[Senate Hearing 111-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[The following testimonies were received by the
Subcommittee on Homeland Security for inclusion in the record.
The submitted materials relate to the fiscal year 2011 budget
request for programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]
Prepared Statement of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Marine Conservation
Biology Institute, based in Bellevue, WA, is a national, nonprofit
environmental organization whose mission is to advance the science of
marine conservation biology and protect ocean ecosystems. We advocate
for effective ocean policy and adequate appropriations for marine
programs that focus on understanding and conserving marine ecosystems,
habitats and species. MCBI supports the United States Coast Guard in
their efforts to reach their goals in providing maritime safety,
security, mobility, national defense, and protection of natural
resources.
I wish to thank the members of the Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit written testimony on the
fiscal year 2011 budget regarding appropriations for the United States
Coast Guard (USCG). The USCG is a multi-mission, maritime agency
ensuring the safety, security, and conservation of the Nation's
territorial waters. The fiscal year 2011 President's request has
decreased USCG's overall budget by over $340 million, including a
decrease of $3.5 million for marine environmental protection. Without
adequate funding, the Coast Guard will flounder in its mission and the
maritime environment will be at risk of further degradation. MCBI
recommends reinstating the fiscal year 2010 enacted USCG funding level
of $10.4 billion, to include an additional $2 million for the USCG to
play its part in preventing marine debris and aiding in its removal.
MARINE DEBRIS PROGRAM
Marine debris has become one of the most widespread pollution
problems affecting the world's oceans and waterways. As highlighted by
the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in the north Pacific gyre, and the
recently identified garbage patch in the Atlantic, marine debris is a
growing problem that is manifesting itself in all U.S. waters,
including Hawaii, Alaska, and the Caribbean. Marine debris fouls
beaches and marine ecosystems; kills coral reefs; causes death to
marine mammals, seabirds, and sea turtles by entanglement and
ingestion; transports non-native and invasive species to marine
ecosystems; and creates navigation safety hazards by fouling engine
propellers. Research has proven that debris has serious effects on the
marine environment, wildlife, the economy, and human health and safety.
Some of the most common types of marine debris are discarded or lost
fishing lines and nets, household plastics such as disposable lighters,
six-pack rings, plastic bags, and Styrofoam pellets. The number of
marine debris related entanglement deaths of endangered and threatened
seals, sea turtles, and seabirds continues to grow. Entanglement in
debris is major cause of death for Hawaiian monk seals (population
estimate is less than 1,200 individuals).
The United States Coast Guard (USCG) plays a crucial role combating
marine debris by monitoring and enforcing compliance with MARPOL Annex
V and the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships. Under this authority,
USCG monitors discharge of waste from ships and oversees port waste
receptor facilities. In addition, USCG provides critical support and
leadership for a variety of anti-marine debris activities. For example,
USCG has partnered primarily with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), starting in 1998, to remove an estimated 600
metric tons (mt) of marine debris (mostly derelict fishing gear) from
the Northwest Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) where marine debris continues to
kill endangered Hawaiian monk seals and seabirds. As of 2006, NOAA has
shifted marine debris removal in the NWHI to a ``maintenance mode,''
intended to keep up with new debris accumulation. In fiscal year 2006,
NOAA and USCG removed an estimated 40 mt of debris. Yet, the annual
accumulation rate is estimated at 52 mt of marine debris. Therefore,
``maintenance'' funding is not keeping up with the problem, and marine
debris continues to be a perpetual threat to the endangered Hawaiian
monk seal and seabirds in Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument.
To combat marine debris, the Marine Debris Research, Prevention and
Reduction Act was enacted in 2006. The act established a national
program led by NOAA and the USCG to identify, assess, reduce and
prevent marine debris and its effect on the marine environment. The act
authorizes $10 million annually for NOAA's Marine Debris Program and $2
million for the USCG's program. However, NOAA has been level funded at
$4 million since 2008; and the USCG has never requested nor received
any direct funding for its marine debris efforts.
As the Nation continues to deal with economic challenges, MCBI
recognizes that allocating new funds for projects may be difficult.
However, we encourage the subcommittee to (minimally) reinstate USGS
funding levels to fiscal year 2010 enacted levels to maintain the
service's operating capabilities, and include an additional $2 million
for the USCG to meet its responsibilities under the Marine Debris Act.
Additional monies are needed to enhance the ability of USGC to
maintain support to current removal projects; develop best management
practices; reduce derelict fishing gear; and conduct education and
outreach measures.
In summary, MCBI respectfully requests that the subcommittee
augment the United States Coast Guard funding to support the critical
role they play fighting marine debris.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association for Public Health
Statistics and Information Systems
The National Association for Public Health Statistics and
Information Systems (NAPHSIS) welcomes the opportunity to provide this
written statement for the public record as the Homeland Security
Subcommittee prepares its fiscal year 2011 appropriations legislation.
NAPHSIS represents the 57 vital records jurisdictions that collect,
process, and issue birth and death records in the United States and its
territories, including the 50 States, New York City, the District of
Columbia, and the five territories. NAPHSIS coordinates the activities
of the vital records jurisdictions among the jurisdictions and with
Federal agencies by developing standards, promoting consistent
policies, working with Federal partners, and providing technical
assistance to the jurisdictions.
The ``near miss'' of Flight 253 on Christmas Day reminds us that we
must remain vigilant in protecting our Nation from terrorist attacks.
In 2005, Congress passed the REAL ID Act in response to the 9/11
Commission's recommendations that the Federal Government ensure a
person ``is who they claim to be'' when applying for an official ID,
yet 5 years later its implementation remains stalled due to strained
State budgets and a lack of Federal investment. NAPHSIS respectfully
requests that Congress provide the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) $100 million over a period of 3-5 years to modernize the vital
records infrastructure in support of REAL ID through grants to States.
PREVENTING FRAUD, IDENTITY THEFT, AND TERRORISM THROUGH VERIFICATION
Prior to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September
11, 2001, all but one of the terrorist hijackers acquired some form of
identification document, some by fraud, and used these forms of
identification to assist them in boarding commercial flights, renting
cars, and other necessary activities leading up to the attacks. In its
final report, the 9/11 Commission recommended implementing more secure
sources of identification, stating that ``Federal Government should set
standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of
identification, such as driver's licenses. Fraud in identification
documents is no longer just a problem of theft. At many entry points to
vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources
of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are
who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 9/11 Commission Report, Final Report of the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, July 2004, p.
390.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heeding the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, Congress
enacted the REAL ID Act in May 2005. Among other provisions, the REAL
ID Act and its corresponding regulations (6 CFR Part 37) require that
applicants for a driver's license present their birth certificate to
the motor vehicle agency to validate their U.S. citizenship and their
date of birth, and that birth certificates must be verified by the
State. Sec. 37.13 of the identification standards regulations
recommends that States through their departments of motor vehicles
(DMV) should use the Electronic Verification of Vital Events (EVVE)
system, operated by NAPHSIS, to verify birth certificates presented by
applicants.
EVVE is an online system that verifies birth certificate
information. It provides authorized users at participating agencies
with a single interface to quickly, reliably, and securely validate
birth and death information at any jurisdiction in the country. In so
doing, no personal information is divulged to the person verifying
information--EVVE simply relays a message that there was or was not a
match with the birth and death records maintained by the State, city,
or territory.
VERIFICATION NEEDED NOW MORE THAN EVER
Many Federal and State agencies rely on birth certificates for
proof of age, proof of citizenship, identification for employment
purposes, to issue benefits or other documents (e.g. driver's licenses,
Social Security cards, and passports) and to assist in determining
eligibility for public programs or benefits (e.g., Medicaid).
Unfortunately, there are cases where individuals have obtained birth
certificates of deceased persons and assumed their identity, created
fraudulent birth certificates, and altered the information on a birth
certificate, as documented in a Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Inspector General Report of 2000.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector
General, Birth Certificate Fraud, Sept. 2009 (OEI-07-99-00570).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recently, the GAO documented several cases in which
investigators created fraudulent birth certificates and were able to
obtain passports based upon the fraudulent records because the passport
office did not verify the birth certificate information.\3\ As a
result, the Passport Office's Fraud Prevention Managers commenced using
the EVVE system in March 2009 for birth verifications. In their first 6
weeks of use, there were two instances where the Fraud Prevention
Mangers used the EVVE system to electronically verify the birth
certificates, and EVVE returned a ``no match.'' Upon further follow up
with the vital records offices that ``issued'' the birth certificates
it was determined that indeed the birth certificates presented with
those passport applications were fraudulent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Government Accountability Office, Department of State:
Undercover Tests Reveal Significant Vulnerabilities in State's Passport
Issuance Process, Mar. 2009 (GAO-09-447).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATES NEED FEDERAL SUPPORT TO IMPLEMENT REAL ID
EVVE is currently installed in 19 vital records jurisdictions and
is used by State DMVs and Medicaid Offices, the Social Security
Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Department
of State Office of Fraud Prevention Programs in select jurisdictions.
Users of EVVE are enthusiastic about the system, citing its capacity
for:
--Providing protection against the potential use of birth
certificates for fraudulent activities.
--Improving customer service by facilitating rapid access to accurate
and verifiable vital record data in real-time.
--Safeguarding the confidentiality of birth and death data.
--Offering a secure mechanism for communication between agencies and
vital records offices via the Internet.
--Easily integrating with current legacy systems that the Federal or
State agencies may already be using, and for serving as a user-
friendly interface for agencies that seek a stand-alone query
system.
NAPHSIS is working on further upgrades to the EVVE system to meet
the REAL ID requirements and to ensure that EVVE is installed in all 57
jurisdictions by May 2011. NAPHSIS is also in the process of procuring
a data analysis and quality control tool that all jurisdictions can
utilize to analyze their EVVE databases for anomalies, inconsistencies,
accuracy, and completeness.
Despite EVVE's security, speed, and ease of use, the system is only
as good as the underlying data infrastructure upon which it relies.
Digitizing paper-based birth and death records, then cleaning and
linking those records, will provide for secure, reliable, real-time
identity verification using EVVE. Specifically,
--The majority of the 57 vital records jurisdictions have electronic
birth records that extend back more than seven decades. To
recognize EVVE's full potential to verify birth certificates,
100 percent of jurisdictions should have their records in
electronic form.
--There are cases where an individual has assumed a false identity by
obtaining a birth certificate of a person who has died.
Therefore, it is also important that all jurisdictions' death
and birth records be linked to flag individuals who are
deceased and identify fraudulent birth documentation.
RECOMMENDATION ACTION: INVEST IN INFRASTRUCTURE TO FACILITATE ID
VERIFICATION
The jurisdictions' efforts to digitize, clean, and link vital
records have been hindered by State budget shortfalls. In short, the
jurisdictions need the Federal Government's help to complete building a
secure data infrastructure and support identity verification required
by REAL ID. Under the current authority established through REAL ID, we
ask that Congress provide $100 million to FEMA to support a new grants-
to-States program for the purpose of modernizing vital records.
Specifically, these funds would be used by vital records jurisdictions
to digitize their birth records back to 1945, to clean these data to
support electronic queries, and link birth and death records. We
recommend the funding be appropriated over time according to one of two
schedules:
--Option 1.--$33 million per year over 3 years. This option would
provide roughly $580,000 in fiscal year 2011 to each vital
records jurisdiction, on average.
--Option 2.--$20 million per year over 5 years, providing roughly
$350,000 in fiscal year 2011 to each vital records
jurisdiction, on average. The vital records modernization would
progress more slowly than under Option 1, but the funding would
nevertheless significantly enhance the ability of States and
territories to support the goals of REAL ID.
As Congressman Bernie Thomson addressed the President earlier this
year, we need to ``ensure we have the best infrastructure in place to
counter the threat of terror.'' We feel strongly that an investment of
$100 million is a small price to pay to strengthen Americans' safety
and security by accurately, efficiently, and securely verifying birth
data on the 245 million driver's licenses issued annually. Five years
after REAL ID's enactment, isn't it time to implement the 9/11
Commission's recommendations and invest in the goals of REAL ID and
identity verification?
NAPHSIS appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement for
the record and looks forward to working with the subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Emergency Management Association
INTRODUCTION
Thank you Chairman Byrd, Ranking Member Voinovich, and Members of
the Committee for the opportunity to submit this statement for the
record regarding the fiscal year 2011 budget for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
As President of the National Emergency Management Association
(NEMA) I represent the emergency management directors of all 50 States,
territories, and the District of Columbia. Members of NEMA are
responsible to the Governors for myriad responsibilities including
emergency preparedness, homeland security, mitigation, response, and
recovery activities for natural or terrorism-related disasters.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS
The highest priority for NEMA within the President's request is
funding for the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG). This
program has existed since the 1950s in acknowledgement of the Federal
interest in creating and maintaining a strong emergency management
system at the State and local level. EMPG assists State and local
governments in managing a variety of disasters and hazards providing
the only source of Federal assistance to State and local government for
all-hazards emergency management capacity building.
Grantees utilize EMPG funds for personnel, planning, training,
exercises, warning systems, public outreach, and other essential
functions in establishing effective preparedness, mitigation, response,
and recovery. This program is of considerable economic value to the
Federal Government as all Federal funds are matched 50-50 by State and
local governments. Such a matching requirement increases accountability
and supplements the impact of valuable Federal dollars.
While the President's request of $345 million marks a significant
improvement in recognizing the criticality of this program, the amount
remains far short of the national requirement. According to NEMA's 2010
Biennial Survey of State emergency management agencies, the total need
for EMPG funding next year is actually $530 million. The difference
between the amount requested by the Administration and the results of
our survey represents the shortfall needed to fund existing
jurisdictions and establish emergency management programs in eligible
jurisdictions not currently able to be included. We appreciate the
resource constrained environment, but when compared to other grant
programs, the 50-50 match allows EMPG to stand alone as a worthwhile
investment of Federal funds.
HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM
The Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) provides funds to build
capabilities at the State and local levels and to implement the goals
and objectives included in State homeland security strategies and
initiatives in the State Preparedness Report. Funding amounts must
remain at pre-consolidation levels, and these grants must be used in
support of building an all-hazard capability. We urge the Committee to
provide States greater flexibility in use of homeland security funds
for all-hazards activities. Such flexibility allows the grant funding
to be utilized by each State according to need, existing resources, and
capabilities. This flexibility will serve to increase preparedness for
all hazards including terrorism. The effort to enhance and build the
national emergency response system is a national effort and Federal
resources should continue at the current level to maintain
effectiveness. As the Committee considers funding for the HSGP, NEMA
urges sustained appropriations levels on a multi-year basis to allow
for long-range planning, maintenance, and implementation.
Our membership remains concerned regarding the proposed grant
consolidation of the Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS),
Citizen Corps Program, Driver's License Grant Program, and
Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program within the
President's request. While in theory the proposed combination may
appear sound; in practice such consolidation remains impractical. For
example, management of the Driver's License Grant Program occurs in
various State agencies where consolidation would require added
administrative burdens on State government. Furthermore, the proposed
consolidation would bring these grant programs under the required 80-20
funding split between State and local governments thereby further
diluting these programs where State coordination is critical. While
FEMA intends to reduce reporting requirements, the proposed
consolidation would actually have the opposite effect.
PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION
The Administration's request demonstrates a welcomed commitment to
mitigation efforts through the request of $100 million for the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM). This grant program was
originally authorized as a program to provide every State with funding
for mitigation efforts regardless of disaster history or current risk
assessments, but changed in fiscal year 2002 appropriations legislation
when PDM became a competitive grant program. The PDM program continues
to be over-subscribed as more projects become eligible than can be
funded in any given fiscal year at present funding levels.
NEMA continues working closely with authorizers to obtain a multi-
year reauthorization for PDM which we would like to see achieved by the
end of the fiscal year. In the meantime, NEMA encourages the
Appropriations Committee to demonstrate a continued commitment to PDM
and appropriate the requested $100 million.
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTERS
There remains a shortfall in the ability for States to build,
retrofit, and upgrade primary and alternate Emergency Operations
Centers (EOC). According to the 2010 NEMA Biennial Survey, an estimated
$398 million in requirements exist to bridge the shortfall. The current
EOC Grant Program is intended to improve emergency management and
preparedness capabilities by supporting flexible, sustainable, secure,
and interoperable EOCs with a focus on addressing identified
deficiencies and needs. This program provides funding for construction
or renovation of a State, local, or tribal governments' principal EOC.
Fully capable emergency operations facilities at the State and local
levels stand as an essential element of a comprehensive national
emergency management system and are necessary to ensure continuity of
operations and continuity of government in major disasters caused by
any hazard. The continued viability of a strong and robust EOC Grant
Program remains in the Nation's best interest.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE COMPACT
Finally, I wish to address funding for the Emergency Management
Assistance Compact (EMAC). When States and the U.S. territories joined
together and Congress ratified EMAC (Public Law 104-321) in 1996, it
created a legal and procedural mechanism whereby emergency response
resources such as Urban Search and Rescue Teams can quickly move
throughout the country to meet disaster needs. All 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and three territories are members of EMAC and
have committed their emergency resources in helping neighboring States
and territories.
To provide a sense of EMAC's value in the context of search and
rescue, in 2005 the year of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma more
than 1,300 search and rescue personnel from 16 States searched more
than 22,300 structures and rescued 6,582 people. EMAC staff stood ready
to offer support recently during the tsunami threat to Hawaii as well.
Fortunately the need for mutual aid was never required in Hawaii, but
the knowledge it remains available as a State asset is invaluable to
emergency response officials.
The capabilities of EMAC remain sustained by the efforts of all the
States and would be bolstered by direct support of EMAC. While EMAC
currently receives FEMA grant funding, fulfilling NEMA's request for a
$4 million line item appropriation would codify the program for use in
future disasters. These funds provide numerous benefits directly to the
States. As the opportunity is afforded, EMAC intends to develop,
maintain, and exercise State and regional mutual aid capabilities,
train State and local emergency response personnel who may be deployed
through EMAC, support the development of specialized emergency response
capabilities among the regions, and ensure EMAC remains a viable
resource for the States now and in the future. In my opinion, $4
million in Federal funds stands as a minimal investment for maintaining
a proven national emergency response capacity that day-to-day is
equipped, trained, and ready to provide critical disaster response
resources and support between States. All members of EMAC continue to
rely on this asset as a critical tool in their response and recovery
arsenal.
CONCLUSION
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to address these issues
critical to the emergency management community. This Committee
regularly affirms support for ensuring preparedness for our nation's
vulnerabilities against all-hazards with additional investments in EMPG
and EOCs. As you develop the fiscal year 2011 budget for the Department
of Homeland Security, I encourage you to utilize our membership as a
resource and continue efforts to build a strong and robust emergency
management baseline in our country. Together, we will carry-on the
initiatives so thoughtfully developed by this Committee over the years.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of NEMA and
appreciate your continued partnership.
______
Prepared Statement of National Environmental Services Center
Chairman Byrd, Ranking Member Voinovich, and Members of the
Subcommittee: We request an appropriation of $1.45 in fiscal year 2011
to support West Virginia University's Resilient Communities Initiative
(RCI). This program is being developed by the National Environmental
Services Center (NESC) in partnership with the State of West Virginia
Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety (DMAPS), the Harley O.
Staggers National Transportation Center, and the Canaan Valley
Institute to help rural communities and small cities prepare for, and
respond effectively to, disruptive events such as man-made or natural
disasters.
The goal of the Resilient Communities Initiative (RCI) program is
to improve the resilience capacity and mechanisms for mitigation in
rural communities and small cities, beginning with the Corridor H
region in West Virginia. Corridor H is the projected National Capitol
Region (NCR) mass evacuation route, so communities in this region must
be prepared for its impact in addition to the impact of potential
natural disasters.
Using modeling scenarios, the RCI will predict the impacts of an
uncontrolled NCR mass evacuation on the Corridor H Region. RCI will
help communities in this region to address their economic development
needs and their infrastructure resiliency issues (e.g., water, energy,
transportation) by implementing a community outreach technical
assistance program. NESC has 30 plus years working with small and rural
communities through outreach and technical assistance. NESC and the RCI
partners will help communities overcome the resource disparities and
lack of planning capabilities that have historically been obstacles to
their becoming resilient to disasters and returning quickly to
normalcy. The outcomes of these efforts can be transferred to
communities in other regions of the United States having issues similar
to those of Corridor H in West Virginia.
Thank you for considering our request for $1.45 million in fiscal
year 2011 to initiate the Resilient Communities Initiative at West
Virginia University.
______
Prepared Statement the National Treasury Employees Union
Chairman Byrd, Ranking Member Voinovich, distinguished members of
the Subcommittee: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
provide this testimony. As President of the National Treasury Employees
Union (NTEU), I have the honor of leading a union that represents over
22,000 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officers and trade
enforcement specialists who are stationed at 327 land, sea and air
ports of entry (POEs) across the United States. CBP employees' mission
is to protect the Nation's borders at the ports of entry from all
threats while facilitating legitimate travel and trade. CBP trade
compliance personnel enforce over 400 U.S. trade and tariff laws and
regulations in order to ensure a fair and competitive trade environment
pursuant to existing international agreements and treaties, as well as
stemming the flow of illegal contraband such as child pornography,
illegal arms, weapons of mass destruction and laundered money. CBP is
also a revenue collection agency, expecting to collect an estimated $29
billion in Federal revenue according to fiscal year 2010 estimates.
FUNDING FOR CBP SALARIES AND EXPENSES AT THE PORTS OF ENTRY
On October 1, 2009, a draft report of the Southwest Border Task
Force, created by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and
reported by the Associated Press, recommended the ``Federal Government
should hire more Customs [and Border Protection] officers.'' The report
echoes the finding of the Border-Facilitation Working Group. (The
United States-Mexico Border Facilitation Working Group was created
during the bilateral meeting between President George W. Bush and
President Felipe Calderon held in Merida in March 2007.) ``In order to
more optimally operate the various ports of entry, CBP needs to
increase the number of CBP Officers. According to its own estimate, the
lack of human resources only for the San Ysdiro POE is in the
``hundreds'' and the CBP Officer need at all ports of entry located
along the border with Mexico is in the ``thousands.'' (``CBP:
Challenges and Opportunities'' page 1 and 2. Memo prepared by Armand
Peschard-Sverdrup for: Mexico's Ministry of the Economy: United States-
Mexico Border Facilitation Working Group. January 2008.)
NTEU is disappointed that the Administration's fiscal year 2011
budget includes no increase in frontline CBP Officer or CBP Agriculture
Specialist new hires, and instead projects a net decrease of about 500
positions this year, despite increased appropriations. The fiscal year
2011 budget request does include $70 million to address ``systemic
salary shortfalls'' and $45 million for 389 CBP Officers to ``maintain
staffing for critical positions.'' Rather than funding an actual
increase in new hires, however, the Administration is seeking
appropriations to maintain CBP positions funded by user fees. CBP
states that 37 percent of its inspection workforce at the POEs is
currently funded by user fees. This is a precarious funding stream
because user fees decrease during times of economic recession, even
though security needs of the Nation have not decreased.
NTEU has become increasingly concerned as the number of positions
funded by ``surplus'' user fee revenues has grown over time. According
to GAO/GGD-94-165FS (page 17-18), ``through fiscal 1993, surplus
revenues have funded 472 full-time permanent positions . . . '' Today
the number of ``surplus-funded'' positions is over 7,000. Due to the
recession, user fee collections are falling and CBP is facing a
structural dilemma in its current funding of CBP inspection personnel.
NTEU believes that all CBP employees at the POEs should be funded
by appropriated funds through the appropriations process, not with user
fees that by statute are to be used primarily to pay for overtime,
premium pay, agency contributions to the Civil Service Retirement and
Disability Fund, preclearance services and Foreign Language Awards
Program. CBP is now facing a serious structural funding shortfall for
CBP salaries and expenses at the POEs due to its reliance on user fees
rather than appropriations.
Also, in 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) created a
new Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officer position and announced
the ``One Face at the Border'' initiative that purportedly unifies the
inspection process for travelers and cargo entering the United States.
Consolidating immigration and customs inspection functions has caused
logistical and institutional weakness resulting in a loss of expertise
in critical homeland security priorities. The ``One Face'' initiative
should be ended, customs and immigration specializations should be
reestablished within CBP, and overall CBP inspection staffing should be
increased.
TRADE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE STAFFING
When CBP was created, it was given a dual mission of safeguarding
our nation's borders and ports as well as regulating and facilitating
international trade. It also collects import duties and enforces U.S.
trade laws. In 2005, CBP processed 29 million trade entries and
collected $31.4 billion in revenue. In 2009, the estimated revenue
collected is projected to be $29 billion--a drop of over $2 billion in
revenue collected. Since CBP was established in March 2003, there has
been no increase in CBP trade enforcement and compliance personnel and
again, the fiscal year 2011 budget proposes no increase in FTEs for CBP
trade operations personnel.
In effect, there has been a CBP trade staffing freeze at March 2003
levels and the maintenance of CBP's revenue function has suffered.
Recently, in response to an Import Specialists staffing shortage, CBP
has proposed to implement at certain ports a tariff sharing scheme. For
example, because CBP has frozen at 984 nationwide the total number of
Import Specialists positions, CBP is reducing by 52 positions (from 179
to 127) the number of Import Specialists at the New York City area
ports and shifting those positions to other ports. To address the
resultant shortage of Import Specialists at New York area ports, CBP is
implementing tariff sharing between the port of New York/Newark and the
Port of JFK airport. Currently, each port (Newark and JFK) processes
all types of entries and all types of commodities via the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule (HTS). The reduction in trade personnel will result in
each port being assigned only parts of the HTS. Tariff sharing will
result in each port only processing half the commodities entering its
port. Tariff sharing presents a number of operational problems with
regard to trade personnel performing cargo exams on merchandise that is
unloaded at the port of Newark, but the only commodity teams that are
trained to process it are at JFK and, vice versa, when merchandise that
can only be processed in Newark, is unloaded at JFK. CBP proposes that
instead of physical examinations of the merchandise, digital photos can
be exchanged between the ports. This is a short-sighted solution that
shortchanges taxpayers, trade compliant importers, and the Federal
treasury. NTEU urges the Committee to increase funding to hire
additional trade enforcement and compliance personnel, including Import
Specialists, at the POEs.
In its fiscal year 2011 budget request, CBP is seeking $25 million
for Intellectual Property Rights enforcement including $14.1 million in
human capital investment. This request, however, includes no increase
in FTEs to implement this new enforcement program. It is also unclear
if the human capital investment is for the trade policy arm of CBP--the
Office of International Trade, or the operational arm--CBP Office of
Field Operations (OFO). NTEU urges the Committee to appropriate the
requested $14.1 million to increase the number of CBP OFO trade
operations personnel at the POEs.
CBP CAREER LADDER PAY INCREASE
NTEU commends the Department for announcing an increase in
journeyman pay for CBP Officers and Agriculture Specialists, initially
scheduled to begin in March of this year. However, the funding for this
increase was not secured and the journeyman pay increase has been
delayed until late-September 2010. In addition, many deserving CBP
trade and security positions were left out of this pay increase, which
has significantly damaged morale. NTEU is relieved that full funding of
the journeyman pay initiative is in the fiscal year 2011 budget request
and strongly supports the inclusion of this funding in the fiscal year
2011 DHS appropriations bill.
NTEU also strongly supports extending this same career ladder
increase from GS-11 to GS-12 to additional CBP positions, including CBP
trade operations specialists and CBP Seized Property Specialists. The
journeyman pay level for the CBP Technicians who perform important
commercial trade and administration duties should also be increased
from GS-7 to GS-9.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE AWARDS PROGRAM
The fiscal year 2011 DHS budget proposes to eliminate $19.1 million
to fund CBP's Foreign Language Awards Program (FLAP), a congressionally
authorized program. Since its implementation in 1997, the Foreign
Language Awards Program (FLAP), incorporating more than two dozen
languages, has been instrumental in identifying and utilizing Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) employees who are proficient in a foreign
language. At CBP, this program has been an unqualified success, and not
just for employees, but for the travelers who are aided by having
someone at a port of entry who speaks their language, for the smooth
functioning of the agency's security mission.
Rewarding employees for using their language skills to protect our
country, facilitate the lawful movement of people and cargo across our
borders, and collect revenue that our government needs makes sense.
Congress agreed that employees should be encouraged to develop their
language skills by authorizing FLAP. Not only does it improve
efficiency of operations, it makes the United States a more welcoming
place when foreign travelers find CBP Officers can communicate in their
language.
Congress authorized a dedicated funding source to pay for FLAP--
customs user fees pursuant to title 19, section 58c (f) of the U.S.
Code. This statute stipulates the disposition of these user fees for
the payment of overtime, premium pay, agency contributions to the Civil
Service Retirement and Disability Fund, preclearance services and FLAP.
Due to the recession, however, user fee collections have fallen and on
February 4, 2010, NTEU received notice from CBP of the immediate
suspension of its Foreign Language Awards Program (FLAP) for CBP
Officers and CBP Agriculture Specialists (CBPAS). NTEU strongly opposed
the mid-year 2010 suspension of FLAP and asks the Committee to ensure
that FLAP is fully funded in fiscal year 2011.
FUNDING FOR DHS HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
NTEU also commends the Committee for maintaining a provision,
section 518, in the fiscal year 2010 DHS appropriations bill that
prohibits the expenditure of funds to apply a new DHS human resources
management system to employees eligible for inclusion in a bargaining
unit. Because of this funding prohibition, DHS announced that the
agency would rescind application of this new human resources system as
of October 2, 2008. Even though DHS has rescinded the application of
the human resource system, and DHS has no authority to issue any new
regulations, regulations remain in place for adverse actions, appeals,
performance management, and pay and classification and can be
reactivated if the funding prohibition is lifted.
NTEU requests that identical language to Section 518, prohibiting
the use of appropriated funds to implement any part of the regulations
promulgated pursuant to Title 5, Chapter 97, is again included in the
fiscal year 2011 DHS funding bill.
CONCLUSION
NTEU urges the Committee to include in its fiscal year 2011 DHS
appropriations bill:
--funding to increase both port security and trade enforcement
staffing at the Ports of Entry;
--full funding for the announced career ladder pay increases for CBP
Officers and CBP Agriculture Specialists;
--funding to extend career ladder pay increases to additional CBP
personnel including trade operations specialists, CBP Seized
Property Specialists and CBP technicians;
--full funding of CBP's Foreign Language Awards Program;
--continuing the funding prohibition for implementation of U.S.C. 5,
Chapter 97--the Homeland Security Act's alternative personnel
management provisions and a prohibition on the continued
funding of the One Face at the Border initiative.
The more than 22,000 CBP employees represented by the NTEU are
capable and committed to the varied missions of DHS from border control
to the facilitation of legitimate trade and travel. They are proud of
their part in keeping our country free from terrorism, our
neighborhoods safe from drugs and our economy safe from illegal trade.
These men and women are deserving of more resources and technology to
perform their jobs better and more efficiently.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony to the
Committee on their behalf.
______
Prepared Statement of the United States Council of the International
Association of Emergency Managers
Chairman Byrd, Ranking Member Voinovich, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee: Thank you for allowing the United States Council
of the International Association of Emergency Managers the opportunity
to provide a statement on critical budget and policy issues for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency/Department of Homeland Security.
I am Pam L'Heureux, the Director of Emergency Management for
Waterboro, Maine, and the Assistant Director of Emergency Management
for York County, Maine. I serve as the President of the United States
Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM-
USA). I have 20 years of emergency management experience as a local
director. I am also the founding President of the Maine Association of
Local Emergency Managers.
IAEM-USA is our Nation's largest association of emergency
management professionals, with 5,000 members including emergency
managers at the State and local government levels, tribal nations, the
military, colleges and universities, private business, and the
nonprofit sector. Most of our members are city and county emergency
managers who perform the crucial function of coordinating and
integrating the efforts at the local level to prepare for, mitigate the
effects of, respond to, and recover from all types of disasters
including terrorist attacks. Our membership includes emergency managers
from large urban areas as well as rural areas.
We deeply appreciate the support this subcommittee has provided to
the emergency management community over the past few years,
particularly your support for the Emergency Management Performance
Grant Program (EMPG) as well as strengthening the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). We have also appreciated your continued
direction to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FEMA to
consult with their primary local and State stakeholders.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS (EMPG)
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $345
million for EMPG. We urge that EMPG funding be increased to a minimum
of $530 million, that the program be retained as a separate account,
and that report language be included continuing to make it clear that
the funding is for all hazards and can be used for personnel.
EMPG which has been called ``the backbone of the Nation's emergency
management system'' in an Appropriations Conference Report constitutes
the only source of direct Federal funding for State and local
governments to provide basic emergency coordination and planning
capabilities for all hazards including those related to homeland
security. The program supports State and local initiatives for
planning, training, exercise, mitigation, public education, as well as
response and recovery coordination during actual events. All disasters
start and end at the local level, which emphasizes the importance of
building this capacity at the local level. Funding from EMPG frequently
makes a difference as to whether or not a qualified person is present
to perform these duties in a local jurisdiction.
We appreciate that the subcommittee has recognized that EMPG is
different from the post September 11, 2001, homeland security grants.
Specifically, EMPG has existed, though under different names, since the
1950s. It was created to be a 50 percent Federal cost share-50 percent
State or local cost share program to ensure participation by State and
local governments to build strong emergency management programs. The
program has been under funded for decades and remains so today. The
$530 million request is based on the documented shortfall as indicated
by the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) Biennial
Report.
The program is authorized at $815 million in Public Law 110-53,
which also outlines the formula for apportioning EMPG funding to the
States and Territories as follows: .25 percent of the appropriation
will be apportioned to each of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands and .75 percent
to the States. The Administrator of FEMA will apportion the remaining
EMPG appropriations in the ratio that the population of each State
bears to the population of all States. In addition, there is a
provision holding States harmless from EMPG losses until fiscal year
2013. However we note that the language in the FEMA Congressional
Budget Justification on page SLP-10 describes the award allocation
methodology for EMPG as incorporating risk. This is not consistent with
the provision of Public Law 110-53.
The legislation creating EMPG is purposefully broad to allow
jurisdictions to focus their attention on customizing their
capabilities. Therefore it is important that FEMA guidance not try to
make one size fit all but is written so as to allow maximum flexibility
in meeting the specific capability requirements within each local
jurisdiction.
We would particularly and positively note the efforts of the FEMA
Grants Office to involve key stakeholders in improving the fiscal year
2010 EMPG guidance. We believe this should be captured as a ``best
practice'' and incorporated in the process of generating grant guidance
for each fiscal year in the future.
Funding from EMPG has always been important to local government
emergency management offices, but it is becoming even more so during
the current economic downturn. Many of our IAEM-USA members have told
us that their programs are facing budget reductions which will result
in reduced staffing, reduced or eliminated training, and reduced public
outreach. Perhaps most importantly, our members have told us that many
emergency management programs are at the point where local elected
officials are considering reducing their commitment from a full time
emergency manager to a part time emergency manager, or moving the
emergency management functions as added duties to other departments.
This would have the effect of actually reducing emergency management
services--and potentially preparedness--in many areas of the country--
all this at a time when disasters and emergencies threaten more people
and property than ever before.
Many local emergency management programs have historically provided
significantly more than the 50 percent match that is required for their
EMPG allocations. Simply receiving the entire 50 percent Federal match
of their contributions would make a big difference in maintaining their
programs.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE (EMI)
We appreciate that the Appropriations Conference Committee on the
DHS fiscal year 2010 budget agreed to increase the funding for the
Emergency Management Institute (EMI) to $9 million. We also appreciate
the specific mention of EMI in both your committee and conference
reports. However, we are disappointed that the President's budget
request for EMI for fiscal year 2011 is $7.1 million. We request the
Committee to support an increase in funding for EMI of $4.8 million
over the President's request for a total of $11.9 million. We urge you
to again specifically designate funding for EMI in your Committee
report.
The Emergency Management Institute (EMI) provides vitally needed
training to State and local government emergency managers through on-
site classes and distance learning. This ``crown jewel'' of emergency
management training and doctrine has suffered from lack of funding and
loss of focus on the primary objectives of the Integrated Emergency
Management System (IEMS).
A renewed focus on continuing education for emergency managers is
vital. The new funds we are requesting will support continued
enhancement of the field (G) and on-campus (E) courses, the development
of other vital programs especially an Executive Emergency Management
Program for State, local and tribal emergency managers, and the
conversion of 13 CORE positions to full time positions. These courses
and the personnel to support their development and delivery are
essential to the professional development of career emergency managers
and to support State level training programs.
We are extremely encouraged at the renewed focus and efforts to
update and enhance training programs over the past year with the
funding support of Congress. We have observed commendable progress at
EMI in the review of existing training programs, the revision of
outdated courses, and the focus on the current and future needs in
emergency management training. The highest priority for fiscal year
2011 continues to be the revision and upgrade of the EMI core
curriculum, including the Master Trainer Program, E-Courses and G-
Courses essential to the professional development of career emergency
managers and State level training programs.
We also continue to support the highly successful Emergency
Management Higher Education Program at EMI. This program, though under-
staffed and under-funded, has produced significant improvements in the
preparation of emergency managers at the over 180 colleges and
universities now offering emergency management academic programs. In
addition they interact with over 700 colleges and universities. The
program has also established and maintained the essential collaboration
between emergency management practitioners and the academic and
research disciplines so essential to a comprehensive approach to
emergency management. To continue to achieve these results and
accomplishments and further advance the Higher Education Program, it is
necessary to augment the existing two person staff.
PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION (PDM)
We support the appropriate funding for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation
program and its reauthorization. If not reauthorized, PDM will sunset
on September 30, 2010. Mitigation is an investment. A congressionally
mandated independent study by the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council, a
council of the National Institute of Building Sciences, showed that on
the average, a dollar spent by FEMA on hazard mitigation (actions to
reduce disaster losses) provides the Nation about $4 in future
benefits.
We appreciated the Committee last year rejecting the proposal in
the fiscal year 2010 budget request to terminate the nationwide
competitive PDM program and allocate the funds to States on a base plus
risk system. This year, the budget again includes language that we are
not aware of having been discussed with the authorizers, the
appropriators, or stakeholders in advance of the release of the budget.
We are in need of additional information to understand the meaning
of the following language from page PDM-1 of the FEMA Congressional
Budget Justification: ``Through a partnership with the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Sustainable Communities initiative,
the goal is to support strategic local approaches to sustainable
development by coupling hazard mitigation with related community
development goals and activities that reduce risks while protecting
life, property, and the environment.'' When we have more detail about
what is intended by this language, we will be happy to provide
comments.
We have appreciated the actions of the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees to extend this program. If an authorization
bill is not completed this session, we would appreciate your
willingness to again extend this important program.
PRINCIPAL FEDERAL OFFICIAL (PFO)
We would urge the subcommittee to include bill language prohibiting
the funding of any position designated as a Principal Federal Official
for a Stafford Act event, or at the very least include the statutory
language agreed to by the Conferees in Section 522 of the General
Provisions of the fiscal year 2010 DHS Appropriations Act. This
language prohibits funding the PFO position except when certain
conditions are met. The fiscal year 2011 budget request deletes General
Provision Section 522 and includes the following explanation in the
Congressional Budget Justification: ``While the Department appreciates
the modification of this prevision from previous year's appropriation
act, this provision is still overly restrictive and creates an
additional administrative burden on the Department, during a Stafford
Act event.''
IAEM has consistently opposed the appointment of PFOs. It leads to
confusion. Instead, our members want the Federal Coordinating Officer
(FCO) to have unambiguous authority to direct and manage the Federal
response in the field. It is absolutely critical for State and local
officials to have one person empowered to make decisions and coordinate
the Federal response in support of the State.
FEMA OFFICE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
We urge the subcommittee to increase the staffing for the FEMA
Headquarters Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. This office has the
vital responsibility to provide information to its State and local
partners, keep the FEMA divisions informed of State and local needs,
seek input on policies, and solve problems at an early stage. Currently
this office has a total Permanent Full Time (PFT) allocation at
headquarters of seven and currently there are three vacancies. A
minimum of at least 10 in FEMA headquarters are needed to perform these
critical functions.
FISCAL YEAR 2010 DISASTER RELIEF FUND SUPPLEMENTAL
We strongly support H.R. 4899 which includes the $5.1 billion in
supplemental funds requested by the President for the Disaster Relief
Fund. At the time of this statement, H.R. 4899 had passed the House and
was pending in the Senate.
On February 4, 2010, FEMA announced a policy of allocating disaster
relief funds on an ``immediate needs'' basis (assistance to
individuals, emergency protective measures, and debris removal).
Funding for repair and replacement of facilities and mitigation unless
already obligated to the State will be delayed until the supplemental
is available.
REVIEW OF POLICIES AND INITIATIVES
We applaud the efforts of FEMA leadership to review past policies
and initiatives. We particularly applaud that the Cost-to-Capability
and the Integrated Planning System (IPS) are under review.
In particular, we were pleased that the Administration recognized
the flawed nature of Cost-to-Capability and is opting to take the time
to develop a more effective method of determining this information. We
recognize the need to measure what is being achieved with the funding
that Congress has provided; however, we simply do not want the
instrument to be so cumbersome that the information obtained is not
worth the time to generate it. Creating a system to count ``widgets''
is easy--creating a system to determine if we're better prepared is
not. We look forward to working with FEMA as they work to construct a
valuable measurement tool.
Our objection to the Integrated Planning System as proposed by the
last Administration was that it is scenario-based--which is not the way
State and local government emergency managers plan. We plan for the
functions and capabilities that are common to all disasters. The IPS,
originally proposed by the DHS Office of Operations Coordination, was
heavily based on the Department of Defense (DOD) Joint Operations
Planning and Execution (JOPES) model. This may be a great model of
planning if you are the military and funded and equipped with the
resources of the military. State and local governments do not have
those resources.
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
We have appreciated the subcommittee's continued focus on the need
for key stakeholder involvement and we are happy to report to you today
that we have had increased opportunities for local emergency managers
to have substantive and timely input into policies and initiatives. It
is extremely helpful to have input at an early stage rather than just
be briefed on decisions.
STRENGTHENING FEMA
IAEM-USA continues to strongly support the full implementation of
Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA), Public Law 109-
205, and we urge the subcommittee to support the efforts of
Administrator Craig Fugate, Deputy Administrator Richard Serino, Deputy
Administrator, Protection & National Preparedness Tim Manning, and the
other new leaders of FEMA by insisting on its implementation. The
momentum returning FEMA to long-established principles of emergency
management--all hazards, integrated, all phases (preparedness,
mitigation, response, and recovery)--must continue.
The FEMA Administrator should be clearly responsible for the
coordination of the Federal response to disasters and have the maximum
amount of access to the White House as the legislation clearly
requires. We are pleased that the Administration is revising Homeland
Security Presidential Decision Directive-8 and we certainly hope it
will be consistent with PKEMRA.
We remain concerned that the role of the Department of Homeland
Security Office of Operations Coordination, which was created shortly
after the enactment of PKEMRA, is unclear. It appears to be assigned
functions that duplicate or compete with those of FEMA. These functions
include, but are not limited to coordinating activities related to
incident management, the national planning scenarios, the Integrated
Planning System, and duplicating some of the role of the response
function in FEMA. It is unclear what the roles are of the National
Operations Center and the National Response Coordination Center in
managing the coordination of the Federal Response in preparation for
responding to an event. Functions clearly and unambiguously assigned to
FEMA by law should not be moved out or duplicated on the basis that the
Administrator of FEMA is the lead ``only'' in Emergency Management, not
incident management.
As the new administration is reviewing policies and HSPDs, it will
be important to examine the following provisions of PKEMRA:
--Section 611 (12) (B) is of particular importance. This amended the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 by ``striking the matter
preceding paragraph (1)'' which contained the language, ``the
Secretary acting through . . . '' and inserted instead the
following language. ``In General--The Administrator shall
provide Federal Leadership necessary to prepare for, protect
against, respond to, recover from or mitigate against a natural
disaster, act of terrorism and other man-made disaster
including . . . managing such response.'' ``Congress acted
intentionally to transfer these responsibilities from the
Secretary to the Administrator.''
--Section 503 Federal Emergency Management Agency
--(b)(2)Specific Activities--In support of the primary mission of
the Agency, the Administrator--
--(A) Lead the Nation's efforts to prepare for, protect
against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate against the
risk of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other
man-made disasters, including catastrophic accidents.
--(H) develop and coordinate the implementation of a risk-
based, all hazards strategy for preparedness that builds on
those common capabilities necessary to respond to natural
disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters
while also building the unique capabilities necessary to
respond to specific types of incidents that pose the
greatest risk to our Nation.
--Section 503 (c)(4)(A) In General--The Administrator is the
principal advisor to the President, the Homeland Security
Council, and the Secretary for all matters relating to
emergency management in the United States.
--Sec. 503(c)(5) Cabinet Status--
--(A) In General--The President may designate the Administrator to
serve as a member of the Cabinet in the event of natural
disasters, acts of terrorism, or other man-made disasters.
--(B) Retention of Authority--Nothing in the paragraph shall be
construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary under
this Act.
We believe that in the last Administration DHS frequently and
mistakenly quoted Section 502(c)(5)(B) regarding the authority of the
Secretary and the Administrator as being applicable across the entire
act when, in fact, it is limited in scope only to paragraph (5).
We strongly request the committee to provide continual oversight of
DHS on these matters to ensure they are following the clear and direct
law on these issues.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we urge the subcommittee to continue to build
emergency management capacity by increasing EMPG to $530 million. We
urge increasing funding for the Emergency Management Institute to $11.9
million. We urge elimination of the PFO, or in the absence of that
continuing the restrictions on its use. We urge the subcommittee to
continue its efforts to strengthen FEMA and to insist on the full
implementation of the provisions of PKEMRA.