month from the date of the Stafford Act amendments
passing, the President signed the first declaration under this historic
law, approving a major declaration for the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians due to severe storms that impacted their reservation. To date,
seven tribes have requested eight declarations using these regulations,
and the President issued six disaster declarations under this new
authority.
The agency's ultimate goal is to develop regulations to govern
declaration requests from tribes; however, the rulemaking process will
be lengthy. FEMA is committed to, and has set aside resources, to
conduct in person consultation sessions in Indian Country for this
Sandy Recovery Improvement Act authority. FEMA, through our regional
offices and the regional tribal liaisons, is working with individual
tribes and tribal organizations to hold in-person meetings during the
consultation over the next 120 days. In the coming weeks as the
locations and dates are finalized, FEMA will be announcing these
sessions and inviting tribal leaders and emergency management directors
to discuss and consult on the current draft of the Tribal Declarations
Pilot Guidance. We will also use the upcoming listening sessions to
learn more about tribal concerns. This guidance, when final, will start
the pilot phase of tribal declarations implementation eventually
leading to the final rulemaking.
Question. This budget proposes to consolidate almost all of FEMA's
preparedness grant programs into a new, comprehensive National
Preparedness Grant Program. We've seen similar grant consolidation
proposals under education, Interior and elsewhere over the years. And
we always hear the same two concerns: that some of these grant programs
will simply wither away; they're tucked under a much larger program
never to be seen again; and that rural applicants are almost always at
a disadvantage when applying to comprehensive grant programs because
they are competing against a large pool of applicants.
Can you provide reassurance that critical grant programs like
Operation Stonegarden aren't going to dry up under this proposal--
especially for northern border counties, where the Federal Government
relies on local law enforcement to partner in border security? And what
is being done to ensure that rural applicants aren't at a disadvantage
when applying for grants?
Answer. Maintenance and sustainment of core law enforcement
prevention capabilities--including fusion centers, countering violent
extremism and State, territory and local information sharing--remain
key Administration priorities, and law enforcement activities
previously funded under other grants, such as Operation Stonegarden and
the Port and Transit grant programs will continue to be eligible
activities under the proposed National Preparedness Grant Program.
The National Preparedness Grant Program also will continue to
support State, territory, and local law enforcement efforts to
understand, recognize, and prevent pre-operational activity and other
crimes that are precursors or indicators of terrorist activity, in
accordance with applicable privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties
protections. Such efforts include:
--Maturation and enhancement of State and major urban area fusion
centers, including training for intelligence analysts and
implementation of Fusion Liaison Officer Programs;
--Implementation of the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting
Initiative, including training for frontline personnel on
identifying and reporting suspicious activities;
--Continued implementation of the ``If You See Something, Say
Something TM'' campaign to raise public awareness of
indicators of terrorism and violent crime.
As part of the fiscal year 2015 National Preparedness Grant Program
proposal, FEMA transmitted a legislative proposal to authorize the new
consolidated approach. The legislative proposal retains the requirement
for grantees to allocate at least 80 percent of the total amount of
grant funding to ``local units of government'', which ensures that
resources are distributed to the frontline first responders.
While FEMA cannot prescribe the makeup of any statewide governance
structure, the agency has issued guidelines on how States should engage
with their various partners to carry out their Threat and Hazard
Identification and Risk Assessments and investment justifications. To
ensure that States are adequately engaging with local governments,
rural communities, port and transit agencies, urban areas, nonprofit
organizations, and other ``whole of community'' partners, FEMA will
require that the State Administrative Agency submit:
--A detailed description of the Senior Advisory Committee's
composition and an explanation of key governance processes,
including how the Senior Advisory Committee is informed by the
State or territory's Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment, State Preparedness Report data reflecting
capability shortfalls and the approach to address shortfalls in
core capabilities;
--A description of the frequency with which the Senior Advisory
Committee will meet;
--How existing governance bodies such as Urban Area Working Groups
and Transit Security Working Groups will be leveraged by the
Senior Advisory Committee; and
--A detailed description of how decisions on programmatic priorities
are made and how those decisions will be documented and shared
with its members and other stakeholders as appropriate; and a
description of defined roles and responsibilities for financial
decisionmaking and meeting administrative requirements.
Question. CBP has chosen not to extend a pilot program to expand
the hours of operation at the Port of Wild Horse--a port of entry just
north of Havre, Montana. They cite a lack of cost-effectiveness for
doing so. But the problem is that they don't have accurate data because
our Canadian counterparts didn't extend operating hours on their side
of the border for the full duration of this pilot project. As you know,
facilitating trade along the northern border and improving cross-border
commerce is critical to our economic development and job creation. That
is why former Commissioner Alan Bersin was a staunch proponent of this
initiative. And it is why I strongly believe an extension of the
current pilot project to a full 3-year study, in full coordination with
our Canadian counterparts, is critical. I strongly encourage the
Secretary to take another look at extending this pilot project at Wild
Horse.
Mr. Secretary, can you assure me that such a project would be
completed in full, with close coordination with our Canadian
counterparts?
Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) understands that
this issue is important to the Bear Paw region and its business
community. At the same time, CBP must carefully balance the needs of
staffing at different locations throughout the United States.
CBP's close collaboration with stakeholders has allowed us to
strengthen the United States economy by facilitating legitimate trade
and travel. Since fiscal year 2009, CBP has conducted annual extended
hour pilots at Wild Horse, Montana, most recently in October 2013.
During the past several years, CBP and the Canada Border Services
Agency have extended the summer-hour season at Wild Horse in an effort
to stimulate commercial traffic and assess the viability of an extended
operational day. CBP joined with local stakeholders to actively promote
extended summer hours in Montana and Canada, the brokerage community,
and the U.S. and Canadian trucking associations. In addition, CBP
changed the commercial permit requirements at Wild Horse in order to
encourage increased use of the port.
Despite these efforts, extended hours pilots have not increased
commercial traffic at the port. In the October 2013 pilot, truck
traffic during extended hours decreased 31.6 percent from the previous
year, which was 39.7 percent lower than October 2011. Traveler volume
during extended hours dropped 28.1 percent from October 2012, while the
number of morning and afternoon travelers crossing from Canada
increased by 9.9 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively. In addition, no
trucks entered the United States during 83.1 percent of the pilot's 124
added operational hours, and extended hour utilization by all travelers
fell as the month progressed and daylight decreased.
We share stakeholder disappointment that the pilot outcomes did not
meet expectations. CBP had high hopes that the initiatives, which
required CBP to reallocate resources from other ports, would tangibly
benefit the regional economy. Based on these results and current
resource availability, we are unable to pursue further pilots at Wild
Horse at this time. I pledge that CBP will continue to explore
initiatives with stakeholders, consistent with available resources that
will sustain and grow future commercial traffic at Wild Horse.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats
immigration and customs enforcement data
Question. Provide for the record a chart showing the number of
criminal removals, the number of non-criminal removals, and the total
removals made in fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 year-to-date. Please
breakout the number of convicted criminals and non-criminals who were
permitted to voluntarily depart, voluntarily return, or withdraw their
application for admission for these time periods.
Answer. Below, please find details for ICE removals and returns in
fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 year-to-date (YTD). Returns are
further broken out by those ICE cases in which a voluntary departure
was confirmed, a voluntary return (VR) was witnessed, and a withdrawal
for admission was permitted (withdrawal permitted--I-275 issued).
FISCAL YEARS 2012-2014 YEAR-TO-DATE REMOVALS AND RETURNS BY CRIMINALITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2012 Fiscal year 2013 Fiscal year 2014 year-to-date
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal type Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal
Convicted immigration Total Convicted immigration Total Convicted immigration Total
criminal violator criminal violator criminal violator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Returns............................... 24,705 38,657 63,362 18,237 17,869 36,106 4,908 3,191 8,099
Withdrawal Permitted--I-275 Issued 123 1,058 1,181 94 735 829 43 278 321
Voluntary Departure Confirmed..... 9,205 10,445 19,650 6,845 4,977 11,822 2,535 1,601 4,136
Voluntary Return Witnessed........ 15,377 27,154 42,531 11,298 12,157 23,455 2,330 1,312 3,642
Removals.............................. 200,685 145,802 346,487 198,573 133,965 332,538 82,142 58,935 141,077
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Removals.................. 225,390 184,459 409,849 216,810 151,834 368,644 87,050 62,126 149,176
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years 2012-2013 data are historical and remain static.
Fiscal year 2014 data are updated through 3/29/2014 (IIDS v1.16 run date of 3/31/2014; EID as of 3/29/2014).
Removals include returns, which include voluntary returns, voluntary departures and withdrawals under Docket Control.
ERO removals include aliens processed for expedited removal (ER) and turned over to ERO for detention. Aliens processed for ER and not detained by ERO
are primarily processed by Border Patrol. CBP should be contacted for those statistics.
Starting in fiscal year 2009, ICE began to ``lock'' removal statistics on October 5th at the end of each fiscal year and counted only the aliens whose
removal or return was already confirmed. Aliens removed or returned in that fiscal year but not confirmed until after October 5th were excluded from
the locked data and thus from ICE statistics. To ensure an accurate and complete representation of all removals and returns, ICE will include the
removals and returns confirmed after October 5th into the next fiscal year. The number of removals in fiscal year 2009, excluding the ``lag'' from
fiscal year 2008, was 387,790. The number of removals in fiscal year 2010, excluding the ``lag'' from fiscal year 2009, was 373,440. This number does
not include 76,732 expedited removal cases which ICE closed on behalf of CBP in fiscal year 2010. Of those 76,732, 33,900 cases resulted from a joint
CBP/ICE operation in Arizona. ICE spent $1,155,260 on those 33,900 cases. The number of removals in fiscal year 2011, excluding the ``lag'' from
fiscal year 2010, was 385,145. The number of removals in fiscal year 2012, excluding the ``lag'' from fiscal year 2011, was 402,919. The number of
removals in fiscal year 2013, excluding the ``lag'' from fiscal year 2012, was 363,144.
Fiscal year data lag/case closure lag is defined as the physical removal of an alien occurring in a given month; however, the case is not closed in EARM
until a subsequent fiscal year after the data is locked. Since the data from the previous fiscal year is locked, the removal is recorded in the month
the case was closed and reported in the next fiscal year removals. This will result in a higher number of recorded removals in a fiscal year than
actual departures.
Question. Provide for the record a chart showing the total number
of ICE detainees by priority category (level of criminality, recent
border crosser, fugitive, non-criminal) in fiscal years 2012, 2013, and
2014 year-to-date.
Answer. The chart below contains fiscal years' 2012, 2013, and 2014
year-to-date number of aliens booked into U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) custody. ICE is unable to provide a further breakout
of non-criminal book-ins by priority category.
FISCAL YEARS 2012-2014 YEAR-TO-DATE INITIAL BOOK-INS BY CRIMINALITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interior Versus Border
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Criminality Fiscal Fiscal 2014 year-to-
year 2012 year 2013 date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interior:
ICE threat level 1............ 77,968 72,753 31,112
ICE threat level 2............ 43,794 39,709 17,894
ICE threat level 3............ 62,015 48,627 18,046
Non-criminal immigration 88,114 60,114 18,894
violators....................
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 271,891 221,203 85,946
=====================================
Border:
ICE threat level 1............ 11,685 12,043 4,640
ICE threat level 2............ 12,251 13,453 5,407
ICE threat level 3............ 42,167 49,983 17,942
Non-criminal immigration 139,529 143,875 82,709
violators....................
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 205,632 219,354 110,698
=====================================
Grand Total............. 477,523 440,557 196,644
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years 2012-2013 data are historical and remain static. Fiscal
year 2014 data are updated through 3/29/2014 (ICE Integrated Decision
Support (IIDS) v1.16 run date of 3/31/2014; ENFORCE Integrated
Database (EID) as of 3/29/2014).
Initial book-ins represents the initial book-in of a detention stay.
Detention data excludes those held in Office of Refugee and Resettlement
(ORR) and Mexican Interior Repatriation Program (MIRP) facilities as
well as U.S. Marshals prisoners.
Book-in criminality is based on removal case threat level. The ICE
threat levels reflect the priorities outlined in Director Morton's
June 2010 memorandum entitled ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement
Priorities effective October 1, 2010. ICE has defines criminality as
whether or not an alien has a criminal conviction. For purposes of
prioritizing the removal of aliens convicted of crimes, ICE personnel
refer to the following offense levels: level 1, level 2, and level 3
offenders. Level 1 offenders are those aliens convicted of
``aggravated felonies,'' as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, or two (2) or more crimes each
punishable by more than 1 year, commonly referred to as ``felonies.''
Level 2 offenders are aliens convicted of any other felony or three or
more crimes each punishable by less than 1 year, commonly referred to
as ``misdemeanors.'' Level 3 offenders are aliens convicted of
``misdemeanor'' crime(s) punishable by less than 1 year.
Fiscal years 2012-2013 border initial book-ins are identified by the
apprehension method associated with the arrest that led to ICE
detention. Apprehension methods include: boat patrol, crewman/
stowaway, patrol border, patrol interior, inspections, transportation
check (aircraft, bus, freight and passenger trains). All other
apprehension methods are considered interior initial book-ins.
For fiscal year 2014 year-to-date, an interior book-in is defined by
individuals that are identified or apprehended in the United States by
an ICE officer or agent. The ICE arresting agency includes the
following Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Homeland
Security Investigations (HSI) arresting agency programs: 287g Program,
Alternatives to Detention, ERO Criminal Alien Program, Detained Docket
Control, Detention and Deportation, Law Enforcement Area Response
Unit, Non-Detained Docket Control, Juvenile, Fugitive Operations,
Violent Criminal Alien Section, Joint Criminal Alien Response Team,
Probation and Parole, Quick Response Team, User Fee Investigations,
Joint Terrorism Task Force, Non-User Fee Investigations, HSI Criminal
Arrest Only, and Intelligence. Interior book-in also includes the
following United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
and other arresting agency programs: Examinations, Adjudications,
Asylum, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Default program area
for interface records, and PICS Default value--for user initialization
only. The USCIS and Other Programs make up 48 total cases for fiscal
year 2014 year-to-date.
In support of the U.S. Border Patrol's Consequence Delivery System, ICE
participated in the Alien Transfer Exit Program (ATEP) by detaining,
transporting, and removing Mexican border crossers. In an effort to
disrupt smuggling operations and deter future illegal entry, ICE
transported and removed these subjects in a different area of the
country from where they were apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol.
These cases required only short-duration detention stays. While ICE
continues to participate in ATEP along the Texas/Mexico border, ICE
scaled back its participation in ATEP in June 2013.
For fiscal year 2014 year-to-date, a border book-in is defined by
individuals apprehended at the immediate border while attempting to
unlawfully enter the United States. The CBP arresting agency includes
the following programs: Border Patrol, Inspections, Inspections-Air,
Inspections-Land, and Inspections-Sea.
Question. Please provide the number of detainees by priority
category (level of criminality, recent border crosser, fugitive, non-
criminal) who were removed or deported from the country in fiscal years
2012, 2013, and 2014 year-to-date.
Answer. Please see the below chart of U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement removals for fiscal years 2012-2014 (year-to-date).
FISCAL YEARS 2012-2014 YEAR-TO-DATE REMOVALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interior Versus Border
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
Criminality/ICE Fiscal Fiscal year 2014
Criminality priorities year 2012 year 2013 year-to-
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interior:
ICE Threat Level 1.............. Convicted Criminals.... 59,202 52,935 22,377
ICE Threat Level 2.............. Convicted Criminals.... 31,639 26,203 11,483
ICE Threat Level 3.............. Convicted Criminals.... 44,441 30,977 11,289
Non-Criminal Immigration Immigration Fugitives.. 5,131 2,742 1,000
Violators.
Non-Criminal Immigration Repeat Immigration 19,043 10,358 4,045
Violators. Violators.
Non-Criminal Immigration Other Removable Aliens. 21,514 10,336 3,604
Violators.
--------------------------------------------------
Total......................... ....................... 180,970 133,551 53,798
==================================================
Border:
ICE Threat Level 1.............. Convicted Criminals.... 18,752 21,224 9,127
ICE Threat Level 2.............. Convicted Criminals.... 18,164 20,995 8,925
ICE Threat Level 3.............. Convicted Criminals.... 53,192 64,476 23,849
Non-Criminal Immigration Immigration Fugitives.. 5,292 3,256 1,162
Violators.
Non-Criminal Immigration Repeat Immigration 67,362 61,896 25,232
Violators. Violators.
Non-Criminal Immigration Other Border Removals.. 66,117 63,246 27,083
Violators.
--------------------------------------------------
Total......................... ....................... 228,879 235,093 95,378
==================================================
Grand Total............... ....................... 409,849 368,644 149,176
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years 2012-2013 data is historical and remains static.
Fiscal year 2014 data is updated through 03/29/2014 (ICE Integrated Decision Support (IIDS) v1.14 run date 03/31/
2014; ENFORCE Integrated Database (EID) as of 03/29/2014).
An interior removal is defined by individuals removed by ICE that are identified or apprehended in the United
States by an ICE officer or agent. A border removal is defined as individuals apprehended at or near the
border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials while attempting to unlawfully enter the United
States.
Removals include returns, which include voluntary returns, voluntary departures and withdrawals under Docket
Control.
Starting in fiscal year 2009, ICE began to ``lock'' removal statistics on October 5th at the end of each fiscal
year and counted only the aliens whose removal or return was already confirmed. Aliens removed or returned in
that fiscal year but not confirmed until after October 5th were excluded from the locked data and thus from
ICE statistics. To ensure an accurate and complete representation of all removals and returns, ICE will
include the removals and returns confirmed after October 5th into the next fiscal year. The number of removals
in fiscal year 2009, excluding the ``lag'' from fiscal year 2008, was 387,790. The number of removals in
fiscal year 2010, excluding the ``lag'' from fiscal year 2009, was 373,440. This number does not include
76,732 expedited removal cases which ICE closed on behalf of CBP in fiscal year 2010. Of those 76,732, 33,900
cases resulted from a joint CBP/ICE operation in Arizona. ICE spent $1,155,260 on those 33,900 cases. The
number of removals in fiscal year 2011, excluding the ``lag'' from fiscal year 2010, was 385,145. The number
of removals in fiscal year 2012, excluding the ``lag'' from fiscal year 2011, was 402,919. The number of
removals in fiscal year 2013, excluding the ``lag'' from fiscal year 2012, was 363,144.
Fiscal year data lag/case closure lag is defined as the physical removal of an alien occurring in a given month;
however, the case is not closed in EARM until a subsequent fiscal year after the data is locked. Since the
data from the previous fiscal year is locked, the removal is recorded in the month the case was closed and
reported in the next fiscal year removals. This will result in a higher number of recorded removals in a
fiscal year than actual departures.
ERO removals include aliens processed for expedited removal (ER) and turned over to ERO for detention. Aliens
processed for ER and not detained by ERO are primarily processed by Border Patrol. CBP should be contacted for
those statistics.
The ICE threat levels reflect the priorities outlined in Director Morton's June 2010 memorandum entitled ICE
Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities effective October 1, 2010. Since fiscal year 2011, ICE has defined
criminality as whether or not an alien has an ICE threat level (convicted criminal) or not (non-criminal
immigration violator). For purposes of prioritizing the removal of aliens convicted of crimes, ICE personnel
refer to the following offense levels: level 1, level 2, and level 3 offenders. Level 1 offenders are those
aliens convicted of ``aggravated felonies,'' as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, or two or more crimes each punishable by more than 1 year, commonly referred to as
``felonies.'' Level 2 offenders are aliens convicted of any other felony or three or more crimes each
punishable by less than 1 year, commonly referred to as ``misdemeanors.'' Level 3 offenders are aliens
convicted of ``misdemeanor'' crime(s) punishable by less than 1 year. Prior to fiscal year 2011, ICE used SC
levels 1, 2, and 3 for prioritization purposes.
If an alien was identified by more than one priority they were defaulted to the highest priority based on the
following hierarchy (ordered highest to lowest): convicted criminal, immigration fugitives, repeat immigration
violator, other border removals/other removable aliens.
Other Removable Aliens: This category includes those aliens who entered unlawfully or entered lawfully and
violated conditions of admission; aliens who may also fall into the above priorities but cannot be verified in
the data available to ICE (e.g., criminals with no conviction information recorded in ICE systems).
Question. For fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 to date, please
provide the unique number of individuals encountered by ICE, booked
into ICE custody, and then released, by forms of supervision and
conditions of release, including bond, ICE supervision, orders of
recognizance, or combination. Please also breakout these same
individuals by ICE priority category and the number of days in
detention.
Answer. Please see the below chart of U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement for fiscal years 2012-2014 year-to-date.
FISCAL YEAR 2014 RELEASES WITH AN ICE APPREHENSION PROGRAM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Convicted criminals Non-criminal immigration violators (NCIV)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Release reason ICE ICE ICE Total
threat threat threat NCIV NCIV NCIV NCIV
level 1 level 2 level 3 total fugitives reinstatements other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATD--Alternatives to Detention............................. 183 284 354 599 7 28 564 1,420
Bonded Out................................................. 1,750 2,798 3,776 3,801 7 33 3,761 12,125
Order of recognizance...................................... 594 626 996 2,119 26 11 2,082 4,335
Order of supervision....................................... 1,619 405 433 731 70 151 510 3,188
Paroled.................................................... 12 5 7 492 2 .............. 490 516
Prosecutorial Discretion................................... 63 41 56 196 6 6 184 356
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 4,221 4,159 5,622 7,938 118 229 7,591 21,940
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2014 year-to-date data updated through 3/29/2014 (ICE Integrated Decision Support (IIDS) v1.16 run date of 04/03/2014; ENFORCE Integrated
Database as of 3/29/2014).
Book-out data excludes Office of Refugee Resettlement and Mexican Interior Repatriation Program facilities, as well as U.S. Marshals prisoners.
Releases reflect final book-outs with a case and release reasons of alternatives to detention, bond, order of recognizance, order of supervision,
paroled, and prosecutorial discretion and excludes removals, deaths, and proceedings terminated.
The final book-out criminality is defined by whether or not an alien has the ICE threat level (convicted criminal) or not (non-criminal). ICE threat
level is based upon the most serious convicted crime(s) (except overturned convictions) for the alien's case up until the point of departure. The ICE
threat levels reflect the priorities outlined in Director Morton's June 2010 memorandum entitled ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities
effective October 1, 2010. Since fiscal year 2011, ICE has defined criminality as whether or not an alien has an ICE threat level (convicted criminal)
or not (non-criminal immigration violator). For purposes of prioritizing the removal of aliens convicted of crimes, ICE personnel refer to the
following offense levels: level 1, level 2, and level 3 offenders. Level 1 offenders are those aliens convicted of ``aggravated felonies,'' as defined
in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or two or more crimes each punishable by more than 1 year, commonly referred to as
``felonies.'' Level 2 offenders are aliens convicted of any other felony or three or more crimes each punishable by less than 1 year, commonly
referred to as ``misdemeanors.'' Level 3 offenders are aliens convicted of ``misdemeanor'' crime(s) punishable by less than 1 year.
The ICE arresting agency includes the following Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) arresting agency
programs: 287g Program, Alternatives to Detention, ERO Criminal Alien Program, Detained Docket Control, Detention and Deportation, Law Enforcement
Area Response Unit, Non-Detained Docket Control, Juvenile, Fugitive Operations, Violent Criminal Alien Section, Joint Criminal Alien Response Team,
Probation and Parole, Quick Response Team, User Fee Investigations, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Non-User Fee Investigations, HSI Criminal Arrest Only,
and Intelligence.
FISCAL YEAR 2013 RELEASES WITH AN ICE APPREHENSION PROGRAM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Convicted criminals Non-criminal immigration violators (NCIV)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Release reason ICE ICE ICE Total
threat threat threat NCIV NCIV NCIV NCIV
level 1 level 2 level 3 total fugitives reinstatements other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATD--Alternatives to Detention............................. 639 1,004 1,509 1,763 51 85 85 4,915
Bonded Out................................................. 3,645 5,357 8,451 8,285 178 23 54 25,738
Order of recognizance...................................... 1,635 1,838 3,478 7,103 275 33 269 14,054
Order of supervision....................................... 3,922 760 799 1,471 86 273 9 6,952
Paroled.................................................... 34 11 25 141 6 3 132 211
Prosecutorial Discretion................................... 115 82 142 426 3 7 416 765
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 9,990 9,052 14,404 19,189 599 424 18,166 52,635
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2013 data was rerun for program data (IIDS v1.16 run date of 4/03/2014; EID as of 3/29/2014).
Book-out data excludes Office of Refugee Resettlement and Mexican Interior Repatriation Program facilities, as well as U.S. Marshals prisoners.
Releases reflect final book-outs with a case and release reasons of ATD, bond, order of recognizance, order of supervision, paroled, and prosecutorial
discretion and excludes removals, deaths, and proceedings terminated. The final book-out criminality is defined by whether or not an alien has the ICE
threat level (convicted criminal) or not (non-criminal). ICE threat level is based upon the most serious convicted crime(s) (except overturned
convictions) for the alien's case up until the point of departure. The ICE threat levels reflect the priorities outlined in Director Morton's June
2010 memorandum entitled ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities effective October 1, 2010. Since fiscal year 2011, ICE has defined criminality
as whether or not an alien has an ICE threat level (convicted criminal) or not (non-criminal immigration violator). For purposes of prioritizing the
removal of aliens convicted of crimes, ICE personnel refer to the following offense levels: level 1, level 2, and level 3 offenders. Level 1 offenders
are those aliens convicted of ``aggravated felonies,'' as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or two or more crimes
each punishable by more than 1 year, commonly referred to as ``felonies.'' Level 2 offenders are aliens convicted of any other felony or three or more
crimes each punishable by less than 1 year, commonly referred to as ``misdemeanors.'' Level 3 offenders are aliens convicted of ``misdemeanor''
crime(s) punishable by less than 1 year.
The ICE arresting agency includes the following Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) arresting agency
programs: 287g Program, Alternatives to Detention, ERO Criminal Alien Program, Detained Docket Control, Detention and Deportation, Law Enforcement
Area Response Unit, Non-Detained Docket Control, Juvenile, Fugitive Operations, Violent Criminal Alien Section, Joint Criminal Alien Response Team,
Probation and Parole, Quick Response Team, User Fee Investigations, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Non-User Fee Investigations, HSI Criminal Arrest Only,
and Intelligence.
FISCAL YEAR 2012 RELEASES WITH AN ICE APPREHENSION PROGRAM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Convicted criminals Non-criminal immigration violators (NCIV)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Release reason ICE ICE ICE Total
threat threat threat NCIV NCIV NCIV NCIV
level 1 level 2 level 3 total fugitives reinstatements other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATD--Alternatives to Detention............................. 282 283 581 981 65 19 897 2,127
Bonded Out................................................. 3,792 6,033 10,618 15,985 827 22 15,136 36,428
Order of recognizance...................................... 1,002 884 2,215 5,949 581 32 5,336 10,050
Order of supervision....................................... 4,801 643 659 1,834 64 157 1,613 7,937
Paroled.................................................... 29 8 12 59 5 2 52 108
Prosecutorial Discretion................................... 72 46 64 250 3 8 239 432
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 9,978 7,897 14,149 25,058 1,545 240 23,273 57,082
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2012 data was rerun for program data (IIDS v1.16 run date of 04/03/2014; EID as of 3/29/2014). Book-out data excludes Office of Refugee
Resettlement and Mexican Interior Repatriation Program facilities, as well as U.S. Marshals prisoners.
Releases reflect final book-outs with a case and release reasons of alternatives to detention, bond, order of recognizance, order of supervision,
paroled, and prosecutorial discretion and excludes removals, deaths, and proceedings terminated.
The final book-out criminality is defined by whether or not an alien has the ICE threat level (convicted criminal) or not (non-criminal). ICE threat
level is based upon the most serious convicted crime(s) (except overturned convictions) for the alien's case up until the point of departure. The ICE
threat levels reflect the priorities outlined in Director Morton's June 2010 memorandum entitled ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities
effective October 1, 2010. Since fiscal year 2011, ICE has defined criminality as whether or not an alien has an ICE threat level (convicted criminal)
or not (non-criminal immigration violator). For purposes of prioritizing the removal of aliens convicted of crimes, ICE personnel refer to the
following offense levels: level 1, level 2, and level 3 offenders. Level 1 offenders are those aliens convicted of ``aggravated felonies,'' as defined
in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or two or more crimes each punishable by more than 1 year, commonly referred to as
``felonies.'' Level 2 offenders are aliens convicted of any other felony or three or more crimes each punishable by less than 1 year, commonly
referred to as ``misdemeanors.'' Level 3 offenders are aliens convicted of ``misdemeanor'' crime(s) punishable by less than 1 year.
The ICE arresting agency includes the following Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) arresting agency
programs: 287g Program, Alternatives to Detention, ERO Criminal Alien Program, Detained Docket Control, Detention and Deportation, Law Enforcement
Area Response Unit, Non-Detained Docket Control, Juvenile, Fugitive Operations, Violent Criminal Alien Section, Joint Criminal Alien Response Team,
Probation and Parole, Quick Response Team, User Fee Investigations, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Non-User Fee Investigations, HSI Criminal Arrest Only,
and Intelligence.
FISCAL YEARS 2012-2014 (YEAR-TO-DATE) AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY (ALOS) FOR
RELEASES WITH AN ICE APPREHENSION PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALOS (in days) for releases
with an ICE Apprehension
Program
--------------------------------
Criminality Fiscal
Fiscal Fiscal year 2014
year 2012 year 2013 year-to-
date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICE Threat Level 1..................... 79.05 80.77 100.13
ICE Threat Level 2..................... 38.99 35.86 39.31
ICE Threat Level 3..................... 25.83 24.74 28.67
Non-Criminal Immigration Violator...... 21.53 17.10 15.86
Fugitives.......................... 16.46 15.25 17.13
Reinstatements..................... 68.85 79.00 62.26
Other.............................. 21.38 15.72 14.44
--------------------------------
Total............................ 35.06 34.50 39.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years 2012-2013 data was rerun for program data (IIDS v1.16 run
date of 04/03/2014; EID as of 3/29/2014). Fiscal year 2014 data
updated through 3/29/2014 (IIDS v1.16 run date of 04/03/2014; EID as
of 3/29/2014).
Book-out data excludes Office of Refugee Resettlement and Mexican
Interior Repatriation Program facilities, as well as U.S. Marshals
prisoners.
Releases reflect final book-outs with a case and release reasons of
alternatives to detention, bond, order of recognizance, order of
supervision, paroled, and prosecutorial discretion and excludes
removals, deaths, and proceedings terminated.
The final book-out criminality is defined by whether or not an alien has
the ICE threat level (convicted criminal) or not (non-criminal). ICE
threat level is based upon the most serious convicted crime(s) (except
overturned convictions) for the alien's case up until the point of
departure. The ICE threat levels reflect the priorities outlined in
Director Morton's June 2010 memorandum entitled ICE Civil Immigration
Enforcement Priorities effective October 1, 2010. Since fiscal year
2011, ICE has defined criminality as whether or not an alien has an
ICE threat level (convicted criminal) or not (non-criminal immigration
violator). For purposes of prioritizing the removal of aliens
convicted of crimes, ICE personnel refer to the following offense
levels: level 1, level 2, and level 3 offenders. Level 1 offenders are
those aliens convicted of ``aggravated felonies,'' as defined in
section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or two or
more crimes each punishable by more than 1 year, commonly referred to
as ``felonies.'' Level 2 offenders are aliens convicted of any other
felony or three or more crimes each punishable by less than 1 year,
commonly referred to as ``misdemeanors.'' Level 3 offenders are aliens
convicted of ``misdemeanor'' crime(s) punishable by less than 1 year.
The ICE arresting agency includes the following Enforcement and Removal
Operations (ERO) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) arresting
agency programs: 287g Program, Alternatives to Detention, ERO Criminal
Alien Program, Detained Docket Control, Detention and Deportation, Law
Enforcement Area Response Unit, Non-Detained Docket Control, Juvenile,
Fugitive Operations, Violent Criminal Alien Section, Joint Criminal
Alien Response Team, Probation and Parole, Quick Response Team, User
Fee Investigations, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Non-User Fee
Investigations, HSI Criminal Arrest Only, and Intelligence.
The average length of stay represents the average amount of time from
initial book-in to final book-out for an alien's detention stay.
In support of the U.S. Border Patrol's Consequence Delivery System, ICE
participated in the Alien Transfer Exit Program (ATEP) by detaining,
transporting, and removing Mexican border crossers. In an effort to
disrupt smuggling operations and deter future illegal entry, ICE
transported and removed these subjects in a different area of the
country from where they were apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol.
These cases required only short-duration detention stays. While ICE
continues to participate in ATEP along the Texas-Mexico border, ICE
scaled back its participation in ATEP in June 2013.
Question. For fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 year-to-date,
please provide a breakdown of individuals on the non-detained docket by
forms of supervision and conditions of release, including bond, ICE
supervision, orders of recognizance, or combination. For the same time
period, please provide a breakdown of those individuals on the non-
detained docket enrolled in the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program
by type of ATD.
Answer. The non-detained docket is fluid and changes on a daily
basis as cases move onto the detained docket or are closed. Therefore,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is providing information
that can be found in the year-end snapshot of its database and the
snapshot is current as of March 29, 2014.
The chart below shows the latest release reason for those non-
detained docket cases that had a history of ICE detention. Most cases
on the non-detained docket do not have a detention history and
therefore do not contain requested details such as the form of
supervision or condition of release.
FISCAL YEARS 2012-2014 YEAR-TO-DATE NON-DETAINED DOCKET BY RELEASE REASON
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
Release reason 2012 year-end 2013 year-end 2014 as of 03/
snapshot snapshot 29/14 snapshot
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Non-Detained Docket....................................... 1,681,862 1,781,368 1,841,810
===============================================
Bonded Out...................................................... 242,055 262,447 276,991
Order of Recognizance........................................... 111,324 150,177 176,943
Order of Supervision............................................ 60,149 69,836 75,546
Office of Refugee Resettlement.................................. 2,256 4,639 5,342
Paroled......................................................... 36,106 40,028 43,399
Proceedings Terminated.......................................... 1,660 1,686 1,871
Prosecutorial Discretion........................................ 347 918 1,153
All Other Release Reasons....................................... 36,307 38,405 39,676
No Detention tied to the case................................... 1,191,658 1,213,232 1,220,889
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years 2012 and 2013 data represent snapshots of the non-detained docket at year end, and are historical
and remain static. Fiscal year 2014 data updated through 3/29/2014 (ICE Integrated Decision Support v1.16 run
date of 3/31/2014; ENFORCE Integrated Database as of 3/29/2014).
``All Other Release Reasons'' include release reasons such as ``Alternatives to Detention,'' and cases in which
the alien may have been removed or departed the United States but whose case has not yet been closed in ICE's
case management system. This category may also contain other release reasons such as ``Processing Disposition
Changed Locally'' or other various reasons.
FISCAL YEARS 2012-2014 YEAR-TO-DATE ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION BY TYPE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2012 year-end 2013 year-end 2014 as of 03/
snapshot snapshot 29/14 snapshot
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total ATD....................................................... 23,121 22,977 21,919
===============================================
Full Service.................................................... 12,828 12,253 11,137
Technology Only................................................. 10,293 10,742 10,782
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. For fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 year-to-date,
please provide information on the final case dispositions (e.g.
removed, returned, granted voluntary departure, and/or granted another
form of relief) for aliens on the non-detained docket by forms of
supervision and conditions of release, including bond, ICE supervision,
orders of recognizance, or combination. In addition, show the average
number of days on the docket for these aliens in each type of
supervision.
Answer. ICE is unable to provide the final case dispositions for
aliens on the non-detained docket by forms of supervision and
conditions of release or the average number of days on the docket for
aliens in each type of supervision without case specific information.
ICE is providing information that can be found in the year-end
snapshot of its database and the snapshot as of March 29, 2014.
In fiscal year 2012, ICE conducted 346,487 removals and 63,362
returns. In fiscal year 2013, ICE conducted 332,538 removals and 36,106
returns.
The below chart shows the latest release reason for those non-
detained docket cases that had an ICE book-in. Most cases on the non-
detained docket do not have a detention history that can be tied to the
case and therefore do not contain the requested details as to the form
of supervision or condition of release.
FISCAL YEARS 2012-2014 YEAR-TO-DATE NON-DETAINED DOCKET BY RELEASE REASON
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
Release reason 2012 year-end 2013 year-end 2014 as of 03/
snapshot snapshot 29/14 snapshot
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Non-Detained Docket....................................... 1,681,862 1,781,368 1,841,810
===============================================
Bonded Out...................................................... 242,055 262,447 276,991
Order of Recognizance........................................... 111,324 150,177 176,943
Order of Supervision............................................ 60,149 69,836 75,546
Office of Refugee Resettlement.................................. 2,256 4,639 5,342
Paroled......................................................... 36,106 40,028 43,399
Proceedings Terminated.......................................... 1,660 1,686 1,871
Prosecutorial Discretion........................................ 347 918 1,153
All Other Release Reasons....................................... 36,307 38,405 39,676
No Detention tied to the case on the Non-Detained Docket--No 1,191,658 1,213,232 1,220,889
Release Reason.................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years 2012-2013 data represent snapshots of the non-detained docket at year end, and are historical and
remain static. Fiscal year 2014 data updated through 3/29/2014 (ICE Integrated Decision Support (IIDS) v1.16
run date of 3/31/2014; ENFORCE Integrated Database (EID) as of 3/29/2014).
``All Other Release Reasons'' include release reasons such as ``Alternatives to Detention,'' and cases in which
the alien may have been removed or departed the United States but whose case has not yet been closed in ICE's
case management system. This category may also contain other release reasons such as ``Processing Disposition
Changed Locally'' or other various reasons.
FISCAL YEARS 2012-2014 YEAR-TO-DATE ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION BY TYPE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
Fiscal Fiscal year 2014
year 2012 year 2013 as of 03/
year-end year-end 29/14
snapshot snapshot snapshot
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total ATD.............................. 23,121 22,977 21,919
================================
Full Service........................... 12,828 12,253 11,137
Technology Only........................ 10,293 10,742 10,782
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. For fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 year-to-date,
please provide the final case dispositions (e.g. removed, returned,
granted voluntary departure, and/or granted another form of relief) of
participants in the ATD program.
Answer. The table below displays final case dispositions for fiscal
years 2012, 2013, and 2014 (through February).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
Fiscal Fiscal year 2014
Final case disposition year 2012 year 2013 through
February
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0--Withdrawal Permitted--I-275 Issued.. 9 6 1
3--Voluntary Departure Confirmed....... 1,414 1,134 268
6--Deported/Removed--Deportability..... 503 546 131
8--Excluded/Removed--Inadmissibility... 909 1,213 347
9--Voluntary Return Witnessed.......... 6 2 1
A--Proceedings Terminated.............. 840 780 213
B--Relief Granted...................... 462 451 140
E--Charging Document Canceled by 102 119 50
Immigration and Naturalization Service
L--Legalization--Permanent Residence 60 56 12
Granted...............................
Z--Z-Special Agricultural Worker-- 6 2 1
Permanent Residence Granted...........
--------------------------------
Grand Total...................... 4,311 4,309 1,164
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Notes:
--Final case dispositions based on case status code pulled from ICE
Integrated Decision Support (IIDS). IIDS is a data warehouse that
contains dynamic data extracts from the Enforcement Integrated
Database (EID).
--ATD Termination codes were not used in this analysis because they are
not necessarily indicative of an individual's final case disposition,
only an individual's reason for exiting the ATD program. Case status
code is a more concrete indication of final case outcome.
--Data pulled by the Statistical Tracking Unit.
--Fiscal year 2012 case closure codes 0-9 pulled from IIDS 10/5/2012,
EID as of 10/3/2012.
--Fiscal year 2013 case closure codes 0-9 pulled from IIDS 10/6/2013,
EID as of 10/4/2013.
--Fiscal year 2014 case closure codes 0-9 pulled from IIDS 3/10/2014,
EID as of 3/8/2014.
--Fiscal years 2012-2014 case closure codes A-Z pulled from IIDS 4/4/
2014, EID as 4/2/2014.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2012 terminations Fiscal year 2013 terminations Fiscal year 2014 through February
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ terminations
--------------------------------------------
Termination code Count Percent Termination code Count Percent Termination code Count Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...................................... 1,175 6.7 A..................... 1,445 5.4 A.................... 413 4.7
B...................................... 773 4.4 B..................... 942 3.5 B.................... 309 3.5
C...................................... 371 2.1 C..................... 560 2.1 C.................... 266 3.0
D...................................... 512 2.9 D..................... 800 3.0 D.................... 271 3.1
E...................................... 357 2.0 E..................... 544 2.0 E.................... 279 3.2
F...................................... 256 1.5 F..................... 166 0.6 F.................... 40 0.5
G...................................... 11,104 63.3 G..................... 19,249 71.5 G.................... 6,023 68.4
H...................................... 173 1.0 H..................... 269 1.0 H.................... 113 1.3
I...................................... 240 1.4 I..................... 207 0.8 I.................... 125 1.4
J...................................... 980 5.6 J..................... 1,267 4.7 J.................... 519 5.9
K...................................... 259 1.5 K..................... 259 1.0 K.................... 102 1.2
L...................................... 1,208 6.9 L..................... 969 3.6 L.................... 238 2.7
M...................................... 120 0.7 M..................... 131 0.5 M.................... 63 0.7
Unknown................................ 23 0.1 Unknown............... 130 0.5 Unknown.............. 48 0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand total...................... 17,551 100.0 Grand total........... 26,938 100.0 Grand total.......... 8,809 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data from BI Inc. Population Reports
TERMINATION CODES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Favorable Outcomes:
A.................................. Departure Verified (Final Order
of Removal)
B.................................. Relief/Benefit Granted
(cancellation of Removal,
Adjustment of Status, Asylum,
or Admission)
L.................................. Departure Verified (Voluntary
Departure)
M.................................. Departed the United States
while in proceedings
Neutral Outcomes:
G.................................. No Longer Required to
Participate (As determined by
ERO for various reasons)
H.................................. Arrested by ICE for Removal
(Final Order--Active
Participant)
I.................................. Pending Departure Verification
(Final Order of Removal or
Voluntary Departure)
J.................................. Arrested by other Law
Enforcement Agency
K.................................. Other (No longer required to
report: medical or deceased)
Unfavorable Outcomes:
C.................................. Pre-Order Program Absconder
(Terminated from ATD)
D.................................. Post-Order Program Absconder
(Terminated from ATD)
E.................................. Pre-Order Program Violator
F.................................. Post-Order Program Violator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide the analysis that underpins the
Administration's assertion that there is only a need for 30,500
detention beds. And please provide an assessment of the impact that
lower detention rates will have on successful removal of illegal
aliens, to include consideration of the total cost to the taxpayer over
time, effect on border security effectiveness, impact on interior
enforcement, and impact on the aliens themselves as they accumulate
``equities'' on the non-detained docket.
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2014 budget requests funding
for 30,539 immigration detention beds. U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) reviewed the historical average number of aliens
apprehended who are subject to the Immigration and Nationality Act and
mandatory detention provisions. The requested bed level of 30,539
accommodates the current fiscal year 2014 mandatory detained population
(22,417 year-to-date average as of March 31, 2014) and provides for a
36-percent increase in detention population to accommodate the higher
risk, non-mandatory detainees who present a risk to public safety.
Lower risk, non-mandatory individuals may be placed by ICE in lower
cost alternatives to detention programs.
transportation security administration
Question. The Screening Partnership Program supports airports that
opt to have private sector screening companies rather than TSA
operations. Under this program, TSA still oversees security by
contracting for screening services. Congress has spoken repeatedly
about the value of this program in providing an avenue for innovation
and competition. At the same time, it has been difficult for airports
that want to participate to actually get through the process. One
reason why seems to come down to technicalities in cost calculations.
While I understand that this program will likely always be
controversial, the actual cost of these two options should not be up
for debate--this is a knowable feature of the landscape. This
subcommittee directed TSA to undertake an independent assessment over
the coming year to take this cost issue off the table.
What is the status of this review, and will you ensure that TSA
makes any changes necessary to its processes to ensure a fair and open
competition for private sector screening?
Answer. As directed by the Fiscal Year 2014 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
released a request for quote on April 16, 2014, to solicit an
independent analysis of the Screening Partnership Program's Federal
cost estimate methodology. Once the contractor delivers the final
report, the Government Accountability Office has 90 days to review and
brief Congress on the results. TSA is committed to ensuring a fair and
open application process.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
coast guard recapitalization plan--national security cutters and
offshore patrol cutters
Question. Secretary Johnson, I want to thank you for your support
of DHS operations in and around my State, including, but not limited to
the United States Coast Guard. I hope you will have the opportunity to
soon visit Alaska and see the hard working men and women of the
Department of Homeland Security.
As we discussed a few months ago, the recapitalization of the Coast
Guard's assets is a priority that we both share and I am happy to see
that you requested funding for the eighth national security cutter
(NSC) in this year's budget request. The national security cutter is
the Coast Guard's most sophisticated ship, and they continue to deploy
to the Bering Sea. These national security cutters are filling the role
of the older high endurance cutters that have past their useful life.
Currently, one high endurance cutter, the Munro is homeported in
Alaska. Cutters from California or Hawaii conduct all other Alaska
patrol deployments. The Munro is over 40 years old and there is no
planned replacement for it in Kodiak.
Would you consider taking another look at the Coast Guard's
homeporting strategy and locating a national security cutter in Kodiak?
Answer. Homeporting of the national security cutters (NSCs) was
carefully evaluated by the Commandant of the Coast Guard to ensure
greatest operational efficiency in supporting the Coast Guards multiple
missions.
In addition to the NSC, the Coast Guard is also designing the
offshore patrol cutter (OPC). I see this year's budget request includes
$20 million to continue the preliminary design evaluation of this ship.
Question. Are there plans to use the offshore patrol cutter in
Alaska?
Answer. Yes, the Coast Guard plans to use the OPC year-round in
Alaskan waters.
Question. If so how many national security cutters, if any, does
the Coast Guard plan to homeport in Alaska? And when are they expected
to begin coming online and start operating?
Answer. There are currently no plans to homeport a national
security cutter in Alaska.
polar icebreakers
Question. We also need to talk about our icebreaking capability.
The Coast Guard High Latitude Study in 2011 identified that to fulfill
the statutory missions the Coast Guard needed three heavy and three
medium icebreakers. Right now there is only one operational heavy
icebreaker in our national fleet with one recently taken out of
service. This year's request includes $6 million to continue to study
and plan for a new polar icebreaker. We don't appear to be moving very
quickly to build a new icebreaker, while other countries including
Russia, China, and Canada are all building new icebreakers.
How many heavy icebreakers are needed keep us safe and protect our
Arctic interests?
Answer. Current Arctic seasonal icebreaking demands and national
needs can be met with existing Coast Guard assets.
Question. Does the Coast Guard have plans for additional
icebreaking capability as a part of an Arctic strategy?
Answer. Per the Coast Guard's 2013 Arctic Strategy, the Coast Guard
will continue to monitor evolving Arctic activities, and re-invest,
where funding allows, to overcome potential gaps and shortfalls. The
current icebreaking capability is sufficient to meet current
operational demands.
Question. Are there any plans to recapitalize and return the non-
operational Polar Sea to service?
Answer. There are no plans to recapitalize and return the non-
operational Polar Sea to service.
arctic
Question. Secretary Johnson, the President released the
Implementation Plan for the National Strategy for the Arctic Region in
January. This plan lists the Department of Homeland Security as the
lead agency for seven objectives as well as a supporting agency for
many others. Your budget requests $2.1 million for Arctic operations.
What level of priority are these Arctic objectives?
Answer. Ensuring that the Coast Guard is prepared to meet its
statutory mission obligations in the Arctic is a priority for the
Service and the Coast Guard is taking a measured approach in this
regard. The Coast Guard is working to support the implementation of the
National Strategy for the Arctic Region in conjunction with the
implementation of the Coast Guard's Arctic Strategy. These strategies
are complementary to each other and both recognize that the intensity
of Coast Guard activity in the Arctic will be developed commensurate
with changes in Arctic activity.
Question. How will you implement your Arctic plan in the next
fiscal year?
Answer. There are a number of actions that are taking place in
fiscal year 2015 to support implementation of the National Strategy for
the Arctic Region and the Coast Guard Arctic Strategy. These include:
--Conducting annual Arctic Shield Operations;
--Establishment of the (International) Arctic Coast Guard Forum;
--Establishment of an Arctic Policy Board under the rules of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act;
--Continue support within the International Maritime Organization for
the development of a mandatory Polar Code;
--Continue development of the interagency polar icebreaker
Operational Requirements Document;
--Work towards finalizing the Bering Strait Port Access Route Study;
--Provide support to the Department of State to development priority
for U.S. Chairmanship of the Arctic Council (2015-2017).
coast guard operational efficiencies
Question. Secretary Johnson, I am concerned with the planned
reduction of $15 million in the Coast Guard budget for what is referred
operational efficiencies. This reduction seems to contradict the Coast
Guard's drive to increase proficiency across the service.
Can you please describe what the operational efficiencies that are
being reduced?
Answer. The $15 million operational efficiency scales cutter, boat,
and aircraft resource hours using risk-based prioritization of patrols
and operational activities to achieve savings in fuel and variable
maintenance. This proposal will preserve search and rescue, urgent
security activities, and operational hours to meet minimum proficiency
standards.
Question. How will this reduction affect Coast Guard operations in
Alaska?
Answer. Operational Commanders will maintain the flexibility to
shift resources to address the greatest risks and threats in the
maritime environment. This reduction is not expected to impact the
Coast Guard's response posture in and around Alaska.
national ocean policy
Question. The April 2013 National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan
directs DHS (as a National Ocean Council member) to implement what has
been described as a ``fundamental shift'' in the way that the Federal
Government manages ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources by
adopting an ``ecosystem-based management'' (EBM) approach.
Specifically, EBM must be incorporated into environmental planning and
review processes by 2016. In addition, the National Ocean Council
(which includes DHS) is directed to ``complete formal interagency
partnership agreements . . . regarding coordination and leveraging
efforts to achieve EBM.''
In addition, in regions where all States decide not to participate
on a regional planning body to carry out the marine planning
initiative, Federal agencies are nonetheless directed to ``identify and
address priority science, information, and ocean management issues
associated with marine planning as described in the Executive Order.''
Alaska is a State that has decided not to participate in a regional
planning body, and I am concerned that Federal agencies, including DHS,
are pushing forward without due regard to Alaska's prerogative to opt
out of a regional planning body.
Could you please describe in detail any DHS actions that have been
or will be taken in Alaska in response to the National Ocean Policy
Implementation Plan's directive to incorporate EBM into environmental
planning and review processes and complete formal interagency
agreements in furtherance of EBM?
Answer. The Coast Guard is working with other Federal, State,
local, and tribal experts to improve Arctic environmental incident
prevention and response to ensure coordinated agency action, minimize
the likelihood of disasters, and expedite response activities. The
Implementation Plan includes the ongoing efforts of the Coast Guard to
conduct a Waterway Analysis and Management System assessment and Port
Access Route Study for the Bering Strait, ports, and other navigable
waterways in western and northern Alaska as one of its priority
actions. When completed, this action will lead to improved navigational
safety, efficiency, and environmental stewardship for the region.
Another initiative in which DHS/Coast Guard is involved is
interagency cooperation to better coordinate domestic energy
development and permitting in Alaska under Executive Order 13580
(Interagency Working Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy
Development and Permitting in Alaska), of July 12, 2011. That Executive
order makes specific reference to the need to promote orderly and
efficient decisionmaking regarding the issuance of permits and the
conduct of environmental reviews for both onshore and offshore energy
development. This interagency coordination is leading to integrated
Arctic management, which is a key component of EBM.
Question. Could you please describe in detail any DHS actions that
have been or will be taken in Alaska in response to the National Ocean
Policy Implementation Plan's directive for Federal agencies to
participate in the marine planning initiative?
Answer. The Coast Guard District 17 Commander took the lead early
on in organizing Federal agencies in the Alaska region to prepare for
the development of marine planning initiatives. This includes reaching
out to other Federal agencies to identify subject-matter experts,
leaders, and resources to enhance coordination and implementation of
Federal programs designed to enhance the safe, secure, and prudent
management of Federal waters and missions in the region. This was done
in consultation with experts and leaders across the Federal Government,
the State of Alaska, local communities, tribes, academia, industry, and
the general public to promote mutual understanding and cooperation
across a wide range of relevant initiatives. Additionally, the 17th
Coast Guard District has reached an informal agreement with the
National Ocean Council and the State of Alaska to work within existing
processes and mechanisms to further National Ocean Policy objectives in
Alaska.
fema/galena
Question. On June 25, 2013, the President issued a major disaster
declaration in response to flooding that devastated the Yukon River
community of Galena and severely impacted other river villages in the
Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) and Association of Village Council
Presidents (AVCP) regions. FEMA established a Disaster Field Office in
Anchorage and mobilized staff from around the country. Most had no
understanding of the short building seasons and geographic constraints
associated with responding to a rural Alaska disaster. During a July
meeting at the Disaster Field Office we also came to learn that FEMA HQ
was not affording the Federal coordinating officer with the flexibility
to address these unique conditions and to some extent was micromanaging
the disaster. In response to that meeting, I wrote FEMA Administrator
Fugate and DHS Acting Inspector General Edwards asking that they send
senior teams to Galena. The DHS Inspector General's office sent a
three-person senior team in September while FEMA sent some HQ managers.
Neither the FEMA Administrator, the Deputy Administrator nor the
Associate Administrator in charge of the Recovery Division visited
Galena last summer. We lost much of the 2013 construction season
because FEMA was not prepared. While FEMA has done substantial planning
for the 2014 season, DHS oversight is necessary to ensure that the plan
is properly executed.
When you visited with me before your confirmation we discussed
FEMA's response to the May 2013 flooding disaster that devastated the
Athabasca Indian village of Galena on the Yukon River and surrounding
Native villages. By July it became apparent to me that FEMA was not
well prepared to address a disaster in a remote Native village. Many of
the reservists on the ground were poorly trained and we heard that FEMA
headquarters was micromanaging the recovery and not in a good way. I
wrote a letter to Administrator Fugate and to the DHS Inspector General
asking that the ship be righted. A copy of this letter was provided to
your staff. To their credit, senior Inspector General officials
traveled to Galena to inspect the situation. Senior FEMA HQ officials
did not. The 2014 construction season is upon us.
My question is: Can we expect that FEMA will do better in 2014 than
it did in 2013. The recovery in Galena is as important to me like the
recovery from Katrina and Rita is to Senator Landrieu, and the Sandy
recovery is to the New York and New Jersey delegations. Can we get some
high level attention and remove the obstacles that stand in the way to
the recovery of these traditional Native communities?
Answer. Each Stafford Act declaration is important to FEMA.
Throughout the process of response and recovery efforts in Alaska, FEMA
took rigorous and innovative actions to provide housing assistance to
eligible applicants to include implementing Permanent Housing
Construction (PHC). FEMA quickly deployed its Direct Housing Assessment
Team (DHAT) which identifies the most appropriate means of providing
temporary housing assistance, taking into account the needs of the
eligible applicants, availability of temporary housing resources in the
community, and the unique logistical considerations associated with
providing housing assistance in a remote village like Galena. The DHAT,
in coordination with the State-Led Disaster Housing Task Force (SLDHTF)
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), evaluated potential
construction options and determined PHC was the most appropriate
housing assistance option for some applicants. PHC was implemented in
phases to fill gaps due to additional costs associated with bringing in
building material (direct shipping) and labor to support the repair of
individual homes.
In addition, FEMA engages early with our Grantees (States/tribes/
local governments) in preparation of a disaster. An example of this is
the Other Needs Assistance (ONA) provision of our Individuals and
Households Program. ONA Administrative Option Selection form (FEMA form
010-0-11) contains a ``standard personal property line item list'' for
States/tribes to approve or modify. States and tribes are provided an
opportunity to ``add-on'' any additional items that are prevalent in
their State/tribe and are not included in the standard list. The
additional items requested by the State of Alaska included various
items, such as a fish wheel, rifle, fishing gear, hunting gear, etc. to
support subsistence activities. For example, the ``hunting gear''
included a sleeping bag, tent, tarp, knife, camp stove, food storage
and game storage bags. These were approved in February 2013, 5 months
before the disaster. FEMA had the ability to pay for those items under
ONA at the time of the disaster, within 3 days of the declaration.
Therefore, ONA was awarded without delay and provided an opportunity to
supply food for the winter.
Due to the remoteness of some traditional Native communities such
as Galena, FEMA's Public Assistance program funded a responder support
camp last summer. The responder camp remains operational, and it houses
40 individuals. FEMA and State staff, along with FEMA and State-
sponsored volunteers, utilized the camp. It provides washing and drying
capabilities along with showers and three meals. Due to the number of
volunteers assisting in the rebuilding of the community and the lack of
infrastructure capabilities of Galena, the camp will be expanded in
June to support an additional 60 volunteers. The camp is expected to be
available through September 1, 2014.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
visa waiver program and poland
Question. Secretary Johnson, I was pleased to speak with you
following your visit to Krakow this past February. I appreciate that
you took the time to discuss the importance of expanding the Visa
Waiver Program with your Polish counterpart. Poland is an important
strategic ally to the United States. It is important to show faith with
a longtime friend that has shown faith with us, standing by us in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
President Obama has repeatedly expressed his commitment to bringing
Poland into the Visa Waiver Program.
Secretary Johnson, how important is it to the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) to bring our close ally and friend Poland into
the Visa Waiver Program?
Answer. As you mention and as the President has noted, Poland is a
strong ally of the United States. The President and I support Poland's
accession to the Visa Waiver Program. Unfortunately, Poland does not
yet meet the strict eligibility requirements of the Visa Waiver Program
contained in current law. Poland's nonimmigrant visitor visa refusal
rate remains above the statutory threshold of 3 percent. Additionally,
Poland has not yet signed all of the information sharing agreements
required for Visa Waiver Program eligibility.
DHS places great importance on bringing Poland into the Visa Waiver
Program once it meets the eligibility requirements. In the meantime,
DHS cannot bring Poland into the program because DHS's authority to do
so is constrained by current law.
Question. How many other countries are in line to join the program?
Answer. No countries not already in the Visa Waiver Program (VWP)
currently fulfill all of the statutory requirements for VWP
designation. DHS has been working with a very small group of countries
on the VWP's security and information sharing requirements in
anticipation that they will become eligible for designation at some
point in the future. These countries also need to meet the nonimmigrant
visitor visa refusal rate threshold of 3 percent. DHS cannot begin the
designation process until this and all the additional eligibility
requirements are met. Based on the Department of State's fiscal year
2013 visa refusal data, DHS does not anticipate designating any
countries into the Visa Waiver Program during the remainder of this
fiscal year.
Question. Opponents of VWP expansion argue that it is a risk to
American Security. Can you outline the security agreements Poland will
enter into with the United States prior to joining? How will these
agreements enhance American Security? What has the Polish Government
already done to ensure Poland is not an entry point for terrorists into
the United States?
Answer. There are three information sharing instruments that
countries conclude prior to the start of the Visa Waiver Program
designation process in order to meet VWP statutory requirements for
information sharing. The first is the Agreement on Preventing and
Combating Serious Crime. This agreement provides for the reciprocal
exchange of biographic and biometric data, along with any relevant
underlying information, for purposes of preventing, detecting, and
investigating serious criminal activity. Poland and the United States
concluded substantive negotiations on this agreement in July 2012.
The second is the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6 (HSPD-
6) arrangement (Integration and Use of Screening Information). Under
this arrangement, the United States provides the foreign partner with
access to an extract of the Terrorist Screening Database in exchange
for the foreign partner's list of known and suspected terrorists.
Poland has already signed an HSPD-6 arrangement with the United States.
The third is an agreement to report information to INTERPOL on lost
and stolen passports. To fulfill this requirement, countries must
complete a memorandum of understanding or an exchange of diplomatic
notes documenting their intent to report information on lost and stolen
passport through INTERPOL. VWP countries are expected to report lost
and stolen passport data on a daily basis. Poland has completed the
exchange of diplomatic notes, and reports data on lost/stolen passport
to INTERPOL on a daily basis.
These agreements enhance American security by increasing the
quantity and the quality of data available for identifying foreign
travelers of potential concern. Primarily as a result of the Visa
Waiver Program requirement to report lost and stolen passport
information, over 65 percent of the records contained in INTERPOL's
travel document database are provided by Visa Waiver Program countries.
The Agreement on Preventing and Combating Serious Crime has already
resulted in the identification and incarceration of serious criminals
based on the exchange of biometric information with Visa Waiver Program
partners. Information gathered through the HSPD-6 arrangement has
resulted in the confirmation of several terrorist identities, made
existing watch list profiles more accurate, and added new identities to
our watch list holdings.
Poland employs a broad range of tools to diminish the risk that
terrorists would use its territory as a transit point for travel to the
United States. These tools include standardized risk-based screening
procedures at border crossings, use of the European Union's Schengen
Information System database to screen inbound travelers against
derogatory information held by European governments, vetting of all
applicants for asylum and refugee status against a common European
database, and use of targeted advance passenger information to identify
travelers of interest before they arrive at Polish ports of entry.
Polish law enforcement and security officials frequently exchange
information with their counterparts in the United States Mission to
Poland, ensuring that any known travelers of concern are identified
well in advance of any potential travel to the United States.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Senator Landrieu. And without further business, the
subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., Wednesday, March 12, the hearing
was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Coats, Senator Daniel, U.S. Senator From Indiana:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 64
Statement of................................................. 6
Johnson, Hon. Jeh, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 9
Questions Submitted to....................................... 35
Summary Statement of......................................... 7
Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana:
Opening Statement of......................................... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 3
Questions Submitted by....................................... 35
Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 58
Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 76
Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 73
Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 60
Tester, Senator Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 62
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 35
Alternatives to Detention (ATD):
Funding for.................................................. 48
Immigration.................................................. 27
Applications for Immigration Benefits of U.S. Citizen Spouses,
Delays in Processing........................................... 53
Arctic........................................................... 74
Operations................................................... 23
Aviation Security Fee Proposals.................................. 42
Border:
Patrol Agent Staffing........................................ 15
Security..................................................... 18
Coast Guard:
Cutters, Creative Financing for.............................. 43
Fleet........................................................ 12
Operational Efficiencies..................................... 74
Recapitalization Plan--National Security Cutters and Offshore
Patrol Cutters............................................. 73
Customs:
And Border Protection (CBP):
Facilities............................................... 31
Flight Hours, Reduction in............................... 55
Officers, Use of Increased Fees to Pay for................... 53
Cybersecurity.................................................... 58
Collaborative Effort......................................... 16
Education.................................................... 13
Einstein Program............................................. 18
Research..................................................... 23
Secret Service Capabilities.................................. 29
Data Center Consolidation........................................ 22
Department of Homeland Security (DHS):
Morale....................................................... 56
Structure, Cohesive.......................................... 57
Disaster:
Funding Resiliency........................................... 40
Relief Fund (DRF)............................................ 32
Spending--Federal Status and State Responsibility............ 38
Einstein Program, Cybersecurity.................................. 18
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/Galena................ 75
Flood Maps....................................................... 36
Galena/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)................ 75
Grants:
Consolidation Proposal....................................... 34
Mitigation Grants............................................ 17
I-130 Application Backlog........................................ 58
Icebreakers...................................................... 25
Illegal Border Crossings, Increase in............................ 45
Immigration:
Alternatives To Detention (ATD).............................. 27
And Customs Enforcement (ICE):
Data..................................................... 64
Detainers, Honoring...................................... 49
Transportation and Removal Program, Cuts to.............. 47
Data and Priorities.......................................... 50
Employment Creation Immigration Visa Program................. 17
Reform....................................................... 14
Comprehensive............................................ 59
Repatriation................................................. 28
Jones Act........................................................ 34
National:
Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF)........................ 26
Flood Insurance.............................................. 11
Program (NFIP) Reform.................................... 35
Ocean Policy (NOP)........................................... 74
Security Cutter (NSC):
Funding.................................................. 22
Home Porting............................................. 24
Northern Border.................................................. 16
P-3 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP)........................ 55
Poland, Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and............................ 76
Polar Icebreakers................................................ 73
Protecting Federal Cyber Networks................................ 37
Public-Private Partnerships...................................... 29
REAL ID Program.................................................. 33
Secret Service Capabilities, Cybersecurity....................... 29
Securing The Cities (STC)........................................ 57
State and Local Preparedness Grants Reorganization............... 40
Surveillance Drones: Privacy Rules............................... 30
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)..................... 73
Officer Safety and Security, Enhancing....................... 43
Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC)............................... 44
Use-of-Force Policy.............................................. 59
Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and Poland............................. 76
[all]