[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 13, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-93
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-512 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�0900012008
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
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
Todd Gee, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Connor, Minority Staff Director
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 2
The Honorable Peter T. King, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security.............................................. 3
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas:
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
The Honorable Ginny Brown-Waite, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Florida:
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
Witnesses
The Honorable Michael Chertoff, Secretary, Department of Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 14
Appendix
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson....................... 67
Questions From Honorable Yvette D. Clarke........................ 69
Questions From Honorable Lamar Smith............................. 71
Questions From Honorable Mike Rogers............................. 73
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
----------
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:12 a.m., in Room
311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bennie G. Thompson
[Chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Thompson, Sanchez, Harman,
Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Christensen, Etheridge, Langevin,
Cuellar, Carney, Clarke, Green, Perlmutter, Pascrell, King,
Smith, Rogers, Reichert, McCaul, Dent, Brown-Waite, Bilirakis,
Davis, and Brown.
Chairman Thompson [presiding]. For the sake of the
audience, we have Ranking Member King, who is on his way. As
soon as he arrives, we will start the hearing.
Mr. King has sent word that we can start, because we want
to take full advantage of the secretary's time that he is with
the committee.
The Committee on Homeland Security will come to order. The
committee is meeting today to receive testimony on the
president's fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Department
of Homeland Security. On behalf of the committee, Mr.
Secretary, welcome.
Today, you will testify about the President's budget that,
last time, as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security,
which will officially be 5 years old on March 17, 2008 of this
year. I thank you for your testimony and your service at the
Department.
In today's hearing, the committee is reviewing the
President's fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Department,
a budget which you state will protect the Nation from dangerous
people and goods; protect critical infrastructure; improve
emergency preparedness and response; and improve the operations
and management of the Department.
Like you, Mr. Secretary, I am committed to a homeland that
is truly secure. That is why when I assumed the chairmanship of
this committee last January, I unveiled my eight goals in
charting the course toward freedom from fear. Those items are:
improving the functionality, governance and accountability of
the Department of Homeland Security; enhancing security for all
modes of transportation; response, resilience and recovery in
the wake of a national catastrophe; shielding the Nation's
critical infrastructure from foreign and domestic terrorism;
securing the homeland and preserving civil liberties in times
of terror; connecting the dots, intelligence, information-
sharing, and interoperability; implementing common sense border
and port security; and inspiring minds and developing
technology, the future of homeland security.
Our Nation is in a precarious state. We have an
administration that has beaten the drums of the war on terror,
but has failed to propose a sound budget that addresses mass
transit and rail security concerns. This administration has
boasted about our first responders, but now proposes to
eliminate the SAFER grant program, cut FIRE grants by 50
percent, zero-out the metropolitan medical response system, and
reduce funding for the emergency management performance grant
program by one-third.
We have heard high rhetoric about supporting State and
local governments, but then the President's budget shortchanges
them by slashing the funding for the State homeland security
grant program by 79 percent.
That being said, not all is lost with the budget. I will
note that there are increases proposed in the budget for
cybersecurity and border security. However, I fear that behind
the ``increases'' lurk more problems than answers. For example,
I look forward to hearing from you which metrics the Department
has to measure the budget's effectiveness at stopping
terrorism, preparing for natural disasters, and improving the
Nation's resiliency to man-made emergencies.
I would also like to know what safeguards exist in the
budget that will ensure contracts are not given away to friends
of the administration, while small, minority and women-owned
businesses are shut out from the competitive process.
At the end of the day, Mr. Secretary, the committee wants a
robust Department with a clear mission, trained personnel, and
the necessary resources that are vital to the security of the
homeland. The Department must complete its obligations to the
American people by fully implementing H.R. 1, applying the
lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina, and ensuring that the
Department is prepared to undergo its first-ever Presidential
transition.
Simply put, the American people deserve a budget and a plan
from the President that ensures that the groundwork has been
laid for a resilient Nation.
Mr. Secretary, I look forward to hearing how the budget for
the Department of Homeland Security pulls together the talents
from our diverse Nation to make clear that our American
Government can provide the American people security,
accountability, and most important, freedom from fear.
With that, I look forward to your testimony on the
Department's fiscal year 2009 budget priorities and
justification.
[The statement of Chairman Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Bennie G. Thompson
In today's hearing, the committee is reviewing the President's
fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Department of Homeland
Security--a budget which you state will: Protect the Nation from
dangerous people and goods; protect critical infrastructure; improve
emergency preparedness and response; and, improve the operations and
management of the Department.
Like you, Mr. Secretary, I am committed to a homeland that is truly
secure. That is why when I assumed the Chairmanship of the committee
last January, I unveiled my 8 goals in charting the course towards
freedom from fear. They are:
Improving the Functionality, Governance, and Accountability
of the Department of Homeland Security;
Enhancing Security for All Modes of Transportation;
Response, Resilience, and Recovery in the Wake of a National
Catastrophe;
Shielding the Nation's Critical Infrastructure from Foreign
and Domestic Terrorism;
Securing the Homeland and Preserving Civil Liberties in
Times of Terror;
Connecting the Dots: Intelligence, Information Sharing, and
Interoperability;
Implementing Common Sense Border and Port Security;
Inspiring Minds and Developing Technology--The Future of
Homeland Security.
Our Nation is in a precarious state. We have an administration that
has beaten the drums of the war of terror, but has failed to propose a
sound budget that addresses mass transit and rail security concerns.
This administration has boasted about our first responders, but now
proposes to eliminate the SAFER Grant program, cut FIRE grants by 50%,
zero-out the Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS), and reduce
funding for the Emergency Management Performance Grant program by one-
third.
We have heard high rhetoric about supporting State and local
governments, but then the President's budget shortchanges them by
slashing the funding for the State Homeland Security Grant Program by
79%.
That being said, not all is lost with the budget. I will note that
there are increases proposed in the budget for cybersecurity and border
security.
However, I fear that behind the INCREASES--lurk more problems than
answers.
For example, I look forward to hearing from you which metrics the
Department has to measure the budget's effectiveness at stopping
terrorism, preparing for natural disasters, and improving the Nation's
resiliency to man-made emergencies.
I would also like to know what safeguards exist in the budget that
will ensure contracts are not given away to friends of the
administration while small, minority, and women-owned businesses are
shut out from the competitive process.
At the end of the day, Mr. Secretary, the committee wants a robust
Department, with a clear mission, trained personnel, and the necessary
resources that are vital to the security of the homeland.
The Department must complete its obligation to the American people
by fully implementing H.R. 1, applying the lessons learned from
Hurricane Katrina, and ensuring that the Department is prepared to
undergo its first-ever presidential transition.
Simply put, the American people deserve a budget and a plan from
the President that ensures that the groundwork has been laid for a
resilient Nation.
Mr. Secretary, I look forward to hearing how the budget for the
Department of Homeland Security pulls together the talents from our
diverse Nation to make clear that our government can provide the
American people security, accountability, and most importantly, freedom
from fear.
Chairman Thompson. 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.
Good morning, Mr. Secretary. It is a pleasure to see you
here this morning.
Let me at the outset, as you enter the final year of this
administration, comment on the fact that during your time as
secretary of homeland security, not only did you basically have
to put a department together, consolidate so many different
departments and agencies, encounter the horror of Katrina--do
all of that, and the fact is we have not been attacked during
that time.
The fact is that any number of attacks have been stopped.
The fact is that the coordination between Federal, State and
local officials has never been better. The coordination between
the Department of Homeland Security and overseas intelligence
agencies has never been better. So I think it is really
important to put that out there and acknowledge what has been
done.
Also, on the issue of funding, there is no doubt there were
some severe differences in previous years, and you in effect
inherited a system which was not working very adequately. That
was my opinion then, and I really commend you for the fact that
you jumped into that. You really took it on, and took personal
control over it. Just for instance 10 days ago, I guess, when
you were in New York is, the fact is the mass transit funding
has tripled over the last 2 years, gone up 50 percent in the
last year.
This is, to me, work which is often not acknowledged. We
get sidetracked into different issues or that issue, and it is
easy to make headlines for criticisms. The fact is the bottom
line is extraordinary progress is being made. More obviously
has to be made because we have an enemy which is also
constantly adapting. I think it is very important we put that
out there.
Also, for instance, when we meet with Customs and Border
Protection you realize the job they are doing, not just on the
border itself, but at our ports and docks, the work that they
are doing. TSA, which really is a thankless job--it is very
easy to take shots at what they are doing or not doing--but
again the fact is that there has been on plane attack at all
since September 11. The way TSA responded to the threats of the
summer of 2006 I think speaks volumes as to what is being done.
Having said that, I have certain criticisms with the
budget, not at all with your leadership there. But even though
the budget is up over last year's, it is still considerably
below the enacted levels that Congress enacted last year. I
will say this to the Chairman while he is here that I will work
with him to try to increase the amount of the budget.
Certainly, on grants, I believe the safety grants, money going
to police, fire, mass transit, port security--all of that we
cannot afford to be cutting back on the numbers of those.
I am confident that if we do work in a bipartisan way, we
can achieve that. I am not trying to bring you into that
dispute that we are going to have here on Capitol Hill, but I
do want to make you aware of that.
Also, Mr. Secretary, I think one place which Congress has
not done the job, and that is on the consolidation of
committees and jurisdiction. I believe when the 9/11 commission
report came out, they criticized the fact that the Department
had to go before 88 committees and subcommittees. I think that
has now been reduced to 86.
Obviously, it is important that there be congressional
oversight. I agree with the Chairman on this. Congressional
oversight is vital. But if you and your assistants and deputies
spend all of their time, or so much time testifying on Capitol
Hill, that is time that you are not defending the country.
Also, much of it is repetitious. Much of it is superfluous. It
is overlapping. It is each committee trying to get a piece of
it, trying to keep their jurisdiction, and it really is
counterproductive for the homeland security of this country.
I would hope we can make more efforts, again whether it is
Democrat or Republican leadership, if we can find a way to do a
much better job of consolidating the whole issue of
jurisdiction.
Also, this is an issue which I have mentioned to the
Chairman before, I know he has indicated he is not certain that
there is going to be an authorization bill this year. I would
just ask him to do all that he can sometime during this year to
get that authorization bill. I think it is important for the
Department. I think it is important for the entire issue of
homeland security. But it is also important for us as a
committee to establish our bona fides as the prime committee
dealing with homeland security.
Whether or not the Senate does should not be the issue. We
did an authorization bill in 2005 and 2006, and in 2007 under
Chairman Thompson's leadership last year. The bill went through
in a very bipartisan way. We worked together on it. I think
that was good for the country, good for both parties, good for
the Department of Homeland Security, and good for the Congress.
So Mr. Chairman, again I would implore you to try to find a way
to get an authorization bill done so we can fulfill our
responsibility.
With that, Mr. Secretary, I thank you for your service and
look forward to your testimony.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. King. I assure
you we are working on the authorization suggestion that you
made. It might be a series, but we will try to establish a
procedure where I think we both can work cooperatively on. I
look forward to doing that with you.
Other Members of the committee are reminded that under the
committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the
record.
[The statements of Hon. Jackson Lee and Hon. Brown-Waite
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee
February 13, 2008
After the events of September 11, 2001 the American people became
painfully aware of the difference between feeling secure and actually
being secure. As we examine the DHS's fiscal year 2009 budget, we must
take decisive steps to ensure that adequate funds are available so that
the trust that the American people have placed in our hands is fully
protected and guarded and that we take strategic steps to ensure their
future safety from terrorist attacks.
The President has a fiscal year 2009 budget request of $50.5
billion for the Department of Homeland Security, excluding emergency
funding, a 7 percent increase over the enacted fiscal year 2008 level.
I am concerned that the President's proposed budget will not be
sufficient to secure our Homeland in an efficient way.
As the Chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and
Infrastructure Protection, I have a number of concerns with the
President's proposed budget as it relates to issues within the
subcommittee's jurisdiction:
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY (MASS TRANSIT AND RAIL SECURITY)
The proposed budget request for the Transportation Security
Administration's surface transportation program is $37 million--a
decrease of nearly $10 million that was appropriated by Congress for
2008. The request also calls for a decrease in surface transportation
security inspectors 138 in 2008 to 96 requested for 2009. This is the
result of a so-called realignment but is counter to congressional
mandates. In the 9/11 bill we require an increase in surface
transportation inspectors, not a decrease.
This is unacceptable. We cannot continue to remain solely focused
on protecting against the last terrorist attack. Millions of people who
live in America's cities use these modes of transportation everyday.
Worldwide, there has been much success in attacking rail and mass
transit, with deadly consequences. This is a persistent threat. The
administration's proposal for a decrease in mass and rail funding
demonstrates the failure to prioritize surface transportation as a
security issue or to learn from the mass transit and rail bombings of
Madrid, London, and Mumbai.
CRITICAL TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
The administration's proposed budget for the Targeted
Infrastructure Capability Grants Program (port, mass transit, bus, and
trucking) proposes drastic cuts in rail mass transit, trucking, and
port security funding. The enacted funding for rail and mass transit
was $400 million, while the president only requests $175 million. The
administration requests $8 million for trucking security, cutting last
year's funding in half.
Also, the administration's proposed budget for port security
grants, at $210 million, is nearly half of the $400 million enacted for
2008. It is disappointing that the administration is not more forward
leaning in protecting critical transportation infrastructure that is
very vulnerable to attack. Shortchanging surface transportation and
ports for security dollars may have dire consequences to the economy
and in loss of life if terrorists decide to attack these modes.
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA) BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2009
REQUEST
The budget request for the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) provides for an initial increase of $286.5 million over the
fiscal year 2008 enacted amount. The President's request, in some
cases, adequately addresses the mandates in the 9/11 Act; however, we
are looking closely at the decrease in requested funds of certain
programs that may help the administration meet homeland security
goals--particularly those programs directly aligned to the mandates
within the 9/11 Act.
With respect to the Transportation Threat Assessment and
Credentialing office, the budget requests a mere $1,528,000 over the
fiscal year 2008 enacted amount. With respect to Transportation
Security Support, the President's budget increases this amount by
$402,485,000; however, the proposal reflects a decrease in the number
of Full Time Employees (FTEs). This is the second consecutive year that
the President cuts funding for this office. We are also concerned about
the ``mandatory proposal for a temporary 4-year surcharge to the
Passenger Security Fee.'' We need further clarification and
justification for the need to support additional taxes on air
passengers.
In general, Aviation Security reflects a growth in FTEs of up to
800. This is a good thing, since it outlooks new job opportunities in
the field. Additionally, we commend the President for requesting $43
million for the deployment of the Behavioral Detection Officers, a
popular TSA Initiative among our committee Members. As well as
continuing to strengthen the Canine Explosive Detection Program.
NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE (NPPD); RISK MANAGEMENT
AND ANALYSIS (RMA), NPPD; CFIUS, OFFICE OF POLICY, OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT; INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND
INFORMATION SECURITY (IPIS)
The Department's Budget-in-Brief says that there is an $186,470,000
increase for Infrastructure Protection and Information Security from
the enacted fiscal year 2008 budget $654,730,000 and fiscal year 2009
$841,200,000. Regrettably, the proposed funding for ``infrastructure
protection'' drops $3,179. Critical infrastructure, if compromised,
would negatively affect the economy, government, and morale of the
United States. Due to the committee's increased oversight of this issue
area during this Congress, it is plainly clear to the committee that
this is no time to lessen our commitment to infrastructure protection
given the threats to our Nation from human-made and natural disasters.
The foundation for Infrastructure Protection in the United States
is the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP). This plan
supports the voluntary partnership between Government and industry via
the 17 Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources (CIKR) sectors. Because
this plan is the prism by which the Department measures performance of
measures taken to protect critical infrastructure, the $14,116,000 cut
in resources for NIPP Program Management is baffling. The budget
justification notes that the mission area regards the ``status of risk
management efforts performed under the NIPP, and the progress made in
managing risk to the Nation's CIKR from terrorist attacks and other
hazards . . . to support development of the National and Sector CIKR
Protection Annual Reports.'' This cut in funding will make the
execution of this objective nearly impossible, thus prohibiting the
Department from adequately monitoring which measures work to protect
infrastructure and how to effectively buy down risk.
Sector-Specific Agencies (SSAs) are the Government departments and
agencies responsible for partnering with the private sector to
implement the NIPP. Because the NIPP is in the implementation stage and
still acquiring stakeholders, the nearly identical investment from the
enacted fiscal year 2008 budget $19,519,000 and the fiscal year 2009
request $20,443,000 for the five SSAs that the Department controls is
inexcusable. They have done fairly little in terms of robust
implementation, scorekeeping, and revision. The biggest concern
however, is that the budget does not say how much money the other
departments and agencies under the NIPP are investing in compliance
with the Plan. Until those figures are made available, it will be
nearly impossible for Congress to gauge the cooperation that the
Department is acquiring from the relevant departments and agencies. If
the NIPP is coordinated by the Department, then the budget
justification should make note of the resource allocations by the other
departments and agencies.
The Homeland Infrastructure Threat and Risk Analysis Center
(HITRAC) allows IP to ``provide Department decision-makers and external
customers with immediate, actionable analysis and recommendations to
manage risk.'' The effective management of risk would enable the
Department to discern how resources should best be allocated and
provide rational, justifiable budget recommendations. The acquisition
of reliable data to ``buy down'' risk to tolerable levels would provide
a clear roadmap ahead for the Department, especially in the area of
Infrastructure Protection. The budget request does not provide clear
numbers in terms of funding for risk analysis, but the committee has
been made aware that the number is around $2,000,000, which is
staggeringly low. The $1,551 increase for HITRAC is inadequate and will
not provide for thorough risk analysis. Monies should be taken from the
Risk Management and Analysis Office (RMAO) and be applied to HITRAC for
the purposes of risk assessment and analysis.
There is a $63,000,000 request for chemical site security, which is
an increase of $48,000,000 over the fiscal year 2008 request and
$13,000,000 million over the fiscal year 2008 enacted amount. The
funding is needed for the Department to carry out the Chemical Facility
Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, which regulates the security
practices at the Nation's high-risk chemical facilities.
The Protective Security Advisors (PSAs) are the link between the
Department and all levels of government as well as the private sector.
The budget calls for a $565,000 increase from fiscal year 2008 enacted
figures of $13,190,000. Although it is laudable that ``this enhancement
will place PSAs in the 10 States that currently do not have PSAs,'' the
budget is unclear about the number of PSAs per State. The committee has
been told on numerous occasions that the PSAs are spread too thin and,
as a result, their coordinating function is not as maximized as it
should be. The Department needs to be clear about how close it is to
placing at least one PSA in each State in order to help the States
effectively protect critical infrastructure.
RISK MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS OFFICE (RMAO)
The budget requests an increase for RMAO in fiscal year 2009 to
$9,500,000 from fiscal year 2008 $9,412,000. The committee has begun to
do extensive oversight of this office including its overall mission,
partnerships with relevant stakeholders, and whether it needs the
resources provided to it to coordinate the development of a common risk
framework. The committee is concerned that some of its activities
appear to stray away from its central mission. Because of the lacking
risk analysis funding of HITRAC, it may be necessary for a large
portion of these monies designated for RMAO to be allocated for HITRAC
so real, tangible results can be delivered in terms of risk management.
RMAO has been operational since April 2007, and to date has failed to
list which methodologies it is studying. After repeated requests, it
still has not provided to the committee a list of the contracts it has
not awarded. The NPPD appendix to the budget states, ``of the total
amount provided under this heading, $5,000,000 shall not be obligated
until the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives receive and approve an expenditure plan by program,
project, and activity.'' The committee is exploring whether the
withholding of these funds should be targeted at RMAO until it more
effectively justifies its mission and the steps it is taking to
accomplish it.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES (CFIUS)
The budget request for the Office of Policy within the Office of
Secretary and Executive Management does not even make mention of CFIUS.
Not 2 years after the debacle involving Dubai Ports World--and the
legislation reforming CFIUS signed into law in 2007 (H.R. 556, Foreign
Investment and National Security Act of 2007)--the budget in brief only
states that, among other activities, a $1,600,000 increase in the
Office of Policy will ``support [the] Committee on Foreign Investment
in the United States.'' Because this committee has exercised a great
deal of oversight over the Department regarding CFIUS, the lack of
acknowledgement with regard to CFIUS is troubling. It is clear that the
officials who work on CFIUS matters for the Department are overburdened
with work and that the office is understaffed. With an ongoing surge in
CFIUS applications, this lack of resources puts our national and
homeland security in jeopardy because applications will not be able to
be thoroughly vetted in the legislatively prescribed time. The
Department needs to articulate its resource allocations for CFIUS
matters more thoroughly.
I eagerly look forward to Secretary Chertoff's testimony and
discussion today of these issues.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ginny Brown-Waite
February 13, 2008
Thank you Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King for holding
this hearing today, and thank you Secretary Chertoff for appearing
before us to discuss the President's fiscal year 2009 budget request.
Secretary Chertoff, you have guided the Department of Homeland
Security through extremely challenging times while shaping its
identity. I applaud your steadfast efforts to keep Americans safe from
the numerous and ever-changing threats we face.
While many elements of the President's budget request must be
addressed today, I will only focus on a few. Regarding the critical
issues of illegal immigration and border security, I was pleased by the
decision to increase funding for CBP and ICE. Ensuring that adequate
manpower and resources are available to enforce America's immigration
laws is a critical, but basic, step in the right direction. I hope that
this funding allocation signals a broader intent to strengthen efforts
to confront illegal immigrants and those businesses and cities that
provide them sanctuary.
However, I am outraged by the status of the southwestern border
fence, and baffled by the administration's lack of urgency in
completing this project. After the omnibus appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2008 weakened critical provisions of fence construction,
this Nation cannot afford to gamble further with our security by
holding back funding for the fence. The 2009 budget must provide any
and all resources necessary to complete this project as soon as
possible. Congress will never adequately address the growing challenge
of illegal immigration and potential terrorism unless we seal our
porous borders. Failure to do so is simply not an option.
Additionally, we must remain vigilant in protecting our Nation's
transportation system. Most striking are the glaring weaknesses in the
security of our airports. These shortcomings cannot continue to be
ignored. DHS took a positive step when TSA recently announced a program
to test the effectiveness of airport employee screening at a handful of
sites. However, this program is far less comprehensive than the program
Ms. Lowey and I recently passed through the House. I worry that the TSA
program does not go far enough to test employee screening thoroughly.
As the budget process continues, the Department must receive the
funding necessary to measure the effectiveness of full, 100 percent
airport employee screening.
Finally, I know I am echoing the sentiments of some of my
colleagues, but the cuts in funding to State and local homeland
security grants are alarming. Local first responders are on the front
lines when emergencies occur, they are the individuals we depend on
everyday when lives are on the line, and accordingly we cannot leave
them without the resources they need to fulfill their considerable
duties. I am confident that Congress will ensure that essential grants
do not fall by the wayside in the fiscal year 2009 budget.
As the Department of Homeland Security continues to evolve and
improve, I look forward to working with you, Secretary Chertoff, to
secure our borders, enforce our laws, and keep America safe.
Thank you.
Chairman Thompson. Again, I welcome our witness today. When
he was confirmed in 2005, Secretary Michael Chertoff became the
second person to serve as the head of the Department of
Homeland Security. Prior to his confirmation, Mr. Chertoff
served as a United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals. Prior to that, he served as an assistant
attorney general at the Department of Justice, where he was
instrumental in helping to trace the September 11 terrorist
attacks to the Al Qaeda network. He has served in a number of
other public service positions.
Mr. Chertoff, I thank you for your service. I appreciate
your agreeing to testify here today. Without objection, the
witness's full statement will be inserted into the record.
Secretary Chertoff. I now recognize you to summarize your
statement for 5 minutes if you can. If not, we will be more
than generous. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Chertoff. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Congressman King.
It is a pleasure to appear here. I believe this is my
fourth budget hearing. We are also 2 days away from my third
anniversary of being sworn in. As you observed, it is the fifth
anniversary of the Department that is looming on the horizon in
March.
I think we have a widespread agreement between members of
my Department and this committee on the fact that we need a
robust, effective Homeland Security Department that deals with
all hazards, and does so in a way that is a responsible steward
of the public risk, but also recognizes the need to adapt to
new challenges. Because as Representative King said, the enemy
is not static. It is dynamic, and we have to continue to adapt.
I believe that the budget that we propose for 2009 is sound
and fiscally responsible. It advances the Department's most
critical priorities, focuses resources on the greatest risks,
and gives our 208,000 employees the tools they need to continue
to protect the American people.
Like any budget, it reflects tough choices. There are many
things one could spend money on in the area of homeland
security as to which one can make a reasonable case. But like
everybody else who deals with a budget on the Federal level or
on the State and local level, the pie is only so large and
whenever you want to enlarge one slice of the pie, you have to
ask what slice you are going to diminish. I think we have
balanced here in a way that maximizes our capacity to contend
with the real risks that are out there.
In all, we are requesting $50.5 billion in total funding
for fiscal year 2009. That reflects a 6.8 percent increase,
about $3.2 billion, over the previous year's enacted budget,
that is 2008, without emergency appropriations. That is a 62
percent increase since our creation nearly 5 years ago.
Let me take a moment to just tell you what the threat
picture is now, as compared to what it was about 1 year ago
when I testified in connection with the 2008 budget. As I have
said repeatedly over the last year, in some respects the
strategic picture with respect to Al Qaeda has indicated that
there is some enhanced strategic threat. I am not suggesting,
again, that there is an imminent specific threat, but the
strategic picture suggests a somewhat increased capability on
the part of Al Qaeda.
As has been described in the unclassified NIE and in a lot
of public testimony, a good deal of this reflects efforts by Al
Qaeda in certain areas of South Asia to be able to plan,
recruit and train, particularly with an eye to training
operatives who might function in Europe and in the United
States. I have also previously expressed and reiterate my
concern that Europe could be a target, as well as a platform
for attacks.
These predictions have been borne out by the facts over the
last year. Last summer at the beginning of the summer we saw
aborted efforts to carry out attacks in London and in Glasgow.
A serious plot in Germany by Islamic Jihad Union was disrupted
by the German authorities. In the last month, we have seen
major arrests in Spain. Just yesterday, or today, the newspaper
reported three arrests in Denmark in connection with
allegations that extremists were going to kill a cartoonist who
was responsible for some controversial cartoons.
All of these aborted or disrupted plots indicate the intent
and the capability remains. It is a credit to a lot of the
progress our allies have made overseas. I would say that the
happy fact that we have not successfully been attacked in this
country reflects in large part credit to all of the agencies
that have taken action against terror, both those who have done
so overseas and those who have done so domestically.
Today, what I would like to do is highlight just a few of
the key elements of the budget across our five major goals,
which are protecting the Nation from dangerous people,
protecting it from dangerous goods, protecting our critical
infrastructure, boosting our emergency preparedness and
response, and strengthening our management and operations.
Let us talk about the border. First, let us talk about the
space between the ports of energy. We have as of the beginning
of this month built a total of about 294 miles of fencing, both
pedestrian and vehicle fencing, along our southwestern border.
We have about 15,200 Border Patrol agents who are currently
sworn on-duty, which puts us on track to meeting our goal of
exceeding 18,000, doubling the number of Border Patrol agents
by the end of this year.
You will recall that about 1\1/2\ years ago, we ended
catch-and-release at the border. We have sustained ending
catch-and-release ever since then. We have seen some positive
metrics that indicate success at the border. Apprehensions were
down 20 percent-plus in fiscal year 2007. Remittances are down.
Information that we have from activity south of the border
indicates that there is a decrease in some of the
infrastructure that supports smuggling.
I am also informed that the cost of smuggling has gone up.
The price that has to be paid to coyotes has increased. These
are not indications that we have solved the problem, but they
are indications that we are on the way to solving the problem.
If we continue what we are doing--and this budget does continue
that--we will be a long way down the road of living up to our
commitment to the American people to secure the border after
what has been practically 30 years of not doing so.
For fiscal year 2009, we are requesting $3.5 billion--that
is a plus-up of about $500 million--for the Border Patrol. That
additional money will allow us to hire, train and equip 2,200
new Border Patrol agents in 2009, so that by the end of fiscal
year 2009 we will have more than 20,000 Border Patrol agents.
We are requesting an additional $775 million to continue
our efforts to develop and deploy technology, tactical
infrastructure, including fencing at the border, to prevent
incursions and to give the Border Patrol the leverage that they
need so they can effectively apprehend people who are coming
illegally.
We recognize as well that the economic draw that brings
people across the border has to be tackled at the interior. In
fiscal year 2007, ICE broke records with 863 criminal arrests,
including 750 indictments and 561 convictions as a result of
worksite enforcement operations. About 92 of the people who
were charged were in the employer-supervisory chain and 771
were employees.
To continue to move forward in the interior enforcement
area, we are requesting $1.8 billion. That is over $250 million
increase to help ICE expand detention beds for a total of
33,000 beds. This is a 78 percent increase from where we were
just 4 years ago.
In all, we are requesting $3 billion for ICE interior
enforcement-related activities, including fugitive operations,
the criminal alien program which removes illegal aliens from
prison systems so they don't get released back into the
community when they serve their sentences, supporting State and
local government anti-dine initiatives and worksite
enforcement.
Finally, we are requesting $100 million--that is an
increase of $40 million--for our E-Verify system, which gives
employers an automated system to run employment authorization
checks against DHS and Social Security databases. We have
dramatically increased the number of employers who are
voluntarily using this system. It is now up to 53,000. I think
we are adding them at a significant rate.
It is important, by the way, that Congress reauthorize the
program because the program's authority runs out at the end of
this year. There is a great deal of demand for the program. It
helps employers. It helps us enforce the law, and we want to
continue to build on it.
The next challenge, of course, is protecting our Nation
from dangerous goods. As of the end of the last calendar year,
we are scanning virtually 100 percent of containers coming in
at the southern border and at our seaports. That is a dramatic
increase from where we were several years ago when the number
was about zero. We are at about 91 percent at the northern
border, and at the end of this year we expect to be at close to
100 percent there as well. That is a big step forward in
protecting against weapons of mass destruction.
Our container security initiative has been expanded to 58
foreign ports. In response to the 9/11 bill which passed last
year, we have begun 100 percent radiation scanning at three
pilot ports. That was part of the mandate of Congress. Those
ports are Pakistan, Honduras, and Britain. We have agreements
with four more countries to move forward with that overseas
scanning this year.
Finally, our domestic nuclear detection office, we are
requesting $157 million so that we can continue to support the
deployment of the radiation portal monitors, and to go forward
and see what we can do to deploy the next generation.
Protecting critical infrastructure, we have released our
chemical security final rule. We have completed the national
infrastructure protection plan. We have completed the 17
sector-specific plans. We have established an Office of Bombing
Prevention to share information about bombing challenges and
response techniques with first responders all across the
country. We have added additional layers of security to
aviation.
Among the things I would highlight, we are requesting $1.3
billion--that is an increase of over $350 million--for
Department-wide efforts to counter improvised explosive device
threats. This includes more than $1 billion for TSA explosive
detection technology, $50 million for science and technology
development, $30 million for training transportation security
officers, and $9 million for the Office of Bombing Prevention.
We are requesting an increase of $15 million, for a total
of $45 million, for behavior detection officers who are trained
to look at behavior as a way of identifying people who are
potentially threats to our aircraft. We are requesting $30
million--an increase of $10 million--for our 10 VIPR teams,
which are visible intermodal protection and response teams.
These are teams with dogs that we put into our mass transit
facilities, into our airports, on the ground both on a random
basis and a surge basis, to increase the visible protection of
our mass transit systems.
Finally, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, we are requesting an
$83 million increase, to a total of $293 million, to further
deploy our EINSTEIN system against cyber-threats and
intrusions, and as part of a national cybersecurity initiative
which we are in the process of rolling out.
Let me touch briefly on two other critical elements. First,
building an effective emergency response system. We have
continued to implement what we learned from Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita. We released our national response framework earlier
this year. It was widely applauded by those in the emergency
management community and in the law enforcement community.
Frankly, the leaders of these groups stood behind me when we
unveiled the national response framework.
We have strengthened and professionalized FEMA leadership
and capabilities, and we are requesting $164.5 million--that is
a $64 million increase--for FEMA Vision initiatives, which
among other things converts what used to be temporary workers
into permanent workers, so that we have a cadre of trained and
experienced disaster management officials who can go out into
the field and actually work when we have emergencies, and we
can build temporary workers around them so that we really have
people who know what they are doing when we have a crisis. That
is something that was a very clear lesson from Hurricane
Katrina.
I might say that if I look at the responses that we had to
the wildfires, tornadoes and floods of last year, I think
almost uniformly we got praise for FEMA's much more efficient,
rapid and customer-friendly response to these disasters.
With respect to grants, we are requesting the levels we
requested last year in all the major categories. I understand
Congress almost invariably enacts more money in grants. I am
quite sure I will have an opportunity to discuss this. We have
set levels that we think over time goes to the right degree of
preparedness. We are seeking to sustain those levels.
You could make the case that you can spend more, but again
I have to go back to that pie. If you are going to add money to
a slice of grants to State and local government, you are going
to take it out of something else in our Department. Frankly,
there are some missions that only we can do. If we don't do
them, nobody else is going to do them. So I think we have tough
decisions to make, and I am prepared to address them further.
Finally, although not glamorous, there is the very
important work of allowing the Department to become a fully
mature, well-managed department in terms of its institutional
capabilities. We are requesting $120 million for the DHS
headquarters project. This is the only major area in which we
were disappointed in the 2008 omnibus appropriations, when we
didn't get any money for this.
It may seem that bricks and mortar don't add value, but I
can tell you in terms of morale, in terms of capability of
managing, in terms of being able to put into place the very
things which assure that we are responsible stewards of the
public purse, having an ability to bring people together and
work efficiently is critical in order to get the job done. I
hope we can get the money for that this year.
Finally, I want to say, Mr. Chairman, I am very focused on
your to-do list which you presented to me last year, about
things you were particularly concerned about. I think we have
either completed these identified tasks, or we are on track to
meet the scheduled requirement of completion.
Vacancies. We have added 113 executive positions this past
calendar year. Our vacancy rate is now about 10 percent,
putting to one side the 40 new SES allocations which we just
received about 2 months ago. So I think we are at or better
than the mark of most departments.
With respect to continuous security standards, we published
a request for information on December 12, and we have received
10 responses. As I indicated, we are issuing the national
response framework. With respect to the transportation worker
identity credential, enrollments began on October 16 in
Delaware. We have had more than 148,000 pre-enrollments, more
than 78,000 enrollments, more than 30,000 cards printed, and
more than 16,000 activated.
On explosives detection, we sent our interim passenger
security strategic plan to Congress in October, and expect to
produce the final plan as required by law in June. Finally on
our critical border security initiatives, we expect to publish
a proposed rulemaking soon that will require the transportation
industry to deploy biometric US-VISIT exit procedures at
airports and seaports by the end of 2008. This is a very
important initiative.
I am going to tell you, there is going to be push-back by
the industry, but we are going to be resolute in pushing ahead
with an initiative which is long overdue, and is important also
as part of the President's commitment to the visa waiver
program.
We have also conditionally accepted P-28, and we are now
reviewing it in terms of final acceptance. I am prepared to
talk about that as well.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for your
support. I want to echo what Representative King said. We
welcome oversight. On oversight, we have engaged I think
frequently, both formally and informally, with the committee,
as well as with your counterparts in the Senate and the
appropriators. What would be helpful to us, though, is to have
a reasonable number of oversight committees.
The difficulty with many committees is not merely the
duplication of effort, but the fact that we are get conflicting
signals. This committee, as far as the House is concerned, and
the Appropriations Committee, are the two committees that are
best situated to have an overall picture of what it is we do
and what we have to accomplish. Both for me and whoever my
successor is, it will help us enormously if we can rationalize
this process.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Secretary Chertoff follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Chertoff
February 13, 2008
Mr. Chairman, Congressman King, and Members of the committee, let
me begin by saying thank you for the strong support you have
consistently shown the Department, and I look forward to working with
you to make certain that we make the most effective and efficient use
of our resources and capabilities to protect the homeland and the
American people. While we have had many successes, there are numerous
challenges that still remain. I am here today to ask for your
partnership and support as we face these challenges. We may not see eye
to eye on all issues, but we certainly agree that our interests are
best served when we work together to achieve our common goal of
securing this great Nation.
I am pleased to appear before the committee today to highlight some
of our key accomplishments of the last year and to present President
Bush's fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).
This year, as DHS embarks on our fifth-year anniversary, we
continue to protect the Nation from dangerous people and goods; to
protect critical infrastructure; to build a nimble, effective emergency
response system and a culture of preparedness; and to strengthen the
Department's operations and management. The Department has made
tremendous progress in achieving effective control of the border,
screening passengers, protecting critical infrastructure, responding to
emergencies, and enforcing our immigration laws. In fiscal year 2007,
we invested significant time and effort to implement the requirements
of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, to focus our
efforts on the greatest risks, to be nimble in our response to changing
threats, and to be disciplined in our use of resources as we build a
Department ready to meet future challenges seamlessly with State and
local leadership, first responders, the private sector, our
international partners, and most certainly, the public.
It is no accident that we have not suffered a major terrorist
attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001. It is the result of the
President's leadership, the support of Congress, and the hard work and
constant vigilance of hundreds of thousands of men and women--including
the employees at DHS--who are working tirelessly both at home and
overseas to protect our country. Under the President's leadership, the
Department will continue to effectively carry out its critical mission
and will leave a strong foundation for the future.
FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET REQUEST
Six years after September 11, 2001, we are moving beyond operating
as an organization in transition to a Department diligently working to
protect our borders and critical infrastructure, prevent dangerous
people and goods from entering our country, and recover from natural
disasters effectively. The total fiscal year 2009 budget request for
DHS is $50.5 billion in funding, a 7 percent increase over the fiscal
year 2008 enacted level excluding emergency funding. The Department's
fiscal year 2009 gross discretionary budget request is $40.7 billion,
an increase of 8 percent over the fiscal year 2008 enacted level
excluding emergency funding. Gross discretionary funding does not
include mandatory funding such as the Coast Guard's retirement pay
accounts and fees paid for immigration benefits. The Department's
fiscal year 2009 net discretionary budget request is $37.6 billion,
which does not include fee collections such as funding for the Federal
Protective Service and aviation security passenger and carrier fees.
In pursuit of the five priorities we established in 2007, the
Department continues to efficiently align resources to lead a unified
national effort in securing America. Those five priorities are:
Goal 1. Protect our Nation from Dangerous People;
Goal 2. Protect our Nation from Dangerous Goods;
Goal 3. Protect Critical Infrastructure;
Goal 4. Build a Nimble, Effective Emergency Response System
and a Culture of Preparedness;
Goal 5. Strengthen and Unify DHS Operations and Management.
We have made great progress in each of these areas, and with the
fiscal year 2009 budget, we will continue that momentum. Let me
highlight some of our key accomplishments along with initiatives and
ongoing programs in our fiscal year 2009 budget request.
GOAL 1: PROTECT OUR NATION FROM DANGEROUS PEOPLE
We will continue to protect our Nation from dangerous people by
strengthening our border security efforts and continuing our efforts to
gain effective control of our borders. The Department's main priority
is to prevent additional terrorist attacks against our country. DHS has
worked to prevent the entry of terrorists while facilitating the
legitimate flow of people.
Key Accomplishments
More Fencing at the Border.--By the end of calendar year
2007, 287 miles of pedestrian and vehicular fencing was in
place at the border. By the end of 2008, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) will have constructed a total of 670
miles of fencing, which will include roughly 370 miles of
pedestrian fencing and 300 miles of vehicular fencing. CBP also
took conditional possession of the prototype Project 28
development of nine towers equipped with radar and
communications systems and automated ground sensors linked to a
command and control center and border patrol vehicles. A new
task order was issued to design, develop and test upgraded
Common Operating Picture software for the systems.
Increased Air and Marine Support.--CBP opened its fourth new
air branch in North Dakota this past September and is on track
to begin operations at the last northern border air branch in
Michigan this spring. Delivery of a fourth DHS Unmanned
Aircraft System (UAS) will enable the Department to operate
three UASs along the southwest border and to deploy one UAS to
the northern border this spring. The fiscal year 2009 request
supports the hiring and training of 24 new UAS pilots and the
establishment of a joint CBP/U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) UAS
program office for the development of a maritime variant of the
Predator B. It also supports the continuation of an aggressive
service life extension program for the Department's P-3
maritime patrol aircraft that are so critical to intercepting
drug traffic in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific and
countering the increasing threat posed by the cartels' use of
semi-submersible vessels.
Secure Documentation Standards.--Compliance with secure
identification requirements for air travel under the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) has exceeded 99 percent
since implementation in January 2007. A Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for WHTI land and sea requirements was issued in
June 2007 and final rule implementation is expected in June
2009.
Enhanced Driver's Licenses.--The Department signed
agreements with the States of Washington, Vermont, New York,
and Arizona to enhance the security of their State driver's
licenses and to potentially satisfy REAL ID requirements or
serve as alternatives for entry at land and sea borders.
Better Biometrics.--Ten-fingerprint collection from
international visitors has been deployed by CBP at nine ports
of entry, and will be implemented at 278 other ports of entry
by the end of 2008. This upgrade from two- to ten-fingerprint
collection will enhance security and fingerprint matching
accuracy, improving the ability to compare visitors'
fingerprints against latent fingerprints collected from known
and unknown terrorists around the world. US-VISIT, the Science
and Technology Directorate (S&T) and the Coast Guard have
partnered on a pilot fingerprint collection at sea program near
Puerto Rico, resulting in 114 prosecutions and a 53 percent
reduction in migrant flow.
Record-Breaking Law Enforcement.--U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) removed roughly 240,000 illegal
aliens, and made 863 criminal arrests and fined or seized more
than $30 million following worksite investigations. Its Border
Enforcement Security Task Forces made more than 500 criminal
arrests and 1,000 administrative arrests, and seized roughly
$2.5 million in cash as well as significant amounts of
narcotics and weapons. Further, ICE ACCESS was launched to
foster collaboration between its agents and State and local
leaders to identify crime-fighting priorities.
Enhanced Aviation Security.--The Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) increased by more than 175 percent the
number of personnel trained in techniques to identify
potentially high-risk passengers in airports. Furthermore, TSA
required that holders of airport-issued identification
credentials be subjected to regular vetting against the
Terrorist Screening Database. It also harmonized the 3-1-1
Liquids Rule with the European Union and many other countries,
and published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in August to take
over watch-list checks from the airlines under the Secure
Flight program in 2010.
Connecting the Dots.--The Department renewed a Passenger
Name Record (PNR) agreement with the European Union to share
advance information on passengers arriving in and departing
from the United States. PNR data has helped frontline personnel
to identify scores of dangerous people and deny them entry into
the country.
Protecting U.S. and World Leaders.--The U.S. Secret Service
(USSS) continues to meet unprecedented challenges of protecting
domestic and world leaders. In addition, protection of
Presidential candidates has resumed and comprehensive plans for
securing the 2008 Presidential campaign are being implemented.
Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request
Border Patrol Agents.--Funding of $442.4 million is
requested in the President's budget to hire, train and equip
2,200 new Border Patrol Agents and appropriate support. The
additional agents represent the fiscal year 2009 increment of
the President's goal of adding 6,000 new Border Patrol Agents
by the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2009. This
request would increase the Border Patrol to over 20,000 agents
by the end of September 2009, more than double the amount in
2001.
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.--A total of $140.0
million is requested for CBP's implementation of infrastructure
and technology in support of the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative (WHTI). These funds will complete the infrastructure
improvements at the top 39 Land Ports of Entry, covering 95
percent of the land border arrivals.
E-Verify.--Total funding of $100 million is requested for E-
Verify. This U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
program allows employers to use an automated system to verify
name, date of birth, and Social Security Number, along with
immigration information for non-citizens, against Federal
databases to confirm the employment eligibility of both citizen
and non-citizen new hires. USCIS will deploy additional staff
covering information status verification, compliance, and
monitoring. It is important that Congress reauthorize the
program so that these employers can continue to benefit from E-
Verify and not have to play detective when hiring new
employees.
Vetting Infrastructure Improvements.--An increase of $30
million is requested to support TSA's Vetting Infrastructure
Improvements, providing screening and credentialing of
individuals requiring special access to U.S. transportation and
other critical infrastructure. These funds will enhance and
stabilize the infrastructure necessary to perform vetting
operations on populations that access our most critical
infrastructure.
Secure Flight.--The budget requests an increase of $32
million that will accelerate the Secure Flight Program by
replacing the current airline managed passenger vetting program
with a Government-operated program in 2010. In addition to
using improved technology, the Secure Flight Program will
alleviate the variability in performance of the current system
and reduce the risk for compromised watch list data.
Additional Bedspace and Staffing.--An increase of $46
million is requested to help provide 1,000 additional beds,
staffing, and associated removal costs required to meet current
demand and demand generated by increased immigration
enforcement activities. Of the 1,000 beds, the addition of 275
will be funded through projected increases in collections.
Automation Modernization of Information Technology
Systems.--The budget includes $57 million for ICE to acquire
secure and interoperable tactical communications equipment, a
biometric detainee location tracking module, and to develop and
integrate an enhanced Investigative Case Management system.
These improvements promote officer safety, emergency response
coordination, and case management efficiencies.
Federal Law Enforcement Training.--An increase of $10
million is requested for the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center (FLETC) to provide training to meet increases in border
security and law enforcement hiring levels.
US-VISIT.--A total of $390.3 million is requested for US-
VISIT. This funding will complete the transition from two-print
to ten-print collection. Taking all ten fingerprints will
improve accuracy and allow us to increase the number of matches
from latent prints captured all over the world. This funding
also allows US-VISIT to continue to provide biometric identity
services to law enforcement and intelligence, and it will help
complete interoperability between US-VISIT and FBI databases.
Command 21 and Situation Unit Watchstanders.--The budget
includes $7.3 million to support continued development of
Command 21 and additional watchstanders at USCG Command Centers
to meet increasing operational demands and support additional
vessel monitoring, information collection, and interagency
coordination capability provided by Command 21. These
initiatives will provide information sharing and situational
awareness tools required to close the gap between current port
and coastal surveillance capabilities and the need for greater
Maritime Domain Awareness in an all-hazards, all-threats
operating environment.
GOAL 2: PROTECT OUR NATION FROM DANGEROUS GOODS
We have also made much progress in protecting our Nation from
dangerous goods. As a part of its risk-based approach, the Department
is expanding its programs to identify, track, and intercept nuclear and
radiological components and systems at ports of entry and in
transportation systems within U.S. borders. We are intensifying our
efforts to bolster capabilities to reduce the risk of a biological
attack in the United States.
Key Accomplishments
Overseas Radiation Scanning.--100 percent of shipping
containers bound for the United States from three foreign
ports--Port Qasim (Pakistan), Port Cortes (Honduras), and Port
Southampton (United Kingdom)--are now scanned for radiological
and nuclear materials prior to departure. Scanning equipment is
also being deployed to Port Busan (South Korea), Singapore,
Hong Kong, and Salalah (Oman).
Comprehensive Radiation Detection.--The Department has
deployed more than 1,000 radiation detection devices to the
Nation's land and sea ports of entry. Today, 100 percent of
cargo containers crossing the southern border are scanned for
radiation, 91 percent at the northern border, and more than 98
percent of cargo containers are scanned at our seaports.
Improving Import Safety.--The Office of Health Affairs (OHA)
engaged in the President's Import Safety Working Group to
develop a comprehensive action plan with short- and long-term
recommendations that better protect consumers and enhance the
safety of imported goods.
Expanded Container Security Initiative.--CBP expanded the
Container Security Initiative to 58 ports screening 86 percent
of maritime containers bound for the United States.
Record-Breaking Narcotics Seizures.--USCG seized more than
350,000 pounds of cocaine at sea this year--a record-breaking
160 metric tons--worth an estimated street value of more than
$4.7 billion. CBP frontline personnel seized more than 3.2
million pounds of narcotics at and between ports of entry.
Southwest Border Drug Strategy.--The Office of
Counternarcotics Enforcement co-chaired the creation of the
first-ever National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy
and Implementation Plan, which identifies major goals,
objectives, and resource requirements for closing gaps in U.S.-
Mexico counternarcotics capabilities at the southwest border.
Reducing Risk From Small Vessels.--USCG worked with small
boat manufacturers, industry groups and the public on
mitigating the security risks posed by small vessels. Thirteen
Maritime Safety and Security Teams, part of a 3,000 person
Specialized Deployed Forces Command, are stationed at strategic
ports Nation-wide with unique training to counter the small
boats threat. The Coast Guard and the Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office (DNDO) are collaborating with local
authorities on a pilot program in Puget Sound and San Diego
waterways on small vessel radiation detection.
Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request
Nuclear Detection Research, Development, and Operations.--
The budget request includes $334.2 million to support DNDO's
Research, Development and Operations program which provides
resources for the development and evolution of the global
nuclear detection architecture. Included in this research are
development of an Advanced Spectroscopic Portal (ASP) suitable
for examining cargo containers, trucks and privately owned
vehicles, and development of Human Portable Radiation Detection
Systems (HPRDS) to provide handheld and ``relocatable''
equipment to be used as primary detection tools by Customs
Officers, Border Patrol agents, and USCG personnel.
Next Generation BioWatch.--The budget includes $111.6
million, an increase of $34.5 million, for OHA's Next
Generation BioWatch. Funding will begin to procure BioWatch
automated detection sensors and initiate deployment activities
of the automated sensor system to existing BioWatch
jurisdictions. Automated detection will enhance the
capabilities of the BioWatch environmental monitoring system
designed for early warning of bioterrorism incidents.
Aviation Security.--The budget addresses the need to upgrade
checked baggage screening equipment deployed immediately after
September 11, which is exceeding its useful life. The screening
equipment is used to screen 100 percent of the 1.8 million
checked bags passengers travel with every day. The budget also
speeds the rollout of inline systems at all major airports in 6
years by allowing a more flexible approach to funding these
projects. To support this activity, legislative authorization
is required for a temporary surcharge to the current $2.50
passenger fee--$0.50 added to each leg of a trip capped at
$1.00. The surcharge is proposed to begin in fiscal year 2009
and sunset in fiscal year 2012. It will generate an additional
$426 million in revenue in fiscal year 2009 and approximately
$1.7 billion over 4 years, nearly doubling previously planned
annual resources for checked baggage explosive detection
systems. The increased revenue will be added to the existing
$250 million annual Aviation Security Capital Fund which is
targeted exclusively for checked baggage explosive detection
systems.
GOAL 3: PROTECT CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
The Department aims to protect critical infrastructure and key
resources, essential government operations, public health and welfare,
and the country's economic and national security interests. Efforts to
bolster the resiliency and protection of our Nation's critical
infrastructure and key resources helps to mitigate potential
vulnerabilities and to ensure terrorist plans are not successful.
Key Accomplishments
Setting Chemical Security Standards.--NPPD established
national guidelines for chemical facility security in a
comprehensive set of regulations to protect chemical facilities
from attack and prevent theft of chemicals that could be used
as weapons.
Assessed Impacts of Chemical Attacks.--S&T conducted the
first comprehensive chemical threat risk assessment across a
broad range of toxic chemicals that better focuses inter-agency
priorities accordingly to risk.
Released Sector Specific Plans.--NPPD released 17 sector-
specific infrastructure protection plans, creating a
comprehensive risk management framework of national priorities,
goals, and requirements to protect critical infrastructure and
key resources.
Launched Improvised Explosives Device Awareness Campaign.--
DHS has undertaken a national Improvised Explosives Device
(IED) Prevention and Awareness Campaign, working with Federal,
State and local agencies and stakeholders to boost
participation in the TRIPwire and National Capabilities
Analysis Database information-sharing portals.
Increasing Cyber Security.--NPPD continued deploying
EINSTEIN systems, which find malicious patterns in Federal
computer network traffic, and will expand systems this year.
The United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT)
issued over 200 actionable alerts on cyber security
vulnerabilities or incidents in fiscal year 2007 from its 24-
hour watch center. Finally, the Secret Service currently
maintains 24 Electronic Crimes Task Forces to prevent, detect,
mitigate and aggressively investigate cyber attacks on our
Nation's financial and critical infrastructures.
Greater Information Sharing.--The Office of Intelligence and
Analysis (I&A) has deployed 22 personnel to State and Local
Fusion Centers across the country. DHS has also deployed
networks such as the Homeland Secure Data Network, a system for
securely communicating classified information, to 18 centers
and anticipates deploying to many more centers this year.
Credentialing Port Workers.--Since October more than 70,000
port workers have enrolled in the Transportation Worker
Identification Credential (TWIC) biometric credential program.
More than 750,000 longshoremen, truck drivers, port employees
and others requiring unescorted access to secure areas of ports
will also be required to obtain a TWIC card.
Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request
Protective Terrorist Countermeasures.--Total funding of $19
million is requested for USSS Protective Terrorist
Countermeasures. This program provides the latest state-of-the-
art equipment that will be used in the event of an explosive,
chemical, biological, or radiological attack. As new threats
evolve and are identified, it is critical the Secret Service
has the means to address them.
Chemical Security Compliance Project.--An increase of $13
million is included for NPPD's Chemical Security Compliance
Project. The Department issued regulations establishing risk-
based performance standard for security of chemical facilities.
Additional funding is requested to increase the staff of this
regulatory program and to provide tools and systems to collect
and analyze vulnerability information, review plans, support
and manage inspections activity, issue decisions, address
appeals, and support compliance enforcement.
Explosives Research.--$96 million is requested to support
S&T in developing the technical capabilities to detect,
interdict, and lessen the impacts of non-nuclear explosives
used in terrorist attacks against mass transit, civil aviation
and critical infrastructure. Of these funds, $50 million will
address critical capability gaps in the areas of deterring,
predicting, detecting, defeating, and mitigating the use of
IEDs in the United States. The Vehicle Borne Improvised
Explosive Device/Suicide Bomber Improvised Explosive Device
(VBIED/SBIED) program will allow S&T to improve large threat
mass detection in such areas as the transit environment,
special events and other large areas.
GOAL 4: BUILD A NIMBLE, EFFECTIVE EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEM AND A
CULTURE OF PREPAREDNESS
Improving our Nation's ability to respond to disasters, man-made or
natural, is a top priority for the Department. Incorporating lessons
learned from Hurricane Katrina, other disasters, and the 9/11
Commission Recommendations, the Department is improving its
capabilities and preparing those who respond to acts of terror and
other emergencies.
Key Accomplishments
Responded to 68 Major Disasters.--During fiscal year 2007,
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) responded to over
130 events that resulted in 68 Major Disaster Declarations, 11
Emergency Declarations, and 54 Fire Management Assistance
Declarations, including tornadoes in Florida and Kansas, floods
in the Midwest and Tropical Storm Erin.
Supporting Local Security Plans.--The Office of
Infrastructure Protection's Protective Security Advisors worked
in State and local Emergency Operations Centers providing
expertise and support to local authorities, the Principal
Federal Official and the Federal Coordinating Officer during
major domestic incidents including the Virginia Tech shootings
in Blacksburg, Virginia; the Chevron Refinery Fire in
Pascagoula, Mississippi; the I-35W bridge collapse in
Minneapolis, Minnesota; and the Florida and California
Wildfires.
Improved Interagency Coordination.--The Office of Operations
Coordination (OPS) led Federal prevention, protection, and
response activities to all-hazard threats during several
incidents in 2007, specifically the recent outbreaks of Foot
and Mouth Disease in the United Kingdom and the vehicle-borne
improvised explosive device attacks in the United Kingdom.
Building Stronger Response Partnerships.--DHS engaged State
and local leadership, first responders and stakeholders on
developing the National Response Framework, which outlines how
our Nation responds to all-hazard disasters across all levels
of Government and community sectors.
New Operations Capabilities.--USCG established the
Deployable Operations Group which aligns all deployable,
specialized USCG forces under a single, unified command in
adaptive, tailored force packages for rapid response to
national threats.
Saved Over One Million Lives.--The Coast Guard reached a
remarkable milestone this year, saving more than 1 million
lives throughout its 217-year history.
Awarded Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grants.--
DHS administered over $968 million in Public Safety
Interoperable Communications Grants which will help support the
establishment of State-wide Communications Interoperability
Plans for improved first responder communication during major
disasters, and fund State and local projects aligned with those
plans.
Realizing Interoperable Communications.--S&T published
results of the National Interoperability Baseline Survey--a
Nation-wide survey of first responders across all jurisdictions
and disciplines that assesses progress in achieving
interoperable communications. By providing a clear
representation of national capacities, these survey findings
are helping emergency response leaders and policymakers make
informed decisions about strategies for improving
interoperability. The Department also established the Office of
Emergency Communications (OEC) to consolidate several
interoperability programs and address new responsibilities
including the development of the National Emergency
Communications Plan.
Strategic Planning for Catastrophic Disasters.--The Incident
Management Planning Team continued to draft Federal interagency
strategic plans that coordinate resources and capabilities to
prevent, protect against, respond to and recover from major
disasters and other catastrophic emergencies.
Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request
Grant Programs.--The budget requests $2.2 billion to support
FEMA's State and Local Programs and Assistance to Firefighters
Grants, just above the amount provided in the President's
fiscal year 2008 budget request. These important grant programs
help prepare State and local governments to prevent, protect
against, or respond to threats or incidents of terrorism and
other catastrophic events. The budget will support the existing
Homeland Security Grant Program, Port and Transit Security
Grants, and Emergency Management Performance Grants, and also
proposes a new discretionary grant program targeted toward high
priority security initiatives including REAL ID implementation.
While Congress chose to provide an additional $2 billion in the
fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, the
Department is requesting approximately the same level as the
fiscal year 2008 budget request.
The fiscal year 2009 budget requests $200 million for the State
Homeland Security Grants and increases funding for the Urban
Area Security Initiative to $825 million. The $300 million
funding request for the Assistance to Firefighter grants is
identical to the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request.
Over a 6-year period from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year
2007, grant recipients have drawn down $12.7 billion of the
$19.8 billion made available since the Department's inception.
On February 1, 2008, the Department announced an additional
$3.0 billion in grants to be provided this year. Including
congressional approval of the fiscal year 2009 request, a total
of $13.0 billion would be in the pipeline for State and local
homeland security needs.
FEMA Vision--Phase II.--The budget requests a total of
$164.5 million to support FEMA's Vision--Shape the Workforce
program. Phase II of FEMA's transformation will strengthen that
agency's ability to marshal an effective national response,
deliver service of value to the public, reduce vulnerability to
life and property, and instill public confidence. The budget
also requests a total of $209 million to support FEMA's
disaster work force, including transitioning 4-year Cadre On-
Call Response Employees (CORE) from temporary to permanent
full-time personnel to achieve the level of readiness and
response capability required in response to presidentially
declared major disasters and emergencies.
Disaster Readiness and Support.--The budget includes $200
million in a new Disaster Readiness and Support Activities
account. This account will fund advanced readiness initiatives
that assist FEMA in preparing for future disasters and will
allow FEMA to perform critical administrative functions that
support the timely delivery of services during disasters.
GOAL 5: STRENGTHEN AND UNIFY DHS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT
A cohesive and operationally efficient organization is essential to
the rapid implementation of homeland security priorities, policies, and
objectives. As such, the Department has aligned its resources into
areas that will most effectively accomplish its mission. Successful
mission performance is driven by human capital development, executing
efficient procurement operations, and possessing state-of-the-art
information technology resources. We continue to improve systems for
intelligence and information sharing.
Key Accomplishments
Continued Integration.--DHS was created 5 years ago to serve
as the unifying core for the vast national network of
organizations and institutions involved in securing our Nation.
Over the past year, DHS has further integrated core management
functions and systems throughout headquarters and the
components, achieving a more cohesive and unified Department.
Enhanced Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.--The
Privacy Office and the Office for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties have worked to enhance privacy and civil rights and
civil liberties through the Department's work in cyber
security, the use of satellite technology, airport screening
protocols, and partnerships with Muslim-American communities.
Increased Responsiveness to Congressional Inquiries.--DHS
improved responsiveness and adherence to congressional
deadlines. This included the on-time submission of over 3,000
congressional Questions for the Record (QFR). Average response
time to congressional correspondence has dropped from 5-6 weeks
to an average of 2.5 weeks, and average response time to
Authorization QFRs has dropped from 6 months or more to an
average of 35 business days.
Consolidation of Information Technology Network Sites.--The
Department has consolidated more than 1,780 IT network sites
into a single network that allows transparent monitoring of
system performance and activity, prioritization of traffic, and
vastly improved security posture.
Strengthened Business Processes and Technology.--USCIS
launched a new fee schedule designed to bring decades-old
systems into the 21st century and improve customer service.
Record-Setting Levels of Federal Law Enforcement Training.--
FLETC trained a record-setting 60,458 students from all three
branches of the Federal Government, as well as international,
State, local, campus, and tribal law enforcement agencies.
Improved Recruitment and Hiring.--DHS decreased the average
time it takes to hire new DHS employees, 4 days shorter than
the Office of Personnel Management targets. DHS also exceeded
targeted goals by hiring more than 2,300 protection officers;
11,200 transportation security officers; and 412 immigration
enforcement agents.
Record FEMA Staffing Levels.--For the first time in a
decade, FEMA attained a 95 percent staffing level and
strengthened regional capability through the creation of over
100 new positions in FEMA's ten regional offices.
Enhanced Employee Training and Communication Tools.--DHS
recently launched new training and communications tools
including DHSCovery, a state-of-the-art online training system.
Increased Border Patrol and Field Operations Staffing.--CBP
increased Border Patrol agent staffing by an unprecedented 21
percent since its inception in March, 2003, growing to 14,923
agents at the end of fiscal year 2007. In addition, CBP Office
of Field Operations hired 2,156 new officers and 340
agriculture specialists.
Streamlined Acquisition Processes.--The Coast Guard created
an innovative and centralized acquisition directorate in July
2007, significantly improving program execution, contracting
practices, research and development, and industry oversight.
Enhanced Training to Prevent and Investigate Cyber-related
Crimes.--The Secret Service developed a National Computer
Forensics Institute in Hoover, Alabama. This cyber crimes
training facility provides State and local law enforcement
officers, prosecutors, and judges with training, equipment, and
expertise in computer forensics and digital evidence analysis.
FY 2009 Budget Request
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review.--A total of $1.65
million is requested for the first ever Quadrennial Homeland
Security Review (QHSR). Funding is required to research,
organize, analyze, and develop the QHSR. This document will
recommend long-term strategy and priorities of the Nation for
homeland security and comprehensively examine programs, assets,
budget, policies, and authorities required to provide the
United States with strong, sound and effective homeland
security capabilities in the decades ahead. The Office of
Policy requests $1.5 million and the remaining $0.150 million
is requested in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO).
Transformation and Systems Consolidation.--An increase of
$15.5 million is requested for OCFO to continue implementation
of the Transformation and Systems Consolidation (TASC) project.
One of the main objectives of DHS at its formation was to
consolidate the support systems of the component agencies to
realize cost savings and operational efficiencies. OCFO aims to
reduce the number of DHS financial systems, and ensure the
manual processes for internal controls are integrated with
these financial systems. DHS will begin migrating OHA, S&T, DHS
Headquarters, NPPD, CIS, and ICE's financial systems to the TSA
Oracle Shared Baseline.
DHS-Wide Acquisition Workforce Intern Program.--The budget
includes an increase of $3.1 million for the Office of the
Chief Procurement Officer. DHS will enhance the Acquisition
Intern Program which recruits, trains, certifies, and retains
an appropriate workforce of acquisition professionals. In
fiscal year 2009 the intern cohort will be raised to 100
people.
Office of the Inspector General Auditors.--An increase of
$6.4 million is requested for the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) to expand staff oversight of DHS preparedness
programs, through audits of preparedness grant programs,
science and technology programs, and Department-wide programs
that establish the Department's baseline preparedness efforts.
The additional funds will strengthen OIG oversight of DHS
border security and enforcement programs through a proactive
program of audits and on-going oversight of the policies,
initiatives and funds to secure the Nation's borders.
State and Local Fusion Center Program.--Funding for I&A's
State and Local Fusion Center program is to create a web of
interconnected information nodes across the country ensuring
information is gathered from all relevant operations and fused
with information from the Homeland Security Stakeholder
Community. The budget requests funds to assist in producing
accurate, timely, and relevant actionable intelligence products
and services in support of the Department's homeland security
missions.
Vigilant Watch Over America.--OPS carries out its unified
mission to secure America by maintaining the National
Operations Center (NOC) and by providing 365/24/7 incident
management capabilities to ensure seamless integration of
threat monitoring and information flow. To improve
technological capabilities within the NOC, the budget requests
funding to provide improved data infusion, the auto-ingestion
of data from multiple sources, and the creation of a
consolidated, centralized data repository. In addition, funds
are requested for the Principal Federal Official (PFO) program.
As mandated by Presidential directive, the Secretary of
Homeland Security is the Principal Federal Official responsible
for coordination of all domestic incidents requiring multi-
agency Federal response. Funding will provide a standing
organizational structure to plan, train, exercise, deploy and
support the PFO program.
Create DHS Counterintelligence Program.--Under the
leadership of the Chief Intelligence Officer, I&A and the
Office of Security will develop a new DHS-wide
counterintelligence program to analyze threats posed by foreign
intelligence entities collecting against the Department,
support risk management decisions, and enhance operations and
implement strategies and policies to unify the Department's
counterintelligence mission.
CONCLUSION
I am sure you will recognize that with the support of Congress, the
Department has had many successes. I have outlined many of them in my
testimony today and how they relate to the Department's five priority
goals. As we move forward to face the many challenges ahead, we are
keeping in mind past experiences and lessons learned that will be at
the core of our planning and implementation efforts.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I look
forward to answering your questions and to working with you on the
fiscal year 2009 budget request and other issues.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
For the committee, there is a motion to adjourn on the
floor. We have some 3 minutes left before time is called.
So Mr. Secretary, if you would, we will reconvene shortly
after the vote.
[Recess.]
Chairman Thompson. We would like to call the recess meeting
back to order.
In case you don't know, they just called another motion to
adjourn, as soon as we get back from that one. But in the
interest of time, we will do as much as we can and move
forward.
Again, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony on the
budget. I look forward to working with you on it.
Mr. Secretary, as you know, one of the eight priorities for
securing the Nation is preserving civil liberties in times of
terror. The committee is concerned with the Department's
proposed National Applications Office which would expand the
use of spy satellites for new homeland and law enforcement
purposes.
Although the numbers and personnel details for the NAO are
classified, the President's 2009 budget assumes that you will
be addressing our privacy and civil liberties concerns with the
program. It has been 5 months, and the committee has yet to
hear anything. What can you tell us today that would give us
greater confidence that the NAO would not violate the
constitutional rights of Americans?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, I am
actually going to meet with you later today, and with
Representative King, and I think hopefully with others as well,
to talk about the NAO charter, which has really been completed
in draft form. Let me give you a general high-level outline of
why I think this actually enhances privacy and civil liberties.
We are not proposing to expand the uses to which satellites
are put. We are proposing to rationalize and, in a more orderly
way, control the way satellites are used domestically, which
will actually make it less likely that someone will violate
civil liberties. The charter lays down some basic principles.
The first principle is that nothing we are creating in the
National Applications Office will in any way suspend,
circumvent or evade existing or future laws that restrain the
use of any technique on a civil liberties basis. Second, we are
explicitly disavowing the use of the National Applications
Office as an office that would be involved in the interception
of verbal or written communications.
The interception of oral and written communications is
currently undertaken either under Title III of the Omnibus Safe
Streets Act or under FISA, and that will remain controlled by
those statutes. We don't propose to get into that business.
Third, there is a very stringent procedure with respect to any
novel technologies that are proposed to be used, that before
such a technology is authorized, lawyers from all the relevant
departments assure themselves that any legal requirements have
been met--if for example, a technology were proposed to be used
that arguably infringed on Fourth Amendment rights, or would
require a warrant from a judge before we actually authorized
it.
What this will wind up doing is taking what is currently an
ad hoc system where people individually go to the satellite
operators and ask for help, and put it into a system which is
visible and accountable, which is a plus for civil liberties.
Finally, before we actually turn the lights on, so to
speak, we will be preparing and submitting a privacy impact
assessment and a civil liberties impact assessment as required
by last year's appropriations act. That should be forthcoming
in the next couple of weeks.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you. I look forward to our meeting
later today to go over some other details of that.
Earlier in your testimony, you also referenced that you are
requesting the same amount of grant money for programs that you
requested last year. Yet as you know, some of those programs
are either scheduled for elimination or reductions. Can you
explain your comment there?
Secretary Chertoff. Sure. There are a couple of small
programs where we have made some reductions, but in the major
programs--urban area security initiatives--our request this
year is higher than our request last year and higher than what
was enacted. That reflects, by the way, our general effort to
drive in the direction of risk-based grants.
In the area of State homeland security grant programs,
while that particular line item is reduced from our request
last year by $50 million, we have added $110 million in a new
program called national security and terrorism prevention
grants, which nets out to basically a $10 million increase in
this type of function over our last year's request.
Port security grants, we are requesting what we requested
last year. Rail transportation security grants, we are
requesting what we requested last year. Bus security grants, we
are requesting what we requested last year.
I recognize that what was enacted exceeds the requests, and
there are obviously some differences about how we cut the pie
up. But in terms of the way we have projected forth, a
disciplined grant allocation program over a period of years, we
are at or exceeding our prior year's request.
I might add, there was some pretty vigorous debate about
this. I think we actually came out pretty well.
Chairman Thompson. Well, but you do understand that Ranking
Member King and myself raised the issue in our testimony that
there is some difference of opinion between reducing programs,
zeroing programs out, and that money. So at some point, I am
sure you will see that debate surface again.
In the interest of time, I will yield 5 minutes to the
Ranking Member before we have to go vote again. Mr. King.
Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, for once I am ahead of you. I just
voted, so I got the best of you at least once in the last year.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Thompson. Well, at least you knew what was going
on. I didn't.
[Laughter.]
Mr. King. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, you may have covered this in the questioning
with Chairman Thompson, but could you update us on the status
of the fence along the border and what the projections are?
Secretary Chertoff. We have about 294 miles of physical
pedestrian and vehicle barriers. We have the money that we need
this fiscal year to keep on track to get 670 miles done, which
will basically take us to barriers from the Pacific Ocean to
the New Mexico-Texas border--not 100 percent, but close to it--
except in those areas where there is a natural barrier like
mountains and things of that sort.
We also have plans to build a significant amount of mileage
in Texas, but less. I am pleased to say that last week--and
Representative Cuellar on this committee was present and very
helpful in this--we reached an agreement with Hidalgo County,
Texas in which we were actually combining their levee-
strengthening money and our fence money to build a wall that
will serve both as a flood protection wall and as a barrier to
illegal smuggling. We consider a wall to be equivalent to a
fence functionally.
So we are on track to doing this. Assuming we get money in
the 2009 budget, we anticipate completing this. I should say
there has been a tremendous amount of litigation. We are
spending unfortunately a lot of time in court trying to get
this stuff done. Most people are cooperative. There are some
who take the attitude they don't want to have fence built on
their property.
The difficulty is, if you own property at the border and
that property is a byway for smuggling of drugs and people, we
have to get control over that. Much as I respect people's
property rights, unfortunately the consequence of letting drugs
and people come through on an unrestricted border are felt in
the streets of New York and Washington and Chicago, and I have
to stop that.
Mr. King. I am going to yield to Mr. Smith for one
question.
Mr. Smith. I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding.
Secretary Chertoff, I have several questions I will submit
to you in writing, but one question on the subject at hand is
this. Congress specifically said that the administration should
provide for double-fencing, and yet you are only, to my
knowledge, building 31 miles of double-fencing. Why not do what
Congress has said?
Secretary Chertoff. Actually, you know, I think last year
in the appropriations, there was language put in that gives us
flexibility. So I think we are in compliance with the current
law.
Mr. Smith. How many miles of double-fencing do you intend
to build?
Secretary Chertoff. I can't tell you that because I think
it is going to depend upon the Border Patrol's assessment of
where they think it would be helpful. We are going to try to
build a single fence first, because it is more important to
block the vehicles.
Mr. Smith. What we have seen in some way the double-fencing
works the best. I hope you will do that.
Let me yield back.
Secretary Chertoff. Can I just say, Representative Smith,
let me tell you, though, it is not a panacea. I will give you
an example from the last couple of weeks. Someone took a wire
and ran it between the two fences. When we discovered the wire,
we realized it was configured in a way so that if it was pulled
it would take off the head of the Border Patrol agent riding in
an open car.
I must tell you, and I rely on the Border Patrol for this,
that double-fencing is not a magic bullet. It works well in
some areas. In some areas, it actually doesn't work well.
Mr. Smith. Okay. I hope you will build as much of it
wherever it works.
I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.
Mr. King. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Reclaiming my time, Mr. Secretary, one of the reasons we
are going back and forth is because of these procedural votes
on the whole issue of FISA, of which I know you have some
intimate knowledge. Last year in New York with the JFK plot, my
understanding is, without going through all the details, there
were conversations between people in the United States and
people in Trinidad and Guyana, so this does hit home, this
issue.
Do you have anything you want to say at today's hearing
about the importance of FISA and the renewal of it, and the
Protect America Act?
Secretary Chertoff. Yes. I think this is, without getting
into a specific case that is in court, I think over my years
both at the Justice Department and here, FISA has been maybe
the No. 1 tool--the ability to intercept international
conversations. This is the radar that we have for the 21st
century to detect attacks before they happen.
I think the Senate passed a good bill, as the President
said. I think it is important that we get this thing enacted so
that there is no uncertainty about our authorities to go
forward.
Mr. King. I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
We now yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from California,
Ms. Harman.
Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary, and thank you for your many
courtesies to me and my constituents over your 3 years in your
impossible job. We appreciate your visits to California. We
appreciate your visits to the ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach, and your focus on one of the most at-risk parts of our
country. I do want to thank you.
I want to associate myself with the comments of Ranking
Member King about congressional jurisdiction. It is enormously
frustrating. I think that you are right, that this committee in
the House is the committee that should have most of the
jurisdiction, and it should be easier for us and easier for you
than it is. I hope that in the next Congress we will move on
and recognize that if Congress is going to do oversight
properly, we need to streamline the way we operate. That was,
after all, one of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.
Chairman Thompson. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Harman. I would be happy to yield.
Chairman Thompson. Just in the interest of time, Mr.
Secretary, we will kind of rotate the Members going and voting,
so we can kind of keep the questioning going.
I yield back.
Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Second, I just listened to this conversation about FISA. As
one who knows that program intimately, and thinks it is very
important, I would point out to everyone that FISA is not
expiring this week. If anything expires, it would be, in my
view, a set of ill-advised amendments to FISA that the House
and Senate passed in August. FISA is a very important statute.
It has been on the books for 3 decades. I think it works well,
and I am certainly hopeful that if it needs amending, we do it
on a bipartisan and bicameral basis, and do continue to track
the activities of foreign terrorists.
Let me make one other comment about things you are doing. I
know that you are concerned about radiological threats. You and
I have had this conversation off-line, and I think you have had
it with other Members of the committee. I want to encourage you
to continue to work on that. I think the dirty bomb that may be
in our future may be one that can be put together inside our
borders, and may not have to come in a container or on a
general aviation airplane, or through the southern or northern
border.
Do you agree with that?
Secretary Chertoff. I do agree with that, yes.
Ms. Harman. So I encourage you to keep working on it. This
Member will cooperate with you in every way possible. If you
can get increased protection for radiological sources done just
through activities of your Department, without the need for
legislation, Godspeed.
Secretary Chertoff. We are doing that.
Ms. Harman. Okay. My question is really about borders. No
one has missed it that this budget is front-loaded in terms of
border protection, and other priorities are funded less in
order to enhance border protection. Two questions: No. 1, what
about the northern border? It seems to me most of the focus is
on the southern border. I remember very well that the fellow
who was going to blow up my airport--Los Angeles International
Airport--was apprehended at the northern border.
Second of all, what about the borders on our east and west?
I am specifically talking about ports. The Port Security Act,
the Safe Port Act, that was passed on a bipartisan basis out of
this committee, and I was one of its original authors, provided
or authorized $400 million a year for layered port security. I
know that is a concept you support, yet that is cut in half in
order to fund these initiatives at the southern border.
I have a minute left, but my question is about why not more
focus on the north, and aren't you doing something
counterproductive by cutting port security money, when that is
another border that obviously needs protection?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, let me say first of all, we are
focused on the northern border. The traffic between the ports
of entry in the northern border has typically been about 2
percent of the total, with 98 percent through the southern
border. There is plenty to be done. We have to kind of attack
the biggest problem first.
One thing we have done in the northern border, where I
agree with you, I think in some ways from a terrorism
standpoint, historically it has actually been a bigger
challenge. Historically, they have moved through the ports of
entry. What we have done in addition to recruiting and training
more inspectors--and we have 400-plus in this year's
appropriations, and we are seeking to have more in next
year's--we have tightened up on the documentation. We have
eliminated all declarations, which is going to be a big step
forward, I might add, over a tremendous, vociferous protest.
I am also happy to say that we have tracked the progress of
this, and it seems it has not caused the dislocations that were
feared.
As far as the ports are concerned, I agree with you. The
ports, and in fact between the ports, are borders. We have put
in the past several years a total of $16 billion in terms of
port security. If you look not only at grants, but if you look
at customs and border protection, and Coast Guard, we are
putting more money in both of those in fiscal year 2009.
I might add, by the way, that one of the things we are
doing is the Coast Guard is developing a small boat strategy to
look at what is between the ports, because frankly that is
where experience shows us a lot of smuggling takes place.
I am going to say this over and over again in the hearing.
There are many good things we could do. As with anybody else
who works with a budget, we have to start somewhere. I think we
are making progress. I am sure that future budgets will address
these other issues.
Ms. Harman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mrs. Christensen [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Harman.
The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Davis of Tennessee for 5
minutes.
Mr. Davis of Tennessee. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony.
Could you bring me up to date on the 287(g) program a
little bit, and what your plans are in this budget moving
forward?
Secretary Chertoff. We are seeking additional money for
287(g) in this budget. It has been a very effective program. It
is, of course, a voluntary program, and we have a backup of
jurisdictions that have requested the training.
We also have what I call 287(g) ``lite,'' which will recall
ICE access, which is a program we can use to train people in
State and local government to work with us, that is maybe not
quite as soup-to-nuts as the 287(g) program, but is still
effective, and we are providing that as well.
Mr. Davis of Tennessee. I hear from my district that local
law enforcement has requested help from the Federal Government,
and they are being told there is just not enough people, not
enough money, not enough support at the Federal level.
Secretary Chertoff. Well, I will tell you, enacted in 2007
was $46 million. This past year, it is $78 million, and we are
requesting $92 million. So we are certainly adding money, and
we are eager to help. Of course, again, demand probably
outstrips supply, but where we can't give people the full
287(g) program, ICE Access is kind of a 287(g) lite which we
can provide.
Mr. Davis of Tennessee. Could you tell me what you are
doing in relation to REAL ID?
Secretary Chertoff. Yes. We issued new regulations. This
was designed to address the concern that it was exorbitantly
expensive and too much for the States to bear. We cut the cost
by three-quarters. The main way we did that is we made some
adjustments in the actual physical characteristics of the card
stock to take account of some things that States were doing. We
also, for the category of people over 50, extended the time
period for bringing everybody into the REAL ID system so that
it synchronized with the ordinary State renewal periods. This
has cut the cost to about $8 a license.
What I have heard back is that has largely removed the
objections based on cost. Last I looked, and I may be a little
out of date, over 40 States have indicated that they are
interested in participating in this. That represents over 80
percent of the American driving public. I am confident we will
get the vast majority of States onboard with this by the time
we come to the deadline at the end of March.
I do have to say this, though, Congressman. There are some
ideological problems with this. I frankly don't understand it
because I think if you are going to ask people for
identification, it is crazy to make it easy to forge the
identification. At the end of the day, though, the mandate of
Congress and the law is clear. If States have not gotten a
waiver by the end of March, we will have no choice but to say
that for Federal purposes, their licenses are not acceptable as
Federal identification.
So first of all, I don't bluff. But even if I were a
bluffer, I would be legally constrained against bluffing. So we
are going to try and work with everybody. We have been very
encouraged by the response we have gotten, but we are very
determined to move this forward.
Mr. Davis of Tennessee. I have a large chemical
manufacturer in my district. Can you tell us what your plans
are dealing with chemical operations in the future?
Secretary Chertoff. Based on the authority we got from
Congress, for which we are grateful, we issued our regulations.
We basically have divided the chemical industry into four tiers
based upon the amount of risk. That is driven by the size, the
location, and the type of chemical that you are manufacturing
or storing.
The top tier chemical manufacturers have been notified now
by rulemaking about what they need to do to analyze the risk of
their particular facilities. We are reviewing those analyses,
and based on that review we are going to require certain
performance standards that have to be in place in order to
satisfy the requirements of the law. Then, particularly with
respect to the top risk facilities, we will be going out and
inspecting those. I don't know the particular facility you
have, but that is the process we have underway.
Mr. Davis of Tennessee. Okay, one last question. I can tell
you, in my district, building a fence is very important to the
people in northeast Tennessee. I think it is something we need
to do, be it a real fence, a virtual fence, some way that the
American people feel like they are secure from people coming
across illegally. As we move into the next budget cycle, how
much of the fence--either real or virtual--will actually
percentage-wise be built?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, by the end of this calendar year,
we will be a 670 miles of barriers. Plus, we will have deployed
40 what we call mobile surveillance systems. That is ground-
based radar. We will have our P-28 system, and begin to employ
other camera-based and sensor-based systems. So I can't give
you an exact percentage, but we will have substantially put
either real or virtual fencing or barriers across the entire
border.
Mr. Davis of Tennessee. Thank you.
Thank you.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
The Chairwoman now recognizes Ms. Sanchez for 5 minutes.
Ms. Sanchez. I thank the Chairwoman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being before us.
Mr. Secretary, in the corporate world, the rule of thumb is
when you do a merger that you wait about 5 years to have the
whole shake-out in the corporate culture and everything going
on. So my question to you is, the Department will soon be 5
years old. Where on the curve do you think you are as far as
trying to get morale up, get a cohesive culture going? Where do
you think you are at this point?
Secretary Chertoff. That is a question we have asked
ourselves. We have a Homeland Security Advisory Council, and we
had a subcommittee chaired by Herb Kelleher, who as you know is
the legendary CEO of Southwest Airlines, to look at the issue
of how do you form a corporate culture. They had a lot of very
interesting and informative ideas which we have put into place.
Let me tell you where I think we are. Our capability to
plan and execute jointly now is light-years ahead of where it
was when I came on board. We have some more work to do this
year, but we are building what we call, borrowing on the
military phrase, ``J-3/J-5''--planning and operations
coordination capability--that is able to give us visibility and
planning capability to synchronize a lot of our different
elements.
We have built through a series of management directives,
incentives to develop career paths that require you to do joint
activities or to serve in other components. So that I think in
terms of our building basic institutions that will promote
jointness--and here we have borrowed a lot, frankly, from DOD--
as well as the discipline of civilian planning, we have made
very substantial strides forward.
Other than the normal maturation process, there are two
potential obstacles to completing this process. One is we have
to get facilities. The need to have people work out of what are
really jerry-built facilities does have an impact on morale and
efficiency. Every other new organization in the fullness of
time gets a headquarters facility. For everything from health
to security to efficiency, we need to get St. Elizabeth's done.
Ms. Sanchez. You are so committed to St. E's?
Secretary Chertoff. Very much. Yes. The hot water pipes
broke about a month ago. We really have to move on this.
Ms. Sanchez. Because one of the problems that I have seen
is, for example, one of the things that was cut out of the
budget were the moneys for St. E's in this showdown with the
President. I mean, how do we get this on track? I am looking at
it from a standpoint of the inspector general was in, and he
said, look, great vision at the Department; terrible
management. Part of management is just not having to drive for
2 hours across town to go and see your subordinates.
Secretary Chertoff. Yes, that is amen. I mean, it is in the
2009 budget. We fought to keep it in the 2008 omnibus. That
process got compressed, shall we say, at the end. We were
largely happy. But part of the issue is a large part of the
budget is in GSA, and their piece was taken out. Then once
their piece goes, our piece fell.
I am making a point of talking about it now, because it is
really important in 2009 to get this started, for all the
reasons you have said. I couldn't agree with you more.
Ms. Sanchez. I think you have about $120 million in this
2009 budget. Realistically, how much do you need and how fast
can we get this whole issue of a headquarters done for you all?
Secretary Chertoff. If memory serves me, I think in the
2008 budget, GSA was looking for over $400 million for its
piece of that. So since it has been bumped down the road, I
think a rough estimate, I think we are talking about that order
of magnitude to get this process moving. The original plan was
to start with getting the Coast Guard in there and get this up
and running in 2011. We have lost a year, so I think you can do
the math.
One other thing I would say we need in terms of
institution-building is we need to stop reorganizing the
Department. At this point, you can debate whether we are in the
optimal structure, but you can't grow a tree by keeping tearing
its roots up every year. I think we need some stability for a
couple of years.
Ms. Sanchez. I was going to ask you about that. I mean,
some of the problems seem to be when I looked at some of the
reports of those being critical in particular to management, is
all of the political appointees and how people move around, and
now with a new administration coming in.
Secretary Chertoff. One thing we are doing is we have made
a conscious effort, and I have just about completed this, to
make sure we have career officials in the No. 2 or No. 3
positions in all the operating components in the significant
offices. So we will have personnel continuity. But every time
we have a major reorganization, first of all it freezes
everybody. Everybody is uncertain about what the future of
their job is. We spend an enormous amount of time and effort
reorganizing.
This may not be the best of all possible worlds, but it is
working well. I think if we could get a breather so the next
secretary can take 3 years, let us say, and kind of look at
where things are, maybe they will have some suggestions down
the line. But at this point, stability both from a personnel
and an organizational standpoint, and a physical structure--
those are the keys to really completing this task.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Ms. Sanchez.
The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Rogers for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
I wanted to start off with a letter I sent you last week,
and you sent me back a response today. The letter dealt with
the Center for Domestic Preparedness. In that letter, I
outlined my concern at the President's budget proposal, cutting
it 25 percent, or $15.5 million. As you know, this is a very
important facility in our country's effort to meet your fourth
goal that you outlined in your five goals up there, being able
to have adequately prepared and effective responders.
In the President's proposed cut, he didn't offer any
explanations for that. I sent you a letter asking you to
explain to me the justifications for a 25 percent cut that was
just arbitrary. Your letter today responded by saying that you
believe the $47 million requested will be sufficient to support
that mission. That is not an explanation.
While I don't expect you to have those at your fingertips,
I would ask that you respond to me in a more detailed way as to
why $47 million will meet the mission that $62 million has been
providing. The 9/11 commission legislation that we passed--the
9/11 Commission Recommendation Act that the President signed
into law--authorized that that facility be increased in funding
for the next 4 years by 3 percent. So I would like to know the
explanation for how you can do that.
Next, I want to talk about agriculture. As you know,
agriculture is very important in my State. The Homeland
Security Department set up the Office of Health Affairs in
2007. Within that Department, you have the Office of Food,
Agriculture and Veterinary Defense charged with enforcing
Presidential Directive 9, which protects food and agriculture.
But that office has been level-funded again this year at
$727,000, and five FTEs.
Chairman Carney and I held a hearing in Pennsylvania on the
need for this office to develop more full policy, as to how to
interact with State and local jurisdictions in the event of an
agricultural food attack. We are grossly understaffed, and I
brought that to your attention in an earlier hearing, and you
agreed.
Is there going to be the money to remedy this within your
Department's budget this year?
Secretary Chertoff. First of all, this is, of course, a new
office. The fact that we established it reflects our total
agreement with you that an important element of homeland
security policy and planning has to involve agricultural food
and veterinary defense.
So I am going to make just a couple of observations. First,
obviously a lot of the actual expertise resides in the
Department of Agriculture. So we really rely on the Department
of Agriculture to give us a lot of support. We are not looking
to supplant them. We are looking to make sure that food and
agricultural concerns are integrated with the rest of what we
do. I should also observe to you that a lot of what we actually
operationally do in the area of food and agricultural defense
is with the operating components, specifically customs and
border protection.
So if you were to look at all the assets that we put with
respect to protecting our food and agriculture in this
Department and across the Federal Government, it would be much,
much more than these five people. We are trying to grow the
Office of Health Affairs. I am going to come back to the same
refrain I have. We have a lot of tough choices to make with a
pie that, while it has grown, is still not limitless.
We think that continuing the level of five this year allows
us to continue what we have been doing in a way that is
effective. Maybe in 2010, we are going to look at where we are
and say at that point we should do a little bit more. We are
helped by the fact that if we need support, we really do have
other places we can go to, specifically the Department of
Agriculture. So this office is not simply at sea by itself, but
it is really partnered up with other agencies as well.
Mr. Rogers. Unfortunately, I have been seeing little turf
battles going on between the Department of Agriculture and
Homeland, and that is unfortunate. I would ask that you keep
this at the fore of your mind, and if there is a way you can
develop that office more fully, I think it would be good for
our Nation's food supply safety.
Last, I want to talk about canines. As you know, I have a
special interest in that area. I was pleased to hear that you
talked about putting more emphasis on your effort to have more
explosive detection capability and using canines in that area.
But as you know, we still purchase most of our dogs from
overseas. I would like to know if you have the money in this
year's budget for the establishment of a domestic breeding
program, as called for in the 9/11 Act?
Secretary Chertoff. I know we have 775 canine teams. We
started out with 475. We have 300 that are accounted for in the
budget for 2008, so we are going to want to do that.
In terms of setting up a domestic breeding program, I have
to confess it is not quite clear to me how you encourage dogs
domestically to breed.
Mr. Rogers. Here is the problem. Like in TSA, most of your
dogs you procure through the Department of Defense.
Secretary Chertoff. Right.
Mr. Rogers. They go to Europe and they bring them back. But
these are foreign sources. There is no reason--and they want
the breeds because they have the unique olfactory capabilities
to detect the things they are looking for.
Secretary Chertoff. Well, the malinois, I think are the
ones.
Mr. Rogers. Those are malinois primarily, but there are
others. My point is, this is too important of an asset for us
to rely on these foreign sources. You are right. There is no
rocket science to bringing these breeds over here and
replicating that domestically. That is what I am asking you to
do.
It is not just a problem at Homeland. It is across the
Federal services.
Secretary Chertoff. It is something we ought to look at
nationally, because I do think that dogs are a fantastic
resource. So let us work with DOD, which is probably the larger
consumer--if I can use that phrase--of dogs than we are, as
well as others who use them, like in the Department of Justice,
to see what we can do about that.
Mr. Rogers. I agree. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Secretary, about 6 months ago, I first heard reports
about a U.S. citizen, Pedro Guzman, who was born in Los
Angeles, who had gotten himself caught by the Border Patrol in
order to get back into his own country. As we looked into it,
he was deported even though he was an American citizen. I had
hoped that this was an isolated incident.
I sent you a letter outlining a series of questions, really
that deal with individuals, what safeguards we have in place
especially for individuals who may be mentally impaired. In the
case of Mr. Guzman, he was mentally retarded and he was simply
dumped in Tijuana. His parents, as you can imagine, were
frantic trying to find him. He eventually walked through the
desert. A Federal court ordered the Border Patrol to post
pictures and be on the lookout.
Since that time, I have additional reports. In fact, we are
going to have a hearing on this in the immigration subcommittee
in Judiciary about U.S. citizens who have been detained for in
some cases extended periods of time, or even a day or 2. I am
concerned in this budget about what kind of training effort we
are making in ICE. The General Accountability Office issued a
report in October of last year basically indicating that the
ICE agents didn't know the law and there was no systematic way
in place to keep them trained and up to date on the law.
So I am wondering, can you tell us what efforts we are
going to make in this budget for training for ICE in
particular?
Secretary Chertoff. I do know that training on legal
requirements and legal restraints is an important part of what
we do with our ICE agents. I know that they get trained, for
example, in the fairly complicated rules that apply about when
you can arrest somebody and things of that sort.
My presumption is they generally rely in the first instance
on somebody saying ``I am an American citizen,'' and then
obviously you need to verify that fact. I don't know the facts
of this specific case off-hand. Obviously, we don't want to
deport American citizens. I can't tell you that if someone is
incapable of telling us they are a citizen----
Ms. Lofgren. I would like to send you this letter again.
Secretary Chertoff. Okay.
Ms. Lofgren. Because the letter I got back from one of your
assistants never answered any of the questions.
Secretary Chertoff. We will answer it.
Ms. Lofgren. In this case, it was L.A. County, and this kid
had been in trouble many times because of his disability, and
was arrested for trespassing. They had him in their records,
but ICE never even checked the records. It is not an isolated
case. So I am interested in the protocols because it is just
absurd.
Furthermore, an ICE spokesperson was recently quoted as
saying it is the American citizen who has the burden of proof
on proving that they are an American. Well, that is not the
state of the law. I will bet you that very few of us here
today--and I happen to have my passport in my purse--but most
of us could not prove up our American citizenship on the
street. So this is a serious problem.
I would like to ask another question about ICE. That has to
do with the rapid expansion of detention beds, and what kind of
effort and budget is being proposed for the medical care of
people in custody. We now have in some cases individuals who
are in custody for many months as their cases are straightened
out, in some cases. We had a hearing last fall outlining some
instances where people in custody died for lack of adequate
medical care.
One of the concerns I had at the time was a system that
never works. I have seen this in local detention centers, where
the physician on-site cannot provide the care he or she thinks
is medically advisable without authorization from some
bureaucrat in Washington. Has that policy been changed?
Secretary Chertoff. Let me say that a lot of our facilities
are contract facilities, so we contract and we do that
obviously because there is an up and down in terms of the need
in particular locations. I know that we do pay attention, and
the issue of medical in general is a matter that ICE looked
into recently. I think our statistics actually are better than
the average prison system.
Ms. Lofgren. The statistics don't matter if it is your
father who died.
Secretary Chertoff. I can say this to you. I don't have
with me the details of exactly what our medical protocols are.
We do take people as we find them, so we do get people, for
example--there was one case where somebody died where it
emerged they had come in with a mixture of coke and some other
drug, and they OD'd on it. So we do take it seriously.
If you want specifics about approvals, I can get them.
Ms. Lofgren. I would like specifics because the cases that
we got were both ICE-run facilities and also contract
facilities. Frankly, the sheriffs are complaining because the
level of medical care is so far deficient compared to the care
that they give to county inmates. As a matter of fact, we had
one sheriff from Pennsylvania who was just outraged by people,
inmates, that were not even--I mean, we don't need a Cadillac
of medical care, but certainly the care that he was giving
county inmates was being denied to the ICE detainees.
Secretary Chertoff. I will have a look.
Ms. Lofgren. Would you get back to me?
Secretary Chertoff. I will.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
The chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Reichert for 5 minutes.
Mr. Reichert. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Secretary, good to see you again. Thank you for being
here.
I first want to comment on one of your statements right
before we went to vote. You mentioned the number of committees
that you had to report to. I think it was a year or maybe 1\1/
2\ years or more ago where we had this discussion. I think that
when I asked you the question as to how many committees you
might be reporting to, the answer then I think was 88
subcommittees and full committees. I agree with you that
Homeland Security and Appropriations might be the two most
important committees that you report to. So I think Congress
has some responsibility in helping you manage your Department
by reducing their meddling.
I am really interested in a couple of things. As you know,
working together, coming from my previous background as a
sheriff, and interoperability of communications. So with the
2010 Olympics coming to Vancouver, I know that you have a plan
to create a multi-agency coordination center near the Canadian
border. Can you give me some information as to the status of
that plan?
Secretary Chertoff. Actually, Congressman, on that I think
I will have to get back to you because I don't have a lot of
specific detail. We do recognize and we plan in advance for
events of this kind, recognizing that there is going to be a
lot of cross-border traffic. But I will get you the specifics
in writing.
Mr. Reichert. Thank you.
The issue associated with that is the ability to
communicate with the Canadians especially. We know here at home
we have that problem, too, internally. But there does seem to
be a spectrum issue between Canada and the United States. We
know that as sheriffs working up in Washington State. But there
seems to be more of an issue of mutual aid and cooperation.
Have you heard anything about the attempts in getting the
Canadians to work with us in developing the communications
systems that will be in use by 2010?
Secretary Chertoff. I don't know if this is applicable to
Washington. I know we have integrated border enforcement teams,
and we have been trying to work with the Canadians to make sure
that we can have interoperability where we have Canadians and
Americans working jointly on law enforcement.
The issue is probably not going to be technological. There
now exists Internet-based and non-Internet-based gateway
solutions that allow people to talk on different frequencies,
and I think it is something we want to address in a joint
fashion, to have governance and protocol arrangements so that
we can have a common sheet of music, so to speak, off of which
to sing come 2010.
Mr. Reichert. Thank you.
That also connected with the northern border. Just looking
at the budget, we notice that there are an additional 440
Border Patrol agents that will be assigned to the northern
border, and also some other initiatives, with $4 million to
construct checkpoints in New York, which I know Mr. King
appreciates greatly.
But what other things are we doing? I know that you are
concerned about illegal immigration across the northern border.
We have been focused I think in the past few years on the
southern border pretty heavily. What new----
Secretary Chertoff. Obviously, as I said, one critical
factor is that up until now, the vast, vast majority of traffic
between the ports of entry has come through the south, rather
than the north. That has informed a lot of our priorities.
Plus, of course, we have a very good working relationship with
our Canadian counterparts.
We are looking to have 1,500 Border Patrol in place if we
get our 2009 budget for just the northern border. I believe we
are completing our fifth air wing this fiscal year. We are
going to have six unmanned aerial systems in place by the end
of this fiscal year, projected. We have three currently. We are
getting a fourth, and when we get the fourth, we are going to
put another unmanned aerial system up in the north.
A lot of what we are doing in the north is much more
technology-based and intelligence-based, because of the nature
of the flow of traffic, the nature of our relationship with the
Canadians, and the nature of the landscape up there. But we are
attentive to it.
Mr. Reichert. Thank you.
I have time for one last question. We did have a hearing
here a number of months ago of Boeing employees and some Border
Patrol representatives on SBInet and P-28. I know you have
touched on it briefly in your opening statement, but said you
could comment further on it. Can you give us the status of
where that project is?
Secretary Chertoff. I would love to. Let me first dispel
what is sometimes a misconception. SBInet includes P-28, but is
not limited to P-28. SBInet is the complete lay-down of use of
technology at the border. If I have made one point over the
last 3 years, it ought to be that the exact mix of high-tech
and low-tech depends on exactly what you are dealing with at
the border.
For example, even as we are working on P-28, which I will
come to in a moment, we are looking I think a 10-fold increase
on the ground-based, vehicle-based radar, the mobile
surveillance systems, from about 4 to 40 this year, which are
going to be deployed across various parts of the southwest
border. As I said, we have acquired a third unmanned aerial,
and I think a fourth is due to come online in the very near
future, if not already. All these are part of our SBInet
program.
P-28 is a particular concept of integration of radar,
integrated cameras, and a common operating picture that can
cover a broader range of border than is true with ground-based
radar. Ground-based radar basically gives you about 6 miles
each way. P-28 gives you 28 miles. But again, it doesn't work
in every type of terrain. We have tried it in a very
challenging part of the terrain.
I have been down to look at it myself last week. We are
doing the final review with respect to final acceptance. I
think it looks good, although we haven't finally signed off on
it. That is not to say it is perfect. As we have operated it,
we have come to realize--and I think you probably have this
from your experience, too--that there are some features that we
would like to change and make better. There are some features
that we actually have determined we don't really need that
much, and we probably ought to just forget about. That is in
final development.
So what we expect to do is move to the next stage of this,
which will be pushing the areas that the operators think we
ought to enhance, discarding those things the operators think
are probably not ultimately a real value-add, and then--
although I don't expect we are going to have a cookie-cutter of
this across the border--there are other parts of the border we
will expect to be using it, including parts of the northern
border, again depending on the landscape.
Mr. Reichert. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The Department has made some progress over the last year,
and I really commend you for the progress you have made in some
of the areas that you outlined. But we are still so far away
from where we need to be to really assure the people of this
country for their safety and their security. I think it is
unfortunate that because of tax cuts for some of our wealthiest
Americans, this Department and others are being squeezed into a
budget that does not really meet our Nation's needs.
As you can well imagine, my first question is going to go
to health care. So I am very pleased with the increase in
funding that is proposed for the Office of Health Affairs, and
also the progress that has been made under Dr. Runge. I can
remember when the office was first set up and he was brought
in. We weren't sure what the role of that office was going to
be.
But I still continue to look for a commitment to really
repair and strengthen and expand the capacity of our health
care system to respond in the case of a disaster of any kind in
this country. I haven't seen that kind of an investment in
these 5 years, and I am not seeing it in the 2009 budget
either.
There is a report, an analysis done by Harvard Medical
School and Cambridge Health Alliance that continues to show
that the emergency rooms in this country are really
overburdened and continue to be overburdened; that our hospital
beds are short. Where in the 2009 budget is this addressed, if
at all? I don't see any increases in the health budget to make
up for it not being there, because we have a 7 percent cut in
the CDC, 14-plus percent cut to HRSA. In your budget, MMRS is
eliminated and SAFER, which also have relevance to this, is
also eliminated.
Secretary Chertoff. First, let me thank you for your
comments about the Office of Health Affairs. I want to thank
the committee for authorizing it. It is important to
institutionalize this.
As I said with respect to agriculture, we try to be clear
that we are not trying to poach on the expertise of HHS and CDC
and NIH. They are the experts. Our Office of Health Affairs
is----
Mrs. Christensen. They don't have any money either.
Secretary Chertoff. Well, I can't discuss their budget. I
have very little visibility into it. I am going to let the
secretary of health and human services talk about his budget.
But I want to make sure that the role of our office is clear.
It is not meant to supplant HHS. It is meant to make sure that
health, food, and veterinary issues are integrated into our
total planning in incident management, so that much of our
emphasis is on making sure that we are driving forward in the
process of planning for things like pandemic flu. We have made
a lot of progress in that regard.
A lot of our focus is on making sure that we are focused on
integrating intelligence about health through our NBIC system.
A lot of it is designed to move forward with BioWatch, which is
the sensing system that we detect if there were a biological
attack. Of course, we have a role to play with respect to
BioShield, identifying the material hazards.
So health planning and response is very important in our
Department, but I want to make it clear that it is a function
that we exercise in partnership, and that much of the actual
muscle comes from HHS. In fact, OHA used to have certain health
functions in DHS which were transferred back--emergency
functions, medical response, for instance--were transferred
back to HHS.
So in terms of what is being done to fund emergency rooms
and things like that, I am going to have to refer you to the
Department that would have the major role in health. We are
encouraging, however, public health officials and State and
local officials to get involved in planning, because whatever
your resources are, if you don't plan properly and you don't
integrate the planning, the resources are not going to be
particularly effective.
Mrs. Christensen. I want to try to get in another question.
When I look at the 2009 budget, it seems to start out from a
position that the Department has made pretty much all of the
investment needed in training, equipping and exercising first
responders, in that there is not a lot of investment being--
there is not increase and some programs are cut. So it seems as
though the Department is saying we have made most of the
investment we need to make, and we just need to maintain the
status quo.
Is that your position? If not, where in the budget are we
seeing the help that our first responders still need?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, let me again say, recognizing
this is probably going to be a refrain--Congress has tended to
enact more than we have requested. We have projected requests
based on a couple of principles. We do want to build capacity.
However, it is not maintenance. It is not meant to be that the
Federal Government is going to pay for routine activities. We
are going to try to build capabilities, equipment and training.
So that one should expect to see accumulative benefits. You
wouldn't expect to have to buy the same equipment every year.
We have with respect to assistance to FIRE grants, we have kept
the same request we did last year. On emergency management
performance grants, we kept the same request we did last year.
You may remember in past budgets, requests actually
declined. So I think we are comfortable with our requested
levels getting us on a disciplined path doing what we need to
do. There are some, shall I say, perennial disagreements
between Congress and the administration. Congress tends to
enact, the appropriators tend to enact, a certain number of
grant programs that are designed to pay for salaries and
personnel and things of that sort. The administration takes the
position that that should be State and local; that we should be
paying for capacity and equipment.
So as the Chairman said, I have no doubt we are going to
embark on robust debate about the budget. But I think if you
look at what we have done compared to our requests last year,
we are consistent in what we think is an appropriate--not an
exorbitant--but an appropriate level of funding.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
The chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Dent for 5 minutes.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary.
A quick question, you mentioned in your written testimony
that there were 670 miles of fence to be constructed by the end
of 2008. I think you said 370 miles were pedestrian fencing and
300 miles of vehicular fencing. How much of that is double-
layered fencing?
Secretary Chertoff. I don't know. I think Congressman Smith
came up with the number 31, which I have no reason to disagree
with. As I said, we build double-layer fencing when double-
layer fencing makes sense, in the judgment of the Border
Patrol, based on the particular topography.
I will give you a great example. On the Rio Grande, we
probably wouldn't build a lot of double-layer fence. It would
make a lot of sense.
Mr. Dent. Understood.
Secretary Chertoff. I said this earlier, in some of the
double-layer fence in San Diego we discovered that somebody had
strung wire across, and when we analyzed the wire, we
recognized if you pulled it, it would be raised to the level
that it would chop the head off of an agent if the agent was
riding in an open vehicle or an ATV.
So I say this because the idea of the double-layer fencing
as somehow the holy grail of security is just contrary to what
the Border Patrol tells me. In some places, it works. In some
places, it doesn't work. So I am just guided by their views.
Mr. Dent. To change the subject, I know that CBP has been
suffering from a number of budgetary issues. I have also had
the occasion to visit the border down at Laredo. I noticed that
there was a shortfall of aircraft for the Border Patrol. This
budget request for 2009 I think requests an additional two or
three aircraft. In my view, that is insufficient to meet the
need along our borders.
I do have a bill that would allow DHS to enter into a
memorandum of understanding with the Department of Defense to
utilize Civil Air Patrol assets to supplement these various
functions of the Department of Homeland Security. It would
include border security, interdiction of traffickers, and
search and rescue operations.
Do you think to incorporate this Civil Air Patrol assets in
the DHS mission would be helpful?
Secretary Chertoff. I think it would depend on what their
capabilities are and what the mission was. I would not put
civilians in a role of being involved in apprehending or
interacting with----
Mr. Dent. We are not asking that.
Secretary Chertoff. I can't assess the budgetary impact,
but obviously additional eyes are always helpful. It just has
to be handled in a way that integrates with the way we do our
total operation. So this is something that I will ask the
Border Patrol to look at.
Mr. Dent. Well, we have legislation to do this with about
500 or so civil aviation assets out there, and we are not
asking them to do any type of apprehension, but just to provide
more assets, which we clearly need along the border. I would
love to have your help in moving this legislation.
Secretary Chertoff. We will look at that.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
On the issue, too, of CBP, we have a policy, I believe in
this country now that if an aircraft headed for the United
States from another country, within 10 minutes after the wheels
are up, we basically run the manifests through the ATSP,
automated targeting system for passengers. It is a good thing.
I know we are moving in a direction of making sure that we get
that information I think about 10 or 15 minutes before the
wheels are up.
Secretary Chertoff. Correct.
Mr. Dent. Is that----
Secretary Chertoff. Yes. I believe the rule has been
issued. I do not know exactly what the effective date is. But
yes, we are there.
Mr. Dent. Is it 10 minutes before?
Secretary Chertoff. I think it is going to be no later than
10 minutes before, and they are going to start giving us the
information earlier than that, but they want to have
flexibility in case there is a last-minute show-up at the
airport.
Mr. Dent. I applaud that, and I appreciate that you are
moving in that direction. I would like to just know when that
actually occurs.
On the issue of providing advance data at the borders for
common-carrier bus or train, I believe we have had some debate
and discussion in this committee about that issue. I think it
is important that we adopt that same policy for people coming
into this country by train or by bus. I know your commissioner
of CBP, I believe, shares that view. I just wanted to get your
thoughts about it. There was some heartburn in the committee
when we discussed it earlier.
Secretary Chertoff. I know certainly with respect to cargo,
we do have a system of getting advance data. I don't know if--
--
Mr. Dent. We are talking about people now.
Secretary Chertoff. Yes. I don't know off-hand the
practicality with bus because I don't know how people board. It
may be sometimes you board the bus and you are at the border in
2 or 3 minutes. So whatever we do is going to be something that
doesn't gum up the process of moving people across the border,
because there is a lot of flow.
A train may be a little bit easier. I just don't know. In
general, I will tell you I am a very strong advocate for
getting somewhat more information at an earlier time at all of
our ports of entry, and having much stricter document
requirements. I can tell you that I still carry the scars on my
back of the brickbats that have been thrown at me on the
northern border for pushing this issue. I am respectful of the
fact that people on both borders want to have a lot of free
flow of people and trade, but I am also respectful of the fact
that I have the responsibility to make sure that the
consequences of missing a terrorist or a drug dealer are not
visited upon the people who live in this country.
So I am committed to you, as long as I am in this office,
we will move forward in a mindful, but disciplined and
determined way, to continue to raise reasonable security
measures at our main ports of entry.
Mr. Dent. Thank you. My time is up.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Dent.
The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Langevin for 5 minutes.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Madam Chairwomn.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. I want to thank you for the job you
are doing and for being here this morning.
Mr. Secretary, I want to turn my attention to a couple of
questions on cybersecurity and also Project BioWatch, and then
if we have time I would like to get to BioShield and also talk
about the security of nuclear reactors at research facilities.
Starting off with cyber, you correctly realize that we have
to make cybersecurity more of a priority than what it has been.
To this end, I was very pleased that the President's fiscal
year 2009 budget would direct $293 million to U.S. CERT, much
of which will be used to implement the Department's components
of the cyber initiative. While I still reserve judgment on the
overall cyber initiative program, I appreciate the briefing
that you gave me. I have also met with the DNI, who has briefed
me on cyber as well, in my role on the Intelligence Committee.
Again, though I reserve judgment, I think you are moving in
the right direction on the cyber initiative. I am clearly
concerned about our cybersecurity, of our networks and our
systems. We have to be move more aggressively to strengthen our
security, given the level of vulnerability that we now know
that we have.
I can promise you that, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Emerging Threats and Cybersecurity, my subcommittee is going to
exercise robust oversight of the cyber initiative. But again, I
do believe, at least initially, that you are moving in the
right direction. So thank you on that.
Where I will turn my attention, however, is I was gravely
concerned that the same budget that you put forward will slash
funding for your Department's own chief information office. As
you know, last year my subcommittee held a hearing to examine
how vulnerable the Department's own networks are. It was
revealed that the DHS networks experience some 844 cyber
security incidents in 1 year alone.
The Department of Homeland Security obviously must be able
to secure its own networks before it can have any authority in
other areas. Yet your own Department received a ``D'' from its
FSMA scores. So my question is, how can you possibly justify
cutting funding for cybersecurity initiatives within the chief
information office's budget by nearly 50 percent?
My other question, Mr. Secretary, is that I have been
receiving mixed reports on the status of our BioWatch program,
which you made reference to a minute ago. I would like for you
to provide some clarification. BioWatch, obviously, is an
important program designed to provide an early warning of a
pathogen release, which could provide early treatments to those
in need, thereby decreasing illness and death.
Last year, it was reported that the third-generation
BioWatch sensors which would deliver results much faster and
require far less human interaction than the current generation
technology--this new technology would be pilot-tested in fiscal
year 2008 with full deployment to be completed in fiscal year
2009, and in fiscal year 2012. Yet just last week, Keith Ward,
the chief of the ChemBio Division at S&T, testified before my
subcommittee that the third generation sensors wouldn't even be
ready for pilot-testing until part of 2009.
So when can we expect to see the deployment of our third-
generation BioWatch sensors? What are the obstacles preventing
this critical technology from being deployed sooner?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, let me answer the second question
first. With respect to BioWatch, I am not familiar with the
particular item of testimony that you are talking about. We do
obviously want to get the third generation out and piloted as
quickly as possible. Our 2009 request actually would call for a
$34 million increase so that we can get moving on generation
three. I can get back to you on exactly when we think the pilot
testing would begin.
With respect to DHS IT security, we actually have requested
an increase of about $3 million from our base funding on the
information security office. Now, the reason there appears to
be a decrease from last year, there was a one-time plus-up of
money so that we could build out some things at Stennis, which
have been completed, or are at least underway. So that was kind
of a one-time infusion for a capital budget item.
But we do believe that IT security is important. I will say
that our FSMA scores have actually improved over the last
couple of years, and they are not regrettably out of line with
that of other large departments, particularly DOD tends to have
trouble in this regard. I think that comes back to your initial
point. A lot of this stuff is classified and we can talk about
it off-line. But one of the problems we have had in the
civilian domain, as well as of course in the military domain,
is the sheer number of entry points from the Internet into
Federal domains. It is an awful lot to police.
I think the good news is that what we are trying to do with
respect to the cyber initiative is to change the deed by
looking holistically at the whole Federal domain, and dealing
with it in an integrated fashion, as opposed to every agency
kind of on its own trying to plug holes like the little boy
trying to put fingers in the dike.
Mr. Langevin. Okay, thank you. I appreciate your answer. My
time has expired. The one thing I would mention on the cyber
initiative is once again consulting with privacy experts, civil
liberties experts up front before it is launched I still think
would be an important thing to do, since the criticism will
come I am sure no matter what. Trying to address some of those
up front before it gets launched would I think be helpful in
ensuring the success of the program.
I would like to follow up with you more on your
Department's own cybersecurity issues and the FSMA scores
especially. If you would get back to me on the more specific
time frame of when the third generation bio-sensors will be
ready to be tested would be helpful. I will have a couple of
questions for you for the record on BioShield and also security
of our research reactors. There is a recent GAO report that
just came out that questions security of our research actors
that still use uranium for power.
Thank you for your presence here today and your testimony.
I yield back.
Secretary Chertoff. I will get back to you with those
answers, and also I will tell you, we have gotten the privacy
people involved up-front on the cyber issue.
Mr. Langevin. Good. I am glad to hear that. Thank you.
Chairman Thompson [presiding]. Thank you very much.
I now recognize the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes, Mr.
McCaul.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
I apologize for being late. I was on the floor debating the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act extension. I think I know
where you stand on that issue.
I also want to echo my colleague, the Chairman. I am the
Ranking Member on the subcommittee that deals with
cybersecurity, and how important we view this issue. I know you
appreciate the importance of that as well.
We have talked a lot about the border. I know you are doing
a lot in Texas with respect to the fence. I know it is a
difficult job, and I commend you for your negotiations with the
landowners down there, and the flexibility that you have shown.
I want to ask you about something that--and I am not sure
what the DHS connection may be. I think I do, but Congressman
Cuellar and I went down to Mexico City and visited with the
attorney general there, as they grabbed one of the top drug
cartel members. We had a one-on-one visit with President
Calderon for about 1 hour, and talked to him about his
initiatives in securing his northern border--30,000 Federal
troops up to the northern border. I have to tell you, when we
walked away, I think both of us did, that this man is sincere.
He gets it. He is making, in his words, security the first
priority for his country and in his administration.
We share this border. We share the problem, and I think we
need to share the responsibility for that. There is an
initiative the administration has proposed, and Congress is
looking at this initiative. In terms of what kind of assistance
we can provide the Mexican government to combat these drug
cartels, which in my view, we do a lot on the defense here on
our side of the border. This is taking on the offense and
dealing with the root cause of the problem.
The military assistance, whether it is surveillance
equipment, Black Hawk helicopters--all these things I think are
in my view the right policy for this country. But I wanted to
just get your thoughts on that while we have you here, to talk
about that initiative and the importance you see.
Secretary Chertoff. I have to say, President Calderon and
his administration have been outstanding--I think maybe the
best ever in terms of tackling what I think the Mexican
president realizes is a very serious challenge to Mexico, and
not just criminality, but literally a challenge to their
control over parts of their northern border area, particularly
when you look at the violence that has been visited on some
public officials.
His heart is in the right place. He is doing things. We
have an unbelievable number of extraditions of serious major-
league players. We are involved in this, dealing with the
Mexicans, as well as obviously with our counterparts in the
U.S. Government. We have worked to build border violence
protocols with our Mexican counterparts.
One example of success, frankly, was last month a Border
Patrol agent was killed by smugglers. I had the opportunity to
visit with his family last week. Within a matter of days after
the event, Mexican authorities had apprehended the person who
was alleged to have committed the act of murder.
So we have been working very closely with them. I spoke to
my counterpart recently when he was up here. We talked about
continuing to build on this level of cooperation and jointness
all across the border, because it is a problem that touches
both countries. It is a challenge to Mexico and it is a
challenge to us as well.
I want to strongly endorse this Mexican initiative. This is
a real opportunity to lend support to this Mexican effort in
terms of resources and capabilities that will really enhance
not only Mexico's ability to deal with its northern border, but
with its southern border, because they have challenges in terms
of what is coming up from Central America. Some of the Central
American countries have serious issues with the drug gangs and
organized criminal groups there. We always have Mr. Chavez down
in Venezuela looking to make mischief.
So I think there are a whole series of reasons why a
robust, strong Mexican enforcement capability is very much in
the interest of the United States. I think anything we can do
to help President Calderon will help us.
Mr. McCaul. I want to thank you for your leadership. I
think this package will be coming up possibly in June. As you
point out, we have a unique window of opportunity that may be
shutting on us if we don't take advantage of it. Of course, we
will look at the plan and have our own views on it, but I hope
the Congress will step up to the plate.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
We have five votes that have been called. We will take the
gentleman from Texas's questions. Before we go, I want to
recognize Mr. and Mrs. Perlmutter in the audience. Their
favorite son is on the committee, and we want to make sure that
they are amply recognized. Your son has done well. We are proud
of him.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cuellar, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you again for being here this
afternoon. Also, thank you for being down there in the valley
on the levee, thinking outside the box on the levee fence. I
thought it was a great idea, and I am glad it happened.
Two questions, and again men and women in green, my same
question--men and women in blue. We have done a good job of
getting Border Patrol. In fact, I believe since 2004 we have
added on over 5,000 Border Patrol. But when it comes to
Customs, which are the people at the ports, it has been almost
one-to-five, more Border Patrol than Customs.
I support getting more Border Patrol. In fact, this last
budget shows that you all are asking for 2,200 new Border
Patrol, but only 539 additional Border Patrol. I heard at the
field hearing from the Treasury union, and they said we will
probably need about 4,000 to adequately staff the ports that we
have.
Your folks afterwards dismissed that, and they said, oh,
that is not correct. But at the same time, I have been asking,
and I think I asked you at the last breakfast we had, and I
have asked your staff since November of this last year to give
me the number. I asked them for that information, and asked
them how much we need for border infrastructure. I think you
already asked for $10 million, when I think the estimates are
$4 billion or $5 billion, and you only asked for $10 million.
I got a letter of response after I talked to you--a very
nice letter. Whoever penned that letter did a great job, but it
basically said nothing. It really said nothing. It really did.
I almost was insulted by the response, whoever put that letter
together. Why can't we just get a number for you all? You know,
we just want to know so we can help you properly staff. I just
want to know how many personnel do you need to properly staff
the ports in the north and the south border, and what are the
infrastructure needs for the southern and northern borders? I
have been asking that since November, and it is incredible that
I can't get a straight answer from you.
Secretary Chertoff. Well, let me first, to put it in
perspective, since fiscal year 2007, and including the current
budget, we will have either gotten funding for or are seeking
funding for 2,349 new CBP officers. Now, I don't know that I
can give you a number for what the desired end-state would be,
because a lot of that depends upon the building of new
infrastructure, which is really I think at this point one of
the obstacles in terms of the border crossings.
That infrastructure--you know, there is a mix of people who
have the responsibility for that funding. You have used the
figure $4 billion or $5 billion. A lot of the funding is GSA
funding. GSA owns a lot of the ports of entry. I cannot
honestly tell you that I envision that in our budget we would
ask for $4 billion to do infrastructure.
It seems to me the best model for doing a lot of the
infrastructure is--and of course, some of it is in private
hands--is to do public-private partnerships. I know there are
some communities in Texas that actually did through their
public-private partnership programs, did issue bonds and fund
new infrastructure, and then as that infrastructure comes on
line, want to man it. So a lot of the responsibility for
building the infrastructure is probably best discharged with a
public-private partnership.
Again, I am going to come back to the same thing I have
said over and over again. There is a limited amount of pie. Our
pie has grown, but it has not grown infinitely. In terms of
building a lot of the infrastructure, particularly when we
don't own it, I think that question has to be borne by others.
Mr. Cuellar. Right. But again, I did not ask you to make
that request. All I am asking is what is your best estimate as
to how much infrastructure we need and how many personnel. I
just don't understand that Homeland Security--and I have been a
big supporter of you and I am trying to help you here--but I
can't get the answer from you. I am not saying demand $5
billion. I am not saying that. I am just saying, what is the
infrastructure cost for the northern and southern borders, and
how much personnel do you need to properly staff. I can't get
that answer from you all, Mr. Secretary. I mean, what do we do?
I am going to keep asking until I get the answer.
Secretary Chertoff. Let me see what additional information
I can furnish to you. You know, you have been around enough to
know there is always a certain concern that if you put an
estimate out, it suddenly becomes graven in stone and winds up
being pushed back at the administration--now, you have said you
need this. So I mean, since we have all been around the
mulberry bush a few times, I am sure there is an inherent
cautiousness about coming up with numbers that we could end up
having to deal with as a----
Mr. Cuellar. And put all the caveats you want to put. You
have a lot of good attorneys there. Put all the caveats you
want to put there. All I want to see is the number for properly
staffing the ports and the infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask you for some assistance,
because I have asked, and I am not trying to use this against
you. I am trying to help you.
Secretary Chertoff. I understand.
Mr. Cuellar. I can understand. I think this is a problem,
because in talking to your staff, they are afraid that it is
going to put the administration in bad eyes. I can understand
that. But if we make a request as Members of the Homeland
Security, can we get this--and I don't care if you put 100
caveats on it--but can we get this information, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Thompson. If I may interject here, if I might, Mr.
Cuellar. Do we have a border security plan for the southern and
northern borders?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, certainly, and I have provided
this in terms of Border Patrol that has laid out a specific
plan. I don't know if there is a single plan for all the ports
of entry because the ports of entry vary a great deal. I am
quite sure there are plans for individual ports of entry about
what we need to do in terms of existing infrastructure and----
Chairman Thompson. I appreciate you, Mr. Secretary, but I
think what we are trying to get at is if we have a border
security plan for the Department of Homeland Security that we
use as a guidepost for what you do and what we can as
policymakers, I think that would get us where we need to be. I
think the gentleman from Texas is just saying, ``I need to see
what you as a department see that we need to fortify our
borders.''
It is up to us as policymakers and appropriators on the
other hand to try to get you the money to do it.
Secretary Chertoff. I will respond to that.
Chairman Thompson. We are not trying to trap you. Trust me.
Secretary Chertoff. I know that.
Chairman Thompson. He is a much better gentleman than that.
Secretary Chertoff. I know that. But you understand the
cautiousness. I mean, there is always a cautiousness about this
because: (A) Because there are a lot of caveats; and (B),
because there are a lot of other players who have major
responsibilities in furnishing this.
Chairman Thompson. Mr. Secretary, we understand that, but
you know, we have to have a plan. Whatever it is, we will go
from there. Thank you very much.
The gentleman's----
Mr. Cuellar. Yes, just to close.
This last appropriation bill, we added about 10 pages, and
there is a request there by January 31, which just passed
already, for you all to come up with a border plan. So there is
some specific language there that talks about infrastructure
and other needs.
Secretary Chertoff. All right.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
We are going to ask Ms. Jackson Lee to step in the Chair.
We will continue the hearing going forward, and the Members
feel free to go vote and come back, and we will recognize you
in order. Thank you very much.
Ms. Jackson Lee [presiding]. Mr. Secretary, it is a
pleasure. Thank you very much for your presence here today.
I would like to engage in a series of questions. They are
going to be somewhat rapid-fire and I appreciate very much your
answers.
I am going to go through the budget and particularly begin
with the transit security grants, and I want your explanation
to explain the request of $175 million for rail and mass
transit grants, when Congress just appropriated $400 million
for fiscal year 2008. So why are we cutting drastically those
grants?
I also want to know why the budget request for the trucking
industry security grant program is half of what was needed in
2008, despite the fact that we chaired a hearing that suggested
that there was a great need. So it is a cut from $16 million to
$8 million, and I feel that we have not met our task.
If you could just start on those two questions, I would
appreciate it. I have a series of others.
Secretary Chertoff. First of all, let me say that what we
are requesting with respect to transit and rail security grants
is exactly what we requested last year. As I have said
previously in the hearing, my experience now having entered
year four of my tenure, is that Congress tends to put more
money in grants that we request. We come up with requests that
are based upon, given the fact that there is a budget and there
is a limited amount of pie, that seems to be the best
allocation over a period of time.
So when Congress enacts more, we recognize Congress may
have a different view. In this case, we are adhering to the
amount of money that we previously thought was appropriate in a
disciplined investment. I might say, however, if you look over
the last several years, just fiscal years 2006 through 2008,
there has been a total of $312 million that we have granted
just to the top eight cities or urban areas. That is a huge
amount of money that is out there.
In addition to the actual grants, we have in-kind money,
and we have $30 million we are requesting for our mobile VIPR
teams, which are actually surge personnel that we put into mass
transit, which provides an additional security measure. Of
course, there are also transit funds available through other
programs like the urban area security initiative.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, Mr. Secretary, if I might, we had a
hearing with a number of experts from the area who frankly said
that they needed more resources. I know what the Homeland
Security Department is doing because they have to keep it in
sync with the President's budget. I think the President is
wrong, and I think the Department of Homeland Security is
wrong, when we talk about the needs of this particular area,
when we have witnesses from the region who have suggested that
with the massive influx of trucks that this whole idea of
security is going to be imperative, and I think it is something
we need to reconsider.
I indicated to you that I have a whole long list of
questions, so let me just go to the idea of the TWIC card, and
specifically ask unanimous consent to at some point
appropriately to put into the record the Port of Houston
Authority letter dated February 12, 2008. We were in Houston on
Monday, and had an opportunity to hear some concerns again on
the TWIC card, particularly in a region that I think is
somewhat typical of what we have to address with the TWIC card.
We note that some of the estimates on how many people
needing a TWIC card were done more than 2\1/2\ years ago, and
this letter in particular says--and you don't have it in front
of you--so I apologize. I will just give you a brief summary.
The East Harris County Manufacturers Association estimated that
we would need 180,000 cards for its employees and contractors.
Since testifying, the U.S. Coast Guard has redefined secure
areas and has allowed facilities to reduce the footprint of
their secure areas. We don't know if that is very positive.
This will reduce the number of cards required, but the number
for the Port of Houston will still be more than 300,000 cards
versus the original estimate of 35,000 cards.
The chairman of the Port of Houston Authority has submitted
his documentation 8 weeks ago, 2 months ago, and has yet to get
approved. I say that this is kind of a budget issue. My
question is: what is the status of the readers? My information
from experts on the ground, including the Coast Guard, have
indicated that they are very concerned that there will not be
compliance by September 2008. The readers are not in place. But
more importantly, 300,000 in one area alone, and taking 8 weeks
on one card of the chairman of the board of the Port of Houston
Authority.
I would imagine that there needs to be either funding,
personnel resources, enhanced improvement of the FBI's checking
system--all of that to me is personnel and resources. Have you
asked for added help in the budget for what seems to be a
pending crisis?
Secretary Chertoff. I have not, of course, seen the letter.
It was dated February 12. We have asked for more money for
TWIC. We are well on our way in terms of enrollments and pre-
enrollments. I think I testified earlier, we have about 150,000
pre-enrollments and 78,000 enrollments. We are moving this
across the ports in a systematic fashion. I think we are on
track to achieve what we need to achieve.
The issue with the readers--the readers are being tested
now. This is one of these real-world issues where you have to
see how the reader actually works in the demanding environment
of the salt air that you have. So I am comfortable that we have
the money. We are requesting the money in place to keep this
program moving forward.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me just say, Mr. Secretary, maybe I
can submit to the committee and submit it to me, I would like
to have a personal response or direct response as to how the
budget request will match one area's 300,000 estimation now,
and that must multiply exponentially to a number of other
places where the estimation was maybe 2\1/2\ years. So I want
to know how that budget request will match doing what we need
to do.
If you could give the additional response of the 8 weeks it
takes for in this instance a known American citizen, the
chairman of the port, who has not yet gotten his TWIC card,
which means that we have a fracture in the system. Do we have
money in place--and I ask that in writing--that addresses the
system of processing, as well as the readers? I am concerned
that that is the case. I appreciate if you could put that in
writing.
Secretary Chertoff. Sure.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The Nation's transportation systems are
inherently open environments. In the Department's own budget
justification it says there is a very real ongoing threat to
the transportation security, particularly involving mass
transit, considering the bombings in Madrid during the summer
of 2004. But the President's fiscal year 2009 budget is nearly
$10 million less than the 2008 budget, and frankly any of us
who travel on mass transit, we thank them for the convenience,
but we know that there are vulnerabilities. Do you feel that
this request is adequate to secure all modes of surface
transportation? What percentage of your overall budget is
dedicated specifically to rail and mass transit security? Which
I frankly believe is very much missing.
Secretary Chertoff. Well, we are devoting a considerable
amount to rail and mass transit. As I have indicated, we have
requested the same level of grants as last year. We have our
VIPR intermodal teams. We also have other programs where we
test various kinds of sensors or devices in mass transit. We
are working with a lot of our transit officials because they
have in addition to the transit grants, other grants, in order
to make sure they have the proper equipment deployed, and also
to make sure that they have some support for a limited number
of personnel costs.
In fact, I was up in New York a couple of weeks ago, and
there was a really remarkable unanimity of views that we are
doing exactly the right thing in dealing with what is probably
the biggest and most vulnerable transit system in the country.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Again, Mr. Secretary--I am sorry--the
most, the biggest----
Secretary Chertoff. The biggest and most vulnerable transit
system in the country is New York.
So you know, again, Rome wasn't built in a day, but I think
we are making very good progress in this area.
Ms. Jackson Lee. But wouldn't you think that if a Member of
Congress on Homeland Security reads the budget and sees that,
for example, that FTEs have been decreased to 230? That is 96
less from last year. Wouldn't we have the reason to be
concerned about the commitment to surface transportation? We
have been very fortunate, but yet we are not without
vulnerabilities, and cutting staff seems to be drastic to me.
Secretary Chertoff. I am not sure exactly what line item
you are talking about with FTEs being cut. I know with respect,
for example, to our VIPR teams, we are actually either
maintaining or increasing the increase that we got in 2008. I
think I am pretty good with the budget, but I would need a
little bit of help in knowing exactly what line item we are
talking about.
Ms. Jackson Lee. We will get that to you. There is a cut of
96 personnel.
In fact, let me move to the VIPR concept, if I might have a
question here. What has been the reaction of State and local
stakeholders to the increased use of VIPR? Are they being
included in the decision to deploy these teams? I was at my
airport yesterday with the transportation security
administrator. We use them well at Houston Intercontinental
Airport, but I would like to know whether or not we do have
that engagement with the local areas? How is the coordination
between TSA and the boots-on-the-ground on when and how VIPR
teams are going to be used?
We expanded the VIPR teams, I understand. I would like to
ask for more money, but I will leave you without the money
question. Just say what kind of consultation do we have with
local authorities.
Secretary Chertoff. We always consult with the local
authorities. I think there was one hiccup last year that we
sorted out. But I have spoken to some of the local authorities
myself. They are happy. We do consult with them. We are also
expanding the concept so that it is not only the TSA that is
providing personnel, but we are cross-training, for example,
Coast Guard and CBP and ICE personnel so that we can surge them
in under some circumstances as well.
So that is a force multiplier, and by all accounts it has
been a popular program. I haven't heard anybody complaining
about coordination. Obviously, coordination is an important
part of what we are doing.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for
your patience. I just have about one or two more questions. I
see that the bells may ring again, and we may give you at least
a brief recess if Members have not come back.
But the Chairman asked in a letter some time ago about the
Department's plans for 2009 transition. I think it is important
to get your response on the record. You didn't believe it was
appropriate to provide a transition plan to the Congress before
it was finalized and provided to the incoming administration.
If I may editorialize, I respect that answer, and I imagine
that the Chairman would respect it as well.
I don't think we are suggesting, and I don't think the
letter suggested, that you would step into the place of the new
administration. I think what it does suggest is that Homeland
Security has no breaks. It has no time off. It has no vacation.
It has no transition time, frankly. We don't even want to utter
such a thing for anyone to suggest that we are not ever-
vigilant.
So you have testified that consolidation of congressional
jurisdiction would greatly benefit the Department's efforts to
carry its mission, so I am at a loss as to why in your response
to this committee's inquiry would you then cite the Homeland
Security Act and executive privilege. So basically, a plan is
that we are not left vulnerable, and I think that is
acceptable, and I would appreciate it if you would answer that.
Let me just quickly put two more questions on, if you can
take notes on this one, because I think we are about to hear a
series of bells. Quickly, the Committee on Foreign Investment
in the United States, puts one credit to the work that you have
done on this issue, and revising your presence on the
committee. But how much of the Department's fiscal year 2009
budget request will be allocated to Department-related CFIUS
work. I held a hearing on it. I don't think we have touched the
surface of intrusion by foreign investors and owners. We
welcome their investment. We don't welcome their takeover. So I
want that.
Then on emergency grants, I am still shocked about
Hurricane Katrina. Do you think the cuts in funding for State
and local programs, including $750 million from the State
homeland security, is acceptable?
The bells have rung, so I have given you the management
one, and I will accept 2-minute answers, and the rest in
writing. But I will start with the one about the transition.
Secretary Chertoff. I think with respect to transition, we
are working on a plan. We have populated No. 2 or No. 3
positions in all of the components in the major operating
elements with career people. We are reducing to writing the
plans and doctrine that we have developed over the past several
years.
Ms. Jackson Lee. This was transition?
Secretary Chertoff. This is for transition purposes. The
purpose is to make sure that when we leave office, the
Presidential appointees and other political appointees----
Ms. Jackson Lee. But besides executive privilege, will you
consult with Congress and have something that responds to a
vulnerability in case something happens?
Secretary Chertoff. Yes. I believe the deputy has written
back and has outlined, and has also briefed to a fair level of
detail exactly what we are doing with transition.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Maybe you can get back with the Chairman
again. I know there was a letter written. I think the whole
committee would like to hear back.
Secretary Chertoff. I would be happy to provide that kind
of briefing. I think we owe it to you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I will yield on that answer. Can you
quickly give me on the CFIUS and the grants cut of $750
million? I truly think that we are on the wrong track for
cutting homeland security emergency grants in light of the
tornadoes and others.
Secretary Chertoff. The CFIUS--I can't tell you. It is in
the policy office. I can't tell you exactly what the budget
number is. I can tell you that it gets a significant amount of
attention, including a significant amount of my own attention.
I see every CFIUS case that comes in. I look at it whether it
is an issue or not. Most of them are not a big deal. Some of
them I spend a fair amount of time on.
On the issue of emergency grants, we have kept our request
for EMPG grants at the same level as last year. But let me add,
a huge amount of money with respect to tornadoes, it doesn't
come through the budget process. It comes through the DRF--the
disaster recovery fund. That is all done through emergency----
Ms. Jackson Lee. I understand that.
Secretary Chertoff. That is a huge amount of money.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I understand that. Let me, because the
vote is on, simply say this: I do think that it will impact
States enormously for the President's budget to have a $750
million cut in the homeland security grants. You know that we
will advocate against it and try to fix it. I do thank you for
your answer. We will probably be back in touch with you. I am
going to give you a brief recess.
The committee is now in recess. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your answers.
Secretary Chertoff. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Perlmutter [presiding]. Mr. Secretary, the first thing
I wanted to do was just, one of the things on page 14 of your
report to us talked about increased responsiveness to
congressional inquiries as one of the accomplishments. I would
have to agree with that. I want to thank your Department and
your staff, in particular there are several things, and this
goes into your notes which has specifics about dropped from 5
weeks to 2.5 weeks and things like that. Mine is more
anecdotal.
But I did want to commend your office and the Department,
in particular TSA. There are always issues concerning TSA and
lines and Red Team probes and things like that. But the TSA in
terms of responding to me was excellent.
Second, on special immigrant visas and dealing with what
was a mistake in my opinion in the PATRIOT Act that caught up
the Hmong tribe, the Montagnards and a number of other allies
of the United States, and sort of swept them into this position
of being terrorists, if you will, and then unable to get green
cards or citizenship and the like. Your Department worked with
well with our office and with the State Department, and I want
to thank you on that.
Then the last was also with respect to Dr. Runge and the
medical department. There are other places, but I just really
do want to highlight those.
Secretary Chertoff. Thank you. I appreciate that. I
appreciate your doing that.
Mr. Perlmutter. Now, I want to unload on you--not really.
Let us first start and talk about the National Applications
Office. We had a couple of emergency meetings, both as full
committee and also the Intelligence Subcommittee, where we are
very concerned in the use of the satellite technology and the
capacity that that has, where we are in developing the legal
and the privacy framework which we have been promised now for
months.
Secretary Chertoff. As I said this morning, I am supposed
to meet with the Chairman this afternoon. We have completed a
draft of the charter and other supporting documents. I was
going to discuss that with him. Then we have been in the
process of trying to schedule today and tomorrow a session to
brief the committee on this. We basically have a framework
which, as I said this morning, first of all makes it explicit
that we are not--the National Application Office does not
circumvent, evade or ignore any existing or future legal
restraints on the use of this technology.
Second, it sets up a process for reviewing the proposed use
of the technology to make sure it complies with the law. If it
is a novel use of the technology, to examine whether there are
some requirements that have to be met like a warrant before it
is used, and if so to require a warrant.
Third, although this was always intended, we make it
explicit that the NAO will not entertain or consider requests
for all written communications to be intercepted. That will
continue to be handled under Title III of the Omnibus Safe
Streets Act and the FISA legislation where it is customarily.
So it should resolve all those issues quite explicitly.
Mr. Perlmutter. I think from the committee's standpoint,
certainly from my standpoint, we just want to see it.
Secretary Chertoff. Yes.
Mr. Perlmutter. So, good.
Second, and you alluded to it earlier--and I know I missed
some of the testimony--but with respect to the grants, the FEMA
grants, whether it is the assistance to firefighters or the
SAFER grants and those things. I know that from my point of
view, the committee's point of view, these grants are very
important for both our law enforcement agencies, as well as our
firefighters. Clearly, your budget cuts what the Congress
presented in its last appropriation. I would ask you to go back
and revisit your budget on that. That is more of just a
statement.
Third, National Guard. We have had a conversation in this
committee and with you that the National Guard is serving dual
purposes. They have been put on the frontline and active duty
status, yet they have a tremendous responsibility, and in my
opinion the first responsibility, is to be at home ready for
disasters of whatever kind. The reports continue to come back
that we don't have the equipment; the individuals, particularly
engineers and contractor types that are within the National
Guard are all in Iraq and not here; and that there really is a
dilemma for homeland security in the event some major national
disaster hits.
How do you respond to that?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, I know General Blum who is the
head of the National Guard Bureau, and Assistant Secretary
McAllen and others have talked about this. I think my
understanding is the percentage of National Guard that is
overseas at any one time is really quite a small percentage of
the total Guard that is available. The equipment that goes
overseas typically is war-fighting equipment, which I don't
think we would envision using in an emergency.
I am comfortable in my dealings with the Guard personnel,
both having dealt with them in terms of planning and in terms
of observing them in action, that they are fully capable of
meeting their missions here. It is a question we have asked
them over the last couple of years.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Last question, and I know my time is
up, but assume for the moment that neither your budget nor our
amendments to your budget or our appropriations really go
through the whole process and are signed by the President, and
we operate under a continuing resolution until next year. What
three or four things do you think have to be changed from
today's budget--the 2007-2008 budget--on a going-forward basis?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, I really hope that that is not
what we are facing. I think the things that we need in a plus-
up, we need to continue building the fence. That is a
continuation of what we are doing. I think the investment in
cyber is very, very critical, and that is a significant step
up. A lot of this discussion has to be in a classified setting,
but it is no secret that we have talked about the increased
vulnerability of our cyber assets and the consequences to our
national economy, not only the exfiltration of data, but of
potentially efforts to disrupt our system.
So I think it is important to make sure that we have our
budget and what we require in order to continue to protect the
country as we have laid it out.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Thank you.
Now, I would recognize Mr. Etheridge from North Carolina
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary for being here. I apologize for
being in and out today because I had other committees I had
some responsibility in.
As you know, you have just touched on it, but I want to go
a little deeper into it. Congress created the assistance to
firefighter grant program because we recognized the role
America's fire service plays in protecting our communities, and
that basic training and equipment formed the foundation for a
robust homeland security strategy. I think your Department
recognizes that and you have spoken to it before.
The International Association of Firefighters said that
President Bush has proposed eliminating or dramatically
reducing funding for important programs that make our
neighborhoods, our citizens, and our country safer. I think he
is right on the money on this. Since 9/11, we have been asking
more and more of our local first responders, as you know. They
have stepped up. They have really delivered not only for
natural disasters, but other things, and have often put their
lives on the line to keep our homeland safe.
The administration budget proposal for 2009 only funds the
assistance for firefighters program at a $300 million level and
eliminates the safe firefighter staffing program. These funds
have supported critical upgrades in our first responders'
capability in our communities that, as you well know, there is
a huge demand for. Annually, the Department receives in excess
of over $2 billion in applications for assistance for
firefighters' grants, which would seem to indicate there is a
huge need.
Two questions. No. 1, what is the basis for these kind of
draconian grant cuts? Second, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina
and the continued threat against the homeland of major storms
that are much more severe than we have seen in recent years,
how do you think the cuts in funding for State and local
programs, including the $750 million cut to Homeland Security
grant programs and the elimination of the metropolitan medical
response system, will affect the ability of our first
responders to prepare, respond and meet these kinds of national
or manmade catastrophic events against our country?
Secretary Chertoff. We are back with this kind of always
interesting discussion about what is a cut. I mean, we are
funding these major programs. We are requesting funding at the
same level we requested in prior years. It is clear there is
some philosophical disagreement. I mean, first of all, I take a
backseat to no one in my respect for firefighters and first
responders. The question is, who pays for firefighting? Is it a
local function or is it a Federal function?
Our fire grants, which we are proposing to fund that at the
rate at which we did propose last year--$300 million--are meant
to build capability, training, or to direct it to homeland
security. SAFER grants are really sustainment grants, they are
maintenance. You know, there are some people who take the view
that the Federal Government ought to simply pay moneys as a
kind of revenue sharing to localities for police and
firefighters--you know, ordinary garden variety functions not
necessarily tied to homeland security. That is not what the
administration's position has been.
Mr. Etheridge. Well, Mr. Secretary, in all due respect,
these are not those kind of grants. These are categorical,
targeted grants for a specific purpose.
Secretary Chertoff. But the SAFER grants are really
basically designed to deal with ordinary types of activities. I
am not saying they are not valuable activities, but it is not
the same kind of capability-building that the fire grants are,
which we are funding.
The second issue on the State homeland security grants,
again we are--if you look at our request--first of all, this is
not a fully risk-based program. This program awards a
significant share of money based upon a fixed formula where
every State gets a minimum. We propose to fund it at slightly
less than the level we proposed last year, but then we have
added $110 million in a new program which will be much more
targeted to be risk-based.
Here, what the difference is: Do we want to be more risk-
based, or do we want to be more formulaic? Our proposal is
basically to be more risk-based.
Finally, you know, there is just the bottom-line issue, as
I said earlier, about the pie. I have no doubt that if we gave
more money out, it would be put to use for purposes. I have no
question about that. But what is it coming from? What are we
going to take the money away from? There are other things in
our Department where only the Federal Government does the job.
Are we going to take the money away from those functions? Then
the job won't get done. Is it going to come from another
department? Then you know, in fairness to my colleagues, they
ought to be heard on the issue of whether they want to lose
those things.
Every Governor I know, and all of my counterparts in State
government, wrestle with the same issue. Many perfectly
reasonable requests for money have to be sorted and traded off
against each other to come within the budget. That is
essentially what we are doing here.
Mr. Etheridge. Mr. Secretary, I can appreciate that, having
been State superintendent of the schools in North Carolina for
8 years, handling one of the largest budgets, I know something
about prioritizing. But the key piece is always, as we say in
the military, for those at the tip of the spear who are the
people out there who are the first responders, if they don't
have the resources.
I will close with this--I went this past week to present a
homeland security grant to a local fire department, two as a
matter of fact. One was getting a truck. Normally, folks would
say that is their responsibility. However, this rural
department, their revenue base is $50,000 a year. You and I
know what the costs of a new fire truck is. They would just get
in a water wagon, because in a rural area you don't have fire
hydrants. You go out with your tanker of 1,200 gallons, and
when that is out, you are in trouble. They couldn't crank it.
It wouldn't crank. It was 33 years old. So I think that is a
great partnership with the Federals.
A second one was funds that had been granted by the
Department to buy equipment for breathing mechanisms that this
department didn't have. Now, one would say, well, they ought to
buy that. The problem is, a small department again, and an
Interstate just happens to go through both of these
communities, and at any given time they could have a chemical
or biological attack on the highway. Guess who is the first
person to show up? These folks are. So if they don't have the
resources, they can't respond, and I recognize that.
Thank you for answering the question. Please keep this in
mind. I think this is a critical piece. Sometimes we tend to
forget these areas out there. Even though they are isolated,
Interstates move through them, rail lines move through, and on
any given day they could be called upon to do the same thing we
would be doing here in Washington or New York or any other
area.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Perlmutter. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Carney from Pennsylvania is now recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. It is always good to have a
constituent testify here.
You spoke about the budget last week. One thing you
mentioned was the problems the Department was having managing
contracts. You said--and please allow me to quote here--``I am
constantly reminded by Congress of the fact that there is
concern about our over-reliance on contractors to manage
contracts. That is a fair point. But there is only one
corrective. You have to hire permanent employees to manage
those contracts, and in order to do that, we need to have the
money to hire those people. Continually trying to punish us by
cutting our management budget in order to induce us to hire
more people is literally working at cross-purposes.''
At another point, you also talked about cutting the budget
for managing procurement. I went back and looked at your last
year's budget request and you asked for $28.5 million, and you
got every penny of that $28.5 million. So I guess I am not sure
quite what we are talking about here. If you are saying you
needed more funding last year, did you say that?
Secretary Chertoff. No. I don't think I had anything
particular in mind. I think if I go back historically over the
last several budgets, there was a tendency on the part of the
appropriators when in meeting the budget number, we would get
tagged with respect to issues involving management--you know,
cut the number of lawyers, punish the under secretary for
management's office. It has been worse in some years and better
in others.
I think actually we did pretty well last year in 2008, but
if you go back, it has been uneven in the history of the
Department. There is a tendency when you talk about tradeoffs
to squeeze the management line when that is in fact the line
that provides the capability to do all the things we have
talked about.
Mr. Carney. I agree. You requested $42 million this year, I
believe?
Secretary Chertoff. Yes.
Mr. Carney. Is that enough?
Secretary Chertoff. The answer is yes. It will let us do
what we need to do. We are building a participant program to
give us the internal capabilities to manage things much better.
Frankly, we are getting the experience at managing better. So
it is both additional money and additional bodies, but also
additional capability.
Mr. Carney. Okay. So $42 million you think has it covered?
Secretary Chertoff. Yes. It is going to be good for this
year.
Mr. Carney. All right. Because we do have, as you know, as
your statement has indicated, a lot of procurement issues.
Secretary Chertoff. Yes.
Mr. Carney. One thing I really want to talk about now, kind
of a segue into that, is P-28 again. I know Mr. Reichert
mentioned is many times. I was just out on the border in
January, so I was going down. On a good way, it works 30
percent of the time, we were hearing from the folks there. What
they could rely on was 30 percent of the time, of the P-28
project.
My question is--I have a lot of questions--but is the P-28
kind of a beta test for the rest of SBInet and using technology
for the northern and southern borders? Or is it just kind of a
unique thing?
Secretary Chertoff. Let me tell you what it is. It is going
to take a minute or two to lay out. SBInet is not any one
particular type of technology. It is the plan for deploying
technology across the border in a way that recognizes that the
challenges are different. For example, part of SBInet is we are
continuing to acquire unmanned aerial systems. Part of it is we
are going from I think four or six what we used to call ground-
based radar and we are now calling mobile surveillance systems,
to 40. Those are in the trucks.
Mr. Carney. How significant a component is the P-28 part of
it?
Secretary Chertoff. The answer to that is it is a
significant component, but exactly how much of the border will
be under this kind of a model will depend on a couple of
things: first of all, how well the equipment actually works in
the environment of the border itself in real life; and second,
operationally, to what extent it is a value-add to other kinds
of technology.
When I went down last week, I had a really specific
conversation with the Border Patrol. Here was my bottom-line
question, and this is after looking at all the stuff. I said,
look, I don't care one way or the other whether Boeing ever
gets another mile of stuff to do. If you tell me that this is
too complicated, that it is not a value-add, and you think we
are better off with a ground-based radar and whatever it is, I
am perfectly happy with that. Now, that is more manpower-
intensive. If you think it is a value-add in some areas, then
great, I am willing to pursue that. If you think it is a value-
add across the board, that is great, too.
I am a pretty good cross-examiner. I left convinced that it
is a value-add, not in every place on the border, but in some
places on the border.
Now, what are the lessons that they have learned living
with this system for a few months? I think first of all, there
were some problems in the original equipment that was delivered
and the people who put together the package at Boeing.
Mr. Carney. Yes, we were told it was not the A-team.
Secretary Chertoff. Right.
Mr. Carney. And they----
Secretary Chertoff. I have some candid rules with the CEO
of Boeing about this, and they replaced them, and what I hear
back is they are happy now.
The second thing is, I think that because of that initial
issue, there were some problems with the underlying components
that have been almost entirely--maybe not 100 percent, but 98
percent--corrected.
The second piece, though, was something we only learned
living with the system, which is what is operationally helpful
and what is operationally not helpful. So there are certain
elements in the system that I think we know now we need to make
better, because we are not getting full use out of what it can
do. Then there are some things, frankly, I think they spent a
lot of time on. And you know something? I am not sure it is
worth it. I am not sure the value-add is there, and we are
going to stop doing it. I can be even more specific.
Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to spend a few more
minutes, and I don't want to take time away, to really lay this
out to you, because I know you are interested in it, and I
think it is worth talking about.
Mr. Perlmutter. I think we only have one more--Mr.
Pascrell--after this. So please go ahead.
Secretary Chertoff. I will give you an example. They spent
a lot of time in the last few months trying to make the common
operating picture appear in the vehicles that are out in the
field, the whole thing.
Mr. Carney. Yes?
Secretary Chertoff. Not just the map, but the video, et
cetera. So I was talking to the agents, and they said, you
know, we are not really sure we want all this stuff. We are not
going to be sitting out there in the middle of nowhere looking
at a video feed and manipulating everything. Just give us the
icons on the map. So that is what I mean by operational.
Mr. Carney. I got that. You know what? That should have
been part of the original contract. They should have had some
input into that whole thing at the very outset, and they
didn't. The contract precluded them from having input.
Secretary Chertoff. There is a lot to be said for that
position. I asked that question as well, and you may very well
be right. I will tell you again, I am----
Mr. Carney. I am just repeating what we heard in the Tucson
sector.
Secretary Chertoff. I will recapitulate for you--I just
think it is part of the transition, the legacy, is to try to
unpack for you what we have learned in this process. The
argument originally for doing it the way they did it was, the
Border Patrol is locked into a way of doing business. Let us
think outside the box and have the contractor come to us, using
the benefit, for example, of what they have seen in Iraq and
stuff like that, and come up with a model that works.
I think in retrospect that probably was not the best way to
do it. I think operative input earlier on would have been
better, but at least you understand what the theory was. Okay,
that is a great lesson we have learned. It is a lesson, by the
way, that S&T is using now. We have our operators involved in
the initial project teams on everything that we are doing with
research. So you know, we have adapted to that, and now we have
the operators moving at every subsequent stage.
So the bottom line is, I think it is a value-add. It is not
a panacea. I continue to think that basically the way we are
moving, which is to be very practical and operator-driven, and
now having a really good relationship with the contractor and
the operators, I think this is promising.
Mr. Carney. Are we going to take acceptance? If so, when?
Secretary Chertoff. I think the likely answer is yes. It
hasn't been finally reviewed, but I would imagine within the
next few days we likely will.
Mr. Carney. I am sorry. You will review or accept it?
Secretary Chertoff. I think we are likely to accept. It
hasn't been formally made, but I am inclined to think we are
going to accept.
Mr. Carney. Now, you said it is not perfect.
Secretary Chertoff. It is not perfect.
Mr. Carney. So how close to imperfect----
Secretary Chertoff. I think we have resolved all material
problems. Where there are immaterial problems, we will get a
credit. I liken it to, you know, you get a car and there are
some problems with the trim or maybe there is a problem with
the radio or the CD changer or something like that, and you
take a credit for it.
Mr. Carney. So DHS has a lemon law, then? Is that what you
are saying?
Secretary Chertoff. No. I think we do what anybody does.
When I bought my house, in the end we did an inspection. You
probably did the same thing, too. We did an inspection and
there is some stuff, you say I am not taking the house until
you fix it, and then there is some stuff where you say, you
know, I will live with it, but give me a credit. That is what
we are doing here.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perlmutter. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania yields back.
The gentleman, Mr. Pascrell from New Jersey, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, thank you again for your service, but I am
here to ask some questions and I hope you will respond to them.
First, I want to get into very quickly because I want to
get into the budget specifically, but we know that the amount
of fraudulent documents that people use to get into this
country has proliferated. We know from the records of Interpol.
I want to know what money you have put into this budget, and
are you cooperating with Interpol to stop it. This is an
immediate danger.
Secretary Chertoff. Let me tell you what we have done in
the budget on the fraudulent document issue, but it is not just
a money issue. Obviously, we have put increased funding into
our border programs and ICE which include our fraudulent
document unit, as well as capabilities at the border and ports
of entry that make it much harder to get through.
But in addition to that, we have initiated new procedures
at our northern and southern borders now that sharply restrict
the types of documents that can be presented, which makes it
easier for our border inspectors to detect if there is a
fraudulent document.
I repeat again, as I did earlier, I ordered this to go
forward notwithstanding hellacious protests from
representatives of the northern and southern border communities
who were concerned that by no longer accepting library cards
and school cards, we were going to create backups at the
border. While I understand that is a legitimate concern, and I
am pleased to say that we haven't really seen backups at the
border because I think we have managed this well, my response
to them, as it is to you, is it is a big problem with
fraudulent documents. While reducing the types of documents
doesn't eliminate the problem, it makes it easier to get a
handle on it.
Mr. Pascrell. It seems to me, just in response to your
answer, that we are not doing enough, and whether it means
spending more money or not, to stop the tremendous increase in
these fraudulent documents. People are coming into this
country----
Secretary Chertoff. Oh, yes. There is one more thing we
could do. I will tell you exactly what it is. It is not a
problem so much at our airports because we actually, with US-
VISIT and everything else, it is quite difficult to get in with
a fraudulent document. At our borders, we could finish the
process of implementing the western hemisphere travel
initiative, which requires secure documentation. I tried to get
that done this year. Last year, Congress voted to compel me to
delay until June 2009.
If it is delayed further or if it is killed, as some
Members of Congress want to do, then we will continue to have
the problem of fraudulent documents.
Mr. Pascrell. Well, I want to help along those lines.
Secretary Chertoff. Please do.
Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Secretary, I think this is critical.
Now, I have to ask you some very specific questions about
the budget. When I add up the dollars in looking at the budget
by line item, and I have done that. Trust me. On the assistance
to the fire grants, which in New York, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania have been cut $83 million. When I look at the
Byrne justice grants have been cut in those three States by
over $20 million. Then when you add in the homeland security
State grants in those three States, they have been cut $136
million.
So when you add these numbers together--you don't need to
add them together--the point I am trying to make is you know
the point I am trying to make. How can these States continue to
operate on the basis that what they established as a priority
with the Federal Government, the Federal Government is not
doing its part to support those efforts. This is a serious
situation here. You can't start the programs, remove the
money--and we are talking about the metropolitan area, we are
talking about Pennsylvania. High-risk areas, Mr. Secretary? How
can we justify the cut of such funds?
Secretary Chertoff. I think that actually is a great
question, and reflects what in many ways has been a fundamental
issue that we have talked about when we talked about grants
during this hearing. One of the arguments that is made
against--let me re-phrase that. The grants that are disfavored
by the administration in the budget process tend to be those
that do exactly what you suggest. They are grants that are
recurrent grants like hire people and pay them; like the COPS
program was 10 years ago, where the promise is made we are
going to give you money to hire police officers and pay their
salaries for 5 years, and then at the end of that, the money is
going to disappear.
That very easily translates into a program of revenue-
sharing, where basically the Federal Government pays personnel
costs for State and local government. That puts you in exactly
the bind that we are talking about.
Mr. Pascrell. But the Federal Government got into the
business because there was a need, and States could not meet
that financial responsibility. You can't say that this is a
Nixon revenue-sharing plan. The very basis and roots of that is
quite different than what I am talking about and what you are
talking about with these particular grants.
The FIRE Act--the FIRE Act, your administration has tried
to zero-out 3 of the last 4 years. Those FIRE grants were done
before 9/11. They are based on very basic needs within fire
departments, as was the COPS program before 9/11. These
programs exist whether 9/11, the tragedy happens or doesn't
happen. What you are saying here is that you don't agree that
they are basic needs, or you are saying that they are basic
needs, but the community should be able to pay for them on
their own. What are you saying? Which one are you?
Secretary Chertoff. I think what the administration's
position has consistently been--I think you are exactly right--
COPS and Byrne grants and stuff is not about homeland security.
It is preexisting grants that were created with the idea that
the Federal Government was going to pick up some percentage of
law enforcement and fire costs, as basically lending a hand to
the States and localities.
Generally, the administration's position has been this:
when the Federal Government gets in the business of grants, we
are to be building capability, equipment and training. We
should not be paying personnel costs and sustainment--that that
is what should be picked up by State and local communities.
Mr. Pascrell. Both of those pieces of legislation were
passed with bipartisan support. Both of those pieces of
legislation were sustained by bipartisan support despite what
this administration has attempted to do. I will tell you what
the result is. You cannot tell me--and you are the expert, I am
not--but you cannot tell me that police departments, if we
remove those basic grants and COPS and we don't help many of
the municipalities with the support of having enough police
officers on the street before we get to the
9/11 issues, Mr. Secretary, before we get to those issues, that
this isn't going to affect not only the basic issues of crime
or violent crime in their communities, but it is going to
affect our response to 9/11.
What is the result? What is the result? What will you have
accomplished since the need was established scientifically--
scientifically, Mr. Secretary. You are shaking your head. We
know we have standards in every State. At this time, 25
States--25 States--are on the brink of deficit spending. Do you
expect those States to pick up what you are not doing, what I
am not doing?
Secretary Chertoff. No, but I think this is a great
philosophical discussion.
Mr. Pascrell. No, it isn't a philosophical discussion.
Secretary Chertoff. Let us take the COPS----
Mr. Pascrell. This is very practical, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Chertoff. The COPS program, I have to say my
recollection is I would not describe the COPS program as a
scientifically designed program.
Mr. Pascrell. I disagree with you.
Secretary Chertoff. I think it was born out of the program
that we are going to put 100,000 police officers----
Mr. Pascrell. No, no, no. The President didn't wake up one
morning----
Mr. Perlmutter. The gentleman's time----
Mr. Pascrell. To wrap up. Can I finish? Thank you.
The President didn't wake up one morning and say, ``100,000
is a nice number.'' Well, you know, then you ought to go back
and look at the history of it. I mean, Mr. Secretary, you have
to go back and look at the history of the situation of how that
program came about. We had a similar program in New Jersey,
only the Governor took the money and spent it on other things.
You don't want to back into the history.
Secretary Chertoff. No, I want to----
Mr. Pascrell. Let us talk about what these needs are. They
are either real needs or they are artificial needs.
Secretary Chertoff. So let me--look, I want to agree with
you that of course these needs are real. I think the theme I
have made of this entire budget presentation is there are many
important, deserving needs. Now, Byrne, for example, happens
not to be my Department. It is the Justice Department. But here
is the challenge that we face in putting together a budget. We
have a certain amount of money. We have a pie. The pie has
grown, but it still has a limit.
If we were to go and say, you know, we are going to take $3
billion more and put it in to pay for COPS and everything,
where is that $3 billion coming out of? Am I not buying new
cutters for the Coast Guard where the cutters are 40 years old?
Am I going to----
Mr. Pascrell. I am not suggesting that.
Secretary Chertoff. So where is it coming from?
Mr. Pascrell. Well, now that you asked me the question, can
I answer the question, respond to the question? I think it is a
good question. Very good. I think it is an honest one. It is
called priorities.
Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Pascrell, 30 seconds. We are already
over time.
Mr. Pascrell. There are four priorities, and I don't want
you to respond to this, but you can. You carry the water here.
I understand your role and your responsibility. I do understand
a few things. But the fact of the matter is that the
administration has decided that providing multi-million dollar
tax cuts to people in the 1 percent--this is more than a
philosophical argument here--is more important than responding
to the needs of our first, our first responders, because they
are the first ones there, before the Army, the Navy, the
Marines--God bless them all.
This is not good business and not good policy, Mr.
Secretary. You cannot defend this. You cannot defend it.
Mr. Perlmutter. The gentleman's time has expired, and I
understand that the two gentleman would like to enter into this
discussion another time.
Secretary Chertoff. It is a great discussion. This will now
detour is into discussions of tax policy and whether it isn't
better to keep rates low and increase revenues. But that is
outside my field of expertise and the committee's jurisdiction.
Mr. Perlmutter. The gentleman from New Jersey yields back.
Seeing no other Members of the committee who wish to ask
questions, we would just like to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for
being so generous with your time and your testimony. The
Members of the committee may have additional questions for you,
and we will ask you to respond to those questions as
expeditiously as possible.
Hearing no further business, the committee now stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:52 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi for Michael
Chertoff, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security
minority serving institutions (msi s)
Question 1. As Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I
have championed efforts to create a Department of Homeland Security
that reflects the great diversity of this Nation. The proposed fiscal
year 2009 budget would cut the funding for Minority Serving
Institutions (MSI) program by $788,000. Overall, the budget proposes to
cut funding for University Programs by more than $5 million. Please
explain how the Department plans to increase such participation without
adequate funding.
Answer. The University Programs funding request for fiscal year
2009 is $43.8 million which is $5.1 million above the fiscal year 2008
request. The funding for the Minority Serving Institution (MSI) Program
is $3.9 million in fiscal year 2009 which is an increase of $150,000 to
the fiscal year 2008 request. With this amount of funding, the program
remains viable, productive and dynamic. These funds are intended to
support the following objectives specific to MSIs:
Expand the contribution of MSIs to the homeland security
science and technology mission;
Expand professional opportunities for MSI graduates in the
homeland security science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (HS-STEM) workforce at DHS, State and local
agencies, national laboratories and Centers of Excellence
(COEs); and
Develop additional internship and career opportunities for
MSI graduates at a variety of venues.
MSI program plans for fiscal year 2009 include:
Continue the homeland security scientific leadership grants
program in areas critical to homeland security at MSIs. These
programs provide MSIs with funds to support early career
faculty to establish or expand education, research and training
activities in HS-STEM areas. The program also provides
scholarships and graduate fellowships for students of MSIs that
will enable them to develop the necessary skills to become
professionals in homeland security related fields; and
Conduct a Summer Research Team Program for MSIs that
provides a 10-12 week summer research experience for teams of a
faculty member and up to two students, to perform research at a
COE that aligns with the DHS mission;
Increase the profile and presence of MSIs in the network of
COEs.
Additionally, the Department continues to operate its university-
based system of Centers of Excellence (COEs) and DHS Educational
Programs (scholars and fellows). Four of the five new COEs have an MSI
as a co-lead. Their funding will be provided through the COE program,
which requests $32.2 million in fiscal year 2009.
small business innovation and research (sbir)
Question 2. One of my goals in charting the course toward freedom
from fear is to inspire minds and to promote the development of cutting
edge technology. Entrepreneurs of all stripes will tell you that small
business innovation helps the Nation think outside the box. The Science
& Technology Directorate has requested funding for Small Business
Innovation and Research (SBIR) projects for many of its divisions.
Over the upcoming fiscal year, what strides will the Department
take to ensure that some of this funding is distributed to Small,
Minority and Disadvantaged businesses?
Answer. All Federal agencies with an annual extramural research and
development (R&D) budget exceeding $100 million are required to
participate in the Small Business Innovation and Research (SBIR)
Program. Each fiscal year, not less than 2.5 percent of the Science and
Technology Directorate's annual extramural budget is reserved for
awards to small businesses for R&D.
The Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology
Directorate SBIR program works with the Department of Homeland
Security's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization to
facilitate participation in the SBIR program, offering assistance to
small businesses; veteran-owned small businesses; service-disabled,
veteran-owned small businesses; Historically Underutilized Business
Zone HUBZone small businesses; small disadvantaged businesses; and
women-owned small businesses. The SBIR program also conducts outreach
initiatives at various conferences run by different State economic
development organizations for small businesses, including those owned
by minorities and women. For example, SBIR participated in a conference
hosted by the Maryland Technology Development Corporation (TEDCO) and
the Tech Council of Maryland (TCM), which was Maryland's first
conference targeted to SBIR winners and applicants, seed and angel fund
recipients, and post-incubation stage companies. More than 200
entrepreneurs and business advocates from throughout the region
attended the all-day event called ``Commercializing R&D: Resources for
Emerging Technology Companies.'' SBIR representatives have also
attended conferences in Hawaii, Indiana, Mississippi, and North
Carolina, and Virginia and have plans to attend conferences in
Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Florida.
In addition, the SBIR program tracks participation by minority- and
women-owned businesses. In fiscal year 2007, the SBIR program received
420 proposals in response to two solicitations. The program awarded 61
Phase I awards. Of the 61 awards, five went to minority-owned or
socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses, 11 went to
woman-owned small businesses, and 3 went to HUBZone small
businesses.\1\ This represented 13 percent of Phase I dollars
(approximately $0.9 million of $7 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ One award noted above represented a minority and a woman (i.e.
double-counted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of 15 new fiscal year 2007 Phase II awards, 2 went to minority-
owned or socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses, 2
went to woman-owned small businesses, and 1 went to a HUBZone small
business. This represented 17 percent of Phase II dollars ($4 million
of $17.5 million).
inspector general
Question 3. Mr. Secretary, my top priority for the Department this
year is improving the functionality, governance, and accountability of
the Department. In order to ensure sound practices and effective
accountability at the Department, the Inspector General must have its
budgetary needs met. I understand that the IG told the Department that
it needs a total of $119 million, yet the proposed budget seeks only
$101 million--a cut of $7.6 million from the enacted fiscal year 2008
level.
The IG tells us that in addition to its regular workload, its
docket of Katrina-related work has not lessened, and that it has other
significant oversight responsibilities from more recent disasters. I'm
sure you would agree that a developing Department like DHS needs more,
and certainly not less, oversight.
How does the Department defend the proposal to slash the Inspector
General's budget?
Answer. The fiscal year 2008 enacted level for OIG appropriation is
$92.8 million. The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) appropriation for fiscal
year 2008 includes language that directs the transfer of $16 million to
the OIG. This provision is not necessary to use the DRF appropriation
for the disaster-related audits and investigations. If the OIG requires
additional funding from the DRF in 2009 we will make funds available
through an MOU.
quadrennial homeland security review
Question 4. Mr. Secretary, I want to ask you about the Quadrennial
Homeland Security Review that was mandated by the 9/11 bill. By October
2007, the Department was required to develop a detailed resource plan
specifying the estimated budget and number of staff. The purpose of
that mandate was to determine how many U.S. Government employees and
what additional resources would be required to develop this crucial
first Quadrennial Review.
The committee has yet to receive this plan, which is in and of
itself troubling. But of even more concern is what we found in the
budget proposed last Monday. On the one hand the Department recognizes
that ``this is the first QHSR for DHS and will serve as a strategic
capstone construct for broad Homeland Security policy within the
Federal Government.'' Yet in the very next sentence it states that the
Department plans to outsource much if not all of this ``strategic
capstone'' and that ``contractor support will be necessary to research,
organize, analyze, facilitate workshops, and draft the document.''
Mr. Secretary, Congress did not direct the Department to hire a
contractor to develop broad Homeland Security policy. Rather, Congress
wanted the men and women who have dedicated their careers to serving
the public and protecting this Nation to provide this review.
When does the Department intend to produce the long overdue
resource plan?
Answer. Section 2401 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/
11 Commission Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110-53 (Act), amends the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, and directs the Secretary of Homeland Security,
beginning in fiscal year 2009 and every 4 years thereafter, to
``conduct a review of the homeland security of the Nation.'' As part of
this review, the Secretary will comprehensively examine the homeland
security strategy, make recommendations regarding the long-term
homeland security strategy and priorities, and provide guidance on the
programs, assets, capabilities, budget, policies, and authorities of
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Department recognizes
the benefits of such a review and looks forward to its first
comprehensive Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR).
Subsection 2401(b)(2) of the Act directs the Secretary to provide
Congress, and make publicly available on the DHS Web site, a Resource
Plan for the preparation of the first review. In developing this
Resource Plan, DHS consulted with numerous representatives within both
the Department and its partner agencies. DHS requested briefings
concerning other similar initiatives, including past and current
examples within the Government and private entities, and convened
sessions where experts shared their insights. These steps were
necessary because the DHS mission unlike other comparables is
inherently interagency, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental.
The QHSR Resource Plan presents the proposed implementation phases
for conducting the review, an estimate of the required resources, and
the QHSR Work Teams structure and approach. The Department is in the
final stages of submitting this plan to Congress.
Question 6. How was the Department's budget request for the review
developed if a plan has not yet been developed?
Answer. Both preparation of the QHSR Resource Plan and consultation
with our Office of Chief Financial Officer produced a sound resource
scheme that will meet the legislative intent. To fulfill the Act's
requirements, DHS will designate a core staff for the QHSR within the
Office of Policy as well as Work Teams to manage and conduct the review
and analysis. The Work Teams will include employees dedicated full-time
to the QHSR, detailed and non-detailed personnel from across DHS and
other Federal departments and agencies, and contract support.
Collectively the teams will serve as the focal point for intra- and
interagency review and coordination.
Questions From Hon. Yvette D. Clarke of New York for Michael Chertoff,
Secretary, Department of Homeland Security
Question 1a. The DHS Office of Appeals and Redress has been left
entirely without mention in the budget. This office exists to allow the
public an outlet to attempt to clear their names if they feel they have
been wrongly delayed, detained, or prevented service because of faulty
screening against various watchlists. The absence of this office in the
budget does not speak well for how the Department prioritizes civil
liberties.
Why was the Office of Appeals and Redress not given its own line-
item in the budget?
Answer. The budget for the DHS Office of Appeals and Redress is
included in the budget for the Office of the Special Counselor in TSA.
The Special Counselor ensures that employees and the traveling
public are treated fairly and in a lawful manner. The Redress program
is one of several programs designed to meet this mission. Its inclusion
in the Office of the Special Counselor allows the Office of Appeals and
Redress to adjust quickly to programmatic changes or mandates.
Question 1b. What additional funding is being devoted to the
Department's efforts to address the existing backlog and other problems
that have arisen in the year that the program has been in service?
Answer. In July 2007, DHS Travelers Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP)
migrated its Information Technology (IT) system to a Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) data center which addressed the
outstanding problems highlighted in an internal program review. For
fiscal year 2008, TSA allocated $770,000 (which includes Pay
Compensation and Benefits costs) plus four full-time contractors to
support the DHS TRIP Program Office. In addition, the DHS TRIP Program
Office has been augmented with 4.5 FTEs who serve as subject matter
experts from other DHS Components as well as the Department of State.
It is my expectation that the DHS TRIP Program Office, which is the
designated Office of Appeals and Redress, will continue to provide
excellent service to the traveling public.
Question 1c. I request the budget numbers for the Office of Appeals
and Redress, including a comparison to fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year
2008.
Answer. In fiscal year 2007, Redress expended $1.2 million. In
fiscal year 2008, the budget for Redress is $770,000. The budget
includes payroll and operating expenses. In addition to these funds,
4.5 FTEs from throughout the Department supplement the program staff.
Question 2a. I applaud the recent decision to grant green cards to
individuals stuck in the Name Check process, but that is not a solution
to the greater backlog problem.
Will your plan to add 1,300 new adjudicators allow USCIS to fully
catch up on the workload before the end of the year?
Answer. USCIS will be hiring about 1,800 temporary Federal and
contract staff, including approximately 1,300 adjudicators (including
an additional 570 adjudicators over the 720 adjudicators that are being
hired under USCIS' fee rule). USCIS has also contacted and received
interest in reemployed annuitant status from more than 200 retirees. As
this staff is brought on throughout fiscal year 2008 we expect to see a
reduction in the backlog. Unfortunately, the tremendous surge of
applications received in the summer of 2007, make it unlikely that the
new backlog brought on by this surge will be eliminated by the end of
the year.
As you know, USCIS has faced a challenge keeping pace with
unprecedented levels of citizenship applications. During fiscal year
2007, USCIS received 1.4 million requests for citizenship, which is
nearly double the 730,000 received in fiscal year 2006. In June, July,
and August 2007 alone, USCIS received more than 3 million immigration
benefit applications and petitions of all types, compared to 1.8
million during the same period the previous year. In fact, for the
months of June and July 2007, the spike in naturalization applications
represents a 360 percent increase compared to the same period in 2006.
We anticipate that it will take 13 to 15 months to work through these
citizenship cases. The normal processing time is 5 months.
Question 2b. Will last year's fee increases cover the full cost of
bringing on these new employees and ending the USCIS backlog, or is
there likely to be a need for additional appropriations or another fee
increase?
Answer. The fee increase covered the cost of bringing on the 720
new employees. After the surge occurred, USCIS identified additional
fee revenue, from the increased fee revenue associated with the surge
in applications--which may total as much as $480 million--to fund the
additional positions needed to address the current application volume.
A spend plan detailing the use of $239 million of the $480 million in
fiscal year 2008 was approved by Congress earlier this month. USCIS has
enough resources to address surge response needs.
Question 2c. The backlog problem will never be completely fixed
until USCIS coordinates with the FBI to address the Name Check problem.
Does the proposed budget account for the cost of changes that may occur
within USCIS as DHS and the FBI continue discussions on how to improve
the system?
Answer. USCIS is working aggressively with the FBI to address the
name check backlog through both process improvements and substantially
increased capacity at the FBI dedicated to USCIS workload.
Last year, the FBI increased their name check fee. Through both the
higher fee amount collected by USCIS and special appropriations from
the Congress, DHS has more than $34.5 million identified and allocated
to meet the goal of eliminating the FBI name check backlog. USCIS has
already provided $14 million to the FBI for the FBI to extend the
existing contractor workforce and expand the number of contractors
working on USCIS workload. This increase in staff will be dedicated to
increasing the number of FBI name checks completed for USCIS
applications. More than 220 contractors are on-board already. That is
up from a handful of contractors and FBI employees last year. USCIS is
finalizing a separate $20 million supplemental appropriations spend
plan to provide Congress that will extend and expand this contractor
workforce through most of fiscal year 2009.
Initial results of these efforts are positive. But this is just the
beginning. We are confident that over the next several months we will
see dramatic progress in reducing FBI's pending name check request
backlog. Our joint goal with the FBI will be to completely eliminate
this backlog by the summer of 2009.
Question 3. States have had significant financial and logistical
problems in implementing REAL ID. In the budget proposal, the
administration has marked about $160 million to assist States in
implementing this program--which is an improvement over last year--but
this remains a drop in the bucket compared with the nearly $4 billion
in estimated costs for States to implement this law. Is this going to
be just another unfunded mandate? If so, this will leave a terrible
burden on States and force many of them to use funds that should go to
providing the public with security. Does DHS expect States to pick up
the remainder of the tab, and how much do you expect this to be?
Answer. DHS is making approximately $360 million available to
assist States with REAL ID implementation between fiscal year 2006-
2008, of which $80 million is dedicated to REAL ID grants, and 20
percent are discretionary funds as part of the Homeland Security Grant
Program. In addition to making funds available, DHS has worked with
States to achieve a 73 percent State-cost reduction from an original
estimate of $14.6 billion in the NPRM to approximately $3.9 billion by
providing States greater flexibility in issuing licenses. DHS
acknowledges there will be additional costs incurred by States to
implement REAL ID that will vary in each State.
Moreover, the President's budget request for fiscal year 2009
includes up to $150 million in grants for States for REAL ID, of which
$110 million is from the National Security and Terrorism Prevention
Grant Program for projects that address national risks and
vulnerabilities identified by the Secretary, and $40 million is from
the State Homeland Security Grants.
Additionally, the fiscal year 2009 President's budget request
proposes $50 million in appropriated funds in further support of
implementation of the REAL ID Act, specifically to enhance State
capabilities to verify applicant data with each other and Federal
agencies. These funds would be used to establish a State-governed hub
to verify the information provided by applicants for State-issued
drivers' licenses and identification cards--a key functionality for all
the States. The verification hub will build upon the work done through
the grant funds and the efforts States have already undertaken to
enhance their licenses and issuance systems.
The issuance of State driver's licenses and identification cards is
a State function, whose costs will continue to be borne primarily by
each State. DHS realizes that States will incur significant costs in
implementing REAL ID, and has sought to reduce the impact of these
costs in numerous ways. States clearly expressed to DHS the need for
additional time and flexibility in implementation of the Act. The final
rule addressed these items with examples such as using the age-based
enrollment phasing in, which allows States to focus the first phase of
enrollment on those persons who may present a higher risk of obtaining
and using fraudulent documentation, while allowing others to be phased
in later. This approach will reduce the costs to States by billions so
that States will be able to implement REAL ID, as well as help reduce
the burden of having to hire additional personnel. Many States have
already made investments in more secure processes that mirror many of
the same processes outlined in the final rule.
The American public's desire for greater identity protection is
undeniable. For an extra $8 per license, REAL ID will give law
enforcement and security officials a powerful advantage against
falsified documents, and it will bring some peace of mind to citizens
wanting to protect their identity from theft by a criminal or illegal
aliens.
Questions From Hon. Lamar Smith of Texas for Michael Chertoff,
Secretary, Department of Homeland Security
Question 1. Nearly 12 years after a bill I authored, ``The Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,'' required
the implementation of system to track the entry and exit of every
person coming to the United States, the exit portion of that system is
still not in place. How can we protect this country from dangerous
people if we do not even know who is coming in and who has left?
What is the plan for creation and completion of the exit portion of
US-VISIT?
Answer. After focusing on deploying biometric entry at our ports in
2004 and testing biometric exit from 2004 to 2007, the Department,
through the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology (US-VISIT) Program, is preparing to move forward with full
biometric exit for the air and sea environments.
Biographic Exit
US-VISIT currently collects and matches biographic information from
electronic carrier manifests through the Arrival and Departure
Information System. After analysis, information on alien overstays is
shared with the Department of State, Customs and Border Protection, and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement for further action concerning visa
renewals, future admissibility into the United States, and interior
enforcement.
Air/Sea Biometric Exit
DHS performed significant planning and testing over the past 3
years examining possible solutions for integrating the US-VISIT Program
biometric exit requirements into the international air departure
process. For more than 2 years, US-VISIT ran biometric exit pilots at
14 air and sea locations. These pilots, which concluded in May 2007,
evaluated the use of both automated kiosks and mobile devices in port
terminals. While the pilots demonstrated that the underlying technology
works, they also revealed low compliance by travelers.
Given the analysis of the pilots, other potential options, and the
congressional mandate that requires the establishment of a biometric
exit program, DHS intends to propose a rule to establish a biometric
exit system at all air and sea ports of departure in the United States
integrating the system with the current international departure process
and minimizing the impact on legitimate travelers. The Department will
publish a proposed rule, seek public comment on the options articulated
therein, and consider those comments when developing the final rule.
In developing the deployment schedule, US-VISIT will prioritize the
implementation of departure controls at airports based on risk. Risk in
this environment is likely to be a function of the volume and the
destinations of travelers departing the United States. A critical focus
of counterterrorism efforts is recording the arrival of travelers from
countries of interest (COIs). These COIs were determined by the
National Counterterrorism Center, DHS, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
and Department of State. More than 91 percent of all COI travelers
arrive in the United States via air. Knowing the COIs from which
travelers have overstayed their authorized periods of admission or
otherwise violated the terms of their admission is essential to
assessing risk and to enhancing the integrity of our immigration and
border management system.
Because the vast majority of Visa Waiver Program (VWP) travelers
enter and exit through U.S. airports, DHS anticipates that the
deployment of US-VISIT air exit will cover the vast majority of VWP
travelers, just as entry procedures do today. Under the VWP, eligible
travelers may enter the United States for business or pleasure without
a visa for a period of 90 days or less.
The long-term exit solution will also be deployed to commercial
seaports to provide an integrated biometric exit capture for cruise
line passengers. Seaport deployment will occur concurrently with
deployment to the air environment.
Exit in the Land Environment
The implementation of biometric exit procedures at land border
ports of entry poses many unique challenges. DHS continues to research
options and cost estimates that will meet its goals without having a
negative impact on the economy, the environment, or public safety.
The implementation of biometric exit procedures at land border
ports of entry will be significantly more complicated and costly than
at airports and seaports because of space, infrastructure, and
connectivity challenges.
DHS has not yet determined a time frame or cost estimates for
initiation of land exit.
Question 2. Regarding detention bed space: the 1,000 additional
beds for which fiscal year 2009 funding is requested, is significantly
less than the 8,000 additional beds per year that Congress authorized
for each year between 2006 and 2010 in the ``Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.'' In total, under the Intelligence
Reform Act, there should be 59,400 detention beds by the end of fiscal
year 2009 but there will only be 33,000 under the administration's
current plan. That is a deficit of 26,400 beds.
Why haven't you requested funding for, at the very least, the 8,000
beds Congress authorized for fiscal year 2009 in the Intelligence
Reform Act?
Answer. As part of the Secure Border Initiative, DHS and ICE have
implemented a comprehensive strategy for immigration enforcement that
includes detention space increases and immigration process efficiencies
that dramatically reduced the average length of stay of those in ICE
custody. This strategy enabled ICE to effectively end the practice of
``Catch and Release'' along the Nation's borders. ICE also developed a
Detention Capacity Planning Model that utilizes actual and projected
apprehension data to estimate the number of beds ICE will need to
continue the end of ``Catch and Release'' and support its interior
enforcement programs. ICE's annual requests for additional bed space
are based upon this model. ICE continually reviews detention space
needs to maximize current capacities.
Question 3. In looking through the fiscal year 2009 budget request,
I do not see any request for funding for additional work site
enforcement investigators. In the ``Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004'' Congress authorized 800 additional work site
investigators per year from 2006 to 2010. Why did you not request the
800 additional investigators to show that the administration is serious
about work site enforcement?
Answer. As part of the Secure Border Initiative, DHS and ICE have
implemented a comprehensive immigration enforcement strategy. We have
made a commitment to improving the enforcement of our immigration laws
and additional ICE agents is only one piece in the larger enforcement
strategy that includes detention beds, Border Patrol agents, and other
personnel increases and improved technology. While it is true that
larger personnel increases have been authorized, it is not uncommon for
appropriated spending levels across the Government to be lower than
those authorized. This increase in agents would require a significant
amount of money, and in weighing the ability to fund the authorized
increases in ICE agents, the administration must determine what level
of additional security would result from investments in additional ICE
agents as opposed to investing in other areas of security. The
administration has made a judgment as to the best possible mix of
homeland security spending.
Questions From Hon. Mike Rogers of Alabama for Michael Chertoff,
Secretary, Department of Homeland Security
DETECTION CANINES
Question. When you testified before this committee last September,
you indicated that, subject to appropriations, you would be happy to
work to increase the domestic supply of dogs. Is the funding requested
in the fiscal year 2009 budget sufficient to allow for the acquisition
of more dogs beyond TSA, in these sufficiently deficient areas like
border crossings?
Answer. CBP has a current procurement contract that has sufficient
funds to purchase canines from the list of vendors that will meet the
need for training in fiscal year 2009.