assessment, the analysis will determine who receives money under the new formula? >> he is, it's intended to be a -- yes, it's intended to be a risk-based evaluation. there will be retained population based funding. but we believe, and our vision for the grants are, we ought to be building and sustaining a national capacity for mitt indication and response. that is what we are combining these grants to achieve. >> will you give the states and local municipalitys or grantee the ability to comment or challenge or appeal their risk assessment in the event that they feel that there were things left out or things that were not

considered in their risk assessment? >> i think our relationship with our grantees is such and it's been on going that there's an exchange all the time, even as potential grant es are preparing their applications. >> and this one is probably a bit out of the realm of this la hearing, i'm getting from my mayors, from my governor, our disaster loan issue that we have in louisiana, which the vice president of the united states came down to louisiana to did st. bernard center to say that those lones would be forgiven for those plmunicipality, but my of the municipalitys and school boards are not getting loan

relief, i don't know if you kkn it but can you advocate on our behalf that the commitment was made and people made decisions based on it and it would be the right thing to do to live up to the commitment to waive the repayment of those disaster loans? >> i'll take a look at that, yes, sir. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentlemen yields back and now the gentlemen from texas for five minutes. >> thank you madam secretary, hopefully the mic will pick me up. >> i hear you fine. >> as senator mccall pointsed out, this was the anniversary of the death of agent topada, thank you for all you've done for the

family. but we are starting to get inconsistent information coming out of that investigation. if you can keep us up to date on that. despite the overall budget decrease, we are looking at doubling the fee passengers pay from $2.50 to $5 for the tsa, i applaud you for cutting spending, i'm a little concerned about raising taxes, especially when we were not really seeing a need there. we have got the tsa actually working better than it has in the past and we have got a lot of our technology expenditures under control, why the need for increasing that fee? >> thank you and thank you for your kind words about tsa, i think they have made a lot of progress in the last few years. it's a fee, not a tax. that is an important difference,

it has not been increased since 200 2002, in the meantime, the congress has appropriated dollars after dollars do make sure we have good technology that we have the right number of personnel that are properly-- properlily trained and so forth. we have increased costs since 2002 in the aviation department, just the pure fact of charging for a checked baggage has forced more and more passengers to load up their carry-on, you -- >> the charge for the carry-on -- >> yeah, like i say, you all are experts on airline travel and we looked at that last year because it makes screening more

complicated, that in and of itself off loaded $250 to $270 million of cost on the tsa. we think we need to raise that fee to $5 now, but not to do it per em planement, but to do it per one-way trip. if you have to take different segments in the leg and people do not have a hub airport, it's still one fee. then scope it up over the next years to a maximum of $7.50 we think that will take some of the weight off the general taxpayer and allow us to sustain what we have done at the tsa. >> another efficiency that i would ask you to look at, regarding the warehousing of equipment and there seems to be a relatively, what i think to be high lag time in deploying equipment after we purchase it

and getting it out to the airports. i would encourage you all to consider following the model of some technology companies go and actually drop ship it to the airports and including sflaul-- including installation. >> that the procurement and a lot of the lag time is a tributablegge, you have to do new construction at the airport itself, so that has to be done before the equipment can be installed. but, i think the drop-ship issue is something that we can take a look at. at least for some. >> thank you, i'll yield back the rest of my time. >> i recognize the gentlemen mr.

michigan. >> it's great seeing you. first of all, as a frequent traveller, finishing my first year in congress, i wanted to thank the hard work, daily commitment of the tsa employees to make sure that the tragedies of 9/11 never happen again. i represent metropolitan detroit, people have lost their ho home, property values are depressed and many local departments of government have had to layoff including first responders. my question, is how can homeland security work with prior year safer grantees to help make sure that the new firefighters and first responders that they hired with the federal grant money can keep these employees on and not have to lay them off when we

really need them? they are our front line defense against terrorism or any other emergency that would hit our communities. >> representative, we are -- we released the grants in that particular area on kind of a rolling basis. it's not going to be like uassi grants that will get announced at the end of the week in one fell swoop. we have in the grant guidance, the 12 grants that go out now for safer and were made retroactive to last year, been able to grant a waiver to allow localities to put more money into those grant costs then they have previously been able to do. the reason that waiver is important is because it helps address the problem that you have and detroit has and a lot of places have where they were

in a lauf situation for critical responders. >> it will help us make a difference. i yield back my time. >> you bet. >> chairman yields back, recognize if gentlemen from virginia for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, and secretary napolitano, welcome back and thank you for your service. i try to find where we have common ground, the topic for me is the task force issue and the defunding of it. you mentioned earlier that a program may have been in existence for a year and led to one apprehension, i agree that that should be reviewed and most likely terminated. the fact that some of them are still in operation, leads me to

believe that these agreements are indeed effective. can you agree with me on that that some are effective because they are being continued? >> i would agree that they are relatively effective. i will, however, suggest that secure communities as we activa activated, is more effective and cheaper. >> i would not dispute that, you know, safer communities program is effective and i'll certainly agree to that. the common wealth of virginia, i do not speak for the govern or, but i know he and his administration have been clear on this matter. they intended to have 24 state troopers, not just the state troopers that would stop someone at night, but this was more the targeted task force, violent

crimes, very violent crimes. drug dealers and rapes and murders, those areas, and they in their best judgment believed that, and i do as well, that a 287-g task force program would work for them. so i am expressing my disappointment here and in the spirit of transparence in government which i think we both share to the best extent possible. i do not think that this is one of the things we have to keep out of the hands of the bad guys. may i see if a request is made to your s ooffice, the data tha supported your decision on that? >> yes, you can say that. and with respect to virginia that request was pending for some time. and what we have done in virginia in the meantime is deploy more i.c.e. agents into the areas where we were told

that the task force would primarily be focused on a theory that full-time federal agents would be more productive. i'll be happy to get you briefed up on that as well. >> thank you for that, the expenses related to running the program, could you describe for us, just generally what those expenses would be and what savings are being realized by the disdecontinuing of that program? >> constant training is a big expense, travel for training, some overtime in those areas. so, thatw, they are little buckets. they are buckets. but they add up to a substantial number when you reduce it to a cost per removed individual. >> and yet, it's still difficult for me, and i still can't fully reconcile this and maybe it will take additional work here, that

a good governor, is saying look, we can help you here, a multi-er and yet, not one application had been -- has been approved, at least to my knowledge. it's tough to reconcile just a force multiplier, here we have turned down help. >> we work a lot with state and local law enforcement as you know. and i have had several discussions with the governor not in the last week but in the past about the 287-g task force. in conclusion, we believe with making sure you have the right number of full-time federal

agents and that we have secure communities turn odd and we just turned on four more states last week for security communities. it's a more effective way to go and helps us target appropriately the population that we want to prioritize. >> i yield back. thank you for your time and service. >> i recognize the gentle lady from new york. >> thank you for all your service to our country and all you do to protect america and keep us safe, we appreciate that and certainly your efforts to put together a budget during challenging times. thank you on behalf of all of us. a few issues, thank you for including $10 million for northern border technology that will help implement the beyond the border plan.

and i agree with the peace bridge, it's so important with our proximity to canada and we are the source of a tremendous amount of commerce every day which is often stifled at the border because of the inability to cross and the delay particularly for the trucks. this could be a huge boost to the up state economy which is not faring well. we appreciate any faenattention can give to that. we had a letter urging you to find the funds for this inspection station at the nfall station. while it's a giant unit, the guard station will be leaving. to us it's a opportunity to have a federal campus, and again, the collaboration that goes on already, it's going and i know

the air guard has signed off on it, we are looking for approval from yourself as well. one of the things that came up was an amendment that i pro posed. it was proposed that the department only purchase uniforms that are made in america. it's to ensure that our national security and economic skpurt -- economic security are tied together. i talked to secretary panetta, and he agreed that we do we are when we rely on our national supporters, uniforms all the way up to the procurement opportunities. this is not enacted but are there voluntarily steps that you can take, to help us to do this.

an economically secure nations good for all of us, can you speak to that as well? >> i agree, a economically secure nations better than one is not, and we are all interested in making sure we are maximumizing job creation, i'll look at what we are doing on the procurement of uniforms. i don't know if there are steps taken to lead in that direction or not. >> and i want to echo our request again to have us included buffalo and rochester areas, gerngs i think you understand the assets we have, people come from all over the world to see the falls and we want to make sure that our portion of the state is represented very well and we can make our best arguments on why

we want to continue to have a good relationship with the department of homeland security up there. so we appreciate reconsideration of that as well. with that i yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman. >> thank you, got a lot in that minute. >> i'm a fast talking new yorker that is for sure. >> i recognize the gentle lady from michigan, sub committee chairman, ms. miller. >> we talk fast in michigan too as well. secretary, welcome, we are delighted to have you here. i want to follow-up on a couple of comments that have been made by some of my colleagues about various things in regards to the department of defense and how they may have overlap or over lay with the department of home land security as well, i think as a nation, particularly as i've been following some of the d.o.d budget hearings this week, we miss the boat sometimes. i don't know if i'm asking you a question. just offering some thought for as we go into the future here. i think we missed the boat

during the last -- we could have utilized some things by the dhs, as we go forward, they are talking about go additional braks here, you may think about that a bit. i throw that out there. i think there's potential and i say that because i've been a proponent of having regional homeland securities around the kwun a-- around the country, an tom rich was one of the people supporting that. i feel it make as lot of sense. so that might be one thing. when we look at the off the shelf hardware that the taxpayers have paid for already and has been used effectively in theater, as we are out of iraq as we have a draw down in

afghanistan, we want to make sure that your department is have a drawdown in afghanistan, we want to make sure that your department is looking at all of the potential kinds of things that we will be bringing back here that may have application that you were get sort of on the cheap, really. >> if i might, we're constantly interchanging with d.o.d. to see if there are technologies or things that they have already developed. we've already paid to have developed. >> exactly. >> that we can use in our civilian missions. and so that is an ongoing process. with respect to materiel that was in afghanistan and iraq that's coming home, we are getting both helicopter and fixed wing aircraft from that that we will be using primarily at the southwest border. so we've had that -- we've been working that issue as well. >> i think there's a lot more, though. i'd just ask you to think about that a bit. because whatever it is, even

some of the lan systems that they utilized there as opposed to the uavs, you may have application at the southern border as well. >> indeed. >> you might want to take a look at that and besides that, you have the personnel as they are coming back that know how to operate all of these things that you may be able to meld in your department. so that's one thing. in the interest of time and speaking fast, on our committee we have had recent hearings in regard to the global supply chain to the scanning process, screening process, at the nation's ports. and i'm sure ms. hahn is going to follow up on this. but the current legislative mandate for 100% scanning and i know you have said that that is probably not possible.

we had some, a conversation and testimony that it was about a $20 billion item to do something like that and that currently there's only 2% to 4% that is actually being scanned. so there's a big difference and i certainly understand as circumstances happen and the costs and all these kinds of things. what i would say is we are looking forward to working with you for a legislative fix if there is one forthcoming, maybe you can tell me. do you have some ideas on how you might want to address that issue because i think you would find people willing to work with you on that issue. >> well, we have -- thank you for that. we have total agreement on the goal of the 100% scanning requirement. what we don't have is -- and the goal, of course, is to prevent harmful material from entering the united states. harmful materiel from entering the united states. what we don't have is an agreement as to 100% scanning is the best way to achieve that and whether it's even feasible from

diplomatic and logistics point of view. it's my conclusion that it is not currently feasible, but there are other ways that get us to the same place. it means looking at targeted shipment programs. it means working with common international organizations line the imo on common standards for moving security in the cargo environment. the whole global supply chain initiative is designed in part to give us a better sense, or to give us a better way to get to the goal of making sure we minimize the risk of dangerous cargo entering the united states. so we'd be happy to work with the committee on some of this. my current intent will be to extend the deadline that presently is in statute. >> legislatively? >> well, the statute now gives me the ability to extend the deadline. >> very good. thank you.

>> the general lady's time has expired. the lady from california has five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary napolitano, it's great to have you here and listen to your testimony. i for one am glad that we have the additional $5.5 billion for the disaster relief fund in this budget representing california you know, we seem to every year have disasters. fires, floods, occasional earthquake. last year we had a waterless hurricane that never even heard of that before. but we had it. and even for our country, i don't think i can remember as many disasters in our country. i appreciate the extra funding so that americans have the resources they need to recover in the event of a disaster. i also have some concerns about some of the changes in the budget and in your department.

i will say that i have always been a strong advocate for port security grants. even before i came to congress i worked with my predecessor jane harmon in working to change the criteria for port security grants so it was risk, vulnerability, and consequence consequence as part of how we appropriate that. i advocated that last session in keeping the airport security grants as a separate program. i am unhappy that the appropriation granted them into one large program and the attempt the administration is attempting to do the same thing. i think port security is crucial. i still feel like our ports are really some of our most vulnerable entryways into this country. so i just want to go on record, and maybe you can talk a little about how you still think that this is an adequate way to fund security efforts at our seaports across this country.

at the same time, currently i've heard that they have a hard time uts liesing even some of the grants they've been awarded. they're concerned about some of the bureaucracy and particularly in terms of reimbursement. so sometimes they are willing to purchase equipment and programs that they know definitely are going to be reimbursable as opposed to maybe getting what they think is the most appropriate equipment or program to secure the ports, because of some insecurity, if you will, on how they're going to be reimbursed. you might want to look at how we streamline the current grant programs and in the future so that they can utilize is better. effectively. especially if we're going to change it. >> well, first, one of the

things -- and the committee was very strong on this. the cuts congress made to grants last year were really deep. we were talking 40%, 50%. my options were very limited in terms of what i could do. now, with respect to the ports, they were really sliced. very deeply. however, port authority's can work with, in terms of hardening infrastructure at ports. that's another way to go about it. with respect to red tape or bureaucracy, i will say that fema is now turning around applications on average in 30 days or less. so they really have tried to cut through that, and with respect to what is reimbursable and what is not, i would think that the port of los angeles and what have you would be in regular conversations with fema as to what they think they need most and how it fits within the grand

grant structure. >> well, congresswoman miller, really, she convened the hearing we had last week on specific port security, and the issue of 100% cargo scanning did come up, and we do understand that the administration has said at this point it's not feasible. is that something we're even going to continue to strive towards? i know there's a lot of levels. point of origin. you know, the secure port, safe and secure ports initiative. i hear that. i just know the port of long beach in l.a., 14 million of those containers coming in and out annually. i am still very concerned that we're not scanning more than 3% or 4%, and we need to be looking at investing in the technology that might be out there that

actually could help us achieve this without slowing down commerce and without, you know, being a burden, because i really am still very worried about those containers coming in and out of our ports and whether or not we truly know what's inside of them. >> well, there have been a lot of major and significant improvements made in the safety and security of cargo. particularly container shipments over the last six or seven years and particularly in the last couple of years. those improvements are going to continue. if somewhere down the road the technology evolves and the international situation is such that you could get to something that looks like 100% scanning, of course that would be something we would look at, but i have to be frank with the committee that i think that's so down the road and so -- so slight in possibility that we are better off folk cu