[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AN EXAMINATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST FOR
THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
=======================================================================
FULL HEARING
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 9, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-3
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-262 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California, PETER T. KING, New York
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts LAMAR SMITH, Texas
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
JANE HARMAN, California MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon TOM DAVIS, Virginia
NITA M. LOWEY, New York DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
Columbia BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana
ZOE LOFGREN, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
Islands GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
AL GREEN, Texas
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
VACANCY
Jessica Herrera-Flanigan, Staff Director & General Counsel
Todd Gee, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Connor, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security.............................................. 1
The Honorable Peter T. King, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security.............................................. 2
The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Florida........................................... 42
The Honorable Christopher P. Carney, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Pennsylvania................................. 57
The Honorable Donna Christensen, a Delegate in Congress From the
U.S. Virgin Islands............................................ 52
The Honorable Norman D. Dicks, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Washington........................................ 41
The Honorable Bob Etheridge, a Representative in Congress From
the State of North Carolian.................................... 53
The Honorable Al Green, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Texas................................................. 59
The Honorable James R. Langevin, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Rhode Island................................. 55
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas:
Oral Statement................................................. 47
Prepared Statement............................................. 48
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress From the
State of California............................................ 45
The Honorable Daniel E. Lungren, a Representative in Congress
From the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection....... 39
The Honorable Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Massachusetts..................................... 43
The Honorable Ed Perlmutter, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Colorado.......................................... 61
The Honorable Loretta Sanchez, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California........................................ 37
Witness
The Honorable Michael Chertoff, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 12
Prepared Statement............................................. 16
For the Record
Material submitted by Hon. Peter T. King:
Fact Sheet: Select Homeland Security Accomplishments For 2006.. 3
Appendix
Additional Questions and Responses:
The Honorable Michael Chertoff Responses....................... 73
AN EXAMINATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST FOR
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
----------
Friday, February 9, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:10 a.m., in Room
311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bennie G. Thompson
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Thompson, Sanchez, Markey, Dicks,
Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Christensen, Etheridge, Langevin, Carney,
Carney, Green, Perlmutter, King, Lungren, and Bilirakis.
Chairman Thompson. The committee on Homeland Security will
come to order. The committee is meeting today to receive
testimony on the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request
for the Department of Homeland Security.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
Let me begin by thanking you for delivering your testimony
within the time frame requested by the committee. This is a
good start for the new Congress. I appreciate your cooperation
to date on this matter. I believe I have seen you more this
year than I did all in the last Congress. You are keeping your
word about meeting more often with this committee, and I
appreciate it, and I know the members do likewise.
Last February, when you appeared before this committee to
discuss the administration's fiscal year 2007 budget, the
entire Nation was disgusted with the atrocious response to
Hurricane Katrina. Confidence in FEMA and the overall
Department was at an all-time low. At the same time, in last
year's budget, the Department proposed drastic cuts to programs
that assist our first responders who are on the front lines of
the war on terror here at home, and finally, for mass transit,
rail and critical infrastructure, we were enormously
shortchanged by that budget. It was evident to the Nation that
the Department was not prepared to handle another catastrophic
terrorist attack or natural disaster.
Today, the committee is reviewing the Department's fiscal
year 2008 budget proposal, a budget which you will assert
protects the Nation from dangerous people and goods, protects
critical infrastructure, improves emergency preparedness and
response, and improves the operation and management of the
department. Well, this may be a new year, but in some
instances, Mr. Secretary, it feels like deja vu.
I do recognize some significant increases in an area such
as border security. Unfortunately, I fear that, behind the
increases, lurk some problems rather than answers. For example,
the budget requests $31 million to add an additional 600
detention beds for fiscal year 2008. I am not sure that 600
beds are enough if the intention is to truly increase work site
enforcement. In addition, adding beds alone is not the only
issue. Detention space needs to be humane. Just last week, I
saw reports of the tent city, nicknamed STRITMO, set up in
Raymondville, Texas. The conditions depicted by these reports
are far from humane. I can assure you that this committee will
be looking into this matter.
I also have other concerns, Mr. Secretary. I am concerned
that the budget does not adequately address why the Department
ranked at the bottom for the second time in nearly every
category of the OPM employee satisfaction, certainly. I am also
concerned that the budget is, again, passing the Homeland
Security book to State and locals.
Once again, the President's budget would eliminate funding
for local law enforcement terrorism detention program. This
year's budget would cut 52 percent from the State Homeland
Security grant program, which provides grants to first
responders in all 50 States and U.S. territories. The
Firefighters Grant Program, the Fire Act, would be cut by
nearly 50 percent. First responder training grants would be
slashed by 55 percent, and the President's budget would zero
out funding for grants to metropolitan medical systems that are
needed to prepare for the mass casualties from a disaster like
pandemic flu.
As I have said to you before, millions of lives are at
stake, and we can not continue to protect the homeland on the
cheap, nor can we do it through contracting services.
One last note. I am, personally very disappointed that you
are zeroing out the minority serving institution research and
fellowship program. As we have discussed on numerous occasions,
the Department must reach out to these institutions to assure
that our Homeland Security efforts mirror America and its
citizens. This elimination does not show a commitment to doing
so.
With that, Mr. Secretary, I look forward to hearing your
testimony about the Department's fiscal year 2008 budget
priorities and its justifications.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. King, for an
opening statement.
Mr. King. Thank you, Chairman Thompson.
Good morning, Mr. Secretary. It is nice to see you again.
Let me, at the outset, say that I sat through most of the
hearing the other day when we heard testimony from the
inspector general and the comptroller general, and quite
frankly, what I got from the testimony is that I think that you
and your management team that you have in place are doing a
very good job. The fact is, when you are talking about 22
departments and agencies being consolidated and 80,000
employees, all of those numbers we have heard before, there are
tremendous challenges, and I believe that you and the team you
have in place are going definitely in the right direction and
have a plan in place.
Also, I would like to, for the record--and I took this from
the Department's Web site. It is a list of the accomplishments
for 2006 of Homeland Security.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make this part of the record.
Chairman Thompson. Without objection.
[The Information follows:]
For the Record
Submitted for the Record by the Honorable Peter T. King, Ranking
Member, Committee on Homeland Security
Fact Sheet: Select Homeland Security Accomplishments For 2006
Release Date: December 29, 2006
Securing The Nation's Transportation System: Transportation Security
Administration (TSA)
TSA Responds to Liquid Explosive Threat in London: In
response to the foiled terror plot in England, TSA trained its
43,000 security officers to address the threat of liquid
explosives in a matter of hours. After two days security wait
times returned to normal levels. Six weeks later, after
conducting extensive explosive testing with our federal
partners, TSA again proved its flexibility by modifying its ban
on liquids by allowing limited quantities onboard aircraft.
Again, efficiency was not seriously affected and in fact wait
times during the Thanksgiving holiday were slightly lower than
in 2005.
TSA Strengthens Air Cargo Security: In Fall 2006, TSA
issued two security directives requiring inspection of 100
percent of high risk cargo, as well as packages tendered to
airlines at the ticket counters. TSA also expanded the use of
explosives detection canine teams to screen cargo and added 100
air cargo inspectors.
TSA Screens 700,000 Port Workers: TSA conducted more
than 700,000 name-based security threat assessments on port
workers. In partnership with the U.S. Coast Guard, TSA issued a
proposed rule and will soon issue a final rule that clears the
path to begin enrollment for the Transportation Worker
Identification Credential (TWIC) program in early 2007.
TSA Raises Freight Rail Security Baseline: TSA worked
with freight rail stakeholders to mitigate the greatest
vulnerability in freight rail transportation the standing Toxic
Inhalation Hazard (TIH) rail car. These efforts provide for
minimizing the occurrence of unattended TIH cars in High Threat
Urban Areas, and if they are present, lowering the cars'
standstill times and providing protection or surveillance. TSA
also published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would
require a secure chain of custody for certain security
sensitive materials and a car location reporting requirement
allowing DHS to locate any car containing security sensitive
materials at any time.
TSA Commences Baseline Security Evaluations for Mass
Transit and Passenger Rail Systems: Through this program, 100
nation-wide Surface Transportation Inspectors reviewed
implementation of 17 Security and Emergency Management Action
Items that TSA and the Department of Transportation's Federal
Transit Administration (DOT/FTA) jointly developed, in
coordination with the Mass Transit Sector Coordinating Council.
Implementation of the action items helps elevate security
readiness throughout the public transportation industry by
establishing baseline measures.
TSA Strengthens TSO Workforce: TSA has enhanced the
TSO workforce through increased focus on IED training, lower
injury rates, new career opportunities, and a new performance
incentive system.
Strengthening Border Security: Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
President Successfully Deploys 6,000 National Guard to
Border: In support of the President's initiative to deploy up
to 6,000 National Guard personnel to the Southwest border,
Border Patrol launched Operation Jumpstart. In addition to the
National Guard deployment, Border Patrol staffing increased by
8 percent, from 11,265 to 12,349.
Increased Border Security At and Between the Nation's
Ports of Entry: CBP Border Patrol agents reduced the number of
apprehensions at the borders by more than 8 percent in fiscal
year 2006. As a result of targeted coordinated enforcement
efforts, CBP Border Patrol reduced non-Mexican illegal alien
apprehensions by 35 percent. In fiscal year 2006, CBP Border
Patrol seized more than 1.3 million pounds of marijuana and
11,900 pounds of cocaine between the ports of entry. CBP
officers at the nation's ports of entry seized more than
644,000 pounds of marijuana, arrested more than 23,000
suspected criminals, interdicted more than 209,000 inadmissible
aliens and 1.628 million agricultural interceptions (meats and
plants).
Increased Border Security Draws Reduction in
Apprehensions: CBP Border Patrol agents reduced the number of
apprehensions at the borders by more than 8 percent compared to
last year. As a result of targeted enforcement efforts and
close coordination with other federal, state, tribal and local
agencies, the Border Patrol saw a 35 percent decrease in the
number of apprehensions of non-Mexican illegal aliens compared
to 2005.
CBP Deploys Over 880 Radiation Portal Monitors at Land
and Sea Ports: CBP deployed 280 new radiation portal monitors
throughout the Nation's ports of entry, bringing the number of
radiation portal monitors to 881 at the Nation's land and sea
ports of entry.
CSI Expands to 50 Ports, Covering Over 80 Percent of
Containers: CBP expanded the Container Security Initiative
(CSI), increasing participating ports to 50 in fiscal year
2006. CSI now covers more than 80 percent of U.S.-bound
maritime containers.
Processed 61 Repatriation Flights: During the
evacuations from Lebanon, DHS facilitated the processing of 61
civilian and military repatriation flights or 11,287 U.S.
citizens, while continuing to be vigilant in identifying any
individuals who would try and enter the U.S. fraudulently or
with malicious intent. DHS fully vetted all arriving persons
and ensured that all persons were checked for terrorism links,
criminal warrants, immigration and other violations. Federal
Air Marshals, Aviation Security Inspectors and Transportation
Security Officers were also deployed to key sites both in the
U.S. and abroad to facilitate secure flight and screening
operations.
DHS Awards SBInet Contract to Boeing: DHS awarded a
contract to Boeing Co. to implement SBInet along the Northern
and Southern Borders. The program will provide DHS with the
best possible tools to detect, identify, classify, respond to
and resolve illegal entry attempts at our land borders.
CBP Increases Capability to Secure the Northern
Border: CBP Air and Marine opened its third of 5 Air Branches
planned for the Northern Border of the United States. The Great
Falls Air Branch, Montana joins the Bellingham, Washington, and
Plattsburgh, New York, Air Branches in supporting Homeland
Security efforts along the northern tier.
Ports of Entry Inspections Form First Line of Defense
at Land Borders: CBP officers inspected 422 million travelers,
more than 132 million cars, trucks, buses trains, vessels and
aircraft. CBP Officers inspected 1.19 million private vehicles,
11.48 million trucks and more than 1 million aircraft.
CBP Immigration Advisory Program (IAP) Enhances
Security: The IAP enhances security by preventing terrorists
and other high-risk passengers from boarding aircraft destined
for the United States. Since its inception in 2004, IAP teams
have made more than 1,000 no-board recommendations for high-
risk or inadequately documented passengers. IAP accomplishments
equate to approximately $1.6 million in cost avoidance
associated with detaining and removing passengers who would
have been returned after having been refused admission to the
United States, and $1.5 million in potential air carrier
potential savings.
Protecting National Security and Upholding Public Safety:
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
``Catch and Return'' Replaces ``Catch-and-Release''
Along the Borders: The practice of ``catch and release'' for
non-Mexican aliens existed for years and was one of the
greatest impediments to gaining control of the border. In 2006,
the Department of Homeland Security and ICE re-engineered the
detention and removal process to effectively end this practice
along the border, an accomplishment that many considered
impossible in 2005 when only approximately 29 percent of
apprehended non-Mexican aliens were detained along the border.
ICE Sets New Record for Worksite Enforcement: More
than 4,300 arrests were made in ICE worksite enforcement cases,
more than seven times the arrests in 2002, the last full year
of operations for U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
ICE Sets New Record for Compliance Enforcement: ICE
completed 5,956 compliance enforcement investigations resulting
in the administrative arrest of 1,710 overstay and status
violators, a 75 percent increase over the number of
administrative arrests in FY 2005.
ICE Sets New Record for Alien Removals: ICE removed a
record 189,670 illegal aliens from the country this fiscal
year, a twelve percent increase over the number of removals
during the prior fiscal year. ICE also increased its detention
bed space by 6,300 during fiscal year 2006. Combined with
fiscal year 2007 enhancements, ICE is now funded for a total of
27,700 beds.
ICE Nearly Triples the Number of Fugitive Operations
Teams: ICE nearly tripled the number of fugitive operations
teams deployed nationwide from 18 to 50. These additional teams
maximized the efficiency of ICE immigration enforcement efforts
to locate, apprehend and remove fugitive aliens, nearly one-
third of whom have criminal histories.
ICE Dismantles one of the World's Most Powerful Drug
Cartels: ICE concluded a 15-year probe into Colombia's Cali
drug cartel, once responsible for 80 percent of the world's
cocaine supply, with guilty pleas by its leaders and a $2
billion forfeiture settlement. More than 141 members of this
organization have been arrested, indicted or convicted as part
of this ICE case.
ICE Targets Transnational Gangs: Through Operation
Community Shield, ICE arrested roughly 2,290 violent gang
members nationwide in 2006, of which 1,073 had convictions for
violent crimes. Since its inception in 2005, Operation
Community Shield has resulted in the arrest of 3,700 gang
members.
Protecting the Public, the Environment & U.S. Economic Interests: U.S.
Coast Guard
U.S.Coast Guard Christens First New High Endurance
Cutter in Over 35 Years: The U.S. Coast Guard christened the
Coast Guard cutter Bertholf, the first new high endurance
cutter to be built in more than 35 years and the first National
Security Cutter in its Deepwater acquisition program. The
cutter was designed to satisfy the Coast Guard's multi-mission
responsibilities in homeland security, national defense, marine
safety and environmental protection. The Coast Guard cutter
Bertholf will play an important role in enhancing the Coast
Guard's operational readiness, capacity and effectiveness at a
time when the demand for its services has never been higher.
U.S. Coast Guard Implements National Capital Region
Air Defense Mission: The U.S. Coast Guard officially assumed
responsibility for air intercept operations in the nation's
capital from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The Coast
Guard will support the North American Aerospace Defense
Command's mission with its rotary wing air intercept
capability. Coast Guard HH-65C helicopters and crews will be
responsible for intercepting unauthorized aircraft which fly
into an air defense identification zone that surrounds
Washington.
U.S. Coast Guard Arrests ``Tijuana Cartel'' Drug Lord:
In August, off the coast of San Diego, the U.S. Coast Guard,
along with federal drug agents, arrested Mexican drug lord
Francisco Javier Arellano-Felix, leader of a major violent
gang, known as the Tijuana Cartel, responsible for digging
elaborate tunnels to smuggle drugs under the U.S. border.
U.S.Coast Guard Set Records for Drug Seizures and
Arrests: This year, counter-drug boardings from U.S. and Royal
Navy vessels resulted in all-time records for seizures and
arrests. The 93,209 pounds of drugs that were seized was more
than the combined amount seized in the last two years.
Preventing or Mitigating the Effects of Catastrophic Terrorism: Science
and Technology (S&T)
DHS Launches the Air Cargo Explosives Detection Pilot
Program: The $30 million program, launched at San Francisco
International Airport and at Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport, is designed to capture vital information associated
with enhanced air cargo screening and inspection, and will
provide critical knowledge to help TSA make future decisions
and assist in technological research and development planning
for the national air cargo security infrastructure.
S&T Announces National Interoperability Baseline
Survey Results: The Office for Interoperability and
Compatibility's SAFECOM program has released the final results
of its National Interoperability Baseline Survey, fielded
earlier this year to measure the capacity for interoperable
communications among emergency response agencies nationwide. By
identifying the Nation's interoperability capacities, survey
findings will help policy makers and emergency response leaders
make informed decisions about strategies for improving
interoperability and target resources. The landmark analysis
surveyed 22,400 law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical
service agencies nationwide, and had a response rate of
approximately 30 percent.
TSA Conducts Rail Security Explosives Detection Pilot
Programs: Rail Security Explosives Detection Pilot Programs
were conducted in Baltimore, MD and Jersey City, NJ to test and
evaluate security equipment and operating procedures as part of
DHS's broader efforts to protect citizens and critical
infrastructure from possible terrorist attacks.
S&T Breaks Ground for the National Biodefense Analysis
and Countermeasures Center(NBACC): The facility will comprise
roughly 160,000 gross square feet with a concentration of
research and associated space. NBACC will support a staff of
approximately 120, and will house two centers, the Biological
Threat Characterization Center and the National Bioforensic
Analysis Center.
DHS Awards Contracts to Support Emerging Counter-
MANPADS Technologies: S&T completed Phase II of a multi-phase
program to migrate onboard military countermeasures technology
to commercial aircraft to protect against shoulder-fired, anti-
aircraft missiles, known as Man-Portable Air Defense Systems
(MANPADS). Under Phase III of the program S&T and its industry
partners are collecting operations, support, and performance
data. Additionally, S&T selected three firms to receive $7.4
million in combined contract awards to assess alternative
methods to counter the MANPADS threat.
Keeping America's Doors Open While Ensuring National Security: U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services(USCIS)
USCIS Eliminates Backlog: Through increased
productivity, reengineered processes, and automated services,
USCIS eliminated case backlogs of applications for immigration
services and benefits, reducing the backlog from 3.8 million
cases in January 2004 to less than 10,000 at the end of
September 2006.
USCIS Establishes National Security and Records
Verification Directorate: To combat fraud and criminal
activity, USCIS established the National Security and Records
Verification Directorate, deploying hundreds of officers who
specialize in the detection of fraudulent documentation and
immigration scams to USCIS field offices and centers throughout
the United States.
Basic Pilot Employment Eligibility Verification
Program Enrolls 11,000 Employers: USCIS enrolled more than
12,500 employers and businesses in the Basic Pilot Employment
Eligibility Verification Program. This program verifies the
work authorization of more than one million new hires a year at
47,000 hiring sites across the United States through online
employment authorization checks against Social Security
Administration and DHS databases.
USCIS Expands Electronic Filing: USCIS expanded
opportunities for customers to file service or benefit
applications electronically, and then track the status of their
cases online through the USCIS.gov Web site. To further
simplify immigration processing, new biometric standards were
developed that permit USCIS to store electronic fingerprints,
photographs, and signatures.
USCIS Welcomes New American Service Members: USCIS
naturalized members of the United States armed forces during
special overseas ceremonies in Afghanistan, Djibouti, Germany,
Greece, Iceland, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Kenya, South
Korea, Spain, the United Kingdom and in the South Pacific
aboard the USS Kitty Hawk. This year, USCIS welcomed more than
1,604 new Americans during these ceremonies.
Establishing A Nimble, Effective Emergency Response System: Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Rebuilding FEMA as the Preeminent Emergency Management
Agency for the Nation: FEMA is concentrating efforts on
improving core competencies, in such areas as Incident
Management, Operational Planning, Disaster Logistics, Emergency
Communications, Public Communication and Customer Service. FEMA
is also focused on improving its business process to develop a
strong foundation to support its mission, and has undertaken
agency-wide organizational assessments in areas that range from
human resources and logistics, to budgeting, communications,
financial management, procurement and data systems management.
DHS Pre-Designates Disaster Coordination Teams: In
preparation for the 2006 hurricane season, DHS pre-designated
five teams to coordinate the federal government's role in
support of state and local governments preparing for, and
responding to major natural disasters. In total, 27 federal
officials were appointed, each with unique expertise and
experience.
FEMA Achieves Key Developments in Assisting Disaster
Victims: FEMA increased registration capability to 200,000 a
day through its toll-free registration number, online
registration process, registering individuals in shelters and
using mobile units; increased home inspection capacity to
20,000 a day; activated a contract to assist in identity
verification in future disasters; and tightened processes to
speed up delivery of needed aid while simultaneously reducing
waste, fraud and abuse.
FEMA Strengthens Logistics Management Capabilities:
FEMA implemented the Total Asset Visibility (TAV) program to
provide enhanced visibility, awareness, and accountability over
disaster relief supplies and resources. It assists in both
resource flow and supply chain management. FEMA implemented
Phase One of TAV in the hurricane-prone Gulf Coast States for
the 2006 hurricane season and plans to expand it to all the
regions. Interagency Agreements, Memoranda of Understanding,
and private sector contracts were also developed to strengthen
disaster logistics capabilities.
FEMA Improves Communications and Situational
Awareness: Real time information sharing is already occurring.
To improve upon existing systems, DHS has initiated
technological advances and elevated the standard by using
satellite imagery, upgrading radios, and employing frequency
management. The new National Response Coordination Center at
FEMA is now operable. In addition, Mobile Registration Intake
Centers, logistics supply systems and total asset visibility
programs have been implemented.
Real time information sharing is occurring at all
levels including local, state and federal. Advances in
technology are being utilized; satellite imagery, upgraded
radios and frequency management are the new standard.
FEMA Enlists Seasoned Leadership Team: In addition to
the confirmation of Director R. David Paulison, FEMA has built
a strong team of leaders across the organization who each bring
more than 20 years of experience in emergency management or
applicable fields. FEMA has also filled nine out of ten
Regional Director positions with the same standard of
experience, illustrating the vital importance of strong
regional leadership, and is in the process of filling the last
position.
Building a Culture of Preparedness: Emergency Preparedness
DHS Awards $2.6 Billion for Preparedness: Included in
this total, approximately $1.7 billion in Homeland Security
Grant funds has been awarded to state and local governments for
equipment, training, exercises and various other measures
designed to increase the level of security in communities
across the nation. $400 million in grants was awarded to
strengthen the nation's ability to prevent, protect against,
respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters
and other emergencies that could impact this country's critical
infrastructure. Almost $300 million was also distributed in
fire grants to fire departments and EMS organizations to
enhance their response capabilities and to more effectively
protect the health and safety of the public and emergency
response personnel with respect to fire and all other hazards.
DHS Reviews 131 State and Local Emergency Plans: By
reviewing state and local disaster plans, collocating decision-
makers, and pre-designating federal leadership, DHS is
improving coordination across all levels of government. Through
the Nationwide Plan Review, DHS completed visits to 131 sites
(50 states, 6 territories, and 75 major urban areas) and
reviewed the disaster and evacuation plans for each. These
reviews will allow DHS, states and urban areas to identify
deficiencies and improve catastrophic planning.
DHS Completes National Infrastructure Protection Plan
(NIPP): The NIPP is a comprehensive risk management framework
that clearly defines critical infrastructure protection roles
and responsibilities for all levels of government, private
industry, nongovernmental agencies and tribal partners.
DHS Receives New Authority to Enhance Chemical
Security: DHS was given authority by Congress to implement
risk-based security standards for chemical facilities that
present high levels of security risk. This allows the
department to recognize the significant investments that
responsible facilities have made in security, while providing
the department with authority to ensure that high-risk
facilities have adequate safeguards in place.
Transforming U.S. Border Management & Immigration Systems: US-VISIT
DHS and DOJ Begin to Establish Interoperability: DHS
and the Department of Justice began the initial phase of
establishing interoperability between the US-VISIT program's
Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) and the FBI's
Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS)
fingerprint databases. This interoperability will increase DHS
and the State Department's ability to screen travelers,
increase accuracy of matching, and provide greater ability to
match against latent prints.
DHS Tests Biometric Verification At Sea: US-VISIT has
teamed with the U.S. Coast Guard to test mobile biometrics
collection at sea. The U.S. Coast Guard and US-VISIT began a
pilot program to collect biometric information digital
fingerprints and photographs from migrants interdicted while
attempting to unlawfully enter U.S. territory through the Mona
Passage, the body of water between the Dominican Republic and
Puerto Rico.
US-VISIT Deploys E-Passport Readers to 33 Airports:
US-VISIT completed deployment of e-Passport readers to 33 U.S.
airports so that ports of entry have the capability to compare
and authenticate data in e-Passports issued by Visa Waiver
Program (VWP) countries.
Protecting Our Nation from Dangerous Goods: Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (DNDO)
DNDO Awards over $1 Billion for Next Generation
Nuclear Detection Devices: DNDO announced the award of Advanced
Spectroscopic Portal (ASP) program contracts totaling $1.15
billion to enhance the detection of radiological and nuclear
materials at the nation's ports of entry. ASP models were
deployed to the Nevada Test Site, where they will be tested
using nuclear threat material. Portals have also been delivered
to the New York Container Terminal for data collection.
DNDOEstablishes Nuclear Forensics Center: DNDO
established the National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center to
collect and analyze material evidence in order to identify and
ultimately prosecute those responsible for any potential act of
nuclear terrorism.
Training Our Front Line Officers: Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center (FLETC)
FLETC Trains 51,000: Over 51,000 federal, state, local,
tribal, campus and international law enforcement agents and officers
were trained by FLETC on topics including border security, and the
prevention and detection of nuclear, radiological or biological
attacks.
Establishing Policy to Protect Our Nation: DHS Policy Office
DHS Renegotiates Passenger Name Record Data: DHS
successfully renegotiated an interim agreement regarding
Passenger Name Record (PNR) data with the European Union,
allowing the department to make full use of passenger data as
needed to protect our borders. Under the agreement, CBP will
have new flexibility to share PNR data with other counter-
terrorism agencies within the U.S. government, carrying out the
President's mandate to remove obstacles to counter-terrorism
information sharing.
Secure Freight Initiative Launches to Begin Screening
at Foreign Ports: DHS and the Department of Energy announced
the first phase of the Secure Freight Initiative, an
unprecedented effort to build upon existing port security
measures by enhancing the federal government's ability to scan
containers for nuclear and radiological materials overseas and
to better assess the risk of inbound containers. The initial
phase involves the deployment of a combination of existing
technology and proven nuclear detection devices to six foreign
ports: Port Qasim, Pakistan; Puerto Cortes, Honduras;
Southampton, United Kingdom; Port Salalah, Oman; Port of
Singapore; and the Gamman Terminal at Port Busan, Korea.
Administration Announces Security Improvements to Visa
Waiver Program: The Administration announced its intention to
work with Congress to reform the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), to
strengthen security and facilitate international allies'
ability to join the program. A significant component of the
proposed reform is the implementation of a secure travel
authorization system that would allow us to receive data about
travelers from VWP countries before they board a plane.
Always Be Ready: Ready Campaign
Ad Council Deems Ready One of the Most Successful
Campaigns: The Ad Council declared the Ready Campaign one of
the most successful campaigns in its more than 60-year history.
The campaign has generated more than $593 million in donated
media support. The Web site has received more than 1.9 billion
hits, the toll-free number has received more than 272,000 calls
and more than 9.7 million Ready materials have been requested
or downloaded.
Ready Kids Launches in February: Ready Kids, an
extension of the Ready campaign, was launched as a tool to help
parents and teachers educate children in ages 8--12 about
emergencies and how they can help get their family prepared.
DHS and the Ad Council Launch New Ads: Together with
the Ad Council, DHS released new television, radio, print,
outdoor and internet PSAs to support the Ready campaign.
Preparing for & Responding to Incidents of Medical Significance: Office
of Chief Medical Officer
DHS Coordinates Pandemic Influenza Activities: The
Office of the Chief Medical Officer (OCMO) coordinated the
department's pandemic influenza preparedness activities,
including: serving as DHS representative to White House
Homeland Security Council's Pandemic Influenza planning
processes (National Strategy, Implementation Plan for National
Strategy); overseeing formation and activities of the
Department's pandemic working groups; representing DHS at the
Department of Health and Human Services' State Pandemic
Influenza summits; establishing the Pandemic Influenza Program
Office within the OCMO; developing detailed spend plan for and
initiated execution of $47 million Avian Influenza supplemental
appropriation.
Shaping the Intelligence Network: Intelligence & Analysis (I&A)
Fusion Centers Facilitate Flow of Information: I&A
began embedding DHS analysts to state and local fusion centers
across America. DHS has already deployed personnel to five
centers and has provided over $380 million in support of these
centers.
DHS Enhances Information Sharing with Government and
Private Partners: I&A analysts produced and distributed nearly
450 intelligence products which provided actionable information
which helped our partners protect their communities and
critical infrastructure.
Installation Begins on Homeland Security Data Network
(HSDN): While an interim capability has been in use for several
years, I&A began installing the Homeland Security Data Network,
a classified network that will allow the advanced, real-time
communications capability to exchange information up to the
Secret level with our partners at the federal, state and local
level. HSDN will be installed in every fusion center where I&A
deploys an officer.
Integrating and Unifying All Aspects of the Screening Process: Office
of Screening Coordination
Office of Screening Coordination Created: DHS started
the Office of Screening Coordination to integrate the
department's terrorist and immigration-related screening
efforts, create unified screening standards and policies, and
develop a single redress process for travelers. The office will
generate new and innovative approaches to how the department
detects and interdicts threats of all types and improve the
experience for legitimate foreign travelers entering the United
States.
Strengthening and Unifying DHS Operations And Management: DHS
Management
Chief Human Capitol Office Moves Forward with
Performance Management Goals: DHS deployed its performance
management program and its automated system to approximately
10,000 employees in multiple components and trained 350 senior
executives and more than 11,000 managers and supervisors in
performance leadership.
The Office of Security Completes HSPD-12 Goals: The
Office of Security met all Homeland Security Presidential
Directive (HSPD) 12 requirements by deploying an HSPD-12
compliant credentialing system and associated policy and
procedures. This new credential meets all federal requirements
for interoperability and security.
The Chief Procurement Office Exceeds Small Business
Goals: DHS awarded approximately 34 percent of DHS prime
contracts to small businesses, exceeding the goal by 4 percent.
Chief Information Office Stands Up New Data Center:
Data Center Services completed the Stennis Space Center Data
Center Construction Phase I, 24,000 square feet, on time and
the first application has been transferred to this data center.
Countering the Drug Threat to the United States: Counternarcotics
Enforcement (CNE)
National Southwest Border Counternarcotics
Implementation Plan Closes Gaps: On August 18th, 2006, DHS and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), serving as co-chairs and
represented by the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement (CNE)
and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG)
respectively, submitted a National Southwest Border
Counternarcotics Strategy and Implementation Plan to the
International Drug Control Policy Coordinating Committee (IDC-
PCC). This 235 page document identifies the major goals,
objectives, and resource requirements for closing gaps in U.S.
and Mexico counternarcotics capabilities along the Southwest
Border.
Statement of Intent Specifies Department's Effort
Level in Counternarcotics Operations: The Office of
Counternarcotics Enforcement, in collaboration with the DHS
Components, developed a document that formally specifies the
Department's intended baseline level of effort (personnel and
resources) that will be made available to support
counternarcotics operations. This Interagency Statement of
Intent, required by the National Interdiction Command and
Control Plan, will assist operational commanders in allocating
resources to collect drug-related intelligence, as well as
support operations that interdict drug smugglers in South
America, Central America, the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean and
Eastern Pacific regions.
Protecting America and Preserving Our Freedoms: Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties (CRCL)
CRCL Implements New Training Through The Civil
Liberties University: The Office for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties, working with component offices throughout DHS,
developed a number of useful training products and posters for
DHS personnel, including: an hour-long training on the
introduction to Arab American and Muslim American Cultures; on-
line training that emphasizes the core elements of the National
Detention Standards developed by the Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Detention and Removal Office; two posters that
provide guidance on how to screen and, if necessary, search
individuals who wear common Muslim and Sikh head coverings; and
an educational poster on how to screen those of the Sikh faith
who carry a kirpan, or ceremonial religious dagger.
CRCL Implements Effective Processing of EEO
Complaints: The Equal Employment Opportunity Program has
developed an effective process for issuing Final Actions by
hiring subject-matter experts, having a multi-tier quality
control process, utilizing contractor support and exercising
strong project management controls. The first priority has been
addressing the oldest cases received from DHS's legacy
organizations. The oldest case pre-dated DHS by 16 years. As of
December 1, 2006, CRCL received over 3812 EEO complaints of
discrimination for final agency action and over 3576 decisions
have been issued.
DHS Co-sponsors Working Conference on Emergency
Management and Individuals with Disabilities and the Elderly:
CRCL, in partnership with the Department of Health and Human
Services, co-sponsored a working conference on June 28--30,
2006. The conference brought together Governor-appointed State
teams to connect State emergency management officials with key
disability and aging experts to work toward integration of
efforts within their jurisdiction's emergency management
framework; to facilitate cooperative planning with senior
officials of the Federal Emergency Management Agency regions;
and to identify and institute measurable outcomes and systems
for tracking results.
CRCL Continues Engagement with American Arab, Muslim,
Sikh, South Asian and Other Ethnic and Religious Communities:
CRCL has actively lead or participated in regularly-scheduled
meetings with representatives from the American Arab, Muslim,
Sikh, and South Asian communities in Houston, Los Angeles,
Detroit, Chicago, Buffalo, and Washington, DC. CRCL has also
established working relationships with immigration advocacy
groups concerned with border security and naturalization
policies, and with leaders of the disability community to
discuss emergency preparedness issues, particularly in the
context of natural disasters.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr.Chairman.
I say this, though, as a prelude to saying that, as I go
through the budget and I see some of the same reductions that
Chairman Thompson spoke about, at least $420 million cuts in
first responder grants, the zeroing out of the MMRS grants, the
reduction in training grants, and also the SAFER grants--we see
the problems we had last year in trying to find out how the
money could be allocated to go to the areas that needed it the
most, and I remember, at the time, one of the rationales you
gave was that you felt that Congress had not, perhaps, given
enough money on the grants, and my concern is that, when the
Department was started back in 2003, it was put together with a
budget which was supposed to involve no extra costs to the
Federal Government. Basically, we were taking these other
departments, and their costs would go with them, and there
would be no net increase in costs to the government.
Well, since then, we have certainly gone much more into the
issue of immigration that was contemplated when the Department
was created. We have had Katrina, which showed that much more
had to be done in the area of natural disasters. The committee
last year legislated port security funding--I mean port
security--chemical plant security.
This year, I know Chairman Thompson intends to have
extensive hearings on rail and transit security, and my point
is that are we looking at this budget number from the wrong
direction. Are we taking a budget that was first brought up 4
years ago, which was a guesstimate which then Secretary O'Neill
said was not going to cost one extra penny, and trying to work
within that budget every year and add on a certain percentage,
and add this to a budget which, perhaps, was inadequate to
begin with?
If we are at war with Islamic terrorism, if we are in a war
similar to the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, when we
are at war, you decide how much money you need, and you work
your way back from that.
We should, rather than work within the box, make a larger
box or look at it and really just look entirely at a new way of
how we approach this and find out what is needed and what is
not needed, not just throw money at programs, but it seems to
me that we are limited so often.
For instance, Press Secretary Snow said yesterday that we
are trying to make the best we can with scarce resources. Well,
if we are at war with Islamic terrorism, we should not have
scarce resources.
So I would just ask you to consider that. Certainly, I
intend to discuss this with the chairman as we go forward and
also with the members on my side if we should be looking at
this with larger parameters than we are right now.
So, with that, I thank the chairman for giving me the time.
Chairman Thompson and also Secretary Chertoff, one issue
which I believe maybe we should discuss right now is the whole
issue of interoperability, $1 billion which is jointly
administered between yourselves and the Department of Commerce,
and my understanding is that there is, thus far, still
difficult to coming to a memorandum of understanding between
the Department of Homeland Security and the Commerce
Department. Now, as I see it, interoperable communications are
critically important to the Nation's first responders. The
inability to communicate their dependability to respond to an
event creates further confusion.
While I am concerned there should be greater flexibility to
distribute these funds past the current fiscal year and to
ensure that they use it effectively, I am deeply concerned
about the delay of getting the administration's grant program
up and running. I am also deeply concerned regarding the grant
guidance finance funds. Guidance should permit the use of funds
for the purchase of interoperable systems that use bandwidths
other than 700 megahertz. Many areas, including New York City,
have spent millions of dollars of their own funds to build
interoperable communication systems using bandwidths other than
700 megahertz. For more than 10 years, New York has been
utilizing channels at 16 frequencies of 400 megahertz bandwidth
to achieve interoperability. Given the city's dense urban
areas, 700 megahertz just does not work, and that is just one
example. You and I have discussed this, and I believe we are on
the same page on this.
Secretary Chertoff and Chairman Thompson, I hope you agree
this is a critically important issue for first responders
across the country. I hope we can gain assurances from you two
today that you will ensure that grant guidance permits the
purchase of the systems operating on bandwidths other than 700
megahertz. I would further encourage you to let us know when
and where the Department is having problems in issuing
agreements with the Department of Commerce.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, this is an issue of which you and
I are in full agreement.
Chairman Thompson. You are absolutely correct, Mr. King,
and we will probably be sending a joint letter putting that
position forward to the Secretary before the response. Thank
you very much.
Mr. King. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
Other members of the committee are reminded that, under the
committee rules, open statements may be submitted for the
record.
Again, I welcome our witness today. When he was confirmed
in 2005, Secretary Michael Chertoff became the second person to
serve as the head of the Department of Homeland Security. Prior
to his confirmation, Mr. Chertoff served as a United States
circuit judge for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Prior the
that, he served as an Assistant Attorney General at the
Department of Justice where he was instrumental in helping to
trace the September 11th terrorist attacks to the al-Qa'ida
network. He served in a number of other public service
positions.
Mr. Secretary, I thank you for your service, and I
appreciate your agreeing to testify here today.
Please.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Chertoff. It is a pleasure to appear here at the
beginning of this new year and in Congress, and I appreciate
the opportunity we have had already to meet informally, and I
look forward to continuing that practice, which I think has
been helpful to me, and I hope it has been helpful to you as
well. I request that my full statement be made part of the
record. I am going to just be brief in terms of summarizing
what I have to say and then responding to questions.
This is a budget that reflects an 8-percent increase over
our fiscal year 2007 budget, and actually, almost 50 percent
over the 2003 fiscal year, so it does reflect an expanded
amount of money recognizing that we have an expanded mission.
It reflects the President's very strong commitment we
articulated yesterday when we visited the Department,
continuing to make sure we have the tools and resources that we
need to enhance our security, but in a way that balances our
freedom and our prosperity, and we do have, as you point out,
an enormous range of missions which I break down into 5 basic
goals--keeping bad people out of the country, keeping bad or
dangerous things out of the country, protecting our critical
infrastructure, continuing to build a well-prepared and
effective response capability, and finally, strengthening the
institution of the DHS, itself--and I am just going to briefly
review where we are now and what we have accomplished and where
we want to go in the next fiscal year on each of these items.
Mr. Chairman, as you and the ranking member have pointed
out, the border has become a very, very significant public
issue, and we have devoted a lot of resources and have begun to
see very positive results in getting control of the border.
That includes investments we have made in high technology and
tactical infrastructure. We are requesting $1 billion for the
SPSBE NET program to continue to support the deployment of high
technology in a virtual fence across the border, and where
appropriate, we are now putting up fencing on the border.
For example, in the Barry Goldwater range, which is
basically a coordinated testing range for the military, we are
putting up these pilings which will keep out vehicles, and we
are welding fencing between the pilings to keep people out.
That protects the people as well as the mission. I am delighted
to say the Deputy Secretary was down there himself last week
doing some of the welding, but in addition to the high-tech and
the fencing, we are also well on the way to doubling the border
patrol as the President committed last year, looking to have at
the end of this coming fiscal year 17,819 border patrol and
then getting to 18,319 by the end of the calendar year.
These boots on the ground, additional infrastructure and
the fact that the National Guard has been working with us has
produced some very significant results, which I will mention in
a moment.
Another piece of this, of course, is when we apprehend
people and what we do with them. We have ended the policy of
catch and release for those who are illegally here and caught
at the border. We have done that through a combination of
better processing times, but also by increasing the number of
beds from 18,500 in fiscal year 05 to 27,500 in this fiscal
year, and are looking to add almost 1,000 additional beds for
fiscal year 2008, which would get us to 28,500.
This has allowed us, to the extent the law permits, to
detain and remove everybody that we catch at the border, and
this has had a very significant deterrent effect with expect to
non Mexicans who used to come into the country with the belief
that, even when they were caught, they would be released into
the community, and then they would never show up again. So we
begin to see the deterrent effect as it is felt through the
community of people who are trying to sneak in.
I am going to show you a chart now that shows what we have
seen in terms of trends and apprehensions of people coming
across the southern border, which show that since we began
Operation Jump Start and our increased enforcement in the
middle of last year, which was--you have the wrong chart up.
No. Keep going back. We are going to show you the decreases in
apprehensions.
What you will see is, from the third quarter of fiscal year
2006, which is when we began putting more boots on the ground,
through the fourth quarter and into the present, we have had
for the first time a reversal of the trend of the number of
people coming across the border, the number of incursions and
the number of apprehensions. That is quite dramatic. It went
down 13 percent and 37 percent in the third and fourth quarters
relative to the prior quarters. That does not mean that we have
done the job. What it means is we have begun to have an impact,
and it means that we now have some momentum which we have to
keep building upon if we are to get this job done.
Finally, our increased work site enforcement, including a
dramatic rise in the number of criminal penalties brought
against companies that systematically violate the immigration
laws, has begun to have an impact on that economic engine that
draws people illegally into the country.
We have also made dramatic impact in terms of our
protection of our ports. Three years ago, we only screened
about 48 percent of our cargo overseas under the container
security issue. Now we do 82 percent. Four or 5 years ago, we
had no radiation portal monitors at our seaports. By the end of
this year, virtually 100 percent of the containers coming into
the United States will go through radiation portal monitors at
our ports before they enter the country, and by the end of next
year, our budget proposes to have virtually 100 percent of our
land ports with the radiation portal monitors that will screen
for radiation and for containers and cargo coming in. We are
also, pursuant to the Safe Ports Act, beginning the process of
deploying radiation systems and x-ray systems at overseas
ports, including Pakistan, the United Kingdom and Honduras. So,
to the extent that foreign governments allow us to do so, we
can actually do this standing overseas.
Let me turn to critical infrastructure. Critical
infrastructure, whether it be TSA where we are beginning to
deploy document checkers to add a new level of defense for our
air system or whether it is our new chemical plant regulations
and toxic regulations and rail regulations, we are seeing
significant steps forward raising the bar for security for all
elements of our infrastructure. We have completed a national
infrastructure protection plan. We have got submissions on each
of the critical sectors in terms of their security plans, and
we are working to validate and to elevate the security at all
elements of our economy.
Let me turn fourth to emergency preparedness response. I
think FEMA has demonstrated in the last year a remarkable
turnaround from what I think you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, was
a very sad story that we had to face last year at this time. In
the recent response to the tornadoes in Central Florida, while
not of a scale of Katrina, I think there is a hopeful sign in
terms of our systems retooling all across the board, and we are
requesting 149 million additional dollars to continue with this
new initiative under Chief Paulson as well as money that we are
going to use, $48 million to further professionalize our
disaster workforce by moving a significant number from being
term employees to being permanent employees.
Let me turn to the issue of grants for a moment before I
conclude. We recognize, of course, that there is always a
desire for money in State and local governments, and we do have
to operate within a pool even with an expanded budget where we
have to make difficult trade-offs. Our commitment is to be
risk-based, and that means, while we do not put all of the
money in the high-risk areas, we are unquestionably leaning
toward the high-risk areas in the way that we do allocate the
money. We have listened to Congress. This year as opposed to in
prior years, we have agreed to continue to propose grants in
individual infrastructure categories as opposed to a single
infrastructure grant program that lumps them all together, and
our proposed funding continues the funding levels which
Congress enacted last year. The urban area security initiative
grants, which were $770 million last year, we are proposing to
increase to $800 million, and although you are correct to say,
Mr. Chairman, that the State home security grants were proposed
to be cut by a little more than half, that is more than offset
by the $1 billion of interoperability funding, which will be
available in fiscal year 2008 to address what everybody has
recognized as a very high-priority, still unmet need.
I think the bottom line is that the money that will be in
the hands of communities in fiscal year 2008 of the President's
budget will be approximately the same as it was last year, and
that is about $3.2 billion, which I think is a very good news
story. I also have to remind the committee that there is still
over $5 million that has been unspent, so there is plenty of
money in the pipeline, and as we consider how to balance the
competing demands, we want to keep the pipeline primed, but we
do not necessarily want to overflow it.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I take very seriously the results of
the survey about which you mentioned. I recognize that, with
any new department that is being stood up, physical
constraints, shortages of money for training and the fact that
we are working people very hard does have an impact on them. I
have asked the deputy human capital officer and our under
secretary of management to dig deeply into the survey to see
what the causes of dissatisfaction are and to put together a
plan that will give us better communication, better stability.
I am pleased to say some of the steps we have already
taken, including increased professionalization of leadership in
the workforce, for example, FEMA, is where we have now finally
completed, essentially, populating our senior leadership with
experience emergency managers and also getting started on a
campus for DHS at St. Elizabeth's, which I think is an
important part of what will settle the Department over the long
term and build a culture and a spirit which are essential to
having a happy and a productive workforce.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for hearing me, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The statement of Michael Chertoff follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I thank you
for your testimony, and I recognize myself for 5 minutes for
the beginning of the questions.
I guess the first question, Mr. Secretary, is you have seen
the budget. Are you satisfied with it? Is it enough resources
for you to do your job?
Secretary Chertoff. I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman. I believe
it presents us with a lot of resources, which I think we can
use appropriately and in a disciplined fashion but which
addresses what we need to get done in 2008 to build on the
progress up till now.
Chairman Thompson. Given that, you talk about the poll that
was taken by OPM relative to morale in staff. That is a real
problem. I want to bring it to your attention in the sense that
the committee will be looking over the next few months on how
you propose to resolve what we think is too significant an
issue not to have a plan in place to address, but it is a major
issue.
Last month, I talked to you about the western hemisphere
travel initiative, and that I had a talk with some ministers
from the Caribbean relative to the passport requirement, and
more specifically, I had spoken with the Bohemian administrator
of tourism, Mr. Obie Wilshim, and he was concerned that, with
the implementation of this initiative, it might have an adverse
effect on tourism.
At that time, you felt that it was the right thing to do
but that, in the interim, for people who might have a problem,
we would have created an opportunity for them to phase in, if
you please, that implementation.
Can you give me some idea as to how that is going?
Secretary Chertoff. Yes, I would be delighted to.
We did track this very carefully in the period of time
leading up to the deadline, which was January 23rd. We have
done it since then. We have discovered that, thanks to some
very good communication by the destinations and by the
airlines, at the time that we actually began the program on
January 23rd, we had virtually perfect compliance. We had very
few instances where people did not have the passports that they
needed at the border. In those few instances where they have
not, we have allowed people in, and we have simply told them to
have the requirement in the future. We have obviously checked
their identification. Although I have said I think the press
was dogged in trying to search out stories of problems at the
airport, I have not seen any report of any significant problem
with respect to the program, and there is, as we speak,
virtually 100-percent compliance at all of our ports of entry.
So it is a very important program because it is an
important security measure for the country. I am pleased to say
we were able to put it in without a lot of inconvenience.
Chairman Thompson. Okay. Now, a lot of that is with Canada.
What about with the Caribbean?
Secretary Chertoff. It was 99 percent.
Chairman Thompson. With the Caribbean?
Secretary Chertoff. Yes. Yes. In some cases, I think it was
100 percent. I mean it was really quite remarkable that people
got the message and carried through on it.
Chairman Thompson. And I appreciate the fact that you
facilitated a window of opportunity for those individuals who
might not have received the information relative to the
passports. Was it 30 years or some kind of window?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, we continue to have the window
open, and happily, it has been a window which very few people
have had to pass through. So, you know, eventually, I think we
will--let me say, Mr. Chairman, we have always allowed people--
Americans--to return. It is just that, if you do not have a
passport, it sometimes becomes a little bit more difficult. I
do not envision this as being any more problematic than what we
face, for example, when people come back from Europe or Asia.
Chairman Thompson. Well then, that is fine, and that
resolves the question.
Relative to the experiments under the Safe Ports Act, we
have shared with you some concern about the technology that is
being deployed at the ports--you can expect the communication
from the committee--as to whether or not that technology is
state-of-the-art technology, whether it foreign-owned
technology or what have you, and I would appreciate your
response to it.
I now yield to the ranking member.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, on the issue of grants, they are being cut
by $420 million on port security. We authorized $400 million,
and only $210 million is going in the budget of port security
grants, and I know you are saying that the $1 billion from the
interoperability is to partially offset that. The fact is I was
part of those negotiations at the time. I do not recall its
ever being suggested that that $1 billion would be in lieu of
money that was supposed to be supplement to what is already
being spent. It was not supposed to be fill-in. So I would have
a really, you know, serious difference with you on that. Let me
just ask several questions then and ask you if you could answer
them.
One, on interoperability, if you could tell us, number one,
what is the status of the memorandum of understanding between
DHS and the Commerce Department? Secondly, as far as guest
workers, if the U.S. visit plan is not able to control both
entry and exit, how can a guest worker program work at this
stage? I think this is probably a follow-up to what the
chairman was referring to.
As far as radiation portal monitors, I know as to the ones
that were installed on the test project, in the pilot project
on Staten Island, the GAO last fall, I believe, said there were
serious deficiencies with them. If you could update us on what
the status of that is.
With that, I will give you the opportunity to answer. Thank
you.
Let me just make one other point, Mr. Secretary. I always
enjoy seeing you up here. The chairman enjoys seeing you up
here. The fact is I do think that Congress has taken a golden
opportunity this year to consolidate jurisdiction in one
committee. My just quick reading is, with the seven full
committees that have any number of subcommittees that are
calling your people up here continually when we do have
hurricanes to fight and a war to fight, I just think it puts
too much stress on the Department to constantly have the top
management coming up here to appear before most of the
committees and subcommittees who are trying to get their moment
in the sun.
Secretary Chertoff. Well, I certainly endorse the idea of
allowing us to consolidate our appearances before this
committee on the authorization side, and comparably on the
Senate, that is what the 9/11 Commission recommended, and it
would certainly, I think, not only make my life easier, but we
would actually continue to build on it, and a very productive
relationship will be developed both informally and in more
formal settings.
On the three questions you raised, the memorandum of
understanding is very close to being signed. If it is not
signed within the next week or 10 days, I am going to get on
the phone or sit down with Secretary Gutierrez, and we will
just get it done. I do not think there is any obstacle in
principle. It is just kind of a paperwork issue.
With respect to TWP--temporary worker program--and U.S.
visit exit, it is quite clear that a foundation of a temporary
worker program will have to require a secure identification
card, and then that card will have to be something which it
will be in the interest of the temporary worker to make sure it
is being recorded when that person enters and leaves the
country, but the number of people involved in that program
dwarfs the number of people who cross the northern and southern
borders every year. I think the total number of crosses we have
every year are 400 million, and I will be very candid about
what the problem or the challenge we face with exit is.
We intend to move forward in the next year with exit at the
airports. In fact, we have money in the budget to handle that
at the apartments. At the land ports of entry, though, if we
were to be required to stop every single person when they leave
to determine who is a citizen and who is not a citizen and who
has to give their biometric and who does not have to give their
biometric, we would have extremely long lines in places like
Detroit and Buffalo and the southern border as well. So we need
to come up with a more efficient system for determining who is
leaving as part of U.S. exit, and that is going to require us
to work with the Canadians and the Mexicans to see whether we
can share information on their side of the border so people
only have to stop once rather than twice.
At the same time, it is very important--and we are putting,
I think, about $140 million into the budget this year--that we
move forward with a second part of U.S. visit, entry, which is
the ten fingerprints, which allow us to match the fingerprints
of people coming into the country, foreigners, against latent
fingerprints we pick up from battlefields and safe houses all
over the world, and that is something which directly adds,
probably, the largest step up in security at the borders of any
screening tool that we have.
Finally, with respect to the radiation portal monitors, I
believe the GAO report was based on an early pilot study, and I
have spoken to the head of the DNDO. The advance monitors we
are looking at now have a much higher success rate, and of
course, we will be testing them operationally before we invest
a significant amount.
Mr. King. Thank you Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
I now yield to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary, for
being before us today.
I just want to make a little aside with respect to
something that Ranking Member King said about, you know, if we
do not have a U.S. visit program, we are not going to be able
to do the guest worker program if there were to be some sort of
program put in in the future, and I would just say we are not
going to be able to make sure that any of our immigration
reforms are passed along, whether it is naturalized citizens,
whether it is, you know, residents. It is just a security
issue. So it is incredibly important that these programs we
have, like U.S. visit, actually work before we ever pass some
sort of immigration reform.
I mean, we have to--as a sovereign state, I believe we need
to know who is coming in and out, and that U.S. visit program
is incredibly important, both at the airport and at land and
port entries.
Mr. Secretary, I want to ask you a little bit about the
catch-and-release policy. I want to know when you all decided
to end the catch and release policy, how long it has been in
place, what the actual logistics are of such a program,
especially in light of a lot of allegations that I have
received from civil liberties and immigration law groups that
illegal immigrants are confined for 23 hours a day in
windowless tents made of Kevlar-like material, are often
without insufficient food, clothing, medical care, and very
little or no access to telephones and counsel.
So I want to hear how did you come to this, what you think
it really looks like if you are somebody who ends up in this
catch-and-release program, and I would like to know how many
OTMs have you returned to their native countries since you
started doing it this way.
Secretary Chertoff. Catch-and-release was a policy that
existed long before I ran the Department, and it reflected the
fact that we did not have enough detention beds to hold
nonMexicans who accorded the border. Now, Mexicans can simply
be returned across the border on the same day, so there is no
detention issue, but people from, you know, Guatemala or China
or other parts of the world require processing before they can
be sent back to their native countries. So the question is what
do you do with them?
Until 2006, because of the shortage of beds and because of
the cumbersome process, most of them were released, and the
consequences of that is most of them never showed up for their
court hearing.
Ms. Sanchez. I think we all understand that.
I am trying to get a feel for what does it look like. How
long has it been, and what have been the results? Because the
real result we want is to get this person back to their home
country--
Secretary Chertoff. So here is what we do.
Ms. Sanchez. --and when we read in the paper it is taking
12 months or 18 months of hanging out in some tent on the
border, this does not make us look good or efficient.
Secretary Chertoff. Let me break it into two categories.
For the people who are now subject to what I call ``catch-and-
return,'' people caught at the border, they are put on
expedited removal. The average time to remove them used to be
90 days. It has now been reduced to about 20 days, which means
that people who are caught at the border and put in expedited
removal are returned in approximately 20 days to their home
countries. There are some, obviously, exceptions. That is an
average.
I want to separate that from the category of people who are
detained in the interior. There, we do not necessarily always
detain people when we catch them illegally, because we do not
have the beds to do that for everybody, but we do generally
detain those who either have criminal records or who are
particular flight risks or who have some other characteristic
that suggests they ought to be a higher priority.
Sometimes those cases do take a while to process because
the individual involved is pursuing legal remedies in the
United States, which are very time-consuming, and so, while
they are in that process, often the judge determines--sometimes
the judge bails them out, but sometimes the judge determines
that it is appropriate to detain them. So 12 and 18 months
applies to people who are detained in the interior, and it
really is a function of the way the immigration court system
operates.
Ms. Sanchez. After the 20 days, does this OTM get before a
judge?
Secretary Chertoff. Expedited removal, as a matter of law,
does not put you in front of a judge.
Ms. Sanchez. And my last quick question before my time runs
out: Are these camps also on the northern border, and are we
doing the same thing at the northern border, or are you really
just doing this at the southern border?
Secretary Chertoff. We have detention centers all over the
country. Ninety-nine percent of the people who come across the
border illegally between the ports of entry come through the
southern border. So, when we built the particular tent camp
that you are talking about--
Ms. Sanchez. Did you just say 99 percent of people who
cross the border are coming across the southern one instead of
the northern one?
Secretary Chertoff. Right.
Ms. Sanchez. Only 1 percent of the people without documents
are coming across our northern border?
Secretary Chertoff. That is right.
Ms. Sanchez. Is that because we do not have it all checked,
and we do not have as much going on at the north or do you just
really believe that only 1 percent of the people are coming
across the northern border?
Secretary Chertoff. Most of the flow--this may change in
the future as we tighten up on the southern border. Most of the
flow comes through the southern border, and I have been told it
is approximately 99 percent between the ports of entry.
Ms. Sanchez. Ninety-nine to one. Do you want to stand by
that number, 99 to 1?
Secretary Chertoff. This is what I have been told.
Ms. Sanchez. Ninety-nine to one? That is almost absolute.
Secretary Chertoff. Well, what I am telling you,
Congresswoman, is that, by far, the majority of people by a
very, very large margin--and I will have someone verify the
figures for you. By a very, very large margin, the people
coming across between the ports of entry are coming from the
southern border, but I will also tell you we have the same
program at the northern border. If we catch somebody at the
northern border who is there illegally, we will put them into
the same program. They will be put into detention, and they
will be returned under the same expedited removal. We go where
the flow is. We are indifferent as to whether they come across
the northern border or the southern border or, frankly, whether
they come by sea. It is the same thing. If we catch them and
they are illegally here and we can put them in expedited
removal by law, we will hold them, and we will remove them
within a very short period of time--
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Chertoff. --and I will just get someone to verify
the percentage, but it does not strike me as intuitively wrong.
Chairman Thompson. We will now hear from the gentleman from
California, Mr. Lungren.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have been on the southern and northern borders--I took
our subcommittee to the northern border last year--and I would
be surprised if it were not 95 or 99 to 1 given the activity.
Also, I remember when I was up at the sector that includes
Seattle that they said 90 percent of the people that were
caught there who were there illegally were actually from South
and Central America, interestingly enough, not that they come
across the border illegally. They had actually traversed up
through the lower 48 to get up there.
I want to say we are never totally satisfied with what you
are doing, but I think you are making progress, and I
appreciate it. We on this committee asked you to stop catch-
and-release. We were going to start legislation prohibiting it,
and you moved ahead before the legislation was completed to do
that. We have, in the Congress, enacted laws to allow you to do
expedited removal, and frankly, I think we should be
criticizing you if you were not doing it.
The fact of the matter is those people who are caught
within a close distance to the border are not entitled to the
same legal remedies as are others. That has been the law of the
land for a long time, and frankly, I think you are enforcing
the law as we should. In the past, we criticized you for not
doing enough. So I appreciate the progress you are making
there, but obviously, more progress needs to be made.
I would apologize to you from the Congress for our not
adopting the 9/11 Commission recommendation that you only have
to come up here one time. I mean it makes great TV, I suppose,
but we should be about the business of protecting this country,
not about the business of having multiple hearings by multiple
committees.
I would like to ask you about--oh, the one thing I wanted
to say about the temporary worker program, in addition to
making sure the exit programs works, we have a temporary worker
program in which you require the money that otherwise would go
into social security be put into a fund which would allow the
individual involved to redeem that amount in their home
country. You have a way of identifying whether they are there
or not. Not allowing them to redeem that money if they do not
show up during that period of time, making them disqualified
for any future participation in the program and the threat of
arrest if they come back to the United States might be one way
of solving that. I hope you will be looking at that.
I would like to throw in my two cents on interoperability.
I have been visited by people from the City of Ponce, Puerto
Rico, from people in my district in Elk Grove and Sacramento,
California and Southern California. Interoperability remains a
huge problem. A number of years ago, we thought it would
require us to buy all new radios, and now we know we have those
systems that allow us to take multiple divergent systems and
put them together, and I would just say, Mr. Secretary, please
do what you need to do to shake that money loose.
We, in good faith, worked together on a bipartisan basis to
put $1 billion in there, and now when these constituencies come
to us, it sounds a little strange for us to say we gave you $1
billion, and they cannot get a memorandum of understanding
between the Department of Commerce and your department to make
it work. We really need it sooner rather than later, and I
would hope that you would make a commitment to make sure that
that happens in short order. It is absolutely needed.
In H.R. 1, which passed the House last month, there is a
proposal to repeal the section of the TSA that governs the
terms and conditions of the TSO workforce. I am worried about
that because I thought that Congress made a judgment to give
you that flexibility so you could respond to things like
Katrina, like the London bombing and what it had for us here.
Could you give us any idea of your feeling if we come
through with a conference report which requires you to work
under the repeal of that section?
Secretary Chertoff. I think the tradition has been that,
when you are dealing with people who work in the national
security field, you need the maximum flexibility that can only
operate in a system where you do not have collective bargaining
over terms and conditions of work.
In this instance, of course, we pay a lot of attention to
building a good career path and putting money into retention
and training for TSA, and as a consequence, there has been a
significant drop in the rate of people who are deported.
Nevertheless, if you look at the experience we had, for
example, last August after the discovery of the revelation of
the airline plot in the U.K., we had to rapidly turn around the
terms and conditions and the deployment of people literally
within less than 24 hours. Likewise, during Katrina, we had to,
all of a sudden, move people all the way across the country to
do an enhanced screening operation.
I fear that these are subjects which could become part of
collective bargaining, and that would make it much more
cumbersome and difficult to respond to this. I also think that
collective bargaining, because the employees are not under the
general schedule, the fear of collective bargaining could make
wages a subject of bargaining, and that would, of course, have
a significant budget impact and would create a dislocation
between those employees and other employees.
So, you know, our view is that Congress made the correct
judgment originally and should adhere to it.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
I am sure, Mr. Secretary, you understand some of us differ
with that opinion. Thank you.
Mr. Dicks. Mr. Secretary, it is my understanding that
officials of DHS and the State Department met recently with
officials from Washington State and have made some substantive
progress. I think this is very important. I thank you and the
Department for helping to move this forward. Because this
project will require an adjudication of the license holder's
citizenship, the Department of State must be an active partner.
Mr. Secretary, can you tell me how the discussions with the
State Department are progressing?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, I agree. The State Department has
to be an active partner, and I have spoken to representatives
of the State Department and the Assistant Secretary of the
policy, who is really the point person on this, and I am
meeting regularly with the State Department to make sure that
we are on track for the implementation of this program, so I
cannot tell you at this moment exactly where the State
Department is, but we are actively engaged with them as one of
the most high-priority, current efforts.
Mr. Dicks. You know, this whole Real ID issue is worrisome
to me. Can you tell me when you expect to see the proposed
rules and how you intend to facilitate the States' ability to
meet the May 11th, 2008 deadline, and what is DHS doing to
minimize the costs to the States for complying with the Real ID
Act?
Secretary Chertoff. Let me first make it clear that the
deadline of May 11, 2008 does not mean that, on that day,
everybody has to have a Real ID license or they are out of luck
in terms of identification. In fact, the law allows, I believe,
a 5-year period during which this is actually going to be
implemented. May 2008 would be the kickoff date. We have been,
throughout this process, in active discussion with not only
various State representatives, but the Motor Vehicle
Association. I am anticipating that, by the end of this month,
we will have the regulations out for comment.
Mr. Dicks. Good. Good. There is a lot of concern, as you
can imagine, by the States about how this is going to unfold
and the time you are going to have to get this done and the
cost involved, so I appreciate your involvement on this.
Mr. Secretary, the State ports act passed last September
mandated the creation of--and you mentioned this in your
statement--an intermodal radiation detection test center to
identify optimal solutions for monitoring containerized and
port cargo that move directly from ships to trains for
radiation. The need to act deserves it because, by the end of
this year, all imported containers at the top 10 container
ports must be scanned for radiation.
When do you expect to have an implementation and cost plan
finalized for the test center?
Secretary Chertoff. I know we regard this as a priority.
Let me get back to you on it with a more specific date of when
we think we are going to have this decided, but we, obviously,
want to do this in the next couple weeks.
Mr. Dicks. Okay. Good.
The other thing I wanted to touch upon is we had the
inspector general up here, the IG, and I know you inherited all
of these agencies, and some of them were on the GAO's list as
not being auditable before you got them, and I had a chance to
talk to Mr. Norquist, who is a former staffer up here who we
have high regard for. What is your strategy?
I think the concern we have is it sounded as if it were
difficult to deal with the Department of Homeland Security on
this issue, that the legal counsel's office was obstructing and
doing various things to slow down the interaction.
Can you assure us that you are going to get on top of this
and make sure that this is cleared up in a reasonable period of
time? I do not want you to be like the Department of Defense.
The Department of Defense cannot audit their books, and I guess
the Coast Guard is your biggest problem--
Secretary Chertoff. It is, yes.
Mr. Dicks. --but somehow we have got to move in the right
direction here.
Secretary Chertoff. It is absolutely important, and you
know, I sat down with David Norquist recently after we got the
most recent audit. The good news was we had progress at CBP for
the first time. We got an unqualified opinion. ICE was credited
with making significant progress. You are correct that the
Coast Guard seems to have the greatest difficulty, maybe
because they have the most capital assets.
He has put together a specific plan with a timeline to get
us to a clean audit within a couple of years. It is probably
not going to happen this coming fiscal year, but it has
milestones. We are going to meet periodically. I have empowered
him to make sure that he is the authority over all the CFOs and
components to get this done.
The other area where we were lagging--and I have a good
news story to tell you here--is with IT security. In the fall
of 2005, under FISMA, our certification and accreditation
completion was only 22 percent, but in the fall of 2006, it was
95 percent.
Mr. Dicks. Good.
Secretary Chertoff. So we had a big jump forward. Now, we
still have more work to do, but it was a good story.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
We now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I wanted to thank you for your Department's
response to the devastating tornadoes that recently swept
through Central Florida. Although my district was not impacted,
I understand that FEMA has worked closely with my State's
emergency management officials, and I have also heard that the
governor is very pleased to respond to this tragedy. I hope you
will share my appreciation with those who helped.
Secretary Chertoff. I will absolutely convey your
appreciation to Chief Paulson and to all of the people at FEMA,
and I appreciate your comments.
Mr. Bilirakis. Sure.
My first question: In your opinion, does the employee
dissatisfaction and low morale impact the ability of DHS to
recruit and retrain qualified program people to serve in highly
specialized positions?
Secretary Chertoff. First of all, I think we have an
exceptionally dedicated workforce. At least preliminarily, when
I analyze where the sources of dissatisfaction were, I mean,
some of it is not surprising. We still live in physically
cramped quarters. It took us--we had a long period of time
where not anybody had a desk. We have been working people very
hard, and that means there is less availability of training.
So, as we mature as a department, those issues will correct.
Secretary Chertoff. I think in those areas where we had
some greater problems in morale, we have had success in
recruiting and retaining people, but this requires constant
attention. Some of what we have done in TSA is to reduce the
departure rate by building a more substantial career
development path.
Some of it, frankly, involves changes of leadership. We
have had almost a complete turnover in leadership. I am very
satisfied that the leadership we have now is professional and
well respected.
Mr. Bilirakis. I have some of the same concerns that my
colleagues already have raised about funding for first
responders. If you can relay that information to the President
and administration, I appreciate that.
I am pleased that the administration's budget request
provides funds to hire, train and equip an additional 3,000
Border Patrol agents which I believe are necessary. I think the
problem is not a question of funding for these needed agents
but the inability to recruit and retain dedicated men and women
to fill those positions; is that correct?
Secretary Chertoff. I have spoken to the commissioner, and
they are confident that they can meet their recruiting goals,
not only to get the new people but also to fill the gap of
people who depart. We have gotten, for example, I think former
military folks as well as law enforcement people who are
interested in coming on board. Ironically, the one piece that
is working in the other direction is we have a number of Border
Patrol who want to move over to ICE and become investigators.
We have a plan, and I am confident we are going to meet the
President's goal by the end of 2008.
Mr. Bilirakis. Do you believe Congress should review the
authority that border agents have in discharging their duties
to clarify what agents can and cannot do to apprehend illegal
aliens, terrorists, and drug traffickers who attempt to cross
the border?
Secretary Chertoff. I think there is a professional
doctrine on the use of force and the authorities that is well
settled and everybody is trained to. I think we are best served
if we let the professional leadership, the career leadership of
the Border Patrol, make any adjustments that are necessary in
those.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman
from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome.
Mr. Secretary, I think the Bush White House doesn't
understand that when they nickel and dime an agency, that
morale is going to be hurt. They have done it for the last 5
years. Morale has been affected, and I think the consequences
for you as a manager are quite severe. If they were funding
this agency at the level at which it deserves in the same way
they have given a blank check to fight the war in Iraq, I think
the problems would be much less severe.
Let me give you an example. In a statement of
administration policy on 9/11, the Bush administration asserted
that 100 percent screening of maritime cargo is neither
executable nor feasible. In your testimony, you stated that the
Department secure freight initiative, which is scanning 100
percent of maritime cargo at six ports is doing so through the
deployment of existing technology and proven nuclear detection
devices.
Dubai Ports World, one of the largest port operators in the
world, was involved in negotiations over the purchase of U.S.
port terminals. It has promised to install scanning equipment
in all of its ports worldwide at its own expense to scan all
cargo containers before they were loaded onto ships headed to
the U.S. for nuclear bomb material.
So I am confused, and I am sure employees at DHS are
confused. The port operators say they will do it. The Bush
administration says it is being done using existing technology
at six foreign ports, yet the White House says it is not
possible. So which is it? Is OMB wrong? Is the industry
exaggerating its capabilities?
Secretary Chertoff. I think I can clear this up. First of
all, I think we all agree it is desirable to scan for radiation
overseas. But I think we also know that not every foreign
country is going to permit us to do it, and we also know that
not every foreign port is physically configured in a way that
allows it. So do we want to move as much of this overseas as we
can? Absolutely. Can we predict that we are going to be able to
do 100 percent? I think that is extremely unlikely.
In Hong Kong, even though they originally piloted this,
although it was a nominal pilot, not a real pilot, they are
still struggling with this issue because they have some real
physical problems, and the government there is not convinced it
wants to assume the burden of what it is going to have to do in
order to make this program work.
So when the administration says it is not possible to
legislate that we are going to be doing 100 percent scanning
overseas, it reflects the reality that we don't own and control
all of these overseas ports.
Mr. Markey. Our government has just placed a restriction on
the Mexicans, the Canadians, the Caribbeans, that they now must
present passports in order to gain entry into our country. I am
sure they don't like it, but we imposed it upon them. When we
want to and when our security is at stake, we have the capacity
to ensure that the security of the United States takes a higher
priority.
My concern here is that, when the EU refuses, for example,
to share passenger data, we press them to guarantee that we get
access to that information. You have conceded that it is better
to screen for a nuclear bomb overseas before it reaches a port
of the United States. Obviously, if the bomb is in a ship at
Long Beach or New York or Boston and it is detonated by remote
control, they are not going to take that container off the
ship. That city has already had a catastrophic event.
I think the Bush administration's continued opposition to
the language which has now passed the House, it has passed the
House of Representatives mandating the screening for nuclear
bombs overseas, and if I was an employee at DHS, I would say
that makes no sense. Why would we wait for the bomb to get here
to have the DHS people look for it when we could have a law
that is screening for the bomb overseas as they are trying to
load it onto the ship.
I think it is a series of events with the Bush
administration saying we don't have enough money to give you.
OMB has to nickel and dime your agency. We won't be able to
fund something which is so clearly in the security interest of
our country.
Secretary Chertoff. I don't think this is a money issue. I
guess if one were to legislate and say that, if by a certain
date a foreign port does not allow us to do the radiation
scanning, its goods are not going to come into the United
States, I will predict with a high degree of confidence there
are going to be an awful lot of unemployed longshoremen in the
port of Boston and New York because what will happen is all of
those goods will move up to Canada or down to Mexico.
Mr. Markey. The same argument was made about the screening
of bags onto planes. The Bush administration said it will be a
mile long line outside every airport every day. We mandated it
from Congress, and 2 years later, every airport was putting
every passenger bag through screening, and they got it done.
I think if we put the same mandate on, we will make sure
that nuclear bomb, which we know that al-Qa'ida wants to bring
into the United States, will be detected overseas and not when
it is in a port in our country.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
I recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to focus in on
the immigration needs on the U.S. function. The US-VISIT
program was originally mandated by Congress in 1996, and since
then, we have reiterated that mandate several times: In the
106th Congress, in the INS Data Management Improvement Act and
in the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act; in the U.S. PATRIOT
Act in the 107th Congress, in the Enhanced Border Security and
Visa Entry Reform Act also in the 107th Congress; and in the
108th Congress within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act.
The 9/11 Commission specifically recommended that the
Department should complete as quickly as possible a biometric
entry-exit screening system. We do not actually have that
system today, as you have mentioned earlier in your remarks. I
just finished reading the GAO report on the US-VISIT program,
and there are certainly a lot of problems.
I want to explore why we have not received the report that
Congress was due in June 2005 on this entry-exit program. I
have so many questions from the report. The RFID tags that are
being pursued for the I-94 documents, is that to be instead of
the exit biometric data that the Congress has mandated? And has
that diverted money and attention from the effort to have the
biometric exit plan fully implemented?
I agree that the full-10 fingerprint proposal is what we
should have. We should have had that always. I have questions
on whether the system that is being developed for exit is
interoperable with the IDENT system and with the FBI system. We
should have been told that in this report due in June 2005.
I also wonder whether the e-passport biometrics that we are
now requiring are going to be interoperable with the US-VISIT.
I don't understand why, what technological issue has prevented
the implementation of this system.
We don't have a lot of time to get all of these reports.
Can you tell me when this report that was due in June 2005 will
be delivered to Congress?
Secretary Chertoff. I have to say, I don't remember a
specific report in June 2005.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, it wasn't done. That is why you may not
remember it.
Secretary Chertoff. I know we have generated a lot of
information on this. I will find out what there is. I can tell
you the bottom line answer, we do have US-VISIT at entry for
two-print at all of our ports of entry.
We are deploying US-VISIT ten-print for entrance which
should be deployed overseas and at our major ports of entry by
the end of 2008.
The RFID test proved, as GAO indicated, unsuccessful. This
is the real world.
Ms. Lofgren. Has that been dropped then?
Secretary Chertoff. Yes, I think we are abandoning it. That
is not going to be a solution.
Ms. Lofgren. Okay.
Secretary Chertoff. In the real world, when something
fails, we drop it and move to a new system. We are looking at a
plan for doing exit at the airport which I think is
technologically possible. Once we have fully specked it out, we
can tell you.
The long pole of the tent as GAO recognized, and I am
trying to be completely forthright in telling you, is the land
border. The volume of people is such that having long lines of
people trying to get from, say, Detroit into Windsor, Canada,
is going to be--
Ms. Lofgren. I got that in your original testimony. I only
have a minute left.
We all know that the information technology systems and the
immigration status database do not mesh. I am wondering if you
can tell us, with respect to this budget, where we will get in
terms of not just identifying but also implementing workable
secure information technology systems and immigration status
and employment verification databases which will be available
across the DHS components and accessible also by other
interested agencies, including the State Department as well as
employers.
Can you tell us where we are going to get with this request
for funds?
Secretary Chertoff. I can tell you, I can't point to the
particular line item here, but we have a plan under our chief
information officer to compress, reduce the number of
individual IT systems and bridge them and allow them to speak
to each other.
We have begun to roll out interoperable IDENT and IAFIS. We
have it in a couple of cities now, and we intend to continue
that. So we are moving forward on the interoperability issue.
Ms. Lofgren. Perhaps I can follow up with you off-campus
and spend some time looking at the questions.
One quick question, on the Department of Homeland Security
budget request from OMB on page 6, I just don't understand
this. It says Citizen and Immigration Services, 2006, actual
$14 million; 2007, $182 million; estimate for 2008, $30
million. How can that be?
Secretary Chertoff. It is moved down to a different line
item. I don't have it in front of me, but if you look down the
table, there is another entry for USCIS that reflects the fee
increase that we intend to put in.
Ms. Lofgren. This is reflecting the fee, the fee, and we
are having a hearing in the immigration subcommittee in
Judiciary next week on the whole fee issue and where it is
being allocated. If that fee plan doesn't work, you would be
prepared to proceed with an appropriation for things that are
appropriate?
Secretary Chertoff. I think that would be a problem. My
understanding is Congress has always mandated this.
Ms. Lofgren. That is incorrect.
Secretary Chertoff. If the fee were blocked, then we would
have a big hole in the budget. That would be a big problem for
this Congress because you would have to find a significant
chunk of money. Either we would have to go back to the days of
backlog or decide to hirer fewer Border Patrol or have less
technology.
Ms. Lofgren. The rule has always been that we don't use the
fees for enforcement. Enforcement is the taxpayers'
responsibility.
Secretary Chertoff. This is to build an IT system. We are
now very heavily in a paper-based system, and it is a headache
for us and people who want to get citizenship.
In order to maintain what we have now done, which is to
eliminate the backlog except for the background checks, and to
finally do the IT structure, we have to build that structure.
So this is not an enforcement issue, this is an issue of having
the tools to provide the service to the beneficiaries who are
paying for it.
Ms. Lofgren. We will get all of those details next week. I
have gone over my time.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much. We now recognize
the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Secretary, let me do somewhat of a mea culpa. We have
had some rough times in this committee. Either it has been DHS
planes following Texas legislators or the huge debacle of
Hurricane Katrina and certainly recently the ongoing episode
with Border Patrol agents.
I do want you to glean a sense that we, and I, want to have
an opportunity to work with you. We have seen decided
improvement. I think collectively we want to see the tragic
conditions in the gulf coast cured. Frankly, I think as we look
at it long term, DHS is carrying much of the weight unfairly.
So I hope you will view this committee as a collaborator. And
as I mentioned to you privately, publicly FEMA certainly has
gotten its act together and at least has shown a sensitivity to
people in need. I say that so maybe we can plot through some of
these concerns that I have from the perspective that we all
want to move this agency in the right direction.
Might I counter maybe the thoughts of DHS employees and the
recent study of their morale and thank them for their service.
It is very difficult, and I hope that you will continue to
press the envelope on the transformation of the agency so they
are DHS employees and that they are respected by all of us and
maybe they will get that sense and we can pull together and be
able to work together and salute their efforts.
With that in mind, I hope with Chairman Thompson that we
can work with the Budget Committee because, frankly, many of us
shop in the fine stores of what we call the bargain basement,
and I think DHS is in the bargain basement. I think the
President has put this budget in the bargain basement. I want
to quickly cite my concerns:
Local law enforcement terrorism prevention grants zeroed
out.
State homeland security grants, 52 percent cut; and
firefighter grant, 50 percent cut.
I think collectively you can answer and say these are
somewhere else, and that might be helpful, but I don't think
so.
The aviation security budget I would like to pursue later,
and I don't want to dwell on that because you have $53 million
for the secure flight.
Mass transit, a mere 1 percent increase. I might associate
myself with a number of remarks, particularly the ranking
member, on saying we have spoken about the need and necessity
for having security matters, as the 9/11 Commission said, under
this committee unified, FEMA and otherwise. But a 1 percent
increase in mass transit after the Madrid bombings and after
the recognition that it is a system that is much in need of
enormous security, and I yield to you, how are we going to
function even as we authorize new rail security legislation,
and a lot of these I believe the way the system works, the rail
companies are supposed to be part of their own security, but
mass transit burdens the local jurisdictions. It is an enormous
burden, and we are not players in this with 1 percent increase.
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, of Texas
Statement before Committee on Homeland Security
An Examination of the President's FY 2008 Budget Request for the
Department of Homeland Security''
February 9, 2007
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I thank Chairman Thompson for convening
this important hearing to examine President Bush's FY 2008 budget
request for the Department of Homeland Security. I welcome the
Honorable Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security, and thank him for testifying today for the first time before
the 110th Congress.
September 11, 2001, is a day that is indeliby etched in the psyche
of every American and most of the world. Much like the unprovoked
attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, September 11, is a day that
will live in infamy. And as much as Pearl Harbor changed the course of
world history by precipitating the global struggle between totalitarian
fascism and representative democracy, the transformative impact of
September 11 was not only the beginning of the Global War on Terror,
but moreover, it was the day of innocence lost for a new generation of
Americans.
Jud like my fellow Americans, I remember September 11 as vivdly as
if it was yesterday. In my mind's eye, I can still remember being
mesmerized by the television as the two airlineers crashed into the
Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, and I remember the sense of
terror we experienced when we realized that this was no accident, that
we had been attacked, and that the world as we know it had changed
forever. The moment in which the Twin Towers collapsed and the nearly
3,000 innocent Americans died haunts me until this day.
At this moment, I decided that the protection of our homeland would
be a the forefront of my legislative agenda. I knew that all of our
collective efforts as Americans would all be in vain if we did not
achieve our most important priority: the security of our nation.
Accordingly, I became then and continue to this day to be an active and
engaged Member of the Committee on Homeland Security who considers our
national security paramount.
Our nation's collective response to the tragedy of September 11
exemplified what has been true of the American people since the
inception of our Republic--in times of crisis, we come together and
always persevere. Despite the depths of our anguish on the preceding
day, on September 12, the American people demonstrated their compassion
and solidarity for one another as we began the process of response,
recovery, and rebuilding. We transcended our differences and came
together to honor the sacrifices and losses sustained by the countless
victims of September 11. Secretary Chertoff, let us honor their
sacrifices by adequately funding not only DHS, but also the first
responders who so bravely sacrificed their lives on 9/11 and who work
tirelessly every day to ensure that the tragedy of 9/11 is never
repeated. Let us learn from the lessons offered by our history so that
we are not destined to repeat them.
After the events of September 11, 2001 the American people became
painfully aware of the difference between feeling secure and actually
being secure. As we examine the DHS's FY 2008 budget, we must take
decisive steps to ensure that adequate funds are available so that the
trust that the American people have placed in our hands is fully
protected and guarded and that we take strategic steps to ensure their
future safety from terrorist attacks.
Although the President has proposed $2.9 trillion for the FY 2008
budget, the budget request for the Department of Homeland Security is
$46.4 billion. While this may sound like an exorbitant amount of money,
it only represents approximately 2%, 1,6% to be exact, of the overall
FY 2008 budget request. Mr. Chertoff, in his statement before us today,
identified 5 major goals that should be achieved over the next two-year
period:
1) Protect our Nation from Dangerous People:
2) Protect our Nation from Dangerous Goods;
3) Protect Critical Infrastructure;
4) Build a Nimble, Effective Emergency Response System and a
Culture of Preparedness; and
5) Strengthen and Unify DHS Operations and Management.
The first goal brings to mind the controversial case with the
border agents who allegedly shot after an unarmed man who was crossing
our borders from Mexico. In his recent State of the Union Address,
President Bush reiterated his commitment to doubling the size of the
Border Patrol, and the administration has requested funding for an
additional 3,000 agents in FY 2008. However, it appears that the Border
Patrol is not actually recruiting and retaining a sufficient number of
agents to fulfill this promise.
Heated debated has gone on with both sides over this case and many
questions remain to be answered. In reviewing the budget, I am pleased
to see that the FY 2008 budget request for U.S. Custom and Border
Protect (CB0) is $10,174,113,000, an increase in $829.3 million over
the enacted FY 2007 level. However, I do wonder if this increase is
enough. Our utmost priority is ensuring the safety of all Americans and
I want the House Homeland Security Committee on which I serve to
examine whether the incident was caused in part because the Border
Patrol did not have enough personnel and mangers on duty. We must make
sure that another incident such as this does not reoccur and take the
necessary steps for prevention. If indeed one of our goals is to foster
a culture of preparedness, then it is imperative that we examine our
DHS budget and allocate the necessary resources to hire an adequate
amount of personnel so that our borders are protected and our goal of
protecting our nation from dangerous people can also be met without
violating any one's civil liberties while.
Accordingly, this hearing is crucial in highlighting the
Department's ongoing failure on a wide range of issues including its
inability to cogently articulate the distribution of its Homeland
Security dollars. Moreover, the Department' ineptitude in the grants
allocation process is emblematic of its handling of issues vital to our
nation's security, such as disaster response, FEMA assistance, port and
rail security, and contracting.
Although the FY budget request proposes $8 billion for FEMA and an
increase of $101.9 million to the operations, planning, and support
activities for FEMA, I am appalled to see that the budget increases the
National Pre-Disaster Mitigation fund by a mere $53,000 and cuts
emergency food and shelter funding by $11.47.
This flagrantly goes against our goal of building a numble,
effective emergency response system and a culture of preparedness. In
addition to a lack of resources, lack of accountability has been a
recurring theme in DHS. The preparation and response to Hurricane
Katrina is the only obvious example for the lack of accountability
within DHS. An estimated 11% of the $19 billion that has been spent by
FEMA, which is $2 billion, has been waste, fraud, and abuse, clearly
illustrating how DHS' poor management practices can directly translate
into waste, fraud, and abuse.*
I eagerly look forward to your testimony and discussion today of
these issues. I thank you Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Secretary Chertoff. Let me say, I appreciate your comments
regarding the Department. I look forward to working
collaboratively with this committee. We all want, at the end of
the day, to have been joint founders of a Department that
people will say really did the job that the American people
expect. I know that the employees and my colleagues will
appreciate your remarks and the recognition.
On the issue of mass transit, let me again put this in a
larger framework. We do slightly increase what we had last year
with respect to rail transit grants, and again, we are focused
on the high-risk systems. In addition, we have $41 million in
the budget directly for TSA to provide services for rail
security, including things like teams that we send in when
there are threats, additional canine teams which are part of
the model.
And also, we are looking at what we need to require the
railroads to do by way of training so they can more fully live
up to their responsibility.
The challenge with respect to mass transit is this: We do
not employ most of the people who do security in mass transit.
They are local people like port authority police or transit
police. One of the reasons there is always a disparity between
the amount we spend on aviation and the amount we spend on rail
is because most of our aviation costs are personnel costs.
Those personnel costs are really run by the local transit
authorities.
Where we do add value, and it is sometimes not in a direct
grant, is by doing things like the bio watch program where we
put bio sensors in the terminals in order to detect biological
events.
Our direct surge capabilities and our funding through these
programs for certain kinds of things like video cameras and
countermeasures. An additional way we help is through the
science and technology budget. We look for new tools in order
to raise the level of protection that these transit systems can
build themselves.
I think obviously the grants are a significant part of what
we do, we actually add a lot of other elements to this mix.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me, if I might, and my time is over,
but I want to pursue this. I won't pursue TSA on training. I
will submit my question as to whether the training is embedded
because I think there is a great need for professional
development and career pattern.
But I want to get to the fence and SBInet of $1 billion. I
think we have collectively, and I have heard the Department
comment that a fence is of minimal value, a concrete wired
fence. I would like you to explain the $1 billion SBInet, and
as you explain it, would you be kind enough to indicate whether
or not the Department's MWEB program, whether or not you will
do oversight over the prime contract? In fact, I would like a
report back on what minority contractors are engaged in this
SBInet. Is that the fence? Are we wasting money on the fence,
or have we gotten smarter to use money that will effectively be
able to address this question?
I will put in the record to get information about the Hutto
center, which I am very concerned about, and the Border Patrol
agent. If you would just comment on that, and I thank the
Chairman for his indulgence.
Secretary Chertoff. First of all, the $1 billion includes
money for fencing where we feel fencing is appropriate.
Sometimes that is pedestrian fencing, and sometimes it is
vehicle barriers. And, of course, a significant amount of money
is for technology.
The deputy was just out there last week looking at the
first lay down of technology. If you take the sensors and the
ground radar between two hills and you deploy it, you can cover
a huge amount of ground virtually and detect who comes across.
And then if the Border Patrol has aviation assets, they can
pick them up.
In many parts along the border, that is the preferred
method to building a wall. There are other parts of the border
where fencing makes sense. The Barry Goldwater range, for
example, where we are building a fence, even a small incursion
interrupts our training operations and causes a risk to the
migrants. There we are actually building poles and wire. We are
going to do this based on the professional judgment of the
Border Patrol.
In terms of what we are doing to supervise this contract,
we will get you a list of the subcontractors who are part of
the contract. We have built into this something that was not
part of Deepwater, which is the ability to designate portions
of the contract where we will either separately compete them,
or we will just decide, if we can get the equipment more
quickly, we will buy the equipment and tell the contractor to
put it in.
Just recently, with respect to some of this traditional
fencing, we told the contractor, you can bid to do the fencing,
but we are going to have other bids, too. And if we decide we
can actually buy the material more cheaply ourselves, we will
buy the material and pay the labor. We are not going to give
them the blank check. They will be a tool we can use, but they
will be a tool that we can also put down and pick up another
tool.
As part of that process, we will work aggressively to make
sure that we have outreach for MWEB contractors.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
I recognize the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Mrs.
Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome again, Mr. Secretary.
Before I get to my question, I share the concern of one of
my colleagues about the inability to recruit and retain Border
Patrol. I heard your response, and I look forward to meeting
the President's goal by 2008. As you know, I am awaiting a
Border Patrol unit in the Virgin Islands, but we will discuss
that directly with the relevant people in the Department at
another time.
In your budget, there is funding set aside for contracting.
We heard testimony from the comptroller general earlier this
week about what seems to be a greater use of contracting in the
Department of Homeland Security and concerns about the
contracting itself, the process, the management of those
contracts, and the products from the contractors. It raises
concerns about the lack of continuity and institutional memory
within the Department. I wonder if you would respond to those
concerns.
Secretary Chertoff. I think the need for professional
procurement and acquisition management is a government-wide
issue. As you get into these very complicated acquisitions, it
is a skill that is very much different from the garden-variety
acquisition.
This Department, until it was stood up, never did the kinds
of major procurements, except the Coast Guard doing it in
Deepwater, that are more routine in DOD. So we have put in the
2008 budget requests for almost $10 million that would be
directed at acquisition workforce development, that is the
recruiting and training program, so we can begin to build a
cadre in the Department who can supervise.
Mrs. Christensen. I am concerned about using contracts to
replace what would otherwise be employees.
Secretary Chertoff. The model we try to use is to use
contractors where there is a surge capability or where there is
an immediate shortfall and we can't fill something otherwise.
Ideally on the things that are kind of recurrent duties,
you have to do all of the time, you want to build a workforce
to do that work. Sometimes as we get into emergency situations,
there is a little bit of unevenness, so we try to fill the gap
with contractors.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you for your response.
As one of the members that sought to have an amendment last
year to fully fund the Deepwater project for the Coast Guard, I
am disappointed to see there is a decrease of $356 million in
2008 compared to 2007 for Deepwater. Given the recent findings
of the inspector general concerning the cutters, can you
explain, given this cut and other cuts, how you are still
satisfied with your budget?
Secretary Chertoff. Admiral Allen, when we sat down to do
this budget, we looked at both things that have to be addressed
in terms of, for example, the problem with the 123-foot
cutters, which we are addressing partly through extended use of
Navy vessels and some adjustments with respect to the way we
handle the crews. And this caused a kind of reconfiguration of
the forward-looking plan with respect to accelerating certain
portions and moving certain portions back so that the mix of
cutters coming online is best suited for what our current gaps
are and what our current mission is.
Having consulted with the Coast Guard, I am satisfied that
this keeps us on track to do what we have to do, recognizing
that there have been some problems with the program and that
Admiral Allen is going to spend some time really kind of
beating the contractors a little bit.
Mrs. Christensen. I also have some concern about what seem
to be large increases in the fees in Citizen and Immigration
Services because, at least in my experience, at home, many of
the people who are legitimately seeking to immigrate are poor.
I guess I would be less concerned if I knew it was going to
result in greater efficiency and shorten the time that people
have to wait on their documents. Can you tell us what is being
done? What is in your plan to shorten the waiting time? I have
people who have been waiting years.
Secretary Chertoff. There are a couple of elements.
Director Gonzalez when he testifies will probably be much more
specific.
There are two parts. The money here is directed to
upgrading for the first time our IT system and getting away
from a paper-based system to an electronic system. That is
going to help in a significant, maybe the significant majority
of cases in cutting the processing time and making it quicker.
There is a separate issue we have to deal with separately,
and it is partly dealt with money, but it is also a process
issue, and that has to do with the background checks.
For the vast majority of people, a background check is
pretty straightforward. There are some people who, because of
issues that arise with their name, wind up requiring a
background check that goes further into the files. The FBI does
that. And sometimes you are dealing with legacy files that are
scattered in different parts of the country.
Some of this is cured by money, the fee money we are going
to use to pay for the cost of processing more of these more
quickly at the FBI. Some of them are going to require us
sitting down with the FBI and seeing if we can configure this
system to make it work more quickly.
One thing that we have done to indicate how we are trying
to be more sensitive, there was a story in the paper about
people who lose their Social Security benefits because, you
have to be a citizen within 7 years, or they lapse. So I talked
with Director Gonzalez, and he is now serving all of the people
in the queue to see who is in jeopardy of losing benefits, and
we are moving them to the front of the queue. We are trying to
identify those problems that we can fix right now in order to
deal with these issues.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much. I recognize the
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge.
Mr. Etheridge. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here, and thank you to
the people of your agency who work so hard every day.
As you indicated earlier, we would not be here nor would
this committee exist had it not been for 9/11. It was the first
responders that we were so proud of that day. Every American
was proud of the job that they did and continue to do. And many
stood with them and put their arms around them, the
firefighters, the police, the medical teams, who really stood
up for America. They saved lives. Many gave their lives in
order to protect us and assist in the recovery. They faced the
same thing in Hurricane Katrina, and in every other manmade or
natural disaster. We are grateful for these people's efforts.
And yet the budget the President has submitted to Congress
gives little priority to the resources they need to continue to
do their fine work. You alluded to it earlier, but I want to
get some specifics and get your response because it goes from a
cut of a third in the funding to as much as 63 percent. It
eliminates funding for the Local Law Enforcement Terrorism
Prevention Program, which plays a key role in assisting local
law enforcement agencies in information sharing, target
hardening, threat recognition, mapping, things that are
critical across this country in identifying, as you say, bad
people who want to do bad things to us.
It cuts by 52 percent the State Homeland Security grants
which provide for first responders in all 50 States, reduces
funding for the Assistance of Firefighters Act program, nearly
50 percent.
It denies funding for training for first responders to
improve their capability to prevent, deter and respond safely
and effectively to instances of terrorism involving weapons of
mass destruction.
You said earlier you were happy with your budget, and I
would like to know how do you justify these shifts in
priorities away from these very critical areas to the people
who serve us every day? I-95 is a critical artery, as are all
of our interstates in this country; and 30 percent of the
traffic on that road is commercial. A lot of dangerous stuff
moves up and down it. I put that in as context for your
response.
Secretary Chertoff. First of all, again, there is a lot of
money that goes to first responders. The LAPP money, for
example, we have traditionally taken the position that it is
important to fund law enforcement, but it ought to be done as
25 percent of the money that goes to the Homeland Security
grants or the urban area grants. That is money that is supposed
to go to police in part and to other first responders. So the
fact that it is not separately categorized as a law enforcement
grant simply means it is money that ought to be coming to first
responders through the other categories.
The big addition here--
Mr. Etheridge. Can you identify those other categories?
Secretary Chertoff. State Homeland Security grants, UASI,
and the billion dollars in interoperability. I mean,
interoperability money is directly money to let first
responders talk to each other. That is $1 billion for them to
use to get their systems to work, which everybody has
acknowledged is a huge priority.
So while it may be configured differently than it was, I
think the net-net amount of money that actually gets in the
hands of first responders is substantially the same as it was
as was appropriated last year.
Again, I remind the committee that there is $5 billion in
the pipeline. So simply putting money in the pipeline that is
not being spent--and this is not a criticism because you don't
want to fling the money at a problem--but it is not that people
are starving. There is money en route, and we are keeping the
flow steady.
Mr. Etheridge. Mr. Secretary, having served at the local
and at the State level, you and I know that, in a lot of cases,
before the money can get there, number one, they need to have a
plan; and number two, in a lot of cases, they need to spend the
money first and then apply for the reimbursement of the funds.
So just because there is money in the pipeline does not
necessarily mean things are not happening at the local level.
Secretary Chertoff. I know that.
Mr. Etheridge. Saying there is money in the pipeline, I
hope people don't misunderstand that there are not continuing
needs. If we don't meet the basic needs, you have to have basic
operability before you can have interoperability. In a lot of
cases, I can assure you, there are local fire and rescue units
that do not have the basic operabilities to apply to basic
interoperability.
We don't want the billion dollars to come here and then cut
it on the other side so that we still don't have the resources
to meet the needs, because if we have a major disaster,
wherever it is in this country, the last time I checked, I
never did see a Washington, D.C., fire truck or a Washington,
D.C., U.S. Government fire truck unless it is on a Federal
installation. We are depending on these locals. I hope you keep
that in mind because this is a team effort. We continue to put
the responsibility on them, and I think it is incumbent upon
this committee to continue to ask the tough questions. It is
important that we put the resources to help.
Secretary Chertoff. Thank you.
Chairman Thompson. I recognize the gentleman from Rhode
Island, Mr. Langevin.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I appreciate the
tough job you have.
I serve right now as the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, Science and Technology. It is
my intention that, in that subcommittee, we will focus on those
areas that serve as glaring vulnerabilities with the most
catastrophic consequences should an attack, a terrorist attack,
occur. So on that front, I have three questions that I will try
to address. What we don't address hopefully you can respond for
the record in writing.
I want to focus on Bioshield as well as the SAFE Ports Act,
particularly with respect to radiation portal monitors. With
respect to Bioshield, yesterday I had an opportunity to discuss
some of the strengths and weaknesses of this program with
Comptroller General Walker, GAO, as well as Inspector General
Skinner. I have to say I am very concerned with some of the
recent problems that have come to light with respect to the
Bioshield program.
For example, we all recently heard about the cancellation
of VaxGen's contract for next-generation anthrax vaccine. At
the time, this was the only major procurement contract under
Bioshield. This is one example of the many problems with
Bioshield. As I have said in the past, this program is far too
important to fail, and we absolutely have to do everything we
can to ensure its success.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, I plan
to hold several hearings to explore how to fix the major
problems with the Bioshield's operations, and in order to get a
full understanding of the program's failures, we may very well
need to hold joint hearings with other committees tasked with
oversight of human services, and I am fully prepared to do so.
In fact, there is already a hearing on this issue in the works
right now with that subcommittee.
But, Mr. Secretary, on this topic, what do you see as
Bioshield's greatest weaknesses? And what do you think led to
the cancellation of VaxGen's contract? And how would you work
with Secretary Leavitt of HHS to close some of gaps that exist
with this program? Lastly, what specific steps can DHS take to
ensure Bioshield's success?
On SAFE Ports, the SAFE Ports Act that was passed last year
was a very important bipartisan measure. The SAFE Ports Act was
authorized at $200 million for the newly created program, yet
the President's budget would only fund this crucial program at
$210 million, nearly half of what the law actually called for.
Do you think that $210 million will be sufficient funding to
carry the missions of this program, and could you clarify why
the proposed funding is nearly 50 percent below what the law
actually called for?
My final question, I am concerned that some of the
deadlines with respect to the SAFE Ports Act have not yet been
met. This law calls for DHS to deploy a strategy for deploying
the radiation portal monitors at our 22 busiest seaports within
3 months of the law's enactment. The SAFE Ports Act was signed
into law on October 13, 2006; 3 months would put us at January
13, 2007. Today is February 9, and we have not seen the
strategy for deploying this important technology. The fact that
the strategy for the deployment is late worries me in terms of
when we can actually expect to see the technology deployed.
My question is, why has DHS not provided Congress with a
deployment strategy, and when can we expect to see that
strategy? And finally, how can we be ensured that actual
deployment of radiation portable monitors will commence on
time. Are you still confident that the radiation detection
equipment will be fully deployed at our Nation's 22 busiest
seaports by December 31st of this year?
Secretary Chertoff. Let me answer all of these as quickly
as I can.
With respect to Bioshield, I have worked closely with
Secretary Leavitt to streamline the process from the
government's standpoint. We have completed a number of material
threat determinations which puts it in the hands of HHS to
actually identify the people who are to benefit from the money
in terms of developing the particular countermeasures. I am
going to leave it to them to get into the science and what the
best way for them to make that determination is.
I don't feel I am scientifically sufficiently well versed
to give you an explanation why VaxGen was unable to generate
the vaccine that was hoped for.
I think it is important that, at some point, HHS faces up
to the fact that it is not happening; it is not working, and
you have to pull the plug and move to something else. I think
that is an important spirit.
So I think this is probably an issue that is best addressed
comprehensively with HHS on the medical element, the medical
research element. They are really the principals in terms of
making the judgments that have to be made.
With respect to the SAFE Ports Act, first of all, let me
observe that money for some of the radiation detection
equipment also comes out of the DNDO budget. It is not entirely
out of port security grants, so there is other money. If you
look historically at what we have done with respect to ports
and you consider the direct value of the Coast Guard and
Customs, which actually provides the boots on the ground, I
think we have had $10 billion over the last several years.
In terms of the actual grants themselves, our recommended
budget item for port security is exactly what Congress
appropriated last year. Congress chose to appropriate only half
of what was authorized which I gather is not uncommon when
budget time comes around.
So looked at comprehensively, when you consider the value
of the Coast Guard and Customs Border Patrol assets, plus the
direct investments in radiation portal monitors, as well as the
grants, there is a significant amount of investment that the
Federal Government is making in SAFE Ports.
Finally, with respect to the RPMs, we are on track to have
virtually all of the containers that come into the U.S. through
the seaports going through radiation portal monitors by the end
of this year. I was told yesterday that Long Beach is 100
percent now in terms of going through the radiation portal
monitors. I think this may be a case where the actual
deployment has proceeded well ahead of the document because we
have actually been working on this deployment for a couple of
years now.
Mr. Langevin. I hope you can get that strategy to the
Congress as soon as possible. Thank you.
Chairman Thompson. I now recognize Mr. Carney.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I am pleased to have you at least as a part-
time constituent. I feel much safer because of that.
I want to echo Ms. Jackson Lee's sentiment that we are very
proud of the work done by everybody at DHS. In fact, I will be
offering a resolution regarding that next week.
Last week we met with Secretary Jackson and he said,
``MAXHR is dead.'' Is MAXHR in fact dead?
And if so, what is taking its place?
Some say it was an ill-conceived product to begin with, but
the concept isn't, of bringing Homeland Security, all
Departments into a unifying structure. What are we doing to
replace that?
Secretary Chertoff. The unification and integration and the
building of a performance-based system is very important. That
is not dead. It is obvious that the court dismembered a
significant part of the original plan, particularly as it
related to collective bargaining and some of the grievance
issues, so we are going to follow the court's guidance on that.
But we are moving forward with performance-based
evaluation, which includes training supervisors on doing
performance-based evaluations.
We may operate a small pilot in one component for
nonbargaining unit people with respect to actually linking pay
to performance, particularly in the area where there is a lot
of knowledge and we are competing with private industry.
So we are trying to advance on those elements of MAXHR
which the court permits us to advance with. I think one of the
points of the survey, one of the consistent low marks was the
issue of people feeling that performance wasn't being
adequately rewarded or lack of performance sanctioned. So we
need to build that and train people to that, and our human
capital officer is going to be doing that.
Mr. Carney. I want to follow up on Mr. Bilirakis' question
from earlier. We talk in this committee about the OPM report
and the performance. Why do you think there was so little
progress made in the last 2 years, and what are you doing now
to make things better?
Secretary Chertoff. That is the question I asked myself
when I saw the report. The survey was taken in the summer of
2006. I am going to say, I think this is a little speculative
on my part, but we are going to have some town meetings and try
to get more into the depths.
I think part of it is in general the growing pains of a new
department. There was a point in time last year in some of our
components we didn't have enough desks for people. I can tell
you the headquarters building we are in now is very, very
difficult to operate in. People were working very hard
operationally, and that was cutting down on training.
There were a whole series of issues like that that we are
going to gradually build over time. That is one of the reasons
why we want to put the money into St. Elizabeth's because we
need a headquarters.
Second, we need to do a better job of communicating to
employees. It is very hard to build a systematic way to reach
out to everybody, and we are trying to look at our
communications activities to see what we need to do internally
as well as externally.
And then there are three things that happened last year
that had an impact on morale. One was we were in the middle of
kind of post-Katrina soul searching, which is not a morale
builder by any stretch of the imagination.
MAXHR was in limbo, and there was a lot of
stress for employees not knowing which way it was going to go.
I think having a resolution in itself is a very positive thing.
And then there was the whole issue of whether FEMA was
going to get pulled out of the Department and reorganized. And
I can tell you that reorganizations are extremely stressful for
people.
Where I hope we are now is we can come to rest with the
structure that we have, which I think is good; that we can
start to build a communications capability internally, and that
we can address the issues in terms of work life happiness, what
your physical surroundings are.
Let me end with this plea. We got banged in the budget on a
number of occasions in the last couple of years on things like
management and stuff that isn't that glamorous, and it is hard
to argue to the folks back home why we put money into
management. But I know you know that, at the end of the day, if
you don't attend to that stuff, it really hurts. So this is a
great opportunity for me to pitch to make sure that we pay for
the nuts and bolts as well as the things that people look at
that show up well on television.
I appreciate your thinking about doing a resolution and
your concern about this. We ought to talk about it more.
Mr. Carney. Thank you for your time.
Chairman Thompson. I now recognize the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I am honored to be in your
company and find you are doing a commendable job. However,
given what the challenges are, I am not sure whether I should
congratulate you or pray for you.
Secretary Chertoff. Pray for me.
Mr. Green. I assure you, I will do both.
Your goals are notable, laudable and achievable. However,
the rhetorical question becomes: Are they efficaciously doable
given that you do not have the plan that has been discussed by
a number of my colleagues so as to avoid duplications and so as
to have proper prioritization?
My next question has to do with Hurricane Katrina and your
credentials indicate that you are a student of jurisprudence
par excellence, and I commend you for your many areas of
expertise.
But the people that we saw on television were literally on
an island of desperation, and they were looking for some sort
of lifeline of hope. And, unfortunately, many of them, instead
of finding a safe harbor of hope, find themselves on an island
of desperation in Houston, Texas. I am simply saying to you, as
a student of jurisprudence, you understand the doctrine of last
clear chance. I believe we may be their last clear chance at
this point, notwithstanding all that has occurred. My suspicion
is, if we don't act to develop an overall plan for them to
reintegrate themselves into their hometowns, it may not happen.
And finally, with reference to the border, I find this to
be an interesting situation because we put a lot of emphasis on
the southern border. And my understanding of the empirical
data--and you may correct me if I'm wrong--is that those known
terrorists who have either come into the country or tried to
get into the country, the known terrorists did not come across
the southern border.
Before you answer any of the other questions, can you let
me know whether I am correct on that question with reference to
the empirical data?
Secretary Chertoff. Yes.
Mr. Green. If this is true--and we can cite some, the 9/11
hijackers; the millennium bomber; the Murrah Federal Building,
those folks didn't come across the southern border--all of them
were home grown or may have come in--
Secretary Chertoff. The millennium bomber came from Canada.
The others came through our ports of entry or were from our
country.
Mr. Green. If we overemphasize the utility of the fence, do
we give a false sense of security because it would seem to me
that we want people to understand that if a fence goes up, it
will probably do a lot for impeding the ingress and egress of
undocumented workers? I am not sure that it is going to do as
much as many might think that it will do to safeguard us from
terrorists.
More specifically, we could have 100 percent effectiveness
with this fence, but it could only be a 1 percent perhaps
increase in safeguarding us from terrorism. Because we get 100
percent effectiveness doesn't mean that can be translated into
100 percent as it relates to terrorism? With these three
things, I would beg that you would utilize the remainder of my
time to respond.
Secretary Chertoff. With respect to the first question, we
are putting a lot of emphasis now on joint planning. We are
building capabilities to plan in a way that cuts across a
number of agencies. We borrowed some of the model from DOD to
do that. We have more trained people to do that. I think one of
the areas where you see that is we have built a well integrated
border strategy that comes across a number of elements. I think
that is promising for the future.
We are also doing that with disaster relief. The Coast
Guard is going it set up adaptive force packages so they can
actually work with FEMA to move things in a way that is
seamless and that they plan together how to do that.
On Katrina, I think this is one of the great heartaches
that we have here, the inability to build a setting in New
Orleans that will let people come back.
Part of what we will try to do is develop a housing plan
for the people in Houston, for example, that gets HUD much more
involved. I think in terms of the skill set and the tools
available to the Federal Government, an agency like HUD is
better adapted to long-term recovery. FEMA really is a short-
term emergency operation.
There is a longer discussion to be had about what should be
done to help out in New Orleans, which is longer than I can
discuss in the time allotted.
On the last point, I think it is clear that there is a
different set of concerns and threats between the southern
border and the northern border. The talk about the southern
border, a lot of it is focused between the ports of entry
because there is a large volume of people coming between the
ports of entry.
Up to this point in time, that has not been as serious an
issue with Canada. However, we do have to worry about people
coming in through our ports of entry. We consistently find
people that we turn away that have linkages to terrorism.
The good news is that the Canadians have a good
intelligence system, and we work together to identify people
who are threats before they even get to the border. But I don't
want you to think that we are not attentive to this. Not only
are we putting more aerial assets and sensors between the ports
of entry and the north, but the whole emphasis on our Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative is to give our inspectors the
tools to make sure that we are turning people away who are
going to come in, like Ressam, the millennium bomber. So it is
a slightly different strategy because of the different laydown
of what we are facing. But I think you are dead right that we
have to look at both borders and our coasts in this issue.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much. I would like to add
that we will have a second round of questions. We do have the
Secretary until 1 p.m.
I now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for sitting with us and talking
to us and really preparing for this hearing. You have a good
knowledge of your budget. I am going to have some specific
questions about the budget that I would like to ask.
First, I want to compliment you and the Department for
focusing on securing the borders. That was a real emphasis of
the Congress and the prior Congress. You have taken steps, and
I congratulate you on that.
You mentioned the enforcement against employers. One of the
things I did not see in the budget was some kind of work with
Social Security or other agencies so that employers know
quickly, accurately, whether or not somebody who is coming into
their employ is legitimately here in this country.
I would like you to respond to that, please.
Secretary Chertoff. There are two ways we deal with that.
The first is we have a basic pilot which we are putting
increased funding in, which is a system that allows employers
to get online and check to make sure there is a legitimate name
and a legitimate social security number. That addresses most of
the issues that employers face.
There is another problem, though, which is sometimes you
get identity theft where a genuine name and number are stolen,
and that system is not picked up through that. That requires a
legislative change, and I think actually Senator Allard and
Senator Grassley are either about to or have dropped a bill in
the Senate on this. It requires the authorization, currently
prohibited by law, for the Social Security Administration to be
able to look at the filings that come in and see whether the
same name and number are being forwarded to two different
places. That ability to scan for the system for that, which is
legally prohibitive, would give us a targeting capability; and,
ultimately, also you could give employers that information so
they could make further inquiry, but that requires
congressional action.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. You know, as we move from
securing the border, dealing with the supply, dealing with the
demand side, in my opinion, your Department is going to have to
focus on the processing side, the processing side in terms of
dealing with Social Security so that there is accurate
information; and, hopefully, we are going to have--and I am
confident we are going to have--some comprehensive legislation
come out of here on immigration reform, which is going to give
you some directives. But I am concerned, as was Representative
Lofgren, that, on the processing side, you are relying on fees.
There is really nothing in there, and that is going to be
something that I see swamp a big, important part of your
Department. That is Number one.
Number two, on the building--and you know, I am on this
committee, and I used to pride myself as being kind of a budget
hawk and privacy guy, and I am feeling a little bit of out of
place on this committee, but here is a budget question. We have
got about $120 million for the move to the St. Elizabeth campus
in this year's budget. Yet that building really is not slated
for completion until 2014. Did you front-end the budget with
$120 million or is there going to be a lot more after this?
Secretary Chertoff. No, there is going to be a lot more. A
significant amount of this is going to be GSA money, and we
were hopeful we would get some GSA money in the 2007 budget. I
do not think it came in, but the lion's share of this will be
GSA money.
In addition, our leases are going to run out on a lot of
our properties, in any event, in the next 5 years, so we are
going to have to spend the money one way or the other, and we
might as well spend it on what we want, as opposed to what we
can get, but we were hoping with this money--and I have started
with the Coast Guard--to begin a process that would get the
Coast Guard in place by 2011 and then the rest of the
headquarters' elements of the Department by 2014 or so.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. I guess I would ask that your
Department prepare some kind of finer projection as to the
ultimate cost of that building, especially when we have got,
you know, our Visitors Center over here that has gone wild in
terms of cost overruns. And, you Know, even though I agree with
Representative King that you are in a Department where we want
to make sure that you are provided with resources, we still
have to be smart about how that money is spent.
Secretary Chertoff. There is a plan, and there is a
projection of what it is going to cost. The $120 million is
just the element to start. I do not have, frankly, off the tip
of my tongue what the total cost is, but we can get that to
you.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Since we get to do another round, I
will yield back the balance of my time and wait until you come
around to me again.
Chairman Thompson. Well, since you have been so gracious, I
will give you a little more time, if you would like.
Mr. Perlmutter. At this end, when you are at the end of a
train, you learn a lot of patience, and I am at the very end
here, and I am at the end in Financial Services, which brings
me to my next question. As I was looking through your budget--
and I will find it--on floodplain insurance and floodplain
mapping, one of the issues that has come up in Financial
Services is the fact that a number of people in New Orleans and
in Mississippi were outside of floodplains when, you know, of
course they were just swamped when that hurricane came through.
And I see--and I will find it--but I see reductions in
floodplain insurance and flood map modernization in this year's
budget request, and so my question is, though I like--you know,
usually I ask about increases to budgets and here I am going to
ask you about decreases to budget. Why is that?
Secretary Chertoff. I do not have the actual figures on
that in front of me. I do know that we have completed in the
gulf area the advisory base flood elevations and are working
under way on the other elements of this.
In terms of the specifics about why that has dropped, I
think that is probably something I am better off getting back
to you on.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Thank you. Because it really has
become a major topic of conversation on the Financial Services
Committee, and I think it is something that we really have got
to look at closely.
Mr. Perlmutter. I yield back, and I have more questions, so
whenever you want to get back to me.
Chairman Thompson. Well, if you are patient, we will get
back to you.
Mr. Perlmutter. I am learning patience, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much, and we will begin
the next round of questioning.
You will keep hearing this name over and over, Mr.
Secretary, about this $1 billion interoperability issue, and I
cannot impress upon you my and the ranking member's concern
about that whole issue. Can you explain for the committee in
clear terms the reason for the delay in working out this
memorandum of understanding with the Department?
Secretary Chertoff. I do not think it is a matter of
principle. I think everything in Government always takes a
little bit longer than you think it should.
About a week ago, I said, let us just get this done. You
know, sometimes you get the sense that everybody feels they
have got to touch every piece of paper or it is not, you know,
properly blessed, but we will get--this is just a matter of
getting the paperwork done. I think they are meeting either
today or the early part of next week to figure out whatever
wording issues are left. Within 10 days, if I do not have the
piece of paper to sign, I will be on the phone with Secretary
Gutierrez; and we will just figure out what we have to do to
get it done.
There is an agreement we are going to go forward with this,
and I know both agencies and OMB are determined to get moving
very quickly on the guidance because we want to get this out
there as fast as possible. We all have the same objective here.
Chairman Thompson. Ten days?
Secretary Chertoff. Yes.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
Another issue that we see from time to time is, you know,
we have a number of tunnels that have been constructed along
the southern border specifically, and some of us are having
difficulty seeing whether or not the Department is moving with
enough dispatch to fill the tunnels in. Can you give the
committee your assurance, even though the budget does not
reflect resources to complete the destruction or the filling in
of the tunnels that have been used to smuggle individuals and/
or drugs into this country, that we will, in fact, do that?
Secretary Chertoff. Yes. Most of the tunnels have been
filled and capped. I think seven have not been. It is costing
about $3 million, and the budget for CBP--although there is not
a separate line item--includes the money to get those filled.
Chairman Thompson. So will that be within the present
budget year or the future?
Secretary Chertoff. I think we can do it this year,
actually. I think there is money to get it done. In the
meantime, we do monitor them. The one thing that sometimes
slows us up is sometimes the tunnels go under private property,
and care has to be taken in the way that you fill it so you do
not impact the private property and the buildings on top of it.
Chairman Thompson. Well, if you would provide the committee
with the Department's timetable--
Secretary Chertoff. Sure.
Chairman Thompson. --in accomplishing that, we would really
appreciate it.
We had testimony earlier in the week from GAO and the
Inspector General that there were times that the General
Counsel injected himself into the process of getting
information. Is that something that you put in place or have
you reviewed it and see that as a hindrance in allowing the
Comptroller General and the Inspector General to do their jobs;
and, if so, what is your latest position on that?
Secretary Chertoff. We certainly do not mean it to be a
hindrance. I saw some of the IG's testimony, and I thought
yesterday he was, you know, pretty satisfied with the General
Counsel's Office. I guess GAO was not. I have told the General
Counsel we want to be cooperative. We want to be expeditious.
Obviously, he has to assure himself that, when we are producing
things or interviews are being done, we are not compromising
any legal positions that we have to maintain. And I know,
having spent a lot of years as an investigator, that, you know,
sometimes investigators believe the mere presence of a lawyer
is a bad thing, but I do not happen to think that is right.
Chairman Thompson. Because you are a lawyer?
Secretary Chertoff. Because I am a lawyer, because I have
been on all different sides of this. I have investigated, and I
have represented those being investigated, but the bottom line
is, consistent with their professional obligations, I have
asked them to be as cooperative as possible with investigators.
Chairman Thompson. Well, one of our problems is you are
now, by virtue of having a General Counsel, getting blamed for
the delay in congressional mandated reports being received in a
timely manner; and if this process is delaying the submission
of congressionally mandated reports, I think you need to review
it.
Secretary Chertoff. I agree with that.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
I now yield to the ranking member.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I want to thank the Secretary for his testimony this
morning.
Three quick points, one on the issue of port funding, where
we authorized $400 million and $210 million is in the year's
budget. I think we have become part of the circular reasoning
in that you are saying the $210 million is in the budget this
year because that is what Congress appropriated last year, and
we must have felt that was the right number. My understanding
from talking with the Appropriations Committee is the reason
they put $210 million in last year, only $210 million, is that
the budget was not big enough to go beyond that. So that,
again, goes to my point, you know, as to how would you look
upon the budget as to what we need or just keep basing it off
the previous year?
Now I have two questions. One, when do you expect the UWASI
grants to be announced; and, secondly, as to Charles Allen and
the intelligence operation in DHS, how mature do you think that
is becoming as being part of the intelligence apparatus of the
Federal Government, and is it establishing the position you
think that it should have for the Department of Homeland
Security?
Secretary Chertoff. As to the first, the guidance is out. I
cannot tell you off the top of my head when the first
submissions are supposed to come in.
What we agreed to do this year was to have enough time to
allow one round of back and forth so that, if we got something,
you could help yourself by retooling. We can do that. I will
give you the deadlines on that. I do not remember.
Secretary Chertoff. I think Charlie Allen has led
intelligence analysis, I think, very significantly to a new
level. First of all, he sits with the other senior intelligence
agency heads and the DNI's kind of major intelligence counsel.
I have given him substantial authority, including budget review
authority, over the intelligence components. He is undertaking
a significant number of initiatives, including researching and
analyzing homegrown terrorism; and we work closely, literally
on a daily basis, taking intelligence and operationalizing it
with our operational components.
When the President was up yesterday, we took him into the
National Operations Center, and I had Admiral Rufe there, who
is the head of our operations coordination. I had Charlie Allen
there, and they both said to the President, you know, this is a
partnership that takes intelligence and turns it into action.
So this is a dynamic task, but we have made huge progress.
Mr. King. Are you satisfied there is sufficient cooperation
coming from the CIA, the FBI and the DIA as far as giving the
level of intelligence to Mr. Allen that he needs to be able to,
you know, make intelligent decisions and also to share that
with local governments?
Secretary Chertoff. Yes, I am and, you know, continuing to
work to refine our share and make it quicker. We are also
working with State and local governments to support financially
their creation of fusion centers and then to embed analysts in
fusion centers.
Then the other thing Charlie has done is set up a
fellowship program to bring local officials into information
analysis so, A, we can get the benefit of their perspective
and, also, then they can go back and go back. He has a very
good vision for the future, which is having a much more
vertically integrated intelligence capability so that we are
really using the intelligence-gathering abilities of the police
to pick up things.
And I do not want to filibuster, but let me just highlight
one thing.
One thing we did with the grant guidance this year,
frankly, because I talked to Rick Kelly about it, was create a
space to use some of the money for personnel costs if they are
dedicated 100 percent to counterterrorism--we are going to do
that in L.A., too--and the reason we did it was we recognized,
for the next wave of homegrown terrorism, a lot of our
intelligence is going to come from police in the community who
are going to see things that we do not pick up in satellites
and with spies. So we really have a vision for how we want to
go forward with this for the next decade.
Mr. King. Thank you very much.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
We now recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson
Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Secretary, I mentioned before that I
had some aviation questions, and I did not ask them. One in
particular comes to mind, and I welcome your thoughts on this
question. That is that we have discovered individuals who have
been testing our security in what we call ``general aviation
airports;'' and, frankly, it is shocking--individuals without
identification, without purpose and without reason being able
to simply drive onto the tarmac.
Interestingly enough, the subcommittee that I chair has
responsibility for critical infrastructures, and those are
chemical plants, refineries, and you can imagine a general
aviation plane in the vicinity of such refineries leaving a
general aviation airport, not under legal piloting, and simply
hitting those facilities.
What can we do--and I know, again, we have a jurisdictional
question that goes back to my association with Mr. King's
remarks that we really need to cohesively have DHS have control
over a number of these security issues. I believe that we need
to explore how we can be more stringent on the security
measures of these airports, and I would welcome your thoughts
on this.
My second question is, I mentioned the Hutto facility, and
I look forward to visiting it. I am hearing some distressing
thoughts which say that some of the children with families have
been separated and to be defined as ``unaccompanied minors'' so
that they can be put in another facility because there is not
enough room, and frankly, I think we owe an obligation to those
centers for people under civil issues to not be treated as
criminals.
But I would be interested on the general aviation. I have
great concerns about that and will be looking forward to the
opportunity for some hearing before this committee.
Secretary Chertoff. I saw that report. I kind of think it
was the media that actually went in and did that. You know, TSA
does have authority and does lay rules in place for general
aviation.
As we have progressed on the front of commercial aviation--
and one of the things I have asked TSA to do this year is to go
back and look at the general aviation sector and see where do
we need to tighten up. You know, we have been post 9/11 for
over 5 years; and now I think we have an opportunity to stand
back and look at areas where perhaps progress is not what it
should be or maybe where the private sector has gotten a little
lax. We need to start to figure out how do we turn the
temperature up a little bit. To be honest, after a while, I
start to lose patience, and I am prepared to do a little
kicking. So I am going to have Administrator Hoyer look at that
and see.
Now, if we have a lack of authority, we may come back and
say we need more authority, but if we just need to be a little
tougher, we are going to be a little tougher.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And the detention facility and separating
children when they should not be separated?
Secretary Chertoff. I have not heard about separating
children. I do not know if there has been some particular
circumstance where that has occurred.
I do know that a lot of effort was placed into making it,
to the extent any facility can, be family friendly so we would
not have to separate children. I know you are going down, I
think, in the next week or two; and, obviously, if we need to
make an adjustment to procedures there, we will do that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Quickly, I have mentioned to you the
border patrol agents. We understand that they still do not have
bargaining rights. I would like you to comment on that but also
comment on what I think is a severe need for professional
training and career path. These are law enforcement officers,
and how can we begin to turn the corner on those issues?
Secretary Chertoff. I do not know exactly what their union
rights are at this point. I mean, they are a police agency, so
there may be some limits.
With respect to career development, I think in general&
Ms. Jackson Lee. And training.
Secretary Chertoff. And training.
I think in general in the Department, particularly as
people progress, we do need to come up not only with a better
career development path but one that emphasizes the unity of
the Department. You know, one of the things we have seen are
some border patrol and border inspectors now applying to become
ICE agents because they want to do investigative work. That is
not a bad thing, and I do not want to discourage that. We need
to find ways to allow them also to grow within their own agency
as well as going out. So this is part of our whole human
capital effort to try to build this 21st Century organization.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Chairman Thompson. Now I recognize the gentleman from
California, Mr. Lungren.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, first of all, let me just say that, several
months ago, a particular cybersecurity concern came to my
attention. We alerted Mr. Foresman of your Department, and his
reaction was immediate. The Interagency Task Force was
established. He understood the severity of the concern, and I
understand we will be briefed at some point in time in the near
future, and I think that is reflective of the kind of
relationship that develops between this committee as the main
committee of jurisdiction on Homeland Security--your
Department--and I appreciate that, and I look forward to that
kind of work in the future.
You know, we hear a lot of things from a lot of people.
Some appear to be serious, some not. This did appear to be
serious; and while I do not discuss it publicly, I just want to
publicly thank you for that and the professionalism.
The other thing that was of interest was the credibility
that your Department has that, when you went to establish an
Interagency Task Force on this matter involving a number of
different agencies, including some that have been around a long
time, the response to that was immediate, and that is a good
sign, as far as I am concerned, for whether this system is
being broken. You do not get the headlines on that. You get
headlines about what you are not doing.
Perhaps the reason why the tenor of this hearing is, I
think, a little bit better than what I saw in the newspapers is
this committee has a better understanding on an ongoing basis
of what you are doing and what you are doing to improve.
Secondly, I would like to ask you this. I mean, there were
some questions about the housing and tents that we are putting
the non-Mexican illegal aliens in. I have a friend who is in
Tikrit right now, and he is an Army officer, and he is living
in the remains of what was a shower. How does the tent city
that you have got compare to what our troops are living in in
places around the world right now?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, first, again, thank you for your
comments. I think it is important for the morale of the agency
to have the quiet things recognized sometimes, and I appreciate
that.
I visited the particular tent city that was depicted in the
Post before it opened. They are not like tents like Army tents.
They are large structures with almost rigid but not quite rigid
sides. They are air-conditioned, and they have rows of bunks
like dormitories, like in an Army barracks. My recollection,
although, you know, it is not that clear, is that there are
partitions, contrary to what the reports said, in between the
various stalls and the showers. There is an eating area and a
recreational area. I think there is a television.
So, in terms of the physical structure, I would have to say
it is one which I think our troops would be delighted to occupy
in places, you know, all over the world. Now, it is never fun
to be locked up, but these are designed, hopefully, to have
relatively quick turnover, and so they are not meant to be
places of permanent habitation.
Mr. Lungren. And there is a difference, in my mind, between
what is inhumane and what is uncomfortable. I would suppose
these are uncomfortable, and people would like to get out of
them as I would.
Let me ask you about something that Mr. Pierce has brought
up on a number of occasions, and that is the effectiveness of
K-9 units. I noticed that, in the surface transportation
budget, you increased the explosives detection K-9 program by
$3.5 million. Do you know how many K-9s are currently deployed
and to which systems and how many more K-9 units will be
allocated as a result of this $3.5 million?
There has been some suggestion that sometimes, even better
than some of these technological fixes that we are always
chasing, K-9 units have tremendous capacity for examining
cargo, whether it is a fixed rail, whether it is passenger,
whether it is air, and so forth.
Secretary Chertoff. The money reflects 45 additional K-9
teams, and I agree. I think the dogs in almost every case--
there are a couple of exceptions--are superior to technology.
We cannot make them fast enough. We cannot get the dogs
produced fast enough, and not all the dogs--you know, some of
them flunk out of the K-9 school, but they are actually a great
detection tool.
Mr. Lungren. There was some question about whether we have
the capacity to have the training that is necessary. That is,
do we have the facilities such that, if we indicated that we
needed to double or triple this, is the training capacity out
there? Are we limited by the training facilities that are
currently available?
Secretary Chertoff. I am not sure I can answer that. I know
we are currently training a lot of dogs. I was down at the
facility in Front Royal. I do not know what the limiting factor
is--suitable dogs being born and put into the program, suitable
trainers or suitable facilities--but, I mean, we can handle the
45 additional K-9 teams. You know, the dogs are somewhat
expensive, too, and their useful period of work is not their
entire life. I mean, at some point they kind of wear out. But
if we need to put more into the training, we will put more into
the training.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, earlier you mentioned your support for the
Information Sharing Fellows Program, and I am glad to see the
bipartisanship on that. Because you know that was a Democratic
idea that we kind of put forth last year, so I am glad to see
you picking it up and moving it forward.
We will now hear from the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, if you would, share with us as briefly as
you can your vision for security within the country as opposed
to ingress and egress but within as it relates to a facility
comparable to Union Station as we look to the future.
Secretary Chertoff. Most of the infrastructure in the
country is either owned and operated by local authorities or by
the private sector, so I do not envision us--the question I
always have to ask is, what is the Federal contribution? Where
does it make the most sense?
One area is technology. So, for example, with our BioWatch
Program and moving to the next generation of biowatch, that is
something you cannot reasonably expect localities or private
parties to do. We have got to do that kind of research work. We
have got to deploy that. Funding for things like cameras and
systems of that sort I think are, again, where we can value add
with respect to a place like Union Station.
When it comes to the private sector, you know, I think we
need to help them survey and understand what security measures
they need and how to best go about providing security. But I
honestly do not know that the Federal Government would pay for,
let us say, Exxon Mobil to secure its own assets. We want to
tell them what they need to do, which is lay down performance
standards like the chemical facilities, give them assistance,
but, at the end of the day, they have a responsibility as well
to protect not only their own assets but the communities in
which their assets are situated from being turned into a
weapon.
This is really a partnership, and that means it has got to
be a network relationship, as opposed to a government owns
everything and operates everything relationship.
Mr. Green. I thank you, and I do look forward to working
with you. Again, I commend you. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
And, Mr. Green, we will take that question forward during
the next month as we look at rail security as a broader issue
for this country. So we will be working with the Department and
industry itself in coming up with a model that makes the
traveling public more secure.
We will now get back to our patient member, Mr. Perlmutter
from Colorado.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and Mr. Secretary,
again, thank you for, sir, your generous time today.
I have a few more questions, and I want to start with
interdicting, you know, contraband, drugs. Again, I am going to
be asking you about cuts, as opposed to increases, but I
noticed in a couple of your line items we have got cuts to drug
interdiction, $56 million. Can you explain that?
Secretary Chertoff. I need to get the particular line item
so I can look at what we are talking about. Do you have the
line item?
Mr. Perlmutter. It goes from--
Secretary Chertoff. Oh, thanks.
Well, I guess what I would say is, on that particular item,
we are going from--it is off of a base of $1.3 billion, so I
think some of this reflects adjustments in the budget with
respect to Coast Guard, which are reflected as part of the
border program, and then it has to be allocated against the
various categories of the program which are covered under the
border and associated programs.
When we get into very small cuts and adjustments, I mean,
this is part of what is a tough budget process where we are
trying to fund new initiatives. We are trying to see can we
tighten the belt a little bit without sacrificing the mission
in a significant way. It is a fairly small cut relative to the
$1.3 billion; and it just reflects, I think, a judgment that we
could afford to cut a little bit there to put something
somewhere else.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Thank you.
In terms of the conversation we are having with a couple of
the representatives on working with local police and law
enforcement and first responders, as I understand the way the
Department has worked it has been primarily on a grant type of
basis to develop, you know, some expertise in the local law
enforcement in terms of sharing intelligence and things like
that.
I guess my question is--and again, you know, wanting local
control and develop local expertise is a good thing. Grants,
however, run out; and I can tell you in Colorado there is
particular concern that the grants have run out. It was sort of
2003 to 2006 or 2004 to 2007, and it is gone, and they are
really concerned about how it maintains, how it sustains
because you do not want it to just run out. Can you respond?
Secretary Chertoff. First of all, let me preface it by
saying we do work with locals directly in the sense we have a
Joint Terrorism Task Force and we have fusion centers. Let us
say, in the ports, we have, you know, the Coast Guard
integrated with local police. So there are many ways we work
with the locals on an ongoing basis operationally.
You know, what you say about grants is true, and that is
because grants, I think, in the main are meant to be capacity
building. What we are trying to do is build capital investment
and build training that will then allow the localities to do
the work themselves.
Frankly, a lot of the times when we get into tussles over
grant funding is because localities understandably are
interested in having a portion of their sustainment budget
covered by the Federal Government. I mean, they used to have a
COPS program and block grants. I mean, those are revenue-
sharing programs.
I have to say the general philosophy we have had, with some
exceptions like we have done with Stonegarden at the border or
what we have done with the police in the major cities, has been
not to have this be revenue sharing but to have it be capacity
building and investment that will ultimately yield to
sustainment by the localities.
Mr. Perlmutter. I guess my response is that you built the
capacity, but you are then shifting--well, States or the local
governments then have to pick up the cost to maintain the
program. And you know, in Colorado and, I think, in other
States, one of the complaints you are seeing is that they are
not in a place where they can pick up the program. Then what
you have built for 3 years is just going to sort of die on the
vine, and that is just my caution to you.
Secretary Chertoff. Well, that is one of the reasons--when
we evaluate grant proposals, part of what we are looking to see
is, has the applicant thought of a proposal that they are
capable of sustaining themselves? Have they looked at their own
budget and are they able to say, you know, if you give us this,
we then have the ability to carry it forward? That really will
address that issue.
Mr. Perlmutter. A last question, Mr. Chair, if it is okay.
In terms of the--I think your testimony was that we had
18,500 beds. It has gone to 27,500. You want to add another
1,000 beds. Do you have any sense of--I mean, how do you work
with, say, for instance, prisons and training the guards at
these things, and how much does it cost you per bed on an
annual basis?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, let me say we do not own all of
the beds. When we say ``beds,'' a lot of these beds we lease,
and we do that exactly because of the surge back and forth.
There is a figure per bed. I do not have it in my head.
But one of the things we do use--it is almost like a hotel
reservation system. We do run a system where we scale up and
scale down in different parts of the country depending on what
the flow and the capacity needs are. I am sure I can get you
the dollars per bed. Not all but most of them are on a contract
basis. Like we use local law enforcement jails and stuff like
that.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, if you would, on that subject, if you can
get us the cost per Department bed as well as the cost per
contracted bed, I think we could then kind of look at the
numbers and kind of see where we are.
Secretary Chertoff. Yes.
One thing I should say is this is actually an area where
contracting makes sense. Because if we built a large facility
in, let us say, Arizona, and then over time the need for bed
space--and they are contracted--was that we have got more need
in Florida--we would be stuck. So it is this kind of
fluctuation where we actually do like to contract.
Chairman Thompson. And we have staff going to visit over
the next 3 weeks several of these sites to kind of give the
committee more information on it, also.
I would like to thank the Secretary for his valuable
testimony.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Would you just yield for just a moment?
Chairman Thompson. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Secretary, would you put this under
your contemplation?
The chairman indicated that this committee and several
other committees will be looking at comprehensive immigration
reform. We do not want to suggest that law enforcement agencies
should not be enforcing the rules, but you have some
humanitarian issues with mothers, children, fathers in the
pipeline of deportation who are under your jurisdiction, and I
just will explore with you the consideration of some
moratorium, some mandatory moratorium, as this comprehensive
immigration process is about to unfold.
We had to deal with a situation of a mother of two young
children--and I know there may be many like this, but I do
think it is worthy of consideration in the light of the
President's charge and our charge to get a bill out in the next
6 months. I think it is an important question to consider, and
that is a humanitarian response to some who are in the pipeline
of deportation.
I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
Again, Mr. Secretary, we want to thank you for your
testimony. The members of the committee may have additional
questions for you, and we ask you to respond expeditiously in
writing to these questions.
Hearing no further business, the committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX: ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES
----------
Questions from Hon. Bennie G. Thompson
Responses from Hon. Michael Chertoff
Question 1: Mr. Secretary, as you know, the Committee on Armed
Services produces an authorization bill each year for the Department of
Defense. I believe this bill provides much needed Congressional support
and resources for DOD.
Do you believe that the Department of Homeland Security could also
benefit from the passage this year by the House and Senate of a
bipartisan bill that authorizes key programs at DHS and makes moderate
management reforms that you and this Committee are seeking?
Answer: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has undergone
significant restructuring since its inception. As part of this
restructuring, we have instituted several management reforms. I believe
it is prudent to institute the reforms we have underway, stabilize our
operation, assess our performance, and then determine what additional
management reform is required.
Towards that end, in addition to implementing the organizational
restructuring directed by the Department's FY 2007 Appropriations Act,
I am issuing management directives that strengthen and centralize the
authorities of our Chief Acquisition Officer, the Chief Procurement
Officer and our Chief Information Officer. These directives will
provide the Department's headquarters leadership with greater
visibility and control over our most significant investments in new
tools and capabilities to fulfill our mission.
Question 2: Mr. Secretary, the GAO has said that if there was a
merger between private sector companies on par with the creation of the
Department of Homeland Security, it would take five to seven years for
the companies to integrate fully. The Department is now four years old.
Do you think it has made four years of progress?
In other words, where is the Department on this five-to-seven year
progression?
Is it at year four, year three, year two?
Answer: The GAO may have said that if there was a merger between
private sector companies on a par with the creation of the Department,
it would take five to seven years for the companies to integrate fully.
However, the merger and restructuring of government agencies is
dramatically more complicated than mergers in the private sector. We
certainly believe that we have made four years of progress and are well
on the way to becoming a more effective Department.
Question 3: Mr. Secretary, as you know, the Department remains on
GAO's high risk list. In May of 2005, GAO issued a report that
identified your Business Transformation Office as having a potentially
important role in facilitating the integration and development of the
Deparment. Yet in the almost 2 yeas since, we have had a difficult time
figuring out just what the Business Transformation Office does. In
fact, it seems like an empty shell of an office. This year you have
requested no direct funding for it.
Do you have a vision for this office?
What role do you see it playing in the development of the
Department,. and how it can it fulfill this role without funding?
Answer: The Business Transformation Office was eliminated from the
Office of the Under Secretary for Management in Senate Report 109-273--
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill, 2007. Under
Committee Recommendations for the Office of the Under Secretary for
Management, the bill states the following:
Business Transformation Office--The Committee does not provide
funding for the Business Transformation Office (BTO). While the
Committee values the integration that BTO sought to provide,
the Committee finds such integration can be coordinated
directly out of the Immediate Office of the Under Secretary for
Management, eliminating the need for an independent office.
The House agreed with the Senate in the conference report and the
Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 (Public Law 109-295)
eliminated funding for the BTO from the Office of the Under Secretary
for Management.
Question 4: Mr. Secretary as you know, the Department ranked at the
bottom of the just-released OPM survey of job satisfiaction among
federal employees. This abysmal ranking was little changed from OPM's
previous survey, 2 years ago.
Why do you think the Department made so little progress in two
years, and what are you doing now to assure substantial improvement 2
years from now?
Answer: I take these results seriously and am disappointed by the
Department's low survey rankings. Immediately after the report was
issued, I asked Deputy Secretary Jackson to immediately send out a
message to all employees communicating our results and letting them
know that we were very disappointed with our scores and would be taking
immediate steps to try to effect changes which would lead to improved
morale. We anticipate impacting scores through the performance
management system we began implementing in 2005 as well as the
leadership training initiatives which we started to implement last
year.
We are developing a two-pronged approach--Department-wide and
Component level activities. These activities include:
Ongoing data analysis for actionable conclusions;
Focus groups (Department-wide on leadership and
communication issues);
Action plans to address top 2 to 3 areas of weakness;
and
Sharing Component best practices across the
Department.
There are three areas where we did not do well:
Performance Management: In 2006 when the survey was administered we
had just begun the roll-out of the performance management system (PMS)
for all managers and supervisors. In addition, we continue to revamp
and reissue performance management tools which we believe will
contribute to changing the negative employee perception of performance
management within the Department. These initiatives include:
Holding managers accountable for addressing FHCS
issues as a corporate requirement;
Ensuring all employees in the new performance system
are on performance plans
Leadership: From 2004 through 2006, we hired just under 200 senior
executives to fill leadership positions within the Department. Also, in
this time, we established the Chief Learning Officer position within
the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, and produced several
leadership courses now being offered as part of DHS' Leadership
Institute. These courses include:
Delivering new leadership training programs to focus
on core skills identified in the survey (leveraging existing
Component programs, where possible);
Rolling-out existing leadership development programs,
including the SES Candidate Development Program and the DHS
Fellows Program; and
Conducting 360 degree evaluations for SES/TSES
supervisors to assess its use as a basis for improving
communications, leadership and results.
Communications: We are improving our communications by having the
Office of Public Affairs work in conjunction with the Office of the
Chief Human Capital Officer to:
Enhance DHS websites to include more messages from
senior leaders on topics relevant to the workforce;
Structure a series of all hands meetings in
coordination with Components to address key issues;
Prepare an abbreviated DHS 101 module that explains
DHS, what it does, who is in it, the Secretary's priorities and
how each organization relates to them; and
Maintain a robust FHCS website to ensure employees
have access to all information on the Department's activities.
Through these coordinated efforts, we aim to address the areas for
improvement identified by the survey and put in place new
accountability structures to help us implement, communicate and measure
our effectiveness in doing so.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 5: Mr. Secretary, when we met with Deputy Secretary
Jackson last week, he said, and I quote ``MAXHR is dead.''
Is MAXHR in fact dead, and if so what is taking its place?
While MAXHR may have been ill-conceived from the beginning,
the idea of unifying the Department's human resources systems is not.
What are you doing towards this goal, how much will it cost, and
what is the implementation plan?
Answer: The use of the term MAXHR is no longer
appropriate because our human resources programs encompass critical
areas not identified in the MAXHR initiative. Over the last
two years, much work has gone into the MAXHR program.
MAXHR did not go far enough in addressing the broad
range of needs for a 21st century human capital program across the
Department. For this reason, we will no longer be using the term
MAXHR as we move to address broader initiatives that are
essential for us to be successful in the future.
We are continuing our efforts to unify the Department's human
capital programs. The Department (Chief Human Capital Officer), in
collaboration with the Components, has developed a Human Capital
Operational Plan to serve as a roadmap for further integration. This
plan allows DHS to adjust to new priorities while focusing on five key
goals, which are designed to improve DHS' capacity to build and sustain
a high-performing workforce with the knowledge, tools and resources to
achieve the Department's vital mission. They are:
--Hire and retain a talented and diverse workforce
--Create a DHS-wide culture of performance
--Establish high-quality learning and development programs
--Implement a DHS-wide integrated leadership service
--Be a model of human capital service excellence
Under these goals, we will continue the valuable work begun under
the MAXHR program, but broaden our focus to other areas,
such as developing career paths to expand career opportunities and
investing in learning and development programs to give employees the
knowledge and tools they need to be successful. We will also modernize
hiring and retention programs to make sure we can attract and retain
the best talent. With respect to the programs initiated under
MAXHR, we will:
-- Expand the implementation of the DHS Performance Management
Program to allow us to work more effectively across Components
and align the work we do with the strategy, vision, and values
of the Department.
-- Implement a pay-for-performance pilot program in a small
Component or organization to validate, measure, and refine the
pay band models and processes.
-- Work with the Office of Personnel Management and collaborate
with employee representatives to decide on next steps
consistent with recent court rulings.
By proceeding in this deliberate manner, we will ensure that
performance management is well-established in the Department, and that
we have adequate time to properly train the workforce. These actions
will also support our efforts in addressing the issues raised by the
Federal Human Capital Survey.
The FY 2007 budget includes funding to initiate these efforts and
additional funding will be sought, as needed, in FY 2008 and beyond to
sustain robust human capital programs throughout DHS. The chart below
reflects the differences between MAXHR and the newly adopted
Human Capital Operational Plan (HCOP).
Question 6: Mr. Secretary the Nation's transportation systems are
inherently ``open'' environments and in the Department's own budget
justifications it says ``There is a very real ongoing threat to
transportation security, particularly involving the mass transit mode,
as evidenced by the Bombings in Madrid during the summer of 2004 and
London in July 2005'' But the President's FY08 budget only requests an
additional $4 million for TSA's surface transportation security.
If TSA is responsible for all modes of transportation, when is
TSA's budget going to reflect this fact?
What percentage of your overall budget is dedicated specifically to
rail and public security?
Answer: Budgets seen as specifically dedicated to surface
transportation security are not reflective of the overall effort of TSA
or the Federal Government in these areas.
Since 9/11, the Federal Government has dedicated an estimated $900
million to transit security alone. This figure encompasses grant
programs administered by the Department of Transportation (DOT),
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DHS, and TSA.
Additionally, FTA annually awards more than $3.5 billion in capital
improvement grants. These funds may be used for capital security
enhancement. Under the Safe, Affordable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act--A Legacy for Users, up to two percent of
these grants may be dedicated to security training and exercises.
The $900 million cited does not reflect the value of supporting
services the Federal Government provides to transit security through
funding of broader security efforts, such as the Transportation
Security Operations Center, the Transportation Security Intelligence
Service, and DOT's Crisis Management Center. Our Government's
investments and improvements in terrorism watch lists, border security
and intelligence networks significantly impact surface transportation
security. Such efforts focus on preventing the terrorists from ever
entering the United States and are part of a layered defense for
surface transportation security.
These and other programs contribute to accomplishing the surface
transportation security mission. The intelligence and information-
sharing and alert capabilities maintained through these processes are
other key components of the layered approach to transit and rail
security.
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) focuses on information
sharing, preparedness, domain awareness, training, and using a risk-
based management approach to maximize the impact of available resources
through random, visible security activities. We have employed wide-
ranging strategies that engage our stakeholders and help ensure the
security of mass transit and passenger rail systems. The TSA budget
involves programs and funding that may seem to be specific to certain
modes when, in fact, they impact security across all modes. TSA has
learned much in aviation security that is being used in the surface
transportation modes. Budgets allocated to aviation security actually
provide real benefit throughout the entire transportation system.
For example, Federal Security Directors work closely with surface
modes to make many aviation security measures available to surface
transportation security. TSA Explosives Detection Canine Teams, Visible
Intermodal Prevention and Response teams, portable screening equipment
and the National Screening Force have been deployed to provide enhanced
security to surface transportation.
Much of the Nation's aviation infrastructure is federally owned,
which requires a Federal budget. The surface modes of transportation,
many of which are privately owned and operated, receive security
funding from multiple streams (i.e., State, local, private). The
responsibility for mass transit security and passenger rail security is
a shared responsibility among a variety of stakeholders, including
State, local, and Federal agencies, and private owners and operators.
To that end, TSA works in partnership with the DHS Office of Grants and
Training and will award $199 million in surface transportation security
grants in FY 2007. These grants are awarded in direct relationship to a
program's value in mitigating the greatest risk to surface
transportation.
Question 7: Earlier this week, Administrator Hawley told us that
the Transportation Sector specific Plan was still under review by the
Administration. This plan was due over 2 years ago.
Why the long delay and when can the Committee expect the plan to be
completed?
Answer: The National Strategy for Transportation Security (NSTS)
was required under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004 (IRTPA) as the initial Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
mechanism for the development of a broad-based transportation strategy.
The NSTS was the document due two years ago, which was delivered to
Congress in October 2005. Per IRTPA, an updated NSTS was provided to
Congress in August 2006.
On December 5, 2006, the President issued Executive Order 13416
which builds upon the improvements made in surface transportation
security since September 11, 2001, specifically actions taken under
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7, ``Critical Infrastructure
Identification, Prioritization, and Protection'' (HSPD-7). Executive
Order 13416 requires the strengthening of our Nation's surface
transportation systems by the facilitation and implementation of a
comprehensive, coordinated, and efficient security program. In doing
so, we continue to build upon current security initiatives to develop a
comprehensive transportation systems sector specific plan, as defined
in the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), as well as modal
plans for surface modes as defined in the Executive Order.
In June 2006, DHS signed the NIPP as the comprehensive Critical
Infrastructure and Key Resources (CI/KR) planning framework supporting
the tenets outlined in HSPD-7. Each of the 17 CI/KR sectors was
required by the NIPP to develop a sector-specific plan in collaboration
with various security partners across government and private industry.
December 31, 2006. The Transportation Systems Sector Specific Plan
(TSSP) was developed and reviewed within the Department. HSC cleared
the TSSP in early March.
Question 8: In the FY07 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill,
Congress provided the Department with a specific timeline for grant
distribution. We had to do this because your Department has
consistently been late in distributing these substantial funds. Despite
this clear guidance, however, the Department was once again 7 weeks
late in distributing the FY07 grant guidance.
Please explain why there is such a long delay in distributing this
funding
Answer: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) places a premium
on distributing grant funds to State and local jurisdictions in a
timely manner. We realize that these funds are critical to building and
sustaining capabilities at all levels. Prior to the grant guidance
release for the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security Grant Program and
the Infrastructure Protection Program, we continued to seek stakeholder
input on a variety of issues to ensure a strong programmatic
application. In addition, we were committed to ensuring that we spent
the time necessary to strengthen the upfront analysis portion of the
Urban Areas Security Initiative eligibility determination.
Further, the Department received specific requests from a number of
State homeland security advisors on behalf of governors from their
respective States asking that the Department delay releasing this grant
guidance until January 2007. This extra time ensured that States and
urban areas did not lose valuable days around the holiday season during
the application period. The Department decided to grant this additional
extension based on these requests.
Question 9: Mr. secretary at yesterday's ``Update on Federal Rail
and Public Transportation Security Efforts Hearing,'' Administrator
Hawley was asked about Department training requirements for front-line
rail workers, and he responded--incorrectly--that such requirements
existed.
Were you also under the impression that this training was required?
And if you were not, can you please explain why they are not required?
Can yu explain to the Committee why you again missed an opportunity
to impose training requirement for these workers?
Answer: The Federal Government currently has security training
requirements in place in both passenger and freight rail. The
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), through its various
assessment programs conducted by the Surface Transportation Security
Inspectors, monitors employee training information and efforts, which
differ for passenger rail workers and freight rail workers.
Passenger Rail/Mass Transit
Under the current Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP), employee
security training, drills and exercises, and public and employee
awareness programs are considered fundamental to a comprehensive
security program and are essential factors in evaluating eligibility
and in awarding grants. The TSGP guidance emphasizes the implementation
of effective and targeted training designed for front-line transit
staff and public awareness. Additionally, TSA and the Federal Transit
Administration's (FTA) Rail Fixed Guideway Systems: State Safety
Oversight Rule, title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR), section
659.19 (k)(7), requires that system safety plans include the process
used by the rail transit agencies to develop an approved, coordinated
schedule for employee emergency training activities.
With regard to passenger rail, the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) regulation on passenger train emergency preparedness,I CFR Part
239.101 applicable to certain commuter or other short-haul passenger
train services and intercity passenger train services, requires
employee training as a component of the emergency preparedness plan.
The regulation states that the plan shall address individual employee
responsibilities and provide for initial training, as well as periodic
training at least once every two calendar years thereafter, on the
applicable plan provisions. At a minimum, the initial and periodic
training shall include:
(A) Rail equipment familiarization;
(B) Situational awareness;
(C) Passenger evacuation;
(D) Coordination of functions; and
(E) Hands-on instruction for location, function, and operation
of on-board emergency equipment.
The requirement also applies to control center personnel and
requires that they be provided with initial training, as well as
periodic training at least once every two calendar years thereafter, on
appropriate courses of action for each potential emergency situation.
At a minimum, the initial and periodic training shall include:
(A) Dispatch territory familiarization and
(B) Protocols governing internal communications between
appropriate control center personnel when an imminent potential
emergency situation exists.
Freight Rail
Security training is already required for many workers in freight
rail transportation and, as a matter of good business practice, has
been extended to many operational employees by the railroad companies.
DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration currently
requires security training of all hazardous materials (hazmat)
employees in freight rail transportation (49 CFR 172.704). Title 49 CFR
171.8 defines a hazmat employee as a person who in the course of their
employment directly affects transportation safety. The term hazmat
employee specifically covers persons who ``load, unload, or handle
hazardous materials,'' ``[prepare] hazardous materials for
transportation,'' ``are responsible for the safety of transporting
hazardous materials,'' or ``[operate] a vehicle used to transport
hazardous materials.''
Employers must provide hazmat employee training, which includes the
following:
General awareness/familiarization training;
Function-specific training;
Security awareness training, which must include a
component covering how to recognize and respond to possible security
threats;
In-depth security training, which must include information
concerning the company security plan and its implementation, company
security objectives, specific security procedures, employee
responsibilities, actions to take in the event of a security breach,
and the organizational security structure; and
Recurrent training every three years.
Question 10: Mr. Secretary I am troubled by recent problems with
the Coast Guard's Deepwater Program. The DHS Office of the Inspector
General just released a report highlighting structural deficiencies
with the National Security Cutters. Last year, the Coast Guard had a
drydock the entire class of 123-foot cutters because of these problems.
How much is it going to cost the American taxpayer to fix these
structural deficiencies?
Answer: National Security Cutter (NSC)
Technical work characterized by the ability of the structural
design to meet Coast Guard requirements has been completed. Design
modifications to increase overall cutter fatigue tolerance will be
completed this March and the Coast Guard NSC program office will begin
detailed discussions with ICGS on potential design solutions at that
time. Costs will not be fully developed until the design changes are
decided.
To mitigate risk, the PEO, in concert with the Deepwater Program's
Technical Authority (Assistant Commandant for Engineering & Logistics)
and working with ICGS, is developing a full technical solution that
will be incorporated into production of hulls three through eight. With
regard to hulls one and two, the USCG intends to implement similar
enhancements during normal post-delivery availabilities that will be
well before any projected fatigue service-life limitations are reached.
123' Patrol Boats (WPB)
Due to ongoing engineering and structural degradations of the 123'
WPB Fleet, operations of the eight cutters was suspended on November
30, 2006. In order to safely operate in seas less than 5 feet deep
would require such operational restrictions that the 123' WPBs would no
longer be operationally effective.
To date, industry has incurred approximately $200K in structural
upgrade costs and the Coast Guard has expended about $1.7M in AC&I
funds in analysis and repair. With suspense of 123' WPB operations, the
Coast Guard Technical Authority has engaged well-known engineering
experts to review the types of problems the Coast Guard and ICGS have
experienced with the 123' WPB in order to provide an independent
assessment of the status and future viability of the 123' WPB. The
Coast Guard Technical Authority reviewed information from the
independent assessment regarding the future of the 123' WPB. The Coast
Guard has announced its decision to competitively bid the project with
a potential large savings to the tax payer.
Question 11: Mr. Secretary, the adequacy of data privacy protection for
the Department's programs involving the collection of passenger
information, such as TSA's Secure Flight Program and CBP's Automated
Targeting System, continues to be a major concern for Members of
Congress and the public at large.
What progress has the Department made in assuring Americans that
personal information they must submit to make a plane reservation or
board a flight will be adequately protected and used exclusively for
screening purposes?
Answer: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has
developed a comprehensive privacy program to ensure compliance with the
Fair Information Practices codified in the Privacy Act of 1974, the E-
Government Act of 2002, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and TSA
privacy policies, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) privacy
guidance. Extensive privacy requirements are being included in the
program requirements to ensure that privacy issues and risks are
identified at each phase of the program and that privacy principles are
implemented throughout Secure Flight systems and operations. The
privacy program integrates administrative, technical and physical
security safeguards to ensure that limitations are placed on the
collection of personal information and, once collected, information is
protected against unauthorized disclosure, use, modification or
destruction. Audit information will be generated and reviewed for each
process or activity that involves the use of personal information to
ensure that the Fair Information Practices and Secure Flight privacy
policies are followed.
Additionally, as part of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
process, TSA will publish a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) and SORN
(System of Records Notice). The PIA and SORN will describe TSA's
statutory authority to collect data and conduct a test of Secure Flight
and will explain in detail the handling and flow of personal
information and the protocols and privacy protections built into Secure
Flight to protect passengers.
Question 12: Mr. Secretary, many believe that a critical security
gap remains in air travel. the request for an increase of nearly $40
million in the Secure Flight Program for further Program development is
curious following the GAO finding of multiple problems in the TSA life
cycle approach.
When do you realistically believe that TSA will assume passenger
pre-screening duties, coordinating with key stakeholders critical to
Program operations, while at the same time minimizing adverse impacts
on passenger privacy and other rights?
Answer: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has
developed a comprehensive privacy program to ensure compliance with the
Fair Information Practices codified in the Privacy Act of 1974, the E-
Government Act of 2002, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and TSA
privacy policies, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) privacy
guidance. Extensive privacy requirements are being included in the
program requirements to ensure that privacy issues and risks are
identified at each phase of the program and that privacy principles are
implemented throughout Secure Flight systems and operations. The
privacy program integrates administrative, technical, and physical
security safeguards to ensure that limitations are placed on the
collection of personal information. Once collected, that information
will be protected against unauthorized disclosure, use, modification,
or destruction. Audit information will be generated and reviewed for
each process or activity that involves the use of personal information
to ensure that the Fair Information Practices and Secure Flight privacy
policies are followed.
Additionally, along with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, TSA will
publish a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) and SORN (System of Records
Notice). The PIA and SORN will describe TSA's statutory authority to
collect data and will explain in detail the handling and flow of
personal information and the protocols and privacy protections that are
built into Secure Flight to protect passengers.
The Secure Flight program office plans to begin parallel operations
with the first groups of domestic aircraft operators in the first
quarter of fiscal year FY 2009, and plans to take over full
responsibility for watch list matching in FY 2010. Secure Flight is one
of the Department's top priorities, and TSA is continually
investigating ways to accelerate the program schedule to allow for an
expedited implementation of the system, as appropriate, and within
established lifecycle cost estimates.
Question 13: Mr. Secretary, the President's FY 2008 budget has an
unrealistic estimate of $35.1 million in fees to be collected from the
Registered traveler (RT) Program, currently operating out of only five
airports. Although other airports have shown an interest, the fee
estimation is considerably higher than warranted by anticipated
participation. Yet again, the Administration is relying on glossy
proposals and questionable forecasts to generate the false prospect of
enhanced a aviation security.
Can you explain why you believe that over 1 million people will
join this program even though it is only in five airports and the only
real advantage is that Members will get to cut the line?
Answer: The Registered Traveler (RT) population projections were
based upon conservative estimates including frequent-flyer program
participants, business travelers, as well as the number and category of
participating airports. An estimated RT population of over one million
is based upon a national program including more than 150 participating
airports by FY 2012. Since being launched in November 2006, five
sponsoring entities (airports/air carriers) have begun operating an RT
program. TSA is currently working with an additional seven airports
that anticipate launching the RT interoperable pilot program by the end
of this calendar year.
In this public-private partnership, the individual, airport-
specific service providers are responsible for the development and
marketing of their RT programs. Possible program partnerships with
local businesses and parking and airport vendors are expected to
enhance the attractiveness of the RT program. Participating airports/
air carriers also plan on offering amenities currently available only
to elite frequent flyer club members, such as restricted lounge areas.
The fiscal year 2008 fee estimate of $35.1 million for the
Registered Traveler program presumed that 234,000 applicants would
remit $150 to TSA. Since the time the budget estimate was developed,
the structure of the program and the remittance amount has changed. TSA
will receive $28 of the applicant fee to cover TSA's costs for program
oversight and operations.
Question 14: Mr. Secretary, your Deputy, Michael Jackson, has
informed the Committee that the Department intends to move the US-VISIT
office into the new National Protection and Programs Directorate. All
of the other offices in this new directorate deal primarily with
donmestic security programs, not border security programs, and many
Members on this committee are concerned that this move will further
separate US-VISIT from the operational border security programs it is
designed to support.
Can you tell us how you plan to insure that US-VISIT will be
integrated and coordinated with the various border security initiatives
DHS is responsible for implementing?
Answer: US-VISIT provides not only biometric identity services at
the border, but also services for interior enforcement (U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement), for immigration benefits
(Citizenship and Immigration Services), during the visa application
process beyond our borders (State Department), and to the FBI for law
enforcement purposes.
The Department has recognized US-VISIT's far reaching mission by
re-aligning the program into the National Protection and Programs
(NPPD) Directorate, effective March 31, 2007.
US-VISIT is being placed in the NPPD to support coordination for
the program's protection mission and to strengthen DHS management
oversight. The placement of US-VISIT into this new directorate
recognizes that US-VISIT has evolved from a border control program
created to address specific congressional mandates to an organization
that is now an asset for the entire Department, providing identity
services for almost all the operational Components of DHS.
Currently, CBP is a member of an integrated project team that helps
govern US-VISIT. Coordination between CBP and US-VISIT has existed
since the program's creation in 2003. Additionally, CBP has on-site
staff assigned to US-VISIT to assist with day-to-day activities. This
arrangement will continue under the new NPPD. US-VISIT also works
closely with ICE to identify potential visa overstays through its Data
Integrity Group.
Question 15: Mr. Secretary, the REAL ID Act of 2005 requires the
states to issue secure identification documents by May 11, 2008, either
driver's licenses or an identification cards, that must be used for
federal purposes such as boarding an airplane, entering a federal
building or applying for federal benefits. The REAL ID Act set forth
minimum standards for these secure identification documents, but
mandated that the Department issue regulations informing the states of
the specific requirements for these cards. Nearly two years have passed
since REAL ID was enacted, yet to date the Department has not even
issued a notice of proposed rule-making.
Can you tell me when we might expect to see those proposed rules,
and how you intend to facilitate the states' ability to meet the May
11, 2008 deadline? What is DHS doing to minimize the cost to the states
of complying with the REAL ID Act?
Answer: DHS publicly released the NPRM on March 1, 2007, and it was
published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2007, commencing the 60-
day comment period. The NPRM describes how States can meet the May 11,
2008 effective date of the Act, as well as what steps States can take
to seek an extension of the compliance date from the Secretary.
DHS sought to minimize costs to the States when implementing the
language of the Real ID Act. For example, to establish a common-machine
readable technology, required by section 202(b)(9), DHS proposed that
States employ the 2D PDF-417 bar code standard already in use by 45
States rather than employ a different technology. Similarly, DHS did
not specify which issuance process a State could use (central, over-
the-counter, or hybrid) in order to permit States as much flexibility
as possible in complying with the proposed regulations.
Question 16: In his recent State of the Union address, President
Bush reiterated his commitment to doubling the size of the Border
Patrol, and the administration has requested funding for an additional
3,000 agents in FY 2008. However, it appears that the Border Patrol is
not actually recruiting and retaining a sufficient number of agents to
fulfill this promise.
Can you explain to us why this is the case, and share with the
committee what DHS is doing to improve recruitment and retention at
levels that will permit the Administration to keep its commitment?
Answer: CBP recognizes the need to balance recruiting and filling
the training slots at the Academy in Artesia. At this point, we are
recruiting and hiring qualified applicants at a pace that maintains the
Academy classrooms at their capacity. As the Academy increases the
availability of training slots, we will fill them to keep on track.
Additionally, CBP is now recruiting at the GS-9 entry level and is on
pace to meet our target goals.
Attrition and the 30:1 applicant-to-hiring ratio are two proven
reasons for the slower pace in filling these positions. However, CBP
continues to aggressively pursue qualified candidates across the
country to fill Border Patrol Agent positions. We have set up 18
compressed testing sites, up from the previous 6 and are conducting
compressed recruiting events simultaneously to increase the number of
applicants. In Tucson, CBP recently tested 104 applicants in one day
and screened another 118 walk-in applicants. Last month in San Antonio,
another 190 applicants were tested in one day and an additional 200
walk-in applicants were screened. The agency recruiting team continues
to conduct similar recruiting events across the country where we have
compressed testing scheduled. Contingent upon the availability of
appropriations for such purpose, CBP is also exploring scholarships for
two-year college students who want to pursue a career as a Border
Patrol Agent. Additionally, the Border Patrol is benefiting from
Operation Jump Start as it has exposed National Guard personnel from
around the country to the work the Border Patrol performs, and many
among the National Guard have expressed interest in joining CBP.
Regarding retention, CBP is evaluating proposals, again contingent
upon funding, to offer retention bonuses to new BPAs as a means of
reducing attrition. Normally, the Border Patrol experiences a low
attrition rate after completion of the agent's first two years.
Retention efforts would target new agents who are adjusting to a new
career and often times a new environment for both living and working as
well. Despite these limitations, CBP has maintained sufficient
candidates in the pipeline to keep pace with the Academy class
requirements and we expect to continue on that pace throughout the
fiscal year.
Question 17: Mr. Secretary, in FY 2006, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement removed 185,3431 illegal aliens from the U.S., a 10%
increase from FY 2005. The Department's budget requests $31 million for
an additional 600 detention bed spaces and requests funding for an
additional 3,000 agents.
Mr. Secretary have you considered that an increase in border patrol
agents will increase apprehensions, which will also increase the need
for bed space?
Is this enough to completely end catch and release?
Answer:
By adding the 600 beds, plus an additional 350 beds specifically
associated with the 287(g) program, DHS will have a total bed count of
28,450 for FY 2008. Given the significantly increased deterrence effect
seen with the implementation of Operation Jump Start, increased Border
Patrol deployment, ICE interior enforcement and the new practice of
catch and return, the Department believes that the total bed level is
sufficient to maintain the end of ``catch and release'' at the border.
DRO continues to work with all apprehending entities and ICE field
offices to ensure that detention bed space is properly managed. DRO
utilizes the Detention Operations Coordination Center (DOCC) to promote
optimum utilization of detention capacity by monitoring detained
dockets across the country and shifting detainees from field offices
with limited detention space to those with available detention space.
For FY 2007, ICE is funded for 27,500 detention beds. As of February
19, 2007, the total ICE-funded population was 27,245. DRO continues to
add detention capacity and to manage the detained population.
Question 18: The funding requested for immigration and Customs
Enforcement may be insufficient to meet the anticipated demand for its
services. The proposed Basic Pilot Program, however, may be excessively
expensive, as GAO has estimated that a nationwide employment
verification system would cost at least $11.7 billion annually.
Can you respond to these concerns?
Answer: The Employment Eligibility Verification (EEV) program,
formerly known as Basic Pilot, is actually a current program
administered and funded by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
(USCIS). The Basic Pilot provides free information to participating
employers about the work eligibility of their newly hired workers. In
planning for the expansion of the program, the President's FY 2007
budget request approved by Congress appropriated $110 million to begin
expanding and improving the Basic Pilot, including conducting outreach,
instituting systems monitoring, and compliance functions. EEV is a
voluntary program providing employers an electronic system to verify
employment eligibility of all newly hired employees. EEV now has over
14,000 employers participating in the program. USCIS is continuing to
strengthen the capacities of EEV including adding technology that for
the first time allows participating employers to use a paperless online
filing system. The President's FY 08 budget requests a total of $30
million in discretionary funding to continue expanding the EEV Program.
When the GAO was first calculating the overall costs of the Basic
Pilot, they were citing an older report that was written prior to the
Basic Pilot becoming web-based and it factored in all the costs, not
only to the government, but the ``costs to the public'' as well. USCIS'
budget estimates look at actual expenditures for the cost of running
the Basic Pilot. The GAO number is looking at costs such as lost wages
and opportunity costs for employers. The employer costs are the
opportunity costs (cost of time) for learning how to use the EEV system
and running queries on the system for all new hires.
Employee costs during the initial verification phase are minimal.
In cases where an employee's Social Security Number (SSN) or
immigration information does not immediately match a database at the
Social Security Administration (SSA) or the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), the EEV system issues a ``tentative non-confirmation.''
When a tentative non-confirmation is issued, employers must take the
time to inform the employee of the tentative non-confirmation and allow
the employee to continue working while they resolve the issue with
either SSA or DHS. For tentative non-confirmations with SSA, an
employee must take time off from work and travel to a local SSA office.
For DHS tentative non-confirmations, employees are able to contact DHS
by telephone to resolve the tentative non-confirmation. In cases where
the non-confirmations are resolved, an employer must spend time running
a second query to verify that the records have been updated. In cases
where it is determined that the employee is not work authorized, then
the cost to the employer are investments in recruiting and training for
an employee that they have to terminate.
Question 19: The Administration's budget includes no funding for
the Southwest Border Prosecutors Initiative. This program provides
funding for local prosecutor offices in the four States along the
Southwest Border--California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico--for the
costs of processing, detaining, and prosecuting drug and other cases
referred from federal arrests or federal investigations.
What is the likely effect of this action if Congress adopts it?
Answer: The Southwest Border Prosecutors Initiative is fully funded
by the United States Department of Justice. As such, inquiries related
to this program's funding should be directed to the Department of
Justice.
Question 20: Mr. Chertoff it is my understanding that FEMA is
currently in the process of trying to recoup over $300 million in
assistance improperly provided to over 70,000 Louisiana households in
the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Additionally, an Associated
Press analysis has revealed that at least 162,750 fictitious homes--
that did not exist before the storms--may have received a total of more
than $1 billion in improper or illegal payments.
Why was the system that FEMA had in place unable to verify the
identities and homes for those who applied for assistance? What
processes are you putting in place to prevent this level of fraud in
the next large disaster?
How far along is the Department in recouping these funds, and what
action is the Department taking against the individuals who stole the
funds?
Answer: At the time of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA's
traditional system for verifying the identity of disaster assistance
applicants was dependent on an on-site, in-person verification of
applicants and their respective residencies. Given the massive and
unprecedented displacement of residents and the inability to enter many
areas due to the degree of devastation, FEMA's principal assistance
verification method was not feasible. FEMA officials agree that more
stringent controls on the front end are always preferable; however, the
sheer magnitude of the event dictated that the agency proceed in the
manner it did because there simply was not time to develop and test any
additional front end controls.
In the face of tremendous need and suffering, and absent any
efficient way to thoroughly vet every request for Federal aid, FEMA
erred on the side of compassion and gave applicants the benefit of the
doubt when processing their claims. While most applicants were honest,
many were not, resulting in significant fraud against the U.S.
taxpayer.
FEMA has taken steps to implement new controls to improve its
ability to serve disaster victims during a large-scale event while also
limiting fraud and abuse. Most notably, FEMA has implemented an
automated identity and occupancy verification system to confirm the
identity and residency of applicants who register with FEMA for
assistance. Fraud prevention controls that have been implemented
include:
Deployment in October 2005 of a new Internet
application that disallows any duplicate registrations;
Identity proofing to detect potentially fraudulent
applications taken through call centers in August 2005 through
February 2006. This work is performed by FEMA's data
contractor. Potentially fraudulent applications are then routed
to DHS-OIG and/or FEMA for recoupment processing as
appropriate.
Added identity proofing to the call center
registration application beginning in February 2006, so that
all Individual and Household Program (IHP) registrations are
subject to the same stringent criteria, including verification
of social security numbers and occupancy requirements;
Amended automated scripts to ensure no scripted
payments are sent to applicants who fail identity proofing;
Data-marking any applications in FEMA's database that
fail identity proofing so they are flagged for manual review
and denied automated payment;
Real-time interaction between the FEMA service
representative and the applicant during registration to ensure
that the data entered that caused a failed identity check is
correct before accepting the application;
Adding verification of occupancy and ownership to the
registration process for every disaster victim starting in June
2006. This allows FEMA to ensure that an applicant lives at the
address that they claimed before automating any payments to
that address;
Working with FEMA's data contractor to flag any
addresses that are not residential addresses to prevent
automated payments without an on-site inspection verification
of address and residency; and
Flagging at-risk social security numbers to identify
potential fraud.
Recoupment efforts are ongoing. To date, FEMA has instituted
recoupment on 98,731 applicants for Hurricane Katrina and Rita for a
total of $405 million. As they are identified, FEMA refers potential
fraudulent activity to OIG. Additionally, we are working with the IRS
to enable FEMA to recoup improper assistance payments by garnishing
future Federal tax refunds.
Question 21: A letter from DHS' Inspector General to Chairman
Thompson dated January 12, 2007 indicated that problems exist with the
automated payment system FEMA uses to make payments to small
businesses. This letter further mentions that the automated payment
system included out-dated technology.
What steps are being taken to fix this problem?
What steps are being taken to insure that technology is being
improved?
Answer: The issue is not that FEMA has difficulty making payments
to small or any businesses. To provide disaster assistance, FEMA may
award a contract to a bona fide contractor. While the contractor may
choose to use sub-contractors, payment to the sub-contractors is the
contractor's responsibility, not FEMA's responsibility.
We have awarded a contract to Grant Thornton, who is performing a
financial systems requirements analysis to determine the best solution
for replacing the current aged financial system. The deadline for
submitting the independent analysis to the FEMA CFO is no later than
April 30, 2007 and will provide recommended actions for FEMA management
to consider and/or implement. As part of the analysis, the independent
contractor will evaluate the DHS designated Centers of Excellence (COE)
which are Coast Guard, FLETC, Secret Service or CBP, to determine if
one of the COEs can provide a financial system platform, or if FEMA
should have an independent system to support the unique and surge
requirements needed to meet disaster response and recovery needs.
Question 22: A report on FEMA controls for funding administrative
costs under state management grants was done by the DHS Inspector
General on January 9, 2007. It pointed out that FEMA approved state
management grants without a comprehensive grant plan or written
internal procedures for assessing the need for grant assistance.
What steps is FEMA taking to insure that procedures are properly
formed when managing these administrative cost grant proposals?
Answer: The Office of Inspector General Audit Report OIG-07-21,
Review of FEMA Internal Controls for Funding Administrative Costs under
State Management Grants Audit, was specific to the Public Assistance
(PA) Program. Per 44 CFR 206.207, Administrative and Audit
requirements, the PA program requires that a PA State Administrative
Plan (PA SAP) must be in place and approved by FEMA prior to grant
funding approval for disaster assistance.
The report recommended that FEMA develop additional procedures to
review State management administrative cost proposals to ensure that
funding is approved only to meet essential and reasonable grant
management needs. FEMA concurred with the Inspector General's
recommendation.
Currently, FEMA's Regional PA Program staff determines if the
State's submitted management costs are consistent with the functions
outlined in the PA SAP. After review, the staff forwards the
reimbursement request with a recommendation to the Disaster Finance
Center (DFC) who is then responsible for the final review and approval
of individual cost item eligibility per OMB Circular A-87, Cost
Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments. In addition
to this process, FEMA has taken the following steps to improve the
quality of the PA SAPs:
Revising the PA SAP template to clearly define the
basic legal and procedural responsibilities of the grantee in
administering the PA program;
Developing a detailed checklist for FEMA Regional
offices to review PA State Administrative Plans.
Issuing FEMA Recovery Policy RP 9525.14, Public
Assistance Grantee Administrative Costs, issued November 7,
2006. The policy specifies the allowable uses of the Statutory
Administrative Allowance and State Management Administrative
Costs and requires States to document and report the use of the
Statutory Administrative Allowance; and
Updating Recovery Policy RP 9525.11, Payment of
Contractors for Grant Management Tasks, which specifically
addresses PA reimbursement for contractors performing grants
management functions on behalf of grantees and subgrantees.
Question 23: Secretary Chertoff, as you know, last October
President Bush signed into law the Post Katrina Emergency Management
Reform Act to strengthen and reform FEMA. Unfortunately, we have
already begun to see the Department miss deadlines and reporting
requirements mandated in the bill. These include: quarterly FEMA
vacancy reports; creation of a National Advisory Council; development
of guidelines to accommodate individuals with disabilities; and
implementation of a public assistance pilot program.
Mr. Secretary, can you explain all these missed deadlines and can
you insure the Committee that the Department is implementing the
reforms Congress mandated?
Answer: The Department of Homeland Security is committed to
implementing the activities required by the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act of 2006, in a thoughtful and effective manner.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is moving forward to
determine how best to carry out the provisions of the 2007
Appropriations Act. Following is an update on the status of each of the
specific legislative provisions referenced in your question.
Quarterly Vacancy Report:
The original due date of January 4, 2007 appears based
on 90 days after the date of enactment of the legislation. It
was not possible to pull together data that cover the period
through the end of the first quarter, December 31st, and submit
it to Congress on January 4th.
A new reporting system is being developed and the
permanent full time (PFT) data population is currently being
uploaded. The initial report will be forwarded in early April,
2007.
DHS expects to have quarterly vacancy reports to
Congress by the end of the month following the end of each
quarter. This will allow the Department to properly assemble,
analyze, and interpret the data for each quarter in a way that
addresses the specific issues identified by Congress.
We look forward to continuing to work with Congress to
ensure the Department has the workforce necessary to fulfill
its responsibilities.
National Advisory Council Creation:
Secretary Chertoff announced the creation of the
National Advisory Council which was formally established by a
Federal Register notice on February 7, 2007.
The Council is being established to advise the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
on all aspects of emergency management in an effort to ensure
close coordination with all involved.
FEMA set a March 9, 2007, deadline for applications to
serve on the Council; over 600 resumes were submitted for 27
available positions.
The resumes are currently being reviewed and the
selection of Council members will be completed by the FEMA
Administrator by March 31, 2007.
The Council members will represent both geographic
diversity as well as a significant cross section of officials
from emergency management and law enforcement backgrounds, and
include homeland security directors, adjutants general,
emergency response providers from State, local, and tribal
governments, the private sector, and nongovernmental
organizations.
Individuals with Disabilities Guidelines:
In collaboration with the Interagency Coordinating
Council on Emergency Preparedness for Individuals with
Disabilities, a compendium of laws, regulations, and guidance
is being produced. The compendium will address laws applicable
to all levels of government in the provision of and access to
benefits and services for persons with disabilities. The
working group developing the compendium met on February 1,
2007, to comment and revise the most recent version of this job
aid for final review, coordination and comment prior to
publication. The Office of Equal Rights, FEMA and the Office of
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, as well as DHS have completed
their adjustments to the guidelines. Efforts to meet with other
members of the Interagency Coordinating Council on Preparedness
and Individuals with Disabilities to get their final comments
have challenging. It appears now that the earliest the other
members can meet collectively is April 5, 2007. Work on the
guidelines will move as expeditiously as possible following
that meeting.
The final product will be used as a source document to
develop in-depth and topic-specific guidance which crosscuts
the Agency's programs in the provision of assistance to
disabled disaster survivors.
We are assessing the scope of the implementation
effort by determining which Agency programs are impacted by
these guidelines, how the guidelines apply to those programs,
and what the guidelines require from those specific programs.
Public Assistance Pilot Program:
FEMA has initiated implementation of a public
assistance pilot program to reduce the costs of providing
various types of disaster assistance and to increase the
flexibility to expedite delivery of such assistance.
This effort started by establishing a public
assistance pilot program work group including members from
representative States, FEMA headquarters and regions, and the
FCO cadre.
The initial public assistance workgroup conference
call took place on January 16, 2007, and generated great
enthusiasm for creative solutions within the group. A second
call took place on January 30, and a work group meeting took
place on February 21--23 to determine new procedures, start
developing the PA pilot implementation strategy, and design
methods to evaluate the success of the pilot program. A local
representative from the International Association of Emergency
Managers will attend the next meeting, scheduled for March 27--
28, 2007. During this time, the Pilot Team will finalize the
program description, identify training requirements and fine
tune the PA Pilot Program guidance.
This initial work group is focused on improvements in
the key areas of debris removal, improved cost estimating, and
more effective communications/outreach to States and local
governments.
Full roll out of the PA Pilot Program is planned for
June 1, 2007.
Question 24: Mr. Secretary, Congress created the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program because is recognized the critical role
America's fire service plays in protecting our communities, and that
basic training and equipment form the foundation of a robust homeland
security strategy. Since the creation of the program, thousands of fire
departments all over the nation have increased their level of readiness
to potential threats. Annually, the Department receives in excess over
$2 billion in applications for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant,
yet the Administration's FY 2008 budget proposal only funds the program
at $300 million and eliminates the SAFER hiring program.
How can you justify these draconian cuts to critical all-hazards
programs needed by our nation's fire services?
Answer: The Administration provides billions of dollars in annual
support to train, exercise, and equip State and local public-safety
personnel, including firefighters, so that they are adequately prepared
to respond to a terrorist attack or other major incident. Federal
support has been directed to better focus scarce resources on enhancing
target capabilities, and to avoid supplanting basic public-safety
investments at the State and local level. A federally funded hiring
program for firefighters risks replacing State and local funding for
general-purpose public-safety staffing with Federal resources, and,
therefore, does not forward the Federal goal of enhancing local
preparedness capabilities.
For fiscal year 2008, grantees will again be invited to submit an
application for assistance in the following two program areas most
critical to enhancing the all-hazards response capabilities of the fire
and emergency medical services:
The Operations and Safety Area, which includes
training, equipment, and personal protective equipment
The Vehicles Acquisition Area, which includes pumpers,
brush trucks, tankers/tenders, rescue vehicles, ambulances,
quints, aerials, foam units, and fireboats
The amount requested for the Assistance for Firefighters Grant
program (AFG) will allow the Department to continue to award thousands
of grants to local fire departments. Since its establishment, the AFG
has provided more than $3 billion in grants to local fire departments.
The Administration believes that within this context, and within the
framework of awards that $300M would provide, that the requested amount
for the AFG is sufficient.
Assistance for Firefighter Program ($$$ in millions) FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08Request................................................. $500.00 $500.00 $293.45 $300.00
Enacted*................................................ $715.00 $655.00 $662.00 -------
Note: AFG Enacted levels include the SAFER Program and Fire
Prevention and Saftey
Question 25: Mr. Secretary, I have concerns about the Department's
prioritization of cybersecurity research and development within the
Science and Technology Directorate. The cybersecurity program handles
key research on Domain Name System security, routing infrastructure
protocols, and large scale datasets. These areas are valuable to the
security of our national infrastructure. Last year, the President's
budget contained a $6 million increase for cybersecurity research and
development at the Department. This year, after Under Secretary Cohen's
reorganization of the Directorate, cybersecurity falls into a larger
program area called ``Command Control and Interoperability.'' Though
that budget is $63 million, it is impossible to tell exactly how much
money will go towards cybersecurity research and development. In fact,
I've heard that this budget will actually receive a cut in funding from
last year. That would seem to contradict every Presidential Advisory
Report that has been issued in the last 2 years on the subject of
cybersecurity research and development--including the President's
Information Technology Advisory Council report from February 2005 and
the Interagency Working Group on Cyber Security and Information
Assurance report in April 2006--which have all called for a greater
investment in cybersecurity research and development within the Federal
Government.
Why is cybersecurity research and development such a low priority
for the President?
Why doesn't your budget reflect the need for increased Federal
investment in this area?
Answer: Cybersecurity research and development (R&D) has been and
will continue to be a priority in the President's budget, the
Department of Homeland Security and in the newly formed Command,
Control and Interoperability Division within the S&T Directorate. The
FY 2008 cybersecurity R&D request is $14.88 million, a 32-percent
increase from FY 2007 levels. Based on the capability gaps that have
been generated by the Department and other Federal agencies, the S&T
Directorate, in coordination with the DHS Assistant Secretary for Cyber
Security and Communications, has developed a focused budget that
addresses the Nation's critical cybersecurity needs where the
government can have the greatest impact.
Question 26: Mr. Secretary, this is the second consecutive year
that the S&T Directorate suffers cuts in its budget. Last fiscal year,
the 109th Congress significantly curtailed the S&T budget due to
concerns about a lack of transparent strategic planning, inadequate
detail in the budget justifications, systemic deficiencies in financial
and accounting controls, poor response to the needs of the Department's
customers and end-users, and failures to more rapidly develop and adopt
technologies for homeland security purposes. Since then, the S&T
Directorate underwent an organizational change, beginning with the
appointment of Admiral Jay Cohen to lead the organization. Some of us
on the Committee are encouraged by Under Secretary Cohen's willingness
to address these issues. But I am still concerned that funding for
research, development, testing and evaluation within the Department of
Homeland Security--particularly within critically important research
and development programs--is falling as the overall budget is rising.
Are you concerned that the budget for homeland security research
and development, testing and evaluation is being cut because of the
mismanagement that existed prior to Under Secretary Cohen's arrival?
Are you confident that the Department's RDT&E budget will continue to
grow in the upcoming years?
Answer: I continue to view the S&T Directorate as a priority and
vital to the Department of Homeland Security. The FY 2008 reductions
are a reflection of the transition or transfer of mature technologies
to other DHS Components, the completion of programs, reduction of
funding needs for construction and laboratory operations, and better
alignment of some programs and leveraging of others.
Specifically, in FY 2008, the S&T Directorate will transfer the
operational portions of BioWatch, Biological Warning and Incident
Characterization, and the Rapidly Deployable Chemical Detection System
to the Office of Health Affairs (OHA) and SAFECOM operations to the
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). These transfers
account for approximately $90 million of the approximate $180 million
reduction from FY 2007 to FY 2008. The reduction is also due to the
completion of programs, reduced funding needs for construction and
laboratory operations, and better alignment of some programs and
leveraging of others.
The Department will continue to balance research and development
needs and funding resources so that the S&T Directorate's budget
reflects the priorities of the Department. The development of new
technologies and measuring the potential impact they have on our
operations and acquisitions are more critical now than ever as budget
reductions across the government require us to operate more efficiently
and accomplish more with fewer resources.
Question 27: Mr. Secretary, the President's FY 08 Budget request
for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) is $561.9 million.
That's $26.1 million more than your FY07 request of $535.8 million and
$80.9 million more than the FY 2007 enacted amount of $481 million.
While we support the mission of DNDO, we have heard some troubling news
lately. Last October GAO sent a letter titled Combating Nuclear
Smuggling: DHS's Cost-Benefit Analysis to Support the Purchase of New
Radiation Detection Portal Monitors Was Not Based on Available
Performance Data and Did Not Fully Evaluate All the Monitors' Costs and
Benefits to the chairmen of both the House and Senate appropriations
committees. Have you read that report and have you gone through DNDO's
cost-benefit analysis? There are some real anomalies such as assuming
the false negative rates of the Advanced Spectroscopic Portals (ASP) to
be 5 percent when none of the ASP's performed even close to that well
when tested at the Nevada Test Site. Most had false negative rates near
50 percent, meaning that half the time highly enriched uranium was not
picked up by the detectors.
How confident are you that DNDO will wisely spend these funds? We
are worried that in the rush to deploy these detection systems we might
be buying and fielding sub-par technology.
Answer: I am absolutely confident that DNDO will wisely spend these
funds. Per language included in the FY 2007 Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, full rate production of Advanced Spectroscopic
Portal (ASP) systems is contingent on my certification through a report
to the Committees on Appropriations that a significant increase in
operational effectiveness will be achieved.
While I understand that the false negative rates sited in the GAO
letter could be worrisome, it is important to realize that the test
series from which these data were taken was not intended to measure
systems performance of fieldable units. Instead, this test series was
intended to examine initial capability of performance test units to aid
the Department in making the initial award decision in what may
ultimately, if successful, be a much larger investment. The Domestic
Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) is currently conducting a second round
of testing at both the Nevada Test Site (utilizing actual threat
materials) and at the New York Container Terminal (against actual
streams of commerce). The intent of the testing is to use the results
to evaluate the performance of systems that have now benefited from an
additional year of development. Based on these test results, I am
confident that if the decision is made to proceed to full rate
production, it will be based on a clear set of performance data and not
a rush to deploy detection systems.
Question 28: The idea of the Securing the Cities Initiative--a
radiological and nuclear detection architecture for urban areas--was
floated last year and then never really spoken of again. Now you are
requesting $30 million for the implementation in the New York City
region.
What is your implementation schedule and how will the funds be
used?
Answer: Announced in July 2006, the Securing the Cities (STC)
initiative is aimed at developing regional preventive radiological and
nuclear detection programs in major metropolitan areas, beginning with
the New York City urban area. Since that time, the DNDO has been
working closely with State and local officials in the region, and in
particular with the New York Police Department (NYPD). At a high level,
efforts in FY 2007 will focus on developing regional concepts of
operations, and developing and deploying in limited numbers systems to
begin to evaluate these concepts. By FY 2008, based on the results of
these initial deployments, the DNDO will work with the regional
partners to expand capabilities more broadly, utilizing the $30 million
included in the President's Budget.
More specifically, FY 2007 activities include:
Assessment of current capabilities;
Identification of requirements;
Testing of existing systems' ability to discriminate
isotopes in realistic urban conditions;
Research and development, as needed, of sensor systems
capable of isotopic discrimination in realistic urban
conditions;
Development of implementation and acquisition plans;
Development of a long range training plan;
Conduct of initial training; and
Development and execution of a regional deployment
strategy.
In FY 2008, activities include:
Acquisition and enhancement of regional equipment;
Planning and conduct of routine operations;
Fielding of new systems developed in 2007;
Development of a long term sustainment plan; and
Continuation of a long range training plan; and
Contingent upon the successful implementation in the
New York City urban area, the Department will likely seek
additional funding in future years to implement the Securing
the Cities framework in other major urban areas.
Question 29: Last year the combined budget request for chemical and
biological countermeasures was $420 million. there has been a lot of
reorganizing of these programs, and the operational elements have been
moved from the Science and Technology Directorate to the Office of
Health affairs. The S&t budget request for FY08 is $229 million and
$94.3 within the Office of Health Affairs. This seems to only add up to
$323.3 million, a 23% cut. For example, improving the BioWatch program
by moving to generation 3 bio detectors would be a significant
improvement.
Why are you de-funding these programs?
Answer: Funding for Chemical and Biological Countermeasures R&D is
of great concern and a high priority to the S&T Directorate, the
Department, and the Administration. As part of the FY 2007 realignment
of the S&T Directorate budget to match the new S&T Directorate
organizational structure, the S&T Directorate realigned funds that were
in the Chemical and Biological R&D line that were not truly R&D to
budget lines that more appropriately reflected the work to be done. Of
the $410 million, $88.6 million of Chemical and Biological
countermeasures funds were realigned to the Laboratory Facilities
budget, which funds the operations of the labs that support the
Chemical and Biological programs in the S&T Directorate.
This funding realignment covers the operations, upgrade site
selection, architectural and engineering services, and/or construction
costs associated with facilities including the Plum Island Animal
Disease Center (PIADC), the National Bio and Agro Defense Facility
(NBAF), the proposed National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures
Center (NBACC), and the Chemical Security Analysis Center (CSAC). In
addition, the transfer in FY 2008 of $84.1 million to OHA signals the
successful transition of an operational program. The transfer of the
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) of Generation 1 and 2 BioWatch and the
Rapidly Deployable Chemical Detection System further clarifies the
funding for true R&D activities within the S&T Directorate. The FY 2007
realignment also provided a small amount of funding to those activities
that support the entire Directorate's R&D program. Two examples are
Transition and Testing and Evaluation that require independent
oversight to ensure testing is conducted appropriately and programs are
transitioned to our customers and operational end-users when they reach
the appropriate level of maturity.
Of the programmatic mission in the purview of the Chemical and
Biological Division, funding has been delayed for some important
projects as a result of the FY 2007 Appropriations Act that rescinded
$125 million of prior year un-obligated balances and the realignment of
funds to cover other critical core S&T Directorate activities. These
include: detection capabilities for engineered threats, unknowns, and
low volatility chemical agents; work on characterizing selected
biological threats; and the development of prototype detection systems
for monitoring food processing facilities.
Question 30: In its budget, the Department states the following:
``In FY 2008, University Programs plans to develop a far-reaching and
multi-faceted MSI program that will incorporate MSIs into the Centers
of Excellence and develop homeland security research and training
capabilities as the MSIs.''
By merging the MSI scholarship and fellows program with the primary
scholarship and fellows program, won't the Department's efforts largely
go unnoticed by the institutions, students, and faculty of MSIs?
Answer: The S&T Directorate's Minority Serving Institution (MSI)
program is a separate program from the Scholars and Fellows program.
The Department's intention is to better connect these educational
programs. In this way, pathways are made for students pursuing
undergraduate degrees at DHS-affiliated institutions (MSIs or Center of
Excellence [COE]) to then pursue graduate and advanced degrees at other
DHS-affiliated institutions and/or a career at DHS, a National
Laboratory, or a COE.
In addition, the Department wants to enhance the role of MSIs
within the COEs by increasing both the number and extent of
institutional partnerships between MSIs and the COEs; either through
new COEs, for which MSIs could be lead institutions, or by expanding
the university network at existing COEs to include more MSIs.
Question 31: Last year, Congress passed the SAFE Port Act (P.L.
109-347) which made specific recommendations to expedite the
development of standards to seal and secure containers being shipped to
the U.S. Can you tell the Committee when we can expect to see standards
for container security devices?
Answer: A technical team composed of representatives from Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) and the Science and Technology Directorate
of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is generating the
technical and administrative requirements for container security
devices (CSD) based upon the operational needs of CBP and commerce. The
concept of a CSD is to increase container security by using technology
to detect unauthorized door openings and/or removal. To accomplish
this, the technical team must consider not only the technical
requirements that will be used to develop a CSD but also the potential
impact the use of CSDs may have on trade and port operations.
The tentative goal is to publish the requirements by Summer 2007.
Question 32: The Container Security Initiative (CSI), which places
CBP Officers in foreign ports to target high risk containers before
they are loaded on ships for the U.S., is proposed to receive a $16.8
million increase, most of which ($15 million) is marked for the Secure
Freight Initiative. How do you expect Secure Freight to interact with
and impact CSI?
Answer: The Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) represents the next
phase of the Container Security Initiative (CSI). SFI is intended to
build upon and enhance existing security programs such as CSI and the
Department of Energy's Megaports Initiative to improve our ability to
assess risks in the global supply chain prior to cargo being laden on
vessels overseas. Initially, the United States will partner with six
foreign ports to test the SFI concept, with the intent of expanding the
program once the concept of operations is tested. An integrated suite
of technology will be deployed to the SFI ports, which will provide
enhanced scanning imagery and alarm data. These data will be
transmitted in near real-time to host government customs officials, the
in-country CSI team, and the U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP)
National Targeting Center (NTC). The assessment of this additional
imagery and data will greatly increase CBP's ability to identify,
inspect and mitigate high-risk cargo, thereby augmenting CBP's overall
risk management system.
Question 33: In the SAFE Port Act, Congress carefully considered
the issue of 100% maritime container scanning and concluded that the
responsible action was to require a pilot with very specific evaluation
standards. We want to know whether or not 100% scanning is feasible,
effective, necessary, and disruptive to the global supply chain. I am
very concerned about proposals to force 100% scanning before these
pilots have even begun. Can you provide any insight into the impact
100% scanning language again being considered by Congress would have on
DHS's current plans with Secure Freight and negotiations with foreign
governments?
Answer: Phase 1 of the Secure Freight Initiative was announced on
December 7, 2006. Under Phase 1, six foreign ports will begin scanning
U.S-bound containers for radiation and nuclear detection with an
integrated suite of radiation portal monitors, optical character
readers, and non-intrusive inspection equipment. While the SAFE Port
Act called for a pilot to perform 100 percent scanning in three foreign
ports, the Secretary chose to expand Secure Freight Phase 1 to six
ports, specifically selected for their unique and varied traffic (such
as limited space or high-transshipment traffic) posing different
challenges for the suite of scanning equipment. The first three ports
Qasim (Pakistan), Port Cortes (Honduras), and Southampton, (UK) will
endeavor to scan 100 percent of U.S.-bound containers transiting their
ports to meet the SAFE Port pilot mandate. However, in Singapore, the
Gamman Terminal in Port Busan (Korea), and Salalah (Oman), the unique
layouts of the ports, space considerations, logistics, and high
transshipment traffic necessitate a more limited deployment of scanning
equipment. Lessons learned from this Phase 1 deployment, and reported
back to Congress per the Safe Port Act requirement, will offer a
realistic vision of the practicality, feasibility, and challenges of
scanning shipping containers for rad/nuc in the more than 700 ports
that ship to the United States.
Representatives from the industry and foreign governments have
expressed grave concern over the impact that scanning 100 percent of
U.S.-bound containers would have on port operations and the flow of
commerce. Phase 1 is designed to address these concerns as explained:
Enacting the 100 percent scanning language before
conclusions could be drawn from Phase 1 poses technical
concerns because the suite of scanning technology, including
the transportation of data to the host country and back to the
United States, has never been tested and technical challenges
remain;
The efficient placement of scanning equipment is
complex because of logistics such as the size and space
constraints of many ports, especially ones with high
transshipment traffic; and
Since equipment must be placed in foreign ports
outside U.S jurisdiction, alarms must be resolved by local law-
enforcement, and foreign governments must agree to share data
and information with the United States. This factor is
essential to make scans useful for targeting, and could make
foreign governments less likely to cooperate voluntarily.
Question 34: The Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-
TPAT) is designated to receive $55.5 million, which after subtracting
for salary inflation results in a program increase of $343,000. The
SAFE Port Act directs several changes to be made in the current
program, including a pilot for 3rd party validators, requiring
validations be completed program, including a pilot for 3rd party
validators, requiring validations be completed within one year of
certification, 4-year revalidations, and minimum standards for each of
the CTPAT tiers. How will such a slight program increase and no
increase in FTEs enable the C-TPAT program to meet the SAFE Port Act
mandates?
Answer: Most of the C-TPAT requirements under the SAFE Port Act
were programmatic changes that have already been completed by CBP. This
included strengthening the minimum security criteria for several of the
eligible participants (importers, brokers, vessel carriers, etc.),
moving to a tiered benefits system and requiring certification of C-
TPAT applicants within 90 days of application. A Third Party Validation
Pilot Program has been developed and will be implemented shortly and
the C-TPAT Annual Plan has been written. The remaining SAFE Port Act C-
TPAT requirements will be completed within the established time frames
established in the Act.
CBP has evaluated the C-TPAT workload for calendar year (CY) 2007
utilizing the C-TPAT Security Link Portal and has determined that
current staffing levels will allow us to meet the requirements in the
SAFE Port Act.
In CY 2006, over 2,800 validations were completed which now brings
the overall number of validated C-TPAT certified partners to 67
percent. Utilizing the 157 supply chain security specialists that are
currently on board and validation strategies such as blitz operations,
it is expected that C-TPAT will conduct approximately 2,200 new
validations and 670 revalidations in 2007, or almost 20 validations per
SCSS per year. CBP will not only complete the validations required in
CY 2007 under the SAFE Port Act, but will also be able to complete some
validations that are technically not required until the beginning of CY
2008. Validation blitzes are conducted to optimize the utilization of
SCSS resources and time by sending several teams of SCSS into countries
for two or more weeks to conduct numerous validations. With the current
SCSS CBP will be able to meet the requirements of validating all
certified members within one year of certification and revalidating all
members not less than once every four years.
Question 35: CBP also operates several border facilitation
programs, including FAST, NEXUS (land, air, and maritime), and SENTRI.
The FY08 budget proposes no increase for these programs and maintains a
budget of $11.2 million. In FY08, according to supporting budget
documents, CBP will enhance the Global Enrollment System, which links
the processes and security checks for all of the trusted traveler
programs, establish joint enrollment centers for FAST and NEXUS, and
add iris scan equipment to all NEXUS and some FAST enrollment centers.
The more robust these programs, the more people participate, and
the more information we have on border crossers. It is very concerning
that DHS has dedicated little funding to improving and increasing these
programs for the past several years. Do you see security value in these
programs? Do you see facilitation value in these programs?
Given the requirements that DHS enforce secure document
requirements for all travelers crossing the border by June 2009 at the
latest, don't you think that a push to increase membership in these
trusted traveler programs would make the transition under the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) easier?
Answer: FAST, NEXUS, and SENTRI are collectively referred to as the
Consolidated Trusted Traveler Program (CTTP), which also includes the
Global Enrollment System (GES). Membership in CBP's trusted traveler
programs has been growing 20 percent per year. CBP continues to support
increasing membership in its trusted traveler programs by:
Extending membership periods;
Making it easier to apply for membership;
Increasing dedicated trusted traveler lanes; and,
Increasing the number of enrollment centers.
2006
CBP extended trusted traveler membership to 5 years
plus the time until the member's next birthday
CBP introduced a SENTRI online application process.
CBP opened enrollment centers and dedicated lanes in
Nogales, AZ; Laredo, TX; Brownsville, TX; and Hidalgo, TX.
2007
In January, CBP and the Canada Border Services Agency
(CBSA) began sharing application information to speed the
vetting process.
As of February, CBP partnered with CBSA in the opening
of NEXUS enrollment centers in Seattle, WA; Vancouver, CA;
Montreal, CN; and Toronto.
By the end of the year, additional enrollment centers
will open at all of the Canadian pre-clearance sites.
By August 2007, CBP will introduce a NEXUS online
application.
In 2007, CBP is expanding the number of dedicated
lanes in California.
2008
In 2008, CBP plans to introduce a FAST online application.
CBP has an aggressive campaign for increasing membership in all CBP
trusted traveler programs. The FY08 WHTI budget request includes a
portion for adding additional staff to its enrollment centers. This is
to address the anticipated increase in enrollment activity brought
about by WHTI. The trusted traveler programs do add a security value to
the process in that the screening (vetting) process since obtaining
membership is strenuous and thorough. Not everyone qualifies to be a
participant. Although the trusted traveler programs will facilitate the
implementation of WHTI, it is not practical to assume an overwhelming
number (millions) of travelers needing WHTI-compliant travel documents
will opt for a trusted traveler program.
Question 36: Mr. Secretary, I am deeply concerned about the
sizeable cut in funding for the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP)
as proposed in the President's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request.
As reflected in the budget, the Noble Training Center is
transferred from the U.S. Fire Administration to CDP. The Noble
Training Center is a unique Federal facility which provides training
for medical and public health officials to prepare them to respond to
incidents with mass casualties. The budget for the Center is $5.5
million.
The FY 2007 enacted funding level for CDP, which provides live
chemical agent training to first responders, is $57 million. After the
merger of these two agencies, the total budget in FY 2007 is $62.5
million.
Yet, inexplicably, your proposed budget not only cuts CDP's funding
by $3 million, but further reduces funding by the total amount of the
budget for the Noble Training Center. The result is an $8.5 million
cut--a 13.6% reduction--in critical DHS first responder training
programs.
Please submit to the Committee on Homeland Security (1) the
justification for why the proposed FY 08 budget does not reflect the
Noble Training Center's budget when the Center has been transferred to
CDP; and (2) the rationale for why the proposed budget slashes funding
for this vital training program by over 13%.
Answer: In FY 2007, The Noble Training Center was transferred to
the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP). The integration of Noble
with CDP allows the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to
provide the full spectrum of terrorism preparedness and specialized
first-responder training courses in a single location. The FY 2008
request reflects efficiencies gained by combining the two training
centers.
Question 37: The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) is
responsible for training Federal Air Marshals, Border Patrol agents,
and many other Federal officers.
In a Full Committee hearing last year, you agreed that a number of
standard courses--such as Spanish language class, physical fitness, and
other non-law enforcement courses--could be taught by instructors who
were not necessarily Federal employees.
Section 544 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 classified instructors at FLETC as
``inherently governmental'' under the Federal Activities Inventory
Reform Act (FAIR Act) of 1998. The effect of this provision prevents
FLETC from contracting out standard, non-law enforcement training
courses.
This provision could prove detrimental to the Nation's ability to
rapidly train Federal law enforcement officers to meet critical
homeland security needs in the event of a national emergency.
Do you agree that the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
should have sufficient flexibility to acquire and utilize non-Federal
trainers for non-law enforcement classes?
Will you work with the Office of Management and Budget to identify
FLETC functions which are not inherently governmental to help restore
FLETC's ability to acquire non-Federal training and other services?
Answer: In addition to serving as an interagency law enforcement
training organization for more than 80 Federal agencies, the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) also provides services to
State, local, and international law enforcement agencies. The FLETC has
more than 400 available training programs and relies heavily upon an
instructional staff with law enforcement experience from Federal,
State, and local agencies, as well as civilian and military
organizations. The instructional staff consists of many individuals on
detail from agencies trained by FLETC, instructors from non-partner
organizations, and rehired former Federal law enforcement personnel. In
its specialized and advanced training areas, the FLETC instructional
staff is occasionally augmented by personnel from the private sector
whenever a particular expertise is not otherwise available from a law
enforcement source. An example of this has been the utilization of a
private individual with experience in the Arab culture to teach in
FLETC's advanced counterterrorism training program. Further, FLETC
currently is undergoing A-76 studies on contracting out physical
training related to physical conditioning and CPR training for basic
trainees. The FLETC management will continue to look at all phases of
training to determine if additional subject areas can be studied or
contracted out while maintaining the overall integrity of law
enforcement training.
My office is already working with OMB and FLETC to determine if
other training subjects can be presented at FLETC by non-Federal
personnel. Because of the interagency nature of the training provided
at the FLETC, we expect OMB and FLETC also will consult closely with
all partner agencies in addition to DHS Components on the use of non-
Federal and non-law enforcement personnel in training conducted through
FLETC.
Question 38: The President's Budget includes a request for $481.1
million for 3,000 new Border Patrol agents, which according to the
budget justification would bring the total number of Border Patrol
agents to 17,819.
The Homeland Security Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and
Oversight conducted an extensive review of Border patrol training and
the costs associated with each new Border Patrol agent. Numerous
concerns were raised regarding current efforts to recruit new agents
and retain existing agents; the lack of sufficient training facilities;
the lack of facilities along the borders to accommodate a surge of new
agents; and the $189,000 per agent cost to recruit, hire, train, equip,
and deploy just one new agent.
How many Border Patrol agents currently are on board? How many
additional new Border Patrol agents can be hired with the balance of
unspent FY 06 and FY 07 funds?
Answer: As of February 17, 2007, on-board Border Patrol Agents
total 12,812. The balance of FY 2006 and FY 2007 funds will be used to
hire those agents required to meet the Border Patrol's goal of having
14,819 agents on board by the end of FY 2007. This target level
includes increases by Congress of 1,000 new agents in FY 2006 and 1,500
new agents in FY 2007.
Question 39: How many new recruits currently are in the Border
Patrol training program at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
(FLETC) in Artesia, New Mexico?
Answer: As of March 1, 2007, the Border Patrol Academy has 699
students (17 classes) at the Border Patrol Academy in Artesia, New
Mexico.
Question 40: Please provide for the past three quarters the number
of trainees who (1) entered Border Patrol training in Artesia; (2)
withdrew or were eliminated from the training program; and (3) the
ultimate number successfully completing the training program. Does the
FLETC training facility in Artesia, New Mexico, currently have the
capacity to train the new 3,000 agents provided for in the FY 08
budget, in addition to the new agents funded in FY 07? If not, what
facilities require expansion and what is the projected cost of this
expansion? If expansion is required, please submit a cost-benefit
analysis that compares those costs to projected costs for using
existing training facilities, both Federal and on-Federal.
Answer:
(1) In the 3rd and 4th quarters of FY 2006 and the 1st quarter of
FY 2007, there were 1,700 trainees who entered the Border Patrol
Academy in Artesia, New Mexico.
(2) Out of 1,700 trainees, 368 withdrew or were eliminated from the
training program. (Does not include those on continuation of pay (COPs)
due to an injury.
(3) Out of 1,700 trainees, 1,246 were graduated or are still
attending the Academy.
The FLETC Training Facility in Artesia has the capacity to meet our
training needs for FY 2007 and FY 2008. FLETC is constructing a new
dorm that will be usable in FY 2008. FLETC is also adding three modular
classrooms and a modular housing unit at this time to assist in
accommodating both 2007 and 2008 training needs. There is no need for
additional non-Federal training facilities.
Question 41: How many Border Patrol agents are projected to retire
in the next year? The five years? The next 10 years?
Answer: There are 426 Border Patrol Agents currently eligible to
retire, with 35 more becoming eligible to retire in the next year. An
additional 826 agents will become eligible to retire in the next five
years, and an additional 1262 will become retirement-eligible within
the next 10 years.
Question 42: What is the average annual attrition rate for Border
Patrol agents?
Answer: The annual attrition rates for the last three years are as
follows:
FY 2004 5.9%
FY 2005 3.7%
FY 2006 6.3%
Question 43: Please submit to the Committee a detailed break-out of
all costs associated with recruiting, hiring, training, equipping, and
deploying one Border Patrol agent.
Answer: CBP uses a position cost model to approximate the marginal
costs of adding a Border Patrol agent to the workforce. The model is
meant to identify and estimate all relevant costs that will be incurred
by CBP. A detailed break-out of the scalable, incremental cost for
hiring one Border Patrol Agent during FY 2008 follows.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 44: Please submit to the Committee a detailed timeline
which reflects (1) when the new Border Patrol agents funded in Fiscal
Years 06 and 07 will be recruited, hired, trained, and deployed; and
(2) the projected timeline for when the 3,000 new agents funded by the
FY 08 budget request will be recruited, hired, trained, and deployed.
Answer: It normally takes up to five months to recruit and hire a
Border Patrol Agent. The Border Patrol Agents currently being recruited
will fulfill the needs for FY 2007. The Border Patrol Agents to be
recruited between April and May 2007 are expected to be on board by the
beginning of FY 2008. Customs and Border Protection is currently
keeping recruiting at a pace necessary to fill Academy classes and is
on track to achieve the FY 2007 goal of hiring 3,000 additional Border
Patrol Agents.
Trainee Agents that entered on duty in FY 2006 (some were graduated
during FY 2007)
Arrived in Artesia for training: 1889
Deployed to the field (graduated): 1405
Trainee Agents that entered on duty in FY 2007 (through Session 658
that arrived on 2-22-07)
Arrived in Artesia for training: 953
Deployed to the field (graduated): 154
Question 45: When attrition, failed background checks, and other
factors are taken into account, what is the total number of new Border
Patrol agents which DHS will need to recruit in order to achieve the
total number of 3,000 agents funded in the FY 08 budget? The total
number to recruit to reach the projected total of 17,819?
Answer: U.S. Customs and Border Protection is aware of the
recruitment challenges created by attrition and thus is working
diligently to agressively recruit Border Patrol Agents. It is expected
to take approximately 90,000 applicants to get 3,000 agents hired based
on a 30:1 applicant-to-hire ratio thus far. In light of this ratio, it
will likely take at least 150,000 applicants to reach target hires
through FY 2008.
Question 46: DHS Canine use
The breakdown showing numbers of canines and canine teams per
agency employed by DHS is as follows:
USSS
The United States Secret Service (USSS) has 57 Explosive Detection
Canines (w/57 handlers). The USSS has 14 Emergency Response Canines (w/
14 handlers). USSS has a total of 71 Canine Teams.
ICE
The ICE Federal Protective Service (FPS) currently maintains 60
canine explosives detection dog teams strategically located across the
country.
CBP
As of March 6, 2007 CBP employs 1,234 canines and canine teams.
USCG
The Coast Guard has 18 teams (one handler and one canine per team).
TSA
TSA's canine program deploys only explosives detection teams under
the National Explosives Detection Canine Training Program (NEDCTP). It
is operated cooperatively in partnership with local law enforcement
agencies and transportation industry stakeholders. The canine handlers
come from local law enforcement (airport/mass transit) agencies.
Currently, TSA has 441 teams deployed in aviation and mass transit
systems, with a target of 478 deployed teams by the end of FY 07.
Shown below are the funding levels in FY 07 and those requested for
FY 08, for each DHS agency's canine program.
USSS
Overall Approved Budget for Canine Program FY 07: $241,364
Overall Proposed Budget for Canine Program FY 08: $371,029
ICE
The FPS Canine Program is approximately $7.74 million in FY 2007,
or $129,000 per team. This includes the full cost of the FPS inspector
and the cost of care, feeding and annual recertification training for
the dog. The FY 2008 cost will be approximately $8.05 million.
CBP
While there is no discrete budget for canine enforcement, CBP
estimates a projected spending level for FY 2007 of $130.7 million and
a requested funding level for FY 2008 of $176.3 million.
USCG
The Coast Guard's recurring annual budget for one Canine Detection
Team (CDT) is $9.6K per canine and $73K per handler (handlers also
perform other MLE/FP duties as needed). The total funding level for 18
teams is $1.5M.
TSA
Fiscal year 07 funding, $32M; fiscal year 08 funding is $35.5M.
The DHS unmet need for canines--displayed by agency--in FY 08 is
displayed below:
USSS: At this time the USSS is short three (3) Explosives Detection
Canines.
ICE: The FPS will not require any additional canine teams for FY 08.
CBP: has no unmet needs for canines in FY 2008.
USCG: Coast Guard currently has a sufficient number of CDTs.
The number of service canines bred domestically, and the number
acquired from overseas vendors is explained in the following text:
The USSS utilizes Belgian Malinois canines. All of the USSS canines
are purchased from an American company, the Vohne Liche Kennels,&
Indiana. The Vohne Liche Kennels acquires its dogs from Germany. None
of the canines are bred domestically.
The FPS explosives detection dog teams are trained at Auburn
University. Auburn University provides the dog at the time team
training begins. A check of the University records indicates that 19 of
the FPS dogs were bred domestically and 41 were bred overseas.
None of CBP's dogs are purchased from overseas vendors; however
most of the domestic vendors that supply dogs to CBP utilize and
procure a portion of their dogs from overseas kennels.
The U.S. Coast Guard acquires all canines from CBP.
Below is listed the sources for service canines:
The USSS purchases all of its canines from the Vohne Liche Kennels
Company in Indiana.
All other DHS Components:
Hill Country Dog Center
P.O. Box 64070
Pipe Creek, TX 78063
830-510-4700
------
Kasseburg Canine Training
767 Hillsboro Circle
New Market, AL 35761
256-379-5697
------
International Canine Exchange
837 Wapping Rd.
Portsmouth, RI 02871
401-640-0626
------
Jill Hoelle
DBA Von Der Hollenburg German Shepherds LLC
3435 State Rt. 121 S.
Greenville, OH 45331
937-547-9993
------
Beck's Canine Service
410 Sandman Dr.
Kure Beach, NC 28449
910-279-4343
------
Kevin Sheldahl DBA K-9 Svcs
13216 Skyview Ave. NE
Albuquerque, NM 87123
505-294-5092
------
Southern Police Canine Inc.
P.O. Box 902
Spring Hope, NC 27882
------
Not all agencies under DHS employ and fund canines in the same way.
For example, the NEDCTP has deployed teams in accordance with current
base funding levels. The NEDCTP is scheduled to increase the planned
number of teams by approximately 45 as outlined in the FY 08
President's Budget Request. The NEDCTP has its own breeding program
located at Lackland AFB, in San Antonio, TX. In addition, the NEDCTP
partners with the Department of Defense to procure additional canines
as part of the InterService Support Agreement (ISSA). The NEDCTP
partners with the Department of Defense to procure additional canines
as part of the InterService Support Agreement (ISSA).
FEMA does not ``employ'' canine search and rescue teams per se.
Canine teams that deploy with Urban Search and Rescue Teams are owned
and trained by either the volunteers or the organizations that
contribute to the team from local fire departments, EMS, or other first
responder organizations. The deployment of search and rescue dogs in
coordination with the 28 Urban Search and Rescue teams is dependent
upon availability and need. As a norm, each Search and Rescue team is
deployed with a 4-dog team (including handlers), but this may vary
depending on the event. There are approximately 200 FEMA advanced-
certified teams (dog and handler) in the Urban Search and Rescue
system. Each team is required to recertify every three years.
FEMA allocates funds for certification and evaluation through the
Urban Search and Rescue program but the funding varies depending on the
number of dogs that need to be certified and evaluated in a given year.
FEMA estimates that evaluation and certification costs between $225K
and $300K per year. The reason these costs are fairly fluid is because
the majority of costs associated with the deployment of canines are
charged to the disaster to which they are deployed and funded through
the Disaster Relief Fund. This requires Urban Search and Rescue teams
to request reimbursement for canine costs which vary depending again in
the length of deployment and the costs associated for each disaster.
There is no steady state.
Question 47: Project Athena is a surveillance and reconnaissance
system that has been successfully developed and tested to provide
maritime domain awareness. Eight Great Lakes States pooled their
resources to acquire the Athena technology and strengthen the security
of Great Lakes ports and along the Northern border. the Department of
Homeland Security has denied requests to use grant funds to support the
use of Project Athena, stating that SBInet technologies will be
forthcoming.
If proven technology exists and is in place today, why is the
Department not supporting its use? Why is the Department waiting for
new and untested SBInet technologies to be deployed, which may take
years?
In recent years, the Department has encouraged States and
localities to take a more regional approach to preparing for and
responding to terrorist events or natural disasters. Project Athena is
an example of regional cooperation, yet it is being stymied by the
Department. Do you support these efforts? If so, why?
Answer: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recognizes the
progress that projects, such as Project Athena Project Hawkeye, Command
2010, and Sea Hawk have made in technology and border security along
the U.S. maritime borders. The Project Athena grant application was
denied because the request proposed the Athena system, once deployed,
would be manned by the Border Patrol or U.S. Coast Guard. This was
contrary to the intent of the grants program.
DHS is focused on implementing the most effective and integrated
mix of technology, tactical infrastructure, and personnel to secure the
Nation's borders. The Secure Border Initiative (SBI) plan will include
deployments sequenced through 6,000 miles of the U.S. border. Proven
technologies implemented under SBInet will complement existing
technology and infrastructure along the Northern border to give U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) the ability to fulfill its
commitment to strengthen control of the Nation's borders. It is the
Department's goal to provide and implement the best available
technology and resources. DHS is looking at a range of available
technology for the maritime borders including maritime radars, cameras,
and command and control systems, such as Athena, Hawkeye, Sea Hawk, and
Command 2010.
The prioritization criteria for selecting which sector will be
considered for the deployment of SBInet technology solutions are
conducted on a threat-based approach. The criteria used would include
traffic volume, threat likelihood, vulnerability, consequences, and
intelligence. While the initial focus of SBInet will be on the
Southwest border, CBP has taken and will continue to take many steps to
improve security on the Northern border. These steps include the
deployment of experienced Border Patrol agents from the Southern to the
Northern border, as well as joint operations with JTF-N. In conjunction
with these steps, the pilot maritime technology projects will
incorporate ground-based radar and proof of concept multi-sensor
systems, the establishment of new air branches, increased liaisons with
our Canadian partners through Integrated Border Enforcement Teams
(IBETS), and the deployment of radiation portal monitors (RPMs) at our
ports of entry. The SBInet solution will provide the security necessary
to significantly reduce illegal border crossings and greatly enhance
the ability of DHS to accomplish its homeland security mission.
Question 48: How is the Department working with State and local
governments to ensure that they have evacuation plans in place?
Do these evacuation plans extend to the impact on the communities
that may serve as hosts to evacuees?
Does the Department encourage State and local agencies to
communicate with surrounding areas that may host evacuees during the
planning process?
I understand that some evacuation plans were evaluated last year
through the Nationwide Plan Review. Would you please discuss this
review? What exactly did it cover in its evaluation of States plans?
Answer: A particular lesson from the 2005 hurricane season is our
need to be prepared to support large numbers of displaced persons--not
only in the State that experienced the disaster but also in States that
may host the displaced families and individuals. The Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) has made great strides in 2006 to improve
evacuation preparedness through the Nationwide Plan Review and ongoing
Gulf Coast evacuation planning support. In 2006, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) published Recovery Strategy RD-2006-1, which
describes the assistance FEMA will provide to evacuees and States
hosting evacuees. To continue and further enhance this work, DHS is
currently developing guidance to further assist States in planning for
evacuee-support operations and will provide technical assistance to
help States write model evacuee-support plans. A DHS-Preparedness-
National Preparedness Integration Program representative is assisting
the Mass Evacuation Support Project Committee in this important
undertaking: to plan for potential catastrophic disasters and enhance
hurricane evacuation plans. Additionally, the Office of Grants and
Training is working with FEMA to provide specific guidance to State and
local partners to address their overall evacuation management and
planning.
Question 49: How is the Department working to expand current first
responder training programs?
Answer: The Office of Grants and Training, Training Division has
undertaken several efforts to expand first responder training programs.
Most notably, it is increasing the number of web-based course
deliveries and train-the-trainer courses to the field at little or no
cost to the training provider. At this time, it is estimated that the
number of persons who will receive training through 16 new web-based
courses will be over 100,000 per year. The Training Division is
automating the collection of data on course participants through a
Level 1 evaluation system and will be able to more accurately count the
number of web-based course participants once the system is operational.
Regarding indirect deliveries, as train-the-trainer deliveries are
called, an average of 12,000 responders are trained per month. In
addition, the Training Division has a program in place to approve
courses at the State and local level so that States can use their
Homeland Security grant funds for development, attendance, and overtime
and backfill of students attending courses. One goal of the Training
Division is to have States and other entities, including other Federal
agencies, assume a greater role in training responders. Implementing a
process through which they can get course approval increases the number
of persons that are trained with State grant funds. So, it strongly
encourages training entities to submit courses through their State
Administrative Agencies (SAAs) for review and approval. To date, 105
State courses and 153 Federal courses (other than G&T developed) have
been approved by the Training Division, offering training to 74,801 and
15,960 responders respectively.
Regarding expanding training efforts at the Center for Domestic
Preparedness (CDP), CDP has been on a continuous growth initiative
since 2001. This initiative has taken the CDP from six courses to its
current course complement of 29 courses. This growth is budget
dependent and projected to increase with the transfer of the Noble
Training Center to the CDP on March 31, 2007, which requires that CDP
establish a comprehensive healthcare preparedness training program
within its curricular offerings. Evidence of this dramatic growth is
that since 2001, the annual training load of the CDP has grown from
2,522 students in FY 2001 to 61,680 in FY 2006. The most growth has
been realized in the non-resident (or mobile) training program with a
10% increase in the past year.
Another way the Training Division is expanding training programs is
through the institutionalization of G&T training courses. This will
provide access to training at levels unachievable by the use of
training providers alone. Many of the G&T awareness-level courses can
be provided to state and local training agencies and academies for
inclusion in their basic or entry-level training programs. This will
result in increased numbers of responders being trained. An example of
this institutionalization is the National Capital Region training
initiative now underway. The Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments (COG) and DHS G&T Training Division are working on an
initiative to provide G&T courses to law enforcement personnel in the
NCR. Training Division personnel have been working with the COG Police
Training subcommittee to plan the delivery of selected awareness-level
and performance-level courses. The courses will be presented to the NCR
law enforcement agencies' cadre of instructors in a train-the-trainer
format. These NCR police instructors will then return to their agencies
with a copy of all course materials and deliver the training courses to
the appropriate staff. To date, 46 law enforcement agencies from the
NCR have requested to send instructors to participate in this
initiative.
The Training Division has also created a suite of technology
support tools to assist in the development, delivery, and reporting of
training. Web-Forms is an electronic form and data management system
built to assist states with the reporting of non-G&T provided training
(State or Federal sponsored courses) information. Web-Forms is also
used by States and Federal agencies to submit training for review and
approval. Approved courses are then placed in either the State-
Sponsored Course Catalog or the Federal-Sponsored Course Catalog and
States can used their grant funds to support training attendance.
Another technology tool provided by the Training Division is the
Responder Training Development Center (RTDC). The RTDC is an
interactive site designed to assist training partners and States in the
development of quality training products. The RTDC provides detailed
information on instructional design considerations, as well as
templates and checklists to assist in the development of a training
program from concept through to finished course materials. Both Web-
Forms and the RTDC are in use and available online to the States and
Training Division training partners.
The Training Division maintains ``common'' catalogs as well as the
catalog of G&T training courses. These common catalogs, the State-
Sponsored Course Catalog and the Federal-Sponsored Course Catalog,
provide a ``one-stop'' opportunity for responders, States and Federal
agencies to see what training is already available and being delivered
by States or Federal training partners. These catalogs provide detailed
course descriptions and contact information. The Federal-Sponsored
Course Catalog provides Federal training partners with a place to post
their training that is being made available for State and local
responders to attend. States use their grant funds to support training
attendance at any course listed in the catalogs.
The Competitive Training Grant Program (CTGP) is a mechanism for
expanding the training program based on current events and the
immediate needs of the field. G&T's Training Division awarded
approximately $100 million in 15 different issue areas since FY04.
Awardees include included colleges, universities, and non-profit
organizations.
Question 50: Please discuss the efforts under way to increase the
utilization of mobile training courses and web-based learning. Do these
efforts include expanding the utilization of existing first responder
training courses beyond the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium
and the Center for Domestic Preparedness?
Answer: The Office of Grants and Training, Training Division,
currently offers 104 courses to first responders through 45 training
providers, including the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) and the
National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC). The majority of these
courses are mobile training courses. The Training Division is
dramatically increasing the number of web-based courses it offers in
the coming months. The following courses have recently come on line or
are scheduled to do so shortly. It is projected that more than 100,000
responders will receive courses in this manner:
1. American Red Cross is delivering 6 online courses providing
training on WMD awareness, Introduction to NIMS, Incident
Command System, and the NRP and other topics specific to non-
government organizations. These courses are being delivered to
90,000 Red Cross volunteers and staff as well as other state
and local responders.
2. American Medical Association is developing an online course
designed for the medical communities and their participation in
an incident of terrorism or catastrophic event. This course is
scheduled to be delivered to 5,000 medical professionals and
other responders.
3. University of Memphis is developing nine online courses on
the topics of cybersecurity and the prevention of
cyberterrorism. These courses will be delivered to 7,000
information technology professionals and law enforcement
responders.
4. Florida State University is developing an online learning
management system for the delivery of a suite of courses to
port security personnel. These courses will be available to
several thousand port security staff and other responders.
5. George Washington University's National Nurse Emergency
Preparedness Initiative (NNEPI) is a web-based training
initiative for nurses, focused on providing opportunities for
dynamic and interactive application of both theory and practice
through scenario-based learning.
6. Dartmouth University's Virtual Medical Incident Management
Institute is developing a standardized, interactive multimedia
``course'' that can be used at any time or location to train.
It will train senior public health and medical professionals to
function effectively as critical participants in local and
inter-jurisdictional incident command structures and maximize
medical surge capacity and capability during WMD attacks.
7. Dartmouth University's Virtual Terrorism Response Academy's
first course is ``Ops-Plus for WMD Hazmat.'' This interactive
course offers fire, EMS and law-enforcement personnel more than
16 hours of practical, engaging training about CBRNE (chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive) threats.
``Ops-Plus'' features multiple videogame-style simulations that
put responders in tactical terrorism-response scenarios.
8. Northwest Arkansas Community College is currently piloting
Terrorism and WMD Awareness in the Workplace, Emergency
Strengthening Cooperative Efforts Among Public and Private
Sector), Business Continuity and Emergency Management to
address rural preparedness challenges. These interactive
courses address unmet training needs in both private security
and public safety preparedness challenges in rural areas
nationwide.&
It is important to note that awareness level courses are most
suitable for both mobile training and web-based delivery. While
performance level courses often require the use of expensive equipment
or staging areas found at training provider facilities like New Mexico
Tech, CDP, and NTS, web based and mobile training are used as a
precursor to performance level classes.
In addition, last year the CDP trained 30,802 students through
mobile training efforts and 20,858 through train-the-trainer methods.
These have been achieved through an aggressive outreach effort and
satellite training operations in key Urban Areas in the U.S. This
process is projected to continue, based on annual appropriations, as
the scope of the CDP training programs broadens with G&Ts move into
FEMA. In addition, the CDP will begin hosting online courses as well as
web-supplemented courses designed as pre-qualification and/or
sustainment training for the Nation's responders. The CDP currently is
partnering with the Emergency Management Institute to deliver NIMS-
compliant ICS training across the U.S. This surge, implemented to meet
the national preparedness goal is a major undertaking to assist state
and local agencies in achieving DHS-mandated preparedness objectives.
With the transfer of the Noble Training Center to the CDP, further
partnerships and collaboration are possible and anticipated with the
DHS Chief Medical Office, DHHS, CDC, and selected academic/professional
entities.
Question 51: Will you please describe the Competitive Training
Grant Program and how it will strengthen and expand existing training
programs?
What is the Competitive Training Grant Program:
The Competitive Training Grant Program (CTGP), in existence since
FY 2004, is an initiative that seeks innovative solutions for emerging
and unmet State and local first-responder training needs. It is
conducted annually, based on a congressional appropriation, and accepts
applications via grants.gov from State, local, tribal, and territorial
governments; national associations and organizations; higher-education
institutions; nonprofits, including community and faith-based
organizations; and the private sector. A rigorous, competitive peer-
review process is used to select proposals of the highest quality and
integrity. Final awards are made through cooperative agreements for
periods up to 36 months.
The Office of Grants and Training's (G&T) training division
articulates specific focus areas for CTGP each year based on input from
the field, training providers, and the Department of Homeland Security.
These areas represent national priorities, training gaps, and emerging
needs based on a dynamic threat environment. To enhance traditional
delivery methods and to ensure that CTGP training courses are
accessible to State and local responders throughout the Nation,
applicants are encouraged to propose training that relies on a
distributed and flexible training delivery model. This blended-learning
approach supplements traditional classroom instruction with creative
uses of Web-based and computer-based training, simulations, and video
tele-training. Courses may also be offered locally or regionally to
leverage expertise, share resources, and enhance training capacity.
How will it strengthen and expand existing training programs?
The Competitive Training Grant Program (CTGP) represents an
important part of the Administration's larger, coordinated effort to
strengthen homeland security preparedness. Because the CTGP addresses
training gaps and can respond to national priorities and emerging
threats, it builds on its core training program in a way that
complements existing training. Since fiscal year 2004, the CTGP has
yielded 40 awards in more than 15 different issue areas. Typically,
multiple, mobile courses are developed under each award, providing
accessible training to a large number of responders across the Nation.
A large number of training programs under CTGP are train-the-trainer
courses that provide the States with the capability to train an
increased number of participants. In addition, proposed training
programs must be innovative and distinct in comparison with current
training offered by the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium,
other Department of Homeland Security Office of Grants and Training
training partners, other Federal agencies, and State and local training
academies.
Question 52: How does the Department of Homeland Security
communicate with individuals and households to ensure that they are
aware of their responsibility to prepare for events, particularly
natural disasters for which we have warning?
Do you believe that the Department should do more to educate U.S.
residents of what they should do to prepare for events?
What is the focus of the Ready Campaign? How does this program
support the Nation's preparedness and response capabilities?
Part one of the question: How does the Department of Homeland
Security communicate with individuals and households to ensure that
they are aware of their responsibility to prepare for events,
particularly natural disasters for which we have warning?
Answer: The Department of Homeland Security promotes individual,
family, and business emergency preparedness through the Ready Campaign.
Launched in February 2003, Ready is a national campaign designed to
educate and empower Americans to prepare for and respond to emergencies
including natural disasters and potential terrorist attacks.
The campaign includes an effort to reach the Nation's individuals
and families through Ready America, as well as has extensions for
specific audiences. Ready Business helps owners and managers of small--
to medium-sized businesses prepare their employees, operations and
assets. Ready Kids is a tool to help parents and teachers educate
children ages 8--12 about emergencies and how they can help get their
family prepared. Listo America, Listo Negocios and Listo Ninos are
Spanish language versions of these Ready programs.
The Department spreads the Ready Campaign's messages through media
such as television, radio, print, outdoor and Internet public service
advertisements (PSAs) developed and produced by the Advertising
Council; more than a dozen brochures; the www.ready.gov and
www.listo.gov Web sites; two toll-free phone lines, 1-800-BE READY and
1-888-SE LIST; media outreach efforts; and partnerships with a wide
variety of public and private sector organizations.
We have been pleased with the campaign's ability to deliver its
message and encourage Americans to take action. Since 2003, the
campaign's Web sites have received more than 2 billion hits and more
than 10 million Ready materials have been distributed. In addition,
there have been indications of progress in changing the public's
behavior on emergency preparedness. A national survey conducted in June
2006 found 91 percent of Americans feel individual preparedness is
important and 55 percent have taken steps to prepare.
The Ready Campaign is currently funded (FY 2007) by Homeland
Security's Office of Public Affairs and Office of Infrastructure
Protection. For fiscal years 2004 through 2006, the Ready Campaign,
including its extensions, Ready Business and Ready Kids and its Spanish
language version, Listo have received $9.6 million in Federal funding.
The campaign currently has a staff of two full-time Federal employees.
Part two of the question: Do you believe that the Department should
do more to educate U.S. residents about what they should do to prepare
for events?
Answer: The Department is pleased with the strides the Ready
Campaign has made during the four years since it was created. The
campaign's PSAs have received more than $618 million in donated media
support; www.ready.gov has received more than 2 billion hits and 25.5
million unique visitors; Ready's toll-free phone lines have received
over 285,000 calls; and more than 10 million Ready materials have been
distributed. In addition, a national survey conducted in June 2006
found that from 2005 to 2006, the proportion of Americans who said they
have taken any steps to prepare rose 10 points, from 45 percent to 55
percent.
While we are pleased with Ready's progress it is important to note
that social change takes time. Other government social marketing
efforts, like those conducted by the Department of Transportation to
promote seat belt use and prevent drunk driving have taken decades to
achieve their goals. Homeland Security knows that Ready still has a
long way to go before it can meet all of its goals. That said, there is
more all of us can do to encourage Americans to prepare for
emergencies. In addition to building upon the Ready Campaign's success,
the Department is also encouraging the public and private sectors to
play key roles in helping to create a culture of preparedness in this
country.
Ready's message needs to be focused and re-emphasized on the state
and local level to highlight local threats and plans. Over the past
four years, we have seen major progress in this area. When Ready was
created, only a handful of state and local efforts existed. Now nearly
every state and major city is doing something to get their residents
prepared for emergencies. To build on these initiatives, Homeland
Security funding can now be used by state and local governments to
create their own citizen preparedness campaigns. In addition, the
Department is working to use Ready's resources and experience to assist
these governments with their own focused message. For example, the
campaign is the model for cities and states to tailor and localize
their own Ready advertisements to direct viewers to specific local
preparedness resources.
The Department has also established joint efforts with a wide
variety of private sector organizations to help spread the Ready
message. For example, since 2003, Minor League Baseball and the Boy
Scouts of America have supported the campaign by distributing Ready
brochures at ball parks across the Nation.
Homeland Security places a special emphasis on the issue and our
public and private sector partners during National Preparedness Month.
National Preparedness Month is a nationwide effort held each September
to encourage Americans to take simple steps to prepare for emergencies
in their homes, businesses and schools. During 2006, more than 1,370
national, regional, state and local organizations took part in the
designated month by distributing information, hosting more than 900
events and sponsoring activities across the country to promote
emergency preparedness. We hope the 2007 effort will be even more
successful.
Part three of the question: What is the focus of the Ready
Campaign? How does this program support the Nation's preparedness and
response capabilities?
Answer: Launched in February 2003, Ready is a national campaign
designed to educate and empower Americans to prepare for and respond to
emergencies including natural disasters and potential terrorist
attacks. The goal of the campaign is to get the public involved and
ultimately to increase the level of basic preparedness across the
Nation. The philosophy behind Ready is that if we get our citizens who
can prepare to do so, it will free up valuable response resources for
those who cannot help themselves or are in dire straits during an
emergency. The Department feels that by building the preparedness level
of individuals, families, businesses and communities we make our Nation
more secure, strong and resilient.
The Ready Campaign supports the Nation's preparedness and response
by encouraging Americans to prepare and providing individuals, families
and businesses with tools to assist them in their preparedness efforts.
The campaign's Web sites at www.ready.gov and www.listo.gov and
brochures contain information and templates that help families get an
emergency supply kit, make a family emergency plan and be informed
about the different types of emergencies that could occur and how to
respond. These resources also have tools that can assist owners and
managers of small- to medium-sized businesses in developing a business
continuity plan, talking to their employees about preparedness and
protecting their assets.