U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

44–512 PDF 2008

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 13, 2008 

Serial No. 110–93 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

JANE HARMAN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin Islands 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

AL GREEN, Texas 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

PETER T. KING, New York 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

TOM DAVIS, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

JESSICA HERRERA-FLANIGAN, Staff Director & General Counsel 

TODD GEE, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

ROBERT O’CONNOR, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 2 

The Honorable Peter T. King, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of New York, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security ........ 3 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 5 

The Honorable Ginny Brown-Waite, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Florida: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8 

WITNESSES

The Honorable Michael Chertoff, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14 

APPENDIX

Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson ................................................. 67 

Questions From Honorable Yvette D. Clarke ........................................................ 69 

Questions From Honorable Lamar Smith ............................................................. 71 

Questions From Honorable Mike Rogers ............................................................... 73 

(1) 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Wednesday, February 13, 2008 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:12 a.m., in Room 311, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bennie G. Thompson [Chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Thompson, Sanchez, Harman, Lofgren, 

Jackson Lee, Christensen, Etheridge, Langevin, Cuellar, Carney, 

Clarke, Green, Perlmutter, Pascrell, King, Smith, Rogers, Reichert, 

McCaul, Dent, Brown-Waite, Bilirakis, Davis, and Brown. 

Chairman THOMPSON [presiding]. For the sake of the audience, 

we have Ranking Member King, who is on his way. As soon as he 

arrives, we will start the hearing. 

Mr. King has sent word that we can start, because we want to 

take full advantage of the secretary’s time that he is with the committee. 

The Committee on Homeland Security will come to order. The 

committee is meeting today to receive testimony on the president’s 

fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Department of Homeland 

Security. On behalf of the committee, Mr. Secretary, welcome. 

Today, you will testify about the President’s budget that, last 

time, as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, which 

will officially be 5 years old on March 17, 2008 of this year. I thank 

you for your testimony and your service at the Department. 

In today’s hearing, the committee is reviewing the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Department, a budget which 

you state will protect the Nation from dangerous people and goods; 

protect critical infrastructure; improve emergency preparedness 

and response; and improve the operations and management of the 

Department. 

Like you, Mr. Secretary, I am committed to a homeland that is 

truly secure. That is why when I assumed the chairmanship of this 

committee last January, I unveiled my eight goals in charting the 

course toward freedom from fear. Those items are: improving the 

functionality, governance and accountability of the Department of 

Homeland Security; enhancing security for all modes of transportation; response, resilience and recovery in the wake of a national 

catastrophe; shielding the Nation’s critical infrastructure from foreign and domestic terrorism; securing the homeland and preserving 
2 

civil liberties in times of terror; connecting the dots, intelligence, 

information-sharing, and interoperability; implementing common 

sense border and port security; and inspiring minds and developing 

technology, the future of homeland security. 

Our Nation is in a precarious state. We have an administration 

that has beaten the drums of the war on terror, but has failed to 

propose a sound budget that addresses mass transit and rail security concerns. This administration has boasted about our first responders, but now proposes to eliminate the SAFER grant program, cut FIRE grants by 50 percent, zero-out the metropolitan 

medical response system, and reduce funding for the emergency 

management performance grant program by one-third. 

We have heard high rhetoric about supporting State and local 

governments, but then the President’s budget shortchanges them 

by slashing the funding for the State homeland security grant program by 79 percent. 

That being said, not all is lost with the budget. I will note that 

there are increases proposed in the budget for cybersecurity and 

border security. However, I fear that behind the ‘‘increases’’ lurk 

more problems than answers. For example, I look forward to hearing from you which metrics the Department has to measure the 

budget’s effectiveness at stopping terrorism, preparing for natural 

disasters, and improving the Nation’s resiliency to man-made emergencies. 

I would also like to know what safeguards exist in the budget 

that will ensure contracts are not given away to friends of the administration, while small, minority and women-owned businesses 

are shut out from the competitive process. 

At the end of the day, Mr. Secretary, the committee wants a robust Department with a clear mission, trained personnel, and the 

necessary resources that are vital to the security of the homeland. 

The Department must complete its obligations to the American 

people by fully implementing H.R. 1, applying the lessons learned 

from Hurricane Katrina, and ensuring that the Department is prepared to undergo its first-ever Presidential transition. 

Simply put, the American people deserve a budget and a plan 

from the President that ensures that the groundwork has been laid 

for a resilient Nation. 

Mr. Secretary, I look forward to hearing how the budget for the 

Department of Homeland Security pulls together the talents from 

our diverse Nation to make clear that our American Government 

can provide the American people security, accountability, and most 

important, freedom from fear. 

With that, I look forward to your testimony on the Department’s 

fiscal year 2009 budget priorities and justification. 

[The statement of Chairman Thompson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BENNIE G. THOMPSON

In today’s hearing, the committee is reviewing the President’s fiscal year 2009 

budget request for the Department of Homeland Security—a budget which you state 

will: Protect the Nation from dangerous people and goods; protect critical infrastructure; improve emergency preparedness and response; and, improve the operations 

and management of the Department. 

Like you, Mr. Secretary, I am committed to a homeland that is truly secure. That 

is why when I assumed the Chairmanship of the committee last January, I unveiled 

my 8 goals in charting the course towards freedom from fear. They are: 
3 

• Improving the Functionality, Governance, and Accountability of the Department 

of Homeland Security; • Enhancing Security for All Modes of Transportation; • Response, Resilience, and Recovery in the Wake of a National Catastrophe; • Shielding the Nation’s Critical Infrastructure from Foreign and Domestic Terrorism; • Securing the Homeland and Preserving Civil Liberties in Times of Terror; • Connecting the Dots: Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Interoperability; • Implementing Common Sense Border and Port Security; • Inspiring Minds and Developing Technology—The Future of Homeland Security. 

Our Nation is in a precarious state. We have an administration that has beaten 

the drums of the war of terror, but has failed to propose a sound budget that addresses mass transit and rail security concerns. 

This administration has boasted about our first responders, but now proposes to 

eliminate the SAFER Grant program, cut FIRE grants by 50%, zero-out the Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS), and reduce funding for the Emergency 

Management Performance Grant program by one-third. 

We have heard high rhetoric about supporting State and local governments, but 

then the President’s budget shortchanges them by slashing the funding for the State 

Homeland Security Grant Program by 79%. 

That being said, not all is lost with the budget. I will note that there are increases 

proposed in the budget for cybersecurity and border security. 

However, I fear that behind the INCREASES—lurk more problems than answers. 

For example, I look forward to hearing from you which metrics the Department 

has to measure the budget’s effectiveness at stopping terrorism, preparing for natural disasters, and improving the Nation’s resiliency to man-made emergencies. 

I would also like to know what safeguards exist in the budget that will ensure 

contracts are not given away to friends of the administration while small, minority, 

and women-owned businesses are shut out from the competitive process. 

At the end of the day, Mr. Secretary, the committee wants a robust Department, 

with a clear mission, trained personnel, and the necessary resources that are vital 

to the security of the homeland. 

The Department must complete its obligation to the American people by fully implementing H.R. 1, applying the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina, and ensuring that the Department is prepared to undergo its first-ever presidential transition. 

Simply put, the American people deserve a budget and a plan from the President 

that ensures that the groundwork has been laid for a resilient Nation. 

Mr. Secretary, I look forward to hearing how the budget for the Department of 

Homeland Security pulls together the talents from our diverse Nation to make clear 

that our government can provide the American people security, accountability, and 

most importantly, freedom from fear. 

Chairman THOMPSON. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking 

Member of the full committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

King, for an opening statement. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Mr. Secretary. It is a pleasure to see you here 

this morning. 

Let me at the outset, as you enter the final year of this administration, comment on the fact that during your time as secretary of 

homeland security, not only did you basically have to put a department together, consolidate so many different departments and 

agencies, encounter the horror of Katrina—do all of that, and the 

fact is we have not been attacked during that time. 

The fact is that any number of attacks have been stopped. The 

fact is that the coordination between Federal, State and local officials has never been better. The coordination between the Department of Homeland Security and overseas intelligence agencies has 

never been better. So I think it is really important to put that out 

there and acknowledge what has been done. 

Also, on the issue of funding, there is no doubt there were some 

severe differences in previous years, and you in effect inherited a 

system which was not working very adequately. That was my opin-
4 

ion then, and I really commend you for the fact that you jumped 

into that. You really took it on, and took personal control over it. 

Just for instance 10 days ago, I guess, when you were in New York 

is, the fact is the mass transit funding has tripled over the last 2 

years, gone up 50 percent in the last year. 

This is, to me, work which is often not acknowledged. We get 

sidetracked into different issues or that issue, and it is easy to 

make headlines for criticisms. The fact is the bottom line is extraordinary progress is being made. More obviously has to be made 

because we have an enemy which is also constantly adapting. I 

think it is very important we put that out there. 

Also, for instance, when we meet with Customs and Border Protection you realize the job they are doing, not just on the border 

itself, but at our ports and docks, the work that they are doing. 

TSA, which really is a thankless job—it is very easy to take shots 

at what they are doing or not doing—but again the fact is that 

there has been on plane attack at all since September 11. The way 

TSA responded to the threats of the summer of 2006 I think speaks 

volumes as to what is being done. 

Having said that, I have certain criticisms with the budget, not 

at all with your leadership there. But even though the budget is 

up over last year’s, it is still considerably below the enacted levels 

that Congress enacted last year. I will say this to the Chairman 

while he is here that I will work with him to try to increase the 

amount of the budget. Certainly, on grants, I believe the safety 

grants, money going to police, fire, mass transit, port security—all 

of that we cannot afford to be cutting back on the numbers of 

those. 

I am confident that if we do work in a bipartisan way, we can 

achieve that. I am not trying to bring you into that dispute that 

we are going to have here on Capitol Hill, but I do want to make 

you aware of that. 

Also, Mr. Secretary, I think one place which Congress has not 

done the job, and that is on the consolidation of committees and jurisdiction. I believe when the 9/11 commission report came out, 

they criticized the fact that the Department had to go before 88 

committees and subcommittees. I think that has now been reduced 

to 86. 

Obviously, it is important that there be congressional oversight. 

I agree with the Chairman on this. Congressional oversight is vital. 

But if you and your assistants and deputies spend all of their time, 

or so much time testifying on Capitol Hill, that is time that you 

are not defending the country. Also, much of it is repetitious. Much 

of it is superfluous. It is overlapping. It is each committee trying 

to get a piece of it, trying to keep their jurisdiction, and it really 

is counterproductive for the homeland security of this country. 

I would hope we can make more efforts, again whether it is Democrat or Republican leadership, if we can find a way to do a much 

better job of consolidating the whole issue of jurisdiction. 

Also, this is an issue which I have mentioned to the Chairman 

before, I know he has indicated he is not certain that there is going 

to be an authorization bill this year. I would just ask him to do all 

that he can sometime during this year to get that authorization 

bill. I think it is important for the Department. I think it is impor-
5 

tant for the entire issue of homeland security. But it is also important for us as a committee to establish our bona fides as the prime 

committee dealing with homeland security. 

Whether or not the Senate does should not be the issue. We did 

an authorization bill in 2005 and 2006, and in 2007 under Chairman Thompson’s leadership last year. The bill went through in a 

very bipartisan way. We worked together on it. I think that was 

good for the country, good for both parties, good for the Department of Homeland Security, and good for the Congress. So Mr. 

Chairman, again I would implore you to try to find a way to get 

an authorization bill done so we can fulfill our responsibility. 

With that, Mr. Secretary, I thank you for your service and look 

forward to your testimony. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. King. I assure 

you we are working on the authorization suggestion that you made. 

It might be a series, but we will try to establish a procedure where 

I think we both can work cooperatively on. I look forward to doing 

that with you. 

Other Members of the committee are reminded that under the 

committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the 

record. 

[The statements of Hon. Jackson Lee and Hon. Brown-Waite follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

FEBRUARY 13, 2008 

After the events of September 11, 2001 the American people became painfully 

aware of the difference between feeling secure and actually being secure. As we examine the DHS’s fiscal year 2009 budget, we must take decisive steps to ensure that 

adequate funds are available so that the trust that the American people have placed 

in our hands is fully protected and guarded and that we take strategic steps to ensure their future safety from terrorist attacks. The President has a fiscal year 2009 budget request of $50.5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, excluding emergency funding, a 7 percent increase 

over the enacted fiscal year 2008 level. I am concerned that the President’s proposed 

budget will not be sufficient to secure our Homeland in an efficient way. 

As the Chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure 

Protection, I have a number of concerns with the President’s proposed budget as it 

relates to issues within the subcommittee’s jurisdiction: 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY (MASS TRANSIT AND RAIL SECURITY)

The proposed budget request for the Transportation Security Administration’s surface transportation program is $37 million—a decrease of nearly $10 million that 

was appropriated by Congress for 2008. The request also calls for a decrease in surface transportation security inspectors 138 in 2008 to 96 requested for 2009. This 

is the result of a so-called realignment but is counter to congressional mandates. 

In the 9/11 bill we require an increase in surface transportation inspectors, not a 

decrease. 

This is unacceptable. We cannot continue to remain solely focused on protecting 

against the last terrorist attack. Millions of people who live in America’s cities use 

these modes of transportation everyday. Worldwide, there has been much success 

in attacking rail and mass transit, with deadly consequences. This is a persistent 

threat. The administration’s proposal for a decrease in mass and rail funding demonstrates the failure to prioritize surface transportation as a security issue or to 

learn from the mass transit and rail bombings of Madrid, London, and Mumbai. 

CRITICAL TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

The administration’s proposed budget for the Targeted Infrastructure Capability 

Grants Program (port, mass transit, bus, and trucking) proposes drastic cuts in rail 

mass transit, trucking, and port security funding. The enacted funding for rail and 
6 

mass transit was $400 million, while the president only requests $175 million. The 

administration requests $8 million for trucking security, cutting last year’s funding 

in half. 

Also, the administration’s proposed budget for port security grants, at $210 mil- lion, is nearly half of the $400 million enacted for 2008. It is disappointing that the 

administration is not more forward leaning in protecting critical transportation infrastructure that is very vulnerable to attack. Shortchanging surface transportation 

and ports for security dollars may have dire consequences to the economy and in 

loss of life if terrorists decide to attack these modes. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA) BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2009 REQUEST

The budget request for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) provides for an initial increase of $286.5 million over the fiscal year 2008 enacted amount. 

The President’s request, in some cases, adequately addresses the mandates in the 

9/11 Act; however, we are looking closely at the decrease in requested funds of certain programs that may help the administration meet homeland security goals—particularly those programs directly aligned to the mandates within the 9/11 Act. 

With respect to the Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing office, the budget requests a mere $1,528,000 over the fiscal year 2008 enacted amount. 

With respect to Transportation Security Support, the President’s budget increases 

this amount by $402,485,000; however, the proposal reflects a decrease in the number of Full Time Employees (FTEs). This is the second consecutive year that the 

President cuts funding for this office. We are also concerned about the ‘‘mandatory 

proposal for a temporary 4-year surcharge to the Passenger Security Fee.’’ We need 

further clarification and justification for the need to support additional taxes on air 

passengers. 

In general, Aviation Security reflects a growth in FTEs of up to 800. This is a 

good thing, since it outlooks new job opportunities in the field. Additionally, we commend the President for requesting $43 million for the deployment of the Behavioral 

Detection Officers, a popular TSA Initiative among our committee Members. As well 

as continuing to strengthen the Canine Explosive Detection Program. 

NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE (NPPD); RISK MANAGEMENT AND

ANALYSIS (RMA), NPPD; CFIUS, OFFICE OF POLICY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT; INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY

(IPIS)

The Department’s Budget-in-Brief says that there is an $186,470,000 increase for 

Infrastructure Protection and Information Security from the enacted fiscal year 

2008 budget $654,730,000 and fiscal year 2009 $841,200,000. Regrettably, the proposed funding for ‘‘infrastructure protection’’ drops $3,179. Critical infrastructure, if 

compromised, would negatively affect the economy, government, and morale of the 

United States. Due to the committee’s increased oversight of this issue area during 

this Congress, it is plainly clear to the committee that this is no time to lessen our 

commitment to infrastructure protection given the threats to our Nation from 

human-made and natural disasters. 

The foundation for Infrastructure Protection in the United States is the National 

Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP). This plan supports the voluntary partnership 

between Government and industry via the 17 Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources 

(CIKR) sectors. Because this plan is the prism by which the Department measures 

performance of measures taken to protect critical infrastructure, the $14,116,000 cut 

in resources for NIPP Program Management is baffling. The budget justification 

notes that the mission area regards the ‘‘status of risk management efforts performed under the NIPP, and the progress made in managing risk to the Nation’s 

CIKR from terrorist attacks and other hazards . . . to support development of the 

National and Sector CIKR Protection Annual Reports.’’ This cut in funding will 

make the execution of this objective nearly impossible, thus prohibiting the Department from adequately monitoring which measures work to protect infrastructure 

and how to effectively buy down risk. 

Sector-Specific Agencies (SSAs) are the Government departments and agencies responsible for partnering with the private sector to implement the NIPP. Because the 

NIPP is in the implementation stage and still acquiring stakeholders, the nearly 

identical investment from the enacted fiscal year 2008 budget $19,519,000 and the 

fiscal year 2009 request $20,443,000 for the five SSAs that the Department controls 

is inexcusable. They have done fairly little in terms of robust implementation, 

scorekeeping, and revision. The biggest concern however, is that the budget does not 

say how much money the other departments and agencies under the NIPP are investing in compliance with the Plan. Until those figures are made available, it will 
7 

be nearly impossible for Congress to gauge the cooperation that the Department is 

acquiring from the relevant departments and agencies. If the NIPP is coordinated 

by the Department, then the budget justification should make note of the resource 

allocations by the other departments and agencies. 

The Homeland Infrastructure Threat and Risk Analysis Center (HITRAC) allows 

IP to ‘‘provide Department decision-makers and external customers with immediate, 

actionable analysis and recommendations to manage risk.’’ The effective management of risk would enable the Department to discern how resources should best be 

allocated and provide rational, justifiable budget recommendations. The acquisition 

of reliable data to ‘‘buy down’’ risk to tolerable levels would provide a clear roadmap 

ahead for the Department, especially in the area of Infrastructure Protection. The 

budget request does not provide clear numbers in terms of funding for risk analysis, 

but the committee has been made aware that the number is around $2,000,000, 

which is staggeringly low. The $1,551 increase for HITRAC is inadequate and will 

not provide for thorough risk analysis. Monies should be taken from the Risk Management and Analysis Office (RMAO) and be applied to HITRAC for the purposes 

of risk assessment and analysis. 

There is a $63,000,000 request for chemical site security, which is an increase of 

$48,000,000 over the fiscal year 2008 request and $13,000,000 million over the fiscal 

year 2008 enacted amount. The funding is needed for the Department to carry out 

the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, which regulates 

the security practices at the Nation’s high-risk chemical facilities. 

The Protective Security Advisors (PSAs) are the link between the Department and 

all levels of government as well as the private sector. The budget calls for a 

$565,000 increase from fiscal year 2008 enacted figures of $13,190,000. Although it 

is laudable that ‘‘this enhancement will place PSAs in the 10 States that currently 

do not have PSAs,’’ the budget is unclear about the number of PSAs per State. The 

committee has been told on numerous occasions that the PSAs are spread too thin 

and, as a result, their coordinating function is not as maximized as it should be. 

The Department needs to be clear about how close it is to placing at least one PSA 

in each State in order to help the States effectively protect critical infrastructure. 

RISK MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS OFFICE (RMAO)

The budget requests an increase for RMAO in fiscal year 2009 to $9,500,000 from 

fiscal year 2008 $9,412,000. The committee has begun to do extensive oversight of 

this office including its overall mission, partnerships with relevant stakeholders, 

and whether it needs the resources provided to it to coordinate the development of 

a common risk framework. The committee is concerned that some of its activities 

appear to stray away from its central mission. Because of the lacking risk analysis 

funding of HITRAC, it may be necessary for a large portion of these monies designated for RMAO to be allocated for HITRAC so real, tangible results can be delivered in terms of risk management. RMAO has been operational since April 2007, 

and to date has failed to list which methodologies it is studying. After repeated requests, it still has not provided to the committee a list of the contracts it has not 

awarded. The NPPD appendix to the budget states, ‘‘of the total amount provided 

under this heading, $5,000,000 shall not be obligated until the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives receive and approve 

an expenditure plan by program, project, and activity.’’ The committee is exploring 

whether the withholding of these funds should be targeted at RMAO until it more 

effectively justifies its mission and the steps it is taking to accomplish it. 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES (CFIUS)

The budget request for the Office of Policy within the Office of Secretary and Executive Management does not even make mention of CFIUS. Not 2 years after the 

debacle involving Dubai Ports World—and the legislation reforming CFIUS signed 

into law in 2007 (H.R. 556, Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 

2007)—the budget in brief only states that, among other activities, a $1,600,000 increase in the Office of Policy will ‘‘support [the] Committee on Foreign Investment 

in the United States.’’ Because this committee has exercised a great deal of oversight over the Department regarding CFIUS, the lack of acknowledgement with regard to CFIUS is troubling. It is clear that the officials who work on CFIUS matters 

for the Department are overburdened with work and that the office is understaffed. 

With an ongoing surge in CFIUS applications, this lack of resources puts our national and homeland security in jeopardy because applications will not be able to 

be thoroughly vetted in the legislatively prescribed time. The Department needs to 

articulate its resource allocations for CFIUS matters more thoroughly. 
8 

I eagerly look forward to Secretary Chertoff’s testimony and discussion today of 

these issues. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GINNY BROWN-WAITE

FEBRUARY 13, 2008 

Thank you Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King for holding this hearing today, and thank you Secretary Chertoff for appearing before us to discuss the 

President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request. 

Secretary Chertoff, you have guided the Department of Homeland Security 

through extremely challenging times while shaping its identity. I applaud your 

steadfast efforts to keep Americans safe from the numerous and ever-changing 

threats we face. 

While many elements of the President’s budget request must be addressed today, 

I will only focus on a few. Regarding the critical issues of illegal immigration and 

border security, I was pleased by the decision to increase funding for CBP and ICE. 

Ensuring that adequate manpower and resources are available to enforce America’s 

immigration laws is a critical, but basic, step in the right direction. I hope that this 

funding allocation signals a broader intent to strengthen efforts to confront illegal 

immigrants and those businesses and cities that provide them sanctuary. 

However, I am outraged by the status of the southwestern border fence, and baffled by the administration’s lack of urgency in completing this project. After the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008 weakened critical provisions of fence 

construction, this Nation cannot afford to gamble further with our security by holding back funding for the fence. The 2009 budget must provide any and all resources 

necessary to complete this project as soon as possible. Congress will never adequately address the growing challenge of illegal immigration and potential terrorism 

unless we seal our porous borders. Failure to do so is simply not an option. 

Additionally, we must remain vigilant in protecting our Nation’s transportation 

system. Most striking are the glaring weaknesses in the security of our airports. 

These shortcomings cannot continue to be ignored. DHS took a positive step when 

TSA recently announced a program to test the effectiveness of airport employee 

screening at a handful of sites. However, this program is far less comprehensive 

than the program Ms. Lowey and I recently passed through the House. I worry that 

the TSA program does not go far enough to test employee screening thoroughly. As 

the budget process continues, the Department must receive the funding necessary 

to measure the effectiveness of full, 100 percent airport employee screening. 

Finally, I know I am echoing the sentiments of some of my colleagues, but the 

cuts in funding to State and local homeland security grants are alarming. Local first 

responders are on the front lines when emergencies occur, they are the individuals 

we depend on everyday when lives are on the line, and accordingly we cannot leave 

them without the resources they need to fulfill their considerable duties. I am confident that Congress will ensure that essential grants do not fall by the wayside in 

the fiscal year 2009 budget. 

As the Department of Homeland Security continues to evolve and improve, I look 

forward to working with you, Secretary Chertoff, to secure our borders, enforce our 

laws, and keep America safe. 

Thank you. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Again, I welcome our witness today. When 

he was confirmed in 2005, Secretary Michael Chertoff became the 

second person to serve as the head of the Department of Homeland 

Security. Prior to his confirmation, Mr. Chertoff served as a United 

States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Prior 

to that, he served as an assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice, where he was instrumental in helping to trace the 

September 11 terrorist attacks to the Al Qaeda network. He has 

served in a number of other public service positions. 

Mr. Chertoff, I thank you for your service. I appreciate your 

agreeing to testify here today. Without objection, the witness’s full 

statement will be inserted into the record. 
9 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I now recognize you to summarize your 

statement for 5 minutes if you can. If not, we will be more than 

generous. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 

Congressman King. 

It is a pleasure to appear here. I believe this is my fourth budget 

hearing. We are also 2 days away from my third anniversary of 

being sworn in. As you observed, it is the fifth anniversary of the 

Department that is looming on the horizon in March. 

I think we have a widespread agreement between members of my 

Department and this committee on the fact that we need a robust, 

effective Homeland Security Department that deals with all hazards, and does so in a way that is a responsible steward of the public risk, but also recognizes the need to adapt to new challenges. 

Because as Representative King said, the enemy is not static. It is 

dynamic, and we have to continue to adapt. 

I believe that the budget that we propose for 2009 is sound and 

fiscally responsible. It advances the Department’s most critical priorities, focuses resources on the greatest risks, and gives our 

208,000 employees the tools they need to continue to protect the 

American people. 

Like any budget, it reflects tough choices. There are many things 

one could spend money on in the area of homeland security as to 

which one can make a reasonable case. But like everybody else who 

deals with a budget on the Federal level or on the State and local 

level, the pie is only so large and whenever you want to enlarge 

one slice of the pie, you have to ask what slice you are going to 

diminish. I think we have balanced here in a way that maximizes 

our capacity to contend with the real risks that are out there. In all, we are requesting $50.5 billion in total funding for fiscal year 2009. That reflects a 6.8 percent increase, about $3.2 billion, 

over the previous year’s enacted budget, that is 2008, without 

emergency appropriations. That is a 62 percent increase since our 

creation nearly 5 years ago. 

Let me take a moment to just tell you what the threat picture 

is now, as compared to what it was about 1 year ago when I testified in connection with the 2008 budget. As I have said repeatedly 

over the last year, in some respects the strategic picture with respect to Al Qaeda has indicated that there is some enhanced strategic threat. I am not suggesting, again, that there is an imminent 

specific threat, but the strategic picture suggests a somewhat increased capability on the part of Al Qaeda. 

As has been described in the unclassified NIE and in a lot of 

public testimony, a good deal of this reflects efforts by Al Qaeda in 

certain areas of South Asia to be able to plan, recruit and train, 

particularly with an eye to training operatives who might function 

in Europe and in the United States. I have also previously expressed and reiterate my concern that Europe could be a target, as 

well as a platform for attacks. 

These predictions have been borne out by the facts over the last 

year. Last summer at the beginning of the summer we saw aborted 
10 

efforts to carry out attacks in London and in Glasgow. A serious 

plot in Germany by Islamic Jihad Union was disrupted by the German authorities. In the last month, we have seen major arrests in 

Spain. Just yesterday, or today, the newspaper reported three arrests in Denmark in connection with allegations that extremists 

were going to kill a cartoonist who was responsible for some controversial cartoons. 

All of these aborted or disrupted plots indicate the intent and the 

capability remains. It is a credit to a lot of the progress our allies 

have made overseas. I would say that the happy fact that we have 

not successfully been attacked in this country reflects in large part 

credit to all of the agencies that have taken action against terror, 

both those who have done so overseas and those who have done so 

domestically. 

Today, what I would like to do is highlight just a few of the key 

elements of the budget across our five major goals, which are protecting the Nation from dangerous people, protecting it from dangerous goods, protecting our critical infrastructure, boosting our 

emergency preparedness and response, and strengthening our management and operations. 

Let us talk about the border. First, let us talk about the space 

between the ports of energy. We have as of the beginning of this 

month built a total of about 294 miles of fencing, both pedestrian 

and vehicle fencing, along our southwestern border. We have about 

15,200 Border Patrol agents who are currently sworn on-duty, 

which puts us on track to meeting our goal of exceeding 18,000, 

doubling the number of Border Patrol agents by the end of this 

year. 

You will recall that about 11⁄2 years ago, we ended catch-and-release at the border. We have sustained ending catch-and-release 

ever since then. We have seen some positive metrics that indicate 

success at the border. Apprehensions were down 20 percent-plus in 

fiscal year 2007. Remittances are down. Information that we have 

from activity south of the border indicates that there is a decrease 

in some of the infrastructure that supports smuggling. 

I am also informed that the cost of smuggling has gone up. The 

price that has to be paid to coyotes has increased. These are not 

indications that we have solved the problem, but they are indications that we are on the way to solving the problem. If we continue 

what we are doing—and this budget does continue that—we will be 

a long way down the road of living up to our commitment to the 

American people to secure the border after what has been practically 30 years of not doing so. 

For fiscal year 2009, we are requesting $3.5 billion—that is a 

plus-up of about $500 million—for the Border Patrol. That additional money will allow us to hire, train and equip 2,200 new Border Patrol agents in 2009, so that by the end of fiscal year 2009 

we will have more than 20,000 Border Patrol agents. 

We are requesting an additional $775 million to continue our efforts to develop and deploy technology, tactical infrastructure, including fencing at the border, to prevent incursions and to give the 

Border Patrol the leverage that they need so they can effectively 

apprehend people who are coming illegally. 
11 

We recognize as well that the economic draw that brings people 

across the border has to be tackled at the interior. In fiscal year 

2007, ICE broke records with 863 criminal arrests, including 750 

indictments and 561 convictions as a result of worksite enforcement operations. About 92 of the people who were charged were in 

the employer-supervisory chain and 771 were employees. 

To continue to move forward in the interior enforcement area, we 

are requesting $1.8 billion. That is over $250 million increase to 

help ICE expand detention beds for a total of 33,000 beds. This is 

a 78 percent increase from where we were just 4 years ago. In all, we are requesting $3 billion for ICE interior enforcementrelated activities, including fugitive operations, the criminal alien 

program which removes illegal aliens from prison systems so they 

don’t get released back into the community when they serve their 

sentences, supporting State and local government anti-dine initiatives and worksite enforcement. 

Finally, we are requesting $100 million—that is an increase of $40 million—for our E-Verify system, which gives employers an 

automated system to run employment authorization checks against 

DHS and Social Security databases. We have dramatically increased the number of employers who are voluntarily using this 

system. It is now up to 53,000. I think we are adding them at a 

significant rate. 

It is important, by the way, that Congress reauthorize the program because the program’s authority runs out at the end of this 

year. There is a great deal of demand for the program. It helps employers. It helps us enforce the law, and we want to continue to 

build on it. 

The next challenge, of course, is protecting our Nation from dangerous goods. As of the end of the last calendar year, we are scanning virtually 100 percent of containers coming in at the southern 

border and at our seaports. That is a dramatic increase from where 

we were several years ago when the number was about zero. We 

are at about 91 percent at the northern border, and at the end of 

this year we expect to be at close to 100 percent there as well. That 

is a big step forward in protecting against weapons of mass destruction. 

Our container security initiative has been expanded to 58 foreign 

ports. In response to the 9/11 bill which passed last year, we have 

begun 100 percent radiation scanning at three pilot ports. That was 

part of the mandate of Congress. Those ports are Pakistan, Honduras, and Britain. We have agreements with four more countries 

to move forward with that overseas scanning this year. 

Finally, our domestic nuclear detection office, we are requesting 

$157 million so that we can continue to support the deployment of 

the radiation portal monitors, and to go forward and see what we 

can do to deploy the next generation. 

Protecting critical infrastructure, we have released our chemical 

security final rule. We have completed the national infrastructure 

protection plan. We have completed the 17 sector-specific plans. We 

have established an Office of Bombing Prevention to share information about bombing challenges and response techniques with first 

responders all across the country. We have added additional layers 

of security to aviation. 
12 

Among the things I would highlight, we are requesting $1.3 bil- lion—that is an increase of over $350 million—for Department-wide 

efforts to counter improvised explosive device threats. This includes 

more than $1 billion for TSA explosive detection technology, $50 

million for science and technology development, $30 million for 

training transportation security officers, and $9 million for the Office of Bombing Prevention. We are requesting an increase of $15 million, for a total of $45 

million, for behavior detection officers who are trained to look at 

behavior as a way of identifying people who are potentially threats 

to our aircraft. We are requesting $30 million—an increase of $10 

million—for our 10 VIPR teams, which are visible intermodal protection and response teams. These are teams with dogs that we put 

into our mass transit facilities, into our airports, on the ground 

both on a random basis and a surge basis, to increase the visible 

protection of our mass transit systems. Finally, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, we are requesting an $83 million increase, to a total of $293 million, to further deploy our 

EINSTEIN system against cyber-threats and intrusions, and as 

part of a national cybersecurity initiative which we are in the process of rolling out. 

Let me touch briefly on two other critical elements. First, building an effective emergency response system. We have continued to 

implement what we learned from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We 

released our national response framework earlier this year. It was 

widely applauded by those in the emergency management community and in the law enforcement community. Frankly, the leaders 

of these groups stood behind me when we unveiled the national response framework. 

We have strengthened and professionalized FEMA leadership and capabilities, and we are requesting $164.5 million—that is a 

$64 million increase—for FEMA Vision initiatives, which among 

other things converts what used to be temporary workers into permanent workers, so that we have a cadre of trained and experienced disaster management officials who can go out into the field 

and actually work when we have emergencies, and we can build 

temporary workers around them so that we really have people who 

know what they are doing when we have a crisis. That is something that was a very clear lesson from Hurricane Katrina. 

I might say that if I look at the responses that we had to the 

wildfires, tornadoes and floods of last year, I think almost uniformly we got praise for FEMA’s much more efficient, rapid and 

customer-friendly response to these disasters. 

With respect to grants, we are requesting the levels we requested 

last year in all the major categories. I understand Congress almost 

invariably enacts more money in grants. I am quite sure I will 

have an opportunity to discuss this. We have set levels that we 

think over time goes to the right degree of preparedness. We are 

seeking to sustain those levels. 

You could make the case that you can spend more, but again I 

have to go back to that pie. If you are going to add money to a slice 

of grants to State and local government, you are going to take it 

out of something else in our Department. Frankly, there are some 

missions that only we can do. If we don’t do them, nobody else is 
13 

going to do them. So I think we have tough decisions to make, and 

I am prepared to address them further. 

Finally, although not glamorous, there is the very important 

work of allowing the Department to become a fully mature, wellmanaged department in terms of its institutional capabilities. We 

are requesting $120 million for the DHS headquarters project. This 

is the only major area in which we were disappointed in the 2008 

omnibus appropriations, when we didn’t get any money for this. 

It may seem that bricks and mortar don’t add value, but I can 

tell you in terms of morale, in terms of capability of managing, in 

terms of being able to put into place the very things which assure 

that we are responsible stewards of the public purse, having an 

ability to bring people together and work efficiently is critical in 

order to get the job done. I hope we can get the money for that this 

year. 

Finally, I want to say, Mr. Chairman, I am very focused on your 

to-do list which you presented to me last year, about things you 

were particularly concerned about. I think we have either completed these identified tasks, or we are on track to meet the scheduled requirement of completion. 

Vacancies. We have added 113 executive positions this past calendar year. Our vacancy rate is now about 10 percent, putting to 

one side the 40 new SES allocations which we just received about 

2 months ago. So I think we are at or better than the mark of most 

departments. 

With respect to continuous security standards, we published a request for information on December 12, and we have received 10 responses. As I indicated, we are issuing the national response 

framework. With respect to the transportation worker identity credential, enrollments began on October 16 in Delaware. We have 

had more than 148,000 pre-enrollments, more than 78,000 enrollments, more than 30,000 cards printed, and more than 16,000 activated. 

On explosives detection, we sent our interim passenger security 

strategic plan to Congress in October, and expect to produce the 

final plan as required by law in June. Finally on our critical border 

security initiatives, we expect to publish a proposed rulemaking 

soon that will require the transportation industry to deploy biometric US–VISIT exit procedures at airports and seaports by the end 

of 2008. This is a very important initiative. 

I am going to tell you, there is going to be push-back by the industry, but we are going to be resolute in pushing ahead with an 

initiative which is long overdue, and is important also as part of 

the President’s commitment to the visa waiver program. 

We have also conditionally accepted P–28, and we are now reviewing it in terms of final acceptance. I am prepared to talk about 

that as well. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for your support. I want to echo what Representative King said. We welcome 

oversight. On oversight, we have engaged I think frequently, both 

formally and informally, with the committee, as well as with your 

counterparts in the Senate and the appropriators. What would be 

helpful to us, though, is to have a reasonable number of oversight 

committees. 
14 

The difficulty with many committees is not merely the duplication of effort, but the fact that we are get conflicting signals. This 

committee, as far as the House is concerned, and the Appropriations Committee, are the two committees that are best situated to 

have an overall picture of what it is we do and what we have to 

accomplish. Both for me and whoever my successor is, it will help 

us enormously if we can rationalize this process. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Secretary Chertoff follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CHERTOFF

FEBRUARY 13, 2008 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman King, and Members of the committee, let me begin 

by saying thank you for the strong support you have consistently shown the Department, and I look forward to working with you to make certain that we make the 

most effective and efficient use of our resources and capabilities to protect the homeland and the American people. While we have had many successes, there are numerous challenges that still remain. I am here today to ask for your partnership 

and support as we face these challenges. We may not see eye to eye on all issues, 

but we certainly agree that our interests are best served when we work together 

to achieve our common goal of securing this great Nation. 

I am pleased to appear before the committee today to highlight some of our key 

accomplishments of the last year and to present President Bush’s fiscal year 2009 

budget request for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

This year, as DHS embarks on our fifth-year anniversary, we continue to protect 

the Nation from dangerous people and goods; to protect critical infrastructure; to 

build a nimble, effective emergency response system and a culture of preparedness; 

and to strengthen the Department’s operations and management. The Department 

has made tremendous progress in achieving effective control of the border, screening 

passengers, protecting critical infrastructure, responding to emergencies, and enforcing our immigration laws. In fiscal year 2007, we invested significant time and effort to implement the requirements of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, to focus our efforts on the greatest risks, to be nimble in our response 

to changing threats, and to be disciplined in our use of resources as we build a Department ready to meet future challenges seamlessly with State and local leadership, first responders, the private sector, our international partners, and most certainly, the public. 

It is no accident that we have not suffered a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil 

since September 11, 2001. It is the result of the President’s leadership, the support 

of Congress, and the hard work and constant vigilance of hundreds of thousands of 

men and women—including the employees at DHS—who are working tirelessly both 

at home and overseas to protect our country. Under the President’s leadership, the 

Department will continue to effectively carry out its critical mission and will leave 

a strong foundation for the future. 

FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET REQUEST

Six years after September 11, 2001, we are moving beyond operating as an organization in transition to a Department diligently working to protect our borders and 

critical infrastructure, prevent dangerous people and goods from entering our country, and recover from natural disasters effectively. The total fiscal year 2009 budget 

request for DHS is $50.5 billion in funding, a 7 percent increase over the fiscal year 

2008 enacted level excluding emergency funding. The Department’s fiscal year 2009 

gross discretionary budget request is $40.7 billion, an increase of 8 percent over the 

fiscal year 2008 enacted level excluding emergency funding. Gross discretionary 

funding does not include mandatory funding such as the Coast Guard’s retirement 

pay accounts and fees paid for immigration benefits. The Department’s fiscal year 

2009 net discretionary budget request is $37.6 billion, which does not include fee 

collections such as funding for the Federal Protective Service and aviation security 

passenger and carrier fees. 
15 

In pursuit of the five priorities we established in 2007, the Department continues 

to efficiently align resources to lead a unified national effort in securing America. 

Those five priorities are: • Goal 1. Protect our Nation from Dangerous People; • Goal 2. Protect our Nation from Dangerous Goods; • Goal 3. Protect Critical Infrastructure; • Goal 4. Build a Nimble, Effective Emergency Response System and a Culture 

of Preparedness; • Goal 5. Strengthen and Unify DHS Operations and Management. 

We have made great progress in each of these areas, and with the fiscal year 2009 

budget, we will continue that momentum. Let me highlight some of our key accomplishments along with initiatives and ongoing programs in our fiscal year 2009 

budget request. 

GOAL 1: PROTECT OUR NATION FROM DANGEROUS PEOPLE

We will continue to protect our Nation from dangerous people by strengthening 

our border security efforts and continuing our efforts to gain effective control of our 

borders. The Department’s main priority is to prevent additional terrorist attacks 

against our country. DHS has worked to prevent the entry of terrorists while facilitating the legitimate flow of people. 

Key Accomplishments 

• More Fencing at the Border.—By the end of calendar year 2007, 287 miles of 

pedestrian and vehicular fencing was in place at the border. By the end of 2008, 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will have constructed a total of 670 

miles of fencing, which will include roughly 370 miles of pedestrian fencing and 

300 miles of vehicular fencing. CBP also took conditional possession of the prototype Project 28 development of nine towers equipped with radar and communications systems and automated ground sensors linked to a command and control center and border patrol vehicles. A new task order was issued to design, 

develop and test upgraded Common Operating Picture software for the systems. 

• Increased Air and Marine Support.—CBP opened its fourth new air branch in 

North Dakota this past September and is on track to begin operations at the 

last northern border air branch in Michigan this spring. Delivery of a fourth 

DHS Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) will enable the Department to operate 

three UASs along the southwest border and to deploy one UAS to the northern 

border this spring. The fiscal year 2009 request supports the hiring and training of 24 new UAS pilots and the establishment of a joint CBP/U.S. Coast 

Guard (USCG) UAS program office for the development of a maritime variant 

of the Predator B. It also supports the continuation of an aggressive service life 

extension program for the Department’s P–3 maritime patrol aircraft that are 
16 

so critical to intercepting drug traffic in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific and 

countering the increasing threat posed by the cartels’ use of semi-submersible 

vessels. • Secure Documentation Standards.—Compliance with secure identification requirements for air travel under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative 

(WHTI) has exceeded 99 percent since implementation in January 2007. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for WHTI land and sea requirements was issued 

in June 2007 and final rule implementation is expected in June 2009. • Enhanced Driver’s Licenses.—The Department signed agreements with the 

States of Washington, Vermont, New York, and Arizona to enhance the security 

of their State driver’s licenses and to potentially satisfy REAL ID requirements 

or serve as alternatives for entry at land and sea borders. 

• Better Biometrics.—Ten-fingerprint collection from international visitors has 

been deployed by CBP at nine ports of entry, and will be implemented at 278 

other ports of entry by the end of 2008. This upgrade from two- to ten-fingerprint collection will enhance security and fingerprint matching accuracy, improving the ability to compare visitors’ fingerprints against latent fingerprints 

collected from known and unknown terrorists around the world. US–VISIT, the 

Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) and the Coast Guard have partnered 

on a pilot fingerprint collection at sea program near Puerto Rico, resulting in 

114 prosecutions and a 53 percent reduction in migrant flow. 

• Record-Breaking Law Enforcement.—U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) removed roughly 240,000 illegal aliens, and made 863 criminal arrests and fined or seized more than $30 million following worksite investigations. Its Border Enforcement Security Task Forces made more than 500 criminal arrests and 1,000 administrative arrests, and seized roughly $2.5 million in 

cash as well as significant amounts of narcotics and weapons. Further, ICE ACCESS was launched to foster collaboration between its agents and State and 

local leaders to identify crime-fighting priorities. 

• Enhanced Aviation Security.—The Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA) increased by more than 175 percent the number of personnel trained in 

techniques to identify potentially high-risk passengers in airports. Furthermore, 

TSA required that holders of airport-issued identification credentials be subjected to regular vetting against the Terrorist Screening Database. It also harmonized the 3–1–1 Liquids Rule with the European Union and many other 

countries, and published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in August to take 

over watch-list checks from the airlines under the Secure Flight program in 

2010. 

• Connecting the Dots.—The Department renewed a Passenger Name Record 

(PNR) agreement with the European Union to share advance information on 

passengers arriving in and departing from the United States. PNR data has 
17 

helped frontline personnel to identify scores of dangerous people and deny them 

entry into the country. • Protecting U.S. and World Leaders.—The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) continues 

to meet unprecedented challenges of protecting domestic and world leaders. In 

addition, protection of Presidential candidates has resumed and comprehensive 

plans for securing the 2008 Presidential campaign are being implemented. 

Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request 

• Border Patrol Agents.—Funding of $442.4 million is requested in the President’s 

budget to hire, train and equip 2,200 new Border Patrol Agents and appropriate 

support. The additional agents represent the fiscal year 2009 increment of the 

President’s goal of adding 6,000 new Border Patrol Agents by the end of the 

first quarter of fiscal year 2009. This request would increase the Border Patrol 

to over 20,000 agents by the end of September 2009, more than double the 

amount in 2001. • Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.—A total of $140.0 million is requested for 

CBP’s implementation of infrastructure and technology in support of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). These funds will complete the infrastructure improvements at the top 39 Land Ports of Entry, covering 95 percent 

of the land border arrivals. • E-Verify.—Total funding of $100 million is requested for E-Verify. This U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) program allows employers to use 

an automated system to verify name, date of birth, and Social Security Number, 

along with immigration information for non-citizens, against Federal databases 

to confirm the employment eligibility of both citizen and non-citizen new hires. 

USCIS will deploy additional staff covering information status verification, compliance, and monitoring. It is important that Congress reauthorize the program 

so that these employers can continue to benefit from E-Verify and not have to 

play detective when hiring new employees. 

• Vetting Infrastructure Improvements.—An increase of $30 million is requested 

to support TSA’s Vetting Infrastructure Improvements, providing screening and 

credentialing of individuals requiring special access to U.S. transportation and 

other critical infrastructure. These funds will enhance and stabilize the infrastructure necessary to perform vetting operations on populations that access our 

most critical infrastructure. 

• Secure Flight.—The budget requests an increase of $32 million that will accelerate the Secure Flight Program by replacing the current airline managed passenger vetting program with a Government-operated program in 2010. In addition to using improved technology, the Secure Flight Program will alleviate the 

variability in performance of the current system and reduce the risk for compromised watch list data. 

• Additional Bedspace and Staffing.—An increase of $46 million is requested to 

help provide 1,000 additional beds, staffing, and associated removal costs required to meet current demand and demand generated by increased immigration enforcement activities. Of the 1,000 beds, the addition of 275 will be funded 

through projected increases in collections. 

• Automation Modernization of Information Technology Systems.—The budget includes $57 million for ICE to acquire secure and interoperable tactical communications equipment, a biometric detainee location tracking module, and to develop and integrate an enhanced Investigative Case Management system. These 

improvements promote officer safety, emergency response coordination, and case 

management efficiencies. 

• Federal Law Enforcement Training.—An increase of $10 million is requested for 

the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) to provide training to 

meet increases in border security and law enforcement hiring levels. 

• US–VISIT.—A total of $390.3 million is requested for US–VISIT. This funding 

will complete the transition from two-print to ten-print collection. Taking all ten 

fingerprints will improve accuracy and allow us to increase the number of 

matches from latent prints captured all over the world. This funding also allows 

US–VISIT to continue to provide biometric identity services to law enforcement 

and intelligence, and it will help complete interoperability between US–VISIT 

and FBI databases. 

• Command 21 and Situation Unit Watchstanders.—The budget includes $7.3 

million to support continued development of Command 21 and additional 

watchstanders at USCG Command Centers to meet increasing operational demands and support additional vessel monitoring, information collection, and 

interagency coordination capability provided by Command 21. These initiatives 

will provide information sharing and situational awareness tools required to 
18 

close the gap between current port and coastal surveillance capabilities and the 

need for greater Maritime Domain Awareness in an all-hazards, all-threats operating environment. 

GOAL 2: PROTECT OUR NATION FROM DANGEROUS GOODS

We have also made much progress in protecting our Nation from dangerous goods. 

As a part of its risk-based approach, the Department is expanding its programs to 

identify, track, and intercept nuclear and radiological components and systems at 

ports of entry and in transportation systems within U.S. borders. We are intensifying our efforts to bolster capabilities to reduce the risk of a biological attack in 

the United States. 

Key Accomplishments 

• Overseas Radiation Scanning.—100 percent of shipping containers bound for 

the United States from three foreign ports—Port Qasim (Pakistan), Port Cortes 

(Honduras), and Port Southampton (United Kingdom)—are now scanned for radiological and nuclear materials prior to departure. Scanning equipment is also 

being deployed to Port Busan (South Korea), Singapore, Hong Kong, and 

Salalah (Oman). • Comprehensive Radiation Detection.—The Department has deployed more than 

1,000 radiation detection devices to the Nation’s land and sea ports of entry. 

Today, 100 percent of cargo containers crossing the southern border are scanned 

for radiation, 91 percent at the northern border, and more than 98 percent of 

cargo containers are scanned at our seaports. • Improving Import Safety.—The Office of Health Affairs (OHA) engaged in the 

President’s Import Safety Working Group to develop a comprehensive action 

plan with short- and long-term recommendations that better protect consumers 

and enhance the safety of imported goods. • Expanded Container Security Initiative.—CBP expanded the Container Security 

Initiative to 58 ports screening 86 percent of maritime containers bound for the 

United States. • Record-Breaking Narcotics Seizures.—USCG seized more than 350,000 pounds 

of cocaine at sea this year—a record-breaking 160 metric tons—worth an estimated street value of more than $4.7 billion. CBP frontline personnel seized 

more than 3.2 million pounds of narcotics at and between ports of entry. 

• Southwest Border Drug Strategy.—The Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement 

co-chaired the creation of the first-ever National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy and Implementation Plan, which identifies major goals, objectives, and resource requirements for closing gaps in U.S.-Mexico counternarcotics capabilities at the southwest border. 

• Reducing Risk From Small Vessels.—USCG worked with small boat manufacturers, industry groups and the public on mitigating the security risks posed 

by small vessels. Thirteen Maritime Safety and Security Teams, part of a 3,000 

person Specialized Deployed Forces Command, are stationed at strategic ports 

Nation-wide with unique training to counter the small boats threat. The Coast 

Guard and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) are collaborating 

with local authorities on a pilot program in Puget Sound and San Diego waterways on small vessel radiation detection. 

Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request 

• Nuclear Detection Research, Development, and Operations.—The budget request 

includes $334.2 million to support DNDO’s Research, Development and Operations program which provides resources for the development and evolution of 

the global nuclear detection architecture. Included in this research are development of an Advanced Spectroscopic Portal (ASP) suitable for examining cargo 

containers, trucks and privately owned vehicles, and development of Human 

Portable Radiation Detection Systems (HPRDS) to provide handheld and 

‘‘relocatable’’ equipment to be used as primary detection tools by Customs Officers, Border Patrol agents, and USCG personnel. 

• Next Generation BioWatch.—The budget includes $111.6 million, an increase of 

$34.5 million, for OHA’s Next Generation BioWatch. Funding will begin to procure BioWatch automated detection sensors and initiate deployment activities 

of the automated sensor system to existing BioWatch jurisdictions. Automated 

detection will enhance the capabilities of the BioWatch environmental monitoring system designed for early warning of bioterrorism incidents. 

• Aviation Security.—The budget addresses the need to upgrade checked baggage 

screening equipment deployed immediately after September 11, which is exceeding its useful life. The screening equipment is used to screen 100 percent of the 
19 

1.8 million checked bags passengers travel with every day. The budget also 

speeds the rollout of inline systems at all major airports in 6 years by allowing 

a more flexible approach to funding these projects. To support this activity, legislative authorization is required for a temporary surcharge to the current $2.50 

passenger fee—$0.50 added to each leg of a trip capped at $1.00. The surcharge 

is proposed to begin in fiscal year 2009 and sunset in fiscal year 2012. It will 

generate an additional $426 million in revenue in fiscal year 2009 and approximately $1.7 billion over 4 years, nearly doubling previously planned annual resources for checked baggage explosive detection systems. The increased revenue 

will be added to the existing $250 million annual Aviation Security Capital 

Fund which is targeted exclusively for checked baggage explosive detection systems. 

GOAL 3: PROTECT CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

The Department aims to protect critical infrastructure and key resources, essential government operations, public health and welfare, and the country’s economic 

and national security interests. Efforts to bolster the resiliency and protection of our 

Nation’s critical infrastructure and key resources helps to mitigate potential 

vulnerabilities and to ensure terrorist plans are not successful. 

Key Accomplishments 

• Setting Chemical Security Standards.—NPPD established national guidelines 

for chemical facility security in a comprehensive set of regulations to protect 

chemical facilities from attack and prevent theft of chemicals that could be used 

as weapons. 

• Assessed Impacts of Chemical Attacks.—S&T conducted the first comprehensive 

chemical threat risk assessment across a broad range of toxic chemicals that 

better focuses inter-agency priorities accordingly to risk. 

• Released Sector Specific Plans.—NPPD released 17 sector-specific infrastructure 

protection plans, creating a comprehensive risk management framework of national priorities, goals, and requirements to protect critical infrastructure and 

key resources. 

• Launched Improvised Explosives Device Awareness Campaign.—DHS has undertaken a national Improvised Explosives Device (IED) Prevention and Awareness Campaign, working with Federal, State and local agencies and stakeholders to boost participation in the TRIPwire and National Capabilities Analysis Database information-sharing portals. 

• Increasing Cyber Security.—NPPD continued deploying EINSTEIN systems, 

which find malicious patterns in Federal computer network traffic, and will expand systems this year. The United States Computer Emergency Readiness 

Team (US–CERT) issued over 200 actionable alerts on cyber security 

vulnerabilities or incidents in fiscal year 2007 from its 24-hour watch center. 

Finally, the Secret Service currently maintains 24 Electronic Crimes Task 

Forces to prevent, detect, mitigate and aggressively investigate cyber attacks on 

our Nation’s financial and critical infrastructures. 

• Greater Information Sharing.—The Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) 

has deployed 22 personnel to State and Local Fusion Centers across the country. DHS has also deployed networks such as the Homeland Secure Data Network, a system for securely communicating classified information, to 18 centers 

and anticipates deploying to many more centers this year. 

• Credentialing Port Workers.—Since October more than 70,000 port workers 

have enrolled in the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) biometric credential program. More than 750,000 longshoremen, truck drivers, 

port employees and others requiring unescorted access to secure areas of ports 

will also be required to obtain a TWIC card. 

Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request 

• Protective Terrorist Countermeasures.—Total funding of $19 million is requested 

for USSS Protective Terrorist Countermeasures. This program provides the latest state-of-the-art equipment that will be used in the event of an explosive, 

chemical, biological, or radiological attack. As new threats evolve and are identified, it is critical the Secret Service has the means to address them. 

• Chemical Security Compliance Project.—An increase of $13 million is included 

for NPPD’s Chemical Security Compliance Project. The Department issued regulations establishing risk-based performance standard for security of chemical 

facilities. Additional funding is requested to increase the staff of this regulatory 

program and to provide tools and systems to collect and analyze vulnerability 
20 

information, review plans, support and manage inspections activity, issue decisions, address appeals, and support compliance enforcement. • Explosives Research.—$96 million is requested to support S&T in developing the 

technical capabilities to detect, interdict, and lessen the impacts of non-nuclear 

explosives used in terrorist attacks against mass transit, civil aviation and critical infrastructure. Of these funds, $50 million will address critical capability 

gaps in the areas of deterring, predicting, detecting, defeating, and mitigating 

the use of IEDs in the United States. The Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive 

Device/Suicide Bomber Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED/SBIED) program 

will allow S&T to improve large threat mass detection in such areas as the 

transit environment, special events and other large areas. 

GOAL 4: BUILD A NIMBLE, EFFECTIVE EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEM AND A CULTURE

OF PREPAREDNESS

Improving our Nation’s ability to respond to disasters, man-made or natural, is 

a top priority for the Department. Incorporating lessons learned from Hurricane 

Katrina, other disasters, and the 9/11 Commission Recommendations, the Department is improving its capabilities and preparing those who respond to acts of terror 

and other emergencies. 

Key Accomplishments 

• Responded to 68 Major Disasters.—During fiscal year 2007, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) responded to over 130 events that resulted in 68 

Major Disaster Declarations, 11 Emergency Declarations, and 54 Fire Management Assistance Declarations, including tornadoes in Florida and Kansas, floods 

in the Midwest and Tropical Storm Erin. • Supporting Local Security Plans.—The Office of Infrastructure Protection’s Protective Security Advisors worked in State and local Emergency Operations Centers providing expertise and support to local authorities, the Principal Federal 

Official and the Federal Coordinating Officer during major domestic incidents 

including the Virginia Tech shootings in Blacksburg, Virginia; the Chevron Refinery Fire in Pascagoula, Mississippi; the I–35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis, Minnesota; and the Florida and California Wildfires. • Improved Interagency Coordination.—The Office of Operations Coordination 

(OPS) led Federal prevention, protection, and response activities to all-hazard 

threats during several incidents in 2007, specifically the recent outbreaks of 

Foot and Mouth Disease in the United Kingdom and the vehicle-borne improvised explosive device attacks in the United Kingdom. • Building Stronger Response Partnerships.—DHS engaged State and local leadership, first responders and stakeholders on developing the National Response 

Framework, which outlines how our Nation responds to all-hazard disasters 

across all levels of Government and community sectors. • New Operations Capabilities.—USCG established the Deployable Operations 

Group which aligns all deployable, specialized USCG forces under a single, unified command in adaptive, tailored force packages for rapid response to national 

threats. • Saved Over One Million Lives.—The Coast Guard reached a remarkable milestone this year, saving more than 1 million lives throughout its 217-year history. • Awarded Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grants.—DHS administered over $968 million in Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grants 

which will help support the establishment of State-wide Communications Interoperability Plans for improved first responder communication during major disasters, and fund State and local projects aligned with those plans. 

• Realizing Interoperable Communications.—S&T published results of the National Interoperability Baseline Survey—a Nation-wide survey of first responders across all jurisdictions and disciplines that assesses progress in achieving 

interoperable communications. By providing a clear representation of national 

capacities, these survey findings are helping emergency response leaders and 

policymakers make informed decisions about strategies for improving interoperability. The Department also established the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) to consolidate several interoperability programs and address new 

responsibilities including the development of the National Emergency Communications Plan. 

• Strategic Planning for Catastrophic Disasters.—The Incident Management Planning Team continued to draft Federal interagency strategic plans that coordinate resources and capabilities to prevent, protect against, respond to and recover from major disasters and other catastrophic emergencies. 
21 

Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request 

• Grant Programs.—The budget requests $2.2 billion to support FEMA’s State 

and Local Programs and Assistance to Firefighters Grants, just above the 

amount provided in the President’s fiscal year 2008 budget request. These important grant programs help prepare State and local governments to prevent, 

protect against, or respond to threats or incidents of terrorism and other catastrophic events. The budget will support the existing Homeland Security Grant 

Program, Port and Transit Security Grants, and Emergency Management Performance Grants, and also proposes a new discretionary grant program targeted 

toward high priority security initiatives including REAL ID implementation. 

While Congress chose to provide an additional $2 billion in the fiscal year 2008 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, the Department is requesting approximately 

the same level as the fiscal year 2008 budget request. 

The fiscal year 2009 budget requests $200 million for the State Homeland Security Grants and increases funding for the Urban Area Security Initiative to 

$825 million. The $300 million funding request for the Assistance to Firefighter 

grants is identical to the President’s fiscal year 2008 budget request. 

Over a 6-year period from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2007, grant recipients have drawn down $12.7 billion of the $19.8 billion made available since 

the Department’s inception. On February 1, 2008, the Department announced 

an additional $3.0 billion in grants to be provided this year. Including congressional approval of the fiscal year 2009 request, a total of $13.0 billion would be 

in the pipeline for State and local homeland security needs. 

• FEMA Vision—Phase II.—The budget requests a total of $164.5 million to support FEMA’s Vision—Shape the Workforce program. Phase II of FEMA’s transformation will strengthen that agency’s ability to marshal an effective national 

response, deliver service of value to the public, reduce vulnerability to life and 

property, and instill public confidence. The budget also requests a total of $209 

million to support FEMA’s disaster work force, including transitioning 4-year 

Cadre On-Call Response Employees (CORE) from temporary to permanent fulltime personnel to achieve the level of readiness and response capability required in response to presidentially declared major disasters and emergencies. 

• Disaster Readiness and Support.—The budget includes $200 million in a new 

Disaster Readiness and Support Activities account. This account will fund advanced readiness initiatives that assist FEMA in preparing for future disasters 

and will allow FEMA to perform critical administrative functions that support 

the timely delivery of services during disasters. 

GOAL 5: STRENGTHEN AND UNIFY DHS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

A cohesive and operationally efficient organization is essential to the rapid implementation of homeland security priorities, policies, and objectives. As such, the De-
22 

partment has aligned its resources into areas that will most effectively accomplish 

its mission. Successful mission performance is driven by human capital development, executing efficient procurement operations, and possessing state-of-the-art information technology resources. We continue to improve systems for intelligence and 

information sharing. 

Key Accomplishments 

• Continued Integration.—DHS was created 5 years ago to serve as the unifying 

core for the vast national network of organizations and institutions involved in 

securing our Nation. Over the past year, DHS has further integrated core management functions and systems throughout headquarters and the components, 

achieving a more cohesive and unified Department. 

• Enhanced Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.—The Privacy Office and 

the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties have worked to enhance privacy 

and civil rights and civil liberties through the Department’s work in cyber security, the use of satellite technology, airport screening protocols, and partnerships with Muslim-American communities. 

• Increased Responsiveness to Congressional Inquiries.—DHS improved responsiveness and adherence to congressional deadlines. This included the on-time 

submission of over 3,000 congressional Questions for the Record (QFR). Average 

response time to congressional correspondence has dropped from 5–6 weeks to 

an average of 2.5 weeks, and average response time to Authorization QFRs has 

dropped from 6 months or more to an average of 35 business days. 

• Consolidation of Information Technology Network Sites.—The Department has 

consolidated more than 1,780 IT network sites into a single network that allows 

transparent monitoring of system performance and activity, prioritization of 

traffic, and vastly improved security posture. 

• Strengthened Business Processes and Technology.—USCIS launched a new fee 

schedule designed to bring decades-old systems into the 21st century and improve customer service. 

• Record-Setting Levels of Federal Law Enforcement Training.—FLETC trained a 

record-setting 60,458 students from all three branches of the Federal Government, as well as international, State, local, campus, and tribal law enforcement 

agencies. 

• Improved Recruitment and Hiring.—DHS decreased the average time it takes 

to hire new DHS employees, 4 days shorter than the Office of Personnel Management targets. DHS also exceeded targeted goals by hiring more than 2,300 

protection officers; 11,200 transportation security officers; and 412 immigration 

enforcement agents. 

• Record FEMA Staffing Levels.—For the first time in a decade, FEMA attained 

a 95 percent staffing level and strengthened regional capability through the creation of over 100 new positions in FEMA’s ten regional offices. 

• Enhanced Employee Training and Communication Tools.—DHS recently 

launched new training and communications tools including DHSCovery, a stateof-the-art online training system. 

• Increased Border Patrol and Field Operations Staffing.—CBP increased Border 

Patrol agent staffing by an unprecedented 21 percent since its inception in 

March, 2003, growing to 14,923 agents at the end of fiscal year 2007. In addition, CBP Office of Field Operations hired 2,156 new officers and 340 agriculture specialists. 

• Streamlined Acquisition Processes.—The Coast Guard created an innovative and 

centralized acquisition directorate in July 2007, significantly improving program 

execution, contracting practices, research and development, and industry oversight. 

• Enhanced Training to Prevent and Investigate Cyber-related Crimes.—The Secret Service developed a National Computer Forensics Institute in Hoover, Alabama. This cyber crimes training facility provides State and local law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges with training, equipment, and expertise 

in computer forensics and digital evidence analysis. 

FY 2009 Budget Request 

• Quadrennial Homeland Security Review.—A total of $1.65 million is requested 

for the first ever Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR). Funding is 

required to research, organize, analyze, and develop the QHSR. This document 

will recommend long-term strategy and priorities of the Nation for homeland security and comprehensively examine programs, assets, budget, policies, and authorities required to provide the United States with strong, sound and effective 

homeland security capabilities in the decades ahead. The Office of Policy re-
23 

quests $1.5 million and the remaining $0.150 million is requested in the Office 

of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). 

• Transformation and Systems Consolidation.—An increase of $15.5 million is requested for OCFO to continue implementation of the Transformation and Systems Consolidation (TASC) project. One of the main objectives of DHS at its formation was to consolidate the support systems of the component agencies to realize cost savings and operational efficiencies. OCFO aims to reduce the number 

of DHS financial systems, and ensure the manual processes for internal controls 

are integrated with these financial systems. DHS will begin migrating OHA, 

S&T, DHS Headquarters, NPPD, CIS, and ICE’s financial systems to the TSA 

Oracle Shared Baseline. 

• DHS-Wide Acquisition Workforce Intern Program.—The budget includes an increase of $3.1 million for the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer. DHS will 

enhance the Acquisition Intern Program which recruits, trains, certifies, and retains an appropriate workforce of acquisition professionals. In fiscal year 2009 

the intern cohort will be raised to 100 people. 

• Office of the Inspector General Auditors.—An increase of $6.4 million is requested for the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to expand staff oversight 

of DHS preparedness programs, through audits of preparedness grant programs, science and technology programs, and Department-wide programs that 

establish the Department’s baseline preparedness efforts. The additional funds 

will strengthen OIG oversight of DHS border security and enforcement programs through a proactive program of audits and on-going oversight of the policies, initiatives and funds to secure the Nation’s borders. 

• State and Local Fusion Center Program.—Funding for I&A’s State and Local 

Fusion Center program is to create a web of interconnected information nodes 

across the country ensuring information is gathered from all relevant operations 

and fused with information from the Homeland Security Stakeholder Community. The budget requests funds to assist in producing accurate, timely, and relevant actionable intelligence products and services in support of the Department’s homeland security missions. 

• Vigilant Watch Over America.—OPS carries out its unified mission to secure 

America by maintaining the National Operations Center (NOC) and by providing 365/24/7 incident management capabilities to ensure seamless integration of threat monitoring and information flow. To improve technological capabilities within the NOC, the budget requests funding to provide improved data 

infusion, the auto-ingestion of data from multiple sources, and the creation of 

a consolidated, centralized data repository. In addition, funds are requested for 

the Principal Federal Official (PFO) program. As mandated by Presidential directive, the Secretary of Homeland Security is the Principal Federal Official responsible for coordination of all domestic incidents requiring multi-agency Federal response. Funding will provide a standing organizational structure to plan, 

train, exercise, deploy and support the PFO program. 

• Create DHS Counterintelligence Program.—Under the leadership of the Chief 

Intelligence Officer, I&A and the Office of Security will develop a new DHSwide counterintelligence program to analyze threats posed by foreign intelligence entities collecting against the Department, support risk management decisions, and enhance operations and implement strategies and policies to unify 

the Department’s counterintelligence mission. 

CONCLUSION

I am sure you will recognize that with the support of Congress, the Department 

has had many successes. I have outlined many of them in my testimony today and 

how they relate to the Department’s five priority goals. As we move forward to face 

the many challenges ahead, we are keeping in mind past experiences and lessons 

learned that will be at the core of our planning and implementation efforts. 

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I look forward to answering 

your questions and to working with you on the fiscal year 2009 budget request and 

other issues. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

For the committee, there is a motion to adjourn on the floor. We 

have some 3 minutes left before time is called. 

So Mr. Secretary, if you would, we will reconvene shortly after 

the vote. 

[Recess.] 
24 

Chairman THOMPSON. We would like to call the recess meeting 

back to order. 

In case you don’t know, they just called another motion to adjourn, as soon as we get back from that one. But in the interest 

of time, we will do as much as we can and move forward. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony on the budget. I look forward to working with you on it. 

Mr. Secretary, as you know, one of the eight priorities for securing the Nation is preserving civil liberties in times of terror. The 

committee is concerned with the Department’s proposed National 

Applications Office which would expand the use of spy satellites for 

new homeland and law enforcement purposes. 

Although the numbers and personnel details for the NAO are 

classified, the President’s 2009 budget assumes that you will be addressing our privacy and civil liberties concerns with the program. 

It has been 5 months, and the committee has yet to hear anything. 

What can you tell us today that would give us greater confidence 

that the NAO would not violate the constitutional rights of Americans? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, I am actually going to meet with you later today, and with Representative 

King, and I think hopefully with others as well, to talk about the 

NAO charter, which has really been completed in draft form. Let 

me give you a general high-level outline of why I think this actually enhances privacy and civil liberties. 

We are not proposing to expand the uses to which satellites are 

put. We are proposing to rationalize and, in a more orderly way, 

control the way satellites are used domestically, which will actually 

make it less likely that someone will violate civil liberties. The 

charter lays down some basic principles. 

The first principle is that nothing we are creating in the National 

Applications Office will in any way suspend, circumvent or evade 

existing or future laws that restrain the use of any technique on 

a civil liberties basis. Second, we are explicitly disavowing the use 

of the National Applications Office as an office that would be involved in the interception of verbal or written communications. 

The interception of oral and written communications is currently 

undertaken either under Title III of the Omnibus Safe Streets Act 

or under FISA, and that will remain controlled by those statutes. 

We don’t propose to get into that business. Third, there is a very 

stringent procedure with respect to any novel technologies that are 

proposed to be used, that before such a technology is authorized, 

lawyers from all the relevant departments assure themselves that 

any legal requirements have been met—if for example, a technology were proposed to be used that arguably infringed on Fourth 

Amendment rights, or would require a warrant from a judge before 

we actually authorized it. 

What this will wind up doing is taking what is currently an ad 

hoc system where people individually go to the satellite operators 

and ask for help, and put it into a system which is visible and accountable, which is a plus for civil liberties. 

Finally, before we actually turn the lights on, so to speak, we will 

be preparing and submitting a privacy impact assessment and a 

civil liberties impact assessment as required by last year’s appro-
25 

priations act. That should be forthcoming in the next couple of 

weeks. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. I look forward to our meeting 

later today to go over some other details of that. 

Earlier in your testimony, you also referenced that you are requesting the same amount of grant money for programs that you 

requested last year. Yet as you know, some of those programs are 

either scheduled for elimination or reductions. Can you explain 

your comment there? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Sure. There are a couple of small programs 

where we have made some reductions, but in the major programs— 

urban area security initiatives—our request this year is higher 

than our request last year and higher than what was enacted. That 

reflects, by the way, our general effort to drive in the direction of 

risk-based grants. 

In the area of State homeland security grant programs, while 

that particular line item is reduced from our request last year by 

$50 million, we have added $110 million in a new program called 

national security and terrorism prevention grants, which nets out 

to basically a $10 million increase in this type of function over our 

last year’s request. 

Port security grants, we are requesting what we requested last 

year. Rail transportation security grants, we are requesting what 

we requested last year. Bus security grants, we are requesting 

what we requested last year. 

I recognize that what was enacted exceeds the requests, and 

there are obviously some differences about how we cut the pie up. 

But in terms of the way we have projected forth, a disciplined 

grant allocation program over a period of years, we are at or exceeding our prior year’s request. 

I might add, there was some pretty vigorous debate about this. 

I think we actually came out pretty well. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Well, but you do understand that Ranking 

Member King and myself raised the issue in our testimony that 

there is some difference of opinion between reducing programs, zeroing programs out, and that money. So at some point, I am sure 

you will see that debate surface again. 

In the interest of time, I will yield 5 minutes to the Ranking 

Member before we have to go vote again. Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, for once I am ahead of you. I just 

voted, so I got the best of you at least once in the last year. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman THOMPSON. Well, at least you knew what was going 

on. I didn’t. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KING. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, you may have covered this in the questioning with 

Chairman Thompson, but could you update us on the status of the 

fence along the border and what the projections are? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We have about 294 miles of physical pedestrian and vehicle barriers. We have the money that we need this 

fiscal year to keep on track to get 670 miles done, which will basically take us to barriers from the Pacific Ocean to the New MexicoTexas border—not 100 percent, but close to it—except in those 
26 

areas where there is a natural barrier like mountains and things 

of that sort. 

We also have plans to build a significant amount of mileage in 

Texas, but less. I am pleased to say that last week—and Representative Cuellar on this committee was present and very helpful in 

this—we reached an agreement with Hidalgo County, Texas in 

which we were actually combining their levee-strengthening money 

and our fence money to build a wall that will serve both as a flood 

protection wall and as a barrier to illegal smuggling. We consider 

a wall to be equivalent to a fence functionally. 

So we are on track to doing this. Assuming we get money in the 

2009 budget, we anticipate completing this. I should say there has 

been a tremendous amount of litigation. We are spending unfortunately a lot of time in court trying to get this stuff done. Most people are cooperative. There are some who take the attitude they 

don’t want to have fence built on their property. 

The difficulty is, if you own property at the border and that property is a byway for smuggling of drugs and people, we have to get 

control over that. Much as I respect people’s property rights, unfortunately the consequence of letting drugs and people come through 

on an unrestricted border are felt in the streets of New York and 

Washington and Chicago, and I have to stop that. 

Mr. KING. I am going to yield to Mr. Smith for one question. 

Mr. SMITH. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. 

Secretary Chertoff, I have several questions I will submit to you 

in writing, but one question on the subject at hand is this. Congress specifically said that the administration should provide for 

double-fencing, and yet you are only, to my knowledge, building 31 

miles of double-fencing. Why not do what Congress has said? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Actually, you know, I think last year in the 

appropriations, there was language put in that gives us flexibility. 

So I think we are in compliance with the current law. 

Mr. SMITH. How many miles of double-fencing do you intend to 

build? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I can’t tell you that because I think it is 

going to depend upon the Border Patrol’s assessment of where they 

think it would be helpful. We are going to try to build a single 

fence first, because it is more important to block the vehicles. 

Mr. SMITH. What we have seen in some way the double-fencing 

works the best. I hope you will do that. 

Let me yield back. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Can I just say, Representative Smith, let 

me tell you, though, it is not a panacea. I will give you an example 

from the last couple of weeks. Someone took a wire and ran it between the two fences. When we discovered the wire, we realized it 

was configured in a way so that if it was pulled it would take off 

the head of the Border Patrol agent riding in an open car. 

I must tell you, and I rely on the Border Patrol for this, that double-fencing is not a magic bullet. It works well in some areas. In 

some areas, it actually doesn’t work well. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. I hope you will build as much of it wherever 

it works. 

I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. 

Mr. KING. I thank the gentleman from Texas. 
27 

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Secretary, one of the reasons we are 

going back and forth is because of these procedural votes on the 

whole issue of FISA, of which I know you have some intimate 

knowledge. Last year in New York with the JFK plot, my understanding is, without going through all the details, there were conversations between people in the United States and people in Trinidad and Guyana, so this does hit home, this issue. 

Do you have anything you want to say at today’s hearing about 

the importance of FISA and the renewal of it, and the Protect 

America Act? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. I think this is, without getting into a 

specific case that is in court, I think over my years both at the Justice Department and here, FISA has been maybe the No. 1 tool— 

the ability to intercept international conversations. This is the 

radar that we have for the 21st century to detect attacks before 

they happen. 

I think the Senate passed a good bill, as the President said. I 

think it is important that we get this thing enacted so that there 

is no uncertainty about our authorities to go forward. 

Mr. KING. I yield back. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

We now yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Harman. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary, and thank you for your many courtesies 

to me and my constituents over your 3 years in your impossible job. 

We appreciate your visits to California. We appreciate your visits 

to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and your focus on one 

of the most at-risk parts of our country. I do want to thank you. 

I want to associate myself with the comments of Ranking Member King about congressional jurisdiction. It is enormously frustrating. I think that you are right, that this committee in the 

House is the committee that should have most of the jurisdiction, 

and it should be easier for us and easier for you than it is. I hope 

that in the next Congress we will move on and recognize that if 

Congress is going to do oversight properly, we need to streamline 

the way we operate. That was, after all, one of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Will the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. HARMAN. I would be happy to yield. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Just in the interest of time, Mr. Secretary, 

we will kind of rotate the Members going and voting, so we can 

kind of keep the questioning going. 

I yield back. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Second, I just listened to this conversation about FISA. As one 

who knows that program intimately, and thinks it is very important, I would point out to everyone that FISA is not expiring this 

week. If anything expires, it would be, in my view, a set of ill-advised amendments to FISA that the House and Senate passed in 

August. FISA is a very important statute. It has been on the books 

for 3 decades. I think it works well, and I am certainly hopeful that 
28 

if it needs amending, we do it on a bipartisan and bicameral basis, 

and do continue to track the activities of foreign terrorists. 

Let me make one other comment about things you are doing. I 

know that you are concerned about radiological threats. You and 

I have had this conversation off-line, and I think you have had it 

with other Members of the committee. I want to encourage you to 

continue to work on that. I think the dirty bomb that may be in 

our future may be one that can be put together inside our borders, 

and may not have to come in a container or on a general aviation 

airplane, or through the southern or northern border. 

Do you agree with that? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I do agree with that, yes. 

Ms. HARMAN. So I encourage you to keep working on it. This 

Member will cooperate with you in every way possible. If you can 

get increased protection for radiological sources done just through 

activities of your Department, without the need for legislation, 

Godspeed. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We are doing that. 

Ms. HARMAN. Okay. My question is really about borders. No one 

has missed it that this budget is front-loaded in terms of border 

protection, and other priorities are funded less in order to enhance 

border protection. Two questions: No. 1, what about the northern 

border? It seems to me most of the focus is on the southern border. 

I remember very well that the fellow who was going to blow up my 

airport—Los Angeles International Airport—was apprehended at 

the northern border. 

Second of all, what about the borders on our east and west? I am 

specifically talking about ports. The Port Security Act, the Safe 

Port Act, that was passed on a bipartisan basis out of this committee, and I was one of its original authors, provided or authorized $400 million a year for layered port security. I know that is 

a concept you support, yet that is cut in half in order to fund these 

initiatives at the southern border. 

I have a minute left, but my question is about why not more 

focus on the north, and aren’t you doing something counterproductive by cutting port security money, when that is another 

border that obviously needs protection? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, let me say first of all, we are focused 

on the northern border. The traffic between the ports of entry in 

the northern border has typically been about 2 percent of the total, 

with 98 percent through the southern border. There is plenty to be 

done. We have to kind of attack the biggest problem first. 

One thing we have done in the northern border, where I agree 

with you, I think in some ways from a terrorism standpoint, historically it has actually been a bigger challenge. Historically, they 

have moved through the ports of entry. What we have done in addition to recruiting and training more inspectors—and we have 

400-plus in this year’s appropriations, and we are seeking to have 

more in next year’s—we have tightened up on the documentation. 

We have eliminated all declarations, which is going to be a big step 

forward, I might add, over a tremendous, vociferous protest. 

I am also happy to say that we have tracked the progress of this, 

and it seems it has not caused the dislocations that were feared. 
29 

As far as the ports are concerned, I agree with you. The ports, 

and in fact between the ports, are borders. We have put in the past 

several years a total of $16 billion in terms of port security. If you 

look not only at grants, but if you look at customs and border protection, and Coast Guard, we are putting more money in both of 

those in fiscal year 2009. 

I might add, by the way, that one of the things we are doing is 

the Coast Guard is developing a small boat strategy to look at what 

is between the ports, because frankly that is where experience 

shows us a lot of smuggling takes place. 

I am going to say this over and over again in the hearing. There 

are many good things we could do. As with anybody else who works 

with a budget, we have to start somewhere. I think we are making 

progress. I am sure that future budgets will address these other 

issues. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Harman. 

The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Davis of Tennessee for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. 

Could you bring me up to date on the 287(g) program a little bit, 

and what your plans are in this budget moving forward? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We are seeking additional money for 287(g) 

in this budget. It has been a very effective program. It is, of course, 

a voluntary program, and we have a backup of jurisdictions that 

have requested the training. 

We also have what I call 287(g) ‘‘lite,’’ which will recall ICE access, which is a program we can use to train people in State and 

local government to work with us, that is maybe not quite as soupto-nuts as the 287(g) program, but is still effective, and we are providing that as well. 

Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. I hear from my district that local law 

enforcement has requested help from the Federal Government, and 

they are being told there is just not enough people, not enough 

money, not enough support at the Federal level. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I will tell you, enacted in 2007 was $46 million. This past year, it is $78 million, and we are requesting 

$92 million. So we are certainly adding money, and we are eager 

to help. Of course, again, demand probably outstrips supply, but 

where we can’t give people the full 287(g) program, ICE Access is 

kind of a 287(g) lite which we can provide. 

Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Could you tell me what you are doing 

in relation to REAL ID? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. We issued new regulations. This was 

designed to address the concern that it was exorbitantly expensive 

and too much for the States to bear. We cut the cost by three-quarters. The main way we did that is we made some adjustments in 

the actual physical characteristics of the card stock to take account 

of some things that States were doing. We also, for the category of 

people over 50, extended the time period for bringing everybody 

into the REAL ID system so that it synchronized with the ordinary 

State renewal periods. This has cut the cost to about $8 a license. 
30 

What I have heard back is that has largely removed the objections based on cost. Last I looked, and I may be a little out of date, 

over 40 States have indicated that they are interested in participating in this. That represents over 80 percent of the American 

driving public. I am confident we will get the vast majority of 

States onboard with this by the time we come to the deadline at 

the end of March. 

I do have to say this, though, Congressman. There are some ideological problems with this. I frankly don’t understand it because I 

think if you are going to ask people for identification, it is crazy 

to make it easy to forge the identification. At the end of the day, 

though, the mandate of Congress and the law is clear. If States 

have not gotten a waiver by the end of March, we will have no 

choice but to say that for Federal purposes, their licenses are not 

acceptable as Federal identification. 

So first of all, I don’t bluff. But even if I were a bluffer, I would 

be legally constrained against bluffing. So we are going to try and 

work with everybody. We have been very encouraged by the response we have gotten, but we are very determined to move this 

forward. 

Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. I have a large chemical manufacturer in 

my district. Can you tell us what your plans are dealing with 

chemical operations in the future? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Based on the authority we got from Congress, for which we are grateful, we issued our regulations. We basically have divided the chemical industry into four tiers based 

upon the amount of risk. That is driven by the size, the location, 

and the type of chemical that you are manufacturing or storing. 

The top tier chemical manufacturers have been notified now by 

rulemaking about what they need to do to analyze the risk of their 

particular facilities. We are reviewing those analyses, and based on 

that review we are going to require certain performance standards 

that have to be in place in order to satisfy the requirements of the 

law. Then, particularly with respect to the top risk facilities, we 

will be going out and inspecting those. I don’t know the particular 

facility you have, but that is the process we have underway. 

Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Okay, one last question. I can tell you, 

in my district, building a fence is very important to the people in 

northeast Tennessee. I think it is something we need to do, be it 

a real fence, a virtual fence, some way that the American people 

feel like they are secure from people coming across illegally. As we 

move into the next budget cycle, how much of the fence—either 

real or virtual—will actually percentage-wise be built? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, by the end of this calendar year, we 

will be a 670 miles of barriers. Plus, we will have deployed 40 what 

we call mobile surveillance systems. That is ground-based radar. 

We will have our P–28 system, and begin to employ other camerabased and sensor-based systems. So I can’t give you an exact percentage, but we will have substantially put either real or virtual 

fencing or barriers across the entire border. 

Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Thank you. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Davis. 

The Chairwoman now recognizes Ms. Sanchez for 5 minutes. 
31 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I thank the Chairwoman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being before us. 

Mr. Secretary, in the corporate world, the rule of thumb is when 

you do a merger that you wait about 5 years to have the whole 

shake-out in the corporate culture and everything going on. So my 

question to you is, the Department will soon be 5 years old. Where 

on the curve do you think you are as far as trying to get morale 

up, get a cohesive culture going? Where do you think you are at 

this point? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. That is a question we have asked ourselves. 

We have a Homeland Security Advisory Council, and we had a subcommittee chaired by Herb Kelleher, who as you know is the legendary CEO of Southwest Airlines, to look at the issue of how do 

you form a corporate culture. They had a lot of very interesting and 

informative ideas which we have put into place. 

Let me tell you where I think we are. Our capability to plan and 

execute jointly now is light-years ahead of where it was when I 

came on board. We have some more work to do this year, but we 

are building what we call, borrowing on the military phrase, ‘‘J–3/ 

J–5’’—planning and operations coordination capability—that is able 

to give us visibility and planning capability to synchronize a lot of 

our different elements. 

We have built through a series of management directives, incentives to develop career paths that require you to do joint activities 

or to serve in other components. So that I think in terms of our 

building basic institutions that will promote jointness—and here 

we have borrowed a lot, frankly, from DOD—as well as the discipline of civilian planning, we have made very substantial strides 

forward. 

Other than the normal maturation process, there are two potential obstacles to completing this process. One is we have to get facilities. The need to have people work out of what are really jerrybuilt facilities does have an impact on morale and efficiency. Every 

other new organization in the fullness of time gets a headquarters 

facility. For everything from health to security to efficiency, we 

need to get St. Elizabeth’s done. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. You are so committed to St. E’s? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Very much. Yes. The hot water pipes broke 

about a month ago. We really have to move on this. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Because one of the problems that I have seen is, 

for example, one of the things that was cut out of the budget were 

the moneys for St. E’s in this showdown with the President. I 

mean, how do we get this on track? I am looking at it from a standpoint of the inspector general was in, and he said, look, great vision 

at the Department; terrible management. Part of management is 

just not having to drive for 2 hours across town to go and see your 

subordinates. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes, that is amen. I mean, it is in the 2009 

budget. We fought to keep it in the 2008 omnibus. That process got 

compressed, shall we say, at the end. We were largely happy. But 

part of the issue is a large part of the budget is in GSA, and their 

piece was taken out. Then once their piece goes, our piece fell. 
32 

I am making a point of talking about it now, because it is really 

important in 2009 to get this started, for all the reasons you have 

said. I couldn’t agree with you more. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I think you have about $120 million in this 2009 

budget. Realistically, how much do you need and how fast can we 

get this whole issue of a headquarters done for you all? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. If memory serves me, I think in the 2008 budget, GSA was looking for over $400 million for its piece of that. 

So since it has been bumped down the road, I think a rough estimate, I think we are talking about that order of magnitude to get 

this process moving. The original plan was to start with getting the 

Coast Guard in there and get this up and running in 2011. We 

have lost a year, so I think you can do the math. 

One other thing I would say we need in terms of institutionbuilding is we need to stop reorganizing the Department. At this 

point, you can debate whether we are in the optimal structure, but 

you can’t grow a tree by keeping tearing its roots up every year. 

I think we need some stability for a couple of years. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I was going to ask you about that. I mean, some 

of the problems seem to be when I looked at some of the reports 

of those being critical in particular to management, is all of the political appointees and how people move around, and now with a 

new administration coming in. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. One thing we are doing is we have made 

a conscious effort, and I have just about completed this, to make 

sure we have career officials in the No. 2 or No. 3 positions in all 

the operating components in the significant offices. So we will have 

personnel continuity. But every time we have a major reorganization, first of all it freezes everybody. Everybody is uncertain about 

what the future of their job is. We spend an enormous amount of 

time and effort reorganizing. 

This may not be the best of all possible worlds, but it is working 

well. I think if we could get a breather so the next secretary can 

take 3 years, let us say, and kind of look at where things are, 

maybe they will have some suggestions down the line. But at this 

point, stability both from a personnel and an organizational standpoint, and a physical structure—those are the keys to really completing this task. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Ms. Sanchez. 

The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Rogers for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. 

I wanted to start off with a letter I sent you last week, and you 

sent me back a response today. The letter dealt with the Center for 

Domestic Preparedness. In that letter, I outlined my concern at the 

President’s budget proposal, cutting it 25 percent, or $15.5 million. 

As you know, this is a very important facility in our country’s effort 

to meet your fourth goal that you outlined in your five goals up 

there, being able to have adequately prepared and effective responders. 

In the President’s proposed cut, he didn’t offer any explanations 

for that. I sent you a letter asking you to explain to me the jus-
33 

tifications for a 25 percent cut that was just arbitrary. Your letter 

today responded by saying that you believe the $47 million requested will be sufficient to support that mission. That is not an 

explanation. 

While I don’t expect you to have those at your fingertips, I would ask that you respond to me in a more detailed way as to why $47 

million will meet the mission that $62 million has been providing. 

The 9/11 commission legislation that we passed—the 9/11 Commission Recommendation Act that the President signed into law—authorized that that facility be increased in funding for the next 4 

years by 3 percent. So I would like to know the explanation for how 

you can do that. 

Next, I want to talk about agriculture. As you know, agriculture 

is very important in my State. The Homeland Security Department 

set up the Office of Health Affairs in 2007. Within that Department, you have the Office of Food, Agriculture and Veterinary Defense charged with enforcing Presidential Directive 9, which protects food and agriculture. But that office has been level-funded 

again this year at $727,000, and five FTEs. 

Chairman Carney and I held a hearing in Pennsylvania on the 

need for this office to develop more full policy, as to how to interact 

with State and local jurisdictions in the event of an agricultural 

food attack. We are grossly understaffed, and I brought that to 

your attention in an earlier hearing, and you agreed. 

Is there going to be the money to remedy this within your Department’s budget this year? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. First of all, this is, of course, a new office. 

The fact that we established it reflects our total agreement with 

you that an important element of homeland security policy and 

planning has to involve agricultural food and veterinary defense. 

So I am going to make just a couple of observations. First, obviously a lot of the actual expertise resides in the Department of Agriculture. So we really rely on the Department of Agriculture to 

give us a lot of support. We are not looking to supplant them. We 

are looking to make sure that food and agricultural concerns are 

integrated with the rest of what we do. I should also observe to you 

that a lot of what we actually operationally do in the area of food 

and agricultural defense is with the operating components, specifically customs and border protection. 

So if you were to look at all the assets that we put with respect 

to protecting our food and agriculture in this Department and 

across the Federal Government, it would be much, much more than 

these five people. We are trying to grow the Office of Health Affairs. I am going to come back to the same refrain I have. We have 

a lot of tough choices to make with a pie that, while it has grown, 

is still not limitless. 

We think that continuing the level of five this year allows us to 

continue what we have been doing in a way that is effective. Maybe 

in 2010, we are going to look at where we are and say at that point 

we should do a little bit more. We are helped by the fact that if 

we need support, we really do have other places we can go to, specifically the Department of Agriculture. So this office is not simply 

at sea by itself, but it is really partnered up with other agencies 

as well. 
34 

Mr. ROGERS. Unfortunately, I have been seeing little turf battles 

going on between the Department of Agriculture and Homeland, 

and that is unfortunate. I would ask that you keep this at the fore 

of your mind, and if there is a way you can develop that office more 

fully, I think it would be good for our Nation’s food supply safety. 

Last, I want to talk about canines. As you know, I have a special 

interest in that area. I was pleased to hear that you talked about 

putting more emphasis on your effort to have more explosive detection capability and using canines in that area. But as you know, 

we still purchase most of our dogs from overseas. I would like to 

know if you have the money in this year’s budget for the establishment of a domestic breeding program, as called for in the 9/11 Act? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I know we have 775 canine teams. We 

started out with 475. We have 300 that are accounted for in the 

budget for 2008, so we are going to want to do that. 

In terms of setting up a domestic breeding program, I have to 

confess it is not quite clear to me how you encourage dogs domestically to breed. 

Mr. ROGERS. Here is the problem. Like in TSA, most of your dogs 

you procure through the Department of Defense. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. 

Mr. ROGERS. They go to Europe and they bring them back. But 

these are foreign sources. There is no reason—and they want the 

breeds because they have the unique olfactory capabilities to detect 

the things they are looking for. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, the malinois, I think are the ones. 

Mr. ROGERS. Those are malinois primarily, but there are others. 

My point is, this is too important of an asset for us to rely on these 

foreign sources. You are right. There is no rocket science to bringing these breeds over here and replicating that domestically. That 

is what I am asking you to do. 

It is not just a problem at Homeland. It is across the Federal 

services. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. It is something we ought to look at nationally, because I do think that dogs are a fantastic resource. So let 

us work with DOD, which is probably the larger consumer—if I can 

use that phrase—of dogs than we are, as well as others who use 

them, like in the Department of Justice, to see what we can do 

about that. 

Mr. ROGERS. I agree. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. 

Ms. Lofgren is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. Secretary, about 6 months ago, I first heard reports about a 

U.S. citizen, Pedro Guzman, who was born in Los Angeles, who had 

gotten himself caught by the Border Patrol in order to get back into 

his own country. As we looked into it, he was deported even though 

he was an American citizen. I had hoped that this was an isolated 

incident. 

I sent you a letter outlining a series of questions, really that deal 

with individuals, what safeguards we have in place especially for 

individuals who may be mentally impaired. In the case of Mr. 

Guzman, he was mentally retarded and he was simply dumped in 

Tijuana. His parents, as you can imagine, were frantic trying to 
35 

find him. He eventually walked through the desert. A Federal court 

ordered the Border Patrol to post pictures and be on the lookout. 

Since that time, I have additional reports. In fact, we are going 

to have a hearing on this in the immigration subcommittee in Judiciary about U.S. citizens who have been detained for in some cases 

extended periods of time, or even a day or 2. I am concerned in this 

budget about what kind of training effort we are making in ICE. 

The General Accountability Office issued a report in October of last 

year basically indicating that the ICE agents didn’t know the law 

and there was no systematic way in place to keep them trained and 

up to date on the law. 

So I am wondering, can you tell us what efforts we are going to 

make in this budget for training for ICE in particular? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I do know that training on legal requirements and legal restraints is an important part of what we do with 

our ICE agents. I know that they get trained, for example, in the 

fairly complicated rules that apply about when you can arrest 

somebody and things of that sort. 

My presumption is they generally rely in the first instance on 

somebody saying ‘‘I am an American citizen,’’ and then obviously 

you need to verify that fact. I don’t know the facts of this specific 

case off-hand. Obviously, we don’t want to deport American citizens. I can’t tell you that if someone is incapable of telling us they 

are a citizen—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would like to send you this letter again. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Okay. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Because the letter I got back from one of your assistants never answered any of the questions. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We will answer it. 

Ms. LOFGREN. In this case, it was L.A. County, and this kid had 

been in trouble many times because of his disability, and was arrested for trespassing. They had him in their records, but ICE 

never even checked the records. It is not an isolated case. So I am 

interested in the protocols because it is just absurd. 

Furthermore, an ICE spokesperson was recently quoted as saying it is the American citizen who has the burden of proof on proving that they are an American. Well, that is not the state of the 

law. I will bet you that very few of us here today—and I happen 

to have my passport in my purse—but most of us could not prove 

up our American citizenship on the street. So this is a serious problem. 

I would like to ask another question about ICE. That has to do 

with the rapid expansion of detention beds, and what kind of effort 

and budget is being proposed for the medical care of people in custody. We now have in some cases individuals who are in custody 

for many months as their cases are straightened out, in some 

cases. We had a hearing last fall outlining some instances where 

people in custody died for lack of adequate medical care. 

One of the concerns I had at the time was a system that never 

works. I have seen this in local detention centers, where the physician on-site cannot provide the care he or she thinks is medically 

advisable without authorization from some bureaucrat in Washington. Has that policy been changed? 
36 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me say that a lot of our facilities are 

contract facilities, so we contract and we do that obviously because 

there is an up and down in terms of the need in particular locations. I know that we do pay attention, and the issue of medical 

in general is a matter that ICE looked into recently. I think our 

statistics actually are better than the average prison system. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The statistics don’t matter if it is your father who 

died. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I can say this to you. I don’t have with me 

the details of exactly what our medical protocols are. We do take 

people as we find them, so we do get people, for example—there 

was one case where somebody died where it emerged they had 

come in with a mixture of coke and some other drug, and they 

OD’d on it. So we do take it seriously. 

If you want specifics about approvals, I can get them. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would like specifics because the cases that we 

got were both ICE-run facilities and also contract facilities. Frankly, the sheriffs are complaining because the level of medical care 

is so far deficient compared to the care that they give to county inmates. As a matter of fact, we had one sheriff from Pennsylvania 

who was just outraged by people, inmates, that were not even—I 

mean, we don’t need a Cadillac of medical care, but certainly the 

care that he was giving county inmates was being denied to the 

ICE detainees. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will have a look. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would you get back to me? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. 

The chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Reichert for 5 minutes. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. Secretary, good to see you again. Thank you for being here. 

I first want to comment on one of your statements right before 

we went to vote. You mentioned the number of committees that you 

had to report to. I think it was a year or maybe 11⁄2 years or more 

ago where we had this discussion. I think that when I asked you 

the question as to how many committees you might be reporting 

to, the answer then I think was 88 subcommittees and full committees. I agree with you that Homeland Security and Appropriations 

might be the two most important committees that you report to. So 

I think Congress has some responsibility in helping you manage 

your Department by reducing their meddling. 

I am really interested in a couple of things. As you know, working together, coming from my previous background as a sheriff, and 

interoperability of communications. So with the 2010 Olympics 

coming to Vancouver, I know that you have a plan to create a 

multi-agency coordination center near the Canadian border. Can 

you give me some information as to the status of that plan? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Actually, Congressman, on that I think I 

will have to get back to you because I don’t have a lot of specific 

detail. We do recognize and we plan in advance for events of this 

kind, recognizing that there is going to be a lot of cross-border traffic. But I will get you the specifics in writing. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you. 
37 

The issue associated with that is the ability to communicate with 

the Canadians especially. We know here at home we have that 

problem, too, internally. But there does seem to be a spectrum 

issue between Canada and the United States. We know that as 

sheriffs working up in Washington State. But there seems to be 

more of an issue of mutual aid and cooperation. Have you heard 

anything about the attempts in getting the Canadians to work with 

us in developing the communications systems that will be in use 

by 2010? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I don’t know if this is applicable to Washington. I know we have integrated border enforcement teams, and 

we have been trying to work with the Canadians to make sure that 

we can have interoperability where we have Canadians and Americans working jointly on law enforcement. 

The issue is probably not going to be technological. There now 

exists Internet-based and non-Internet-based gateway solutions 

that allow people to talk on different frequencies, and I think it is 

something we want to address in a joint fashion, to have governance and protocol arrangements so that we can have a common 

sheet of music, so to speak, off of which to sing come 2010. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you. 

That also connected with the northern border. Just looking at the 

budget, we notice that there are an additional 440 Border Patrol 

agents that will be assigned to the northern border, and also some 

other initiatives, with $4 million to construct checkpoints in New 

York, which I know Mr. King appreciates greatly. 

But what other things are we doing? I know that you are concerned about illegal immigration across the northern border. We 

have been focused I think in the past few years on the southern 

border pretty heavily. What new—— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Obviously, as I said, one critical factor is 

that up until now, the vast, vast majority of traffic between the 

ports of entry has come through the south, rather than the north. 

That has informed a lot of our priorities. Plus, of course, we have 

a very good working relationship with our Canadian counterparts. 

We are looking to have 1,500 Border Patrol in place if we get our 

2009 budget for just the northern border. I believe we are completing our fifth air wing this fiscal year. We are going to have six 

unmanned aerial systems in place by the end of this fiscal year, 

projected. We have three currently. We are getting a fourth, and 

when we get the fourth, we are going to put another unmanned 

aerial system up in the north. 

A lot of what we are doing in the north is much more technologybased and intelligence-based, because of the nature of the flow of 

traffic, the nature of our relationship with the Canadians, and the 

nature of the landscape up there. But we are attentive to it. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you. 

I have time for one last question. We did have a hearing here a 

number of months ago of Boeing employees and some Border Patrol 

representatives on SBInet and P–28. I know you have touched on 

it briefly in your opening statement, but said you could comment 

further on it. Can you give us the status of where that project is? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I would love to. Let me first dispel what is 

sometimes a misconception. SBInet includes P–28, but is not lim-
38 

ited to P–28. SBInet is the complete lay-down of use of technology 

at the border. If I have made one point over the last 3 years, it 

ought to be that the exact mix of high-tech and low-tech depends 

on exactly what you are dealing with at the border. 

For example, even as we are working on P–28, which I will come 

to in a moment, we are looking I think a 10-fold increase on the 

ground-based, vehicle-based radar, the mobile surveillance systems, 

from about 4 to 40 this year, which are going to be deployed across 

various parts of the southwest border. As I said, we have acquired 

a third unmanned aerial, and I think a fourth is due to come online 

in the very near future, if not already. All these are part of our 

SBInet program. 

P–28 is a particular concept of integration of radar, integrated 

cameras, and a common operating picture that can cover a broader 

range of border than is true with ground-based radar. Groundbased radar basically gives you about 6 miles each way. P–28 gives 

you 28 miles. But again, it doesn’t work in every type of terrain. 

We have tried it in a very challenging part of the terrain. 

I have been down to look at it myself last week. We are doing 

the final review with respect to final acceptance. I think it looks 

good, although we haven’t finally signed off on it. That is not to say 

it is perfect. As we have operated it, we have come to realize—and 

I think you probably have this from your experience, too—that 

there are some features that we would like to change and make 

better. There are some features that we actually have determined 

we don’t really need that much, and we probably ought to just forget about. That is in final development. 

So what we expect to do is move to the next stage of this, which 

will be pushing the areas that the operators think we ought to enhance, discarding those things the operators think are probably not 

ultimately a real value-add, and then—although I don’t expect we 

are going to have a cookie-cutter of this across the border—there 

are other parts of the border we will expect to be using it, including 

parts of the northern border, again depending on the landscape. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

The Department has made some progress over the last year, and 

I really commend you for the progress you have made in some of 

the areas that you outlined. But we are still so far away from 

where we need to be to really assure the people of this country for 

their safety and their security. I think it is unfortunate that because of tax cuts for some of our wealthiest Americans, this Department and others are being squeezed into a budget that does 

not really meet our Nation’s needs. 

As you can well imagine, my first question is going to go to 

health care. So I am very pleased with the increase in funding that 

is proposed for the Office of Health Affairs, and also the progress 

that has been made under Dr. Runge. I can remember when the 

office was first set up and he was brought in. We weren’t sure what 

the role of that office was going to be. 

But I still continue to look for a commitment to really repair and 

strengthen and expand the capacity of our health care system to 
39 

respond in the case of a disaster of any kind in this country. I 

haven’t seen that kind of an investment in these 5 years, and I am 

not seeing it in the 2009 budget either. 

There is a report, an analysis done by Harvard Medical School 

and Cambridge Health Alliance that continues to show that the 

emergency rooms in this country are really overburdened and continue to be overburdened; that our hospital beds are short. Where 

in the 2009 budget is this addressed, if at all? I don’t see any increases in the health budget to make up for it not being there, because we have a 7 percent cut in the CDC, 14-plus percent cut to 

HRSA. In your budget, MMRS is eliminated and SAFER, which 

also have relevance to this, is also eliminated. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. First, let me thank you for your comments 

about the Office of Health Affairs. I want to thank the committee 

for authorizing it. It is important to institutionalize this. 

As I said with respect to agriculture, we try to be clear that we 

are not trying to poach on the expertise of HHS and CDC and NIH. 

They are the experts. Our Office of Health Affairs is—— 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. They don’t have any money either. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I can’t discuss their budget. I have 

very little visibility into it. I am going to let the secretary of health 

and human services talk about his budget. But I want to make 

sure that the role of our office is clear. It is not meant to supplant 

HHS. It is meant to make sure that health, food, and veterinary 

issues are integrated into our total planning in incident management, so that much of our emphasis is on making sure that we are 

driving forward in the process of planning for things like pandemic 

flu. We have made a lot of progress in that regard. 

A lot of our focus is on making sure that we are focused on integrating intelligence about health through our NBIC system. A lot 

of it is designed to move forward with BioWatch, which is the sensing system that we detect if there were a biological attack. Of 

course, we have a role to play with respect to BioShield, identifying 

the material hazards. 

So health planning and response is very important in our Department, but I want to make it clear that it is a function that we 

exercise in partnership, and that much of the actual muscle comes 

from HHS. In fact, OHA used to have certain health functions in 

DHS which were transferred back—emergency functions, medical 

response, for instance—were transferred back to HHS. 

So in terms of what is being done to fund emergency rooms and 

things like that, I am going to have to refer you to the Department 

that would have the major role in health. We are encouraging, 

however, public health officials and State and local officials to get 

involved in planning, because whatever your resources are, if you 

don’t plan properly and you don’t integrate the planning, the resources are not going to be particularly effective. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I want to try to get in another question. 

When I look at the 2009 budget, it seems to start out from a position that the Department has made pretty much all of the investment needed in training, equipping and exercising first responders, 

in that there is not a lot of investment being—there is not increase 

and some programs are cut. So it seems as though the Department 
40 

is saying we have made most of the investment we need to make, 

and we just need to maintain the status quo. 

Is that your position? If not, where in the budget are we seeing 

the help that our first responders still need? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, let me again say, recognizing this is 

probably going to be a refrain—Congress has tended to enact more 

than we have requested. We have projected requests based on a 

couple of principles. We do want to build capacity. However, it is 

not maintenance. It is not meant to be that the Federal Government is going to pay for routine activities. We are going to try to 

build capabilities, equipment and training. 

So that one should expect to see accumulative benefits. You 

wouldn’t expect to have to buy the same equipment every year. We 

have with respect to assistance to FIRE grants, we have kept the 

same request we did last year. On emergency management performance grants, we kept the same request we did last year. 

You may remember in past budgets, requests actually declined. 

So I think we are comfortable with our requested levels getting us 

on a disciplined path doing what we need to do. There are some, 

shall I say, perennial disagreements between Congress and the administration. Congress tends to enact, the appropriators tend to 

enact, a certain number of grant programs that are designed to pay 

for salaries and personnel and things of that sort. The administration takes the position that that should be State and local; that we 

should be paying for capacity and equipment. 

So as the Chairman said, I have no doubt we are going to embark on robust debate about the budget. But I think if you look at 

what we have done compared to our requests last year, we are consistent in what we think is an appropriate—not an exorbitant—but 

an appropriate level of funding. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. 

The chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Dent for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary. 

A quick question, you mentioned in your written testimony that 

there were 670 miles of fence to be constructed by the end of 2008. 

I think you said 370 miles were pedestrian fencing and 300 miles 

of vehicular fencing. How much of that is double-layered fencing? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I don’t know. I think Congressman Smith 

came up with the number 31, which I have no reason to disagree 

with. As I said, we build double-layer fencing when double-layer 

fencing makes sense, in the judgment of the Border Patrol, based 

on the particular topography. 

I will give you a great example. On the Rio Grande, we probably 

wouldn’t build a lot of double-layer fence. It would make a lot of 

sense. 

Mr. DENT. Understood. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I said this earlier, in some of the doublelayer fence in San Diego we discovered that somebody had strung 

wire across, and when we analyzed the wire, we recognized if you 

pulled it, it would be raised to the level that it would chop the head 

off of an agent if the agent was riding in an open vehicle or an 

ATV. 
41 

So I say this because the idea of the double-layer fencing as 

somehow the holy grail of security is just contrary to what the Border Patrol tells me. In some places, it works. In some places, it 

doesn’t work. So I am just guided by their views. 

Mr. DENT. To change the subject, I know that CBP has been suffering from a number of budgetary issues. I have also had the occasion to visit the border down at Laredo. I noticed that there was 

a shortfall of aircraft for the Border Patrol. This budget request for 

2009 I think requests an additional two or three aircraft. In my 

view, that is insufficient to meet the need along our borders. 

I do have a bill that would allow DHS to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Defense to utilize Civil Air Patrol assets to supplement these various functions 

of the Department of Homeland Security. It would include border 

security, interdiction of traffickers, and search and rescue operations. 

Do you think to incorporate this Civil Air Patrol assets in the 

DHS mission would be helpful? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think it would depend on what their capabilities are and what the mission was. I would not put civilians in 

a role of being involved in apprehending or interacting with—— 

Mr. DENT. We are not asking that. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I can’t assess the budgetary impact, but obviously additional eyes are always helpful. It just has to be handled 

in a way that integrates with the way we do our total operation. 

So this is something that I will ask the Border Patrol to look at. 

Mr. DENT. Well, we have legislation to do this with about 500 or 

so civil aviation assets out there, and we are not asking them to 

do any type of apprehension, but just to provide more assets, which 

we clearly need along the border. I would love to have your help 

in moving this legislation. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We will look at that. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you. 

On the issue, too, of CBP, we have a policy, I believe in this 

country now that if an aircraft headed for the United States from 

another country, within 10 minutes after the wheels are up, we basically run the manifests through the ATSP, automated targeting 

system for passengers. It is a good thing. I know we are moving 

in a direction of making sure that we get that information I think 

about 10 or 15 minutes before the wheels are up. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Correct. 

Mr. DENT. Is that—— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. I believe the rule has been issued. I do 

not know exactly what the effective date is. But yes, we are there. 

Mr. DENT. Is it 10 minutes before? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think it is going to be no later than 10 

minutes before, and they are going to start giving us the information earlier than that, but they want to have flexibility in case 

there is a last-minute show-up at the airport. 

Mr. DENT. I applaud that, and I appreciate that you are moving 

in that direction. I would like to just know when that actually occurs. 

On the issue of providing advance data at the borders for common-carrier bus or train, I believe we have had some debate and 
42 

discussion in this committee about that issue. I think it is important that we adopt that same policy for people coming into this 

country by train or by bus. I know your commissioner of CBP, I believe, shares that view. I just wanted to get your thoughts about 

it. There was some heartburn in the committee when we discussed 

it earlier. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I know certainly with respect to cargo, we 

do have a system of getting advance data. I don’t know if—— 

Mr. DENT. We are talking about people now. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. I don’t know off-hand the practicality 

with bus because I don’t know how people board. It may be sometimes you board the bus and you are at the border in 2 or 3 minutes. So whatever we do is going to be something that doesn’t gum 

up the process of moving people across the border, because there 

is a lot of flow. 

A train may be a little bit easier. I just don’t know. In general, 

I will tell you I am a very strong advocate for getting somewhat 

more information at an earlier time at all of our ports of entry, and 

having much stricter document requirements. I can tell you that I 

still carry the scars on my back of the brickbats that have been 

thrown at me on the northern border for pushing this issue. I am 

respectful of the fact that people on both borders want to have a 

lot of free flow of people and trade, but I am also respectful of the 

fact that I have the responsibility to make sure that the consequences of missing a terrorist or a drug dealer are not visited 

upon the people who live in this country. 

So I am committed to you, as long as I am in this office, we will 

move forward in a mindful, but disciplined and determined way, to 

continue to raise reasonable security measures at our main ports 

of entry. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you. My time is up. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Dent. 

The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Langevin for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Madam Chairwomn. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome. I want to thank you for the job you are 

doing and for being here this morning. 

Mr. Secretary, I want to turn my attention to a couple of questions on cybersecurity and also Project BioWatch, and then if we 

have time I would like to get to BioShield and also talk about the 

security of nuclear reactors at research facilities. 

Starting off with cyber, you correctly realize that we have to 

make cybersecurity more of a priority than what it has been. To 

this end, I was very pleased that the President’s fiscal year 2009 

budget would direct $293 million to U.S. CERT, much of which will 

be used to implement the Department’s components of the cyber 

initiative. While I still reserve judgment on the overall cyber initiative program, I appreciate the briefing that you gave me. I have 

also met with the DNI, who has briefed me on cyber as well, in my 

role on the Intelligence Committee. 

Again, though I reserve judgment, I think you are moving in the 

right direction on the cyber initiative. I am clearly concerned about 

our cybersecurity, of our networks and our systems. We have to be 

move more aggressively to strengthen our security, given the level 

of vulnerability that we now know that we have. 
43 

I can promise you that, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Emerging Threats and Cybersecurity, my subcommittee is going to 

exercise robust oversight of the cyber initiative. But again, I do believe, at least initially, that you are moving in the right direction. 

So thank you on that. 

Where I will turn my attention, however, is I was gravely concerned that the same budget that you put forward will slash funding for your Department’s own chief information office. As you 

know, last year my subcommittee held a hearing to examine how 

vulnerable the Department’s own networks are. It was revealed 

that the DHS networks experience some 844 cyber security incidents in 1 year alone. 

The Department of Homeland Security obviously must be able to 

secure its own networks before it can have any authority in other 

areas. Yet your own Department received a ‘‘D’’ from its FSMA 

scores. So my question is, how can you possibly justify cutting 

funding for cybersecurity initiatives within the chief information office’s budget by nearly 50 percent? 

My other question, Mr. Secretary, is that I have been receiving 

mixed reports on the status of our BioWatch program, which you 

made reference to a minute ago. I would like for you to provide 

some clarification. BioWatch, obviously, is an important program 

designed to provide an early warning of a pathogen release, which 

could provide early treatments to those in need, thereby decreasing 

illness and death. 

Last year, it was reported that the third-generation BioWatch 

sensors which would deliver results much faster and require far 

less human interaction than the current generation technology— 

this new technology would be pilot-tested in fiscal year 2008 with 

full deployment to be completed in fiscal year 2009, and in fiscal 

year 2012. Yet just last week, Keith Ward, the chief of the 

ChemBio Division at S&T, testified before my subcommittee that 

the third generation sensors wouldn’t even be ready for pilot-testing until part of 2009. 

So when can we expect to see the deployment of our third-generation BioWatch sensors? What are the obstacles preventing this 

critical technology from being deployed sooner? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, let me answer the second question 

first. With respect to BioWatch, I am not familiar with the particular item of testimony that you are talking about. We do obviously want to get the third generation out and piloted as quickly 

as possible. Our 2009 request actually would call for a $34 million 

increase so that we can get moving on generation three. I can get 

back to you on exactly when we think the pilot testing would begin. 

With respect to DHS IT security, we actually have requested an increase of about $3 million from our base funding on the information security office. Now, the reason there appears to be a decrease 

from last year, there was a one-time plus-up of money so that we 

could build out some things at Stennis, which have been completed, 

or are at least underway. So that was kind of a one-time infusion 

for a capital budget item. 

But we do believe that IT security is important. I will say that 

our FSMA scores have actually improved over the last couple of 

years, and they are not regrettably out of line with that of other 
44 

large departments, particularly DOD tends to have trouble in this 

regard. I think that comes back to your initial point. A lot of this 

stuff is classified and we can talk about it off-line. But one of the 

problems we have had in the civilian domain, as well as of course 

in the military domain, is the sheer number of entry points from 

the Internet into Federal domains. It is an awful lot to police. 

I think the good news is that what we are trying to do with respect to the cyber initiative is to change the deed by looking holistically at the whole Federal domain, and dealing with it in an integrated fashion, as opposed to every agency kind of on its own trying to plug holes like the little boy trying to put fingers in the dike. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Okay, thank you. I appreciate your answer. My 

time has expired. The one thing I would mention on the cyber initiative is once again consulting with privacy experts, civil liberties 

experts up front before it is launched I still think would be an important thing to do, since the criticism will come I am sure no matter what. Trying to address some of those up front before it gets 

launched would I think be helpful in ensuring the success of the 

program. 

I would like to follow up with you more on your Department’s 

own cybersecurity issues and the FSMA scores especially. If you 

would get back to me on the more specific time frame of when the 

third generation bio-sensors will be ready to be tested would be 

helpful. I will have a couple of questions for you for the record on 

BioShield and also security of our research reactors. There is a recent GAO report that just came out that questions security of our 

research actors that still use uranium for power. 

Thank you for your presence here today and your testimony. 

I yield back. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will get back to you with those answers, 

and also I will tell you, we have gotten the privacy people involved 

up-front on the cyber issue. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Good. I am glad to hear that. Thank you. 

Chairman THOMPSON [presiding]. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes, Mr. 

McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. 

I apologize for being late. I was on the floor debating the Foreign 

Intelligence Surveillance Act extension. I think I know where you 

stand on that issue. 

I also want to echo my colleague, the Chairman. I am the Ranking Member on the subcommittee that deals with cybersecurity, 

and how important we view this issue. I know you appreciate the 

importance of that as well. 

We have talked a lot about the border. I know you are doing a 

lot in Texas with respect to the fence. I know it is a difficult job, 

and I commend you for your negotiations with the landowners 

down there, and the flexibility that you have shown. 

I want to ask you about something that—and I am not sure what 

the DHS connection may be. I think I do, but Congressman Cuellar 

and I went down to Mexico City and visited with the attorney general there, as they grabbed one of the top drug cartel members. We 

had a one-on-one visit with President Calderon for about 1 hour, 
45 

and talked to him about his initiatives in securing his northern 

border—30,000 Federal troops up to the northern border. I have to 

tell you, when we walked away, I think both of us did, that this 

man is sincere. He gets it. He is making, in his words, security the 

first priority for his country and in his administration. 

We share this border. We share the problem, and I think we 

need to share the responsibility for that. There is an initiative the 

administration has proposed, and Congress is looking at this initiative. In terms of what kind of assistance we can provide the Mexican government to combat these drug cartels, which in my view, 

we do a lot on the defense here on our side of the border. This is 

taking on the offense and dealing with the root cause of the problem. 

The military assistance, whether it is surveillance equipment, 

Black Hawk helicopters—all these things I think are in my view 

the right policy for this country. But I wanted to just get your 

thoughts on that while we have you here, to talk about that initiative and the importance you see. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I have to say, President Calderon and his 

administration have been outstanding—I think maybe the best 

ever in terms of tackling what I think the Mexican president realizes is a very serious challenge to Mexico, and not just criminality, 

but literally a challenge to their control over parts of their northern 

border area, particularly when you look at the violence that has 

been visited on some public officials. 

His heart is in the right place. He is doing things. We have an 

unbelievable number of extraditions of serious major-league players. We are involved in this, dealing with the Mexicans, as well as 

obviously with our counterparts in the U.S. Government. We have 

worked to build border violence protocols with our Mexican counterparts. 

One example of success, frankly, was last month a Border Patrol 

agent was killed by smugglers. I had the opportunity to visit with 

his family last week. Within a matter of days after the event, Mexican authorities had apprehended the person who was alleged to 

have committed the act of murder. 

So we have been working very closely with them. I spoke to my 

counterpart recently when he was up here. We talked about continuing to build on this level of cooperation and jointness all across 

the border, because it is a problem that touches both countries. It 

is a challenge to Mexico and it is a challenge to us as well. 

I want to strongly endorse this Mexican initiative. This is a real 

opportunity to lend support to this Mexican effort in terms of resources and capabilities that will really enhance not only Mexico’s 

ability to deal with its northern border, but with its southern border, because they have challenges in terms of what is coming up 

from Central America. Some of the Central American countries 

have serious issues with the drug gangs and organized criminal 

groups there. We always have Mr. Chavez down in Venezuela looking to make mischief. 

So I think there are a whole series of reasons why a robust, 

strong Mexican enforcement capability is very much in the interest 

of the United States. I think anything we can do to help President 

Calderon will help us. 
46 

Mr. MCCAUL. I want to thank you for your leadership. I think 

this package will be coming up possibly in June. As you point out, 

we have a unique window of opportunity that may be shutting on 

us if we don’t take advantage of it. Of course, we will look at the 

plan and have our own views on it, but I hope the Congress will 

step up to the plate. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

We have five votes that have been called. We will take the gentleman from Texas’s questions. Before we go, I want to recognize 

Mr. and Mrs. Perlmutter in the audience. Their favorite son is on 

the committee, and we want to make sure that they are amply recognized. Your son has done well. We are proud of him. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. Cuellar, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you again for being here this afternoon. 

Also, thank you for being down there in the valley on the levee, 

thinking outside the box on the levee fence. I thought it was a 

great idea, and I am glad it happened. 

Two questions, and again men and women in green, my same 

question—men and women in blue. We have done a good job of getting Border Patrol. In fact, I believe since 2004 we have added on 

over 5,000 Border Patrol. But when it comes to Customs, which are 

the people at the ports, it has been almost one-to-five, more Border 

Patrol than Customs. 

I support getting more Border Patrol. In fact, this last budget 

shows that you all are asking for 2,200 new Border Patrol, but only 

539 additional Border Patrol. I heard at the field hearing from the 

Treasury union, and they said we will probably need about 4,000 

to adequately staff the ports that we have. 

Your folks afterwards dismissed that, and they said, oh, that is 

not correct. But at the same time, I have been asking, and I think 

I asked you at the last breakfast we had, and I have asked your 

staff since November of this last year to give me the number. I 

asked them for that information, and asked them how much we 

need for border infrastructure. I think you already asked for $10 

million, when I think the estimates are $4 billion or $5 billion, and 

you only asked for $10 million. 

I got a letter of response after I talked to you—a very nice letter. 

Whoever penned that letter did a great job, but it basically said 

nothing. It really said nothing. It really did. I almost was insulted 

by the response, whoever put that letter together. Why can’t we 

just get a number for you all? You know, we just want to know so 

we can help you properly staff. I just want to know how many personnel do you need to properly staff the ports in the north and the 

south border, and what are the infrastructure needs for the southern and northern borders? I have been asking that since November, 

and it is incredible that I can’t get a straight answer from you. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, let me first, to put it in perspective, 

since fiscal year 2007, and including the current budget, we will 

have either gotten funding for or are seeking funding for 2,349 new 

CBP officers. Now, I don’t know that I can give you a number for 

what the desired end-state would be, because a lot of that depends 
47 

upon the building of new infrastructure, which is really I think at 

this point one of the obstacles in terms of the border crossings. 

That infrastructure—you know, there is a mix of people who 

have the responsibility for that funding. You have used the figure 

$4 billion or $5 billion. A lot of the funding is GSA funding. GSA 

owns a lot of the ports of entry. I cannot honestly tell you that I 

envision that in our budget we would ask for $4 billion to do infrastructure. 

It seems to me the best model for doing a lot of the infrastructure is—and of course, some of it is in private hands—is to do public-private partnerships. I know there are some communities in 

Texas that actually did through their public-private partnership 

programs, did issue bonds and fund new infrastructure, and then 

as that infrastructure comes on line, want to man it. So a lot of 

the responsibility for building the infrastructure is probably best 

discharged with a public-private partnership. 

Again, I am going to come back to the same thing I have said 

over and over again. There is a limited amount of pie. Our pie has 

grown, but it has not grown infinitely. In terms of building a lot 

of the infrastructure, particularly when we don’t own it, I think 

that question has to be borne by others. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Right. But again, I did not ask you to make that 

request. All I am asking is what is your best estimate as to how 

much infrastructure we need and how many personnel. I just don’t 

understand that Homeland Security—and I have been a big supporter of you and I am trying to help you here—but I can’t get the 

answer from you. I am not saying demand $5 billion. I am not saying that. I am just saying, what is the infrastructure cost for the 

northern and southern borders, and how much personnel do you 

need to properly staff. I can’t get that answer from you all, Mr. Secretary. I mean, what do we do? I am going to keep asking until I 

get the answer. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me see what additional information I 

can furnish to you. You know, you have been around enough to 

know there is always a certain concern that if you put an estimate 

out, it suddenly becomes graven in stone and winds up being 

pushed back at the administration—now, you have said you need 

this. So I mean, since we have all been around the mulberry bush 

a few times, I am sure there is an inherent cautiousness about 

coming up with numbers that we could end up having to deal with 

as a—— 

Mr. CUELLAR. And put all the caveats you want to put. You have 

a lot of good attorneys there. Put all the caveats you want to put 

there. All I want to see is the number for properly staffing the 

ports and the infrastructure. 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask you for some assistance, because I have asked, and I am not trying to use this against you. 

I am trying to help you. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I understand. 

Mr. CUELLAR. I can understand. I think this is a problem, because in talking to your staff, they are afraid that it is going to put 

the administration in bad eyes. I can understand that. But if we 

make a request as Members of the Homeland Security, can we get 
48 

this—and I don’t care if you put 100 caveats on it—but can we get 

this information, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman THOMPSON. If I may interject here, if I might, Mr. 

Cuellar. Do we have a border security plan for the southern and 

northern borders? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, certainly, and I have provided this in 

terms of Border Patrol that has laid out a specific plan. I don’t 

know if there is a single plan for all the ports of entry because the 

ports of entry vary a great deal. I am quite sure there are plans 

for individual ports of entry about what we need to do in terms of 

existing infrastructure and—— 

Chairman THOMPSON. I appreciate you, Mr. Secretary, but I 

think what we are trying to get at is if we have a border security 

plan for the Department of Homeland Security that we use as a 

guidepost for what you do and what we can as policymakers, I 

think that would get us where we need to be. I think the gentleman from Texas is just saying, ‘‘I need to see what you as a department see that we need to fortify our borders.’’ 

It is up to us as policymakers and appropriators on the other 

hand to try to get you the money to do it. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will respond to that. 

Chairman THOMPSON. We are not trying to trap you. Trust me. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I know that. 

Chairman THOMPSON. He is a much better gentleman than that. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I know that. But you understand the cautiousness. I mean, there is always a cautiousness about this because: (A) Because there are a lot of caveats; and (B), because there 

are a lot of other players who have major responsibilities in furnishing this. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Mr. Secretary, we understand that, but 

you know, we have to have a plan. Whatever it is, we will go from 

there. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman’s—— 

Mr. CUELLAR. Yes, just to close. 

This last appropriation bill, we added about 10 pages, and there 

is a request there by January 31, which just passed already, for 

you all to come up with a border plan. So there is some specific language there that talks about infrastructure and other needs. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. All right. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

We are going to ask Ms. Jackson Lee to step in the Chair. We 

will continue the hearing going forward, and the Members feel free 

to go vote and come back, and we will recognize you in order. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [presiding]. Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure. 

Thank you very much for your presence here today. 

I would like to engage in a series of questions. They are going 

to be somewhat rapid-fire and I appreciate very much your answers. 

I am going to go through the budget and particularly begin with 

the transit security grants, and I want your explanation to explain 

the request of $175 million for rail and mass transit grants, when 

Congress just appropriated $400 million for fiscal year 2008. So 

why are we cutting drastically those grants? 
49 

I also want to know why the budget request for the trucking industry security grant program is half of what was needed in 2008, 

despite the fact that we chaired a hearing that suggested that 

there was a great need. So it is a cut from $16 million to $8 million, and I feel that we have not met our task. 

If you could just start on those two questions, I would appreciate 

it. I have a series of others. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. First of all, let me say that what we are requesting with respect to transit and rail security grants is exactly 

what we requested last year. As I have said previously in the hearing, my experience now having entered year four of my tenure, is 

that Congress tends to put more money in grants that we request. 

We come up with requests that are based upon, given the fact that 

there is a budget and there is a limited amount of pie, that seems 

to be the best allocation over a period of time. 

So when Congress enacts more, we recognize Congress may have 

a different view. In this case, we are adhering to the amount of 

money that we previously thought was appropriate in a disciplined 

investment. I might say, however, if you look over the last several 

years, just fiscal years 2006 through 2008, there has been a total 

of $312 million that we have granted just to the top eight cities or 

urban areas. That is a huge amount of money that is out there. 

In addition to the actual grants, we have in-kind money, and we have $30 million we are requesting for our mobile VIPR teams, 

which are actually surge personnel that we put into mass transit, 

which provides an additional security measure. Of course, there are 

also transit funds available through other programs like the urban 

area security initiative. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, Mr. Secretary, if I might, we had a hearing with a number of experts from the area who frankly said that 

they needed more resources. I know what the Homeland Security 

Department is doing because they have to keep it in sync with the 

President’s budget. I think the President is wrong, and I think the 

Department of Homeland Security is wrong, when we talk about 

the needs of this particular area, when we have witnesses from the 

region who have suggested that with the massive influx of trucks 

that this whole idea of security is going to be imperative, and I 

think it is something we need to reconsider. 

I indicated to you that I have a whole long list of questions, so 

let me just go to the idea of the TWIC card, and specifically ask 

unanimous consent to at some point appropriately to put into the 

record the Port of Houston Authority letter dated February 12, 

2008. We were in Houston on Monday, and had an opportunity to 

hear some concerns again on the TWIC card, particularly in a region that I think is somewhat typical of what we have to address 

with the TWIC card. 

We note that some of the estimates on how many people needing 

a TWIC card were done more than 21⁄2 years ago, and this letter 

in particular says—and you don’t have it in front of you—so I 

apologize. I will just give you a brief summary. The East Harris 

County Manufacturers Association estimated that we would need 

180,000 cards for its employees and contractors. Since testifying, 

the U.S. Coast Guard has redefined secure areas and has allowed 

facilities to reduce the footprint of their secure areas. We don’t 
50 

know if that is very positive. This will reduce the number of cards 

required, but the number for the Port of Houston will still be more 

than 300,000 cards versus the original estimate of 35,000 cards. 

The chairman of the Port of Houston Authority has submitted his 

documentation 8 weeks ago, 2 months ago, and has yet to get approved. I say that this is kind of a budget issue. My question is: 

what is the status of the readers? My information from experts on 

the ground, including the Coast Guard, have indicated that they 

are very concerned that there will not be compliance by September 

2008. The readers are not in place. But more importantly, 300,000 

in one area alone, and taking 8 weeks on one card of the chairman 

of the board of the Port of Houston Authority. 

I would imagine that there needs to be either funding, personnel 

resources, enhanced improvement of the FBI’s checking system—all 

of that to me is personnel and resources. Have you asked for added 

help in the budget for what seems to be a pending crisis? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I have not, of course, seen the letter. It was 

dated February 12. We have asked for more money for TWIC. We 

are well on our way in terms of enrollments and pre-enrollments. 

I think I testified earlier, we have about 150,000 pre-enrollments 

and 78,000 enrollments. We are moving this across the ports in a 

systematic fashion. I think we are on track to achieve what we 

need to achieve. 

The issue with the readers—the readers are being tested now. 

This is one of these real-world issues where you have to see how 

the reader actually works in the demanding environment of the 

salt air that you have. So I am comfortable that we have the 

money. We are requesting the money in place to keep this program 

moving forward. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me just say, Mr. Secretary, maybe I can 

submit to the committee and submit it to me, I would like to have 

a personal response or direct response as to how the budget request 

will match one area’s 300,000 estimation now, and that must multiply exponentially to a number of other places where the estimation was maybe 21⁄2 years. So I want to know how that budget 

request will match doing what we need to do. 

If you could give the additional response of the 8 weeks it takes 

for in this instance a known American citizen, the chairman of the 

port, who has not yet gotten his TWIC card, which means that we 

have a fracture in the system. Do we have money in place—and I 

ask that in writing—that addresses the system of processing, as 

well as the readers? I am concerned that that is the case. I appreciate if you could put that in writing. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Sure. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The Nation’s transportation systems are inherently open environments. In the Department’s own budget justification it says there is a very real ongoing threat to the transportation security, particularly involving mass transit, considering the 

bombings in Madrid during the summer of 2004. But the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget is nearly $10 million less than the 

2008 budget, and frankly any of us who travel on mass transit, we 

thank them for the convenience, but we know that there are 

vulnerabilities. Do you feel that this request is adequate to secure 

all modes of surface transportation? What percentage of your over-
51 

all budget is dedicated specifically to rail and mass transit security? Which I frankly believe is very much missing. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, we are devoting a considerable 

amount to rail and mass transit. As I have indicated, we have requested the same level of grants as last year. We have our VIPR 

intermodal teams. We also have other programs where we test various kinds of sensors or devices in mass transit. We are working 

with a lot of our transit officials because they have in addition to 

the transit grants, other grants, in order to make sure they have 

the proper equipment deployed, and also to make sure that they 

have some support for a limited number of personnel costs. 

In fact, I was up in New York a couple of weeks ago, and there 

was a really remarkable unanimity of views that we are doing exactly the right thing in dealing with what is probably the biggest 

and most vulnerable transit system in the country. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Again, Mr. Secretary—I am sorry—the most, 

the biggest—— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. The biggest and most vulnerable transit 

system in the country is New York. 

So you know, again, Rome wasn’t built in a day, but I think we 

are making very good progress in this area. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But wouldn’t you think that if a Member of 

Congress on Homeland Security reads the budget and sees that, for 

example, that FTEs have been decreased to 230? That is 96 less 

from last year. Wouldn’t we have the reason to be concerned about 

the commitment to surface transportation? We have been very fortunate, but yet we are not without vulnerabilities, and cutting staff 

seems to be drastic to me. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I am not sure exactly what line item you 

are talking about with FTEs being cut. I know with respect, for example, to our VIPR teams, we are actually either maintaining or 

increasing the increase that we got in 2008. I think I am pretty 

good with the budget, but I would need a little bit of help in knowing exactly what line item we are talking about. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. We will get that to you. There is a cut of 96 

personnel. 

In fact, let me move to the VIPR concept, if I might have a question here. What has been the reaction of State and local stakeholders to the increased use of VIPR? Are they being included in 

the decision to deploy these teams? I was at my airport yesterday 

with the transportation security administrator. We use them well 

at Houston Intercontinental Airport, but I would like to know 

whether or not we do have that engagement with the local areas? 

How is the coordination between TSA and the boots-on-the-ground 

on when and how VIPR teams are going to be used? 

We expanded the VIPR teams, I understand. I would like to ask 

for more money, but I will leave you without the money question. 

Just say what kind of consultation do we have with local authorities. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We always consult with the local authorities. I think there was one hiccup last year that we sorted out. But 

I have spoken to some of the local authorities myself. They are 

happy. We do consult with them. We are also expanding the concept so that it is not only the TSA that is providing personnel, but 
52 

we are cross-training, for example, Coast Guard and CBP and ICE 

personnel so that we can surge them in under some circumstances 

as well. 

So that is a force multiplier, and by all accounts it has been a 

popular program. I haven’t heard anybody complaining about coordination. Obviously, coordination is an important part of what we 

are doing. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for your 

patience. I just have about one or two more questions. I see that 

the bells may ring again, and we may give you at least a brief recess if Members have not come back. 

But the Chairman asked in a letter some time ago about the Department’s plans for 2009 transition. I think it is important to get 

your response on the record. You didn’t believe it was appropriate 

to provide a transition plan to the Congress before it was finalized 

and provided to the incoming administration. If I may editorialize, 

I respect that answer, and I imagine that the Chairman would respect it as well. 

I don’t think we are suggesting, and I don’t think the letter suggested, that you would step into the place of the new administration. I think what it does suggest is that Homeland Security has 

no breaks. It has no time off. It has no vacation. It has no transition time, frankly. We don’t even want to utter such a thing for 

anyone to suggest that we are not ever-vigilant. 

So you have testified that consolidation of congressional jurisdiction would greatly benefit the Department’s efforts to carry its mission, so I am at a loss as to why in your response to this committee’s inquiry would you then cite the Homeland Security Act and 

executive privilege. So basically, a plan is that we are not left vulnerable, and I think that is acceptable, and I would appreciate it 

if you would answer that. 

Let me just quickly put two more questions on, if you can take 

notes on this one, because I think we are about to hear a series 

of bells. Quickly, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the 

United States, puts one credit to the work that you have done on 

this issue, and revising your presence on the committee. But how 

much of the Department’s fiscal year 2009 budget request will be 

allocated to Department-related CFIUS work. I held a hearing on 

it. I don’t think we have touched the surface of intrusion by foreign 

investors and owners. We welcome their investment. We don’t welcome their takeover. So I want that. 

Then on emergency grants, I am still shocked about Hurricane 

Katrina. Do you think the cuts in funding for State and local programs, including $750 million from the State homeland security, is 

acceptable? 

The bells have rung, so I have given you the management one, 

and I will accept 2-minute answers, and the rest in writing. But 

I will start with the one about the transition. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think with respect to transition, we are 

working on a plan. We have populated No. 2 or No. 3 positions in 

all of the components in the major operating elements with career 

people. We are reducing to writing the plans and doctrine that we 

have developed over the past several years. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This was transition? 
53 

Secretary CHERTOFF. This is for transition purposes. The purpose 

is to make sure that when we leave office, the Presidential appointees and other political appointees—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But besides executive privilege, will you consult with Congress and have something that responds to a vulnerability in case something happens? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. I believe the deputy has written back 

and has outlined, and has also briefed to a fair level of detail exactly what we are doing with transition. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Maybe you can get back with the Chairman 

again. I know there was a letter written. I think the whole committee would like to hear back. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I would be happy to provide that kind of 

briefing. I think we owe it to you. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I will yield on that answer. Can you quickly 

give me on the CFIUS and the grants cut of $750 million? I truly 

think that we are on the wrong track for cutting homeland security 

emergency grants in light of the tornadoes and others. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. The CFIUS—I can’t tell you. It is in the 

policy office. I can’t tell you exactly what the budget number is. I 

can tell you that it gets a significant amount of attention, including 

a significant amount of my own attention. I see every CFIUS case 

that comes in. I look at it whether it is an issue or not. Most of 

them are not a big deal. Some of them I spend a fair amount of 

time on. 

On the issue of emergency grants, we have kept our request for 

EMPG grants at the same level as last year. But let me add, a 

huge amount of money with respect to tornadoes, it doesn’t come 

through the budget process. It comes through the DRF—the disaster recovery fund. That is all done through emergency—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I understand that. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. That is a huge amount of money. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I understand that. Let me, because the vote 

is on, simply say this: I do think that it will impact States enormously for the President’s budget to have a $750 million cut in the 

homeland security grants. You know that we will advocate against 

it and try to fix it. I do thank you for your answer. We will probably be back in touch with you. I am going to give you a brief recess. 

The committee is now in recess. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your answers. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. PERLMUTTER [presiding]. Mr. Secretary, the first thing I 

wanted to do was just, one of the things on page 14 of your report 

to us talked about increased responsiveness to congressional inquiries as one of the accomplishments. I would have to agree with 

that. I want to thank your Department and your staff, in particular 

there are several things, and this goes into your notes which has 

specifics about dropped from 5 weeks to 2.5 weeks and things like 

that. Mine is more anecdotal. 

But I did want to commend your office and the Department, in 

particular TSA. There are always issues concerning TSA and lines 
54 

and Red Team probes and things like that. But the TSA in terms 

of responding to me was excellent. 

Second, on special immigrant visas and dealing with what was 

a mistake in my opinion in the PATRIOT Act that caught up the 

Hmong tribe, the Montagnards and a number of other allies of the 

United States, and sort of swept them into this position of being 

terrorists, if you will, and then unable to get green cards or citizenship and the like. Your Department worked with well with our office and with the State Department, and I want to thank you on 

that. 

Then the last was also with respect to Dr. Runge and the medical department. There are other places, but I just really do want 

to highlight those. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Thank you. I appreciate that. I appreciate 

your doing that. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Now, I want to unload on you—not really. Let 

us first start and talk about the National Applications Office. We 

had a couple of emergency meetings, both as full committee and 

also the Intelligence Subcommittee, where we are very concerned 

in the use of the satellite technology and the capacity that that 

has, where we are in developing the legal and the privacy framework which we have been promised now for months. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. As I said this morning, I am supposed to 

meet with the Chairman this afternoon. We have completed a draft 

of the charter and other supporting documents. I was going to discuss that with him. Then we have been in the process of trying to 

schedule today and tomorrow a session to brief the committee on 

this. We basically have a framework which, as I said this morning, 

first of all makes it explicit that we are not—the National Application Office does not circumvent, evade or ignore any existing or future legal restraints on the use of this technology. 

Second, it sets up a process for reviewing the proposed use of the 

technology to make sure it complies with the law. If it is a novel 

use of the technology, to examine whether there are some requirements that have to be met like a warrant before it is used, and if 

so to require a warrant. 

Third, although this was always intended, we make it explicit 

that the NAO will not entertain or consider requests for all written 

communications to be intercepted. That will continue to be handled 

under Title III of the Omnibus Safe Streets Act and the FISA legislation where it is customarily. So it should resolve all those issues 

quite explicitly. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I think from the committee’s standpoint, certainly from my standpoint, we just want to see it. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. So, good. 

Second, and you alluded to it earlier—and I know I missed some 

of the testimony—but with respect to the grants, the FEMA grants, 

whether it is the assistance to firefighters or the SAFER grants 

and those things. I know that from my point of view, the committee’s point of view, these grants are very important for both our 

law enforcement agencies, as well as our firefighters. Clearly, your 

budget cuts what the Congress presented in its last appropriation. 
55 

I would ask you to go back and revisit your budget on that. That 

is more of just a statement. 

Third, National Guard. We have had a conversation in this committee and with you that the National Guard is serving dual purposes. They have been put on the frontline and active duty status, 

yet they have a tremendous responsibility, and in my opinion the 

first responsibility, is to be at home ready for disasters of whatever 

kind. The reports continue to come back that we don’t have the 

equipment; the individuals, particularly engineers and contractor 

types that are within the National Guard are all in Iraq and not 

here; and that there really is a dilemma for homeland security in 

the event some major national disaster hits. 

How do you respond to that? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I know General Blum who is the head 

of the National Guard Bureau, and Assistant Secretary McAllen 

and others have talked about this. I think my understanding is the 

percentage of National Guard that is overseas at any one time is 

really quite a small percentage of the total Guard that is available. 

The equipment that goes overseas typically is war-fighting equipment, which I don’t think we would envision using in an emergency. 

I am comfortable in my dealings with the Guard personnel, both 

having dealt with them in terms of planning and in terms of observing them in action, that they are fully capable of meeting their 

missions here. It is a question we have asked them over the last 

couple of years. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. Last question, and I know my time is 

up, but assume for the moment that neither your budget nor our 

amendments to your budget or our appropriations really go 

through the whole process and are signed by the President, and we 

operate under a continuing resolution until next year. What three 

or four things do you think have to be changed from today’s budget—the 2007–2008 budget—on a going-forward basis? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I really hope that that is not what we 

are facing. I think the things that we need in a plus-up, we need 

to continue building the fence. That is a continuation of what we 

are doing. I think the investment in cyber is very, very critical, and 

that is a significant step up. A lot of this discussion has to be in 

a classified setting, but it is no secret that we have talked about 

the increased vulnerability of our cyber assets and the consequences to our national economy, not only the exfiltration of 

data, but of potentially efforts to disrupt our system. 

So I think it is important to make sure that we have our budget 

and what we require in order to continue to protect the country as 

we have laid it out. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. Thank you. 

Now, I would recognize Mr. Etheridge from North Carolina for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary for being here. I apologize for being in 

and out today because I had other committees I had some responsibility in. 

As you know, you have just touched on it, but I want to go a little deeper into it. Congress created the assistance to firefighter 
56 

grant program because we recognized the role America’s fire service plays in protecting our communities, and that basic training 

and equipment formed the foundation for a robust homeland security strategy. I think your Department recognizes that and you 

have spoken to it before. 

The International Association of Firefighters said that President 

Bush has proposed eliminating or dramatically reducing funding 

for important programs that make our neighborhoods, our citizens, 

and our country safer. I think he is right on the money on this. 

Since 9/11, we have been asking more and more of our local first 

responders, as you know. They have stepped up. They have really 

delivered not only for natural disasters, but other things, and have 

often put their lives on the line to keep our homeland safe. 

The administration budget proposal for 2009 only funds the assistance for firefighters program at a $300 million level and eliminates the safe firefighter staffing program. These funds have supported critical upgrades in our first responders’ capability in our 

communities that, as you well know, there is a huge demand for. 

Annually, the Department receives in excess of over $2 billion in 

applications for assistance for firefighters’ grants, which would 

seem to indicate there is a huge need. 

Two questions. No. 1, what is the basis for these kind of draconian grant cuts? Second, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the 

continued threat against the homeland of major storms that are 

much more severe than we have seen in recent years, how do you 

think the cuts in funding for State and local programs, including 

the $750 million cut to Homeland Security grant programs and the 

elimination of the metropolitan medical response system, will affect 

the ability of our first responders to prepare, respond and meet 

these kinds of national or manmade catastrophic events against 

our country? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We are back with this kind of always interesting discussion about what is a cut. I mean, we are funding these 

major programs. We are requesting funding at the same level we 

requested in prior years. It is clear there is some philosophical disagreement. I mean, first of all, I take a backseat to no one in my 

respect for firefighters and first responders. The question is, who 

pays for firefighting? Is it a local function or is it a Federal function? 

Our fire grants, which we are proposing to fund that at the rate 

at which we did propose last year—$300 million—are meant to 

build capability, training, or to direct it to homeland security. 

SAFER grants are really sustainment grants, they are maintenance. You know, there are some people who take the view that the 

Federal Government ought to simply pay moneys as a kind of revenue sharing to localities for police and firefighters—you know, ordinary garden variety functions not necessarily tied to homeland 

security. That is not what the administration’s position has been. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Well, Mr. Secretary, in all due respect, these are 

not those kind of grants. These are categorical, targeted grants for 

a specific purpose. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. But the SAFER grants are really basically 

designed to deal with ordinary types of activities. I am not saying 
57 

they are not valuable activities, but it is not the same kind of capability-building that the fire grants are, which we are funding. 

The second issue on the State homeland security grants, again 

we are—if you look at our request—first of all, this is not a fully 

risk-based program. This program awards a significant share of 

money based upon a fixed formula where every State gets a minimum. We propose to fund it at slightly less than the level we proposed last year, but then we have added $110 million in a new program which will be much more targeted to be risk-based. 

Here, what the difference is: Do we want to be more risk-based, 

or do we want to be more formulaic? Our proposal is basically to 

be more risk-based. 

Finally, you know, there is just the bottom-line issue, as I said 

earlier, about the pie. I have no doubt that if we gave more money 

out, it would be put to use for purposes. I have no question about 

that. But what is it coming from? What are we going to take the 

money away from? There are other things in our Department 

where only the Federal Government does the job. Are we going to 

take the money away from those functions? Then the job won’t get 

done. Is it going to come from another department? Then you 

know, in fairness to my colleagues, they ought to be heard on the 

issue of whether they want to lose those things. 

Every Governor I know, and all of my counterparts in State government, wrestle with the same issue. Many perfectly reasonable 

requests for money have to be sorted and traded off against each 

other to come within the budget. That is essentially what we are 

doing here. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Secretary, I can appreciate that, having 

been State superintendent of the schools in North Carolina for 8 

years, handling one of the largest budgets, I know something about 

prioritizing. But the key piece is always, as we say in the military, 

for those at the tip of the spear who are the people out there who 

are the first responders, if they don’t have the resources. 

I will close with this—I went this past week to present a homeland security grant to a local fire department, two as a matter of 

fact. One was getting a truck. Normally, folks would say that is 

their responsibility. However, this rural department, their revenue 

base is $50,000 a year. You and I know what the costs of a new 

fire truck is. They would just get in a water wagon, because in a 

rural area you don’t have fire hydrants. You go out with your tanker of 1,200 gallons, and when that is out, you are in trouble. They 

couldn’t crank it. It wouldn’t crank. It was 33 years old. So I think 

that is a great partnership with the Federals. 

A second one was funds that had been granted by the Department to buy equipment for breathing mechanisms that this department didn’t have. Now, one would say, well, they ought to buy that. 

The problem is, a small department again, and an Interstate just 

happens to go through both of these communities, and at any given 

time they could have a chemical or biological attack on the highway. Guess who is the first person to show up? These folks are. So 

if they don’t have the resources, they can’t respond, and I recognize 

that. 

Thank you for answering the question. Please keep this in mind. 

I think this is a critical piece. Sometimes we tend to forget these 
58 

areas out there. Even though they are isolated, Interstates move 

through them, rail lines move through, and on any given day they 

could be called upon to do the same thing we would be doing here 

in Washington or New York or any other area. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Carney from Pennsylvania is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. It is always good to have a constituent 

testify here. 

You spoke about the budget last week. One thing you mentioned 

was the problems the Department was having managing contracts. 

You said—and please allow me to quote here—‘‘I am constantly reminded by Congress of the fact that there is concern about our 

over-reliance on contractors to manage contracts. That is a fair 

point. But there is only one corrective. You have to hire permanent 

employees to manage those contracts, and in order to do that, we 

need to have the money to hire those people. Continually trying to 

punish us by cutting our management budget in order to induce us 

to hire more people is literally working at cross-purposes.’’ 

At another point, you also talked about cutting the budget for 

managing procurement. I went back and looked at your last year’s 

budget request and you asked for $28.5 million, and you got every 

penny of that $28.5 million. So I guess I am not sure quite what 

we are talking about here. If you are saying you needed more funding last year, did you say that? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No. I don’t think I had anything particular 

in mind. I think if I go back historically over the last several budgets, there was a tendency on the part of the appropriators when in 

meeting the budget number, we would get tagged with respect to 

issues involving management—you know, cut the number of lawyers, punish the under secretary for management’s office. It has 

been worse in some years and better in others. 

I think actually we did pretty well last year in 2008, but if you 

go back, it has been uneven in the history of the Department. 

There is a tendency when you talk about tradeoffs to squeeze the 

management line when that is in fact the line that provides the capability to do all the things we have talked about. 

Mr. CARNEY. I agree. You requested $42 million this year, I believe? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. 

Mr. CARNEY. Is that enough? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. The answer is yes. It will let us do what 

we need to do. We are building a participant program to give us 

the internal capabilities to manage things much better. Frankly, 

we are getting the experience at managing better. So it is both additional money and additional bodies, but also additional capability. 

Mr. CARNEY. Okay. So $42 million you think has it covered? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. It is going to be good for this year. 

Mr. CARNEY. All right. Because we do have, as you know, as your 

statement has indicated, a lot of procurement issues. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. 
59 

Mr. CARNEY. One thing I really want to talk about now, kind of 

a segue into that, is P–28 again. I know Mr. Reichert mentioned 

is many times. I was just out on the border in January, so I was 

going down. On a good way, it works 30 percent of the time, we 

were hearing from the folks there. What they could rely on was 30 

percent of the time, of the P–28 project. 

My question is—I have a lot of questions—but is the P–28 kind 

of a beta test for the rest of SBInet and using technology for the 

northern and southern borders? Or is it just kind of a unique 

thing? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me tell you what it is. It is going to 

take a minute or two to lay out. SBInet is not any one particular 

type of technology. It is the plan for deploying technology across 

the border in a way that recognizes that the challenges are different. For example, part of SBInet is we are continuing to acquire 

unmanned aerial systems. Part of it is we are going from I think 

four or six what we used to call ground-based radar and we are 

now calling mobile surveillance systems, to 40. Those are in the 

trucks. 

Mr. CARNEY. How significant a component is the P–28 part of it? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. The answer to that is it is a significant 

component, but exactly how much of the border will be under this 

kind of a model will depend on a couple of things: first of all, how 

well the equipment actually works in the environment of the border itself in real life; and second, operationally, to what extent it 

is a value-add to other kinds of technology. 

When I went down last week, I had a really specific conversation 

with the Border Patrol. Here was my bottom-line question, and this 

is after looking at all the stuff. I said, look, I don’t care one way 

or the other whether Boeing ever gets another mile of stuff to do. 

If you tell me that this is too complicated, that it is not a valueadd, and you think we are better off with a ground-based radar and 

whatever it is, I am perfectly happy with that. Now, that is more 

manpower-intensive. If you think it is a value-add in some areas, 

then great, I am willing to pursue that. If you think it is a valueadd across the board, that is great, too. 

I am a pretty good cross-examiner. I left convinced that it is a 

value-add, not in every place on the border, but in some places on 

the border. 

Now, what are the lessons that they have learned living with 

this system for a few months? I think first of all, there were some 

problems in the original equipment that was delivered and the people who put together the package at Boeing. 

Mr. CARNEY. Yes, we were told it was not the A-team. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. 

Mr. CARNEY. And they—— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I have some candid rules with the CEO of 

Boeing about this, and they replaced them, and what I hear back 

is they are happy now. 

The second thing is, I think that because of that initial issue, 

there were some problems with the underlying components that 

have been almost entirely—maybe not 100 percent, but 98 percent—corrected. 
60 

The second piece, though, was something we only learned living 

with the system, which is what is operationally helpful and what 

is operationally not helpful. So there are certain elements in the 

system that I think we know now we need to make better, because 

we are not getting full use out of what it can do. Then there are 

some things, frankly, I think they spent a lot of time on. And you 

know something? I am not sure it is worth it. I am not sure the 

value-add is there, and we are going to stop doing it. I can be even 

more specific. 

Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to spend a few more minutes, 

and I don’t want to take time away, to really lay this out to you, 

because I know you are interested in it, and I think it is worth 

talking about. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I think we only have one more—Mr. Pascrell— 

after this. So please go ahead. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will give you an example. They spent a 

lot of time in the last few months trying to make the common operating picture appear in the vehicles that are out in the field, the 

whole thing. 

Mr. CARNEY. Yes? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Not just the map, but the video, et cetera. 

So I was talking to the agents, and they said, you know, we are 

not really sure we want all this stuff. We are not going to be sitting 

out there in the middle of nowhere looking at a video feed and manipulating everything. Just give us the icons on the map. So that 

is what I mean by operational. 

Mr. CARNEY. I got that. You know what? That should have been 

part of the original contract. They should have had some input into 

that whole thing at the very outset, and they didn’t. The contract 

precluded them from having input. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. There is a lot to be said for that position. 

I asked that question as well, and you may very well be right. I 

will tell you again, I am—— 

Mr. CARNEY. I am just repeating what we heard in the Tucson 

sector. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will recapitulate for you—I just think it 

is part of the transition, the legacy, is to try to unpack for you what 

we have learned in this process. The argument originally for doing 

it the way they did it was, the Border Patrol is locked into a way 

of doing business. Let us think outside the box and have the contractor come to us, using the benefit, for example, of what they 

have seen in Iraq and stuff like that, and come up with a model 

that works. 

I think in retrospect that probably was not the best way to do 

it. I think operative input earlier on would have been better, but 

at least you understand what the theory was. Okay, that is a great 

lesson we have learned. It is a lesson, by the way, that S&T is 

using now. We have our operators involved in the initial project 

teams on everything that we are doing with research. So you know, 

we have adapted to that, and now we have the operators moving 

at every subsequent stage. 

So the bottom line is, I think it is a value-add. It is not a panacea. I continue to think that basically the way we are moving, 

which is to be very practical and operator-driven, and now having 
61 

a really good relationship with the contractor and the operators, I 

think this is promising. 

Mr. CARNEY. Are we going to take acceptance? If so, when? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think the likely answer is yes. It hasn’t 

been finally reviewed, but I would imagine within the next few 

days we likely will. 

Mr. CARNEY. I am sorry. You will review or accept it? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think we are likely to accept. It hasn’t 

been formally made, but I am inclined to think we are going to accept. 

Mr. CARNEY. Now, you said it is not perfect. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. It is not perfect. 

Mr. CARNEY. So how close to imperfect—— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think we have resolved all material problems. Where there are immaterial problems, we will get a credit. 

I liken it to, you know, you get a car and there are some problems 

with the trim or maybe there is a problem with the radio or the 

CD changer or something like that, and you take a credit for it. 

Mr. CARNEY. So DHS has a lemon law, then? Is that what you 

are saying? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No. I think we do what anybody does. 

When I bought my house, in the end we did an inspection. You 

probably did the same thing, too. We did an inspection and there 

is some stuff, you say I am not taking the house until you fix it, 

and then there is some stuff where you say, you know, I will live 

with it, but give me a credit. That is what we are doing here. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman from Pennsylvania yields back. 

The gentleman, Mr. Pascrell from New Jersey, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you again for your service, but I am here 

to ask some questions and I hope you will respond to them. 

First, I want to get into very quickly because I want to get into 

the budget specifically, but we know that the amount of fraudulent 

documents that people use to get into this country has proliferated. 

We know from the records of Interpol. I want to know what money 

you have put into this budget, and are you cooperating with 

Interpol to stop it. This is an immediate danger. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me tell you what we have done in the 

budget on the fraudulent document issue, but it is not just a money 

issue. Obviously, we have put increased funding into our border 

programs and ICE which include our fraudulent document unit, as 

well as capabilities at the border and ports of entry that make it 

much harder to get through. 

But in addition to that, we have initiated new procedures at our 

northern and southern borders now that sharply restrict the types 

of documents that can be presented, which makes it easier for our 

border inspectors to detect if there is a fraudulent document. 

I repeat again, as I did earlier, I ordered this to go forward notwithstanding hellacious protests from representatives of the northern and southern border communities who were concerned that by 

no longer accepting library cards and school cards, we were going 
62 

to create backups at the border. While I understand that is a legitimate concern, and I am pleased to say that we haven’t really seen 

backups at the border because I think we have managed this well, 

my response to them, as it is to you, is it is a big problem with 

fraudulent documents. While reducing the types of documents 

doesn’t eliminate the problem, it makes it easier to get a handle 

on it. 

Mr. PASCRELL. It seems to me, just in response to your answer, 

that we are not doing enough, and whether it means spending 

more money or not, to stop the tremendous increase in these fraudulent documents. People are coming into this country—— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Oh, yes. There is one more thing we could 

do. I will tell you exactly what it is. It is not a problem so much 

at our airports because we actually, with US–VISIT and everything 

else, it is quite difficult to get in with a fraudulent document. At 

our borders, we could finish the process of implementing the western hemisphere travel initiative, which requires secure documentation. I tried to get that done this year. Last year, Congress voted 

to compel me to delay until June 2009. 

If it is delayed further or if it is killed, as some Members of Congress want to do, then we will continue to have the problem of 

fraudulent documents. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Well, I want to help along those lines. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Please do. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Secretary, I think this is critical. 

Now, I have to ask you some very specific questions about the 

budget. When I add up the dollars in looking at the budget by line 

item, and I have done that. Trust me. On the assistance to the fire 

grants, which in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania have 

been cut $83 million. When I look at the Byrne justice grants have 

been cut in those three States by over $20 million. Then when you 

add in the homeland security State grants in those three States, 

they have been cut $136 million. 

So when you add these numbers together—you don’t need to add 

them together—the point I am trying to make is you know the 

point I am trying to make. How can these States continue to operate on the basis that what they established as a priority with the 

Federal Government, the Federal Government is not doing its part 

to support those efforts. This is a serious situation here. You can’t 

start the programs, remove the money—and we are talking about 

the metropolitan area, we are talking about Pennsylvania. Highrisk areas, Mr. Secretary? How can we justify the cut of such 

funds? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think that actually is a great question, 

and reflects what in many ways has been a fundamental issue that 

we have talked about when we talked about grants during this 

hearing. One of the arguments that is made against—let me rephrase that. The grants that are disfavored by the administration 

in the budget process tend to be those that do exactly what you 

suggest. They are grants that are recurrent grants like hire people 

and pay them; like the COPS program was 10 years ago, where the 

promise is made we are going to give you money to hire police officers and pay their salaries for 5 years, and then at the end of that, 

the money is going to disappear. 
63 

That very easily translates into a program of revenue-sharing, 

where basically the Federal Government pays personnel costs for 

State and local government. That puts you in exactly the bind that 

we are talking about. 

Mr. PASCRELL. But the Federal Government got into the business 

because there was a need, and States could not meet that financial 

responsibility. You can’t say that this is a Nixon revenue-sharing 

plan. The very basis and roots of that is quite different than what 

I am talking about and what you are talking about with these particular grants. 

The FIRE Act—the FIRE Act, your administration has tried to 

zero-out 3 of the last 4 years. Those FIRE grants were done before 

9/11. They are based on very basic needs within fire departments, 

as was the COPS program before 9/11. These programs exist 

whether 9/11, the tragedy happens or doesn’t happen. What you 

are saying here is that you don’t agree that they are basic needs, 

or you are saying that they are basic needs, but the community 

should be able to pay for them on their own. What are you saying? 

Which one are you? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think what the administration’s position 

has consistently been—I think you are exactly right—COPS and 

Byrne grants and stuff is not about homeland security. It is preexisting grants that were created with the idea that the Federal 

Government was going to pick up some percentage of law enforcement and fire costs, as basically lending a hand to the States and 

localities. 

Generally, the administration’s position has been this: when the 

Federal Government gets in the business of grants, we are to be 

building capability, equipment and training. We should not be paying personnel costs and sustainment—that that is what should be 

picked up by State and local communities. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Both of those pieces of legislation were passed 

with bipartisan support. Both of those pieces of legislation were 

sustained by bipartisan support despite what this administration 

has attempted to do. I will tell you what the result is. You cannot 

tell me—and you are the expert, I am not—but you cannot tell me 

that police departments, if we remove those basic grants and COPS 

and we don’t help many of the municipalities with the support of 

having enough police officers on the street before we get to the 

9/11 issues, Mr. Secretary, before we get to those issues, that this 

isn’t going to affect not only the basic issues of crime or violent 

crime in their communities, but it is going to affect our response 

to 9/11. 

What is the result? What is the result? What will you have accomplished since the need was established scientifically—scientifically, Mr. Secretary. You are shaking your head. We know we 

have standards in every State. At this time, 25 States—25 States— 

are on the brink of deficit spending. Do you expect those States to 

pick up what you are not doing, what I am not doing? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No, but I think this is a great philosophical 

discussion. 

Mr. PASCRELL. No, it isn’t a philosophical discussion. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Let us take the COPS—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. This is very practical, Mr. Secretary. 
64 

Secretary CHERTOFF. The COPS program, I have to say my recollection is I would not describe the COPS program as a scientifically 

designed program. 

Mr. PASCRELL. I disagree with you. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think it was born out of the program that 

we are going to put 100,000 police officers—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. No, no, no. The President didn’t wake up one 

morning—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. The gentleman’s time—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. To wrap up. Can I finish? Thank you. 

The President didn’t wake up one morning and say, ‘‘100,000 is 

a nice number.’’ Well, you know, then you ought to go back and 

look at the history of it. I mean, Mr. Secretary, you have to go back 

and look at the history of the situation of how that program came 

about. We had a similar program in New Jersey, only the Governor 

took the money and spent it on other things. You don’t want to 

back into the history. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No, I want to—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. Let us talk about what these needs are. They are 

either real needs or they are artificial needs. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. So let me—look, I want to agree with you 

that of course these needs are real. I think the theme I have made 

of this entire budget presentation is there are many important, deserving needs. Now, Byrne, for example, happens not to be my Department. It is the Justice Department. But here is the challenge 

that we face in putting together a budget. We have a certain 

amount of money. We have a pie. The pie has grown, but it still 

has a limit. 

If we were to go and say, you know, we are going to take $3 billion more and put it in to pay for COPS and everything, where is 

that $3 billion coming out of? Am I not buying new cutters for the 

Coast Guard where the cutters are 40 years old? Am I going to—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. I am not suggesting that. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. So where is it coming from? 

Mr. PASCRELL. Well, now that you asked me the question, can I 

answer the question, respond to the question? I think it is a good 

question. Very good. I think it is an honest one. It is called priorities. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Pascrell, 30 seconds. We are already over 

time. 

Mr. PASCRELL. There are four priorities, and I don’t want you to 

respond to this, but you can. You carry the water here. I understand your role and your responsibility. I do understand a few 

things. But the fact of the matter is that the administration has 

decided that providing multi-million dollar tax cuts to people in the 

1 percent—this is more than a philosophical argument here—is 

more important than responding to the needs of our first, our first 

responders, because they are the first ones there, before the Army, 

the Navy, the Marines—God bless them all. 

This is not good business and not good policy, Mr. Secretary. You 

cannot defend this. You cannot defend it. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. The gentleman’s time has expired, and I understand that the two gentleman would like to enter into this discussion another time. 
65 

Secretary CHERTOFF. It is a great discussion. This will now detour is into discussions of tax policy and whether it isn’t better to 

keep rates low and increase revenues. But that is outside my field 

of expertise and the committee’s jurisdiction. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. The gentleman from New Jersey yields back. 

Seeing no other Members of the committee who wish to ask questions, we would just like to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being so 

generous with your time and your testimony. The Members of the 

committee may have additional questions for you, and we will ask 

you to respond to those questions as expeditiously as possible. 

Hearing no further business, the committee now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:52 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(67) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN BENNIE G. THOMPSON OF MISSISSIPPI FOR MICHAEL

CHERTOFF, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTIONS (MSI S)

Question 1. As Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I have championed efforts to create a Department of Homeland Security that reflects the great 

diversity of this Nation. The proposed fiscal year 2009 budget would cut the funding 

for Minority Serving Institutions (MSI) program by $788,000. Overall, the budget 

proposes to cut funding for University Programs by more than $5 million. Please 

explain how the Department plans to increase such participation without adequate 

funding. 

Answer. The University Programs funding request for fiscal year 2009 is $43.8 

million which is $5.1 million above the fiscal year 2008 request. The funding for the 

Minority Serving Institution (MSI) Program is $3.9 million in fiscal year 2009 which 

is an increase of $150,000 to the fiscal year 2008 request. With this amount of funding, the program remains viable, productive and dynamic. These funds are intended 

to support the following objectives specific to MSIs: 

• Expand the contribution of MSIs to the homeland security science and technology mission; 

• Expand professional opportunities for MSI graduates in the homeland security 

science, technology, engineering and mathematics (HS–STEM) workforce at 

DHS, State and local agencies, national laboratories and Centers of Excellence 

(COEs); and 

• Develop additional internship and career opportunities for MSI graduates at a 

variety of venues. 

MSI program plans for fiscal year 2009 include: 

• Continue the homeland security scientific leadership grants program in areas 

critical to homeland security at MSIs. These programs provide MSIs with funds 

to support early career faculty to establish or expand education, research and 

training activities in HS–STEM areas. The program also provides scholarships 

and graduate fellowships for students of MSIs that will enable them to develop 

the necessary skills to become professionals in homeland security related fields; 

and 

• Conduct a Summer Research Team Program for MSIs that provides a 10–12 

week summer research experience for teams of a faculty member and up to two 

students, to perform research at a COE that aligns with the DHS mission; 

• Increase the profile and presence of MSIs in the network of COEs. 

Additionally, the Department continues to operate its university-based system of 

Centers of Excellence (COEs) and DHS Educational Programs (scholars and fellows). Four of the five new COEs have an MSI as a co-lead. Their funding will be 

provided through the COE program, which requests $32.2 million in fiscal year 

2009. 

SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION AND RESEARCH (SBIR)

Question 2. One of my goals in charting the course toward freedom from fear is 

to inspire minds and to promote the development of cutting edge technology. Entrepreneurs of all stripes will tell you that small business innovation helps the Nation 

think outside the box. The Science & Technology Directorate has requested funding 

for Small Business Innovation and Research (SBIR) projects for many of its divisions. 

Over the upcoming fiscal year, what strides will the Department take to ensure 

that some of this funding is distributed to Small, Minority and Disadvantaged businesses? 
68 

1One award noted above represented a minority and a woman (i.e. double-counted). 

Answer. All Federal agencies with an annual extramural research and develop- ment (R&D) budget exceeding $100 million are required to participate in the Small 

Business Innovation and Research (SBIR) Program. Each fiscal year, not less than 

2.5 percent of the Science and Technology Directorate’s annual extramural budget 

is reserved for awards to small businesses for R&D. 

The Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate SBIR 

program works with the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Small and 

Disadvantaged Business Utilization to facilitate participation in the SBIR program, 

offering assistance to small businesses; veteran-owned small businesses; service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses; Historically Underutilized Business Zone 

HUBZone small businesses; small disadvantaged businesses; and women-owned 

small businesses. The SBIR program also conducts outreach initiatives at various 

conferences run by different State economic development organizations for small 

businesses, including those owned by minorities and women. For example, SBIR 

participated in a conference hosted by the Maryland Technology Development Corporation (TEDCO) and the Tech Council of Maryland (TCM), which was Maryland’s 

first conference targeted to SBIR winners and applicants, seed and angel fund recipients, and post-incubation stage companies. More than 200 entrepreneurs and 

business advocates from throughout the region attended the all-day event called 

‘‘Commercializing R&D: Resources for Emerging Technology Companies.’’ SBIR representatives have also attended conferences in Hawaii, Indiana, Mississippi, and 

North Carolina, and Virginia and have plans to attend conferences in Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Florida. 

In addition, the SBIR program tracks participation by minority- and womenowned businesses. In fiscal year 2007, the SBIR program received 420 proposals in 

response to two solicitations. The program awarded 61 Phase I awards. Of the 61 

awards, five went to minority-owned or socially and economically disadvantaged 

small businesses, 11 went to woman-owned small businesses, and 3 went to 

HUBZone small businesses.1 This represented 13 percent of Phase I dollars (ap- proximately $0.9 million of $7 million). 

Of 15 new fiscal year 2007 Phase II awards, 2 went to minority-owned or socially 

and economically disadvantaged small businesses, 2 went to woman-owned small 

businesses, and 1 went to a HUBZone small business. This represented 17 percent 

of Phase II dollars ($4 million of $17.5 million). 

INSPECTOR GENERAL

Question 3. Mr. Secretary, my top priority for the Department this year is improving the functionality, governance, and accountability of the Department. In order to 

ensure sound practices and effective accountability at the Department, the Inspector 

General must have its budgetary needs met. I understand that the IG told the Department that it needs a total of $119 million, yet the proposed budget seeks only 

$101 million—a cut of $7.6 million from the enacted fiscal year 2008 level. 

The IG tells us that in addition to its regular workload, its docket of Katrina-related work has not lessened, and that it has other significant oversight responsibilities from more recent disasters. I’m sure you would agree that a developing Department like DHS needs more, and certainly not less, oversight. 

How does the Department defend the proposal to slash the Inspector General’s 

budget? Answer. The fiscal year 2008 enacted level for OIG appropriation is $92.8 million. 

The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) appropriation for fiscal year 2008 includes language 

that directs the transfer of $16 million to the OIG. This provision is not necessary 

to use the DRF appropriation for the disaster-related audits and investigations. If 

the OIG requires additional funding from the DRF in 2009 we will make funds 

available through an MOU. 

QUADRENNIAL HOMELAND SECURITY REVIEW

Question 4. Mr. Secretary, I want to ask you about the Quadrennial Homeland 

Security Review that was mandated by the 9/11 bill. By October 2007, the Department was required to develop a detailed resource plan specifying the estimated 

budget and number of staff. The purpose of that mandate was to determine how 

many U.S. Government employees and what additional resources would be required 

to develop this crucial first Quadrennial Review. 

The committee has yet to receive this plan, which is in and of itself troubling. But 

of even more concern is what we found in the budget proposed last Monday. On the 

one hand the Department recognizes that ‘‘this is the first QHSR for DHS and will 
69 

serve as a strategic capstone construct for broad Homeland Security policy within 

the Federal Government.’’ Yet in the very next sentence it states that the Department plans to outsource much if not all of this ‘‘strategic capstone’’ and that ‘‘contractor support will be necessary to research, organize, analyze, facilitate workshops, and draft the document.’’ 

Mr. Secretary, Congress did not direct the Department to hire a contractor to develop broad Homeland Security policy. Rather, Congress wanted the men and 

women who have dedicated their careers to serving the public and protecting this 

Nation to provide this review. 

When does the Department intend to produce the long overdue resource plan? 

Answer. Section 2401 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110–53 (Act), amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 

and directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, beginning in fiscal year 2009 and 

every 4 years thereafter, to ‘‘conduct a review of the homeland security of the Nation.’’ As part of this review, the Secretary will comprehensively examine the homeland security strategy, make recommendations regarding the long-term homeland 

security strategy and priorities, and provide guidance on the programs, assets, capabilities, budget, policies, and authorities of the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). The Department recognizes the benefits of such a review and looks forward 

to its first comprehensive Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR). 

Subsection 2401(b)(2) of the Act directs the Secretary to provide Congress, and 

make publicly available on the DHS Web site, a Resource Plan for the preparation 

of the first review. In developing this Resource Plan, DHS consulted with numerous 

representatives within both the Department and its partner agencies. DHS requested briefings concerning other similar initiatives, including past and current examples within the Government and private entities, and convened sessions where 

experts shared their insights. These steps were necessary because the DHS mission 

unlike other comparables is inherently interagency, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental. 

The QHSR Resource Plan presents the proposed implementation phases for conducting the review, an estimate of the required resources, and the QHSR Work 

Teams structure and approach. The Department is in the final stages of submitting 

this plan to Congress. 

Question 6. How was the Department’s budget request for the review developed 

if a plan has not yet been developed? 

Answer. Both preparation of the QHSR Resource Plan and consultation with our 

Office of Chief Financial Officer produced a sound resource scheme that will meet 

the legislative intent. To fulfill the Act’s requirements, DHS will designate a core 

staff for the QHSR within the Office of Policy as well as Work Teams to manage 

and conduct the review and analysis. The Work Teams will include employees dedicated full-time to the QHSR, detailed and non-detailed personnel from across DHS 

and other Federal departments and agencies, and contract support. Collectively the 

teams will serve as the focal point for intra- and interagency review and coordination. 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. YVETTE D. CLARKE OF NEW YORK FOR MICHAEL CHERTOFF, 

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Question 1a. The DHS Office of Appeals and Redress has been left entirely without mention in the budget. This office exists to allow the public an outlet to attempt 

to clear their names if they feel they have been wrongly delayed, detained, or prevented service because of faulty screening against various watchlists. The absence 

of this office in the budget does not speak well for how the Department prioritizes 

civil liberties. 

Why was the Office of Appeals and Redress not given its own line-item in the 

budget? 

Answer. The budget for the DHS Office of Appeals and Redress is included in the 

budget for the Office of the Special Counselor in TSA. 

The Special Counselor ensures that employees and the traveling public are treated fairly and in a lawful manner. The Redress program is one of several programs 

designed to meet this mission. Its inclusion in the Office of the Special Counselor 

allows the Office of Appeals and Redress to adjust quickly to programmatic changes 

or mandates. 

Question 1b. What additional funding is being devoted to the Department’s efforts 

to address the existing backlog and other problems that have arisen in the year that 

the program has been in service? 

Answer. In July 2007, DHS Travelers Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) migrated 

its Information Technology (IT) system to a Transportation Security Administration 
70 

(TSA) data center which addressed the outstanding problems highlighted in an internal program review. For fiscal year 2008, TSA allocated $770,000 (which includes 

Pay Compensation and Benefits costs) plus four full-time contractors to support the 

DHS TRIP Program Office. In addition, the DHS TRIP Program Office has been 

augmented with 4.5 FTEs who serve as subject matter experts from other DHS 

Components as well as the Department of State. It is my expectation that the DHS 

TRIP Program Office, which is the designated Office of Appeals and Redress, will 

continue to provide excellent service to the traveling public. 

Question 1c. I request the budget numbers for the Office of Appeals and Redress, 

including a comparison to fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. 

Answer. In fiscal year 2007, Redress expended $1.2 million. In fiscal year 2008, 

the budget for Redress is $770,000. The budget includes payroll and operating expenses. In addition to these funds, 4.5 FTEs from throughout the Department supplement the program staff. 

Question 2a. I applaud the recent decision to grant green cards to individuals 

stuck in the Name Check process, but that is not a solution to the greater backlog 

problem. 

Will your plan to add 1,300 new adjudicators allow USCIS to fully catch up on 

the workload before the end of the year? 

Answer. USCIS will be hiring about 1,800 temporary Federal and contract staff, 

including approximately 1,300 adjudicators (including an additional 570 adjudicators over the 720 adjudicators that are being hired under USCIS’ fee rule). USCIS 

has also contacted and received interest in reemployed annuitant status from more 

than 200 retirees. As this staff is brought on throughout fiscal year 2008 we expect 

to see a reduction in the backlog. Unfortunately, the tremendous surge of applications received in the summer of 2007, make it unlikely that the new backlog 

brought on by this surge will be eliminated by the end of the year. 

As you know, USCIS has faced a challenge keeping pace with unprecedented levels of citizenship applications. During fiscal year 2007, USCIS received 1.4 million 

requests for citizenship, which is nearly double the 730,000 received in fiscal year 

2006. In June, July, and August 2007 alone, USCIS received more than 3 million 

immigration benefit applications and petitions of all types, compared to 1.8 million 

during the same period the previous year. In fact, for the months of June and July 

2007, the spike in naturalization applications represents a 360 percent increase 

compared to the same period in 2006. We anticipate that it will take 13 to 15 

months to work through these citizenship cases. The normal processing time is 5 

months. 

Question 2b. Will last year’s fee increases cover the full cost of bringing on these 

new employees and ending the USCIS backlog, or is there likely to be a need for 

additional appropriations or another fee increase? 

Answer. The fee increase covered the cost of bringing on the 720 new employees. 

After the surge occurred, USCIS identified additional fee revenue, from the increased fee revenue associated with the surge in applications—which may total as 

much as $480 million—to fund the additional positions needed to address the current application volume. A spend plan detailing the use of $239 million of the $480 

million in fiscal year 2008 was approved by Congress earlier this month. USCIS has 

enough resources to address surge response needs. 

Question 2c. The backlog problem will never be completely fixed until USCIS coordinates with the FBI to address the Name Check problem. Does the proposed 

budget account for the cost of changes that may occur within USCIS as DHS and 

the FBI continue discussions on how to improve the system? 

Answer. USCIS is working aggressively with the FBI to address the name check 

backlog through both process improvements and substantially increased capacity at 

the FBI dedicated to USCIS workload. 

Last year, the FBI increased their name check fee. Through both the higher fee 

amount collected by USCIS and special appropriations from the Congress, DHS has 

more than $34.5 million identified and allocated to meet the goal of eliminating the 

FBI name check backlog. USCIS has already provided $14 million to the FBI for 

the FBI to extend the existing contractor workforce and expand the number of contractors working on USCIS workload. This increase in staff will be dedicated to increasing the number of FBI name checks completed for USCIS applications. More 

than 220 contractors are on-board already. That is up from a handful of contractors 

and FBI employees last year. USCIS is finalizing a separate $20 million supplemental appropriations spend plan to provide Congress that will extend and expand 

this contractor workforce through most of fiscal year 2009. 

Initial results of these efforts are positive. But this is just the beginning. We are 

confident that over the next several months we will see dramatic progress in reduc-
71 

ing FBI’s pending name check request backlog. Our joint goal with the FBI will be 

to completely eliminate this backlog by the summer of 2009. 

Question 3. States have had significant financial and logistical problems in implementing REAL ID. In the budget proposal, the administration has marked about 

$160 million to assist States in implementing this program—which is an improvement over last year—but this remains a drop in the bucket compared with the nearly $4 billion in estimated costs for States to implement this law. Is this going to 

be just another unfunded mandate? If so, this will leave a terrible burden on States 

and force many of them to use funds that should go to providing the public with 

security. Does DHS expect States to pick up the remainder of the tab, and how 

much do you expect this to be? 

Answer. DHS is making approximately $360 million available to assist States 

with REAL ID implementation between fiscal year 2006–2008, of which $80 million 

is dedicated to REAL ID grants, and 20 percent are discretionary funds as part of 

the Homeland Security Grant Program. In addition to making funds available, DHS 

has worked with States to achieve a 73 percent State-cost reduction from an original 

estimate of $14.6 billion in the NPRM to approximately $3.9 billion by providing 

States greater flexibility in issuing licenses. DHS acknowledges there will be additional costs incurred by States to implement REAL ID that will vary in each State. 

Moreover, the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2009 includes up to $150 

million in grants for States for REAL ID, of which $110 million is from the National 

Security and Terrorism Prevention Grant Program for projects that address national 

risks and vulnerabilities identified by the Secretary, and $40 million is from the 

State Homeland Security Grants. 

Additionally, the fiscal year 2009 President’s budget request proposes $50 million 

in appropriated funds in further support of implementation of the REAL ID Act, 

specifically to enhance State capabilities to verify applicant data with each other 

and Federal agencies. These funds would be used to establish a State-governed hub 

to verify the information provided by applicants for State-issued drivers’ licenses 

and identification cards—a key functionality for all the States. The verification hub 

will build upon the work done through the grant funds and the efforts States have 

already undertaken to enhance their licenses and issuance systems. 

The issuance of State driver’s licenses and identification cards is a State function, 

whose costs will continue to be borne primarily by each State. DHS realizes that 

States will incur significant costs in implementing REAL ID, and has sought to reduce the impact of these costs in numerous ways. States clearly expressed to DHS 

the need for additional time and flexibility in implementation of the Act. The final 

rule addressed these items with examples such as using the age-based enrollment 

phasing in, which allows States to focus the first phase of enrollment on those persons who may present a higher risk of obtaining and using fraudulent documentation, while allowing others to be phased in later. This approach will reduce the costs 

to States by billions so that States will be able to implement REAL ID, as well as 

help reduce the burden of having to hire additional personnel. Many States have 

already made investments in more secure processes that mirror many of the same 

processes outlined in the final rule. 

The American public’s desire for greater identity protection is undeniable. For an 

extra $8 per license, REAL ID will give law enforcement and security officials a 

powerful advantage against falsified documents, and it will bring some peace of 

mind to citizens wanting to protect their identity from theft by a criminal or illegal 

aliens. 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. LAMAR SMITH OF TEXAS FOR MICHAEL CHERTOFF, 

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Question 1. Nearly 12 years after a bill I authored, ‘‘The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,’’ required the implementation of 

system to track the entry and exit of every person coming to the United States, the 

exit portion of that system is still not in place. How can we protect this country from 

dangerous people if we do not even know who is coming in and who has left? 

What is the plan for creation and completion of the exit portion of US–VISIT? 

Answer. After focusing on deploying biometric entry at our ports in 2004 and testing biometric exit from 2004 to 2007, the Department, through the United States 

Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US–VISIT) Program, is preparing to move forward with full biometric exit for the air and sea environments. 

Biographic Exit 

US–VISIT currently collects and matches biographic information from electronic 

carrier manifests through the Arrival and Departure Information System. After 
72 

analysis, information on alien overstays is shared with the Department of State, 

Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement for further action concerning visa renewals, future admissibility into the United States, 

and interior enforcement. 

Air/Sea Biometric Exit 

DHS performed significant planning and testing over the past 3 years examining 

possible solutions for integrating the US–VISIT Program biometric exit requirements into the international air departure process. For more than 2 years, US– 

VISIT ran biometric exit pilots at 14 air and sea locations. These pilots, which concluded in May 2007, evaluated the use of both automated kiosks and mobile devices 

in port terminals. While the pilots demonstrated that the underlying technology 

works, they also revealed low compliance by travelers. 

Given the analysis of the pilots, other potential options, and the congressional 

mandate that requires the establishment of a biometric exit program, DHS intends 

to propose a rule to establish a biometric exit system at all air and sea ports of departure in the United States integrating the system with the current international 

departure process and minimizing the impact on legitimate travelers. The Department will publish a proposed rule, seek public comment on the options articulated 

therein, and consider those comments when developing the final rule. 

In developing the deployment schedule, US–VISIT will prioritize the implementation of departure controls at airports based on risk. Risk in this environment is likely to be a function of the volume and the destinations of travelers departing the 

United States. A critical focus of counterterrorism efforts is recording the arrival of 

travelers from countries of interest (COIs). These COIs were determined by the National Counterterrorism Center, DHS, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Department of State. More than 91 percent of all COI travelers arrive in the United States 

via air. Knowing the COIs from which travelers have overstayed their authorized 

periods of admission or otherwise violated the terms of their admission is essential 

to assessing risk and to enhancing the integrity of our immigration and border management system. 

Because the vast majority of Visa Waiver Program (VWP) travelers enter and exit 

through U.S. airports, DHS anticipates that the deployment of US–VISIT air exit 

will cover the vast majority of VWP travelers, just as entry procedures do today. 

Under the VWP, eligible travelers may enter the United States for business or 

pleasure without a visa for a period of 90 days or less. 

The long-term exit solution will also be deployed to commercial seaports to provide an integrated biometric exit capture for cruise line passengers. Seaport deployment will occur concurrently with deployment to the air environment. 

Exit in the Land Environment 

The implementation of biometric exit procedures at land border ports of entry 

poses many unique challenges. DHS continues to research options and cost estimates that will meet its goals without having a negative impact on the economy, 

the environment, or public safety. 

The implementation of biometric exit procedures at land border ports of entry will 

be significantly more complicated and costly than at airports and seaports because 

of space, infrastructure, and connectivity challenges. 

DHS has not yet determined a time frame or cost estimates for initiation of land 

exit. 

Question 2. Regarding detention bed space: the 1,000 additional beds for which 

fiscal year 2009 funding is requested, is significantly less than the 8,000 additional 

beds per year that Congress authorized for each year between 2006 and 2010 in the 

‘‘Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.’’ In total, under the Intelligence Reform Act, there should be 59,400 detention beds by the end of fiscal 

year 2009 but there will only be 33,000 under the administration’s current plan. 

That is a deficit of 26,400 beds. 

Why haven’t you requested funding for, at the very least, the 8,000 beds Congress 

authorized for fiscal year 2009 in the Intelligence Reform Act? 

Answer. As part of the Secure Border Initiative, DHS and ICE have implemented 

a comprehensive strategy for immigration enforcement that includes detention space 

increases and immigration process efficiencies that dramatically reduced the average length of stay of those in ICE custody. This strategy enabled ICE to effectively 

end the practice of ‘‘Catch and Release’’ along the Nation’s borders. ICE also developed a Detention Capacity Planning Model that utilizes actual and projected apprehension data to estimate the number of beds ICE will need to continue the end of 

‘‘Catch and Release’’ and support its interior enforcement programs. ICE’s annual 
73 

requests for additional bed space are based upon this model. ICE continually reviews detention space needs to maximize current capacities. 

Question 3. In looking through the fiscal year 2009 budget request, I do not see 

any request for funding for additional work site enforcement investigators. In the 

‘‘Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004’’ Congress authorized 

800 additional work site investigators per year from 2006 to 2010. Why did you not 

request the 800 additional investigators to show that the administration is serious 

about work site enforcement? 

Answer. As part of the Secure Border Initiative, DHS and ICE have implemented 

a comprehensive immigration enforcement strategy. We have made a commitment 

to improving the enforcement of our immigration laws and additional ICE agents 

is only one piece in the larger enforcement strategy that includes detention beds, 

Border Patrol agents, and other personnel increases and improved technology. While 

it is true that larger personnel increases have been authorized, it is not uncommon 

for appropriated spending levels across the Government to be lower than those authorized. This increase in agents would require a significant amount of money, and 

in weighing the ability to fund the authorized increases in ICE agents, the administration must determine what level of additional security would result from investments in additional ICE agents as opposed to investing in other areas of security. 

The administration has made a judgment as to the best possible mix of homeland 

security spending. 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. MIKE ROGERS OF ALABAMA FOR MICHAEL CHERTOFF, 

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

DETECTION CANINES

Question. When you testified before this committee last September, you indicated 

that, subject to appropriations, you would be happy to work to increase the domestic 

supply of dogs. Is the funding requested in the fiscal year 2009 budget sufficient 

to allow for the acquisition of more dogs beyond TSA, in these sufficiently deficient 

areas like border crossings? 

Answer. CBP has a current procurement contract that has sufficient funds to purchase canines from the list of vendors that will meet the need for training in fiscal 

year 2009. 

Æ