[Senate Hearing 113-689]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-689
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2217
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2014, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Homeland Security
Nondepartmental Witness
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
[GRAPHIC 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
78-057 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
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
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey MARK KIRK, Illinois
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas DANIEL COATS, Indiana
JON TESTER, Montana ROY BLUNT, Missouri
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
MARK BEGICH, Alaska 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
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
JON TESTER, Montana LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
MARK BEGICH, Alaska JERRY MORAN, Kansas
Professional Staff
Stephanie Gupta
Chip Walgren
Scott Nance
Drenan E. Dudley
Carol Cribbs (Minority)
Administrative Support
Colin MacDermott
Courtney Stevens (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Page
Department of Homeland Security.................................. 1
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Coast Guard................ 73
Nondepartmental Witness.......................................... 107
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:36 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Landrieu, Mikulski, Begich, Coats,
Cochran, Murkowski, and Moran.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
STATEMENT OF HON. JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY
opening statement of senator mary l. landrieu
Senator Landrieu. Good afternoon, everyone. Let me call the
Subcommittee on Homeland Security appropriations to order and
welcome Secretary Janet Napolitano as she presents the
administration's budget for this important Department today.
I'm going to open with a brief statement and then turn it
over to my ranking member, acknowledge the other members that
are here, and then turn to your statement, Madam Secretary.
Last week's events in Boston were a stark reminder of the
threats we continue to face as a Nation and that we must remain
vigilant at all times. Securing our homeland is a partnership
between the Federal Government and our local entities, one that
we must continue to support, strengthen, and fine-tune. Just as
the runners set out that bright Monday morning for a long-
distance run, so must our country take the long view with
regular and routine investments in local, State, and Federal
homeland security assets.
The heroic effort by first responders and law enforcement
officers in Boston who worked together seamlessly and saved
many lives because of their actions continue to inspire us. Our
thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families,
the runners, the volunteers in the Boston Marathon, and the
whole city of Boston and the region.
Madam Secretary, thank you for being here this morning and
presenting the administration's budget and for your leadership
through very difficult times.
Just over 10 years ago, this Department was formed, cobbled
together from 22 disparate Federal agencies and in the shadow
of the worst attack on American soil. Since that time, you and
your predecessors have worked hard to join together these
separate entities to be one unified force, an integrated
Department. While this integration has not always gone
smoothly, there have been some notable accomplishments.
State and local grant investments paid dividends this past
week in Boston. Since 2003, the Boston metropolitan area
received from our subcommittee $370 million. Within the last
year, grants were used to equip and train tactical and
specialized response teams on explosive detection and
disruption, as well as trained first responders in how best to
operate in close proximity to SWAT teams in very dynamic and
evolving scenarios, one that, unfortunately, we watched in
action, almost live, last week.
The exercises the city of Boston, Watertown, and the
surrounding communities completed with State and Federal
partners in hopes they would never have to use those skills
were unfortunately put to the test. But lives were saved
because communities and citizens were prepared to respond and,
in fact, did. Federal investments to facilitate this level of
preparedness must continue.
Both Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) are working hard to invigorate
the travel experience while still providing ramped-up security,
as is required. For example, CBP, in expanding enrollment
travel programs such as Global Entry, has increased
participation by 25 percent this year, making more than 2.5
million members of the traveling public eligible for expedited
screening. Similarly, due to TSA's rollout of PreCheck
(Pre3TM) in 2011 and flexible measures for children,
military personnel and the elderly, 25 percent of the traveling
public should receive some form of expedited screening by
year's end. But there is much more that can be done to expedite
this travel and keep it secure. I intend to explore this
particular topic in more detail in the weeks and months ahead.
Our southern border, which is much the focus of our
immigration debate, is, in fact, more secure today than it has
ever been. Today there are 18,500 Border Patrol agents along
the southwest border, more than double the amount we had in
2005; 651 miles of fencing has been built; and a crackdown on
illegal immigrants means that illegal crossings have plummeted
to levels not seen since the early 1970s. Sensors have been
planted, cameras have been erected, and unmanned aerial
vehicles monitor the border from above. Couple these efforts
with targeted outbound inspections of vehicles for illegal
drugs, weapons and cash and other contraband headed south into
Mexico, resulting in some impressive seizures, and one can see
much improvement.
But challenges remain, and as you know, that is going to be
a topic of debate in this subcommittee and other committees of
jurisdiction.
Let me mention that the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) has made significant strides since its disastrous
performance following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. I
have seen firsthand how much this agency's response and
recovery capabilities have evolved, thanks to experienced
leadership, a more proactive and inclusive approach, and most
recently several key reforms implemented by Congress to the
Stafford Act have really come in handy.
Since Hurricane Isaac struck Louisiana and Hurricane Sandy
ravaged the northeast last year, a new FEMA model has emerged,
one that leads a whole-of-Government approach to recovery and
one that will work, in my view, much better.
The Coast Guard has received new assets to replace the
deteriorating fleet, such as the national security cutters
(NSC), fast response cutters (FRC), and marine patrol aircraft.
However, significant work remains in this area and, in my view,
the budget before us severely underfunds these critical
acquisitions, putting the Coast Guard further behind in
acquiring the assets it needs to fulfill its mission.
Your agency is managing the constant onslaught of cyber
attacks in our Federal civilian Government networks, financial
institutions and critical infrastructure. The Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) responds and issues warnings to an
average of 70 incidents per month arising from more than 10,000
daily alerts. While no one has managed yet to seriously damage
or disrupt our U.S. infrastructure, your Department now plays a
key role in helping the Federal Government, State and local
governments, as well as the private sector stay safe. As our
enemies become more adept at attacking us, we have to keep up
with the technology in blocking those attacks. I am looking
forward to hearing more about that in your budget.
In 2013, we provided the necessary funding and increases
for: Customs and Border Protection salaries that were
significantly underestimated; restored proposed cuts to the
Coast Guard acquisition program to replace aging and decrepit
assets; appropriated a 70-percent increase in cybersecurity
technology and education programs; and restored critical
funding for advanced research; and State and local preparedness
grants; all of which were at historic lows in 2012. Coupling
these increases with supplemental appropriations enacted for
Hurricane Sandy in January, the Department should have been in
good standing to support its essential frontline employees,
State and local responders, and disaster victims.
However, many of the increases I just highlighted will be
eaten away by the 5-percent reduction required by sequester and
set us back even further. While I recognize that you are still
finalizing how these impacts of sequestration will be felt, it
is an area that deeply concerns me.
For 2014, the discretionary request for the Department is
$39 billion, 1.4 percent less than the full appropriation we
enacted just last month. If this request is met, it would be
the fourth year in a row that the Department has faced reduced
funding, down from its peak of $42 billion.
In regard to the request before us, DHS, like all Federal
agencies, has been asked to do more with less, and this has
required some tough decisions. Your budget includes many
examples where administrative and overhead costs have been
reduced and where programs have been trimmed and stretched out
or suspended to achieve cost savings without significantly
degrading critical security requirements. By making these
reductions, you were able to preserve the most essential
frontline security operations, but this budget calls for
funding a new facility construction at the expense of ongoing
acquisition needs, which could even more delay recapitalization
necessary for the Coast Guard, and Customs' Air and Marine
fleets for years.
Just last week, the Senate unveiled the bipartisan
compromise immigration reform package, something that is
urgently needed for the economic strength and security of our
country, in my view, but also something that will have serious
implications on how DHS directs personnel and resources over
the next 5 to 10 years. This bipartisan effort to craft this
legislation is admirable, but there will be financial measures
necessary to implement it. The budget before us today contains
only a few proposals to fund these reforms, so I am looking
forward to hearing from you how our immigration reform efforts
will be paid for.
And finally, let me say that I am pleased that the budget
requests funding to hire 1,600 new Customs and Border
Protection officers. Many people complain, and rightly so, that
inspection lines at our air and land ports of entry for
international arriving passengers are simply too long. Studies
and surveys indicate that these long lines are a major reason
why tourists choose simply, Madam Secretary, to go to other
nations for vacations and for business. While we are back up to
the pre-9/11 level, and that is something to celebrate, I must
underscore that we have lost 40 percent of our global market
share for these tourist dollars. That is not specifically your
fault, but it is the reality of the traveling public and where
they are making decisions to go. As a State that is reliant on
hospitality dollars, I am very sensitive to this.
prepared statement
So today I look forward to exploring how this Department,
one so critical to safety and security of our Nation, is
assessing risk and prioritizing funding in this era of calls
for smaller and weaker Government from some quarters, but not
from this chair. It is also time to reflect about where the
Department of Homeland Security has been and where it is going
in the future.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Good afternoon. I call the subcommittee to order.
Last week's events in Boston were a stark reminder of the threats
we continue to face as a Nation and that we must remain vigilant at all
times. Securing our homeland is a partnership between the Federal
Government and local entities--one that we must continue to support and
strengthen. Just as the runners set out that bright Monday morning on
this long distance run, so must our country take the long view with
regular and routine investment in local, State and Federal homeland
security assets.
The heroic effort by first responders and law enforcement officials
in Boston, who worked together seamlessly and saved many lives because
of their action, continue to inspire us. Our thoughts and prayers are
with the victims and their families, runners and workers of the Boston
Marathon, and the whole city of Boston.
Secretary Napolitano, thank you for presenting the administration's
budget today for review and comment. Just over 10 years ago, the
Department of Homeland Security was formed, cobbled together from 22
disparate Federal agencies in the shadow of the worst attack on
American soil. Since that time, you and your predecessors have worked
hard to join together these separate entities into a unified and
integrated Department. While this integration has not always gone
smoothly, there has been notable success:
--State and local grant investments paid dividends this past week in
Boston. Since 2003, the Boston metropolitan area has received
$370 million. Within the last year, grants were used to equip
and train tactical and specialized response teams on explosive
detection and disruption, as well as train first responders how
to best operate in close proximity to SWAT teams in very
dynamic and evolving scenarios. The exercises that the city of
Boston, Watertown, and the surrounding communities completed
with local, State, and Federal partners--in hopes they would
never have to use the skills--were unfortunately put to the
test. Lives were saved because communities and citizens were
prepared for the unthinkable. Federal investments to facilitate
this preparedness must continue.
--Both Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) are working hard to reinvigorate
the travel experience, while still providing ramped up
security. For example, CBP is expanding enrollment in its
trusted travel programs, such as Global Entry, by 25 percent
this year, making more than 2.5 million members of the
traveling public eligible for expedited screening next year.
Similarly, with TSA's rollout of PreCheck (Pre3TM)
in 2011 and flexible measures for children, military personnel,
and the elderly, 25 percent of the traveling public should
receive some form of expedited screening by year's end. But
there is much more that can be done and hopefully we will
explore this topic in much more detail.
--Our southern border is more secure today than it has ever been.
Today there are 18,500 Border Patrol agents along the southwest
border (more than double the amount we had in 2005), some 651
miles of fencing has been built, and a crackdown on illegal
immigrants means that illegal crossings have plummeted to
levels not seen since the early 1970s. Now sensors have been
planted, cameras erected, and unmanned aerial vehicles monitor
the border from above. Couple these efforts with targeted
outbound inspections of vehicles for illegal drugs, weapons,
cash, and other contraband heading south into Mexico, resulting
in some impressive seizures, and one can see much improvement.
--Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has made significant
strides since its disastrous performance following Hurricane
Katrina in 2005. I have seen firsthand how much that agency's
response and recovery capabilities have evolved, thanks to
experienced leadership, a more proactive and inclusive
approach, and most recently several key recovery reforms to the
Stafford Act that we have enacted. Since Hurricane Isaac struck
Louisiana and Hurricane Sandy ravaged the northeast last year,
a new FEMA model has evolved, one that leads a whole of
government approach to recovery.
--The Coast Guard has received new assets to replace a deteriorating
fleet, such as national security cutters, fast response
cutters, and maritime patrol aircraft. However, significant
work remains in this area and in my view the budget before us
severely underfunds critical acquisitions, putting the Coast
Guard further behind in acquiring the assets it needs to
fulfill its mission.
--Your agency is managing the constant onslaught of cyber attacks on
our Federal civilian government networks, financial
institutions, and critical infrastructure. The Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) responds and issues warnings to an
average of 70 incidents per month arising from more than 10,000
daily alerts. While no one has managed to seriously damage or
disrupt critical U.S. infrastructure networks so far, DHS now
plays a key role in helping the Federal Government, State and
local governments, as well as the private sector, reinvent our
network foundations so that we can become more resilient to
attacks.
Unfortunately, the notable progress the Department has made will be
hampered by sequestration. While I am pleased that a full-year DHS
appropriations bill was included in the final continuing resolution,
thereby providing funding certainty for your components, very damaging
sequestration cuts have been locked in for all Federal agencies. As my
letter to you earlier this month indicated, I am particularly concerned
about the impacts of sequestration cuts on small businesses contracting
with Federal agencies.
In 2013, we provided necessary funding increases for Customs and
Border Protection salaries that were significantly underestimated in
the request; restored proposed cuts to the Coast Guard's acquisition
program to replace aging and decrepit assets and military housing;
appropriated a 70-percent increase in cybersecurity technology and
education programs; and restored critical funding for advanced research
and State and local preparedness grants, all of which were at historic
lows in 2012. Coupling these increases with supplemental appropriations
enacted for Hurricane Sandy in January, the Department should have been
in good standing to support its essential frontline employees, State
and local responders, and disaster victims for the remainder of this
fiscal year. However, many of the increases I just highlighted will be
eaten away by the 5-percent reduction across every program, project,
and activity this year. While I recognize that you are still finalizing
how the impacts of sequestration will be felt, this is an area that
deeply concerns me and one we will need to discuss more fully today.
For 2014, the discretionary request for the Department of Homeland
Security is $39 billion, 1.4 percent less than the full-year
appropriation we enacted just last month. If we were to approve this
request, it would be the fourth year in a row that the Department has
faced reduced funding, down from its peak of $42.4 billion in 2010.
In regards to the budget request before us, DHS, like all Federal
agencies, have been asked to do more with less, and this has required
some tough decisions. Your budget includes many examples where
administrative and overhead costs have been reduced, and where programs
have been trimmed, stretched out, or suspended to achieve cost savings
without significantly degrading critical security requirements. By
making these reductions, you were able to preserve most essential
frontline security operations. But this budget calls for funding new
facility construction at the expense of ongoing acquisition needs,
which could delay recapitalizing the Coast Guard and the Customs Air
and Marine fleets for years. It also funds investments in necessary
cybersecurity technologies like Einstein and continuous monitoring of
Federal networks through shortsighted cuts to training and educating
the cyber warriors of the future. We need to do both.
Just last week, the Senate unveiled a bipartisan comprehensive
immigration reform package, something that is urgently needed for the
economic strength and security of our country, but also something that
will have serious implications on how DHS directs personnel and
resources over the next 5 to 10 years. As bipartisan efforts to craft
this legislation continue, there is no doubt that security at the
border will remain center stage. The budget before us today only
contains a few proposals to fund these reforms and in some cases--such
as detention resources--funding moves in the opposite direction. More
will be required if not in 2014, certainly in the years to come, and I
look forward to exploring these requirements in more detail as the
comprehensive immigration reform package is developed.
I am pleased that the budget requests funding to hire 1,600 new
Customs and Border Protection officers (a 7.3-percent increase). Many
people complain--and rightly so--that inspection lines at our air and
land ports of entry for international arriving passengers are too long.
Studies and surveys indicate these long lines are a major reason why
tourists chose to go countries other than the United States for their
vacations. International arrivals to the United States finally
rebounded in 2012 to their pre-9/11 level for the first time in over a
decade, but during that same period, we have lost 40 percent of global
market share of these important tourists. This problem has profound
impacts on our economy in general. Adding new CBP officers will start
to address this challenge. I am also pleased to see creative financing
proposals in this budget for other ways in which the Department can
address some of its staffing and facilities needs at our 101.5 land
ports of entry. We will discuss this more during questioning.
Today, I look forward to exploring how this Department, one so
critical to the safety and security of our Nation, is assessing risk
and prioritizing funding in this era of calls for smaller and weaker
government from some quarters. It is also time to reflect about where
the Department of Homeland Security has been and what challenges lie
ahead.
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.
Following Senator Coats' opening statement, I will turn to our full
Committee Chairwoman Mikulski for opening remarks. After that, we will
hear from Secretary Napolitano. Once the Secretary concludes her
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 Landrieu. With that, let me turn it over to Senator
Coats who, unfortunately, has a conflicting meeting,
intelligence briefing, so he is going to give his opening
statement and submit some questions for the record. Then I will
turn to our full Committee chair, Chairwoman Mikulski, who is
joining us today for her remarks.
Senator Coats.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAN COATS
Senator Coats. Madam Chairman, thank you, and I appreciate
your tolerance here in my trying to balance two essential
Committee hearings at the same time.
Secretary Napolitano, you have had quite a week, and we
have too. You have a lot of balls in the air and are juggling a
lot of difficult issues. So with your acceptance here, let me
name just a few of the issues that I would like to get some
responses back from you, your staff, your Department, and
excuse myself to run over and get to the briefing with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It is all related to the
Boston incident, and the chairman there, Diane Feinstein, is
urging me to get there as quickly as possible.
Two or three things. First, I am still concerned about the
poor resource decisions made by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) earlier this year relative to the release of
immigrants from detention. Even though ICE was resourced
adequately under the continuing resolution to fund 34,000
detention beds, they were operating at a significantly higher
level, and as such, with what I think was unfortunate timing,
there was a release of illegal aliens into surrounding
communities. It raised a lot of concerns. And I have just
learned that, once again, they are back over the 34,000
authorized level, with 36,000 or more. What do we expect
relative to how we deal with that, how we pay for that? Is
there going to be another release? That is question number one.
Second, related to the tragedy in Boston, there are too
many facts, so-called facts, maybe facts, maybe corroborated,
maybe not, that we gain from the media and not enough from the
source that we ought to get that from. My understanding is that
there has been a real mix-up here relative to the watchlisting
of one of the individuals here, the relationship between shared
information with the various agencies, including the FBI and
Homeland Security. It could have just been a blip. It could
have been a mistake. I think someone said there might have been
a mistake in spelling and that's why it turned up in one place
and not another place. But clearly, we have to work to
coordinate these efforts so that we can prevent things like
this, when one agency knows something that the other agency
doesn't and something slips through. It reminds you a lot of 9/
11 when we didn't have that kind of coordination. I know a lot
has been done to address that in the last decade or so, but I
would like to get your take from your perspective from Homeland
Security relative to what might have happened there.
Finally, just some direct issues here related to the
budget. I continue to be concerned about the aviation passenger
security fees. I also have concerns about the impact of the
budget on ICE investigations, Coast Guard missions, Customs and
Border Protection, and air and marine operations, as well as
drug interdiction.
As you know, the issue of immigration starts with border
security, but we are still waiting for the Department to
produce the measures by which the American people can judge
both the current level of security and the goal and what it is
going to cost to reach the intended level which at least the
Gang of Eight immigration proposal has put forward. We need to
have that information to better evaluate how we go forward.
So those are my questions. I am not asking you to answer
those now. I hope to get back here. I don't want to hold you. I
know you also have some engagements that are critical to the
Boston situation. But, Madam Chairman, if the hearing is still
going on, I will come back and we can talk about that directly.
If not, if you or your staff would communicate with us, I would
appreciate it.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator Coats.
Chairwoman Mikulski.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Senator Landrieu. I,
too, am a member of the Intelligence Committee and will be
joining Senator Coats, and hopefully can return. I would like
to compliment Senator Coats who, on a Sunday talk show, as
everyone was responding, he presented his usual serious, sober,
thoughtful commentary that I think really was very edifying,
because there was a lot of second-guessing and chest pounding
and so on that was going on. He really, I think, added an
excellent dimension to it.
Madam Chair, I wanted to come by to talk to Secretary
Napolitano for a very few minutes with both you and Senator
Coats and members of the subcommittee. This subcommittee is
going to be where the action is when we get ready to mark up
our bill. It will be there because not only of its role to
protect the border--excuse me--I mean to protect the homeland,
but we will be hopefully working on immigration reform.
You already have the President's budget. You already have a
framework. But we are going to need flexibility to be able to
include whatever comes out of the authorizing to do this. So
that is going to be a big issue and a big challenge.
Also, there is another dimension related to cybersecurity
that I would hope, as full Committee chair, to conduct first a
roundtable on the issue across Committee lines with everybody
on the Committee learning about it and learning about
directions and some of the challenges that the Nation is
facing, and then to work with our subcommittee chairs,
particularly you, Defense, me with FBI and National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST), so that we are all going in
the same direction with our funding and work in a kind of
coordinated way to get the right resources in the Federal
checkbook that are being asked of the people to coordinate on
the ground.
But we have excellent members here who are on Armed
Services, the vice chairman of the Armed Services Committee,
you and Senator Coats, Senator Shelby and me, and I think if we
focus and work together, we will be able to do a great job.
But you, Madam Secretary, first of all, we want to thank
you for the job that Homeland Security did do. I note that 2
years before this awful, awful, awful event in Boston, that
there was an exercise that helped Boston prepare, again
practicing the three R's of emergency response--readiness and
preparedness, response when an event happens, and then the
difficult job of recovery. So we thank you for that.
Also, we salute once again the first responders not only in
Boston but in West, Texas, who dashed into that burning factory
because it was so close to a school. Five firefighters died,
four emergency technicians died from a very small, rural,
volunteer fire department in West, Texas.
So we know that through Federal emergency management, the
FIRE grants, the SAFER grants, they need that money in those
rural communities and in those big-city fire departments. We
love to give all praise and thanksgiving to our first
responders, but they need help from their Federal Government,
and I want to work with you and Senator Coats and the Committee
to make sure that the President comes in at $645 million for
these grants, and I think we need to do more. It is a
bipartisan support program, and whether you are from West,
Texas or you are from the north end in Boston, we've got to be
there to do that.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So to that end, Madam Secretary, and I say to you, Madam
Chair, we hope to mark up our bill at $1,058 trillion following
the American Taxpayers Relief Act, which passed the Senate.
That is what I hope to mark up the bill, noting that the House
has marked up their bill at the sequester level. I think we
have to find a solution to sequester if we are going to find a
path forward because there is $92 million. But this
subcommittee, Madam Chair, along with Defense, as well as
Federal law enforcement, our job is to protect the Nation, and
I look forward to protecting your funding so that you, as the
bipartisan framework of this bill, will be able to move
forward.
We have to all think that we are all in this together. We
are all Boston. We are all West, Texas. And we all have to be
Americans that work together on this.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
introduction
Thank you, Chairwoman Landrieu and Ranking Member Coats for your
leadership.
Thank you, Secretary Napolitano for your commitment to first
responders and to our Nation's security.
The marathon bombings in Boston was terrible tragedy. Our thoughts
and prayers are with the families of those killed and everyone injured.
And our thanks go to the first responders at the local level who were
first to respond and State, local and Federal law enforcement who
worked together to identify and capture suspects.
The resiliency and spirit of Boston shouldn't be underestimated and
is felt by the whole Nation. When a disaster strikes, the American
people expect their government to be there to help. The Boston bombing
proved that the investments we made after 9/11 in law enforcement
emergency medical capabilities and emergency planning have made a
difference.
budget statement
The resources provided in this bill are so important and touch the
lives of American everyday, especially in times of disaster. That is
why I support the President's budget request level--$1.058 trillion,
the same as the deal we made 3 months ago in the American Taxpayer
Relief Act. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 89-to-8. A deal
should be a deal. In contrast, the Ryan budget and sequester level
would be $966 billion, $92 billion less than the President's request,
with all of the cuts coming from non-Defense programs, such as the
Department of Homeland Security.
We need a balanced approach to end sequester, including revenues,
targeted cuts.
conclusion
I look forward to working with Landrieu and Coats to move this bill
in regular order. Need to support our first responders, anti-terrorism
efforts, emergency preparedness initiatives, and cybersecurity.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much.
Let me acknowledge the Senator from Alaska and the Senator
from Mississippi here, but I would like to go to the Secretary
for her opening comments. Thank you, Senator Cochran and
Senator----
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, could I ask unanimous
consent that my statement welcoming the Chairman be printed in
the record?
Senator Landrieu. Absolutely, and without objection.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Madam Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming the Secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security to review the annual budget
request of the Department with her. We look forward to working to
recommend appropriate funding levels for the important programs and
activities of the Department. We appreciate the Secretary's leadership
in responding to weather-related disasters in several areas around the
country and in developing effective strategies for dealing with them in
the future.
Senator Landrieu. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. I'm waiting for the Secretary.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Madam Secretary.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. JANET NAPOLITANO
Secretary Napolitano. Well, thank you, Chairman Mikulski,
Chairman Landrieu, members of the subcommittee, for the
opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year 2014 budget
for the Department of Homeland Security.
First, let me say a few words about the attack in Boston.
Certainly, our thoughts and prayers remain with the victims,
their families, and with the entire greater Boston community.
We continue to support the ongoing investigation, working
closely with the FBI, as well as other State and local
partners. I know all of us here are committed to finding out
why this happened, what more we can do to prevent attacks like
this from occurring, and making sure that those responsible for
this unconscionable act of terror are brought to justice.
We will learn many lessons from this attack, just as we
have from past instances of terrorism and violent extremism. We
will apply those. We will emerge even stronger.
Over the past week, as you have noted, we saw a very quick,
coordinated, and cohesive response by the law enforcement
community, as well as by our private-sector partners, citizens,
and community members. Immediately after the attack, we saw
people at the scene of the explosions, from first responders
and trained medical staff to citizens and even marathoners,
contribute to the triage operation. We saw a very orderly
process of helping victims and securing the area. Area
hospitals were prepared to handle the surge of incoming
patients, and as a result, lives were saved.
Law enforcement at all levels joined together and shared
knowledge, expertise, and resources. Many had been specifically
trained in improvised explosive device threats. Many had
exercised for this type of scenario. The response was swift,
effective, and in many ways will serve as a model for the
future.
The public was enlisted to help identify the suspects, and
within hours of the FBI releasing their photos, they were
identified and located. In the ensuing manhunt, the public
cooperated with shelter-in-place orders, public safety was
maintained, and eventually a tip helped law enforcement bring
the remaining suspect into custody. I think the people of
Boston showed tremendous resilience over the past week, and so
did America.
Today, after 10 years of investments in training and
equipment and improved information sharing, our cities and
communities and our Nation are stronger, more prepared and
engaged, and better equipped to address a range of threats.
Of course, as you noted, this year marks the 10th
anniversary of the creation of DHS, the largest reorganization
of the Federal Government since the creation of the Department
of Defense. After 10 years of effort, DHS has transformed 22
legacy agencies into a single integrated Department, building a
strengthened homeland security enterprise and a more secure
America, better equipped to confront the range of threats we
face.
The President's fiscal year 2014 budget for DHS allows us
to build on our progress over the past 10 years by preserving
core frontline priorities. At the same time, given the current
fiscal environment, this is the third straight year our budget
request reflects a reduction from the previous year.
Specifically, the budget request is 2.2 percent or more than
$800 million below the fiscal year 2013 enacted budget.
While our mission has not changed and we continue to face
evolving threats, we have to become and have become more
strategic in how we use limited resources, focusing on a risk-
based approach. This is coupled with an unprecedented
commitment to fiscal discipline, which has led to over $4
billion in cost avoidances and reductions over the past 4 years
through our efficiency review.
The recent full-year appropriations bill enabled DHS to
mitigate, to some degree, the projected sequester impacts under
the continuing resolution on our operations and workforce, but
there is no doubt that these cuts, totaling more than $3
billion across 6 months, will affect operations in the short
and long terms. Sustained cuts at these sequester levels will
result in reduced operational capacity, breached staffing
floors, and economic impacts to the private sector through
reduced and canceled contracts.
We continue to do everything we can to minimize the impacts
on our core mission and on our employees consistent with the
operational priorities in our 2014 budget. So let me, if I
might, go ahead and identify a few of those.
First, to prevent terrorism and enhance security, the
fiscal year 2014 budget continues to support risk-based
security initiatives, including TSA PreCheck
(Pre3TM), Global Entry, and other trusted traveler
programs. As a result, we expect one in four travelers to
receive some form of expedited screening by the end of the
year.
The budget supports administration efforts to secure
maritime cargo and a global supply chain by strengthening
efforts to interdict threats at the earliest point possible.
We continue our strong support for State and local partners
through training, fusion centers, and information sharing on a
wide range of critical homeland security issues. We also fund
cutting-edge research and development to address evolving
biological, radiological, and nuclear threats, including
construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility
known as NBAF.
Next, to secure and manage our borders, the budget
continues the administration's robust border security efforts
while facilitating legitimate travel and trade. It sustains
historic deployments of personnel along our borders, as well as
continued utilization of proven effective surveillance
technologies along the highest trafficked areas of the
southwest border.
To expedite travel and trade while reducing wait times at
the ports of entry, the budget requests an additional 3,500
port officers, 1,600 paid for by appropriations and the
remainder by an increase to the immigration user fees that have
not been adjusted since 2001. To secure maritime borders, the
budget invests in recapitalization of Coast Guard assets,
including the seventh national security cutter and two fast
response cutters.
The budget also continues the Department's focus on smart
and effective enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws. It
supports the administration's unprecedented effort to more
effectively focus the enforcement system on public safety
threats, border security, and the integrity of the immigration
system through initiatives such as the deferred action for
childhood arrivals, and greater use of prosecutorial
discretion. At the same time, the budget makes significant
reductions to inefficient programs like 287(g) task force
agreements, while supporting more cost-effective initiatives
like the nationwide implementation of Secure Communities.
The budget invests in monitoring and compliance, promoting
adherence to worksite-related laws, form I-9 inspections, and
enhancements to the E-Verify program, while continuing to
support alternatives to detention, detention reform, and
immigrant integration efforts.
Comprehensive immigration reform will help us continue to
build on these efforts and strengthen border security by
enabling DHS to further focus existing resources on criminals,
human smugglers and traffickers, and national security threats.
Next, to safeguard and secure cyberspace, the budget makes
significant investments to strengthen cybersecurity, including
funds to secure our Nation's information and financial systems
and defend against cyber threats to private-sector and Federal
systems, the Nation's critical infrastructure, and our economy;
to support the President's Executive order on improving
critical infrastructure cybersecurity and a Presidential policy
directive on critical infrastructure and security resilience;
and to expedite the deployment of Einstein 3 to prevent and
detect intrusions on Government computer systems.
Finally, to ensure continued resilience to disasters, the
President's budget focuses on a whole-of-community approach to
emergency management. It includes resources for the Disaster
Relief Fund, the DRF, to support Presidentially Declared
Disasters or emergencies. The administration is again proposing
the consolidation of 18 grant programs into one national
preparedness grant program to create a robust national response
capacity while reducing administrative overhead.
This competitive risk-based program will use a
comprehensive process to assess gaps, identify and prioritize
deployable capabilities, put funding to work quickly, and
require grantees to regularly report progress. It is precisely
this kind of funding that has enhanced preparedness and
response capabilities in cities like Boston.
Since 2002, the Boston urban area has received nearly $370
million in Federal grant funding, which has been used to equip
and train tactical and specialized response teams specifically
in improvised explosive device (IED) detection, prevention,
response, and recovery. Importantly, grants have supported
increased coordination, particularly with respect to joint
exercises and training, including more than a dozen exercises
involving the city of Boston over the past several years. This
includes a large-scale, mass-casualty exercise with more than
1,800 first responders that was conducted just this past
November.
Because of the investments we have made with the help of
this subcommittee and the Congress over the past 10 years, our
State and local jurisdictions now have greater capabilities to
prevent and respond to incidents. We must continue this
support.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In conclusion, the fiscal year 2014 budget proposal
reflects this administration's strong commitment to protecting
the homeland and the American people through the effective and
efficient use of DHS resources. Madam Chairman, members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify with you
this afternoon, and I will be pleased to answer your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Janet Napolitano
Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Coats, and members of the
subcommittee: Let me begin by saying thank you to this subcommittee for
the strong support you have provided me and the Department over the
past 4 years. I look forward to continuing to work with you in the
coming year to protect the homeland and the American people.
I am pleased to appear before the subcommittee today to present
President Obama's fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
This year marks the 10th anniversary of the creation of DHS, the
largest reorganization of the U.S. Government since the formation of
the Department of Defense. After 10 years of effort, DHS has
transformed 22 agencies from across the Federal Government into a
single integrated Department, building a strengthened homeland security
enterprise and a more secure America better equipped to confront the
range of threats we face.
Our workforce of nearly 240,000 law enforcement agents, officers,
and men and women on the frontlines put their lives at risk every day
to protect our country from threats to the homeland, securing our land,
air, and maritime borders; enforcing our immigration laws; and
responding to natural disasters. Our employees are stationed in every
State and in more than 75 countries around the world, engaging with
State, local, and foreign partners to strengthen homeland security
through cooperation, information sharing, training, and technical
assistance. Domestically, DHS works side by side with State and local
\1\ law enforcement (SLLE) and emergency responders in our communities,
along our borders, and throughout a national network of fusion centers.
The Department also collaborates with international partners, including
foreign governments, major multilateral organizations, and global
businesses to strengthen the security of the networks of global trade
and travel, upon which our Nation's economy and communities rely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Local law enforcement includes all law enforcement at the
municipal, tribal, and territorial levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS employs a risk-based, intelligence-driven approach to help
prevent terrorism and other evolving security threats. Utilizing a
multi-layered detection system, DHS focuses on enhanced targeting and
information sharing, and on working beyond our borders to interdict
threats and dangerous actors at the earliest point possible. Each day,
DHS screens 2 million passengers at domestic airports; intercepts
thousands of agricultural threats; expedites the transit of nearly
100,000 people through trusted traveler and known crewmember programs;
and trains thousands of Federal, State, local, rural, tribal,
territorial, and international officers and agents through more than
550 basic and advanced training programs available at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). We conduct vulnerability
assessments of key infrastructure, disseminate intelligence regarding
current and developing threats, and provide connectivity to Federal
systems to help local law enforcement and homeland security agencies
across the country in reporting suspicious activities and implementing
protective measures.
Our borders and ports are stronger, more efficient, and better
protected than ever before. At the southwest border, apprehensions have
decreased to the lowest point in more than 30 years. We have
significantly invested in additional personnel, technology, and
infrastructure, leading to historic progress along the border. We have
deepened partnerships with Federal, State, local, and international law
enforcement to combat transnational threats and criminal organizations
to help keep our border communities safe. We have strengthened entry
procedures to protect against the use of fraudulent documents and the
entry of individuals who may wish to do us harm. And we have made our
ports of entry (POEs) more efficient to expedite lawful travel and
trade. Each day, almost 1 million people arrive at our POEs by land,
sea, and air. In fiscal year 2012, DHS processed more than 350 million
travelers at our POEs, including almost 100 million international air
travelers and $2.3 trillion of trade, while enforcing U.S. laws that
welcome travelers, protect health and safety, and facilitate the flow
of goods essential to our economy.
DHS has focused on smart and effective enforcement of U.S.
immigration laws while streamlining and facilitating the legal
immigration process. We have established clear enforcement priorities
to focus the enforcement system on the removal of individuals who pose
a danger to national security or a risk to public safety, including
aliens convicted of crimes, with particular emphasis on violent
criminals, felons, and repeat offenders, while implementing a
comprehensive worksite enforcement strategy to reduce demand for
illegal employment and protect employment opportunities for the
Nation's lawful workforce. DHS has implemented major reforms to the
Nation's immigration detention system to enhance security and
efficiency and protect the health and safety of detainees while
expanding nationwide the Secure Communities program, which uses
biometric information to identify criminal aliens in State and local
correctional facilities. Over the past 4 years, the Department has also
improved the legal immigration process by streamlining and modernizing
immigration benefits processes; strengthening fraud protections;
protecting crime victims, asylees, and refugees; updating rules to keep
immigrant families together; and launching new initiatives to spur
economic competitiveness.
Today, our borders are more secure and our border communities are
among the safest communities in our country. We have removed record
numbers of criminals from the United States, and our immigration laws
are being enforced according to sensible priorities. We have taken
numerous steps to strengthen legal immigration and build greater
integrity into the system. We are using our resources smartly,
effectively, responsibly.
Despite these improvements, however, our immigration system remains
broken and outdated. That is why the Department stands ready to
implement common-sense immigration reform that would continue
investments in border security, crack down on companies that hire
undocumented workers, improve the legal immigration system for
employment-sponsored and family-sponsored immigrants, and establish a
responsible pathway to earned citizenship. Comprehensive immigration
reform will help us continue to build on this progress and strengthen
border security by providing additional tools and enabling DHS to
further focus existing resources on preventing the entry of criminals,
human smugglers and traffickers, and national security threats.
Our Nation's critical infrastructure is crucial to our economy and
security. DHS is the Federal Government's lead in securing unclassified
Federal civilian government networks as well as working with owners and
operators of critical infrastructure to secure their networks and
protect physical assets through risk assessment, mitigation, forensic
analysis, and incident response capabilities. In 2012, DHS issued
warnings and responded to an average of 70 incidents per month arising
from more than 10,000 daily alerts. The President also issued an
Executive order on cybersecurity and a Presidential policy directive on
critical infrastructure security and resilience to strengthen the
security and resilience of critical infrastructure against evolving
threats through an updated and overarching national framework that
acknowledges the interdependencies between cybersecurity and securing
physical assets.
In support of these efforts, DHS serves as the focal point for the
U.S. Government's cybersecurity outreach and awareness activities and
is focused on the development of a world-class cybersecurity workforce
as well as innovative technologies that sustain safe, secure, and
resilient critical infrastructure. We work hand-in-hand with our
private-sector partners, recognizing the importance of public-private
partnerships to build resilience through a whole-of-community approach.
In addition to these responsibilities, DHS combats cybercrime by
leveraging the skills and resources of the law enforcement community
and interagency partners to investigate and prosecute cyber criminals.
DHS has fundamentally changed how we work with our State and local
partners to prepare for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the
effects of disasters. Through the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), we have implemented innovative practices to transform our
disaster workforce through the creation of FEMA Corps and the DHS Surge
Capacity Workforce. Working closely with State and local officials, we
preposition resources before disasters hit and have 28 national urban
search and rescue teams on standby in addition to dozens of State and
local teams to support response efforts. We train more than 2 million
emergency management and response personnel annually at the Emergency
Management Institute, National Fire Academy, and through Community
Emergency Response Teams to improve capabilities across all hazards.
Additionally, we have deployed new capabilities to help disaster
survivors recover and communities rebuild.
maximizing efficiency and effectiveness
The fiscal year 2014 budget for DHS is $60.0 billion in total
budget authority and $48.5 billion in gross discretionary funding.
These two amounts include $5.6 billion in Disaster Relief Fund (DRF)
appropriations for recovery from major disasters, pursuant to the
Budget Control Act. Excluding the $5.6 billion funding within the DRF,
the net discretionary total is $39 billion.
Realizing Efficiencies and Streamlining Operations
The Department has implemented a variety of initiatives to cut
costs, share resources across components, and consolidate and
streamline operations wherever possible. In fiscal year 2014, these
initiatives will result in $1.3 billion in savings from administrative
and mission support areas, including contracts, information technology
(IT), travel, personnel moves, overtime, directed purchasing,
professional services, and vehicle management.
Through the Department-wide, employee-driven Efficiency Review
(ER), which began in 2009, as well as other cost-saving initiatives,
DHS has identified more than $4 billion in cost avoidances and
reductions, and redeployed those funds to mission-critical initiatives
across the Department.
Strategic Sourcing
Through ER and component initiatives, DHS has used strategic
sourcing initiatives to leverage the purchasing power of the entire
Department for items such as language services, tactical communications
services and devices, intelligence analysis services, and vehicle
maintenance services. In fiscal year 2012, we achieved $368 million in
savings, and we project $250 million in savings for fiscal year 2013.
We expect a comparable level of savings as we continue forward with
this approach in fiscal year 2014.
Travel and Conferences
In support of the administration's Campaign to Cut Waste, DHS
strengthened conference and travel policies and controls to reduce
travel expenses, ensure conferences are cost-effective, and ensure both
travel and conference attendance is driven by critical mission
requirements. During 2012, DHS issued a new directive that establishes
additional standards for conferences and requires regular reporting on
conference spending, further increasing transparency and
accountability. The Department's fiscal year 2014 budget projects an
additional 20-percent reduction in travel costs from fiscal years 2013-
2016.
Real Property Management
DHS manages a real property portfolio of approximately 38,000
assets, which spans all 50 States and 7 U.S. territories. The
Department has adopted strategies to achieve greater efficiencies in
the management of its real property portfolio that includes expediting
the identification and disposal of under-utilized assets as well as
improving the utilization of remaining Department inventory. These
efforts will result in reductions in the size of our civilian real
estate inventory, annual operating and maintenance costs, and energy
usage. DHS anticipates that the amount of space and cost per full-time
equivalent employee will continue to decline as spaces are reconfigured
or new space is acquired on the basis of new workplace planning
assumptions. DHS is committed to continuing to improve the management
and alignment of its real property with advances in technology,
mission, and work requirements.
Management and Integration
Over the past 4 years, DHS has significantly improved departmental
management, developing and implementing a comprehensive, strategic
approach to enhance Department-wide maturation and integration. We have
improved acquisition oversight, ensuring full consideration of the
investment lifecycle in cost estimates, establishing procedures to
thoroughly vet new requirements and alternative solutions, and
supporting full funding policies to minimize acquisition risk. The
fiscal year 2014 budget includes key investments to strengthen the
homeland security enterprise, increase integration, address challenges
raised by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), and continue
to build upon the management reforms that have been implemented under
this administration.
Modernization of the Department's financial management systems has
been consistently identified as critical by the Office of Management
and Budget, the GAO, and Congress, and is vital to our ability to
provide strong stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Over the past several
years, we have made significant progress improving financial management
practices and establishing internal controls. In 2012, DHS earned a
qualified audit opinion on its balance sheet, a significant milestone
and a pivotal step toward increasing transparency and accountability
for the Department's resources. This full-scope audit opinion is a
result of DHS's ongoing commitment to instituting sound financial
management practices to safeguard taxpayer dollars.
Although DHS continues to maximize cost efficiencies and savings
wherever possible, new investment must be made to improve our outdated
financial systems and tools. The fiscal year 2014 budget supports
financial system modernization at the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), which
also provides financial management services to two other DHS
components.
DHS is also implementing a coordinated management approach for
strategic investments and resource decisions involving multiple
components through the Integrated Investment Life Cycle Model. This
initiative will help the Department enhance mission effectiveness while
achieving management efficiencies by providing a broader, enterprise-
wide perspective and ensuring DHS investments address the greatest
needs of the Department.
Strategic Re-Organizations
In today's fiscal environment, the Department has challenged its
workforce to fundamentally rethink how it does business, from the
largest to the smallest investments. To help reduce costs, DHS
conducted a formal base budget review, looking at all aspects of the
Department's budget to find savings and better align resources with
operational requirements.
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology (US-VISIT)
To better align the functions of US-VISIT with the operational
components, the budget re-proposes the transfer of US-VISIT functions
from the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), consistent with the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget. Currently, CBP operates numerous screening and
targeting systems, and integrating US-VISIT within CBP will strengthen
the Department's overall vetting capability while also realizing
operational efficiencies and cost savings.
State and Local Grants
Given the fiscal challenges facing the Department's State and local
partners, DHS is also approaching these partnerships in new and
innovative ways. The budget re-proposes the National Preparedness Grant
Program (NPGP), originally presented in the fiscal year 2013 budget, to
develop, sustain, and leverage core capabilities across the country in
support of national preparedness, prevention, and response, with
appropriate adjustments to respond to stakeholder feedback in 2012.
While providing a structure that will give grantees more certainty
about how funding will flow, the proposal continues to utilize a
comprehensive process for assessing regional and national gaps; support
the development of a robust cross-jurisdictional and readily deployable
State and local assets; and require grantees to regularly report
progress in the acquisition and development of these capabilities.
Land Port of Entry (LPOE) Delegation
Beginning in fiscal year 2013, the General Services Administration
(GSA) will work with DHS to delegate the operations of LPOE facilities
to CBP. The distinctive nature of LPOEs as mission-oriented, 24/7
operational assets of CBP, as well as national trade and transportation
infrastructure, differentiates this part of the portfolio from other
Federal buildings managed by GSA. The delegation facilitates faster
delivery of service tailored to the specific needs of CBP's mission and
will be more responsive to changing priorities and critical operations.
DHS Commonality Efforts
The successful integration of 22 legacy agencies into DHS was an
important and ambitious undertaking that has increased the Department's
ability to understand, mitigate, and protect against threats to the
Nation. Further integration of the Department and of the development of
a ``One-DHS'' culture will strengthen effectiveness, improve
decisionmaking to address shared issues, and prioritize resources in an
era of fiscal constraint. The fiscal year 2014 budget continues this
emphasis and supports ongoing efforts aimed at furthering integration,
some of which are highlighted as follows.
Common Vetting
It is estimated that DHS spends approximately $1.8 billion annually
on information-based screening. Consequently, DHS has established a
Common Vetting Initiative to improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of vetting operations within the Department. Although this work is
ongoing, it is expected that this effort will identify opportunities
for streamlining operations and strengthening front-end assessment of
requirements as part of an integrated investment lifecycle.
Additionally, DHS is leveraging existing capabilities and its
research and development (R&D) capabilities at the Science and
Technology Directorate (S&T) to enhance the Department's exit program,
and to identify and sanction those who overstay their lawful period of
admission to the United States. This initiative is focused on
aggregating information within existing data systems, enhancing review
of potential overstays, increasing automated matching, and
incorporating additional biometric elements to provide the foundation
for a future biometric exit solution. The transfer of US-VISIT
functions to CBP and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
supports this effort and better aligns mission functions.
Aviation Commonality
The Department is projected to spend approximately $1.2 billion
over fiscal years 2014-2018 on procurement of aviation assets. In 2011,
DHS stood up an aviation commonalities working group to improve
operational coordination in acquisition, facilities, maintenance, and
logistics between CBP and USCG. The Department also launched an
Aviation and Marine Commonalities Pilot Project in the fall of 2012 to
test the unified command and control of departmental aviation and
marine forces. Complementing this effort, DHS recently began an ER
initiative, which will increase cross-component collaboration for
aviation-related equipment and maintenance by establishing excess
equipment sharing, maintenance services, and contract teaming
agreements, as well as other opportunities for aviation-related
efficiencies.
Investigations
A recent partnership between ICE's Homeland Security Investigations
and the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) demonstrates the Department's
commitment to leveraging capabilities across components and finding
efficiencies. Both ICE and USSS are expanding participation in the
existing Secret Service Electronic Crimes Task Forces (ECTFs), which
will strengthen the Department's cybercrimes investigative capabilities
and realize efficiencies in the procurement of computer forensic
hardware, software licensing, and training. This collaboration will
integrate resources devoted to investigating transnational criminal
organizations; transnational child exploitation; financial crime,
including money laundering and identity and intellectual property
theft; and network intrusions by domestic and international threats.
This will further enhance the response capability of the Department to
a cyber event by leveraging the assets of the Secret Service's 31
ECTFs, which bring together more than 2,700 international, Federal,
State, and local law enforcement partners; 3,100 private-sector
members; and 300 academic partners.
CBP Staffing and Mission Integration
Given the administration's strong and continued focus on border
security, DHS has undertaken a series of initiatives to ensure that
CBP's operations are integrated and that Border Patrol agents (BPAs)
and CBP officers (CBPOs) are optimally deployed. As part of its mission
integration efforts, CBP has applied complementary BPA and CBPO
deployments to enhance mission sets both at and between the POEs.
Toward this goal, CBP has identified numerous mission areas where BPAs
can substantially support: port operations, including canine detection
operations for drugs and concealed humans; outbound operations that
target currency, firearms, and fugitives; port security, counter-
surveillance, and perimeter enforcement operations; inbound secondary
conveyance inspections for narcotics and human smuggling. CBP has also
identified mission areas where BPAs secure and transport seized
contraband.
CBP is realizing significant operational and force-multiplying
benefits from deploying BPAs to support POE requirements. Over the last
year, these efforts have augmented POE operations, enabling CBP to more
effectively address the threat of money and weapons being smuggled
southbound into Mexico for use by transnational criminal organizations.
In 2013, CBP is expanding these efforts by synchronizing mission
integration efforts across the four key southwest border operational
corridors: South Texas, El Paso/New Mexico, Arizona, and southern
California. The harmonization of current efforts will increase rapid
response capability, develop unified intelligence and targeting
approaches, and identify additional areas for on-the-ground operational
collaboration.
Supporting Economic Growth and Job Creation
In support of the President's Executive order on travel and tourism
and to continue building upon the administration's significant
investments in border security, the fiscal year 2014 budget includes
several proposals to invest in the men and women on the frontlines of
our 329 POEs along the border and at airports and seaports across the
country. Processing the more than 350 million travelers annually
provides nearly $150 billion in economic stimulus, yet the fees that
support these operations have not been adjusted in many cases for more
than a decade. As the complexity of our operations continues to expand,
the gap between fee collections and the operations they support is
growing, and the number of workforce hours fees support decreases each
year. Accordingly, the budget supports 3,477 new CBPOs to reduce
growing wait times at our POEs and increase seizures of illegal items
(guns, drugs, currency, and counterfeit goods). This includes
appropriated funding for 1,600 additional CBPOs and, with congressional
approval, 1,877 new CBPOs through adjustments in immigration and
customs inspections user fees to recover more of the costs associated
with providing services. These fee proposals will also help address the
staffing gap outlined in CBP's Resource Optimization at Ports of Entry,
fiscal year 2013 Report to Congress, submitted with the President's
budget. In addition, CBP and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are
evaluating financial models to achieve full cost recovery for
agricultural inspectional services provided by CBP.
Beyond the additional frontline positions, the President's budget
also provides direct support for thousands of new jobs through major
infrastructure projects such as the National Bio and Agro-Defense
Facility (NBAF) and a consolidated departmental headquarters at the St.
Elizabeths Campus. Investment in USCG recapitalization projects
supports more than 4,000 jobs as well in the shipbuilding and aircraft
industries. Through our grant programs we will continue helping local
communities to create and maintain jobs, while strengthening the
resiliency of important economic sectors and infrastructure. The budget
additionally supports CBP and ICE efforts to combat commercial trade
fraud, including intellectual property law infringement, estimated to
cost the economy up to $250 billion each year.
Continued investment in Coast Guard frontline operations and
recapitalization of its aging fleet helps to protect the Nation's
Exclusive Economic Zone, a source of $122 billion in annual U.S.
revenue, and to secure 361 ports and thousands of miles of maritime
thoroughfares that support 95 percent of trade with the United States.
Through CBP and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), we
continue to promote safe and secure travel and tourism, supporting a
$2.3 trillion tourism industry. These programs, among others, enhance
our Nation's safety and security while fostering economic growth and
job creation.
budget priorities
The fiscal year 2014 budget prioritizes programs and activities
within the homeland security mission areas outlined in the Department's
2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, the 2010 Bottom-Up Review,
and the fiscal year 2012-2016 DHS Strategic Plan, undertaken by the
Department to align its DHS resources with a comprehensive strategy to
meet the Nation's homeland security needs.
The budget builds on the progress the Department has made in each
of its mission areas while strengthening existing capabilities,
enhancing partnerships across all levels of government and with the
private sector, streamlining operations, and increasing efficiencies.
Mission 1: Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security.--Protecting
the United States from terrorism is the cornerstone of homeland
security. DHS's counterterrorism responsibilities focus on three goals:
preventing terrorist attacks; preventing the unauthorized acquisition,
importation, movement, or use of chemical, biological, radiological,
and nuclear materials and capabilities within the United States; and
reducing the vulnerability of critical U.S. infrastructure and key
resources, essential leadership, and major events to terrorist attacks
and other hazards.
Mission 2: Securing and Managing Our Borders.--The protection of
the Nation's borders--land, air, and sea--from the illegal entry of
people, weapons, drugs, and other contraband while facilitating lawful
travel and trade is vital to homeland security, as well as the Nation's
economic prosperity. The Department's border security and management
efforts focus on three interrelated goals: effectively securing U.S.
air, land, and sea borders; safeguarding and streamlining lawful trade
and travel; and disrupting and dismantling transnational criminal and
terrorist organizations.
Mission 3: Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws.--DHS
is focused on smart and effective enforcement of U.S. immigration laws
while streamlining and facilitating the legal immigration process. The
Department has fundamentally reformed immigration enforcement, focusing
on identifying and removing criminal aliens who pose a threat to public
safety and targeting employers who knowingly and repeatedly break the
law.
Mission 4: Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace.--DHS is
responsible for securing unclassified Federal civilian government
networks and working with owners and operators of critical
infrastructure to secure their networks through risk assessment,
mitigation, and incident response capabilities. To combat cybercrime,
DHS leverages the skills and resources of the law enforcement community
and interagency partners to investigate and prosecute cyber criminals.
DHS also serves as the focal point for the U.S. Government's
cybersecurity outreach and awareness efforts to create a more secure
environment in which the private or financial information of
individuals is better protected.
Mission 5: Ensuring Resilience to Disasters.--DHS coordinates the
comprehensive Federal efforts to prepare for, protect against, respond
to, recover from, and mitigate a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or
other large-scale emergency, while working with individuals;
communities; the private and nonprofit sectors; faith-based
organizations; and Federal, State, local, territorial, and tribal
(SLTT) partners to ensure a swift and effective recovery. The
Department's efforts to help build a ready and resilient Nation include
fostering a whole community approach to emergency management
nationally; building the Nation's capacity to stabilize and recover
from a catastrophic event; bolstering information sharing and building
unity of effort and common strategic understanding among the emergency
management team; providing training to our homeland security partners;
and leading and coordinating national partnerships to foster
preparedness and resilience across the private sector.
In addition to these missions, DHS strives to maximize the
effectiveness and efficiency of its operations while strengthening the
homeland security enterprise. The collective efforts of Federal, SLTT,
non-governmental, and private-sector partners, as well as individuals
and communities across the country are critical to our shared security.
This includes enhancing shared awareness of risks and threats, building
capable, resilient communities and fostering innovative approaches and
solutions through cutting-edge science and technology.
The following are highlights of the fiscal year 2014 budget.
Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security
Guarding against terrorism was the founding mission of DHS and
remains our top priority. To address evolving terrorist threats and
ensure the safety of the traveling public, the budget safeguards the
Nation's transportation systems through a layered detection system and
continues to support risk-based security initiatives, including TSA
Pre3TM, Global Entry, and other trusted traveler programs.
The budget supports administration efforts to secure maritime cargo and
the global supply chain by strengthening efforts to prescreen and
evaluate high-risk cargo. Investments in DHS's intelligence and
targeting programs coupled with the expansion of the National Targeting
Center, supported by the budget, will increase operational efficiencies
and enhance our ability to interdict threats and dangerous people
before they reach the United States.
Funding is included for cutting-edge R&D to address evolving
biological, radiological, and nuclear threats. Among the important
research investments is the construction of NBAF, a state-of-the-art
bio-containment facility for the study of foreign animal and emerging
zoonotic diseases that will replace the inadequate facility at Plum
Island. The budget funds the Securing the Cities (STC) program to
protect our highest risk cities from radiological or nuclear attack and
continues national bio-preparedness and response efforts. The budget
also continues strong support for State and local partners through the
NPGP, training, fusion centers, and intelligence analysis and
information sharing on a wide range of critical homeland security
issues.
--Strengthening Risk-Based Aviation Security.--The fiscal year 2014
budget supports DHS's effort to employ risk-based,
intelligence-driven operations to prevent terrorist attacks and
to reduce the vulnerability of the Nation's aviation system to
terrorism. These security measures create a multi-layered
system to strengthen aviation security from the time a
passenger purchases a ticket to arrival at his or her
destination. The fiscal year 2014 budget:
--Continues expansion of trusted traveler programs, such as TSA
Pre3TM and Global Entry, which are pre-screening
initiatives for travelers who volunteer information about
themselves before flying in order to potentially expedite
screening at domestic checkpoints and through customs. By
2014, TSA anticipates that one in four members of the
traveling public will be eligible for expedited domestic
screening.
--Continues enhanced behavior detection in which interview and
behavioral analysis techniques are used to determine if a
traveler should be referred for additional screening at the
checkpoint. Analyses from pilots in fiscal year 2013 will
inform the next steps on how larger scale implementation in
fiscal year 2014 could improve capabilities in a risk-based
security environment.
--Expands Secure Flight to perform watch list matching for
passengers before boarding large general aviation aircraft.
An estimated 11 million additional Secure Flight Passenger
Data sets are expected to be submitted by general aviation
operators per year.
--Supports, as part of its multi-layered security strategy, the
Federal Flight Deck Officer and Flight Crew program as a
fully reimbursable program under FLETC's existing
authorities.
--Prioritizes TSA's mission-critical screening functions, and
proposes the transfer of all exit lane staffing to local
airports pursuant to Federal regulatory authorities.
Airports will be responsible for integrating exit lane
security into their perimeter security plans, which are
assessed regularly by TSA.
--Enhancing International Collaboration.--To most effectively carry
out our core missions, DHS continues to engage countries around
the world to protect both national and economic security. The
fiscal year 2014 budget supports DHS's strategic partnerships
with international allies and enhanced targeting and
information-sharing efforts to interdict threats and dangerous
people and cargo at the earliest point possible. The
Secretary's focus on international partnerships includes
elevating the Office of International Affairs to a stand-alone
office and a direct report. The fiscal year 2014 budget:
--Supports the Immigration Advisory Program and the continued
growth of the Pre-Departure Vetting, which have experienced
a 156-percent increase in the number of no board
recommendations since 2010. Through these programs, CBP
identifies high-risk travelers who are likely to be
inadmissible into the United States and makes
recommendations to commercial carriers to deny boarding.
--Continues to modernize the IT capability for screening visa
applications to support the expansion of Visa Security
Program (VSP) coverage at existing overseas high-risk visa
adjudication posts. The VSP represents ICE's front line in
protecting the United States against terrorists and
criminal organizations by preventing foreign nationals who
pose as a threat to national security from entering the
United States. In fiscal year 2014, VSP will enhance visa
vetting by increasing automated data exchange with the
Department of State and CBP's National Targeting Center.
ICE will leverage modernization to increase investigations
of visa applicants who pose a potential high risk for
terrorism and are attempting to travel to the United
States.
--Supports the bilateral Beyond the Border Action Plan with Canada,
including CBP's pre-inspection efforts in rail, land, and
marine environments. Pre-inspection is a precursor to
preclearance, which supports DHS's extended border strategy
through the identification and prevention of terrorists,
criminals, and other national security threats before they
enter the United States. Pre-inspection/preclearance also
helps protect U.S. agriculture from the spread of foreign
pests, disease and global outbreaks.
--Supporting Surface Transportation Security.--The surface
transportation sector, due to its open access architecture, has
a fundamentally different operational environment than
aviation. Accordingly, DHS helps secure surface transportation
infrastructure through risk-based security assessments,
critical infrastructure hardening, and close partnerships with
SLLE partners. The fiscal year 2014 budget supports DHS's
efforts to bolster these efforts. Specifically, the budget:
--Includes the NPGP, described in more detail on the following
pages. This proposal focuses on building national
capabilities focused on preventing and responding to
threats across the country, including the surface
transportation sector, through urban search and rescue
teams, canine explosives detection teams, and HAZMAT
response as well as target hardening of critical transit
infrastructure.
--Funds surface transportation security inspectors and canine teams
who work collaboratively with public and private-sector
partners to strengthen security and mitigate the risk to
our Nation's transportation systems.
--Supports compliance inspections throughout the freight rail and
mass transit domains, critical facility security reviews
for pipeline facilities, comprehensive mass transit
assessments that focus on high-risk transit agencies, and
corporate security reviews conducted in multiple modes of
transportation to assess security.
--Funds 37 Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams,
including 22 multi-modal Teams. VIPR teams are composed of
personnel with expertise in inspection, behavior detection,
security screening, and law enforcement for random,
unpredictable deployments throughout the transportation
sector to prevent potential terrorist and criminal acts.
--Helps secure critical infrastructure and key resources located on
or near the water through patrols, enforcing security zones
and security escorts of certain vessels (e.g., vessels
containing hazardous cargo) in key U.S. ports and
waterways.
--Strengthening Global Supply Chain Security.--The fiscal year 2014
budget continues to support the administration's Global Supply
Chain Security Strategy, which provides a national vision for
global supply chain security that is secure, efficient, and
resilient across air, land, and sea modes of transportation.
The budget:
--Supports increased targeting capability through enhanced
automated systems providing CBP with real-time information
to focus its enforcement activities on higher risk
passengers and cargo.
--Supports the consolidation of CBP's separate cargo and passenger
targeting locations, which will promote increased targeting
efficiencies and reduced delays of travelers and cargo.
--Strengthens the Container Security Initiative, enabling CBP to
prescreen and evaluate high-risk containers before they are
shipped to the United States.
--Continues support to improve the coordination of international
cargo security efforts, accelerate security efforts in
response to vulnerabilities, ensure compliance with
screening requirements, and strengthen aviation security
operations overseas.
--Supports ongoing assessments of anti-terrorism measures in the
ports of our maritime trading partners through the Coast
Guard International Port Security Program.
--Supports enhanced system efficiency through continued development
and deployment of the International Trade Data System. This
important resource provides a single automated window for
submitting trade information to the Federal agencies
responsible for facilitating international trade and
securing America's supply chain.
--Research, Development, and Innovation (RD&I) at S&T.--The fiscal
year 2014 budget includes $467 million for RD&I, a $200 million
increase from fiscal year 2012 enacted levels. This funding
includes support for unclassified cybersecurity research that
supports the public and private sectors and the global Internet
infrastructure. It also allows S&T to resume R&D in areas such
as land and maritime border security; chemical, biological, and
explosive defense research; disaster resilience; cybersecurity;
and counterterrorism.
--Support to SLLE.--The fiscal year 2014 budget continues support for
SLLE efforts to understand, recognize, prevent, and respond to
pre-operational activity and other crimes that are precursors
or indicators of terrorist activity through training, technical
assistance, exercise support, security clearances, connectivity
to Federal systems, technology, and grant funding. The budget
supports efforts to share intelligence and information on a
wide range of critical homeland security issues. The budget
continues to build State and local analytic capabilities
through the National Network of Fusion Centers, with a focus on
strengthening cross-Department and cross-government interaction
with fusion centers. It also elevates the Office of State and
local law enforcement to a stand-alone office. The budget:
--Enables DHS to continue to assess capability development and
performance improvements of the National Network of Fusion
Centers through an annual assessment, collection of
outcomes-based performance data, and targeted exercises.
Resources also enable the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis, in partnership with the Office for Civil Rights
and Civil Liberties and the Privacy Office, to provide
privacy and civil rights and civil liberties training and
technical assistance support for fusion centers and their
respective liaison officer programs. Additionally, unique
partnerships with FEMA, NPPD, USCG, and ICE have
facilitated additional analytic training for fusion center
analysts on a variety of topics.
--Continues to support SLTT efforts to counter violent extremism,
including the delivery of Building Communities of Trust
initiative roundtables, which focus on developing trust
between community leaders and law enforcement officials so
they cooperatively address the challenges of crime and
terrorism.
--Expands, in partnership with the Departments of Justice (DOJ),
Education, and Health and Human Services, ongoing efforts
to prevent future mass casualty shootings, improve
preparedness, and strengthen security and resilience in
schools and other potential targets while working with
partners at all levels of government.
--Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Threat Detection.--Countering
biological, nuclear, and radiological threats requires a
coordinated, whole-of-government approach. DHS, through the
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) and the Office of
Health Affairs, works in partnership with agencies across
Federal, State, and local governments to prevent and deter
attacks using radiological and nuclear (rad/nuc) weapons
through nuclear detection and forensics programs and provides
medical and scientific expertise to support bio-preparedness
and response efforts.
The fiscal year 2014 budget supports the following efforts:
--Global Nuclear Detection Architecture (GNDA).--DNDO, in
coordination with other DHS components, the Attorney General,
and the Departments of State, Defense, and Energy, leads the
continued evolution of the GNDA. This comprehensive framework
incorporates detector systems, telecommunication, and
personnel, with the supporting information exchanges, programs,
and protocols that serve to detect, analyze, and report on rad/
nuc materials that are not in regulatory control.
--STC.--$22 million is requested for the STC program to continue
developing the domestic portion of the GNDA to enhance the
Nation's ability to detect and prevent a radiological or
nuclear attack in our highest risk cities.
--Transformational R&D.--Funding is requested to develop and
demonstrate scientific and technological approaches that
address gaps in the GNDA and improve the performance of rad/nuc
detection and technical nuclear forensic capabilities. R&D
investments are made on the basis of competitive awards, with
investigators in all sectors--government laboratories,
academia, and private industry--encouraged to participate.
--Rad/Nuc Detection.--Supports the procurement and deployment of
Radiation Portal Monitors and Human Portable Radiation
Detection Systems, providing vital detection equipment to CBP,
USCG, and TSA to scan for rad/nuc threats.
--BioWatch.--Continues operations and maintenance of the federally
managed, locally operated, nationwide bio-surveillance system
designed to detect the release of aerosolized biological
agents.
--NBAF.--The budget provides full funding for the construction of the
main laboratory at NBAF when coupled with the increased cost
share from the State of Kansas. This innovative Federal-State
partnership will support the first Bio Level 4 lab facility of
its kind, a state-of-the-art bio-containment facility for the
study of foreign animal and emerging zoonotic diseases that is
central to the protection of the Nation's food supply as well
as our national and economic security.
In partnership with the State of Kansas, DHS is committed to
building a safe and secure facility in Manhattan, Kansas. The
main laboratory facility includes enhanced safety and security
features to ensure research conducted within the facility will
be contained, ultimately protecting the surrounding region and
the Nation's food supply. These features, which are
incorporated into the current NBAF design and address safety
recommendations of the National Academies of Sciences, include
specialized air and water decontamination systems, new
technologies to handle solid waste on site, and structural
components to strengthen the laboratory against hazardous
weather conditions.
Funding is also provided for life and safety infrastructure repairs
at Plum Island Animal Disease Center while NBAF is being built,
to ensure an appropriate transition of research from Plum
Island, New York, to Manhattan, Kansas.
Securing and Managing Our Borders
The budget continues the administration's robust border security
efforts, while facilitating legitimate travel and trade. It sustains
historic deployments of personnel along U.S. borders as well as the
continued utilization of proven, effective surveillance technology
along the highest trafficked areas of the southwest border to continue
achieving record levels of apprehensions and seizures. In support of
the President's Executive order on travel and tourism, the budget funds
a record number of CBPOs through appropriated funds and proposed
increases to user fee rates, to expedite travel and trade while
reducing wait times at more than 300 POEs along the border and at
airports and seaports across the country. Increased POE staffing of
1,600 CBPOs funded through appropriations and 1,877 CBPOs funded
through user fee increases will have a direct impact on the economy. On
the basis of a study conducted by the National Center for Risk and
Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events--University of Southern
California, initial estimates indicate that for every 1,000 CBPOs
added, the United States can anticipate a $2 billion increase in gross
domestic product. That research indicates that these additional CBPOs
may result in approximately 110,000 more jobs and a potential increase
of $6.95 billion in gross domestic product.
To secure the Nation's maritime borders and 3.4 million nautical
square miles of maritime territory, the budget invests in
recapitalization of USCG assets and provides operational funding for
new assets coming on line, including national security cutters (NSCs),
fast response cutters (FRCs), response boats-medium, maritime patrol
aircraft, and command and control systems.
--Law Enforcement Officers.--The budget supports 21,370 BPAs and a
record 25,252 CBPOs at POEs who work with Federal, State, and
local law enforcement to target illicit networks trafficking in
people, drugs, illegal weapons, and money and to expedite legal
travel and trade. This includes funds from proposed increases
to inspection user fees.
--Travel and Trade.--In 2012, President Obama announced new
administrative initiatives through Executive Order 13597 to
increase travel and tourism throughout and to the United
States, and DHS plays an important role in this work. As
discussed in the highlights section, DHS is continuing to
develop new ways to increase the efficiency of our port
operations and to make international travel and trade easier,
more cost-effective and more secure.
--Technology.--Funding is requested to support the continued
deployment of proven, effective surveillance technology along
the highest trafficked areas of the southwest border. Funds
will be used to procure and deploy commercially available
technology tailored to the operational requirements of the
Border Patrol, the distinct terrain, and the population density
within Arizona.
--Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS).--DHS will take over
operations of TARS beginning in fiscal year 2014. TARS is a
multi-mission capability that supports both the counterdrug and
air defense missions, providing long-range detection and
monitoring of low-level air, maritime, and surface narcotics
traffickers.
--Targeting and Analysis.--The budget includes additional investments
in CBP's targeting capabilities, which will enable CBP to
develop and implement an enhanced strategy that more
effectively and efficiently divides cargo and travelers
according to the potential threat they pose.
--POE Infrastructure.--CBP, working with its various partners
including GSA, continues to modernize and maintain border
infrastructure that both facilitates trade and travel, and
helps secure the border. In fiscal year 2014, CBP will work
with GSA to complete the last phase of the Nogales-Mariposa
inspection facility and initiate the site acquisition and
design for the southbound phase of the San Ysidro modernization
project. Additionally, CBP will work with GSA to initiate
construction of a new bus processing terminal at the Lincoln-
Juarez Bridge and renovation of the passenger and pedestrian
processing facility at the Convent Street inspection facility
in Laredo, Texas. Beginning in late fiscal year 2013 and
continuing in fiscal year 2014, CBP will assume responsibility
for the building operations, maintenance, and repair of the
land port inspection facilities from GSA to streamline
administrative processes and improve the responsiveness to CBP
mission requirements. Finally, CBP proposes legislative
authority in the fiscal year 2014 budget to accept donations
from the private sector.
--CBP Air and Marine Procurement.--Funding is requested for two KA-
350CER Multi-Role Enforcement Aircraft (MEA), which provide
direct support to CBP efforts to secure our Nation's borders.
Unlike the older, less-capable aircraft they are replacing, MEA
has the capabilities to detect, track, and intercept general
aviation threats; detect and track maritime threats over a wide
area; and support ground interdiction operations through a
variety of sensors and advanced data and video down-link.
--Collect Customs Revenue.--Funds are requested to support CBP's role
as a revenue collector for the U.S. Treasury; customs revenue
remains the second largest source of revenue for the Federal
Government. CBP relies on bonds to collect duties owed when
importers fail to pay and efforts to collect from the importer
are not successful. This funding will support improvements to
increase the efficacy of CBP's bonding process, including the
delegation to a centralized office the responsibility for
developing and implementing Single Transaction Bond (STB)
policy, approving bond applications, reporting on activities,
and monitoring results. These resources will fund the
automation of STB processing and record keeping and provide
effective internal controls that protect the duties and taxes
(more than $38 billion in 2012) collected by CBP. Specifically,
CBP will automate and centralize into one location processing
of all STBs, resulting in enhanced program oversight,
consistent processing, and reduced write-offs and
delinquencies.
--Protect Trade and Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement.--
Funding is requested to support intellectual property and
commercial trade fraud investigations within ICE's National
Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center).
With 21 partners and the expertise of the Federal Government's
largest law enforcement agencies, the IPR Center brings
together the full range of legal authorities and law
enforcement tools to combat intellectual property theft,
including medical regulation; patent, trademark, and copyright
protection; border enforcement; organized crime investigations;
and undercover operations. ICE will also increase collaboration
with CBP through a joint fraud enforcement strategy to
coordinate commercial fraud enforcement operations. The fiscal
year 2014 budget also supports CBP's enforcement programs to
prevent trade in counterfeit and pirated goods, and to protect
consumers and national security from harm from counterfeit
goods through special enforcement operations to increase IPR
seizures and referrals for criminal investigation. In addition,
the fiscal year 2014 budget supports technology and training to
increase the efficiency of targeting IPR infringing
merchandise.
--USCG Recapitalization.--The fiscal year 2014 request fully funds a
seventh NSC; supports patrol boat recapitalization through the
FRC acquisition; continues acquisitions of the offshore patrol
cutter and a new polar ice breaker; and provides for critical
upgrades to command, control, and aviation sustainment. The
total request for USCG Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements is $951 million.
--USCG Operations.--The fiscal year 2014 request funds nearly 50,000
full-time personnel and nearly 7,000 reservists to maintain
safety, security, and stewardship of our Nation's waters and
maritime borders. Funds will support a full range of Coast
Guard cutters, aircraft, and boats to address threats from
inside the ports, within customs waters and out on the high
seas.
Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws
In the area of immigration, the budget supports the
administration's unprecedented efforts to more effectively focus the
enforcement system on public safety threats, border security, and the
integrity of the immigration system while streamlining and facilitating
the legal immigration process. Initiatives such as Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals and greater use of prosecutorial discretion, where
appropriate, support DHS efforts to focus finite resources on
individuals who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public
safety, and other high-priority cases. At the same time, the budget
significantly reduces inefficient 287(g) task force agreements, while
supporting more cost-efficient initiatives like the Secure Communities
program. Nationwide implementation of Secure Communities and other
enforcement initiatives, coupled with continued collaboration with DOJ
to focus resources on the detained docket, is expected to result in the
continued increase in the identification and removal of criminal aliens
and other priority individuals.
The budget provides the resources needed to address this changing
population, while continuing to support Alternatives to Detention,
detention reform, and immigrant integration efforts. Resources are also
focused on monitoring and compliance, promoting adherence to worksite-
related laws, form I-9 inspections, and enhancements to the E-Verify
program.
Secure Communities.--In fiscal year 2013, the Department completed
nationwide deployment of the Secure Communities program, which uses
biometric information and services to identify and remove criminal and
other priority aliens found in State prisons and local jails. Secure
Communities is an important tool in ICE's efforts to focus its
immigration enforcement resources on the highest priority individuals
who pose a threat to public safety or national security, and the budget
continues support of this program. ICE is committed to ensuring the
Secure Communities program respects civil rights and civil liberties,
and works closely with law enforcement agencies and stakeholders across
the country to ensure the program operates in the most effective manner
possible. To this end, ICE has issued guidance regarding the exercise
of prosecutorial discretion in appropriate cases, including in cases
involving witnesses and victims of crime, implemented enhanced training
for SLLE regarding civil rights issues, and released new guidance that
limits the use of detainers to the agency's enforcement priorities and
restricts the use of detainers against individuals arrested for minor
misdemeanor offenses such as traffic offenses and other petty crimes,
among other recent improvements. The budget also includes $10 million
for 73 ICE attorney positions that will continue prosecutorial
discretion reviews of new cases to ensure that resources at the
Executive Office for Immigration Review and ICE are focused on priority
cases.
--Immigration Detention.--Under this administration, ICE has focused
its immigration enforcement efforts on identifying and removing
priority aliens, including criminals, repeat immigration law
violators, and recent border entrants. As ICE focuses on
criminal and other priority cases, the agency continues to work
to reduce the time removable aliens spend in detention custody,
going from 37 days in fiscal year 2010 to fewer than 32 days in
fiscal year 2012. Consistent with its stated enforcement
priorities and guidance to the field, ICE will continue to
focus detention and removal resources on those individuals who
have criminal convictions or fall under other priority
categories. For low-risk individuals, ICE will work to enhance
the effectiveness of Alternatives to Detention, which provides
a lower per-day cost than detention. To ensure the most cost-
effective use of Federal resources, the budget includes
flexibility to transfer funding between immigration detention
and the Alternatives to Detention program, commensurate with
the level of risk a detainee presents.
--287(g) Program.--The budget reflects the cancellation of
inefficient task force officer model agreements, reducing the
cost of the 287(g) program by $44 million. The 287(g) jail
model agreements, as well as programs such as Secure
Communities, have proven to be more efficient and effective in
identifying and removing criminal and other priority aliens
than the task force officer model agreements.
--Detention Reform.--ICE will continue building on ongoing detention
reform efforts in fiscal year 2014. In fiscal year 2013, ICE
implemented its new Risk Classification Assessment nationwide
to improve transparency and uniformity in detention custody and
classification decisions and to promote identification of
vulnerable populations. ICE will continue to work with DOJ to
reduce the average length of stay in detention by working to
secure orders of removal before the release of criminal aliens
from DOJ custody. In addition, ICE will continue implementation
of the new transfer directive, which is designed to minimize
long-distance transfers of detainees within ICE's detention
system, especially for those detainees with family members in
the area, local attorneys, or pending immigration proceedings.
ICE will also continue implementation of revised national
detention standards designed to maximize access to counsel,
visitation, and quality medical and mental healthcare in
additional facilities. Finally, DHS anticipates that the
rulemaking applying the Prison Rape Elimination Act to DHS
confinement facilities will be finalized in fiscal year 2013
and implemented in fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014.
--Worksite Enforcement.--Requested funds will continue the
Department's focus to promote compliance with worksite-related
laws through criminal prosecutions of egregious employers, form
I-9 inspections, civil fines, and debarment, as well as
education and compliance tools.
--E-Verify.--The budget provides $114 million to support the
continued expansion and enhancement of E-Verify, the
administration's electronic employment eligibility verification
system. This funding will also continue support for the
expansion of the E-Verify Self-Check program, a voluntary,
free, fast, and secure online service that allows individuals
in the United States to confirm the accuracy of government
records related to their employment eligibility status before
formally seeking employment. These enhancements will give
individuals unprecedented control over how their social
security numbers are used in E-Verify and will further
strengthen DHS's ability to identify and prevent identity
fraud. In fiscal year 2014, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) also plans to phase in an enhanced enrollment
process for E-Verify that reduces the enrollment burden on the
employer and the Federal Government, and that will provide
more-detailed user information for compliance assistance
activities. Additionally, USCIS will finalize the requirements
for the electronic I-9 and its supporting processes for E-
Verify. These enhancements will deploy in phases in fiscal year
2014 and subsequent years.
--Verification Information System (VIS).--The budget includes $12
million to fund the VIS Modernization initiative, a major
redesign of the system that supports E-Verify that will
transform the current E-Verify system, and improve usability
and overall ease of operations.
--Immigrant Integration.--The budget includes $10 million to continue
support for USCIS immigrant integration efforts--a key element
of the President's immigration principles--through funding of
citizenship and integration program activities including
competitive grants to local immigrant-serving organizations to
strengthen citizenship preparation programs for permanent
residents.
--Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE).--The fiscal
year 2014 budget continues support for USCIS SAVE operations
and enhancements to assist local, State, and Federal agencies
in determining the immigration status of benefit applicants.
This effort is funded through the Immigration Examinations Fee
Account.
--USCIS Business Transformation.--The budget continues the multiyear
effort to transform USCIS from a paper-based filing system to a
customer-focused electronic filing system. This effort is
funded through the Immigration Examinations Fee Account. In
fiscal year 2013, USCIS will deploy additional functionality
into the agency's Electronic Immigration System (ELIS) to allow
processing of 1 million customer requests annually. USCIS is
committed to adding functionality and benefit types until all
workload is processed through ELIS.
Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace
The budget supports initiatives to secure our Nation's information
and financial systems and to defend against cyber threats to private-
sector and Federal systems, the Nation's critical infrastructure, and
the U.S. economy. It also supports the President's Executive order on
improving critical infrastructure cybersecurity and the Presidential
policy directive on critical infrastructure security and resilience.
Taken together, the administration's initiatives strengthen the
security and resilience of critical infrastructure against evolving
threats through an updated and overarching national framework that
acknowledges the linkage between cybersecurity and securing physical
assets.
Included in the fiscal year 2014 budget are enhancements to the
National Cybersecurity Protection System (NCPS) to prevent and detect
intrusions on government computer systems, and to the National
Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center to protect against
and respond to cybersecurity threats. The budget also leverages a new
operational partnership between ICE and USSS through the established
network of USSS ECTFs to safeguard the Nation's financial payment
systems, combat cybercrimes, target transnational child exploitation
including large-scale producers and distributors of child pornography,
and prevent attacks against U.S. critical infrastructure.
--Federal Network Security.--$200 million is included for Federal
Network Security, which manages activities designed to enable
Federal agencies to secure their IT networks. The budget
provides funding to further reduce risk in the Federal cyber
domain by enabling continuous monitoring and diagnostics of
networks in support of mitigation activities designed to
strengthen the operational security posture of Federal civilian
networks. DHS will directly support Federal civilian
departments and agencies in developing capabilities to improve
their cybersecurity posture and to better thwart advanced,
persistent cyber threats that are emerging in a dynamic threat
environment.
--NCPS.--$406 million is included for Network Security Deployment,
which manages NCPS, operationally known as EINSTEIN. NCPS is an
integrated intrusion detection, analytics, information-sharing,
and intrusion-prevention system that supports DHS
responsibilities to defend Federal civilian networks.
--US-Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT).--$102 million is
included for operations of US-CERT, which leads and coordinates
efforts to improve the Nation's cybersecurity posture, promotes
cyber information sharing, and manages cyber risks to the
Nation. US-CERT encompasses the activities that provide
immediate customer support and incident response, including 24-
hour support in the National Cybersecurity and Communications
Integration Center. As more Federal network traffic is covered
by NCPS, additional US-CERT analysts are required to ensure
cyber threats are detected and the Federal response is
effective.
--SLTT Engagement.--In fiscal year 2014, DHS will expand its support
to the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-
ISAC) to assist in providing coverage for all 50 States and 6
U.S. territories in its managed security services program. MS-
ISAC is a central entity through which SLTT governments can
strengthen their security posture through network defense
services and receive early warnings of cyber threats. In
addition, the MS-ISAC shares cybersecurity incident
information, trends, and other analysis for security planning.
--Cybersecurity R&D.--The fiscal year 2014 budget includes $70
million for S&T's R&D focused on strengthening the Nation's
cybersecurity capabilities.
--Cyber Investigations.--The fiscal year 2014 budget continues to
support ICE and USSS efforts to provide computer forensics
support and training for investigations into domestic and
international criminal activities, including computer fraud,
network intrusions, financial crimes, access device fraud, bank
fraud, identity crimes and telecommunications fraud, benefits
fraud, arms and strategic technology, money laundering,
counterfeit pharmaceuticals, child pornography, and human
trafficking occurring on or through the Internet. USSS ECTFs
will also continue to focus on the prevention of cyber attacks
against U.S. financial payment systems and critical
infrastructure.
Ensuring Resilience to Disasters
The Department's efforts to build a ready and resilient Nation
focuses on a whole community approach to emergency management by
engaging partners at all levels to build, sustain, and improve our
capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from,
and mitigate all hazards. In the event of a terrorist attack, natural
disaster, or other large-scale emergency, DHS provides the coordinated,
comprehensive Federal response while working with Federal, State,
local, and private-sector partners to ensure a swift and effective
recovery effort.
To support the objectives of the National Preparedness Goal (NPG)
and to leverage limited grant funding in the current fiscal
environment, the administration is again proposing the NPGP to create a
robust national response capacity based on cross-jurisdictional and
readily deployable State and local assets, with appropriate adjustments
to respond to stakeholder feedback received in 2012. While providing a
structure that will give grantees more certainty about how funding will
flow, the proposal continues to utilize a comprehensive process for
assessing regional and national gaps, identifying and prioritizing
deployable capabilities, and requiring grantees to regularly report
progress in the acquisition and development of these capabilities.
The budget also funds initiatives associated with the NPG; FEMA's
continued development of catastrophic plans, which include regional
plans for response to earthquakes and hurricanes and medical
countermeasure dispensing; and training for 2 million emergency
managers and first responders.
State and Local Grants.--The budget includes $2.1 billion for State
and local grants, consistent with the amount appropriated by Congress
in fiscal year 2012. This funding will sustain resources for fire and
emergency management programs while consolidating all other grants into
the new, streamlined NPGP. In fiscal year 2014, the NPGP will:
--Focus on the development and sustainment of core national emergency
management and homeland security capabilities.
--Utilize gap analyses to determine asset and resource deficiencies
and inform the development of new capabilities through a
competitive process.
--Build a robust national response capacity based on cross-
jurisdictional and readily deployable State and local assets.
Using a competitive, risk-based model, the NPGP will use a
comprehensive process for identifying and prioritizing deployable
capabilities, limit periods of performance to put funding to work
quickly, and require grantees to regularly report progress in the
acquisition and development of these capabilities.
--Firefighter Assistance Grants.--The budget provides $670 million
for Firefighter Assistance Grants. Included in the amount is
$335 million for Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency
Response (SAFER) Grants to retain and hire firefighters and
first responders, and $335 million for Assistance to
Firefighter Grants, of which $20 million is provided for Fire
Prevention and Safety Grants. The administration re-proposes $1
billion for SAFER grants as part of the First Responder
Stabilization Fund, which was originally proposed in the
American Jobs Act.
--Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPGs).--Also included in
the budget is $350 million to support emergency managers and
emergency management offices in every State across the country.
EMPG supports State and local governments in developing and
sustaining the core capabilities identified in the NPG and
achieving measurable results in key functional areas of
emergency management.
--DRF.--A total of $6.2 billion is provided for the DRF. Of this,
$586 million is included in the Department's base budget with
the remainder provided through the Budget Control Act budget
cap adjustment. The DRF provides a significant portion of the
total Federal response to victims in Presidentially declared
disasters or emergencies. Because of recently passed
legislation, Native American tribes can now request
Presidential major or emergency declarations. Two tribes, the
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and the Navajo Nation, have
already received declarations in 2013.
--National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).--The NFIP is fully funded
by policy fees. This program helps to reduce the risk of flood
damage to existing buildings and infrastructure by providing
flood-related grants to States, communities, and tribal
nations. The fiscal year 2014 budget reflects implementation of
the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. The act
improves fiscal soundness by phasing out subsidies for
structures built before their flood risk was identified on a
Flood Insurance Rate Map. In addition, the act establishes a
reserve fund to be used for the payment of claims and claims-
handling expenses as well as principal and interest payments on
any outstanding Treasury loans. The budget includes a $3.5
billion mandatory budget authority, of which $100 million will
be used for three interrelated mitigation grant programs to
increase America's resiliency to floods.
--Training/Exercises.--The budget includes $165 million for training
and exercise activities to support Federal, State, and local
officials and first responders. In fiscal year 2014, the
Department expects to train more than 2 million first
responders and, under the revised National Exercise Program,
will conduct more than a dozen exercises across the country to
help improve national preparedness. The budget also supports
conducting a Spill of National Significance exercise, and
continues development of equipment and techniques that can be
used to detect, track, and recover oil in ice-filled waters.
--Emergency Management Oversight.--The budget includes $24 million in
base resources for the Office of the Inspector General to
continue its emergency management oversight operations.
--Incident Management.--The budget enables the Coast Guard to achieve
full operational capability for the incident management assist
team, providing an immediate, highly proficient, and deployable
surge capacity to incident commanders nationwide for response
to threats and other disasters.
Maturing and Strengthening the Department and the Homeland Security
Enterprise
St. Elizabeths Campus.--The budget includes $92.7 million to
support construction at the St. Elizabeths Campus. Currently, the
Department's facilities are scattered in more than 50 locations
throughout the National Capital Region, affecting critical
communication and coordination across DHS components. USCG will move to
St. Elizabeths in fiscal year 2013. To support the incident management
and command-and-control requirements of our mission, the Department
will continue development of the DHS consolidated headquarters at St.
Elizabeths Campus. The requested funding will support phase 2
renovation of the Center Building Complex for the Secretary's Office
and key headquarters functions for command, control, and management of
the Department.
Data Center Consolidation.--The fiscal year 2014 budget includes
$54.2 million for data center consolidation funding, which will be used
to migrate FEMA, USCIS, TSA, and CBP to the enterprise data centers. A
recent study performed by the Department's Office of the Chief
Financial Officer analyzed 10 of the first completed migrations to
enterprise data centers and determined that an average savings of 14
percent, about $17.4 million in annual savings, had been achieved.
conclusion
The Department's fiscal year 2014 budget proposal reflects the
administration's strong commitment to protecting the homeland and the
American people through the effective and efficient use of DHS
resources. As outlined in my testimony today, we will continue to
preserve core frontline priorities across the Department by cutting
costs, sharing resources across components, and streamlining operations
wherever possible.
In general, the President's fiscal year 2014 budget demonstrates
that we can make critical investments to strengthen the middle class,
create jobs, and grow the economy while continuing to cut the deficit
in a balanced way. The President believes we must invest in the true
engine of America's economic growth--a rising and thriving middle
class.
The President's budget invests in high-tech manufacturing and
innovation, clean energy, and infrastructure, while cutting red tape to
help businesses grow. As I outlined earlier, our budget submission
accomplishes these goals with responsible investments in the NBAF, St.
Elizabeths, USCG recapitalization, and in cybersecurity--all of which
will create jobs and provide opportunities for local economies to grow.
We also propose 3,400 new CBPOs, jobs which will reduce wait-times at
our POEs, strengthening security and increasing trade and tourism.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I look
forward to answering your questions and to working with you on the
Department's fiscal year 2014 budget request and other homeland
security issues.
VIOLENT EXTREMISM
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. Let me begin with a first 5-
minute round, and then we'll go in order of appearance: Senator
Cochran, Senator Begich, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Moran.
Madam Secretary, in 2011, the White House released a
strategy to counter violent extremism ``to prevent violent
extremists and their supporters from inspiring, radicalizing,
financing and recruiting individuals or groups in the United
States to commit acts of violence.'' What are your biggest
domestic radicalization-related concerns, particularly post-
Boston, and what new efforts will the administration pursue or
step up existing efforts? I know some of this is classified,
but I would like you to comment on the concerns people have
about the radicalization of these particular suspects.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, Madam Chair, I think stepping
back from Boston, when we look at Boston and Aurora and Tucson
and Newtown and other events, one thing that is more and more
clear is that we really don't have a clear understanding of the
path that leads someone to become not just radical but to act
out in a violent way, motivated by a jihadist ideology or
another type of ideology.
What we have been doing is focusing, working with the FBI
and others on identifying the early behaviors and indicators
that could provide a tip that someone along the continuum is
moving to violence. We have prepared an extensive training
curriculum that has been beta tested. It is now being used at
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), among
other places. We have been providing a lot of support through
training and exercise, as I mentioned in my testimony, and I
think we're going to have to continue those, because one of the
things that Boston makes clear is that you never can 100
percent know whether something is going to happen. You have to
be prepared, and exercising makes a lot of difference.
IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICES
Senator Landrieu. Let me follow up. People are very shocked
to see these improvised explosive devices. I want to note for
the record that there were five such attempts recently that
were blocked. This one, unfortunately, succeeded, an improvised
device in a large crowd causing serious damage and injury to
individuals, including the death of some.
Are there some better ways that we could act to try to
detect these types of devices before they are detonated? I know
that there is no substitute for a well-trained police force and
that the streets were swept, but are there any new technologies
are being developed or deployed that you may want to comment on
at this time?
Secretary Napolitano. Only to say that we are constantly
looking for better detection equipment. Actually, our Science
and Technology Director has several projects underway there.
Obviously, we have also been doing that in relation to the air
and the airport environment. We are working with the Department
of Defense, seeing what technologies it has developed that may
be appropriate for use in a domestic environment. So a lot of
that work is and has been underway.
CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TERRORISM STANDARDS
Senator Landrieu. I am glad Senator Mikulski brought up
West, Texas, and I want to add an addendum to my opening
statement because our hearts go out to this community as well
that suffered what looks like a man-made tragedy at a
fertilizer plants, killing 14 people and injuring 260. Our
prayers are with that community today.
But it was surprising to me, Madam Secretary, to find that
11 Federal Departments and Agencies have major roles in
chemical security in this Nation, including this Department of
Homeland Security. Yet, I understand that this particular
facility was not known to DHS, although it held significant
quantities of chemicals at risk. Can you comment briefly on
this? I only have a few, about 1\1/2\ minutes left, but could
you comment about what your Department did or didn't know and
what actions you have taken to look further into this
situation?
Secretary Napolitano. My understanding, and I will correct
this later if I'm wrong, my understanding is that the facility
had not reported, as it was required to do, when it had crossed
the threshold level of amount to be under the CFATS program. So
we are following up on that and making sure that whatever needs
to be done is done.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I hope so, and I will just follow
up. I'm looking more into this myself, as are other committees.
But for these small or large plants, when they report, to have
that information shared appropriately at State and Federal
levels so that reports that are given are shared and the burden
does not necessarily unduly fall on the companies. However,
they clearly have a responsibility, and I think that while it
was overshadowed by Boston, this is going to be an important
subject of attention by our subcommittee, and I'm sure others.
Let me go to Senator Cochran.
COAST GUARD VESSELS
Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, it's a pleasure to join
you in welcoming the distinguished Secretary of Homeland
Security to our hearing today. It's been a pleasure working
with the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, particularly on
the acquisition of vessels that are needed by the Coast Guard
and other agencies in your Department. There have been some
indication that the budget might request for the next fiscal
year the eventual production of up to eight national security
cutters, 58 fast response cutters, and 25 offshore patrol
cutters. But the testimony submitted today for the subcommittee
doesn't go into much detail beyond the next fiscal year and
doesn't contain an actual request for funding any specific
number of ships or vessels that I have described.
Could you give us some response indicating what the
intentions of the Department are with respect to requests for
funding for these activities?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, and I think we also have
submitted the Capital Investment Plan (CIP), and I think it
came in Friday. So if your staff doesn't have it, we will make
sure that they do. With respect to the national security
cutter, that is obviously a big investment. Those are expensive
vessels. The budget provides for the acquisition of the
seventh. The current CIP provides that ultimately we will have
eight national security cutters.
We are working our way through the acquisition of the fast
response cutters. We just got the fiscal year 2013 budget, as
you know, about 1 month ago maybe. That had six FRCs in it. The
President's budget for 2014 has two more. Our plan is to
average four per year. So the budgets, when you put the two
together, they meld together.
With respect to the other types of vessels, like I
mentioned, I think the CIP will go into even greater detail.
Senator Cochran. Well, thank you very much. I presume,
Madam Chairman, when we do receive the report and the request,
that it will be made a part of our hearing record.
Senator Landrieu. Yes, it will.
[The information follows:]
[Clerk's Note.--The Capital Investment Plan is for official use
only (and is maintained in subcommittee files) and cannot be printed.
The following table summarizes the plan:]
TABLE 1.--FISCAL YEAR 2014-2018 5-YEAR CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN (CIP)--ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS
[Thousands of dollars, budget year dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2012 Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Total acquisition Estimated Total quantity
revised 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 cost \1\ completion date \1\
enacted request \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels.................................................. $642,000 $743,000 $935,000 $512,000 $723,500 $739,500
Survey and Design--Vessel and Boats.................. 6,000 1,000 2,000 3,000 2,500 2,500 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
In-Service Vessel Sustainment........................ 14,000 21,000 36,000 57,000 57,000 50,000 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Response Boat-Medium (RB-M).......................... 110,000 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 610,000 2016 180
National Security Cutter (NSC)....................... 77,000 616,000 710,000 38,000 ........... 45,000 4,749,000 2018 8
Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC)......................... 25,000 25,000 65,000 200,000 530,000 430,000 10,523,000 2034 25
Fast Response Cutter (FRC)........................... 358,000 75,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 3,928,000 2027 58
Cutter Boats......................................... 5,000 3,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 2,000 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Medium Endurance Cutter (MEC) Sustainment............ 47,000 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 296,800 2017 27
Polar Icebreaker..................................... ........... 2,000 8,000 100,000 20,000 100,000 TBD TBD TBD
Aircraft................................................. 289,900 28,000 66,000 123,000 56,700 45,000
CGNR 6017 Airframe Replacement....................... 18,300 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA)....................... 129,500 ........... 16,000 20,000 ........... ........... 2,755,990 2025 36
HH-60 Conversion Projects............................ 56,100 ........... ........... ........... 1,700 5,000 466,581 2015 42
HH-65 Conversion/Sustainment Projects................ 24,000 12,000 35,000 40,000 40,000 25,000 1,150,400 2019 102
Long Range Surveillance Aircraft (C-130H/J).......... 62,000 16,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 2,761,000 2026 22
Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)....................... ........... ........... ........... 48,000 ........... ........... TBD TBD TBD
Other.................................................... 161,140 59,930 59,000 89,000 81,500 81,500
Program Oversight and Management..................... 26,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Systems Engineering and Integration.................. 17,140 204 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
C4ISR................................................ 38,500 35,226 35,000 65,500 50,500 50,500 2,335,000 2025 Not Applicable
CG-LIMS.............................................. 6,500 1,500 3,000 2,500 10,000 10,000 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Nationwide Automatic Identification System (NAIS)... 5,000 13,000 ........... ........... ........... ........... 276,800 2014 58
Rescue 21............................................ 65,000 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,066,200 2017 39
Interagency Operations Centers (IOCs)................ 3,000 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 83,000 2017 35
Shore and ATON........................................... 200,692 5,000 20,000 60,000 45,000 45,000
Major Shore, Military Housing ATON and S&D........... 112,900 2,000 10,000 30,000 20,000 20,000 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Major Acquisition Systems Infrastructure............. 81,500 ........... 5,000 25,000 20,000 20,000 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Minor Shore.......................................... 6,292 3,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Personnel and Management................................. 110,192 115,186 115,729 117,042 118,127 119,302
AC&I Core............................................ 600 439 518 679 600 600 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Direct Personnel Costs............................... 109,592 114,747 115,211 116,363 117,527 118,702 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL.............................................. 1,403,924 951,116 1,195,729 901,042 1,024,827 1,030,302
63,500 \2\ (42,000) \6
\
(5,004) \3\ 909,116
(879) \4\
1,328 \5\
=============
1,462,869
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total Acquisition Cost and Estimated Completion Date and Total Quantity are based on the Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) most recently approved by DHS, or alternatively, the 2007
Integrated Deepwater System APB.
\2\ The Coast Guard also received an additional $63.5 million transfer in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, (Public Law 112-74), from the Air Force Aircraft Procurement appropriation
for procurement of a C-130J aircraft.
\3\ Pursuant to Public Law 112-74, rescission of prior year unobligated balances.
\4\ Pursuant to Public Law 112-74, rescission of AC&I Direct Personnel funds.
\5\ Funds transfer from OE Appropriation to the MPA AC&I Subappropriation and 2012 (Public Law 112-74).
\6\ Proposed rescission and cancellation of $42 million in unobligated prior year balances appropriated in 2010 through 2012 in Public Law 111-83, Public Law 112-10, and Public Law 112-74.
BORDER SECURITY
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, there have been concerns about border
protection. Recent reports from Customs and Border Protection
indicate that arrests have increased over the last several
years. But in March 2013, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) cited a study that found the number of apprehensions of
illegals bore little relationship to border security
effectiveness because agency officials did not compare
apprehensions with the amount of cross-border illegal activity.
What is the status of improvements that we have heard were
being planned for border security, and when can we expect to be
able to celebrate the establishment of a secure border?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, Senator, actually I testified
at length about this this morning in the Judiciary Committee.
But the chairwoman is absolutely correct, the border is more
secure now than it has ever been. All the numbers are trending
in the right direction. We continue to add not just manpower
but, importantly, technology and aerial coverage to the border.
I think that has been the last piece that we need to add.
So the border is divided into nine sectors. Each of them
has a technology plan. We are trying to focus on off-the-shelf
technology as opposed to R&D of new ones so that we can move as
rapidly as possible. The way the bipartisan immigration bill is
drafted, there is funding that is set aside that would provide
for the continued funding for those technology plans. And with
respect to aerial coverage, as you know, we now have drones
over the border, but we also have regular fixed-wing aircraft
that have platforms on them for radar and things of that sort.
So the whole aspect of the southwest border, compared to
where it was 5 years ago even, is very, very different.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Senator Begich.
BORDER FEE STUDY
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Madam Secretary, good to see you again. Thank you very much
for being here today. I had a hearing earlier this morning with
the Ocean Subcommittee that I chair, and Admiral Papp was
there. It was on the budget, so this will be kind of part two.
Authorizing to appropriations, kind of an odd combo, but we
like it. I want to follow up on a couple of things that we
talked about with Admiral Papp.
But before I do that, I do want to say I think the work you
all did, the local community and the citizens of Boston did an
incredible job to move forward in a technology that was
implemented and utilized. Some you can talk about, some you
can't, but the end result was obviously apprehending the two
individuals, one not living.
But at the end of the day, you guys did a great job, and it
was amazing to me to see how fast it was moving, even though I
think the press sometimes like to report facts that aren't
facts because they speculate about speculation. I know that is
probably one of the biggest hassles that you have, trying to
sort that out, but at the same time trying to keep focused on
the mission you all have. So I want to say thank you for doing
that, and to the people on the ground, they did a great job.
Let me, if I can, on a couple of things. One is I know in
the budget you have a study, a border fee study that is going
to be looking at issues of capability and revenue potential. I
would ask you to look at another element of this that I think
is very important. You can imagine in Alaska, down in southeast
Alaska, down in Juneau, Ketchikan, that whole area, we
sometimes are crossing the border a lot because we are moving
from one community to the other, and this may have an impact of
suddenly there is a fee now every time you move back and forth.
Also for the commerce we do with Canada, it is pretty
significant.
So as you are looking at that study, I would hope you would
ensure that there is this other element which is unique to
Canada. As you remember, just to get passports, we had to
actually get folks in the cities to become authorized to do the
passports because we couldn't get folks there to do it.
So if you can keep that in mind in your budget, I know you
have a proposal and in 9 months the study might be completed.
So if you can keep that on the list, that would be very
important, from my perspective at least.
Secretary Napolitano. Senator, yes. We understand the
special circumstances. Alaska and Hawaii present some similar
type of circumstances. So, yes, we will keep those in mind.
TRANSPORTATION WORKER IDENTIFICATION CREDENTIAL
Senator Begich. Very good. The other thing we worked on was
the issue of a transportation worker identification credential
(TWIC) card, the famous TWIC card, and we had problems with our
coasties having to also get a TWIC card, when in reality they
already meet a lot of standards. But put that aside for a
second. The other issue for some of our remote areas in Alaska
is the two trips that you would have to get to get a TWIC card
to work on, say, Kodiak, for example.
At this point I understand there are a lot of efforts to
get it down to one so there is not this double, because it is
very costly to go back and forth. Can you just give me a sense,
and if you don't have it now, maybe for the record, of how that
is going because of our remoteness? And we know the value of
the security on the ports, but going twice to get a card from
Kodiak, as an example, is very expensive.
Secretary Napolitano. Briefly, for those who are renewing
their TWIC card as opposed to getting a new TWIC card, we do
have a new proposal, a new procedure whereby you can get a 3-
year extension as opposed to a 5-year extension, which only
requires one visit. We are piloting, and we are using Alaska as
the State where we are piloting a one-visit process, even for
the new TWIC cards. So I am very optimistic about that, and I
think Alaska was an ideal place to focus.
Senator Begich. Great, and as you get results, will you
share them with us and let us know?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, absolutely.
[The information follows:]
Answer. The OneVisit contractor for phase I (Alaska OneVisit manual
solution) has been provided the authorization to proceed to set up and
support the phase I manual process as we finalize the award. The
Universal Enrollment Services contractor has added and transitioned
Alaska enrollment sites all of which will be participating in the
OneVisit phase I. We anticipate implementation in the June, July and
August timeframe beginning with the Anchorage enrollment center. We
have initiated contact with the stakeholders in Alaska to coordinate
for a limited implementation at the end of June followed by the full
capability in Anchorage in July and then roll out to all Alaska
enrollment centers in July/August. In addition, the Government Printing
Office (GPO) is on contract to support phase II (second location and
semi-automated solution) and is conducting technical discussions as
they begin to set up for phase II. Phase III, which will begin in the
third quarter of fiscal year 2014, will implement a nationwide launch
and a fully automated solution. TSA will keep the Committee apprised of
the progress and results as we work to implement this new TWIC
capability.
ICEBREAKERS: FUNDING
Senator Begich. Also, I know on the CIP, I've seen the
schedule and kind of where you are going, and I know on the
icebreaker issue, I know that Senator Murkowski has been a
great lead on this before I even got here, on this issue to
keep it moving. I understand in 2014 I think you have a $2
million allocation, and then there is some more down the road.
Can you give us some reassurance that that is still moving
forward at a pace that is acceptable? I know you've gotten one
ship, one icebreaker renovated and back online, which is great.
But can you just give me a sense there? Because when you see a
$2 million number, it's a very small amount on a $700 million
plus.
Secretary Napolitano. Right. I think you have to combine it
with what was ultimately put into our fiscal year 2013
appropriation, which was $8 million for the icebreaker. As I
said before, we just got that. So that $8 million hasn't been
available to us all year, but now we have it. If we pair it
with the $2 million, we've got $10 million.
Senator Begich. Gotcha.
Secretary Napolitano. And that will really, I hope, move us
forward on design and examination of alternative types of
design.
MILITARY HOUSING
Senator Begich. Very good. I'll end on that. I have some
questions for the record. But one thing, at a later time, I
would love to work with you in getting you the same authority
that the Department of Defense has with regard to their
military housing they do so you can do more public-private
partnerships like the military has done very successfully with
some of your housing stock around the country, obviously in
Alaska too. So I would like to work with you on some ideas
around that, that we could match up and create some synergy
there.
Secretary Napolitano. We would enjoy working with you on
that.
Senator Begich. Great.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator. I look forward to
working with you and Senator Murkowski on the icebreaker, which
is a very important asset for our Nation. We're going to have
to find a way to fund it. We've got $10 million between this
budget and last year's budget to begin. I want to make certain,
Madam Secretary, that that is enough to begin the design, and
then we'll have to figure out how to pay for it, which is a
whole other subject. But I am committed to find a way.
Senator Murkowski.
ARCTIC POLICY
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate
your commitment to work with us, and, Secretary, yours as well.
As good as $10 million is in this budget and my environment, we
know that we need $850 million, give or take a little bit. So,
I made the flip comment, and didn't mean it to be flip, but $8
million doesn't even get us a port hole. So how we move forward
aggressively--we are an Arctic nation. We have responsibilities
as such, and the fact that we are barely in the water in terms
of our icebreaking capacity is something that I think we need
to address.
Madam Secretary, I'm told that at the Commerce Committee
hearing, the subcommittee hearing that Senator Begich
referenced, that the Commandant stated that the Coast Guard's
Arctic policy document is now sitting on your desk for
approval. If you can give me some timing on its release, when
we might be able to have a full brief on its implementation,
and also then how the need for the icebreaker, and I believe we
need more than just one icebreaker, can you tie the icebreaker
into your comments on this policy that we are hopefully going
to be given an opportunity to learn more about very shortly?
Secretary Napolitano. Without tying myself to a firm
deadline because events sometimes happen that get in the way,
but I would hope within the next 30 days or so, we would be
moving ahead with the policy. But we will follow up with your
staff on that.
ICEBREAKERS: NUMBER NEEDED
Senator Murkowski. And would you agree with me that as an
Arctic nation we need more than one icebreaker?
Secretary Napolitano. I think we are going to have to
assess the total fleet needs that we're going to have to have
as an Arctic nation. But the equities up there are very
substantial.
NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTERS
Senator Murkowski. And you know, you were there last
summer. I appreciate your visit, the opportunity to be out on
the Bertholf in the Bering Sea there. Just to experience what
it is we are dealing with I think is incredibly important, and
I appreciate you taking that time.
You have mentioned, in response to Senator Cochran, the
discussion about the recapitalization plan for the Coast Guard.
I'm happy to see that we've got the funding for the seventh
national security cutter. You just need to know--I think I have
told you privately; I am saying it to anybody that is
interested--Alaska needs a national security cutter. We need to
have a national security cutter homeported in the State of
Alaska. We've got too much water around us and not enough
assets, and that is a vessel that can truly meet the growing
needs, the growing demand in an area where we are only seeing
traffic increase, and in incredible ways.
I want to mention the situation with our high endurance
cutter, the Munro. We've got one up there in Alaska that is
homeported. She is 40 years old, over 40 years old. There is no
planned replacement. It's tough when you have a transit time of
20 to 30 days per patrol to not have the vessels that we need.
It seems to me that there has been a decision made that we are
going to be homeporting these vessels in California and Hawaii.
Can you tell me whether or not there has been a GAO study,
or a business case analysis, as to compare the cost of a
facility renovation to homeport in Alaska as opposed to this
wasted transit time that we are going to see? And again, I'm
talking about high endurance cutters, and also the benefits of
homeporting a national security cutter within the State of
Alaska.
Secretary Napolitano. I'm unaware of a GAO study, per se,
but we will be happy to look at the relative advantages and
disadvantages of doing that, particularly with response to an
NSC. I think the CIP ultimately provides for the
decommissioning of some of these older high endurance cutters
and their ultimate replacement with other types of vessels.
Senator Murkowski. And our problem is that there is nothing
in the queue to follow the Munro, which is a concern for us
with that lapse of coverage. I think we recognize that in
Kodiak we have facilities there that could homeport, I believe,
a national security cutter, but there will have to be facility
renovations that are made. So as we balance transit time versus
renovations, I think that that would be an appropriate review,
and I would look forward to discussing that more with you
further.
Madam Chairman, I have a few more questions, but perhaps we
will have a chance for a second round?
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. Yes, Senator, we will.
Senator Moran.
NATIONAL BIO AND AGRO-DEFENSE FACILITY: FUNDING
Senator Moran. Madam Chairman, thank you very much.
Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. On behalf of
Kansans and Americans, thank you very much for you and your
Department's efforts to secure our country, to make us safer.
You and I have had conversations at many hearings, both in
the authorizing committee and in the appropriations
subcommittee and full Committee, in regard to the National Bio
and Agro-Defense Facility, which is included in the President's
budget request. I just wanted to take a moment and have you
indicate why now that request is there, why it is important,
and perhaps what the alternative is. The cost of Plum Island, I
would like for you to explain to the subcommittee why that is
an expensive proposition and why the administration decided to
move forward in this request.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, and I must say, Senator, I
think you can tell from the other questions that the demands on
the Department in our budget for large-scale capital
investments, recapitalizing the fleet, another icebreaker and
so forth, are very substantial, and with the sequester and the
fiscal environment and the Budget Control Act, it is very, very
tough out there.
But over the last 4-plus years that I have been Secretary,
I have been reviewing the literature and the need for a new
facility to protect the Nation's food supply, but also to help
us protect the Nation on a security basis from the types of
threats that require a so-called level 4 laboratory. It is also
clear to me that Plum Island, the current facility, is neither
big enough nor advanced enough where plowing $1 billion into it
ultimately makes any sense. You just simply can't. We can patch
Plum Island enough while we are constructing a National Bio and
Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), and we're going to have to do
that. But in the end, the country needs to make the decision
that for our overall security, we need a major level 4 lab
facility.
As you know, there was a competition. It has been peer
reviewed. It has been sent back for re-review by a number of
scientific bodies. Every step along the way, that has been
complied with. The State of Kansas has now put in more money to
help in a partnership with the Federal Government. Under the
President's proposal, we can begin construction of the main lab
in 2014 and be done hopefully by 2020. But in the end, Senator,
in the midst of all the competing demands on our budget, and it
is a tough, tough budget, it just seems to me we have just got
to tackle this issue head-on.
Senator Moran. Madam Secretary, thank you for your answer,
and thank you for your leadership on this issue.
Chairman, thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. Let me add on this subject,
and I guess it's just a little different vantage point, I do
not disagree with your comments and testimony. I have read the
reports that make clear that our country needs to have such an
asset. There has been some issue about the placement, and I am
well aware of what the State of Kansas has done on their own to
support the effort.
The problem that I have, and it's going to be a challenge
for the members of this subcommittee, who I am going to look to
for guidance, is how to pay for such a facility. I'm not sure
if taking $1 billion from other needed capital assets, like the
Coast Guard or border security, to pay for this facility is the
smartest way to go.
Will you work with us to look for some additional funding
mechanisms or new and innovative funding mechanisms to try to
find a way to pay for this asset, as opposed to taking it out
of other critical infrastructure for this Department? That is
really the question. It's not whether we need it or not--the
facts are pretty clearly in. The placement could be argued. But
I'm just wondering--and this is also going to come up for the
icebreaker, when we have to pay for $1 billion for it--is
whether we can continue to cut this budget and still find $800
million or $1 billion for this asset when this budget is being
reduced year after year. I think it puts a tremendous strain on
our homeland security effort.
Secretary Napolitano. Madam Chair, we will work with you on
this. Obviously, appropriated dollars are the most valuable.
You also bump up against the caps, and that is another issue.
So even if you don't appropriate the money or you find an
additional source of money, whether that actually frees up
money in your budget, that is another set of questions.
We face this question every year. It is a young, growing
Department. We have vital missions, and we have capital needs,
and they are always juxtaposed against the operational needs.
We need an icebreaker. We need an NBAF. We need a headquarters.
These are all big items.
IMMIGRATION
Senator Landrieu. I would just remind the members that
these top-line numbers have a direct impact on our ability to
not only find the appropriation dollars but to fund the levels
authorized. We need to be mindful as we move forward that these
numbers have real consequences.
Let me go back to immigration reform for a minute, Madam
Secretary. Given your work, and I'm sure you've been working
closely with the Gang of Eight that is working very hard and
has come up with a bipartisan bill that is being reviewed as we
speak through Senator Leahy's Committee, is there a number that
you are aware of in annual requirements to fund such a
comprehensive immigration bill? I've seen numbers anywhere from
a few billion to $5 billion a year. Where will that money come
from? Do we contemplate fees being raised by illegal immigrants
on a path to citizenship to pay for some of it? Are we making
sure that we are not double counting the revenues being
requested in this budget to support current operations while we
are laying a foundation for immigration reform in the future,
which I generally support? But I am a little concerned about
how we're going to pay for it.
Secretary Napolitano. Right. As I shared with the Judiciary
Committee this morning, we will work with them and with you on
how the money actually flows in the bill, and the actual
language that is used. The fees and the fines that are exacted
under the bill we believe in the long term will be sufficient
to meet the goals of the bill and our various missions under
the bill.
The one area we want to be sensitive to is start-up funding
for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which
will have the responsibility to set up the registration program
and the like. There will probably need to be some money that
can be repaid over the first couple of years of the bill, but
we will need to work that out with you and with the authorizing
committees.
CYBERSECURITY EDUCATION
Senator Landrieu. Let me follow up. I want to associate
myself with Senator Cochran's remarks about the Coast Guard.
Clearly, it is an important agency. I've made several comments
about that. But my final would be on cyber education.
You were kind enough to come visit the Cyber Education
Innovation Center in Shreveport, Louisiana and Bossier City.
You got to see firsthand the innovation center there and some
of the assets that it has brought to bear.
In the President's recent report on cybersecurity, it said
we can invest all we want in new technologies, et cetera, but
we have to have the people, the cyber warriors, and that there
is a real skills gap in America. That's why I was disappointed
to see cyber education reduced in this budget.
Do you want to comment about why the reduction in
cybersecurity education? I realize that the Department of
Education and the Department of Labor have some
responsibilities, but how do you justify a 43 percent cut?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, there are two ways. One is
there is carryover funding that will come from 2013 to 2014,
and we will provide you the detail on that. And second, the
administration as a whole is trying to centralize Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)-type education
in one place. So some of those monies are going to where the
STEM education is being centralized.
[The information follows:]
Answer. DHS supports several cybersecurity education initiatives
with fiscal year 2013 funds and the execution of several projects
carries into fiscal year 2014. For example, NPPD will award a grant in
the 4th quarter of fiscal year 2013 with a 12-month period of
performance for the Integrated Cybersecurity Education Communities
project, intended to strengthen cybersecurity at the high school level
and expanding the pipeline of cybersecurity professionals entering the
workforce in the future. Additionally, NPPD partners with the National
Science Foundation on grants supporting the CyberCorps Scholarship for
Service pipeline, and these efforts are also anticipated to be funded
in the 4th quarter of fiscal year 2013 and will continue to be executed
through the majority of fiscal year 2014.
The Department is also extending the scope of cyber education
beyond the Federal workplace through the National Initiative for
Cybersecurity Education to include the public, as well as students in
elementary through post-graduate school.
In February 2013, DHS launched the National Initiative for
Cybersecurity Careers and Studies (NICCS), which is an online resource
for cybersecurity career, education, and training information. NICCS
makes research and training information available to Federal employees
and the public on a single Web site through a robust, searchable
catalog of cybersecurity training programs and certifications, which
allow users to find trainings based on location, preferred delivery
method, specialty area, or proficiency level.
The DHS Secretary's Honors Program Cyber Fellows Summer Student
Intern Program offers current 2-year community college students
majoring in a cybersecurity related field an unpaid internship
position. The internship will provide an opportunity to develop and
gain invaluable hands-on experience at an Immigration and Customs
Enforcement's (ICE), Homeland Security Investigations forensics lab.
The program is tailored to provide high-performing students with
challenging work projects, real-life learning scenarios, and mentoring
from cybersecurity professionals at ICE.
Lastly, DHS will continue the partnership with the National
Security Agency in fiscal year 2014 supporting the DHS/NSA National
Centers of Academic Excellence for colleges and universities across the
Nation to continue the development of a pipeline of cybersecurity
professionals to enter the workforce.
Senator Landrieu. Okay.
Senator Cochran, additional questions?
Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, I don't have any other
questions I will ask here, but I may have one or two to submit
for the record.
Senator Landrieu. Please do. The record will remain open
for 1 week.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And, boy, I love talking about the Coast Guard.
Secretary Napolitano. I'm getting that idea.
AVIATION SECURITY: PROHIBITED ITEMS LIST
Senator Murkowski. And I feel just so privileged to be
serving on this subcommittee where there is such attention,
such focus on the need on understanding and appreciation of the
role that the Coast Guard has. Whether it is drug interdiction
or whether it is fisheries enforcement up north, they've got a
lot to do. They need the assets to do it. The men and women
that are serving us are phenomenal, and I just want to let the
chairman of the subcommittee know that I will do everything
that I can working with you and other members of this
subcommittee to make sure that they have what they need. And it
is expensive, but it is an investment in our security. It is an
investment in our resources that I just don't think we can
short-change. So I want to work with all of you in figuring out
creative ways that we can help fund some of this.
I think, Madam Chairman, our revenue-sharing bill could be
one of those ways that we could help with some of the
infrastructure that we are going to need up north as we have an
evolving Arctic region where we have more water that we now
have responsibility for and yet have very little in terms of
assets and infrastructure. So maybe that is an opportunity for
us there.
I want to just note for the record, Madam Chairman, you
were discussing with my colleague, Senator Begich, the TWIC
program, and we just learned that a new part-time TWIC
Enrollment Center is opening in Kodiak in May. This now joins
the six other centers that are in the State. That's good. We're
moving toward a one-stop process. We're moving toward the
ability to only be making the trip once, which is critical for
us.
But I would suggest to you that as good is $8 million is,
$8 million is not enough. We are a State that is one-fifth the
size of the United States, and 80 percent of the communities
are not accessible by road. So you can't just hop in your car
and go get there. So I want to continue working with you on
that one, if I may.
I wanted to ask you, Secretary, about a decision that came
out of the TSA. Administrator Pistole had suggested that there
would be a policy change that was actually going to be
implemented today that would allow passengers to carry certain
knives through checkpoints and then onto planes. I think all of
us spend a fair amount of time on airplanes, and I will tell
you I have been buttonholed by no fewer than dozens and dozens
of flight attendants who are saying, ``What is going on? There
is enough anxiety already in the air and what is happening
within our country. Please don't make us feel more vulnerable
as we are flying around.''
I think it's fair to say that this is a pretty
controversial policy change. As I say, the policy was supposed
to go into place today. Last night there was a memo that came
out from the Administrator, and he says he is going to
incorporate the input from the Aviation Security Advisory
Committee and to continue training requirements nationwide.
The question that I would like to ask you is, is the TSA
actually revisiting this proposed policy? And if so, what will
that reassessment of the policy entail? Or are they just
delaying rolling this out until perhaps there is a more
opportune time to do so? I think the Nation is understandably
nervous after the events, the tragedy in Boston. Where are we
going with this, and can you just give me a better sense as to
what we might expect?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I think in my conversations
with the Administrator, what the delay is intended to do is to
provide a greater opportunity to provide classified briefings
to different stakeholder groups that belong to the aviation
sector, the Advisory Council, which includes flight attendants
and pilots, among others, and that is underway right now. I
will share with you my own view, having looked at the
situation, and it is this. Risk-based means risk-based, and
little knives are not and have not been a risk where they are
allowed on planes in the international environment.
When you look at what we really need to be concerned about,
which are things like powder explosives and the increasing
sophistication of our adversaries in trying to get an explosive
onto a plane, we want to take out of the mix these things that,
in the end, are not a danger to bringing down the aircraft. I
think when we look at where the threats are coming from, the
real risks, the decision made by the Administrator from a
security basis is the right decision.
So I wouldn't say that he has re-opened the ultimate
conclusion. Perhaps there will be some changes in
implementation. That will remain to be seen.
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TRAINING
Senator Murkowski. Well, I will be honest with you. I think
that any diligent effort that might be made to enforce a new
policy, if we are really going to be training these TSA agents
in terms of what it is that they need to check for, what it is
that they need to disallow or allow, I'm concerned that what we
might see are further delays, thus defeating some of the
rationale of this new policy.
I continue to be concerned about the training of the TSA
folks just on the ground there. I understand what you're saying
in terms of risk assessment there, but I am writing the DHS
inspector general and asking him to closely scrutinize the
issue, assess the training period that is being provided to the
TSA officers before it is implemented.
This week, America is waking up to the fact that if we are
traveling through seemingly any airport in the United States,
we are to anticipate delays because of decisions made out of
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Folks aren't any too
happy with that. If they feel that there has been this change
in policy where TSA officers are not appropriately trained and
that causes further delay, it just adds to some of the chaos
that is seemingly coming our way with travel.
So I just put you on notice as to where I am coming from on
this issue. I certainly understand the rationale as you have
laid out. But again, I am concerned about what our TSA agents
might be offered in terms of training and how it might be
implemented.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Moran.
Secretary Napolitano. If I might, Senator, I don't know if
the inspector general is the one to review training ahead of
time. I just don't know the answer to that. But we want to make
sure that there is education, preparation, and training as
uniform through the system as we can make it. So I think that
is one of the reasons the Administrator said let's take a pause
here to make sure that it is done right.
With respect to travel in general, having been someone who
said that sequester in the end will affect travel, I am not
responsible. FAA is not in our shop, but sequester has real
impacts, and that is really where the public will see it most
immediately ultimately will be in travel.
Senator Murkowski. Well, some of us have suggested that the
FAA could have found some other means to control their costs.
But again, that is not your shop, and I am not going to put
that on your shoulders.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Senator Moran.
NATIONAL BIO AND AGRO-DEFENSE FACILITY: KANSAS CONTRIBUTION
Senator Moran. Chairman, thank you.
Madam Secretary, a couple of questions again about NBAF.
Would you inform the subcommittee about the original nature of
the State of Kansas' contribution to the project and its more
current, its more recent determination about assisting at a
greater level? And if you have any thoughts about--the NBAF
facility was called for 9 years ago in the report that followed
the 9/11 Commission Report that followed 9/11. In a sense, for
the associated costs with continued delay, do you have thoughts
about that?
And second, would you outline for the subcommittee what the
State of Kansas is doing to make this project more affordable
for the Federal taxpayer?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, the State of Kansas has
increased its contribution to the NBAF. I think Kansas is now
north of $300 million that it is putting in. When you combine
that with the Federal investment, you pay for a $1 billion-plus
facility.
With respect to delay, every delay in this project adds
cost. Every one of the double checks and triple checks we've
done to make sure that all the criteria are met--and I know
this is a big-deal project, so we want to be very careful
here--has added expense and cost to the project. We know we
need it. We know we are not positioned for the long term to
deal with these kind of biologic threats without it. Delay
only, in the end, postpones the inevitable at cost.
NATIONAL BIO AND AGRO-DEFENSE FACILITY: VALIDATION
Senator Moran. In your capacity as the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, do you have information that
validates the belief that these threats exist, that they are
real, they are not imaginary, and that they have the potential
of having significant consequences to the health and safety of
Americans, as well as significant economic consequences if we
are unable to prevent and/or respond to those threats?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, the threats in this area can be
both from a human adversary and from Mother Nature, quite
frankly. So without going into intelligence or anything like
that, we can ascertain that the risk is very much with us. It's
with us now. We know that the existing facility we have is too
small and too antiquated to take us where we need to be.
Senator Moran. Secretary, thank you.
Chairman Landrieu, I would be willing to work, as you would
expect, with you and the subcommittee and the full Committee in
any way possible.
REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENTS
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
I just have one final question and then wrap-up comments. I
think this has been a very good hearing, and I think we have
touched on most of the main points that are reflected in this
budget, which is a policy document.
But one that I want to raise, cross-border trade is
increasing while there are pressures to reduce the Federal
budget. I understand those pressures, but people have to
recognize the reality that cross-border trade is increasing,
and all of our States benefit from more trade. We have a
crisis, I believe, at our borders not just with illegal
immigrants but with legal transportation of goods, et cetera,
and our inability to keep up with the funding requirements
necessary.
A Department of Commerce study was striking, Senator
Cochran. It said that in 2008, the Nation's busiest ports of
entry--there are 103 land ports--cost 26,000 jobs, $1.4 billion
in lost wages, and $600 million in tax revenues lost every
year. Now it is 2014, soon to be, and these numbers are
increasing.
So because there is no money in this budget to do what
needs to be done and to maintain the Coast Guard, and to try to
put some additional money for even new facilities that we have
talked about, you just can't wave a magic wand and it's going
to get better. We've got to find a new way.
So I put language in our bill to maybe find public-private
partnerships to look for additional revenues that could
potentially come in. The industry is asking for some
flexibility here. Can you give us just a 1-minute update on how
you're doing with that and what is reflected in this budget to
support bringing in some public-private partnerships to try to
help where our bucket is empty?
Secretary Napolitano. Madam Chair, the five pilot projects
that you had put into the bill, we are in the process of making
decisions about where those are going to be, and I would hope
that that decisionmaking process is going to proceed with
alacrity because there is a real need out there.
The President's budget includes language that would make
public-private partnerships or reimbursability agreements or
in-kind exchanges generally available for these ports, these
big ports of entry that need to handle the increased trade we
have. And again, the President's budget does request, either
through funding or user fee increases, 3,500 more CBP officers
to staff these ports. We have made our staffing model available
because, in the end, we need more trained port officers to
carry out the responsibilities we have.
COAST GUARD'S CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN
Senator Landrieu. Okay. Thank you, and I am going to follow
up on that because it is an important priority for our
subcommittee. But I will end with this. Earlier we discussed
the trade-offs of this budget presented to us, the trade-offs
it makes between constructing a new National Bio and Agro-
Defense Facility. Even with the contribution that the State of
Kansas is willing to make, it still is a huge cost in this
budget, at the expense of Coast Guard acquisition. That is the
way that this budget pays for that facility, out of the Coast
Guard acquisition budget, primarily.
Last week we received the Coast Guard's 5-year capital
investment plan, which calls for radical change to its
capitalization efforts. If enacted, the plan would delay
offshore patrol cutter, decrease the number of fast response
cutters to a level that, in my view, jeopardizes the program,
ends acquisition of the marine patrol aircraft prematurely,
defers several cutter and aviation sustainment projects, and,
of course, does not even support the development of the
icebreaker.
Within 2 weeks, I would like a white paper from your
Department describing the impacts this investment plan will
have on Coast Guard missions offshore such as interdicting
drugs in the transit zone, managing mass migration, oil spill
response, fisheries enforcement, and, of course, our
requirements in the Arctic, so ably mentioned by the Senators
from Alaska. The impact statement should take a near-term and
long-term look at Coast Guard operational capabilities if this
investment plan were enacted.
[The information follows:]
Answer. The fiscal year 2014 budget sustains the most critical
frontline operations, including maintaining search and rescue coverage,
protecting critical infrastructure and key resources, supporting safe
navigation, safeguarding natural resources, protecting the environment,
detecting and interdicting drugs and individuals attempting to enter
the United States illegally, and supporting the Nation's foreign policy
objectives.
Timely and affordable recapitalization of aging assets is essential
for the long term viability of the Coast Guard. The condition and
serviceability of the Coast Guard's in-service surface fleet, the aging
of fixed and rotary wing air assets, and the projected timelines to
replace these assets require continued investment in surface and air
recapitalization programs to maintain the capability to operate. To
strengthen DHS' layered security approach offshore, the fiscal year
2014 budget provides for the acquisition of a seventh national security
cutter (NSC) and two more fast response cutters (FRC), and continues
pre-acquisition activities for the offshore patrol cutter (OPC) and
polar icebreaker. The budget also continues sustainment and conversion
work on fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft, procurement of cutter
boats, and investment in command, control, communications, computers,
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems.
The fiscal year 2014 budget continues initial work to acquire an
affordable replacement for the medium endurance cutter (MEC) class. The
planned OPC will conduct missions on the high seas and coastal
approaches, and will bridge the capability between the NSC and the FRC.
The fiscal year 2014 budget will deliver two more FRCs. These new
assets, coupled with robust interagency and international coordination
will enable the United States and partner nations to best mitigate
threats throughout the maritime domain. These assets replace the aging
fleet of 110-foot patrol boats, and provide the coastal capability to
conduct search and rescue operations, enforce border security,
interdict drugs, uphold immigration laws, protect against terrorism,
and support resiliency to disasters.
The fiscal year 2014 budget continues funding for a new Coast Guard
Polar Icebreaker. This cutter will provide continued icebreaking
capability to the Nation for missions in the Arctic following the
projected end of service life of the Polar Star on or about 2022.
Mission Impacts.--Coast Guard operational commanders allocate
operational resources to meet the highest threats and operational
priorities to secure our maritime borders. The fiscal year 2014 budget
funds the Coast Guard's highest priorities in combating the most
significant threats to the Nation. Specifically, assets supported by
the budget are deployed to address the following highest priority
missions and offshore threat areas.
Near-Term.--The delivery of new, more capable assets such as NSC
and FRC vessels and MPA and LRS aircraft are projected to increase
mission performance due to improved capability and reliability over the
legacy assets they replace. Specifically, the primary missions/areas
impacted by the delivery of NSCs are counter drug (CD), alien migrant
interdiction operations (AMIO), living marine resources (LMR), ports
waterways and coastal security (PWCS), other law enforcement missions
(OLE) and defense readiness. The primary missions/areas impacted by the
delivery of FRCs and aircraft are CD, AMIO, LMR, PWCS, and search and
rescue (SAR).
Long-Term.--Recapitalization remains a top Coast Guard priority.
The fiscal years 2014-2018 CIP continues acquisition of major cutters
and aircraft, as well as sustainment of in-service cutters, boats, and
aircraft, along with shore infrastructure. These investments support
all Coast Guard missions.
I plan to have a special hearing on this. I know that these
are tough decisions, but these are important decisions. I think
the results of some people in some quarters pressing down the
numbers of these budgets so tightly that we have to make not
just difficult but impossible trade-offs between whether we
protect ourselves at our ports with the Coast Guard or we
protect ourselves from agriculture attacks, potential
agriculture attacks. In my view, it does not make our country
stronger. It puts us in an untenable position, so new resources
are going to have to be found from somewhere.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
I thank you. The record will stay open for 1 week, and if
anyone wants to submit additional questions, this subcommittee
will receive them.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department subsequent to the hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
coast guard fast response cutters
Questions. A major component of the Coast Guard's modernization
effort is the fast response cutter (FRC), which I'm proud to say is
being built in Lockport, Louisiana. I took part in dedicating the FRC
fleet last year with the commandant and, since that time, five boats
have been delivered and are contributing to drug interdiction and other
Coast Guard missions off the coast of Miami. FRCs are replacing aging
patrol boats that are well beyond their service life expectancy, can no
longer meet Coast Guard mission demands, and are expensive to maintain.
There is also a patrol boat hour gap. In fiscal year 2012, Coast Guard
patrol boats completed just 71,400 mission hours, 28,000 hours short
(28 percent) of annual requirements. In both fiscal year 2012 and 2013,
we funded six FRCs to address this gap and to maximize the production
line, saving taxpayers $30 million per year.
Last year's budget request indicated that another six FRCs were
necessary in fiscal year 2014. But the budget before us requests $75
million for two FRCs, which we believe does not fully support two fully
missionized cutters. First, what do you believe is the amount needed in
fiscal year 2014 to procure two fully missionized FRCs, including
spares? Will you work with me to find the necessary resources in your
budget to adequately fund six FRCs in fiscal year 2014?
Answers. The fiscal year 2014 budget proposes to use prior year
carryover, in combination with $75 million in fiscal year 2014 to
procure two FRCs.
The administration's fiscal year 2014 request supports the Coast
Guard's highest priority recapitalization needs and maintains funding
for critical frontline personnel. The Coast Guard received sufficient
funding in the fiscal year 2013 appropriation to award a contract for
four FRCs in fiscal year 2013 and, when combined with the President's
fiscal year 2014 request, award a contract for another four in fiscal
year 2014. The base order under the current contract is four FRCs per
year.
staffing initiative at the ports and fee increase proposals
Question. I am pleased to see that your request includes
appropriations to hire 1,600 new CBP officers. For many years, airport
and land port authority owners among others have called for increased
officers to more rapidly process arriving passengers and commercial
goods. I also agree that we need to do more to modernize our ports to
respond to expanded trade and tourism. Now that you have an
independently verified study--the workload staffing model--that more
than justifies the staffing increases at many ports, it is important
that the Department actually puts its money where its mouth is. In
fact, this study states that hiring 1,000 additional Customs officers
would create 33,000 new jobs and increase the gross domestic product by
$2 billion. At the same time, your request also asks this subcommittee
to increase certain immigration and customs fees--which have not been
adjusted for more than a decade in most instances--to hire an
additional 1,877 officers. I understand the proposed increase is well
below what it would be if you used a simple inflationary adjustment,
but as we know, fee increases are unpopular.
How important is it that these fees be increased?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2014 budget requests $210
million in appropriated funding for 1,600 additional U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) officers. While this is a significant
contribution to the CBP officer staffing needs, it does not address the
full requirement. The increase in user fees is essential to CBP's
ability to hire the full cadre of approximately 3,500 officers. The
increase in user fees will provide the funding to hire an additional
1,877 officers, which will enable CBP to close the staffing shortfall
identified by the workload staffing model, alleviate existing wait
times, and enable CBP to process the growing volume of international
travelers. A significant increase in CBP officers in the air
environment will mean greater security, lower wait times, and increased
services for those traveling to the United States. Increased CBP
officers at our land and sea ports will reduce wait times and
transaction costs for cross border travel and trade, improve cargo
release timeframes, and increase enforcement effectiveness.
The extent to which wait times affect the local and national
economy was most recently studied by the National Center for Risk and
Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE), a DHS Center of
Excellence. CREATE provided a preliminary draft report titled ``The
Impact on the U.S. Economy of Changes in Wait Times at Ports of Entry''
in February 2013. Their analysis found that an increase or decrease in
staffing at the POEs has an impact on wait times and, therefore, on the
U.S. economy. The impacts begin with changes in tourist and business
travel expenditures and with changes in freight costs. These changes,
in turn, translate into ripple, or multiplier, effects in port regions
and the overall U.S. economy. In summary, CREATE found that the impacts
on the U.S. economy of adding 33 CBPOs (their baseline) are a $65.8
million increase in gross domestic product (GDP), $21.2 million in
opportunity cost savings, and 1,094 annual jobs added. While the U.S.
Travel Association found that every 33 overseas travelers creates one
new American job (Travel Means Jobs, 2012), CREATE's findings equate to
33 new American jobs per CBPO added.
Question. Can you hire and pay for additional CBP officers in the
absence of these increased fees?
Answer. The increased user fees would allow U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to hire an additional 1,877 CBP officers. In the
absence of fee increases, CBP would not be able to hire the proposed
1,877 officers. The fee increase and the resultant user fee supported
positions are proposed to address the existing staffing gap detailed in
the workload staffing model and meet the anticipated level of effort
required by 2014.
Additionally, the COBRA statute, 19 U.S.C. 58c, specifies a list of
activities in priority order for which the fees can be used, known as
the COBRA hierarchy. The COBRA hierarchy limits the hiring of CBP
officers. Overtime, preclearance, premium pay and other activities take
precedence over adding new officer positions. The recommended
adjustment to the COBRA statute would alleviate the current limitations
and authorize CBP to fund additional salaries and benefits costs for
CBP officers.
Question. What would be the impact on trade and tourism if these
additional officers were not hired?
Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has experienced a
12-percent growth in air arrivals since 2009, and projects a 4- to 5-
percent continued growth over each of the next 5 years. Every year,
more than $2 trillion worth of goods enter the United States through
our ports of entry. The additional CBP officers, as identified by the
workload staffing model, will address existing staffing needs at the
ports of entry, thereby helping to alleviate increasing wait times at
many of the busiest airports and land borders, and would allow CBP to
address the increasing volume of trade and travel.
The extent to which wait times affect the local and national
economy was most recently studied by the National Center for Risk and
Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE), a DHS Center of
Excellence. CREATE provided a preliminary draft report titled ``The
Impact on the U.S. Economy of Changes in Wait Times at Ports of Entry''
in February 2013. Their analysis found that an increase or decrease in
staffing at the POEs has an impact on wait times and, therefore, on the
U.S. economy. The impacts begin with changes in tourist and business
travel expenditures and with changes in freight costs. These changes,
in turn, translate into ripple, or multiplier, effects in port regions
and the overall U.S. economy. In summary, CREATE found that the impacts
on the U.S. economy of adding 33 CBPOs (their baseline) are a $65.8
million increase in gross domestic product (GDP), $21.2 million in
opportunity cost savings, and 1,094 annual jobs added. While the U.S.
Travel Association found that every 33 overseas travelers creates one
new American job (Travel Means Jobs, 2012), CREATE's findings equate to
33 new American jobs per CBPO added.
Without the additional officers, CBP's ability to accommodate
requests for increased services or expanded hours of operation will be
hampered. The resultant increase in wait times may deter international
travelers and potentially increase the costs passed on to the consumer
by cross-border trade partners. It will also negatively impact the
National Travel and Tourism Strategy's key goal of increasing American
jobs by attracting and welcoming 100 million international visitors,
who are estimated to spend $250 billion annually by the end of 2021.
Should CBP continue at the current workforce levels, denials of service
to international air carriers could become more frequent and hours of
operations could be reduced at low-volume ports.
Question. Some would argue this is not the appropriate committee
from which to seek these fee increases. Do you agree?
Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection is looking to work with
its authorization and appropriations committees on its fiscal year 2014
legislative proposals as submitted in the President's budget request.
Question. Will you commit to me that you will make the case to the
authorizers that these fees need to be increased and, if they are
willing, to indicate to the Ranking Member and me that they would
support our taking this action through appropriations legislation?
Answer. Yes, we are happy to brief authorizing committees on these
proposals. U.S. Customs and Border Protection worked with Office of
Management and Budget to simultaneously provide authorization proposals
to these committees for user fee increases. We look forward to working
with the Congress on our legislative initiatives.
fema--disaster relief fund
Question. In 2013, we appropriated a total of $18 billion for FEMA
disaster relief, including $11.5 billion for Hurricane Sandy recovery.
Through the Budget Control Act, Congress created a responsible funding
mechanism for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) and I am pleased that the
White House is using that authority for fiscal year 2014. I do note
that in comparison to fiscal year 2013, the fiscal year 2014 request
for the DRF is $6.2 billion. This request assumes $3 billion for future
disaster needs based on a 10-year average excluding disasters over $500
million. It also assumes $2.6 billion for the on-going recovery from
previous disasters, including $799 million for Hurricanes Katrina,
Rita, and Wilma; and $1.2 billion for Hurricane Sandy. And finally,
this amount assumes FEMA will maintain a balance of $500 million at the
end of the year to address unexpected disasters without having to stop
recovery projects. FEMA expects to obligate $10.8 billion for Hurricane
Sandy in 2013, but only $1.2 billion in 2014. I am concerned that the
amount requested for on-going recovery is low, particularly if we have
several major disasters that push costs above an average year. While I
recognize that disaster costs are difficult to predict, let me be
clear, I do not want to return to the days of stopping recovery
projects during the summer to protect funding for unknown emergencies.
As you will recall, this happened in both 2010 and 2011. This decision
acts like a one-two punch to local economies who have been hit hard by
both a disaster and tough economic times.
Is $6.4 billion a responsible request for disaster relief in 2014?
Answer. The President's 2014 Disaster Relief Fund requests:
--Estimates for the known catastrophic disasters, such as Hurricane
Sandy, that encompass bottom-up cost estimates developed by
FEMA staff working with State and local governments;
--No funding for new catastrophic events that could occur during
fiscal year 2014. For budgeting purposes only, FEMA defines a
catastrophic event to be a disaster or a grouping of disasters
(i.e., a disaster event) resulting in a total projected cost to
the Federal Government in excess of $500 million. As in prior
years, the budget assumes that future catastrophic events
during the budget year will require supplemental funding;
--Estimates for the non-catastrophic costs which are based on a
rolling average--in this case, a 10-year average of prior-year
non-catastrophic obligations;
--Anticipated recoveries estimated at $800 million, a decline of $400
million from the previous year's estimate. This is a result of
a lower potential of available recoveries due to a shrinking
pool of unliquidated obligations from prior catastrophic events
and tighter funds control practices implemented by the agency;
and
--A reserve of $500 million for a no-notice event at any time during
the fiscal year.
Question. Will you require FEMA to review the request as we move
through this process and commit to sending a formal budget amendment if
costs need to be refined?
Answer. As was the case with Hurricane Sandy, the Department will
work with Congress in the event that a catastrophic event necessitates
additional resources in fiscal year 2014.
Question. Your request is based in part on a historical average
that excludes disasters over $500 million because they are considered
rare. Based on recent experience, is that realistic? (Note: in 2011,
for example, we had 99 major disasters and 14 of those were over $1
billion, and last year, we had Hurricane Sandy which is the second most
costly storm on record).
Answer. Yes, it is still realistic. In 2011, only four individually
exceeded the $500 million estimate, which was comprised of only two
events. For fiscal year 2012 there were 46 declarations and only 1
exceeded the $500 million estimate. Provided below is a 10-year
breakout of total disaster declarations and those exceeding the $500
million threshold:
--Fiscal year 2003: 0 out of 62 (1 event collectively was over $500
million);
--Fiscal year 2004: 4 out of 65;
--Fiscal year 2005: 5 out of 45;
--Fiscal year 2006: 1 out of 58;
--Fiscal year 2007: 0 out of 68;
--Fiscal year 2008: 3 out of 58;
--Fiscal year 2009: 0 out of 63;
--Fiscal year 2010: 1 out of 79;
--Fiscal year 2011: 4 out of 99; and
--Fiscal year 2012: 1 out of 46.
Question. When was the last fiscal year without a single event that
exceeded $500 million?
Answer. Fiscal year 2009 had no declarations over $500 million in
estimated cost to FEMA.
funding innovative technologies
Question. I have heard from many technology companies and
entrepreneurs that they apparently have no clear path to bring
innovative security technologies they are developing--or have even
developed already--to the attention of Department decisionmakers. I am
very concerned that creative, cost-effective security and other
technologies are being missed by DHS procurement officials.
Who makes the decision about what technologies your Department
tests, researches, and ultimately procures?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology
(S&T) Directorate identifies technologies developed by industry, other
Federal agencies, and universities that could improve the
effectiveness, efficiency, and safety of DHS missions. Leveraging other
companies' or organizations' investments in technology is integral to
S&T's goal of rapidly moving new technologies to operational use, and
to S&T's need to achieve high returns on its research and development
(R&D) investments. S&T focuses largely on late stage technology
development. However, the Directorate also supports fundamental to
applied scientific research through its university Centers of
Excellence and the Department of Energy (DOE) National Labs. Many of
these research projects evolve into technologies that are eventually
used by DHS components and State and local partners, after appropriate
test and evaluation. The end users ultimately make the decisions about
what they need, with S&T's advice and support. There are several ways
by which S&T forages for existing technology that might be adapted,
evolved, or applied to DHS needs, and several means through which
technology developers might investigate S&T's interest in particular
products.
S&T's work covers an extremely broad and diverse set of missions--
mirroring the breadth and diversity of DHS' responsibilities. S&T's R&D
investments are determined in collaboration with DHS operational
components and with representatives from State, local, tribal, and
territorial first responder officials. The specific criteria used to
evaluate particular projects are described by the R&D portfolio review
process and are selected to reflect S&T goals of high likelihood of
transitioning to use (which incorporates customer interest) and high
operational impact.
Evaluation of projects is conducted annually by teams that include
senior component officials and non-DHS technical experts. Every
proposed new start project is required to present evidence of
technology foraging--that is, the program manager must demonstrate that
the project has not already been done somewhere else and a new
technology effort is needed to achieve the desired purpose. S&T has
established a technology foraging effort that offers several different
intensity levels of technology foraging, to assist project managers in
searching for particular technologies or capabilities across the global
research community. Toward this end, our researchers also maintain
strong ties to scientists and engineers in other Federal agencies,
universities, the private sector, and internationally. The S&T R&D
Partnerships Group exists to connect HSARPA and First Responders Group
project managers with the ongoing, dynamic flow of research across the
world and to match S&T research interests with possible collaborators
in industry, government, and academia.
In addition to S&T's continuous efforts to scan and reach out to
technology developers, there are several ways in which companies and
organizations can reach in and present S&T with potential technologies
for investment. For example, the most recent Broad Agency Announcement
by S&T's Cyber Security Division received more than 200 full proposals,
of which 33 were funded. These funded proposals included five
international collaborators from other countries: Australia, the United
Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Canada. S&T is evaluating the
possibility of funding additional proposals due to the increase in
funding provided in fiscal year 2013.
The Directorate is also broadcasting webinars targeted at private
industry that describe the operational goals of HSARPA's R&D efforts to
provide industry another venue from which they can learn about the
Directorate's technological needs. The most recent webinar held by S&T
was focused on the joint R&D strategy between S&T, the Federal
Protective Service, and the General Services Administration. The
webinar had more than 160 attendees from large and small businesses,
national labs, and universities.
Question. Is there a one-stop shop in the Science and Technology
Directorate or elsewhere in the Department that these individuals can
reach out to directly?
Answer. Information about S&T solicitations can be found on the DHS
Broad Agency Announcements Program Portal Web site (https://
baa2.st.dhs.gov). In addition to targeted Broad Agency Announcements,
the DHS Web site offers alternative methods for industry to connect
with S&T, Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), and the Long Range
Broad Agency Announcement, which cover a wide variety of R&D topic
areas. The DHS SBIR Program is specifically designed to assist small
businesses with developing new R&D projects.
The Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act
of 2002 (SAFETY Act) office, within S&T, works with applicant companies
to determine if the company's products or services are eligible for
liability protections as qualified anti-terrorism technologies.
Information on the SAFETY Act can be found at http://www.safetyact.gov.
Question. I'd also like to understand how DHS seeks out innovative
technologies from the private sector with potential security value.
Do program staff sit back and await formal responses to contract
solicitations, or do they get out of Washington, attend trade shows,
and conduct proactive outreach to businesses in Silicon Valley and
other parts of the country where technology solutions may already
exist?
Answer. The S&T Directorate is active in the tech community,
attending key conferences and trade shows and hosting industry days, as
well as meeting with innovative companies, investors, and traditional
R&D partners. These activities occur through a number of efforts within
the Directorate.
For example, S&T's Research and Development Partnerships (RDP)
group is active in several research communities and is engaged through
partnerships with the private sector to identify, monitor, and connect
relevant technologies and capabilities based on the strategic and
programmatic needs of the Directorate and Department. RDP manages a set
of core competencies and spheres of influence that reach into various
academic, interagency, national laboratory, and private sector groups
both domestically and internationally. RDP then facilitates connections
between these stakeholders and S&T's research portfolio in order to
ensure that the Directorate is leveraging the best capabilities
available, whether they come from industry, academia, or other parts of
the U.S. Government. One critical function that RDP provides the
Directorate is a technology foraging capability that leverages the many
areas of expertise within RDP to seek information on technologies that
address specific challenges faced across DHS. Technology foraging is
designed to research and evaluate activity in specific technology
landscapes by collecting and analyzing global data sources on
environments for research, technology, and market and to provide
unbiased analysis and recommendations on viable technologies, products,
and services to advance homeland security capabilities. The goal of
technology foraging is to provide project managers with knowledge to
plan and execute projects that capitalize on existing and developing
technology markets in order to achieve mission-critical capabilities
and to ensure that the Directorate is not duplicating existing
capabilities.
S&T has also made a concerted effort to reach out to nontraditional
government performers through its investment with In-Q-Tel, which
primarily works with small businesses and startup companies in Silicon
Valley that are not traditional U.S. Government partners. The
Directorate has been broadcasting webinars targeted at private industry
that describe the operational goal of HSARPA's R&D efforts to provide
industry another venue from which they can learn about the
Directorate's technology needs. These webinars have been well received
by industry. S&T also hosts the Transition to Practice program, which
partners with other Federal agencies (i.e., DOE and the Department of
Defense) to bring cybersecurity solutions to bear on DHS and industry
problems, thus leveraging their research dollars to solve pressing
homeland security mission needs.
Another important aspect of the Directorate's outreach to industry
is S&T's SBIR Program. Since its inception in 2004, 3,083 proposals
have been submitted to S&T's SBIR program from every State in the
United States, including Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. Awards have
been made to 345 small businesses in 42 States. Of note, small
businesses in California have submitted 39 percent of the proposals and
received 23 percent of the awards.
The DHS SBIR Program conducts its outreach through participation in
national conferences, as well as in regional, State, and local events.
In addition, the Program Office is actively involved in webinar series
with the National Council of Entrepreneurial Technology Transfer. In
fiscal year 2012, SBIR outreach was conducted in 10 States (including
DC), consisting of 25 events (including webinars). These activities
inform our solicitation process, ensuring that we craft our competitive
award process with the latest innovations and solutions in mind,
regardless of where they originated.
state, local, tribal, and territorial government preparedness grants
and training
Funding
Question. Securing our homeland is a partnership between the
Federal Government, State, local, tribal, and territorial entities--one
we must continue to support and strengthen. Just like training to run a
marathon requires substantial time and commitment before you reach the
finish line, our country must also take a long view with regular and
routine investments in local, State, and Federal homeland security
assets. Yet the budget request we are discussing today has a 15-percent
cut to State and local preparedness grants, which if adopted, would
revert funding levels back to the historic low of 2012. It also
includes a 50-percent cut to training, including the specialized
courses taught through the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium.
With a 50-percent reduction in training, how will we ensure first
responders are trained for new threats but also keep their skills sharp
on traditional threats?
Answer. The fiscal year 2014 request streamlines training by
creating Training Partnership Grants (TPG). This competitive process
will build on the solid foundation that exists by developing new
training venues and vehicles to educate the State and local first
responder community. The TPG will enable training partners to focus on
emerging threats and continue training in traditional threat areas--
based on local, State, regional, and National Threat and Hazard
Identification Risk Assessments (THIRA) and capability estimation
processes. Through the TPG competition, FEMA plans to infuse the
training program with greater efficiencies while encouraging new and
innovative approaches to training.
Measuring Performance
Question. For years Congress has called for putting a measure in
place so that we can better understand the Nation's risks and
capabilities and then refine the level of support needed for State and
local partners instead of having funding levels ebb and flow with
crisis and economic times. I understand we are as close as we have ever
been to finalizing such a process with the release of the National
Preparedness Report last year, and an update coming in months. In
addition, State and local governments are now required to complete
comprehensive threat and hazard assessments.
When will Congress see a complete picture of the Nation's risk and
the specific gap in capabilities to address that risk?
Answer. FEMA's strategy is to base assessments on the principles
that the Nation needs to understand the risks it faces, use those risks
to determine the capabilities it needs, assess its current capability
levels against those requirements, and track its progress in closing
capability gaps. Developing and maintaining an understanding of the
variety of risks faced by communities and the Nation, and how this
information can be used to build and sustain preparedness, are
essential components of the National Preparedness System.
Each State and territory is required to annually complete a State
Preparedness Report (SPR) that assesses their ability to meet and
deliver the core capabilities outlined in the National Preparedness
Goal. These core capabilities and the identified gaps in each core
capability are assessed against targets that are derived from each
State and territory's Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment (THIRA). Taken together, the THIRA results and the SPR
identify capability needs. These products allow the Nation to look
holistically across all capabilities and whole community partners to
gauge areas of strength and areas for improvement. FEMA reports the
results of the capability assessments in the National Preparedness
Report, sent to the President annually on March 30.
Consolidation
Question. The budget proposal again consolidates the grant program
structure. Last year the proposal lacked sufficient detail and
stakeholder input. I understand a comprehensive legislative proposal is
coming from the administration to the authorizing committees of
jurisdiction for consideration.
When do you anticipate submitting this grant reform package?
Answer. The grant reform package is being finalized and we expect
to submit it to Congress in the very near future.
Question. We plan on regular order for appropriations bill this
year, which means completion of the Senate bill by July and a
conference agreement with the House in September.
Do you plan on working aggressively with the authorizing committees
so that any resolution for reform is enacted in time for fiscal year
2014?
Answer. Yes, the administration looks forward to engaging Congress
proactively to enact the proposal outlined in the President's budget.
detention beds vs. alternative methods of detention
Question. Given the fact that there are more than 11 million
undocumented individuals in this country and this administration has
achieved records levels of removal of criminal aliens--more than
225,000 in the last fiscal year alone--Congress has mandated that ICE
maintain 34,000 detention beds in order to detain and then
expeditiously remove aliens judged to be deportable. Your budget
request for fiscal year 2014 cuts the level of beds by 2,200 to 31,800
beds. The argument could be made that you are seeking flexibility in
how you determine which individuals should be detained and which should
be placed on alternative methods of supervised release. However, you
also are requesting a $24 million reduction in the alternatives to
detention account.
Why are you cutting both detention beds and funding for
alternatives to detention?
Answer. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requested
that the level of detention beds be cut by 2,200 to continue priority
operations in a manner consistent with current fiscal constraints. ICE
continues to implement efficiencies that assist with identifying,
detaining, and removing those individuals who are an enforcement
priority, while exercising discretion appropriately. Examples of this
includes the nationwide implementation of the Risk Classification
Assessment and a pilot program in which ICE works with the Executive
Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to expedite priority cases that
are not subject to detention.
ICE is also committed to aligning the Alternatives to Detention
(ATD) program to the agency's immigration enforcement priorities. ICE's
request for fiscal year 2014 ATD funding is consistent with fiscal year
2012 levels. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget included
additional money for the ATD program that was not reflected in ICE's
fiscal year 2014 request. Therefore, while it may appear that the
requested fiscal year 2014 ATD budget reflects a decrease over the
fiscal year 2013 enacted budget, it is consistent with fiscal year 2012
enacted funding levels and will adequately support the ATD mission
based on current projections.
To meet the increased demands for ATD monitoring, while still
maintaining a consistent funding level, ICE has developed the expedited
docket in conjunction with EOIR and the Multi-Aspect Removal
Verification Initiative (MARVIN). ICE believes that by expediting
priority cases it will decrease the length of time in program for ATD
participants, thus leading to an increased number of participants
overall. ICE officially implemented the de-escalation concepts of
MARVIN on December 6, 2012. This high-low-high approach to supervision
requires a higher level of monitoring and case management until
participants demonstrate their compliance with their release
conditions. During the course of proceedings, and after participants
demonstrate their compliance, their monitoring, case management, and
associated costs, are greatly reduced. When participants are preparing
to depart the United States their monitoring and case management are
again increased to ensure compliance with the removal order. This
approach affords ICE the ability to add more participants to the
program.
Question. Does this mean the administration intends to reduce its
commitment to enforcement of existing immigration laws?
Answer. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement remains committed
to a smart, effective and balanced approach to enforcing our Nation's
immigration laws by making use of our limited resources, including
detention and alternatives to detention, in a manner consistent with
established agency priorities. Rather than funding an arbitrary minimum
average daily number of costly detention beds, limited resources should
be targeted to detain only mandatory and priority detainees, while non-
mandatory and non-priority individuals could be placed in less costly
alternatives to detention programs on a case-by-case basis.
trusted travelers
Question. In 2011, the Transportation Security Administration
launched an initiative called PreCheck (Pre3TM) that pre-
screens passengers who volunteer information about themselves in
exchange for expedited screening at airports. Pre3TM is
currently at 40 airports with five participating airlines. TSA also
instituted expedited screening procedures for the elderly, children,
and military employees. Moving away from a one-size-fits-all screening
approach is a smart policy, but we need to further populate TSA's
trusted traveler programs to improve wait times and achieve both a
financial and security benefit. Your budget indicates that 25 percent
of the traveling public will be enrolled in Pre3TM or some
other risk-based screening program by the end of 2013. That is a very
ambitious goal, and I salute your efforts to expand enrollment and
participation.
What is your plan to capture a wider pool of travelers into the
Pre3TM program and can you describe the Department's plans
to leverage the private sector to make it easier for passengers to sign
up and participate in the program?
Answer. Currently, the Transportation Security Administration's
(TSA) expedited screening initiative, TSA Pre3TM, operates
at 40 U.S. airports under five participating airlines and recently
passed the critical milestone in the Agency's efforts to move toward a
more intelligence-driven, risk-based form of security by reaching the
10 million passengers screened under TSA Pre3TM. In
addition, TSA has expanded TSA Pre3TM to international
flights on participating airlines, enabling TSA Pre3TM
participants to be eligible for expedited screening on select
international travel itineraries in addition to domestic travel. This
encompasses passengers flying internationally out of the 40
participating TSA Pre3TM airports, and eligible passengers
with connecting domestic flights who have arrived in the United States
on an international flight after being cleared by U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP).
TSA currently has nine locations where Active Duty military can use
their Common Access Card to enter TSA Pre3TM lanes. TSA is
working closely with the Department of Defense (DOD) to implement a
list-based solution whereby TSA Secure Flight receives a real-time list
of eligible Active Duty military, National Guard, Reserve, and DOD
civilians who will become eligible for TSA Pre3TM on all
participating airlines and at all TSA Pre3TM locations.
These initiatives support TSA's overall efforts to enable a wider
pool of travelers to participate in the TSA Pre3TM program,
and improve passengers' airport security screening experience via TSA's
expedited screening processes.
Question. A common complaint by those participating in
Pre3TM is that it's not transportable from one airline to
another. In other words, if you're a frequent traveler of United
Airlines, you can't receive the Pre3TM benefit if you take a
flight on American Airlines. Are you working with the airlines to make
Pre3TM transportable between air carriers?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) continues
to encourage TSA Pre3TM participating airlines to provide
reciprocal recognition of eligible frequent flyers.
One successful example of airline collaboration is between United
Airlines and US Airways. These airlines currently recognize each
organization's eligible travelers that have opted to participate in TSA
Pre3TM.
In addition to reciprocity, travelers with a Known Traveler Number,
such as U.S. citizens who are members of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection's Global Entry, SENTRI, and NEXUS programs, are eligible for
TSA Pre3TM expedited screening on all participating airlines
at the 40 TSA Pre3TM airports.
Question. What is being done to counter the risk of a terrorist
becoming a frequent flyer and enrolling in the Pre3TM
program?
Answer. All travelers including those in the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) Pre3TM program currently
receive a name-based check against the no fly and selectee lists of the
Terrorist Screening Database. In addition, no travelers, including
those in the TSA Pre3TM program, are guaranteed to receive
expedited screening. All travelers are subject to additional security
layers through the random, unpredictable screening measures that TSA
employs.
trade enforcement
Question. I have been very concerned about the continued reports of
foreign seafood, especially shrimp, being dumped on the U.S. market by
unscrupulous companies who claim their product is produced in one
country when in fact it is mislabeled and comes from a different
country entirely. This has a direct impact on food safety as well as
the domestic seafood industry. This subcommittee held a hearing on the
issues of antidumping and countervailing duties investigations and
enforcement where officials from Customs and Border Protection and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement testified that they would
strengthen their efforts in this regard. I am pleased that enforcement
actions were taken last year against mislabeled shrimp imports and that
DHS appears to be taking this issue more seriously.
Your budget includes $3 million to begin centralizing single
transaction bond processes which should increase collections of customs
revenues. Expanded use of this concept was raised at our trade
enforcement hearing.
What other efforts is the Department taking to more robustly
enforce our trade laws and protect American industries from unfair
trade practices?
Answer. ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) work
together throughout the international supply chain to identify,
disrupt, and dismantle criminal organizations engaged in trade crime.
For example, ICE's Los Angeles's Trade Fraud Group, co-located
alongside CBP personnel, attached to the Port of Los Angeles in 2012,
established the Trade Enforcement Coordination Center (TECC). The TECC
merges ICE and CBP resources to promote seamless information sharing
among all entities involved in trade enforcement. The TECC proactively
identifies trade schemes and facilitates threat assessments, which are
used to form investigative and interdiction operation teams alongside
industry. ICE and CBP are developing additional TECCs at major ports-
of-entry in the United States to enhance commercial fraud enforcement
nationwide.
ICE and CBP also work jointly to produce post-investigative
analysis reports (PIARs) during commercial fraud and intellectual
property rights investigations. These PIARs analyze lessons learned
from investigations to ensure successful methods and techniques are
repeatable for potential national use by ICE and CBP personnel.
Similarly, ICE and CBP are developing a Commercial Fraud Modular
Training program to foster communication and collaboration between
prosecuting attorneys and CBP and ICE personnel to enhance joint
investigations. Finally, ICE and CBP are engaged in ongoing outreach
efforts with industry and law enforcement partners to coordinate
capacity building programs and raise public awareness of U.S. trade
laws.
CBP is committed to protecting American industries from unfair
trade practices, and ensuring that antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/
CVD) laws are vigorously enforced. CBP increased its agency-wide
efforts in fiscal year 2012 to enforce AD/CVD laws in coordination with
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security
Investigations (HSI). In fiscal year 2012, CBP and HSI seized 57
shipments of AD/CVD commodities with a domestic value of more than $13
million for violations of AD/CVD and related laws. CBP also levied over
50 monetary penalties assessed at more than $24 million on importers
for AD/CVD violations, and completed over 50 AD/CVD audits of importers
through which CBP identified discrepancies totaling approximately $41
million.
sequestration impact on small businesses
Question. DHS has consistently achieved an ``A'' on its small
business contracting scorecard, routinely awarding between 29 and 32
percent of its contracts to small businesses. However, I recently sent
a letter to DHS raising concern that sequestration will hit America's
small businesses especially hard. As the chairman of the Senate Small
Business Committee, I have heard of a number of instances in which
funding under small business contracts has been reduced significantly
or put on hold indefinitely.
What impact will sequestration have on your Department's ability to
contract with small businesses?
Answer. DHS has a robust small business program and has received an
``A'' on the Small Business Administration (SBA) scorecard for 3
consecutive years beginning in fiscal year 2009. DHS is anticipating
another favorable score for fiscal year 2012 when SBA releases the
scorecard later this year. The success of the program has been
dependent on eight key areas which include: the small business Web
site; small business specialists in each buying activity; annual
forecast of contract opportunities; listing of large business prime
contractors with subcontracting opportunities; mentor-protege program;
annual small business awards ceremony; small business review form; and
outreach activities. On average, the DHS Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization staff participates in 75 to 100
small business outreach events annually, reaching an estimated 10,000
small businesses.
As a result of sequestration, participation in local and out-of-
town small business outreach events with industry and trade
associations has been significantly reduced. To mitigate the impact on
the small business community, field personnel have increased the use of
teleconferences and video conferences as a primary form of outreach.
Question. What mechanisms are in place to monitor any impact and
what action is being taken to mitigate the impact of these cuts?
Answer. A letter from the DHS chief procurement officer to DHS
industry partners has been posted under the Small Business Assistance
portion of the DHS Web site. The letter explains that the Budget
Control Act of 2011 requires sequestration of certain DHS funds which
may result in certain planned procurements being canceled or reduced in
scope and certain existing contracts being reduced in scope,
terminated, or partially terminated. The letter also states, unless
provided with formal notification to the contrary, all DHS contractors
must continue to comply with all terms, conditions, requirements, and
deliveries specified in their contract.
The DHS component heads of the contracting activities submit a
weekly report to the DHS chief procurement officer detailing the list
of affected contracts. The Department is continually monitoring the
status and remains committed to mitigating the effects of sequestration
on the small business community to the greatest extent possible.
worksite enforcement
Question. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) broke
records last year in the number of worksite investigations initiated
(3,904), arrests made (240), inspections conducted (3,004), and fines
imposed ($12.5 million). And most of those records broke highs that
were set the previous year. That's a strong record of performance in
the area of worksite enforcement and an encouraging upward trend.
There's a perception among many that immigration enforcement is
targeted disproportionately at unskilled laborers instead of the
unscrupulous employers who knowingly hire them, and in some cases,
provide them with fraudulent documents, traffic them, and exploit them.
Some have argued that reducing the demand for illegal labor through
stricter worksite enforcement will eventually shrink the supply of
illegal aliens and reduce the number of illegal entries.
What can we do to further prevent employers from hiring people who
aren't legally authorized to work in the United States?
Answer. ICE supports potential statutory amendments, as part of
common sense immigration reform, that will provide deterrence to
willful or repeat violators. Currently, criminal penalties are provided
for any person or entity that engages in a pattern or practice of
violations of the prohibition against hiring, recruiting, or referring
for a fee an unauthorized alien, or continuing to employ such
unauthorized alien; however, this provision is a misdemeanor and
carries lower penalties (8 U.S.C. section 1324a(f)). The term ``pattern
or practice'' is defined as regular, repeated, and intentional
activities, but does not include isolated, sporadic, or accidental acts
(8 CFR section 274a.1(k)). ICE welcomes current proposals that increase
criminal penalties for such pattern or practice violators. A similarly
difficult provision under the current statutes relates to the criminal
penalties provided for knowingly hiring at least 10 individuals within
a 12-month period with actual knowledge that the individuals are
unauthorized aliens and were brought into the United States in
violation of law (8 U.S.C. section 1324(a)(3)(A)). Using this statute
in criminal investigations or prosecutions can be difficult, as
knowledge of the unauthorized aliens' manner of entry is required on
the part of the employers and may be difficult to establish.
Question. How can you reassure employers that E-Verify will help
them to detect fraudulent documents that may otherwise appear
legitimate?
Answer. USCIS has continued to expand the types of documents for
which the E-Verify system provides photo confirmation. The photo
matching tool allows the employer to match the photo displayed in E-
Verify to the photo on the employee's permanent resident card,
employment authorization document, U.S. passport or U.S. passport card
to determine whether the card was fraudulently produced. E-Verify users
rate the photo tool very highly as a method for reducing fraud. The
2012 American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) rating of E-Verify
found that the photo tool scored 95 points on a scale of 1 to 100.
Employers found the photo tool to be easy to use (score of 95) and
thought it was helpful in preventing fraud (score of 94).
USCIS is also working on a new initiative that will allow employers
to check the authenticity and validity of driver's licenses and State
identification cards. Mississippi and Florida are currently
participating in this initiative, with opportunities for other States
to participate as the program expands.
USCIS is developing other methods for reducing fraud in E-Verify,
such as monitoring Social Security numbers (SSNs) to identify potential
fraudulent use and developing an enhancement to allow individuals to
lock their SSNs in E-Verify so they cannot be used by others who work
for E-Verify employers.
Question. Should we also look at increasing civil or criminal
penalties as a deterrent against willful violations or repeat offenses?
Answer. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) supports
increased civil and criminal penalties to deter willful or repeat
violations. Currently, criminal penalties are provided for any person
or entity that engages in a pattern or practice of violations of the
prohibition against hiring, recruiting, or referring for a fee an
unauthorized alien, or continuing to employ such unauthorized alien. (8
U.S.C. section 1324a(f)). However, this provision is a misdemeanor and
carries relatively modest penalties. Moreover, the term ``pattern or
practice'' is defined as regular, repeated, and intentional activities,
and does not include isolated, sporadic, or accidental acts). ICE would
welcome increasing criminal penalties for such pattern or practice
violators.
Also, with the increase in technology, such as E-Verify, used to
identify and prevent the use of false identification documents by
unauthorized employees, there will likely be a corresponding increase
in instances of identity fraud and theft. ICE would welcome increased
criminal penalties for those who provide or use fraudulently obtained
identification documents to circumvent immigration laws.
Another possibility for statutory change involves the existing
provision relating to the criminal penalties provided for knowingly
hiring at least 10 individuals within a 12-month period with actual
knowledge that the individuals are unauthorized aliens and were brought
into the United States in violation of law (8 U.S.C. section
1324(a)(3)(A)). Using this statute in criminal investigations or
prosecutions is difficult as employers are required to have knowledge
about the unauthorized aliens' manner of entry. Conceivably, a
statutory amendment removing this particular knowledge element would
allow for more prosecutions of unscrupulous employers that knowingly
hire unauthorized employees.
ICE also supports efforts to criminalize abusive employment
practices committed against unauthorized employees based on the
vulnerable nature of this population. Such provisions would allow ICE
to target employers that rely on these unlawful practices as part of
their business model, thereby giving them an unfair advantage over law
abiding employers.
h-2b visas
Question. Louisiana's seafood community relies heavily on the H-2B
visa program for temporary workers to handle the most labor-intensive
tasks required in these businesses, such as shucking oysters and
picking crabs. Without this temporary worker program, Louisiana's
seafood industry would come to a halt as American workers are simply
unable or unwilling to fill these demanding positions. It has come to
my attention that the United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) has halted its processing of H-2B worker petitions
from companies using private wage surveys as a result of a recent court
ruling which calls into question the Department of Labor's (DOL) wage
methodology. While we need to ensure workers are being adequately
compensated, bringing such an important program to a standstill while
the agencies determine a new wage methodology is simply unacceptable.
There are a lot of small business owners, in Louisiana and across the
country, trying to make ends meet, who are counting on you to continue
processing H-2B applications in an expeditious manner. I encourage you
to immediately resume processing H-2B applications with completed DOL
labor certifications.
During the 30-day suspension, how many petitions have been
impacted?
Answer. On April 2, 2013, USCIS issued an alert on its Web site,
notifying the public that adjudication of most H-2B petitions had been
suspended because of a court ruling that invalidated the use of the
four-tier Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) survey as part of
the temporary labor certification process, which is the first step in
obtaining an H-2B petition. Because of the court's decision, this alert
also indicated that USCIS would stop accepting new premium processing
requests for H-2B petitions until further notice. On April 3, 2013,
USCIS issued updated guidance on its Web site regarding the suspension.
This posting informed the public that USCIS would issue a notice to all
petitioners with pending H-2B petitions. The notice notified the
petitioner that adjudication would be suspended unless the petitioner
could show that the basis for the prevailing wage determination was
something other than the four-tier Occupational Employment Statistics
(OES) survey that had been enjoined by the court. If the petitioner
provided evidence that a different method was used, USCIS released the
case from hold and processed the case.
On April 24, 2013, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and
Department of Labor (DOL) jointly published the Interim Final Rule
(IFR), Wage Methodology for the Temporary Non-Agricultural Employment
H-2B Program, part 2. See 78 Fed. Reg. 24047 (April 24, 2013). The IFR
revised the prevailing wage methodology by which DOL calculates certain
prevailing wages to be paid to H-2B workers and U.S. workers recruited
in connection with an H-2B application for temporary labor
certification. Once the IFR was issued, USCIS resumed processing all H-
2B petitions. As noted in the IFR, approximately 682 H-2B petitions
were affected as of April 10. As of May 6, 2013, an adjudicative action
(approval, request for evidence, denial) has already taken place on all
the cases affected by the suspension.
Question. What are the Department's plans to resume processing H-2B
applications and to ensure that seasonal employers get their H-2B
workers as soon as possible?
Answer. On April 25, 2013, USCIS issued an alert on its Web site,
indicating that USCIS had resumed processing of all form I-129 H-2B
petitions. This means that all H-2B petitions that were placed on hold
could be adjudicated (approved, denied, issued a request for evidence,
etc.). As of May 6, 2013, an adjudicative action (approval, request for
evidence, denial) already had taken place on the cases affected by the
suspension. USCIS also resumed accepting requests for premium
processing for H-2B petitions on May 1, 2013.
Question. When DHS re-starts processing, how will the Department
account for the applications that were received in the last days of
premium processing to ensure timely processing?
Answer. USCIS processed all H-2B petitions as quickly as possible
to alleviate potential hardship on employers. As previously indicated,
an adjudication action (approval, request for evidence, denial) has
already taken place on all the cases affected by the suspension.
Question. What is the Department's plan for H-2B administration in
the future?
Answer. USCIS understands the importance of temporary non-
agricultural workers and the need for prompt adjudication of H-2B
petitions. USCIS has resumed processing of all form I-129 H-2B
petitions for temporary non-agricultural workers. The processing goal
for an H-2B petition that does not have a premium processing request is
generally 1 month. If a petitioner requests premium processing, USCIS
will issue a decision (approval, request for evidence, notice of intent
to deny, or denial) within 15 calendar days.
Question. Are there any substantial changes to the program that DHS
is considering?
Answer. DHS does not anticipate proposing any substantial changes
to the H-2B program at this time.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Question. I remain concerned about the Department's fiscal year
2014 budget proposal to once again attempt to consolidate preparedness
grants into one national program. Efforts to consolidate these grants
could shift critical grant funds away from the areas most at-risk for a
terror attack, like my State of New Jersey, and leave rail and port
systems in populated areas without needed security funds. Congress
explicitly prohibited the Department from carrying out this type of
consolidation last year without authorization.
Why is the Department once again proposing to consolidate
preparedness grants into one program if it does not have the
authorization to do so?
Answer. Federal investments in State, local and tribal preparedness
capabilities have contributed to the development of a significant
national-level capacity to prevent, protect against, respond to, and
recover from disasters of all kinds. As we look ahead, to address
evolving threats and make the most of limited resources, the proposed
National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) will focus on building and
sustaining core capabilities associated with the five mission areas
within the National Preparedness Goal (NPG) that are readily deployable
and cross-jurisdictional, helping to elevate nationwide preparedness.
The administration's fiscal year 2014 budget re-proposes the NPGP,
originally presented in the fiscal year 2013 President's budget, to
create a robust national preparedness capability, with some adjustments
made to respond to broad stakeholder feedback solicited and received
during 2012. In particular, the fiscal year 2014 NPGP provides grantees
and other stakeholders greater certainty regarding the sources and uses
of available funding while maintaining the core priorities of the
administration's fiscal year 2013 grants vision.
Similar to the fiscal year 2013 NPGP, the fiscal year 2014 proposal
consolidates current State and local preparedness grant programs into
one overarching program (excluding emergency management performance
grants and fire grants) to enable grantees to build and sustain core
capabilities outlined in the NPG collaboratively. As a single,
comprehensive grant program, the NPGP eliminates the redundancies and
requirements placed on both the Federal Government and the grantees
resulting from the current system of multiple individual, and often
disconnected, grant programs.
The fiscal year 2014 NPGP prioritizes the development and
sustainment of core capabilities as outlined in the NPG. Particular
emphasis will be placed 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. The NPGP continues to utilize a
comprehensive process for assessing regional and national capability
requirements through the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment (THIRA) and capability estimation processes, prioritize
capability needs and invest in critical national capabilities.
The NPGP draws upon and strengthens existing grants processes,
procedures and structures, emphasizing the need for greater
collaboration and unity among Federal, State, local and tribal
partners. This is particularly important as stakeholders work together
to make smarter investment decisions, develop shared or deployable
capabilities, and share resources through Emergency Management
Assistance Compacts (EMAC) or other mutual aid/assistance agreements.
In many ways, the NPGP structure mirrors the collaboration and
decisionmaking process that occurs during disasters, when various
stakeholders and jurisdictions come together to plan, build, and
execute capabilities.
NPGP grantees will be required to align their proposed investments
to core capabilities, incorporate effectiveness measures, and regularly
report progress on the acquisition and development of identified
capabilities. These measures will enable all levels of government to
collectively demonstrate how the proposed investment will build and
sustain core capabilities necessary to strengthen the Nation's
preparedness.
Question. The recent terrorist attack in Boston highlighted the
critical importance of providing Federal support to first responders,
so they are prepared for emergencies and can respond quickly when
terror attacks occur. The Department's request of $1.043 billion for a
National Preparedness Grant Program represents a cut from the fiscal
year 2013 pre-sequestration enacted amount for these grant programs
(not including emergency management performance grants or fire grants).
In light of the recent Boston attack, is the Department willing to
reevaluate its fiscal year 2014 request for these grant programs to
determine whether the requested amount meets current risk needs?
Answer. The tragic events in Boston underscore the importance of
coordinated preparedness capabilities among cross-jurisdictional
agencies. It was Boston's preparedness efforts such as training and
exercising as a cohesive emergency response unit that supported the
coordinated and effective response.
The proposed National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) will
emphasize building and sustaining capabilities that address high
consequence events that pose the greatest risk to the security and
resilience of the United States. Funding will address multiple threats
and hazards, while utilizing a comprehensive process for assessing
regional and national capability gaps through the Threat and Hazard
Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) process in order to
prioritize and invest in key national capabilities.
Question. If sequestration remains in effect, what impact will
these across-the-board cuts have on DHS's ability to provide the areas
most at-risk of a terror attack with the resources they need to prevent
and respond to terror attacks?
Answer. The administration believes sequestration is bad policy and
has detrimental impacts on the economy and operations of the agencies.
Sequestration affects the development and sustainment of local and
State preparedness capabilities to adequately and efficiently respond
to threats, terror attacks, and disasters.
The Department's fiscal year 2012 UASI allocation cut funding for
the Jersey City/Newark area by nearly 42 percent from fiscal year 2011.
However, the fiscal year 2012 allocation did not cut any funding for
the New York region, and the next three top risk areas received
substantially smaller cuts than the Jersey City/Newark area.
Question. Given that the top four risk areas received
disproportionately smaller cuts, or no cut at all, why didn't the
remaining high-risk regions in tier I also receive special
consideration to ensure the smallest cuts possible?
Answer. In fiscal year 2012, the total amount of available grant
funding for the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) was 26 percent
lower than the funding available in fiscal year 2011. As is the case
each year, the final fiscal year 2012 UASI allocations were informed by
a comprehensive risk methodology based on threat, vulnerability, and
consequence factors.
Question. How will DHS's future UASI allocations take into account
the substantial cut the Jersey City/Newark area faced in fiscal year
2012 to ensure the area is not put at risk because of these cuts?
Answer. The UASI program addresses the unique planning,
organization, equipment, training, and exercise needs of high-threat,
high-density urban areas, and supports building an enhanced and
sustainable capacity to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to,
and recover from acts of terrorism. UASI allocation decision process
will continue to be risk-informed, as required by section 2007 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002. In addition, FEMA will continue to
administer an annual risk validation process with the top 100
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and 56 States and territories, as
required by the Homeland Security Act. The Department will continue to
prioritize funding to support the highest threat needs.
Question. While full details of the attacks are not yet known, the
recent bombings in Boston have highlighted dangerous loopholes in our
explosives laws. Today, anyone can buy up to 50 pounds of black powder
and unlimited quantities of smokeless and black powder substitute
without a background check or permit. And for those explosives that can
only be purchased with a permit, a known or suspected terrorist is not
prohibited from being issued a permit and purchasing these explosives
today.
Do you think these loopholes in our explosives laws put Americans'
safety in danger?
Answer. I would defer to DOJ regarding explosives laws.
A whole-of-government approach that integrates Federal, State,
local, tribal, territorial, private sector, and global participation in
counter-IED activities will best position the United States to discover
plots to use IEDs in the United States, or against U.S. persons abroad,
before those threats become imminent.
The Joint Program Office for Countering IEDs (JPO C-IED),
administered by the Attorney General through the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), is an interagency group that coordinates and
tracks progress across the departments and agencies toward building and
maintaining counter-IED capabilities. The DHS Office for Bombing
Prevention (OBP) within the National Protection and Programs
Directorate serves as the Deputy Administrator of the JPO C-IED and
leads the development and implementation of national counter-IED policy
within DHS.
OBP provides the Nation a focused portfolio of counter-IED
capability development programs to State, local, tribal, territorial,
and private sector partners. For example, OBP raises awareness of the
illicit use of black and smokeless powders through voluntary measures
such as the Bomb-Making Materials Awareness Program, which encourages
inventory control and suspicious activity reporting.
Question. We also know that terrorists have been encouraged to
exploit loopholes in our gun laws. In June 2011, Adam Gadahn, an
American-born Al Qaeda member, urged terrorists in a video to exploit
weaknesses in U.S. gun laws to carry out terrorist attacks. Gadahn
said, ``America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms.
You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come
away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check,
and most likely, without having to show an identification card. So what
are you waiting for?'' And even when a background check is conducted,
being a known or suspected terrorist does not disqualify a person from
purchasing a gun. While we don't yet know the origins of the firearms
used by the Boston bombing suspects, we do know they procured an
arsenal of firearms that they used to kill one police officer and
seriously injure another.
Are you concerned that terrorists could exploit our gun laws in
order to purchase firearms in the United States and harm Americans?
Answer. We would be happy to provide a briefing on this based on
current intelligence.
Questions. The Port Security Grant Program provides crucial funding
for improving security at our Nation's ports. In addition, the
performance period for grants was shortened from 3 years to 2 years.
How will the decrease in the performance period change the types of
projects that Port Security grantees can undertake? Will this impact
their ability to address high-risk projects?
Answers. The Port Security Grant Program has the high levels of
unobligated balances among the State and local grant programs. PSGP
priorities have expanded over the years as a result of the stakeholder
input, to give applicants more flexibility when applying for funds.
Applicants must take into consideration the ability to complete a
project within the 2-year performance period and are required to
provide timelines and milestones with their application. FEMA has taken
steps to make funding available at the time of award to include pre-
award budget reviews and timely environmental and historic preservation
(EHP) reviews to give grantees the maximum amount of time possible to
complete their projects.
No. Large, complex, capital security projects may be phased over
the grant period of performance years to allow high-risk projects to be
completed.
Question. What can FEMA do to ensure that their internal review
process does not inhibit grantees from completing projects within the
mandated project completion period?
Answer. FEMA has taken steps to make funding available at the time
of award to include pre-award budget reviews and timely environmental
and historic preservation reviews, as required under present law, to
give grantees the maximum amount of time possible to complete their
projects. FEMA has also emphasized the importance that grantees have a
clear plan for spending grant awards from the beginning of the period
of performance.
Question. To ensure that customs inspections do not impede tourism,
Customs and Border Protection aims to process arriving international
passengers within 30 minutes. According to reports from Newark Liberty
Airport, arriving passengers are experiencing wait times of up to two
hours at customs due to inadequate staffing. At the same time, DHS is
funding a preclearance checkpoint at the Abu Dhabi International
Airport and not increasing investments at customs checkpoints at busy
domestic airports.
How will this new Abu Dhabi checkpoint affect Customs and Border
Protection staff in the United States?
Answer. Pre-clearance will provide much needed relief to wait times
at highly congested U.S. gateway airports, such as Chicago O'Hare, New
York-John F. Kennedy, and Washington Dulles, by providing domestic-
style arrivals and connections when flights land from the location.
Question. Can you commit that the new Abu Dhabi checkpoint will not
decrease Customs and Border Protection staffing at Newark Liberty?
Answer. The port of entry at Newark Liberty Airport is a major
gateway to the United States for trade and travel and will continue to
be a high-priority location for Department of Homeland Security and
CBP. CBP is committed to making every effort to ensure that all
locations, including Newark Liberty Airport, have adequate staffing.
Question. Will you commit to working with me to provide adequate
staffing at Newark Liberty?
Answer. An administration priority in the fiscal year 2014 budget
is to expand frontline operational capabilities through increased
staffing at our ports of entry. The fiscal year 2014 budget supports
25,252 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers, including
1,600 additional CBP officers through appropriations and 1,877
additional CBP officers funded by CBP's proposed increase to the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) and immigration
inspection user fee fees.
Question. A German security consultant recently claimed to have
developed technology that could be used to remotely hijack an airplane,
alleging that current security systems do not have adequate
authentication methods to ensure commands are from a legitimate source.
The FAA released a statement saying it is aware of this claim and has
said it does not pose a threat on actual commercial flights.
Will you commit to reviewing the potential threat and updating me
on steps being taken to address any deficiencies in our security
systems that could leave an aircraft open to an attack of this nature?
Answer. While the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) does
not have authority to regulate the security vulnerabilities within
aircraft avionics or aircraft flight simulator equipment, TSA works to
acquire and analyze information to understand and actively respond to
the cybersecurity threats that target transportation. These efforts
include collaborating with TSA's partners to analyze the German
security consultant's claim. We will continue to work with the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) on this issue.
Question. On March 26, a FEMA spokesperson said the Advisory Base
Flood Elevation (ABFE) maps in New Jersey are likely to be revised, and
that some properties in V zones could be moved back to A zones.
Residents and businesses in New Jersey are currently deciding--based on
the ABFE maps--whether to elevate their properties, relocate, or pay
higher flood insurance premiums.
Will DHS set up a specific mechanism--such as a telephone hotline--
for homeowners to learn how likely it is that their property will be
put into a different flood zone when FEMA releases updated flood maps?
Answer. Yes. Homeowners can log onto www.Region2Coastal.com and use
the ``What is my BFE?'' tool within the Web site to perform an address
specific look-up tool to determine the flood zone impacting their
property. This was the same process utilized during the release of the
advisory BFE map data. Property owners can enter their street address
or location by latitude/longitude coordinates to obtain flood hazard
information that will depicted on the Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate
Map. If homeowners have additional questions about the Preliminary
Flood Insurance Rate Map and the regulatory map process, they can call
the FEMA Map Information Exchange at 1-877-FEMA-MAP.
Question. I signed a letter to FEMA Administrator Fugate on March
20 requesting that FEMA conduct an expedited study into how Army Corps
of Engineers flood mitigation structures would affect the Advisory Base
Flood Elevation (ABFE) maps in New Jersey. The letter requested that
the study identify areas where the completion of the structures could
lead to flood map revisions. I have not yet received a response to this
letter.
What is the status of this study, and when will it be complete?
Answer. FEMA has engaged with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) on this matter and is working to develop a technical scope for
the project that meets the request while working to ensure resources
are available. A response to the referenced letter will be provided in
the coming weeks, and FEMA will engage with its USACE counterparts and
the offices of Senators Lautenberg and Menendez to develop a process
for communicating regular staff updates as project milestones are
completed.
Question. Has FEMA requested data and information from the Army
Corps of Engineers about planned flood control structures in New
Jersey?
Answer. Yes. USACE has provided design data for each of the beach
projects on the NJ shoreline. USACE remains the authoritative source of
information on the design and construction of beaches. FEMA will work
with the USACE to ensure that it remains informed on the status of
these USACE projects as work to complete FEMA mapping projects
continues.
Question. Given that FEMA is planning to release updated flood maps
this summer, which will be before the Army Cops completes Superstorm
Sandy flood control projects, what process will FEMA establish to
coordinate these maps with anticipated Army Corps projects?
Answer. FEMA has engaged with the USACE through its standing open
coordination points, and this engagement will continue to ensure that
FEMA is aware of the details of progress on USACE projects. It is
important to note that FEMA maps produced under the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) must be based on existing conditions, and
future conditions cannot be reflected by virtue of statute. However,
FEMA has a map revision mechanism that allows communities to request
changes, seek FEMA comment on the potential effects of proposed
projects, and incorporate warranted changes in flood hazard mapping
based on completed projects.
Question. I am encouraged that FEMA has expressed a willingness to
accept input from communities to address any shortcomings in the
Advisory Base Flood Elevation (ABFE) maps. However, in order for a
community to challenge the maps, FEMA is requiring that data be
submitted in a form meeting detailed technical standards. Many small
communities in New Jersey do not have the means to hire the technical
experts needed to prepare a submission in the requested form. I signed
a letter to FEMA Administrator Fugate on March 20th encouraging the
agency to enlist experts at New Jersey's institutes of higher education
to assist communities by providing an independent opinion on map
accuracy and preparing submissions if needed. I have not yet received a
response to this letter.
Will DHS and FEMA enlist experts at New Jersey's colleges and
universities to help New Jersey communities understand and, if
necessary, submit proposed improvements to the ABFE maps?
Answer. FEMA has actively sought statewide and local input since
the inception of the ongoing study of coastal flood hazards in the
State of New Jersey. In the early stages of the study, FEMA established
a Technical Advisory Panel comprised of representatives from academia
and nonprofit agencies, State and local governments, and other Federal
agencies. Individuals from some of these institutions also have
participated on the Coastal Outreach Advisory Team FEMA established
around the same time. FEMA briefed the Technical Advisory Panel on the
ABFE map development methodology and presented a prototype map to the
panel prior to issuance of the maps. The consensus of the panel was
that the ABFE mapping methodology was based on sound engineering
practices, including the wave estimation methodology that FEMA
employed. The detailed wave analysis that will replace the estimation
used in the ABFE maps was recently completed. FEMA is in the process of
coordinating with State officials, as part of the ongoing disaster
recovery process, to plan issuance of work maps in the coming weeks
that will eventually supersede the ABFE maps as best available data for
rebuilding. FEMA engages and assists communities in understanding the
flood hazards shown on the work maps, including the incorporation of
the detailed wave analysis. The overall study will continue to involve
the participation of both the Technical Advisory Panel and the Coastal
Outreach Advisory Team.
The Biggert Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act required FEMA to
conduct a study and issue a report by April 6, 2013, on the
affordability of NFIP premiums, the effects of increased premiums on
low-income homeowners, and ways to increase affordability through
targeted assistance. This study has not yet been released. In addition,
FEMA has not yet replied to a letter I signed on March 15, 2013,
requesting that this affordability study be released as soon as
possible, and urging that no premium rate increases be noticed until
this report has been released and adequate time has been made available
for Congress and the public to study it.
Question. What is the status of this study and when will it be
complete?
Answer. FEMA has been working collaboratively with the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) to assess what can be accomplished with
authorized funding and the timelines for completing the study. The NAS
has estimated that scoping an approach to the study would take 9-12
months and could be done for the $750,000 outlined in the act.
Implementing the study could cost $400,000 to $1 million or more. Once
the scoping is complete, the NAS will have a better estimate of time
required to complete the study.
Question. How will DHS and FEMA address affordability issues and
insurance premium rates?
Answer. In addition to statutory requirements on affordability and
insurance payment studies, FEMA is actively encouraging individuals and
communities to consider ways to decrease their risk and thereby reduce
their flood premiums. For example, individuals can decrease their risk
and premiums by electing higher deductibles. Communities can address
their risk and reduce premiums by joining the Community Rating System
(CRS), a program that offers communities discounts in flood insurance
rates for areas that exceed the NFIP's minimum floodplain management
requirements. Communities receive discounts ranging from 5 percent to
45 percent depending on the extent to which they exceed the NFIP
minimum standards.
Question. As the planet continues to warm, extreme weather events
like Superstorm Sandy will become more frequent. In addition to storm
damage, New Jersey's coastline is also particularly vulnerable to sea
level rise.
How do the new FEMA Advisory Base Flood Elevation maps in New
Jersey account for the expected impacts of climate change?
Answer. The new Advisory Base Flood Elevation (ABFE) maps in New
Jersey (and New York) only account for current conditions flooding and
do not account for future flood conditions associated with the effects
of climate change--for example, sea level rise. However, FEMA has been
collaborating with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Global Change Research
Program, and other entities in the development of sea level rise tools
that can be used with FEMA Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps. FEMA
is coordinating with New Jersey officials on the timing for the release
of these tools in connection with the rollout of Preliminary Flood
Insurance Rate Maps.
Question. The 9/11 Commission characterized the Federal emphasis on
aviation security as ``fighting the last war'' and noted that
``opportunities to do harm are as great or greater in maritime and
surface transportation.'' Since 2001, terrorist attacks against mass
transit, buses, and passenger rail have resulted in 3,900 deaths and
14,000 injuries worldwide. Most recently, on April 22, 2013, a plot to
attack the Canadian Via transit agency was uncovered. Despite this
growing threat, the overwhelming majority of TSA's resources are
directed to aviation; the fiscal year 2014 budget request for surface
transportation security is only $109 million, or less than 2 percent of
the security budget. In addition, DHS has completed only 60 percent of
the security requirements from the 2007 9/11 Act and General
Accountability Office (GAO) has cited deficiencies in TSA's surface
transportation security plans.
How many of the 9/11 Act security requirements have not been
completed?
Answer. Please find the Department's progress report on the 9/11
Commission recommendations here: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/
implementing-9-11-commission-report-progress-2011.pdf
Question. What specific actions has TSA taken to address the
deficiencies in TSA's comprehensive risk management assessment for
surface transportation security plan that were identified by GAO?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has issued
recommended security practices in all surface transportation modes, and
measures adherence by industry to these security practices, by
conducting enhanced Corporate Security and Baseline Assessment for
Security Enhancement reviews. TSA enforces rail transportation security
regulatory requirements (49 CFR part 1580) by conducting compliance
inspections. The inspectors' roles and missions have been fully
defined, and training is provided to the inspectors on how to conduct
compliance inspections. In addition, agreements (MOUs and MOAs) have
been negotiated with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to ensure
that there is no duplication of these inspections.
The transit sector, due to its open access architecture, has a
fundamentally different operational environment than aviation.
Accordingly, DHS helps secure surface transportation infrastructure
through risk-based security assessments, critical infrastructure
hardening, and close partnerships with State and local law enforcement
partners. The fiscal year 2014 budget supports DHS's efforts to bolster
these efforts through:
--Funds 37 VIPR teams, which are comprised of personnel with
expertise in behavior detection, security screening, and law
enforcement for random, unpredictable deployments throughout
the transportation sector to prevent potential terrorist and
criminal acts.
--Funds surface transportation security inspectors and canine teams
who work collaboratively with public and private sector
partners to strengthen security, identify vulnerabilities, and
mitigate the risk to our Nation's transportation systems.
--Supports compliance inspections throughout the freight rail and
mass transit domains, critical facility security reviews for
pipeline facilities, comprehensive mass transit assessments
that focus on high-risk transit agencies, and corporate
security reviews conducted in multiple modes of transportation
to assess security.
Question. Given the recent bombings in Boston and plots to attack a
passenger rail system in Canada, is the fiscal year 2014 funding level
sufficient to address the continuing threats to our surface
transportation system? If not, what funding level is needed?
Answer. The reduction in fiscal year 2014 funding taken in the
surface appropriation reflects a streamlining of resources in the
visible intermodal prevention and response (VIPR) teams which will not
reduce the number of teams or operations.
The fiscal year 2014 request for the surface transportation
security appropriation will meet the planned mission, goals and
objectives, consistent with prior appropriations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. Madam Secretary, your Department has led the Federal
Government in finding cost savings through the consolidation of data
centers. During the fiscal year 2013 budget cycle, you testified the
Department might save nearly $3 billion by 2030 through these efforts.
I also noted your recent conclusion that ten of the first data
migration activities within your Department have resulted in annual
savings of more than $17 million already.
Can you elaborate on the other benefits that data center
consolidation provides to DHS, its component agencies, and your mission
effectiveness? Are you receiving enough assistance from the Congress
and is there a way for us to be more helpful on this initiative?
Answer. Data center consolidation provides many benefits to DHS and
its component agencies, some of which include enhanced cybersecurity,
disaster recovery, improved enterprise shared services, improved system
performance, and a more standardized technology architecture. Specific
benefits include:
--Cybersecurity:
--Reduces Internet connections;
--Increases network security;
--Establishes inherited common controls for certification and
accreditation process; and
--Consolidates, standardizes, and improves system security
monitoring capabilities consistent with Federal Information
Security Management Act goals.
--Continuity of operations/disaster recovery (DR):
--Improves response to emerging threats and requirements;
--Provides redundancy capabilities;
--Satisfies component disaster recovery requirements;
--Primary service provider coordinates DR services at the secondary
site; and
--Infrastructure available to support active/active environment.
--Enterprise shared services:
--Offers common, standardized platforms for server, network, and
storage;
--Ordering services efficiencies through bundled contract line item
numbers;
--Standardized processes for operations and maintenance;
--Standardize configuration and change control processes and
monitoring metrics;
--Enables private cloud services for sensitive data;
--New capabilities in ``as a service'' offerings are available for
all components; and
--Allows for maximum efficiencies, scalability, and redundancy for
all enterprise services.
--Cost reduction and improved system performance:
--Ensures competitiveness of cost of services;
--Reduces component carbon footprint and energy consumption costs;
and
--Reduces system maintenance, management, and administration costs,
according to recent DHS chief financial officer independent
study:
-- Migrations from commercial data centers resulted in annual
cost savings on the order of 43 percent.
--Standardized architecture, common technology:
--Simplifies deployment of new applications and capabilities across
the Department;
--Improves automation for server management and provisioning;
--Standardizes IT resource acquisitions across components;
--Streamlines maintenance and support contracts; and
--Expedites response times in the event of an emergency.
We appreciate congressional support for DHS's data center migration
activities since 2010 and look forward to working with Congress to
secure the migration funds requested in the President's fiscal year
2014 budget.
Question. Madam Secretary, I understand the cybersecurity threats
that our Nation faces and recognize the important role that cyber
research and development plays into protecting our Nation's civilian
computer systems. I noted that you've requested funds to support the
DHS Science and Technology Directorate for such initiatives including
experimental research test bed projects.
Could you elaborate on what this program entails and how similar
programs might serve to better protect our Nation's infrastructure?
Answer. The Experimental Research Testbed project (formerly the
Cyber Defense Technology Experiment Research Testbed Program, or DETER)
began in 2004 as a joint effort between the DHS Science and Technology
(S&T) Directorate and the National Science Foundation to address the
need to research and understand new cybersecurity risks and threats in
a safe environment. This project improves attack mitigation and
confinement strategies and the quality of new cybersecurity
technologies by providing a secure virtual Internet environment to run
large-scale, repeatable tests and experiments.
Currently, the testbed has more than 3,500 active users from 29
countries and is comprised of nearly 500 PC-based nodes in both
California and Virginia. DETER is also being used by other government
agencies as a platform to develop and evaluate defensive mechanisms
against attacks on infrastructure. For example, the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is currently using the testbed as a
consolidated evaluation platform for one of its programs, saving DARPA
time and expense of constructing individual testbeds while adding value
to the DETER program through hardware upgrades to the testbed.
In addition, the project provides hands-on security education to a
wide range of colleges and universities. As a learning facility, the
testbed fills a significant gap in security and networking instruction
and provides educators worldwide with facilities and materials for
security lab exercises that complement existing courses delivered in a
classroom setting. This shared resource provides institutions with an
efficient way to develop and share coursework, regardless of resources.
To date, more than 30 educational institutions in six countries have
benefited from educational use of DETER.
Going forward, the project is exploring new testing and
experimentation capabilities. Recently, the DETER Enabled Federated
Testbeds consortium came together as a collaborative effort to build a
shared, distributed capability for cyber-physical experimentation. The
partnership consists of DHS, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
the University of Illinois--Urbana Champaign, and the University of
Southern California--Information Sciences Institute. In November 2012,
the consortium successfully demonstrated an integrated model that
simulated power systems equipment and outages at different federated
locations. This work allows scientists access to realistic settings for
experimentation, gives industry the assurance that devices will behave
as expected, and enables the Government to ensure that the Nation's
critical infrastructure is secure and reliable while understanding how
to manage interconnected cyber-physical infrastructure during a crisis.
Question. How well are we able to model the potential effects of
large scale disruptions to our electric grid?
Answer. While tools are available to model aspects of large-scale
power distribution disruptions, the Department is developing additional
capabilities to analyze the cascading effects of large scale
disruptions in the electric grid to critical infrastructure, such as
water, finance, and transportation. In addition to research carried out
by DHS S&T, the National Protection and Programs Directorate's Homeland
Infrastructure Threat and Risk Analysis Center (HITRAC) oversees the
National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC), which
conducts modeling, simulation, and analysis of the Nation's critical
infrastructure. NISAC analysts assess infrastructure risks,
vulnerabilities, interdependencies, and event consequences.
For example, HITRAC/NISAC is developing an electric power
capability that will enhance DHS's capacity to analyze electric power
system outages and their cascading impacts on other infrastructure
sectors. The project will focus on refreshing the electric power
modeling capability by building off of previously developed algorithms
that focused on other hazards. This project will improve the accuracy
of predictive tools by enhancing our ability to provide rough estimates
for power restoration times.
Question. Do we need to invest more in this type of research?
Answer. DHS S&T is developing capabilities to analyze the cascading
effects of disruptions to critical infrastructure. This work requires
significant investment and research to develop a comprehensive
methodology that integrates various models, accounts for risk, and
tests an integrated system in multiple regions using a variety of
scenarios. Complementing S&T's activities, NPPD/IP/HITRAC manages the
NISAC modeling and simulation activities related to the electric grid.
These capabilities currently include sophisticated modeling of the
transmission elements of the electric grid, which are used to predict
the extent and severity of power outages due to disasters or incidents.
As most of this country's critical infrastructure is privately owned,
it is increasingly important that we foster close relationships with
the owners/operators of critical infrastructure.
Additional investment in these tools, which are essential to
modeling impacts of events on critical infrastructure, would extend
this capability to the distribution of networks while improving
fidelity and specificity of results. To further enhance infrastructure
security and resilience as well as response and recovery efforts from
natural disasters, cyber threats, or other incidents, the fiscal year
2014 President's budget requests an organizational realignment of
HITRAC from the Office of Infrastructure Protection to a newly proposed
Office of Cyber and Infrastructure Analysis (OCIA). OCIA's mission is
to assess all-hazards risk to the Nation's critical infrastructure by
evaluating the potential consequences of disruption to infrastructure,
including dependencies, interdependencies, and cascading impacts from
physical or cyber threats or incidents.
Question. Madam Secretary, you've stated on several occasions
throughout the year that the U.S. border has never been more secure and
you've cited reductions in illegal migrant apprehensions over the years
as a basis for that claim. However, some question whether or not those
numbers tell the whole story regarding how successful we are at
stopping illegal border crossings.
Can you elaborate on the specific measurements the Department has
used to determine that the border is more secure?
Answer. Over the past 4 years, this administration has undertaken
an unprecedented effort to secure our border and transform our Nation's
immigration enforcement system into one that focuses on public safety,
national security, and on the integrity of the immigration system. The
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has deployed historic levels of
personnel, technology, and infrastructure to our borders to reduce the
illicit flow of people, drugs, cash, and weapons and to expedite legal
trade and travel through trusted traveler and trader initiatives.
DHS uses a number of indicators and outcomes to evaluate security
efforts at our borders, including such factors as resource deployment,
crime rates in border communities, and apprehensions. While enforcement
statistics and economic indicators point to increased security and an
improved quality of life, no single metric can define the state of
border security. Rather than focus on any individual metric, DHS has
focused on enhancing its capabilities, ensuring that it has the tools
required that will lead to a high probability of interdiction in high
activity areas along our Nation's borders.
The security of our borders is a responsibility shared by our
Federal, State, local, tribal, and international partners. DHS efforts,
combined with those of our partners, have continued to keep our
citizens safe, defend our country from attack, and promote economic
prosperity. Border security efforts must focus on building an approach
to position DHS's greatest capabilities to combat the highest risks
that exist today while preparing for those that are new and emerging.
DHS must continue to tailor its efforts to meet the challenges of
securing a 21st century border. Passing a comprehensive immigration
reform bill that will allow DHS and its partners to focus available
resources on the most serious threats is critical in being able to
effectively manage the security of our borders. Comprehensive
immigration reform will only further enhance our Nation's ability to
focus its limited border enforcement resources on the most serious
criminal actors threatening our borders.
national protection and programs directorate
Question. Madam Secretary, during the fiscal year 2013 budget
cycle, this Committee recommended a $2 million increase to the National
Electronic Countermeasures (ECM) program within the National Protection
and Programs Directorate.
What steps has the Department of Homeland Security taken to counter
the threat of Radio Controlled Improvised Explosive Device (RCIED)
threats to U.S. cities?
Answer. In accordance with U.S. policy, the Department of Justice
(DOJ), specifically the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), is the
lead agency responsible for funding and managing the fielding of ECM
equipment to State and local partners. The National Protection and
Programs Directorate (NPPD) does not execute its own ECM equipment
fielding program; however, DHS does provide support to the ECM effort.
In support of the FBI and in conjunction with interagency
counterparts, DHS has made significant contributions to fielding ECM
equipment for State and local partners, including funding and program
support, in order to counter the threat of Radio-Controlled Improvised
Explosive Devices (RCIEDs). NPPD's Office for Bombing Prevention (OBP)
and DHS/S&T provided policy, program, and funding support during the
initial ECM pilot program for 11 Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)
cities beginning in 2006, including Boston. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency subsequently provided grant funding that enabled nine
additional cities to acquire a more advanced type of ECM equipment. In
addition, OBP, together with the FBI and the Department of Defense
(DOD), developed the National ECM Program plan in 2012 to establish a
technically sound, cost-effective roadmap for long-term ECM support to
State and local partners. S&T continues to fund ECM equipment and
operational testing to that end. OBP continues to work with Federal
partners through the Joint Program Office for Countering IEDs to
address ECM policy and program management challenges in alignment with
Presidential Policy Directive 17 and the National ECM Program plan.
Question. Has DHS made progress towards working with the Department
of Defense to field additional ECM equipment throughout U.S. cities
deemed to be most vulnerable to the RCIED threat?
Answer. Yes, the National ECM Program plan was developed with DOD
in accordance with U.S. policy and mindful of the need to cost-
effectively leverage DOD's surplus ECM inventory and acquisition
channels. The ECM systems included in the National ECM Program plan are
currently or were previously used by DOD and other Federal agencies.
Because DOD is the largest purchaser of ECM technology in the U.S.
Government, the National ECM Program plan proposes building off of
DOD's existing investments, inventory, and knowledge moving forward.
Question. With respect to the processing of employment-based (EB-5)
foreign investor visa applications, it's my understanding that USCIS
has taken steps towards reorganizing personnel and resources nationwide
to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of EB-5 applications.
Please provide a timeline on when significant milestones are
expected to be achieved and whether you anticipate any significant
interruption or delay to the EB-5 process in the interim. What metrics
or measures of effectiveness will be implemented to ensure that USCIS
is meeting its goals of process improvement?
Answer. USCIS is transitioning operations to a new headquarters
program office in Washington, DC, on an expedited basis. The existing
resources at the California Service Center will continue to adjudicate
EB-5 workloads through the transition and USCIS does not anticipate any
significant interruption or delays as a result of the transition. USCIS
has met, or is on track to meet, the following milestones as it
transitions operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone description Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announce creation of Office of December 2012
Immigrant Investor Programs........
Develop Concept of Operations... March 2013
Develop Staffing Plan........... March 2013
Identify Physical Space in DC... March 2013
Finalize Facility requirements/ March 2013
equipment......................
Physical Space Occupancy-ready.. May 2013
Staffing:
Post Vacancy Announcements...... March 2013--April 2013
Post Detail Opportunities....... April 2013
On-board Staff.................. May 2013--October 2013
Commence Training of New Staff.. May 2013
Complete Hiring................. August 2013
Complete Training............... November 2013
Operations:
Commence Initial Operations of June 2013
HQ office......................
1-526 Petitions filed via ELIS.. July 2013
Transition of existing EB-5 October 2013-December 2013
Workloads from California to HQ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCIS will employ various quality assurance mechanisms to ensure
the effectiveness of the new USCIS EB-5 program office. These include,
but are not limited to, supervisorial review of adjudicative actions,
fraud detection and national security case review protocols, processing
time reviews to ensure elimination of undue processing delays,
coordination with the USCIS ombudsman to track customer feedback, and
public engagement.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
Question. As the Arctic continues to open, sufficient Coast Guard
presence in the region is vital to ensuring the safety and security of
the region. In fact, we recently saw how important the Coast Guard is
when the mobile offshore drilling unit Kulluk ran aground off
Sidkalidak Island at the beginning of this year. As such, I'm happy to
see that you requested funding for the seventh national security cutter
(NSC) as part of the Coast Guard's fleet recapitalization program. I
understand the Coast Guard plans to continue to deploy these highly
capable ships up to Alaska as they did this past summer when you and I
visited the cutter Bertholf, but I have a few concerns with this plan.
I'm concerned about the proposed $909 million acquisitions budget, a
dramatic reduction of $600 million below the fiscal year 2013
appropriation.
Is this the funding level you plan for the Coast Guard in the
future?
Answer. The fiscal year 2014-2018 Capital Investment Plan (CIP)
reflects the Service's recapitalization priorities for a given funding
profile. Outyear growth rates from the fiscal year 2014 acquisition,
construction and improvements request level are consistent with the
caps imposed on discretionary budget authority through 2021 under the
Budget Control Act of 2011. The growth rates assume there are no
automatic spending reductions in fiscal year 2014. Resource levels in
the CIP do not preclude changes through the President's and Congress'
deliberations in the annual budget process. The Department will
continue to prioritize investments in acquisitions and personnel to
meet the Nation's homeland security needs.
Question. Currently there is one high endurance cutter, the Munro,
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. Under these fiscal constraints, can
the Coast Guard afford to waste precious underway days, 20-30 days per
patrol, transiting to and from the operating area?
Answer. Collectively, the final mix of NSCs and OPCs will meet all
major cutter mission requirements. CGC Alex Haley (WMEC), homeported in
Alaska, will continue to support coverage requirements in District 17.
Question. Since it seems a decision has been made to homeport these
vessels in California and Hawaii, has a GAO study or BCA been conducted
to compare the prudent cost of facility renovations to homeport and
support the NSC in Alaska versus the annual cost of wasted transit time
for deployments and casualty repair?
Answer. The Coast Guard conducts homeport analysis when considering
all ports to account for factors including infrastructure costs, access
to logistics support, quality of life/education for families, and
distance to areas of operations. Current analysis indicates that
homeporting NSCs in California and Hawaii would enable the Coast Guard
to most cost effectively support its full range of operational
requirements.
Question. Last year's $8 million for the study and design phase was
a good start, but as we move forward towards the requests for proposals
(RFP), is the $2 million requested enough for continued progression?
Answer. Funding provided in fiscal year 2013 coupled with the $2
million requested in fiscal year 2014 will fully fund the required pre-
acquisition activities. Once the pre-acquisition work is complete, the
Department anticipates delivering an operational ship within a decade.
Question. Given the fiscal constraints and drastic cuts to the
recapitalization plans, will we have the $850 million required to build
the new polar icebreaker that the Nation so desperately needs?
Answer. The polar icebreaker replacement is still in the pre-
acquisition phase, and as such a detailed acquisition strategy has not
yet been developed. The completion of pre-acquisition activities funded
in the fiscal year 2014 budget will inform future funding needs for the
polar icebreaker.
Question. Is one new polar icebreaker enough?
Answer. The suite of active and planned surface assets will meet
mission priorities in the Arctic.
Question. What are the Department's long-term plans to address our
critical Arctic need?
Answer. The suite of active and planned air, surface and other
assets will meet mission priorities in the Arctic. Lessons learned and
the experience gained during Arctic Shield will be applied to refine
and improve Coast Guard Arctic operations and presence for the near
future and inform the development of the Coast Guard's plan to provide
strategic long-term presence in the region.
Question. The Coast Guard authorization bill passed by Congress
last year included a provision to create a one-stop process for
mariners applying for TWIC cards. I discussed this streamlining
provision with Administrator Pistole and Vice Admiral Neffinger in
December and was told that they would work to implement this
requirement in Alaska as well as expand the number of TWIC centers in
Alaska, since my home State, which is one-fifth the size of the entire
United States, has only seven TWIC enrollment centers. After 4 months
of follow-up, we learned that a new part-time TWIC enrollment center is
opening in Kodiak in May, and I applaud you for this. The Kodiak center
is in addition to centers in Anchorage, Juneau, Ketchikan, Soldotna,
Sitka, Unalaska, and Valdez, but you've seen first-hand the vastness of
my State, and I understand in August some of your staff experienced the
travel issues we face due to weather and limited flights. So in this
case, eight is not enough. What are the plans and timeline for
converting to a one-stop TWIC visit and further addressing the severe
shortage of TWIC enrollment centers in Alaska?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will
implement the OneVisit concept in three phases as follows:
--Phase 1.--Launch Alaska OneVisit manual solution for 6-9 months
beginning in quarter 3 fiscal year 2013 (June/July).
--Phase 2.--Implement OneVisit at a second location and semi-
automated mailing solution in quarter 1-quarter 2 fiscal year
2014.
--Phase 3.--Launch a nationwide, fully automated solution via
Technology Infrastructure Modernization Program, beginning in
quarter 3 fiscal year 2014.
To address the Transportation Worker Identification Credential
(TWIC) enrollment centers in Alaska, TSA will implement the following:
--Add an enrollment center in Kodiak (completed May 15);
--Continue to operate enrollment centers in Juneau, Valdez,
Anchorage, Unalaska, and Nikiski;
--Convert independently operated centers in Ketchikan, Sitka, and
Skagway to full enrollment centers (completed May 15); and
--Review Hazardous Material Endorsement enrollment locations for
suitability to add more TWIC enrollment locations (Fairbanks,
Craig, Soldotna, Wrangell, and Dillingham) (mid-July).
Question. Two weeks ago the Coast Guard celebrated the Rescue 21
(R21) System's 50,000th successful search-and-rescue (SAR) case. With
Rescue 21, Coast Guard units performing SAR missions have been more
efficient and effective. On these critical missions, this system
determines a victim's location by lines of bearing and then
automatically plots those allowing controllers to pretty much take the
search out of search and rescue. Alaska has more than 33,000 miles of
coastline, over 700 search-and-rescue cases a year, over 300 lives
saved or assisted yearly by the Coast Guard, a $6 billion annual
fishing industry, and 44 cruise ships transiting annually with more
than 1 million passengers. Rescue 21 means less fuel consumption, less
crew fatigue, and less wear and tear on assets. In addition, more lives
are saved. Time to get on station is critical everywhere but no more so
than Alaska. Rumor has it that Alaska is getting a watered down system
using the funds left over in the R21 AC&I account. Is this true?
Answer. Rescue 21 is capitalizing on the 17th Coast Guard
District's operational expertise and experience to deploy a system
design tailored to the unique geographic operational and environment
requirements of the region. The Rescue 21 Alaska deployment will
include a targeted recapitalization of existing capabilities and new
remote tower sites to provide coverage in three areas prioritized by
the district command.
Question. Rescue 21 is operational along the entire Atlantic,
Pacific and gulf coasts of the continental United States as well as
along the shores of the Great Lakes, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Marianas Islands, averaging
approximately 1,000 cases per month. What is your plan for implementing
this vital lifesaving tool in Alaska?
Answer. The Coast Guard's plan for Alaska is to recapitalize the
existing National Distress and Response System in Alaska. Specifically,
the Coast Guard is already proceeding to:
--Upgrade core communications infrastructure at 31 existing sites;
--Replace Remote Radio Control Console System;
--Add digital selective calling to all legacy National Distress
Sites; and
--Fill three high priority coverage gap areas (Middle Cape,
Fairweather Banks, Peril Straits) in addition to the 31
existing sites.
Additionally, though the continental U.S. (CONUS) Rescue 21 system
is deployed to Coast Guard CONUS sector command centers (SCCs), in
Alaska the recapitalization will not be limited to only the two SCCs in
Juneau and Alaska. The 17th Coast Guard District command center as well
as a number of other Coast Guard command centers in Alaska will also be
recapitalized.
Question. It is being said that the most notable difference between
the plan for Alaska and the Rescue 21 system being deployed across the
rest of the United States is in direction finding (DF) capability and
that no DF service will be implemented in Alaska. If as we previously
stated, location services is what is saving lives how is this plan not
short-changing the residents of Alaska and most importantly the brave
men and women of the Coast Guard who serve them?
Answer. The Coast Guard's CONUS Rescue 21 direction finding (DF)
capability only works from the shoreline out to 20 miles offshore. In
Alaska, search-and-rescue cases occur well beyond 20 miles offshore
requirement that is necessary for the continental U.S. Rescue 21
coastline coverage. Consequently, establishing a new DF capability for
Alaska is not an optimal approach.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Landrieu. And thank you, Madam Secretary, for your
leadership.
Secretary Napolitano. My pleasure. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Landrieu. Meeting is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., Tuesday, April 23, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 3:12 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Landrieu, Cochran, and Moran.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Coast Guard
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP, JR., COMMANDANT
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU
Senator Landrieu. Good afternoon. I'd like to call the
subcommittee to order. Let me apologize for the delay, but I
had to be on the floor for an amendment on flood insurance,
which is another important issue, as important as the Coast
Guard for the State of Louisiana and other States. So I
apologize, but I am happy to get underway.
Admiral Papp, welcome to our oversight subcommittee hearing
today.
This meeting has been called to review the budget proposed
for the Coast Guard. Admiral, I want to thank you for your
extraordinary service to our country, for the way that you lead
the men and women of the Coast Guard, for your energetic and
visionary approach to the work that you are doing. We hold the
men and women of the Coast Guard in the highest regard on this
subcommittee and the people that I represent in Louisiana think
very well of the Coast Guard under a variety of different
leaders, yourself included.
We consistently hear stories of the Coast Guard providing a
great service to the public, such as the recent high-profile
rescue of 14 sailors aboard the HMS Bounty, a historic sailing
vessel, when it got caught in Hurricane Sandy. Senator Cochran
and I, who is here today, understand many rescue missions are
conducted off the coast of Mississippi and Louisiana routinely,
and this was a very high-profile case. Ninety miles off the
coast of North Carolina, Coast Guard helicopter pilots and
rescue swimmers fought 30-foot seas, 60-knot winds, and
torrential rain to rescue the HMS Bounty crew. They rescued 13.
Unfortunately, the captain of the ship was not recovered. But
it is stories like these that truly make us all proud of our
Coast Guard.
Our job here today and through the appropriations process
is to ensure that the next generation of Coast Guard men and
women has the tools they need to accomplish their many missions
and that taxpayer dollars are allocated wisely. I know that you
share that goal.
That's why I am very disappointed in the President's 2014
budget request for the Coast Guard. I understand that difficult
tradeoffs need to be made in this budget climate, but I believe
the top line given to the Coast Guard in the administration's
budget request is wholly inadequate.
In 2012, the Coast Guard responded to 19,700 search-and-
rescue cases, saved 3,500 lives, interdicted 30,000
undocumented migrants, detained 352 suspected smugglers,
inspected 25,000 ship containers, and the best statistic I
think is, seized 107 metric tons of cocaine, more cocaine than
all other Federal agencies combined. That expresses to me the
width and breadth of the Coast Guard mission, which you all
carry out from Rhode Island to Alaska, and in other places in
the world as well. I am concerned that the Coast Guard's
ability to maintain performance measures like these is
threatened if this budget that has been presented to us stays
as it is.
The President's fiscal year 2014 discretionary budget
request is $7.993 billion, almost 8.5 percent below last year's
level, which was, I thought, very modest. The budget request
includes a reduction of 850 military billets; moves 1,000
reservists to inactive status; reduces capital expenditures by
38 percent, a level not seen since 2003; and in my view puts
the Coast Guard further behind in acquiring the assets it needs
to fulfill its important missions, just a few of which I
outlined earlier in this statement.
This capital investment request the President submitted for
the Coast Guard is, no pun intended, a sea change from the $2.5
billion that you testified, Admiral Papp, as the amount
required to properly replace the Coast Guard's aging stock of
ships, aircraft, and other infrastructure. When you testified
before the House in 2011 you said, ``It would really take close
to about $2.5 billion a year if we were to do all things that
we would like to do to sustain our capital plant.'' In
comparison, this budget requests only $951 million.
I don't see how we can possibly replace the unreliable
fleet that we have. Some of these ships, we know them well, are
47, 50 years old. We built some of them in Louisiana. They are
not all, of course, built in our State or on the gulf coast,
but we know these ships well. How long can a ship last doing
the kind of work that we require of them and their crew?
While the budget does include $660 million for the seventh
national security cutter (NSC), and I am very happy about that
because it is a priority for our subcommittee, almost every
other capital priority is either reduced substantially or
completely eliminated. The request essentially overwrites the
congressional direction that we gave in 2012 and 2013 requiring
you to procure six fast response cutters per year, eliminating
$30 million in cost savings that we had anticipated.
No funding is provided for new aviation assets or military
housing despite known backlogs and despite the understanding
that the Coast Guard and their families are sometimes placed in
very remote areas by the nature of the mission they are asked
to do. It's not like you can run down the road and get
affordable community-built housing. Sometimes Coast Guard men
and women are the only people within miles.
To make matters worse, the 5-year Capital Investment Plan
the subcommittee recently received calls for a radical change
to Coast Guard recapitalization efforts in future years. If
enacted, the plan will likely delay completion of the offshore
patrol cutter, decrease the number of fast response cutters to
a level that jeopardizes the program, stop the acquisition of
all new aircraft, and scale back investments in deteriorating
shore facilities.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So today I want to explore the impacts this investment plan
will have on the Coast Guard's mission. I'm going to shorten my
statement because of the lateness of getting started, but I
have to say that we added funding last year to maintain aging
assets, enhance oil spill response capabilities, and restore
essential mission hours for drug and migrant interdiction.
These are just not the chairman's priorities, Mary Landrieu's
priorities, or the Senator from Louisiana priorities. These are
priorities for our Nation. That's what the Senators of both
parties tell me they want. I just don't see how we can
accomplish what I know is necessary to keep our country safe
and to complete these missions with some degree of
professionalism with the budget that we have before us.
With that, I'm going to turn it over to Senator Cochran for
his opening statement. Then Senator Moran. Thank you for
joining us.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Good afternoon. I call the subcommittee to order.
Today I welcome the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert
J. Papp, to discuss the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2014 budget request.
I want to thank Admiral Papp for his service to this country and for
leading the men and women of the Coast Guard.
Admiral Papp, we hold the men and women of the Coast Guard in the
highest regard on this subcommittee. We consistently hear stories of
the Coast Guard providing great service to the public, such as the
rescue of 14 sailors aboard the HMS Bounty, a historic sailing vessel,
when it got caught by Hurricane Sandy. Ninety miles off the shores of
North Carolina, Coast Guard helicopter pilots and rescue swimmers
fought 30-foot seas, 60-knot winds, and torrential rain to rescue the
crew. Unfortunately, the captain of the ship was not recovered. It is
stories like these that make us proud of our Coast Guard.
Our job here today and through the appropriations process is to
ensure that the next generation of Coast Guard men and women has the
tools they need to accomplish their many missions and that taxpayer
dollars are allocated wisely. I know that this is a goal you share.
That is why I am so disappointed with the President's fiscal year
2014 budget request for the Coast Guard. I understand that difficult
trade-offs need to be made in this budget climate, but I believe the
topline given to the Coast Guard in the President's budget request is
wholly inadequate.
In fiscal year 2012, the Coast Guard responded to 19,790 search-
and-rescue cases, saved 3,500 lives, interdicted 3,000 undocumented
migrants, detained 352 suspected smugglers, inspected 25,000 ship
containers, and seized 107 metric tons of cocaine. The Coast Guard
seizes more cocaine annually than all other Federal agencies combined.
I am concerned with the Coast Guard's ability to maintain performance
measures like these if the President's budget is enacted.
The President's fiscal year 2014 discretionary budget request for
the Coast Guard is $7.993 billion, 8.36 percent below last year's
enacted level. The budget request includes a reduction of 850 military
billets, moves 1,050 reservists to inactive status, and reduces capital
expenditures by 38 percent to a level not seen since 2003, putting the
Coast Guard further behind in acquiring the assets it needs to fulfill
its missions. This capital investment request the President submitted
for the Coast Guard is a sea change from the $2.5 billion you spoke
about as the yearly amount required to properly replace the Coast
Guard's aging stock of ships, aircraft, and other infrastructure. When
you testified before the House in 2011, you said: ``It would really
take close to about $2.5 billion a year if we were to do all the things
that we would like to do to sustain our capital plant.'' In comparison,
this budget requests far less than that amount: $951 million to be
precise. I don't see how you can possibly replace your old and
unreliable fleet within this budget.
While the budget does include $616 million for the seventh national
security cutter, almost every other capital priority is either reduced
substantially or eliminated. The request essentially overwrites
congressional direction in 2012 and 2013 requiring you to procure six
fast response cutters per year, eliminating $30 million in cost savings
that we anticipated. No funding is provided for new aviation assets or
military housing despite known backlogs.
To make matters worse, the 5-year Capital Investment Plan the
subcommittee recently received calls for a radical change to Coast
Guard recapitalization efforts in future years. If enacted, the plan
will: likely delay completion of the offshore patrol cutter; decrease
the number of fast response cutters to a level that jeopardizes the
program; stop the acquisition of new aircraft; and scale back
investment in deteriorating shore facilities. Today, I want to explore
the impacts this investment plan will have on Coast Guard missions,
such as interdicting drugs in the transit zone, managing a mass
migration, oil spill response, fisheries enforcement, and the need to
increase our presence in the Arctic.
In the fiscal year 2013 DHS Appropriations Act, Senator Coats and I
worked with the other members of the subcommittee to strengthen the
Coast Guard's capital investment program. We funded:
--six, instead of two, fast response cutters;
--long lead time materials for the seventh national security cutter
as well as construction costs for the sixth national security
cutter;
--plans and designs for new offshore patrol cutters;
--one new C130J aircraft;
--the 18th maritime patrol aircraft, including a mission pallet and
spares not requested in the budget but needed to operate
effectively; and
--critically needed military family housing in Kodiak, Alaska.
Operationally, we added funding to maintain aging assets, enhanced
oil spill response capabilities, and restored essential mission hours
for drug and migrant interdiction.
The Coast Guard shouldn't always depend on Congress to plug these
holes.
I look forward to examining your budget in more detail today so we
can make sound decisions about the resources and assets the Coast Guard
men and women need today and in the future.
I now recognize Senator Coats for any opening remarks he may wish
to make.
Following Admiral Papp's statement, each member will be recognized
by order of arrival for up to 5 minutes for any statement and
questions.
I now recognize Admiral Papp for his statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to join you
and the other subcommittee members in welcoming the Commandant
of the U.S. Coast Guard to review the service's annual budget
request. It's my hope that we will be able to recommend the
level of funding required to support the U.S. Coast Guard's
important missions.
From the search-and-rescue case of the tall ship HMS Bounty
to leading efforts in reopening the ports of New York and New
Jersey after Hurricane Sandy, and in my State of Mississippi,
from recent hurricanes which threatened their own facilities in
New Orleans in the case of the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard has
continued to provide important public service in so many
different ways.
We look forward to working with you to understand the
appropriate funding levels that are needed to support the
important work of the men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard who
work hard to protect our coasts and our citizens. Thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Madam Chairman, I have no opening statement
other than to say, Admiral, welcome, and to express, as a land-
locked Kansan, the value of the Coast Guard to our entire
country and my great appreciation for the men and women who
serve in the Coast Guard. Thank you very much, Admiral.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Admiral, please proceed.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP, JR.
Admiral Papp. Madam Chairman, Senator Cochran, Senator
Moran, thank you for having me here today.
I would like to deviate just for a moment from my prepared
remarks to address a deplorable issue that I am infuriated by
that is confronting the Armed Forces today, and I want to take
this opportunity to make a public statement in terms of my
feelings in this regard.
A little over 1\1/2\ years ago, I communicated with the
entire Coast Guard, every member of the Coast Guard. I do that
through something called Shipmates Messages. In Shipmates No.
19, the title was ``Respecting Our Shipmates: Duty Demands
Courage.'' I would just like to read a couple of phrases from
that message.
When I assumed my duties as Commandant, I told you that
respecting our shipmates is one of my four guiding principles.
Sexual assault, hazing, harassment, and discrimination
undermine morale, degrade readiness and damage mission
performance. These and other similar acts of misconduct break
our obligation to one another. Each incident of sexual assault,
hazing, harassment, or discrimination is a deliberate act that
violates law, policy, and service standards.
We will not tolerate this behavior in the Coast Guard. We
will intervene to prevent or halt these acts when they are
occurring. We will investigate and discipline those who have
violated law and service policy. And let me be clear, there are
no bystanders in the Coast Guard. Our duty to respect our
shipmates demands each of us to have the courage to take
immediate action to prevent or stop these incidents. Your duty
as a coastguardsman is to intervene, prevent or halt it and
report it. Failure to help a shipmate in those circumstances
demonstrates a lack of courage that is contrary to our core
values. I expect every coastguardsman will display the same
courage in those circumstances as they would in rescuing
someone in peril at sea.
Americans must have confidence that the Coast Guard men and
women understand their duty and are committed to our service.
Commanding officers and officers in charge shall read this
message at the next quarters or appropriate muster to ensure my
expectations and intent are clear.
I have repeated that message both in my State of the Coast
Guard speech this year and when I've been traveling around the
country talking to my senior leaders. In fact, when I leave
here today, I'll be going down to Norfolk to speak to all my
senior flag officers from the Atlantic area and probably close
to about 2,000 coastguardsmen down there. We are taking this
seriously, and certainly when we get into the questions and
answers, if there are any questions regarding our sexual
assault program, I would be happy to answer them.
But I know we are here today to talk about the fiscal year
2014 budget, and I will begin by thanking you for your support
in the 2013 budget and the supplemental for Hurricane Sandy.
Unfortunately, much like the weather and seas that were
produced by Sandy, and we face those weather and seas generally
on a daily basis, the Coast Guard cannot control the fiscal
environment in which we operate.
The fiscal year 2014 budget sustains the most critical
frontline operations while funding our most critical
acquisition projects. In the current fiscal environment, this
required tough decisions, informed by my highest priorities.
These were difficult decisions for me and for our service, but
they were the best decisions to ensure that we provide the next
generation of coastguardsmen the tools required to protect our
Nation.
We are making great strides in recapitalizing the aging
fleet. In October, we will christen the fourth national
security cutter. On Friday, we celebrate the keeling of No. 5,
and the production contract for No. 6 was awarded just 2 weeks
ago. Taking into account inflation and other factors within the
contract for earlier NSCs, the cost for No. 6 was nearly the
same as No. 4 and No. 5. This illustrates the maturity of this
project, the stable and efficient production line, and the
professionalism and achievements of our Coast Guard acquisition
corp.
These cutters are doing amazing work. On our most recent
patrol, Waesche interdicted contraband worth an estimated $7.5
million, and just last week Bertholf disrupted the shipment of
cocaine valued at more than $5 million.
These cutters are also key to meeting the growing demands
in the Bering Sea in the Arctic. With the extreme conditions
and lack of shore site infrastructure, the operational
effectiveness and command-and-control capabilities of the
national security cutter are critical to our success. As the
receding Arctic ice gives way to increased human and economic
activity, the Coast Guard must be present to ensure safety,
security, and stewardship there, and we are preparing for
future operations in this emerging maritime frontier.
We've also taken delivery of the first five fast response
cutters, the FRCs, and these too have proven to be amazing
platforms. Several more will soon join the fleet, and No. 9 was
launched last week.
We have also taken delivery of 14 HC-144 aircraft, have
contracted for our ninth HC-130J, and have completed life
extending of our patrol boats and our medium endurance cutters.
Despite these successes, we still must work to recapitalize
the Coast Guard ships, boats, and aircraft that the Nation
needs. I'm happy to report that I received strong support from
the Secretary and the President on my highest acquisition
priorities, including the funding for the seventh national
security cutter in the 2014 budget.
So as I look back on the successes of our past year, I have
never been more convinced about the value our Coast Guard
provides to the Nation. While mindful of the current fiscal
environment, I remain optimistic about the future of the Coast
Guard. It is my duty to look beyond the annual budget cycle and
to prepare and adapt the service and keep it moving forward to
address the greatest maritime safety and security risks to the
Nation, not only now but in the future.
In December, we were reminded of the dangers of our duties
as I presided at a memorial service for Senior Chief Boatswains
Mate Terrell Horne of the Coast Guard cutter Halibut. He was
killed by smugglers when they rammed his Coast Guard pursuit
boat near San Diego. I was reminded of it once again as Mrs.
Horne, Rachel, and her three young sons, Kade, Miller and
Wells, came into my office this morning in preparation for the
ceremony to honor their husband and their father at the wall
for the law enforcement officers.
The men and women of the Coast Guard will give their all
and make sacrifices every day, putting their country first, and
I have never been prouder of them, and they have never been
better. Working together, we owe them our very best efforts to
provide the support they need.
PREPARED STATEMENT
This subcommittee has long supported the men and women of
the Coast Guard. I appreciate that, and I thank you for
recognizing their sacrifices. On behalf of all my Coast Guard
shipmates, I say thank you.
I look forward to answering your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Admiral Robert J. Papp, Jr.
Good afternoon Madam Chair Landrieu and distinguished members of
the committee. Thank you for the continuing support you have shown to
the men and women of the United States Coast Guard, including the
funding provided in the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2013 to recapitalize the aging fleet and sustain
frontline operations.
This year marks our 223rd year of protecting those on the sea,
protecting the Nation from threats delivered by the sea, and protecting
the sea itself. The Coast Guard is the Nation's maritime first
responder. We are vested with unique authorities, equipped with capable
cutters, boats, aircraft and infrastructure, and are composed of the
best people the Nation has to offer. We are Semper Paratus--``Always
Ready'' to meet the Nation's evolving maritime safety, security and
stewardship needs. We are locally based, nationally deployed and
globally connected.
I am here today to discuss the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2014
budget request. Before discussing the details of the request, I would
like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the Coast Guard's
recent operational successes, and our value and role in the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) and in service to the Nation.
Over the past year, Coast Guard men and women (Active Duty,
Reserve, civilian, and auxiliarists), with strong support from our
families, continued to deliver premier service to the public. When
Hurricane Sandy threatened the eastern seaboard, the Coast Guard acted
with the speed, agility and courage that America expects during natural
disasters. In advance of the storm's landfall, we worked with the
interagency, industry and State and local partners to ensure our ports
and maritime transportation system were prepared. As the storm raged,
our aircrews and cutters responded to the foundering HMS Bounty,
rescuing 14 crewmembers from the 30-foot seas and 60-knot winds. In the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Coast Guard personnel
restored the aids to navigation system within days; worked with U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, the Army Corps of Engineers, local
government and industry to reopen the port to commerce; helped de-water
flooded tunnels leading to Manhattan, and contained 378,000 gallons of
diesel fuel that had spilled into the Arthur Kill waterway when the
storm surge caused the failure of shoreside fuel storage tanks.
To prepare to meet the emerging challenges in the Arctic, we
successfully completed Operation Arctic Shield, a 9-month interagency
effort to assess our capabilities, including the deployment of a
national security cutter and two of our ocean going, light ice capable
buoy tenders, as well as the temporary assignment of two H-60
helicopters 300 miles north of the Arctic Circle.
Last year, the Coast Guard responded to 19,790 search-and-rescue
cases and saved more than 3,500 lives; seized over 107 metric tons of
cocaine and 56 metric tons of marijuana destined for the United States;
seized 70 vessels, and detained 352 suspected smugglers; conducted more
than 11,600 annual inspections of U.S. flagged vessels; conducted 4,600
marine casualty investigations; conducted more than 9,000 Port State
Control and Security examinations on foreign-flagged vessels; and
responded to 3,300 pollution incidents.
This past year we made great strides in recapitalizing the Coast
Guard's aging fleet. In October we will christen the fourth national
security cutter, Coast Guard cutter Hamilton. In addition to providing
us off-shore presence in the Arctic during heightened summer activity,
these remarkable ships have excelled in interdicting drug and migrant
smuggling in the eastern Pacific and have enabled the Coast Guard to
provide command and control, helicopter, and boat capabilities from the
farthest reaches of the Pacific to the Bering Sea. I am also very
pleased with our new fast response cutters (FRCs). To date, we have
taken delivery of five of these new highly capable patrol boats. We
have also taken delivery of 14 new HC-144 medium range surveillance
aircraft, contracted for the ninth HC-130J and have nearly completed
the H-60 conversion project. At the Coast Guard Yard, we completed work
on the Patrol Boat Mission Effectiveness Project, extending the service
lives of our 110-foot patrol boats, and continued work on the
sustainment projects for our fleet of medium endurance cutters. We also
recently completed an overhaul of the cutter Polar Star, returning the
Nation's only heavy icebreaker to active service. None of these
critical recapitalization milestones would have been reached without
the strong support of the administration and the committees.
As a military service, we provide unique, specialized capabilities
as part of the joint force. But the Coast Guard is much more. We are
the maritime arm of the DHS. We seek to prevent dangerous or illicit
maritime activities, and if undesirable or unlawful events do occur,
whether deliberate or accidental, to rapidly respond in order to
protect the Nation, minimize the impact, and recover.
Every day the Coast Guard acts to prevent and respond to an array
of threats that, if left unchecked, could disrupt regional and global
security, the economies of partner nations, access to resources and
international trade. All of these are vital elements to our national
prosperity. And it is this prosperity that spurs investment and global
development, provides jobs, and provides the resources to pay for both
our national security and our national defense. It is Coast Guard men
and women, working every day in the maritime domain, who enhance our
security, reinforce the rule of law, support stability at home and
abroad, and increase our prosperity.
The Coast Guard protects:
--Those on the sea: leading responses to maritime disasters and
threats, ensuring a safe and secure Maritime Transportation
System, preventing incidents, and rescuing those in distress.
--The Nation from threats delivered by sea: enforcing laws and
treaties, securing our ocean resources, and ensuring the
integrity of our maritime domain from illegal activity.
--The sea itself: regulating hazardous cargo transportation, holding
responsible parties accountable for environmental damage and
cleanup, and protecting living marine and natural resources.
fiscal year 2014 budget request
The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2014 budget continues the critical
balance between investment in current operations and recapitalization.
The fiscal year 2014 budget strategically allocates resources to best
mitigate current and long-term operational risks, while investing in
new cutters, boats, aircraft, systems and infrastructure necessary to
ensure the viability of the Coast Guard in the future.
The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2014 strategic and budget priorities
are to:
--Build essential Coast Guard capability for the Nation;
--Strengthen resource and operational stewardship; and
--Sustain the most critical frontline operations.
Highlights from our request are included in appendix I.
Build Essential Coast Guard Capability for the Nation
Recapitalization is essential for the long term viability of the
Coast Guard. The condition and serviceability of the Coast Guard's in-
service surface fleet, the aging of fixed and rotary wing air assets,
and the projected timelines to replace these assets require continued
investment in surface and air recapitalization programs to maintain the
capability to operate. To strengthen DHS' layered security approach
offshore, the fiscal year 2014 budget provides for the acquisition of a
seventh national security cutter and two more fast response cutters,
and continues pre-acquisition activities for the offshore patrol cutter
and polar icebreaker. The budget also continues sustainment and
conversion work on fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft, procurement of
cutter boats, and investment in Command, Control, Communications,
Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR)
systems.
Strengthen Resource and Operational Stewardship
In fiscal year 2014, Coast Guard will decommission two high
endurance cutters (WHECs) that are being replaced by more capable
national security cutters. The Coast Guard will also consolidate
regional assets where overlapping capabilities exist by closing air
facilities in Newport, Oregon, and Charleston, South Carolina. The 2014
budget ensures that our resources are aligned to our Nation's highest
priorities in a manner that balances key investments for the future
with sustaining essential investment in today's missions and
capabilities that provide the highest return on investment.
Sustain the Most Critical Frontline Operations
The fiscal year 2014 budget sustains the most critical frontline
operations, including maintaining search-and-rescue coverage,
protecting critical infrastructure and key resources, supporting safe
navigation, safeguarding natural resources, protecting the environment,
detecting and interdicting drugs and individuals attempting to enter
the United States illegally, and supporting the Nation's foreign policy
objectives.
conclusion
The United States is a maritime nation. Foreign trade relies upon
the safety and security of our Nation's ports and waterways. Coast
Guard missions, authorities and capabilities are crucial to providing
for that safety and security and preserving our national interests. We
ensure the safe and secure flow of commerce, patrol our vast exclusive
economic zone, fight maritime drug smuggling and human trafficking,
provide the Nation's maritime first response force to both natural and
manmade disasters, and protect our shores against transnational
criminals, extremists, and others who seek to do us harm. We remain
focused on protecting the United States as the strong maritime arm of
the DHS. The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2014 budget request allocates
resources to the highest priority initiatives to counter the most
emergent threats, mitigate risks, and keep the maritime domain safe and
secure. I request your full support for the funding requested for the
Coast Guard in the President's fiscal year 2014 budget. Again, thank
you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am pleased to
answer your questions.
______
appendix i--fiscal year 2014 budget request
Build Essential Coast Guard Capability for the Nation
Surface Assets: $743.0 Million (0 full-time equivalent
(FTE))
The budget provides $743.0 million for surface assets, including
the following surface asset recapitalization and sustainment
initiatives:
--National Security Cutter (NSC).--Provides funding for the seventh
NSC; NSCs will replace the aging fleet of high endurance
cutters, first commissioned in 1967. The acquisition of NSC-7
is vital for performing DHS missions in the far off-shore
regions, including the harsh operating environment of the
Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, and Arctic as well as providing for
robust homeland security contingency response.
--Fast Response Cutter (FRC).--Provides production funding to procure
two FRCs. These assets replace the aging fleet of 110-foot
patrol boats, and provide the coastal capability to conduct
search-and-rescue operations, enforce border security,
interdict drugs, uphold immigration laws, prevent terrorism,
and enhance resiliency to disasters.
--Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC).--Supports continued initial
acquisition work and design of the OPC. The OPC will replace
the medium endurance cutter class to conduct missions on the
high seas and coastal approaches.
--Polar Ice Breaker (WAGB).--Continues funding for pre-acquisition
activities for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker. This cutter
will provide continued heavy icebreaking capability to the
Nation for missions in the Arctic and Antarctic following the
projected end of service life of the Polar Star on or about
2022.
--Cutter Boats.--Provides continued funding for production of multi-
mission cutter small boats that will be fielded on the Coast
Guard's major cutter fleet beginning with the NSC.
--In-Service Vessel Sustainment.--Continues to fund sustainment
projects on 140-foot ice breaking tugs (WTGB), 225-foot
seagoing buoy tenders, and the training barque Eagle (WIX).
--Survey and Design.--Builds upon previous years to continue multi-
year engineering and design work for multiple cutter classes in
support of future sustainment and acquisition projects.
Air Assets: $28.0 Million (0 FTE)
The budget provides $28.0 million for the following air asset
recapitalization or enhancement initiatives:
--HH-65.--Continues modernization and sustainment of the Coast
Guard's fleet of HH-65 helicopters, converting them to MH-65
Short Range Recovery (SRR) helicopters. The modernization
effort includes reliability and sustainability improvements,
where obsolete components are replaced with modernized
subsystems, including an integrated cockpit and sensor suite.
--C-130H/J.--Funds sustainment of avionics systems on existing C-130H
aircraft. The avionics 1 upgrade (A1U) installations on C-130H
aircraft enhances the capability of the C-130H fleet by
replacing aging/obsolete equipment, and updating avionics to
comply with Communications Navigation Surveillance/Air Traffic
Management (CNS/ATM) requirements.
Other (Asset Recapitalization): $59.9 Million (0 FTE)
The budget provides $59.9 million for asset recapitalization,
including the following equipment and services:
--Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR).--Provides design,
development, upgrades and assistance on C4ISR hardware and
software of new and in service assets.
--CG-Logistics Information Management System.--Continues development
and deployment to Coast Guard operational assets and support
facilities.
--Nationwide Automatic Identification System (NAIS).--Completes
deployment of the permanent transceive system to recapitalize
the existing interim NAIS capability in 58 ports and 11 coastal
areas.
Shore Units and Aids to Navigation (ATON): $5.0 Million (0
FTE)
The budget provides $5.0 million to recapitalize shore
infrastructure for safe, functional, and modern facilities that support
Coast Guard assets and personnel:
--Specific Project.--Completes Phase One of Base Miami Beach
waterfront facilities.
--ATON Infrastructure.--Maintains transportation safety on Federal
waterways through construction and improvements to short-range
aids and infrastructure to improve the safety of maritime
transportation.
Personnel and Management: $115.8 Million (818 FTE)
The budget provides $115.8 million to provide pay and benefits for
the Coast Guard's acquisition workforce.
Strengthen Resource and Operational Stewardship
Fiscal Year 2014 Major Decreases
Asset Decommissionings.--In fiscal year 2014 the Coast Guard will
make targeted operational reductions to prioritize frontline
operational capacity and invest in critical recapitalization
initiatives:
--High Endurance Cutter (WHEC) Decommissionings: -$14.2 Million (-184
FTE).--The fiscal year 2014 budget decommissions the fifth and
sixth high endurance cutters (WHECs). National security
cutters, including the seventh NSC which is fully funded in
this budget request, replace the aging HEC fleet.
--Cutter Shoreside Support Personnel Reduction: -$0.8 Million (-10
FTE).--Reduces WHEC Maintenance Augmentation Team (MAT) and
Surface Forces Logistics Center (SFLC) billets associated with
the decommissioning of two WHECs.
--HU-25 Aircraft Retirements: -$9.4 Million (-36 FTE).--Retires the
eight remaining HU-25 aircraft assigned to Coast Guard Air
Station Corpus Christi, Texas; Aviation Logistics Center,
Elizabeth City, North Carolina; and, Aviation Training Center,
Mobile, Alabama. This will allow for the transition to HC-144A
aircraft.
--HC-130 Aircraft Retirements: -$7.7 Million (-29 FTE).--This
initiative eliminates funding and personnel associated with two
HC-130H aircraft. The newly acquired HC-130J aircraft will
provide increased operational reliability.
--Close Air Facilities: -$5.1 Million (-28 FTE).--The Coast Guard
will close AIRFACs at Charleston, South Carolina, and Newport,
Oregon. The search-and-rescue response times within the AIRFAC
areas of responsibility will remain within national standards.
Programmatic Reductions.--The budget proposes targeted reductions
in several base program areas. These base adjustments recognize changes
in requirements need for selected activities and prioritizes
sustainable investment in recapitalization programs:
--CG Headquarters Staffing: -$6.7 Million (-53 FTE).--Reflects the
anticipated reduction in Coast Guard headquarters personnel as
a result of the existing hiring freeze and normal workforce
attrition.
--Targeted Intelligence Program: -$1.5 Million (-14 FTE).--Scales
intelligence activities across the Service by consolidating
analysts at centers, Areas, and Districts; consolidating IT
support positions at headquarters; and, eliminating the 24/7
call-in maritime watch at the El Paso Intelligence Center
(EPIC) that provides services that will remain available
through a different watch floor.
--Port State Control Examinations: -$1.7 Million (-20 FTE).--Reduces
port State control personnel by limiting examination activities
aboard some foreign flagged vessels assessed as lower risk.
--Coast Guard Training: -$43.2 Million (-153 FTE).--Leverages Web-
based distance learning and reduces schoolhouse throughput.
Specialty and technical training schools will group into
centers of expertise to leverage available resources.
Educational benefits will be focused on enlisted personnel who
are pursuing an initial undergraduate degree. Reduces
accessions and support staffs as well as operational and
maintenance funds at the Coast Guard Academy, Leadership
Development Center, and Officer Candidate School commensurate
with anticipated reduction in out-year accession projections
based on reduced workforce levels.
--Other Targeted Program Reductions: -$1.2 Million (-26 FTE).--The
Coast Guard will make targeted reductions to Auxiliary Program
Management, the International Port Security Program, and
District Drug and Alcohol Program Inspectors (DAPI). Routine
DAPI functions will shift to Coast Guard marine inspectors and
investigators.
Sustain the Most Critical Frontline Operations
Pay and Allowances: $43.9 Million (0 FTE)
The budget provides $43.9 million to fund the civilian pay raise
and maintain parity of with DOD for military pay, allowances, and
healthcare. As a branch of the Armed Forces of the United States, the
Coast Guard is subject to the provisions of the National Defense
Authorization Act, which include pay and personnel benefits for the
military workforce.
Operating and Maintenance Funds for New Assets: $64.7
Million (213 FTE)
The budget provides a total of $64.7 million to fund operations and
maintenance of shore facilities and cutters, boats, aircraft, and
associated C4ISR subsystems delivered through acquisition efforts.
Funding is requested for the following assets and systems:
--Shore Facilities.--Funding for the operation and maintenance of
shore facility projects scheduled for completion prior to
fiscal year 2014.
--Response Boat-Medium.--Funding for operation, maintenance and
support of 30 RB-Ms as well as personnel for maintenance
support requirements and instructors to support fleet training
requirements.
--Rescue 21 (R21).--Funding for the support of the R21 system as well
as maintenance of Coast Guard-leased and -owned towers, Western
Rivers communications sites, and encrypted communications for
over-the-air-re-key (OTAR).
--Fast Response Cutter (FRC).--Operating and maintenance funding for
FRCs Nos. 10-12 and funding for personnel to operate and
maintain hulls Nos. 11-12, homeported in Key West, Florida, as
well as the first two San Juan, Puerto Rico hulls.
--National Security Cutter (NSC).--Operating and maintenance funding
for NSC No. 4 to be homeported in Charleston, South Carolina.
The initiative also provides personnel to operate NSCs Nos. 4-
5.
--HC-144A MPA.--Operating and maintenance and personnel funding to
operate and support aircraft Nos. 16-17 that will be assigned
to Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas. Also funds maintenance of
the first 17 mission system pallets (MSPs)--the sensor package
for each operational HC-144A.
--Manned Covert Surveillance Aircraft (MCSA).--Operating, maintenance
and personnel funding to operate and support the first aircraft
which is planned to operate out of Miami, Florida, and provide
an additional 1,000 hours of maritime surveillance capacity.
--Air Station Corpus Christi Transition.--Provides funding for the
transition from operating HU-25 aircraft to operation of HC-
144A aircraft.
Financial Systems Modernization: $29.5 Million (0 FTE)
Provides funding to support the Financial Management Service
Improvement Initiative (FMSII) for Coast Guard and Transportation
Security Administration (TSA). This initiative will plan, prepare,
configure, test, and migrate the Coast Guard's and TSA's financial
management system (FMS) including the financial, contract, and asset
accountability management systems to a shared service provider (SSP).
SEXUAL ASSAULTS
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Admiral. Let me begin where
you began, because it is very troubling to many of us in the
Senate and House who have been following story after story
about the sexual assaults happening within the Department of
Defense (DOD). Let me start with a question on this, and then
we will go to the budget.
The Coast Guard reported 141 incidents of sexual assaults
in 2012. The number was up from 83 in 2011 and 75 in 2010. That
is clear. What is not clear is how many assaults in the Coast
Guard go unreported, which unfortunately may happen due to the
fears and consequences of coming forward. Other military
branches track and file reports and survey their workforce.
Last week we learned that 26,000 people within DOD said they
were sexually assaulted, but only 3,374 filed complaints.
My understanding is the Coast Guard does not survey its
workforce for anonymous claims. I can understand the pros and
cons of that but given the really troubling statistics and
horrifying stories that are coming out, do you plan to track
the claims the same way, or are you giving some thought to
opening up opportunities for people to respond anonymously?
They obviously seem to be afraid to come forward. This could
help get a fuller picture of what's happening within the Coast
Guard. While none of this is acceptable, but as you have
reviewed this, do you think that the Coast Guard is on par with
other military branches in terms of support personnel, training
and education programs? Do you have an active victim support
network? If you would just take 2 or 3 minutes or longer if you
need to answer, and then we'll go to the budget. We may end up
having a special hearing on this.
Admiral Papp. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak about it because this is deeply personal
to me. Things like this were personal to me even before I
became a coastguardsman. My father placed in my DNA the duty to
protect people. So you can imagine how frustrating it is to
know that people within my Coast Guard are being harmed or hurt
and feel like they have no way to be able to respond.
The increase in numbers to 141 this year, I'll start by
saying that one is too many. But anecdotal information leads me
to conclude that by me talking about it for nearly 2 years now,
by going out there and talking to my leaders and talking to the
deck plate as well, people are coming forward and reporting who
would not have before.
I have spoken to young people within the service. I've
spoken to senior people who had experienced sexual assault
early in their career. They all indicate a more willingness and
trust to come forward now. I choose to interpret that as a good
thing, that they are coming forward and reporting, and I think
that shows an increase in the numbers.
Plus, we have a strategic plan, and we have put a lot of
effort with our senior leadership to push training out
throughout the service. We have now designated 18 collateral
duty sexual response coordinators throughout the Coast Guard,
and we have a network of 500 volunteer victim advocates who are
receiving formal training and are out there.
I spoke to a young woman yesterday who is a victim advocate
who is stationed in St. Louis, and she went on and praised the
program, the training she received and how it has improved her
ability to talk to people. In fact, in her particular case, she
is dealing with men-on-men situations in terms of sexual
assault.
So once again, we are learning more, because I think we
have invested more.
In comparison to the other services, I have spoken to the
other four service chiefs, and not only the Department of
Defense but also the individual services have surveys that they
do. I am interested in this. There are pros and cons to a
survey, but as far as I am concerned, any measure that you have
that would indicate trends is going to be useful for us as we
take on the situation.
So we are further studying whether we are going to put a
survey into effect for the Coast Guard. I am inclined to do
that. We are also looking now at how we might get more full-
time people, if the budget allows, to commit them as full-time
sexual response coordinators instead of making that a
collateral duty assignment across the Coast Guard.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN
Senator Landrieu. I am going to follow up later with some
questions along this line, and I appreciate your frankness and
opening your statement with your commitment to address what is
a very serious and troubling situation.
But let me shift to a question on the budget. The $1
billion Capital Investment Plan is, in my view, wholly
inadequate to replace the old and unreliable assets of the
Coast Guard. Please be frank and describe the impact this plan
will have on Coast Guard operations as compared to the $2.5
billion you indicated that you would like to have. Now, we
can't have everything we want, but $2.5 billion to maintain the
fleet, to accomplish or at least try to meet the targets in the
mission, is far different than $950 million. How is this going
to impact Coast Guard operations?
Admiral Papp. Madam Chairman, $500 million, a half a
billion dollars, is real money for the Coast Guard. So clearly,
we had $1.5 billion in the 2013 budget. It doesn't get
everything I would like, but it gave us a good start, and it
sustained a number of projects that are very important to us.
When we go down to the $1 billion level this year, it gets my
highest priorities in there, but we have to either terminate or
reduce to minimum order quantities for all the other projects
that we have going.
If we're going to stay with our program of record, things
that have been documented that we need for our service, we are
going to have to just stretch everything out to the right. And
when we do that, you cannot order in economic order quantities.
It defers the purchase. Ship builders, aircraft companies, they
have to figure in their costs, and it inevitably raises the
cost when you are ordering them in smaller quantities and
pushing it off to the right, plus it almost creates a death
spiral for the Coast Guard because we are forced to sustain
older assets, older ships and older aircraft, which ultimately
cost us more money. So it eats into our operating funds as
well, as we try to sustain these older things.
So we'll do the best we can within the budget, and the
Secretary and the President have addressed my highest
priorities. We'll just continue to go on an annual basis seeing
what we can wedge into the budget to keep the other projects
going.
FAST RESPONSE CUTTERS
Senator Landrieu. My last question, and then I will turn to
my colleagues and then come back for a second round. On the
fast response cutters, we are very proud that they are built in
Louisiana. I'd like to take credit for that, but it happened
before I was chairman of the subcommittee, and it was a
competitive bid that was won, a public bid to build these
ships. Last year we put six FRCs in the budget. We are going to
save $30 million because of that rate of building once the line
is open, to build it efficiently and have the same crew there.
With this budget, we potentially could lose the $30 million
in savings, which is very troubling. My question is, will you
award a contract for the six we funded in 2013, as intended,
and is it correct that you will achieve $30 million in savings
by awarding the contract for six boats at a time?
Admiral Papp. Well, I have a couple of alternatives, Madam
Chairman. The first option is to award those six in fiscal year
2013, which was our original intent, and then renegotiate with
the shipyard to see if we can go to a minimal quantity of two
for fiscal year 2014. We are at that point now where we can
renegotiate. The fact of the matter is that renegotiating to
build only two per year will increase the price. Our estimate
is probably anywhere between $10 million and $20 million per
ship more when we go down to only two, plus it pushes out the
replacement program to 18 years to get all those boats built.
We will be having to put the first one through a mid-life
renovation before the last one is constructed. So that is just
the realities of what we are confronted with.
The other option is to try to balance out four per year,
and I understand that is a little unfair to the shipbuilder
because they gear up, they bring people on board, they invest
in their infrastructure on the basis of the prediction of six
per year. As I've said in the past, we think if we build six
per year, our estimate is we get at least $30 million in cost
avoidance.
I wanted to make sure that I was very clear and understood
that, and I've had my people go back and take a look. I really
think it is more than $30 million per year, but we start
getting into competition-sensitive information and things like
that when we get any more detailed than that. But it is clear
that when you use the economic order quantity, you will get
those savings.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Senator Cochran.
NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much for your leadership of
the Coast Guard and your cooperation with our subcommittee as
we review the budget request for the next fiscal year.
Like other shipbuilding accounts, we look ahead at long
lead time material purchases and other necessary preparation
for actually submitting requests for construction funding, and
I was going to ask you about the budget request. As I
understand it, it does provide for full funding for national
security cutter No. 7, and it also projects funding for the
eighth cutter in next year's request.
Are these current projections, or have they been affected
in any way with changes in the economic situation or the budget
uncertainties? What do you see the future over the next few
years being for the funding request for these construction
projects?
Admiral Papp. Senator, I am very confident and optimistic
on the funding for the national security cutter, and I think
the national security cutter serves as a perfect example of
what I've been talking about in terms of a mature project that
only needs predictable funding and then the time to get it
done.
Because it is a mature project, we are not making any
changes. It is a stable project. All the shipbuilder needs is
now a constant source of funding. Last year I was here
explaining why Nos. 7 and 8 were not in the projection. So I
feel much better being here saying that No. 7 is in the budget
and that No. 8 is predicted for next year, that is, the full
funding for No. 8 is in the next year's budget, which takes a
large chunk out of that predicted $1 billion that we would have
in acquisition funds.
The wisdom, I think, of having long lead materials is
demonstrated, though, this year. We had long lead materials for
No. 7 in the fiscal year 2012 budget. We were able to take that
$30 million in cost avoidance, and we actually worked that into
our computations when we produced the 2014 budget and the level
that we asked for to do the construction on No. 7. So that is
validation that long lead materials works, but I will take the
money for the ship whatever way I can get it, and right now it
sits with the full funding in next year's budget.
OFFSHORE PATROL CUTTERS
Senator Cochran. As you are looking to the future, I know
that there has been consideration of an acquisition budget that
would involve upkeep, modernization, and ongoing national
security fabrication, which also employs people. I was told
that 1,200 people in Pascagoula, Mississippi, are employed now
for fabrication activities.
What other projections can you let us know about that we
need to work into the budget if the subcommittee approves this
for a new class of ships called the offshore patrol cutters? Is
that still in the plan, to replace the medium endurance cutters
with the offshore patrol cutters?
Admiral Papp. Yes, Senator. Absolutely. The first ships
that will be replaced are 210-foot medium endurance cutters.
There are 14 of them right now. They are all nearly 50 years of
age. In fact, the Dauntless, which is one of those ships, just
had to be put in the shipyard because the hull has wasted
through and the framing has wasted through, and we are putting
it up in the shipyard for emergency availability to do steel
repair on that ship just to keep her functional and safe for
the crew who has to deploy in it.
So these ships are well past their time and need to be
replaced. We are pressing along with the offshore patrol
cutter, and we are on schedule with that. We are in the process
now of down-selecting to three competitors for the replacement
ship. Next year we will down-select that. Actually, in the
fiscal year 2016 budget, we will down-select to one after we
have evaluated the three candidates, and then start
construction in fiscal year 2016 on the lead ship of that
class.
The challenge, not necessarily for me but for whoever
relieves me, will be how do we fit that ship into the
acquisition budget as we go forward. The original plan was to
build two of those per year. We are projected to start building
two per year in 2020. We are going to be hard-pressed to be
able to fit those in at the current acquisition top-line level
and do anything else within the Coast Guard. So we may be
forced to do only one per year, which then increases the unit
cost on each single ship and, once again, pushes that out for
probably about 25 years or so. Once again, the lead ship would
probably be in the position of having to go through a midlife
before the last ship of the class is produced.
So it is the same rule of thumb for each and every one of
these projects. If we are going to maintain the program of
record, everything is going to get pushed to the right and we
will just have to build them more slowly and probably at
increased cost.
ACQUISITION PROJECTS
Senator Cochran. In looking at what the Coast Guard has
already received for recapitalizing the aging ships and other
aircraft, boats, and shore facilities, in fiscal year 2013 you
received $1.4 billion for this account, and the fiscal year
2014 budget requests only $951 million, of which $616 million,
we are told, is for the seventh national security cutter. Are
you on track, do you think, to acquire these additional cutters
over the term that you project, as well as other long-term
acquisition priorities of aircraft, as you also plan for?
Admiral Papp. Senator, my job is to look at the annual
budget cycle and work our way through that on a year-by-year
basis. But I am also obligated as the Commandant to look out
10, 20, 30 years to try and determine what the Coast Guard is
going to need to conduct its missions. So I am focused on what
we need, and we have a program of record. The challenge is,
like any acquisition project, having stable requirements and
then getting a steady funding stream.
The national security cutter is there. It is a stable
project, and now at least we have a predictable funding stream.
That keeps us at a reasonable price for the ship. As I
mentioned during my opening comments, in our negotiations for
hull No. 6, it is coming in basically at the same price as No.
5 and No. 4 because it is a stable contract. The shipbuilder
now has a prediction that not only are they going to get No. 6
but the President put the money in for No. 7, and the 5-year
plan now predicts that No. 8 will be in there.
That's the way things should work, a stable project with
predictable funding. We have a lot of companies right now that
have put proposals in for the offshore patrol cutter. I don't
know how many because that is acquisition sensitive, but I am
led to believe that there is anywhere between eight and a dozen
companies that are competing for the ship. We are going to pick
three very good candidates and then down-select to one 2 years
from now, and all that it will need is a steady funding stream
to get that project going at a reasonable price for the
Government.
I am becoming concerned that we may not be able to fit that
in within the top line if we continue at these levels for the
next 5 to 10 years or so.
Senator Cochran. Well, we thank you for your leadership and
your service and helping protect our Nation and our citizens.
Thank you.
Admiral Papp. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Landrieu. Senator Moran.
FUTURE OF THE COAST GUARD
Senator Moran. Chairman Landrieu, thank you.
Admiral, while I indicated in my brief opening comments
that we are landlocked, we very much appreciate the pay and
personnel center located in Topeka, Kansas. So we do have a
Coast Guard presence in our State, and we are very grateful for
that.
I just wanted to follow up on your answer to Senator
Cochran's question. You indicated that you are looking, as the
Commandant, for a number of years into the future. How do you
see the Coast Guard different in the 10- or 20-year focus that
you are now viewing?
Admiral Papp. Sir, I am a student of history, and I have
gone back to the beginnings of the service, why it was created.
Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury,
created this maritime, law enforcement, security force. It's
all because this country depended then and depends now on
maritime trade for its prosperity. This country will not
survive long if you don't have safe and secure sea lanes coming
into safe and secure ports. The Coast Guard provides maritime
governance. It provides aids to navigation. It provides
security in the waters. It provides law enforcement. And those
things will continue into the future. They have been the
principles and the missions that our service has done for 223
years, and I anticipate very similar things happening over the
next 30, 40, and 50 years.
What will change is the technology, and that is what we are
in the process of doing right now. My vision has to be what
technology, what assets do we need to be doing those duties 10,
20, and 30 years from now. Right now, we are doing them with
technology that was created in the 1950s. Our high endurance
cutters and our medium endurance cutters were built during the
1960s, which means they are using 1950s technology for
propulsion and for many of the systems that are on board, and
they are just plain wearing out.
So the way the Coast Guard will be different is we will
have better technology, better ships, better aircraft that
requires fewer people to operate, and expands through sensors
and communications gear and command-and-control capabilities.
Broader communication not only within the Coast Guard but
through the interagency, through the Department of Defense,
makes us more effective.
Maritime trade has increased. From the time I was born in
the early 1950s to now, our population has grown by about--I
forget how much it has increased, but 40 percent of the
population lives near the shore or within coastal counties, and
they are near the water. And all of our ports, 95 percent of
our trade comes in through the ports.
So the missions and the things that we do will not change
much. How we do them, the tools we use to accomplish them, and
the quality of our people will be the thing that will change.
Senator Moran. Admiral, thank you for your answer. You also
reminded me of another Kansas connection to the Coast Guard,
which is that we export a lot, and those sea lanes are very
valuable and important to our economy. I just would conclude by
thanking you for your service.
Admiral Papp. Thank you, sir, and I did go out for the 25th
anniversary to Topeka and spoke out there when they had the
ceremony.
Senator Moran. I knew you were there, and I appreciate that
very much.
Admiral Papp. Yes, sir.
Senator Landrieu. Senator, thank you for mentioning that.
You will have to come to New Orleans or to the Mississippi
coast and see all that grain coming out of Kansas at the mouth
of the Mississippi River and what the Coast Guard does to get
those barges in and out of that river, particularly at a high
time like this. The river is very high, not flooding in our
part, but it is very, very high, and it is amazing work that
our pilots do to navigate the barges that come down river.
Senator Moran. If we can get some rain, we will be glad to
ship our wheat.
POLAR ICEBREAKERS
Senator Landrieu. Well, I don't know if this subcommittee
can do anything about that, but we would be happy to
accommodate you for a visit any time.
I have three additional questions on polar icebreakers. Our
Senators from Alaska are not here, and they normally are. They
both have been very, very supportive of the polar icebreaker,
and Senator Murkowski, I believe, is, as we speak, at an Arctic
conference and I think is representing the members of the
Senate. She has been particularly, along with Senator Begich, a
very excellent leader.
It is very concerning to me, and we don't have much ice in
Louisiana, but we don't need to have ice to realize how
important the Arctic is for our Nation. I just do not
understand why this administration's budget seemingly is
preparing in just the most modest way for the building of a new
icebreaker. The polar icebreaker Healy was actually built in
Louisiana. Again, we are happy and proud of the work, to have
had that work. But other nations, I understand, have several
icebreakers--Norway, China, Russia.
Do you know how many icebreakers other nations have already
operating in this area of the world? Our plan calls for a
minimum of three. How do you explain this budget, and what are
your views about how we're going to have the ships that we need
based on the budget that we have before us?
Admiral Papp. Well, Madam Chairman, as the service chief, I
am always looking for--I would love to get whatever I can, and
I would love to get more tools for my people. But actually this
is one that--compared to 3 years ago, when I became Commandant,
we were in dire straits. Before this subcommittee and others, I
laid out a plan on how I was going to attempt to get us back to
be able to take care of our minimal requirements in the Arctic.
I thought they were stretch goals at the time, so perhaps I
should have set my goals a little bit higher.
But the first thing was to keep Healy running, our medium
icebreaker. The second was to get the operating funds for the
icebreakers back in the Coast Guard's budget so we could
operate them. And then third was to get Polar Star reactivated
and have the funding and the operating funds to get Polar Star
back in service.
All three of those have been accomplished. Healy is running
fine. We have the operating funds back in our budget. And Polar
Star is now reactivated and has been out for operational
trials. We are going to send Polar Star up to the Arctic to
start rebuilding the proficiency of our people in icebreaking
in preparation for sending it down to Antarctica to break up
McMurdo in February 2014.
So all three things that I set out have been accomplished.
I set one stretch goal, and that was to begin the construction
of a new icebreaker. I didn't think I would get that, but the
President has put money in the budget to start that process,
and we are working now on the preliminary requirements document
going across the interagency and pressing ahead.
There was a question in other hearings I have been in about
the minimal amount of money that is in the 2014 budget. That is
simply because we got the money to begin this so late in the
2013 budget that we made some reasonable decisions, based upon
the availability of acquisition funding, to only ask for what
we needed for 2014 to keep the project going.
Senator Landrieu. But how much does an icebreaker cost,
approximately?
Admiral Papp. My estimate is somewhere between $800 million
and $1 billion.
Senator Landrieu. How much is in the whole capital budget
for this year?
Admiral Papp. In the entire capital budget?
Senator Landrieu. In this budget, in the President's budget
for this year. Is it $900 million, $950 million?
Admiral Papp. No----
Senator Landrieu. It's $951 million.
Admiral Papp. Oh, if you look out across, yes.
BORDER SECURITY
Senator Landrieu. Yes. We are laying the groundwork, which
is good. I want to tell the members of our subcommittee to
think about the possibility of building an icebreaker. But in
order to accommodate that, we would have to use the entire
capital budget to build the icebreaker, somewhere between $800
million and $900 million. That would eliminate all other
capital projects in this budget, and the budget is not even
including some of the projects, Senator Cochran, just discussed
with you. The offshore patrol cutter is not in this budget. The
required number of fast response cutters are not in this
budget. Aviation assets are not in this budget, and there are
some housing deficiencies that I'm going to come to in a
minute.
But for the record, Admiral, I would like you to just
submit in writing a complete list of the options that are at
your disposal to obtain a polar icebreaker, including building
one from scratch here domestically, using a parent craft design
perhaps one built by a foreign partner, or leasing. Those are
the three that come to mind. If there is a fourth option that
you are aware of, please include it and provide for this
subcommittee within a couple of weeks the pros and cons of
each, because our subcommittee is going to be focused on
actually how to get this done, and I am really unsure at this
point.
[The information follows:]
Answer. The most recent analysis, which included options such as
building a new icebreaker, leasing of currently available platforms,
and build-to-lease alternatives, was thoroughly examined in the Polar
Icebreaker Replacement Business Case Analysis (BCA) which was delivered
to Congress on 02 November 2011. However, there are currently no U.S.-
built icebreakers available for lease that are capable of operating in
the Arctic.
The BCA determined that the most cost-effective path forward was to
maintain current icebreaking capability, which now includes the
recently reactivated Polar Star, and to build a new icebreaker. The
Coast Guard has initiated pre-acquisition activities for the
construction of a new icebreaker using the funding appropriated in
fiscal year 2013.
Senator Landrieu. Let me ask you something about border
security, because this concerns me and I would really like the
subcommittee member's thoughts on this. You know, we are
spending an awful lot of time up here talking about securing
our land borders between Mexico, California, Arizona, Texas, et
cetera, and we plan to pass a comprehensive immigration bill
that spends billions of dollars improving the fencing that our
subcommittee has supported, the smart fencing using technology,
unmanned vehicles, drones, et cetera, to secure our border, new
technology pressing out.
I want to hear from you today about how you think this
focus on securing our land borders is going to have on
potentially pushing some illegal activity into the maritime
space, which would be very concerning to those of us that have
a coast, like Senator Cochran and myself, Florida, and Texas.
Do you have an estimate of what could potentially happen? Are
there any studies guiding you in how you are thinking about
deploying your maritime assets over the next few years based on
what Congress seems about ready to do?
Admiral Papp. Yes, ma'am. A couple of things to look at
here. What we are concerned about mostly in terms of border
issues are illegal migrants and drugs. There are smaller
things, whether it is weapons, cash, other things. Most of them
are related, though, to human trafficking and drugs. Those are
the two major issues.
Right now I think the Coast Guard and our partners are
doing pretty good in the maritime in terms of migrants. We
watch this very carefully. We are particularly concerned in the
Florida Straits, the Caribbean side going toward Florida, about
Cubans, Haitians, Dominicans, and in routes through the
Bahamas. We provide a good deterrent value out there. We
provide a deterrent value because we have major cutters out
there that interdict people and do direct repatriations. That
has a great deterrent value that has shown our numbers
continuously going down now because of our presence out there.
I am concerned, though, that through sequestration or the
limited budgets that we are facing, that it is narrowing down
the number of ships that we can keep out there on station as
that deterrent value. If people start thinking they can make
their way through, migration increases. We are not seeing a lot
of migration on the Pacific side, the border between California
and Mexico. What we are seeing is an increase in drugs,
particularly marijuana being transported through that vector,
because the border has tightened down.
So it is clear and there is plenty of evidence that will
tell us that, as you clamp down on the land border, it is like
a balloon. You squeeze it, and it will go out around the edges.
We are seeing increased incursions on the Gulf of Mexico side,
between Mexico and Texas, and we are seeing an increase in the
trafficking of drugs. As we have addressed that close to the
border between Mexico and California, we are finding that they
are going further out to sea and going further north in
California, and we will continue to address that as well.
It is not just a Coast Guard issue. It is a Department of
Homeland Security issue, and Customs and Border Protection has
been working with us. We have a task force in San Diego, and we
are making a good dent in that, I believe. But, once again, as
you increase the pressure on the border, it will go out to the
maritime route, which is more challenging because there is a
lot more area out there. My concern is, once again, we have had
to cut back on operating hours because of sequestration. There
are fewer boats, fewer aircraft out there.
The other place where you want to forward deploy is to the
eastern Pacific and the deep Caribbean off of Columbia to try
and cut down the transit zones, the incursions of cocaine,
which goes up into Central America and then is broken down into
Mexico, which destabilizes Mexico, feeds the cartels, and then
makes its way across the border.
The entire law enforcement organization of the lower 48
States only comes up with about 40 tons of cocaine each year,
interdicted at the border or in our cities. We have been
interdicting over 100 tons in the transit zone before it even
gets into Central America and into Mexico to be broken down
into smaller loads to get into our country. Right now, we have
the lowest number of ships in the transit zone, in the east
pack and the deep Caribbean, that I have ever seen in my
career, and most of that is due to a reduction in operating
funds that we are experiencing right now.
HOUSING
Senator Landrieu. Well, this is very concerning. I have one
more question, and then I will turn it over to my colleagues.
The issue of housing has been something that you and your
wife, Linda, have really focused on for your people, and I
appreciate that. You obviously have comfortable accommodations.
I have been there, and thank you for your hospitality. But in
many places, not just Kodiak, Alaska, where I got a chance to
visit, but in other places, the Coast Guard bases are very
remotely situated. I think it is important for us, when we ask
people to serve, to be able to give them not luxury but
something very comfortable and safe in some of these areas.
There is a limited need for new sites in remote locations.
You just had a study confirming that affordable housing is in
short supply. The good news is there were 43 sites that were in
poor condition and there might be places where the Coast Guard
can be accommodated in local housing. But what are we doing
about these remote sites, and is there any money in this budget
to do that?
Admiral Papp. There is no money in this budget. There is
maintenance money, so let's look at two things. There is a need
in certain areas for new construction, like you saw in Kodiak,
and I have to thank the subcommittee for the $10 million that
was put in the 2013 budget. It is going to a good cause. We are
devoting that to the housing shortfall in Kodiak, and as more
funds become available, we will complete that project. But for
this year we have maintenance funds that are in there, and we
will continue our projects where we are upgrading the homes
that we already own.
My primary focus has been on our overseas housing. We have
made that mandatory for my people. But before we made it
mandatory, we made sure that we were upgrading them to a
condition that I would be proud to have them stay in. So places
like Bayamon in San Juan, Puerto Rico, or Air Station Brank in
Kodiak, these are places where we don't have much choice. There
is not much in the community, and we are requiring our people
to live in them, so we have spent maintenance money to upgrade
them and get them in shape. Kodiak, of course, needs new
construction, which we can only do with our acquisition money.
We have a prioritized list of other locations, and as money
becomes available for new construction in those areas, we will
do it. Meanwhile, we have identified those that are beyond
repair and those that are in areas where there is ample housing
in the community that they can spend their housing money on,
and we are going to devote our scarce resources to the highest
priority areas.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. If you would submit those
details to this subcommittee, we would appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
Answer. The Coast Guard addresses and prioritizes the projects on
the shore acquisitions, construction, and improvement (AC&I) backlog
each year while balancing the shore AC&I requirements with other
competing fiscal priorities.
Additionally, the Coast Guard performs an annual review of military
housing projects and updates housing priorities as part of the 5-year
Capital Investment Plan. The Coast Guard's intent is to address
military housing priorities utilizing the Housing Special Funds
Authority derived from the sale of Coast Guard real property assets.
The following list of projects shows the Coast Guard's highest
priority of new construction and repairs of family housing throughout
the United States.
PRIORITIZED FAMILY AND UNACCOMPANIED PERSONNEL HOUSING BACKLOG
(Dollars in thousands)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Location Project description project
cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Station Kodiak, AK............. Construct Family 9,039
Housing.
Station Jonesport, ME.............. Recapitalize Family 4,000
Housing.
Station South Padre Island, TX..... Construct Family 6,000
Housing.
Sector Columbia River, OR.......... Construct 11,000
Unaccompanied
Personnel Housing.
Upper Keys, FL..................... Construct Upper Keys 3,500
Family Housing Phase
II.
Sector Columbia River, OR.......... Greater Astoria Family 6,000
Housing Phase II.
Air Station Cape Cod, MA........... Renovate Unaccompanied 8,000
Personnel Housing
Phase II.
Aviation Training Center Mobile, AL Recapitalize 7,000
Unaccompanied
Personnel Housing.
Training Center Petaluma, CA....... Recapitalize Housing.. 41,000
Sector Columbia River, OR.......... Construct Housing in 10,000
Greater Astoria,
Phase III.
Prioritized Housing 105,539
Backlog Total.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Landrieu. Senator Cochran, any further questions?
Senator Cochran. I have no further questions, Madam
Chairman.
Senator Landrieu. Senator Moran.
CONSEQUENCES OF SEQUESTRATION
Senator Moran. Admiral, this is a question that could be
asked of any agency head. You mentioned in your testimony about
fewer boats and fewer hours due to sequestration. I didn't vote
for sequestration, so this is not in defense of sequestration,
but how does the number of hours and your number of boats
compare to 1 year ago, 2 years ago? Every agency head tells us
about the dire consequences of sequestration. At least the
allegation is made that sequestration returns us to the levels
of spending prior to the stimulus spending. I don't know
whether you received any stimulus money or not at the Coast
Guard, but I am trying to just get an understanding of what the
consequence of sequestration is as compared to what it was just
several years ago.
So you say fewer boats, fewer hours. Is that less than it
would have been 2 years ago?
Admiral Papp. Absolutely. Yes, Sir. We are very fortunate
that military pay counts are off limits in sequestration. So
the military workforce of the Coast Guard is there and ready to
go. A lot of our benefits, things like tuition assistance and
bonuses and other things that we might like to give out are
being curtailed, but at least they have their base pay, and we
are keeping them employed.
Our civilians, we have 8,000 civilians, but part and parcel
they are integrated with our military workforce. For instance,
they sit side-by-side in command centers. We rely upon them for
acquisition expertise and other staffs throughout the Coast
Guard.
So whereas some people took savings because their pay
accounts were subject to sequester, I could not do that. They
are part of the team, and we need them on board. We need the
capacity of our workforce so that when we face things like
Hurricane Sandy or an oil spill or some other major disaster,
we have the whole team ready to go. So my first goal was to
maintain our capacity to be able to respond.
Then we set priorities on missions. Search and rescue, we
are never going to cut back there. And certainly the security
of our ports, we're not going to cut back there. So then that
sort of limits you down to a small area of things that you have
to accrue 25 percent of our savings, and what we looked at was
reducing our other operations by 25 percent.
Senator Moran. And that is the number of boats and hours,
when you say other operations?
Admiral Papp. Number of boats, aircraft, and hours. That is
sort of an insidious effect because you don't see it
immediately. You don't see the cocaine that is not being
interdicted in the transit zone until it shows up on the
streets and starts becoming less expensive because the supply
is greater in the States now. That will take time for it to
work its way through the system.
Fisheries, we are spending less time on fisheries, more
incursions by foreign fishing fleets. And once again, it is
insidious. They know that we maintain our fish stocks, and
people are out there trying to get to our fish stocks. That is
going to have a long-term effect.
Other things like aids to navigation, all these things in
the short term aren't going to be so apparent, but in the long
term, as this continues, we start suffering more failures or
there are more maritime accidents. So you're not going to see
the immediate effect. All I can do is tell you about what I
think the long-term effects will be.
Senator Moran. And let me see if I can summarize, and this
may not be exactly what you want to say. The sequestration has
a consequence today, but it's not dramatic, but it's over time,
over a longer period of time in which the cumulative effect of
sequestration occurs that has the significance and the change
in your method of operation?
Admiral Papp. Sir, that is absolutely right. But once
again, I am only speaking for the United States Coast Guard and
how we are dealing with sequestration. So our highest priority
things, if someone sinks out there, they are going to see no
change in terms of our performance because we will be out
there. We maintain that capability and capacity. But it is the
other things that are perhaps further offshore that the general
American public doesn't see on a daily basis that is going to
have the effect.
Senator Moran. It's one of the reasons I asked the
question, is because every agency seems to have a different
consequence in regard to this issue.
Chair, thank you very much.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator.
We will just submit for the record the testimony of the
Coast Guard estimating a 50-percent cut to ship hours and 33-
percent cut in air assets due to the sequestration, and the
cumulative effect over years.
[The information was provided within the appendix section
of Admiral Papp's prepared statement on pages 81-84.]
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Admiral Papp, for your
testimony. This is going to be a very challenging year. I am
committed to doing what I can to make sure that you and the
Coast Guard have the resources you need to carry out the
missions we have asked you to do.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
We will keep the record open for 1 week. Questions should
be submitted to the subcommittee by close of business Tuesday,
May 21, and I'm going to submit two additional questions, one
about the portal for technology and using new technology that
is on the shelf today and being designed as we speak to
accomplish some of the missions at a lower cost to the
taxpayer. We are using basically manpower, woman power, ships
and detection technologies. There might be unmanned
opportunities. There could be other technologies that could be
brought to bear, and I would like to understand a little bit
more about the portal small businesses and high-tech companies
have to the Coast Guard. And then, of course, we will get the
questions answered about the polar icebreaker.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
capital investment plan
Question. The 2014 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) indicates that the
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is working with the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to conduct a portfolio review that will aid in achieving
the Coast Guard's mission needs in a balanced funding manner.
Please describe what the portfolio review in more detail, including
the full schedule for the review, and the expected outcomes?
Answer. DHS will conduct a comprehensive portfolio review in 2013
that will help develop revised acquisition program baselines (APBs) to
reflect acquisition priorities and operational requirements achievable
within the funding projections contained in the 2014 CIP report. The
review will incorporate performance analyses using a variety of
approaches (e.g., campaign-level modeling tool, such as that used for
the recent cost-constrained DHS cutter study) to address the full
spectrum of USCG assets (surface, air and shore). The performance
analysis will identify an acquisition portfolio that optimizes mission
performance within the resource constraints identified.
polar icebreakers
Question. The fiscal year 2014 budget request includes $2 million
``to continue survey and design activities for a new polar
icebreaker.'' According to information provided by your staff,
construction of the new icebreaker will not be completed until 2024 and
won't be fully ready for operations until 2026 or 2027.
Please describe why it will take nearly 13 years to have a fully
operational vessel and how you plan to fill the operational gap after
the Polar Star reaches the end of its service life.
Is it a matter of available funding, or are there other challenges
the Coast Guard faces in building a new icebreaker, including the
industrial supplier base and requirements from other agencies that wish
to utilize the vessel, such as the National Science Foundation?
Provide the committee with a complete list of options at the Coast
Guard's disposal to obtain a polar icebreaker, including: (1) building
an icebreaker from scratch; (2) using a parent-craft design, perhaps
one built by a foreign partner; or (3) leasing. For each option, please
provide the pros and cons if it were to be pursued as well as cost and
delivery schedule.
Answer. The polar icebreaker replacement is still in the pre-
acquisition phases, and as such a detailed acquisition strategy has not
yet been developed. However, funding provided in fiscal year 2013
coupled with the $2 million requested in fiscal year 2014 is sufficient
to enable the Coast Guard to complete the required pre-acquisition
activities, and the Department anticipates delivering an operational
ship within a decade after this work is complete coinciding with the
end of Polar Star's anticipated service life.
offshore patrol cutter
Question. The Coast Guard plans to build 25 offshore patrol cutters
(OPC) 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 plans to award design
contracts for the OPC this year, downselect to one shipyard in fiscal
year 2016, and have the lead ship commissioned in 2020. Multi-year
procurement (MYP) 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.
What are the pros and cons of multi-year procurement authority with
regard to the OPC procurement?
Answer. In order to qualify for multi-year procurement authority in
accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2306(b) a program must meet several criteria,
including the following:
--Substantial Savings.--The program must estimate that using an MYP
contract would result in ``substantial savings'' compared with
using annual contracting.
--Realistic Cost Estimates.--The program's estimates of the cost of
the MYP contract and the anticipated savings must be realistic.
--Stable Need for the Items.--The program must expect that its
minimum need for the items will remain substantially unchanged
during the contract in terms of production rate, procurement
rate, and total quantities.
--Stable Design for the Items.--The design for the items to be
acquired must be stable, and the technical risks associated
with the items must not be excessive.
--Sufficient Prior Deliveries To Determine Whether Estimated Unit
Costs Are Realistic.--A sufficient number of the type of item
to be acquired under the proposed MYP contract must have been
delivered under previous contracts at or within the most
current estimates of the program acquisition unit cost or
procurement unit cost to determine whether current estimates of
such unit costs are realistic.
--No Nunn-McCurdy Critical Cost Growth Breaches Within the Last 5
Years.--The system being proposed for an MYP contract must not
have experienced within 5 years of the anticipated award date
of the MYP contract a critical cost growth breach as defined
under the Nunn-McCurdy Act (10 U.S.C. 2433).
--Fixed-Price Type Contract.--The proposed MYP contract must be a
fixed-price type contract.
If annual funding were not available the Coast Guard would be
required to renegotiate, suspend, or terminate the contract.
Terminating the contract could require the government to pay a
cancellation penalty to the contractor. Renegotiating or suspending the
contract could also have a financial impact. Therefore, a principal
potential disadvantage of using MYP is that it can reduce the
flexibility for making changes (especially reductions) in procurement
programs in future years without incurring cancellation penalties.
technology transfer
Question. I have heard from many technology companies and
entrepreneurs that they apparently have no clear path to bring
innovative technologies they are developing--or have even developed
already--to the attention of DHS decisionmakers. I am very concerned
that creative, cost-effective security and other technologies are being
missed by DHS procurement officials for the Coast Guard and other
components.
Who makes the decision about which technologies the Coast Guard
tests, researches, and ultimately procures? Is there a ``one-stop
shop'' in the Science and Technology Directorate or elsewhere in the
Coast Guard or Department that these individuals can reach out to
directly?
I'd also like to understand how the Coast Guard seeks out
innovative technologies from the private sector with potential mission
value. Do program staff only await formal responses to contract
solicitations, or do they also get out of Washington, attend trade
shows, and conduct proactive outreach to businesses that may have
already developed technology solutions?
Can you also comment on current efforts within the Coast Guard to
evaluate long-duration unmanned and autonomous surface vehicles to
support research and surveillance capabilities for port security, oil
spill response, interdiction, and other Coast Guard missions? What
other technologies are being pursued or considered that help the Coast
Guard maximize its maritime domain awareness and presence without a
significant increase in manpower or an expansion of its traditional
fleet of cutters and aircraft?
Answer. The public, vendors, OGA, and DHS are encouraged to reach
out to the Office of RDT&E Program at Coast Guard headquarters or the
Research and Development Center (RDC) in New London, Connecticut. An
Internet link to organizational description can be found at http://
www.uscg.mil/acquisition/rdc/rdc.asp. Unsolicited proposals from the
private sector are required to follow the Federal Acquisition
Regulations (FAR) (FAR subpart 15.6). The Coast Guard specific process
for implementation of FAR subpart 15.6 is found at http://www.uscg.mil/
acquisition/business/unsolicited.asp.
The Coast Guard maintains information on vendor contacts made, as
part of market research, in the event future requirement/capability
gaps are identified that could potentially be filled with private
sector technology solutions.
There are many ways of engaging the private sector in funded and
collaborative research to assist the Coast Guard in improving mission
effectiveness and efficiencies. Funded Coast Guard research projects
with the private sector are identified and developed using Broad Agency
Announcements and Federal Register Requests for Information (RFI).
Collaborative Coast Guard research with the private sector includes the
use of Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs)--a tool
that Federal labs can use under the Technology Transfer Act. The DHS
Technology Transfer Program, which is housed in the Science &
Technology Directorate (S&T), has supported the Coast Guard on several
CRADAs.
In 2009, the Coast Guard conducted a preliminary assessment of the
potential of unmanned and autonomous surface vehicles to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of Coast Guard boat operations. This
assessment indicated that while this technology may have potential,
there are several challenges to viable implementation into Coast Guard
capability. These included (a) potential changes to the United States
and International Rules of the Road regarding the navigation of
unmanned vessels; (b) the reliability and cost of the technology to
meet current and anticipated Rules of the Road requirements; and (c)
Coast Guard boats are multi-mission platforms, performing more than
just a single operational task such as surveillance, which make a
business case for such unmanned and autonomous vehicles difficult at
this time.
Recently the Coast Guard initiated the planning process, with the
Office of Naval Research (ONR) and other U.S. Navy organizations, for a
joint R&D project that will investigate the potential of submerged
glider technology.
national security cutter
Question. Has the national security cutter (NSC) gone through
official operational testing, and if not, will operational testing be
completed in time to inform the purchase of NSCs Nos. 7 and 8?
Answer. The Coast Guard has engaged the Navy's Commander,
Operational Test and Evaluation Force (COTF) since 2007 to conduct a
variety of initial testing. The Initial Operational Test and Evaluation
(IOT&E) event for the NSC is planned for fiscal year 2014. Prior and
ongoing testing such as Combat System Ship Qualification Trials
(CSSQT), aviation certification and information assurance
certification, as well as operational successes with the first three
cutters, have continually demonstrated the capabilities and performance
of the NSC.
unmanned aircraft vehicles
Question. The Capital Investment Plan (CIP) states that unmanned
aircraft vehicles are still planned to operate from the NSC.
Please explain your plan for this program given the lack of
consistent funding in the CIP.
Answer. Coast Guard Research and Development (R&D) Center
successfully conducted phase 1 of the ScanEagle (a small ship-based
UAS) demonstration on CGC Stratton in August 2012. This event focused
on the engineering, installation, certification and basic operation of
an sUAS aboard the NSC. The Coast Guard R&D Center is currently
conducting operationally oriented ScanEagle demonstrations aboard CGC
Bertholf with a follow-up demonstration planned for winter 2014.
maritime patrol aircraft
Question. The Capital Investment Plan (CIP) appears to include no
funding for additional maritime patrol aircraft (MPAs).
What is the effect of this funding decision on the existing
contract?
What is the Coast Guard's plan to replace this capability? Provide
an update on the potential transfer of C-27s from the Air Force and
what happens if the Coast Guard does not receive them?
Answer. Fiscal year 2014 is the final option year on the current
HC-144A MPA production contract. The option for up to two aircraft will
not be awarded.
U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Air Force staffs have been discussing the
possibility of transferring excess C-27J aircraft from the Air Force to
the Coast Guard. A formal letter of intent was sent from the Coast
Guard to the Air Force in March of 2013 explaining that the Coast Guard
stands ready to immediately accept all excess C-27J aircraft, spares
and support equipment. The Coast Guard will accept a minimum of 14 C-
27J aircraft.
medium endurance cutters
Question. Given current timeframes for the when the offshore patrol
cutter (OPC) is expected to become operational, please clarify the
Coast Guard's plans for medium endurance cutter (MEC) sustainment until
the OPCs are fully operational. To what extent will current mission
effectiveness projects (MEPs) on the MECs be sufficient to carry out
mission requirements until the OPCs are operational?
Answer. The purpose of the MEP conducted on the 210-foot and 270-
foot MECs was to provide cost-effective upgrades and enhancements to
selected equipment. The systems and structures targeted during MEP will
contribute to mission execution and cutter reliability. Although not
scoped to increase design service life, the MEP may provide 5-7 years
of additional useful life.
Those systems and structures that were not addressed during MEP
will likely require attention in the coming years. The Coast Guard will
utilize the fiscal year 2013 MEC sustainment funding appropriated in
fiscal year 2013, to conduct MEC condition assessments in preparation
for potential future sustainment work.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. Admiral Rapp, I would like to address concerns relating
to a specific project in my State, the Columbia River Crossing (CRC)
project. As you are well aware, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permitting
process for this project requires complex interagency coordination to
complete the multi-year, multi-agency timeline as identified by the
President's Dashboard Initiative. I want to make sure that the project
is not delayed as a result of this process, which may jeopardize the
project's eligibility for State and Federal funding opportunities.
Please identify how the USCG plans to complete the bridge
permitting process by the September 30, 2013, deadline?
Answer. The Coast Guard is making every effort to meet the Federal
Infrastructure Dashboard permit decision target date of September 30,
2013. The time taken to achieve an application submission with all the
necessary components to be considered complete was significant,
decreasing the Coast Guard's time to evaluate the application, as well
as adjudicate comments received during the public comment period which
ends on June 20, 2013. The number and complexity of comments received
during the public comment period may require the Coast Guard to
implement an adjustment to the timeline.
Question. The USCG requested the permit applicant to identify
avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures for impacts but does
not specify what standards USCG will use to evaluate those impacts and
determine whether adequate mitigation has occurred to meet the
reasonable needs of navigation.
Please specifically list and describe each standard USCG will use
to measure the overall impact to navigation and how mitigation measures
are taken into account in USCG's decision.
Please also describe how the overall economic benefit of the
project for the region and Nation will be taken into account in USCG's
final determination.
Answer. Per 33 CFR section 114.10, ``The decision as to whether a
bridge permit or a drawbridge regulation will be issued or promulgated
must rest primarily upon the effect of the proposed action on
navigation to assure that the action provides for the reasonable needs
of navigation after a full consideration of the proposed action on the
human environment.''
The Coast Guard Bridge Program Manual (COMDTINST M16590.5) and the
Bridge Permit Application Guide (COMDTPUB P16591.3C) provide an
overview of the requirements to determine the reasonable needs of
navigation. Courts rely on Coast Guard experts to make such a
determination based on objective, fact-based criteria. Courts will
defer to agency practice so long as the agency brings the expertise to
bear in making a decision, Citizens to Pres. Overton Park, Inc. v.
Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 417 (1971). For those waterway users that will be
restricted from transiting through the bridge, incur a loss, and/or
incur additional costs (direct or indirect) as a result of the proposed
action the Coast Guard considers them burdened waterway users. In order
for these waterway users to not be considered burdened, the Coast Guard
needs confirmation from the burdened parties that their impacts have
been mitigated. The Coast Guard will then look to the remaining list of
burdened users to determine whether their needs are reasonable and
should be accommodated.
The Coast Guard reviews the overall economic impacts and the
impacts to waterway users when evaluating the entirety of a permit
application. However, the Coast Guard's primary consideration is to
ensure that bridges over navigable waters meet the reasonable needs of
navigation.
Question. Admiral Rapp, the Columbia River Crossing Project has
identified fewer than 10 users that could be impacted by the current
bridge design. The identified height of 116 feet would affect less than
0.1 percent of bridge users and less than 0.1 percent of cargo.
Does the USCG take into account the entirety of river users, or
only those river users that are negatively impacted by the proposed
project, when it determines the impact to navigation?
Answer. When reviewing a permit application the Coast Guard takes
into account all waterway users.
uscg response boat-medium
Question. Admiral Rapp, the Coast Guard is 10 boats short of
completing its acquisition of the response boat-medium (RB-M).
Throughout its procurement history, the RB-M has been delivered on-
time, on-budget, and meets or exceeds all of its performance goals.
Furthermore, the RB-M offers a number of operational and cost
advantages over the Coast Guard's fleet of 41-foot utility boats
(UTBs), which the RB-M is in the process of replacing. I am concerned
because the USCG's budget request for fiscal year 2014 did not request
funds for the fulfillment of RB-M procurement.
Given its record of exceptional performance and cost-effectiveness,
why has the Coast Guard declined to complete its RB-M procurement?
Answer. The Coast Guard has completed a mission need analysis and
only requires 170 RBMs to support Coast Guard operations.
Question. As you know Admiral, the RB-M was procured to replace the
USCG's existing fleet of 41-foot utility boats, many of which are
approaching or have passed four decades of service. If the USCG
prematurely ends this procurement program, I fear the USCG's capability
will be diminished. The development and fielding of the RB-M has been
characterized by the use of technologies such the Coast Guard's Asset
Logistics Management Information System and an Integrated Electronic
Technical Publication System to facilitate maintenance planning and
contractor logistics support.
How successful have these kinds of support systems been towards
enhancing the planned maintenance and uptime of deployed RB-Ms?
How does their performance with the RB-M compare to similar
applications with other USCG vessels and platforms?
Answer. Our existing logistics information technology (IT) systems,
Asset Logistics Management Information System (ALMIS) and Interactive
Electronic Technical Publication (IETP), have been successful
maintenance planning tools. They provide the capability to properly
schedule and execute planned maintenance while tracking overdue
maintenance requirements. They currently provide visibility of
inventory parts required for the execution of scheduled and unscheduled
maintenance. ALMIS' most robust feature is its ability to track asset
performance and maintenance completion data in near real-time. This
enables the performance of reliability-centered maintenance analyses
which allow the Coast Guard to make data driven decisions regarding
maintenance and operations.
Not all of the Coast Guard surface assets are supported by ALMIS or
an equivalent IT tool. The new Coast Guard Logistics Information
Management System (CG-LIMS) will provide a technology refreshment of
legacy logistics IT systems, including ALMIS and IETP. It is configured
to match the Coast Guard's integrated business model and replace a
number of obsolete and disparate maintenance, supply, configuration
management, and technical information IT systems for aircraft and
boats.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Question. The Coast Guard needs 58 fast response cutters (FRCs) to
replace their aging fleet of patrol boats. Congress may fund six boats
each year--the maximum number allowed to be commissioned under the
current contract--yet the Coast Guard only requested two boats in the
fiscal year 2014 budget. If four additional FRCs were funded, two would
be slated for homeport at Cape May, New Jersey.
The Coast Guard is currently operating more than 25 percent short
of its needed patrol boat mission hours. How would a total of six
additional boats help close this gap?
What is the financial impact, in the long-term, of commissioning
two vessels at once instead of the full six allowed under the current
contract?
Answer. Fast response cutters are programmed to deliver 2,500
resource hours each fiscal year. Six FRCs (four more than requested)
would provide 15,000 resource hours. The 2014 request funds the Coast
Guard's highest priority needs.
Question. The Coast Guard Reserve serves a vital role in assisting
the active Coast Guard on a variety of demanding missions, including
drug interdiction, search and rescue, and disaster response. After
Superstorm Sandy, more than 180 reservists, or approximately 20 percent
of the response force, provided recovery assistance in regions across
the Northeast that were affected by the storm. The fiscal year 2014
budget request reduces reservists by more than 1,000 men and women.
How will this cut impact the ability to provide surge capacity in
the case of a contingency or natural disaster, like Superstorm Sandy?
Answer. The Coast Guard Reserve is a national, strategic resource
that mobilizes reservists nationwide to support contingencies and
natural disasters such as Superstorm Sandy. Our Reserve workforce will
remain a vital addition to the Coast Guard's multimission Active Duty
forces that can be surged in response to future contingencies.
Question. The Coast Guard is establishing electronic card reader
requirements for maritime facilities and vessels to be used in
combination with the Transportation Security Administration's
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program. A risk-
level assessment of various facilities and vessels will be used to
establish standards and determine allocation of TWIC resources. Most
container terminals would likely fall into the lower risk category
(risk group B), and therefore be subject to a lesser standard. This
risk determination is based on the known hazardous nature of the cargo
presented for shipment.
Does this approach adequately account for risks to our Nation's
ports that may be concealed in containerized cargo? If not, what steps
should be taken to ensure that the TWIC program and related risk
assessments eliminate risks to our ports from both known and concealed
containerized cargo shipments?
Answer. The TWIC program, including the use of biometric readers,
addresses access control into secure areas of Maritime Transportation
Security Act (MTSA) regulated facilities and vessels. In the TWIC
Reader Requirements Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Coast Guard
evaluated both the overall risk at various vessels and facilities and
where the access control benefits of TWIC readers will have the
greatest impact on that risk. The Coast Guard will continue to monitor
the costs and security benefits of TWIC readers, as well as the
external security environment.
The Coast Guard recognizes the importance of container facilities
to the Nation's economy, and the need to maintain security at these,
and other facilities, in order to protect workers, mariners, and others
who could be impacted by a transportation security incident. TWIC is
just one of many mechanisms in the multi-layered security regime in
America's ports that include, but are not limited to: international
port security; advance notice of arrivals to facilitate screening of
vessels, crew and cargo; site-specific security assessments; Coast
Guard-approved vessel and facility security plans; security exercises;
inspections and spot-checks; and regular patrols. The Coast Guard will
continue to enforce existing security requirements and conduct other
security activities at these facilities.
Question. The Cape May Coast Guard Training Center has significant
safety and equity improvement needs. Pier 4 is extremely deteriorated
and presents a major safety hazard. In addition, the barracks at the
Cape May training facility currently lack sprinkler systems and the
facilities for male and female recruits are not of equal quality.
The Coast Guard has received $11 million to address and
recapitalize portions of the condemned Pier 4, and that project is
currently in the design phase. Will the proposed project adequately
address the safety hazards at the pier, and when will it be completed?
In 2012, the Coast Guard provided a basic plan to make necessary
improvements to the barracks; however, the plans lacked specific
details. When will the Coast Guard address the safety conditions and
inadequate facilities at the barracks?
Answer. The Cape May Pier project will adequately address the
concerns with Pier 4. While the project is currently in the design
phase, there have been no delays, and the contract is anticipated to be
awarded in September 2013 with 18 to 24 months for contract completion.
In December 2012, the Coast Guard awarded a contract to address the
most critical maintenance to the barracks at Training Center Cape May,
specifically to upgrade the fire detection and suppression system at
the Healy and James Hall recruit barracks and the Bruckenthal
unaccompanied personnel housing (UPH) barracks. The contractor has a
required completion date of January 1, 2014. Munro Hall, the remaining
recruit barracks building, will have fire detection and suppression
system upgrades as part of a planned acquisitions, construction, and
improvement (AC&I) project.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. Admiral, it's my understanding that you have expressed
interest in obtaining excess Department of Defense aircraft as part of
a recapitalization strategy. How would this help the U.S. Coast Guard's
long-term acquisition plan and have you identified the resources that
would be required to operate and maintain such aircraft?
Answer. Obtaining excess USAF C-27J aircraft provides cost
avoidance over the Coast Guard's maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) program
of record.
Question. Admiral, these seem like challenging times for the Coast
Guard for a number of reasons. With the Department of Defense's
strategic emphasis on the Western Pacific, it's my understanding that
U.S. Navy ships are being diverted to that region, which means fewer
assets that the Coast Guard can leverage to conduct its migrant and
drug interdiction missions. Your recapitalization budget request is
reduced by 35 percent and you have plans to decommission several aging
high endurance cutters because of the significant costs to maintain and
repair them. Can you describe the concerns you may have in being able
to complete the myriad of missions that the Coast Guard is responsible
for?
Answer. Coast Guard operational commanders allocate resources to
address the highest threats and operational priorities. The Coast Guard
will continue to do so in this resource-constrained environment. The
fiscal year 2014 budget submission will provide the Coast Guard with
funding for the seventh national security cutter and two more fast
response cutters. These new assets, coupled with robust interagency and
international coordination will enable the United States and partner
nations to best mitigate threats throughout the maritime domain.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
Question. As the Arctic continues to open, sufficient Coast Guard
presence in the region is vital to ensuring the safety and security of
the region. In fact, we recently saw how important the Coast Guard is
when the mobile offshore drilling unit Kulluk ran aground off
Sidkalidak Island at the beginning of this year. I am concerned by your
recent announcement that between budget constraints and Shell Oil's
recent announcement that it will not be drilling in the Arctic in 2013,
you won't have an Arctic presence this summer. There are a number of
reasons we still need a Coast Guard presence exist--last year Rear
Admiral Thomas Ostebo said that some 1,000 vessel transits are taking
place in the Bering Strait each summer. What is the Coast Guard plan to
respond to these needs without an Arctic presence?
Answer. The Coast Guard will have an Arctic presence this summer.
Arctic Shield 2013 will focus on understanding traffic on Alaska's west
coast and the Bering Strait. It includes the Coast Guard's two ice-
breaking vessels, the CGC Polar Star and the CGC Healy, as well as a
national security cutter. CGC Healy will conduct science missions and
will partner with the Coast Guard Research and Development Center to
evaluate equipment, and CGC Polar Star will test the readiness of the
icebreaker and crew. A national security cutter will be deployed as a
command and control platform that will conduct various missions.
Another essential element will be the forward operating location, based
at the Alaska National Guard hangar in Kotzebue, to support deploying
our helicopter and personnel. Additionally, a U.S. Coast Guard buoy
tender and the Canadian Coast Guard will test a State of Alaska
emergency towing system and a vessel of opportunity (oil) skimming
system to reinforce crew equipment familiarization and to build upon
the U.S. Coast Guard's international partnership with Canada. A Spill
of National Significance (SONS) seminar and a mass rescue workshop are
also planned.
Question. I'm happy to see that you requested funding for the
seventh national security cutter (NSC) as part of the Coast Guard's
fleet recapitalization program, but I'm concerned that the requested
$909 million for acquisitions is a dramatic reduction of $600 million
below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. Is this the funding level you
plan for the Coast Guard in the future?
Answer. The Coast Guard's out-year plans are outlined in the
Capital Investment Plan to Congress.
Question. Currently there is one high endurance cutter, the Munro,
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. Can the Coast Guard afford to waste
precious underway days, 20-30 days per patrol, transiting to and from
the operating area, or does it make more sense to homeport more
cutters, including a national security cutter, in Alaska?
Answer. The Coast Guard conducts homeport analysis when considering
all ports to account for factors including infrastructure costs, access
to logistics support, quality of life for families, and distance to
areas of operations.
Question. Have any studies been conducted to compare the prudent
cost of facility renovations to homeport and support a national
security cutter (NSC) in Alaska versus the annual cost of wasted
transit time for deployments and casualty repair? Will you commit to
such a review?
Answer. The Coast Guard conducts homeport analyses when considering
all ports to account for factors including infrastructure costs, access
to logistics support, quality of life for families, and distance to
areas of operations. No Government Accountability Office (GAO) study or
business case analysis has been conducted to compare the prudent cost
of facility renovations to homeport and support the NSC in Alaska
versus the annual cost of transit time for deployments and casualty
repair.
Question. Last year we discussed the aggressive pursuit of polar
shipping routes and control of resources by our Arctic neighbors, and
the fact that we were so woefully behind on required assets and
infrastructure. Last year's $8 million for the study and design phase
for a new polar ice breaker was a good start, but as we move forward
towards the requests for proposals (RFP), is the $2 million requested
enough for continued progression in fiscal year 2014?
Answer. Funding provided in fiscal year 2013 coupled with the $2
million requested in fiscal year 2014 is sufficient to enable the Coast
Guard to complete the required pre-acquisition activities, and the
Department anticipates delivering an operational ship within a decade
after this work is complete.
Question. With the Polar Star reactivated, I believe you have
requested $58 million for polar operations. Will that allow you to meet
mission requirements in both the Antarctic and Arctic regions?
Answer. The requested amount of $54 million for polar operations
($30 million for Polar Star and $24 million for Healy) will enable the
Coast Guard to meet current mission requirements in both the Antarctic
and Arctic regions.
Question. How long do you anticipate it will take to budget for the
full $850 million required to build a new polar icebreaker that the
Nation so desperately needs?
Answer. The polar icebreaker replacement is still in the pre-
acquisition phases, and as such a detailed acquisition strategy has not
yet been developed. However, funding provided in fiscal year 2013
coupled with the $2 million requested in fiscal year 2014 is sufficient
to enable the Coast Guard to complete the required pre-acquisition
activities, and the Department anticipates delivering an operational
ship within a decade after this work is complete.
Question. Is one new polar icebreaker enough?
Answer. The Coast Guard will be able to meet Federal icebreaker
requirements in the high latitude regions with CGC Healy and CGC Polar
Star.
Question. What are the Department's long-term plans to address our
critical Arctic needs?
Answer. The Coast Guard's current suite of cutters, boats,
aircraft, and shore infrastructure is sufficient to meet mission
demands in the Arctic. Lessons learned and the experience gained during
Arctic Shield will be applied to refine and improved Coast Guard Arctic
operations and presence for the near future and inform the development
of the Coast Guard's plan to provide strategic long-term presence in
the region.
Question. With Rescue 21, Coast Guard units performing search-and-
rescue missions have been more efficient and effective. Rescue 21 means
less fuel consumption, less crew fatigue, and less wear and tear on
assets. In addition, more lives are saved. Alaska has more than 33,000
miles of coastline, over 700 search-and-rescue cases a year, over 300
lives saved or assisted yearly by the Coast Guard, but I've heard
reports that Alaska is getting a watered down system using remaining
acquisition funds. What is your plan for fully implementing this vital
lifesaving tool in Alaska?
Answer. Due to the Coast Guard's unique operational requirements in
the 17th Coast Guard district, the Coast Guard plans to recapitalize
the existing National Distress and Response System per Alaska's
geographic requirements, which differ substantially over the
Continental U.S. coastline.
The Coast Guard's plan for Alaska is to recapitalize and upgrade
the existing National Distress and Response System in Alaska. More
specifically, the Coast Guard is already proceeding to:
--Upgrade core communications infrastructure at 31 existing sites;
--Replace Remote Radio Control Console System;
--Add digital selective calling to all legacy National Distress
Sites; and
--Fill three high-priority coverage gap areas (Middle Cape,
Fairweather Banks, Peril Straits); this is in addition to the
31 existing sites.
Additionally, though the Continental United States (CONUS) Rescue
21 system is deployed to Coast Guard CONUS Sector Command Centers
(SCCs), in Alaska the recapitalization will extend to 11 command
centers in six locations as indicated in the following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchorage Juneau Valdez Kodiak Sitka Ketchikan Command centers Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............. 1.......... ........... .......... .......... ............. Sector............. 2
1.......... 1.......... .......... .......... 1............ Station............ 3
........... ........... 1......... 1......... ............. Air Station........ 2
........... 1.......... .......... .......... ............. SERVS Building..... 1
........... 1.......... .......... .......... ............. Marine Safety Unit. 1
........... 1.......... .......... .......... ............. Vessel Traffic 1
Center.
........... ........... 1......... .......... ............. Communications 1
Station.
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
1............. 2.......... 4.......... 2......... 1......... 1............ Totals........... 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. I'm told that the most notable difference between the
Rescue 21 plan for Alaska and the Rescue 21 system being deployed
across the rest of the United States is in direction finding (DF)
capability, and that no DF service will be implemented in Alaska. If
location services are saving lives, how is this plan not short-changing
the residents of Alaska and the brave men and women of the Coast Guard
who serve them?
Answer. The Coast Guard's Continental United States Rescue 21
direction finding (DF) capability is applicable from the shoreline to
20 nautical miles offshore. In Alaska, the vast majority of search-and-
rescue cases occur well beyond this 20 nautical mile offshore
requirement that is necessary for the Continental United States Rescue
21 coastline coverage.
Instead, priority is on adding DSC (digital selective calling)
capability for Alaska. The project is adding DSC functionality and
completing network infrastructure upgrades. This will allow all 17th
Coast Guard district command centers to automatically receive GPS
(Global Positioning System) based data and voice from vessels in
distress with properly configured DSC radios. The increased position
accuracy of DSC enables a more efficient response tailored to the
nature of the distress in Alaska while reducing on scene arrival times
and crew fatigue.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much. This has been a very
informative hearing. Meeting recessed.
Admiral Papp. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., Tuesday, May 14, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESS
[The following testimony was received by the Subcommittee
on Homeland Security for inclusion in the record. The submitted
material relates to the fiscal year 2014 budget request for
programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]
Prepared Statement of the National Treasury Employees Union
Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Coats, distinguished members of
the subcommittee; thank you for the opportunity to provide this
testimony. As president of the National Treasury Employees Union
(NTEU), I have the honor of leading a union that represents over 24,000
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers and trade enforcement
specialists who are stationed at 331 land, sea and air ports of entry
(POEs) across the United States.
NTEU applauds the administration's fiscal year 2014 budget that
recognizes that there is no greater roadblock to legitimate trade and
travel efficiency than the lack of sufficient staff at the ports.
Understaffed ports lead to long delays in our commercial lanes as cargo
waits to enter U.S. commerce. NTEU strongly supports the fiscal year
2014 budget request for a total of 3,477 new CBP officer hires at the
air, sea and land ports of entry--1,600 paid for by an increase of
$210.1 million in fiscal year 2014 funding and 1,877 paid for by an
increase in customs and immigration user fees that have not been
increased since 2001.
For years, NTEU has maintained that delays at the ports result in
real losses to the U.S. economy. According to the U.S. Department of
the Treasury, more than 50 million Americans work for companies that
engage in international trade and, according to a recent University of
Southern California study, ``The Impact on the Economy of Changes in
Wait Times at the Ports of Entry'', dated April 4, 2013, for every
1,000 CBP officers added, the United States can increase its gross
domestic product by $2 billion. If Congress is serious about job
creation, then Congress should support enhancing U.S. trade and travel
by mitigating wait times at the ports and enhancing trade enforcement
by increasing CBP security and commercial operations staffing at the
air, sea, and land ports of entry and increase the CBP appropriation to
the level requested in the administration's fiscal year 2014 budget
submission.
NTEU was heartened to see that there was no decrease in CBP officer
overtime funding as there has been in previous budget submissions.
Overtime is essential when CBP officer staffing levels are insufficient
to ensure that inspectional duties can be fulfilled, that officers have
sufficient back-up and that wait times are mitigated. In CBP's own
words, ``Overtime allows OFO to schedule its personnel to cover key
shifts with a smaller total personnel number.'' This is one reason that
Congress authorized a dedicated funding source to pay for overtime--
customs user fees, pursuant to title 19, section 58c(f) of the U.S.
Code.
NTEU strongly supports the increase of the immigration and customs
user fees by $2 each to fund the hiring of an additional of 1,877 CBP
officers. CBP collects user fees to recover certain costs incurred for
processing, among other things, air and sea passengers, and various
private and commercial land, sea, air, and rail carriers and shipments.
The source of these user fees are commercial vessels, commercial
vehicles, rail cars, private aircraft, private vessels, air passengers,
sea passengers, cruise vessel passengers, dutiable mail, customs
brokers and barge/bulk carriers. These fees are deposited into the
customs user fee account. Customs user fees are designated by statute
to pay for services provided to the user, such as inspectional overtime
for passenger and commercial vehicle inspection during overtime shift
hours. User fees have not been increased in years and some of these
user fees cover only a portion of recoverable fee-related costs. In
2010, CBP collected a total of $13.7 million in commercial vehicle user
fees, but the actual cost of commercial vehicle inspections in fiscal
year 2010 was over $113.7 million--a $100 million shortfall.
Increasing the immigration inspection user fee by $2 to allow CBP
to better align air passenger inspection fee revenue with the costs of
providing immigration inspection services, is also supported by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO). According to GAO (GAO-12-464T,
page 11), fee collections available to ICE and CBP to pay for costs
incurred in providing immigration inspection services totaled about
$600 million in fiscal year 2010, however, ``air passenger immigration
fees collections did not fully cover CBP's costs in FY 2009 and FY
2010.''
NTEU is opposed to the $16 million cut in the fiscal year 2014
budget for the Foreign Language Award Program (FLAP), established by
the 1993 Customs Officer Pay Reform Act (COPRA), which allows employees
who speak and use foreign language skills on the job to receive a cash
award if they use the language for at least 10 percent of their duties
and have passed the competence test. FLAP is fully funded by customs
user fees. Also, under COPRA, Congress made FLAP funding a priority
because not only do language barriers delay processing of trade and
travel at the ports, for these law enforcement officers, communication
breakdowns can be dangerous. Since its implementation in 1997, this
incentive program, incorporating more than two dozen languages, has
been instrumental in identifying and utilizing CBP employees who are
proficient in a foreign language. Qualified employees are also eligible
for awards for use of languages of special interest, such as Urdu,
Farsi and Arabic that have been identified as critical foreign
languages in support of CBP's anti-terrorism mission.
NTEU also supports GAO recommendations aimed at more fully aligning
Agriculture Quality Inspection (AQI) fee revenue with program costs
(see GAO-13-268). According to GAO, in fiscal year 2011, CBP incurred
81 percent of total AQI program costs, but received only 60 percent of
fee revenues; whereas the Animal, Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) incurred 19 percent of program costs but retained 36 percent of
the revenues. In other words, APHIS covers all its AQI costs with AQI
fee revenues, while CBP does not. AQI user fees fund only 62 percent of
agriculture inspection costs with a gap of $325 million between costs
and revenue. To bridge the resulting gap, CBP uses its annual
appropriation. NTEU also supports CBP's efforts to establish an
agriculture specialists resource allocation model to ensure adequate
CBP agriculture specialist staffing at the POEs.
Finally, NTEU supports CBP's study of land border fee options and
an active review of all other existing fee rates to ensure that they
are set at a level that recovers the full cost of performing ``fee-
related'' inspection services.
CBP has a dual mission of safeguarding our Nation's borders and
ports as well as regulating and facilitating international trade. Since
CBP was established in March 2003, however, there has been no increase
in CBP trade enforcement and compliance personnel. NTEU is concerned
that the fiscal year 2014 budget, rather than increasing full-time
equivalents (FTEs) for CBP trade operations personnel, proposes to cut
21 trade operations positions including 14 rulings and regulations
staffers who are responsible for promulgating regulations and rulings,
and providing policy and technical support to CBP, DHS, Treasury,
Congress, and the importing community concerning the application of
Customs laws and regulations.
NTEU urges the Committee not to cut CBP trade operations staff, but
to increase funding to hire additional trade enforcement and compliance
personnel, including import specialists, at the POEs to enhance trade
revenue collection.
NTEU commends the Department for increasing the journeyman pay for
CBP officers and agriculture specialists. Many deserving CBP trade and
security positions, however, were left out of this pay increase, which
has significantly damaged morale.
NTEU strongly supports extending this same career ladder increase
to additional CBP positions, including CBP trade operations specialists
and CBP seized property specialists. The journeyman pay level for the
CBP technicians who perform important commercial trade and
administration duties should also be increased from GS-7 to GS-9.
CBP continues to be a top-heavy management organization. In terms
of real numbers, since CBP was created, the number of new managers has
increased at a much higher rate than the number of new frontline CBP
hires. According to CBP's own numbers, a snapshot of CBP workforce
demographics in September 2012 shows that the supervisor to frontline
employee ratio was 1-to-6 for the CBP workforce, 1-to-6.2 for CBP
officers and 1-to-6.9 for CBP agriculture specialists.
The tremendous increase in CBP managers and supervisors has come at
the expense of national security preparedness and frontline positions.
Also, these highly paid management positions are straining the CBP
budget. With the increase of potentially 3,477 new CBP officer new
hires, NTEU urges that CBP return to a more balanced supervisor to
frontline employee ratio.
NTEU strongly urges Congress to end the sequester. Under
sequestration, CBP's salaries and expenses (S&E) discretionary and
mandatory accounts must be reduced by $512 million including a $75
million cut in CBP user fee accounts. On March 26, the President signed
a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the Government through the end of
the fiscal year. The CR does not cancel the sequester. Congress did
provide some additional funding for the CBP S&E account in the CR, but
also required CBP to maintain the current CBP officer staffing level.
Maintaining current staffing floors means CBP cannot use all of the
increased funding in the CR to reduce furloughs for current employees
since it must continue to fill vacant positions.
Prior to enactment of the CR, the CBP sequester plan required all
CBP employees to be furloughed up to 14 days during the remainder of
fiscal year 2013 or 1 day per pay period beginning early to mid-April
through September 30. With the additional funding included in the CR,
however, there may be a reduction in the number of furlough days that
all CBP employees must take before the end of the fiscal year. In light
of the new funding bill, CBP is re-evaluating previously planned
furloughs, and has postponed implementation of furloughs pending that
re-examination.
recommendations
Funding for additional CBP staff must be increased to ensure
security and mitigate prolonged wait times for both trade and travel at
our Nation's ports of entry. Therefore, NTEU urges the Committee to end
the sequester and include in its fiscal year 2014 DHS appropriations
bill:
--funding to increase CBP officer staffing at the ports of entry to
the level in the administration's fiscal year 2014 budget
submission;
--funding to increase agriculture inspection and trade enforcement
staffing to adequately address increased agriculture and
commercial trade volumes; and
--funding to extend enhanced pay and retirement recognition to
additional CBP personnel, including import and other commercial
operations specialists, CBP-seized property specialists and CBP
technicians.
The more than 24,000 CBP employees represented by NTEU are proud of
their part in keeping our country free from terrorism, our
neighborhoods safe from drugs and our economy safe from illegal trade,
while ensuring that legal trade and travelers move expeditiously
through our air, sea and land ports. These men and women are deserving
of more resources to perform their jobs better and more efficiently.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony to the
Committee on their behalf.
Colleen M. Kelley,
National President.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Coats, Senator Daniel, U.S. Senator From Indiana, Statement of... 7
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 10
Questions Submitted by
Statement of................................................. 76
Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana:
Opening Statements of
Prepared Statements of
Questions Submitted by
Lautenberg, Senator Frank R., U.S. Senator From New Jersey,
Questions Submitted by
Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 9
Statement of................................................. 8
Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska, Questions
Submitted by
Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 100
Napolitano, Hon. Janet, Secretary, Department of Homeland
Security....................................................... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 13
Summary Statement of......................................... 10
National Treasury Employees Union, Prepared Statement of the..... 107
Papp, Jr., Admiral Robert J., Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard,
Department of Homeland Security................................ 73
Prepared Statement of........................................ 79
Summary Statement of......................................... 77
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Page
Additional Committee Questions
Arctic Policy.................................................... 37
Aviation Security: Prohibited Items List......................... 42
Border:
Fee Study.................................................... 34
Security..................................................... 34
Budget:
Priorities................................................... 19
Statement.................................................... 9
Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards....................... 30
Coast Guard('s):
Fast Response Cutters (FRCs)................................. 47
Vessels...................................................... 31
Capital Investment Plan (CIP)................................ 46
Cybersecurity Education.......................................... 40
Detention Beds Vs. Alternative Methods of Detention.............. 53
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)--Disaster Relief Fund
(DRF).......................................................... 49
Funding Innovative Technologies.................................. 50
H-2B Visas....................................................... 58
Icebreakers:
Funding...................................................... 36
Number Needed................................................ 37
Immigration...................................................... 40
Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).............................. 30
Maximizing Efficiency and Effectiveness.......................... 15
Military Housing................................................. 36
National:
Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF):
Funding.................................................. 38
Kansas Contribution...................................... 44
Validation............................................... 44
Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD)................... 67
Security Cutters (NSCs)...................................... 37
Reimbursable Agreements.......................................... 45
Sequestration Impact on Small Businesses......................... 56
Staffing Initiative at the Ports and Fee Increase Proposals...... 48
State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Government Preparedness
Grants and Training............................................ 52
Trade Enforcement................................................ 55
Transportation:
Security Administration (TSA) Training....................... 43
Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)...................... 35
Trusted Travelers................................................ 54
Violent Extremism................................................ 29
Worksite Enforcement............................................. 56
U.S. Coast Guard
Acquisition Projects............................................. 88
Additional Committee Questions................................... 97
Border Security.................................................. 92
Capital Investment Plan (CIP)
Coast Guard (USCG) Response Boat-Medium (RB-M)................... 101
Consequences of Sequestration.................................... 95
Fast Response Cutters (FRCs)..................................... 86
Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request.................................. 80
Appendix I................................................... 81
Future of the Coast Guard........................................ 89
Housing.......................................................... 94
Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA)................................... 100
Medium Endurance Cutters (MECs).................................. 100
National Security Cutter (NSC)
Offshore Patrol Cutter(s) (OPCs)
Polar Icebreakers
Sexual Assaults.................................................. 84
Technology Transfer.............................................. 99
Unmanned Aircraft Vehicles (UAVs)................................ 100
[all]