[Senate Hearing 108-705]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m., in room SD-106, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Cochran, Stevens, Specter, Domenici,
Gregg, Craig, Byrd, Inouye, Leahy, Harkin, Mikulski, Kohl, and
Murray.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM RIDGE, SECRETARY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. The hearing of our committee will please
come to order.
Today we begin our review of the fiscal year 2005 budget
request for the Department of Homeland Security. I am pleased
to welcome to the hearing the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security, the Honorable Tom Ridge.
Under the Secretary's leadership, this new department,
which became operational not quite 1 year ago, has undertaken
the challenge to improve the safety and security of the United
States. Merging some 180,000 employees from 22 separate
agencies into a new department has been a very challenging
endeavor. Recent events have underscored our awareness that
challenges still lie ahead as the department continues its work
to prevent terrorism, to reduce the Nation's vulnerability to
terrorist acts, and to increase our disaster response
capabilities.
While we all understand that more will be done, the
administration with the active support of this committee and
the Congress is succeeding to improve our intelligence-
gathering capabilities; achieve a greater degree of
coordination and cooperation among all those involved in
homeland security; develop and deploy new detection
technologies; and heighten security of our borders, ports,
transportation systems, and other critical infrastructure.
We will review this year's budget request and work with
you, Mr. Secretary, to provide the resources the department
requires to manage its responsibilities and to successfully
carry out its mission. For fiscal year 2005, the President's
budget requests $40.2 billion to fund programs and activities
of the department, including mandatory and discretionary
appropriations, user fee collections, and trust funds.
At this point, I am very pleased to yield to other senators
on the committee, first to my distinguished friend from West
Virginia, who is the ranking Democrat on this subcommittee,
Senator Byrd, for any statements he might wish to make.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the
committee, and welcome, Mr. Secretary.
As we approach the 1-year anniversary of the creation of
the Department of Homeland Security, this subcommittee will be
holding a series of hearings on the President's request for
your agency. These hearings will focus not just on the budget
request for the department, but also on the effectiveness of
the department in using the resources that have been available
to it to make this country safer. I look forward to your
testimony on efforts to secure the homeland by other Federal
agencies, by State, regional, and local governments, and by the
private sector.
ALERT LEVEL CHANGE
On Sunday, December 21, you raised the Nation's terror
alert level to orange. In justifying this action you said, and
I quote, ``The strategic indicators, including Al Qaeda's
continued desire to carry out attacks against our homeland, are
perhaps greater now than at any point since September 11.'' In
explaining why you thought there was a high risk of terrorist
attack, you said, and I quote, ``Information indicates that
extremists abroad are anticipating near-term attacks that they
believe will rival or exceed the scope and impact of those that
we experienced in New York, at the Pentagon, and in
Pennsylvania 2 years ago.''
That was a pretty sobering assessment. When I read your
testimony, I note that the President claims he is seeking a 10-
percent increase for your department. I thought perhaps the
administration had finally gotten the message that it was time
to back up the President's rhetoric on homeland security with
real resources.
FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET INCREASE
But, Mr. Secretary, I was disappointed to learn that when
one looks at the details in the President's budget, the 10-
percent increase is just another puffed-up gimmick. The fact is
that the Department of Homeland Security receives only a 4-
percent proposed increase in discretionary spending, only
slightly more than enough to cover inflation and the 2005 pay
raise.
In the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations
Act, Congress approved advanced appropriations of $2.5 billion
for Project BioShield for the period from fiscal year 2005 to
fiscal year 2008. In your budget presentation, you include the
entire $2.5 billion as 2005 spending, despite the fact that
those funds are supposed to last 4 years.
Your own budget documents show that you expect to spend
only $890 million of the $2.5 billion in fiscal year 2005.
After adjusting the budget request for that gimmick, the
increase in the fiscal year 2005 budget is only 4 percent. So
that means that the President is seeking a 4-percent increase
when you believe that the threat of another terrorist attack is
higher than at any time since September 11.
I share the view, Mr. Secretary, that this Nation is at
risk of more terrorist attacks. We continue to be vulnerable to
a wide range of potential threats. On December 15, 2003, the
advisory panel to assess domestic response capabilities for
terrorists involving weapons of mass destruction issued their
final report. The panel, which was headed by the former
Republican Governor of Virginia, James Gilmore, concluded that
the department must learn from history without falling into the
trap of fighting the last war by concentrating too heavily on
the tactics and techniques used by the September 11 terrorists.
Yet in this budget, 97 percent of the budget for the
Transportation Security Administration is for aviation security
with a focus on more airline hijackings. What about the
security of our ports? What about our buses, our trains? Why
does the President propose to reduce grants to ports for
improved security by over 60 percent, when over 95 percent of
all overseas trade coming in or out of the country moves by
ship? Why does the President refuse to increase resources for
securing cargo on passenger aircraft?
Eight days ago, in this very room, Senate employees were
quarantined and decontaminated for an attack with a dangerous
toxin, ricin. Clearly, the risks of a chemical or biological
attack in this Nation remain high. According to the EPA, over
100 chemical plants located throughout the country could affect
over 1 million people if the plants were attacked.
In February of 2003, the National Infrastructure Protection
Center, which is now part of your department, issued a threat
warning that Al Qaeda operatives also may attempt to launch
conventional attacks against the U.S. nuclear and chemical
industrial infrastructure to cause contamination, disruption,
and terror. Nuclear power plants and industrial chemical plants
remain viable targets. And yet, Mr. Secretary, the President's
budget does not include the request of the Post Office for $779
million to develop biodetection systems that would help protect
citizens across the Nation and for ventilation and filtration
systems to protect their employees. The President also proposes
to cut by 10 percent the HHS program designed to equip and
train State and local health agencies to detect and respond to
biological or chemical attacks.
FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS
In June of 2003, the Council on Foreign Relations' report,
authored by Former Senator Rudman and others, entitled,
``Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously
Unprepared,'' asserted that America will fall approximately $98
billion short of meeting emergency responder needs in the next
5 years, if current funding levels are maintained.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, part of your
department, in a report entitled ``A Needs Assessment of the
U.S. Fire Service,'' found that only 13 percent of the fire
departments have the equipment and training to handle an
incident involving chemical or biological agents. And yet, Mr.
Secretary, the President's budget proposes to cut grants that
equip and train police, fire, and emergency medical care
personnel by $729 million. Fire grants alone are to be reduced
by 33 percent.
In addition to these resource issues, this Subcommittee
will also examine the effectiveness of our homeland security
programs. We will ask questions about your methods for
collecting and sharing intelligence. Just last week, we learned
that the White House had been the target of a ricin attack.
Sharing information with State and local law enforcement is a
critical ingredient to effective deterrence.
We will also ask if the department is doing everything
possible to make sure that State, local, and regional
governments are effective partners in deterring a terrorist
attack. We will ask whether we are providing the right
incentives, including money, to make sure that chemical and
other industries are doing their fair share to make this
country more secure.
CAPPS II
Finally, we will closely examine your plan to implement
CAPPS II, a new information system for screening airline
passengers. And I encourage you not to implement the new system
until the requirements of the law have been met.
Mr. Secretary, you and the 179,000 employees in your
department are to be commended for your efforts to preserve our
freedoms, to protect America, and to secure our homeland. We
share your vision. I share your belief that we are a vulnerable
Nation. We will ask many questions in an effort to understand
what more needs to be done and what needs to be done
differently in order to respond to the terrorist threat. We
look forward to your testimony.
Senator Cochran. Senator Gregg, you are recognized for any
opening statement you may have.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JUDD GREGG
Senator Gregg. Well, Mr. Chairman, first, I appreciate your
holding this hearing. And I appreciate Governor Ridge's
attendance. And I have a lot of questions. I have obviously
been involved in this issue, as many members of this panel
have, for a long time. And just to highlight a couple of them
quickly, I am very concerned about the discussion as to how
this money is going out to first responders.
THREAT-BASED DISTRIBUTION
I am totally supportive of the department's effort to do a
threat-based distribution. I think we need to look at the
history of this. The original concept here was created by the
Domenici-Nunn bill, which the Defense Department had. And the
idea was we were going to train the top 162 cities first and
make them capable of handling a major threat event. That whole
concept was carried forward under the prior committee that had
jurisdiction over first responders, which was my committee,
CJS. We set up the first responder money. And we wanted to make
it a threat-based approach.
This idea that we are just going to put money across the
board to every community in America, we cannot afford that.
What we need to do is focus it. And I congratulate the
department for that. And I hope you will give us some more
expansive thoughts on that and assure us that it is a threat-
based approach for distribution there.
ENTRY-EXIT
Secondly, I am concerned about the exit-entry issue. The
technology appears to me to be serious problems with that
technology. And I am not sure that Customs and the Border
Patrol activities are going to get the technology they need. I
would like to get an update on that.
COUNTERTERRORISM COMMUNICATION
I am concerned about the communication efforts in the area
of counterterrorism. There appears to be lapses there. And the
bioterrorism issue is our problem. We, as a Congress, have not
passed BioShield. You have given us a proposal. We have not
passed it. You should have that in hand. And if you want to
castigate us on that, we deserve it. And please do today.
AIRPORT SECURITY
And I am very concerned about the amount of money we are
spending on airport security, as Senator Byrd outlined, and
whether or not we are effectively addressing the threat coming
across our borders by focusing so many resources on airport
security. Anybody who goes through airport security today knows
a lot of it is regrettably mindless security, which we have to
get a handle on. Literally, you go into some of these airports,
and you will have 20 or 30 security people standing there for
an airport that has 20 flights a day. And it does not seem to
have much relationship, especially now that we have secured the
cockpit doors and these planes cannot be used as missiles any
longer, but can still be blown up, of course.
But the ports are a threat. Other entry points are a
threat. And are we over-weighting our security efforts to
airports, to the transportation of individuals versus
transportation of cargo through ports or in airplanes?
So there are a lot of questions. I look forward to hearing
your answers and thoughts. And I would like to hear from you,
so I will not take any more time. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Inouye.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I request that my full
statement be made part of the record.
Senator Cochran. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Senator Inouye. I just want to state that, as one living
far away, I am a constant air traveler. And as such, I have
been in a position to note differences, if any. And I must
commend the Secretary, because there has been much improvement
in our security system, as far as the air operations are
concerned. Little things, such as they are not giving any
preference to big shots, which I think is a clear indication of
better discipline. The operation is much smoother. It moves
faster and, I believe, much more effective.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Secondly, coming from the ocean, I am naturally concerned
about port security. I commend you for the increase in your
funding there. But as my colleague from West Virginia
indicated, I hope that improvements can be made on the grand
picture.
With that, I would like to thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Senator.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to discussing with Secretary Ridge the
fiscal year 2005 budget for the Department of Homeland Security. In my
review of the budget documents I was pleased to note the emphasis
placed on port security, an issue of great importance to my state.
However, I am concerned by many of the planned program consolidations
and reductions that will impact state first responders. I am interested
to learn how you will ensure that the Federal Government maintains the
intent and results of the current programs that are proposed for
consolidation.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Secretary. I join my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye. I
think the two of us spend more time on airplanes than any other
member of the Senate. And there is no question that the system
is improved. It was my privilege to spend some time with the
members of our Nation who manage airports over the recess right
after Christmas. And that was the general consensus, that
everything has improved.
But one of the things that almost everyone there expressed
a hope was that we would analyze this now and see what is the
threat. The threat in the beginning was perceived to be one
thing. We basically have equipment now to examine for metal,
for guns, for knives. But we are dealing with many substances
now that those people who manage airports would like to work
with you in order to see how we could address the possible
broad spectrum of threats that affect us now.
NATIONAL ALERT SYSTEM
The only other question, if I am not here, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to put it on the record, pertains to the national
alert system. The Appropriations Committee provided specific
money for a study concerning the national alert system, which
currently still deals only with radio.
And we affirmatively believe that the mechanisms of
communications now are so--there are such a myriad of methods
now that there ought to be some consideration given to a
ubiquitous system that no matter what form of communication you
listen to or use, you would receive a message, whether it is
over a cell phone or a blackberry or a computer or your radio
or the television or cable, that every system would have an
announcement of items of national concern. Not local concern.
Leave that to the local people to decide what they want to do.
But the national alert system, I think, needs to be reviewed.
And we asked for a study. And my question pertains to when we
will receive that study.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Harkin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM HARKIN
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
ask that my full statement be made a part of the record.
Senator Cochran. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Senator Harkin. Just a couple of comments, Mr. Secretary.
Again, as we all know, we cannot protect the Nation perfectly
against every conceivable threat. And, therefore, we have to
make choices and devote our limited resources to those threats
that we judge to be most likely and most serious. So this poses
some very difficult choices for our first responders, those
people out on the front lines.
I made it a point, when this department was created, when I
was appointed to this subcommittee, to go around the State of
Iowa, to talk with the Governor, his staff, others in State
Government. We visited each of 99 counties in Iowa to talk to
the local emergency management personnel, the firefighters,
police, EMS people, other officials. I wanted to find out what
was on their minds, what they thought was most important, what
they thought was working, what was not.
Again, aside from all the other things, I was told by
almost all these people that the biggest challenges they face
today are the same they faced prior to 9/11: Crime,
methamphetamine, natural disasters. FEMA is now a part of
Homeland Security. It has become a really remarkable, world-
class organization dealing with fires, floods, tornadoes,
things that happen every year. We cannot renege on our
commitment to help people in need due to these natural
disasters. That is why I and others have fought so hard to keep
the fire grant program.
INCREASED BURDENS ON FIRST RESPONDERS
The first responders in Iowa would tell me that they are
frustrated. When the alert level changes, they learn about it
from CNN and not from the department. They do not know why the
alert level is raised or what kind of threats they ought to be
looking for. They tell me they are obliged to respond to vague
mandates they do not fully understand, taking time away from
other priorities. Often these mandates are unclear and costly.
At the same time, some current reporting requirements are
onerous and illogical. One county emergency manager in Iowa
told my staff that he is required to report on contingency
plans in case there is a tidal wave. And as he understands it,
he is not allowed to answer ``not applicable.''
And again, these increased burdens are coming at a time
when State and local governments are hurting. Many are already
laying off police, fire and emergency management personnel. The
vast majority of firefighters in the United States are
volunteers. Increased training requirements are needed. And
they are burdensome. And at the time, local governments just do
not have the wherewithal to do this.
AGRO-TERRORISM
One last thing I would just mention is agro-terrorism and
the focus on the subject of agro-terrorism and what can be done
with a small amount of agricultural commodities. I am concerned
that perhaps we are not focusing enough on the subject of agro-
terrorism and what could be done to interrupt our food supply,
to contaminate food. Not that it might kill a lot of people,
but just to spread terror, from things that could be done to
our food supply chain.
prepared statement
With that, Mr. Secretary, thank you. I compliment you on
the job you are doing very well down there and look forward to
working with you to keep this going.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Senator.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Tom Harkin
President Kennedy said that ``to govern is to choose.'' We cannot
protect the Nation perfectly against every conceivable threat. We have
to choose. We have to devote our limited resources to address those
threats we judge to be the most likely and most serious. This poses
difficult choices for Congress and the Administration, as well as for
local communities. It poses especially difficult choices for the first
responders, those men and women who are truly on the front line--and
whose lives are on the line when emergencies arise.
One of my highest priorities since being appointed to the Homeland
Security Appropriations Subcommittee has been to address directly the
needs of these front-line professionals all across Iowa. My staff and I
have had numerous conversations with the Governor of Iowa, with his
staff, and with others in State government. I also asked members of my
Iowa staff to visit each of the state's 99 counties to talk with local
emergency management personnel, firefighters, police, EMS and other
officials. I wanted to get the best ideas from these front-line
professionals: What do they think is most important when it comes to
homeland security. What do they think is working, and what is not.
These meetings have been extraordinarily valuable to me. Security
is on people's minds. Not surprisingly, Iowans were more than eager to
share their insights and priorities. And their input has shaped my own
approach to homeland security issues here in Washington.
When the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security was
first proposed, I supported the effort. We knew then that balancing,
and probably shifting, among competing priorities would be a challenge.
We must do all we can to protect the America from terrorist threats.
But, at the same time, it remains vitally important that we protect
Americans from other, more likely hazards. It is important that we not
focus exclusively on large cities and major strategic assets. Frankly,
I am extremely concerned about the shift of priorities in this proposed
budget away from rural areas. Rural communities will continue to face
major challenges. But, under this budget, they will face those
challenges with fewer resources.
It is a mistake to redirect funds from badly needed current
programs. That just creates new holes in our homeland security
infrastructure. In fact, wherever possible, we should aim to expand and
strengthen existing emergency-response mechanisms. We should increase
the capacity of local authorities to prevent or respond to terrorist
threats and to deal more effectively with the much more common threats
and emergencies they face.
Iowans told my staff that the biggest challenges Iowans face today
include many of the same problems they faced in June of 2000: crime,
the methamphetamine scourge, natural disasters.
Over the past several years, FEMA, now part of Homeland Security,
has become a truly remarkable, world-class organization for dealing
with fires, floods, tornados, and earthquakes. These things occur every
year, regardless of other threats, and they continue to threaten lives
and livelihoods. We cannot renege on our commitment to help people in
need due to these natural disasters. This is exactly why I and others
have fought hard to ensure that the fire grant program is retained.
At the same time, first responders in Iowa tell me that they are
frustrated. When the alert level changes, they learn about it from CNN,
not from the Department of Homeland Security. They don't know why the
alert level is raised, or which kinds of threats they ought to be
looking out for. They are obliged to respond to vague mandates that
they don't fully understand, taking time away from other priorities.
Often, these mandates are unclear--and costly. While some funding is
flowing, communities are unsure how exactly they should be spending it,
and they fear spending it in a way that might not meet a later mandate.
At the same time, some current reporting requirements are onerous
and illogical. One county emergency manager in Iowa told my staff that
he is required to report on contingency plans in case there is a tidal
wave--and, as he understands it, he is not allowed to answer ``not
applicable.'' I suspect that if a tidal wave big enough to cause damage
in Iowa were to hit the United States, our least concern will be
inadequate tidal wave planning in rural Iowa!
These increased burdens are coming at a time when State and local
governments are hurting. Many already are laying off police, fire, and
emergency management personnel. The vast majority of firefighters in
the United States are volunteer. Increased training requirements for
these personnel, while useful, can be extremely burdensome. We are
losing firefighters in Iowa. If we at the Federal level are going to
create mandates, then funds must follow those mandates.
Finally, I would like to mention the subject of agri-terrorism. As
my colleagues know, a major agri-terrorism event could easily cause
billions of dollars in losses. Anyone who has spent time in rural
America knows the difficulty in trying to guard against every avenue of
vulnerability. The key to protecting U.S. agriculture is making sure
that our intelligence and response capabilities are in place both to
prevent acts of terrorism in the first place, and to respond quickly
should an attack occur. I think we are still falling short on response.
I am very disappointed not to see more resources directed to building
the capacity of our agricultural first-response system. We really need
to take a hard look, and make sure we are doing all we can to protect
U.S. agriculture and rural communities.
I have been working closely with my State government--particularly
with the state Homeland Security director, Ellen Gordon--to identify
appropriate state and Federal responses to agri-terror. Iowa has been
working overtime trying to map out a comprehensive plan to deal with
this very difficult issue. I applaud their good work. And I look
forward to working with Secretary Ridge and with my colleagues to give
greater focus and priority to the threat of agri-terrorism.
Senator Cochran. Senator Mikulski.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Secretary. Mr. Chairman, I, too, ask unanimous consent that my
full statement be in the record.
Senator Cochran. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Barbara A. Mikulski
First of all, Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for your personal
visit to Maryland when Hurricane Isabel hit last September. It was of a
magnitude that we have not seen for more than 80 years in Maryland. And
your personal visit and the excellent response of FEMA is indeed
appreciated. I'm here to thank you on behalf of the people of Maryland
for coming to the State and touring the hard hit areas and for your
team doing such a good job.
I'd also like to thank the Department of Homeland Security and all
of our security agencies for averting another terrorist attack on the
United States of America. Through classified briefings and others, I
know that the threat over the holidays was indeed real. The fact that
were sitting here today having this hearing with no TV cameras shows
that something must be working right. But for what you did over the
holidays--and when I say you, I mean every single person who worked
overtime--while we were sitting there having turkey and opening
presents, there were people putting themselves out there. So I just
wanted to say thank you, again, on behalf of the people of Maryland and
all of us here, for all that you do to keep us safe.
I have four areas of concern, however, that I want to address in
the Department of Homeland Security fiscal year 2005 budget: High
Threat Urban Area funding, Fire Grants, Port Security, and Coast Guard
funding.
First of all, I am very concerned about cuts to grant programs for
State and local governments. The funding request for key first
responder programs is down to $3.2 billion, which is $474 million less
than last year. The State block grant program, which is distributed by
formula, is reduced from $1.7 billion to $750 million. The Fire Grant
program is reduced from $750 million to $500 million. However, I am
happy to see an increase in grants to high threat, high density urban
area funding, which is doubled to $1.45 billion.
The High Threat Urban Areas funding is extremely important. The
Mayor of Baltimore recently said that ``Cities are on the front line of
homeland security, but in the back of the line funding. . . . The
Administration and Congress should act now to direct appropriate
homeland security funds to cities and eliminate the bureaucracy of a
middle man.'' So while I applaud the President for recognizing the
critical funding needs of our high threat, high-density regions, I hope
I can work with you and the Members of the Committee to ensure that
this money is getting where it is needed most: in the hands of the
police, firefighters, and other emergency responders on the front
lines.
I am very concerned about the Fire Grant program, which is one of
the true grassroots programs that we have. Senator Bond and I worked so
hard on Fire Grant funding when FEMA was in our VA-HUD bill. However,
this year's budget calls for $500 million in funding, which is $246
million less than the 2004 level and $400 million less than the
authorized level. I believe there is a compelling need to fund this
program at its authorized level. In 2003 the U.S. Fire Administration
received over 20,000 applications totaling $2.5 billion in requests. We
know from FEMA and the National Fire Protection Association that at
least 57,000 fire fighters lack personal protective clothing. That item
in and of itself speaks to the enormous need in this area.
Another area of concern is the budget request for port security
grants. President Bush's request calls for $46 million in Port Security
Grants, which is well below last year's level of $124 million. The
Coast Guard estimates that $5.4 billion is needed for port security
improvements. I want to echo again comments about Baltimore and how
deeply concerned we are about the fact that our ports continue to be
vulnerable. And its not only about money, but its also about a smarter,
more efficient strategy for protecting our critical infrastructure.
I am very supportive and proud of our U.S. Coast Guard, which is
truly one of the most efficient and effective of all Federal agencies.
The men and women of the Coast Guard put their lives on the line
everyday to apprehend drug smugglers, protect our marine resources, and
safeguard our environment. However, since September 11th they have been
called on more than ever to protect our borders and ports. We need to
provide the Coast Guard with the resources to meet these new
challenges. Yet, the Guard operates a fleet of ships airplanes that are
nearing the end of their useful life. In fact, some of their ships date
back to World War II. That's why I am a strong supporter of the Coast
Guard Deepwater Program, which would replace these antiquated systems
with cutting edge technology.
And last, but not at all least, I would hope that you would comment
on one of the biggest changes that you are proposing: the combining of
24 grant programs into a new office called the Office of State and
Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. I presume the fire
grants move over there. I believe you talk about it on page seven of
your testimony. This is a big deal because people have complained about
the need for a more efficient and effective coordination between
Federal, State, and local governments, particularly as it relates to
resources like we talked about--better communication and coordination.
But I'd like to know where you're heading with this consolidation.
And also, what will it mean? Will it be a disruption for all those who
know how to apply? Is this going to be a whole new set of rules,
regulations, and trade routes that our first responders will have to
learn to be able to come to Washington for help? Or is this really
going to solve the problems that mayors and governors have raised with
you? But again, a really heart-felt gratitude for all that you do. I
look forward to your testimony today.
Senator Mikulski. First of all, Mr. Secretary, thanks are
in order. I want to thank you for your personal visit to
Maryland when Hurricane Isabel hit. It was of a magnitude that
we have not seen for more than 80 years in Maryland. Your
personal visit and the excellent response of FEMA is
appreciated. I am here to thank you on behalf of the people of
Maryland for coming and for your team doing such a good job.
Additionally, I would like to thank the Department of
Homeland Security and all of our security agencies for averting
another attack on the United States of America. Through
classified briefings, I know that the threat over the holidays
was indeed real. And the fact that we are sitting here today
having a conversation with no TV cameras shows that something
must be working right. I would like to thank you for what you
did over the holidays--and when I say you, I mean every single
person who worked overtime. While we were sitting at home
having turkey and opening presents, there were people who were
putting themselves out there. So I just wanted to say thank
you, and again on behalf of the people of Maryland and all of
us, for everyone who worked so hard.
In terms of where we are in homeland security, I want to
echo concerns about the fire grant program, which is one of the
true grassroots programs that we have. And, of course, Senator
Bond and I worked so hard on that program when FEMA was over in
our VA/HUD bill. The cut is $246 million from last year. And I
would like to hear your elaboration on it.
FEMA and the National Fire Protection Association found
that at least 57,000 firefighters lack personal protective
clothing. That item in and of itself, where we have to protect
the protector, speaks to the enormous need.
PORT SECURITY
The other is the whole issue of port security, which,
again, echoing my comments, affects a Maryland port. We are
deeply concerned about the fact that our ports continue to be
vulnerable. And it is not only about money, but it is also
about a more efficient strategy.
GRANT CONSOLIDATION
And last but not at least, I would hope that you would
comment on the fact that one of the biggest changes is that you
propose combining 24 grant programs into a new office called
the Office for State and Local Government Coordination and
Preparedness, one of which is moving FEMA over there. I presume
the fire grants move over there. And I believe you talk about
it on page seven of your testimony.
This is really a big deal, because people have complained
about the need for more efficient and effective coordination
between our State and local governments, particularly
resources, like we talked about, communication coordination.
But to move 24 grant programs, I would like to know where you
are heading and also what will it mean. Will it be a disruption
for all those who knew how to apply? Is this going to be a
whole new set of rules, regs, trade routes that they have to
learn to be able to come to Washington, or is this really going
to solve the problems that mayors and governors have raised
with you?
But again, a really heartfelt gratitude.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murray.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
thank you to Senator Byrd and all of our colleagues for their
comments today. I welcome you, as well, Mr. Secretary, and
appreciate the tremendous job you are doing for our country.
And I especially want to echo the comments of Senator Mikulski
and thank you and everyone in your department for all of the
work you do tediously every day to protect all of us. We all do
appreciate it.
PORT SECURITY
I agree with my colleagues. A lot has been done in the area
of airport security. All of us know tremendous changes have
been made. Where I continue to have a tremendous concern is in
the area of port security. And I know you joined the President
last week in Senator Hollings's backyard at the Port of
Charleston. And the White House issued a press release and
described the event as the President focusing on seaport and
cargo security. But I noticed that only a couple of minutes of
his speech actually talked to that. And I think that kind of
rhetoric without the backup is deeply concerning to me and to
everyone, really, in this country.
We saw last week that a small bit of ricin shut down three
buildings here on this campus for an entire week. A container
coming into one of our terminals with an explosive device or
any kind of biological agent could have a devastating effect
obviously on human life, but a huge impact on the economy, if
any of our ports or all of our ports were to shut down for any
amount of time.
OPERATION SAFE COMMERCE
And I think you know what I am concerned about is that the
backup is not there for the words and the rhetoric that the
administration is focused on port security. I noticed in the
President's budget request that a very promising security
initiative, called the Operation Safe Commerce is killed in the
President's budget. That is a program that is just beginning.
And the first cargo ship actually with that in place is coming
into my home State in Tacoma in just a couple weeks. And I
think it is just not a good way to go, to kill that before it
has even gotten started.
MARITIME TRANSPORTATION ACT
Another example is the President's budget director last
week on the Budget Committee told me that the White House is
committed to implementing the Maritime Transportation Act, the
law that ensures that all of our ports and all the vessels
calling on them have approved security plans. Mr. Bolton said
the President was committed to implementing that, but his
budget only provides 7 percent of the funding that the Coast
Guard testified to us they would need to implement that.
COAST GUARD
And the third example is that the administration is adding
new homeland security duties to the Coast Guard's mission
without providing them the support necessary to accomplish
those tasks, as well as to deal with its traditional missions
that are so critical. We all know the Coast Guard is stretched
thin. They are working long hours. They are a dedicated group
of people. But I think we need to back up what we are asking
them to do in terms of homeland security duties and provide
them with the funds. So I will be asking you about that today.
CUTS IN GRANT FUNDING
I share with my colleagues the concern about first
responder grants that are being cut. And I want to mention as
well the emergency management planning grants that go out to
communities are being cut and restricted. If our communities
cannot plan for a disaster, they will not know what to do if
something occurs. And I think it is really important that we
maintain our focus and our funds in that direction.
So those are some of the issues that I will raise in the
question and answer period. But again, Mr. Secretary, thank you
for the job you do for our country.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patty Murray
I want to join you, Senator Byrd, and the rest of our colleagues in
welcoming Secretary Ridge today. He has been handed a tough task in a
very difficult time. I know he is committed to keeping our country
safe, and I thank him for his leadership.
Mr. Secretary, I want to work with you to ensure our budget will
actually deliver the security we both seek for our country.
Just last week, you joined President Bush at an event in Senator
Hollings' backyard at the Port of Charleston.
A White House press release described the event this way--quote--
``President Bush Focuses on Seaport and Cargo Security.'' He stood in
front of a Coast Guard cutter and a container barge, yet he only
focused on port security for about two minutes of his 30 minute speech.
Sadly that seems par-for-the-course for this White House.
The President offers a few words about port security here and
there, but does not make the financial commitment we need to actually
keep our ports safe.
And, the latest example came just last week with the President's
budget request.
The President wants to kill a promising port security initiative
called Operation Safe Commerce.
Mr. Secretary, as you know, our largest ports have been working to
improve cargo security through Operation Safe Commerce for the past 2
years. In fact, the first cargo ship using this innovative program will
arrive at the Port of Tacoma later this month, setting a new standard
for port security. The President's budget would end Operation Safe
Commerce.
That's just one disappointing example in this budget.
Here is another example: Last week the President's budget director
told me the White House is committed to implementing the Marine
Transportation Act. That's the law which will ensure all of our ports--
and the vessels calling on them--have approved security plans.
Mr. Bolton said the President was committed to implementing MTSA,
but his budget only provides 7 percent of the funding the Coast Guard
says is required.
And, here's a third example, the Administration is adding new
Homeland Security duties to the Coast Guard's mission without providing
the support necessary to accomplish these new tasks as well as its
traditional mission.
Mr. Secretary, we all agree that the Coast Guard is doing an
admirable job balancing its many missions. However, the Coast Guard is
stretched thin, and this budget stretches it further.
These brave men and women are working longer hours and doing more,
but the President's budget offers no relief.
It's one thing to give a speech in front of our Coast Guard assets
and quite another to actually provide the men and women of the Coast
Guard with the tools they need to do the job.
Words won't help protect our Nation's seaports, but--
--Operation Safe Commerce,
--adequate support for the Coast Guard,
--and funding for marine security plans will make our ports safer.
And that is my focus today.
I do have other concerns with this budget beyond port security, for
example:
I am concerned that first responder grants would be cut by more
than $800 million.
I am also concerned that Emergency Management Planning Grants would
be cut and restricted, putting our emergency management and response
system in jeopardy.
These are some of the issues I hope to explore with the Secretary
this morning.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
INVITATION TO SECRETARY RIDGE TO MAKE A STATEMENT
Mr. Secretary, we have a copy of the statement you
prepared. It will be made a part of the record. We invite you
to make any additional statement you think would be helpful to
our understanding of the budget request. You may proceed.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, if I might just highlight some of
the points for my opening address and summarize it briefly.
Senator Cochran. That will be fine.
STATEMENT OF SECRETARY TOM RIDGE
Secretary Ridge. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Byrd, members of the subcommittee, I
am certainly grateful for the opportunity to appear before you
today and present the President's budget and priorities for the
Department of Homeland Security in the coming year.
With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security,
that charge was given to us, 22 different agencies and nearly
180,000 employees, brought together to pursue a single mission.
The recent ricin scare serves as a very difficult and poignant
and relevant reminder that terrorism is a threat that we must
confront each and every day with the same commitment and the
same sense of urgency we all remember from the day our Nation
was attacked 2 years ago.
As we prepare to celebrate the first year of the
department, it is important to remind the public that it has
been with the steadfast support of this Congress and the
resources you have provided that have made it possible for the
department to not only carry out a vigorous and ambitious slate
of security initiatives, but also to say to Americans with
confidence today that we are indeed safer.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS ACHIEVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
We have strengthened airline security, increased vigilance
at our borders and ports, forged unprecedented partnerships
across the private sector and with State and local government,
improved information sharing, launched robust efforts to engage
citizens in preparedness efforts, and distributed funds and
resources for our dedicated first responders.
FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST
To highlight an observation made by Senator Byrd, his
analysis of the budget is correct. If you include the entire
BioShield amount within the $40.2 billion, it is a 10-percent
increase. If you add the nondiscretionary money and some of the
fee increases we request, it is about a 6-percent increase. And
then just with the discretionary money appropriated by
Congress, it is about a 4.4-percent increase. We believe the
increase in funding will provide the necessary resources we
need to expand and improve existing projects and programs, as
well as build new barriers to terrorists who wish to do us
harm.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I think the balance of my testimony highlights the areas
that we have sought an increase, Mr. Chairman. But since you
have the testimony as part of the record, I assume some or all
of it has been digested. I think it would probably be even more
useful for all of us just to engage in the kind of
conversation, the question and answer that has been so fruitful
in the past. If my entire statement is included as part of the
record, I would conclude by again thanking my colleagues in
public service for the opportunity to appear before you and
look forward to the ensuing conversation.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Ridge
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, Senator Byrd and Members of the Subcommittee: I am
honored and pleased to appear before the Committee to present President
Bush's fiscal year 2005 budget for the Department of Homeland Security.
Before beginning to outline our fiscal year 2005 budget request, I want
to thank you for the strong support you showed for the Department in
the fiscal year 2004 budget and for the fact that that appropriation
was passed in time for it to be signed by the President on October 1,
2003--the first day of the fiscal year.
The $40.2 billion request represents a ten percent increase in
resources available to the Department over the comparable fiscal year
2004 budget and reflects the Administration's strong and continued
commitment to the security of our homeland. The fiscal year 2005 budget
is a $3.6 billion increase over fiscal year 2004, and it includes
increased funding for new and expanded programs in border and port
security, transportation security, immigration enforcement and
services, biodefense, incident preparedness and response, and the
implementation of a new human resources system that will reward
outstanding performance. The budget also continues our momentum toward
integrating intelligence, operations and systems in a way that
increases our Nation's security.
The Department of Homeland Security has made great organizational
strides during the first year of operations. Nearly 180,000 employees
and a budget of $31.2 billion were brought under DHS less than a year
ago. The Department established a headquarters operation and
successfully began operations on March 1, 2003--bringing together the
legacy agencies and programs that now make up DHS. Customs, border and
immigration activities have been reformulated into new agencies that
will increase the effectiveness of our dedicated employees. DHS
continues to create new ways to share information and intelligence
within the Department and between levels of governments, and
horizontally across agencies and jurisdictions. Already, over 350
different management processes have been consolidated to 130, and DHS
has begun consolidating 2,500 support contracts into roughly 600.
While DHS invested considerable time to make the many
organizational improvements that will improve our effectiveness, much
was also accomplished programmatically. The fiscal year 2003
Performance and Accountability Report provides a comprehensive
discussion of our accomplishments of the past year. We believe that in
the twelve months since the creation of the Department, we have made
substantial progress. Through the hard work of our dedicated and
talented employees, America is more secure and better prepared than we
were one year ago.
We have achieved many results since our creation, including:
--improving the collection, analysis and sharing of critical
intelligence with key Federal, State and local entities;
--allocating or awarding over $8 billion to state and local first
responders to help them prevent and prepare to respond to acts
of terrorism and other potential disasters;
--strengthening border security through the ``One face at the
border'' initiative, which will cross-train officers to perform
three formerly separate inspections--immigration, customs and
agriculture. This will allow us to target our resources toward
higher risk travelers;
--instituting innovative new systems like US VISIT to identify and
track foreign visitors and students and to screen for possible
terrorist or criminal involvement;
--safeguarding air travel from the terrorist threat by hardening
cockpit doors, instituting 100 percent checked baggage
screening; and training more than 50,000 Federal passenger and
baggage screeners;
--increasing safeguards on maritime transportation and port
infrastructure;
--expanding research and development in the defense of our homeland,
through the creation of programs such as the Homeland Security
Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) which has already
engaged hundreds of private companies and universities in
developing new cutting-edge technologies;
--launching an ambitious, collaborative effort involving input from
employees at all levels, unions, academia, and outside experts
to design a modern human resources system that is mission-
centered, fair, effective and flexible;
--initiating a five-year budget and planning process and commencing
the development of an integrated business and financial
management system (Project eMerge2) to consolidate
the 50 different budget execution systems, 43 different general
ledgers, and 30 different procurement systems inherited by DHS;
and
--successfully transferring more than $50 billion in assets, $36
billion in liabilities and more than 180,000 employees to the
Department.
FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST
The fiscal year 2005 budget for the Department of Homeland Security
builds upon the significant investments to date to our safeguard
against terrorism, while also sustaining the many important
departmental activities not directly related to our fight against
terrorism. The President's budget clearly demonstrates the continuing
priority placed on the Department of Homeland Security in providing
total resources for fiscal year 2005 of $40.2 billion. This is an
increase of 10 percent above the comparable fiscal year 2004 resource
level, $9 billion (29 percent) over the 2003 level and $20.4 billion
(103 percent) over the 2001 level.
STRENGTHENING BORDER AND PORT SECURITY
Securing our border and transportation systems continues to be an
enormous challenge. Ports-of-entry into the United States stretch
across 7,500 miles of land border between the United States and Mexico
and Canada, 95,000 miles of shoreline and navigable rivers, and an
exclusive economic zone of 3.4 million square miles. Each year more
than 500 million people, 130 million motor vehicles, 2.5 million
railcars, and 5.7 million cargo containers must be processed at the
border. Conditions and venues vary considerably, from air and sea
ports-of-entry in metropolitan New York City with dozens of employees
to a two-person land entry point in North Dakota.
During fiscal year 2005, we will continue to strengthen our border
and port security. Our budget seeks over $400 million in new funding to
maintain and enhance border and port security activities, including the
expansion of pre-screening cargo containers in high-risk areas and the
detection of individuals attempting to illegally enter the United
States. Our budget also includes an 8 percent increase for the Coast
Guard to upgrade port security efforts, implement the Maritime
Transportation Security Act, and enhance other activities.
Specifically, our budget includes an increase of $25 million for
U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Container Security Initiative
(CSI) which focuses on pre-screening cargo before it reaches our
shores. We are also seeking an increase of $15.2 million for Customs
Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). C-TPAT focuses on
partnerships all along the entire supply chain, from the factory floor,
to foreign vendors, to land borders and seaports. To date, nearly 3,000
importers, 600 carriers, and 1,000 brokers and freight forwarders are
participating in C-TPAT, surpassing the Department's original goal of
participation of the top 1,000 importers. In order to further protect
the homeland against radiological threats, the budget seeks $50 million
for next generation radiation detection monitors.
As well as continuing development for secure trade programs, the
President's budget also seeks an increase of $20.6 million to support
improvements for the National Targeting Center and multiple targeting
systems that focus on people and/or goods. These systems use
information from diverse sources to provide automated risk assessments
for arriving international air passengers, shipments of goods to our
country, and land border passenger traffic.
The United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(US VISIT) program's goals are to enhance the security of our citizens
and our visitors; facilitate legitimate travel and trade across our
borders; ensure the integrity of our immigration system; and respect
the privacy of our welcomed visitors. US VISIT represents a major
milestone in our efforts to reform our borders. DHS deployed the first
increment of US VISIT on time, on budget, and has met the mandates
established by Congress as well as including biometrics ahead of
schedule. The budget seeks a total of $340 million in fiscal year 2005,
an increase of $12 million over the fiscal year 2004 level. Through
fiscal year 2005, over $1 billion will be used to support this
initiative.
Our budget also seeks an increase of $64.2 million to enhance land-
based detection and monitoring of movement between the ports, and $10
million to plan, procure, deploy and operate unmanned aerial vehicles.
In addition, the budget request for U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) includes an increase of $28 million to increase the
flight hours of P-3 aircraft. The P-3 has already proven itself to be a
key asset in the battle against terrorism as demonstrated in the days
immediately following the September 11, 2001 attacks when P-3s flew
airspace security missions over Atlanta and Miami.
The Coast Guard funding increase includes over $100 million to
implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act, to support the
Coast Guard's ability to develop, review and approve vessel and port
security plans, ensure that foreign vessels meet security standards,
improve underwater detection capabilities, and increase intelligence
capacity. The budget also maintains the Coast Guard's ongoing
Integrated Deepwater System initiative, funding the program at $678
million, an increase of $10 million over the fiscal year 2004 funding
level.
ENHANCING BIODEFENSE
The President's fiscal year 2005 budget reflects $2.5 billion for
Project BioShield that will be available in fiscal year 2005 to
encourage the development and pre-purchase of necessary medical
countermeasures against weapons of mass destruction. Project BioShield
allows the Federal Government to pre-purchase critically needed
vaccines and medications for biodefense as soon as experts agree that
they are safe and effective enough to be added to the Strategic
National Stockpile. The Administration is moving forward in purchasing
the most important countermeasures and high on the list are next-
generation vaccines for both smallpox and anthrax.
The Department's efforts to improve biosurveillance will involve
the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) and
Science and Technology (S&T) directorates. In S&T, the budget requests
$65 million increase to enhance current environmental monitoring
activities, bringing the total fiscal year 2005 investment in this area
to $118 million. One key component of this initiative will be an
expansion and deployment of the next generation of technologies related
to the BioWatch Program, a biosurveillance warning system. In IAIP, $11
million increase is included to integrate, in real-time,
biosurveillance data collected from sensors throughout the country and
fuse this data with information from health and agricultural
surveillance and other terrorist-threat information from the law
enforcement and intelligence communities.
The National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) is responsible for
managing and coordinating the Federal medical response to major
emergencies and federally declared disasters. For 2005, FEMA's budget
includes $20 million for planning and exercises associated with medical
surge capabilities. In addition, the budget transfers funding ($400
million) for the Strategic National Stockpile to the Department of
Health and Human Services to better align the program with that
agency's medical expertise.
IMPROVING AVIATION SECURITY
We have made great strides to improve the safety of the aviation
system from acts of terrorism. For example, we have made significant
investments in baggage screening technology--over $2 billion to
purchase and install Explosive Detection System machines (EDS) and
Explosive Trace Detection machines (ETD) to the Nation's airports from
fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2005; hardened cockpit doors; deployed
45,000 Federal passenger and baggage screeners at the Nation's
airports; and trained pilots to be Federal Flight Deck Officers. The
President's fiscal year 2005 budget seeks to enhance our efforts in
this regard and would provide an increase of $892 million, a 20 percent
increase over the comparable fiscal year 2004 level, for the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Additional funding for
TSA supports aviation security, including efforts to maintain and
improve screener performance through the deployment of technology.
The Department implemented a substantially improved air cargo
security and screening program last year, and the President's budget
sustains funding to continue program deployment and screening
technology research. In addition, the fiscal year 2005 budget seeks a
total of $61 million to accelerate development of more effective
technologies to counter the threat of portable anti-aircraft missiles.
ENHANCING IMMIGRATION SECURITY AND ENFORCEMENT
Comprehensive immigration security and enforcement extends beyond
efforts at and between the ports-of-entry into the United States. It
extends overseas, to keep unwelcome persons from reaching our ports,
and to removing persons now illegally residing in the United States.
The Administration is committed to stronger workplace enforcement in
support of the President's temporary worker proposal announced January
7, 2004.
The requested increases include $186 million for U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE)--whose appropriated budget overall
increases by about 10 percent--to fund improvements in immigration
enforcement both domestically and overseas, including more than
doubling of current worksite enforcement efforts and approximately $100
million increase for the detention and removal of illegal aliens.
Detention and Removal of illegal aliens present in the United States is
critical to the enforcement of our immigration laws and the requested
funding will expand ongoing fugitive apprehension efforts, the removal
from the United States of jailed illegal aliens, and additional
detention and removal capacity.
Our proposal for ICE also includes an increase $78 million for
immigration enforcement. As part of the President's proposed new
temporary worker program to match willing foreign workers with willing
U.S. employers, enforcement of immigration laws against companies that
break the law and hire illegal workers will increase. The fiscal year
2005 President's Budget includes an additional $23 million for enhanced
worksite enforcement. This more than doubles existing funds devoted to
worksite enforcement and allows ICE to hire more Special Agents devoted
to this effort. With these resources, ICE will be able to facilitate
the implementation of the President's temporary worker program
initiative by establishing a traditional worksite enforcement program
that offers credible deterrence to the hiring of unauthorized workers.
Without such a deterrent, employers will have no incentive to maintain
a legal workforce.
Our budget also seeks $14 million to support our international
enforcement efforts related to immigration, including enabling ICE to
provide visa security by working cooperatively with U.S. consular
offices to review visa applications.
We are a welcoming Nation, and the hard work and strength of our
immigrants have made our Nation prosperous. Within the Department, the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS) has improved the
administration of immigration benefits to the more than seven million
annual applicants. For fiscal year 2005, the President's budget seeks
an additional $60 million, for a total of $140 million, to achieve a
six-month processing for all immigration applications by 2006, while
maintaining security.
INCREASING PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE CAPABILITY
Though the primary mission is to protect the Nation from terrorism,
the Department's responsibilities are diverse. The ships that interdict
threats to our homeland are also used to help mariners when they are in
distress and protect our marine resources from polluters and illegal
fishing. While we must be prepared to respond to terrorist attacks, we
are more often called upon to respond to natural disasters
To support the Department's efforts to respond, the President's
Budget includes an increase of $10 million, for a total of $35 million
in fiscal year 2005, for the Homeland Security Operations Center
(HSOC). Pursuant to the Initial National Response Plan, the HSOC
integrates and provides overall steady state threat monitoring and
situational awareness and domestic incident management on a 24/7 basis.
The HSOC maintains and provides situational awareness on homeland
security matters for the Secretary of Homeland Security, the White
House Homeland Security Council and the Federal community. In addition,
the HSOC provides the Department's critical interface to all Federal,
State, local & private sector entities to deter, detect, respond and
recover from threats and incidents.
The National Incident Management System (NIMS) is designed to
ensure that all levels of government work more efficiently and
effectively together to prepare for, respond to, and recover from
domestic emergencies and disasters, regardless of cause. For fiscal
year 2005, the Department requests $7 million to ensure that the major
NIMS concepts involving incident command, coordination, communication,
information management, resource management, etc., are incorporated
into and reflected in FEMA's national disaster operational capability.
This funding will provide for plan development, training, exercises and
resource typing at the Federal, State, and local levels
SUPPORTING STATE AND LOCAL FIRST RESPONDERS
The Department has initiated consolidation of the two principal
offices responsible for administering the grants awarding process for
emergency responders and State/local coordination, the Office of State
and Local Government Coordination and the Office of Domestic
Preparedness. This consolidation provides an opportunity to tie all DHS
terrorism preparedness programs together into a cohesive overall
national preparedness program designed to support implementation of
State Homeland Security Strategies.
The fiscal year 2005 budget continues to support the Nation's first
responders and seeks a total of $3.6 billion to support first-responder
terrorism preparedness grants with better targeting to high-threat
areas facing the greatest risk and vulnerability. For fiscal year 2005,
funding for the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) doubles from $727
million to $1.45 billion. Since March 1, 2003, DHS awarded or allotted
over $8 billion to support state and local preparedness. Between fiscal
year 2001 and the fiscal year 2005 budget request, over $14 billion in
assistance will be made available for programs now under DHS. Our
request for fiscal year 2005 is slightly higher than funding sought for
these programs in fiscal year 2004.
INVESTING IN HUMAN CAPITAL AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Our employees are our single greatest asset and we are committed to
investing in the development and motivation of our workforce. To
support our efforts in creating a model personnel system, the
President's fiscal year 2005 budget seeks $133.5 million for the
implementation of a new DHS human resources system that is mission-
centered, fair, and flexible by rewarding top performers. The fiscal
year 2005 budget specifically provides additional resources that will
be used for training supervisory personnel to administer a performance-
based pay system and to create the information technology framework for
the new system. Our new system will ensure that DHS can manage and
deploy its resources to best address homeland security threats and
support information technology tools for workforce management.
We also seek additional funds to invest in the Department's core
infrastructure. Our budget request seeks a total of $56 million, an
increase of $17 million to support a new resource management system.
This funding will support the design, development, and implementation
for a single Department-wide financial management system. It will
provide decision-makers with critical business information, e.g.,
budget, accounting, procurement, grants, assets, travel, in near
``real-time'' and eliminate stovepipes within existing systems and
processes.
An increase of $45.1 million is also sought to continue expanding
the DHS presence at the Nebraska Avenue Complex (NAC). These resources
will enable DHS to perform tenant improvements to the facility and
relocate U.S. Navy operations, pursuant to congressional authorization,
from the NAC to leased facilities.
CONCLUSION
We have a dedicated and skilled team in DHS who understand that
what they are doing is important. We have the support of our partners
in government and the public and private sectors. I thank the Congress
for its support, which has been critical to bringing us to this point.
Our homeland is safer than it was a year ago, but we live in
dangerous times and cannot count on times to change. That is why the
Department of Homeland Security was created, and why we are moving
forward. I am grateful to be here today to talk about the work we are
doing to make America a safer home for us, for our children and
generations to come.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before me today, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
STATUS OF RICIN INCIDENT INVESTIGATION
Senator Cochran. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. I
think one of the most recent events that has attracted
everybody's attention here in Washington and certainly affected
this very building we are having the hearing in today is the
ricin incident that was discovered in the office of Senator
Bill Frist here in the Dirksen Building. Could you tell us what
the status of that investigation is? Has it been determined
whether this toxin was delivered by mail or in what way this
happened, or are we still trying to determine these events?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, it is my understanding that the
focal point of the investigation initially has been with the
Capitol Police. The FBI has and is prepared to continue to
assist. I do not believe there are any further developments
beyond what has been transmitted in the newspapers. We still
have no idea who may have been responsible for it. To my
knowledge, to date we have not identified if it was a letter
that was in which the contents were contained that broke open
during the screening process. So again, it is an ongoing
investigation. And I think your Capitol police have the lead.
As it was related to me, I am not sure there is enough of
the ricin that has been preserved for more detailed analysis.
And that will probably impede the investigation somewhat. But
even if it is true, obviously the resources of the FBI, the
Capitol Police, and others are committed to trying the very
best to identify the source.
INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT CANCELLATIONS
Senator Cochran. One other recent event that Senator
Mikulski mentioned was during the holiday season; there were
several international flights that were canceled. Suspicion of
possible terrorist activity was reported in the news as the
reason for that. We heard from some airline executives and
ambassadors from foreign countries how cancellation of flights
like this caused disruption of service and make it difficult
for the traveling public to make plans in the future. But, we
understand the overriding importance of trying to guarantee the
safety of our homeland.
Do you think the department was justified in the
cancellation of these flights and whether this indicates that
we are under continued threats of terrorist activity in the use
of intercontinental flights in the future?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, the decisions to cancel those
flights were obviously made in consultation with our allies in
Great Britain and in France and in Mexico. Obviously, we note
from the very outset the extraordinary inconvenience it causes
probably a couple thousand passengers. We understand that.
Trying to put it in context, I dare say that this week in
international aviation there will probably be more
cancellations for mechanical failure and for weather than were
seen when we canceled it for potential terrorist activity. So
we do try to put it in context but clearly with the
understanding that we need to try to keep commercial aviation
both safe and flying.
FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS ON INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS
A couple of concerns that were expressed to you by the
ambassadors had to do with the executive amendments that I
directed to be sent out specifically to the airlines with
regard to the ability upon request to put Federal air marshals
on those international flights. While I do not regret the
decision to send that directive out, it would have been more
appropriate had there been more time to send the notification
out through diplomatic channels first, rather than dealing
directly with the airlines. So I understand that completely.
Since that time, however, our discussions with, again, Air
France, Great Britain, British Airways, and others, we are
working on a protocol, one that will give us an opportunity to
deal government to government first. We all agree that is the
best way to do it, to share intelligence about these flights
and review that as far enough in advance as we possibly can to
avoid either delays or the cancellations in the future. But
given the threat stream reporting that we saw, it was a
collective judgment that, under all the circumstances as we
knew them, it was a collective decision to cancel those
flights. And I think it was a very appropriate decision.
AVIATION SECURITY
A continuing concern we have, Senator, with regard to
aviation security is reflected in the threat streams where
there are continuing references from multiple sources, in spite
of the additional security measures we have taken on domestic
and international flights, that terrorists would still seek to
target those flights for possible terrorist actions. So we are
mindful that they do like to go back to targets and tactics
that they used previously. That is why our guard remains up and
remains vigilant.
TERRORIST THREAT INTEGRATION CENTER
Senator Cochran. I am going to ask one other question and
hope that all Senators will be aware that we will have ample
opportunity to ask whatever questions any senator has. But, I
am going to limit my time to 5 minutes and hope other Senators
will do that as well in the first round of questions, and then
we can go back and revisit any issues that remain important to
discuss.
Let me ask you one final question in this round, and that
is your evaluation of the effectiveness of the intelligence-
gathering center that was created in the Department of Homeland
Security to integrate and bring together intelligence that is
available to the department to assess the threat status that we
may face, the potential terrorist attacks that may be planned
by others. It is the Terrorist Threat Integration Center
(TTIC). What is your evaluation of that? Is it working? Do you
have the funding that you need, if this budget request is
followed, to carry out the intelligence role that the
department has established for itself?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, the Congress has been very
generous to the Department in providing several hundred million
dollars to set up the Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection Directorate. That is our analytical arm. And it is
through those dollars that we expanded probably $15 million or
$20 million last year as our contribution to the Terrorist
Threat Integration Center. We have analysts in that Threat
Integration Center. It is the coordination point for
information from the entire intelligence community as it
relates to homeland security issues.
We are very comfortable with the relationship. Congress has
vested in us the authority and the responsibility to go back to
anywhere we deem necessary within the intelligence community to
put intelligence requirements on the CIA or TTIC to give us
more additional information, if we have questions and seek
answers.
So as the TTIC evolves and as our agency matures, the
relationship gets better and better every day.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Senator Byrd.
UNDERFUNDED AND UNDERSTAFFED IMMIGRATION SYSTEM
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary, our immigration
system is underfunded and understaffed. The Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement has just over 13,000
criminal investigators to, among its many other
responsibilities, locate and remove 8 million to 12 million
illegal aliens. Following the passage of the 1986 amnesty for
2.7 million illegal aliens, the INS had to open temporary
offices, hire new workers, and divert resources from
enforcement areas to process amnesty applicants. The result was
chaos that produced rampant fraud.
IMPACT OF PRESIDENT'S AMNESTY PROPOSAL
The backlog of immigrant applications is even larger today,
six million and rising. The President's amnesty proposal would
dump another eight million immigrant applications on an already
beleaguered immigration system.
It took only 19 temporary visa holders to slip through the
system to unleash the horror of the September 11 attacks. The
President's amnesty would shove 8 million illegal aliens
through our security system, many of whom have never gone
through any background check. If there are no new resources in
the budget to implement the President's amnesty proposal, the
implementation of the reform proposal would create incredible
stresses on an already overly stressed border security system.
It is a recipe for disaster.
While I note that the budget has several modest proposals
to deal with existing shortcomings, could you explain to the
committee how much additional money is included in the
President's budget to implement the President's amnesty
proposal?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, there are, as you pointed out,
increases in several areas within the budget, not specifically
related to the President's proposal, inasmuch as the President
laid out some principles, recognizing the reality of several
million undocumented aliens who present in this country,
recognizing that we need to validate their presence, which is
far different than pushing them to the front of the line for
citizenship purposes, and also recognizing the need that once
he stated the principles, that this is an issue of high
visibility and probably considerable controversy. And whether
we can get it done this year or next year remains to be seen.
But I think the President offered the proposal,
understanding that once the Congress worked its will around the
principles that he enunciated, that there would be adequate
resources, depending on the kind of program that Congress
enacted to enforce it. Senator, I could not agree with you
more. Our ability to take the President's proposal and to
fashion a satisfactory conclusion will require an investment of
resources for enforcement. That number, that amount remains to
be calculated based on the kind of program that the Congress,
working with the administration, designs.
I will tell you in the meantime, Senator, the increases
that are reflected in this budget are for detention beds, are
for more surveillance equipment along the borders. We are going
to use in pilot form this year, Senator, some additional
technology along the borders to deal with, as best we can, the
continued flow of illegal immigrants across the border. But I
think the broader issue of the resources necessary to make sure
that the President's initiative and the congressional
initiative is fully enforced. That is a discussion to be had at
a later date.
Senator Byrd. To be had when?
Secretary Ridge. At a later date, Senator.
LEGACY INS PROGRAM FUNDING
Senator Byrd. Yes. Well, I understand that. The increases
for a number of the programs in the budget are directed to
ongoing and long underfunded legacy INS activities, and not to
the President's new initiative. I recognize that there are
increases in your budget for fugitive operations and the
institutional removal program, legal program backlog
elimination. But these increases merely reflect the direction
of much-needed additional dollars to perform the tasks that
your agencies must do in any event.
For instance, from 1992 to 2002, the number of worksite
enforcement investigations dropped from 1,063 to just 13. These
activities represent ongoing programs which your department
inherited upon the abolition of the long-maligned Immigration
and Naturalization Service. What new resources are you
requesting specifically, understanding that the Congress has
yet to act, of course, if it does, when it does? What new
resources are you requesting that specifically will be used to
implement an alien amnesty program in the event that such is
legislated into law?
REQUEST FOR FUGITIVE OPERATIONS TEAMS
Secretary Ridge. Senator, there are two areas of increase
that we requested to help with contemporary enforcement of the
law as it exists today. It does not speak to any changes in the
law that may exist tomorrow. But we have requested an increase
of $50 million for 30 additional fugitive operations teams so
that the people we have identified as absconders, those
individuals who have either had their hearing and have been
determined after the hearing process basically to be persona
non grata, to exit this country, or those who refuse to show
for their hearing and therefore lost any legitimacy to their
presence. We want to basically nearly triple the amount of
those teams. So there is $50 million for that.
REQUEST FOR WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT
I believe, Senator, we have asked for an additional $20-
some million to assist with more agents to deal with workforce
enforcement. So the additional dollars for the detention beds,
for the fugitive operations team, and for the workplace
enforcement are consistent with the needs based on the law as
it exists. But as I said before, clearly, once Congress works
its will, if it chooses to do so, around the President's
initiatives, matching willing worker with willing employer,
will obviously need additional resources. That cannot be
denied.
RESOURCES REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE PRESIDENT'S AMNESTY PROGRAM
Senator Byrd. Well, looking at the plan that has been
proposed by the President, Mr. Secretary, how much do you
believe would be necessary to implement the President's
principles, as set forth in that plan?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, at this point, it would be the
grossest form of speculation. And I choose not to engage--the
Senator has asked a serious question. He deserves a serious
answer. And at this juncture, since the President has just
articulated some principles that he would like to see embodied
in a piece of legislation, again, it really depends on the
legislation and the mandates associated with the legislation
for us to determine how many additional agents we might need,
perhaps the use of additional technology along the borders. So
it is very difficult for us to make that determination at this
point, Senator.
Senator Byrd. Are you suggesting, Mr. Secretary----
Secretary Ridge. Well, the only thing I could tell you,
Senator, is we will need more.
Senator Byrd. I would expect that answer. Are you
suggesting that there are no estimates around what the
President's plan would cost?
Secretary Ridge. I suggest to you, Senator, that we can in
time develop some internal estimates, but we have no final
figures now, again, because we do not know what mandates or the
requirements that Congress may impose on the Executive Branch
in order to fulfill the goals of the legislation.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will pursue this a
bit further.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Gregg.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, I call you Governor----
Secretary Ridge. Good.
Senator Gregg [continuing]. Because as a former Governor,
we all recognize that is the most significant position.
Secretary Ridge. I have a response, Governor.
AL QAEDA
Senator Gregg. On 9/11 we were attacked, obviously. And the
attack was generated by the Islamic fundamentalist movement,
which is called al Qaeda, which has a lot of different forms
that it has mutated into across the world. What is the number
one threat today that your agency considers it must address in
the area of an attack on our country? Where does it come from
and what is it?
Secretary Ridge. Are you talking, Senator, necessarily the
individuals or the type of attack?
Senator Gregg. First the individuals.
Secretary Ridge. Clearly al Qaeda.
SOURCE OF MOST SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES
Senator Gregg. Where do you--what do you see as the source
of the most significant threat to our country? And what do you
see as the potential target or type of threat which they
represent?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, we still look at al Qaeda as the
major international terrorist organization that we need to
combat and to deal with. But as--I think you used the right
word in your question. There are a lot of mutations that have
developed. I mean, al Qaeda can be seen as, one, a very close
group of very disciplined leaders who have had tactical control
over and operational control of the attacks on 9/11.
But since that time, we have obviously disrupted their
communications. We have decapitated a lot of their leadership.
And one of the concerns that, I think, all of us have is that
the individual cells, many of whom have been loosely connected
to the al Qaeda structure now, because of the decapitation,
because of the difficulty in communication, may have a tendency
to operate on themselves, operate on their own rather than
having a direct control from bin Laden and that small group of
people associated with planning that attack.
So again, it is al Qaeda, the organization. But over the
period of time we have identified obviously the change in its
structure and, therefore, probably the change in the kind of
terrorist groups that are prepared to operate even
independently.
The same notion of Jihad, but not quite as directly
connected to al Qaeda. And we know they train thousands in
Afghanistan. The extremist schools have been pumping out
students of hatred, who look at this country as evil and vile
and have joined different forms of the Jihadist movement.
Senator Gregg. It is still Islamic fundamentalism.
Secretary Ridge. Correct.
PRIMARY THREAT, TARGET, AND DELIVERY SYSTEMS
Senator Gregg. And what do you see, the second question
was, what do you see as the primary threat, target, delivery
systems?
Secretary Ridge. First of all, from an operational point of
view, Senator, when it comes to research and development, we
need to spend a great deal of time just looking at weapons of
mass destruction, massive catastrophic effects, radiological,
nuclear, biological, and chemical. The threat reporting stream
that we pay attention to still on a regular basis identifies
aviation, still talks about potential biological attacks. There
continue to be, on a fairly consistent basis, generic
references to just about every kind of attack imaginable under
WMD weapons.
And so while we have focused on aviation security that was
the congressional focus, that is what TSA was initially focused
on, we have also gone out now to start worrying about
vulnerabilities that exist elsewhere that could be used as
either a target or a mechanism to deliver any of those kinds of
weapons.
Senator Gregg. That being laid down as a premise--and I
obviously think you are absolutely right, and you are the
expert, and I think you are on track--which is the threat is
fundamentalist Islam and the threat is the potential that they
use a weapon of mass destruction or some mutation of that
against us, what then becomes the priorities within your
department as to how to respond to that?
And should not counterintelligence be the number one event?
Because, obviously, we cannot tolerate a weapon of mass
destruction attack. And should not the capacity to deal with
weapons of mass destruction be the number two? Or what is your
prioritization of how you respond to those two items of threat,
the people who would cause it and what it involves?
Secretary Ridge. Well, clearly, our primary responsibility
in dealing with the environment that you and I agree exists is
to prevent, deter, respond, and prevent the terrorist attack.
But the point of that spear is the military and the CIA and the
FBI. We do have a role in preventing the attack in that when we
get actionable information or information that is relevant to
protecting a particular site in this country, we are obliged,
and it is part of our mission, to take action to protect that
site.
REDUCING VULNERABILITY TO TERRORIST ATTACKS
But basically, our primary mission is to help reduce our
vulnerability to those kinds of attacks. That is the primary
mission of the Information Analysis Unit, because we have been
given the charge by Congress to take whatever information we
get that we deem credible, map it against the potential
vulnerability, and make sure that we do everything possible to
harden that particular target or targets to reduce the risk of
a potential attack.
So I think we have set priorities in our Science and
Technology Directorate. Some of the first grants have gone out
to deal with the technology of detection and protection. And so
as we take a look to combat a potential biological attack, we
are expanding again, because the Congress has given us hundreds
of millions of dollars to conduct this research. The technology
of detecting a bioagent, be it in a community, in a subway, in
a form of transportation, is something that is a very, very
high priority. The technology of protection is equally as
important to us, because in the event we ask our first
responders to get out and assist those who have been impacted
by a biological event, we want them to not only know the kind
of environment they are going into, but be protected against
the effects of that environment.
So we have set priorities in the science and technology
area. We have set process of setting priorities in the critical
infrastructure piece. We cannot, Senator, possibly expect
that--we have to set priorities when it comes to infrastructure
protection.
We have targeted, for example, in chemical facilities. We
have already conducted, I think, nearly 20 site visits of the
largest facilities that we believe, if they were a target of a
terrorist attack, would have the most catastrophic
consequences, particularly in the loss of human life and
developing standards of security and prevention that we would
think these companies need to apply at these specific places.
We are going to develop those standards for energy and
telecommunication sites and the like.
So we have set priorities within each individual unit.
Although generically, every day we worry about different forms
of attack from a weapon or weapons of mass destruction.
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired.
Senator Harkin.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CUTS IN GRANTS TO STATES TO UPGRADE THEIR PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEMS
Mr. Secretary, I understand that grants to States to
upgrade their public health systems are being cut by $105
million in the fiscal year 2005 budget to provide funds for
your biosurveillance initiative. Mr. Secretary, our State and
local public health infrastructure has been allowed to
deteriorate. These funds to upgrade our State and public health
systems are necessary, not only to protect Americans from
bioterrorism but also to protect Americans from natural
outbreaks of disease, like SARS and West Nile Virus.
In my own state, we have used these funds to increase the
number of epidemiologists in the field and increase the number
of scientists in our labs. With a cut in their State funding
grant, they will have to make cuts in these important programs.
Why has the administration chosen to cut funding for public
health improvements when we still have a long way to go before
our public health system is where it should be?
Secretary Ridge. First of all, Senator, I cannot speak
necessarily to the Health and Human Services budget. I am aware
of a biosurveillance initiative that both Secretary Thompson
and I are working on that is part of the President's budget
that I believe is--while it may be viewed as simply an anti-
terrorism initiative, it is really a public health initiative.
And that is the biosurveillance piece that Secretary Thompson
and I announced about a week or 10 days ago, where, through a
combination of funds from the Department of Homeland Security
and from Health and Human Services totaling nearly $275
million, that we will connect multiple sources of information
from hospitals, pharmacies, veterinary clinics, and the like to
determine to have a national surveillance system.
And I think public health experts would agree that the most
important thing we can do in terms of public health is to
identify, as early as possible, whatever bioagents are plaguing
a community or communities. Now that is whether it is a
terrorist has conducted a biological attack or that mother
nature threw something at us.
So again, I think the $275 million that is part of the
President's budget is a very, very significant improvement in
the country's and the public health community's ability to
detect and therefore respond more quickly and save more lives.
So I think it is a very significant initiative. And I really
cannot speak to other adjustments that may have been made in
that budget, because I do not know.
Senator Harkin. I was just concerned about the cut in the
funds for the public health system. It seemed like that $105
million cut was shifted to biosurveillance. I have no problem
with it. I agree with everything you have just said. I was just
concerned about the cuts.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I am sorry. I did not mean to
interrupt.
Senator Harkin. That is okay.
Secretary Ridge. Congress was very generous, I believe, in
2002, maybe it was the supplemental, where there was, I think,
$2.2 billion sent out to the States and locals. And it is my
understanding that some of that money is yet to be called down.
It is still awaiting allocation to the States or the
communities. So again, I cannot speak to that specifically, but
that is my understanding.
AGRO-TERRORISM CONCERNS
Senator Harkin. I will take a look at that. My last
question had to deal with what I raised in my opening
statement. And that was about agro-terrorism, as we have called
it here. You know, again, we have seen what has happened with
mad cow disease. But diseases do not have to jump to humans to
cause widespread panic. A gallon of suspicious milk would cause
every parent in America to demand answers from the government
immediately. It is not just a Midwestern issue. We have 10,000
hogs that are trucked out of North Carolina every day. And as
we know, meat slaughtered in one place might wind up all over
America within 24 hours from one point.
So I guess my question is: In this budget, can you assure
us that the needs of the rural areas and farm communities will
continue to be met? And just briefly, are you satisfied that
you are integrating this agriculture and the possibility of
agro-terrorism possible threats in the future, that you are
fully integrating this into your threat assessments?
Secretary Ridge. Well, first of all, Senator, I will assure
you that any information that we have with regard to agro-
terrorism where credible and corroborated, we communicate to
the people that need to know. Secondly, I believe there is a
rather substantial initiative in the budget for the Department
of Agriculture that speaks to address some of the legitimate
concerns that you have identified today.
And thirdly, you should know that we are working on an
interesting project that Homeland Security will fund in part
with Iowa's governor and Homeland Security advisor, where you
are pulling together a multiple State consortia to deal with
the transfer of information and analysis, I guess using some of
the labs. And I think his Homeland Security advisor has been or
is scheduled to come in town so we could work the funding
requirements out and collaborate our work in the Homeland
Security with the Department of Agriculture.
Senator Harkin. I was glad to hear you are working with the
multi-state partnership for security and agriculture.
Secretary Ridge. Right.
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired.
Senator Harkin. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Stevens.
NEW DHS REGULATIONS SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As I
indicated, I would like to put a question concerning the
national alert system and also, Mr. Secretary, or Governor, if
you prefer, I have a copy of a letter that our Governor, former
Senator Murkowski, wrote to you. And I would like to put it in
the record and ask you if you have responded to that, if you
would give me a copy of the response to his letter.
I want to ask you a little bit more mundane question,
though. Your bill, appropriations bill, was approved in the
regular order. As Senator Byrd and I said, it went across the
floor, went to conference, was signed by the President
separately before the omnibus bill. How is your department
doing? Are we looking forward to any kind of a supplemental
request from your department before October 1?
Secretary Ridge. No, sir.
[The information follows:]
Letter From Frank H. Murkowski
State of Alaska,
Office of the Governor,
Juneau, February 9, 2004.
Hon. Tom Ridge,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: Alaskans have great respect for the Department
of Homeland Security's (DHS) mission to protect the Nation against
further terrorist attacks, guard our borders and airports, and protect
our critical infrastructure. At the same time, DHS is also charged with
protecting the rights of American citizens and enhancing public
services. These sometimes conflicting obligations seem to require that
the DHS be ever mindful of the impacts new regulations will have on the
U.S. economy. Providing for the Nation's security while maintaining
economic stability within our country is indeed a challenge. I don't
envy the task.
Please let me relate my perception of how some recent DHS actions
have impacted Alaska as well as the Nation's security. On August 2,
2003, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published in
the Federal Register a notification suspending the Transit-without-Visa
(TWOV)/International-to-International (ITI) program. This suspension
requires all international passengers transiting Alaska to obtain a
U.S. visa for a 2-hour technical fuel stop, even at a special, secure
transit facility. The new visa requirement caused Cathay Pacific
Airways to move all passenger operations from Ted Stevens Anchorage
International Airport (Anchorage) to Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada to avoid that burden.
On December 22, 2003, the DHS increased the threat level to
``Orange'' status. The increase in threat level immediately suspended
Progressive Clearance. The threat level was reduced to ``Yellow''
status on January 9, 2004; however, Progressive Clearance suspension
remained in effect until February 6, 2004. Suspension of this program
requires Korean Air to do full clearance at the first port of entry,
even if the ``entry'' is merely a refueling stop for almost all
passengers. The airline must download all of the bags, forcing the
passengers who would otherwise never leave the secure transit facility,
to instead leave that area and proceed to an unsecure area to claim
their bags.
Not only does the airline have to upload all the bags again, but
all passengers, having been forced to leave the sterile CBP processing
area, must be rescreened. This requires an extended ground time and
doubles ground handling costs incurred in Anchorage.
On December 5, 2003, the CBP published a Final Rule in the Federal
Register to implement a new regulation requiring all carriers, foreign
and domestic, to submit electronic manifests to CBP for all cargo
destined for the Unites States. These new regulations will put an
extreme hardship on the cargo carriers transiting Alaska between Asia
and Europe, and places Alaska's key role in that transit at risk.
Again, these carriers have to option to move operations to a foreign
country to avoid new security regulations.
These new regulations have already caused the loss of 14 weekly
international passenger flights and could cause the loss of up to 54
international cargo flights per week to the State of Alaska.
The State Department and the DHS have stared their intention to
reinstate the TWOV/ITI programs and operate as the ``Air Transit
Program''. But to date, CBP has not advanced the program further.
Anchorage is one of only six airports in the Nation that currently
conform to Customs and Border Protection facility requirements.
Anchorage has spent a great deal of money to reconfigure our
international passenger terminal to ensure it meets the requirements to
maintain the ITI and TWOV programs.
The TWOV and ITI programs operate in Anchorage differently than any
other airport in the Nation. Anchorage is a technical stop for Cathay
Pacific between Hong Kong and Toronto, All passengers participating in
the ITI and TWOV programs arrive and depart on the same carrier, same
flight, and same aircraft from the same gate.
The suspension of this program has been detrimental in two ways to
the United States. The first and foremost was a reduction in overall
border security; the United States lost the ability to scrutinize and
crosscheck these passengers against all U.S. security databases.
The second is the negative economic impact to the State of Alaska,
as well as the city of Anchorage. The loss of these Cathay Pacific
flights cost the State over $1.1 million each month. It has also caused
many of the airport tenants to reduce staff that normally support these
flights.
In summary, Anchorage has a secure passenger transit facility that
conforms to CBP technical requirements. We have securely processed
these passengers for years into the terminal building and right back
onto the same aircraft. We believe that the program increases U.S.
security overall.
In the Final Rule (RIN 1651-AA49) CBP's own analysis shows the new
Advanced Cargo Information provision will cost air carriers substantial
amounts of money to implement. CBP estimates the total annualized cost
to air carriers could range from $345 million to $4.7 billion. These
costs include not only implementation of new systems, procedures, and
equipment but also the cost of delays and service degradation.
All Asia-Europe flights currently transiting Alaska have the option
of flying instead through Russia enroute to Europe. At this point, the
routing through Alaska is more efficient and economical for the
carriers. It may be less efficient and more costly than flying through
Russia after implementation of these regulations.
A single wide-body cargo tech stop is worth approximately $25,000
to the local economy in airport fees, airport services, crew lodging,
and fuel in Alaska. Each week Anchorage and Fairbanks have 54
international in-transit flights. Flights re-routed through other
airports would cost the State economy $1,350,000 each week and
$70,200,000 each year.
All of these new regulations are intended to increase the level of
security; however, if the new regulations cause carriers to avoid
entering the United States we lose on two fronts. One, the economic
loss from the business going to another country, and secondly, and more
importantly, we lose the opportunity to have a cursory review, under
existing programs, of the passengers and cargo on these flights
transiting Alaska. The unfortunate outcome of these flights rerouting
to other countries is a reduction in the overall level of security.
I request that you please review the overall impacts of all new
regulations, but specifically these three regulatory programs. I ask
that the DHS/CBP permanently reinstate the TWOV/ITI and Progressive
Clearance programs for international passenger flights transiting
Alaska and exempt international-to-international transit cargo
freighter flights operating through Alaska from the cargo manifest
requirements. Granting our request not only protects U.S. economic
interests but also improves and enhances U.S. intelligence and total
security.
Sincerely yours,
Frank H. Murkowski,
Governor.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Mr. Senator.
Senator Cochran. Senator Mikulski.
CONSOLIDATION OF GRANT PROGRAMS INTO THE OFFICE FOR STATE AND LOCAL
COORDINATION AND PREPAREDNESS
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, as I indicated, I am disappointed in the
funding for both fire grants and port and cargo security. But
we will be arguing those within the committee. I would like to
come back to some of the policy issues raised in your testimony
and on your plans. This goes to the fact that one of the
biggest changes in the Homeland Security budget that is
proposed is the combining of 24 grant programs from TSA, FEMA,
Office of Domestic Preparedness, into something call the Office
for State and Local Coordination and Preparedness.
Could you tell me, number one, what is the rationale? And
how will this make it more efficient and effective? Because
this is a whole new thing. And, of course, you are aware of the
mayors' criticisms that money from Homeland is not getting down
to them.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, there are several parts to your
question. I hope I can address all of them in my response.
During the past year, consistent with the President's national
strategy, but also consistent with many of the concerns that I
have heard from your colleagues in Congress, there has really
been publicly expressed a preference to be able to go to one
place within the Department of Homeland Security to access all
the grants for State and locals.
And heretofore, it was scattered over three or four
different units. And so the consolidation of the 24 grants
within this new office gives us an opportunity, one, I think,
to develop a much more effective delivery system and hopefully
in time to make the awarding of the grants simpler. There will
always be a question of how much. And that is always going to
be debated on the Hill as to how much money should be put in
the grant programs.
But the Congress has said, and the President wants us, once
the dollar determination is made, is get the dollars out as
quickly as possible. We think it will certainly help with
coordinating the planning and the implementation and clearly
the assessment. Several Senators have commented today that we
need to start looking at the effectiveness of the dollars we
have sent out to the community.
So what we will set up within this new department, there
will be a single portal. There will be one website that folks
can go to get the information they need. They will develop
relationships, I think the personal-professional relationships
with the people in this one unit. We will draw down on the
expertise from TSA and FEMA to make sure that the grant
programs are administered as effectively as possible.
We told our friends in the fire community, even though the
fire grant program is moving from FEMA to the new facility, it
will still be peer review. The grants will still be made
specifically to the firefighters. And they will not see
effectively any change. And the debate will continue to be how
much money they put in the program.
IMPACT OF TRANSFER OF GRANT PROGRAMS FROM FEMA
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Secretary, may I jump in here?
So is FEMA moving to this office----
Secretary Ridge. No.
Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Or categories of FEMA, like
the fire grant program and the emergency management performance
grants?
Secretary Ridge. Yes. Those grants will be moved to this
new unit. But FEMA still operates under the Emergency and
Preparedness Response Unit of the department. And FEMA
continues to maintain authority over grants that relate to
natural disasters, the administration of the natural disaster
relief programs, the natural mitigation program. They are still
responsible for flood mapping. So they retain some of their
traditional responsibilities. But some of those programs that
had to do with terrorism and preparedness for terrorist event
move into this new unit within the department.
Senator Mikulski. What about the criticism of the mayors?
DELIVERY OF STATE AND LOCAL DOLLARS
Secretary Ridge. The mayors have voiced publicly and
privately on many times their frustration with the delivery
mechanism to get the dollars that you appropriated, that we
requested, you appropriated to get it down to them. I would
assure you, Senator, that we are prepared to deliver those
dollars. The logjam that we need to break, if not blow up, has
to do with the communications between the mayors and the
governors and how they distribute those dollars. Because we
have asked the governors to take the lead in developing a
statewide strategy.
Congress has said 20 percent can stay in the State capital.
The other 80 percent has to flow through down to the mayors.
Their frustration, I think, is legitimate. I think there are
many reasons for it. We are going to take a look at some of the
States where the money has been practically all distributed,
where people are not complaining, to see if we can develop some
best practices that we will go back to the governors with and
get them to use them. And if we need to put it in terms of a
regulation so that they distribute the dollars that way, we
will.
I plan on meeting with the governors privately, when they
come into town in a couple weeks, to address that very
legitimate frustration that some of the mayors have directly.
We need to do everything we can to avoid just sending out
grants to thousands and thousands of municipalities because we
will never be able to build a statewide and then a national
infrastructure. So the mayors are right. We have to do a better
job of getting the money to them. We are prepared to distribute
it, but we need to work with the mayors and the governors to
come up with a better distribution mechanism.
Senator Mikulski. Well, just two points, Mr. Secretary.
First of all, I am glad that you are going to meet with the
Governors. You are part of that unique organization. And I
think you understand their needs. And what we saw with
hurricane Isabel, for example, it was a statewide catastrophe.
And we needed Governor Ehrlich's response and local response.
So we need you to work with the Governor and figure out how to
effectively coordinate.
The second thing, in terms of this new one stop shop, I
would really invite your staff to meet with mine so that we
truly understand it. A lot of us have put a lot of effort into
establishing these grant programs. And the idea of a one-stop
shop seems very attractive. But we also want to know how that
also enables this effective coordination. Because if we do not
coordinate, this is not going to work.
So thank you very much. And again, many thanks for all that
you helped us with.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. I would be happy to defer to Senator
Domenici, if he would----
Senator Cochran. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Well, thank you very much. Am I on? Can
you hear me?
Senator Cochran. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.
Senator Domenici. First, Mr. Secretary, it is nice to be
with you.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, sir,
Senator Domenici. I do not get an opportunity to visit with
you very often. I am very proud of what you have been doing. I
am fully aware it has not been an easy thing.
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER (FLETC) IN ARTESIA, NEW MEXICO
The reason I am going to bring a very small issue to you is
because I do not think continuing to communicate with the
department brings results. No aspersions. But in our State of
New Mexico, we have an institution called FLETC, the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center, Artesia, in New Mexico. FLETC-
Artesia is a pretty big place, which grew over a decade from a
college center to a fully run and operated Federal law
enforcement training center.
Needless to say, that part of New Mexico is very proud of
it, as we are. We are now training, expanding the training
base. As you know, hundreds of new U.S. marshals are being
required to be trained. FLETC is also the campus chosen to
provide training for airline pilots who choose to carry
firearms in the cockpit, and that is an election. FLETC
provides this training to Federal flight deck officers. in
addition to the basic advance training.
Now feedback from these trainees who have been in Artesia
is almost universally positive. The training site is pretty
new, pretty good. The places to live in are pretty fine. It is
a small town, nonetheless. Artesia is about 3 hours from any
large city. Now when we started FLETC-Artesia, that was a big
plus. Now it is beginning to be well known, maybe that's a good
thing.
But I will tell you what will make it a plus and keep it a
very reasonable facility for training your people. It is the
capacity to have flight service enhanced so that people can get
there easier than just riding on a bus.
You know that this entire committee and then the Congress
went out on a limb. We said we will not earmark funding for the
new department. Therefore, you got it all. You probably were
glad to have it. Now after a year and a half, you are probably
thinking that, maybe they should have given me some direction
on a few of these; I would not be having so much trouble. In
any event, we could have gotten earmarked funding for this
FLETC, because we have invested a huge amount of tax dollars.
AIR SERVICE TO ARTESIA, NEW MEXICO
FLETC put out a request seeking feedback from airlines who
might provide service. My understanding is that there has been
a response, and it was positive. The estimates are that it
would take about $800,000 to provide the service for the rest
of the year. This would make a rather fantastic facility
available for the extra training beyond the few hundreds that
we train for--as people who watch our borders and the like.
I am not sure you know about it. But can I lay it before
you today and assume you will know about it after this
discussion. You can pass it on to somebody to look at it.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I am now nearly fully briefed. I
know a lot more than I did when I walked into the hearing room.
And one question I would like to just ask you is whether or
not, from your perspective, that the facilities at Artesia are
being fully used. In other words, if we enhanced the ability to
get more people there for the training program, do the existing
facilities have the present capacity to train more people?
Senator Domenici. The answer is yes. What is happening is,
that it is such a good facility, but for its distance, it is
almost full all the time. We are constantly being harped upon
by internal observers that we ought to take some of the people
that are there and put them somewhere else so they would not
have to travel.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, since you raised it to my
attention, it becomes my responsibility to look into it and get
back to you. And I will.
[The information follows:]
Enhancing Flight Service/Transportation for Trainees to FLETC
In the post September 11, 2001 period, there has been real,
sustained growth in the use of all FLETC training centers, including
the Artesia, NM center. Although the absence of regular and reliable
service to the Artesia area has been an obstacle to wider use of that
location in the past, recently we have increased utilization to almost
capacity because the FLETC Glynco site is at maximum capacity and the
agencies need to train within specific timeframes. FLETC is
experimenting with conducting more basic training programs at Artesia
in fiscal year 2004 and there has been increased use of the site for
Flight Deck Officer training, among others, for specialized training.
With this in mind, FLETC will track closely the issues and usage of the
Artesia site and report back their findings in fiscal year 2005. Should
the travel service continue to be a problem, the Department will
consider looking at other possible solutions.
Senator Domenici. I appreciate it.
Now what about the time? Am I out?
Senator Cochran. If Senator Murray has no objection, you
can ask another question.
CONSTRUCTION OF NISAC FACILITY AT KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE
Senator Domenici. All right. Let me ask a question with
reference to a project that is called NISAC, N-I-S-A-C. You may
recall, when you first came into this job, you were still in
some temporary office. We brought some people from Sandia and
Los Alamos, and they showed you this computerization,
computerized program, that gets put to use and continues to be
upgraded.
Anyone whom you would assign to run the office could locate
every piece of infrastructure in the United States and then
locate them vis-a-vis themselves and others. For example, if
they were to take out a dam, what are the repercussions. A
little machine shows you what happens. This big dam is broken
down. It will tell you water will go as far as L.A. One of the
bad things about it, we hope nobody else gets it. So far, it
just belongs to you, to us.
But it is terrific from the standpoint of, answering a
hypothetical question with reference to what happens if
something else happens, either in the electricity system or
energy system, the water system. This facility is adjacent to
Sandia National Labs. One of the items that transferred from
the Department of Energy to the Department of Homeland Security
with this act was an appropriation of $7.5 million for the
construction of a NISAC facility at Kirtland Air Force Base to
be used by your department for the purposes intended.
So I am just going to inquire and put it in here in writing
what happened, why the delay, and why is it not moving ahead?
What is the status of the $7 million that we set aside? When
can the committee expect Homeland Security to break ground on
this NISAC facility, which the record, as I reflect it, would
clearly indicate is your baby? You are going to use it. It is
not going to sit there.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I remember their presentation.
You know better than most the extraordinary work that the
national labs have done for 60 years for this country, the
variety of different ways. And you also know that our
department is happily tied in with the national labs in several
very meaningful ways.
I cannot give you the specific answer to that question
either, but it is incumbent upon me to do so. And I will.
[The information follows:]
Construction of NISAC Facility at Kirtland Air Force Base
IAIP continues to move forward with the plans to build the
facility, giving full consideration to the elements of the program and
our obligation to comply with NEPA and other Federal statutes
applicable to Federal construction projects.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Secretary Ridge. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murray.
EFFORT TO IMPROVE CARGO SECURITY THROUGH OPERATION SAFE COMMERCE
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, as I mentioned in my earlier comments, the
country's three largest cargo centers, load centers, have been
working with the Department of Homeland Security and some of
the private sector clients for the last 2 years in an effort to
improve cargo security through Operation Safe Commerce. The
ports of Seattle and Tacoma, the ports of Los Angeles, Long
Beach, and New Jersey and New York have been really
enthusiastic partners and are anxious to be meaningful
contributors to the overall port security effort. And they are
continuing to offer their facilities, their expertise, their
goodwill, both domestically and abroad, to ensure our success.
As you know, taxpayers have already committed to $75
million for Operation Safe Commerce with the goal of really
learning what works and what does not when it comes to securing
containers. Unfortunately, because of the delay in funding
Operation Safe Commerce, this pilot program is just now getting
off the ground. But nonetheless, the load centers involved with
this important program should have strong data about best
practices, technology, and hardware this year.
So I was really shocked when I saw the White House was
eliminating this port security effort in their budget. And I
wanted to tell you I think that is really shortsighted and
really abandons the progress that our governments, our ports,
our shippers in the private sector have been working really,
really hard to achieve.
STATUS OF OBLIGATION OF FUNDS APPROPRIATED FOR OPERATION SAFE COMMERCE
So I wanted to ask you two questions this morning. First of
all, only $58 million of the $75 million that Congress
appropriated for Operation Safe Commerce has been obligated.
Can you give us a time line for when the last $17 million that
was appropriate is going to be obligated?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I cannot. I know that they draw
down against the appropriation based upon their expansion of
the pilot and whether or not sitting within the Department are
invoices to be paid. I could not tell you, unless I go back and
check. But I will certainly be pleased to do so.----
Senator Murray. If you could have someone get back to us,
because----
Secretary Ridge [continuing]. It is clearly the intent of
Congress with the appropriations over a 2-year period to have
three very robust and very comprehensive pilots. I think that
is also the reason that there is no funding in 2005. These are
pilots. There are to be lessons learned. And again, $75 million
for three pilot programs is a very, very substantial
investment. We still need to see what lessons we learned and
whether or not they are applicable to ports across the country.
Senator Murray. Well, Mr. Secretary, I can tell you that if
we do not continue to fund that in the next year, much of the
progress that has been made, much that is just now being
implemented, we will not be able to get the results back. And
as you know, the point of Operation Safe Commerce was to find
out what works out there and then be able to apply it to the
other ports. If we do not find out what works, if we do not
have the risk analysis back, if we do not have the results
back, it will never get--the lessons learned will never be
shared. And we will never have lessons learned.
So I was really surprised that the administration is
working to kill this program in the budget.
Secretary Ridge. Well, I do think that if they need
additional money on top of the $75 million, clearly a couple of
those communities would have access to substantial additional
dollars under the Urban Area Security Initiative that would be
a follow-on.
Senator Murray. If you are planning on funding it under
that, that would put them against all first responders. I think
port security, and I think you would agree with me, is such a
high concern that we cannot start pitting these people against
other really important issues. We need to fund this, fund it
specifically, get the answers back.
And again, this program, private sectors come together,
ports have come together. Everyone is working very hard. They
are just now beginning to learn what they need to do. And I
think we should not shut them off.
Secretary Ridge. Well, Senator, it will be incumbent upon
me to get back and answer that first question to see where the
additional $17 million are to be applied to the existing
programs.
[The information follows:]
Timeline for Obligating the Last $17 Million Appropriated for Operation
Safe Commerce
TSA anticipates that the Request for Applications for the $17
million appropriated in fiscal year 2004 for Operation Safe Commerce
(OSC) is on track to be released early this summer, with final award
anticipated in the fall. This funding will be used to build on current
OSC pilot projects, and may include other supply chains. The
expenditure of the remaining funds will be fully coordinated within the
Department and Congress to ensure that the cargo security efforts
through OSC are integrated into broader departmental initiatives to
secure the cargo supply chain security.
Senator Murray. Well, would you agree that it would be wise
to continue this program in the next fiscal year in order for
us to learn what we can, to make sure that we are doing all we
can to secure our ports?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, it has been my impression that
three pilots at $75 million, there ought to be some lessons
learned with this infusion of very, very significant dollars.
Senator Murray. Well----
Secretary Ridge. And I guess the reason that the dollars
were terminated is that we felt that you did have the
collaboration. It is a great program. You do--one of the things
that the Coast Guard has done historically very well, probably
better than any other agency, is on a day-to-day basis they
work with the private sector quite well. But you have three
major ports, 2-year funding stream, $75 million. And the view
is that is quite a bit of experimentation. There ought to be
plenty of lessons learned after those $75 million are spent on
pilot programs.
Senator Murray. Well, because the funding was delayed, they
are just at the point now of beginning to implement. The first
container ship comes in in a few weeks to the Port of Tacoma
that is--that they will begin to be able to analyze it. I know
that the programs, the CSI and the C-TPAT are also out there.
But I am positive you are aware of a recent GAO study that
is called Preliminary Observations on Efforts to Target
Security Inspections of Cargo Containers that those two
programs do. It is very critical of the methodology that is
incorporated in the customs and border protection initiatives.
And I am happy to share that with you. It is extremely
critical.
CONTINUATION OF OPERATION SAFE COMMERCE
But I think the point of Operation Safe Commerce is that we
can learn from what they are doing to make sure that we are
doing the reporting and analyzing, inspection, analyzing the
risk levels. And if we do not continue this program, we are not
going to have the information to do what is right in the
future. We can be spending a lot of money in a lot of areas in
ways that do not work.
Secretary Ridge. Well, it is conceivable, Senator, and I do
not offer this as the answer to the concern you have, but in
the budget we are asking for more money for personnel to
support our National Targeting Center. And I think there is a
direct link between the lessons you learn dealing with the
supply chain coming into ports and the National Targeting
Center, which is at the heart.
Senator Murray. Yes. I have been around long enough to know
that if you do not name it, it does not get funded.
Secretary Ridge. Well, I think when you have a new
department and a department particularly that relies on the
notion that we will never be able to inspect all 22 million
containers that come into this country every year, and we have
three major pilot programs out there, that there are lessons
learned and that we ought to--if there is a possible
connection, we ought to try to make it. I do not know if there
is. It just seems to me, Senator, that after a couple years,
there ought to be a couple lessons learned after $75 million
has been spent.
Senator Murray. Again, only $57 million has gone out. We
still are waiting for the rest of it. And I think that we
should not judge too soon on that. But I am happy to work with
your office and supply information.
Mr. Chairman, let me ask one more quick question under my
time.
FUNDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MARITIME TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ACT
The budget that was sent over includes $100 million for the
implementation of the Maritime Transportation Security Act,
MTSA. Admiral Collins testified before us last September that
it would take $7.3 billion over 10 years to implement the MTSA,
including $1.5 billion this year. I am very concerned that the
President's request is 7 percent of what the commandant told us
he needs to succeed. Do you share that concern?
Secretary Ridge. Well, again, I do not have the
understanding of the context with which the commandant shared
that information with you. It is my understanding, however,
that the sum that he was talking about included the additional
security measures that would need to be employed at ports and
vessels. That is not a sum that was necessary for the Coast
Guard to conduct the studies at ports of interest or the safety
security studies on vessels.
So I think there is sufficient money in here for the Coast
Guard to do its work. The gap is a place where we need to have
a public debate as to whether or not it is the taxpayer's
responsibility to fund, continue to fund port security or
whether or not, since these basically are intermodal facilities
where the private sector moves goods in and out for a profit,
that they would be responsible for picking up most of the
difference.
So I think the dollars that we received this year empowers
the Coast Guard and gives them the manpower to do port
assessments and to look at 10,000 vessels and to do the
security analysis. I think the gap is----
Senator Murray. Are you suggesting that it is----
Secretary Ridge [continuing]. The dollars for security.
Senator Murray. So if I heard you correctly, you are saying
that the private industry must now come up with this $7 billion
over the next 10 years to implement the security for our
Nation?
PRIVATE SECTOR SHARE OF PORT SECURITY
Secretary Ridge. Well, we have an $11 trillion economy.
Much of it is driven through imports and exports. Major
companies use our ports. I can only refer back to the Federal
investment, the State investment, and local investment in the
ports of Philadelphia and Newark. There is plenty of public
money in these ports already. They provide the land. They buy
the cranes. They in many instances employ the personnel. So the
notion that there is not much of a public investment in the
courts, I do not think is, based on my experience in
Pennsylvania, it is not accurate.
At some point in time in the distribution chain--and my
view is that ports are part of the supply chain and the
distribution chain of the private sector----
Senator Murray. Well, Mr. Secretary----
Secretary Ridge [continuing]. That they ought to be able to
defray some of the expenses associated with it.
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired.
Senator Murray. Mr. Secretary, just let me comment very
quickly. I am listening to your logic, but I would just
respectfully say that if one terminal or port in this country
said, we are not going to ante up the money, we do not have it,
and a terrorist used that weak link to come into this country,
all of us would be paying for the consequences of that.
Secretary Ridge. Well, Senator, this will be debated,
obviously, in this subcommittee and on the floor of both
chambers, and I am sure Congress has been generous. I think
there is over a half a billion dollars out in port grants. I
think this year the budget allows for nearly $50 million in
port grants. I think it is going to be very important at some
time in the near future that we engage the very appropriate
public debate as to how much additional taxpayer financing
should go into a piece of infrastructure that basically
supports the private sector.
They have a commercial and business interest in securing
their supply chain. And I think, again, we will continue to
provide, there is no doubt in my mind we will continue to
provide some Federal resources, no doubt in my mind that States
and local communities are going to continue to support their
port authorities and their ports. But I also think we need to
elevate the discussion so we determine what the role of the
private sector is to help secure that infrastructure for
themselves.
Senator Murray. I look forward to that debate. Thank you.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Senator Specter.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, on Friday I landed at Tom Ridge Airport in
Erie. And I want to report to you that it is a great airport.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Senator.
WAY TO RECONFIGURE THE CALCULATION FOR HIGH-RISK AREAS TO INCLUDE THE
TOM RIDGE AIRPORT AND ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Specter. I then went to a meeting of first
responders and heard the concern that among the 50 high-risk
areas, Erie is not included, largely because of the population
factor. But they have a port, and they have access to a border
with Canada. And my question to you is: Is there some way to
reconfigure that calculation to include the Tom Ridge Airport
and Erie?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, the funding streams that Congress
has generally supported the past 2 years through the Office of
Domestic Preparedness had one portion that went to the States
that was driven strictly by population, another portion that
went to urban areas, where the Congress gave the department the
flexibility to look at population density, critical
infrastructure, the threat level, and make the appropriation.
One of the adjustments, based on our thinking in terms of
how we can better direct those dollars is to look at that one
pool of money that historically goes to the States by formula,
notwithstanding that every State, large or small, should get a
certain level of funding, but to see, based on a broader
statewide analysis of critical infrastructure, that those
States should get actually more money depending if the critical
infrastructure is in there.
Senator Specter. Mr. Secretary, I am hesitant to interrupt
you, but there is very limited time and I want to ask you three
more questions.
Secretary Ridge. Yes.
Senator Specter. I would like you to take a look to see, if
you might, we can figure the high-risk areas to include Erie.
When you talk about the general fund, the minimum for each
State is three-quarters of 1 percent, which means that 40
percent of the funding, general fund and first responders, is
taken off on the small States. And that has a very
disproportionate share. For example, in Pennsylvania per capita
we receive $5.83, and Wyoming receives $38.31. And that is the
fund where we have to look to a city like Erie, community like
Erie.
Last August, I visited some 33 counties on first responders
and designated one of my top deputes to review our State. What
can you say about providing a little more equity for the
general fund, especially when Erie is not a high-risk area and
has to limit its intake from the general fund?
Secretary Ridge. Well, Senator, I think our strategic
decision to deal with that issue, not community-specific but to
deal with the notion that every State should still get some
minimum funding, but not all of that money in that program
should be allocated strictly on population. Now that our agency
has matured and now that we have strategic plans from the
individual States every governor has submitted a strategic plan
based on their needs, we have asked for the flexibility to
distribute those dollars differently than just on a strict
funding formula.
FLEXIBILITY IN AUTHORITY TO DISTRIBUTE FUNDS TO HIGH-RISK AREAS
Whether or not Congress gives us that flexibility to do so,
so that States like Pennsylvania would have more resources to
support communities such as Erie, or I would say Senator Levin
would tell you support communities like Port Huron, which is a
small community of 30,000 people, that has chemical farms,
energy infrastructure, and all kinds of basically critical
infrastructure, and they get nothing either.
So that is our response to the need to address some of the
needs of smaller communities.
Senator Specter. The issue of your authority, Mr.
Secretary, has been a discussion which you and I have had on
many occasions. And as more information is coming to light
about September 11, there are more indicators, more evidence,
that if all of the information had been collected in one spot,
9/11 might well have been prevented.
And I know that there has been a change with the FBI and
the CIA and other intelligence agencies to try to have better
coordination. And this is a very involved matter. But I would
appreciate it if your department, if you would give us an
answer in writing, because we do not have time to go into it
now, as to your evaluation as to how it is working.
As I am sure you will remember, when we passed the bill in
October of 2002 and the House of Representatives had left and
it was take it or leave it in the Senate and I wanted to offer
an amendment to give you the authority, as Secretary, to direct
and have the critical authority, the issue went all the way to
the President. And it was either get the bill in its form
without having that authority and you or having it deferred
until the spring. But I would like your evaluation as to how
that is working.
HOW THREAT DETERMINATIONS ARE MADE
And the final question I have within my 5 minutes, Mr.
Chairman, is: What can you tell us within the bounds of
security as to how you make the risk assessment on the
different gradations? There is obviously enormous concern about
whether, when, where there will be another 9/11. It has sort of
recessed from our minds as time passes. But I know it is very
much on your mind and very much on the President's mind. And
you took some extra precautions recently over the holiday
season. And you had made a comment that you thought that the
precautions you took may well have averted another 9/11. And I
think the expression you used was that you had a gut reaction
to come to that sense or that conclusion.
Secretary Ridge. Right.
Senator Specter. I would be interested to know, and I think
everybody would be interested to know, how you make the threat
assessments, where you think we are generally at risk today,
and, to the extent you can specify, how you think the
precautions which you took may have prevented another 9/11.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I will try to be brief, but it
does call for a fairly lengthy----
Senator Specter. Oh, take your time. My time is over. Take
your time.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Senator. First of all, every
single day, at least three times a day, there is formal
interaction between the intelligence community, and that
includes the Department of Homeland Security. Every morning the
Attorney General, the FBI Director, the CIA Director, the
Deputy, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and others meet
with the President, Vice President, to go over the threat
information from the previous day.
Twice a day, later on that morning and in the afternoon, by
secure video, the intelligence community examines the threats
of that particular day, but obviously looks back at the
reporting stream for previous days to see whether or not there
was additional corroboration, whether or not they render any
judgments with regard to the credibility, but over a period of
time, Senator, through that process and that constant
interaction at the Terrorist Integration Center, the
interaction of the professional analysts, the CIA, even on ad
hoc basis.
PROCESS FOR RAISING THREAT LEVEL
At some point in time prior to about a week or so prior to
when we raised the threat level in December--I say a week. I do
not recall specifically. But at some point in time, the volume
of the reporting, the nature of the reporting, assessments
based on the credibility of the reporting were such that we
began to look at the possibility of raising the national threat
level. That process over a 24-, 36-hour period then led to the
meeting of the President's Homeland Security Council. And that
is Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and the
Attorney General, the FBI Director, the Secretary of
Transportation, yours truly.
It is then discussed among these principals. And based upon
that discussion, we made the decision to recommend to the
President for the foreseeable future we raised the threat
level. That, in very short fashion, is the process that we
engage in to raise in.
I note it is a process we have engaged in the past where we
didn't raise it. And it had been 6 months since we took the
national threat level up.
Finally, Senator, I would say to you and your colleagues on
the committee and, for that matter, the entire country, as we
do, as this department works with the private sector to harden
certain chemical facilities and energy facilities and the like,
as we continue to do a better job of informing State and local
law enforcement, as we continue to do our job, I believe we
will raise the threshold even higher to go to the next threat
level. Because initially, the national warning system was based
simply on what we heard and perceived to be the threat. But
there is also a risk analysis that we can now, because of the
Department, have to plug into that equation.
That may be the threat, but what is the risk based on, the
precautionary or preventive or security measures that have been
in place? You could have the same threat with no security, and
you might want to raise it. You could have the same threat
level but with more security and say, we are comfortable
enough, given the present circumstances, perhaps to target
information privately to a particular place, a particular site,
but not take the entire country up.
That would be the goal, because we are quite aware of the
fact that raising the level nationally is a blunt instrument.
Normally it requires a labor intensive response. But as we
build permanent security measures across-the-board at the State
and local level and in the private sector, it should be more
difficult to take it up, because we will have reduced the risk
by adding additional security measures.
Senator Specter. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Your time has expired, Senator. Thank you.
Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will put my
post-statement in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for coming to testify before us
today.
We are entering the second year of this subcommittee and in that
time there have been many changes to your department and there are new
challenges facing the country. I appreciate your appearance here to
discuss the Administration's priorities in the new fiscal year.
For the past year, you have supervised many constituents of mine
who are former employees of the Immigration and Naturalization Service
and who now work for the Bureaus of Customs and Border Protection,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Citizenship and Immigration
Services.
A year ago, I praised them to you and told you they would exceed
your expectations--I trust that they have done so.
At the same time, you and others at the Department told me that you
would make full use of these excellent employees, and that the Vermont
workforce would not decline as part of the reorganization. You have
kept that pledge, and I look forward to continuing to work with you to
ensure that these employees contribute to protecting and enhancing our
Nation.
I would like to turn however to President Bush's proposed homeland
security budget for fiscal year 2005 that was sent up here by the
Administration and share with you a few of my concerns.
I was extremely disappointed that the budget drops the all-state
minimum formula, which I authored, from the State Homeland Security
Grant Program administered by the Office for Domestic Preparedness
(ODP). This formula assures that each state's first responders receive
a minimum of .75 percent of those grants to help support their basic
preparedness needs.
Not only would this change result in the loss of tens of millions
in homeland security funding for the fire, police and rescue
departments in Vermont and other small- and medium-sized states, but
also deal a crippling blow to their efforts to build and sustain their
terrorism preparedness.
Mr. Secretary, you and I have spoken many times in public and
private on how to fairly allocate domestic terrorism preparedness funds
to our states and local communities. We both agree that each State has
basic terrorism preparedness needs and, therefore, a minimum amount of
domestic terrorism preparedness funds is appropriate for each state. We
both agree that highly populated, highly threatened and highly
vulnerable areas have terrorism preparedness needs beyond those basic
needs for each state. Most importantly, though, we both agree that
homeland security is a national responsibility shared by all states,
regardless of size.
On January 28, I spoke with Sue Mencer, the Executive Director of
the new Office of State and Local Government Coordination and
Preparedness (SLGCP), about the merging of organizational units within
the Homeland Security Department. During our exchange I mentioned the
importance of the all-state minimum requirement and Ms. Mencer assured
me that the fiscal year 2005 DHS budget proposal would include the .75
percent all-state minimum.
You can imagine my surprise, then, when I read in the President's
budget proposal that the grants to States for addressing State and
local homeland security requirements and Citizen Corps activities and
law enforcement terrorism prevention grants would be allocated among
the states based on population concentrations, critical
infrastructures, and other significant terrorism risk factors. Not only
was I troubled to see that grants to States for addressing State and
local homeland security requirements and Citizen Corps activities and
law enforcement terrorism prevention grants had been cut by nearly $1
billion, but without the all-state minimum protection for smaller
states, there is no assurance of funding under these programs.
I wrote the all-state minimum formula to guarantee that each State
receives at least .75 percent of the national allotment to help meet
their national domestic security needs. I strongly believe that every
state--rural or urban, small or large--has basic domestic security
needs and deserves to receive Federal funds to meet those needs.
After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, we have worked
together to meet the needs of all State and local first responders from
both rural and urban areas. Now, however, it appears that the President
wants to shortchange rural states, rolling back the hard-won progress
we have begun to make in homeland security. Our fire, police and rescue
teams in each State in the Nation deserve support in achieving the new
homeland security responsibilities the Federal Government demands.
I ask that you support a budget supplement amendment to restore the
.75 percent minimum to the State Formula Grants Program. I look forward
to speaking and working further with you and my colleagues on this
matter.
Representatives of urban states have argued that Federal money to
fight terrorism is being sent to areas that do not need it and is
``wasted'' in small towns. They have called the formula highly
politicized and insisted on the redirection of funds to urban areas
that they believe face heightened threat of terrorist attacks.
What critics of the all-state minimum seem to forget, though, is
that since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the American people have
asked ALL State and local first responders to defend us as never before
on the front lines in the war against terrorism. Vermont's emergency
responders have the same responsibilities as those in any other State
to provide enhanced protection, preparedness and response against
terrorists. We must ensure that adequate support and resources are
provided for our police, fire and EMS services in every State if we
expect them to continue protecting us from terrorists or responding to
terrorist attacks, as well as carry out their routine responsibilities.
Most of the cuts to the formula-based and law enforcement
prevention grants were made to increase to $1.4 billion the
discretionary grants for use in 50 specific high-threat, high-density
urban areas. While I recognize that enhancing the security of those
urban areas represents a critical national priority, I cannot support
both a drastic reduction in the formula-based and law enforcement
prevention grants and a barring of small states' access to even a
portion of the more than $2.7 billion that the formula-based and law
enforcement prevention grants and Urban Area Security Initiative grants
would total.
Fostering divisions between states ignores the real problem: the
President has failed to make first responders a high enough priority.
We should be looking to increase the funds to our Nation's first
responders. Instead, we see the President proposing to cut overall
funding for our Nation's first responders by $800 million. These cuts
will affect each state, regardless of size or population.
The Hart-Rudman report on domestic preparedness argued that the
United States will fall approximately $98.4 billion short of meeting
critical emergency responder needs over the next 5 years if current
funding levels are maintained. Clearly, the domestic preparedness funds
available are still not enough to protect from, prepare for and respond
to future domestic terrorist attacks anywhere on American soil.
Senator Leahy. Governor Ridge, it is always good to have
you back here.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, thank you.
Senator Leahy. I have not flown into the Tom Ridge Airport,
but----
Secretary Ridge. You do not have that many flight options,
Senator. But----
Senator Leahy. Should you come to Burlington, Vermont, feel
free to stop by the Leahy Center.
PROPOSAL TO DROP THE ALL-STATE MINIMUM FORMULA FOR ALLOCATING STATE
HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FUNDS
Governor, I have to state that I really was disappointed
that the President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2005 drops
the all-state minimum formula. I authored that. They dropped it
from the State homeland security grant. And you probably do not
need reminding, but this says that each State will receive a
minimum three-quarters of 1 percent of those grants to help
support the first responders basic preparedness.
I thought I would bring this up because with the makeup of
this subcommittee, that would affect all but, I think, one or
two on this subcommittee. So it may be more than a passing
interest. But more than that, it would result in the loss of
millions of dollars in homeland security funding for fire,
police, rescue departments in small and medium-sized States. I
think it would create a crippling blow for their efforts to
build and sustain their terrorism preparedness.
And these small States, each have a particular need that
may be different. Some are like my State. They are a border
State. Others have major ports in them, may have natural--or
may have energy facilities important not just to their State
but to the rest of the country. And you and I have spoken about
how to fairly allocate domestic terrorism preparedness, funds
to our States and local communities. You have been very
forthcoming on that, as have your staff.
I thought we had agreed that fire, police, emergency
medical rescue teams in each State deserve support in carrying
out the new homeland security responsibilities that the Federal
Government demands of it. So I was surprised, knowing that on
the one hand these States are being required to carry out these
demands. You read that in the budget there will be allocated
among the States based on population concentrations, critical
infrastructures, and other significant terrorism risk factors,
as determined by you.
IMPACT ON RURAL STATES
I believe it means the administration wants to shortchange
rural States, wants to roll back the hard-won progress we have
begun to make in homeland security by slashing the protections
in the all-state minimum. Now I am strongly committed to the
critical national priority of enhancing urban areas. I have
supported legislation, especially some of the particularly
targeted urban areas where we are today in New York City and
elsewhere.
But I cannot go and tell rural areas that, sorry, you are
not big enough to have to worry, even though, if I was planning
a terrorism attack, I would know that, for example, attacking
the Tom Ridge Airport is going to get as much international
coverage as attacking JFK or LAX, because it is a United States
airport within our boundaries.
So would you agree that homeland security is a national
responsibility shared by all 50 of the States regardless of
their size?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, yes. I think one of the
challenges for the Department of Homeland Security is to
integrate the capacity we have within our States and local
communities, match it up with the Federal effort to combat
terrorism. So there is a shared fiscal responsibility. There is
a shared operational responsibility. It is a national plan, not
just a Federal one.
Senator Leahy. But then in these States they have to do a
certain amount of minimum--I do not know whether it was the
State of Idaho or West Virginia, Vermont. There is only one
State smaller than Vermont in population, Wyoming. But whatever
the State is, they have to do a certain amount of minimum
preparation, communications. Whether it is in a State of half a
million or four million, they have to do certain basic things.
You have to have basic ideas for planning, for response
equipment, fire, police, and so forth.
SUPPORT OF FUNDING TO RESTORE THE THREE-QUARTERS OF 1 PERCENT MINIMUM
TO THE STATE FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAM
So if you accept the fact that there are certain minimum
things that have to be done wherever we are, would you support
a budget supplement amendment to restore the three-quarters of
1 percent minimum to the State formula grants program, which
include the State homeland security grant program, the Citizen
Corps, and the law enforcement terrorism prevention grants
program?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I would much prefer the approach
as embodied in the President's budget, that as we take a look
at the dollars that have historically been allocated to States
Strictly on a formula, that the Secretary be given the
flexibility, understanding that he has just testified now and
believes that there ought to be some minimum that goes to every
State and territory.
Senator Leahy. What is that minimum?
Secretary Ridge. We would certainly have to sit down and--
--
Senator Leahy. I mean, it is .75 now. Is that too much? Too
little?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, frankly, I would like to take a
look at all of the statewide plans that the Governors have
submitted to us and make that determination. And we certainly
cannot deal with this privately. I will have to be engaged with
you and your colleagues here, because I am mindful that there
are basic infrastructure needs in all 50 States and
territories. But the language that we have submitted in this
document would give the Department some flexibility based on
needs, not just on population.
Senator Leahy. I understand. But on that flexibility, you
have to understand that a lot of smaller States and rural areas
are concerned because, one, it shows there is no guarantee that
they will get anything. And secondly, when the President had
proposed an $805 million cut in funds for the Office of
Domestic Preparedness, those are programs that directly benefit
the police, fire and medical rescue units, you put that
together with the fact of this safety net for smaller States is
gone, at the same time of an 18.4 percent cut in funds for the
Office of Domestic Preparedness, $805 million is there.
You have the Hart-Rudman Terrorism Task Force report saying
that we are going to almost $100 billion short of meeting
critical emergency responder needs through this decade's end,
if these current fundings are going on. You know, if I am a
Governor--and you have been a Governor; I have not--if I am a
Governor, I am going to be asking how is my State first
responders going to be able to fulfill the mandates coming from
Washington when the President is proposing to decrease, not
expand, but decrease the money, expand the amount that is
required.
I mean, every time we go up to orange alert or whatever,
the requirements go up. Every time there is even a regional
threat, the requirements go up.
What is being asked of these State and local groups goes up
all the time, but the money is going down. And even the
guarantee of what money was there within the budget is now
gone. If you were a Governor of one those States, you would be
kind of worried.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, first of all, I would say to you
that the President's commitment in the 2005 budget to first
responders' dollar amount in terms of the budget proposal is as
strong as it was in 2004. The difference that we are talking
about are the additional funds that Congress added to the
President's request. So I think we need to understand that the
President----
Senator Leahy. Well, not really, if I might.
Secretary Ridge. Well----
FIRST RESPONDER FUNDING
Senator Leahy. This fiscal year, Congress appropriated $4.2
billion for first responders and homeland security needs. We
are a lot more alert since then, but the administration has
proposed a $3.5 billion package for fiscal year 2005 that cuts
the Fire Act and grants programs to State and local areas. And
you have put that along with the President's opposition to
using Federal dollars to hire fire and rescue, even though we
know what that was like on September 11 at the World Trade
towers or over here at the Pentagon.
No, I do not say that you could say the commitment is still
there. The cuts are there; the commitment is not.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, we arrive at differing
conclusions based on the same figures. Maybe that is the
trouble with the new math.
Senator Leahy. Oh, the figures are less.
Secretary Ridge. If I recall correctly, and I will stand
corrected, Senator, but by and large, if you take a look at the
request in 2004 for the fire grants and admittedly, we have
shifted some money from one pool, the State direct funding
grant, to the urban area security initiative, but by and large
the President's request is close to what it was in 2004. The
Congress added additional money. And I think that is what you
are referring to as a cut. But the President's commitment, in
terms of his budget request, is nearly the same as it was in
2004.
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. I will submit further questions,
if I might, for the record. And I applaud you for holding this
hearing. I think it is going to be a subject of more than a
little discussion in this committee.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Secretary Ridge. Yes, it is.
Senator Cochran. Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CANCELLED INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS
Secretary Ridge, I would like to return to the question of
those canceled flights----
Secretary Ridge. Yes, sir.
Senator Kohl [continuing]. Of which I believe there were 13
from France, Britain, and Mexico. In one case, British Airways
flight 223, as you know, was canceled four times. Evidently,
this was done because of specific information that our
intelligence community obtained about potential threats on
board these flights.
Common sense would suggest that when we have detailed
information about a particular flight, then heightened
screening measures could ensure that no dangerous instruments
be taken on board these flights which might allow individuals
to hijack. Was cancellation the only option?
Secretary Ridge. As we discussed the threat with the
airlines, and it was an ongoing discussion through that entire
period, it turned out from everyone's point of view to be the
best option.
Senator Kohl. Does this imply that screening procedures in
other countries are inadequate?
Secretary Ridge. Well, since that time, and even prior to
that time, Great Britain and to that extent France have
significantly, I do not want to say improved, because they had
a high level of screening to start with. But it is far more
intense than it has ever been.
But there was some concern in the public discussion, about
our preference to use air marshals. And that those kinds of
requests need to be vetted. We use thousands of them. Other
countries do not provide that kind of security in such a robust
or comprehensive fashion that we do.
So again, as we explored options to deal with the threat,
it was decided by the airlines, they thought their best option
was to cancel the flights. And we agreed with them.
Senator Kohl. Well, what kind of security can be
instituted, for example, to protect against biological or
chemical kinds of threats on an aircraft?
Secretary Ridge. Well, you highlight from my perspective,
Senator, probably one of the most effective. And that is far
more rigorous and intense screening. And I think under the
circumstances that was certainly an option that they were
prepared to consider.
I think in time, as we develop the technology of detection
and put it aboard different modes of transportation, that will
ultimately advise us that an attack has occurred, but will
obviously not have given us the capacity to prevent the attack.
And I think probably the most important focus that we should
have with regard to aviation security, mindful of the need to
identify weapons, but we should be more focused on the
individuals who might be carrying the weapons. I mean, that is
at the heart of the CAPS II Program that we want to use for
domestic aviation purposes.
TECHNOLOGY OF DETECTION
So additional screening, yes, I believe the international
standards, particularly among our allies in Europe. And they
have really ramped up their screening, but not everybody has
done that internationally. One of the first series of grants we
sent out through the department was to identify the technology
of detection that would enable us to--we would be advised that
an incident had occurred. And we would obviously have to
respond to it as quickly as possible. But it is still not to a
point where we can put it in any form of transportation.
And until such time, the most important thing for us to do,
while we continue to focus on weapons, continue to have people
go through metal detectors, continue to search through the
contents of the carry-on luggage, continue to screen the
luggage that goes in the hold, the most important focus should
be the individuals and the likelihood that they would be a
terrorist.
SCREENING FOR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS
Senator Kohl. You must know the answer to this question. Do
we have the capacity to screen for biological weapons?
Secretary Ridge. We do not have the technology yet
available to do that. We are looking for it. Right now----
Senator Kohl. So that--not necessarily in the case of those
canceled flights, but generally speaking, when it comes to
biological weapons, it then becomes a determination as to
whether or not the individual----
Secretary Ridge. Correct.
Senator Kohl [continuing]. Is somebody that might be
suspected or capable of taking a biological weapon on a plane.
And that might cause a cancellation----
Secretary Ridge. Correct.
Senator Kohl [continuing]. Not the screening, because we do
not have that capacity right now.
Secretary Ridge. Correct. It is a high priority for the
Department in terms of its research and development. But right
now, we have to rely on individual screeners. And we have
certainly, since the Department has been created, discovered
from interrogation of detainees, training manuals, and other
sources, means of, potential means of, delivery of those kinds
of weapons or ingredients. The screeners are aware of them. But
it still comes down to the capacity of the screener to, again,
funnel that information, take a look at what is being carried
on or what is located in the suitcase and make a determination
that it needs to be pulled out and examined. And we do not have
the technology to assist the screener yet.
Senator Kohl. Okay. Do I have time for one more question?
Senator Cochran. The Senator does have time for one more
question, yes.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS
Secretary Ridge, initially we were told that all September
11 hijackers entered the country legally, many of them on
student visas, then disappeared into the shadows of our society
to avoid detection. But now the independent commission is
telling us that many of the hijackers could have, or probably
should have, been stopped at the border prior to entering.
It turns out that a number of the hijackers had fraudulent
visas or lied on their applications. Apparently, immigration
inspectors, whether it was because of insufficient resources or
training, lacked the ability to catch these terrorists before
they entered the country. Recognizing that there is a problem
here, what is being done to train our INS inspectors to enable
them to spot fraudulent and deficient visas in order to stop
potential terrorists at the border?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, you raise a very significant
problem in the international community generally. That is one
of fraudulent documents, whether they are using them to verify
their existence here in the United States with fraudulent
social security cards or driver's licenses or whether they are
using them to come across our borders with visas and passports.
Number one, there is, I think, very significant training
that has been required and provided to the men and women at our
ports of entry. Number two, the Congress has told us that we
need an entry-exit system so we can mark the arrival, as well
as the departure of people coming into the country. That is
part of the US VISIT protocol, where, by using facial
identification and fingerprint scans, we have already reviewed
about a million people coming into the country, and we have
sent over 100 people back. We did not allow them to enter
because of information we had on the database; not necessarily
because they were terrorists, but because there were other--
basically, it was a criminal reference.
That same kind of identification protocol will be employed
in consular offices by the end of this year, the photographs
and the fingerprint scans, so at least we can make sure that
the folks that receive the passport are the ones who are
checking in with the passport when they try to come into the
country. So you take that, you couple it with additional
training to look for fraudulent passports, we have
substantially improved that capacity. But we have to be forever
vigilant.
I must tell you that on a fairly regular basis, Senator--
and I get a daily report from Customs and Border Protection. We
have, on a fairly regular basis, these very, very dedicated men
and women at the border turn folks away because of the
fraudulent nature of their visa or their passport. They do not
pretend to say that they catch them all. But their antenna is
up, and they are as sharp as we want them to be. We continue to
give them information as to what to look for.
You know, from time to time, we discover that other
countries have had passports stolen. We work with those
countries to get identifying characteristics on those
passports. That information is pushed down to the ports of
entry.
So again, it is a continuing process of education,
vigilance. I think the US VISIT Program is going to help us
quite a bit, as well.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
And Mr. Chairman, I will submit my questions for the
record.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Kohl.
Senator Craig.
IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, on a variety of questions, I
will submit them for the record so the Secretary can respond. I
want to focus just in one area.
And I apologize, Secretary, for being late for your
testimony. But during the questioning, I have had an
opportunity to read it, and I appreciate it.
Let me focus only on one area now and that is the issue of
immigration and securing our borders. And I am very pleased
that our President is now leading on that issue as it relates
to an undocumented workforce in this country. I say that
because my State and many States across the Nation need that
workforce.
Without question, there is a need in our economy for six or
eight million foreign nationals to be here working and
receiving good pay and doing services that our own citizens
choose not to. So it is so important that we make this system
work.
I think one of the unknown consequences of border security
post 9/11, while we were intending to lock people out, we
locked a lot of people in who were moving back and forth across
our borders, providing services, going home to their loved
ones, and because of now the toughness at the border, choosing
to stay in because they cannot, once get out, come back. And in
my State of Idaho, at the peak of the agricultural season, we
may have anywhere from 19,000 to 20,000 undocumented. I have
some legislation in that area now that we are working on.
UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS
But here is what I have found and where my question takes
me today in dealing with local law enforcement and undocumented
workers. I see you are going to hire some more agents. Well, we
have gone from 3,000 to 10,000 at the border. And we have begun
to stem the tide of an undocumented workforce. We arrested over
800,000 last year and deported them, and there are millions
within the country. Why? Because of what is here for them to do
and to make money and to go home to their loved ones, if they
can, or to stay here.
In one county of mine, the county sheriff tells me that he
arrested or apprehended over 1,200 undocumented workers. That
was borne by county taxpayer expense. They were jailed at
county taxpayer expense. Let me suggest to you that it is my
experience, in having focused on this issue for the last 5
years, that the National Immigration Service and now the new
service is relatively inadequate in being able to effectively
find undocumented workers. But I know who does, local law
enforcement.
Now I would suggest to you that you review your idea of
hiring more agents and you concentrate on cooperative
partnerships with local law enforcement, maybe with some
assisted training. As it relates to their normal course of law
enforcement, they are the ones who find, in most instances, the
undocumented workers or the undocumented foreign nationals in
this country. And some may be certainly people of bad
reputation. Others are simply here to work.
Also, I would suggest, and you just got into the business
of talking about fraudulent documentation. And I understand
here you talk about providing certain deterrents to the
employers as an incentive to maintain a legal workforce. That
is legitimate when the documentation is legitimate.
But to find a person whose livelihood would be destroyed
because they cannot find the work and they hire foreign
nationals who have documentation to do their work, to harvest
the food that goes onto the shelves of America, and then to put
them at risk because they accepted the documents that were
available, you see where I am going, it becomes the ultimate
catch-22.
And so I am proud of what the President is doing. I know it
is highly controversial. I happen to disagree a little bit on
the fine points of the issue. But he has been willing to step
up and address the issue, the 8 to 12 million undocumented that
we have in this country and the laxness and the slackness that
we have had at our borders for decades.
But having said that, reform is at hand. And you are
leading that. And I greatly appreciate it. But I would suggest
that if the answer is simply to hire more Federal agents, why?
The biggest thing that I have been frustrated with over the
years is that when you had drug apprehension or all of those
other kinds of things, and every agency developed its own
police force--and out in my State, the Forest Service, they had
to have law enforcement. BLM had to have law enforcement.
COOPERATIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH LOCAL ACCOUNTABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT
Well, I know what they used to do. They used to develop
cooperative law enforcement agreements with local accountable
law enforcement. And that is where the rubber really hits the
road on a daily basis. And I think that it is not only cost
effective, but with right and reasonable training, it can be
phenomenally responsive for a lot less cost.
That is an observation. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
But I would ask you, Mr. Secretary, to take a comprehensive
look at that. We have some legislation moving now. I would lots
rather see you take the initiative now and begin to get it on
the ground, because our counties are experiencing a lot of
costs in those hot areas of high intensity undocumented
workers. And often, it is they who pick up the phone and call
the INS and tell them: Hey, here are your people. Come get
them.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Senator. I would look forward
to having that, continuing this discussion privately, because
however this plan evolves, it will only be effective if the
right level of resources are given to the right people in order
to enforce it. And our limited experience with collaboration
with the States, in terms of apprehension and detention of
illegal aliens, has been mixed. Some States are willing to do
it; other are not.
Part of the reason may be philosophical. Others may be
fiscal. Either way, you have 650,000 men and women in local law
enforcement that should be viewed as a potential asset and
resource in enforcing the new law, whatever it might be.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
COAST GUARD OFFSHORE PATROL CUTTERS
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Craig.
Mr. Secretary, one of the responsibilities that the
department has is the United States Coast Guard operations,
particularly for patrolling our coasts and ports, contributing
to our security of the homeland in that way. The budget request
includes $26.2 million to support the operation of five patrol
coastal cutters that are being transferred to the Coast Guard
from the Navy. My question is whether your office, and you
personally, have information that will let us know what the
time frame is for the Coast Guard receiving these patrol
coastal cutters from the Navy and whether there is funding that
is sufficient in this budget request to convert the Coast Guard
cutters into mission-capable boats for the operation of the
missions that are required.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I believe that the deployment
decision with regard to those five vessels should be
forthcoming in the next month or two. I know that they are
looking at two. They are looking to just narrow the gaps in
existing coverage. I know one of the venues they are looking at
is in Mississippi. I dare not speak for the Commandant. But
there is an interest in distributing those five cutters in two
different ports.
They certainly are going to maintain their capability. I
think we have sufficient resources once they are deployed to
use them effectively. But the decision as to when and where
they will be deployed, I believe, is in the next 4 to 6 weeks.
ALTERATION OF BRIDGES
Senator Cochran. One of the other counts in the Coast
Guard's budget request of interest to some of us is in the
funding for alteration of bridges. There is no funding in this
budget request that would permit the Coast Guard to carry out
its responsibility of removing obstructions to commerce on
navigable waters. There is a backlog of work that needs to be
done to help ensure the safe navigation of rivers and ports. It
is my hope that your office will take a look at that and let us
know what funding may be useful to the Coast Guard to continue
certain bridge projects that are already under way but which
are not fully funded in this budget request.
It forces this committee to add funds to help ensure the
navigability of waters of the United States. So it is something
that has to be done, it seems to me. And working with your
office or with the Coast Guard, getting some indication of what
that funding level ought to be would be very helpful to us.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, we will certainly acknowledge
your inquiry and get back to you as quickly as possible. I do
not know what the Coast Guard's plans are to continue to remove
these navigational obstructions or to make those kinds of
adjustments in ports. I need to get back to you in response.
[The information follows:]
Alteration of Bridges
The Coast Guard's Alteration of Bridges request is zero in fiscal
year 2005, because obstructive highway and combination railroad/highway
bridges are eligible for funding from the Federal Highway
Administration's Federal-Aid Highway program. It is estimated that a
total of $15.1 million is needed to complete the three Truman-Hobbs
bridge alteration projects actively under construction: the Florida
Avenue Bridge in New Orleans, Louisiana; the Sidney Lanier Bridge in
Brunswick, Georgia; and, the Limehouse Bridge, in Charleston County,
South Carolina. All three of these bridges are highway bridges. In
addition, there are five bridge projects with completed designs for
alteration: the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Bridge in Burlington,
Iowa; the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Bridge in Fort Madison, Iowa;
the Chelsea Street Bridge in Boston, Massachusetts; the EJ&E Bridge in
Divine, Illinois; and, the CSXT (14 Mile) Bridge in Mobile, Alabama.
NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN
Senator Cochran. Okay. The Secret Service, as we know, has
responsibility for monitoring counterfeiting and investigating
counterfeiting of our currency. It has the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children, as well. The budget transfers
funding for the national center from the Secret Service budget
to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The
question I have is: We want to be sure this does not hinder the
Service's ability to provide support for the center.
If we could have an indication that the funds that are
being transferred will support the Secret Service's mission,
that would be helpful.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I feel confident in telling you
that the transfer of the responsibility to ICE was done in
consultation with the Secret Service. It has been at the hub of
their new initiative called Operation Predator. And we will
give you the confirmation that you seek in writing.
[The information follows:]
Grant Funding for the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children
The President's budget proposes that the funding for a $5,000,000
grant for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
(NMEC), which in fiscal year 2004 is funded in the U.S. Secret
Service's appropriation, be placed in fiscal year 2005 in an
appropriation to U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement. In fiscal
year 2004 this grant will be made available by the U.S. Secret Service
to the NMEC for activities related to the investigations of exploited
children. Transfer of this grant funding to the ICE does not affect the
Service's support for the Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
The Service will continue to provide forensic and other related support
to the NCMEC.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS
Mr. Secretary, you indicated earlier that you are not
prepared to give us estimates on the cost of the implementation
of the President's principals on amnesty for illegal aliens.
Are you in a position to have some indication of how many more
agents would be transferred from security and enforcement to
carry out the President's plan?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I do not at this time. Your
colleague, Senator Craig, suggested in a colloquy that we just
had, however, that we might want to consider, whenever that
plan is enacted, the use of State and locals and support them
in that effort rather than additional enforcement officers at
the Federal level. I suspect it will end up being some measure
of both. Because whenever the initiative is passed, enforcement
is a critical piece of it. But we just cannot give you those
specific numbers of either people or money at the present time,
Senator.
Senator Byrd. I believe you indicated, in response to an
earlier question, that you did not anticipate any supplemental
requests from the department.
Secretary Ridge. At the present time, Senator, we do not.
Senator Byrd. So, how does this play into the amnesty
proposal, if we do not anticipate any supplemental? If we do
expect any legislation on the President's proposal, what do you
think might be the situation with regard to a supplemental?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, first of all, I was here back in,
I think it was, 1985 or 1986 as a Member of Congress when we
went through this issue before. And as you and I are well
aware, back then amnesty and those folks were able to just
assume, I think, a different position even in terms of their
own citizenship. There is a little bit difference, there is a
significant difference, between what the President wants to do
in this program and what we did in the past.
But in any event, we are going to need substantial
resources to enforce it. And I am still not in a position,
Senator, until we better understand Congress' will and the
requirements or mandates that you may impose on the department,
what the final dollar amount will be.
CAPPS II
Senator Byrd. The department has been making preparations
to implement CAPPS II, a new information system for screening
airline passengers to determine if a passenger is a security
risk prior to their boarding an aircraft. Based on our staff
discussions with the department on the status of CAPPS II, we
have very real concerns that the department has not made
sufficient progress in meeting their criteria and addressing
concerns that we all have.
What are your plans for this system? How do you believe
that you have met the requirements of the law for deployment of
this important system?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, first of all, I would welcome,
either by letter or personal conversation with you or your
staff the specific concerns that you have with the CAPPS II
program. Secondly, it is our intention, Senator, to test, to
begin testing the program sometime later this year. There have
been some delays associated with the testing, as we have dealt
with some of the privacy issues associated with the use of
name, address, date of birth, and other passenger name records
that we would use as part of the database to get the program
off and running.
We have reached agreement with the European Union that we
can use their passenger name records as part of our testing
protocol. And we are trying to allay the legitimate concerns of
members of Congress and the public generally that the
information at our disposal will be for a very specific and
very limited use. And it will enable us to target potential
terrorists on the other side and enable us, we think, probably
to reduce the amount of secondary screening and reduce the
inconvenience and the delays at our commercial airports.
So I do not know the specific objections you have raised.
One of the insertions into the Homeland Security Act from
Congress was the insistence that we have a privacy officer. And
Attorney O'Connor and her staff have been working on these
privacy issues, working with me to convince the European Union
that the information would be for a very limited and restricted
use. And we need to convince members of Congress and the
traveling public that it will be for a limited and restricted
use, as well.
Senator Byrd. Our concerns are detailed in the fiscal year
2004 Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Our concerns are
that the department has not yet addressed the requirements of
the law.
Secretary Ridge. Well, part of it may be our need to--we
may have a difference of opinion on this, Senator. We certainly
would look to secure bipartisan support for this test so that
we could add an additional layer of protection to passenger
travel. We have spent enormous sums of money, and very
appropriately so, when we targeted commercial aviation, toward
detecting weapons.
And while I think we need to maintain our focus on weapons,
I think ultimately, as we combat terrorism, the primary focus
should be on those who might carry the weapons, trying to
identify the terrorist or potential terrorist rather than the
weapon that he or she may be carrying. And I think the CAPPS II
program gives us an opportunity in part to do just that.
OVERDUE CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS
Senator Byrd. In the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security
Appropriations Act and associated reports, the Congress
directed the department to report to the committee on important
issues ranging from the protection of critical infrastructure,
hiring issues surrounding intelligence analysts and
cybersecurity specialists, developing an inventory of the
research and development work being done by department elements
other than the Office of Science and Technology, and in
preparing a report on the effectiveness of the homeland
security advisory system, including efforts to tailor the
system so that alerts are raised on a regional rather than
national basis.
To date, the department has delivered only 14 percent of
the mandated reports. It seems that for an issue as sensitive
as the security of our homeland, the Department would want to
have an informed Congress as an active participant in the
policy process. Is it your view that this committee should
expect these reports to come along soon?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I certainly hope so. To put it in
context for you, Senator, we have sent quite a few up. But GAO
alone, GAO alone has asked the department to submit information
for 420 reports. That is in addition to probably 2,500
congressional inquiries. That is in addition to a lot of the
other work that we are doing to try to keep, as you very
appropriately point out, to keep our colleagues in this effort,
because we are partners in building this department, keep
everybody informed.
While I regret the delay, and I am trying to explain it,
not excuse it, but we are doing our very best we can to get to
GAO and to the members the information they have requested. And
we will do everything we can to expedite it for you, Senator.
Senator Byrd. Well, I hope you will do that. The GAO, as
you well know, is an arm of the Congress. I am sure that the
information that the GAO is seeking is of great importance to
the Congress. We just do not act as a rubberstamp for the
administration. We hope to be a partner in the effort.
Secretary Ridge. Well, Senator, we respect the inquiry. As
I said before, we fully intend to comply. It is just some of
these reports require hundreds and hundreds of man hours to get
the information and get it back to you. And we will do our best
to expedite it.
Senator Byrd. Do I have time for another question?
Senator Cochran. Yes, sir.
PLAN FOR ADJOURNMENT
Senator Byrd. Incidently, what is the Chairman's plan as to
proceeding further and whether or not we will have another
opportunity to have Secretary Ridge before us?
Senator Cochran. Senator Byrd, our plan was to adjourn the
hearing at 12:30 today. We were going to have hearings with
other under secretaries and others who have jurisdictional
responsibilities in the department. If there are other
questions that need to be submitted, we have an opportunity to
submit them in writing. But I have not discussed with the
Secretary another hearing with him personally, but we would be
glad to do that, if that is your request.
Senator Byrd. Very well. I hope we might at least think in
terms of possibly hearing the Secretary again, if there needs
to be. I understand that we will have other opportunities with
other witnesses. And so, the questions that we have in mind may
be asked and answered there.
Incidently, Governor, in an earlier conversation relative
to the title of governor, do you remember?
Secretary Ridge. Yes, sir. Yes, I do.
Senator Byrd. Well, my history taught me that in the
colonies and in the States, the people did not think too much
of their governors. Is that your recollection?
Secretary Ridge. No, it is not, sir.
Senator Byrd. I think you might fail a history test. Maybe
you should go back and review that a little bit.
Secretary Ridge. I will, Senator.
Senator Byrd. They did not have much use for the royal
governors. Do you remember?
Secretary Ridge. Yes, sir, I do.
Senator Byrd. They were much more dependent upon and
confident in their elected assemblies than they were of their
governors. Pennsylvania was one of those early States, I
believe, too. I believe it was one of the 13, was it not?
Secretary Ridge. It was the second State, Senator.
Senator Byrd. All right. Well, I just have one more
question, Mr. Chairman.
FIRST RESPONDERS
Others have touched upon this. Local police, firefighters
and emergency medical teams are a community's first line of
defense. But they seem to be almost the last priority for the
President in his budget. Now others have touched upon this,
which indicates that there is a widespread concern with respect
to the first responders, and the fact is that trickle-down
theory that we have heard so much about in many other respects
is not working too well in this situation.
Cuts come despite continued warnings, cuts in these local
responders' budgets. From think tanks, commissions, and from
first responders themselves come these warnings, that our
Nation is not adequately prepared to respond to another act of
terrorism. How do you justify these cuts?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, if I could put the predictable
and, I think, understandable attention that you and all of
Congress and first responders put on the notion of additional
money to support their mission. If Congress sees fit to, at the
minimum, appropriate to first responders the dollars requested
in the 2005 budget, this Administration and this Congress will
have made available to State and local first responders nearly
$15 billion over the past 3 years. This year's grant fire grant
is $2 billion. It has been delivered directly to firefighters.
The President's budget this year, as I mentioned to Senator
Leahy, is a total amount very nearly identical to the amount of
money the President requested back in 2004. Obviously, the
Senate and the House chose to rearrange the priorities, which
is certainly their prerogative because you do have that power
of the purse, and actually gave to the first responders more
money than was requested.
But I do think that the President's commitment has been
strong. And it has been consistent throughout the years. This
year we are altering or seek congressional support of altering
how those dollars are distributed. But I would say to the
Senator that the President's commitment has been consistent and
across the board to support the first responders at a very
significant level of funding.
Senator Byrd. There are billions of dollars, as you would
agree, in the pipeline for first responders that have not been
spent. We continue to hear complaints that come up from these
people who were the first on the scene. That is why we have put
the strict time lines on the Office for Domestic Preparedness
and on the states to get the money to the first responders
where it is needed. I hope that we will do a better job of
getting the monies to these first responders.
FUNDING FOR FIRE DEPARTMENTS
The fact is, according to FEMA, only 13 percent of fire
departments have the equipment and training to handle an
incident involving chemical or biological agents. Fire
departments have only enough radios to equip half the
firefighters on a shift and breathing apparatuses for only one-
third. How do we justify a 33-percent cut to fire grants?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, two parts to your question. You
are absolutely right, Senator. The Congress mandated that the
Department of Homeland Security be prepared to distribute the
dollars you appropriated within a time certain. We are prepared
to do that. I think it was a 45-day period. We are ready to do
that.
Where we need to take a leadership role, and we would
rather not mandate it, I would rather work with the Governors
and the mayors to come up with a distribution scheme that
everybody is comfortable with. Right now, the distribution of
these proceeds varies from State to State, Senator. We are
ready to send the checks out. Most of the logjam is in the
collaboration between the cities and the States and their
applying for the money.
We will take it upon ourselves in this department to try to
work with our partners, because they are partners in this
effort, to see if we can come up with a distribution scheme so
that when we hit that time table to distribute the dollars, I
am confident Congress will also mandate that in the 2005
budget, that we can get them out quicker to the first
responders.
It is not your Department of Homeland Security. We are
ready to distribute. But the logjam really is in the
communication and collaboration at the State and local level. I
do not mean to repeat myself. I apologize. But I had planned on
meeting with the Governors, when they are in town in about 2
weeks, to address this question specifically. It is out there.
We still have a few dollars left from 2002, more than half the
dollars, I think, left from 2003. We have to get this money out
the door.
PROCUREMENT POLICY ISSUES
Part of it, I think, is tied up in procurement policies,
Senator. By the way, West Virginia, when I visited your first
responders down there, have taken a regional approach toward
building capacity around their States, so that not every
community has the same thing. But within regions, they have
built the same capacity. And that is obviously an approach that
I think is the right way to go. I cannot tell you whether or
not they have any problems with distributing the dollars. I
suspect that they are not. But they have taken a regional
approach. And we want to see if that could be part of the
answer to breaking the logjam to getting these dollars to our
first responders.
URGENCY TO GET FUNDS TO FIRST RESPONDERS
Senator Byrd. Well, I thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, you recall that we had hearings in this
committee last year, the year before. Every time, we have these
hearings and, in the meantime, we hear from these first
responders that the money that Congress appropriates seems to
be taking an awfully long time to get to them. They have taken
the position all along that they need the money. They need to
find a way to get it directly to them without all of the
trickle-down apparatuses that are in between and which have a
way of slowing down the delivery of these funds that Congress
takes a very great interest in bringing to the attention and
into the hands of these responders.
I am glad that there seems to be a greater sense of
urgency, as I listen to the Secretary. I hope that that will
carry through and that these people at the local level who are
the first people to respond will see the results of this
greater sense of urgency.
I hope, Mr. Secretary, that you will continue to press to
get this money out the door and to these people who are on the
job. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Senator.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Byrd.
Mr. Secretary, we appreciate your cooperation with our
subcommittee. Senators may submit written questions to you, and
we ask you to respond to them within a reasonable time.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISORY SYSTEM
Question. The Homeland Security Advisory System has evolved from a
nationwide threat level status to more specific targeted areas since
the latest threat level decrease in January. While the threat level is
currently at an ``Elevated Condition'', which is declared when there is
a significant risk of a terror attack, our country's airports, aviation
industry, and specific high threat cities remain at the ``High
Condition'', the threat level that indicates a high risk of terrorist
attacks. This more targeted threat level status helps focus limited
resources on the most credible threat areas and at the same time allows
security personnel and first responders in other parts of the country
to ``stand down'' while remaining vigilant.
What further enhancements do you envision for the Homeland Security
Advisory System with the improvement of intelligence detailing specific
terrorist threats for certain metropolitan areas and specific sectors
of industry?
Answer. With each raising and lowering of the Homeland Security
Advisory System (HSAS), the Department of Homeland Security learns new
lessons and improves its notification process. As the system has
evolved, it has come to reflect the need for certain metropolitan areas
and/or specific areas of industry to be notified at different times or
at different levels than others. As such, DHS has become adept at
providing information to such specific audiences as states and sectors
through Homeland Security Information Bulletins and Advisories.
Additionally, Department officials speak personally with
representatives and officials of threatened states and industries, when
the need arises. This personal communication, along with the ability of
the system to allow DHS to communicate to certain areas what their
alert level should be embody the enhancements that have been
implemented thus far.
Question. What steps are being taken by the Department's
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate to
notify Congress and other key members of the Administration before a
change in the Homeland Security Advisory System threat condition is
announced publicly?
Answer. Key congressional members are notified telephonically when
a decision has been made to raise the threat level and, circumstances
permitting, before the public announcement is made. Members notified
are: the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House, the Majority leader,
Minority leader and President pro tem of the Senate, the Chair and
ranking member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security,
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and both House and Senate
Homeland Appropriations Subcommittees.
Due to the tight timeline typically surrounding the announcement of
alert level changes, the list of those personally notified in advance
is necessarily limited to Congressional leadership and leadership of
the committees of appropriations, and committees of overarching DHS
authorization. Normally the scheduling of these calls will involve
notification of key staff as well, but in those cases where it might
not, DHS Office of Legislative Affairs (OLA) will make telephonic and
e-mail notifications at the same time.
Notification includes the change, when it is expected to be
announced and the non-classified context in which the decision was
made. If a member cannot be reached, their most senior staff member
available is informed on their behalf. Notifications are made by Senior
DHS Officials, typically the Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary for
IAIP, and the Under Secretary for BTS. DHS callers may vary depending
on operational circumstances but calls will not fall below the
Assistant Secretary level. DHS, in concert with CIA and FBI will
schedule a classified, Members only intelligence briefing as soon as
possible after the announcement. If the change occurs when the Congress
is in recess, a similar briefing is provided to relevant staff
directors.
When the threat level is reduced, DHS OLA notifies key
congressional staff including staff of the Speaker and Minority Leader
of the House, the Majority leader, minority leader and President pro
tem of the Senate, the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Select
Committee on Homeland Security, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee
and both House and Senate Homeland Appropriations Subcommittees so that
they may, in turn, inform their members before a formal announcement is
made.
Despite these efforts at advance notice, the Department must in
each case make arrangements with the media prior to the Secretary's
announcement of the change in the threat level, in order to fulfill the
DHS responsibility to properly notify the public. As such, DHS is not
able to control media and public speculation regarding the nature of
DHS announcements up to the scheduled time of the press conference.
CYBER SECURITY
Question. The National Cyber Security Division as part of the
Department's Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
Directorate recently unveiled the National Cyber Alert System which
intends to deliver information to home computer users and technical
experts in business and government agencies to better secure their
computer systems from the latest computer viruses.
How would you rate the performance of the new National Cyber Alert
System's response to the most recent computer virus outbreaks,
including the ``MyDoom'' virus that affected not only computers
worldwide but also computers within the Federal Government?
Answer. I would rate the response to the National Cyber Alert
System as positive, but not good enough. On the first day of NCAS
launch, the Department's United States Computer Emergency Readiness
Team (US-CERT) was bombarded by more than one million hits from would-
be subscribers. More than 250,000 direct subscribers rely on the
National Cyber Alert System to maintain their cyber vigilance and an
additional estimated one million additional users receive national
cyber alerts and information products indirectly through relationships
with the Information Technology Association of America, various
industry associations, the Stay Safe Online program, and others.
NCAS is new and will continue to evolve and improve over time.
Importantly, the National Cyber Alert System is but a small portion of
the work being done within the Department's IAIP Directorate, both to
prevent incidents and in response to specific events in cyberspace. In
partnership with the Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination
Center (CERT-CC) at Carnegie Mellon University; my department works
with over 150 cyber security experts from across the Federal
Government; and collaborates with key elements from the Departments of
Justice, Defense, Treasury, Energy, and State; the FBI and the
Intelligence Community; and the private sector to prevent, respond to,
manage, and recover from cyber incidents.
Question. The Department's new initiative ``Live Wire'' will test
civilian agencies' security preparedness and contingency planning by
staging cyber attack exercises to evaluate the impact of widespread
computer disruptions. Recent instances, such as the power outages in
the Northeast this past August, are an example of how an attack on our
critical infrastructures, such as a cyber attack by terrorists on our
Nation's utility industry, could cascade across a wide region if the
proper precautions are not taken immediately.
Does the Department currently test the vulnerabilities of computer
systems in the government and private sector to simulate a terrorist
attack on the Nation's cyber infrastructure and if so, how will ``Live
Wire'' build upon any current program if funded?
Answer. Live Wire is the first of a series of cross-sector, cross-
discipline exercises that test the Nation's ability to respond to a
large-scale, coordinated cyber attack and allow the Department to learn
important lessons that improve our preparation for real emergencies. We
have hired outside experts to assist in our vulnerability analyses and
continue to work with the private sector Information Sharing and
Analysis Centers to augment our technical capabilities and knowledge.
We created the Cyber Interagency Incident Management Group (IIMG)
to promote interagency cooperation in advance of and during cyber
incidents and to assess cyber consequences flowing from an attack or
natural calamities. This activity is a direct outgrowth of the Live
Wire experience, where the need to establish a baseline of cyber
activities across the Federal Government and improve communication
channels were identified. Other cyber activities also stand to benefit
from exercises like Live Wire. To date, the Department has focused on
building the technical capability of the US-CERT and establishing the
National Cyber Alert System. We are also examining possible system-wide
impacts on critical infrastructures caused by cyber dependencies and
interconnectedness
BIOSURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
Question. The President's budget proposes to establish a National
BioSurveillance Group led by the Department of Homeland Security that
will include the Department of Health and Human Services and the
Department of Agriculture to create a national biosurveillance system
to help shape current and proposed disease surveillance systems and to
guide research and development of new technologies and capabilities.
How will the Department's Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection directorate lead the coordination of efforts with the
Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of
Agriculture to integrate biosurveillance data from across the country
in order to verify a chemical or biological terrorist attack?
Answer. As is directed in Homeland Security Presidential Directive/
HSPD-9, Defense of United States Agriculture and Food, the Department
of Homeland Security, through the Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate is currently leading
coordination efforts to integrate biosurveillance data across the
country. This involves the formation of an inter-agency working group.
The goal of this group is to identify and develop options available to
each agency, which will culminate in a report which outlines the
building of a biosurveillance program within IAIP and projects what
will be needed to develop and maintain a credible system. The working
group has been meeting weekly in an effort to present the report to the
Assistant Secretaries of Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection and the Under Secretary of IAIP in April. The draft report
will then be presented to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of DHS,
with the goal of having a finished report delivered to the President in
May of this year.
Question. Also, as part of this initiative, how will the
Department's Science and Technology Directorate expand its
environmental monitoring activities in the Nation's largest
metropolitan areas?
Answer. The Department's Science and Technology Directorate will
work with its BioWatch partners to expand the number of collectors in
the highest threat metropolitan areas. This expansion is based on
detailed modeling studies that determine the optimum number of
collectors for densely populated regions and a request from the cities
to provide additional collectors for their high priority facilities and
sites. The expansion will draw on small modifications to the current
BioWatch technology, in particular, the use of additional automation
and detection equipment to enable cost-effective analysis of the
significantly increased sample load. Plume modeling for a variety of
potential release scenarios and meteorological conditions will be used
to optimize the layout and the coverage of the ensemble of collectors
for each of the selected metropolitan areas. Localities will help
determine where additional collectors should be placed based on their
prioritized critical facilities needs (e.g., transit systems;
stadiums). In addition, each metropolitan area will be provided a small
number of collectors that they can deploy at special events as they
arise. A pilot study will be completed this spring and summer in New
York City to determine the best configuration options to consider for
deployment use in fiscal year 2005.
TERRORIST WATCH LIST
Question. Over the course of the last 2 years, the Administration
has been working towards a government-wide consolidation of terrorist
watchlist information. While the government-wide responsibility has
been given to another Department, there are still multiple watchlists
within the Department of Homeland Security.
Congress provided the Department with $10 million for watchlist
integration in this year's appropriation--what is the status of that
project?
Answer. DHS is a partner in the multi-agency Terrorist Screening
Center. The Terrorist Screening Center became operational in December
of 2003 and is now conducting 24 hour a day, 7 days per week
operations. It is the single coordination point for Terrorist
Encounters and thus enables a coordinated response for Federal, State,
and Local Law Enforcement. The TSC has received more than 1,000 calls
to date and has identified over 500 positive matches.
Question. How is the Department's watchlist being integrated with
other agencies watchlists at the Federal Bureau of Investigation's
Terrorist Screening Center?
Answer. TSC remains on schedule to bring the first version of its
consolidated Terrorist Screening Database online by the end of the
year. This database will be accessible to queries from Federal, State,
and local agencies for screening purposes and will provide immediate
responses to Federal border-screening and law-enforcement authorities.
Each parent organization of the individual watchlists provides
Assignees to the Terrorist Screening Center for real-time access to
TTIC and FBI databases. All new nomination and updates to existing
records are therefore performed at the TSC.
Question. Is it possible today for every law enforcement officer
and intelligence analyst at the Department of Homeland Security to
access one list of suspected terrorists?
Answer. Currently, DHS intelligence analysts continue to access
information utilizing the information provided by the TSC specific to
each individual list. However, as the preceding answer indicates, TSC
plans to consolidate these lists into a single database in the near
future.
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Question. Over 54 percent of the President's budget request for the
Transportation Security Administration for fiscal year 2005 is
dedicated for aviation passenger and baggage screeners pay, benefits,
training, and human resource services. At the same time, three major
grant programs currently administered by the Transportation Security
Administration dealing with trucking security, port security grants,
and Operation Safe Commerce are to be reorganized under the Office for
Domestic Preparedness pursuant to the Department's reorganization
authority. The fiscal year 2005 budget proposes to reduce or terminate
funding for these programs.
Will the Transportation Security Administration continue to have
responsibility for security over all sectors of transportation or will
aviation security continue to be the main focus of this agency?
Answer. The Border and Transportation Security Directorate of DHS,
in partnership with the Coast Guard, has jurisdiction over the security
of all modes of transportation and is charged with coordinating all
activities of the Department under the Homeland Security Act. The Coast
Guard and organizations within BTS either have primary or subsidiary
responsibilities in each transportation area. TSA clearly has a primary
transportation role within BTS, and this role does not change merely by
the transfer of grant distribution and management activities to ODP.
Question. What funding will be available for fiscal year 2005 to
increase security of railways, roadways, and all other modes of
transportation in light of the Administration's proposal to terminate
intercity bus and trucking grants?
Answer. The responsibility of securing our Nation's transportation
systems is a shared responsibility between government, local operators,
and private companies who profit from that system. The aviation system
is treated no differently, though understandably has received the most
Federal focus to date given the clear nature and level of the aviation
threat. We will continue to undertake transportation security programs
on a threat-based, risk management basis.
With respect to rail and mass transit specifically, DHS, DOT, and
other Federal agencies are working together to enhance rail and transit
security in partnership with the public and private entities that own
and operate the Nation's rail and transit systems. The DHS grant
program for improving rail and transit security in urban areas has
awarded or allocated over $115 million since May 2003. Additionally,
the Administration has requested $24 million for TSA to advance
security efforts in the maritime and surface transportation arenas. DHS
will conduct the following activities and initiatives to strengthen
security in surface modes:
--Implement a pilot program to test the new technologies and
screening concepts to evaluate the feasibility of screening
luggage and carry-on bags for explosives at rail stations and
aboard trains;
--Develop and implement a mass transit vulnerability self-assessment
tool;
--Continue the distribution of public security awareness material
(i.e., tip cards, pamphlets, and posters) for motorcoach,
school bus, passenger rail, and commuter rail employees;
--Increase passenger, rail employee, and local law enforcement
awareness through public awareness campaigns and security
personnel training;
--Ensure compliance with safety and security standards for commuter
and rail lines and better help identify gaps in the security
system in coordination with DOT, with additional technical
assistance and training provided by TSA;
--Continue to work with industry and State and local authorities to
establish baseline security measures based on current industry
best practices and with modal administrations within the DOT as
well as governmental and industry stakeholders, to establish
best practices, develop security plans, assess security
vulnerabilities, and identify needed security enhancements; and
--Study hazardous materials (HAZMAT) security threats and identify
best practices for transport of HAZMAT.
Question. How will the Transportation Security Administration
coordinate with the Office for Domestic Preparedness on the grant
programs (trucking security, port security grants, intercity bus
grants, and Operation Safe Commerce) that will be moved from TSA
pursuant to the reorganization?
Answer. It is anticipated that TSA, other BTS organizations with
transportation security responsibilities and the Coast Guard will
continue to provide the necessary operational expertise for the grant
programs through participation in pre-award management functions. These
functions include determination of eligibility and evaluation criteria,
solicitation and application review procedures, selection
recommendations and post award technical monitoring.
These organizations will also continue to leverage existing
transportation expertise by working with industry stakeholders and DOT
modal administrations to ensure that Federal security grants facilitate
the seamless integration of security planning activities by industry
stakeholders and governmental stakeholders at the regional, state, and
local levels.
Question. Congress provided $85 million for the Transportation
Security Administration for fiscal year 2004 to provide additional
screeners to inspect air cargo and also for the research and
development of explosive detection systems in order to perform
screening of the larger palletized, bulk air cargo.
With the increase in funding provided, how many additional
screeners have been hired to inspect air cargo to date and when do you
expect to be fully staffed?
Answer. The funding provided in the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-90) enabled TSA to hire 100
new cargo inspectors. All 100 cargo inspector positions have been
selected, and paperwork is being processed by TSA Human Resources. We
anticipate extending job offers to these applicants and bringing them
on board within the next 2 months.
Question. What enhancements are being made to the current Known
Shipper program to guarantee the safety of air cargo?
Answer. Since 9/11, significant enhancements have been made to the
known shipper program. The Known Shipper Program was started in 1996 at
FAA with the development and implementation of comprehensive known
shipper requirements. The current requirements for new shippers
applying for known shipper status have been strengthened. In addition,
the authenticity of established known shippers has been verified as
meeting the new requirements. In order to substantiate the legitimacy
of known shippers further, air carriers have been required to conduct
site visits of known shippers' facilities. Additionally, TSA is
currently developing a Known Shipper Database, which will allow TSA to
vet applicants to the program more thoroughly for legitimacy by
comparing data submitted by applicants against terrorist watch lists,
other government data bases, and other publicly available information.
Eventually, TSA's Known Shipper Database will be one part of a larger
freight assessment database intended to target high risk cargo
shipments for additional screening.
Question. Would it currently be feasible to inspect 100 percent of
all air cargo being placed on aircraft, as proposed by some in
Congress, and, in your opinion, how do you feel the flow of commerce
would be affected if air cargo was restricted from being placed on
aircraft unless 100 percent inspection of air cargo took place?
Answer. Not only is 100 percent physical inspection infeasible, it
is not desirable. The sheer volume of air cargo transported in the
United States renders the inspection of all air cargo infeasible
without a significant negative impact on the operating capabilities of
the entire transportation infrastructure of the United States and the
national economy. Anything more than a targeted, focused physical
inspection protocol on high risk cargo for the long term risks homeland
security resources and critical management focus on known security
risks. The DHS goal is to ensure that all cargo is screened to
determine risk and that 100 percent of high-risk cargo is inspected.
TSA is aggressively pursuing next-generation technological solutions
that will allow us to enhance security for air cargo. Meanwhile, TSA is
taking steps to implement measures outlined in the Air Cargo Strategic
Plan and is doing everything possible to ensure that cargo going on
planes is secure, including the requirement that all cargo transported
on passenger aircraft originate from a known shipper.
Question.The President's fiscal year 2005 budget requests a $25
million increase for the Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-screening
System (CAPPS II) currently being tested by the Transportation Security
Administration. This system, when completely functional, will enable
air carriers to perform an analysis on the ticketed passengers based on
authentication from commercial data providers, and will also check
passenger names against a government supplied terrorist watch list.
However, CAPPS II has been slow in developing because of delays in
obtaining passenger data needed for testing due to privacy concerns by
air carriers.
How is the Department working with the airlines to alleviate
privacy concerns in light of recent disclosures that air carriers have
shared passenger records with other government agencies and private
contractors without the passengers' knowledge?
Answer. The disclosure of passenger records by air carriers
triggered concerns because passengers were not told that the
information they provided to make a reservation was being shared with
another entity (the government) for another purpose (national
security). In at least one instance, the air carrier's own published
privacy policy stated that passenger information would not be shared
with anyone else. Bearing this experience in mind, the Department is
committed to working with privacy advocates, airlines, passengers, and
the travel industry to provide greater understanding and awareness of
the purposes and scope of CAPPS II and to ensure that individual
privacy rights are protected.
DHS plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking
public comment on the collection of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data.
Certain aircraft operators, foreign air carriers, and operators of
computer reservation systems would be required to provide PNR
information for each individual who makes a reservation. The proposal
will also require regulated parties to take reasonable steps to ensure
that the passenger is provided notice of the purpose for which the
information is collected, the authority under which it is collected,
and the consequences of a passenger's failure to provide the
information.
The CAPPS II system will only be accessible to persons who require
access for the performance of their duties as Federal employees or
contractors to the Federal Government. The airlines, airline personnel,
and the computer reservation systems will not have access to
information contained in CAPPS II. All contractors, contractor
employees and Federal Government employees who will have access to and/
or who will be processing personal data will sign a written privacy
policy and acknowledge that they are bound by the strict terms of the
privacy policy. All personnel with access to the system will have a
government security clearance based on the level and type of
information accessed. At a minimum, a Department of Defense (DOD)
Secret Clearance will be required. The guiding principle for access
will be ``need-to-know.'' Access will be compartmentalized, thus
allowing access to persons based only on their individual need-to-know
and only to the extent of their authorization (e.g., a person might be
permitted to access information with regard to the unclassified portion
of the system, but be denied access to classified areas). CAPPS II also
will have substantial security measures in place to protect the system
and data from unauthorized access by hackers or other intruders.
Question. How can assurances be made to prevent identity theft by a
would-be terrorist intent on using legitimate individuals information
to get around the CAPPS II background checks?
Answer. While no system can be 100 percent effective, we believe
that the CAPPS II system will be a great advancement in defeating
identity fraud. The CAPPS II design includes an information-based
identity assessment process, which is an improved version of the best
practices used by the banking and credit industries to combat identity
theft and fraud. This capability is a substantial improvement to the
current system.
CAPPS II will incorporate best practices developed in the private
sector for discovering cases of identity fraud. In the case of an
identity thief who steals a legitimate identity, any number of indicia,
including errors or inconsistencies in the information, could reveal
the theft. Further, CAPPS II will make use of a database containing up-
to-date information about stolen identities, which will further protect
against identity thieves who use this means to enable them to attack
the civil aviation system.
No system can be 100 percent effective, which is why CAPPS II will
be part of a layered ``system of systems'' involving physical scrutiny,
identity-based risk assessment, and other security precautions on
aircraft and at airports.
Question. The Inspector General completed last week a review of
background checks for Federal airport passenger and baggage screeners
that listed twelve recommendations for the administrator of
Transportation Security Administration to improve its management of the
background check process.
What procedures have been put into place to guarantee all passenger
and baggage screeners that are currently employed and also individuals
who are applying for a screening position have a full background check?
Answer. All screeners employed by TSA as of May 31, 2003, except
for a small number of exceptions detailed below, have received
fingerprint based criminal history record checks based on FBI criminal
history records, pre-employment background checks which examine
Federal, county, and local law enforcement records, credit history, and
TSA watch lists (No-Fly and Selectee); and Access National Agency Check
with Inquiries (ANACI) background checks conducted by the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM). These checks were completed by October 1,
2003. The limited exceptions included individuals on military or sick
leave, and some screeners under the private screening pilot program.
All of the exceptions have received fingerprint based criminal history
checks and pre-employment background checks. In addition, OPM ANACIs
have been completed or are in the process of being completed on all
contract screeners and on screeners who have returned from sick or
military leave.
Since June 1, 2003, TSA has required that screener applicants
receive the aforementioned fingerprint based criminal history check and
pre-employment background check before they are hired. TSA does not
extend offers of employment to applicants until these checks are
successfully adjudicated for each applicant. Once hired, all new
screeners then undergo the more thorough OPM ANACI check, which
typically takes 3-6 months to complete. This check reviews education,
employment history, credit history, references, criminal history,
military records, and citizenship. The combination of timely check
before hiring and more thorough OPM checks soon thereafter provides a
layered approach to personnel security for new screeners.
TSA maintains a database that tracks the progress of screener
investigations from which routine reports can be generated and reviewed
to determine the status of all investigations.
Emergency Preparedness and Response
BIOSHIELD
Question. Does the lack of authorization for the administration's
BioShield initiative inhibit your ability to obligate the funds
appropriated for the program?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations Act
provided $885 million to be spent for development of biodefense
countermeasures for the current fiscal year. Absent authorizing
legislation, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has relied upon
this authority to obligate funds for biodefense countermeasure
activities. DHS, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the
Homeland Security Council, and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) recognize the importance of expeditious progress in developing
much-needed countermeasures while following Congressional intent. In
that vein, all parties have sought to follow the principles set forth
in the proposed legislation in developing the interagency agreement for
next-generation anthrax vaccine. A FEMA contracting officer has
authority to sign contracts related to the obligation of BioShield
funds.
Question. For what purposes do you intend to use the funds made
available for fiscal year 2004?
Answer. Over the past 10 months, the WMD Medical Countermeasures
subcommittee has developed countermeasures information of interest to
administration policymakers who will make the BioShield procurement
decisions. The WMD subcommittee commissioned an end-to-end analysis of
medical countermeasures to Category ``A'' biological agents (anthrax,
smallpox, plague, botulinum toxin, tularemia, Ebola, and other
hemorrhagic fever viruses). Working groups developed initial
requirements for four high-priority bioweapon countermeasures for which
there is high need and a reasonable expectation that products will be
available in the near term:
--Next-generation anthrax vaccine (recombinant Protective Antigen,
rPA)
--Anthrax immune therapy
--Next-generation smallpox vaccine (modified vaccinia, MVA or LC16m8)
--Botulinum antitoxin
Question. Why does the President's fiscal year 2005 budget propose
to transfer the Strategic National Stockpile from the Department of
Homeland Security's Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate to
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) but not the BioShield
program? Please explain why the Stockpile is more appropriately managed
by the Department of Health and Human Services and why BioShield is
more appropriately managed by the Department of Homeland Security.
Answer. The President's Budget for fiscal year 2005 proposes to
transfer the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) back to HHS where it
will be better aligned with HHS' medical and scientific expertise and
responsibilities. The SNS is an operational program, consisting of
copious amounts of physical inventory and medical materiel. Since its
mission is time-critical, it should possess a single, undisputed
management structure for rapid decision-making. Although the daily
operations of the SNS have not been affected in a significant manner by
the transfer from HHS to DHS, the single command structure for the
program that would result from the transfer back to HHS would
streamline operations. DHS will maintain its ability to deploy the
Stockpile in accordance with the SNS statute, 42 U.S.C. 300hh-12, as
amended, and thus, the potential response needs of the DHS mission will
not be compromised in any manner.
The BioShield program differs substantially from the SNS in that it
is a policy-driven program that is most successful as a joint venture
between homeland security and health experts. The major programmatic
aspect/activity of BioShield is product development, which is performed
by private companies. The BioShield program was specifically
constructed to spur development of countermeasures for which no
commercial markets exist against current and emerging threats to the
United States, for inclusion in the SNS.
Since DHS is responsible for assessing current and emerging threats
against the United States, including biological and chemical threats,
the BioShield program, which helps to ensure our Nation's health
security and is one of the many facets of the Department's efforts to
combat terrorism, is therefore more appropriately managed by DHS than
by HHS.
Question. How are decisions being made as to the appropriate
expenditure of BioShield funds? Has an assessment been done of our
vulnerabilities to biological attacks to guide decisions as to the
investments which should be made to develop, produce and pre-purchase
vaccines or other medications for the Nation's biodefense? Who is doing
such an assessment and what priorities have been established?
Answer. There are several steps taken to determine appropriate
biodefense countermeasures development and the use of BioShield funds.
DHS and HHS are seeking to adhere to the intent of the proposed
BioShield authorizing legislation now awaiting action in the Senate.
The Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate
of DHS is responsible for determining a material threat. After that,
the WMD Countermeasures subcommittee group co-chaired by DHS, HHS, and
the Department of Defense, part of the Homeland Security Council Policy
Coordinating Committee (PCC), develops countermeasures information of
interest to the PCC, which then makes procurement decisions. The WMD
Countermeasures subcommittee has completed an analysis of Category
``A'' biological agents (anthrax, smallpox, plague, botulinum toxin,
tularemia, Ebola, and other hemorrhagic fever viruses). Working groups
developed initial requirements for four high-priority bioweapon
countermeasures for which there is high need and a reasonable
expectation that products will be available in the near term:
--Next-generation anthrax vaccine
--Anthrax immune therapy
--Next-generation smallpox vaccine
--Botulinum antitoxin
ANTHRAX VACCINE
Question. What is the Strategic National Stockpile requirement for
anthrax vaccine?
Answer. DHS and HHS have entered into an interagency agreement to
purchase recombinant Protective Antigen (rPA) vaccine to protect 25
million persons. The government will consider later purchase of
additional anthrax vaccine contingent on new vaccination delivery
system technology and other cost-saving factors such as reduced dose
requirements.
Question. Are we filling at least part of the anthrax vaccine
requirement with an FDA-approved product currently available?
Answer. The Stockpile currently maintains a small amount of the
only FDA-licensed pre-exposure vaccine against anthrax (Anthrax Vaccine
Adsorbed, or AVA). Currently, it has limited production capacity, and
rectifying that problem would be very expensive and take several years
to accomplish. AVA is not currently licensed for children or for the
elderly. However, in order to ensure that some type of anthrax vaccine
is available until the development and procurement of rPA, DHS and HHS
have signed an interagency agreement for the purchase of AVA through
the Department of the Army. This agreement will provide approximately 2
million doses in fiscal year 2004, 1.5 million doses in fiscal year
2005, and 1.5 million doses in fiscal year 2006.
United States Secret Service
WHITE HOUSE MAIL PROCESSING
Question. The Secret Service budget includes $16,365,000 for White
House mail screening. The Committee requested in the fiscal year 2004
bill that a detailed long-term plan for the establishment of a fully
operational White House mail facility be provided to the Committee.
When can the Committee expect to receive this report?
Answer. An interim report was submitted to the Committee on
February 10, 2004. This interim report stated that the Department of
Homeland Security is aggressively developing a plan to support mail
operations for the entire Department. One facet of this development
process will evaluate incorporation of a combined mail facility
supporting the White House and Department components located within the
Washington D.C. metropolitan area. The Secret Service has contracted
for a study to review several of the secure mail processes currently in
operation and following conclusion of this review will make a
recommendation to the Department as to a method of processing mail and
the potential for a combined facility. This study is expected to be
completed in April, 2004. A final report will be submitted to the
Committee in June 2004.
Since the interim report was submitted to the Committee, the White
House and Secret Service have determined that the requirements for
processing White House mail are not compatible with consolidation into
a DHS mail processing facility. Therefore the June report will be a
plan for processing White House mail in a separate facility, not a
combined facility.
COUNTERFEITING AND FINANCIAL CRIMES
Question. Colombia and Bulgaria continue to be hot spots for
counterfeit currency. Does the fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security
budget include funding to concentrate on these areas?
Answer. For almost 30 years, Colombia has remained the largest
producer of counterfeit U.S. currency in world. In May of 2001, the
Secret Service received a 2-year allocation of $1.5 million through the
State Department's ``Plan Colombia'' fund, and implemented plans to
train and equip a local anti-counterfeiting force to work in
conjunction with Secret Service agents in the seizure and suppression
of counterfeit U.S. dollars manufactured in Colombia. Through the
funding provided under Plan Colombia, the Secret Service and Colombian
law enforcement authorities were able to make a tremendous impact on
counterfeit production and distribution networks. This ultimately led
to significant reductions in the amount of Colombian-manufactured
counterfeit U.S. dollars that reached the streets of the United States.
The 2-year execution of Plan Colombia led to the seizure of $123.3
million in counterfeit U.S. currency, the suppression of 33 counterfeit
printing plants, and over 164 arrests. This resulted in a 37 percent
decrease in the amount of Colombian-produced counterfeit U.S. dollars
passed on the American people.
Second only to Colombia, organized criminal groups in Bulgaria are
the world's second leading producer of counterfeit U.S. currency.
Counterfeit currency produced in Bulgaria continues to be passed in the
United States and throughout Eastern and Central Europe. There is
strong evidence that the same organized criminal groups producing
counterfeit U.S. currency in Bulgaria are also involved in human
trafficking and narcotics trafficking.
Bulgaria is a country undergoing a dramatic transition as they seek
to enter the European Union, restructure their criminal code and remove
corrupt officials from government. The Secret Service believes that
additional efforts must be made to capitalize on these efforts and work
with local law enforcement officials to dismantle the counterfeiting
operations in Bulgaria. Additionally, the Bulgarian government has
expressed its willingness to work with foreign law enforcement and has
requested additional support from the Secret Service.
While the Department of Homeland Security fiscal year 2005 budget
request does not include a specific funding request to continue these
efforts, the Secret Service receives funding in its base budget that
allows it to continue its strong overseas investigative efforts and
cooperative partnerships with the foreign law enforcement communities
in Colombia and Bulgaria.
Question. What role will the Secret Service play in protecting our
Nation's extensive network of financial systems from terrorists and
hackers? Does the fiscal year 2005 budget request provide adequate
funding to guard against this growing problem?
Answer. The Secret Service's core investigative mission is to
safeguard the financial and critical infrastructures of the United
States. The Department's fiscal year 2005 funding request provides
adequate funding for the Secret Service to continue the array of
programs it has developed to work with its law enforcement, private
sector and academic partners in strengthening these networks and
preventing intrusions and compromises of these essential
infrastructures. These programs include:
Electronic Crimes Task Forces (ECTFs)
The groundbreaking task force model developed by the Secret Service
emphasizes information sharing and a pooling of resources and expertise
to produce a collaborative effort to thwart cyber criminals and to
detect, investigate, and most importantly, to prevent electronic
crimes. Members include other Federal, State and local law enforcement
agencies, prosecutors, private sector representatives from the
financial services, telecommunications and IT sectors, and academic
experts from leading universities. These members build trusted
partnerships and have made tremendous strides in the communities they
serve in a short period of time.
Providing these ECTFs with training, resources and manpower is
paramount to the Secret Service's statutory mission to protect
financial payment systems and critical infrastructures. Directed by
Public Law 107-56 (the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001) to expand its ECTF
model from a single task force in New York to a nationwide network, the
Secret Service has since established additional ECTFs in Boston, Miami,
Washington, D.C., Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Charlotte, Las
Vegas, Cleveland, Houston, Dallas, and Columbia, South Carolina.
Electronic Crimes Special Agent Program (ECSAP)
Currently, the Secret Service has trained 118 agents in this
program, which provides certified instruction to special agents in the
preservation and examination of computer forensic evidence. The Secret
Service has based these agents in field offices throughout the country,
and they have become indispensable assets to the communities they serve
and their law enforcement and private sector partners.
CERT/CSPI (Critical Systems Protection Initiative)
In a continuing partnership with Carnegie Mellon's Computer
Emergency Response Team (CERT), the Secret Service has established a
training program addressing the cyber security of critical
infrastructures. The expansion of e-commerce and proliferation of
websites providing financial and personal information to the public has
made it essential that Secret Service personnel and their partners
understand the interdependency of computer networks. Through risk
assessments and identification of vulnerabilities, the Secret Service
has adopted a more proactive approach to prevent terrorists and hackers
from exploiting our financial systems.
CERT/NTAC Insider Threat Study
In cooperation with Carnegie Melon's CERT, the Secret Service's
National Threat Assessment Center and Criminal Investigative Division
are conducting studies that specifically target the banking and
financial services industries. Again, due to the trusted partnerships
the Secret Service has developed with these entities, successful
efforts have been made to gather information and provide operationally-
critical threat and asset vulnerability.
Question. Identity theft has been called the fastest growing crime
in the United States. The Congressional Research Service reports that
identity theft has grown in three consecutive years. Does the fiscal
year 2005 budget include funding to counter this growing problem?
Answer. The fiscal year 2005 budget request includes funding levels
that fully support the Secret Service's investigative responsibilities,
including its identity theft investigations. Although there are no new
initiatives in the budget for preventing and investigating identity
crimes, the Secret Service has several existing programs aimed at
stemming the tide of this growing crime. These initiatives include:
The Identity Crime Interactive Resource Guide CD-ROM & Video
This highly successful Secret Service initiative, in partnership
with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the International Association
of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), was
designed to provide useable tools and resources to local and State law
enforcement officers and to assist with their identity crimes
investigations and case management. This joint effort gives local and
State law enforcement officers the information they need not only to
assist victims of identity crimes but also to initiate their own
investigations.
The CD ROM/Video is an ongoing project that requires amending,
updating and adding new investigative resources as they become
available. The Secret Service is currently working on the production
and distribution of an updated version of the CD-ROM, the development
of a similar web-based initiative, and deploying the Resource Guide on
the Secret Service extranet and the DHS portal webpage. To date, more
than 40,000 of these CD-ROMs have been distributed to local and State
police agencies and local, State and Federal prosecutors.
Forward Edge
The Secret Service also joined with the IACP and the National
Institute for Justice to produce the interactive, computer-based
training program known as ``Forward Edge,'' which takes the next step
in training officers to conduct electronic crime investigations.
Forward Edge is a CD-ROM that incorporates virtual reality features as
it presents three different investigative scenarios to the trainee. It
also provides investigative options and technical support to develop
the case.
While over 30,000 of these training tools have been distributed to
the Secret Service's law enforcement partners, an updated version of
Forward Edge is currently under development. This version will
incorporate the video, virtual reality and 3D models but will also add
adaptations made in reaction to new challenges posed by emerging
technology and criminal activity.
Best Practices for Seizing Electronic Evidence
This pocket-size guide produced by the Secret Service assists law
enforcement officers in recognizing, protecting, seizing and searching
electronic devices in accordance with applicable statutes and policies.
Over 320,000 ``Best Practices Guides'' have been distributed free of
charge to local and Federal law enforcement officers.
Identity Crime Training Seminars
In a joint effort with the Department of Justice, the U.S. Postal
Inspection Service, and the FTC, the Secret Service is hosting Identity
Crime Training Seminars for law enforcement officers across the United
States. Each seminar consists of 8 hours of training focused on
providing local and State law enforcement officers with tools and
resources that they can immediately put into use in their
investigations of identity crime. Additionally, officers are provided
resources and information that they can pass on to members of their
community who are victims of identity crime. Other critical partners in
these training seminar efforts are Discover Financial Services, the
American Association of Motor Vehicles Administrators (AAMVA) and the
State DMVs from each community.
Office for Domestic Preparedness
GRANT CONSOLIDATION
Question. The announced reorganization of grant programs within the
Department of Homeland Security moves the responsibility for all of the
grant programs under TSA to ODP--Port Security grants, Intercity Bus
grants, Trucking industry grants, and Operation Safe Commerce, and
programs such as the Emergency Management Performance Grants from EP&R
to ODP. How will you ensure that TSA and EP&R are still involved with
the oversight of these programs, especially with reduced funding as
proposed for 2005?
Answer. The Office for Domestic Preparedness and the Office of
State and Local Government Coordination both maintain close
communication and contact with EP&R. The creation of the Office of
State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness will not
inhibit or impede the already established relationship between ODP/
OSLGC and EP&R & TSA.
ODP currently coordinates closely with EP&R and will continue to do
so, as it does with other DHS components. For example, ODP and EP&R are
working closely on the transfer of the Pre-Positioned Equipment Program
from ODP to EP&R. Additionally, ODP and EP&R have worked closely on the
Top Officials (TOPOFF) Exercise Program, and are currently working
together on the planning of TOPOFF 3. Finally, EP&R is part of ODP's
internal DHS review team for the state homeland security strategies,
which each State was required to complete and provide to ODP by January
31, 2004.
OSLGCP will maintain strong ties to operational subject matter
experts within the current offices and agencies as appropriate. For
example, while responsibility for crafting policy and guidelines for
the Port Security Grant Program would reside within OSLGCP, program
development will still have significant input from and access to
subject matter experts in the Coast Guard, MARAD, and TSA. The
Department fully intends to use existing resources and subject matters
experts to ensure that OSLGCP has the proper staffing levels and
resources to effectively administer its activities and programs.
BASIC STATE GRANT PROGRAM
Question. The 2005 budget request proposes a significant reduction
to the Basic State Grant program of the Office for Domestic
Preparedness (ODP)--as well as abandoning the State minimum in the
historically-used formula for distributing the money to states. I
understand the need to balance resources between the states and the
needs of our urban areas. We tried to achieve that balance in the
fiscal year 2003 Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act and
the fiscal year 2004 Appropriations Act. The President's fiscal year
2005 budget proposal seems to have tipped the balance too far in the
direction of the high-threat urban areas--and does not allow for the
basic mission of the ODP to be carried out. ODP's mission is to ensure
a basic level of preparedness in all states. What is the rationale for
the proposed reduction in funding for the Basic State Grant Program?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2005 budget request provides
significant support for the mission and programs administered by the
Office for Domestic Preparedness. As you know, The Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) designated ODP as the principal
Federal agency responsible for the preparedness of the United States
for acts of terrorism, including coordinating preparedness efforts at
the Federal level, and working with all State, local, tribal, parish,
and private sector emergency response providers on all matters
pertaining to combating terrorism, including training, exercises, and
equipment support. The President's request includes $3.561 million,
which is a $3.3 million increase from the fiscal year 2004 request.
With these resources, ODP will be able to maintain its role in
enhancing the security of our Nation.
It is important to remember that we are operating in a fiscal and
security environment where we must ensure maximum security benefits are
derived from every security dollar. To do that, we must be able to take
a new look at the way in which we allocate resources. Additionally,
given the Department's improved ability to analyze risks, threats, and
vulnerabilities, the Department is better able to provided targeted
funds to increase the security of the Nation. The Department will
continue to work with the states and territories to provide the
resources they need--equipment acquisition funds, training and exercise
support, and technical assistance--to deter, prevent, respond to, and
recover from acts of terrorism.
Question. The President's budget proposes an unprecedented amount
of discretion for the Department in allocating grants. Is it
appropriate to be requesting these changes through appropriations
language--or should the administration instead submit a formal
legislative proposal to change grant allocations to the Congress for
consideration by the respective authorizing Committees of jurisdiction?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security has been discussing and
working with Members of Congress and different committees, including
the House Select Committee on Homeland Security and the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee, on these issues. At this point, both
Committees are considering legislation that would authorize various
aspects of ODP's mission. The Department supports much of this
legislation (HR 3266 and S. 1245, respectively) in their current forms
and, in particular, supports the Committee's intent, and is working
with Chairman Christopher Cox, of the House Select Committee on
Homeland Security, and Chairman Susan Collins, of the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee. The Department will continue to work
with these Committees on these pieces of legislation and on other
pieces of legislation that address authorization of ODP's grant
programs.
Question. What threat information will be taken into account when
allocating the basic State grant funds?
Answer. As a requirement to receive their fiscal year 2004 Homeland
Security Grant Program funds, and additional funds in fiscal year 2005,
states conducted threats and vulnerabilities assessments and, based on
that information, developed homeland security strategies. The states
were required to provide completed homeland security strategies to the
Office for Domestic Preparedness on January 31, 2004. At this point,
ODP has received strategies from all the states and territories, the
District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. ODP and an
internal DHS Review Board have approved a majority of these strategies.
A few states and territories are working to provide additional
information and details to finalize their strategies, but ODP
anticipates that all strategies will be approved in the next few weeks.
These strategies are critical resources to the states in the
efforts to distribute funds in the most effective manner to address the
homeland security needs. They too are important because they will allow
the Department to match the preparedness needs as outlined in the state
homeland security strategies with resources available from the Federal
Government. The information provided in these strategies will allow the
Department to make informed decisions on how funds will be distributed
and what factors the Department will use to make this determination.
Question. The budget materials talk about the expanded activities
that the Basic State Grant can be used for--including protection of
critical infrastructure. If the Basic State Grant can be used for this
purpose, why is a separate $200 million critical infrastructure grant
program being proposed?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2005 budget request includes
$200 million for targeted infrastructure protection as part of the
Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) program. The goal of this $200
million is to provide targeted funding to specific critical
infrastructure based on analyses performed by the Department of
Homeland Security's Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
Directorate. These funds will supplement the assistance provide under
the UASI program and the State Homeland Security Grant Program. While
the state-based grants will be dedicated to generally enhancing
security and preparedness, the $200 million for infrastructure
protection will be targeted to specific cites thereby assisting states
in their efforts to secure potentially higher threat targets.
Question. Please provide the Committee with state-by-state
breakouts of all grants provided through the fiscal year 2000, 2001,
2002, 2003, and 2004 appropriations, including supplementals. Include
in the breakouts the status of the grants, dates awarded, obligation
amounts, and drawndown amounts.
Answer. Please see the table below entitled ``State-by-state
Breakout''.
Question. In addition, please provide obligations and disbursements
for National Exercises, the Center for Domestic Preparedness, the
National Consortium for Domestic Preparedness, technical assistance,
equipment--for each of these years.
Answer. ODP has completed the preliminary data collection for the
response to this question. The data collected involves over 4,400 lines
of accounting and, if printed on 810 paper, would require
2,264 pages of data. To ensure an accurate response, the data needs to
be analyzed and a quality analysis be performed. This effort will take
additional time to ensure proper analysis and response.
Further, in order to ensure the most responsive answer to the
question, ODP would request the opportunity to discuss the data with
Appropriations Committee staff while the data is being analyzed. This
discussion would provide preliminary information and to ensure that ODP
properly understands the request and that the final answer is fully
satisfactory.
2000-2004 GRANT ALLOCATIONS: STATE GRANTS
[In dollar amount]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 State 2001 State 2002 State
Domestic Domestic Domestic 2003 State 2003 State 2004 Homeland
State Preparedness Preparedness Preparedness Homeland Homeland Security Grant Totals
Equipment Equipment Equipment Security Grant Security Grant Program
Grant Grant Grant Program I Program II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................. 1,172,000 1,228,000 5,317,000 9,457,000 25,049,000 36,853,000 79,076,000
Alaska.................................. 380,000 389,000 2,783,000 4,995,000 13,230,000 19,465,000 41,242,000
Arizona................................. 1,239,000 1,319,000 5,770,000 10,584,000 28,033,000 41,243,000 88,188,000
Arkansas................................ 788,000 821,000 4,141,000 7,394,000 19,585,000 28,815,000 61,544,000
California.............................. 7,167,000 7,666,000 24,831,000 45,023,000 119,256,000 175,457,000 379,400,000
Colorado................................ 1,091,000 1,158,000 5,220,000 9,480,000 25,111,000 36,944,000 79,004,000
Connecticut............................. 943,000 984,000 4,626,000 8,265,000 21,893,000 32,211,000 68,922,000
Delaware................................ 407,000 419,000 2,887,000 5,185,000 13,733,000 20,206,000 42,837,000
District of Columbia.................... 561,000 366,000 2,747,000 4,910,000 13,006,000 19,136,000 40,726,000
Florida................................. 3,409,000 3,631,000 12,967,000 23,654,000 62,655,000 92,182,000 198,498,000
Georgia................................. 1,868,000 1,993,000 7,797,000 14,188,000 37,579,000 55,288,000 118,713,000
Hawaii.................................. 503,000 515,000 3,172,000 5,693,000 15,079,000 22,186,000 47,148,000
Idaho................................... 510,000 530,000 3,226,000 5,803,000 15,375,000 22,621,000 48,065,000
Illinois................................ 2,801,000 2,964,000 10,604,000 18,879,000 50,005,000 73,571,000 158,824,000
Indiana................................. 1,499,000 1,580,000 6,400,000 11,399,000 30,194,000 44,422,000 95,494,000
Iowa.................................... 856,000 892,000 4,308,000 7,656,500 20,282,000 29,841,000 63,835,500
Kansas.................................. 807,000 844,000 4,151,000 7,401,000 19,603,000 28,842,000 61,648,000
Kentucky................................ 1,084,000 1,136,000 5,048,000 9,001,000 23,838,000 35,073,000 75,180,000
Louisiana............................... 1,175,000 1,228,000 5,331,000 9,451,000 25,037,000 36,836,000 79,058,000
Maine................................... 513,000 530,000 3,213,000 5,751,000 15,232,000 22,409,000 47,648,000
Maryland................................ 1,337,000 1,407,000 5,881,000 10,585,000 28,037,000 41,251,000 88,498,000
Massachusetts........................... 1,552,000 1,632,000 6,579,000 11,711,000 31,020,000 45,638,500 98,132,500
Michigan................................ 2,329,000 2,457,000 8,958,000 15,918,000 42,162,000 62,032,000 133,856,000
Minnesota............................... 1,251,000 1,318,000 5,631,000 10,076,000 26,690,000 39,267,000 84,233,000
Mississippi............................. 833,000 869,000 4,255,000 7,582,000 20,083,000 29,547,000 63,169,000
Missouri................................ 1,402,000 1,474,000 6,079,000 10,834,000 28,697,000 42,221,000 90,707,000
Montana................................. 436,000 447,000 2,967,000 5,303,000 14,047,000 20,668,000 43,868,000
Nebraska................................ 602,000 623,000 3,502,000 6,254,500 16,568,000 24,376,000 51,925,500
Nevada.................................. 620,000 655,000 3,693,000 6,771,000 17,935,000 26,387,000 56,061,000
New Hampshire........................... 501,000 519,000 3,187,000 5,727,000 15,172,000 22,321,000 47,427,000
New Jersey.............................. 1,968,000 2,072,000 7,948,000 14,222,000 37,671,000 55,424,000 119,305,000
New Mexico.............................. 618,000 639,000 3,574,000 6,401,000 16,956,000 24,946,000 53,134,000
New York................................ 4,099,000 4,321,000 14,953,000 26,492,000 70,172,000 103,243,000 223,280,000
North Carolina.......................... 1,848,000 1,962,000 7,706,000 13,908,000 36,840,000 54,203,000 116,467,000
North Dakota............................ 385,000 392,000 2,794,000 4,983,000 13,200,000 19,421,000 41,175,000
Ohio.................................... 2,624,000 2,769,000 9,897,000 17,510,000 46,378,000 68,235,000 147,413,000
Oklahoma................................ 959,000 1,001,000 4,656,000 8,304,000 21,996,000 32,362,000 69,278,000
Oregon.................................. 945,000 992,000 4,637,000 8,336,000 22,081,000 32,487,000 69,478,000
Pennsylvania............................ 2,791,000 2,934,000 10,512,000 18,570,000 49,189,000 72,370,500 156,366,500
Rhode Island............................ 459,000 472,000 3,063,000 5,489,000 14,540,000 21,392,000 45,415,000
South Carolina.......................... 1,062,000 1,119,000 5,028,000 9,017,000 23,882,000 35,138,000 75,246,000
South Dakota............................ 406,000 414,000 2,868,000 5,131,000 13,591,000 19,996,000 42,406,000
Tennessee............................... 1,400,000 1,477,000 6,140,000 10,978,000 29,080,000 42,786,000 91,861,000
Texas................................... 4,434,000 4,735,000 16,196,000 29,538,000 78,238,000 115,110,000 248,251,000
Utah.................................... 695,000 727,000 3,849,000 6,937,000 18,374,000 27,033,000 57,615,000
Vermont................................. 375,000 383,000 2,772,000 4,963,000 13,147,000 19,342,000 40,982,000
Virginia................................ 1,688,000 1,788,000 7,062,000 12,716,000 33,683,000 49,556,000 106,493,000
Washington.............................. 1,455,000 1,538,000 6,276,000 11,294,000 29,917,000 44,015,000 94,495,000
West Virginia........................... 634,000 654,000 3,567,000 6,340,000 16,792,000 24,705,000 52,692,000
Wisconsin............................... 1,356,000 1,425,000 5,925,000 10,565,000 27,985,000 41,173,000 88,429,000
Wyoming................................. 352,000 357,000 2,696,000 4,827,000 12,784,000 18,809,000 39,825,000
Puerto Rico............................. 1,267,000 1,120,000 4,894,000 8,727,000 23,118,000 34,014,000 73,140,000
Virgin Islands.......................... 372,000 277,000 861,000 1,542,000 4,085,000 6,009,000 13,146,000
American Samoa.......................... 230,230 187,600 892,000 1,482,000 3,926,000 5,776,000 12,493,830
Guam.................................... 328,000 284,000 828,000 1,596,000 4,226,000 6,217,000 13,479,000
N. Mariana Islands...................... 138,770 92,400 835,000 1,496,000 3,963,000 5,830,000 12,355,170
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS............................ 72,525,000 75,726,000 315,700,000 566,295,000 1,500,000,000 2,206,902,000 4,737,148,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIGH THREAT URBAN AREA GRANTS
Question. The 2005 President's budget proposes a doubling of the
funds available in the High Threat Urban Area grants. From $727 million
in 2004 to $1.4 billion in 2005. This funding increase is offset by a
reduction in the Basic State Grant program funding.
Will this funding be used to expand the number of jurisdictions
that are eligible to receive these grants?
Answer. The purpose of the Urban Areas Security Initiative is to
provide an ongoing, dedicated funding stream to support densely
populated urban areas with key national infrastructure assets and a
demonstrated threat history. Under this program, DHS, through ODP, is
currently supporting 50 urban areas. At this point, it is difficult to
provide a definitive answer to your question on expansion of UASI. As
you know, the Department based funding decisions based on a combination
of three variables three variables, which resulted in an assignment of
a terrorist risk estimate for each city. The variables were (1) a
combined threat index derived from classified CIA and FBI threat data,
along with the number of FBI terrorism cases opened in a region, (2) a
count of critical public and private sector assets, weighted for
vulnerability, and (3) population density. Each of these three
variables was normalized and then weighted and summed to give an
overall terrorist risk estimate. The Department will likely use a
similar method to distribute funds made available for continuation of
this program in fiscal year 2005. Given the fluid nature of threats and
risk, it is difficult to predict the number of urban areas that will
receive funding through the fiscal year 2005 program.
Question. Will expanding the number of cities involved dilute the
purpose of the program, which is to focus resources on those areas of
the country with the most significant threats?
Answer. Again, the Department has not made a final decision on the
number of urban areas that will receive support under the UASI program
in fiscal year 2005. The number of urban areas receiving support will
ultimately depend on the information that IAIP receives from the CIA
and the FBI, along with the other factors, that have been considered
when determining UASI allocations.
Question. On the one hand you are proposing to reduce the funding
available through the Basic State grant program--of which one purpose
is to ensure that contiguous jurisdictions are working together--while
on the other, increasing the funds available in the High Threat Urban
Area grants so you can enhance the ability of contiguous jurisdictions
within urban areas to respond jointly. How is your proposal an
improvement over the way these programs have been funded in fiscal
years 2003 and 2004?
Answer. As you know, with the support of the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees, the Department of Homeland Security has
administered dual funding programs--a formula-based state minimum
program and a high-threat, high-density program--since fiscal year
2003. The Department and Administration firmly support this dual
approach because it allows for baseline preparedness levels while
targeting funds to high-threat, high-density urban areas across the
country.
The Department and the Administration have also consistently
supported an increase in funds for the high-threat, high-density urban
areas program to meet the unique needs and challenges of the Nation's
urban areas. With the funds provided to the Urban Areas Security
Initiative and the state formula grant program, the Administration's
fiscal year 2005 budget request supports both minimum levels of funding
for states to continue their efforts to enhance security and targeted
funds for the Nation's urban areas.
u.s. visitor and immigrant status indicator technology (us visit)
Question. In January you deployed the first phase of the US VISIT
system to 115 airports and 14 seaports.
How is the system performing so far?
Answer. By January 5, 2004, the US VISIT system encompassed 99
percent of all foreign visitors, with visas, entering the country by
air, and as of March 1, more than 1.69 million foreign visitors have
been processed under US VISIT procedures, with over 150 initial matches
against existing watch lists, resulting in the identification of 62
criminals guilty of rape, homicide, hit and run death, drug
trafficking, probation violations, assault, wire fraud, conspiracy,
etc. The Department of State has also processed 235,883 individuals
utilizing the US VISIT system, with 75 watch list matches on 32
criminals.
The increase in security at our airports and seaports provided by
US VISIT has not had a negative effect on wait times, nor our
commitment to service. The pilot program exercised in Atlanta prior to
the implementation of the capabilities on January 5, 2004 identified an
increase of less than 15 seconds in inspection time to capture the
finger scans and digital photo. An analysis of 20 major airports
utilizing data for the December, 2003, January and February 2004
timeframes, indicate that there was no impact on CBP's ability to meet
45 minute time frames on airline inspections.
After early system evaluation it is clear that visitors appreciate
the effort we are making to enhance security while simultaneously
facilitating the process for law-abiding, legitimate travelers.
Question. The budget states that you expect to deploy an exit
capability at up to 80 airports and 14 seaports this year. Can you give
us an update on the exit pilots you are currently running as a part of
US VISIT?
Answer. On January 5, 2004, US VISIT implemented two exit pilots:
one at an airport and one at a seaport of entry.
In fiscal year 2004, US VISIT will continue to pilot and evaluate
various exit alternatives, e.g. intelligent work stations/kiosks and
hand held devices at various locations in airports and seaports.
In fiscal year 2005, based upon these pilot evaluations, US VISIT
will initiate implementation of the selected exit solution at the
remaining 79 airports and 11 seaports, continuing implementation in
fiscal year 2005.
Exit processing is to be provided at land border ports following
the entry implementation of US VISIT functionality in secondary at the
50 largest land ports in conjunction with RF technology implementation
in fiscal year 2005. As various exit components are implemented, we
further strengthen the immigration system by identifying people who do
not comply with the terms of their admission.
Question. One of the requirements of the Enhanced Visa Security Act
is for the countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program to issue
biometrically-enabled machine-readable travel documents--and for the
Department of Homeland Security to have the equipment at ports-of-entry
to be able to read those documents by October of 2004. Do the
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State expect that
the October deadline will be met by the Visa Waiver countries?
Answer. By October 26, 2004, VWP countries must certify that they
have a program to issue biometrically enhanced passports in order to
continue in the VWP Most, if not all, of the VWP countries have
informed the United States that they will not be able issue
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) compliant passports by
October 26 due to technical and other factors. Changing the deadline
would require Congressional action, and a memorandum concerning this
issue was forwarded to Congress signed by Secretaries Ridge and Powell
requesting an extension of the deadline to November 30, 2006. As part
of the decision to request the extension of the deadline, and to
provide an additional measure of security while standards and
technology solutions progress, the Secretary will require beginning
September 30, 2004, all VWP travelers process through US VISIT. US
VISIT has funding in the fiscal year 2004 expenditure plan to implement
this requirement at all POE's (in excess of 330 individual ports).
Question. The US VISIT program office is currently reviewing the
proposals for the prime integration contract. Given that it may be
several more months before this contract is awarded and work can
begin--how do you expect to meet the deadline of deploying the entry
and exit capabilities to the 50 busiest land ports by the end of this
calendar year?
Answer. Significant up-front planning has been and is being
accomplished in all aspects of this increment, especially in the
information technology and facilities work areas which well positions
the Prime Integrator to assist us in meeting our implementation
deadlines.
INTEGRATION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS
Question. The Chief Information Officer has been working for over a
year on the integration and consolidation of information technology
systems. The budget request for 2005 includes significant resources for
implementing a new Department-wide human resources system, and a new
financial management system.
The Department staff identified over 40 different general ledger
systems, 30 different procurements processes, and 20 different
approaches to managing travel costs. Have you seen any savings yet from
consolidating computer systems?
When do you expect to see savings?
Answer. We are still in the development phase of this project and
therefore cannot estimate when savings may be realized.
Question. Is the $56 million requested for eMERGE going to cover
the remaining costs of developing and implementing the financial
management system?
Answer. No. This is for fiscal year 2005 only--implementation will
continue through fiscal year 2006.
Question. If not, what is the current estimate for the full cost of
implementation?
Answer. 2004 and 2005 Projected Costs for eMerge are below. Costs
in 2006 have not yet been determined.
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Recurring........................ $2.0 $10.5
IT Investments.......................... 8.0 56.0
Working Capital......................... 24.8 10.0
-------------------------------
Total............................. 34.8 76.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERFORMANCE BASED PAY SYSTEM
Question. Under Departmental Operations, $102 million is requested
for training of supervisory personnel to administer a performance-based
pay system and to create the framework for the new system. While the
proposal for Department-wide Technology includes a request for $21
million to design, develop and implement a new human resource
information technology system. Exactly how much will the new human
resources system cost?
Answer. We are projecting fully loaded life cycle costs of $408.5
million for complete system implementation. It is important to note
that the $102.5 million is requested for full implementation of the new
system (including project management, systems design, training and
communications, etc.), not just the training aspects of system
implementation. Major components of this figure include $102.5 million
for system implementation, $10 million for Coast Guard performance
pool, an estimated $165 million for other component performance pools,
and a 6-year life cycle cost of $131 million for human resources
information technology.
Question. When do you anticipate the computer system will be
finished and fully implemented?
Answer. We are anticipating that technology systems to support
implementation of the new DHS human resources system will be completed
during fiscal year 2007.
Question. The Department of Defense is currently planning to fund a
conversion to a performance-based pay system without requesting
additional funding. Why does your budget call for an increase?
Answer. Fully funding a new system, such as the one proposed by
DHS, is viewed as a critical component in ensuring its successful
implementation. Adequate funding to support implementation, with
particular emphasis on requirements for supervisory and managerial
training, have been raised as key concerns by the Administration, key
DHS stakeholders, and union representatives.
Question. When do you anticipate that the ``demonstration project''
to test the new Department of Homeland Security pay-for-performance
system will be operational within the U.S. Coast Guard?
Answer. We anticipate that the U.S. Coast Guard will be completely
operational by January 2006.
Question. When do you anticipate that the new pay system will be
fully implemented and operational across the entire Department?
Answer. At this point we anticipate that the new system will be
operational in all of DHS by January 2007.
FUNDING TRANSFERS/LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
Question. The President's budget proposes legislation to transfer
the $153 million emergency food and shelter program to the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, and indicates that enactment of
authorizing legislation will be pursued to return the $400 million
Strategic National Stockpile back to the Department of Health and Human
Services. The fiscal year 2005 funding request for the Department of
Homeland Security assumes no funding for either of these programs. Will
the requisite legislative proposals be transmitted to the Congress as
soon as possible and support given for their enactment into law prior
to the start of the appropriations process?
Answer. FEMA is currently working with the appropriate authorizing
and appropriations committees on the legislative language to transfer
the Emergency Food and Shelter program to the Department of Housing and
Urban Development in accordance with the President's fiscal year 2005
budget request.
The President's fiscal year 2005 Budget includes $400 million for
the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) and proposes transferring this
program to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Language
to effectuate the transfer of SNS from DHS to HHS has been added to
S.15, the Project Bioshield Act of 2003.
Question. Another request in the fiscal year 2005 budget is for
appropriations language to credit revenues and collections of security
fees to the Federal Protective Service. As I understand it, these
revenues and collections are currently credited to the General Services
Administration's Federal Buildings Fund. Is this requested
appropriations language sufficient to authorize the transfer of fee
collections from the General Services Administration to the Department
in lieu of a legislative proposal? Why?
Answer. Prior to the transfer of the Federal Protective Service
(FPS) from the General Services Administration (GSA) to the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS), GSA collected security fees from its client
agencies as a part of the rent bill. GSA deposited the collections into
the Federal Building Fund and allocated the security funds in support
of FPS law enforcement and security operations. In fiscal year 2005,
GSA will serve as the billing agent for these fees. The GSA will
continue to bill the security fees concurrent with the rent billing
process, but the security revenue will be deposited directly to the FPS
account. The revenues and collections will not be deposited into the
Federal Buildings Fund and no transfer to FPS will be required. The FPS
will continue to be funded by offsetting collections, and the
appropriations request represents the obligational authority necessary
to spend the estimated revenues and collections received for law
enforcement and security services that FPS will provide.
This process is consistent with the authorities transferred to the
DHS in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law. 107-297, Sec. 403
and Sec. 422) and the authorities vested in and retained by the
Administrator of GSA.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS
Question. The fiscal year 2005 budget requests $65.1 million to
consolidate Department of Homeland Security headquarters operations at
the Nebraska Avenue complex (NAC). It also indicates that the
administration will propose legislation to transfer the ownership of
the Nebraska Avenue complex from the Navy to the General Services
Administration.
When will the legislative proposal to transfer the ownership of the
Nebraska Avenue complex be submitted to the Congress?
Answer. The legislation was transmitted to the House on February
12, 2004 and the Senate on February 18, 2004. Since the NAC is
currently owned by the Navy, the Majority Leader's office referred the
proposal to the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC). While the SASC
has included its version of the Administration proposal in the annual
defense authorization bill, the Department is concerned that delays in
passage of that larger legislation will hamper DHS' mission to ensure
our Nation's security. The Department will continue to work with the
appropriate Committees to expedite the consolidation of DHS
headquarters operations at the NAC.
Question. Is the $65.1 million requested for relocation of the Navy
and improvement of existing structures at the Nebraska Avenue complex
contingent on the enactment into law the authorization of this
transfer?
Answer. The $65.1 million will fund improvements at the NAC as well
as the cost to relocate Naval operations to alternate facilities.
Without enactment of the legislation transferring ownership of the
property to GSA, the Navy will not be able to complete their moves from
the NAC due to the Defense Base Realignment Act (BRAC.
Question. The fiscal year 2004 appropriations Act provides $20
million to the Department for alteration and improvement of facilities
and for relocation costs necessary for interim housing of the
Department's headquarters' operations. Please update us on the use of
these funds.
Answer. To date, $7,411,789 has been obligated: $4,657,220 for Navy
Relocation, $2,344,569 for space preparation in Building 1 (Sec/Dep
Sec), Building 3 (1st and 3rd floor swing space), Building 7,
Facilities and Security Badging, and $410,000 for Architectural and
Engineering Services for Buildings 1, 4 and 5.
The remaining $12,588,211 is committed for Building 19, 1st and 2nd
floors for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP)
and Buildings 4 and 5 for Border Transportation Security (BTS), Public
Affairs and Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS). The design/
space layout for Building 19 is at approximately 70 percent completion,
and design/space layout for Buildings 4 and 5 is at 100 percent.
Question. Once the Nebraska Avenue complex is transferred from the
Navy to the General Services Administration (GSA) as proposed, won't
the Department be required to make rental payments to the GSA on this
location? Is this additional cost assumed in the Department's fiscal
year 2005 budget? If not, why? What will be the estimated annual rental
of space payment on the Nebraska Avenue complex once it is transferred
from the Navy?
Answer. Yes, rental payments to General Services Administration
(GSA) will be required. Our fiscal year 2005 request includes $14
million ($4 million increase from fiscal year 2004) for department-
related rent expenditures.
GSA is currently conducting building condition evaluations and a
site appraisal. We will not have refined cost until these activities
are complete. However, through consultation with GSA, DHS is currently
estimating the following rental costs:
--fiscal year 2005 $5.8 million (staggered occupancy)
--fiscal year 2006 $13.1 million (mostly occupied)
--fiscal year 2007 $14.4 million (fully occupied)
These estimates are based on the following rent breakout:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Rent................................. $29.00 per rentable square
feet (prsf)
Operating Rent............................ 8.90 prsf
T/I Allowance............................. 4.64 prsf
GSA Fee of 8 percent...................... 3.80 prsf
-----------------------------
Total............................... 46.34 prsf (for 5 year
period)
43.06 prsf (for 10 year
period)
Average Approx............................ 45.00 prsf \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include parking.
United States Coast Guard
Question. The fiscal year 2005 budget request proposes
consolidating all of the research and development components of each
agency within the Department of Homeland Security into the Science and
Technology Directorate, to include the Coast Guard's Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation account. The fiscal year 2004 enacted
level for research and development within the Coast Guard was $14.9
million; however, this budget proposes only $13.5 million for Coast
Guard research and development within Science and Technology.
Can you explain the approximately $1.4 million decrease in
requested funding for the Coast Guard's research and development?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 and earlier CG R&D appropriations
included project funds in addition to operating costs of the CG R&D
Center at Avery Point, CT. The $13.5 million requested in the fiscal
year 2005 S&T budget does not include any project funds; the request is
intended to fund only facility and personnel (support and technical)
costs at the Coast Guard (CG) R&D Center. This level is consistent with
prior year costs. The fiscal year 2004 enacted level was a significant
reduction from the fiscal year 2004 request of $22 million and prior
year appropriations causing an imbalance between operating costs and
project funding for fiscal year 2004.
Question. Will this line item for Coast Guard research and
development continue to be decreased in subsequent fiscal years until
there is one lump-sum research and development account within Science
and Technology for all of the agencies at the Department of Homeland
Security?
Answer. No. The Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) and Coast
Guard (CG) are preparing a formal agreement that will detail the
coordination and funding mechanisms for future CG R&D capabilities. The
foundation for that agreement is the consolidation of funding requested
in the fiscal year 2005 budget. S&T and the CG have further agreed upon
a base level of additional project funding in the amount of $5 million
that will be specifically targeted toward non-security related projects
including maritime science and research. This funding will be designed
to support CG mission-programs such as Marine Environmental Protection,
Living Marine Resources, Search and Rescue, Aids to Navigation and
Marine Safety. The specific projects in support of these mission-
programs will be prepared annually for S&T concurrence.
In addition to this $18.5 million in funding, the Coast Guard will
submit security-related research requests through S&T for coordination
across all portfolios and DHS components. The Coast Guard has submitted
a maritime security R&D portfolio detailing approximately $50 million
in vital maritime security research initiatives. This portfolio has
been validated by S&T portfolio managers and will be considered in the
development of future spending priorities and commitments from S&T.
Project funding levels for CG and other DHS component requests will
depend on the risk and cost associated with the project, effect on
agency missions, linkage to S&T strategic objectives, and
executability.
Question. How will consolidating the research and development
account into Science and Technology affect the Coast Guard in general,
in terms of control over research projects of particular interest to
the Coast Guard and access to all ongoing research at the Department?
Answer. Through its portfolio manager at S&T, the CG will have
direct access to, and visibility of all S&T research and initiatives.
The CG will, at a minimum, retain control of the projects in support of
its non-Security mission programs. The integration of funding and
effort will go far to minimize redundancy and maximize the
effectiveness of Coast Guard R&D while ensuring that all Coast Guard
mission requirements remain a key part of S&T planning and resource
decisions.
Question. How will this consolidation directly affect the Coast
Guard Research and Development Center in Groton, Connecticut?
Answer. There are currently no plans by DHS S&T to make changes to
the location or personnel staffing levels of the CG R&D Center.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
ALASKA-CANADA BORDER SECURITY
Question. The Department of Homeland Security has recently
indicated that it is formulating plans to increase security along the
Alaska-Canada border. What steps will the Department of Homeland
Security take to ensure that the heightened security along the border
will not negatively impact the shipments of goods to Alaska?
Answer. Inordinate delays with Alaska-Canada at Alaska-Canada's
border with truck cargo are not anticipated. Truck traffic is
relatively small at the border ports of entry. In addition, most of the
cargo is low risk and easily and quickly scanned for radiation with
personal radiation detectors.
This is in spite of the fact that since 9/11, several measures have
been implemented to increase security along the Canadian/Alaskan
border. Staffing has increased significantly due to various
Congressional initiatives. Additional physical barriers have been
installed at multiple crossing points, and several other security
implements have been employed to further ``harden'' the border between
Alaska and Canada.
The ports of Skagway and Dalton Cache are now operational 24 hours
a day, 7 days a week (24/7). Additional staffing and operational hours
have increased CBP's vigilance at these two important ports of entry.
The port of Alcan continues to operate on a 24/7 schedule.
The port of Poker Creek, a busy, seasonal crossing, is now jointly
staffed by CBP and Canada Border Services Agency personnel. This
collaboration has led to a safer, more efficient, border security
operation.
The staffing enhancements and scheduling changes have helped to
meet the new challenges posed by the recent implementation of the Bio-
Terrorism Act. CBP continues to work with carriers, importers,
commercial fishermen, and even professional dog sled mushers to
minimize potential disruptions and delays. To date, there haven't been
any problems and we don't anticipate any.
COAST GUARD
Question. The fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security budget includes
$6.2 billion for the United States Coast Guard. Does this amount ensure
that the Coast Guard will comply with Section 888 of the Homeland
Security Act? This provision requires that the Coast Guard maintain its
traditional missions of Search and Rescue, Fisheries Enforcement, Drug
Interdiction, and Aids to Navigation.
Answer. The Coast Guard will continue to support all the programs
specified in Section 888 of the Homeland Security Act. The Coast
Guard's fiscal year 2005 budget proposes budget authority of $7.46
billion, a 9 percent increase over fiscal year 2004, and continues the
Coast Guard's effort to enhance capability and competencies to perform
all safety and security missions. Due to the Coast Guard's multi-
mission nature, full support of the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2005
budget proposal, which includes funding for Integrated Deepwater
System, Rescue 21, Response Boat-Medium and Great Lakes Icebreaker
projects, will assist in the performance of all mission areas. Coast
Guard is gaining capacity with operational funding of eleven 87-foot
Coastal Patrol Boats and five 179-foot Patrol Coastals transferring
from the Navy. These additional assets will provide more resource
hours, which will be applied to all mission areas. However, even with
this additional funding, the Coast Guard must be judicious in the
allocation of a finite resource base across traditional and homeland
security missions to effectively deliver essential daily services to
the American public.
To successfully do this, the Coast Guard is working to develop a
Strategic Blueprint, which provides a description of the strategies and
processes for allocating Coast Guard resources to reduce risk within
each mission program, and to accomplish stated performance goals. The
post-9/11 environment demands that the Coast Guard focus on reducing
risk and strive to achieve performance goals in each program through a
continual examination of its authorities, capabilities, competencies
and partnerships. The Strategic Blueprint documents how the Coast Guard
enables the operational commander to make decisions regarding the
employment of resources to counter risks in an ever-changing
environment.
Question. The United States Coast Guard recently completed a
successful test of two ``Predator A'' unmanned aerial vehicles in King
Salmon, Alaska. The Coast Guard will test a ``Predator B'' unmanned
aerial vehicles in Alaska during the month of June. Do you consider the
use of Predators and other unmanned aerial vehicles to be a cost
effective tool to assist the Department with maintaining traditional
and security related missions?
Answer. Yes, the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) is a cost
effective tool to meet some operational requirements for DHS and the
Coast Guard. The Coast Guard's current Integrated Deepwater System
(IDS) implementation plan includes the acquisition of two types of
UAVs, the High Altitude Endurance UAV and the Vertical Takeoff and
Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VUAV), with the goals of increased
Operational Effectiveness (OE) and reduced Total Ownership Costs (TOC).
The Coast Guard is currently acquiring the Bell HV-911 ``Eagle Eye'' as
the Vertical Takeoff and Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VUAV) for
shipboard deployable operations. The VUAV is a short-range, low
maintenance aircraft, which will allow the Coast Guard to extend the
surveillance, classification and identification capability of its major
cutters through its speed, range, and endurance and do so more cost
effectively. This asset will be used for maritime homeland security,
search and rescue missions, enforcement of laws and treaties including
illegal drug interdiction, marine environmental protection, and
military preparedness.
To mitigate risk and learn more about using Medium and High
Altitude Long Endurance (MALE/HALE) UAVs, the Coast Guard has conducted
demonstrations in Alaska to evaluate the efficacy of using MALE/HALE
UAVs, like the Predator UAVs, for Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA).
These demonstrations are also building organizational partnerships
within DHS, NASA, DOD and the private sector for the future use of
UAVs. DHS and the Coast Guard have had limited experience with UAV
operations, and no experience with Beyond Line of Sight UAV operations.
The results of the exercises and subsequent data analysis will assist
in the development of tactics, techniques and procedures for use in any
future DHS/USCG UAV operations (including Predator B), and will be used
to develop, validate, verify or accredit ongoing environmental,
operational, regulatory, and cost benefit studies.
NATIONAL ALERT SYSTEM
Question. Last year, Congress included $10 million to improve our
national alert system. We directed the Department of Homeland Security
to report on how the existing nationwide radio network, administered by
NOAA, can be expanded so that it can reach more citizens. It was
intended that Homeland would consult with the FCC to develop a system
that would be ubiquitous and would cross a full range of mediums and
technologies to alert the public to a terrorist threat. For instance,
Americans should be alerted to a threat through the use of not just
radio but also wireline and cellular telephones, e-mail and instant
messaging systems, radio and television broadcasts, and personal
digital assistants. The report was also supposed to evaluate how the
system is being tailored to send out regional threats in addition to
nation-wide threats.
This report was due on December 15, 2003. Mr. Secretary, it is my
understanding that the Appropriations Committee has not yet received
the report. Please tell us what the status is.
Answer. The congressional report has been cleared by OMB and the
Department. We anticipate delivery of the report to the congressional
Appropriations Subcommittees by May 21, 2004.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS CENTER
Question. Secretary Ridge, the Department of Homeland Security has
taken ownership of the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis
Center, or NISAC. NISAC was developed by Sandia and Los Alamos National
Laboratories to simulate and analyze various events and the cascading
effects on critical infrastructure in the United States. Following the
September 11th terrorist attacks, NISAC took on added importance as the
Administration and Congress focused on homeland security.
The fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations Act had
approximately $23 million for NISAC. Would you please give the
Subcommittee the status of the allocation of the fiscal year 2004
funding?
Answer. The Homeland Security Appropriations Act of did not contain
a specific line item for the National Infrastructure Simulation and
Analysis Center. However, the Department obligated $20 million in
November 2004 for NISAC efforts that will be performed by Los Alamos
National Laboratory ($10 million) and Sandia National Laboratory ($10
million). Some of the planned NISAC activities include chlorine
industry studies, analyses of rail system and electric power
disruptions, assessments of Hurricane Isabel impacts on infrastructure,
port and inland waterway modeling, as well as urban infrastructure
modeling.
Question. How much is in the President's fiscal year 2005 budget
request to support activities by NISAC?
Answer. The fiscal year 2005 request for the NISAC is $27 million.
Question. What are some of the activities envisioned in the fiscal
year 2005 budget for NISAC?
Answer. NISAC fiscal year 2005 activities are expected to include
expansion of the Center's efforts to develop National and Regional
Tools into additional regions and cities of the Nation. Additionally,
NISAC will begin developing consequence analysis and decision support
tools to support the following:
--Expansion of the urban infrastructure suites models for
transportation, telecommunications, water, public health and
energy to additional high threat urban areas.
--Expansion of the dynamic simulation models to selected east and
west coast ports.
--Expansion of the interdependent energy infrastructure simulation
system
--Expansion and testing of the waterways asset prioritization tool in
concert with the U.S. Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers.
--Continued expert analysis and support to short term actions for the
Department's primary missions by using the Center's developing
infrastructure models and creating new ones where necessary.
Question. One of the items that transferred from the Department of
Energy to the Department of Homeland Security with NISAC was an
appropriation of $7.5 million for the construction and equipping of a
NISAC facility at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
which is adjacent to Sandia National Lab. Those funds have not been
released for their intended purpose.
What is the delay in moving forward on this important facility?
Answer. The Homeland Security Appropriations Act did not explicitly
appropriate $7.5 million for a NISAC facility Nonetheless, the
Department is drafting a letter to the Department of Defense to begin
the necessary coordination to build a DHS building on DOD property. We
expect to initiate site surveys, followed by a possible site selection
this summer. DHS has retained sufficient funds to complete the survey
and site selection process.
Question. What is the status of the $7.5 million appropriation
specifically for the NISAC facility? Are those funds being held for the
intended purpose?
Answer. Yes.
Question. When can the Subcommittee expect the Department of
Homeland Security to break ground on the NISAC facility in New Mexico?
Answer. The program manager has initiated discussions with the
Kirkland Base Commander concerning the availability of suitable sites
on Kirkland for the NISAC and we have begun coordination with the
Department of Defense to address requirements for building a DHS
facility on DOD property. The groundbreaking date will be dependent on
the identification of a suitable site for the NISAC.
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAVS)
Question. Secretary Ridge, I have written to you on two different
occasions in support of exploring the option of using unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs) to monitor our borders, particularly the Southwest
border. I also noticed in your testimony that there is $10 million in
the President's Budget to ``plan, procure, deploy and operate unmanned
aerial vehicles.'' In New Mexico, we have some experience with UAVs. In
fact, the Physical Sciences Laboratory at New Mexico State University
operates a Department of Defense sponsored UAV validation and test
facility. Because of the already established presence of UAVs in New
Mexico, I have also invited you to visit Las Cruces to see for yourself
this work and evaluate Las Cruces as a potential site for housing the
UAV wing responsible for border surveillance.
Given the $10 million request for UAVs, can you expand upon the
plans you have for them?
Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been evaluating the
possibilities of using UAV technology to enhance its border security
mission since June 2003. The initial evaluation process indicates that
UAVs may indeed have a role in that mission. A pilot program is
underway to acquire a UAV system and deploy it to various border areas
to further evaluate their effectiveness and to further develop concepts
of operation utilizing UAVs in CBP's mission. The $10 million budget
request will support that effort in fiscal year 2005 during which a
fully self-supporting UAV package will be leased either via an existing
DOD-owned contract or through a competitive CBP procurement process.
Question. How many UAVs does the Department currently have?
Answer. DHS does not possess any UAV systems.
Question. How many UAVs does the Department plan to acquire?
Answer. Several agencies including CBP, Coast Guard and TSA
regularly coordinate UAV programs in a working group. The working group
is currently developing high-level requirements to be applied towards
any future DHS-wide acquisition of UAVs. No concrete commitment has yet
been made towards the type or quantity of UAV system acquisition due to
the variety of needs and requirements among the agencies.
The Coast Guard's current Integrated Deepwater System (IDS)
implementation plan includes the acquisition of two types of UAVs, the
High Altitude Endurance UAV and the Vertical Takeoff and Landing
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VUAV), with the goals of increased Operational
Effectiveness (OE) and reduced Total Ownership Costs (TOC). The Coast
Guard is currently acquiring the Bell HV-911 ``Eagle Eye'' as the
Vertical Takeoff and Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VUAV) for
shipboard deployable operations.
Question. Where does the Department plan on stationing these UAVs?
Answer. UAV usage within DHS is in the very early developmental
stages. A number of potential sites are being considered and no final
decisions have been made at this time.
Question. When can you join me in Las Cruces to evaluate the Las
Cruces International Airport as a potential home for the UAV program?
Answer. I appreciate the Senator's offer and respectfully suggest
that our staffs try to coordinate a future departmental visit to that
site.
CHARTER FLIGHTS TO FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER IN ARTESIA,
NEW MEXICO
Question. Secretary Ridge, as you know, one of the Federal
Government's premier training sites for law enforcement officers is
located in Artesia, New Mexico. It is known as FLETC-Artesia (Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center). When terrorists attacked us in
September of 2001, Congress quickly required the training of hundreds
of new Air Marshals. It was FLETC-Artesia that met the impressive
challenge of training these new Air Marshals, quickly ramping up the
program and bringing in three 727's to be used in this training.
FLETC-Artesia is also the campus chosen to provide training for
airline pilots who choose to carry firearms in the cockpit (also known
as Federal Flight Deck Officers). They provide this training in
addition to basic and advanced training for a number of other agencies.
Feedback from trainees who have been to Artesia is almost
universally positive. In fact, one of the few complaints has to do with
one of its greatest assets--its location. Because Artesia is over 3
hours from the nearest large cities (Albuquerque and El Paso), there is
a lot of wide open space to conduct training exercises. Unfortunately,
it is also difficult to get to Artesia--this is the biggest complaint.
The good news is that I believe there is a solution to this problem. I
have been working with the officials at FLETC-Artesia, FLETC
Headquarters in Glynco, Georgia, and in the Border and Transportation
Safety Directorate on a plan to provide charter services from a major
air hub, like Dallas-Fort Worth, to Roswell, which is a 30 minute bus
ride from FLETC-Artesia. Ultimately, I believe the airlines will see
how beneficial this is to them and will schedule regular service along
this route. I also believe the client-agencies will quickly see the
benefits of shorter travel times, fresher students, and better trained
employees.
FLETC-Artesia recently put out a Request for Information seeking
feedback from airlines who might provide this service. My understanding
is that the response was positive and that estimates are that it would
take $800,000 to provide this service for the rest of the fiscal year.
As a member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, I
joined with my colleagues in deciding not to earmark that bill. This
meant that there was no opportunity for me to work with my colleagues
to place money in that bill for this project. Instead, we left it up to
you to determine how best to spend the money to protect our Homeland.
Will you commit to improving the training of our Federal law
enforcement officials by approving funds for this charter service?
Answer. In the post September 11, 2001 period, there has been real,
sustained growth in the use of all FLETC training centers, including
the Artesia, NM center. Although the absence of regular and reliable
service to the Artesia area has been an obstacle to wider use of that
location in the past, recently we have increased utilization to almost
capacity because the FLETC Glynco site is at maximum capacity and the
agencies need to train within specific timeframes. FLETC is
experimenting with conducting more basic training programs at Artesia
in fiscal year 2004 and there has been increased use of the site for
Flight Deck Officer training, among others, for specialized training.
With this in mind, FLETC will track closely the issues and usage of the
Artesia site and report back their findings in fiscal year 2005. Should
the travel service continue to be a problem, the Department will
consider looking at other possible solutions, including some
subsidizing of air service into the Artesia area. This may require
additional authorizing language.
Question. How can we in Congress help provide the best training
possible for our Federal law enforcement officers, particularly within
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center?
Answer. Both Congress and the Administration share a common goal of
ensuring all Federal law enforcement officers have the opportunity for
the highest quality training, especially in this period of national
concerns with security of the homeland. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) is indebted to your leadership and that of others in
Congress, who have long and actively supported the concept of
consolidated training that is represented by the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). Since the events of September 11,
2001, FLETC has undertaken increasingly more training responsibilities
and we are proud of the achievements that have been made by the FLETC
staff and, indeed, its 76 partner agencies. With the generous support
of Congress, FLETC has added many new facilities and improved upon the
delivery of critical training, such as terrorism, first responder, and
international financial crimes over the last few years. In addition to
FLETC's Glynco, GA, Artesia, NM, and Cheltenham, MD training sites, the
DHS has entrusted two other sites to FLETC for law enforcement training
in Charleston, SC and Harpers Ferry, WV in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal
year 2005, respectively. At this point, we believe the resources,
funding, and support for consolidated training are meeting fully the
changing dynamics of Federal law enforcement training.
FIRST RESPONDERS
Question. Secretary Ridge, as you know, long before the terrorist
attacks of September 11, New Mexico Tech was working as part of a
consortium with Louisiana State University and Texas A&M to provide
training to first responders. Since the attacks the need for this
training has become more important.
How much is included in the President's fiscal year 2005 Budget for
the training of first responders?
Answer. $92 million is included in the President's fiscal year 2005
Budget for the training of first responders. As well, states and
localities may choose to use their grant funding to support additional
training.
Question. There has been a lot of discussion about standardization
of equipment used by first responders. What are your thoughts about
standardization of training for first responders?
Answer. The Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) is the principal
component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responsible for
preparing the United States for acts of terrorism. In carrying out its
mission, ODP is the primary office responsible to providing training,
funds for the purchase of equipment, support for the planning and
execution of exercises, technical assistance and other support to
assist states and local jurisdictions prevent, plan for and respond to
acts of terrorism ODP provides more than 30 different types of training
courses. These courses are tailored for a broad spectrum of emergency
responders, including fire service, hazardous materials, law
enforcement, emergency medical services, public health, emergency
management, public works agencies, governmental administrative,
healthcare, and public safety communications
ODP's training efforts fall into three different categories: (1)
in-residence (training provided at one the National Domestic
Preparedness Consortium (NDPC) facilities), (2) on-site or mobile
training (training provided at a local agency by request through an
NDPC member or other ODP training partner), and (3) Website-based
training. In-residence or ``residential training'' occurs at one of the
five members of the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC).
On-site training is provided by either one of the members of the NDPC
or through one of ODP's other training partners. This training is
provided directly at a State or local first responder agency upon
official request through that state's state administering agency for
ODP funds. ODP's Website-based training efforts are administered by the
Texas Engineering and Extension Service, which offers three online
courses for emergency responders.
ODP draws on a large number of resources to develop and deliver a
comprehensive national training program. In addition to the NDPC, ODP
works with a large number of national associations and organizations,
along with other agencies from the local, State, and Federal levels, to
provide training to our Nation's emergency prevention and response
community. This approach aligns closely with the President's National
Strategy for Homeland Security issued in July 2002, which called for a
consolidated and expanded training and evaluation system to support the
Nation's emergency prevention and response community.
To ensure compliance with nationally accepted standards, these
courses have been developed and reviewed in coordination with other
Federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), the Department of Energy, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI),
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as well as with
professional organizations such as the International Chiefs of Police,
the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the National
Sheriff's Association.
Question. What potential do you see for future use of this
consortium?
Answer. New Mexico Tech recently entered into negotiations for the
purchase of the town of Playas, New Mexico. This former mining town was
virtually abandoned when the mine was closed. New Mexico Tech plans to
use this town as a real-world training site.
Question. What role do you foresee Playas playing in the training
of first responders?
Answer. Playas will be jointly developed by the New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology and the New Mexico State University
using funds already made available to the New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology through the Department of Homeland Security's
Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP). As you are aware, ODP has
funded the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology since Fiscal
year 1998 as part of the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium.
As part of the Consortium, the New Mexico Institute for Mining and
Technology supports ODP's mission of assisting State and local
governments plan and prepare for incidents of domestic terrorism by
providing critical training to the Nation's first responders.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FUNDING
Question. Secretary Ridge, the Department of Homeland Security has
a significant research budget to develop new technologies to secure the
United States against terrorist attacks. I know that the Department has
made significant progress in setting up the mechanisms to allocate
science and technology funding to industry, universities, and national
laboratories. This is a vital mission of your Department.
I understand that the Department is still in the process of
allocating fiscal year 2003 science and technology funding. What is the
current time line for completing this allocation of funding?
Answer. The Science and Technology Directorate has ``execution
plans,'' that is, identified scope of work, for all remaining fiscal
year 2003 funds and fully expects to have all remaining funds allocated
by the end of fiscal year 2004.
Question. The Department is now engaged in the allocation of fiscal
year 2004 science and technology funding. How do you plan to allocate
fiscal year 2004 funding in a more timely manner?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security has existed now for
just over a year. Like the rest of the Department, the Science and
Technology Directorate has been working hard to develop effective and
efficient procedures and policies, including those necessary for
selection of performers of the work to be done and the subsequent
contractual processes and allocation of funds. As these procedures get
established, projects will be awarded and funded in a more timely
manner. I am pleased to say that in the last 3 months, the Science and
Technology Directorate has made significant progress in allocating its
available funding into the hands of those researchers who are
developing and transitioning the vital technologies and tools to make
the Nation safer. Both the Under Secretary for Science and Technology
and I will continue to monitor the status of project selection and
funding, and expect to see continued progress.
Question. I note that this year, the Department's budget submission
is improved over last year as one would expect. Although there are
security considerations, could you describe your plans to ensure
transparency in the Department of Homeland Security budget? Both the
Departments of Defense and Energy make their supporting budget
documents public. Will you follow suit
Answer. The Science and Technology Directorate prepares its annual
Congressional Justification in an open and unclassified manner and will
continue to do so as long as programs do not move into the sensitive
realm. In addition, the Science and Technology Directorate prepares its
written testimony for the record for each of its budget-related
hearings in an unclassified document. This written testimony contains
the supporting documentation for its budget request and becomes
publicly available.
Question. One of the biggest challenges in the science and
technology area has to be coordinating the allocation of funding
between near-term and applied technology and basic, long-term R&D
funding.
What level of coordination is being provided by your office, Mr.
Secretary, to ensure an appropriate split between near-term and long-
term R&D?
Answer. I have delegated the responsibility for determining the
appropriate split between near-term and long-term research and
development to the Under Secretary for Science and Technology and he
keeps me and others informed, although the final responsibility is
mine. In the approximately 1 year that this Department has been in
existence, the Science and Technology Directorate has focused its
initial efforts on near-term development and deployment of technologies
to improve our Nation's ability to detect and respond to potential
terrorist acts. However, we recognize that a sustained effort to
continually add to our knowledge base and our resource base is
necessary for future developments. Thus, we have invested a portion of
our resources, including our university programs, toward these
objectives. The following table indicates the Science and Technology
Directorate's expenditures in basic research, applied research, and
development to date, excluding construction funding.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE R&D INVESTMENTS
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2004 2005
2003 (actual) (estimated) (proposed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic........................................................... $47 $117 $80
Applied......................................................... 59 56 229
Developmental................................................... 398 608 643
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... $504 $781 $952
-----------------------------------------------
Percent basic................................................... 9.3 15.0 8.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our initial expenditures in basic research are heavily weighted by
our investments in university programs. These university programs will
not only provide new information relevant to homeland security, but
will also provide a workforce of people who are cognizant of the needs
of homeland security, especially in areas of risk analysis, animal-
related agro-terrorism, bioforensics, cybersecurity, disaster modeling,
and psychological and behavioral analysis. In addition, the Science and
Technology Directorate is allocating a portion of its resources to
high-risk, high-payoff technologies and expects to gradually increase
its investments in long-term research and development to a level
appropriate for its mission and the Department.
Question. What do you envision as the role of the Department of
Homeland Security in investments in future R&D to meet homeland
security requirements?
Answer. At the current time, the Science and Technology Directorate
is working hard with available funds to fill critical gaps in our
Nation's ability to prevent, protect against, respond to and recover
from potential terrorist attacks; however, we are all well aware that
it is only with a strong investment in long-term research that we can
we feel confident we are maintaining a robust pipeline of homeland
security technologies to keep us safe for the decades to come.
Successful businesses reinvest 10-15 percent of their total budget in
research and development; the Science and Technology Directorate will
strive in future years to invest a similarly significant portion of its
resources into long-term research.
INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION
Question. Mr. Secretary, the Department of Homeland Security
combines the programs and personnel for many Federal agencies. Creating
a culture as one department is a real challenge, but there are
capabilities throughout the Federal Government that can assist your
Department in meeting homeland security threats.
I would encourage the Department to develop strong positive
relationships with other Federal departments and agencies where there
is opportunity for collaboration and cooperation to make your job
easier.
Is it correct that your Department has worked with both the
Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) as
it develops its programs to meet homeland security threats?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security has worked very closely
with the Department of Energy (DOE) and NNSA from the very early stages
of the development of the Science and Technology (S&T) program. The DOE
laboratories provided extensive technical expertise and advise
regarding the S&T program development.
Question. How would you characterize these interactions?
Answer. The Department's interactions with DOE and NNSA have been
very positive. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) S&T staff
has an open communication relationship with DOE senior managers as well
as with the DOE field personnel. Since some of the S&T staff came from
DOE, there are close ties and good relationships that facilitate
developing the processes of how DOE and DHS work together. When issues
arise, they are quickly elevated so that communication occurs between
the appropriate parties in both Departments and a resolution achieved.
Question. What potential do you see for future collaborations?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security fully expects to
continue and enhance its collaborations with the DOE and NNSA, as well
as other Federal agencies conducting work of relevance to homeland
security. For example, the S&T Directorate is committed to utilizing
the extensive capabilities of all DOE laboratories and to engage them
in all aspects of our research, development, testing and evaluation
(RDT&E) program. The Directorate's Office of Research and Development
is developing an enduring RDT&E capability through stewardship of the
homeland security complex. To meet the Federal stewardship goal, the
DOE laboratories will play a significant role in assisting in the
strategic planning of the threat-based programs such as radiological/
nuclear and biological countermeasures programs. The DOE laboratories
also have significant existing capabilities and facilities for
addressing terrorist threats, thus DHS will contribute support for some
existing DOE facilities and reach-back into these unique capabilities.
In addition, the DHS University Scholars and Fellows program is working
with the DOE laboratories to place students with DOE mentors.
Question. The science and technology directorate at the Department
has had discussions with the DOE national laboratories in such areas as
radiological and nuclear and bioterrorist threats. The labs have
significant capabilities to assist the Department of Homeland Security.
Do you envision these collaborations continuing? Are there any barriers
to such activities? If so, can Congress assist in addressing these
issues?
Answer. The Department's Science and Technology Directorate will
continue to utilize the DOE laboratories to address S&T requirements
including key threat areas such as radiological, nuclear and biological
countermeasures. Collaborations between DHS and DOE have been very
successful to date, and the Science and Technology Directorate plans to
continue these collaborations well into the future. There are currently
no barriers to these collaborations. If circumstances change, the
Department will bring this to the attention of Congress.
FEMA--CERRO GRANDE FIRE
Question. Mr. Secretary, when FEMA joined your Department, you
inherited the Cerro Grande fire assistance program. The devastating
Cerro Grande Fire occurred in New Mexico in May 2000. This fire
consumed almost 48,000 acres of forest, destroyed nearly 400 homes and
caused damage or injury to 1,000 families, countless businesses, the
county of Los Alamos, the State of New Mexico, four Indian pueblos, and
Los Alamos National Laboratory.
I would remind my colleagues that this fire was started by the
Federal Government when a controlled burn at Bandelier National
Monument burned out of control. For that reason, the Congress enacted
the Cerro Grande Fire Claims Assistance Act of 2000, and appropriated
$455 million to FEMA to establish a claims program to compensate
victims of the fire.
The fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations Act included
$38.1 million to continue paying claims under the Act. Based upon
information from the Department, the conferees on the fiscal year 2004
bill stated that, and I quote, ``this funding will fully cover all
remaining Cerro Grande fire claims'' (end quote).
Would you please provide the Subcommittee with a summary of the
claims activity under the Cerro Grande Fire Assistance Act of 2000?
Please include the number of claims filed, processed, approved, and
declined by category of claim (individual, business, Native American,
governmental).
Answer. The Office of Cerro Grande Fire Claims (OCGFC) has received
a total of 21,515 claims: 13,700 individual/household claims; 1,861
business claims; 6 Pueblo/Native American claims; 20 governmental
claims; and 4,562 subrogation claims from the insurance industry. The
balance of the claims consisted of small-dollar-amount claims, not-for-
profit claims, or streamlined claims (both business and individual
claims under $10,000). With the exception of the pending appeals and
arbitrations (see answer below), virtually all of the claims have been
resolved. OCGFC has not kept records by category on the numbers of
claims approved in whole or in part, or denied in whole or in part.
Question. Please provide the Subcommittee with information on the
number of claims that have been appealed and the general status of
those appeals.
Answer. OCGFC has received 718 Administrative Appeals, of which
only 28 are still pending. The remainder have been accepted, denied, or
withdrawn. Of the 135 arbitrations that have been filed with OCGFC, 120
arbitrations are complete, and 15 arbitrations are pending.
Question. What is the status of subrogation claims for insurance
companies that assisted individuals and businesses in the immediate
aftermath of the fire? Will insurance companies be adequately
reimbursed for their expenses, and what factors are taken into account
in determining their appropriate payments?
Answer. Of the 4,562 subrogation claims filed with OCGFC, all but
42 were determined to be eligible. OCGFC has made 56 percent partial
payments on the subrogation claims. We have reimbursed insurers and
reinsurers only the amounts that they paid out under their insurance
policies, and we have not reimbursed subrogation claimants for their
expenses of administering the claims they received from their insureds.
These expenses are currently the subject of litigation.
Question. Finally, what is the status of the funding remaining for
Cerro Grande fire claims and for administrative expenses?
Answer. As of March 25, 2004, $55,596,000 remained in available
claims funds and $950,000 was available to cover administrative
expenses. 5. Is it correct that there is sufficient funding remaining
under current appropriations to satisfy pending claims, anticipated
favorable appeals, and subrogation claims by insurance carriers? If
not, what is the estimated amount needed to fulfill these obligations?
Answer. We believe that there are sufficient funds to settle all
remaining claims.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
Question. Mr. Secretary, the President's request provides $50
million for the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP). This is $5
million below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and well below the
level necessary to train our Nation's first responders. As you point
out in your budget justification the CDP is the only live agent
training facility available to our Nation's first responders. With a
budget of $75 million, the CDP can train almost 100,000 first
responders. This is almost twice the 55,000 they plan to train this
year with $55 million. The CDP serves a vital role in our Nation's
first response capability. Could you please explain then, why the CDP's
budget has been cut for fiscal year 2005?
Answer. As you know, the Center for Domestic Preparedness is a
Department of Homeland Security-owned and operated facility that
provides training to our Nation's emergency responders. CDP offers live
chemical agent training--the only facility in the world that provides
such training to civilian emergency responders. CDP has provided
training for emergency responders since it was established in 1999, and
is widely recognized as a world leader in the training of emergency
response personnel in the handling of live chemical agents.
The CDP has received significant funding over the years. The
President's fiscal year 2005 budget request provides $50 million for
the continued operations of the Center. This level is equal to the
amount requested by the Administration in the fiscal year 2004 request.
Beginning in fiscal year 2005, the NDPC funding will be used solely to
cover their fixed operating expenses. States will be required to pay
for the costs of sending their emergency responders to NDPC facilities.
The NDPC facilities, therefore, will not have to cover the full-costs
of participating emergency responders, which reduced enrollment
flexibility. This flexibility will likely allow NDPC members to train
additional emergency responders without incurring the additional travel
and financial costs of enrollment.
Additionally, the Department and ODP are strongly encouraging
states to institutionalize awareness and performance level training at
State facilities. One of the overarching goals of the Homeland Security
Grant Program, which will provide more than $2.2 billion to states and
territories in fiscal year 2004, is to provide sufficient resources to
allow states and territories to develop their own capacity to offer
awareness and performance level training courses. The Department and
Administration will continue to support this effort in fiscal year
2005, which will allow NDPC members to concentrate on specialized
training courses.
Question. Mr. Secretary, in your statement you mentioned that you
have provided $20 million for planning and exercises associated with
medical surge capabilities. What assets does DHS plan to commit to
training medical personnel to respond to large scale disasters or a WMD
event?
Answer. DHS currently is planning to use the Noble Training Center
to assist in training medical personnel for medical surge capability.
In the President's Budget for fiscal year 2005, DHS has requested an
increase of $15 million to develop one fixed and one mobile medical
surge hospital module, and an increase of $5 million for associated
planning, training, and exercises to validate and demonstrate the
medical surge capacity provided by these modules. The fixed module
would essentially consist of a package of hospital supplies, equipment,
materials, etc., that could be pre-positioned in a high risk area and
quickly inserted into or assembled in a pre-existing space, facility,
or structure to provide hospital capabilities. Similarly, the mobile
module would consist of a complete package of hospital supplies,
equipment, materials, etc., that could be rolled in from another
location and placed in a pre-existing structure, or the mobile module
would include the structure (trailers, tents, etc.) in which the
hospital would be housed. Planning, training, and exercises associated
with the use of these modules will allow the concept to be refined.
Additionally, this activity will help in identifying potential
locations, factoring in significant criteria including: overall
population of the jurisdiction; population density in and around the
location; hazards and risk prevalent in the location (including
natural, technological, and terrorist incidents); existing hospital
capacity, strength, and organization; and existing medical response and
public health system.
The major elements of the medical surge capacity enhancement
program will include facility, equipment, supply, and pharmaceutical
procurement; leased space for storage of field facilities; salaries and
benefits for additional staff required for equipment maintenance, and
program and fiscal management; dedicated ground transportation for
field facilities; life-cycle costs for equipment, pharmaceutical, and
supply replacement; field exercises and system evaluations;
identification and implementation of corrective actions; and
development of web-based interactive and hands-on training curricula
for facility set-up, maintenance, operation, and demobilization.
Also, through the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) Online
Training Program, NDMS is responding to the need to improve the ways in
which its response team medical personnel respond to large-scale
disaster and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) events. The training
program is designed specifically for disaster responders; providing the
critical information needed to help them better perform their jobs
under the most austere conditions. The online training program ensures
that NDMS response team medical personnel will have appropriate
orientation and training for optimal field performance.
Training opportunities are also offered during the annual NDMS
Conference. With several pre-conference, main, and plenary sessions and
training demonstrations available, NDMS response team medical personnel
are provided access to the latest in emergency management, disaster
response, and coordination capabilities. Additional training is also
provided to NDMS response team medical personnel through their State-
and locally sponsored exercises and training courses. These exercises
and training courses are designed to enhance organization and rapid
response capability.
Question. Recently, the President in Homeland Security Presidential
Directive #8 defined a ``first responder'' as: those individuals who in
the early stages of an incident are responsible for the protection and
preservation of life, property, evidence, and the environment,
including emergency response providers as defined in section 2 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101), as well as emergency
management, public health, clinical care, public works, and other
skilled support personnel (such as equipment operators) that provide
immediate support services during prevention, response, and recovery
operations.'' Wouldn't you agree that medical and hospital personnel
are crucial to ``preservation of life''? Why then have we done so
little to ensure they are prepared?
Answer. Medical, public health and hospital personnel are an
essential component of the Nation's response capability. The Department
of Homeland Security recognizes their importance, as has Congress. The
Department, through programs administered by the Office for Domestic
Preparedness (ODP) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
provides support to the emergency medical services and to hospital
providers.
ODP, in particular, administers the Homeland Security Grant Program
and the Urban Areas Security Initiative, which provide funds to states
and urban areas, respectively, to enhance homeland security efforts
across the Nation. In fiscal year 2004, ODP will provide more than $2.2
billion to states, localities, and the emergency response community
through HSGP. Additionally, through UASI, ODP will provide an
additional $746 million. Emergency medical personnel, including
Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) and ambulatory services, and
hospitals and hospital providers are eligible to receive assistance
through these two programs. HSGP and UASI fund a range of activities,
including the acquisition of specialized equipment, the provision of
training, and exercise support.
ODP also administers a robust training program through the National
Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC). Through the NDPC, along with
other training partners, ODP offers nearly 40 courses for the emergency
response community. As part of the training effort, emergency medical
personnel and public health officials are eligible to attend a number
of different courses offered. A few examples of the training courses
that emergency medical and public health officials are eligible to
attend include: ``Emergency Response to Terrorism: Basic Concepts,''
``Emergency Medical Services: Basic Concepts for WMD Incidents,''
``Emergency Response to Domestic Biological Incidents--Operations
Level,'' ``Emergency Medical Services Operations and Planning for
WMD,'' and ``Hospital Emergency Management: Concepts and Implications
of WMD Terrorist Incidents.''
In fiscal year 2005, DHS and FEMA will be responsible for two
programs that strive to prepare medical and hospital personnel to deal
with mass casualty incidents: the National Disaster Medical System
(NDMS) response teams and the Noble Training Center. Both have major
linkages in supporting the ``first responder'' infrastructure.
NDMS is a coordinated effort by FEMA and other Federal agencies, in
collaboration with the States and other public and private entities, to
provide health and medical services to the victims of public health
emergencies. The System organizes approximately 8,000 intermittent
Federal employees into more than 107 medical and specialty response
teams. The System can also provide for patient evacuation and
definitive medical care of disaster victims.
The incorporation of NDMS into DHS has improved response capability
by enhancing coordination between health and medical response
organizations and other functional disaster response activities. This
will ensure that future planning and response efforts are well-
coordinated and efficient. The reorganization has centralized emergency
response functions within one Department. This will also allow for the
sharing of training activities and programs to include local, State,
and Federal disaster drills and field exercises, and will enhance the
coordination of logistical functions that support emergency response,
thereby improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the response.
This reorganization will also ensure that threat information is
received in a timely manner and will enable increased readiness actions
to be taken in order to reduce response time.
The Noble Training Center (Noble) also transferred from HHS to DHS.
While the program resided at HHS, a 5-year strategic plan was developed
for it by a consortium of universities that included Vanderbilt
University, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and Louisiana
State University. The strategic plan identified immediate and continued
training needed for medical first responders, as well as for the
medical community, to be able to quickly identify and treat victims of
a WMD attack. The plan identified training needs for hospital emergency
room physicians and nurses, emergency medical technicians and
paramedics, and hospital engineers and administrators. This training
would include treatment modalities relating chemical, biological,
radiological, and nuclear assaults to ensure that all hospital
personnel, including medical, engineering, and administrative, would be
prepared to effectively treat victims. In addition, Noble is currently
working with HHS' Health Resources and Services Administration and its
Hospital Preparedness program to train some of the grantee hospital
personnel at Noble this year.
In addition to the work that ODP is doing in this area, the
Department is working with the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) on a related project called Project BioShield. The fiscal year
2005 request includes $2.5 billion for this effort to encourage the
development and pre-purchase of necessary medical countermeasures
against weapons of mass destruction, and improved bio-surveillance by
expanding air monitoring for biological agents in high-threat and high-
value targets such as stadiums and transit systems. This provides
significant funds for this effort, which was funded at $885 million in
fiscal year 2004. Further, the President's fiscal year 2005 budget
request includes $20 million for the Department's Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate for studies and pilot programs
for medical surge capabilities. Also, since 2001, over $4.5 billion has
been made available in Federal public health preparedness grants for
counterterrorism.
Comment.--The Noble Training Center (Noble) at Fort McClellan,
Alabama was established as a medical training center for medical first
responders. According to FEMA, ``Noble Training Center is unique in
that it is the only hospital facility in the United States devoted to
medical training for hospital and healthcare professionals in disaster
preparedness and response.'' From fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2001,
I helped send additional resources to Noble to help them build their
capability, much like what was done at CDP.
However this money seems to have disappeared and today Noble has,
to my knowledge, not grown in capability or capacity to train medical
personnel. While I understand that much of this took place while Noble
was under the direct control of the Public Health Service, it is my
understanding that virtually no activity has taken place at the Noble
Training Center since DHS took control.
Question. Will the Department make a habit of allowing valuable
assets to sit unused?
Answer. DHS is making extensive use of the Noble Training Center
and is very pleased to have Noble as an element in the DHS training
system. During fiscal year 2003, the Department delivered the most
ambitious schedule of training ever at Noble, and it is delivering an
even greater slate of activities during fiscal year 2004.
For fiscal year 2003, DHS delivered the schedule of training
activities that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had
set up and offered a number of FEMA courses at Noble. Activities for
the year included several offerings of the ``Healthcare Leadership and
Administrative Decision-making in Response to WMD Incidents'' course,
which was conducted under contract by Auburn University and its
subcontractors, which included the University of Alabama at Birmingham,
Vanderbilt University, and Louisiana State University. DHS delivered
additional courses at Noble in partnership with the Centers for Disease
Control and Preparedness (CDC) to prepare CDC's emergency response
teams. One of the Department's goals for fiscal year 2004 is to train
more than 1,300 students at the facility. The total number of students
trained in all prior years was 2,274.
Question. What is the Department doing to correct this poor use of
taxpayer's money?
Answer. When Noble was transferred to DHS in March 2003, it was
assigned to FEMA. FEMA officials quickly analyzed the situation at
Noble, inspecting the facility and examining instructional programs. At
the time, Mike Brown, Acting Under Secretary for EP&R, established the
following priorities for Noble: (1) correct deficiencies in the
infrastructure to ensure that the facilities and systems would support
a world-class training activity; (2) maximize the utilization of Noble
by offering a full schedule of first-rate instructional programs
targeted at planning and response for mass casualty events; and (3)
integrate Noble into the DHS/FEMA training system managed by the United
States Fire Administration, which includes the National Fire Academy
and the Emergency Management Institute (EMI). Efforts to meet these
goals began at once. In addition to offering the aggressive schedule of
training described above, DHS also:
--Awarded a contract to the SEI Group, Inc. of Huntsville, Alabama,
to manage the Noble physical facility
--Awarded a contract to DECO Security Services, Lorton, Virginia, to
provide security for the facility
--Arranged for classroom support to be provided through an existing
EMI contract
--Continued work on a $1 million healthcare weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) curriculum development project with Auburn
University and its subcontractors (Work on this project is
scheduled for completion by June 30, 2004.)
During fiscal year 2004, in addition to a full slate of
instructional programs, the following key activities are underway to
improve the Noble facilities:
--Update Noble's phone system and computer network
--Renovate 2 dormitory buildings to provide housing for 160 students
at a time
--Retrofit the third floor of Noble to create a state-of-the-art
exercise and simulation training area
Question. I would like to know specifically, how many hospital and
healthcare professionals have been trained at Noble Training Center and
how many Federal dollars have been spent at Noble to date?
Answer. Since its inception, Noble has conducted the following
training:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRAINING ACTIVITY PARTICIPANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hospital Leadership and Decision-making................. 717
National Pharmaceutical Stockpile Training.............. 293
Integrated Health and Medical WMD Training.............. 250
Emergency Coordinator Augmentee......................... 150
Nunn, Lugar, Domenici Hospital Preparedness............. 54
Epidemic Intelligence Service (WMD)..................... 277
Mass Immunization Training.............................. 63
Tactical Emergency Medical Service in a WMD incident.... 36
Hazardous Materials for Healthcare Train-the-trainer.... 41
Integrated Emergency Management for CDC response staff.. 162
Emergency Response to Domestic Bioterrorism............. 20
Critical Actions Aimed Toward Emergency Response........ 76
Radiological Emergencies (Commissioned Corps)........... 135
---------------
Total Participants................................ 2,274
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on careful analysis of HHS records and FEMA's current
spending plan, by the end of fiscal year 2004, HHS and DHS will have
spent approximately $17.8 million on the Noble Training Center. This
figure excludes salary and expenses for two full-time Federal employees
at Noble and student expenses paid directly by HHS. The by-year
breakdown is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1999........................................ $2,800,000
Fiscal year 2000........................................ 845,000
Fiscal year 2001........................................ 1,500,000
Fiscal year 2002........................................ 4,000,000
Fiscal year 2003........................................ 1,369,092
Fiscal year 2004........................................ 7,300,000
---------------
TOTAL............................................. 17,814,092
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment.--Just around the corner from Noble is the Center for
Domestic Preparedness, the pinnacle of first responder training. The
CDP has been a training facility for roughly the same amount of time as
Noble. This fiscal year CDP is scheduled to train in excess of 50,000
first responders. I can only guess that the differences are due to
management.
Question. Can you explain to me why these two centers are in such
contrast?
Answer. We cannot address HHS' utilization of Noble. However, since
DHS assumed responsibility for Noble in March 2003, it has played a key
role in the Department's overall efforts to prepare emergency
personnel, and it is an important part of the Department's plans for
the future. Noble has joined FEMA's training team, which will train
more than 250,000 personnel in fiscal year 2004.
Question. How many responders do you plan to train at Noble this
year?
Answer. We expect to train 1,320 personnel at Noble in fiscal year
2004 in the following courses:
--7 ``Healthcare Leadership for WMD Incidents'' courses for 490
participants
--6 Metropolitan Medical Response System exercise-based, integrated
emergency management courses for 420 participants
--3 CDC partnership courses for 180 personnel
--9 Radiological Emergency Response Operations courses for 230
participants
Based on funding of approximately $4.3 million we have maximized
our deliveries as we ramp up effort for fiscal year 2005 and for fiscal
year 2006. The Noble facility cannot currently accommodate as many
students as can the CDP facility, given existing facility sizes and
infrastructure.
Question. How much do you propose to spend in these efforts?
Answer. In fiscal year 2004, $4.3 million is allocated for the
Noble Training Center. Additional funding from other DHS sources is
expected to bring total expenditures for Noble this year to
approximately $7.3 million.
Question. Is there any action being taken to tap into the expertise
of the CDP?
Answer. Yes. Collaboration between the CDP and FEMA training
officials has been in progress for some time. We are currently working
on the following plans:
--Consolidating student support services and logistical support
between CDP and Noble
--Conducting joint medical training for first responders
--Conducting outreach training for Tribal emergency personnel
Question. What are your intentions for Noble in the next 2 years?
Answer. We are making extensive use of the Noble Training Center
(Noble) and are very pleased to have it as an element in the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) training system. During fiscal year 2003,
DHS delivered the most ambitious schedule of training ever offered at
Noble, and is undertaking an even more ambitious slate of activities in
fiscal year 2004.
Noble was transferred to DHS in March 2003, and was assigned to the
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate (EP&R)/FEMA. FEMA
officials quickly analyzed the situation at Noble, inspecting the
facility and reviewing instructional programs. At that time, Acting
Under Secretary for EP&R Mike Brown established three priorities for
Noble: (1) Correct infrastructure deficiencies to ensure that the
facilities and systems would continue to support world-class training
activities; (2) maximize the utilization of Noble by offering a full
schedule of first-rate instructional programs targeted at planning and
response for mass casualty events; and (3) integrate Noble into the
training system directed by DHS' United States Fire Administration,
which manages the National Fire Academy and the Emergency Management
Institute (EMI). Efforts to meet these goals began at once and continue
today. In addition to offering an aggressive schedule of training, FEMA
has also:
--Awarded a contract to manage the Noble physical facility to the SEI
Group, Inc. of Huntsville, Alabama
--Awarded a contract to provide security for the facility to DECO
Security Services, Lorton, Virginia
--Arranged for classrooms and support to be provided through a pre-
existing contract supporting the EMI
--Continued work on a $1 million healthcare weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) curriculum development project with Auburn
University and its subcontractors (Work on this project is
scheduled for completion by June 30, 2004.)
During fiscal year 2004, in addition to a full slate of
instructional programs, the following key activities are underway to
improve the Noble facilities:
--Update of Noble's phone system and computer network
--Renovation of 2 dormitory buildings to provide housing for 160
students
--Retrofitting of the third floor of Noble to create a state-of-the-
art exercise and simulation training area
DHS expects to train 1,320 personnel at Noble in fiscal year 2004
in the following courses:
--7 ``Healthcare Leadership for WMD Incidents'' courses for 490
participants
--6 Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) exercise-based
integrated emergency management courses for 420 participants
--3 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) partnership
courses for 180 personnel
--9 Radiological Emergency Response Operations courses for 230
participants
In fiscal year 2005, using the existing funding level and
leveraging other funding sources, DHS plans to train 2,125 participants
as follows:
--7 Healthcare Leadership courses for 420 participants
--8 MMRS exercise-based integrated emergency management courses for
600
--5 Hospital Emergency Management courses for 150 personnel
--4 Hospital Emergency Incident Command System train-the-trainer
offering for 120 participants
--7 Radiological Emergency Response Operations courses for 155
responders
--1 Advanced Radiological Incident Operations training course for 30
responders
--1 Radiological program train-the-trainer course for 30 trainers
--5 Response Team training for CDC staff, with a total of 300
participants
--8 Disaster cadre training courses (various titles) for 320 students
In addition, EMI is currently assessing training needs for the
National Disaster Medical System cadre. While the cadre's initial
training is currently offered online, Noble is being considered for use
in meeting some of the cadre's exercise-based course requirements.
Also, for fiscal year 2005, DHS will continue to collaborate with
the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP), and plans to join forces
with CDP to deliver training. This joint training will simulate the
responder/hospital personnel interface that is critical during a mass
casualty event.
Comment.--When we began this adventure, it was my belief that the
proximity of CDP and Noble would allow us to provide one of the best
comprehensive incident response training programs in the country. Not
only do we have the only live agent training facility, but just around
the corner is ``the only hospital facility in the United States devoted
to medical training for hospital and healthcare professionals in
disaster preparedness and response.'' This would provide the
opportunity for municipalities, communities, regions and states to know
that their responders are prepared from the site of the incident
throughout the hospital, not just to the emergency room door. This is
an opportunity for comprehensive training that must not be ignored if
we expect our first responders and medical personnel to act fluidly in
the event of a disaster.
Question. I would like your thoughts on this concept.
Answer. While each organization has its special expertise, we
believe that bringing CDP and other FEMA training activities closer
together will greatly enhance services for the Nation's emergency
responders.
Question. Mr. Secretary, I continuously hear of concerns from my
localities regarding the speed at which funds are dispersed to their
final destination. What is the Department doing to ensure that these
funds are put to use more quickly?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security takes seriously our
responsibility to provide resources to our Nation's emergency
prevention and response community and to ensure that this assistance is
provided in most efficient, effective and responsible manner. I believe
that Congress also supports this goal. Indeed, Congress has provided
strict timeframes within the last several appropriations acts for the
Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) and the Department of Homeland
Security. In the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act, the
fiscal year 2003 Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, and
the fiscal year 2004 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
Act, Congress required that ODP allocate funds to states within 30 days
of the enactment of these acts. Congress further required that states
apply for their allocated funds within 30 days of the allocation or
availability of funds. Congress required that ODP make awards to states
within 30 days of receipt of application, or receipt of updated
homeland security strategies, whichever was later. Additionally,
Congress required that states obligate or pass-through funds to units
of local government within 60 days of receipt of an award from ODP.
These timeframes have certainly expedited the award of funds to
states under the Homeland Security Grant Program and the Urban Areas
Security Initiative. However, some complaints of the slowness of funds
reaching localities are legitimate and understandable. There are
certain impediments to localities receiving their funds from their
states that are outside of the control of the Department of Homeland
Security. For instance, some states can not accept Federal funds unless
they have been previously included in their State budget. Depending on
when the State legislature convenes, the transference of funds and
support to localities might be delayed. Additionally, as pointed out in
the December 1, 2003 survey by the National Emergency Management
Association, a number of other factors at the State and local level
serve to impede the timely transfer of homeland security funds to
localities, including State and local bid requirements for Federal
funds, Further, equipment inventory stock might also prevent speedy
delivery of equipment to State and local emergency responder agencies.
The Department and ODP are making every effort to expeditiously
award funds to states. With the assistance of Congress, we have made
great strides in providing funds and other assistance to states and
units of local governments. Unfortunately, because of certain State and
local restrictions, funds might experience a delay at the State and
local levels. On March 16, 2004, Secretary Ridge announce that
formation of the Homeland Security Funding Task Force charged with
examining the first responders funding process and ensuring Federal
grant money monies move quickly to the end user: first responders.
Question. I applaud the consolidation of grants under the ODP. I
believe a one-stop shop is an important part to making the grant
process more accessible to all entities. Will you develop a mechanism
to ensure that funds are used in a manner that ensures the proper
distribution of assets? Will the different grants be working in
conjunction? Or in other words how will ODP ensure that the right hand
knows what the left hand is doing?
Answer. On January 26, 2004, I announced my intention to
consolidate the Office for Domestic Preparedness with the Office for
State and Local Government Coordination to form a new office--the
Office for State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. As
I explained at the time, this consolidation is in direct response to
requests from the field, which date back to 1998, to provide State and
local governments with a ``one-stop-shop'' and one central focal point
for grants, assistance, and other interactions related to homeland
security.
This consolidation will place 25 various State and local support
programs and initiatives within one office to ensure simplified and
coordinated administration of these programs. I firmly believe that
this consolidation will benefit both DHS and the State and local
emergency response community. As part of this effort, the new Office
will issue application kits and provide awards that combine several
different grant programs. ODP took the first step in this direction
through the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Grant Program, which
combined three separate ODP-administered programs under one single
application kit. The new Office of State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness will use this combined application kit as
a model for future grant programs.
Further, the new Office of State and Local Government Coordination
and Preparedness will depend on the subject matter experts within the
agencies previously administering these consolidated programs to ensure
that invaluable experience and expertise with these programs is not
lost. The Department is currently working to ensure that that this
expertise is not lost, but continues to guide the development and day-
to-day management of these programs. Through these efforts, I am
confident that the new office will provide assistance to states and
localities in a more efficient, coordinated, and streamlined manner. I
appreciate your support for the consolidation and look forward to your
continued support on this and other Department initiatives.
Question. Mr. Secretary, your budget provides the Coast Guard with
$678 million for the Integrated Deepwater System. I remain concerned
with the Coast Guard's management of the Deepwater procurement and how
the Coast Guard is prioritizing use of its funds. The Coast Guard and
OMB appear to have lost sight of the priorities of legacy replacement
and the goal of reduced operational expenses. Every dollar spent poorly
in this procurement process delays the Coast Guard's ability to obtain
the best, most modern equipment to protect the homeland. The funding
will acquire two UAV's, a National Security Cutter, three SRP's, one
LRI, and IDS patrol boats. Noticeably absent is the Maritime Patrol
Aircraft, the CASA CN-235. Why were funds for the MPA not included? How
does the Coast Guard intend to make up for the loss of this critical
asset? How many MPA does the USCG intend to purchase? When can we
expect the Coast Guard to request funding for the MPA?
Answer. The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2005 budget requests funds
for the Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) to missionize the third CASA
aircraft, which was funded for acquisition in fiscal year 2004. This
missionization includes the logistic complement required for Full
Operating Capability and partial spare parts used for the logistics
system start up. The Coast Guard is currently acquiring the CASA CN235-
300M as the Deepwater MPA. The delivery of the first two MPA is
scheduled for 2006, with full operational capability in late 2006 or
early 2007.
The Coast Guard will use existing aircraft in the Coast Guard
inventory to ensure the Nation's highest maritime security and safety
priorities are met until new aircraft are delivered.
The number of Maritime Patrol Aircraft in the current
Implementation Plan is 35. Simultaneously, the Coast Guard is working
to align the Deepwater Program with the strategic goals and objectives
of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS Management Directive
1400 established an Investment Review Process, which included an
interagency Investment Review Board (IRB) and Joint Requirements
Council (JRC). The Investment Review Process is designed to ensure that
spending on investments directly supports and furthers DHS missions;
optimal benefits and capabilities are provided to stakeholders and
customers; acquisition oversight of new investments is provided
throughout their life cycle; and portfolios are managed to achieve
budget goals and objectives. The Coast Guard is working aggressively
with the IRB and JRC and its newly chartered Aviation Council to ensure
capital funds provide the best Departmental investment. The DHS Joint
Requirements Council (JRC) partially reviewed DHS Aviation Requirements
in January 2004 at their first meeting. Until DHS and Coast guard
decisions are made on future aviation requirements, it is difficult to
project the exact mix of aircraft in the final Deepwater solution.
The Maritime Patrol Aircraft is an essential element of the
Deepwater system of systems approach to the recapitalization of Coast
Guard assets. The Deepwater plan projects future funding for MPAs to
achieve its long-term project goals.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Judd Gregg
Question. Mr. Secretary, I would like to address the matter of the
Customs Services' ability to meet the increased needs of new and
growing airports and seaports for inspections services. If Customs is
not able to expand its services into new, economically growing
communities around the country then not all areas of the country will
be able to share in the economic benefits of international trade and
tourism--and as a result then the economic growth of the Nation as a
whole will also be restricted.
My concerns in this regard have been raised by my experience in
working with Customs unsuccessfully to provide inspection services to
the Pease International Tradeport in Portsmouth/Newington, New
Hampshire. When I was governor, I helped take the first steps to create
the Tradeport following the BRAC closing of Pease Air Force Base with
the vision of it becoming a commercial air terminal open to
international flights and thus helping to drive the economy of not only
New Hampshire, but the entire region.
Unfortunately, despite spending over $35 million in Federal and
State funds to build a commercial terminal, according to Customs' own
specifications, we have been unsuccessful in getting Customs' to either
approve the use of the facility as is--or to even tell us what the
post-9/11 modifications are that Customs insists are now needed. Even
more frustrating has been Customs refusal to provide inspection
services, even over the short-term, so that DOD chartered aircraft
currently carrying U.S. military personnel home from Iraq and
Afghanistan can land and refuel at Pease on their way to the troops'
ultimate destinations within the United States. While Customs says on
the one hand that it does not have the manpower to service these 11-15
flights every 45 days, it also says it could do these inspections at
current manpower levels--if Pease paid economically exorbitant and
untenable fees to the Customs service.
I would note that two Customs inspectors actually have offices on
Pease Tradeport's premises and the local Air National Guard unit has
been trained to provided such inspection services; however Customs will
neither use the local Customs officers or allow the Air National Guard
unit to provide the necessary inspection services so that the DOD
charter flights can land at Pease.
As many of us in New Hampshire had hoped for at Pease Tradeport's
actual opening in 1998, Pease's close proximity to Boston's Logan
airport is now becoming an attractive as a convenient point for
servicing planes and crews of various commercial airlines' domestic and
international flights, which are increasingly facing difficulties with
flight scheduling, customs, and gate access due to Boston's limited
space and heavy traffic. However, Pease Tradeport's value as an
alternative for airlines is largely negated when Customs is either
unwilling or unable to provide even minimal inspection services.
Again, my parochial experience in this regard has raised my
concerns about Customs--and thus DHS'--ability to expand its inspection
services into new, economically growing communities throughout the
country and whether the benefits of international trade and tourism are
going to be confined to areas of the country that already enjoy them
for the foreseeable future.
In light of the 35 percent increase in Customs positions that the
Congressional Research Service says Congress provided funding for in
fiscal year 2002 alone, do you feel the President's budget request, if
approved by Congress, provides the Department with the needed
flexibility to respond to the need for Customs services to all areas of
the country that need them, including up and coming areas of the
country like NH?
Answer. The Pease International Tradeport issue is currently under
review by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Office of Field
Operations (OFO). OFO has conducted a study of the facility to
determine what additional security modifications will need to be
implemented. The results of this study should be compiled shortly.
The Department of Homeland Security, in particular CBP, is
committed to providing security for our Nation without impeding the
free flow of commerce. The fiscal year 2005 President's Budget should
provide CBP with the flexibility to align our staff to existing
workload and provide services where needed.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Larry Craig
UTILIZATION OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL LABS
Question. Secretary Ridge, on January 30, 2004, you received a
letter signed by the entire Idaho Congressional delegation expressing
our objections to guidelines issued by the DHS Office of Research and
Development. These guidelines describe DHS's approach to the
utilization of Department of Energy national laboratories. A copy of
this letter is enclosed herewith. I am aware that you have received
similar letters from other members of Congress and that issues
surrounding the implementation of the DHS research agenda may be the
subject of current GAO investigation.
How do you intend to address the issues raised in the Idaho
delegation's letter and when can I expect a response?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security, through Section 309 of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002, is provided access to the national
laboratories and sites managed by the Department of Energy to carry out
the missions of DHS.
The DHS Science and Technology Directorate, wishing to make the
best use of each of these laboratories and sites in consonance with
statute, regulation, and policy, asked laboratories and sites to make a
decision regarding their desired mode of interaction with the
Directorate--to participate in S&T's internal strategic planning and
program development processes or, if otherwise permissible under
applicable law, regulation, contract, and DOE policy, to respond to
certain types of S&T solicitations open to the private sector.
On March 31, 2004, the following national laboratories and sites
communicated their decision to Under Secretary McQueary to participate
in S&T's internal strategic planning and program development processes:
Argonne National Laboratory, Bechtel Nevada, Brookhaven National
Laboratory, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
and the Sandia National Laboratories. The designation of intramural/
extramural is therefore no longer necessary for the nine labs under
consideration.
An external review will be conducted to assess the baseline
capabilities of the national labs to provide the Department with an
enduring capability to meet long-term mission requirements. The results
of this review will be utilized by the Homeland Security Science and
Technology Advisory Committee to advise the Department on options for
establishing a long-term strategic relationship with the national
laboratories.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
CHEMICAL PLANT SECURITY
Question. Mr. Secretary, you and I have previously discussed the
role of the Department of Homeland Security as it pertains to the
protection and security of chemical plants in this country. Your
Department continues to take a ``hands-off'' approach by relying on
voluntary efforts by the chemical plant industry to assess
vulnerabilities and take protective actions.
We know that the EPA has estimated that over 100 plants located all
over the country could affect over 1 million people, if attacked. We
know that the Department of Justice released a study in April of 2000,
concluding that, ``the risk of terrorists attempting in the foreseeable
future to cause an industrial chemical release is both real and
credible.'' We know that in February of 2003, the National
Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC), which is now part of the
Department of Homeland Security, issued a threat warning that, ``Al
Qaeda operatives also may attempt to launch conventional attacks
against the U.S. nuclear/chemical-industrial infrastructure to cause
contamination, disruption, and terror. Based on information, nuclear
power plants and industrial chemical plants remain viable targets.''
We know that the Homeland Security Act requires DHS to analyze the
vulnerabilities to our critical infrastructure and take protective
actions to strengthen them. However, when you testified last year, you
indicated that the chemical industry was better suited to assess
vulnerabilities and take appropriate security measures.
Last November, 60 Minutes reporter Steve Croft and Carl Prine, an
investigative reporter at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, found their
way in to numerous chemical plants containing dangerous materials
without a hint of resistance. This revelation clearly highlighted the
fact that the chemical industry was doing little to nothing to improve
security at chemical plants.
A July 2003 survey by the Conference Board found that since 9/11,
U.S. corporations have increased their spending on security by only 4
percent.
Mr. Secretary, do you maintain the position that the chemical
industry is better suited to assess vulnerabilities and take protective
actions to secure chemical plants? Does your budget request address
this issue in any way? If so, how much is included for chemical plant
security?
Answer. We look to the private sector as the primary agent of
change when it comes to assessing vulnerabilities and taking protective
measures at their individual facilities. As you know, 85 percent of
critical infrastructures are privately owned. Our role is to provide
the tools (standards, techniques, best practices) necessary to do an
effective job. We have a genuine program to assess whether this
approach is effective and will make adjustments as necessary.
Several initiatives are underway to help protect the Nation's
chemical plants. We will spend about $18 million for protective
measures at the 360 chemical plants on the fiscal year 2004 Protective
Measures Target List. This amount funds site assistance visits by my
security specialists to assess vulnerabilities and help establish
buffer zone protection plans. Approximately $4.1 million is for the
acquisition of web cam monitors for local law enforcement agencies to
install on public right-of-ways adjacent to 17 critical chemical sites
to extend their buffer zones.
Question. What more can you do to make sure that the chemical
industry responds with a robust program to secure their plants?
Answer. DHS Protective Security Advisory Teams visited the 17
critical sites last year to provide training and assist site personnel
and local law enforcement develop Buffer Zone Protection Plans to make
it more difficult for terrorists to conduct surveillance or attack one
of our facilities.
For the remaining 343 sites, we will visit each one to provide
training, support, and recommendations to owners and operators and
local law enforcement. Each site has its own particular needs. Some
visits will focus on ``inside the fence'' issues with plant security
personnel to identify and reduce vulnerabilities. Others will involve
the development of buffer zones in cooperation with local law
enforcement. Some sites will need both types of assistance. We intent
to have visited all 360 chemical facilities by the end of the year. We
have also published two reports, the Characteristics and Common
Vulnerabilities Report and the Potential Indicator of Terrorist
Activity (PI) Report, to assist owners and operators of chemical
facilities. The former characterizes and discusses common
vulnerabilities for chemical manufacturing facilities producing and
handling large quantities of inherently hazardous materials while the
latter discusses potential indicators and warnings of terrorist
activity that law enforcement and plant security personnel can use to
better protect their facilities.
We have established a protection, training, and planning program
for State homeland security personnel, local law enforcement, chemical
facility operators and site security personnel. Periodic drills among
the protective community will be conducted to exercise the chemical
facilities plans in the case of a potential terrorist attack and we
intend to factor chemical plant security into national exercises.
Finally, the Department is in the process of developing plans for
deploying a cadre of Protective Security Advisors (PSAs). Each one will
have responsibility for a specific region of the country and will
maintain a close relationship with the chemical plant owners and
operations in their area. The advisors will facilitate information
sharing, organize protective security training, assist in emergency
coordination, and represent the Department in the communities in which
they are posted. Security Augmentation Teams (SATs) are also being
developed that will consist of approximately 25 personnel drawn
primarily from major urban SWAT units. The teams will focus on
protecting high-value sites, such as critical chemical facilities.
Their operations concept is to develop working relationships with the
site's permanent protective security team and become familiar with the
site's specific vulnerabilities. The development of these two programs
are in the early stages but are being closely monitored by my office.
IMMIGRATION
Question. How much of a reduction in the more than 6,000,000
petitions pending with U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services do you
expect to achieve this year with the $160,000,000 requested in the
President's budget?
Answer. With the additional resources requested in 2005, USCIS will
achieve the President's goals of eliminating the backlog and achieving
a 6-month processing time for all immigration applications by 2006. In
order to achieve this goal, USCIS will:
--Reengineer processes to achieve greater efficiencies;
--Update policies and procedures to streamline adjudications and
increase the percentage of cases completed at initial review by
an adjudicator; and
--Manage production against milestones--beginning with
collaboratively setting goals, reporting progress, and
identifying additional improvement opportunities.
USCIS is finalizing its Backlog Elimination Plan and will provide
this plan to Congress in the coming months. The plan will include a
road map to eliminating the backlog with defined milestones.
Question. How many new petitions do you expect the President's
Immigration Reform Plan to generate?
Answer. This information will be available once Congress has
drafted the legislation and the specifics are known.
Question. What lessons from the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control
Act (IRCA) legalization programs have been applied to the President's
Immigration Reform Plan?
Answer. The IRCA planning teams developed a strategy that enabled
the Service to quickly expand its adjudicative capacity through the
establishment of temporary regional processing centers and local
interview offices. Temporary employees were hired and trained
specifically to adjudicate that workload. INS reassigned experienced
executives and managers at all levels to oversee operations, but relied
heavily on the skills or retired executives and managers (reemployed
annuitants). This strategy enabled the Service to continue its efforts
to process the normal casework plus handle the surge in workload caused
by the passage of IRCA. Key components of IRCA were: the development of
the regional processing center concept, development of a modular office
plan for field interviewing sites, automated data systems to record
transactions, and receipt of authority from Congress to expedite
certain leasing and contracting requirements. In addition, INS received
authority to reemploy annuitants without salary offset. The reemployed
annuitant program was absolutely critical to the overall success of the
program.
INS worked closely with Congress prior to the passage of IRCA, and
that cooperation was also instrumental in INS being able to meet the
requirements for the legalization provisions of IRCA.
Question. What were the total costs of IRCA's two legalization
programs (please break down by main components) and how much revenue
was generated in total by the fees charged to process IRCA
applications?
Answer. The IRCA program was totally fee-funded. Therefore, the
number of applications filed and their respective fees determine the
total cost of the program. Our analysis to date of the program has
determined a total application workload of approximately 2,700,000,
with costs/fee revenues totaling $245,000,000. The breakdown of this
program is as follows: (1) Application for Permanent Residency
(2.68,000,000 applications/$241 million), (2) Application for Status as
a Temporary Resident (6,700 applications/$3.7 million).
Question. How much will the President's Immigration Reform Plan
cost, and what components comprise the total cost?
Answer. It is expected that costs associated with the workload
would be covered with fees like all other application and petition
processing.
Question. If the President's Immigration Reform Plan is funded
through fees, what proportion of the funds will be distributed to U.S.
Citizenship and Immigrant Services (to adjudicate petitions), to
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (for investigations and
enforcement), to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (for background
checks), to the Department of Labor (for labor certification and
worksite enforcement), and to the Department of State's Bureau of
Consular Affairs (for visa issuances)?
Answer. CIS costs associated with the temporary worker program will
be covered by application fees. The 2005 Budget requested additional
funding to support Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an additional
$23,000,000 to more than double the resources devoted to worksite
enforcement.
Question. How many full-time equivalent [FTE] personnel will be
necessary to implement the President's Immigration Reform Plan? What
level of fees or additional appropriations would be necessary to hire
those additional FTEs without further increasing the deficit?
Answer. This information will be available once Congress has
drafted the legislation and the specifics are known.
Departmental Management
DHS HIRING FREEZE
Question. According to a March 26, 2004 Wall Street Journal
article, certain DHS agencies have declared a ``hiring freeze'' in the
Bureaus of Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement because of a potential budget shortfall of approximately
$1.2 billion. Could you please explain to the subcommittee whether this
shortfall is actually a ``computer glitch'' resulting from the
combining of the budgets from legacy agencies or has the agency simply
failed to request sufficient funding for front line staffing as it
continues to roll out new border security initiatives such as One Face
at the Border, US VISIT, C-TPAT, and C.S.I.?
Answer. During a review of the status of execution of the fiscal
year 2004 budget, ICE and CBP determined that implementation of hiring
restrictions was a prudent managerial measure to ensure that they
manage their overall requirements within their fiscal year 2004
appropriations. It was also determined that additional focus was
required to work through funding realignments related to the
establishment of the three new Bureaus.
The Department established a review team composed of staff from the
Chief Financial Officer's Office, Border and Transportation Security,
CIS, CBP, ICE, and the Coast Guard to assess the situation. The review
team engaged in a detailed budget reconciliation effort between the
three Bureaus resulting in an internal realignment of $212 million with
possible subsequent internal realignment of approximately $270 million
pending final documentation and billing. The work has been on-going,
but agreements have been reached to realign funds to cover costs of
services incurred by the Bureaus. Formal memoranda of agreement will be
implemented between the three Bureaus and help ensure that funding is
aligned with services rendered.
There is no $1.2 billion shortfall as reported by the Wall Street
Journal.
Security initiatives such as One-Face-at-the-Border, US VISIT, C-
TPAT and CSI were sufficiently funded through the appropriations
process and are not contributing to accelerated rates of expenditures.
Question. Funds for these accounts are apportioned on a quarterly
basis. Was the anti-deficiency act violated for any of the CIS, CBP or
ICE accounts for fiscal year 2003 or fiscal year 2004?
Answer. The anti-deficiency act has not been violated for the CIS,
CBP or ICE accounts in fiscal year 2003 or fiscal year 2004.
TSA REPROGRAMMING PROPOSAL
Question. What is the status of the TSA reprogramming proposal?
Answer. TSA has proposed a modest reprogramming request for fiscal
year 2004 in order to meet critical needs. The Department delivered a
reprogramming request to the appropriations committees on April 23,
2004. TSA will follow up on answers to questions posed by Committee
staff who have been briefed on the request.
FTE
Provide a chart, broken by DHS agency, that have the following
headings: fiscal year 2003 on-board end of year, fiscal year 2004 on-
board current, fiscal year 2004 projected on-board end of year, fiscal
year 2003 FTE, fiscal year 2004 funded FTE, fiscal year 2005 FTE
request.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FISCAL YEAR 2003--2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
Fiscal year On-
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal board Fiscal
Component/Bureau year 2003 On-Board year 2004 Projected Fiscal year 2005 Comment
FTE End of On-board end of year FTE FTE
fiscal Currently fiscal
year year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Border & Transportation Security:
Office of the Under Secretary 5 5 27 40 67 75
US VISIT..................... .......... .......... .......... 64 64 102
U.S. Bureau of Customs & 38,452 40,178 \1\ 41,847 \2\ 41,298 \3\ 40,076 41,001 SEE FOOTNOTE (CBP)
Border Protection.
Immigration and Customs 35,955 34,708 15,861 15,000 14,749 15,550 Fiscal year 2003 includes Legacy INS; Fiscal
Enforcement \4\. year 2004 onboard does not include FTE for
Federal Air Marshal Service
Transportation Security 58,612 55,920 51,646 53,046 51,346 52,503
Administration.
U.S. Coast Guard--Civilian....... 6,341 6,773 6,717 7,237 6,492 6,821 Direct and reimbursable
U.S. Coast Guard--Military....... 39,219 39,644 39,981 39,938 39,874 40,259
U.S. Secret Service.............. 6,019 6,209 6,292 6,493 6,381 6,506
Emergency Preparedness & Response 5,432 5,726 5,682 5,970 4,780 4,776 Direct
U.S. Citizenship & Immigration 9,625 9,100 8,875 9,000 9,795 9,937 Decrease in on-board due to hiring freeze
Services.
Federal Law Enforcement Training 831 908 931 934 934 936
Center.
Information Analysis & 226 226 263 543 729 737
Infrastructure Protection.
Science & Technology............. 79 34 57 180 180 218 FTE numbers do not include: sin public health
service FTE spt S&T; staff at the envir
measurements lab; staff at PIACD and IPAs
Departmental Management:
Departmental Operations...... 274 359 445 617 708
Office for Domestic 129 57 69 146 146 197
Preparedness.
Wireless/IT.................. 15 5 5 15 15 15
Inspector General............ 372 396 402 500 457 502
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals..................... 201,312 200,163 179,014 180,849 176,702 180,843
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: On-Board are positions not FTE (full time and part time).
\1\ Fiscal year 2004 on-board is as of 2/7/04 Current on-board numbers are positions not FTE. Full-time 40,227; Part-time 1,620.
\2\ Consistent with CBP staffing report required by the fiscal year 2004 Appropriations Act. End of year on-board will vary significantly resulting from
transfer of employees between CBP and ICE. These transfers are result of the organizational realignment required by the creation of DHS.
\3\ Discretionary and Mandatory FTE that was built off the fiscal year 2003 actual FTE and includes additional positions appropriated by Congress.
Estimated FTE usage at the end of fiscal year 2004.
\4\ Does not include FAMS.
DHS PERSONNEL REGULATIONS
Question. Concerns have been raised with regard to the adequacy of
funding for the Department of Homeland Security, specifically funding
for first responders and other frontline personnel. In light of funding
limitations for frontline positions, do you believe spending over $100
million to design a new pay system is the right priority for DHS? When
does the department anticipate that the new pay system will be fully
implemented and operational within all bureaus within DHS? How much of
the $100 million will actually be used for salaries for front line
personnel?
Answer. Our current schedule anticipates that full deployment of
the new system will be completed in calendar year 2006. None of the
$100 million will be used for salaries of front-line personnel, but
rather will support key activities associated with the design and
deployment of the new HR flexibilities. A sizeable amount ($31 million)
of this request will be directed to training for front-line employees
and managers. While $100 million may seem to be a lot, we view this as
a necessary, and appropriate, investment in our people and the human
capital systems they work under. We envision the flexibilities
contained in this language to be a key catalyst to our ability to
attract and retain the right talent for DHS and believe we will reap
the benefits from this investment for many years to come.
Additionally, investments in human resources information technology
are required to identify further organizational savings and allow the
eventual redirection of staff resources to front-line work. A 6-year
life cycle cost of $131 million for human resources information
technology is projected and is essential to ensure the necessary common
technology platform to support the successful deployment of HR
flexibilities and ensure they achieve the intended results. Absent this
investment in HR technology, it would be difficult, if not impossible
in some components, to implement the HR flexibilities because of the
varying quality and maturity of components' existing HR technology
capabilities.
Question. What will be the annual cost for conducting the local and
national pay surveys to private contractors to implement the pay for
performance system?
Answer. We have not yet costed-out this service. We do know that
there are several commercial market survey instruments available to us
for this purpose, and we have already initiated lessons-learned
discussions with other Federal agencies that already use a component of
market-based pay. We have been told by one agency (FAA) that their
recurring annual survey costs are estimated at $30,000 per year.
Question. What does DHS believe will be the full cost for
implementing a new pay system?
Answer. We are projecting a fully loaded life cycle costs of $408.5
million to support full system implementation. Major components of this
figure include the $102.5 million for system implementation, $10
million for Coast Guard performance pool, an estimated $165 million for
other component performance pools, and a 6-year life cycle cost of $131
million for human resources information technology. Some of the
component performance pools could come from existing salary and expense
funding spent on within grade and quality step increases.
Question. How many different pay rates will there be for DHS
employees in the pay for performance system as opposed to the clear 15
Grade Ten Step GS pay scale?
Answer. We are anticipating that there will be between 10 and 15
major occupational clusters of positions (i.e. administrative, law
enforcement, etc,). According to our estimates, we are envisioning 4-5
broad pay bands within each cluster to define entry-level, journey-
level, senior expert, and supervisory pay groupings.
Question. What will the annual administrative cost be for the pay
for performance system?
Answer. We do not have this level of information yet, but are
currently benchmarking with organizations with similar systems. We are
envisioning that the bulk of these recurring costs will be in
supervisory and managerial training, not salary administration, and
view that as a positive commitment to the organization and our people.
Question. How much of the $100 million will be allocated by
contracts?
Answer. We anticipate the bulk of the $100 million will be
allocated by contract. Major breakdown of overall costs includes: $27
million for program management, oversight and evaluation; $31 million
for training and communications to support system implementation; $42
million for detailed systems design and implementation support
(business process reengineering, compensation expertise, etc.) It's
important to note that of the one-third allocated for managerial and
employee training which will likely be managed by contract, there will
be a direct and tangible deliverable to the government beyond the
contractor services. Most of the services being provided by contractors
are those where specialized skills and knowledge are required for a
fairly short duration.
DEPARTMENTAL COMPARISONS
Question. When compared to the Departments of Treasury,
Transportation, Justice, and Commerce, the Office of the Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security is spending incredible sums of
money in areas such as Legislative Affairs, Public Affairs, and the
Chief of Staff. For example, based on fiscal year 2004 enacted numbers,
the Departments of Treasury, Transportation, Justice, and Commerce have
an average of 17 and 17.5 FTE respectively in their Public Affairs and
Legislative Affairs offices. DHS, in contrast, has 43 and 49 FTE in
these two offices. The Office of the Secretary at DHS spends $8.1
million on Public Affairs and $5.9 million on Legislative Affairs while
the other four Departments average $1.6 million each on Public Affairs
and $1.7 million each on Legislative Affairs.
The Departments of Treasury, Justice, and Commerce have an average
of 11 FTE and spend an average of $1.1 million each in their Chief of
Staff office while DHS has 31 FTE in this office and spends $5 million.
(Information on the Office of the Chief of Staff for the Department of
Transportation was not available). Why is DHS spending so much more on
their Public Affairs, Legislative Affairs, and Chief of Staff Offices
in comparison to other Departments?
DEPARTMENTAL COMPARISONS FISCAL YEAR 2004--ENACTED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief of Staff Public Affairs Legislative Affairs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FTE Cost FTE Cost FTE Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dept of Homeland Security................... 31 $5,047,000 43 $8,168,000 49 $5,907,000
Dept of Transportation...................... ....... ........... 19 1,889,000 24 2,267,600
Dept of Treasury............................ 12 1,393,279 17 1,725,620 13 1,459,292
Dept of Commerce............................ 7 1,109,000 12 1,882,000 12 1,605,000
Dept of Justice............................. 14 820,859 20 944,187 21 1,506,177
Average..................................... 11 1,107,713 17 1,610,202 17.5 1,709,517
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer.
CHIEF OF STAFF'S OFFICE
The Chief of Staff's Office currently consists of 31 FTE positions.
The function of the Office is to support the mission of the Department
through coordination of the 22 agencies and directorates that have been
consolidated into the Department of Homeland Security. The Chief of
Staff's Office is also responsible for all operational functions that
relate to the Immediate Office of the Secretary (budget, information
technology, personnel and advance), and offices that fall under the
budget supervision of the Chief of Staff's Office.
Confronting one of the largest organizational transformations in
United States Government history, the Chief of Staff's Office functions
as the central point for coordinating the massive consolidation and
reorganization challenges of the new Department. To ensure a high-level
of initial access and to meet the critical and complex goals of
Homeland Security's mission, the Chief of Staff's Office includes the
Office of Policy and the Office of Counternarcotics.
The Chief of Staff's Office manages the day-to-day activities of
the Department and assists in guiding the long-term goals of Homeland
Security. With the inherent challenges of a concurrent creation of a
new Department, reorganization, consolidation, and several new offices,
the Chief of Staff's Office seeks to streamline, coordinate, and
deliver highly effective initiatives and policies that will ensure our
safety, response capacity and our freedoms.
To accomplish these goals, the Chief of Staff's Office utilizes the
Office of Policy to coordinate all policy decisions that affect the
Department. Due to the rapidly evolving nature of the Department, the
Office of Policy continues to be a vital facet for developing and
monitoring the range of issues the Department of Homeland Security
confronts.
The Office of Counternarcotics serves a vital function for Homeland
Security as the Department works to address drug related activities
that impact the security of our Nation.
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a new department with
unique responsibilities and a complex mission that includes facets of
responsibility not undertaken by other government agencies. Consistent
with the overarching mission of the department, the DHS Office of
Public Affairs (OPA) has created and maintained several programmatic
responsibilities to support the department's critical mission areas
that exceed traditional press office functions.
The congressional inquiry specifically compares the full-time
equivalent (FTE) and budget allotment of DHS OPA to the Departments of
Treasury, Transportation, Commerce and Justice, and requests
justification for the apparent differences between DHS and the other
departments.
There are three primary justifications for the DHS FTE allotment
and budget:
Scope of Mission.--DHS Office of Public Affairs contains many
functions that either do not exist at other agencies or are contained
in other parts of the organization and are thus funded by those
offices. These additional functions were strategically placed within
the Office of Public Affairs to ensure consistency of message to
external audiences and to develop synergies between these various
functions. Information follows about the multiple functions that are
contained within DHS OPA.
Different Comparables.--Comparing the DHS Office of Public Affairs
to Treasury, Commerce, DOJ, and DOT is an inaccurate comparison. DHS
OPA is more analogous to the Department of Defense and the Department
of State, in terms of the media's interest in department activities,
the importance of communicating accurate, timely information to the
public, and the international implications of the department's
activities.
In addition, both DOD and DOS public affairs support programmatic
efforts similar to the Department of Homeland Security, including
public education campaigns, a speaker's bureau and other public liaison
functions. It should be noted that DHS's current FTE allocation (43) is
considerably lower than the public affairs FTEs at the Pentagon (56
FTEs in just OSD public affairs, excluding the large public affairs
staffs at the armed services level) and at the Department of State (170
FTEs at headquarters, excluding embassy public information officer
staff).
It should also be noted that DHS has a total of 180,000 employees--
substantially more than the other departments that DHS is being
compared to.
The Department of Homeland Security's mission is to prevent
terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America's
vulnerability to terrorism, and to minimize the damage from potential
attacks and natural disasters. To support these missions and ensure
consistency in public information, DHS OPA performs functions not
included in other department's staffing numbers; either because those
functions sit elsewhere in the department or they are they are unique
to DHS. Below is a brief description of these functions and
specifically how they further the department's mission.
--Public Education.--The Office of Public Education's goal is to
create and sustain public education campaigns that raise the
level of national citizen preparedness. This program directly
supports the department's mission to reduce America's
vulnerability to terrorism and to minimize damage in the event
there is another attack.
In February 2003, DHS OPA launched the Ready campaign, a
comprehensive, bilingual public education campaign designed to
educate and empower Americans to prepare for potential
emergencies and reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism in
the event that there is another attack. This campaign
experienced the most successful launch in Ad Council history
and continues to grow. With congressional support in 2004, DHS
hopes to expand the campaign to offer a three-pronged strategy
for preparing communities: Ready, Ready for Business, and Ready
for School.
The Office of Public Affairs has also partnered with the National
Academies of Science and the Radio and Television News
Directors Foundation to host ten tabletop exercises designed to
facilitate real discussion between media and government
officials about crisis. This program will supply members of the
media with resources to aid in the dissemination of reliable
information during a crisis and will provide the government
with a better understanding for how to best work with media in
providing critical information to the American public during
times of crisis.
Finally, DHS OPA is working to engage the American public
directly in homeland security issues through a partnership with
the Council for Excellence in Government (CEG). These CEG town
hall meetings have taken place across the Nation and top
officials at the Department of Homeland Security have
participated to directly hear citizen's concerns and ideas
firsthand. Additional public education initiatives of this
nature are in the works for the future as well.
--Public Liaison.--The goal of the Office of Public Liaison (OPL) is
to educate key constituent organizations about DHS policy
initiatives, organize opportunities for dialogue and provide
groups with one point of contact to exchange information and
address concerns. Due to the wide range of issues handled by
the department, the OPL interacts with think tanks,
associations, ethnic groups, universities, and others. OPL also
runs the DHS Speakers Bureau, which organizes and responds to
hundreds of incoming speaking invitations. Placement of the
Office of Public Liaison within DHS OPA is consistent with DOD
and DOS.
--Incident Communications.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002
outlines DHS authority and responsibilities in the event of a
possible terrorist attack. DHS OPA has put several processes in
place to support that legislative mandate as well as Homeland
Security Policy Directive-5 (HSPD-5), which specifically
requires the department to inform the American people about any
terrorist-related events. ``The Secretary shall ensure that, as
appropriate, information related to domestic incidents is
gathered and provided to the public . . .'' This requires a
full crisis management capability that is always in place and
ready to respond and lead the national effort to comply with
HSA 2002 and HSPD-5. This is especially true since we lead the
Interagency Incident Management Group (IIMG).
The DHS OPA staff has the primary Federal leadership role in
overseeing the public information components of the National
Response Plan (NRP) and National Incident Management System
(NIMS). This includes interagency content coordination as well
as state/local government and private sector coordination.
These documents and procedures are cornerstones for all major
incident public affairs response activity, and ensure that
Federal, State, and local communicators function as one voice
in delivering critical information and instructions to the
public. This function is essential--the public cannot be told
different information from authority figures during an
emergency situation.
DHS OPA coordinates planning and operational actions with State
and local authorities, which includes training and briefing to
State public affairs staffs, exercise activity, and real-world
incident management. DHS OPA also conducts interagency table
top exercises to evaluate and improve upon Federal and
department incident response capabilities. In order to inform
the media about what they can expect from the Federal
Government during a terrorist incident, DHS OPA has created a
reference manual with media guidance that is near distribution.
DHS OPA currently maintains a staffing presence in the DHS
Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC) for the majority of
the time, requiring numerous, back-to-back staff shifts.
Ultimately, DHS OPA will be responsible for providing 24/7
coverage in the HSOC, which is currently operational 24 hours a
day.
Finally, DHS OPA also coordinates directly with international
counterparts and non-governmental organizations to ensure that
the department's capabilities are known and to gain information
about best practices being used around the world. Examples
include participation in the multi-discipline National Disaster
Risk Communications Initiative and continuous coordination with
counterparts in Great Britain.
--Historian.--The DHS Historian and historical staff are vital to the
formation, preservation, and dissemination of the institutional
memory of the Department. The DHS Historian also oversees and
directs the recording and preservation of the history of the
Department through the publication of a wide range of
historical studies aimed at a diverse audience, making the
Historian and historical publications essential to a broad-
based public awareness of the work and history of the
Department.
The work of the DHS Historian and records managers in collecting
and preserving historically important records is also a
critical element in ensuring government transparency in general
and, specifically, public accountability of a Cabinet
department charged with protecting the American people and way
of life.
Activities include the production of a range of reference,
policy, and historical background assessment papers; providing
expert historical knowledge essential for informed decision
making; maintaining the institutional history of the
Department; providing professional assistance to the historical
and archival activities of the directorates and bureaus within
the Department; and producing such documentary collections as
may be deemed necessary.
--Web Content and Development.--The work of the DHS Web team is of
particular importance because OPA is tasked with building a
functioning website that is consistent across the DHS bureaus
and useful to the American public seeking information about the
department's missions and policies. Pew research in April 2002
found that 68 million American adults had used government
agency Web sites--a sharp increase from the 40 million who had
used government sites in March 2000. An average of 1.7 million
pages is viewed each week on the DHS website. During the most
recent Orange alert, 2.5 million pages were viewed weekly.
--Employee Communications.--The Employee Communications function
ensures that key policy, procedural, and operational
information from headquarters is disseminated and understood by
the department's 180,000 employees. This function is critical
to establishing a new culture for DHS employees folded in from
22 component bureaus and agencies. Employee Communications
researches communication needs, promotes two-way communication,
and provides a comprehensive range of tools such as a weekly e-
newsletter, roundtable sessions with principals, and the
intranet website.
--Speechwriting.--The Speechwriting staff supports the Office of
Public Affairs' public education mission by writing public
remarks for the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and other
spokespeople. This includes support for DHS senior leadership
during time of national crisis, when there is a particular need
for timely, straightforward public information. Current
staffing levels are consistent with those at DOS.
--Communications/Press Office.--Due to the department's mission,
including its international impact, DHS OPA receives an
extremely high call volume from reporters interested in
homeland security issues. OPA also has taken proactive steps to
provide the public with timely information about homeland
security issues, such as giving advice to holidays travelers,
educating companies about their rights under the newly enacted
Safety Act, and guiding Americans to be alert when using rail
transportation.
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
The Department of Homeland Security's Office of Legislative
Affairs' (OLA) responsibilities are commensurate to the overarching
mission of the Department, both diverse and far-reaching in scope. The
legislative duties of the Department are comparable to other large
Federal agencies sharing multiple committee jurisdictions and
addressing a large volume of Congressional inquiry and activity.
The Office of Legislative Affairs is responsible for the
development and advancement of the Department's legislative agenda.
This includes the establishment and maintenance of constructive
congressional relations, the development of Departmental protocols for
interaction with Congress and contributing to the formulation of and
communication of the Department's strategic message.
Specifically, OLA coordinates staffs and develops material for
congressional hearings to include creating briefing books and editing
written testimony. OLA assists with witness preparation of oral
testimony, including coordinating and scheduling policy and subject-
focused pre-briefing prior to a hearing date. They also coordinate and
manage legislative briefings in advance of a hearing. The briefings
provide the policy landscape, possible questions and answers,
information on other witnesses, and other last minute insights.
Additionally, OLA staff coordinates and tracks deliverables which
result from hearings, including questions for the record.
Further, OLA is responsible for all congressional mail sent to DHS.
This involves recording and tracking correspondence, assigning due
dates, ensuring letters are answered in a timely manner and proofing
and editing all correspondence for the Assistant Secretary's signature.
Currently, more than 80 House and Senate Committees claim
jurisdiction over the Department's many important functions. These
committees include the Select Committee on Homeland Security,
Committees on Appropriations, and other committees addressing homeland
security issues related to transportation and infrastructure,
agriculture, science, energy, commerce, taxes, government affairs,
intelligence, judicial issues, financial services and international
relations.
DHS OLA places the highest priority on responding to all
Congressional oversight inquiries in a factual and timely manner. This
broad interest in the Department and its mission produces multiple
hearings and Congressional briefings, numerous solicitations of
response to Congressional questions and requires adequate resources to
be devoted to sufficiently respond to such inquiry.
For example, in 2003, the Department of Homeland Security testified
at 148 hearings--some including multiple witnesses from both the full
Department, as well of each of its directorates. From January 28th
through April 22nd of this year, the Department has produced witnesses
for 82 hearings. Additionally, in 2003, DHS OLA was responsible for 838
briefings of Congressional members and staff. This year, DHS OLA has
already conducted 509.
Congressional inquiry that specifically compares the full-time
equivalent (FTE) and budget allotment of DHS OLA to that of other
Federal Departments requires an examination of not only the unique
functions of the DHS OLA but also requires a thorough inspection of the
personnel numbers of other Legislative Affairs offices outside of DHS.
For example, other departments with comparable missions report
similar or greater resources devoted to Legislative Affairs. DHS OLA
shares similar personnel numbers not only within the Legislative
Affairs offices of other departments, but also support staff, some
greatly exceeding that of DHS OLA.
NEBRASKA AVENUE COMPLEX
Question. Legislation authorizing the transfer of the property from
the Navy to GSA has been submitted. What is the status of the
legislation in the various authorizing committees? What has the
Department been doing to educate the authorizers and the leadership of
the urgency in moving this legislation by April 30?
Answer. The proposed legislation from the Administration
transferring the Nebraska Avenue Complex to the General Services
Administration for the use of the Department of Homeland Security was
submitted to Congress for consideration by letter from General Services
Administrator Stephen A. Perry to Speaker of the House J. Dennis
Hastert dated February 12, 2004, and by letter to Vice President
Cheney, as President of the Senate, dated February 18, 2004. House and
Senate Leadership, House and Senate Authorization Committees, and House
and Senate Appropriation Committees have been briefed on the NAC
legislation and the necessity of passing the legislation as soon as
possible. A freestanding bill has been reported out of the House Armed
Services and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees. Similar
legislation has been reported out of the Senate Armed Services
Committee as part of the fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense
Authorization bill. Additionally, since February, the Appropriations
and Authorizing Committees staffs have both toured the NAC in
preparation for the introduction of the legislation.
Question. What would it cost to lease the equivalent amount of
space in Washington, DC for fiscal year 2005 and for fiscal year 2005-
2009?
Answer. Using an average of $46.34 per square foot (assuming a 5
year lease), the equivalent cost of leasing approximately 450,650
square feet of floor space (approximate NAC requirement), the cost
would be $20,883,000 in fiscal year 2005 and for the period fiscal year
2005-2009 would be $106,523,000 (assuming an average cost inflation of
5 percent per annum). These costs do not include the cost of parking.
GRANT CONSOLIDATION
Question. What is the status of Secretary Ridge's proposal to
consolidate TSA, FEMA, ODP and other grants in the Office of State and
Local Government Coordination and Preparedness? Have any funds been
officially transferred? If the proposal is still going forward, how
many people from TSA and FEMA will be (or have been) transferred? Are
they people associated only with grant stewardship, or are subject
matter experts also being transferred?
Answer. The move to create a one stop shop for grants is based upon
input from the user or grantee community and is designed to enhance
coordination of the multitude of preparedness and security grants
currently administered by the Department (ODP, FEMA and TSA). The one-
stop shop consolidation will allow DHS to gain a global perspective on
all of the grants to ensure that redundancies are minimized, funds are
directed to the highest best use and DHS can proactively make
recommendations to states, localities and other recipients on mutual
aid and dual use opportunities.
Moving the TSA grants to SLGCP will provide DHS with concrete
benefits. First, it will allow the substantial bulk of the TSA
personnel who are not impacted by the consolidation to focus on their
core mission of transportation security. Next, it creates internal (to
DHS) and external (to recipients) improved efficiencies because only
one DHS team (SLGCP) will interact with grant recipients rather than
two separate teams (one at SLGCP and one at TSA) and, more importantly,
recipients who apply for more than one type of grant (e.g. a UASI and a
TSA grant) will only need to deal with one DHS team (SLGCP).
Final policy responsibility for grant guidance and grant
distribution will reside with the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination & Preparedness. However, overall hazards and
transportation security policy input will remain with FEMA, TSA, as
well as the Coast Guard, and MARAD. And, to ensure the continuing
involvement of TSA in the grant process, ODP will create a distinct
office dedicated specifically to transportation related grants. This
office will work closely with TSA in developing transportation security
grant policy.
HIRING PRIORITIES
Question. Recently, in the midst of budget constraints during this
period of increased demand to protect the homeland, the Department
announced its intention to hire a director of its Hollywood
entertainment liaison office. This position would pay up to $136,466.
This salary would pay the entry level salaries of 5 TSA screeners, 4
ICE Special Agents, 4 U.S. Border Patrol Agents, 8 Coast Guard non-rate
enlistees or 3 U.S. Secret Service Special Agents. How can the
Department justify the creation of such a position when hiring for
front line activities within the Department is ongoing and there are
hiring freezes in other parts of the Department?
Answer. Public Affairs utilized an open, funded position from one
of its bureau offices to create the Director of Entertainment Liaison
position. By taking an FTE from an office where reorganization had
created efficiencies in workload, the position utilized those
efficiencies to create a position with value added to the Department.
The Entertainment Liaison Office is a necessary addition to the
Office of Public Affairs. This person will work with television and
movie producers to ensure that they do not take ``editorial license''
with Homeland Security matters that could provide the public with false
impressions or inaccurate information. We spend a great deal of effort
to educate people to help them to be better prepared for any possible
disaster--natural or manmade. Millions of Americans get information
through the entertainment industry. This position will help to ensure
that these people get an accurate portrayal of the department's
mission, policies, and activities, while proactively working to help
the American public better identify DHS functions. The Entertainment
Liaison office will guide the direction of documentaries and law
enforcement ``reality'' shows to provide real information about how the
country is better prepared today.
This is not a unique position in government. Many other Federal
agencies already utilize a liaison with the entertainment industry. The
CIA has a Hollywood liaison, and the Department of Defense houses a
large staff to serve the same function.
CONTRACTING OUT
Question. During the April 30, 2003, hearing, Secretary Ridge
testified that he would provide the Subcommittee by August 2003 the
fiscal year 2004 Management Plan of the Department. To date, that has
not been submitted. Please submit the Plan. What are the Department's
plans for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 for contracting out
work currently provided by DHS personnel?
Answer. The Department has engaged in a 2004 Competitive Sourcing
Plan that provides for the competition of approximately 1,500
commercial FTE at CIS and the USCG. No decisions have yet been reached
regarding whether to retain the work in-house or convert it to contract
performance. Competition based decisions are expected in the August/
September timeframes. The Department is currently working with its
Organizational Elements to identify opportunities for additional
competitions in the fiscal year 2005 completion timeframe and based
upon the 2003 FAIR Act inventory of commercial and inherently
governmental functions, but we have not yet made any final decisions
regarding what will be competed or the form of competition (streamlined
or standard).
FUNDING FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS AND PORT SECURITY GRANTS
Question. Provide for the record the response to my March 9, 2004
letter to Secretary Ridge.
Answer. The Secretary appreciates the question and the opportunity
to respond. A response to the Senator's March 9, 2004 letter to the
Secretary is forthcoming.
Transportation Security Administration
IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR CARGO STRATEGIC PLAN
Question. Please provide an update on all steps taken to date to
implement your 11/03 Air Cargo Strategic plan. How are you integrating
the hiring of 100 air cargo inspectors into that plan and what is the
status of that hiring effort?
Answer. The Air Cargo Security Plan outlines a layered security
strategy based on TSA's threat-based, risk managed approach to
security. TSA is focused on numerous strategies to secure cargo
aircraft, perimeters, facilities, and personnel. TSA plans to publish a
Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) soon that will include
requirements for further implementation of the Plan. But it is
important to note that a significant number of measures called for by
the Plan have already been implemented:
--As of April 18th, 2004, 75 out of the 100 cargo inspectors have
been hired and are on board. The remainder has been tendered
offers of employment, which are currently being processed. We
expect the remaining inspectors to be on board within the next
two pay periods. These inspectors will be deployed throughout
the United States and under the supervision of the local
Federal Security Director.
--A security directive requiring foreign all-cargo carriers to comply
with the same cargo security procedures as domestic air
carriers has been issued.
--A security directive requiring passenger and all-cargo carriers to
perform random inspections of air cargo has been issued.
--TSA's research and development budget for fiscal year 2005 includes
$55 million to develop new technologies for inspecting cargo
for explosives, radiation, chemical, and biological agents, and
other dangerous substances.
--The Known Shipper database has been expanded by involving more
companies and collecting more information to enhance shipper
and supply chain security
--To assist TSA in evaluating the latest technology available for
identifying high-risk cargo, a Request for Information (RFI)
was issued on April 12. The RFI will close on April 30th.
--Explosives Trace Detection (ETD) and Explosives Detection System
(EDS) technology have been evaluated to determine their
viability in conducting targeted air cargo inspections. The EDS
Pilot program is progressing towards an operational phase. TSA
has selected three vendors to test their machines against eight
commodities. There are five airports selected to participate in
the pilot; MIA, DFW, ORD, ATL, LAX. The first screening is
scheduled to begin at the end of May and finish at the end of
June.
AIR CARGO SCREENING: LEVERAGING DOD RESEARCH
Question. In his January 26, 2004 testimony before the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense, Peter F.
Verga, spoke to three Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD)
efforts currently underway at DOD. One of them, the Air Transportable
cargo screening ACTD, is designed to detect explosive threats in pallet
cargo loads moving through the military transportation system. Is your
agency aware of this effort and is its use under consideration for one
of the pilot air cargo demonstration projects called for and funded in
the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations Act? If not, why
not? If so, please describe the testing being conducted--including the
location, timeframe, and level of funding.
Answer. Both agencies benefit from research and development
projects designed to provide technologies for screening cargo to be
carried on board an aircraft. TSA has been in contact with the
Department of Defense (DOD) regarding the Advanced Concept Technology
Demonstration (ACTD), and will be working with DOD personnel to ensure
that efforts undertaken by either TSA or DOD are complementary.
WAIT TIMES AT AIRPORTS
Question. Last summer, my staff requested information regarding the
wait times for airline passengers nationwide and at the JFK, LAX, MIA,
ATL, Charleston, WV, and Jackson, MS airports on a month-by-month basis
for fiscal year 2003 and 2004. They are still waiting for this
information. The wait times should be presented graphically with data
on the level of airport screeners at each of the requested locations.
Please provide the information.
Answer. TSA's plan for wait time data collection rotates the
responsibility of collecting passenger security checkpoint wait time
data among different airports throughout the year. Each month,
approximately 26 airports are instructed to conduct a wait time study
of two consecutive weeks. These airports are selected according to
their geographical and size categories in order to allow TSA to
extrapolate across the full range of airport diversity. All Category X
and I airports--as well as select Category II, III and IV airports--
will be chosen to collect data at least three times each over the
course of the year. The monthly airport selections are balanced in
order to provide consistent data for headquarters analysis. In March,
the average wait time for this sample of airports was 3.1 minutes with
an average of 10.4 minutes at peak time. Please see attachment for
airport specific information.
The average peak wait times are the wait times encountered by
passengers during the airport's high passenger volume periods. This is
an average of all the checkpoint's peak times at each of the selected
airports over the given month.
DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS BY TSA SCREENERS
Question. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees
have filed numerous discrimination complaints. Employees have filed
complaints for a litany of reasons from poor agency management to
failing to address the security problems at airports nationwide. As of
January 2004 the agency faced a backlog of approximately 1,800
discrimination complaints. How has TSA addressed this problem and what
plans are being considered to alleviate the backlog of discrimination
complaints?
Answer. In January 2004, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
implemented a ``Backlog Elimination Strategy.'' With this strategy, the
OCR sought to both eliminate the backlog of discrimination complaints,
develop a system that would promote rapid processing and resolution of
current complaints, and perhaps, most important, improve service to our
customers. During fiscal year 2003, OCR received in excess of 1,800
informal complaints of discrimination. In January 2004, the OCR had a
backlog of 476 informal complaints that required action. As of April 8,
2004, OCR had a backlog of 8 informal complaints requiring action.
We have trained all of our EEO counselors and many OCR staff
members in alternative dispute resolution techniques and have provided
our EEO counselors with additional counselor training. We are proud to
say that OCR's strategy of addressing EEO complaints is not reliant on
the ``pushing of paper.'' We are providing training to TSA managers
that focuses on management practices that promote equal employment
opportunity and are working closely with various TSA offices to
identify and address potential civil rights issues.
AIR MARSHAL TRAINING
Question. In December 12, 2003 written testimony to Senator
Hollings, the General Accounting Office stated that funding cuts and
delays would push back into mid-2004 advanced air marshal training--
scheduled for completion in January 2004 for those air marshals hired
between October 2001 and July 2002. What is the current status of
advanced air marshal training? Have all air marshals hired through the
end of fiscal year 2003 received the required advanced training?
Answer. Phase II Training, the equivalent of advanced training for
Federal Air Marshals, continues at the Federal Air Marshal Training
Center in Atlantic City, NJ. Presently, the last class is scheduled to
begin on May 31, 2004. At the end of that class, approximately 136
Federal Air Marshals will not have attended Phase II for the following
reasons: debilitative medical conditions (61) active military duty
(39); and administrative positions (36). The 36 Administrative
Positions represent 36 Federal Air Marshals (FAMs), who have background
investigation issues and/or disciplinary action pending. When those
matters have been adjudicated, the FAMs will attend Phase II Training.
These numbers may be reduced as personnel in those categories become
available to attend Phase II Training, since training positions remain
available to include the above.
CANINE TEAMS--DIVERSION FROM CURRENT MISSIONS
Question. The Secretary has proposed to increase rail security by
diverting K-9 teams to rail stations. Yet, there is no new money for
this purpose. Where are the K-9 teams being diverted from and what
impact is the diversion having on those missions?
Answer. DHS has announced that it will create Rapid Response Teams
to augment local dog teams through the Federal Protective Service
(FPS). FPS, working with TSA, will determine how best to mobilize
existing dog teams across the Federal Government during heightened
alerts. We have no intention of taking K-9 teams away from screening
air cargo and protecting other Federal infrastructure. TSA is
developing a program to partner with local authorities to provide
explosives detection training for current and future dog teams.
REGISTERED TRAVELER
Question. What are the costs in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year
2005 to implement the registered traveler program, how much of that
cost will be covered by fees on the registered travelers, and what will
be the expected increase in wait times for non-registered travelers if
the registered traveler program is implemented with no increase in the
screener workforce?
Answer. TSA intends to conduct Registered Traveler (RT) Pilots at a
limited number of airports beginning in June 2004. The pilot programs
will assess improvements in security and enhancements in customer
service for passengers. The pilots will last approximately 90 days.
Results of these pilots will be analyzed to determine the program's
effect on security and service.
During the RT Pilots, TSA will test technology, including biometric
tools, to enhance identity verification at the passenger security
checkpoint, in conjunction with business processes, including potential
reconfiguration of select checkpoint lines and lanes. TSA will be
testing a range of technology and operational variables. The RT Pilots
will monitor and assess possibilities for a secure and expedited travel
experience for those who volunteer for the program. The number of
participants in the RT Pilots will be capped at 10,000, spread across a
small number of airport locations. It is anticipated that this small RT
Pilot test will not have a detrimental effect on either those who do
not volunteer or on the screener workforce. Upon conclusion of the
pilots, determination will be made regarding best practices and
necessary enhancements required for larger implementation of the
program.
The cost of the RT Pilots will be funded through $5 million
appropriated for the Registered Traveler program in the Homeland
Security Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-90). Contrary to
media reports, TSA is not planning to charge a fee to passengers who
participate in the 90-day RT Pilots.
TSA will await the results and analyses of the Pilots prior to
making any decisions regarding the implementation of a Registered
Traveler program in fiscal year 2005, including any costs that may be
incurred by passengers who wish to participate in the voluntary
program. The fiscal year 2005 request includes $15 million to pay for
additional start-up costs, such as IT infrastructure and staffing
associated with an RT program. TSA anticipates that future operational
program costs for the Registered Traveler Program would be covered by
fees incurred by participants. Thus, the Registered Traveler Program
would become self-funded.
Until the pilot has been conducted and the results fully evaluated,
staffing requirements and their implications cannot be fully
understood. However, TSA remains committed to its customer service
objectives and minimizing the wait time for the traveling public.
Emergency Preparedness and Response
PROJECT BIOSHIELD
Question. How can the Department justify spending between $1
billion and $1.5 billion on experimental anthrax experimental vaccines
not approved by FDA and unlikely to be approved for many years, when
these vaccines have been developed by companies who have never had a
commercially manufactured vaccine approved by FDA?
Answer. Anthrax tops virtually every biowarfare threat analysis,
because of its high fatality rate (as demonstrated by the October 2001
attacks, where 45 percent of those with inhalation anthrax died),
persistence in the environment, ease of production, and ease of
aerosolization. Although antibiotic treatments are available, the use
of an anthrax vaccine would provide pre-exposure protection for first
responders and remediation workers. In a post-attack scenario, a
vaccine would shorten the course and increase the effectiveness of
treatment antibiotics when given to large exposed populations, and
facilitate re-entry into contaminated space. It would also provide
protection if a terrorist deployed antibiotic-resistant anthrax. Other
important anthrax treatment modalities such as anthrax antitoxins,
which can potentially save the lives of those already ill, are under
advanced development and may become available for BioShield
procurements in the future.
The current licensed anthrax vaccine, Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed
(AVA), has many disadvantages for civilian use, including a primary
requirement of 6 doses over 18 months with annual boosters and a
limited production capacity (the only producer has a maximum production
of 6.6 million doses per year). However, it is currently available,
effective, and safe; and newer, 3-dose schedules are being evaluated.
Through an interagency agreement between the Department of Defense
(DOD) and DHS, the manufacturer could provide 5 million doses to the
stockpile by 2006.
Project BioShield provides for the acquisition of licensable
products with the term ``licensable'' defined as within 8 years. This
provision allows the Department to consider competitive bids proposed
by companies that have a validated current Good Manufacturing Practices
production process capable of scaled commercial production, as well as
products that have been tested in appropriate animal models for
efficacy and in human clinical trials for safety. New recombinant
Protective Antigen (rPA) anthrax vaccines made using genetic
recombinant biotechnology are being developed as next-generation
anthrax vaccines. In preliminary studies, rPA vaccines protected
animals against lethal anthrax aerosol challenge. Two manufacturers--
one of them in the United States--are developing rPA vaccine under
contract with the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Human trials to
evaluate safety began in the summer of 2003. NIH contracts for advanced
development, process development, and further clinical testing were
awarded in September 2003. A 3-dose schedule has been suggested as
likely, although studies could result in a 1-2 dose schedule in certain
situations. Cost is estimated at $10 per dose. Initial rPA delivery to
the Strategic National Stockpile is expected in 2004 as an
investigational product.
Two manufacturers have nearly completed phase I clinical trials,
and further clinical and animal testing plans appear reasonable to NIH
and Food and Drug Administration reviewers. Recent progress reports to
NIH indicate steady progress by both manufacturers with no major
obstacles envisioned. NIH will continue to support and monitor the
current development of the product through phase II clinical trials.
HHS will request monthly progress reports from the manufacturers
and will host interagency risk management meetings to review the
reports and to intervene when necessary. Also, a significant percentage
of the contract payment will not be available until after licensure,
both for pre-exposure and post-exposure use.
After consideration of the anthrax threat, public health need,
advanced development progress, manufacturing capability, and cost, the
Policy Coordination Committee of the Homeland Security Council
recommended, and the Deputies Committee approved, procurement of
additional anthrax vaccine.
Question. Why doesn't DHHS adopt a near-term to long-term policy
for stockpiling of anthrax vaccine with product available now for the
next 5 years and with next generation vaccines thereafter? Isn't a
mixed approach being used for the procurement of other vaccines?
Answer. DHS and HHS are working closely to develop both a near-term
and a long-term strategy for stockpiling existing prophylactics and/or
pharmaceuticals to protect against or to treat exposures to anthrax
while continuing to seek and encourage the development of next-
generation anthrax vaccines. Currently, the Strategic National
Stockpile (Stockpile) contains a sizable inventory of antivirals for
treatment of anthrax exposure, and due to their current availability,
the Stockpile is markedly increasing its caches of such
countermeasures--enough to treat 12 million people with an increase to
30 million by the end of this year. Additionally, DHS, through an
interagency agreement with DOD, is purchasing the only FDA-licensed
anthrax vaccine, AVA, in fiscal year 2004, fiscal year 2005, and fiscal
year 2006--for a total of 5 million doses to be added to the Stockpile.
As a result, the Stockpile will contain ample amounts of prophylaxis
for anthrax exposure, and will serve as a bridge until the next-
generation anthrax vaccine, rPA, is accepted into the Stockpile.
Question. Please provide an expenditure plan by quarter for fiscal
year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 for Project Bioshield that identifies
specific procurements for which decisions or solicitations have been
made to date and general purposes or goals for remaining obligations.
Answer. Over the past 10 months, the Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD) Medical Countermeasures subcommittee has developed
countermeasures information of interest to administration policymakers
who will make the BioShield procurement decisions. The WMD subcommittee
commissioned an end-to-end analysis of medical countermeasures to
Category ``A'' biological agents (anthrax, smallpox, plague, botulinum
toxin, tularemia, Ebola, and other hemorrhagic fever viruses). Working
groups developed initial requirements for four high-priority bioweapon
countermeasures for which there is high need and a reasonable
expectation that products will be available in the near-term:
--Next-generation anthrax vaccine (rPA)
--Anthrax immune therapy
--Next-generation smallpox vaccine (modified vaccinia, MVA or LC16m8)
--Botulinum antitoxin
STOCKPILE
Question. Please provide an expenditure plan by quarter for fiscal
year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 for Strategic National Stockpile that
identifies specific procurements for which decisions or solicitations
have been made to date and general purposes or goals for remaining
obligations.
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 Strategic National Stockpile spending
plan has already been provided to the Appropriations Committee on May
11, 2004, during a Strategic National Stockplie (SNS) briefing. A
fiscal year 2005 spending plan is being formulated by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, but it has yet to be provided to DHS.
REGIONAL OFFICE AND IMPACT ON EXISTING FEMA REGIONAL STRUCTURE
Question. Please provide an update on the Department's plans to
establish a regional structure. What impact will this new structure
have on FEMA'S 10 regional offices and their longstanding and
successful linkages with State and local emergency managers?
Answer. An effective Department of Homeland Security (DHS) field
operational management concept is essential to ensure that the
Department fulfills its mission in leading the national unified effort
to protect America. Of the 22 agencies that now comprise the
Department, 7 have regional structures. DHS is conducting a baseline
analysis regarding a regional concept of operations that would ensure
effective management of field operations both on a day-to-day basis and
during incidents
One of the core missions of DHS regional offices would be to
collaborate with Federal, state, local, tribal and private sector
stakeholders within the region to coordinate homeland security
activities. To ensure that the DHS regional offices are able to perform
this coordination function, FEMA regional offices will continue to
partner with State and local governments to help ensure that
communities throughout the Nation can prepare for, respond to and
recover from incidents and disasters.
Question. How will those relationships be protected under a new
regional structure?
Answer. Over the years, FEMA regional offices have developed such
productive working relationships with their State and local partners
that it is often touted as the hallmark of intergovernmental
coordination and collaboration between a Federal agency and its
constituent stakeholders. In recognition of these valuable
partnerships, the Department is working to design a regional construct
that will capitalize upon these excellent relationships to enable the
more effective and efficient delivery of DHS services to external
stakeholders.
DISASTER RELIEF
Question. Please provide the Subcommittee with an update on
disaster relief funds.
Answer. As of April 28, 2004, $1.487 billion remains unobligated in
the Disaster Relief Fund If obligations occur at the 5-year average of
$249 million per month for the remaining 5 months of the fiscal year
and FEMA realizes another $200 million in recoveries of prior year
obligations (actual recoveries through March 31 equal $194 million),
FEMA will end the year with an unobligated balance of $442 million,
which is close to the estimate of $453 million in the fiscal year 2005
President's budget. In summary (in thousands of dollars):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unobligated Balance, 4/28............................... $1,487,265
Estimated recoveries.................................... 200,000
Obligations May 1-Sept. 30 (5 $249 million)... -1,245,000
---------------
Estimated unobligated balance 9/30/04................... 442,265
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, any large hurricane or other disaster events during the
remainder of the fiscal year could significantly impact these
estimates.
United States Secret Service
CAMPAIGN LABOR COSTS
Question. The fiscal year 2004 budget includes $64 million in costs
associated with the 2004 campaign protection program. This budget was
based on a historical average of 603 ``protection days'' covering
multiple candidates. How many candidates have received protection
during the 2004 campaign? Provide the date protection started for each
candidate. Does the Secret Service still anticipate that 603 protection
days will be required for the presidential campaign? What savings does
the Secret Service anticipate from the campaign program, if any?
Answer. As you note, the Secret Service's campaign protection
estimate is based on the historical average of the number of protection
days provided for the last four elections. The Administration believes
this is the most appropriate method for developing estimated campaign
protection costs, since it does not presuppose a set number of
candidates or particular days on which protection will begin or end.
To date, the Service has provided protection for two candidates and
one spouse. Following the Democratic Convention, the Service will
provide protection to the Vice-Presidential nominee and the Vice-
Presidential nominee's spouse. Baring protection being provided to a
third party, an independent candidate or, on the Republican ticket,
someone other than the sitting President or Vice President, 421 days of
protection will be provided.
Of the $64 million budgeted for the campaign program, $40.0 million
is for direct costs related to protection, and $24 million is for labor
costs relative to personnel that are being reallocated from the
Service's investigative activity to the campaign in order to staff the
protective effort. These reallocated labor costs are covered by the
Service's base budget. To the extent these personnel are not required
for campaign-related work; they will continue their investigative
activities.
Because of lower than originally projected campaign activity, the
direct costs are now estimated to total only $33 million. The
Department and the Secret Service will work with Congress to find
appropriate uses for any excess campaign protection funding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected dates of Protection
Candidate/Nominee Protection Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kerry......................... February 20, 2004 224
through September 30,
2004.
Mrs. Kerry \2\..................... April 13, 2004 through 85.5
September 30, 2004.
John Edwards....................... February 22, 2004 11
through March 3, 2004.
Dem. VP Nominee \1\................ July 26, 2004 through 67
September 30, 2004.
Dem. VP Spouse \1\ \2\............. July 26, 2004 through 33.5
September 30, 2004.
------------
Total Projected Campaign Days ...................... 421
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated VP Nominee and Spouse start dates.
\2\ Protection for spouses are projected as \1/2\ day of protection.
``FORCE MULTIPLIER'' TO FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS
Question. On February 24, 2004, the Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and the Secret Service announced a new agreement to provide
force multiplier to Federal air marshal service. According to the
Department, this initiative would enable the ICE FAMS the flexibility
to deploy their Federal Marshals to a wider range of flights. Other
than providing the ICE FAMS with travel information for armed personnel
traveling on U.S. commercial flights during their normal course of
business, what specific responsibilities will Secret Service agents
have on these flights that they didn't have before February 24, 2004?
In many cases, Secret Service agents travel from one city to another
following several hours of protection responsibilities. Does this mean
that U.S. Secret Service agents will then be asked to substitute as
Federal air marshals when traveling on official business?
Answer. The objective of the Force Multiplier Program (FMP) is to
capitalize on the presence of literally thousands of armed Federal law
enforcement officers (LEOs) that routinely travel throughout the
country on commercial carriers in support of the missions of their
respective agencies. Essentially, the FMP is a system that would allow
the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) to track and coordinate LEO
flight activity to optimize the use of Federal Air Marshals and
otherwise enhance the level of LEO coverage provided to the Nation's
civil aviation system.
While USSS Special Agents are participating in the Force Multiplier
Program, they will not be acting as ``de facto FAMs'' and are not a
substitute for Federal Air Marshals (FAMs). While they receive a
briefing, they are neither fully trained nor tactically positioned on
the aircraft to serve as FAMs. The USSS Special Agents will have no
additional responsibilities while aboard U.S. commercial flights during
the course of their official travel. It will, however, heighten their
awareness within the aviation domain and allow the FAMS to monitor the
presence of armed LEOs on flights. In the event of an in-flight crisis,
the USSS Special Agents would react accordingly to the threat as
prescribed by applicable statutes and their agency policy.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Citizenship and Immigration
Services
IMMIGRATION-RELATED CASEWORK--ASSISTANCE TO CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES
Question. I am troubled by the reports I am receiving from members
of my staff about the difficulties that they are having in obtaining
help from your agency for my constituents. Under the current
reorganization regime, my staff is finding that their efforts to get
answers to even some of the most basic questions about visas and
immigration processes are meeting with resistance from agency staff.
Contacts, both e-mails and follow-up phone calls, from my office to
district office staff in your agency are not receiving timely
responses. It sometimes takes days to get even an acknowledgment of an
inquiry. In many cases, contract personnel, particularly at the service
centers, are less acquainted with the intricacies of immigration law
than are members of my own Senate staff. On many occasions my staff has
made inquiries only to receive responses that are strictly scripted.
Even more disturbing, calls from my Senate office are not even being
answered at headquarters. I would like to know what efforts are being
made to monitor service to the public and to ensure that Congressional
inquiries are handled promptly?
Answer. The Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) is also troubled if you and your staff are not receiving timely
and appropriate responses to your inquires from USCIS personnel and
appreciate your bringing it to his attention. You should know that the
Standard Operating Procedures for all congressional units, both here at
USCIS headquarters and in the field, specifically state that all phone
calls from congressional offices must be returned within 24 hours, e-
mails within 10 days, and written correspondence or faxes within 30
days. If this is not being done, then the Director would be happy to
look into any specific instances or cases you could provide to me.
However, it is important to note that some case resolution (which
should be considered distinct from the return of a phone call or the
answer to a letter), because of its complexity, may take considerably
longer.
The Director appreciates you bringing this to his attention and
wants to assure you that customer service is one of the top three
priorities of USCIS. We will continue to commit ourselves to building
and maintaining an immigration services system that provides
information and benefits in a timely, accurate, consistent, courteous
and professional manner and ensure that those values are exhibited in
our congressional units.
It appears that the above question regarding responsiveness
primarily relates to immigration services issues under the purview of
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). However, the
Assistant Secretary, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) wants to
ensure you that ICE is fully committed to providing timely and
informative responses to all congressional inquiries. The ICE office of
Congressional Relations can be reached at (202) 514-5232 to assist in
immigration casework relating to detention and removal, humanitarian
parole and other matters under ICE's jurisdiction. For your
information, USCIS Office of Congressional Relations can be reached at
(202) 514-5231.
Office for Domestic Preparedness
METROPOLITAN MEDICAL RESPONSE SYSTEM
Question. Provide a detailed description of how fiscal year 2002,
fiscal year 2003, and fiscal year 2004 funds appropriated for the
Metropolitan Medical Response System have been spent. Has the
Department fully met the requirements of cities, as laid out in the
MMRS contracts? If not, how much work, and in which cities, remains to
be done? How much of the fiscal year 2004 appropriation is obligated?
What are the plans for remaining funds? If the Department does not plan
to obligate all appropriated fiscal year 2004 funds for MMRS, please
provide a rationale; the proposal for how remaining funds will be
spent; and indicate whether you will submit a reprogramming or transfer
proposal to the Committee.
Answer. In fiscal year 2002, the Metropolitan Medical Response
System (MMRS) program was located in the Department of Health and Human
Services' (HHS') Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Health
Emergency Preparedness (OAS PHEP). The funds were used to initially
establish an MMRS in 25 new jurisdictions at a cost of $400,000 each,
for a total of $10 million (this was less than the historical cost of
$600,000 for an MMRS contract), and to fund special projects in MMRS
jurisdictions.
In fiscal year 2003, $49.1 million of the $50.1 million
appropriation was allocated to MMRS within the HHS OAS PHEP, and is
broken out as follows:
--$200,000 was provided to each of the 25 fiscal year 2002
jurisdictions to ``make them whole'' for baseline capability
development, for a total of $5 million
--Funds for fiscal year 2003 Program Support Contracts, providing
$280,000 for capability sustainment and optional operational
area expansion, were obligated for each of the 122 MMRS
jurisdictions, for a total of $34.16 million
--A total of $2.4 million was used to establish 3 new MMRS
jurisdictions and to upgrade Atlanta to MMRS status ($600,000
for each)
--$3 million was provided to the National Emergency Training Center
(NETC) for MMRS training course development and for Noble
Training Center facility upgrades
--$1.5M was spent on the final phase of a special project to obtain a
mobile field hospital for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North
Carolina, MMRS
--The remainder was used for technical support contract fees,
official travel, printing, and other overhead expenses
In fiscal year 2004:
--$3 million was transferred to the NETC for 1 MMRS course
development and 2 facility upgrades at the Noble Training
Center
--$500,000 has been used for staff travel and administrative expenses
As of May 5, 2004, 65 of the 124 MMRS jurisdictions have completed
their baseline capability development. Of these 65 jurisdictions, 24
have begun work under the fiscal year 2003 Program Support contracts.
None of the jurisdictions has yet completed its fiscal year 2003
Program Support contract. Of the remaining 59 jurisdictions:
--25 jurisdictions have nearly completed their baseline capability
development (only 1 or 2 deliverables remaining)
--13 jurisdictions are on track (have 3 or more deliverables
remaining and are on schedule to complete them)
--21 jurisdictions are delayed
As an incentive for completing baseline capability development,
activation of the fiscal year 2003 Program Support Contract (up to
$280,000) is conditional upon completion and approval of all
deliverables required in the initial MMRS contract, and its
modifications. The table below provides the information by
jurisdiction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted
Technical and Cost
2003 Sustainments Proposals for the
Baseline Deliverables Completed Started Fiscal Year 2003
Program Support
Contracts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akron, OH....................... Anaheim, CA....... Akron, OH
Albuquerque, NM................. Aurora, CO........ Albuquerque, NM
Anaheim, CA..................... Bakersfield, CA... Amarillo, TX
Anchorage, AK................... Birmingham, AL.... Anaheim, CA
Arlington, TX................... Columbus, GA...... Anchorage, AK
Aurora, CO...................... Columbus, OH...... Arlington County,
VA
Austin, TX...................... Denver, TX........ Arlington, TX
Bakersfield, CA................. Fremont, CA....... Austin, TX
Baltimore, MD................... Fresno, CA........ Baton Rouge, LA
Baton Rouge, LA................. Honolulu, HI...... Shreveport, LA
Birmingham, AL.................. Indianapolis, IN.. Chattanooga, TN
Boston, MA...................... Jacksonville, FL.. Cincinnati, OH
Chesapeake, VA.................. Las Vegas, NV..... Dallas, TX
Chicago, IL..................... Mesa, AZ.......... Dayton, OH
Cleveland, OH................... Milwaukee, WI..... El Paso, TX
Columbus, GA.................... Minneapolis/St. Fort Wayne, IN
Paul, MN.
Columbus, OH.................... Nashville, TN..... Fremont, CA
Dallas, TX...................... Omaha, NE......... Fresno, CA
Denver, CO...................... Phoenix, AZ....... Ft. Worth, TX
Detroit, IL..................... Riverside, CA..... Garland, TX
El Paso, TX..................... Salt Lake City, UT Glendale, CA
Ft. Wayne, IN................... San Antonio, TX... Glendale, AZ
Fort Worth, TX.................. San Diego, CA..... Greensboro, NC
Fremont, CA..................... St. Louis, MO..... Hampton Roads
District Planning
Commission
Fresno, CA...................... .................. Hialeah, FL
Glendale, AZ.................... .................. Honolulu, HI
Honolulu, HI.................... .................. Houston, TX
Houston, TX..................... .................. Huntington Beach,
CA
Huntington Beach, CA............ .................. Irving, TX
Huntsville, AL.................. .................. Southeast Alaska
Region
Indianapolis, IN................ .................. Los Angeles, CA
Jacksonville, FL................ .................. Las Vegas, NV
Kansas City, MO................. .................. Lexington, KY
Las Vegas, NV................... .................. Lincoln, NE
Long Beach, CA.................. .................. Little Rock, AR
Los Angeles, CA................. .................. Lubbock, TX
Memphis, TN..................... .................. McAllen, TX (Rio
Grande)
Mesa, AZ........................ .................. Mesa, AZ
Miami, FL....................... .................. Mobile, AL
Milwaukee, WI................... .................. New Orleans, LA
Minneapolis, MN................. .................. NY City Mayor's
Office
Mobile, AL...................... .................. Oakland, CA
Nashville, TN................... .................. Oklahoma City, OK
Newport News, VA................ .................. Omaha, NE
New York, NY.................... .................. Phoenix, AZ
Oklahoma City, OK............... .................. Portland, OR
Omaha, NE....................... .................. Richmond, VA
Philadelphia, PA................ .................. Riverside, CA
Phoenix, AZ..................... .................. San Antonio, TX
Portland, OR.................... .................. San Bernardino, CA
Riverside, CA................... .................. San Diego, CA
Salt Lake City, UT.............. .................. San Jose, CA
San Antonio, TX................. .................. Santa Ana, CA
San Diego, CA................... .................. Seattle, WA
San Francisco, CA............... .................. Spokane, WA
San Jose, CA.................... .................. St. Louis, MO
Seattle, WA..................... .................. St. Petersburg, FL
Shreveport, LA.................. .................. Stanislaus County,
CA
St. Louis, MO................... .................. Stockton, CA
St. Paul, MN.................... .................. Tacoma, WA
St. Petersburg, FL.............. .................. Tampa, FL
Syracuse, NY.................... .................. Toledo, OH
Tampa, FL....................... .................. Tucson, AZ
Tulsa, OK....................... .................. Tulsa, OK
Wichita, KS..................... .................. Wake County, NC
Wichita, KS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of April 30, 2004, $3.5 million of the $50 million appropriation
has been obligated. The funds that Congress has appropriated for MMRS
over the last several years have been used to establish certain
capabilities, to get the program up to its baseline, and to facilitate
transfer of the program to the localities for continuation, once the
baseline is established. We will reach the baseline this fiscal year
(2004), and therefore no additional funding is being requested. As
such, the Department has submitted to the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees a notification, dated April 27, 2004, of
its intent to reprogram $40 million of the $50 million MMRS
appropriation. Should this reprogramming be approved, the remaining
funds, approximately $6 million, would be used to develop a plan to
terminate the program as currently structured and to seek the
continuance, in some form, of its key components in the eventual ``one-
stop shop'' grants operation to be administered by the DHS Office of
State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. Under this
arrangement, FEMA would have no further role in the MMRS program for
fiscal year 2004, and there will be no Federal program in fiscal year
2005.
There are other Federal programs that provide more narrowly
focused, but related, support. These include the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention-Health Resources and Services Administration
(HRSA) Bioterrorism Preparedness Grants and the HRSA Hospital Grants;
the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) Training and Exercise
Programs and Equipment Grants; and ODP Urban Area Security Initiative
funding to the designated States, which will then work with counties
and cities to form regions that will work together through mutual aid
agreements, interoperable communications, statewide intelligence
centers, and community and citizen participation.
OBLIGATIONS
Question. How does ODP verify that States have obligated funds to
cities, as required in the State formula and UASI grants? What are the
mechanisms for States to notify ODP, and for ODP to verify that
obligation was made? What does ``obligate'' mean in this program? What
steps must a city take to be able to get funds from the State for a
particular expenditure?
Answer. For the fiscal year 2003 State Homeland Security Grant
Program (SHSGP), Part I and II and Urban Areas Security Initiative
(UASI) Part I and II grants, ODP's grant guidance notes that states
were expected to obligate 80 percent of equipment funding for SHSGP I,
80 percent of first responder preparedness funding in SHSGP II, 50
percent of CIP funding in SHSGP II, and 80 percent of all funding for
the UASI II program to units of local government within 45 days. To
that end, ODP set up a follow-up system whereby ODP would notify the
State 10 days out from the 45th day (via a letter) that ODP expects
states to certify that they had obligated these funds. The
certification was done via a ``fax back'' form to their ODP
preparedness officer. On the 46th day after the grant award, we sent
out a letter reminding them of the obligation requirement, with an
accompanying fax back form that required them to certify that they had
met this obligation requirement, and to further explain (through a
narrative) how the funds were being used.
We received a majority of the fax backs within the allotted time,
and ODP is relying on the certification of those states that they have
met the statutory requirement. For states that did not provide the
information, or noted that they did not comply, we provided a number of
options. ODP offered technical assistance to help them comply with
certification. In other cases, states notified us of a date they would
be in compliance (in some states, legislatures and other elected bodies
need to meet so that can hold up Federal funding obligation). The last
resort for states who did not comply was the notification that ODP
intended to put a hold on the state portion of their funding until they
came into compliance.
In fiscal year 2004, the Homeland Security Grant Program and the
Urban Area Security Initiative grantees will certify their obligations
through the Initial Strategy Implementation Plan (ISIP), which is due
60 days after grant award. The grantees will submit this form to ODP,
and failure to submit the form will cause funding to be
administratively held, as noted in the special condition in the grant.
Obligation for ODP purposes means: (1) a definite commitment which
creates a legal liability for the payment of funds for goods and
services ordered or received, or; (2) a commitment during the grant
period to pay under a grant, subgrant, and/or contract determinable
sums for services or goods ordered or received during the grant period;
(please note that this does not include operational costs associated
with raising the threat level in the State Homeland Security Grant
Program-Part 2; please reference the ODP Grant guidelines for specific
details) or (3) evidence that funds are encumbered, such as a purchase
order or requisition, to cover the cost of purchasing an authorized
item during the grant period.
In terms of eligible subgrantees (such as cities, counties, regions
and other units of government) to receive funds from the state, ODP
leaves the discretion to the State as to who will receive subgrants.
This varies from State to State; as mentioned earlier, it can be
cities, counties, regions, port authorities, tribes, and other local
units of government. As well, most states make it clear to their locals
that there may not be an expectation that everyone will receive a
subgrant. This will be based upon risk, threat, population or other
means. If a locality is chosen as a subgrantee, the State makes a
subgrant award document available to them, with instructions for how to
proceed with procurement or other items, such as training procurement
or exercise planning. Depending on the requirements in the grant, in
most cases subgrantees are required to submit detailed budget
worksheets to the State in order to receive their funding. Since ODP
operates on a reimbursement basis, the locality will have to order
items from a vendor, and then receive the item before the monies can be
reimbursed. States are the only unit of government authorized to make
drawdowns against the U.S. Treasury for ODP funds.
TRAINING
Question. How does the Department plan to spend the $60 million for
competitive training? Please provide a break down of continuing
training costs.
Answer. The funding breakdown of the $60 million ($59,646,000 with
the 0.59 percent rescission) for continuation of ODP's current training
programs, as well as the competitive training grant program is as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Competitive Training Grants............................. $33,646,000
Naval Postgraduate School............................... 14,000,000
National Sheriff's Association.......................... 3,000,000
Dugway Proving Ground................................... 3,000,000
IACLEA.................................................. 1,500,000
Michigan State University............................... 500,000
Virtual Medical Campus (WVU)............................ 2,000,000
International Association of Chiefs of Police........... 2,000,000
International Association of Firefighters............... 1,000,000
---------------
Total............................................. 59,646,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TASK FORCE
Question. The Secretary has established a task force responsible
for identifying roadblocks in moving homeland security funding from
States to cities, and for identifying solutions. Who makes up the task
force? How many meetings have there been to date? What problems have
been identified?
Answer. Secretary Ridge has established a Homeland Security Funding
Task Force composed of state, county, city, and tribal representatives
to examine the funding process and ensure that Department of Homeland
Security funds move quickly to local first responders. The primary goal
of the Task Force is identify State and local funding solutions that
work effectively--``best practices''--and can be extended to situations
where there are impediments to efficient and effective distribution of
State and local homeland security funds.
The Department expects the Task Force to provide a report to the
Secretary within the next several weeks that will identify several
``best practices'' for ensuring the expeditious award of funds to local
first responders. The report will also identify barriers to the quick
and efficient award of funds to local first responders and offer
recommendations to address these barriers. The Task Force, led by Mitt
Romney, Governor of Massachusetts, is composed of 20 representatives
who have first-hand experience in homeland security issues and whose
expertise in this area should allow for a thorough examination of the
issue.
As of May 2004, the Task Force has met twice, and has also convened
two conference calls to discuss the issues surrounding the most
efficient and effective means to ensure that homeland security funds
are passed through to local first responders.
state grants (including law enforcement terrorism prevention grants)
Question. How much of the fiscal year 2002 funds have been
obligated, and expended, by state? At a national level, describe the
uses of the funds and how much has been spent on those uses. Please
provide the same information for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004
funds.
Answer. Please see charts below for information on the fiscal year
2002 and fiscal year 2003 State formula grant programs. At this point,
ODP does not have information on the fiscal year 2004 program as many
states have only recently received their awards. Overall, though, these
awards could be used for a variety of purposes, including procurement
of specialized equipment, exercise support, and training. In all
instances, draw down information is provided to ODP by the States and
reflect State and local draw down amounts. Often times, these draw down
reports require ODP to validate the accuracy of the amounts reported.
Given that ODP is relying on State- and local-generated information,
this process can be time-consuming. Currently, ODP is still verifying
correct draw down amounts from States and localities. The result of
this is that State and local draw down amounts exceed obligated amounts
due to State and local reporting inaccuracies. ODP's validation process
will reconcile these numbers to reflect more accurate final draw down
amounts.
HIGH THREAT, HIGH DENSITY URBAN AREA SECURITY GRANTS
Question. How much of the fiscal year 2002 funds have been
obligated, and expended, by state? At a national level, describe the
uses of the funds and how much has been spent on those uses. Please
provide the same information for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004
funds.
Answer. Please see attached charts below. Overall, though, these
awards could be used for a variety of purposes, including procurement
of specialized equipment, exercise support, and training.
FISCAL YEAR 2002 OBLIGATION & DRAWDOWN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE AWARD AMOUNT OBLIGATION DRAWDOWN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA.............................. $5,317,000.00 $5,317,000.00 $3,227,957.57
ALASKA............................... 2,783,000.00 2,783,000.00 116,217.02
AMERICAN SAMOA....................... 828,000.00 713,671.00 713,671.00
ARIZONA.............................. 5,770,000.00 5,770,000.00 3,275,843.00
ARKANSAS............................. 4,141,000.00 4,141,000.00 1,812,350.69
CALIFORNIA........................... 24,831,000.00 24,695,730.27 6,770,544.91
COLORADO............................. 5,220,000.00 5,220,000.00 2,185,101.69
CONNECTICUT.......................... 4,626,000.00 3,132,870.26 3,132,870.26
DELAWARE............................. 2,887,000.00 2,887,000.00 2,522,055.43
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA................. 2,747,000.00 2,558,690.00 2,558,690.00
FLORIDA.............................. 12,967,000.00 12,967,000.00 10,092,752.25
GEORGIA.............................. 7,797,000.00 7,797,000.00 1,322,400.00
GUAM................................. 892,000.00 892,000.00 782,785.64
HAWAII............................... 3,172,000.00 3,172,000.00 388,734.56
IDAHO................................ 3,226,000.00 837,369.26 837,369.26
ILLINOIS............................. 10,604,000.00 10,135,950.00 6,421,617.60
INDIANA.............................. 6,400,000.00 4,710,688.00 4,341,379.22
IOWA................................. 4,308,000.00 4,288,520.64 4,288,520.64
KANSAS............................... 4,151,000.00 4,047,426.32 4,047,426.32
KENTUCKY............................. 5,048,000.00 5,048,000.00 860,155.73
LOUISIANA............................ 5,331,000.00 5,255,906.92 2,932,832.10
MAINE................................ 3,213,000.00 2,759,787.38 2,759,787.38
MARYLAND............................. 5,881,000.00 5,881,000.00 5,058,472.14
MASSACHUSETTS........................ 6,579,000.00 6,283,971.94 6,067,184.38
MICHIGAN............................. 8,958,000.00 8,958,000.00 6,797,636.52
MINNESOTA............................ 5,631,000.00 5,631,000.00 4,232,332.00
MISSISSIPPI.......................... 4,255,000.00 4,255,000.00 134,618.95
MISSOURI............................. 6,079,000.00 6,079,000.00 4,512,600.00
MONTANA.............................. 2,967,000.00 2,967,000.00 2,356,138.40
NEBRASKA............................. 3,502,000.00 2,365,560.04 2,365,560.04
NEVADA............................... 3,693,000.00 2,932,185.27 2,932,185.27
NEW HAMPSHIRE........................ 3,187,000.00 3,187,000.00 566,551.14
NEW JERSEY........................... 7,948,000.00 7,948,000.00 .......................
NEW MEXICO........................... 3,574,000.00 861,485.41 861,485.41
NEW YORK............................. 14,953,000.00 10,860,400.00 8,000,000.00
NORTH CAROLINA....................... 7,706,000.00 7,339,690.00 4,589,749.00
NORTH DAKOTA......................... 2,794,000.00 2,788,952.00 1,935,923.60
NORTHERN MARIANAS (MP)............... 835,000.00 634,948.00 631,569.00
OHIO................................. 9,897,000.00 9,897,000.00 6,894,513.59
OKLAHOMA............................. 4,656,000.00 4,450,000.00 474,551.16
OREGON............................... 4,637,000.00 4,637,000.00 1,322,762.23
PENNSYLVANIA......................... 10,512,000.00 10,512,000.00 5,524,635.76
PUERTO RICO.......................... 4,894,000.00 4,602,000.00 415,718.67
RHODE ISLAND......................... 3,063,000.00 2,448,593.17 1,170,550.04
SOUTH CAROLINA....................... 5,028,000.00 5,028,000.00 3,805,485.55
SOUTH DAKOTA......................... 2,868,000.00 2,799,987.64 2,744,690.06
TENNESSEE............................ 6,140,000.00 5,854,806.53 2,847,838.44
TEXAS................................ 16,196,000.00 16,196,000.00 3,954,498.71
UTAH................................. 3,849,000.00 3,849,000.00 2,331,617.46
VERMONT.............................. 2,772,000.00 2,772,000.00 1,883,177.41
VIRGIN ISLANDS....................... 861,000.00 861,000.00 133,381.16
VIRGINIA............................. 7,062,000.00 7,062,000.00 5,853,231.82
WASHINGTON........................... 6,276,000.00 5,733,465.11 4,979,929.00
WEST VIRGINIA........................ 3,567,000.00 3,567,000.00 3,567,000.00
WISCONSIN............................ 5,925,000.00 4,842,045.00 4,137,494.44
WYOMING.............................. 2,696,000.00 2,157,207.03 2,157,207.03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL.......................... 315,700,000.00 295,372,907.19 170,631,350.65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2003 SHSGP I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grantee Award Amount Obligation Amount Drawn Down
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................. $9,457,000.00 $9,457,000.00 $175,934.60
Alaska............................... 4,995,000.00 4,995,000.00 184,464.63
American Samoa \1\................... 1,482,000.00 1,482,000.00 .......................
Arizona.............................. 10,584,000.00 10,584,000.00 2,074,597.00
Arkansas............................. 7,394,000.00 7,394,000.00 3,383,376.03
California........................... 45,023,000.00 45,021,503.60 5,141,147.64
Colorado............................. 9,480,000.00 9,480,000.00 771,927.24
Connecticut \1\...................... 8,265,000.00 2,688,030.55 .......................
Delaware............................. 5,185,000.00 5,185,000.00 .......................
District of Columbia................. 4,910,000.00 4,910,000.00 .......................
Florida.............................. 23,654,000.00 23,654,000.00 3,194,791.29
Georgia.............................. 14,188,000.00 11,344,100.00 2,749,000.00
Guam................................. 1,596,000.00 1,596,000.00 138,141.80
Hawaii............................... 5,693,000.00 5,693,000.00 160,895.41
Idaho \1\............................ 5,803,000.00 5,396,000.00 1,210,840.19
Illinois............................. 18,879,000.00 17,353,243.00 6,532,800.91
Indiana.............................. 11,399,000.00 11,399,000.00 4,859,561.60
Iowa \1\............................. 7,656,500.00 7,656,500.00 232,884.14
Kansas............................... 7,401,000.00 6,353,209.03 264,327.00
Kentucky............................. 9,001,000.00 8,527,000.00 2,789,560.10
Louisiana............................ 9,451,000.00 9,451,000.00 182,686.24
Maine................................ 5,751,000.00 5,751,000.00 1,589,384.57
Maryland............................. 10,585,000.00 10,585,000.00 1,223,974.47
Massachusetts........................ 11,711,000.00 ....................... 68,752.97
Michigan............................. 15,918,000.00 15,918,000.00 899,860.42
Minnesota............................ 10,076,000.00 10,076,000.00 614,470.00
Mississippi.......................... 7,582,000.00 7,582,000.00 1,001,844.54
Missouri............................. 10,834,000.00 10,834,000.00 3,358,900.00
Montana.............................. 5,303,000.00 5,303,000.00 367,734.49
N. Mariana Islands................... 1,496,000.00 1,234,698.00 749,082.00
Nebraska............................. 6,254,500.00 6,254,500.00 1,618,344.69
Nevada............................... 6,771,000.00 6,771,600.00 1,259,918.90
New Hampshire........................ 5,727,000.00 5,727,000.00 858,982.35
New Jersey........................... 14,222,000.00 14,222,000.00 .......................
New Mexico........................... 6,401,000.00 6,401,000.00 133,918.45
New York \1\......................... 26,492,000.00 14,872,000.00 19,000,000.00
North Carolina....................... 13,908,000.00 13,908,000.00 1,228,130.00
North Dakota......................... 4,983,000.00 4,983,000.00 1,046,030.93
Ohio................................. 17,510,000.00 17,510,000.00 3,551,943.24
Oklahoma............................. 8,304,000.00 6,847,000.00 414,231.39
Oregon............................... 8,336,000.00 8,336,000.00 2,118,757.40
Pennsylvania......................... 18,570,000.00 18,570,000.00 3,286,780.86
Puerto Rico.......................... 8,727,000.00 8,727,000.00 .......................
Rhode Island......................... 5,489,000.00 5,489,000.00 1,899,312.04
South Carolina....................... 9,017,000.00 9,017,000.00 485,499.18
South Dakota......................... 5,131,000.00 5,131,000.00 217,204.19
Tennessee............................ 10,978,000.00 10,978,000.00 490,436.93
Texas................................ 29,538,000.00 29,538,000.00 3,520,908.18
U.S. Virgin Islands.................. 1,542,000.00 1,542,000.00 134,353.56
Utah................................. 6,937,000.00 6,937,000.00 1,190,912.95
Vermont.............................. 4,963,000.00 4,963,000.00 1,466,921.25
Virginia \1\......................... 12,716,000.00 8,031,200.00 6,369,466.20
Washington........................... 11,294,000.00 11,194,000.00 6,653,422.04
West Virginia........................ 6,340,000.00 6,340,000.00 5,034,308.70
Wisconsin............................ 10,565,000.00 10,565,000.00 5,577,914.15
Wyoming.............................. 4,827,000.00 4,827,000.00 1,101,205.77
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... 566,295,000.00 524,584,584.18 112,579,842.63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Verification of Obligation Data in Progress
FISCAL YEAR 2003 SHSGP II
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grantee Award Amount Obligation Amount Drawn Down
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................. $25,049,000.00 $22,448,099.99 $2,077,219.12
Alaska............................... 13,230,000.00 11,466,000.00 82,013.14
American Samoa \1\................... 3,926,000.00 3,403,000.00 398,076.00
Arizona.............................. 28,033,000.00 28,033,000.00 3,124,190.00
Arkansas............................. 19,585,000.00 16,974,000.00 4,718,796.73
California........................... 119,256,000.00 119,186,813.00 22,821,978.15
Colorado............................. 25,111,000.00 25,111,000.00 1,587,461.43
Connecticut \1\...................... 21,893,000.00 3,326,834.23 .......................
Delaware............................. 13,733,000.00 13,733,000.00 .......................
District of Columbia................. 13,006,000.00 1,734,000.00 1,753,163.37
Florida.............................. 62,655,000.00 62,655,000.00 6,932,847.97
Georgia.............................. 37,579,000.00 37,579,000.00 2,764,500.00
Guam................................. 4,226,000.00 4,226,000.00 .......................
Hawaii............................... 15,079,000.00 15,079,000.00 1,183,054.77
Idaho................................ 15,375,000.00 14,350,000.00 2,059,200.37
Illinois............................. 50,005,000.00 44,656,232.00 258,979.73
Indiana.............................. 30,194,000.00 26,285,402.27 9,776,430.67
Iowa \1\............................. 20,282,000.00 17,689,625.12 1,337,200.95
Kansas \1\........................... 19,603,000.00 16,989,000.00 24,886.33
Kentucky............................. 23,838,000.00 20,660,000.00 2,204,308.52
Louisiana............................ 25,037,000.00 22,741,123.28 569,112.82
Maine................................ 15,232,000.00 15,232,000.00 2,403,869.60
Maryland............................. 28,037,000.00 28,037,000.00 519,347.05
Massachusetts........................ 31,020,000.00 31,020,000.00 8,321,342.08
Michigan............................. 42,162,000.00 36,227,500.00 469,974.88
Minnesota............................ 26,690,000.00 23,845,370.12 693,032.00
Mississippi.......................... 20,083,000.00 20,083,000.00 654,920.00
Missouri............................. 28,697,000.00 28,697,000.00 5,048,400.00
Montana.............................. 14,047,000.00 13,110,500.00 205,653.27
N. Mariana Islands................... 3,963,000.00 3,963,000.00 186,642.00
Nebraska............................. 16,568,000.00 16,568,000.00 4,128,342.94
Nevada............................... 17,935,000.00 17,935,000.00 845,533.87
New Hampshire........................ 15,172,000.00 13,362,968.47 6,664,255.98
New Jersey........................... 37,671,000.00 37,671,000.00 2,318,264.63
New Mexico........................... 16,956,000.00 13,635,150.00 68,600.00
New York \1\......................... 70,172,000.00 70,172,000.00 63,000,000.00
North Carolina....................... 36,840,000.00 36,840,000.00 455,173.00
North Dakota......................... 13,200,000.00 11,440,410.00 247,219.42
Ohio................................. 46,378,000.00 46,378,000.00 3,047,735.70
Oklahoma............................. 21,996,000.00 21,996,000.00 183,361.58
Oregon............................... 22,081,000.00 19,403,038.00 1,344,549.74
Pennsylvania......................... 49,189,000.00 49,189,000.00 2,255,466.08
Puerto Rico.......................... 23,118,000.00 23,118,000.00 .......................
Rhode Island \1\..................... 14,540,000.00 12,603,756.96 9,285,838.00
South Carolina....................... 23,882,000.00 23,882,000.00 830,961.88
South Dakota......................... 13,591,000.00 13,591,000.00 3,499,236.39
Tennessee............................ 29,080,000.00 29,080,000.00 28,493.47
Texas................................ 78,238,000.00 78,238,000.00 1,412,151.75
U.S. Virgin Islands.................. 4,085,000.00 4,085,000.00 2,358,158.50
Utah................................. 18,374,000.00 18,374,000.00 3,388,302.90
Vermont.............................. 13,147,000.00 13,147,000.00 559,083.58
Virginia............................. 33,683,000.00 29,861,000.00 21,240,605.96
Washington........................... 29,917,000.00 27,080,797.47 1,614,935.49
West Virginia........................ 16,792,000.00 14,553,000.00 .......................
Wisconsin............................ 27,985,000.00 27,985,000.00 12,926,737.90
Wyoming.............................. 12,784,000.00 12,784,000.00 149,005.29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... 1,500,000,000.00 1,411,514,620.91 224,028,615.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Verification of Obligation Data in Progress.
FISCAL YEAR 2003 UASI I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Drawn
Grantee Award Amount Obligation Down
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York City............................................. $24,768,000.00 ................ ................
National Capital Region................................... 18,081,000.00 ................ ................
Los Angeles............................................... 12,422,000.00 ................ ................
Seattle................................................... 11,201,000.00 $1,597,300.00 $65,825.45
Chicago................................................... 10,896,000.00 2,700,000.00 ................
San Francisco............................................. 10,349,000.00 42,000.00 ................
Houston................................................... 8,634,000.00 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 96,351,000.00 4,339,300.00 65,825.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2003 UASI II
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grantee Award Amount Obligation Amount Drawn Down
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK............................. $135,266,607.00 $33,816,652.00 $82,816,652.00
New York City, NY................ 125,000,000.00 ....................... .......................
Buffalo, NY...................... 10,266,607.00 ....................... .......................
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION.............. 42,409,851.00 ....................... .......................
ILLINOIS............................. 29,975,733.00 ....................... .......................
Chicago, IL...................... 29,975,733.00 ....................... .......................
TEXAS................................ 34,165,283.00 963,124.96 7,987.72
Houston, TX...................... 23,766,700.00 ....................... .......................
Dallas, TX...................... 10,398,583.00 ....................... .......................
CALIFORNIA........................... 62,202,490.00 ....................... 134,049.00
Los Angeles, CA.................. 18,874,838.00 ....................... .......................
San Francisco, CA................ 18,587,312.00 ....................... .......................
San Diego, CA.................... 11,359,682.00 ....................... .......................
Sacramento, CA................... 6,912,795.00 ....................... .......................
Long Beach, CA................... 6,467,863.00 ....................... .......................
WASHINGTON........................... 18,186,668.00 600,000.00 13.09
Seattle, WA...................... 18,186,668.00 ....................... .......................
MASSACHUSETTS........................ 16,727,125.00 1,718,408.00 .......................
Boston, MA....................... 16,727,125.00 ....................... .......................
COLORADO............................. 15,568,474.00 ....................... .......................
Denver, CO....................... 15,568,474.00 ....................... .......................
PENNSYLVANIA......................... 21,038,924.00 ....................... .......................
Philadelphia, PA................. 14,215,223.00 ....................... .......................
Pittsburgh, PA................... 6,823,701.00 ....................... .......................
MISSOURI............................. 19,548,603.00 2,466,979.96 365,000.00
St. Louis, MO................... 9,850,142.00 ....................... .......................
Kansas City, MO.................. 9,698,461.00 ....................... .......................
FLORIDA.............................. 18,959,558.00 3,695,318.60 3,296,000.00
Miami, FL........................ 13,184,569.00 ....................... .......................
Tampa, FL........................ 5,774,989.00 ....................... .......................
OHIO................................. 13,859,426.00 202,370.00 7,874.27
Cincinnati, OH................... 7,991,055.00 ....................... .......................
Cleveland, OH.................... 5,868,371.00 ....................... .......................
MICHIGAN............................. 12,272,550.00 ....................... .......................
Detroit, MI...................... 12,272,550.00 ....................... .......................
NEW JERSEY........................... 11,892,942.00 ....................... .......................
Newark, NJ....................... 11,892,942.00 ....................... .......................
ARIZONA.............................. 11,033,467.00 200,000.00 14,469.00
Phoenix, AZ...................... 11,033,467.00 ....................... .......................
MARYLAND............................. 10,900,944.00 2,725,236.00 1,464,126.51
Baltimore, MD.................... 10,900,944.00 ....................... .......................
HAWAII............................... 6,870,891.00 ....................... 1,717,723.00
Honolulu, HI..................... 6,870,891.00 ....................... .......................
OREGON............................... 6,766,108.00 150,000.00 1,151.99
Portland, OR..................... 6,766,108.00 ....................... .......................
LOUISIANA............................ 6,282,661.00 1,570,665.00 .......................
New Orleans, LA.................. 6,282,661.00 ....................... .......................
TENNESSEE............................ 6,071,695.00 30,000.00 .......................
Memphis, TN...................... 6,071,695.00 ....................... .......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... 500,000,000.00 48,138,754.52 89,825,046.58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE PLANS
Question. States were to submit their plans to the Department by
December 31, 2003. How many State plans were delivered by that date?
How many State plans have now been submitted? How many, and which,
State plans have not yet been approved? In reviewing the plans, what
lessons have been learned about DHS plan requirements and what best
practices have been identified?
Answer. Each State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, and the territories were required to submit their
assessments and strategies by January 31, 2004. Much of how the States
and territories will distribute and utilize Homeland Security Grant
Program funds will be influenced by the results of the State Homeland
Security Assessments and Strategies.
These assessments and strategies are critically important to both
the States and the Federal Government. They provide a wealth of
information regarding each State's vulnerabilities, capabilities, and
future requirements, as well as each State's preparedness goals and
objectives. They provide each State with a roadmap as to how current
and future funding, exercise, training, and other preparedness
resources should be directed and targeted, and they provide the Federal
Government with a better understanding of needs and capabilities.
All assessments and strategies have been received and reviewed or
currently are under review by an intra-DHS review board comprised of
representatives from major Department components. Of those 56
strategies, 53 have been approved by the Department. The remaining
three--Idaho, Northern Marianna Islands, and the District of Columbia--
should be approved soon. ODP officials are continuing to work with
officials from these states and territories to ensure that the
requisite information and changes are made to their strategies.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
SEAPORT SECURITY IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
Question. The Coast Guard has estimated that the cost of meeting
security mandates from the Maritime Transportation Security Act will be
$1.1 billion initially and then $7.1 billion over the next 10 years.
The deadline for submitting port security plans to the Coast Guard
passed at the end of 2003 and many ports and facilities either turned
in nothing, or submitted reports that the analysis was still pending.
It has been reported that the Coast Guard also does not have the
personnel resources to review and evaluate the assessments when they
are turned in.
Most shipping activity is controlled by State, local and private
sector operations, and the Federal presence is minimum. The ports are
not deep pocketed, and tend to focus all activity on efficiency.
Relying on them as the total source of funding will ensure that we get
weak port security. By way of comparison, this would be like saying at
the Southwest Border, where a rancher's ranch borders the Rio Grande
and the Mexican border; ``we have concerns about illegal immigration
over your land, and we want you to put up gates and fences and conduct
surveillance of your property, and if you don't we will take your ranch
away from you''. While the protection of our border is a shared burden,
the Administration budget proposal does not adequately address it's
obligation.
The cost of securing our seaports is high, yet not impossible to
cover. The Coast Guard has published estimates that the cost will be
over $7 billion over the next 10 years. Why has the administration only
provided $46 million in the budget to meet this need?
Answer. The President's Budget provides $1.9 billion for port
security in the Department of Homeland Security, a 13 percent increase
over the 2004 level.
Within the 2005 total is $1,675 million for Coast Guard port,
waterway, and coastal security activities, including over $100 million
to implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA).
The DHS port security total also includes $164 million in U.S.
Customs and Border Protection for the Container Security Initiative and
the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism as well as the $46
million in the Office for Domestic Preparedness for port security
grants.
The Administration's budget request supports the President's
National Strategy for Homeland Security. This strategy provides the
basic framework to mobilize and organize the Nation--Federal, State and
local governments, the private sector, and the American people--in the
complex mission of protecting our homeland.
To date, the Coast Guard has received approximately 97 percent of
the Facility Security Plans that it anticipates receiving in response
to the Federal Maritime Security Regulations that were promulgated
under the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA). The Coast Guard
is currently reviewing these Facility Security Plans with the
assistance of one of the Nation's premier engineering companies, Black
and Veatch. The review process includes three stages that concludes
with an on-site examination to ensure that the security measures
outlined in the plan are appropriate and are being fully implemented.
The Coast Guard has allocated the resources necessary to conduct a full
review of each Facility Security Plan before July 1, 2004 when all
facilities are required to be operating under their approved plans.
The estimated costs of meeting the security mandates from the
Maritime Transportation Security Act do not account for the security
measures that companies have already taken to enhance security. For the
sake of good business practice, or to comply with regulations
promulgated by other Federal and State agencies, many companies have
already made substantial investments to upgrade and improve security of
their operation. We also realize that not every company engaged in
maritime commerce would implement the requirements for increased
security in exactly the same manner. Depending on each company's
choices, some companies could spend much less than what was anticipated
in the regulatory analysis for the MTSA regulations.
The Department fully understands there will be short-term costs,
particularly for many smaller ports or companies with less security
experience. The Coast Guard is fully engaged with the maritime industry
to help alleviate the burden. The Department has also awarded or made
available a total of nearly $500 million in port security grants over
the past 2 years and anticipates convening the fourth round of grants
in spring 2004.
The security requirements of the Maritime Transportation Security
Act were developed with the full cooperation of the private sector. The
implementation of these requirements will complement the Department's
already strong response.
OVERALL COAST GUARD BUDGET REQUEST ONLY 6 PERCENT INCREASE
Question. The Commandant of the Coast Guard testified that the
Coast Guard was on track to restore resources and performance of non-
security missions, such as search and rescue of stranded mariners, to
pre-9/11 levels. However, a draft GAO report (non-public until mid-
March) finds that the resource hours dedicated to the search and rescue
mission search & rescue is down 22 percent from pre-9/11 levels. The
resource hours dedicated to many other non-security missions, such as
fisheries enforcement, living marine resources, and drug interdiction,
are all down as well.
Does this budget really fund the Coast Guard at sufficient levels?
The request is really only a 6 percent increase over what we enacted
last year, if you include the supplementals. Why is Coast Guard getting
so little of the increase when it has so many responsibilities related
to security and non-security missions?
Answer. Yes, the fiscal year 2005 budget request is sufficient to
fund Coast Guard operations. A 6 percent increase is not a fair
comparison since the fiscal year 2004 Coast Guard budget includes
supplemental funding provided for Iraqi Freedom and Hurricane Isabel.
Supplemental appropriations are for specific purposes and are non-
recurring. Therefore, the fiscal year 2005 Coast Guard budget would not
reflect this funding.
While the draft GAO report referenced in this question noted that
that the resource hours for non-homeland security programs decreased,
the report also had the following conclusion: ``The Coast Guard's
performance results--measures used to track each program's annual
progress--generally did not mirror the trends in resource use. Instead,
results for programs GAO reviewed were generally stable or improved
regardless of the resources applied, and nearly all of the programs
that GAO reviewed met their performance targets.'' (Draft GAO-04-043,
March 2004).
Search and Rescue (SAR) is a demand driven mission. While resource
hours for SAR are down, it is due to less distress calls than from lack
of resource hours. Also from the GAO report: ``. . . the search and
rescue program's target for fiscal year 2003 was to save 85 percent of
mariners in distress and the program achieved this goal by saving over
87 percent of them.''
While resource hours are an important measure, the Coast Guard
relies on the judgment of the operation commander to apply available
resources based on the risks in the relevant area of operations. This
flexibility is critical to apply Coast Guard resources to the numerous
missions mandated in Section 888 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
Question. I am hearing reports that the Coast Guard's resource
hours for most non-security missions are still down below pre-9/11
levels. For example, I've heard that the search and rescue mission is
down 22 percent from pre-9/11 levels. What can you tell me about that?
Answer. In fiscal year 2003, search and rescue operational
activity, as reported by cutters, aircraft and boats (ashore) in the
Abstract of Operations (AOPS), was 22 percent lower than pre-9/11
levels. The pre-9/11 level is defined as the annual average of the
eight-quarter period beginning with the 4th quarter of fiscal year 1999
and ending with the 3rd quarter of fiscal year 2001.
The observed decrease in operational activity does not necessarily
reflect reduced readiness or responsiveness. Search and rescue is a
demand-driven mission. As such, a decrease in search and rescue
resource hours is a result of a reduction in the number of distress
calls received. Further, search and rescue operational activity may
also be affected by any number of the following factors:
--The economy--boating activity mirrors the economy's fluctuations.
--Weather patterns and number of severe storms.
--Improved safety equipment onboard vessels.
--Better built craft; modern vessels are more reliable.
--Better communications that prevent false overdue cases.
--Increased use of private towing companies providing non-emergency
assistance.
The Coast Guard continues to respond to all urgent search and
rescue calls.
INTELLIGENCE DISSEMINATION
Question. Section 70113, of the MTSA mandated a single system of
collection and analysis on vessels, cargo, crew, and passengers
entering into the U.S. Maritime intelligence had traditionally been
developed in response to the needs of the U.S. Navy, and the Office of
Naval Investigations (``ONI'') was crucial during World War II as they
were responsible for de-encrypting German and Japanese naval codes.
Later during the Cold War, this agency was charged with the tracking of
Soviet naval assets and submarines. The first efforts in tracking and
monitoring commercial maritime shipping occurred in the 1980's, when
the Coast Guard was brought into the naval intelligence world,
primarily to help track vessels that might be involved in drug running.
The current headquarters for the Maritime Intelligence Center
(``MIC'') located in Suitland, Md, houses Navy and Coast Guard
officials. There were 1,500 Navy officers and about 40 Coast Guard
officers working the unit. Since then, some strides have been taken to
improve the unit, including the formal recognition of the Coast Guard
into the intelligence community, appointment by the Coast Guard of the
first head of Coast Guard intelligence, and a slight increase of
resources. However, much remains to be done in this area, and the
agencies have not cooperated at all to forge a common program. In
response to your concerns about coordination of intelligence, you
earmarked $25 million to TSA, in hope that bringing new money to the
pot might stimulate a more coordinated effort. Given that we only
inspect 2 or 3 percent of our cargo entering into U.S. ports, and good,
coordinated intelligence will be vital.
Mr. Secretary, you mentioned in your testimony that DHS is working
to improve the sharing of intelligence. You have a major issue facing
you in developing a coherent policy that will allow for the
dissemination of intelligence reports to many of the different
personnel involved in Homeland Security. First off, you have to collect
certain information from officials at places like the CIA, or FBI, and
get it presented to your department. Then you have to analyze it and
verify it, and then pass the information out to the people who we can
provide the highest degree of oversight and security. In many cases,
this may be an official who works at a power plant, or is in charge of
a rail terminal, or chemical facility, and who are currently not able
to receive government security information that is classified. In the
case of homeland security many officials that will provide security
will either be from the private sector, or local or State officials.
Even within the Federal Government, and within your Agency, we are
experiencing coordination problems. The Maritime Transportation
Security Act mandated the creation of a single system of information
collection and analysis in order to bring together information on ship
movements, and connect it to information on cargo and shippers, and
information on crew members and passengers to make sure that we have
the best information possible to evaluate risk.
Yet, since the passage of our legislation, there have been no
efforts at all to coordinate this information. In fact, since we passed
the bill, Customs who used to have a presence at the Coast Guard
Maritime Intelligence Center has eliminated its presence, and started
construction of a new cargo intelligence facility. This is ludicrous.
What are you going to do to make sure that the public can receive and
act upon our intelligence, and increase homeland security, and can you
take steps to start to harmonize the own agencies within your
Department?
Answer. The Office of Information Analysis (IA) works in close
connection with the State and Local and Private Sector Directorates
within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in order to provide
timely and valuable threat-related information to the State and local
officials and private sector workforce that protect and provide for our
Nation's people and infrastructure. This involves receiving and acting
on feedback from such individuals, updating and specifying recommended
protective measures, and communicating directly with first responders
and State officials when necessary. Additionally, in an effort to unite
and coordinate Department wide efforts, the Assistant Secretary for
Information Analysis hosts a twice monthly meeting of the intelligence
and operations directors and/or their representatives from each DHS
entity. This meeting is used to coordinate policies and efforts, to
ensure close and consistent communication, and to discuss
recommendations for improvements in information sharing. The Department
has taken preliminary steps to harmonize the intelligence efforts of
its 20 plus separate entities by identifying legacy and new analytic
resources as well as the missions and capabilities of the respective
offices.
The Department of Homeland Security is coordinating information
sharing. The Coast Guard has taken a leadership role within DHS to
ensure that maritime intelligence products are accurate and available
to the DHS Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP)
Directorate and throughout the entire Federal Government. The Coast
Guard Command Center is co-located with the National Response Center
(NRC) sharing threat information and reports of suspicious activities
from the maritime industry and other maritime stakeholders. In
addition, the Coast Guard has provided access to its intelligence
databases, advice to other agencies developing intelligence-shared
architectures, and exchanged intelligence analysts and liaison officers
with other agencies active in the maritime arena. These liaison
officers work with the following organizations: Terrorist Threat
Integration Center, Defense Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Border and Transportation Security, U.S. Navy, IAIP,
National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, National Drug
Intelligence Center, El Paso Intelligence Center, and Joint
Intelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism. The Coast Guard and
Navy also continue to build an effective joint intelligence partnership
to enhance maritime domain awareness. The Coast Guard's Intelligence
Coordination Center is co-located with the Office of Naval
Intelligence, which comprises the National Maritime Intelligence Center
(NMIC).
Further, the Coast Guard and Border and Transportation Security
(BTS) have exchanged personnel to enhance data sharing between the CG
Intelligence Coordination Center's COASTWATCH (which analyzes
information from notice of arrival reports on vessels, people, and
certain dangerous cargoes approaching U.S. ports) and BTS' National
Targeting Center (cargo tracking process). Additionally, the Coast
Guard's two Maritime Intelligence Fusion Centers are collocated with
the U.S. Navy Shipping coordination Center to exchange Maritime
Homeland Security (HLS) and Homeland Defense (HLD) information.
PASSENGER SCREENING & CHECKPOINT ISSUES
Question. A provision in the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security
Appropriations bill that was signed into law by President Bush on
October 1, 2003, maintains a cap on TSA's full-time staffing at 45,000
positions. TSA has been trying to meet this employment cap since it was
first imposed, and over the last 6 months has cut more than 6,000
screener positions from its workforce.
Does the employment cap of 45,000 positions in the fiscal year 2004
Homeland Security Appropriations bill provide TSA the flexibility it
needs to devise appropriate staffing levels for individual facilities?
Answer. TSA is managing to keep the workforce under the 45,000 FTE
level by creating a more flexible workforce. TSA is better coordinating
airline schedules and passenger load with staffing needs, is increasing
the proportion of part-time to full-time screeners, and is
strategically using its mobile national screener force to meet seasonal
fluctuations in workload. TSA expects to have a part-time screener
workforce of close to 20 percent by the end of the current fiscal year.
Part-time screeners create additional operational flexibility when
scheduling screeners to satisfy varying levels of demand. As a result
of reducing excess capacity at periods of lower demand, TSA is seeking
to make more FTEs available to the system as a whole during peak
periods.
Question. How will TSA deal with the employment cap as air traffic
returns to more normal traffic growth levels?
Answer. We share Congress' desire to ensure that our screeners are
deployed effectively and efficiently to maximize the safety and
security of the traveling public. TSA will continue to review its
workforce requirements at each airport, considering the number,
location, and balance of full-time and part-time screeners. We will
engage airport operators and air carriers to ensure that growth rates,
changes in flight schedules, and other concerns, such as new technology
that improves screener performance and efficiency, are incorporated
into our planning. As we move forward into the busy summer travel
season, we will gain a better understanding of whether or not screener
staffing levels are adequate for the long term.
Question. Do you believe that this is a situation where budgetary
issues may end up driving operational issues rather than the actual
threat levels?
Answer. Budgetary considerations are not driving decisions on the
level of aviation security provided by our screening operation.
Ensuring adequate operating efficiency on the part of airlines and
airports given the need to maintain high security is a continuing
challenge that TSA will work through as we refine and improve screening
operations.
Question. Would it be more effective for TSA to develop staffing
standards for screeners that are based on ensuring that the average
aviation security-related delay experience by passengers does not
exceed 10 minutes per boarding?
Answer. TSA is in the process of completing work on the development
of staffing standards for each airport based on modeling which include
criteria such as passenger wait times.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
ALL-STATE MINIMUM
Question. I was disappointed that President Bush's proposed budget
for fiscal year 2005 drops the all-state minimum formula, which I
authored, from the State Homeland Security Grant Program. This formula
assures that each State receives a minimum of 0.75 percent of those
grants to help support their first responders' basic preparedness
needs.
Not only would this change result in the loss of millions in
homeland security funding for the fire, police and rescue departments
in small- and many medium-sized states, but also deal a crippling blow
to their efforts to build and sustain their terrorism preparedness.
Mr. Secretary, you and I have often spoken on how to fairly
allocate domestic terrorism preparedness funds to our states and local
communities. I thought we both agreed that fire, police and emergency
medical rescue teams in each State deserve support in achieving the new
homeland security responsibilities the Federal Government demands.
Imagine my surprise, then, when I read in the fiscal year 2005 budget
proposal that the State Homeland Security Grant Program would be
allocated among the states based on population concentrations, critical
infrastructures, and other significant terrorism risk factors, as
determined by you.
Mr. Secretary, does the Bush Administration want to shortchange
rural states, rolling back the hard-won progress we have begun to make
in homeland security by slashing the protections provided to us by the
all-state minimum?
Answer. The provision of homeland security funds to all states and
territories is essential to the Federal, State, and local effort to
enhance national security. I have said consistently that I believe
there should be a minimum level of preparedness across the country. The
language in the President's fiscal year 2005 request for the Department
of Homeland Security recognizes that factors other than a minimum
formula and population should be considered in making overall funding
allocations. The language further states that the Secretary should have
the latitude and discretion to make this determination based on a
number of factors, including population concentrations, critical
infrastructure, and other significant terrorism risk factors.
Terrorism and the threat of terrorist acts are not static, as is
the current formula included in the USA PATRIOT Act. Instead, threats,
risks, and vulnerabilities are fluid and can change based on a number
of factors. The Department of Homeland Security should not be
constrained by a formula and distribution method that does not change
to meet current and future security needs. As you know, each State has
submitted an updated homeland security strategy as a requirement of
receiving and distributing fiscal year 2004 Office for Domestic
Preparedness grant funds. It is the Department's expectation that these
strategies, and periodically updated strategies, will provide
invaluable information to determine appropriate funding levels for all
states--large and small, urban and rural.
The Administration and Congress share the goal of enhancing the
Nation's ability to deter, prevent, respond to, and recover from acts
of terrorism. The Administration firmly supports the notion that
security needs to be improved across the Nation. The Administration,
however, has consistently supported a change in the USA PATRIOT Act
formula so that we can apply more factors than just population to
distributing and expending limited homeland security resources.
Question. Mr. Secretary, would you agree that homeland security is
a national responsibility shared by all states, regardless of size?
Answer. I strongly support the idea that homeland security is a
national responsibility shared by all states, regardless of size. That
is why I firmly believe that there should be a minimum level of
preparedness across the country. Since its creation last year, the
Department has provided more than $8 billion to support and enhance the
security of states and localities. The President's fiscal year 2005
budget request continues this strong support and commitment to the
Nation's emergency prevention and response community. The President's
budget clearly demonstrates the continuing priority placed on homeland
security through requesting $40.2 billion in total new resources for
fiscal year 2005, which is an increase of 10 percent above the
comparable fiscal year 2004 level.
Question. Mr. Secretary, do you agree that each State has basic
terrorism preparedness needs and, therefore, a minimum amount of
domestic terrorism preparedness funds is appropriate for each state?
Answer. I strongly support the idea that homeland security is a
national responsibility shared by all states, regardless of size. That
is why I firmly believe that there should be a minimum level of
preparedness across the country.
Question. Mr. Secretary, would you support a budget supplement
amendment to restore the 0.75 percent minimum to the State Formula
Grants Program, which include the State Homeland Security Grant
Program, the Citizens Corps and the Law Enforcement Terrorism
Prevention Grants Program?
Answer. I strongly support the President's fiscal year 2005 budget
request that provides for additional factors to be considered when
making determinations on how to distribute homeland security funds to
states and localities. While I support the concept behind the PATRIOT
Act--that every State should receive minimum levels of support--I
firmly believe that funding allocations decisions should be based on a
number of other factors not included in the PATRIOT Act formula,
including the presence of critical infrastructure and other significant
risk factors. With the input that the Department is receiving from the
states through their updated homeland security strategies, and with the
more robust intelligence analysis and data collection capabilities
within the Department, the Department will be better able to prioritize
support for your efforts to prevent, prepare for, and respond to
terrorist incidents. The President's fiscal year 2005 request
recognizes this enhanced ability, and provides the Secretary of
Homeland Security the latitude and discretion to determine appropriate
funding levels to the states.
FIRST RESPONDERS
Question. President Bush often says that he wants to ensure that
our State and local first responders receive the resources necessary to
do the job the American public expects them to do.
I find that hard to believe, though, when I read that he proposes
an $805 million, or 18.4 percent, overall cut in funds for Office for
Domestic Preparedness funding programs that directly benefit police,
fire and medical rescue units. The Administration argues this is
justified because it does not believe those funds are ``targeted'' to
homeland security capabilities.
I believe, however, that the current Administration has failed to
make first responders a high enough priority by consistently
underfunding homeland security efforts of every state.
The Hart-Rudman Terrorism Task Force Report argued that our Nation
will fall approximately $98.4 billion short of meeting critical
emergency responder needs through this decade's end if current funding
levels are maintained.
Clearly, the domestic preparedness funds available are still not
enough to protect from, prepare for and respond to future domestic
terrorist attacks anywhere on American soil.
Would you agree, Mr. Secretary, that to be truly protected from,
prepared for and able to respond to future terrorist attacks we should
be looking to increase the funds to our Nation's State and local first
responders, rather than decrease them, as proposed by the President?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2005 request includes more than
$3.5 billion to support ODP programs and activities. This represents a
$3.3 million increase over the Fiscal year 2004 request. The fiscal
year 2005 request includes funds to continue the Homeland Security
Grant Program which includes the State Homeland Security Program at
$1.4 billion; the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program at $500
million; and the Citizen Corps Program at $50 million. Funds are also
provided for the continuation of the Urban Areas Security Initiative at
$1.4 billion; the Fire Act Program at $500 million; the Emergency
Management Performance Grants at $170 million; as well as for ODP's
training, exercise, and technical assistance efforts.
The continuation of these efforts, and the $3.3 million increase in
ODP's overall request, coupled with the President's request for a 10
percent increase in funding for DHS as a whole, provides ODP, and the
entire Department, with the resources we require to help secure the
Nation from acts of terrorism. The Administration and Department remain
committed to providing our Nation's emergency prevention and response
community the resources they need to continue to secure our Nation from
future acts of terrorism.
FIRE SERVICES
Question. After paying repeated lip service to the great sacrifices
made by our Nation's first responders, last week President Bush
unveiled a budget that cuts total Federal assistance to first
responders by $800 million.
This fiscal year Congress appropriated $4.2 billion to address
first responder and homeland security needs. Despite heightened terror
alerts and multiple studies documenting the pressing needs of the fire
service, the administration has proposed a $3.5 billion package for
fiscal year 2005 that cuts the FIRE ACT and grant programs to State and
local jurisdictions.
Consistent with the President's opposition to using Federal dollars
to hire fire fighters, the budget does not include any funding for the
newly authorized SAFER (Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency
Response) program, which fire departments nationwide argue is critical
to maintaining their commitment to public safety.
The budget also proposes cutting a total of $435 million from first
responder grants to states and other important fire service programs,
including eliminating the $60 million grant program for Urban Search
and Rescue and the $60 million competitive training grant programs. An
additional $20 million has been slashed from the fund for technical
training and national exercises.
Each year since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Congress has
increased President Bush's proposed appropriations to the fire service.
And it is now incumbent upon us to do that again.
Mr. Secretary, this is a time when our Nation needs to support our
communities' firefighters. On September 11th, the Nation saw that the
first on the scene at the World Trade Center were the heroic
firefighters of New York City. Those real-life heroes, 343 of whom gave
the ultimate sacrifice, should remind us of how essential that support
is.
We hear a lot of rhetoric from this Administration about the need
to secure our homeland and keep our Nation safe. It is very unfortunate
that the President has decided not to put his money where his mouth is.
These cuts are unconscionable and lack clear understanding of the many
problems facing our Nation's first responders--especially those serving
in our fire departments.
Aside from rearranging the deck chairs at DHS, how will your budget
plan at least as much money out to our brave firefighters as it did
last year?
Answer. The Department is strongly committed to addressing the
needs of the Nation's first responders. In fiscal year 2005, the DHS
budget request includes $3.6 billion for terrorism and emergency
preparedness grants and assistance. Since March 1, 2003, the Department
has allocated and awarded more than $8 billion in overall grant funding
for States and Territories to enhance the abilities of their first
responders. President Bush is the first president to request funding
for the fire service and the emergency medical services, and the first
to call specifically for funding of the Assistance to Firefighter Grant
Program in his budget. When the 2004 grant process is completed, DHS
will have distributed almost $2 billion to more than 20,000 local fire
departments, and the President's fiscal year 2005 Budget has proposed
another $500 million. From fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2004,
the Administration as a whole has approved or requested more than $17
billion for State and local fire departments, law enforcement, public
health biodefense, and emergency response. In addition, the Bush
Administration has trained more than 700,000 first responders since
September 11, 2001.
IMMIGRATION
Question. The President's budget proposes a 40 percent cut in the
amount of directly appropriated funds for the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services (CIS), from the nearly $235 million appropriated
for the current year to $140 million for fiscal year 2005.
You mention in your written testimony the President's guest worker
proposal. If Congress approves such a guest worker plan, it would
drastically increase the workload of CIS. Why is the President
proposing a 40 percent cut in an agency whose workload he wants to
increase dramatically?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2005 Budget is not proposing a
cut in the USCIS budget. In fact, the President's budget includes a
$300 million increase over last years levels, including an additional
$60 million in discretionary funding towards backlog reduction efforts
aimed at achieving a 6-month processing time for all immigration
benefit applications by fiscal year 2006.
The President's fiscal year 2005 budget reflects the current
proposal recently adopted by USCIS to adjust its fee schedule through
the rulemaking process. This fee adjustment includes amounts for
administrative support services ($155 million) previously funded
through appropriated funds (tax dollars). Thus, this proposal has no
impact on the USCIS budget except for the fact that the funding source
for these services will be by way of fees versus tax dollars. With the
exception of the $140 million in appropriated backlog reduction funds,
USCIS will be a wholly fee-funded agency in fiscal year 2005.
Beginning in fiscal year 2002, USCIS has been receiving a total of
$100 million in funds for backlog reduction to achieve the 6-month
processing time. The $100 million is made up of $80 million in
appropriated funds and $20 million in premium processing fees. The
President is proposing a 60 percent increase for backlog reduction
efforts in fiscal year 2005, bringing the total backlog reduction funds
from $100 million to $160 million ($140 million in appropriated funds
and $20 million from the premium processing fees).
Question. Speaking of the guest worker program, I wrote to the
President last month and asked him to submit a legislative proposal to
Congress that would implement his plan. As you know, we have a short
legislative year ahead of us. Why has the President not already
submitted proposed legislation? Will he do so?
Answer. On January 7, 2004, the President announced principles in
creating a new temporary worker program that would match willing
foreign workers with willing U.S. employers when no Americans can be
found to fill the jobs. We look forward to working with Congress to
develop legislation that incorporates the best ideas for the American
worker and our foreign visitors. Through the principles outlined by the
President, the best course to the end goal of opportunity, security,
safety, compassion, jobs and growth can be achieved.
Question. President Bush has promised to reduce the average wait
time for applicants for immigration benefits to 6 months by 2006. In
light of that goal, and the increased burden the President would place
on the CIS through the guest worker program, why does the President's
budget not seek any directly appropriated funds for backlog reduction?
Answer. As answered above, the President is seeking in the fiscal
year 2005 budget a 60 percent increase in the total funds towards
backlog reduction efforts, from $100 to $160 million, including $140
million in appropriated funds. CIS will meet the President's goals no
later than 2006. CIS does not believe that the President's Temporary
Worker Proposal will impact the backlog.
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Question. DHS published a proposed rule on critical infrastructure
information, or CII, on April 15, 2003. What is the current status of
the CII rule?
Answer. The Interim Final Rule establishing the regulations (6 CFR
29) to implement the CII Act of 2002 were published in the Federal
Register for immediate implementation on February 20, 2004. Has DHS
received CII submissions from corporations? If so, how many? How is DHS
handling such information?
Answer. We have not received any submissions under the Interim
Final Rule as of March 1, 2004.
Question. Despite the lack of a final rule on the handling of CII,
are submissions effectively restricted from public disclosure and from
transmittal to other Federal agencies?
Answer. The Interim Final Rule has been published and submissions
meeting all the requirements of the Act and the implementing
regulations (known as Protected Critical Infrastructure Information
(PCII)) are exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act.
PCII may be shared with other Federal agencies engaged in critical
infrastructure activities authorized under the CII Act and with State
and local governments performing those activities that have signed
agreements with DHS.
Question. Secondly, as I understand it, DHS received numerous
substantive comments on the proposed rule, including many submissions
that raised concerns with the draft rule. If substantive changes are
made, based either upon these comments or other reasons, will DHS issue
a new proposed rule before finalizing this controversial provision?
Answer. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published for comment
on April 20, 2003. A total of 117 comments were received. Based on
these comments the draft regulation was revised and an Interim Final
Rule was published for immediate implementation on February 20, 2004.
DHS issued an Interim Final Rule to provide a framework necessary to
receive voluntarily provided Critical Infrastructure Information and
protect it from public disclosure, while allowing the Department to
adapt as program operations evolve. The Department has asked for
additional comments on the Interim Final Rule by May 20, 2004. These
comments will help DHS determine whether possible supplemental
regulations are needed as experience is gained in implementing the CII
Act of 2002.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
Question. I have heard from the Iowa State Secretary of Agriculture
that the Department of Homeland Security is no longer funding certain
veterinary positions assigned to monitoring for animal diseases that
USDA used to fund before the funding stream was switched to the
Department of Homeland Security. As the recent case of a BSE-positive
cow in Washington showed, our State Departments of Agriculture are our
front lines of defense against animal diseases, whether intentionally
or naturally caused, and our veterinarians are our calvary. These
positions, which were funded through a USDA grant program, provide
States with essential animal disease preparedness and response
capability. Many of the postions funded through the program are
essential to states bioterrorism planning and response efforts as well.
Why did your department cease funding for these positions when the
authority for the program was switched as part of the Homeland Security
Act? How are States supposed to make up for the loss in animal disease
monitoring capabilities? Are you considering reinstating the program?
Answer. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible
for the monitoring for animal diseases. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) is responsible for conducting document verifications of
certain restricted meats and for ensuring compliance with entry
requirements for animals and animal by-products set by USDA. USDA
retained authority for the animal disease-monitoring program and
veterinary positions referred to in the question. DHS has no
involvement in the funding of these positions. This question would be
best directed to USDA.
Question. The Emergency Management Grant Program (EMPG) was
transferred with FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security. It is the
grant program that funds the basic emergency management functions of
State and government. This is the money Ellen Gordon and her team use
to prepare for hurricanes, floods, hazardous materials spills,
accidents, or any other kind of disaster.
When EMPG was moved to DHS, the Bush Administration tried to merge
it into the new terrorism First Responder grant program. States argued
to keep it separate because they did not want their broad emergency
response functions shifting to a terrorism-only focus. Congress agreed
and the program has been kept separate--and has been fully funded.
In his fiscal year 2005 budget request, Bush proposes to cut it by
5 percent--but, more importantly, to cap personnel costs at 25 percent
of the grant award.
If that were to be endorsed by the Congress, Iowa would lose one-
third of our entire emergency management function and our local
governments would lost between 20-30 percent of their staff.
Exercises planned would have to be canceled. The critical
coordination between our traditional emergency management planning and
our post-9/11 planning would be severely impacted. This is not the time
to be cutting staff in this area.
I am very concerned with the requirement in the budget request that
only a certain percentage of the Emergency Management Performance Grant
program can be used to pay for personnel. As you know, this is the
program which undergirds our very critical need to be prepared for any
kind of disaster, whether terrorism, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes,
etc. While it is never popular to pay for the services of staff, these
staff do the work of coordinating our response plans and their work is
very, very critical to us (particularly as the terrorism grants are
threatening to shift to urban areas). Can you tell me the rationale
behind this change and how you believe it will impact preparedness in
our communities?
Answer. The Administration's fiscal year 2005 request for the
Emergency Management Planning Grants is $170 million, which is higher
than any previous request for this program. The funds will be used to
assist the development, maintenance, and improvement of State and local
emergency management capabilities, specifically to build local capacity
for homeland security needs.
As you note, though, the request does cap the amount that states
can use for salaries, thereby significantly increasing the amount of
funds available for planning, training and exercises. The request
shifts the emphasis to Federal support for planning while properly
aligning responsibility for staffing and salaries with the states and
local governments. The Administration and Department have consistently
supported the idea that homeland security is a shared responsibility
between Federal and State and local governments. Additionally, it is
important to remember that we are operating in a fiscal and security
environment where we must ensure maximum security benefits are derived
from every security dollar. To do that, we must be able to take a new
look at the way in which we allocate resources, including sharing
financial responsibility with our State and local partners.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
DISASTER MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TEAMS
Question. Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, or DMATs, can provide
states with valuable extra capacity in the case of a disaster or
terrorist attack. These volunteer teams act as important reserves
without costing the taxpayers a great deal of money. However, neither
Wisconsin nor our neighbor Illinois has a DMAT. This is especially
troubling considering how many people live between Milwaukee and
Chicago. The State of Wisconsin is behind the effort to create a new
team, but I hear the Department of Homeland Security has put a stop to
creating new teams because of some problems with current teams. If
teams are not meeting requirements then eliminate those teams, but in
areas without a team, Homeland Security needs to move forward. While
the National Guard used to be an option when states faced a crisis,
Guard Units may not be available now with the war in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Don't these teams provide additional capability at a reasonable
cost? Will the Department reconsider its moratorium on new Disaster
Medical Assistance Teams?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS') National
Disaster Medical System (NDMS) has received a number of inquiries over
the past year from communities wanting to start new Disaster Medical
Assistance Teams (DMATs). DHS is pleased at the level of interest and
enthusiasm supporting the Nation's capacity for health and medical
response during times of disasters. Rather than adding teams at this
time, DHS is focused on strengthening existing teams to enhance depth
of membership and rapidness of response under the new national response
plan and incident management system, as required in HSPD-5.
The Department will consider the creation of new NDMS teams once it
has reviewed the strategic capability and locations of the existing
teams, and it has brought the teams to full operational capability.
NDMS teams provide significant enhancement to a region's medical
capacity. The costs of developing, supplying, training, and maintaining
these teams are significant. The Department feels these costs are
reasonable for the benefit provided by these emergency reserve medical
assets.
In the event of a public health emergency, the Milwaukee and
Chicago region could be served by any of the 110 teams currently within
the NDMS. This geographic area is within a 12-hour ground response
radius for five existing Operational DMATs including MI-1, MO-1, OH-1,
and OH-5. In addition, two Developmental DMAT teams (MN-1, KY-1)
bordering this area could be used to support a response in the
Milwaukee and Chicago area.
During this moratorium, NDMS' recommendation to communities
interested in developing DMATs has been to support NDMS teams already
within their states or regions. While this is not always possible, many
of these requests come from communities within states that already have
DMATs. When the NDMS office makes such a recommendation, it also
ensures that the existing DMAT leadership in the area is notified.
There are other strategies for motivated communities besides the
creation of DMATs. The Medical Reserve Corps through HHS' Office of the
Surgeon General may be a model to help focus the community's motivation
into developing a coordinated medical response asset. In addition,
there are other volunteer organizations, such as the American Red Cross
and National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster, that welcome
the support of health care professionals.
SECURITY IN THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR
Question. Secretary Ridge, the President has unveiled a new food
and agriculture defense initiative. This new effort puts you in charge
of organizing security with USDA and the FDA.
I would like to hear your thoughts on how to coordinate these
activities and how protection of food and agriculture rank in your
overall perspective of homeland security threats. I ask this because
you now have responsibility for the Plum Island animal disease
laboratory in New York. Prior to last year, Plum Island was funded
through the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, where I am Ranking
Member. As part of the President's fiscal year 2004 request, more than
$6 million of USDA funding for research and diagnostic activities were
transferred to your Department from USDA and agreements were supposed
to be reached to reimburse USDA employees for that work. I understand
those agreements have not yet been completed.
Last year I expressed some concerns about transferring agricultural
programs out of USDA. In fact, last May, when Secretary Veneman
appeared before the Agriculture Subcommittee, I asked her about these
transfers and she agreed that there was a concern among livestock
producers that their priorities would not be reflected in programs
conducted by your Department. She did say that USDA and DHS would work
together to develop a research and diagnostics program to meet the
needs of both Departments. In report language to accompany the fiscal
year 2004 appropriations bill for your Department, you were instructed
to report to the Congress by January 15th on a comprehensive strategy
to combat agroterrorism.
What is the status of that report, and how can you assure farmers
and ranchers across America that your Department is better suited to
combat agroterrorism than USDA? How do you intend to engage USDA in
this strategy?
Answer. DHS is committed to enhancing the Nation's agricultural
security by complementing the mission of USDA as the sector-specific
agency for agriculture [and USDA and the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) for food security] and bringing a new sense for urgency and
investments to enhance the Nation's capability to anticipate, prevent,
detect, respond to, and recover from the intentional introduction of
foreign animal disease.
The report requested by Congress, 'A National Strategy for
Agricultural Biosecurity' builds on the strengths of each agency to
develop comprehensive preparedness and response capabilities. USDA's
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) will continue its basic research
and early discovery work, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) its diagnostics (including the Foreign Animal Disease
Diagnostic Laboratory), while DHS will invest in advanced development
research to expedite the transition of capabilities to operational end-
users in USDA and DHS. DHS will also provide capability for certified
forensics analysis in support of law enforcement.
The report was drafted by a working group of senior officials and
scientists from the respective agencies (DHS, USDA APHIS and ARS), with
representation of key industry groups. The draft report is complete and
is currently undergoing final interdepartmental reviews prior to
transmittal to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
This report and the DHS/USDA strategic partnership are executed in
accordance with the Homeland Security Act of 2002; fiscal year 2004
appropriations for DHS and USDA; as well as Homeland Security
Presidential Directive/HSPD-9 ``Defense of United States Agriculture
and Food'' and HSPD-7 ``Critical Infrastructure Identification,
Prioritization, and Protection,'' both of which delineate the roles of
sector-specific agencies.
As part of DHS's extensive commitment to agricultural security, it
is also establishing two University Homeland Security Centers (HS-
Centers); one in foreign animal and zoonotic diseases, and one in post-
harvest food security. These new HS-Centers were awarded in April 2004.
Additionally, DHS is coordinating with USDA on a review team for high-
consequence reference scenarios for strategic planning for DHS's
programs and activities on biological and chemical countermeasures.
Finally, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 transferred the
facilities and liabilities' of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center to
DHS from USDA. A working group of program staff and scientists from the
two departments have worked closely on a variety of aspects of this new
collaboration including enhancing the operations, facilities and
security on the island, developing a joint R&D plan for foreign animal
diseases which emphasizes foot-and-mouth disease and roadmaps for
assays and diagnostics, and vaccines and anti-virals.
Question. What is the status of completing an agreement with USDA
for reimbursement for research and diagnostic work at Plum Island?
Answer. The statement of work for reimbursement of research and
diagnostic work at Plum Island Animal Disease Center for fiscal year
2004 has been agreed to by DHS and USDA. The reimbursable agreement is
currently being implemented at Plum Island Animal Disease Center.
Question. The President's request for the Food and Agriculture
Defense Initiative includes a $5 million item for research at DHS. What
will be the focus of this research and where will it be conducted?
Answer. As summarized above, one of the reference scenarios is
focused on bulk food contamination and is based on one of a series of
food vulnerability studies conducted by the Homeland Security Council
(HSC) Interagency Food Working Group during fiscal year 2003-fiscal
year 2004. These studies form the basis for the design and
implementation of food shields' to protect critical central food
processing nodes in the production system.
DHS is currently funding an end-to-end systems study for the
reference scenario on bulk food contamination, and this study will be
followed in fiscal year 2005 by a design for a food sensor,' a
requisite next step in the implementation of a food shield' based on
requirements identified in the systems study. The food sensor funding
is included in the President's fiscal year 2005 budget request.
INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS
Question. The Homeland Security Act established a Directorate of
Information Analysis within the Department of Homeland Security. In
July 2003 there were only 53 analysts and liaison officials within that
Directorate, with plans to triple that number. President Bush has since
created the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC--pronounced ``T-
Tick''), which includes the CIA's Counterterrorist Center (CTC) and the
FBI's Counterterrorism Division. This did not relieve DHS of its
intelligence analysis responsibilities, but TTIC's assigned
responsibilities are very similar to those of DHS.
In your opinion, does the creation of multiple organizations to
analyze terrorist-related intelligence thwart the initial goal of the
Department of Homeland Security, that is to centralize this function
and facilitate cooperation and information sharing among the various
intelligence related agencies? If not, what is being done to preserve
this goal that is not immediately apparent from the fractured structure
of these functions? Would it be better to consolidate these functions
in one place, either within DHS or within the CIA in the form of TTIC?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security, as stated in the
Homeland Security Act, is singularly focused on the protection of the
American homeland. DHS/IAIP independently analyzes threat-related
information it receives from the entire Intelligence Community, other
DHS entities, and the Terrorist Threat Integration Center and issues
warning products to State and local officials and the private sector
after matching terrorist threats and capabilities with our Nation's
vulnerabilities.
In contrast, the TTIC is responsible for the analysis of all
international terrorism threat information, whether collected
domestically or abroad. TTIC uses this information to create an overall
threat picture and to issue reports to the appropriate IC members.
Accordingly, the TTIC is vital to serve the entire Intelligence
Community. While TTIC is an essential resource upon which DHS relies to
complete its mission, they are also integral to completing the mission
of other entities within the Intelligence Community.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS
Question. I am also concerned about the Administrations cuts and
policy changes to the Emergency Management Performance Grants. Not only
is there $9 million less than last year, but the $170 million that is
included in the President's budget will no longer fund all hazard
planning. This is a real disappointment for county emergency managers
in my state. They used these funds to help them prepare for terrorist
attacks as well as natural disasters like floods and tornados. A
reduction in funding, especially when adjusted for inflation, could
force some counties to reduce staff as well as leave them unprepared
for non-terrorism catastrophes.
Why did the Administration reduce these funds, and why did they
prohibit these funds from being used for all hazard planning?
Answer. The Administration's fiscal year 2005 request for the
Emergency Management Planning Grants is $170 million, which is higher
than any previous request for this program. The funds will be used to
assist the development, maintenance, and improvement of State and local
emergency management capabilities, with the specific goal of building
capabilities for homeland security needs.
As you note, though, the request does cap the amount that states
can use for salaries, thereby significantly increasing the amount of
funds available for planning, training and exercises. The request
shifts the emphasis to Federal support for planning while properly
aligning responsibility for staffing and salaries with the states and
local governments. The Administration and Department have consistently
supported the idea that homeland security is a shared responsibility
between Federal and State and local governments. Additionally, it is
important to remember that we are operating in a fiscal and security
environment where we must ensure maximum security benefits are derived
from every security dollar. To do that, we must be able to take a new
look at the way in which we allocate resources, including sharing
financial responsibility with our State and local partners.
FLIGHT CANCELLATIONS
Question. Most of the flights stopped were from British Airways and
Air France, but every day airlines based in more volatile regions land
in this country. We never hear about planes from Morocco or Pakistan
not being allowed to land. Are airlines that fly from the Middle East
and Africa somehow safer than those that fly from Paris and London?
Answer. Flight cancellations during the holiday period were based
upon specific intelligence that warranted such action. Appropriate
information was shared with our foreign counterparts and foreign air
carriers, which sometimes led to their decisions to cancel flights and/
or implement enhanced security measures. These actions were not
necessarily tied to the Nations from which the flights originated. In
principle and practice, DHS does not recommend or take security actions
based solely upon the origin or destination of a flight independent of
specific information that may pertain to that location.
Question. Are the cancellations a result of limited intelligence
cooperation between the United States, Britain and France making it
harder to determine who is on these planes? Or is the problem exactly
the opposite, we are getting good information about European flights,
but it is difficult to figure out if a threat is flying on a plane from
Islamabad?
Answer. As I indicated above, flight cancellations over the holiday
period were based on specific intelligence that warranted such action,
and were examples of good intelligence cooperation. The cancellation of
these particular flights is unrelated to the question of how robust our
capacity is to assess the security of flights originating in other
parts of the world.
Question. Are flights out of these major airports more attractive
to terrorists than flying from Karachi or Rabat? Is there something our
European allies are NOT doing that makes these good targets, or do we
just not have a good way of monitoring what might be going on in other
countries?
Answer. These cancellations were not based on an assessment of
security practices at European airports, which are generally fully
compliant with ICAO standards and deemed to be of high quality. Again,
during the holiday period, DHS received specific information and shared
it appropriately with French and British allies, resulting in decisions
being made to cancel these flights. DHS and our European allies
continue to work in close collaboration to share best practices and
enhance aviation security.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. Mr. Secretary, I agree that CSI and C-TPAT are important
pieces of our cargo security system but they aren't going to do the job
alone. In fact, they have significant issues that would benefit from
Operation Safe Commerce moving forward.
You may be aware of a recent GAO study entitled, ``Preliminary
Observations on Efforts to Target Security Inspections of Cargo
Containers.''
This report is clearly critical of the lack of methodology
incorporated in these Customs and Border Protection initiatives.
The report states that--quote--``while CBP's strategy incorporates
some elements of risk management, it does not include other key
elements, such as a comprehensive set of assessments that experts told
GAO are necessary to determine risk and the types of responses
necessary to mitigate that risk.''
The report says ``CBP's targeting system does not include a number
of recognized modeling practices, such as subjecting the system to peer
review, testing and validation.''
The report goes on further to say that--quote--``CBP does not have
a national system for reporting and analyzing inspection statistics and
the data provided to us by ports were generally not available by risk
level, were not uniformly reported, were difficult to interpret, and
were incomplete.''
Mr. Secretary, for the sake of our Nation's security it is
imperative that we are able to learn from all of our port security
programs.
We must tie them together and rapidly institute a large-scale,
operational cargo security program in the United States. And, for the
sake of our economy, we must get this right.
What are your reactions to this report?
Answer. In general, GAO's report ``Challenges Remain in the
Targeting of Oceangoing Cargo Containers for Inspection,'' is
constructive, and CBP will be initiating several corrective actions in
fiscal year 2005 to address issues identified by GAO. However, GAO's
assertion that CBP does not ``incorporate all key elements of a risk
management framework and recognized modeling practices'' is not
accurate. Although CBP characterizes its approach to risk management
for terrorism as a ``layered approach,'' the fundamental components of
this approach can also be characterized within GAO's risk management
framework. The following provides a brief discussion of the
relationships between the Automated Targeting System (ATS) and several
CBP initiatives within GAO's risk management framework to demonstrate
the fulfillment of the framework's key elements.
The key elements of GAO's Risk Management Framework are:
--Threat Assessment
--Criticality Assessment
--Vulnerability Assessment
--Risk Assessment
--Risk Characterization
--Risk Mitigation
--Monitoring and Evaluation
--Repetition of the Risk Management Process
CBP and GAO's Risk Management Framework
--Threat (event) Assessment.--CBP utilizes incoming intelligence from
various sources that include the U.S. Intelligence community to
identify threats. These threats include general assessments as
discussed in GAO's report (e.g. vulnerability of supply chains
and containerized cargo) as well as classified, specific
threats regarding individuals. Collection of these threat
assessments is an ongoing activity. Also, targeting is
integrated into CBP's Treasury Enforcement Communication System
(TECS) enforcement database to ensure that specific
intelligence is integrated with targeting activity. Also,
incoming intelligence is evaluated by the National Targeting
Center to develop targeting strategies appropriate to the risk.
Responses to certain threats may be expanded to include
additional targeting rules for ATS, lookouts, and/or cargo
targeting criteria.
--Criticality Assessment.--As GAO indicates, criticality assessments
``help provide a basis for prioritizing protection relative to
limited resources'' for a critical asset. With respect to
``national security, economic activity, and public safety''
this critical asset is the flow of trade in both a free and
secure manner. This goal is fundamental to CBP's operations.
CBP cannot inspect all cargo coming into the United States;
however, the organization can and does prioritize shipments by
risk and does inspect all high-risk cargo (mandatory
inspections through threshold targeting) coming into the United
States. While ATS provides a system for prioritizing and
targeting high-risk cargo through transactional targeting
rules, C-TPAT provides a programmatic mechanism for identifying
relatively low risk supply chains and allows CBP to direct
resources to other higher-risk entities.
--Vulnerability Assessment.--As indicated in GAO's report, there has
been extensive work regarding vulnerability assessments
concerning maritime assets (specifically containerized cargo),
and other agencies that contributed to this work include the
FBI, CIA, academic, think tank and business organizations. As
discussed extensively with GAO, CBP's layered approach to this
vulnerability includes initiatives such as C-TPAT, Non-
Intrusive Inspection Technology (NII), Container Security
Initiative (CSI), and ATS targeting.
--Risk Assessment.--GAO defines risk assessments to ``include
scenarios under which two or more risks interact creating
greater or lesser impacts; they also include the filtering and
ranking or prioritization of risky events.'' Where an ``event''
can be a shipment, ATS utilizes a battery of rules to vet and
prioritize the shipment transactions by scoring the different
variables of each transaction and ranking/prioritizing the
transactions by total scores for each transaction. To the
extent that risk assessments might also be in the form of
intelligence reports, this information is also integrated into
targeting through the development of specific rules, lookouts,
cargo criteria, TECS records, and the performance of targeting
``sweeps'' by the National Targeting Center when warranted.
--Risk Characterization.--GAO defines risk characterization as
``designating risk on a scale, for example low, medium, or
high.'' As defined, risk characterization is inherent to the
ATS targeting program as a decision support tool that generates
risk scores to prioritize cargo for inspection.
--Risk Mitigation.--GAO indicates that risk mitigation may involve
risk acceptance, risk avoidance, risk reduction, and risk
sharing. In terms of risk acceptance (taking no action) and
risk sharing, CBP minimizes inspections through the C-TPAT
Program. A certain level of risk acceptance is also inherent to
targeting higher risk cargo for inspection and not inspecting
lower risk cargo. In terms of risk avoidance (taking action to
avoid activities that involve risk), CBP increases inspections
through the use of NII (e.g. x-rays and radiation pagers)
instead of increasing time consuming physical exams that would
limit the number of shipments that can be inspected and
increase vulnerabilities.
CBP is also actively engaged in activities identified by GAO's
systems approach to risk mitigation: personnel (e.g. training),
processes, technology, infrastructure, and governance. ATS
training classes are being implemented on an ongoing basis (Sea
Cargo) and with the deployment of new ATS threshold targeting
rule sets (e.g. Northern Border Truck, Southern Border Truck,
and Rail). The Manifest Review Unit (MRU) Handbook will be
updated in fiscal year 2005 to address process and governance
issues. For technology, the additional development of software
and acquisition of hardware upgrades is ongoing. For
infrastructure, certain ports analyze their local flow of
traffic for improved efficiency and some are receiving upgrades
to physical examination resources.
--Monitoring and Evaluation.--A key element to CBP's ability to
monitor and evaluate the performance of targeting will be the
ability to accurately capture findings. As GAO pointed out, CBP
is hampered by non-integrated sub-systems for recording
findings. The full implementation of the ATS findings module
will provide CBP with a single place for recording the
findings, increase the accuracy of the findings, and facilitate
reporting, monitoring and evaluation.
With respect to peer review, CBP is actively working with other
Government agencies such as FDA and USDA as well as foreign
government agencies such as the Canadian Customs and Revenue
Administration (CCRA) to further develop targeting concepts.
CBP hopes to expand on these collaborative efforts in fiscal
year 2005. With respect to testing and validation, CBP will
also be conducting internal security exercises that test our
layered enforcement in fiscal year 2005.
--Repetition of the Risk Management Process.--The activities
previously described are ongoing and fulfill the ``loop'' of
assessments, mitigation, and monitoring and evaluation.
In conclusion, while CBP can always do a better job of fulfilling
and expanding upon all of the key elements of the risk management
framework described by GAO, CBP does actively engage in activities that
fulfill these key elements.
CBP and GAO's Modeling Practices
The following provides a brief discussion of CBP's initiatives in
terms of the issues identified with respect to ATS development and
``recognized modeling practices.''
--Conducting external peer review.--As indicated earlier in this
document, CBP is actively working with other Government
agencies such as FDA and USDA as well as foreign government
agencies such as the Canadian Customs and Revenue
Administration (CCRA) to further develop targeting concepts.
CBP hopes to expand these collaborative efforts in fiscal year
2005.
--Incorporating additional types of information.--CBP agrees with the
premise that ``linkages'' to other sources of information can
enhance targeting. Linkages between manifest and entry
information to TECS records represents such an effort.
Recently, FDA information was integrated into CBP's ATS system,
and CBP is actively working with USDA to integrate some of
their data into ATS. Other large, commercial sources of
information such as Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) are also being
explored but will require a lengthy cost-benefit analysis,
proof of concept, and significant budget procurement. Another
effort involves the procurement of container tracking
information.
--Testing and validating through simulated terrorist events.--As
discussed with GAO, ABC News did conduct their own ``test'' of
importing a shipment of radioactive material, and ATS did
successfully target this shipment for mandatory inspection. CBP
will be conducting its own ``red team'' simulations in fiscal
year 2005.
--Using random inspections to supplement targeting.--As discussed
earlier, the stratified random sample of CBP's Compliance
Measurement Program will be utilized to further evaluate the
performance of the ATS targeting.
DATA INTEGRITY ISSUES
Question. The GAO Report also made the following conclusion: ``CBP
does not have a national system for reporting and analyzing inspection
statistics and the data provided to us by ports were generally not
available by risk level, were not uniformly reported, were difficult to
interpret, and were incomplete''.
Currently, CBP has a number of non-integrated subsystems through
which it reports its examination findings. CBP's effort to ensure data
consistency for reporting purposes and analysis is hampered by these
multiple subsystems and CBP is addressing this issue through the
implementation of a ``Findings Module'' within its Automated Targeting
System. This module, which will be completed in fiscal year 2004, will
provide CBP with a single place for recording and retrieving its
examination findings, which will increase the accuracy of those
findings and facilitate CBP's reporting, monitoring and evaluation
activities.
Please explain why the Administration would abandon Operation Safe
Commerce--a program specifically designed to test various cargo-
security techniques, and the analysis associated with them, to create a
true container security program for our country?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2005 budget request for DHS
includes $1.9 billion for port security activities, including $126
million for the Container Security Initiative (CSI). The funding for
this initiative, which is $25 million more than the fiscal year 2004
level of funding, focuses on pre-screening cargo before it enters the
United States. The first phase of CSI focused on implementing the
program at the top 20 foreign ports, which ship approximately two-
thirds of the containers to the United States. Phase II expands the
program to additional ports based on volume, location, and strategic
concerns. Phase III further increases security at the highest risk
ports.
The President's fiscal year 2005 budget request also includes $50
million for the development of the next generation of screening
devices, which can be used at the Nation's port facilities.
Additionally, the budget request includes $64.2 million to enhance
land-based detection and monitoring activities between ports. Further,
the budget request includes $46 million for port security grants to be
administered by the Office for Domestic Preparedness and more than $1.4
billion for the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI). The UASI
program, among other things, can be used to support security
enhancements at our Nation's port facilities.
The Department firmly believes that these resources will allow us
to properly and effectively enhance security at our Nation's port
facilities.
--Operation Safe Commerce.--A program specifically designed to test
various cargo-security techniques, and the analysis associated
with them, to create a true container security program for our
country.
DHS is not abandoning Operation Safe Commerce. As you know, OSC is
a collaborative pilot effort between the Federal Government, the three
largest U.S. container load centers (Los Angeles/Long Beach, Seattle/
Tacoma, and New York/New Jersey), private industry, and the maritime
community, to develop and share best practices for the secure and
expeditious movement of containerized cargo. OSC's goal is to serve as
a test bed to examine methods to increase supply chain security,
protect the global supply chain, and facilitate the flow of commerce.
The Administration continues to administer OSC in fiscal year 2004 as a
multi-agency program with participants from the Departments of Homeland
Security, Transportation, State, Commerce, and Justice. An Executive
Steering Committee (ESC) was formed to provide guidance for OSC. The
ESC is co-chaired by the Transportation Security Administration, Bureau
of Customs and Border Protection, and the Department of Transportation.
Congress has provided $75 million for this program over a 2-year
period to conduct three very robust and comprehensive pilots at the
selected locations. The expected test period is 1 year. At this point
in time, Seattle/Tacoma has progressed furthest. There, the first
container shipment tracked by the program is expected to arrive by the
end of March 2004. First arrivals are expected in April 2004, for the
Port of New York/New Jersey and in June 2004, for the Port of Los
Angeles/Long Beach. As we complete each of the pilots, we will
ascertain the lessons learned and whether program elements are
applicable to ports across the country. We are hopeful that any
positive results of OSC will eventually be adopted by ports, cargo
companies and, where appropriate, incorporated into both existing and
future cargo security efforts by DHS and international governments.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Cochran. Our next hearing on the budget request for
the Department of Homeland Security will be held on Thursday,
February 26, in room 124 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
At that time, the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness
and Response, Mr. Michael Brown, will be here to discuss the
budget for the programs under his jurisdiction.
Until then, the subcommittee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., Tuesday, February 10, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
February 26.]