[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MOVING BEYOND THE FIRST FIVE YEARS: IMPROVING THE FUNCTIONALITY,
GOVERNANCE, AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 23, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-107
__________
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
42-865 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
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 David G. Reichert, Washington
Zoe Lofgren, California Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania
Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida
Islands Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida
Bob Etheridge, North Carolina David Davis, Tennessee
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Henry Cuellar, Texas Candice S. Miller, Michigan
Christopher P. Carney, Pennsylvania
Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Al Green, Texas
Ed Perlmutter, Colorado
Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
Jessica Herrera-Flanigan, Staff Director & General Counsel
Rosaline Cohen, 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 Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas:
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Ginny Browne-Waite, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Florida:
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
Witnesses
The Honorable Paul A. Schneider, Acting Deputy Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
For the Record
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Alabama:
Article........................................................ 40
Appendix
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson....................... 47
MOVING BEYOND THE FIRST FIVE YEARS: IMPROVING THE FUNCTIONALITY,
GOVERNANCE, AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
----------
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in Room
311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bennie G. Thompson
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Thompson, Sanchez, Harman, Lowey,
Jackson Lee, Christensen, Etheridge, Langevin, Cuellar, Clarke,
Pascrell, King, Rogers, Dent, Davis of Tennessee and Miller.
Chairman Thompson. The Committee on Homeland Security will
come to order. The committee is meeting today to receive
testimony from Mr. Paul A. Schneider, Acting Deputy Secretary
for the Department of Homeland Security, to evaluate the state
of the Department as it moves beyond its first 5 years, and to
assess the Department of Homeland Security's plans for
undergoing its first Presidential transition in 2009.
Good morning. I would like to welcome you, Mr. Deputy
Secretary, on behalf of the members in this committee. Last
September, as you know, you appeared before this committee for
the first time. At that time you testified about GAO's report
assessing the Department's progress over the last 4 years. GAO
found that the Department's implementation of critical programs
is substantially hindered by the lack of strategic planning and
management, risk management, information sharing, agency
transformation, partnership formation and internal and external
coordination.
Last September the committee pressed the Department to
improve its functionality, governance and accountability. I am
sure you and I can agree that the Department of Homeland
Security must operate in the spirit of excellence in order to
effectively secure the Nation. I hope your testimony
demonstrates that the Department has taken affirmative steps to
strategically plan for the transition from this administration
to the next administration.
History demonstrates that we are most vulnerable during a
leadership transition. The World Trade Centers were first
struck February 1993 at the start of the Clinton administration
and then again in September 2001 during President Bush's first
term. Similarly, the mass transit terrorist attacks occurred in
Madrid just 3 days prior to Spain's 2004 election. England's
Prime Minister Brown was installed for only 2 days when two
bomb-laden cars were detected and disabled. Given the fact that
DHS has never experienced a Presidential transition it is
absolutely imperative that the Department is ready to carry out
its mission.
Now, Mr. Schneider, the last time you testified before the
full committee, you had only been in the post of Under
Secretary for Management for 9 months. The Department balked at
the committee's request to send your predecessor, who was then
responsible for managing the Department's day-to-day
operations. Today the Department has again sent you to testify
about the transition of the Department, but this time it is in
the stead of Secretary Chertoff.
What is even more unsettling is that when the committee
sent the Department letters back in February about the
committee's intent to examine the Department's ongoing
transition process to ensure a seamless and orderly changeover,
both you and Secretary Chertoff failed to share the information
requested with this committee, which, as you know, is charged
with oversight of the Department.
Specifically, the Department claimed that the transition
planning documents were, No. 1, under development; No. 2,
constitute executive branch materials; and No. 3, that you
would share them first with the incoming administration.
Let me state emphatically that the refusal to answer this
committee's inquiry contradicts Secretary Chertoff's promise
and his obligation to provide Congress with the Department's
transition plans and activities. In fact, at the fiscal year
2009 DHS budget hearing on February 13, Secretary Chertoff told
this committee, I think we owe it to you, when asked about the
Department's transition plans and activities. Yet the
committee's staff contacted the component offices at DHS to
prepare for a series of hearings regarding the transition of
the Department's plan beyond the 5 years. They were told that
you and the Secretary had ordered them not to comply with the
committee's request.
Let me be clear again, the Department must not evade its
responsibility to this committee, Congress or the American
people. The Department must be accountable for its transition
plans. It must be equally accountable for its other mishaps,
whether we are talking about formaldehyde in the Katrina
trailers or spy satellites. I am confident that you will keep
this in mind as you detail the Department's transition plans in
your testimony.
I will close by saying once again that we owe the American
people security, we owe them accountability, and, most
importantly, we owe them freedom from fear. With that, I thank
you for being here today and look forward to your testimony,
Mr. Schneider.
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, Mr. Chairman.
I look forward to the hearing. I want to thank Mr.
Schneider for his service and for assuming a very tough job,
and I believe doing a very outstanding job, and we certainly
look forward to your testimony today.
I know in a number of conversations I had with your
predecessor Mr. Jackson the tremendous concern he had about the
whole transition period and to ensure that that was done as
seamlessly as possible and providing the greatest protection.
There are so many events that could occur between November 4
and January 20, and then, of course, in the first months of the
next administration, that this is really a key moment which has
to be addressed, and I look forward to your testimony on that.
I also want to say I think this is the time to acknowledge
all the work the Department has done. I mean, it is now 5
years; the country has not been attacked in the last 6\1/2\
years. Yes, there have been growing pains, but all things
considered, I believe the Department has done a very good job
in coming forward, certainly in comparison to the Defense
Department 50 years ago. I think that is important to keep in
mind. But this is really a first major test as far as the
transition period, so your testimony is going to be extremely
important on that.
But also, as far as your responsibility to the American
people, I think the Congress also has a responsibility, and I
wish we had made as much progress as the Department has. I wish
we still didn't have 86 committees and subcommittees claiming
jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security and
impeding you from getting your job done. To me, if we want real
oversight of the Department, it should be centralized in one or
two committees, maybe parts of a third committee at most, but
to have this spread out the way it is over the Congress to me
is a failure--it is an abdication of our responsibility. So I
think that before we criticize the Department so much, we
should look at ourselves and say why haven't we done a better
job so there can be real oversight and not have it spread so
far and so thin that it becomes meaningless.
Also, as far as responsibility, I believe as a committee,
and I have said this to the Chairman, we have a responsibility
to enact an authorization bill. The fact that we haven't; I
mean, here we are demanding what the Department does and the
Department comes forward, that is what they are supposed to be
doing, and yet we so far have no plans even to enact an
authorization bill, which is a failure of responsibility on our
part.
So I look forward to your testimony so you can show how you
are complying with your responsibilities and your duties, and I
look forward to your testimony.
I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. Other members on the committee are
reminded that under the committee rules, opening statements may
be submitted for the record.
[The statements of Hons. Jackson Lee and Brown-Waite
follow:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee
April 23, 2008
In the business of security, there is always work to be done. For
those of us charged with doing all we can to protect the American
public from those who wish to do us harm--the work never ends, and we
can never rest. As such, we are here today to discuss not only what has
been accomlpished but what is yet to be done, how we might improve the
functionality, governance, and accountability of the Department of
Homeland Security in the years to come.
In the past week, we have held hearings in each subcommittee to
examine the plans for transition for the programmatic offices within
the Department of Homeland Security. This hearing will be the
culmination of this inquiry; we need now to consider the peoples,
policies, and programs of the Department of Homeland Security and their
specific plans for transition.
What we need to know today is that the Department has a
comprehensive plan for transition on both a micro and a macro level.
This committee has sent multiple letters of inquiry asking Secretary
Chertoff and other high-level officials from the Department of Homeland
Security to outline their plans for transition. Much to this
committee's dismay, when Secretary Chertoff did respond to our entirely
warranted inquiry, he stated the following: ``I think it is important
to underscore the fact that over 200,000 of our Department's employees
are located in the seven major operating Components. The change in
administration will have little, if any, impact on their critical front
line operations and a fairly negligible effect on senior management.''
Mr. Chairman, Members of this committee, that is not a sufficient
answer. Stating that the transition will not affect the majority of
employees does not address the fundamental question that we are seeking
to have answered today: what are the Department of Homeland Security's
specific plans at a micro and macro level for the impending transition?
As the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security
and Infrastructure Protection, I was happy to hear from Assistant
Secretary Hawley. As we recognized the significant milestone that is
the Department of Homeland Security 5-year anniversary, my subcommittee
reflected on the work that the TSA has done to secure our Nation's
aviation and surface transportation systems, and what work has to be
done.
The TSA is responsible for the security of highways, railroads,
buses, mass transit systems, ports and the 450 U.S. airports, and
employs approximately 50,000 individuals who have the very important
mission of keeping the traveling public safe from terrorist threats.
There are many aspects to securing transportation. First, there
must be an overarching plan and comprehensive strategy under which all
programs and policies must flow. Those programs need to be administered
efficiently in combination with developments in screening and detection
technology to make sure that threats are discovered. We must have well
thought out grant programs that quickly gets money to transit systems
under an appropriate risk assessment so that continuing security
investments can be made that are tailored to particular transit systems
to provide the most comprehensive security network. An all-important
component of security that I consider a paramount priority is the
continuing training of frontline workers. They are our first line of
defense against our enemies, and we owe it to them to provide them with
the best training, supportive work environment, and opportunities for
professional development.
When this Congress passed into law the 9/11 bill, we directed the
Department to make improvements in aviation cargo screening, expanded
up the surface transportation security grants, defined criteria for the
handling of security sensitive materials on railroads, and provided
significant employee training programs and protections. It is vitally
important that the Department continues to carryout the mandates
created in the 9/11 bill. These provisions were created in a bi-
partisan matter, with significant input from the Department and
industry stakeholders, to close security gaps and fulfill the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
To be sure, the TSA has taken steps to secure the plane and the
passenger but has still left the system vulnerable to attacks. In
essence, I believe that our focus has disproportionately been on
protecting aircraft from past attack scenarios--such as suicide
hijackings and IEDs carried out by airline passengers--and has not
given enough attention to other potential vulnerabilities.
I am encouraged by the progress that has been made within the TSA,
such as including refining the checkpoints, the advancements made in
Behavior Recognition, and introducing technologies that improve
screening. However, there remains cause for concern as well. By TSA's
own covert testing, TSA screeners are still underperforming when it
comes to detecting potential bombs and bomb parts, calling into
question whether TSOs are getting the training they need to do the job
that we need them to do and that they desire to do.
We must also not lose sight of the need for a robust surface
transportation security program. The intelligence tells us that
transportation continues to be the most significant security threat
facing us today. Aviation is still a premium target for terrorists, but
as attacks around the world have shown us, rail and mass transit is
also an extremely attractive target for those who want to cause mass
casualties and panic. With 11.3 million people traveling by mass
transit each weekday, we cannot afford to lose site of this
vulnerability. That is why this hearing is so vitally important. The
TSA is one of the most high profile components of the Department of
Homeland Security, and based on known threats, the most important.
Because of our collective efforts and vigilance, we have managed to
avert a terrorist attack on our soil since the tragic events of
September 11. However, even more important than celebrating our efforts
is thinking critically, creatively and with foresight about the
systemic steps we need to take to better secure our Nation's
transportation systems and ensuring that we are committed and dedicated
to the implementation of these steps. In the wake of the tragic events
of September 11, 2001 and during a global war on terror, the Department
of Homeland Security has an increasingly significant role to play.
September 11, 2001, is a day that is indelibly 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. In addition, 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 in the course of American and human history is
indelible. 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.
Just like my fellow Americans, I remember September 11 as vividly
as if it was yesterday. In my mind's eye, I can still remember being
mesmerized by the television as the two airlines 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 at 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 perservere. 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 differences between feeling secure and actually
being secure. In addition, after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we
learned that the Department's readiness for and response to natural
disasters is woefully inadequate. We must take decisive steps to ensure
that adequate funds are available and allocated so that the trust that
the American people have placed in our hands is not compromised and
that we take strategic steps to ensure their future safety from both
terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
The President has a fiscal year 2009 budget request of $50.5
billion for the Department of Homeland Security, excluding emergency
funding, a 7% increase of the enacted fiscal year 2008 level. Despite
this increase in the overall budget request for the Department, I am
concerned that the President's proposed budget nevertheless contains
substantial cuts and eliminations of important programs that are vital
to the security of our Nation, States, and communities.
I do not feel that the administration's rhetoric has matched its
actions. I am concerned about the commitment to the future and the
unprecedented transition that will occur in less than a year. We are
here today because we are looking for a specific plan and commitment to
this transition and I look forward to today's testimony and ensuring
the prosperity and progress of the Department of Homeland Security and
consequently the safety of the American people.
______
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Ginny Brown-Waite
April 23, 2008
Thank you Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King for holding
this hearing today. Discussing the future of the Department of Homeland
Security, and how DHS should prepare for the coming change of
administration, is certainly worthwhile.
However, I was deeply disappointed to hear that the Chairman does
not intend for the committee to draft or pass an authorization bill
this year. As my colleagues and I have repeatedly stated, crafting an
authorization bill is a fundamental duty of this committee, and
ignoring this responsibility is ill-advised. During these uncertain
times, an authorization bill would serve as a valuable tool in
prioritizing the Department's goals and activities.
Regarding the future of DHS, I look forward to learning more about
how the Department will preserve continuity as a new administration
takes over next year. I think those of us on the committee would agree
that limiting any disruptive Department reorganization or restructuring
would prove extremely beneficial to the Department's mission.
Defeating the numerous and changing security threats facing our
nation in the post-9/11 world is a tall order. Securing the borders,
keeping transportations systems safe, and protecting critical
infrastructure are just a few of countless efforts that require a
constant, focused investment of time and resources by the Department.
While we continue working to improve the Department's performance,
we should never forget the Department's success in keeping Americans
safe, since DHS was created 5 years ago.
I am sorry I am unable to attend the hearing today, due to a family
medical emergency, but I will be sure to discuss the proceedings with
my staff as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Chairman Thompson. Again, I welcome our witness today, the
Honorable Paul Schneider, who was appointed on February 26,
2008, to the position of Acting Deputy Secretary for the
Department of Homeland Security. Prior to joining the
Department in January of 2007, Under Secretary Schneider was a
defense and aerospace consultant for 3\1/2\ years. Before that
he was a civil servant for 38 years, including serving as
senior acquisition executive for the National Security Agency.
Mr. Schneider, I thank you for your service, and I look
forward to your testimony.
Without objection, the witness' full statement will be
inserted in the record.
Acting Deputy Secretary, I now recognize you to summarize
your statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL A. SCHNEIDER, ACTING DEPUTY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative King
and members of the committee. It is a pleasure to appear before
you today to discuss how the Department of Homeland Security is
preparing for the administration change in 2009.
Our major objectives for the transition are to first have
the right career people in place when the political leadership
changes to ensure that the day-to-day operations of the
Department are not impacted; second, to ensure our critical
processes are well documented and mature; third, to ensure our
major programs are properly structured; and fourth, but
certainly not last in terms of importance, be able to respond
to a national emergency during the transition.
I would like to start by briefly addressing a misperception
about the number and the role of political appointees at the
Department and the impact of their departure at the end of this
administration. There are approximately 200 political
appointees in the Department. That is roughly \1/10\ of a
percent of the entire Department. Of these 200, only 82 are in
positions that are considered senior executives. These include
the Presidential appointment with and without Senate
confirmation, noncareer Senior Executive Service, senior-level
and scientific and professional positions. Of these 82
political appointees, 45 are at headquarters. These 45
positions are primarily Under Secretaries, Assistant
Secretaries, Deputies to these positions, Chiefs of Staff and
others, such as the Chief Financial Officer, Chief Human
Capital Officer and the Chief Information Officer.
Approximately 50 percent of these 45 positions at headquarters
are in the immediate Office of the Secretary and the Office of
Policy. This distribution of appointees in these offices is
expected, given their primary policymaking roles.
I personally manage the status of political appointees and
their career back-ups for the top 25 positions in the
Department. In previous discussions with you, Mr. Chairman, and
your staff, I have provided a copy of the chart that I used to
manage each one of these individuals and their constant status
to make sure that we, in fact, have the right back-up in place.
It is important to note that approximately 204,000 of the
Department's 208,000 employees are located in our seven
operating components. The change in administration will have a
minimal impact on their day-to-day operations or their ability
to respond in the event of a national incident.
I would like to summarize our posture in the seven major
operating components. The United States Coast Guard and the
Secret Service have no political appointees. At the
Transportation Security Administration, the Deputy
Administrator, Ms. Gale Rossides, a 30-plus-year civil servant,
will assume the responsibilities of the Acting Administrator
during the transition.
FEMA, by law, has an Administrator and a Deputy
Administrator who are Presidential appointees. A Regional
Administrator, Ms. Nancy Ward, will serve as the Acting
Administrator during the transition.
Immigration and Custom Enforcement, the Deputy Assistant
Secretary John Torres, a career civil servant, will serve as
the Acting Assistant Secretary during the transition.
At U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Acting
Director will be the Director of Operations Mr. Michael Aytes,
a 32-year career civil servant.
At Customs and Border Protection, the Deputy Commissioner
Jayson Ahern, a 31-year career civil servant, will serve as the
Acting Commissioner. In addition, at CBP the Chief of the
Border Patrol, the Director of Field Operations and the
Assistant Commissioner for Air and Marine are all long-
standing, experienced career civil servants.
The facts are pretty clear. The leadership of our
operational components will be in good hands with experienced,
proven leaders. The same applies for our headquarters. They
lead today and will lead tomorrow.
Overall, we are taking a multipronged approach to our
transition planning to ensure operational continuity of
Homeland Security responsibilities during the transition. On
August 13, the President signed an Executive Order that
specifies the order of succession for the position of the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. It now
reflects our current organization. In October, we completed a
component-level succession order and a delegation of authority
for each component head position within the Department. There
is at least one and sometimes two, and in some cases three,
back-ups. We identified critical positions and the interim
acting career executives for the departing appointees.
There are several things we are doing. We are building the
DHS employees' knowledge of the national security protocols and
interfaces with other departments, as well as State, local and
tribal governments. We are working with the Homeland Security
Council to ensure that other departments with homeland security
roles are integrated with our transition efforts. We are
learning the best practices from State and local government, as
well as the private sector, through the Homeland Security
Advisory Council, NAPA, and the Council for Excellence in
Government. We are holding training briefings and exercises to
prepare our senior-level career personnel to be the
decisionmakers and to ensure preparedness to act should a
crisis, either natural or manmade, arise. We are fostering--
focusing on maturing our management processes that include the
budget requirements and our major investments. We are providing
an integrated operational planning and coordination effort
across the Department.
In summary, we have a comprehensive transition plan in
place to ensure that we are prepared not only for the 2009
administration change, but also an incident.
Thank you for your support and this opportunity to be here
today. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may
have.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Schneider.
[The statement of Mr. Schneider follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul A. Schneider
April 23, 2008
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Representative King and members of the
committee. It is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss how
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is preparing for the
administration change in 2009.
I appreciate the on-going discussion that DHS and the committee
have had on DHS's transition efforts and look forward to continuing the
dialog. The Department began to prepare for the administration change
over a year ago. Today, you will hear about our efforts to plan for the
change in political leadership and the progress we are making. We take
our duty to prepare the Department very seriously.
Our major objectives for the transition are to:
1. Have the right career people in place when the political
leadership changes to ensure day-to-day operations of the
Department are not impacted.
2. Ensure our critical processes are well documented and mature.
3. Ensure our major programs are properly structured.
4. Be able to respond to a national emergency during the
transition.
I would like to start by briefly addressing a misperception about
the number and role of political appointees at DHS and the impact of
their departure at the end of this administration.
There are approximately 200 political appointees in the Department.
That is one-tenth of a percent of the entire Department. Of these 200,
only 82 are in positions that are considered senior executives. These
include Presidential Appointment with Senate Confirmation, Presidential
Appointment, Non-career Senior Executive Service, Senior Level and
Scientific and Professional positions. Of these 82 political positions,
45 are at headquarters. These 45 positions are primarily Under
Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Deputies to these positions, Chiefs
of Staff, and others, such as Chief Financial Officer, Chief Human
Capital Officer and Chief Information Officer positions. Approximately
50 percent of these 45 positions at headquarters are in the immediate
Office of the Secretary and the Office of Policy. This distribution of
appointees in these offices is to be expected given their primary
policymaking roles. While the other 50 percent of these political
appointee executive positions are interspersed throughout DHS
headquarters, the majority of the headquarters offices have senior
career individuals as the No. 2 official.
In addition, one of the key political appointee executive
positions, the Under Secretary for Management (USM), by law is
authorized to stay in office to help ensure a smooth transition until
there is a senate confirmed political appointee for this position.
It is important to note that approximately 204,000 of our
Department's 208,000 employees are located in our seven major operating
components. The change in administration will have a minimal impact on
their day-to-day operations or their ability to respond in the event of
a national incident. The following is a summary of the transition
posture for our seven major operating components.
The United States Coast Guard is a military organization and
has no political appointees. Over the past 2 years we have
greatly strengthened it with experienced civilian leaders
primarily in acquisition, to respond to the increased
challenges in this area. We have been steadily increasing the
professionalism, capability and competency of this acquisition
corps.
The United States Secret service has no political
appointees.
Transportation Security Administration is headed by a
Presidential appointee requiring Senate confirmation. The
Deputy Administrator, Gale Rossides, a 30-plus-year civil
servant will assume the responsibilities of the acting
Administrator during the transition.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by law has an
Administrator and Deputy Administrator who are Presidential
appointees requiring Senate confirmation. Our plan is for the
Regional Administrator, Nancy Ward, to serve as the acting
Administrator during the transition.
Immigration and Custom Enforcement is headed by a
Presidential appointee requiring Senate confirmation. The
Deputy Assistant Secretary, John Torres, a career civil servant
will serve as the acting Assistant Secretary during the
transition. In addition, the Detention and Removal Office,
Federal Protective Service and Investigations Offices are lead
by career employees.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center leadership are all
career civil servants.
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office is headed by a
Presidential appointee requiring Senate confirmation. The
Deputy Director and the senior leadership positions are filled
by career civil servants.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is headed
by a Presidential appointee requiring Senate confirmation. The
acting Director will be the Director of Operations, Michael
Aytes, a 32-year career civil servant.
Customs and Border Protection is headed by a Presidential
appointee requiring Senate confirmation. The Deputy
Commissioner, Jayson Ahern, a 31-year career civil servant will
serve as the acting Commissioner. In addition, the Chief of the
Border Patrol, the Director of Field Operations, and the
Assistant Commissioner for Air and Marine, are all long-
standing, experienced career civil servants.
In discussing transition, it is important to note that the
Department underwent a major organizational transition that started in
2005 when there was a change in Secretaries, and Deputy Secretaries
that was followed with the replacement of the majority of the top
political leadership. The Department's operations continued unabated
primarily due to the strength, knowledge and experience of our senior
career employees.
This is not to say our work is done. To the contrary, we recognize
that as a new Department with the critical mission of securing the
homeland in a post-9/11 world, we must ensure our people are prepared
and the incoming leadership is prepared to respond to any kind of
national incident. We have already begun initiatives that enable us to
plan and execute the transition effort well.
We are taking a multi-pronged approach to our transition planning
to ensure operational continuity of homeland security responsibilities
during the Presidential Administration Transition. These areas of focus
and related activities are as follows:
1. Order of Succession.--On August 13, 2007, the President signed
an Executive Order that specifies the order of succession for
the position of Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security. The previous Order of Succession for DHS had not been
revised since the Department was established in 2003. The
Executive Order now reflects our current organization. In
October 2007, DHS completed a component-level succession order
and delegation of authority for each component head position
within the Department. I have submitted the Department's order
of succession as part of my testimony.
2. DHS Succession Planning.--We are identifying and planning
succession for critical homeland security positions within
components to provide continuity at the time of transition. For
departing senior level political appointees we have identified
interim acting career executives. In addition, Public Law 110-
28 required and appropriated funds for the Office of the Under
Secretary for Management to commission an independent study
with the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to
compare the Department of Homeland Security senior career and
political staffing levels and senior career training programs
with those of similarly structured cabinet-level agencies. NAPA
will deliver this report in May, 2008. This report should give
us great insights into how we compare with other agencies and
identify areas of strength or needed improvement.
3. Cross-government Collaboration.--The Department engaged the
Council for Excellence in Government (CEG) to help ensure our
senior career employees, incoming appointees and leaders of
other agencies critical to homeland security are prepared to
respond should a national incident occur. CEG is facilitating
our efforts on inter-agency collaboration. This inter-agency
collaboration effort centers on structured, deliberate
processes where DHS will engage key groups and individuals. In
concert with FEMA and other parts of DHS, CEG will utilize the
National Response Framework and deliver multiple table top
exercises during the time of the Presidential election
campaign, inauguration, and subsequent appointments of Senate-
confirmed positions. With these exercises, participants will
not only practice their roles but also build relationships and
camaraderie with other key decisionmakers in a variety of
emergency scenarios. This effort will strengthen DHS employees'
knowledge of national security protocols and interfaces with
other departments as well as State, local, and tribal
governments to ensure we are prepared should a crisis arise. We
are also working closely with the Homeland Security Council at
the White House to ensure other departments with homeland
security roles are integrated with our transition efforts.
4. Best Practices.--We are learning about other approaches to
administration transition from Federal, State and local
governments as well as the private sector by leveraging the
expertise of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC). In
January 2008, the HSAC Administration Transition Task Force
(HSAC-ATTF) delivered a report that identifies transition best
practices. The recommendations in this report will help the
Department develop transition guidance to address the
operational challenges during leadership change. Such
operational challenges can include ensuring proper succession
of career personnel to serve in an acting capacity for
departing appointees, organizing table top exercises for
incoming appointees, creating a cadre of individuals to focus
on transition and ensuring proper out-processing of departing
employees.
We have already implemented many of the HSAC-ATTF report
recommendations. For example, we created the Deputy Under
Secretary for Management career position to ensure operational
continuity during transition for a key element of the DHS
management structure. We have also identified senior-level
career personnel within each component to serve in an acting
capacity once the appointees depart. We also implemented the
recommendation to identify a cadre of individuals to serve as
Senior Transition Officers within their components to help lead
transition efforts. We have taken it a step further and in
keeping with our desire to train future leaders of DHS, we have
identified career employees at the General Schedule-14 and -15
levels, many of whom have graduated from our DHS Fellows and
other DHS sponsored graduate-level educational programs, to
serve as Deputies to the Senior Transition Officers.
We are also holding training conferences as well as briefings and
exercises to prepare these senior level career personnel to be
the decisionmakers should they be called upon to manage an
incident in the absence of senior leadership. In February 2008,
DHS hosted a 2\1/2\-day conference that brought together the
Department's top leadership from all components including
field-based employees. The attendees consisted of career and
non-career employees who participated in a FEMA exercise and
received briefings on the Department's major initiatives. These
briefings focused on execution of policies in the field. In
May, the Department will host another 3-day event for senior
career employees from all of the components at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center in Georgia. This training will
engage senior career employees in a series of briefing
scenarios and FEMA exercises to reinforce integrated
operational preparedness and execution throughout the
Department. Additionally, beginning this summer and continuing
through inauguration, we will be holding more incident response
table top exercises that will ensure senior career and incoming
appointees have the ability to put into practice the guidance
of the National Response Framework, the National Infrastructure
Protection Plan and National Incident Management System.
5. Administrative Transition Guidance.--The Senior and Deputy
Transition Officers that have been identified are working
closely with the USM's core transition team to evaluate
internal processes and develop briefing materials. It is
particularly important to evaluate our internal processes to
ensure effectiveness during the anticipated surge of incoming
and exiting staff. The internal processes initiative will
involve reviewing Directives, strengthening records management
and ensuring for incoming staff, that both new appointees and
career employees are equipped with the tools they need and the
information and relationships required to be effective in their
jobs. We will also be developing briefing materials to convey
to career executives and incoming appointees the requisite
information and knowledge to maintain operations. For exiting
staff we will ensure proper briefings.
6. Processes.--In addition to focusing on internal administrative
processes of what we call the ``nuts and bolts'', we are also
focusing on management processes that include the budget, our
major investments and the role of the Operations, Planning and
Coordination Component. In planning the Fiscal Year 2009 budget
we instituted a recommendation by the Homeland Security
Advisory Council--Cultural Task Force (HSAC-CTF) and commenced
a Department-wide process of engaging the Components in their
strategies, investments and financial objectives. For Fiscal
Year 2010 we took it a step further and involved a heavy
concentration of career civil servants in the budget process to
ensure it continues seamlessly during transition. To continue
with the HSAC-CTF recommendation of providing a cohesive,
integrated and operationally efficient means of protecting the
homeland, we are enhancing our operational planning and
coordination efforts across the Department.
7. Programs.--The past 2 years we have spent considerable effort to
make sure our major programs are properly structured and
resourced to be successful. In August 2007, we formalized our
oversight efforts and support for acquisition programs by
establishing the Acquisition Program Management Division (APMD)
within the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer. To date,
APMD has performed Quick Look assessments of 37 Level 1
programs and has overseen Deep Dive reviews of the SBInet and
Advance Spectroscopic Portal programs. APMD has provided advice
and guidance to a number of programs, particularly in the area
of cost-benefit analysis. We are ensuring that the requirements
are clear, cost estimates are valid, technology risks are
properly assessed, schedules are realistic, contract vehicles
are proper, and the efforts are well managed.
We have restructured the Deepwater and Secure Border Initiative
efforts. The Transportation Worker Identification Credential
Program, a tamper-resistant credential that contains biometric
information about the holder which renders the card useless to
anyone other than the rightful owner was restructured and is
being successfully executed. Each transportation facility will
be able to verify the identity of a worker and help prevent
unauthorized individuals from accessing secure areas. We have
also implemented the first phase of the Western Hemisphere
Travel Initiative, a 9/11 Commission recommendation, which
requires all travelers, U.S. citizens and foreign nationals
alike, to present a passport or other secure document to denote
identity and citizenship when entering the United States.
Another 9/11 Commission recommendation to improve our system
for issuing identification documents that we are implementing
is REAL ID. This initiative will improve the integrity and
security of State-issued driver's licenses and identification
cards, which in turn will help fight terrorism and reduce
fraud. Within USCIS we are about to initiate a major
transformation that will enhance national security, improve
customer service, and increase efficiency. DHS's Office of
Intelligence and Analysis is developing a transformation plan
to integrate the Department's intelligence functions and
capabilities in accordance with the 9/11 Act.
Our goal is ensure the programs we are implementing are on track
for the next administration.
In summary, we have a comprehensive transition plan in place to
ensure that we are prepared for not only the 2009 administration change
but also an incident. In addition, the response we have received from
our briefings on our transition efforts to this committee, the U.S.
Government Accountability Office, and the Office of Management and
Budget, has been extremely positive where our plan has been touted as a
best practice for other departments to follow.
Thank you for support and this opportunity to be here today. I
would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.
Annex A.--Order for Delegation of Authority by the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security
(pursuant to executive order executive order 13442 (august 13, 2007))
1. Deputy Secretary for Homeland Security
2. Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs
3. Under Secretary for Management
4. Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Policy)
5. Under Secretary for Science and Technology
6. General Counsel
7. Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation
Security Administration)
8. Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
9. Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
10. Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement)
11. Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
12. Chief Financial Officer
13. Regional Administrator, Region V, Federal Emergency Management
Agency
14. Regional Administrator, Region VI, Federal Emergency Management
Agency
15. Regional Administrator, Region VII, Federal Emergency
Management Agency
16. Regional Administrator, Region IX, Federal Emergency Management
Agency
17. Regional Administrator, Region I, Federal Emergency Management
Agency
ANNEX B.--DHS SUCCESSION ORDER AND ORDER FOR DELEGATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Career
Component/Position Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Coast Guard:
Commandant.............................................. S
Vice Commandant *....................................... C
Chief of Staff.......................................... C
Commander, Pacific Area................................. C
Commander, Atlantic Area................................ C
Federal Emergency Management Agency:
Administrator........................................... S
Deputy Administrator and Chief Operating Officer *...... S
Deputy Administrator, National Preparedness............. S
Associate Deputy Administrator.......................... C
Director, Office of Policy & Planning Analysis.......... N
Region V Administrator.................................. N
Region VI Administrator................................. N
Region VII Administrator................................ N
Region IX Administrator................................. C
Region I Administrator.................................. N
U.S. Secret Service:
Director................................................ C
Deputy Director......................................... C
Assistant Director, Administration...................... C
Assistant Director, Protective Operations............... C
Assistant Director, Investigations...................... C
Assistant Director, Protective Research................. C
Assistant Director, Human Resources and Training........ C
Assistant Director, Inspection.......................... C
Assistant Director, Government and Public Affairs....... C
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement:
Assistant Secretary..................................... S
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Operations *................ C
Director, Office of Investigations...................... C
Director, Office of Detention & Removal Operations...... C
Director, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor......... N
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Management.................. C
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services:
Director................................................ S
Deputy Director *....................................... N
Associate Director, Domestic Operations................. C
Associate Director, National Security & Records C
Verification...........................................
Chief Financial Officer................................. C
Director, New York District............................. C
U.S. Customs and Border Protection:
Commissioner............................................ S
Deputy Commissioner *................................... C
Chief, Border Patrol.................................... C
Assistant Commissioner, Field Operations................ C
Director, Field Operations, New York.................... C
Sector Chief, El Paso................................... C
Director, Field Operations, Houston..................... C
Sector Chief, Tucson.................................... C
Sector Chief, San Diego................................. C
Director, Field Operations, Miami....................... C
Transportation Security Administration:
Assistant Secretary/Administrator....................... S
Deputy Administrator *.................................. C
Assistant Administrator, Office of Transportation and L
Sector Management......................................
Assistant Administrator, Office of Security Operations.. C
Assistant Administrator, Office of Law Enforcement/ C
Federal Air Marshal Service............................
Federal Security Director, Los Angeles International C
Airport................................................
Federal Security Director, Orlando International Airport C
Management:
Under Secretary......................................... S
Deputy Under Secretary *................................ C
Chief Financial Officer................................. S
Chief Information Officer............................... P
Chief Human Capital Officer............................. P
Chief Procurement Officer............................... C
Chief Administrative Officer............................ C
Science and Technology:
Under Secretary......................................... S
Deputy Under Secretary *................................ C
Director, Office of Transition.......................... C
Director, Interagency Programs.......................... L
Director, Office of Innovation.......................... C
Division Head, Office of Explosives..................... C
Division Head, Office of Borders & Maritime Security.... C
National Protection and Programs Directorate:
Under Secretary......................................... S
Deputy Under Secretary *................................ P
Assistant Secretary, Infrastructure Protection.......... P
Assistant Secretary, Cybersecurity & Communications..... N
Assistant Secretary, Intergovernmental Affairs.......... N
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Infrastructure Protection... N
Director, U.S. Visitor & Immigrant Status Indicator C
Technology (US-VISIT)..................................
Office of Policy:
Assistant Secretary..................................... S
Deputy Assistant Secretary *............................ N
Assistant Secretary, Policy Development................. N
Assistant Secretary, International Relations............ L
Director, Screening Coordination Office................. L
Office of Intelligence and Analysis:
Under Secretary, Chief Intelligence Officer............. S
Deputy Under Secretary *................................ C
Deputy Under Secretary, Operations...................... N
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary, Intelligence.......... C
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary, Mission Integration... C
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary, External C
Communications.........................................
Office of Operations Coordination:
Director................................................ L
Deputy Director......................................... C
Director, National Operations Center.................... C
Chief of Staff.......................................... C
Director, Incident Management & Interagency Planning.... C
Office of Health Affairs:
Assistant Secretary, Chief Medical Officer.............. S
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Deputy Chief C
Medical Officer *......................................
Chief of Staff.......................................... C
Associate Chief Medical Officer, Medical Readiness...... T
Associate Chief Medical Officer, Component Services..... C
Associate Chief Medical Officer, Weapons of Mass C
Destruction & Biodefense...............................
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center:
Director................................................ C
Deputy Director......................................... C
Assistant Director, Training............................ C
Assistant Director, Field Training...................... C
Assistant Director, Training Innovation & Management.... C
Assistant Director, Administration...................... C
Assistant Director, Chief Financial Officer............. C
Assistant Director, Chief Information Officer........... C
Senior Associate Director, Washington Operations........ C
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office:
Director................................................ P
Deputy Director......................................... C
Assistant Director, Mission Management.................. C
Assistant Director, National Technical Nuclear Forensics C
Center.................................................
Assistant Director, Transformational & Applied Research. C
Assistant Director, Product Acquisition................. C
Office of the General Counsel:
General Counsel......................................... S
Principal Deputy General Counsel *...................... N
Deputy General Counsel.................................. C
Associate General Counsel, General Law.................. N
Chief Counsel, TSA...................................... C
Director of Field Legal Operations, Principal Legal C
Advisor, ICE...........................................
Office of Legislative Affairs:
Assistant Secretary..................................... N
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Operations.................. C
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Senate Liaison.............. N
Deputy Assistant Secretary, House Liaison............... N
Director, Intelligence & Analysis/Operations............ N
Director, National Protection & Programs Directorate.... C
Office of Public Affairs:
Assistant Secretary..................................... N
Deputy Assistant Secretary.............................. N
Director, Strategic Communications...................... N
Director, Internal Communications....................... C
Office of Inspector General:
Inspector General....................................... S
Deputy Inspector General *.............................. C
Counsel to the Inspector General........................ C
Assistant Inspector General, Audits..................... C
Assistant Inspector General, Investigations............. C
Assistant Inspector General, Inspections................ C
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman:
Ombudsman............................................... N
Executive Officer....................................... C
Chief, Programs, Policy, Strategy & Research............ C
Chief, Intake Evaluations & Problem Resolution.......... C
Chief Privacy Officer:
Chief Privacy Officer................................... N
Deputy Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy................... C
Deputy Chief FOIA Officer, Freedom of Information Act... C
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties:
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer................ P
Deputy Officer, Equal Employment Opportunity Programs... C
Deputy Officer, Programs and Compliance................. C
Executive Officer....................................... C
Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement:
Director................................................ S
Chief of Staff *........................................ C
Principal Asst Director................................. C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAAAAS = Presidential Appointee with Senate Confirmation.
AAAAAP = Presidential Appointee.
AAAAAN = Non-Career SES or Schedule C.
AAAAAC = Career.
AAAAAL = Limited term appointee.
AAAAAT = Scientific Professional.
AAAAA* = First Assistant, pursuant to the Federal Vacancy Reform Act.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Thompson. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes
for the first set of questions.
I listened with great interest what you see as the
transition plan. Is there any reason why we did not get a copy
in writing of what you just outlined to us when we requested in
writing?
Mr. Schneider. Mr. Chairman, I believe we gave you the
succession order. We gave you a significant amount of
documents. The documents that we did not give you, and I think
we were pretty clear, at least I think I was pretty clear in
the letter I sent you, was preliminary information about
priorities that you asked us to identify that we felt we needed
to first develop and then provide to the incoming
administration. But in terms of succession order, in terms of
key positions, in terms of a tremendous amount of documentation
that you requested, we provided that. In addition, we have had
numerous conversations with your staff and other staffs
regarding the details of our individual transition plans.
Chairman Thompson. I understand the meetings, but I think
what we are trying to get to is what do you have as the written
principles for transition for the Department? If you have them,
I will make the request again that you make those documents
available to the committee. I have heard your testimony here
today that there is a comprehensive transition plan. If that
document exists, based on what you just indicated in your
testimony, then the committee members, I am assuming in its
totality, would like to see it.
Mr. Schneider. Mr. Chairman, the law requires me as the
Under Secretary, and I am the Under Secretary for Management,
to submit to the Congress a transition plan, I believe, by
October 2008. We will comply with that requirement. Our
intention is to have that before that. But that is what we are
required to do. I believe in my letter I clearly----
Chairman Thompson. My point is if the committee in its
function requests certain information that you are in the
process of preparing and would like to see it, that is the
spirit in which the request is made.
Mr. Schneider. I understand, sir.
Chairman Thompson. So you will not provide the information?
Mr. Schneider. I will go back and look at the specific
information that you asked for. I will look at what we have
already provided. But again, I am required by the law to submit
the formal transition plan in October 2008, and that will be a
clear documentation of how we disposed of all the
recommendations from the Homeland Security Advisory Council,
the NAPA study and the Council of Excellence in Government.
I might point out that we are already implementing many of
the recommendations that came out of the Homeland Security
Advisory Council transition study report, and based on our
initial discussions with NAPA, we have already learned about
some of the recommendations that they have suggested, and we
will do that. This will all be documented in the transition
plan that we are required to submit. I will look to see if
there is other documentation that we can provide.
The specific things that I did not provide, and I indicated
in my letter, were those things that we honestly felt were
those that ought to be between the administrative branch of--
excuse me, the executive branch of the current administration
with the executive branch of the future administration. It
probably didn't come out how I meant it, but the fact of the
matter is issues and things like that that are in existence at
that time. A lot happens, as I have learned in this job, in 30
days or 60 days and 90 days, and to start identifying those
issues now that would be relevant and that a new administration
would need to tackle in my view is somewhat premature.
Chairman Thompson. Well, I guess your definition of
executive branch material is probably different from some of
us. Give me an example of what you think a Member of Congress
on this committee would not be afforded the opportunity to see.
Mr. Schneider. I don't think, quite frankly, you
specifically wanted copies of draft briefing material that I
would use at a leadership conference of the top 200 people in
the Department at a leadership off-site that we had as part of
our transition planning effort, and that was specifically
called out in your letter. You wanted to see copies of all the
individual briefing material. Frankly, I thought that----
Chairman Thompson. So you do remember my letter?
Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir. I personally wrote the answer to
your letter.
Chairman Thompson. But what I am trying to get to you, Mr.
Schneider, is even though you responded, there were issues in
the letter that we take exception with, and I am clear on that.
But let me give you an example. We asked for contact names
for the individuals responsible for the transition process
within each component. We asked for that. We asked the budget
for the transition team. Those----
Mr. Schneider. We don't have a budget for the transition
team.
Chairman Thompson. Well, then--excuse me, then all you have
to do is provide that back to us. As a courtesy for the
committee we asked for the information. If you don't have it,
if you don't have a budget, if you don't think a budget is
necessary, then all you have to do is provide the information.
But to ignore or not respond is not the manner that we expect
you as a member of the Department to do.
Mr. Schneider. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, and I
quote from my February 12 letter to you, budget--your question,
to the extent possible we have provided transition planning
information in response to your questions; specifically budget
information for the transition process. My answer: There is no
specific budget allocated for transition, however--it goes into
talk about public law, blah, blah, blah--identified $900,000
for a specific study. I did exactly what you just asked me to
do. I provided that information hard copy, and I wrote the
answer myself. So I have responded to your request as best as I
could.
Chairman Thompson. Well, then there are some differences.
I yield to the Ranking Member for his questions.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Schneider, as I understand your testimony, this is a
work in progress. Your target date is October. You are
providing us with the information you have right now; as you
said, the world can change in 30 days, 60 days or 90 days. You
know, that is the reality. Also, I would think this dialogue
would be a lot more meaningful if you only had one committee to
respond to, not 86 different committees and subcommittees,
rather than have to respond to every request that everyone is
making based on suppositions as to what might happen later this
spring, early this summer or next fall.
If I could go to another topic, which maybe technically is
not part of the transition, but in my mind I think is important
as we go from one administration to the other, and that is if
you could clarify the issue about the fence along the border.
There is a news report yesterday and today about Project 28,
which basically says that the Department is backing away from
that project. Then I think the Department put out a statement
clarifying they are not. I just want to ask you, what is the
status of the fence going to be when the next administration
takes over?
Mr. Schneider. The fence--well, let me answer it in two
parts, a couple of things. I literally just saw that AP----
Mr. King. I am sorry--okay.
Mr. Schneider [continuing]. As I walked into the room here,
and it is partially correct and partially incorrect. I would
refer back, quite frankly, to the Secretary's I think it was
February 13 testimony in front of this committee where he
explained in a fair amount of detail what SBInet was or is; how
P-28 relates to it; how it is part of, just part of, a solution
that includes vehicle defense, pedestrian defense, high
technology, low technology, increased Border Patrol agents and
the like, and it is kind of a compilation, and as well as
natural boundaries.
So I think in rereading his testimony before this hearing,
I think his testimony in that particular hearing goes into
quite a bit of detail about P-28, SBInet, the fence and Border
Patrol agents. So that is what the status was then. The only
thing that has changed, frankly, is that we accepted P-28, and
he indicated in his testimony that he was likely to do that in
the next couple of days, and he did.
With regard to the--and he also specifies in his testimony,
I think, the number of mileage--excuse me, the number of miles
of fence that will be in place by the end of 2008. I think it
is roughly 670 miles, of which 370 is pedestrian fence, and I
think the other 300 is vehicle fence.
So, I mean, those are the numbers. That is the status. I
can get you the exact number of miles of the fence that has
actually been laid down.
With regard to this article, some of the stuff is correct,
some of the stuff is not. The problem we have is that the way
these things are interpreted ends up twisting the story around
a little bit, and for what objective, frankly, just astounds
me. But the fact of the matter is there is things in this
article that is just factually incorrect.
Mr. King. Whatever clarifications you could send to the
committee, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Schneider. Yeah. This thing is, I would say
specifically, a Kelly Good--although the fence continues to
operate, it hasn't come close to meeting the Border Patrol's
goals.
I think in terms of the staff briefings that have been
provided to the committee staff, in terms of the Secretary's
testimony, he explained explicitly about what P-28
demonstrated, what it didn't; the fact it is not a full-up
operational capability; what we were doing in terms of coming
up with upgraded software, upgraded hardware. We would be doing
integration testing in a software integration lab, marry that
software with the hardware, and ultimately go back and field an
upgraded capability.
So that is why this thing is inaccurate, because it doesn't
really reflect what the Chief of the Border Patrol's view is,
and it doesn't reflect the various discussions that staff has
had. Now----
Mr. King. Mr. Secretary, before my time expires, can I ask
one further question, which is actually separate from that, if
the Chairman will indulge me? I know that the Intelligence
Communities, once candidates are chosen by the respective
parties, begin briefings of the staffs of those candidates.
Does Homeland Security plan to do anything like that that is
almost like a prelude to transition as to telling candidates
what ongoing threats there might be or what transition plans
there could be so they could, in effect, realize what is
happening during the campaign?
Mr. Schneider. I am aware about the intelligence aspects
from my previous life in primarily defense and the like. The
Homeland Security Advisory Council, and I suspect NAPA, will
recommend that the administration reach out to both parties at
different points in time. Having served as the Acting Deputy
Secretary now for 4\1/2\ months, that is a good recommendation,
and the reason is, as I have learned, you don't really
understand what--in the case of my job, which involves
basically the operations of the entire Department, you don't
really get an appreciation for it until you are really in the
job and how much you really think you know about the total
operations of the Department. There is absolutely no question
that that would be of value. From a practical standpoint, I
have been talking to folks within this current administration
about how do we do that practicably, what would be the right
point in time. There is absolutely no question that that would
be a benefit.
This is what we are doing. We are preparing training
materials and the like for the incoming administration. We will
be doing exercises with--we have already--starting with
exercising our people, those people that are going to be in the
leadership positions. We are going to reach out to the other
Cabinet departments, those who interface with us in case of a
manmade or natural disaster, to have their leadership involved
with our transition leadership so that everybody knows each
other, everybody knows how we operate together in these
particular times of crises, and we would have that available
for an incoming administration to take advantage of or, if it
was determined that they wanted it and appropriate for both
particular candidates and their staffs, to make use of that
opportunity.
I personally and others in this administration think that
that would be extremely valuable. The reason is this: Frankly,
before I came to Homeland Security, I didn't have a clue in
any--I didn't have a good understanding of what this Department
was. You can read the Web sites, you can do this, and you can
study. But the fact of the matter is until you are here, until
you realize how you deal with HHS, how you deal with HUD, how
you deal with Energy, how you deal with Defense, how you deal
with Interior, especially in terms of crisis, until you are
here, you really don't understand it. That is one of the
reasons why our effort with the Council on Excellence in
Government is to identify all these interfaces, identify how we
work with these other departments. So it would basically be an
educational device, if you will, so that the incoming
administration would have a great appreciation for the
sensitivities, the interfaces, et cetera, which, frankly, would
help them in selecting people for some of the key leadership
positions that are involved in Homeland Security.
Mr. King. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the extra time.
Chairman Thompson. The Chair now recognizes other Members
for questions that they may wish to ask the witnesses. In
accordance with the committee rules, I will recognize Members
who were present at the start of the hearing based on seniority
on the committee, alternating between Majority and Minority.
Those Members coming in later will be recognized in the order
of their arrival.
The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentlewoman from
California, Ms. Sanchez.
Mr. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Schneider, the Government Performance and Results Act
requires every department to draft a 5-year strategic plan
identifying departmental goals and strategy and to update it
every 3 years. The Department of Homeland Security last updated
theirs in 2004, and therefore the next update should have been
in 2007, but it is not done yet. The Department is only one of
four Federal agencies that hasn't gotten their up-to-date
strategic plan. A few weeks ago Department Under Secretary for
Management Elaine Duke told us that the Department's update is
still being reviewed by the OMB, and, according to her, OMB
withheld approval because DHS did not include adequate
performance measures in its plan.
Do you know if you have gotten around to doing quantifiable
measurements for that plan, for the updated plan now?
Mr. Schneider. They are currently in the process of being
more fully developed. I might point out that at the same time,
just like the Chairman referred to my hearing in front of, I
think, this committee on the GAO 5-year report, I also had to
testify in front of the Senate committee with Mr. Walker, and
what we worked out was, as you know, we had serious
disagreements about the GAO 5-year report. But that was a good
discussion. It ultimately led to a series of discussions
between us and GAO where we agreed with the Senator to figure
out a way so we can identify for future reference what measures
of performance should be to judge us for future, whether it be
6 years, et cetera.
So what we did was we worked out really hard for several
months with the GAO, and we had a set of metrics that we
thought were pretty good. So then in submitting up through OMB,
they had some disagreements with us. So what we are trying to
do, frankly, is reconcile our identified--that we negotiated
with GAO in terms of performance metrics with what OMB wants us
to see, agree on a set that will be happy to GAO, because I
never want to go through or my successor will never want to go
through, say, the GAO 6-year report that I had to go through,
and yet at the same time satisfy OMB's requirements.
So I forgot the date that Ms. Duke committed to provide the
plan. I think it was in the fall or early fall or something
like that, and we are on track to make that.
Mr. Sanchez. So are you saying that the strategic plan will
be published before the Presidential election?
Mr. Schneider. It is the early fall. I would have to ask
her about the precise date.
Mr. Sanchez. She is nodding yes behind you.
Mr. Schneider. She is nodding yes? Okay.
Mr. Sanchez. How can the Department plan for the next--
well, okay. So we are going to have it in time then for us to
take a look at it and make sure that we have them in place as
we go through transition. That was really my question.
I have another question with respect to the US-VISIT
system. The statutory requirement for entry and exit system to
the United States, as you recall, has been on the books now for
over 10 years, and in the beginning the administration made a
priority, the only priority, to do a biometric system for entry
into the United States, and now it is working on the biometric
exit system. So what steps is the Department taking to ensure
that the US-VISIT system won't be losing any ground during this
transition time? Because I think this whole issue of
overstaying visas is incredibly important as we try to figure
out how we get people to go back to their home countries and
not overstay them. So what is in the works with respect to US-
VISIT so that we make sure that we keep gaining ground rather
than losing ground?
Mr. Schneider. Okay. This is really a big priority with the
Secretary. We have published a rule, or it has either been
published--I have lost track of--since 2 days ago--in the
Federal Register that establishes the requirements for exit for
the exact reasons, Congresswoman, that you just cited.
The way this thing works is we publish the rule for 60
days. Comments come in, and then they are adjudicated. Then
basically the rule gets published. So we requested as part of
the publishing the rule specific feedback on certain aspects of
the rule regarding implementation.
I need to tell you, and I saw some press clips just before
I came in here, some of the airline industries are really not
happy. They are really concerned about the cost of this thing.
As Secretary Chertoff testified, I believe, in his testimony in
February on this committee, we take our responsibilities in the
law very seriously, we go through the rulemaking process, but
there are many that do not want to pay the cost of keeping our
homeland secure, and this is one of them.
So we are committed to get this thing out. We work very
closely with OMB on this thing. One of the things you have to
do as part of publishing a rule is to go through various cost-
effectiveness analysis, look at different alternatives. We had
a look at a whole host of alternatives to cost them out. Our
job is not to tell the airlines how to comply, not to tell them
what they have to do, but rather let them figure it out within
the most effective and cost-effective way within their method
or flow process within the individual airports.
So this thing is moving, it has not stopped, and the
Secretary is absolutely committed to getting this thing done.
Mr. Sanchez. To just rephrase it then, the Secretary and
the Department are continuing to want to have all of that
check-out process being done by the airlines before they get to
the TSA portion of the airport?
Mr. Schneider. We don't specify where they do it. This is
where they have--there are lots of ways to do it. You could do
it up front in the airport, you could do it in between, you
could do it when they get to the counter. This is where the--
you could have kiosks. There are lots of ways to do this. We
don't think our responsibility, though is it appropriate, for
us to tell the airlines how to do this, okay? Different
airlines may want different solutions, and it is all based on
their individual business model and passage of throughput model
within each of the airports. I would expect there would be
different solutions for different airlines.
Mr. Sanchez. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Rogers for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Schneider, thank you for being here and your service to
our country.
I want to start off following up on something that Ranking
Member King addressed in his questions, and that is the fact
that this Congress has yet to deal with the consolidation of
jurisdiction over DHS as recommended by the 9/11 Commission.
Just in the 110th Congress, the current Congress, how many
times have you had to testify, or do you know?
Mr. Schneider. As the Under Secretary--I was, before I
became the Acting Deputy Secretary, I was Under Secretary for
10 months, or until I basically assumed this position. I don't
know, it might have been nine times maybe. Small Business, two
hearings; one of the field hearings when we had proposed that
somebody else testify, a more knowledgeable person. I, under
threat of subpoena, had to testify in front of E&C, Energy and
Commerce, and the reason was they just wanted--you know, it
wasn't a question of having the subject matter expert. I am not
the subject matter expert on radiation, portal monitors, et
cetera, spectroscopic analysis. So what happens is you--so I
think it was about nine times. This is the first time--I don't
want to say it is one of the benefits of being the Acting
Deputy Secretary. This is the first time I have had to testify
as the Acting Deputy Secretary.
Mr. Rogers. Does this phenomenon occur with all of your
folks in management?
Mr. Schneider. It is terrible.
Mr. Rogers. How does it affect your ability to run the
Department?
Mr. Schneider. It really does affect you because, first of
all, especially when you deal with committees that are just
interested in a--I will call it a slice or a piece of you or a
piece of the Department, and the reason being is they don't
have a broad oversight, they don't understand fully the trade
space that a department has to make in terms of allocation of
resources like you do or your Senate counterpart or the
appropriators. So what happens is there is a laser-beam focus
on that particular issue as if that is the only thing the
Department is concerned about. Then it gets even worse when you
see that some of these other committees try to introduce
legislation which, frankly, just focuses on that.
As we speak, we are fighting a big issue today with the T&I
Committee, if you will, that has come up with a proposed
amendment that will basically totally affect the way the Coast
Guard operates, command/control, allocation of officers, on and
on and on and on. It was like 300 pages.
Mr. Rogers. What I am hearing is, bottom line, it is a
drain on your resources, an anchor around your neck, and it is
Congress' fault that we haven't addressed it?
Mr. Schneider. That is not for me to say it is Congress'
fault.
Mr. Rogers. Well, that is what I say, and it is a fact. We
as Congress have let the Department down by not taking this
issue on.
I want to ask you about another matter, ICE. In recent
years we have increased CBP by 35 percent, and we are getting
close to a level that ostensibly will be adequate for CBP. I
think that is arguable. But over the same period of time, we
have made a zero increase in ICE officers. That seems
incongruent to me. Why has that happened, and do you see any
effort to try to remedy the inadequacy of ICE officers as we
move forward in trying to deal with illegals in this country?
Mr. Schneider. Yes. I think it gets back to what was our
immediate priority and how did we make those resource
decisions. No. 1 priority was basically secure the border. That
is why we needed to go to build, start to build a big build-up
of Border Patrol agents initially at the southwest border, and
now, as you know from our 2009 budget submit, we are focusing
our efforts now on expanding and increasing our capability both
with people, technology, et cetera, on the northern border.
Likewise with ICE, we had some very serious issues with
regard to the detention facilities, number of beds. So what we
did was we put dollars into increasing the number of beds,
increasing the--I will call the worthiness or the acceptability
of a lot of these facilities, and so we have done that.
We know that to go and find the illegals that are in this
country and do not belong here, we have to start increasing the
number of ICE agents, and as we look downstream, that is how we
start rolling that thing in.
Mr. Rogers. So you do plan to increase it?
Mr. Schneider. Our plan is to increase it, yes.
Mr. Rogers. Over what period of time do you expect to see
this happen?
Mr. Schneider. I will have to get you those numbers.
Mr. Rogers. I would like to see those.
Mr. Schneider. I have a better handle on beds. I track beds
only because that basically--I don't want to say influences our
ability to be able to detain these people satisfactorily so
that we can basically remove them from the country.
I will get you our projections.
Mr. Rogers. My time has expired. I hope we have another
round of questions. Thank you.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California for
5 minutes Ms. Harman.
Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. I think it is important to have our
records show where we are on this question of transition.
I, sitting here, read your letter to Secretary Chertoff and
his response, and I think they are both useful parts of this
committee's hearing record.
I do think there has been progress at the Department, and I
want to thank the Department for progress. However, I also
think there is a long way to go, and I think there are some
outstanding issues, particularly with respect to the National
Applications Office, concerning the use of military satellites
over the United States.
Let me just make several comments. That is what I would
like to do with my time. First, I agree with the Ranking Member
and the more recent comments that Congress should do more to
reform itself. This is a glaring omission. The 9/11 Commission
was right that an unfinished piece of business is congressional
reform. I also feel, and you know I have said this to you, Mr.
Chairman, that part of that reform should result in more
jurisdiction for this committee.
This is the committee that is called the Homeland Security
Committee. I don't know what people miss about this. We have
expertise on a bipartisan basis, and we should have
jurisdiction to match that expertise because this is urgent
business. I think if we got more jurisdiction in this
committee, some of this problem would simplify. So that is my
comment on that.
On the Department, let me just make several comments from
my vantage point as Chair of the intelligence subcommittee. I
think this work should be going on now. I also think the next
administration will need to continue this work. Three areas:
One, information sharing. I know the Deputy Secretary has heard
me talk about this, and Under Secretary Allen has heard me talk
about this more, but that is still a work in progress. The
point is to get the information that is accurate, actionable
and timely to people who need it--to people who need it,
period, and that is not happening fast enough or often enough.
We don't have to go into it now, but I think the Department
has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the business
of involving State and local representatives in its activities.
Progress has been made, but this is unfinished work.
I was just in Minneapolis visiting the fusion center there,
and there is no question that grant guidance needs work, and
that more effort has to be made to include our State and local
first preventers in helping to design intelligence products and
making certain that they are fully shared.
Second, R&D. I represent a part of California where there
is incredibly good technology developed by the private sector--
Ms. Sanchez knows this, too--for all kinds of activities the
Department is engaged in. I don't want to just show my local
products, although they are great. But the Science and
Technology Directorate is still a work in progress. It was
supposed to be the front door for technology. It is beginning
to function as the front door for technology. But if the
Department doesn't fully leverage the products that the private
sector has developed, the Department will never get there in
terms of having sensors and other--you know, the most advanced
screening mechanisms for the TWIC cards and other things that
are critically important for it to carry out its work.
The third area seems to have been substantially overlooked.
I know that the Secretary has been traveling lately. I think
that is a good thing. But it relates to our international
relationships. It seems to me that we should be working closer
with our allies, and we should be learning the best practices
that our allies are using to do many of the functions that are
necessary for them and are necessary for us. I think, again,
the welcome mat hasn't been as open as it should be. I think
this is work the next administration will have to carry on.
But let me just close by suggesting that information
sharing, R&D and international relationships are all areas that
need to be addressed more carefully, and I would hope that you
and the Secretary would spend some time on these things before
your terms end.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Dent, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Schneider, a quick question I wanted to ask you. You
submitted that--the order for delegation authority for the
Department. Could you explain how the Department arrived at
this order of succession? For example, I saw that given the
mission of FEMA, one would think FEMA would be higher on that
succession order than, say, the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology, but that wasn't the case. I guess I want to
understand the rationale how you came up with that process.
Mr. Schneider. Actually, that was a realization that if in
the unfortunate circumstance that they needed to execute that
succession order, that by and large there would probably be a
national incident of major proportions that would require
emergency response.
Chairman Thompson. Can you speak up just a little bit?
Mr. Schneider. Our thought process was that if there was a
situation that would require going down that list where either
the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary or the two Under
Secretaries were basically not available to execute the
responsibilities of the Secretary, that it would probably be a
situation where we would have an extensive recovery-type effort
under way in response to either a natural or a manmade
disaster. It was our view that the head of FEMA is so critical
in terms of executing the Department's responsibilities in that
particular area, that that was a judgment call we made that
that individual, the head of FEMA, ought to be focused on that
as his or her primary mission.
That was our thought process, as opposed to I will call it
the continuity of government actions. Having been in this job
now for 4\1/2\ months and watching how FEMA operates in cases
of wildfires, in cases of ice storms, in cases of flooding and
tornadoes and the like, I think that was the right decision. We
want the head of FEMA managing FEMA, and we have other capable
people in terms of a couple of Under Secretaries and Assistant
Secretaries who could fill in as the Acting Secretary.
Mr. Dent. So I guess, stated another way, you see that the
head of FEMA takes on a critical role during such an event, but
should not be placed at the top of the organization or close to
the top, because under your program you have established him as
the--the Administrator as No. 8 in succession as opposed to,
say, S&T at No. 5. So you are stating that it is a critical
position, and he must be focused on those activities, I guess?
Mr. Schneider. It really is. Congressman, my appreciation
has just--for what FEMA does in this position where--you know,
FEMA is one of our seven operational components. Our
operational chain of command is basically those operational
component heads work directly for the Secretary and, in his
absence, me. So in any one of these particular situations, the
chain of command or communications is the Secretary or myself
directly to the head of FEMA. I can tell you we want those
people, we want the head of FEMA doing what he is doing or in
the future doing what they are doing because it is absolutely
critical. They exercise tremendous judgment in terms of how
forward-leaning in the case of natural events, how forward-
leaning they need to be. It is the dealings with the Governors
and the local people, and that is what our view was, that that
was so critical that we ought to let them do that.
Mr. Dent. Then I guess my next question then just deals
with the issue of transition, which of the components that you
feel face the greatest challenge as the Department prepares for
transition, and specifically what particular challenges do you
see for FEMA as it moves to this transition period?
Mr. Schneider. I think the biggest challenge for FEMA is,
frankly, the fact that both the principal--the Administrator
and Deputy Administrator are political appointees. So we don't
have that one, two, you know, political career back-up. That is
by law, you know.
So what you have is you have the top two people leaving at
the same time. We don't have that in CBP, we don't have it in
ICE, we don't have it in TSA. There are several other
organizations within our Department that I didn't mention; like
FLETC doesn't change, our Director of Operations doesn't
change, I mean their careers.
So here we have one of our major operating components, the
top two people leave. Not to say that the Regional
Administrator Ms. Ward is not fully capable; the fact of the
matter is she does not deal with Governors across the United
States every day. She does not deal--or if we picked another
Regional Administrator. So just by the nature of structure,
okay, that is the one that is somewhat of an anomaly relative
to the rest of the Department. So the rest of the Department I
am personally very comfortable with.
Mr. Dent. I see my time is up. I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
I would now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina for
5 minutes. Mr. Etheridge.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary,
thank you for being here.
Let me join my colleague Ms. Harman on the issue regarding
technology, having the great privilege of representing the
State that has a lot of Technology and Research Triangle area.
I think the Science and Tech Directorate is a critical piece,
and I think that needs, obviously, more attention as we move
forward to make sure we mind those best practices out there in
the private sector we can use.
But let me move back, if I may, to the transition and
leadership, because I think it is a critical piece, as it
always is, and you have just touched on it, because I think now
more than ever it is critical to have that strong leadership.
Really for a fully prepared and trained workforce in the
Department, you just alluded to one of the real challenges. I
think we have got to ensure that the transitional continuity in
the administrational--in the programs and the key
decisionmakers are in place. I think that is a critical piece.
In light of the Department's vital mission during the upcoming
Presidential transition, you have touched on this a bit. I
think it is critical that sound policies and procedures are in
place to really ensure that those professionals stay in place.
So my question is this: What plans and programs are in place to
ensure continuity in program administration and key decision-
making areas?
Here is why I ask that question: Because if something
should happen and there is that dead period, even when you
start having--and we will get to the major election process
pretty quick, and--what training and exercises are planned or
under way to test our new roles and responsibilities if an
event were to occur during this period of transition?
Mr. Schneider. Okay.
Mr. Etheridge. Which is, I think, the most critical period
because that is the gray area that a lot of folks don't really
think about.
I hope you have been thinking about it.
Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir, I have. I spend quite a bit of
time thinking about it.
Let's do this in pieces, okay? Up through and including up
to January 20, we will--we plan and we have already started to
run a series of exercises, both within our department, with all
those career civil servants that will be assuming these
positions of leadership as the acting head of an operational
component----
Mr. Etheridge. Sort of a handoff.
Mr. Schneider. A handoff. I mean this is basically an
exercise. We do many of these in terms of desktop exercises.
We will continue to do these. We will change the venue,
whether it be a pandemic flu, whether it be a chlorine leak,
whether it be some other--one of the other scenarios that we
have to respond to.
Our plan is to work through the Homeland Security Council
to get the other departments in government to get their planned
acting leadership during the transition to participate with us
so that the people know one another. That may sound kind of
minor, but I can tell you I spend a tremendous amount of my
time each week dealing with my counterparts at the other
departments in terms of interagency coordination; and it makes
a big difference if you know who the other person is at the end
of the line before you have a crisis.
Mr. Etheridge. I hate to interrupt you because time is
running out, but my question also interfaces, as we have got
these people who obviously are going to be leaving. Before new
people come in, you are going to be handing some of that off to
career people?
Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir.
Mr. Etheridge. I hope those career people are side by side
with the political folks.
Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir.
Mr. Etheridge. I hope you would touch on that before you
finish your----
Mr. Schneider. Yes. In my testimony, and I captured some of
it in my opening statement, the people that are going to be
running the seven--or five of the seven operating components
have, on the average, 30-32 years' experience in government. I
deal and the Secretary deals with them interchangeably with
their principals. If I can't get the head of TSA, I deal with
the deputy. If I can't get the head of CBP, I deal with Jay
Ahern.
They are interchangeable; and the reason is, their
responsibilities are so broad. So I am not are worried about
that.
What we have been doing is, we have been bringing those
people and their subordinates one or two levels beneath them
into the decision-making process. So when I ran a leadership
event for 2\1/2\ days a couple of months ago, it was not just
the No. 2 people, it was the No. 3 and the No. 4, so that
everybody understood our current priorities, where we were
headed.
They understood what our current programs were, where we
were headed. We shared lessons learned for how we--we are
basically a law enforcement organization; how we operate--my
term on the deck plate, whether it be in Miami, whether it be
in Key West, whether it be in Seattle or San Diego, we share
those best practices. Because that organization, that day-to-
day operation will go on regardless of whether or not you have
a political appointee at the head of the operating component or
an acting career executive.
So as part of our fiscal year 2010 budget process we have
done it differently as we start preparing our budget. We have
basically brought in--for the most part, 70 percent of the
people participating in the budget are the second level
leadership and the third and fourth level leadership of the
Department so that everybody understands how this budget
process works. Because one of the first things a new
administration will take a look at is, do they agree with the
priorities, the allocation of resources, et cetera; and it is a
mad rush to basically determine what the new administration's
priorities are.
I would put our Department, in terms of preparedness, in
terms of the knowledge of the people that are in the
Department, ahead of any other Department in this government in
terms of being able to respond when a new administration takes
place.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is somewhat
reassuring. I appreciate that very much. I think that is
critical--that, plus all the grant work that takes place in
this Department is important.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
We now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee for 5
minutes, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Tennessee. Thank you very much. Thank you for
being here. I appreciate your willingness to testify today.
Chairman Thompson. Can you check and see if your mic is on,
Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis of Tennessee. I appreciate your being here. Thank
you so much.
Could you tell me how important it is to the Department for
the Congress to pass the authorization bill for the work that
you do?
Mr. Schneider. I think an authorization bill is very
important. The reason I think it is very important is because
what it does is, it takes a total view of the Department in
terms of priorities, where resources ought to be, et cetera.
Within the Congress, I think that brings together, as part
of the legislative process, all the issues at one time that
basically coalesce, if you will, all the different entities
that might be interested in a slice of what we do here, a slice
of what we do there in terms of the broad perspective of what
is important to this Department in the view of the Congress. So
I think it is important.
I come from a world where you always have, you know,
Defense primarily, where you have an authorization bill. It
kind of guides the priorities of the process. I think that is
the way it was intended in terms of the legislative process. I
think it is sound and good government. So I am very supportive
of the value of an authorization bill for the Department of
Homeland Security.
Mr. Davis of Tennessee. Thank you for that answer.
I am going to try to focus a little more tightly now and
talk about Border Patrol. When do you anticipate SBInet to be
fully deployed? SBInet?
Mr. Schneider. Well, the SBInet is--and I will refer back
to Secretary Chertoff's testimony of February 13 in front of
this committee, where he gave a pretty comprehensive answer
about what SBInet entails and what--which is a mixture of
different types of low technology, high technology, unmanned
ground sensors, cameras, et cetera.
So he gave where we would be by the end of 2008 in terms
of, I think it was, the Arizona-New Mexico border with some
further--we have a rollout planned, and I forget the exact
dates, for 2010-2011, where we would go to Yuma.
So it gets deployed in various stages, and the mix of what
is in it is different, depending upon the needs of the Border
Patrol. It could be because of the geography, it could be
because of natural boundaries; it could be we use perhaps
mobile ground systems because we have 10 miles flat terrain in
either direction. So as we start moving across the border, when
we take into account the vehicle fence and pedestrian fence,
the mix is going to be different.
So there are some very clear milestones that we have
established for 2009-2010, and I would be glad to get that to
you.
Mr. Davis of Tennessee. That would be good.
I understand that Secretary Chertoff, using authority
granted by Congress, has waived certain laws to expedite
construction of critical Border Patrol fencing; and he did that
under auspices of law. Can you talk, generally, when you think
some of these things are starting to be seen by the American
people? Where will they begin acquisition plans for land,
survey sites, some of those things that can reassure the
American people that we are moving forward to protect our
security and our homeland?
Mr. Schneider. In the Secretary's waiver that he approved,
we identified for him every specific tract that requires the
waiver; and for various reasons, we have two waivers, one in
general for each of the individual tracts, and then we have the
one stand-alone waiver for Hidalgo County, where we are doing a
cooperative effort with the county on a joint fence-levy
construction project that frankly makes sense, do the job once
and save money. So the specific tracts are identified, if you
will.
I tracked the mileage in terms of where we are in terms of
fence miles for a week on our way to the total of 670 by the
end of 2008; 370 are pedestrian, 300 are vehicle. In another 30
days or so, I will start tracking, if you will, where we are
with each of these.
Some of these things are being contested, you know, in
court. The law that gave the Secretary the waiver authority was
very prescriptive about assigning to a specific court the
responsibility to adjudicate these cases under certain
circumstances, et cetera. So I am going to be looking at how
many cases, how many tracts, what is the mileage in each tract,
where we are relative to the acquisition, when do we actually
start digging and preparing the site. So I am probably about 30
days away from getting into personally managing the details of
every one of these tracts.
But the reason we did this was so that the Department could
comply with the law. You know, there are two separate laws that
we have to comply with. One that gave us--you know, specifies
the fence, and the other gives us the waiver. There are two
separate portions. So we did this because--and we did this it
at the time we did it because there is no way we would have met
the law requirement for the 670 miles.
Mr. Davis of Tennessee. My time has expired. I hope you
will share that information, the miles proceeding, with Members
of Congress. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
I will now recognize the gentleman from Rhode Island for 5
minutes, Mr. Langevin.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony today. As we
are looking further and further at issues in transition--is
that better?
Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir.
Mr. Langevin. Secretary, thank you for being here today. As
the committee is looking further and further at the issue of
transition, I wanted to look at the issue of burrowing.
This committee obviously has warned the Department several
times about utilizing the practice of burrowing, which would
basically allow the filling of critical vacancies with
political appointees. It is the common practice, as you know,
of OPM to issue a customary warning to agencies to ensure that
political pressure doesn't enter into the personnel decision-
making process during a Presidential transition. However, it
appears as though the Department is already transitioning
former political appointees into career positions.
A couple of examples: Brad Buswell was the former chief of
staff to the Science and Technology Directorate. The committee
was told that last week he was named deputy under secretary to
S&T, which as you know is a career position. Another example is
Sue Armstrong, acting chief of staff of the Office of
Infrastructure Protection, who will replace Dennis Diesel as
the deputy director of the Infrastructure and Security
Compliance Division.
How are you going to prevent burrowing if the Department is
already engaged in the practice that they had been warned
against?
Mr. Schneider. Okay. First off, we advertise. We don't just
unilaterally reassign somebody from a political position to a
career position. What we do is, we advertise the position.
People apply.
In the case of Mr. Buswell--and I will get the date for
you--I think it was back in October we decided to advertise the
job. We advertised the job. We have got--I think there might
have been about a dozen applicants, including him.
It went through an evaluation process by a board that was--
typically, we have three people. In many cases, they come
from--they are not in the--people that are on the board are not
in the directorate of the position.
Mr. Langevin. Who appoints this board? Is this the
Secretary's appointment?
Mr. Schneider. No, it is recommended by the selecting
official that is approved, I believe, by the chief human
capital officer; and if he or she has some issues with it, they
would bring it to me.
Mr. Langevin. Are you saying both these individuals went
through that process, the positions were posted?
Mr. Schneider. First of all, I am not familiar with the
other individual. I am familiar with Mr. Buswell, because the
process that we used would ultimately lead to a recommendation
for selection. That would come to an executive resources
council that I chair that is made up of a cross-section of the
political and the career leadership of the Department.
In that particular case, that board reviewed the
backgrounds of the top three applicants and concurred with that
recommendation. That recommendation and package was sent to the
Office of Personnel Management. The Office of Personnel
Management did a detailed scrub of that for two accounts: First
of all, make sure the individual, as a routine, whether or not
the individual was qualified, et cetera, et cetera; but also,
because he was a political appointee, they do an extra scrub of
that.
They basically concurred with that process and his
qualifications. Then once they did that, that package was sent
to a qualifications review board that is picked by OPM, that
meets, I think, on a monthly basis to basically consider the
qualifications for any--any new career SES across government.
The qualifications review board concurred with that. It
came back to us, I think it was last Friday. So we are in the
process of effecting that particular move. I think his last
date as the chief of staff is April 27. Then on Monday, I
believe, he would assume responsibilities of deputy under
secretary.
I want to emphasize, these jobs are advertised, people
compete. I am aware of only one other political appointee--I
will check this other one out--I am only aware of one other
political appointee since 2005 at the executive level--the
executive level that was a political, competed for a job and
was selected. Those are the only two cases I am aware of.
I will check this other one out.
Mr. Langevin. You will get back to the committee in
writing?
Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you.
I have one other question, unless the Chair wants you to
get back to me in writing. Project BioShield has employed
varying levels of success. While the Department of Homeland
Security has completed some of the necessary material threat
determinations, HHS has yet to produce anything but small
quantities of only a select few countermeasures.
This program is too important to fail, and yet I don't see
any clear solution to transform this program into a success. I
want to know what steps the Department of Homeland Security has
taken to Project BioShield's successful transition to the next
administration. Has your Department worked with the Department
of Health and Human Services on recommendations for the
successful transfer of this program?
I know my time has expired so, Mr. Chairman, I don't know
if you want him to get back to me on the record or if he can
answer the question.
Chairman Thompson. The gentleman can answer the question.
Mr. Schneider. Okay. Let me just----
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Schneider. First of all, we work closely with HHS. Dr.
Runge, whom you know, our assistant secretary for health
affairs, works very closely with his counterparts. I work very
closely with Secretary Tevi Troy in HHS. Dr. Runge briefs the
Secretary, I think every 6 weeks, on where we are with
BioShield.
We know what we do. We have to field this thing. I think in
our 2009 budget we ask for money to go--what is it--the third
generation or next generation, which is very important because
of its fidelity in terms of detection. That is about as much as
I can tell you off the top of my head. I can give you a much
more detailed thing.
I will tell you, there are a couple of things that Jeff
worries about, that the BioShield, BioWatch and NVIC, which is
our--how we basically use for the bio area, how we merge that
with intelligence to give us a composite picture worldwide.
So our resources that we have allocated to this whole area
have not been as much as we wanted, but this also is a new
office. We have had problems, frankly, building it, getting the
people; that was partially driven by the lack of resources.
We have increased our resource allocation in this area. I
think as we move into the future years, based on updates and
threats like that, I think a new administration will continue
to evaluate whether or not that is a proper allocation of
recurring resources.
Mr. Langevin. All right. Just in closing, I want to say,
Mr. Secretary, I am not at all impressed with the progress
BioShield is making, and I think this is--one of the real and
growing threats that we face is from potential bio-attack. We
have got to step up our efforts to make this program a success.
It is too important to fail.
With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman; I thank you for your
indulgence, and I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
We now recognize Ms. Miller for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the gentleman, your service to our Nation,
your attendance here today. I am trying to face this
microphone, but it is sort of awkward here because, then, I
can't look at you. In fact, Mr. Pascrell and I are drawing a
new design for this table. If that could be done, it would be
great.
Chairman Thompson. Duly noted.
Mrs. Miller. I would like to address my questions, if I
could, Mr. Secretary, to the consolidation of the Department. I
have an interest in that. I had your deputy come in, who was
briefing me, sort of giving me the wiring diagram, the overall
of the agency and some of the various things she thought could
happen.
I have a big interest in the consolidation because I was a
former secretary of state before I got this job, and I had a
number of different appendages with that job. We had the
Department of Elections in one area of our capital city, I had
400 employees out in an annex, and another, you know, 5 miles
away; and it was just the craziest situation, and we were able
to consolidate.
I was reading through my notes here. I see even Secretary
Chertoff, when you did this employee evaluation or survey, says
many in the Department feel that the lack of a centralized
headquarters location could be hindering employee morale, as
well as, obviously, cost efficiency and effectiveness, et
cetera.
Can you talk a little bit about how your consolidations are
coming to have a single facility at St. Elizabeth's there, and
how that will assist the agency in the long term?
Mr. Schneider. Thank you for the question.
This is actually a very sensitive subject with me. Our
facilities are disgraceful. Probably the biggest
disappointment, I would say, of the 2 years that I will have
spent in this Department was the failure to get St. E's--the
move to St. E's moving.
We are digging that place up every day. Sixty-two-year-old
heating plants falling apart, no hot water, sewage lines
breaking, digging up the roads every week, roof leaks. We tried
to modernize our cafeteria for the couple thousand people,
found asbestos. It is disgraceful.
We have an operations center, national operations center,
ambient--can't run several crisis action teams at the same
time--ambient temperature. I don't know why anybody would ever
want to work there.
We are in competition for intelligence analysts with CIA,
DIA, NGA, NSA. If you have a choice of coming to work in our
dump versus working at CIA or DIA or NGA, where are you going
to work? The answer is you are not going to work at our place
unless you are a glutton for punishment in working conditions
that are disgraceful.
The problem we have is that, you know, as part of the end
game on the omnibus bill, it was not--the initial increment, or
the big increment, was knocked out.
We jointly fund this with GSA; they fund about two-thirds,
we fund about one-third. We have a partnership, and it really
works very well together. I spend a lot of time with
Administrator Doan, and we are their largest customer actually.
But the fact of the matter is, we structured our move to
St. E's not just about packing a bunch of people up and moving
them, but about totally restructuring the business model of the
Department. We made a very conscious decision about what would
be at St. E's, which of the 14,000 people, what segment of the
leadership, what we could basically do in terms of a back-room
consolidation, just like a Fortune 500 company would do, where
we could save money, where we could capitalize on integrating
operational centers and the like. The fact of the matter is, we
have a whole list of expiring leases that we deliberately had
put off renewing because we wanted to sequence the end of the
lease with the move of the organization.
So this setback not only affects our business model and our
ability to operate efficiently, but in the end game it is going
to cost us a lot of money that, frankly, we didn't plan on.
So, yeah, I think the place is terrible, to be honest with
you. I think it puts us at a big disadvantage. I think--we do
the best we can, and I think it is only because of--it is a
testament to the people that want to do this kind of profession
for a living, that they tolerate this condition.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. I am out of time. But I appreciate
the answer to the question. I certainly look forward to helping
however we can.
I am sure this committee will do whatever we can to assist
you in your business plan, because it does serve the
taxpayers--not only your Department, but the taxpayers as
well--and the security of our Nation to have an efficient
operation there. Consolidation, I think, is a priority.
Mr. Schneider. Thank you very much.
Chairman Thompson. We now recognize the gentlelady from New
York for 5 minutes, Ms. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to follow
up, Mr. Schneider, on those comments, and particularly on a
question posed by the chairman.
I thank you for having these hearings.
As a member of this committee and the Appropriations
subcommittee, I am particularly interested in the costs
associated with planning efforts.
Now, we have had 15 hearings in the Appropriations
subcommittee; I have yet to see a cost estimate for all
transition activities. In the February 12 response letter,
Secretary Chertoff stated that the Department did not have an
itemized budget for the Department's transition team. However,
your testimony discusses the Department's implementation
efforts in fiscal year 2009-2010.
So, as you know, implementing programs costs money. The
absence of a formal budget proposal could lead to the lack of
executive accountability. So it is not only the building--and
as you recall, Mr. Price put the money in for the building, and
it seems it has been a tool used on the floor to fund other
goals of various members.
But I think this is absolutely critical. I would like to
know how much will transition activities cost? Will the
Department be able to prepare and submit to us an itemized
budget?
Mr. Schneider. Congresswoman, the answer to that question
is, we cannot submit an itemized budget because--and I think in
the earlier discussion in response to the Chairman's question
and my response to him, I answered that question. The reason is
because it is part of my job; it is part of Secretary Duke's
job.
I mean, planning for a transition is an inherent part of
everybody's job, with the exception of that law that authorized
the X hundred thousand dollars for the NAPA study of
transition. So, you know, to try and figure out what the cost
of every person's time is, in planning for a transition,
frankly, with all due respect, that is impractical.
I mean, for example, the deputy in ICE is a career civil
servant. He will assume the responsibilities as the head of
ICE. So what I do, for example, is I try and work with that
second-level team to understand a little bit more about the
Department.
So--I had to go make a trip out to the West Coast, so I
took several people, including him, to spend a weekend, to get
a better understanding of how the different Departments or
different components within the Department work together, not
necessarily his people. I wanted him to see what happens in
terms of the Seattle Harbor, okay? I wanted him to see how the
Border Patrol in Artesia gets trained.
So from a practical standpoint his hours, if he was
basically logging a clock or et cetera, he would have logged
that self-development, transition, et cetera. We have that
happening throughout the Department. I don't get a special
budget for it, we don't get a special budget other than this
one exception. I pointed out in my testimony, I believe, that
not only did we have enough money to do the NAPA study, but
more importantly, or as important, we are able to fund the
Council on Excellence in Government effort, which is going to
help us in our interfaces with the other Departments.
So I don't know how I can come up with a budget, if you
will, that would stand alone for transition when it is an
inherent responsibility, frankly, of an awful lot of people in
this Department to make this successful.
Mrs. Lowey. What I am trying to understand, if you are
going to use your baseline funds for transition activities,
doesn't that take away from the traditional, everyday
activities?
For example, you are going to conduct exercises with
interim administrators. Exercises cost money. Has this been
discussed at all? Are there plans being made?
Mr. Schneider. We do exercises as a matter of routine. What
changes and what we are changing is who participates. We have a
full-blown exercise program. What I try and do is make sure the
right people participate.
I will give you an example. The Secretary had arranged for
us to do an exercise, very limited exercise, National Capital
Region, governor of Virginia, governor of Maryland, the mayor
of the District of Columbia and himself. He was out of the
country at the particular point in time when it actually took
place, so I acted for him.
I made sure that I had in the room about seven other
people, okay, who would be in leadership positions during the
transition to understand what would happen in that particular
case. So they read the background material, they ran the
scenario, and they watched the dialogue between the two
governors, the mayor and myself to get a more hands-on feel of
what types of things happen in this type of interaction.
So it is making sure that the right people who are going to
be here after January 20 take advantage of existing
opportunities in a more focused and disciplined manner. That is
what we are really trying to do.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, I thank you for your efforts.
My time is up, but the role of the Department is so
critical. So many people have worked so hard to get it
organized, moving in the right direction, that I just hope that
there are people such as yourself focused on keeping the
operation moving along. That will get the budget that the
chairman and others have requested.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much. I think the acting
ranking member has a request of the Chair.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To coincide with the
comments that Ms. Harman made and I made about the need for
reforms and consolidation of jurisdiction, I would like to ask
unanimous consent that the April 19 New York Times editorial,
calling for that reform, be entered into the record.
Chairman Thompson. Without objection.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Mike Rogers
the unfinished reforms of 9/11
New York Times, April 19, 2008.
When the independent 9/11 commission warned that the nation's
intelligence defenses were a shambles, Congress embraced nearly every
call for reform. Guess which one it didn't? It has conveniently
overlooked the commission's call to consolidate Congress's multiple
intelligence oversight committees and subcommittees--which ends up
leaving no one with real oversight power.
Any reduction of political turf was a nonstarter.
Now the idea has been at least partially revived. In a letter last
month to the Senate leadership, 14 of the 15 members of the
Intelligence Committee--which oversees intelligence operations--
recommended creating a new intelligence subcommittee to oversee
appropriations. The subcommittee would include members who sit on both
the full intelligence and appropriations panels.
Over on the Senate Appropriations Committee--the jedi masters of
the budget universe--top members were not in a compromising mood and
quickly volleyed in their own letter insisting that there is no such
need. For them to surrender any of their authority, the appropriators
declared, would hamper oversight.
We stand with the 9/11 commission that the national interest
requires the two houses' intelligence committees to fully assume
appropriation authority. Considering the thicket of egos, the proposed
compromise is a start. The overlap would begin to address the situation
in which the appropriations committees handle intelligence as only one
of many specialties.
The leadership should let this debate emerge from the shadows and
be settled in the public interest. If there is to be better oversight
of the intelligence agencies--with their tens of billions in secret
budget operations--the people who control the purse strings must have
knowledge, expertise and clear responsibility.
Chairman Thompson. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Pascrell, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Schneider, thank you for your candor. I trust it will
continue. I also want to thank Assistant Secretary Duke; when
she appeared before us, she was very forthright.
I want to start off by saying, I find it--I am trying to
find the word--``alarming,'' let me use that word for now--that
Secretary Chertoff didn't appear before this committee to
discuss the Department's transition process, as well as
refusing, I think, to share documents with the committee in
this regard.
I hope you understand the mission, the task that we have as
a committee. We are supposed to conduct rigorous oversight of
the Department of Homeland Security. You know that, Mr.
Secretary; and the Department's lack of cooperation in this
regard, I think, is a clear attempt to circumvent this
committee's oversight of the Department, particularly when it
comes to transition. Because we don't know who the President is
going to be, but whoever that President might be, they need to
have all of this information available to them to make the
decisions.
I find this really troubling when we know from the recent
past that al Qaeda has often executed its attacks on nations
around times of governmental transitions. The historic nature
of this thing is something we need to explore. The Department
of Homeland Security, among all other Departments, must be
fully prepared for that critical changeover to the next
administration.
Quick question: Has the Department developed a priority
list--``yes'' or ``no,'' a priority list of action items that
the Department of Homeland Security's successors may want to
address at the outset of the new administration?
Mr. Schneider. It will be in the transition plan that I am
required as the under secretary to submit to Congress in
October, 2008.
Mr. Pascrell. So we don't have anything like that right
now; is that what you are telling me?
Mr. Schneider. That is correct.
Mr. Pascrell. Okay. Thank you.
Now, 2 weeks ago----
Chairman Thompson. Would the gentleman yield? I will yield
back.
You say you are required by Congress?
Mr. Schneider. Yes.
Chairman Thompson. Can you provide the committee with your
point of reference on that?
Mr. Schneider. Yes, I will provide--yes, sir, I will
provide the segment of the law, the specific responsibilities
assigned to the under secretary, as well as the specific
direction by the Congress that the under secretary for
management is authorized to stay as the under secretary for
management past the--at the start of the new administration
until there is a Senate-confirmed appointee in that position.
The other thing that law says basically is, it is the
consensus of the Congress that the President or the incoming
President should encourage the under secretary for management
to stay in this position until there is a Senate-confirmed
appointee because of the critical nature of that position.
Chairman Thompson. I understand.
But you are making reference to October.
Mr. Schneider. That is what I believe is the date specified
that the under secretary for management is required to deliver
to the Congress the transition plan.
Chairman Thompson. Well, we will look at it. But I think
there is some difference of opinion as to that being a drop-
dead date for the information.
But I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. Pascrell. Now--Mr. Chairman, correct me if I am wrong--
in February you sent a letter to the Department and key
components of the Department about the committee's intent to
examine the transition process that I have been asking the
Secretary about.
The committee learned that both--since that time, the
committee learned that both you and Mr. Chertoff will not
answer the questions, and directed component offices not to
answer the questions or the committee's requests. Given that it
is the Department's position that you are the person in charge,
I am going to ask you some very, very specific questions.
Two weeks ago the committee received--all of us received
this, the transition planning, 7 pages. Power--I love
PowerPoints; they usually are very insignificant, but I love to
look at them anyway. The committee received that PowerPoint
presentation, what the deputy under secretary for management,
Elaine Duke, purports is the Department's transition outline.
While this document has some helpful information in it, I
find it difficult to believe that this PowerPoint is the
Department's complete transition planning document. I want you
to answer these questions, ``yes'' or ``no.''
Is this PowerPoint the sum total of the Department's
transition planning documentation?
Mr. Schneider. No.
Mr. Pascrell. Okay. Because not included in here is contact
information. Whom do we call in each of the components? No
itemized budget. No program priorities, Mr. Chairman, that I
can find; I will stand corrected. No program priorities for the
next administration. No outline of the political appointees to
the Homeland Security Committee.
You cannot present to us documentation, you can't do it,
and at the same time say that this is a comprehensive picture
of what the next administration should know.
So if it is ``no,'' as you said, I want this committee to
be provided with a complete outline that the Department is
using as a guide for the transition to the committee by May 23.
Mr. Chairman, I don't think I am out of order when I ask
this. If the Department does not meet the deadline, Mr.
Chairman, I ask you to consider calling a meeting to subpoena
the information.
Am I out of order in requesting that?
Chairman Thompson. The gentleman is not out of order.
Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Schneider, would you answer the following
questions ``yes'' or ``no''? For each of the following
components I would like you to answer ``yes'' or ``no'' as to
whether they have received a Department-wide transition
outline. Is the question clear?
Mr. Schneider. No, Congressman, it is not. I don't know
what you mean by an outline. Outlines mean different things to
different people. Before I answer that question, I would like
to know specifically what your intent would be for an outline,
because it may be different than mine.
Mr. Pascrell. Well, in a transition of each of the
components, I am going to name the components, and you are
either going to answer ``yes'' or ``no,'' whether or not we
have in our hands that information.
Mr. Schneider. I don't know what you mean by an outline,
sir. If you could specify the details of what an outline would
be, I would answer it.
Mr. Pascrell. Excuse me, a department-wide transition
outline of each of the components that I am about to ask you
about.
Mr. Schneider. I don't know what you mean by--I am sorry,
sir, but I do not know what you want to see in an outline.
Mr. Pascrell. Very, very clear, even in your PowerPoints,
you are supposed to give us specific information about some of
the things I just outlined.
For instance, whether it is itemized budgets, whether it is
who do we contact in each of the departments, whether it is the
political appointees in each of the components. I think this is
important information.
We have a right to know that, don't we?
Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pascrell. Well, then let me go on.
Chairman Thompson. Will the gentleman yield just a minute?
Mr. Pascrell. Sure.
Chairman Thompson. Mr. Schneider, I think the point from me
is, the only thing we have is this 7-page document. You
answered to Mr. Pascrell that that was not the only document
that was involved in the transition planning. I think what we
need as a committee is whatever information or documentation
that you have that will go into your planning of the transition
for the Department.
Mr. Pascrell. We would like it by May 23.
Excuse me for interrupting.
We would like it by May 23. Is that request clear, Mr.
Secretary?
Mr. Schneider. I will look at what documentation we have
and, if appropriate, provide it.
Mr. Pascrell. What do you mean ``if appropriate''?
Mr. Schneider. In my letter, Congressman, in response to
Chairman Thompson's letter, I outline very specific types of
documents that we consider inappropriate to provide. I would
refer back to that letter.
Mr. Pascrell. Look, we have oversight.
Mr. Schneider. I know you do.
Chairman Thompson. You are stretching your letter, your
response.
You reference executive material, and I think what we want,
and again I referenced it, that there was some difference of
opinion.
Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir.
Chairman Thompson. If we are in our jurisdictional track on
the committee, I think your limit of executive material from
our benefit is, in fact, not your call; and we will press it.
But I think if you go back and look at my point, you will
see that as long as this committee is within its jurisdiction,
that executive material reference does not stand muster in
terms of denying us access to the information.
Mr. Schneider. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In response to the
earlier discussion--earlier in this hearing, I agreed that
given the context of the discussion that took place with you, I
would go back and look at the specific requests and see how we
could better comply. That is what I agreed to do.
Chairman Thompson. I think--I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. Pascrell. Just in conclusion, Mr. Schneider, Secretary
Schneider, do you think that this committee has a right to know
who the political appointees are to Homeland Security?
Mr. Schneider. You have a right, and they are well known.
Yes.
Mr. Pascrell. They are?
Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pascrell. Then you have no problems giving them.
Mr. Schneider. I have already given them. Just for the
record, Congressman, we have provided, and I think we continue
to provide--I can double-check--to the chairman's staff a list
of every one of our staffing plans for the Department in terms
of--at the executive level. They list every one of the
political appointees.
I mean, we provide this information.
Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that by May 23 the
information that is requested, very clear, will be given to us.
I hope that is important.
I know you are the messenger. With all due respect, I think
you are doing a good job. But we want that information or else
we are going to subpoena it. I mean, it is clear?
It is clear. Thank you.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
I will now recognize the gentlelady from New York for 5
minutes, Ms. Clarke.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Honorable Mr. Schneider, I am going to pick up on Mr.
Pascrell's assertions here; and I would like to get your
response to very specific terminology by you and the
Department, because in the February 12 response letter to our
chairman, the Department claims that the transition-related
documents would not be shared with the committee on the grounds
that they constitute executive branch materials. You also echo
the same sentiment or the same position in a March 4 response
letter to the committee.
Can you explain what the term ``executive branch
materials'' means and what is the authority that you are citing
for this claim? Is it a statutory definition? Case law?
Executive order? What is this ``executive branch material''?
Mr. Schneider. I would--first of all, I don't have that
March 4 letter in front of me. I would, since the nature of
what you are asking is more of a legal-type question, I would
prefer to get back to you with our basis for that.
Ms. Clarke. Yeah, because that is the basis under which we
are all talking right now.
Chairman Thompson. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Clarke. Certainly.
Chairman Thompson. We have copies of the March 4 letter
that Congresswoman Clarke is referencing, and it is under your
signature.
Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir. I need to go back and look at the
basis that I asked for.
Chairman Thompson. I think the point is, that ``executive
branch material'' question is tantamount to this committee
having access to the information to do our job.
You still want some time to----
Mr. Schneider. Yes. The reason is, I think the operative
words are--putting this matter in context, it is important to
note, these efforts are being prepared by the executive branch
for an incoming administration and, as such, would be
inappropriate to send to the Congress in an interim fashion
before it was received by the incoming administration.
Chairman Thompson. So you don't think we have anything to
do with looking at the Department for the transition?
Mr. Schneider. No, sir. It gets back to some of the very
specific documentation that was specified in your original
letter. That is what I agreed to go back and look at, given the
context in which we had this earlier discussion.
You asked me to go do that, and I agreed to do that.
Chairman Thompson. I appreciate you for it, and I look
forward to getting the information.
But I don't think I can overemphasize the interest on the
part of a number of members to get the information. So if the
questions sometime are repetitive, they are based on the
interests of those members.
Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir.
Chairman Thompson. I yield back.
Ms. Clarke. Yes. Mr. Chairman, you know, I consider this,
in effect, a denial of the request.
I mean, there is no way that you can say that until there
is a new administration in place that we can't have the
information, which is--we are going to still be in session. Our
constituents--and I can speak for myself as a New Yorker--need
some reassurance, particularly in light of a number of the
challenges that Homeland Security has faced nationwide, not
only in the area of terrorism, but in the area of responding to
natural disasters and everything else, that there is in effect
a transition plan, a cogent one.
We all recognize and appreciate the level of security that
must be in place. But at the same time it would be derelict of
duty for us not to be able to say to the American people that
we are aware that this has been worked through.
You know, that is a big stretch that you are asking of our
chairman and of this committee by, in effect, throwing up
``executive branch material.'' There is going to be a point
where that executive branch will not function as it does
regularly. That is what the transition is about.
So this is really the crux of the matter. I hope that you
will really take into account what my colleagues have said here
today, because it is critical to us. It is critical to us as
Members of Congress with the responsibility of oversight, and
it is critical to us as Representatives of constituencies that
are relying on our having the knowledge and the faith that we
have put things in place in the eventuality of anything
happening in that interim period.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much. I want to thank the
acting deputy secretary for--hopefully somebody's cell phone
will--for your testimony. I want you to make every effort to
get the information relative to the transition back to us by
May 23.
I mean, we are not going to press you this hard, but we
think it is reasonable for the committee of jurisdiction to
have access to those planning documents and whatever you have
in place addressing transition. I look forward to getting that
and other information that committee members--Mr. Davis asked,
and a couple of others, during the questioning.
Other members might have questions. If they do, we ask that
you respond expeditiously in writing to those questions.
Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir.
Chairman Thompson. Hearing no further business, the
committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi for Paul A.
Schneider, Acting Deputy Secretary, Department of Homeland Security
Question 1. Please provide the committee with the names, titles,
and contact information for the specific individual's responsible for
the transition process within each of the following components:
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Intelligence and Analysis (I&A)
Science and Technology (S&T)
Coast Guard
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD)
Secret Service
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO)
Office of the Gulf Coast Coordinator
Privacy Office
Office of Health Affairs
Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Director for Operations and Administration
Office of General Counsel
Management Directorate
Office of Policy
Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
Office of Operations Coordination
In addition, please indicate whether these individuals are
government employees or contractors, and if they are government
employees, whether they are political appointees or career civil
servants.
Answer. Section 341(a)(9)(B) of Title 6, United States Code, vests
the Under Secretary for Management (USM) with the responsibility for
managing the Department's transition. The transition effort is
centrally coordinated through the Office of the USM, with oversight
provided by the Acting Deputy Secretary, Mr. Paul A. Schneider, as he
currently encumbers the USM position. The day-to-day transition effort
is being carried out by the Deputy Under Secretary for Management, Ms.
Elaine Duke, a career civil servant, and her core transition team. The
core transition team consists of four individuals supported by
approximately 45 senior level employees located within the Components
who are serving as either a Senior or Deputy Transition Officer. In
addition, this June, RADM John Acton will be detailed to the USM's
office from the United States Coast Guard to serve as the career DHS
Transition Director to Elaine Duke. Below is a breakdown of the USM
Transition Team. In Enclosure 1,\1\ we are providing the names and
titles of both the Senior and Deputy Transition Officers within each
Component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The above-referenced materials have been retained in committee
files.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transition Executive: Paul A. Schneider... Sets Vision for 2009
Transition.
Career Transition Senior Official: Elaine Leads overall Administration
Duke. Transition effort:
Oversees planning and
execution of Transition
Planning Efforts.
Ensures operational
continuity through change
of Presidential
Administration.
USM Core Transition Team: Manages day-to-day
Transition Director: RADM John Acton. Administration Transition
Senior Transition Officer: Elaine effort.
Rigas. Plans and coordinates
Deputy Transition Officers development and
(Detailees): facilitation of
--Damian Kokinda, United States Secret informational materials,
Service. briefings, training and
--Tiffany Lightboum, Science and other orientation
Technology. activities to ensure smooth
transition forthe new
leadership.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. Two weeks ago, the committee received a 7-page
PowerPoint presentation that Acting Under Secretary for Management
Elaine Duke purports is the Department's transition ``outline.'' While
this document contains some helpful information, you stated in your
testimony that this PowerPoint is not the Department's complete
transition planning document.
Answer. The referenced outline is not the Department's Transition
Outline but an Executive Summary of our Transition Planning Efforts.
The document which I have provided as Enclosure 2 \2\ is the
Department's Transition Briefing Book Outline and identifies what each
component will provide to the incoming Secretary to ensure a smooth
transition. Enclosure 3 \2\ is a list identifying the existing
memoranda, plans, documents and strategies that are related to our
transition and succession planning efforts. We have placed all of the
documents in a binder and hope this organized layout will allow you to
easily review the efforts currently completed or underway to ensure a
smooth transition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The reply provided is for official use only and has been
retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2a. Please provide the committee with the complete outline
that the Department is using as a guide for the transition.
Answer. Please see Enclosure 2 \2\ for the Department's Transition
Briefing Book Outline listing the information each of the Components
will provide to the incoming Secretary to ensure a smooth transition.
Question 2b. Please provide the committee with the complete
outlines that each of the components referenced in Question 1 received
from the Department for transition planning.
Answer. Please see Enclosure 2 \2\ for the Department's Transition
Briefing Book Outline listing the information each of the Components
will provide to the incoming Secretary to ensure a smooth transition.
Question 2c. Please provide all other existing memoranda, plans,
documents, or strategies that the Department or the components
referenced above have prepared or are using for the upcoming
transition.
Answer. In an effort to provide to you the requested documents in
an orderly and organized manner, please see Enclosure 3 \2\ which is a
list identifying the existing memoranda, plans, documents and
strategies that are Transition related. We have placed all of the
documents in a binder and hope this organized layout will allow you to
easily review the efforts currently completed or underway to ensure a
smooth transition.
Question 3. In the February 12, 2008 response letter, Secretary
Chertoff stated that the Department did not have an itemized budget for
the transition team. However, your testimony discusses the Department's
implementation efforts in fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010. You
also discussed weekend trips taken to prepare for transition. Please
provide all budget information, including an itemized budget, for the
Department-wide transition team and the components referenced in
Question 1.
Answer. There is no specific budget allocated for transition.
However, Public Law 110-28 appropriated for the Office of the Under
Secretary for Management $900,000 for an independent study with the
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to compare the
Department of Homeland Security senior career and political staffing
levels and senior career training programs with those of similarly
structured cabinet-level agencies as detailed in House Report 110-107.
The Department of Homeland Security engaged NAPA to conduct this
study for $548,134 and then engaged the Council for Excellence in
Government for $305,127 to help DHS ensure it is prepared to continue
operations in the face of leadership changes such as those attendant to
an administration change. The engagement's emphasis will be the
Department's homeland security interactions with other agencies such as
the Departments of State, Treasury, Energy, Commerce, and Justice.
These efforts have been coordinated with the House Appropriations
Committee staff.
We view the Transition Planning efforts as one of the
responsibilities that fall under the Office of the Under Secretary for
Management and not something that requires a separate budget or is
deemed as a Program. The implementation efforts for fiscal year 2009
and fiscal year 2010 are for the Department's Major Programs, such as
Deepwater, the Secure Border Initiative, and the Western Hemisphere
Travel Initiative, and not transition.
My reference in my testimony to the weekend trips I make to the
field locations are intended to discuss Department operations and are
not part of the transition planning efforts.
Question 4. How many FTEs does DHS currently have? How many actual
employees does DHS currently have? How many contract employees does DHS
currently have? How do these numbers relate the Department's 2007
figures? What, if any, changes should we expect to see in these numbers
by January 20, 2009? Please provide a comprehensive list of staffing
numbers, including a comparison of the number of FTEs assigned versus
the number of actual ``on board'' employees and a listing of the ratio
of FTEs to contractors for fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009. Please
include pay plan and appointment type. (For any of these requests that
may require the retrieval of data from Department of Homeland Security
or Office of Personnel Management databases, we will work with your
staff to craft file specifications that will enable them to easily
retrieve the data in a form that will meet our needs.)
Answer.
2007
FTEs: 186,804.
Onboard strength: 182,397.
Contractor employees: DHS does not track contractor FTE or onboard
strength because we often acquire support on a fixed-price basis or
based on performance objectives. The number of personnel the contractor
employs is not transparent or relevant since we are paying for a
deliverable or outcome rather than man-hours. In those instances where
DHS is acquiring a specific ``level of effort'' or man-hours,
contractors may use several employees to accomplish tasks that total
the number of man-hours in one FTE. While it is not possible to track
or provide this information currently, we are working with the Chief
Procurement Office to address this concern of Congress.
2008
Current FTEs: 197,055.
Current onboard strength: 202,060.
Contractor employees: DHS does not track contractor FTE or onboard
strength because we often acquire support on a fixed-price basis or
based on performance objectives. The number of personnel the contractor
employs is not transparent or relevant since we are paying for a
deliverable or outcome rather than man-hours. In those instances where
DHS is acquiring a specific ``level of effort'' or man-hours,
contractors may use several employees to accomplish tasks that total
the number of man-hours in one FTE. While it is not possible to track
or provide this information currently, we are working with the Chief
Procurement Office to address this concern of Congress.
Question 5. Please provide a description of the major programmatic
accomplishments of fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 for the
Department and for each of the components referenced in Question 1.
Answer. Please refer to Enclosure 4,\3\ the Department of Homeland
Security Annual Performance Report for fiscal years 2007-2008, for
information on the Department's major programmatic accomplishments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The above-referenced materials have been retained in committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 6. Please provide a description of the fiscal year 2009
and fiscal year 2010 goals for each of the components referenced in
Question 1.
Answer. Please refer to Enclosure 4,\3\ the Department of Homeland
Security Annual Performance Report for fiscal years 2007-2008, for
information on the Department's future goals.
Question 7. For the Department and for the components listed in
Question 1, please provide a priority list of action items that the
Department, agency and office's successors may want to address at the
outset of the new administration. Please provide a justification for
each priority item and detail the recommended actions for each
priority.
Answer. In Enclosure 2,\4\ we are providing what will likely be
placed in the briefing materials for the incoming Secretary. In Tab 4,
Section 7,\4\ we list what we believe are the Department's major
programs. In Tab 13, Section 1,\4\ we also identify what we believe are
the important issues for the incoming Secretary to address in his or
her first 30-60-90 days. Obviously the priority of these issues may
change over time. Again, providing a justification for each priority
item, as well as a detailed recommendation for action on each priority,
would be inappropriate in a response to Congress before the items and
prioritization are shared with the incoming administration, as is
required by law. Such documents are pre-decisional in that they
comprise no more than internal drafts for consideration by the
decision-makers within the new administration. While we are committed
to working with the Congress we must each respect the separation of
powers set forth in our Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The reply provided is for official use only and has been
retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 8. Please provide a list and description of any new
positions you anticipate creating to facilitate a smooth transition
(e.g. the recently created Deputy Under Secretary for Management), as
well as the plan and criteria for filling any such new position, both
at the Department level and for each component referenced in Question
1.
Answer. We do not anticipate creating more positions.
Question 9. For the Department and components listed in Question 1,
please provide a listing of contracts with a total dollar value in
excess of $100 million that are expected to carry over through the
transition. This information shall be itemized by component, the name
of the contractor, description of the project, and dollars obligated.
Answer. Please see Enclosure 5 \5\ for a listing of contracts with
a total dollar value in excess of $100 million that are expected to
carryover through the transition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The above-referenced materials have been retained in committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 10. Please provide the statutory authority that makes
explicit reference to the October 2008 date for the Department of
Homeland Security's submission of its overall transition plan to
Congress.
Answer. I was incorrect regarding the October 2008 date. Section
341(a)(9)(B) of Title 6, United States Code requires the overall
transition and succession plan to be made available to the incoming
Secretary and Under Secretary for Management by December 1, 2008. Below
is an excerpt of the law:
Sec. 2405. Under Secretary for Management of Department of Homeland
Security. (a) Responsibilities.--Section 701(a) of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.c. 341) is amended----
(1) by inserting ``The Under Secretary for Management shall
serve as the Chief Management Officer and principal advisor to
the Secretary on matters related to the management of the
Department, including management integration and transformation
in support of homeland security operations and programs.''
before ``The Secretary'';
(2) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:
``(7) Strategic management planning and annual performance
planning and identification and tracking of performance
measures relating to the responsibilities of the Department.'';
and
(3) by striking paragraph (9), and inserting the following:
``(9) The management integration and transformation
process, as well as the transition process, to ensure an
efficient and orderly consolidation of functions and personnel
in the Department and transition, including----
``(A) the development of a management integration
strategy for the Department, and
``(B) before December 1 of any year in which a
Presidential election is held, the development of a
transition and succession plan, to be made available to
the incoming Secretary and Under Secretary for
Management, to guide the transition of management
functions to a new Administration.''.
DHS has every intention of complying with the statutory framework
created by Congress and providing the materials to the incoming
administration in the timeframe specified. DHS is also fully committed
to working with the Congress regarding transition planning. Transition
and succession planning documents are being provided as stated in the
text of this letter. However, it is important to distinguish between
transition planning documents and policy documents. Transition planning
documents relate to the planning necessary to ensure a fully
functioning Department during the transition between the current and
future administrations. In contrast, policy documents relate to plans
to assist the incoming administration with selecting and prioritizing
its policy initiatives. We are fully committed to sharing the
transition planning documents with Congress; however, it would be
inappropriate to send policy documents to Congress before they are
shared with the incoming administration as required by law. Such
documents are pre-decisional in that they comprise no more than
internal drafts for consideration by the decision-makers within the new
administration. In the meantime, what we believe is appropriate to
provide is the outline on what policy documents we expect will be
included in the DHS Transition Briefing Book Outline.
Question 11a. In the Department's response letter dated February
12, 2008, the Department claims that transition-related documents would
not be shared with the committee on the grounds that they ``constitute
executive branch materials.'' You also echo that same position in your
March 4, 2008 response letter to the committee. Please explain what the
term ``Executive Branch materials'' means? Upon which authority are you
relying to make such claim? What is the scope of items covered under
``Executive Branch materials''? Explain in clear details, how does the
term ``Executive Branch materials'' apply to the following:
Contact name for the individuals responsible for the transition
process within the components.
Answer. Please refer to Enclosure 1 \6\ for the list of individuals
working with the USM Core Team to carry out transition planning within
their Components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The above-referenced materials have been retained in committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 11b. Budget for the transition team.
Question 11c. Description of programmatic accomplishments.
Question 11d. List of the goals for the components at DHS.
Question 11e. List of staffing numbers at DHS, including FTEs and
contractors.
Answer. The Secretary's February 12, 2008 letter provided the
committee with information about the Department's transition-planning
efforts in response to the committee's February 7, 2008 inquiries. As
indicated in that letter, there is no specific budget allocated for
transition. Also, as indicated in that letter, as well as in my
subsequent March 4, 2008 letter, many of the specific transition-
related documents requested by the committee are still under
development. These materials, many of which contain sensitive Executive
Branch information or communications, will be shared with the incoming
administration in accordance with the framework specified by Congress.
Indeed, a recent amendment to the Homeland Security Act specifies that
DHS is to develop a transition and succession plan and make that plan
available to the incoming Secretary and Under Secretary for Management
before December 1, 2008 (See 6 U.S.C. 341).
DHS has every intention of complying with the statutory framework
created by Congress and providing the materials to the incoming
administration in the timeframe specified. DHS is also fully committed
to working with the Congress regarding transition planning. Transition
and succession planning documents are being provided as stated in the
text of this document. However, it is important to distinguish between
transition planning documents and policy documents. Transition planning
documents relate to the planning necessary to ensure a fully
functioning department during the transition between the current and
future administrations. In contrast, policy documents relate to plans
to assist the incoming administration with selecting and prioritizing
its policy initiatives. We are fully committed to sharing the
transition planning documents with the Congress; however, it would be
inappropriate to send policy documents to the Congress before they are
shared with the incoming administration as required by law. Such
documents are pre-decisional in that they comprise no more than
internal drafts for consideration by the decision-makers within the new
administration. In the meantime, what we believe is appropriate to
provide is the outline on what policy documents we expect will be
included in the DHS Transition Briefing Book Outline.
Question 11f. Finally, several times during your testimony you
referenced the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) study
that was mandated by Pub. L. 110-28. Upon completion of this study in
May, please provide this committee an updated copy of the draft
Department-wide transition plan and list of tasks associated with the
Department-wide transition plan and the Components referenced in
Question 1.
Answer. NAPA expects to complete and release its study to the
requestors, the Appropriations Committee by the end of May 2008. We
have requested NAPA provide the committee a courtesy copy as well. The
study focuses on the Department's executive staffing composition in
terms of the number of vacancies, the type of senior leadership
positions, and the allocation between career and non-career executives
vis-a-vis other Federal Departments and Agencies. It is not a
Department-wide transition plan. We are, however, providing in
Enclosure 2 \7\ the Department's Transition and Succession Planning
Outline. The Department of Homeland Security is committed to ensuring
operational continuity through the change of Presidential
administration and looks forward to your continued support as we work
to achieve our mission. Should you have any questions, please contact
the Office of the Under Secretary for Management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The reply provided is for official use only and has been
retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------