DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina, Chairman 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

BEVERLY PHETO, STEPHANIE GUPTA, JEFF ASHFORD, SHALANDA YOUNG, 

JIM HOLM, and ADAM WILSON, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 2 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Page 

Management Challenges .................................................................................. 1 

Land Border Enforcement .............................................................................. 93 

Candidate Protection: Balancing the U.S. Secret Service Workload ... 197 

Improving the Efficiency of the Aviation Security System .................... 319 

Investing in Science and Technology ........................................................... 557 

Questions for the Record from the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center .............................................................................................. 693 

Outside Witness Testimony ............................................................................. 715 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
PART 2—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

42–401 WASHINGTON : 2008 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina, Chairman 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

BEVERLY PHETO, STEPHANIE GUPTA, JEFF ASHFORD, SHALANDA YOUNG, 

JIM HOLM, and ADAM WILSON, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 2 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Page 

Management Challenges .................................................................................. 1 

Land Border Enforcement .............................................................................. 93 

Candidate Protection: Balancing the U.S. Secret Service Workload ... 197 

Improving the Efficiency of the Aviation Security System .................... 319 

Investing in Science and Technology ........................................................... 557 

Questions for the Record from the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center .............................................................................................. 693 

Outside Witness Testimony ............................................................................. 715 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

ROBERT E. ‘‘BUD’’ CRAMER, JR., Alabama 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

RALPH REGULA, Ohio 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JAMES T. WALSH, New York 

DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio 

JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania 

VIRGIL H. GOODE, JR., Virginia 

RAY LAHOOD, Illinois 

DAVE WELDON, Florida 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

ROB NABORS, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2008. 

MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES—INSPECTOR GENERAL 

AND GAO 

WITNESSES 

DAVID M. WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 

RICHARD L. SKINNER, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PRICE

Mr. PRICE. The subcommittee will come to order. Good morning, 

everyone. I would like to welcome you to our first hearing of calendar year 2008 as we look toward the fiscal year 2009 budget. 

Over the coming months we plan to have 16 hearings focusing 

on every aspect of the Department of Homeland Security, culminating with an appearance by Secretary Chertoff in April. 

The Department of Homeland Security will be five years old in 

three weeks. Even though we all knew that this reorganization 

forming the Department would be the most ambitious governmental reorganization of our lifetimes, I am not sure anyone fully 

anticipated the difficulties the Department has faced, especially the 

numerous changes in Departmental leadership. 

We have had two Secretaries, three Deputy Secretaries, numerous changes in agency heads and on and on. This Department 

needed stability and leadership, and it has not had the kind of stability that would have ensured superior performance. 

Too often we hear about a breakdown in the Department that appears to stem from flawed judgment. We have heard about a staged 

FEMA press conference and an ICE Halloween party that was at 

best distasteful. We also heard about TSA leaders informing 

screeners about when they were going to be tested, messing up in 

essence the premise of the test. 

I could go on, but I do not really need to. There has been some 

questionable judgment on the part of leadership in the Department, and that has affected performance, it has affected morale, 

and it needs to be corrected. Employee morale at DHS is the lowest 

in the federal government. 

The Department has poor procurement practices and poor financial management, as many of the Inspector General and GAO reports issued in the past year have demonstrated. We know the Department has weak computer security controls. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

2 

We know from reports that today’s witnesses have issued that 

there are numerous security problems on our northern border. 

Again, the list is long, and the witnesses this morning have contributed greatly to our understanding of the challenges that the 

Department faces. 

Last year GAO issued its high risk list, which included the 

Homeland Security Department. Just last month the Inspector 

General issued a report on what he sees as major management 

challenges facing the Department. These include catastrophic disaster response, acquisition, grants and financial management, infrastructure protection, border security, transportation security, information technology management and trade operations. 

Now, our subcommittee is not seeking daily headlines. We want 

to acknowledge and encourage areas of progress where they have 

occurred, and we will have some of that this morning as well from 

our witnesses. 

We also want to point out and correct, or at least get on the path 

to correction, deficiencies. We want to see problems fixed, and we 

want to see the Department operating in the best manner to secure 

our homeland. We are getting somewhat impatient. I hope our two 

witnesses today can help us direct our impatience into constructive 

efforts to change things for the better. 

I have asked our two witnesses to offer what they view as the 

top eight management and performance improvements that the Department can make between now and September or within seven 

months, the kind of short-term improvements we might look for 

that would give an indication of broader improvements to come. I 

hope you will talk about those in your opening statements, and of 

course we will explore them in the questions. 

Comptroller General David Walker and DHS Inspector General 

Richard Skinner are in the business of uncovering federal agency 

problems and recommending solutions, so it is fitting that we begin 

this year’s hearing season with them. 

Before I ask them to briefly summarize their written statements 

I want to ask our distinguished Ranking Member, Hal Rogers, for 

any statement he would like to make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We want to welcome our 

guests from the Department and the GAO. 

Since its creation almost five years ago, DHS has labored 

through the largest reorganization of the federal government in 

more than a half century. This task, creating the third largest Cabinet agency with the mission of protecting our country and responding to threats and catastrophes, while also facilitating legitimate immigration travel and trade, has certainly presented challenges to both the Administration and to the Congress. 

So as I look down the list of major management challenges facing 

the Department of Homeland Security identified by the Inspector 

General just over a month ago, a list that includes acquisition management, branch management, financial management, border security, transportation security and so on, I have to remind myself 

that the Department is in fact only five years old. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

3 

But I am the last person to make excuses for DHS. After all, I 

have repeatedly stressed that failure is not an option when we are 

talking about homeland security. The Department’s weaknesses 

and missteps are well documented, and I for one am not tolerant 

of mismanagement, waste, fraud, or abuse. 

Since this committee was formed, we have stressed results, and 

that mantra has continued under Chairman Price’s leadership. 

Challenges are to be expected. No one ever claimed that securing 

the homeland would be easy, and indeed when 22 agencies were 

cobbled together five years ago and when this subcommittee was 

established challenges were all that existed. 

But now programs like TWIC and Secure Flight, programs that 

were honestly going nowhere just a few years ago, are finally gaining some traction. Over 67 TWIC enrollment centers are now open, 

and Secure Flight is finally on track to assume all watchlist matching from air carriers in early fiscal year 2010. 

And there are other notable signs of progress at DHS such as 

ending the practice of catch and release on the border, integrating 

the IDENT and IAFIS databases and establishing a 10 print ID 

standard at our ports of entry. 

So I believe we have met our challenges head on. Through aggressive oversight, constant vigilance, a steady flow of robust funding from this subcommittee and the Congress, we have given DHS 

both the impetus and resources to continually improve its progress 

towards securing the homeland. 

While DHS has not always performed as well as expected, I am 

proud to see that through the storm of challenges we are seeing 

some measures of success, so it is for this reason, among many others, that I firmly believe we are unquestionably safer today than 

we were before 9–11. 

Now as we transition into the final year of this Administration 

a new set of challenges await: Following through on the promise 

to rebuild FEMA’s operational capability so that it is capable of responding to the most devastating of disasters, implementing the 

Secure Border Initiative by combining the necessary personnel and 

infrastructure with the most advanced technology to control our 

borders and stem the flow of illegal immigration, overcoming the 

hurdles of major acquisitions over the Department and ensuring 

the Department’s continuity during the Administration’s turnover. 

The challenges confronting this subcommittee are continuing as 

we debate how much is the right amount to spend on homeland security. I have always said that we should spend as much as needed 

on security, but not a penny more. 

These challenges are not easy, but nothing worthwhile ever is. 

Our witnesses have the duty to objectively analyze and report on 

the Department’s ability to overcome its challenges and perform its 

vital mission. I look forward to hearing their views and conversations. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Walker, we will begin with you. We will ask each of you to 

provide us a five minute summary of your testimony. We have had 

advance copies of the written testimony, and then that will leave 

plenty of time for our discussion. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

4 

Mr. Walker. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID M. WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE

UNITED STATES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member 

Rogers. It is good to be back before this subcommittee to discuss 

the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to implement its 

management and mission functions. 

As all of you know, in 2003 the GAO designated the implementation and transformation of the Department of Homeland Security 

as high risk because it represented an enormous undertaking that 

would require time to achieve in an effective and efficient manner. 

To put things in context, Mr. Rogers, the Defense Department 

was created in 1947, and it has more high risk areas than any 

other department in government, and I am confident DHS can do 

better and faster than DOD has done in that regard. 

Given our nation’s current fiscal condition, it is critically important that federal departments, including DHS, operate as efficiently as possible in carrying out their missions. Next year we are 

expected to have a $410 billion and we spend all the social security 

surplus, which is about another $175 billion. 

In August 2007, we reported on the progress that DHS has made 

since its inception in implementing its management and mission 

functions. We also identified a number of specific actions that they 

needed to take. Let me provide the highlights, if I can. 

I do think it is important to note where progress has been made 

rather than just focus on what remains to be done. DHS has made 

progress in implementing its management and mission functions. 

For example, in the management areas DHS has made progress 

in implementing a strategic sourcing program, in preparing corrective action plans for its internal control weaknesses and issuing 

plans for its human capital system, in establishing and institutionalizing information technology management controls and in developing an asset management plan for its real property. 

On the mission side, DHS has made progress in refining the 

screening of foreign visitors to the United States and providing 

training for border personnel, strengthening passenger, baggage 

and air cargo screening at airports, establishing security standards 

and conducting assessments and inspections of surface transportation modes, developing programs for collecting information on incoming ships; enhancing emergency preparedness and response capabilities such as issuing a new national response framework just 

last month, and identifying and assessing critical infrastructure 

threats and vulnerabilities and, last but not least; improving its coordination with federal, state, local and private sector entities on 

homeland security technologies. 

While progress has been made, challenges remain. Some of the 

key challenges are as follows: Providing appropriate oversight of 

contractors, improving financial management controls and correcting internal control weaknesses, implementing a performancebased human capital management system, refining and implementing controls for information technology management; 

Improving the regulation of commercial trade while ensuring protection against the entry of illegal goods and dangerous visitors at 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

5 

U.S. ports of entry, improving enforcement of immigration laws, 

fully integrating risk-based decision making in the transportation 

security programs and further improving coordination with states 

and first responders as they train and practice under the national 

response framework. 

There are a number of cross-cutting issues affecting the Department of Homeland Security that I would touch on briefly that I 

think this subcommittee would be interested in. Moving forward, it 

will be particularly important for DHS to develop comprehensive 

plans for managing the upcoming Presidential transition, to ensure 

continuity in operations and to minimize vulnerabilities as required 

by existing legislation. 

I might note I was personally briefed on what DHS has done 

with regard to their human capital transformation framework, and 

I was very impressed with it. I know that the Department is taking 

this transition plan seriously. They have a statutory requirement 

to complete it by December of this year, but I know they are making progress. It is not just a matter of having a plan. It is a matter 

of having effective implementation of that plan. 

Although the Secretary of Homeland Security has identified riskbased decision making as a cornerstone of Departmental policy, we 

have reported that DHS needs to strengthen its efforts to actually 

apply risk-based principles in support of its investment decisions. 

I might note, Mr. Chairman, that the Congress does too. The 

Congress needs to provide reasonable flexibility for the Department 

to be able to allocate its resources based on threat and risk. 

We designated information sharing for Homeland Security as 

high risk in part because the nation lacked an implemented set of 

governmentwide policies and processes for sharing terrorism related information. It has now been issued, but there is more that 

needs to be done to effectively implement it. 

DHS has faced some challenges in developing effective partnerships with federal, state, local, private and not-for-profit sector entities, as well as international stakeholders, and there needs to be 

additional clarification of various roles and responsibilities for 

these players. 

Last, but certainly not least, accountability and transparency are 

critical to the Department effectively integrating its management 

functions and implementing its mission responsibilities. 

We have in the past encountered delays at DHS in obtaining access to needed information. Over the past year we have discussed 

ways to try to resolve these access issues with DHS, and our access 

has improved in recent months. However, we continue to believe 

that DHS needs to make systemic and systematic changes to its 

policies and procedures for providing GAO with access to information and to individuals in a more timely manner. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, legislation enacted in December of 

2007 reinforces this position by restricting a portion of funds appropriated to DHS’s Office of the Secretary and Executive Management until DHS certifies and reports that it has revised its Departmental guidance for working with GAO and the DHS Inspector 

General. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

6 

We are currently working with DHS in this regard, and we look 

forward to collaborating with the Department on the proposed revisions. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer your questions after Mr. Skinner has a chance to testify. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

7 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 15 42401A.001
8 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 16 42401A.002
9 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 17 42401A.003
10 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 18 42401A.004
11 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 19 42401A.005
12 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 20 42401A.006
13 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 21 42401A.007
14 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 22 42401A.008
15 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 42401A.009
16 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 24 42401A.010
17 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 42401A.011
18 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 42401A.012
19 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 27 42401A.013
20 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 42401A.014
21 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 42401A.015
22 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 42401A.016
23 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 42401A.017
24 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 42401A.018
25 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 42401A.019
26 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 42401A.020
27 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 35 42401A.021
28 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 36 42401A.022
29 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 42401A.023
30 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 42401A.024
31 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 42401A.025
32 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 42401A.026
33 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 42401A.027
34 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 42401A.028
35 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Skinner. 

Mr. SKINNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this 

very important hearing. 

Last year at this time I testified before this subcommittee about 

four critical management challenges facing the Department of 

Homeland Security; that is, financial management, information 

technology management, acquisition management and grants management. 

Today I would like to update the subcommittee on the progress 

that the Department has made to address those challenges. Also, 

time permitting, I would like to briefly touch upon a few program 

challenges that I believe need special attention during the upcoming year as the Department prepares to transition into a new Administration. 

First with regard to the four management challenges, I think it 

is important to understand that when the Department was stood 

up in March 2003 it not only inherited preexisting problems and 

material weaknesses from its legacy agencies; it also did not receive the funds or people needed to address those problems and 

weaknesses or otherwise adequately support the vast number of 

Departmental programs and operations. 

Yet I must say in spite of these what seemed at that time as insurmountable obstacles, the Department’s progress to date has 

been somewhat impressive. I do not mean to imply the challenges 

do not remain. They do. The Department still has a long, long way 

to go before it can say that it is operating in an efficient, effective 

and economical manner. 

In the area of financial management, for example, although the 

Department was again unable to obtain an opinion on its financial 

statements in 2007, every component in the Department except 

FEMA and the Coast Guard showed measurable progress in its 

ability to produce accurate, reliable financial statements. 

Many of the material weaknesses associated with FEMA can be 

traced to the events surrounding Hurricane Katrina and the realignment of grant programs as a result of the mandates of the 

post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006. 

The Department’s CFO and the FEMA CFO both have identified 

the underlying cause for FEMA’s material weaknesses and have 

developed management action plans—very aggressive, robust 

plans—with milestones to remediate them as early as this year. 

The Coast Guard, on the other hand, has been and continues to 

be an area of particular concern. The Coast Guard has shown no 

discernable progress in its ability to produce reliable financial 

statements or correct its material weaknesses since the inception 

of the Department in 2003. 

To remediate its material weaknesses, the Coast Guard must 

first develop a corrective action plan that contains detailed milestones showing how it will get from its current state to its desired 

state. To date, the Coast Guard has not provided such details. 

Lacking a fully developed plan, the Coast Guard is unlikely to remediate any of its material weaknesses this year. Consequently, 

because the majority of the Department’s material weaknesses are 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

36 

directly attributable to the conditions existing at the Coast Guard, 

we will be unable to offer an opinion again on the Department’s financial statements in 2008. 

With regards to information technology management, integrating 

the systems, networks and capabilities of the legacy agencies to 

form a single infrastructure for effective communications and information exchange remains one of the Department’s biggest challenges. 

During the past year, the Department has implemented a performance plan to measure each component’s progress towards full 

compliance with its Information Security Program. Despite this 

oversight, however, components have been slow in executing fully 

the Department’s policies, procedures and practices. 

At the component level, we have identified outdated or stovepipe 

systems, at times supporting inefficient business processes; plans 

to modernize IT systems were unfocused, often with inadequate requirements; identification, analysis and testing to support acquisition and deployment of the systems and other technologies needed 

to improve operations. 

With regards to acquisition management, the urgency and complexity of the Department’s missions continues to demand rapid 

pursuit of major investments. In 2007, the Department spent nearly 39 percent or around $14 billion on contracts. 

During this past year, we published the first of what will be a 

series of scorecards identifying the progress made in five acquisition activities in the Department: Organizational alignment and 

leadership, policies and processes, financial accountability, acquisition work force, and knowledge management and information systems. While the scorecards showed some progress in selective 

areas, we determined that deficiencies persist and improvements 

were needed in all five elements measured. 

In the area of grants management, the Department has taken 

giant steps to improve its business and administrative processes for 

its grant programs. During the past year, the Department has successfully migrated its multitude of grant programs under one agency, FEMA, and implemented a risk-based grant allocation process 

for such programs as the Homeland Security Grant Program, Transit Security Grant Program, Port Security Grant Program and 

Buffer Zone Protection Program. 

Nevertheless, there is much work that needs to be done. Our reports over the past year have pointed out that the Department 

needs to do a better job of monitoring grantee expenditures and 

grantee adherence to the terms and conditions of the awards. 

Given the billions of dollars appropriated annually for grant programs, it is imperative that the internal controls are in place and 

adhered to and successful outcomes are achieved. 

Finally, I would like to talk briefly about just a few other critical 

program challenges that we believe will require special attention 

during the upcoming year as the Department prepares to transition 

to a new Administration. This list most certainly is not all-inclusive. 

These are the Secure Border Initiative, FEMA’s Disaster Preparedness Initiatives, the Coast Guard’s Deep Water Program, 

TSA’s Cargo Screening Program, and CIS’ backlog of immigrant apmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

37 

plications. These initiatives are in a critical stage of their development and therefore require unwavering management attention. 

The Department is making a good faith effort to formulate and 

execute meaningful performance plans to address the management 

challenges associated with these initiatives. However, the ability of 

the Department to sustain these efforts is fragile at this point in 

time because of the early stage they are in and the disruptions that 

may accompany the transition to a new Administration in less than 

a year. 

It is imperative that the Department formulates comprehensive 

performance plans with unambiguous milestones and metrics to 

gauge or measure progress, ensure transparency and accountability, and help guide program execution. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I will be pleased to 

answer any questions you or the subcommittee members may have. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

38 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 42401A.029
39 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 42401A.030
40 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 51 42401A.031
41 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 52 42401A.032
42 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 53 42401A.033
43 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 54 42401A.034
44 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 55 42401A.035
45 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 56 42401A.036
46 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 57 42401A.037
47 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 58 42401A.038
48 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 59 42401A.039
49 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 60 42401A.040
50 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 61 42401A.041
51 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 62 42401A.042
52 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 63 42401A.043
53 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 42401A.044
54 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 42401A.045
55 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 42401A.046
56 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 42401A.047
57 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 42401A.048
58 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 42401A.049
59 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 42401A.050
60 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 71 42401A.051
61 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

We do have a vote on the floor, and perhaps I am told a series 

of votes, so we are going to have to ask for your indulgence and 

come back and forth as required on the House floor. 

COOPERATION FROM DHS

There is one focused area that is of concern that perhaps we can 

ask you to respond to before we break to go to the floor, and that 

has to do with the matter Mr. Walker has already brought up briefly; that is, the question of your own access to the information that 

you need to do your jobs at DHS. 

As you probably remember, at last year’s hearing about this time 

this was a major theme, the poor cooperation you were getting from 

DHS. Mr. Walker said, and I am quoting, ‘‘DHS has been one of 

our persistent access challenges.’’ You suggested that we think 

about conditioning appropriations on DHS taking certain actions 

regarding GAO and GAO access. 

The Inspector General talked about problems he was having with 

the Coast Guard in particular. 

Well, we did hear those reports, and the omnibus bill, as Mr. Walker noted, does include bill language withholding $15 million 

from the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management until 

the Secretary revises Departmental guidance with respect to relations with both the GAO and the IG, including expediting timeframes for documents requested and for interviews. 

So I would like to ask you to update us on the status of this effort. Mr. Walker, you began to talk about this. Maybe you could 

elaborate. What is the status of the revised Departmental guidance? Have you seen it? Have relations with the Department improved since last year in ways that you can measure and indicate? 

Thirdly, are there any new problem areas? 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, we have not seen the draft revised 

guidance yet. We know the Department is working on it. 

Our relations have improved since last year. The number of 

delays and the extent of the delays have decreased, but we still 

have an issue. A lot of the issue has to do with the fact that one 

has to take a more risk-based approach in determining how many 

people need to be involved before GAO gains access to certain information and individuals. 

As I have said in the past, the Department historically has had 

too many people involved, too many players, too many layers and 

that by itself leads to delays and too many times in which the lawyers had to be involved. 

I am confident we can work something out, but unless and until 

I end up seeing a document and we start interacting on it it would 

be premature to say much more. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Skinner. 

Mr. SKINNER. I must say since last year at this time when I testified the cooperation that I am receiving from the Department has 

improved very noticeably. As a matter of fact, with one exception, 

in one component, it has been outstanding. 

We are still experiencing some cooperation issues with FEMA, 

particularly since Hurricane Katrina struck. I am working very 

closely and am engaged in conversations with the FEMA Director 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

62 

and Deputy Director and DHS counsel to work out problems that 

we are currently experiencing and to establish some protocols to 

ensure that we can move forward. All in all, on a Departmental 

level it has really improved and it has been outstanding. 

With regards to the Secretary’s letter to the Department, that 

has been shared with us in draft. We are working with the Department, and hopefully by working with them we can get a letter out 

to the employees throughout the Department sometime in the very 

near future. 

Mr. PRICE. On the FEMA matter, I wonder if you could elaborate 

a bit. 

I understand this, among other things perhaps, involves restricted IG access to financial management reports. These were reports that I think were routinely given to the IG until a short time 

ago. Could you elaborate what the remaining difficulty there is? 

Mr. SKINNER. That is something that I, as a matter of fact, just 

as late as yesterday, was talking about with the Deputy Director. 

It is a series of reports, very important reports. They tie together 

program performance and financial performance of FEMA’s disaster programs. It is a tool that was developed I think, in the late 

1990s. The OIG always had access to the reports up until approximately a year or two ago. 

We have been asking for access for the past year, and that is one 

of the things that has delayed a lot of our work and has caused a 

lot of consternation not only on my staff, but also on FEMA’s staff 

because now they have to produce these reports for us, when in the 

past we were able to get direct access. 

It is my understanding that beginning this week we will get access to those reports again, based on the conversations that I had 

yesterday with the FEMA Deputy Director. We will continue our 

dialogue on other issues that we think we need access to as well. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. We are going to have to go to the floor. We 

hope it will not be for too long. We will be in recess until we return. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. PRICE. The subcommittee will resume. 

To both of you, thank you for your answer on the question of access to the information that you need. Obviously we will be watching this along with you. We will appreciate being updated if anything materially changes about the kind of report you have given 

today. 

We especially want to follow this FEMA matter and make sure 

that that gets resolved. Of course, we will have a decision to make 

about when the compliance has been sufficient to warrant the release of appropriated funds. 

Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL

Mr. Skinner, in your report you talk about the shortage of personnel in management, and in the 2009 budget request they are 

asking for almost $50 million to support 77 additional FTEs to enhance an array of Departmental functions, including policy, planmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

63 

ning, communications, financial management, project management 

and compliance with privacy and civil rights laws. 

In addition, there are notable requests for additional staff for 

grants management and evaluation, 10 FTEs, and expansion of 

counterintelligence efforts, six FTEs. Those are directly related to 

many of the items that you identified as management challenges 

in your January 2008 report. 

Their ability to hire and retain qualified staff in critical positions 

has been a persistent issue with us over the years. How do you 

judge their budget requests in these areas relative to what you 

think ought to be done? 

Mr. SKINNER. I am pleased that the Department has recognized 

that they need to invest in its management support functions, particularly in the areas that I just addressed, because we were shortchanged when we stood up in 2003, and each year—the first two 

or three years, I believe—we were spinning our wheels. 

In these past two to three years, in 2007, 2008 and now in its 

budget request for 2009, the department has recognized the importance of investing in these activities. 

What would be the magic number in terms of what ought to be 

done? We do not have that, but they most certainly could use additional resources in all these management support areas, particularly in grants management, in IT management and acquisition 

management. In grants management, for example, the department 

is in a good position right now, using a risk-based approach, to allocate its funds. It is organized under a single umbrella—operating 

right now under two systems that will be integrated in 2008 under 

one system—so we are good in advertising, receiving and reviewing 

applications, and awarding grant funds. 

Where we are very weak, and where we could use additional resources, and 20 or 30 people will not do it, is in the area of oversight, after funds are awarded, from both a financial performance 

perspective. 

Mr. ROGERS. Do you think—— 

Mr. SKINNER. But I believe this is a good sign we are headed in 

the right direction. 

Mr. ROGERS. But you are unwilling to say that it is enough? 

Mr. SKINNER. In grants management? Quite frankly, I do not believe—— 

Mr. ROGERS. No. I mean overall. 

Mr. SKINNER. Overall? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. 

Mr. SKINNER. I think we could in fact use additional resources, 

particularly in the area of acquisition management. That is something that we are very, very weak in. 

The problems that we are encountering in that arena is problems 

that the government as a whole is encountering. We are competing 

with other departments. There is just not enough qualified people 

out there right now. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, DHS has always had hiring problems and 

problems in retaining quality staff in what we call core competency 

positions—financial management, project management and the 

like. How come? 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

64 

Mr. SKINNER. In acquisition management, again I believe there 

is a history here. We could take you back to the 1990s when we 

downsized in government as a whole. The people that we targeted 

were the people in the area of acquisition management, financial 

management, IT management. These are the areas that were 

downsized. 

Now we are realizing that we have a greater dependence on contractors to get our work done, just not in DHS, but across the government. We now have a responsibility to provide and produce reliable, accurate financial information not only to the Secretary, but 

the Congress and to the public. 

It is a core competency. It just was not there inside the Beltway. 

That is now being rebuilt, and that will take time. I do not believe 

the Department of Homeland Security is any worse off than any of 

the other departments in this arena, in this area. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Walker. 

Mr. WALKER. In some of the areas that you talked about, Mr. 

Rogers—you talked about information technology, financial management, some of these areas—there is a supply and demand imbalance, in general, with regard to being able to attract and retain 

an adequate number of people in government in those areas. 

However, I do think that the Department of Homeland Security 

has some other elements that complicate their situation. First, they 

have a lot of leadership positions that are open. They have a lot 

of turnover. In addition, their employee morale has not been very 

good and so these factors tend to complicate an already difficult 

supply and demand situation for these type of skills. 

When you have other places you can go, you may rather go to 

a place that you are going to have more continuity of leadership 

and a better morale situation, so that is why it is important that 

they start dealing with some of these underlying challenges. 

Mr. ROGERS. Do you have an opinion about the personnel requests in the 2009 budget? 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Rogers, I have not studied it, nor have we, but 

the numbers that you gave me that you mentioned before were, as 

I recall, $50 million for how many positions? 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, 77. 

Mr. WALKER. That is almost $600,000 per position, so something 

is wrong. I know you cannot make that much in government firsthand. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, the $50 million is not just for the personnel. 

It is for a number of other things. 

Mr. WALKER. Right. It sounds—— 

Mr. ROGERS. But it includes 77 additional FTEs. 

Mr. WALKER. Yes. I do not know what all it includes, Mr. Rogers. 

There is little doubt in my mind that they need to enhance capacity 

in certain critical areas like financial management, acquisitions. 

Whether or not that proposed plan and the amounts are reasonable, we have not looked at it so I really could not opine on it. 

FEMA

Mr. ROGERS. Well, the first concern identified by the IG in the 

January 2008 report on management challenges was catastrophic 

disaster response and recovery, i.e., FEMA. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

65 

The 2009 request includes $213.5 million for an additional 357 

FTEs for FEMA specifically to modernize IT systems, improve critical infrastructure within FEMA, enhance field personnel for disaster operations and logistics management. In short, it is part of 

the FEMA Vision Initiative and part of the efforts to rebuild and 

reshape the agency since Katrina. 

How do you see those increases, Mr. IG? 

Mr. SKINNER. I believe that again these are needed resources. I 

believe that FEMA has done an excellent job in identifying where 

those needs are and how funds need to be allocated, as well as resources. 

I would like to point out, however, when we are talking about 

catastrophic disasters that FEMA and the federal government was 

never, ever prepared to deal with a catastrophic disaster. These are 

new initiatives. 

I believe Katrina taught us a lesson that we need to start investing in our infrastructure to ensure that we do not repeat our performance after a catastrophic disaster such as Katrina. 

You mentioned 300 plus. Let us not forget the 500 plus that we 

hired during 2008 as well, particularly in the areas of acquisition 

management and other areas of preparedness, so this is in addition 

to. 

You cannot do it all within a 10 month or 12 month period. It 

has to be done incrementally. It has to be done in a very disciplined way, and I think that is the approach FEMA is taking. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Walker. 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Rogers, the only thing that I would suggest 

that this subcommittee may want to take a look at is what is their 

plan for the number of permanent staff who will be focused on this 

versus their contingency plan because by definition you do not 

want to staff up for more than you can use on a recurring basis. 

You want to have enough staff to be able to get your job done 

in normal circumstances, and then you want to be able to have a 

contingency plan such that you can mobilize and activate other 

staff to bring to bear for a major disaster, which will occur from 

time to time, but that is not the norm. You do not want to build 

that into your base. 

I do not know how they have gone about doing that, but that is 

an area that I would encourage you to take a look at. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

INFORMATION SHARING CAPABILITIES

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD [presiding]. Mr. Walker, in January 2007 

GAO stated that, and this is a quote, ‘‘The federal government still 

lacks an implemented set of policies and processes for sharing terrorism information.’’ Then it goes on calling poor information sharing, and again a quote, ‘‘a major vulnerability exposed by the 9– 

11 attacks.’’ 

Several of my local first responder agencies support this finding 

and have expressed concern that the Department limits the ability 

of a state to fully utilize the Fusion Centers as a means to improve 

information sharing. They specifically cite a bulletin, IB–235, 

which limits the time an Information Sharing Analyst can serve in 

the center as a cause of the understaffing of Fusion Centers. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

66 

Has the Department implemented a set of policies and processes 

to improve its information sharing capabilities, and do you agree 

that the Department policies have led to an understaffing at Fusion Centers? 

Mr. WALKER. I cannot speak directly to the Fusion Centers because I have not been given information relating thereto. Unless 

my staff passes me something, I will have to provide something for 

the record on that. 

I do know that progress has been made with regard to information sharing, but, as you know, that is not just an issue with DHS. 

That is a governmentwide high risk area of which DHS is one of 

a number of players who are on the field with regard to that. 

Additional progress has to be made. I will be happy to look into 

that specific issue and provide something for the record. 

I think it is also not just an issue of trying to make sure we have 

the right type of information that relates to actionable intelligence 

in order to try to prevent a problem. We also need to be concerned 

with privacy. 

One of the things that we have recommended as well is that each 

of the major components need to have privacy officers, in our view, 

to help achieve that balance. 

INVOLVING STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN DETERMINING

INVESTMENT PRIORITIES

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Skinner, in many cases state and local 

governments really are in the best position to identify threats and 

vulnerabilities in their transit systems. Therefore, there is concern 

that the Transportation Security Agency, in cooperation with 

FEMA, are not sufficiently involving state and local governments 

in determining investment priorities. 

What has been done to address that concern, if anything, and do 

you believe that the current level of cooperation between state and 

local officials is sufficient to identify top investment priorities? 

Mr. SKINNER. First let me say I do not believe that, right now, 

the type of cooperation and collaboration and partnerships that the 

department has with state and local governments is in fact sufficient. I do not think it is. We have a long way to go to improve 

our relationships with state and local governments. 

I believe that we are headed in the right direction, or I believe 

FEMA is headed in the right direction. The recent national framework for disasters, the response framework, is a step forward or a 

step in the right direction. It recognizes the role state and local 

governments have to play in a federal response and recovery or disaster response and recovery operation. 

We have a long way to go. I believe FEMA recognizes that it has 

a long way to go, and I think there are initiatives underway now 

to do a better job of engaging state and local governments. Time 

will tell how successful we are. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Okay. I know that you wanted to add something, but I only have about three minutes to get to a vote. If you 

could just add that to the record or perhaps respond when the 

Chairman returns? 

Mr. WALKER. I would be happy to. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

67 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I apologize. I have three hearings going on 

at the same time, so I will not be back to hear an answer. 

Mr. WALKER. I will say it later in the hearing. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. PRICE [presiding]. The subcommittee will resume. I hope you 

gentlemen are impressed with our efficiency around here. We are 

making the best of a problematic situation, you might say. 

Mr. WALKER. It is a tag team, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. A tag team. That is right. 

I understand there is an answer pending for Ms. Roybal-Allard, 

so please go ahead and do that, and then I will have some questions of my own. 

FUSION CENTERS

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Roybal-Allard asked about Fusion Centers, and I noted that we have recommended that the government needs to clarify its role in connection with Fusion Centers. 

You know, one of the most fundamental things is how do you define what a Fusion Center is because to the extent that that is not 

well defined and if the government plans to have more involvement 

then it is critical that that be done sooner rather than later. 

Furthermore, especially if the Department plans to provide some 

resources to support these Fusion Centers, whether they be intelligence analysts, financial resources or whatever else, one has to 

guard against the tendency that when state and local governments 

find out that the federal government may have some money to 

spend that all of a sudden things become whatever the federal government is willing to fund, like Fusion Centers. 

So we need to clarify what they are, what one is trying to accomplish, whether and to what extent the federal government is going 

to play a role and provide resources and provide safeguards to 

make sure that they result in a desired outcome rather than just 

traditional flows of funds. 

Mr. Skinner’s, I think, operation may actually be doing work on 

that issue. 

Mr. SKINNER. That is correct. We are in the middle of doing a 

review of Fusion Centers around the country as we speak, and 

hopefully later this year we will be able to provide a report on exactly what is a Fusion Center and what is the federal government’s 

role in participating in these state and local initiatives. 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Skinner, let me continue with you on 

the question of financial management, which you touched on, but 

I want to ask you to elaborate. 

As you recall, you told the subcommittee that if the Department 

stayed focused and hired the right people and implemented corrective action plans for its financial management systems then maybe 

in 2009 they could achieve an unqualified financial audit. 

You briefly updated us in your statement about the uneven 

progress across the agency in reaching this state. I gather that 

your answer is this is not possible by 2009 mainly because of the 

Coast Guard problems that you cited, but I would ask if I could ask 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

68 

you to elaborate on that in light of the broader conditions you laid 

down and the broader assertion that you made this morning. 

Your testimony states that FEMA’s financial management has 

deteriorated in the past year as well, so I wonder if you could 

elaborate on what the major problems are that you see and what 

can be done to fix them and how do we get to the status that we 

would like to see in terms of an audit? 

Mr. SKINNER. Yes. Right now with the conditions that we have 

at the Coast Guard and the lack of progress we are having at the 

Coast Guard, at the earliest, the Coast Guard does not believe that 

they will be in a position to offer reliable financial statements until 

the year 2011. 

They are an integral part of the Departmental’s overall financial 

statements, the preparation, and our audit of the financial statements. Without the Coast Guard, we are not going to be able to 

give an unqualified or a qualified opinion to the Department until, 

at the earliest, 2011. 

With regards to FEMA, there has been some backsliding, and I 

attribute it to two things. One is Hurricane Katrina and, secondly, 

the reorganization or the realignment of the grant programs under 

FEMA. 

FEMA recognizes its problems. The Department, the Office of the 

CFO, has also recognized the problem and is helping FEMA work 

through them. FEMA has developed corrective action plans, and if 

they stay focused this year, we are comfortable that FEMA will be 

able to produce auditable financial statements next year. The plan 

is at this point in time to correct these problems this year. 

One of the things, if you look at DHS as a whole, if you take the 

military out, i.e., the Coast Guard, the civilian side of the house 

has made tremendous progress. FEMA has backslided, but we 

think we can get them back on track. 

You have CBP preparing full statements that are unqualified. 

You have FLETC preparing full statements that are unqualified. 

You have ICE, who in 2003 was in the worst condition of everyone, 

including the Coast Guard, and they have now brought themselves 

up to where we believe we can give them a qualified opinion this 

year on their balance sheet. 

You have TSA, who has experienced some problems, and most recently their problems are associated with the Coast Guard because 

they have transitioned onto the Coast Guard platform. As a result, 

the Coast Guard has written certain what they call scripts, and 

they did not leave an adequate audit trail. 

Once we identify those scripts and determine the impact they 

will have on the financial statements, we think we will have a 

qualified opinion or an unqualified opinion in a year or so on full 

statements for TSA. 

Everything on the civilian side of the house is starting to look 

up. The Office of the CFO, under the leadership of David Norquist, 

has done what I think is just a yeoman’s job of pulling things together. 

Our frustration is over at the Coast Guard. No progress in three 

years. The current outline—I cannot even call it a plan, but their 

current outline—suggests that they will not be able to address or 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

69 

correct their problems until the year 2011. That will have a major 

impact on the Department as a whole. 

Mr. PRICE. What can you give as an explanation for this or advice about how this process can be moved along? 

You know, there have been multiple challenges at the Coast 

Guard. Some of them, such as contract management, they have 

made very obvious efforts to correct. It is distressing to hear that 

you use the words no progress on an area of financial management. 

2011 is a long time. That is a long timeline to get these matters 

corrected. What would you suggest to the committee in terms of 

our approach? 

Mr. SKINNER. I believe before the Coast Guard can do anything, 

they have to develop a detailed performance plan with milestones 

to clearly show where they are today, where do they expect to be 

in six months, where will they be in nine months, where will they 

be a year from now. That does not exist, so we cannot really hold 

them accountable as to what progress they are making. 

We need to understand that these are longstanding problems. We 

have gone back as early as 1994 and pulled an OIG report when 

they were with the Department of Transportation, and identified 

these exact same problems. These are not new problems. 

It is the first time the spotlight has been shined on their financial management capabilities. They were always able to operate 

under the radar screen with regard to their financial capabilities. 

Now that they are with the Department they have become an integral part of its financial statements. 

One of our frustrations is just the turnover that they continue to 

have in the Coast Guard because the financial management function is actually led by military types, not civilians. Every three 

years there is a turnover. 

I have been here now going on five years, and I have gone 

through three CFOs. I am about to be introduced to the third CFO 

at the Coast Guard. There is a tendency to come on board, look at 

the situation, blame your predecessor, develop some PowerPoint 

slides of what you are going to do, and, then, Step 3: is prepare 

for your next assignment. 

These people are military people. There is no continuity there. 

Their goal is to move on to what they can do best, and that is in 

the operational side of the house, not the financial management 

side. 

Mr. PRICE. That does raise the question. On what are you basing 

the 2011 prediction? I mean, what reason is there to think that 

things will get better? Of course, the other question is what would 

be a reasonable timeline for expecting some of these improvements 

to be implemented? 

Mr. SKINNER. Therein lies our frustration. In 2005 we thought 

2009 was a reasonable period of time to pull all this together, but 

there has been no progress. Each year it is just pushed out another 

year. Last year it was pushed out to 2010, and this year it is now 

pushed out to 2011. 

Some of the things that we believe that can be done to help them 

move along is to approach it in an incremental fashion; that is, to 

pick out two to three material weaknesses and develop 

workarounds and fix those problems while we are fixing the bigger 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

70 

system problem. We can do workarounds in several areas, such as 

fund balances with Treasury. 

Something that simple you would think would be something you 

would be able to do in one year, as opposed to trying to do it all 

at once, then turn on the light and pray that it works. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Walker. 

CIVILIAN CFO FOR U.S. COAST GUARD

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, one of the things the Coast Guard 

may need to consider is whether or not they should have a civilian 

CFO. I mean, it is one thing if you have military billets by definition and you are going to have two to three year rotations built in. 

Merely because it is a civilian CFO who may have the requisite 

qualifications does not guarantee that they are going to stay longterm, but at least they are not preprogrammed to leave. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Yes? 

Mr. ROGERS. This is no new problem. I remember raising it when 

Secretary Ridge was involved at the Department. It is not a new 

problem. 

Mr. PRICE. That is correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. It should have been corrected many years ago, and 

I think the only answer really is a civilian tenured CFO. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, particularly if the use of Coast Guard personnel 

does lock the Coast Guard into this kind of inevitable rotation if 

that cannot somehow be qualified or an exception made. 

ABILITY TO IDENTIFY AND DEPORT CRIMINAL ALIENS

Let me ask you both about an ICE matter, that is the deportation of criminal and other high risk aliens. I appreciate you both 

chiming in on this. Mr. Skinner, I am referencing, though, your 

identification in 2006 of significant gaps in ICE’s ability to identify 

and deport criminal aliens. 

You recommended that the Department ‘‘develop a detailed plan 

to provide ICE with the capacity to detain, process and remove illegal aliens that pose a national security or public safety risk to the 

U.S.’’ 

In spite of that recommendation, between 2005 and 2007 deportations of noncriminal aliens increased 59 percent, while deportation of criminal aliens increased only seven percent, and this despite the fact that criminal aliens are generally already in custody 

at a prison or jail. 

As you know, this committee took this on in our 2008 appropriations bill. We provided $200 million and a mandate for ICE to create a plan specifically focusing on comprehensive identification and 

removal of aliens convicted of dangerous crimes, held in prison and 

judged deportable. Whatever else the agency is doing in the realm 

of deportation, this surely should be at the top of the list. 

I wonder how you would design such a strategy? What should we 

look for when reviewing the plans that ICE delivers? We frankly 

do not fully understand why ICE has not been able to do more to 

identify and remove criminal aliens, even though it has dramatically expanded its deportation of noncriminals. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

71 

It would seem that whatever differences we have on immigration 

in this country, and of course we have many, this is not something 

that we ought to be having a lot of arguments about. This is something that presumably would receive almost unanimous agreement. 

It is not totally understandable why more has not been done. We 

hope that what we have done will move the process along. Anyway, 

we would appreciate your views at this point about what DHS 

could be doing, should be doing to identify criminal aliens, put 

them on the top of the list for deportation, that relative to other 

immigration enforcement issues. 

Mr. SKINNER. I can assure you, you are not going to get an agreement from ICE that this is something that should be done. I believe that they will agree that this is something that needs to be 

done. 

Currently, and we have not looked at this, so I want to be careful 

that I do not send the wrong signal, but I am aware that ICE is 

developing a strategy, and it involves outreach, identifying the detention facilities at state levels, at the local levels, and develop 

MOUs with these facilities so that we can do a better job of identifying who these folks are so that, when they are subject to release, 

we can be there waiting for them and escort them to the nearest 

airport so that they can be deported. 

There is a long way to go with this program, and a lot of it deals 

with outreach, and every state and every local is going to be different, every agreement is going to be different, and to get cooperation and participation at the state and local level is probably one 

of the biggest hurdles that ICE is going to be faced with. But I do 

not think it is something that they object to; it is just a matter of 

resources, and it is a matter of focusing on this particular issue. 

Mr. PRICE. Focusing and having a workable plan. It is not a simple matter, I suppose, to establish a liaison with prisons at various 

levels across the country. Nonetheless, it is a challenge, a logistical 

challenge, presumably, one they have not recognized and met in 

the past. We hope it now happens. I understand, too, that the 

agency is not, in principle, opposed to this kind of priority, but they 

certainly have not acted on it very effectively either. 

Mr. Walker. 

Mr. WALKER. Obviously, this is a very important topic. There are 

three basic elements that they have to achieve. One is they have 

to identify the relevant players, and that has got to be done in conjunction with state and local law enforcement authorities. 

Secondly, after they identify the players, they have to be able to 

be notified by the state and local authorities when the terms or the 

sentences are up for the applicable individuals. 

Thirdly, they have to further coordinate with state and local authorities to make sure that somebody escorts them across the border or out of the country at the appropriate point in time. 

Now, there are a lot of incarceration facilities in this country at 

the state and local level, and so part of the question is, what can 

be done to coordinate, either at the state level, or what can be done 

to coordinate through various associations or other entities that 

might exist so they can help with this effort, and you have a real 

partnership approach because, otherwise, I think you are likely to 

have a real resource problem within the Department? 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

72 

If they are trying to deal directly with each individual facility, 

that is going to be virtually impossible. So the question is, what are 

they trying to do, in partnership, to make sure that they are not 

having to deal with each individual facility, that it is being coordinated either at the state level or otherwise, to try minimize the related burden. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. 

DHS TRANSITION TO THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION

Mr. ROGERS. Let me talk with you about transition for the next 

administration. Many experts are worried about the Department’s 

ability to maintain operations during the upcoming transition to 

the new administration, especially in view of the fact that we have 

had difficulties in the past in hiring and retaining qualified people 

for these top positions. 

In 2007, early 2007, in response to a Presidential Executive 

Order, DHS initiated a transition plan, the bulk of which was to 

insert career professionals underneath each and every political appointee, who would maintain continuity of operations during a 

turnover. Have either of you evaluated that plan and determined 

how good it is? 

Mr. SKINNER. Sir, I have not evaluated it, but the then-Deputy 

Secretary, Michael Jackson, did share that with me before his departure. One of his last assignments, so to speak, before he left, 

was to ensure that we had a documented succession plan, wherein 

all departing politicals would be identified, and who would be next 

in line. In every component within the Department, a career person 

who would have to take charge has been identified? 

I know that transition planning is something that the Secretary 

takes very seriously. He has developed a framework. I think Mr. 

Walker may be able talk to the contents of that framework as to 

where we are proceeding, to ensure that there is a smooth transition. 

Transition planning is important for the government, period, but 

I think it is particularly important for DHS. We are a very fragile 

organization. We are new, and it is very important that we identify 

those programs that we need to keep on track, so to speak. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, it is a matter of national security. 

Mr. SKINNER. Exactly. 

Mr. ROGERS. During a transition period, under normal circumstances in some of the Department, there is a period of several 

weeks, perhaps months, where that Department is practically incapable of making a decision because of holes in the leadership. We 

cannot afford that in Homeland Security. 

The Secretary tasked the Homeland Security Advisory Council to 

establish a task force to recommend best practices for a transition, 

and, in January, that task force issued a lot of recommendations 

stating obvious things DHS ought to be doing. The question is, are 

they doing them? I wonder what you think of the advisory committee’s report and whether their recommendations are being followed, 

both of you. 

Mr. WALKER. Well, first, let me note that this will be the first 

Presidential transition that DHS will go through. They are involved in safety and security issues, which is most fundamental 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

73 

with regard to the federal government’s role, and, therefore, there 

is an increased sense of urgency that they get it right. 

To me, the real key is, are they focused primarily on what are 

the major mission and management initiatives? Do they have that 

laid out? Do they have responsibility and accountability identified? 

Do they know who is going to be responsible and accountable who 

is a senior career executive, and what type of bench strength do 

they have to back up that senior career executive, given the fact 

that they can leave, too? 

Mr. ROGERS. Those are the questions I had of you. 

Mr. WALKER. And the answer is, I have seen a framework that 

the Department of Homeland Security has put together in a goodfaith attempt to try to achieve what I am talking about, and I was 

impressed with their initial framework, but it was an early draft. 

I have not seen the final document, but when you get right down 

to it, you need to know what your policies and procedures are, but 

the most important thing is, whose belly button do you push? Who 

is responsible and accountable, and do they know it, and are they 

prepared to execute, and what type of bench strength do they have 

to back them up, in the event that something happens to them? 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, the task force, in their January report, issued 

multiple recommendations, including ensuring for a standardized 

approach to threat determination and awareness during transition, 

providing presidential nominees with best practices and lessons 

learned from other leadership transitions, and working with the 

Senate to establish an expedited process for handling new appointments under the new administration. 

Those are fairly obvious things. What do you think? 

Mr. WALKER. Let me, if I can, touch on the last one, and I realize 

that this body is not involved in the confirmation process, but I am 

sure that you have friends on the other end of the Hill. 

I think one of the things that we really have to be concerned 

about is how long is it going to take to be able to fill these critical 

positions that are presidential appointees with Senate confirmation 

in order to minimize the amount of time that you have acting players discharging responsibilities. 

There are a lot of great career civil servants, some outstanding 

and dedicated professionals, but, by definition, when you are acting, and you are not confirmed, then you are going to do what you 

have to do, but you are not going to really do much more than that. 

That is just the way that it works. That is called ‘‘human nature.’’ 

I think that one of the things that the Congress needs to think 

about is to recognize that we have three kinds of presidential appointees that historically have required Senate confirmation, and 

they need to be treated differently. 

You have ones that involve policy and, therefore, ought to serve 

at the pleasure of the President, be subject to Senate confirmation, 

with no statutory qualification requirements. 

Secondly, you have ones that are operators that are in key, management and functional areas like financial management, information technology, et cetera, or operators from the standpoint of a 

major agency, if you will, component, and for those types of people, 

you want statutory qualification requirements. You want to make 

sure you are getting people who really can discharge the responmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

74 

sibilities with Senate confirmation, and, in some circumstances, 

you may want a term appointment for those jobs. 

And then, last, you have adjudicatory positions, positions like the 

inspector general, the controller general, and judges, where you not 

only want statutory qualification requirements and a term appointment, or either a life appointment in the case of a judge, but you 

want strict, independence standards. 

I have a real concern, Mr. Rogers and Chairman Price, as to 

what is going to end up happening when we do have the known 

transition to the next administration, whichever administration 

that might be, and what is going to be done to try to move things 

along expeditiously, on a risk basis, with regard to some of the critical positions here. 

Mr. ROGERS. What do you think of the HSAC’s report? 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Rogers, I have not read that report, but I 

would be happy to do it. It just came out, as I recall. Didn’t it just 

come out in January? I would be happy to do it, and I would be 

happy to provide something for the record on it. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, we are coming up on the transition pretty 

quick here. 

Mr. WALKER. We are, and I will tell you this, if it makes you feel 

any better. We have been having informal meetings at GAO over 

the last three months with selected senior officials in the administration, including OMB, including Defense, including DHS, including the FBI, et cetera, to try to help coordinate efforts and facilitate 

communication between the key players in this area because it is 

critically important. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I mean, the report is fairly substantial, and 

I would hope that we could get your evaluation of it. 

Mr. WALKER. We will take a look at it. It is not as thick as most 

GAO reports. 

Mr. ROGERS. I am not going to say this. 

Mr. WALKER. I probably should not have said that. We have onepage summaries of ours, the highlights page. 

Mr. ROGERS. I know my time has expired, but, Mr. IG, have you 

looked at it? 

Mr. SKINNER. No, sir, I have not. It is something that I will be 

looking at this afternoon, however. But, no, I have not studied that 

particular report. 

I think it is important to note that, as we transition here, and 

we put the right career people in place, that we cannot just put 

them in there so that they can just hold the fort down until an appointee is confirmed. We have a lot of ongoing initiatives here that 

can falter or can fall apart. They are in a very fragile state of their 

development, and they are just beginning to have traction: the SBI 

Initiative, the Deepwater Initiative, and others that I mentioned in 

my opening remarks. 

It is important that we develop performance plans that can guide 

the career people to ensure that we do not falter and backslide during the transition period, and that is very important as well. It is 

a concern of ours that a lot of these things could falter. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, given the Department’s history of not having 

people in a lot of these leadership positions, even without a transition involved, when you have got a transition, we need a patch bemstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

75 

tween the old administration and the new so that we do not have 

vacancies in critical positions because we would be very vulnerable. 

Mr. WALKER. Yes. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Fattah. 

HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There was $10 million 

appropriated for this human capital management system upgrade, 

and then there was a request for another $15 million. This ongoing 

problem around personnel in the Department—again, as Ranking 

Member Rogers said, not even dealing with a transition—it has 

been a challenge, with over a third of the top positions not filled. 

Are these positions not needed? Are we not paying enough to hire 

competent people? If you could cut to the chase and tell us how we 

can cooperate in solving this problem, and I will start with Mr. 

Skinner. 

Mr. SKINNER. This is the first time I have heard that one-third 

of our top positions have not been filled. 

Mr. FATTAH. It was a newspaper report. 

Mr. SKINNER. I believe we, at least as of September 30th of last 

year, had come very close to filling almost all of our positions, or 

close to 80 or 90 percent of our positions. 

Working in the Department of Homeland Security is not an easy 

job. You are under the spotlight every day. Your mission is critical. 

It is a very stressful environment in which you work. I think that 

is part of the contributing factor to why we see the turnover that 

we do see. 

Secondly, Homeland Security has become an industry in the private sector. A lot of these people who gained experience working 

within Homeland Security or within the federal government find 

better and greater opportunities outside government, at least from 

a financial—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Does that argue for more compensation? 

Mr. SKINNER. We cannot compete, and we lose people, quite frequently, just for that very reason. 

I think what Mr. Walker hit on earlier is the environment and 

the underlying morale issues that we have within the Department, 

and we expect to have. You do not expect to stand up an agency 

with 22 different agencies and startups and expect morale to be 

high. It is something that we need to continue to focus on. I know 

that Secretary Chertoff—it is something that he is very concerned 

about, and it is something he is keeping a very close eye on and 

trying to engage employees and stimulate them so that we can address this morale issue. 

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Comptroller. 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Fattah, it is exacerbated by the fact that we 

have less than one year left in this administration, and the fact is, 

is that it is unlikely that you are going to see the Senate confirming players this late in an administration. 

It is also unlikely that you are going to see people come from outside of government to come into government this late in an administration, and, therefore, as historically has been the case, to the 

extent that you have open positions, you have to pretty much look 

from within in order to get those individuals to be able to take the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

76 

jobs; all the more reason why it is critically important that their 

transition plan focus on senior career civil servants because we 

know they will still be here, unless they decide to retire, or unless 

they decide to take a private sector opportunity. That is why the 

plan has to be focused on senior career civil servants. 

TSA PASSENGER SURCHARGE PROPOSAL

Mr. FATTAH. On a different subject, there is this TSA surcharge 

that is in the budget proposal, a new TSA passenger surcharge proposal, and the passenger security fee of 50 cents per emplanement. 

Is that in the administration’s proposal for this year’s budget? 

Mr. SKINNER. Yes. I believe that was also proposed in prior budgets but was never implemented. 

Mr. FATTAH. It did not survive. 

Mr. SKINNER. That is correct. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. Do you have any idea how much that would 

generate and where those revenues would go? 

Mr. SKINNER. No, I do not, but the revenues would be reinvested 

back into TSA’s programs to better secure airports and the passenger screening, cargo screening. 

Mr. FATTAH. The budget detail suggests that it would generate 

about $400 million or so, which would be used for such a purpose. 

There is no surcharge now. Right? Is this a new surcharge or an 

add-on? 

Mr. SKINNER. As far as I know, this is new. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

OIG BUDGET

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Skinner, let me ask you about your 

own budget for this next year. The president’s budget request has 

your budget going down from fiscal 2009, from $108 million to $101 

million. What are the implications of that decrease? What activities 

would be affected? Is it something that should attract our concern? 

Mr. SKINNER. Mr. Chairman, first, let me go on record that I 

fully support the President’s budget. With regard to our budget, 

yes, our gross figure has been reduced from approximately $108 to 

$109 million to approximately $101 million. 

Yes, that is going to have a profound effect on our ability to carry 

out a lot of the things that we just got started, particularly with 

regard to our oversight of FEMA operations and Gulf Coast operations. We have set up offices in Baton Rouge and Algiers, Louisiana; and Biloxi, Mississippi, to provide continuing oversight of 

the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast. This is going to have a profound 

impact on our ability to maintain those operations. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, over the years, the work on Katrina and its 

aftermath will surely tail off, but the capacity to deal with future 

disasters and to have the kind of capability that you have built up 

there seems to me to be something that we should not cut lightly. 

Is that mainly where the savings would come from, in the FEMArelated areas? 

Mr. SKINNER. Yes. That is correct because the buildup that we 

had in 2008 and 2007 since Katrina, the increases in our budget 

were invested in providing oversight in disaster response, recovery, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

77 

mitigation, and preparedness activities, not only in Katrina, but on 

a national scale. 

With the $7 million cut, the operation, and these will be policy 

calls—we have to do some assessments as to what we want to cut 

back on, but it will either have a direct impact on our ability to 

provide oversight for the Gulf Coast operations or our ability to 

provide oversight of FEMA operations and other disaster-response, 

preparedness, recovery, and mitigation operations. 

I would like to point out that the operations that we have down 

in Katrina are just beginning. People realize that it is going to 

start phasing out. Well, we just went through the response phase. 

Now we are in the reconstruction and rebuilding phase, and there 

is where the big dollars are going to be spent—rebuilding the 

bridges, rebuilding the infrastructure—and there is where we are 

at right now. 

We are somewhat beyond the response issues. We still have the 

housing issues to deal with, and we are working with HUD on that, 

but, right now, we are going to start focusing our attention on the 

reconstruction, and that is going to take years. 

Mr. PRICE. That is very important for us to understand. 

Mr. SKINNER. It is not going to go away tomorrow. 

Mr. PRICE. No, of course, not. It has budget implications, and 

then we have had all too many instances, in recent years, of fraud, 

waste, abuse being associated with recovery efforts. It seems to me, 

it is unlikely that we are going to need to do less scrutiny of this, 

rather than more, with regard to other disasters. 

I must say, what you said does not make me any happier or give 

me much greater understanding about this cut in your budget and 

how you would deal with it. 

Mr. SKINNER. Also, as background, for 2007 and 2008, the increases that we received were not actually increases in our budget; 

they were transfers from the Disaster Relief Account, and that is 

what has been eliminated. Those were the funds we were using to 

provide oversight of FEMA operations in the Gulf Coast. 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the things that I am 

sure that Rick is looking at, and, I would imagine, the subcommittee would, is when you are looking at what types of activities have to be done in the Gulf Coast, to the extent that you are 

talking about construction, then who is going to be the point on 

doing that oversight? Is that going to be the Department of Homeland Security, or is that going to be the Department of Transportation? Is that going to be HUD, et cetera? 

I think that is an issue that you have to look at. You need to 

make sure that there is enough money to do the right type of oversight, but the lead responsibility for who might be doing what 

might change at different phases of the effort. 

Mr. PRICE. The transfer of personnel; how many people were involved in that? 

Mr. SKINNER. From our Office of Audits and Investigation, we 

transferred approximately 75 people, and that had a devastating 

effect on our operations, nondisaster operations. We have been in 

the process of rebuilding those offices over the last three years or 

two and a half years. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

78 

Mr. PRICE. So this is how you set up the so-called ‘‘Emergency 

Management Oversight’’ operation, the EMO operation. 

Mr. SKINNER. Yes. Time is of the essence, as, Mr. Rogers, you 

well know because I testified immediately following those disasters. 

We did not have the time to go out and just start recruiting because that could take months to get people on board. So what I had 

to do is tap into our existing audit and investigative resources and 

transfer them to Katrina oversight. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Can you just make very clear to us what 

the implications of this budget number are for that EMO operation, 

first of all; and, secondly, for the kind of capacity you are needing 

to build to compensate for the transfer of these personnel from your 

central operation? I do not fully understand the implication, in 

other words, of the budget numbers on what you are going to have 

going on the ground. 

Mr. SKINNER. If we operate with this budget, at $100 million, 

without transfers from the Disaster Relief Account, we are going to 

have to curtail—what I am doing right now is rebuilding our Office 

of Audits to bring it back to where it was pre-Katrina days. 

I either have to curtail that, which I would not like to do, or my 

other option is that I am going to have to curtail what we are doing 

down in the Gulf Coast, or I am going to have to curtail what we 

are doing in other areas of FEMA: providing oversight of other disasters, the floods that we had in California, or the tornadoes. We 

come in and stand up just days after these disasters to provide 

oversight to ensure that the offices are being set up properly, and 

everyone understands what their roles are, particularly at the state 

and local level. 

This is something I have to think through with my senior advisers—exactly where are these resources going to come from. 

Mr. PRICE. It is something we have to think through, too, obviously. 

Mr. SKINNER. Regardless, it is going to have an impact on us 

right now, and since the cut—I do not want to say ‘‘cut’’—the transfer, it has generally come out of the Disaster Relief Account. We 

do not have that, so that is the first place I am going to look at— 

what impact it is going to have on our disaster oversight? 

NEAR TERM PERFORMANCE SOARS

Mr. PRICE. For my last question, I want to ask you both briefly 

just to recap a bit on the near-term performance goals, organizational goals, you think this committee should be working with the 

Department to establish. You mentioned a number of such items in 

your statements. 

We had asked you, if possible, to each bring in four, in terms of 

prioritization. But I wonder if you could just telegraph for us, and 

then we can pick up from your statement and elaborate for the 

record the detailed content, but just so we have a fix on the kind 

of near-term goals you believe we should be looking at. 

Mr. SKINNER. This was a tough assignment, because there are so 

many, to limit it to only four. It created a lot of debate in our office. 

Let me start with FEMA preparedness. I think it is absolutely 

essential that we keep a very close eye on the direction that FEMA 

is headed. I think they are headed in the right direction. There are 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

79 

a lot of dedicated people over there who are working hard to rebuild that organization. We cannot afford to have another Katrina, 

nor can we afford to be ill-prepared for any other type of attack 

that we may experience in the upcoming years. That is one: FEMA 

preparedness. 

Two: I think it is also very important that we take a very close 

look at SBI, the Secure Border Initiative, and I am just not talking 

about the IT parts of the Secure Border Initiative. 

The Secure Border Initiative really involves several components 

within the Department: ICE, for their detention capability; CIS, as 

far as their ability to address the backlog of applications; and, particularly, CBP, which was to deal with infrastructure issues, IT 

issues, and new hiring issues—over 2,000 people, I think, CBP asking for this year. 

The question is, if we bring in 2,000 people, we have to make 

sure that they are trained, that they are equipped, that they have 

a place to report to. Right now, we have facilities out there that 

cannot handle that many people, nor do we have supervisors who 

can handle that many people. 

So there are a lot of things that have to fit in place. The Secure 

Border Initiative is something that I think we need to keep a very, 

very close eye on, and so is the Deepwater program at the Coast 

Guard. They are at a very fragile state right now. This thing got 

started before DHS ws created. 

As a matter of fact, it got started back in the nineties, but the 

contractors were, more or less, directing the program. We found out 

that that got us in trouble. There were a lot of inefficiencies and 

a lot of waste, and, as a result, the Coast Guard has recognized 

that they need to take control of this initiative from the contractors. It is a 25-year initiative and a $25 billion initiative. 

They are in a transition right now in taking control of it. I think 

it is important that we pay close attention to how that transition 

goes, with some very clearly articulated performance plans with 

milestones so that we can gauge their progress and help them to 

make sure that these people are executing this program as intended, as the commandant intended it to operate. 

The fourth area, I would say, is the CIS backlog. We have got 

ourselves in a real jam here. There are two things at play here. 

One, CIS is living in the sixties and seventies, as far as their 

processes and systems are concerned. They really need to invest in 

their IT capabilities so that we can go paperless. We are still processing everything by paper, and it is very, very inefficient. They 

have developed a transition team, they have reorganized, and they 

are now focusing on their IT capabilities and how they can improve 

themselves in the out years, but that is just starting to get traction. That can falter, if we do not keep a close eye on that. 

Also, we still have this tremendous backlog that we created as 

a result of the increases in the rates for applications. I do not understand why we did not prepare ourselves. We should have anticipated that there would have been a big increase in applications, 

but we did not. The CIS did not. Now, as a result, they are living 

with a tremendous backlog. We need to be able to keep a close eye 

on this to ensure that this issue is addressed, that we can get that 

backlog down to a manageable level again. That is why, if you do 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

80 

not keep an eye on it, and if you do not stay focused, it could be 

five or six years before it’s brought under control. 

Mr. PRICE. That, most certainly, is a near-term issue. What are 

the benchmarks there? What needs to happen before this administration concludes? 

Mr. SKINNER. They need to bring in more resources, which I 

think they are attempting to do. We need to find programs that 

will entice people out of retirement without offsets. This would entice retired adjudicators and inspectors and reviewers to come back 

in to provide assistance. We need to develop training programs and 

have outreach so that we can get people coming out of college to 

assist. There are a variety of things they can do here to tap into 

this backlog. 

While they are doing that, at the same time, they need to be investing resources on developing their IT capabilities, or else we are 

going to repeat this two years down the road. If we had a good IT 

capability to intake, review, process and adjudicate, we may not 

even have a backlog, but we do not. We are very paper-oriented 

right now. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Walker. 

Mr. WALKER. Quickly, Mr. Chairman, four. First and foremost, a 

Presidential transition plan that focuses on critical players for all 

key projects and initiatives. 

Secondly, a high-risk and major-management-challenges action 

plan that also has appropriate responsibility and accountability 

mechanisms. 

Number three: FEMA’s efforts in connection with major disasters; we have talked about a number of things that need to be done 

there. 

And, number four: Focus on key acquisition and contracting initiatives, for example, Deepwater, SBI, to be focused on those because they are large, they are important, and they are susceptible 

to increased risk because of transition difficulties. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. We look forward to working with you to 

flesh each of those out. Mr. Rogers. 

GRANTS MANAGEMENT

Mr. ROGERS. I know you want to wrap this up because we are 

into the noon hour here. I will be brief. 

Grants management; we have talked about it somewhat here 

today. Let me delve into that a bit. 

It has been a longstanding concern about managing these firstresponder grant programs because there is such a huge amount of 

money involved, and they are huge programs. But the Department 

is currently unable to answer the basic fundamental question of 

what have we bought for the $23.7 billion in grant funding that 

has been appropriated since 2002? 

It could be answered with a simple, itemized list of purchases, 

but a more complete and thoughtful answer ought to be in terms 

of a return on investment. What are we expecting of these people, 

and what are we giving them money for, and are those the right 

things to give them money for, and what sort of metrics, performance metrics, do we need to put in place that are not there now 

to measure whether or not we are doing what needs to be done? 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

81 

I do not feel good about the grant programs, how they are being 

managed, and whether or not we are sending money to the right 

places for the right things. Any thoughts? 

Mr. SKINNER. Mr. Rogers, I could not agree with you more. If you 

recall, at my hearing last year, these are the issues that I raised 

with regard to grants management, and it is why I think it is one 

of the major management challenges facing the Department. 

We are spending billions of dollars, billions of dollars, but we are 

not doing it, in my opinion, in a very strategic manner. Many of 

our grant programs are stovepiped. We are not taking a more global, national perspective as to what we want to accomplish with 

these billions of dollars, and we do not have the metrics to demonstrate that we are, in fact, accomplishing what these grants were 

set up to do. 

We do a very good job of advertising our grants, as I said earlier, 

reviewing them, awarding the grants, and getting the funds, or 

making the funds available, to the states. We do not do a very good 

job—we do a very poor job—of actually providing oversight on how 

those funds are being spent, whether they are being spent for their 

intended purposes, or whether they are being spent wisely. We 

simply do not have the resources in place right now to do that. 

I understand that they have asked for additional resources; at 

least, I understand, 20 to 30 additional employees for 2008, and 

they are asking for 20 to 30 again in 2009. In my opinion, that is 

not sufficient to provide oversight, on a national scale, of all of the 

30 to 40 different nondisaster grant programs that we have responsibility for. 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Rogers, one of the concerns that I have is that 

DHS not fall into the same pattern that the Department of Defense 

has fallen into over the past several decades, and that is, since the 

Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security 

are both in the business of safety and security, and they are the 

most fundamental things for a national government to do, you can 

have a mentality where it is get the money, spend the money, get 

the money, spend the money, and there can also be a circumstance 

in which the Congress feels compelled to provide more funds to 

show that it cares because these are very serious missions and very 

important missions to this nation. 

I think I come back to two words. Risk and resources. Everything 

we are spending money on ought to be based on a considered riskbased assessment because this nation has finite resources. We are 

mortgaging the future of our kids and grand kids at embarrassing 

rates, and we are not getting good value for money. 

So everything needs to be focused on risk, number one, and to 

really press them hard on how these monies are being allocated to 

mitigate the most risk with the available resources, recognizing 

that there are limits; and, secondly, performance metrics that ultimately lead to outcomes. What type of outcome are we trying to 

achieve? And you need to have performance metrics that will give 

you interim indicators, all geared towards trying to achieve a desired outcome. 

So risk and outcomes, and focus like a laser on those two things, 

I would respectfully submit. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

82 

FIRST RESPONDERS

Mr. ROGERS. I have the feeling, a rather strong feeling, that the 

Congress has failed to define what it is we want first responders 

to do in the context of national security. 

First responders, obviously, are local city and state organizations 

to protect the health and safety of their individual constituents. 

Fire departments are there to protect local people from the natural 

hazards of fire, police against local crime, and so on. EMTs have 

their chores. 

Very little of what they do, or what we are asking them to do, 

relates to national security, homeland security on the national 

level. Are we training them for the purposes that we are using 

them for? Are we paying them adequately to do that, and are we 

measuring whether or not they are trained and whether or not 

they are succeeding in doing what they are supposed to do? 

All of these cities and counties and states are hungry for money. 

Their budgets are worse than ours. The only difference is we can 

print, make money, and they cannot. So they are broke as well, and 

they are hammering us, politically in Congress, send more money, 

send more money to the first responders, and we respond to that. 

But I do not think that we have defined and told the first responders, ‘‘Here is what we want you to do, and here is the money to 

do that and we are going to expect to see a measurable result in 

so many months or years or whatever.’’ 

We have not done that. I think that is our fault. But the Department has not given us very good indications of how to do that, and 

we have been wrestling with this now for, at least, five years, and 

I really have not seen any progress. In fact, I have seen it recede 

back. I think it is a shame, number one; and, number two, it is 

very dangerous. 

Mr. SKINNER. Mr. Rogers, you are absolutely correct. Part of the 

problem that we are experiencing within the Department of Homeland Security is the mere fact that we are receiving large sums of 

money that we are asked to administer without doing our own adequate, internal planning and without the resources to administer 

those monies. 

So we are reacting. Every year, we are reacting to try to get the 

monies out to the state and locals that is appropriated this year. 

We have not stepped back and asked the very basic question: What 

outcome do we want? What is the purpose of these grant programs? 

Are we safer today? Are we better prepared today? How do we 

measure our progress? 

As Mr. Walker says, we cannot satisfy everyone, so what we have 

to do is prioritize based on risk. Many of the grant programs right 

now are risk based, as I mentioned earlier, Port Security, for example, Buffer Zone, but, nonetheless, those are stovepipe grants. We 

have never stepped back and looked at the big picture. We are focusing on establishing priorities for each individual stovepipe grant 

without stepping back and looking at what the priorities, on a national scale, are. 

Mr. ROGERS. Who needs to do the stepping back and looking? Is 

it Congress, or is it the Department? 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

83 

Mr. SKINNER. I believe the Department has that responsibility to 

do that. Right now, they need to catch their breaths and step back 

and say, ‘‘If we are going to go forward with large, multibillion annual grant programs, then we need to instill in ourselves certain 

disciplines and processes so that we can make informed decisions 

and also demonstrate our successes here.’’ We cannot do that now. 

Mr. ROGERS. Do we need a law change? 

Mr. SKINNER. I would not say so much that we need a law 

change. Grants management is not new. There are a lot of best 

practices out there. There is a lot of literature, both on the academic side and also on the operational side, as to how you can 

manage grant programs. 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Rogers, if I can jump in here, I would agree 

with virtually everything you said earlier, but I also think you have 

to put this in context. We are talking here about grant management within the Department of Homeland Security, and, clearly, it 

needs to be more risk focused, it needs to be more comprehensive 

and integrated with regard to the definition of ‘‘risk,’’ and it needs 

to be more outcome based. 

The level of detail that has to be not gotten into is something 

that, by definition, Congress should not do. That would be the point 

of micromanagement. But let me tell you what Congress should do 

that it has not done, and it is not just with regard to Homeland 

Security; it is virtually everything the federal government does. 

This government spends three trillion dollars a year. It forgoes 

revenues of $800 to $900 billion a year because of tax deductions, 

exemptions, credits, exclusions, and, for the most part, Congress 

never defines, when it passes a law or reauthorizes a program or 

enacts a tax preference, it never defines what outcome it is trying 

to achieve. 

What are we trying to achieve, and how are we, therefore, going 

to be able to hold those responsible for implementing those policies 

and programs accountable for whether or not, in fact, they are 

doing that? 

I will tell you, this government wastes tens of billions of dollars 

a year, at least, if not hundreds, because people are focused on getting the money, spending the money, doing the compliance rather 

than focusing on what are we trying to achieve? And we desperately need some key national, outcome-based indicators that 

would drive decision-making not only in the Congress but also in 

the executive branch, and I would be more than happy, at some 

point in time, if you want to talk further about that, to do that. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thanks. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. I do think this discussion is needed and 

would be useful. The administration’s budget simply removes the 

funding for a lot of this grant activity, as opposed to trying to focus 

it in a more discriminating way, and, from the congressional side, 

I think your point is well taken. 

We often get a papering over of the kinds of goals that we are 

pursuing, partly because ever since this Department was established, we have been in the business of compensating for failures 

elsewhere in the budget to give the kind of support for first responders that they have called for and that we had in the nineties. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

84 

That is not to say Homeland Security should become the repository for all of those requests and the kinds of goals that they are 

based on, but the political reality is that that has happened, to 

some degree, until the Justice Department programs, let us say, 

are put in a more robust, healthy state, then we are probably going 

to continue to have to deal with this politically. 

Your comments are certainly well taken as to the need for, on 

both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue, for a more articulate set of 

goals and measurable outcomes so that we have some way of assessing what we are doing. 

Thank you all very much. We appreciate your testimony. We will 

study it, and we look forward to consulting with you in the months 

ahead. Thank you. 

The subcommittee is adjourned. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

85 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 127 42401A.052
86 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 128 42401A.053
87 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 129 42401A.054
88 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 130 42401A.055
89 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 131 42401A.056
90 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 132 42401A.057
91 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 133 42401A.058
92 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 134 42401A.059
(93) 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2008. 

LAND BORDER ENFORCEMENT 

WITNESSES 

ARVIN WEST, SHERIFF OF HUDSPETH COUNTY, TEXAS 

CHAD FOSTER, MAYOR OF EAGLE PASS, TEXAS 

JIM ED MILLER, MILLER BROS. FARMS, FORT HANCOCK, TEXAS 

RICHARD S. WALDEN, PRESIDENT, FARMER’S INVESTMENT CO. 

NAN STOCKHOLM WALDEN, VICE PRESIDENT AND COUNSEL, FARMER’S INVESTMENT CO. 

Mr. PRICE. The subcommittee will come to order. Good afternoon, 

everyone. Today we review the Department of Homeland Security 

border enforcement programs, including its plans for fencing on the 

southwest border. 

I want to welcome five witnesses this afternoon, two of them 

public officials, Mayor Chad Foster of Eagle Pass, Texas, who is 

also chairman of the Texas Border Coalition; Sheriff Arvin West of 

Hudspeth County, Texas, who represents the Texas Border Sheriffs 

Coalition. 

In addition, we are fortunate to have the perspective of private 

citizens who are landowners and business people: Mr. Jim Ed Miller of Fort Hancock, Texas, and Richard and Nan Walden of 

Sahuarita, Arizona. How is that? We welcome you and look forward 

to your testimony. 

Last week in a speech entitled Why Washington Does Not Work, 

Secretary Chertoff said that implementing border security presented a structural problem, what he called a structural problem, 

one where those with an intense personal stake in a policy decision 

may have or try to have more influence than the great majority of 

citizens whose interest is more general. That is the way he framed 

this issue. 

For example, he argued that the cost of not building a border 

fence should be taken into account, including the impact of drug 

dealing in Chicago or the consequences of letting criminals or potential terrorists enter our country. These impacts, he argued, 

should be weighed against local opposition to a fence. In his words, 

a fence would be for the greater good. 

I would ask the witnesses who testify today to reflect on that; on 

whether DHS policies to secure the land borders of the U.S. seem 

to them to be consistent with the greater good of the United States. 

Do you see any conflict between achieving such goals and at the 

same time taking into account local conditions and needs? After all, 

many of you have lived on the border and in close proximity to 

Mexico for your entire lives. 

I hope and expect that you will have some ideas about how to 

address our broader goals, as well as about the fence’s local impact. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

94 

While the Secretary alludes to the costs of consultation, I believe 

he ignores the fact that consultation often can lead to an outcome 

that may be superior to what any single party could achieve independently. It also might satisfy some of those broader concerns, the 

concerns of a greater number of stakeholders. 

In other words, we are looking here for the proverbial win/win 

solution. You cannot always find those solutions, but I think it is 

highly desirable in this case to explore all the possibilities. 

Last year the subcommittee traveled to the southwest border 

twice to learn firsthand the challenges involved in trying to secure 

almost 2,000 miles of diverse border land. We met Border Patrol 

agents and CBP officers on the ground. We saw mountains and 

deserts and the beautiful Rio Grande. We visited the area where 

the FBI Net Technology Project was being undertaken, and we observed operations of CBP air and marine. 

Of particular value were our meetings with local officials, and 

some of you were in on those meetings. We met with law enforcement personnel, with local elected leaders and citizens, and we 

heard concerns expressed about the prospects for extensive fencing 

through areas of great cultural, economic and environmental sensitivity. 

As a result, we incorporated language in the fiscal 2008 appropriations bill to require the Department of Homeland Security to 

thoroughly justify its future projects and to participate in meaningful consultation with the communities involved. 

I hope we can discuss how well that legislation is being implemented today, what kind of implementation you would look for in 

the future, including provisions that require transparency, consultation and good stewardship in the use of public funding for 

such major and complex projects. 

So we look forward to your testimony this afternoon and to hearing your insights on how we can better manage the security of the 

border to the benefit of us all. 

Let me now ask our distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Rogers, 

for his comments. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we say welcome to 

our distinguished guests who have come so far to be with us today 

to share your views. 

I do not think I have to tell anybody here how important it is 

for Members of Congress to listen to those on the front lines, so to 

speak, the issues that we are responsible for addressing on behalf 

of the American people. 

I have often said that the desk, and in this case the dais, is a 

dangerous place from which to view the world, and that is certainly 

the case when we are talking about the issues of border security 

and illegal immigration issues that are as complex and important 

as they come. 

I am sincerely grateful to have before us today individuals who 

deal with the impacts of illegal immigration and cross border 

smuggling every day. I believe you will bring us all a unique perspective from which we all can learn. 

As this subcommittee has labored over the last five years to vastly increase the resources devoted to border security and immigration enforcement, we have always been mindful of the impacts 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

95 

upon state and local communities. We have not only expected DHS 

to reach out to localities that are affected by their operations; we 

have expected DHS to do so with vigor. 

While DHS certainly has a duty to secure the borders and ports 

of entry and to enforce the immigration laws, the Department also 

has a duty to be considerate of citizens’ rights, especially law abiding citizens, while carrying out the mission of securing the borders. 

So I think we have to approach this issue in terms of balance. 

It is without question that we are going to have to secure our borders and end illegal immigration. Sovereign control of borders and 

a viable immigration system are fundamental to our homeland security, and these are goals that are not negotiable. However, many 

local governments and private landowners have interests that are 

impacted by the Department’s efforts, and they have every right to 

be heard and to be granted reasonable considerations. 

I know the issues of border security and illegal immigration are 

difficult. I have been dealing with these issues my entire 27 years 

here in the Congress and have often cringed over the futility of our 

feeble efforts, but now in looking at recent results I am somewhat 

optimistic that the tide may be turning and that we are finally 

achieving the control of our borders that has been so elusive, yet 

also unquestionably vital to the safety and security of the nation. 

So we thank you again for coming here to testify today and share 

with us your wisdom. We appreciate your willingness to contribute 

to solving the problems and look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. 

I am going to suggest that we start with Mayor Foster and then 

turn to Sheriff West, then to Mr. Miller and then to Mr. and Mrs. 

Walden. We would like to ask each of you to keep your oral remarks to five minutes. 

We have your full statements. We will gladly put those statements in the hearing record, but I think it will help move us along 

if you can summarize your statements and then leave time for our 

questions. 

Mayor, why don’t you begin? 

BORDER FENCE

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you. Chairman Price, subcommittee Members, I am speaking today for 2.1 million Americans in 14 border 

counties of the 1,250 mile Texas-Mexico border. 

Historically our communities have endured the neglect of federal 

and state governments. In recent years, the tide has begun to turn 

as the border has emerged as one of the most vibrant and dynamic 

regions in Texas. Ours is a region of contrast exhibiting differences 

of language, culture, tradition and economy. The interconnectedness of our communities on both sides of the international boundary gives our region a distinct sense of place. 

The Texas Border Coalition thanks you for your leadership. We 

ask your continued assistance in giving our communities a voice in 

government decisions and ask for your help in providing us the 

tools to advance our region. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

96 

Your 2008 bill set the performance bar high for the Department 

of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection. Our region needs your help making the execution clear the bar. Their performance in the six weeks since enactment has not been encouraging. 

Even before the President signed your bill, we sought to begin 

consultation with the CBP as required by law and were rebuffed. 

We were told that CBP had held 18 town hall meetings. That, on 

investigation, turned out to be meals in restaurants and phone 

calls. I trust that most of you have held town hall meetings in your 

districts, and none of you would consider a private phone call between two parties to meet that definition. 

In the single instance where CBP consulted with local government, a resolution has been agreed to. Last week Hidalgo County 

agreed to partner with DHS to rebuild levees along the Rio Grande 

to create a more effective barrier to illegal entry. It does not include a fence that people seeking illegal entry can climb over, cut 

through or tunnel under. It is a smart solution. 

We have proposed similar solutions with the Laredo Vega and 

Brownsville Weir projects, only to be rejected without discussion or 

investigation. We want to work with DHS to fashion smart solutions. We need your muscle to bring them to the table and work 

with us. 

As the Border Patrol gains greater control of the border between 

the ports—and in Texas we are achieving control without a fence— 

the ports of entry come under great stress. It is a top TBC priority 

that Congress give the ports of entry the personnel and technology 

needed to harden their vulnerability. 

We will work with your financial services colleagues on needed 

infrastructure improvements. According to the Government Accountability Office, we need 4,000 new officers to secure the ports 

of entry. The President’s budget proposes 500. We understand the 

need to ramp up, but at this pace we will remain in danger beyond 

2017. We need to double the President’s number to 1,000 this year 

and double it again next year to 2,000 new Customs agents. 

The President’s budget proposes to implement the Western 

Hemisphere Travel Initiative on October 1, 2008. Whether it is implemented in 2008 or 2009 as provided by your bill, our ports of 

entry must be equipped to deal with the new rule. 

The budget does not include needed investments in technology, 

training, public education or testing that are essential to success. 

In the face of these shortcomings, the budget proposes to cut salaries and expenses, budget authority for the ports of entry by $344 

million. I understand that the appropriations justification for ports 

of entry reduces their request by another $300 million. 

The President’s plan raises questions whether the DHS commitment to secure the border is no more than a hollow premise that 

depends on ineffective fences. The consequence of the Administration’s policy would be a less safe border, a less safe America, fewer 

hands on deck without the equipment they need and longer lines 

at the border. 

The 9/11 terrorists entered the United States through ports of 

entry. Most undocumented aliens enter the United States through 

ports of entry. Most illegal drugs entering the United States come 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

97 

through ports of entry. We need to invest in our ports of entry to 

protect Americans from terrorism, illegal drugs and unlawful entry. 

Without these investments our economy will continue to falter as 

commerce is frustrated by growing border crossing wait times at 

the expense of American jobs and economic growth. 

The Texas Border Coalition believes we can do better. We urge 

your subcommittee to improve the Administration plan and harden 

the security on the nation’s borders. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

98 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 145 42401A.060
99 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 146 42401A.061
100 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mayor. 

Sheriff West. 

Mr. WEST. Yes. Thank you all for inviting me up here. I have 

this speech wrote up here, but I am going to tell you how it is, gentlemen. 

First of all, let me start by thanking you gentlemen for the 

money that the Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition has received from 

you gentlemen. It has been a shot in the arm, so to speak. Congressman Culberson and Congressman Rodriguez have been real 

instrumental in seeing the aspects that we deal with down there. 

You made a comment earlier that you were seeing the tide 

change. Yes, sir. Absolutely. You are seeing the tide change, and 

you are seeing those changes as a direct result of a conglomerate 

of everybody working together and being able to do this with such 

funds that we have received from you gentlemen, as well as funds 

that we have received from the State of Texas. 

I am pleased to report to you that by last consensus the crime 

rate is down 63 percent in the State of Texas on the border, which 

is a significant difference as to what it was say two years ago, a 

year and a half ago. We are making good strides. We are developing a wonderful partnership with DHS, Border Patrol, CBP, however you want to call it. We are moving forward. 

As we push these issues back, and I want to say by issues, as 

we press towards the border there is going to be more to come. 

They are obviously laying in hiding now. They are going to wait for 

the opportunity. They are going to wait until we give out. They are 

going to wait until we quit pushing. It is our strong determination 

that we keep pushing, that we keep it secure and secure it more 

and more every day. 

Once again, I would like to say that I think we are making good 

strides. I think there is a lot of work still left to be done. I cannot 

honestly sit here and tell you that we are ever going to get to Point 

B, but we are a long ways from Point A I guess you might say. 

I would just thank you, gentlemen, for everything you all have 

done for us. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

101 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert folio 149 42401A.062
102 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert folio 150 42401A.063
103 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert folio 151 42401A.064
104 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert folio 152 42401A.065
105 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Sheriff. 

Mr. Miller. 

BORDER FENCE

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Chairman Price and Members of the 

committee, for this opportunity to come and visit with you. 

My name is Jim Ed Miller. I am a farmer in Fort Hancock, 

Texas, which is in Hudspeth County, Texas, of which I am a county 

commissioner also. I am here today to voice my support for a secure border. 

There are two concerns that I want to bring up about installing 

the border fence along the Rio Grande in El Paso and Hudspeth 

County. Number one, you cannot in my opinion secure a border 

along the Rio Grande without controlling the vegetation along the 

Rio Grande. 

Number two, the installation of the border fence must not damage the flood control capability of the river and/or interfere with canals and other infrastructures that irrigation districts have in their 

facilities that run parallel to the river. 

With your permission, I have some photographs. I think you 

have them in your package. They may not be in color. There are 

some color ones here. It is pictures of the Rio Grande. Picture No. 

1 is a picture of the Rio Grande very close to Fort Hancock, Texas, 

where I farm. This part of the river has not been cleaned for many 

years, and most of the vegetation that you see along the banks of 

the river here is salt cedar. 

Now, these salt cedar provide a tremendous staging area for all 

sorts of illegal activity along the river. Number one, it endangers 

us for flood control. Number two, that endangers the Border Patrol 

when they are down there on that river trying to patrol it. 

Picture No. 2 is a section of the river just upstream from Picture 

No. 1, and it has been cleaned. The salt cedar has been removed. 

The floodways have been mowed. This is the levee here. 

Picture No. 3 just kind of gives you a brief overview of where we 

are talking about putting this fence and the infrastructure that the 

irrigation districts, both El Paso and Hudspeth, have that parallel 

the river. 

We all agree that we need a win/win situation, Mr. Chairman. 

If we can get the river cleaned, the border protection agencies, be 

it Border Patrol or whomever, have a much better chance of securing our border, and the local people have a much greater flood control structure here in times of flooding. 

My second concern is the damage that may be caused to the infrastructure of our region by placing a fence down there. Again, the 

irrigation districts parallel the Rio Grande, and if the fence is put 

up this impedes the ability of the local districts to get in and maintain their infrastructure. 

Picture No. 4 deals with that. This is a stretch of river in El Paso 

County. The water you see is the main canal. The dirt there to the 

right of the picture is the river levee. To the right of that is Mexico. 

All the water that comes to the irrigation districts, farmers in El 

Paso and Hudspeth County, has to come through this common 

ditch, and also a tremendous amount of water that is being delivered to the City of El Paso all has to come through this canal. If 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

106 

you put a fence in, where you put it could really deter in the ability 

of the district to maintain this main artery for water delivery. 

All of these structures that are on the irrigation side of this 

equation are being supported by the local taxpayers. There is a 

point to where the local people cannot afford to maintain these 

kind of things. 

Coming full circle, if we will clean the vegetation in the river we 

go back to the win/win deal of the Border Patrol can patrol the border and flood control is afforded, the flood control which could damage local people and/or damage the fence if it were put in there 

somewhere. 

I want to support and applaud Secretary Chertoff’s recent effort 

for the work in Hidalgo County and our concerns with the border 

fence. We hope that we can work also with Customs and Border 

Patrol to come up with some sort of solution to minimize and mitigate the damage that would be done by putting a fence down there. 

With that, I thank you very much for this opportunity to visit 

with you. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

107 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 157 42401A.066
108 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 158 42401A.067
109 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 159 42401A.068
110 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 160 42401A.069
111 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 161 42401A.070
112 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. 

Now we turn to the Waldens. Welcome. 

BORDER FENCE

Ms. NAN WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dick and I and our 

neighbors are grateful for the opportunity to share some of our experiences today, and we thank you for your good work on these 

issues. 

You all have to have the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of 

Job to sit here and usually listen to us citizens blame you for everything the federal government does wrong, but today Dick and I 

are going to try to minimize the generalities and to give you some 

specific solutions from our point of view on strengthening security 

and improving government/community relations along our southern 

border. 

We believe achieving a successful and strong border and immigration policy is both a matter of national security and economic 

security, and it is also a humanitarian issue. We are concerned 

that many citizens who do not live, work or travel across our southern borders do not appreciate the gravity of the situation. The 

drug-associated violence, the human smuggling, environmental impacts, as well as the impacts on commerce, all must be considered 

as you craft our federal policies. 

While we appreciate the challenges they face and the service 

they render, we and our neighbors have some serious concerns 

about the culture of the parts of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, with which we interact most, the Border Patrol, and 

we will give you some specific examples of that later. 

We hope that you will read our testimony in its entirety, and we 

have included some articles as well for the record. Our overall message today is that if we address these issues piecemeal we are 

doomed to failure. 

Allow us to give you some firsthand examples as citizens who 

live and work within 30 to 40 miles of the Arizona-Mexico border. 

Mr. RICHARD WALDEN. Our family and our company, Farmer’s 

Investment Company, has been farming and ranching in this area 

for more than 60 years, and before that we were five generations 

in agriculture in California. My ancestors came from England in 

the 1600s. 

One rode a horse from New York to San Francisco in 1842. Two 

years later he sent for his wife and two children, who sailed around 

the Horn, an 11 month trip. Since it is Valentine’s Day I thought 

I would add they had five children after that, so I guess absence 

makes the heart grow fonder. 

We come from military families and law enforcement backgrounds. Our company has 7,500 acres mostly planted to pecans in 

the Santa Cruz Valley south of Tucson and 2,000 acres in eastern 

Arizona, a warehouse facility in Las Cruces and a 1,000 acre pecan 

farm in Albany, Georgia. 

With 250 employees and a peak of 300 during the harvest, many 

of our permanent employees are second and third generation, largely Hispanic. Spanish is their language of work. We provide generous health benefits and 401[k] plans. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

113 

In addition, Nan and I personally own a ranch, which is the picture on the right, in Amado, Arizona, which is where you turn to 

go to Arivaca when you want to see the site there. We raise Arabian horses and commercial cattle. The FICO lands are about 40 

miles north of the border, and our ranch is 30 miles from the border. 

We deeply appreciate the history and the beauty of where we 

live. We appreciate the service of the men and women in law enforcement, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Border Patrol, the National Guard, who has until recently been on the 

border, and local police and sheriffs who help protect us. 

We sincerely value our cultural heritage, social and commercial 

ties with Mexico. We believe most of our Arizona neighbors and 

Americans share these goals. Number one, secure our borders from 

criminals and terrorists, protect our families and neighborhoods, 

protect our commerce, protect the environment which inspires us, 

which sustains many of our enterprises, be they farming, ranching, 

tourism and hospitality. 

Ms. NAN WALDEN. We have no illusions about the conditions in 

northern Mexico which are spilling over into our country: The increasing violence among the drug cartels and gangs, the 

kidnappings and homicides against judges, journalists, police chiefs 

and other leaders. 

There are new alliances now between the coyotes, who used to 

only smuggle people, and the drug smugglers. Now in addition or 

in lieu of charging illegals money, and we understand the going 

rate is $3,000 to $5,000 per person, the coyotes use illegals to carry 

drugs or carry smaller or poorer grade materials to enable other diversions in shipments to go around. Beatings of the people who pay 

the coyotes to be transported are common. We had some very sad 

examples right in our backyard. 

Recently a Mexican business colleague of ours was kidnapped. 

We were called for ransom by the desperate family. We had to involve the FBI. In these situations, the FBI does not call the local 

police, of course, because they cannot trust them. They deal with 

the army or professional negocios out of Mexico City who now make 

a living from arranging with the kidnappers. Fortunately, this 

man’s family was able to get his release in about 10 days. 

We have listed for you here some of our daily experiences. We 

have had neighbors who have had people turn up wounded and 

bleeding on their porch. Hearing automatic weapons fire is not uncommon in their neighborhood, which is an exclusive estate area 

within two miles of the I–19 freeway. 

Some nights on our ranch we come home to Border Patrol in the 

driveway, which is fine with us. On other occasions we have come 

home to a number of Minutemen camped out in and around our 

driveway with coolers and weapons sitting on their tailgates. 

We woke up in the middle of the night worried one night about 

our hired hand, who is legal, but who does not speak much 

English. I was concerned that if he went to change the irrigation 

sets he might be mistaken for an illegal and shot at. 

We would like to add we understand the frustration of folks living along the border who join the Minutemen because they do not 

believe that the federal government is doing enough to protect 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

114 

them. On our ranch, our young 25-year-old woman manager wears 

a Glock in her holster every day. We carry firearms whenever we 

ride out, and in our car and home we have a trained German Shepherd with us all the time. 

Mr. PRICE. Ms. Walden, if I could ask you all to wrap up fairly 

quickly here? 

Ms. NAN WALDEN. Let me just say that we have recommended 

in the last part of our statement about eight different things that 

we could take, actions the federal government could take that 

would improve in very specific forms securing our border. 

One of the largest things I think that we think would be maintaining the National Guard presence there. The Border Patrol tells 

us that they are very helpful, that they take some of the stresses 

off of the Border Patrol. 

We also think standardizing the communications among the federal, state and local agencies with the radio frequencies is very important. That was a major recommendation of the 9–11 Commission, and it has not been done. 

There are serious concerns about the fence, and we have submitted some letters from our neighbors for the record about that. 

Then we also feel it is very important that the Border Patrol 

take the citizen participation seriously. You called for consultation. 

Many of us worked on a citizen work group for Congressmen Giffords and Grijalva, and the day before we were to announce the results of our work group we woke up to this headline in our local 

paper, which says Official Rules Out Debate on Border Facility. 

You know, it is up to them to decide what the best policy is, but 

for the citizens to work six months and come up with a report and 

then the Border Patrol to hold a press conference the day before 

and say that our opinion did not matter is very disturbing to us 

as Americans. 

Mr. PRICE. We will insert at this point in the record that press 

account if you leave it with us. 

Ms. NAN WALDEN. Thank you very much. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

115 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 169 42401A.071
116 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 170 42401A.072
117 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 171 42401A.073
118 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 172 42401A.074
119 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 173 42401A.075
120 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 174 42401A.076
121 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 175 42401A.077
122 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 176 42401A.078
123 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 177 42401A.079
124 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 178 42401A.080
125 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 179 42401A.081
126 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 180 42401A.082
127 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 181 42401A.083
128 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 182 42401A.084
129 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 183 42401A.085
130 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 184 42401A.086
131 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 185 42401A.087
132 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 186 42401A.088
133 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 187 42401A.089
134 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 188 42401A.090
135 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 189 42401A.091
136 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 190 42401A.092
137 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 191 42401A.093
138 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 192 42401A.094
139 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 193 42401A.095
140 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 194 42401A.096
141 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 195 42401A.097
142 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 196 42401A.098
143 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 197 42401A.099
144 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 198 42401A.100
145 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 199 42401A.101
146 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 200 42401A.102
147 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 201 42401A.103
148 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 202 42401A.104
149 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 203 42401A.105
150 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 204 42401A.106
151 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 205 42401A.107
152 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 206 42401A.108
153 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 207 42401A.109
154 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 208 42401A.110
155 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 209 42401A.111
156 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 210 42401A.112
157 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 211 42401A.113
158 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 212 42401A.114
159 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 213 42401A.115
160 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 214 42401A.116
161 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 215 42401A.117
162 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 216 42401A.118
163 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 217 42401A.119
164 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 218 42401A.120
165 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 219 42401A.121
166 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 220 42401A.122
167 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 221 42401A.123
168 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 222 42401A.124
169 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 223 42401A.125
170 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 224 42401A.126
171 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 225 42401A.127
172 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 226 42401A.128
173 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 227 42401A.129
174 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 228 42401A.130
175 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 231 42401A.133
176 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folios 232 42401A.134
177 

CONSULTATION AND OUTREACH

Mr. PRICE. All right. We will have a chance to revisit some of 

this in the question period, so thank you. Thanks to all of you. We 

are going to get as far as we can. We do have some votes on the 

House Floor. We will break and come back as quickly as we can, 

but hopefully we can get through a number of questions. 

I want to take on directly the matter of consultation that I think 

all of you one way or another have referred to. 

Section 564 of the fiscal 2008 omnibus appropriations bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to consult with key 

stakeholders before constructing fencing along the southwest border. 

Specifically the law states that the Secretary ‘‘shall consult with 

the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, states, 

local governments, Indian tribes and property owners in the United 

States to minimize the impact on the environment, culture, commerce and quality of life for the communities and residents located 

near sites at which such fencing is to be constructed.’’ 

The Secretary plans to construct 370 miles of pedestrian fence 

and 300 miles of vehicle barriers this year. The Department asserts 

that it has undertaken ‘‘extensive outreach’’ to date. I want to ask 

the witnesses two questions, especially the mayor and the sheriff 

and the others if you want to chime in. 

First, has DHS outreach been ‘‘extensive’’? Secondly, and here, 

Mayor Foster, I am referring specifically to your testimony. You 

state that in the single instance where CBP consulted with local 

government that a resolution has been agreed to in fact. That is 

the example of Hidalgo County. Are any of you aware of any other 

DHS changes in the plan based on this outreach that they describe? 

Mayor, I think I will start with you. In December your coalition 

sought a moratorium on current fence construction, and this is a 

coalition, as I understand it, of the towns and cities along the borders. How many of them? How many? 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, it is all the elected officials and economic development entities from El Paso to Brownsville along the Texas 

border. 

Mr. PRICE. All the way, the entire Texas border? 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. So that is quite a coalition. You sought a moratorium 

on current fence construction until a comprehensive cooperative review had been made. However, DHS has declined to suspend its 

current schedule. 

We are interested in your views on what consultation should look 

like and to what extent it has measured up thus far. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you for the opportunity. In anticipation of 

the amendment passing, the Texas Border Coalition wrote the Secretary a letter. I believe the first letter was dated the 18th of December of last year. 

Understanding that he is under timelines, we were targeting 

January 21 as an opportunity for the Texas Border Coalition to 

meet with the Secretary. We received no response. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

178 

Again we wrote the Secretary another letter I believe dated the 

9th of January of this year, and the only response we have received 

thus far is the City of Eagle Pass got sued for a lack of right of 

entry. We will address that. 

The City of Eagle Pass passed a resolution in 2005 against fences 

or walls in the city limits. Working with Border Patrol, Border Patrol made a presentation to the council, and then they advised me 

in December of 2006 that Washington allowed them to delete a 

fence facet to a project that would in essence cede our municipal 

golf course and a city park that abut the Rio Grande between and 

north of our international bridges to Mexico. 

We have been working since we adopted Border Patrol’s plan on 

January 9, 2007. Our attorneys have been in constant contact with 

the Corps’ attorneys and working in good faith, and then here we 

come around the horn and they sue the City of Eagle Pass. 

Prior to that we got a letter from the Corps of Engineers asking 

for the right of entry. I addressed that with our city attorney, and 

he said we are in constant communication so we felt it was a little 

bit underhanded for them to sue a municipality who was communicating on a regular basis with attorneys representing DHS. 

Again, we were outreaching. We were writing letters on behalf 

of the Texas Border Coalition understanding that the Secretary is 

under some time constraints, trying again to facilitate a meeting to 

look at these different projects. 

As hard as it is to believe, the country boys can come up with 

a decent idea every now and then. The example of that is this levee 

project that the Secretary looked at last Friday and apparently it 

works again for Homeland Security and secures the residents of 

Hidalgo County against flood damage. 

We have a Brownsville Weir project. Laredo has another project, 

but we have yet been able to get DHS to sit down with us and look 

at these country ideas and see if they do not because security is 

again the priority of the Texas Border Coalition. 

Mr. PRICE. Not knowing a whole lot in depth about these individual situations, but my understanding is in the Hidalgo County 

situation there was financing involved with the county or the local 

officials—— 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE [continuing]. Putting up a good deal of money to facilitate this resolution, you might say. 

Mr. FOSTER. In excess of $100 million. 

Mr. PRICE. Excuse me? 

Mr. FOSTER. In excess of $100 million. A bond had been passed 

by the residents of Hidalgo County. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, is that the missing ingredient in these other 

cases? 

Mr. FOSTER. No, sir. The missing ingredient has been Homeland 

Security to sit down and look at these projects. The missing ingredient has historically been Homeland Security. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Consultation. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. Exactly. We felt again in anticipation of the 

amendment we began understanding the Secretary has timelines 

that he has to meet. We started trying to facilitate a meeting with 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

179 

him beginning the 18th of December of last year trying to get that 

consultation to look at the projects. 

Again, as the Commissioner mentioned, the Texas Border Coalition. Security is a priority, but we feel that the first step is eradicating the Carrizo cane and the salt cedar that is a hiding ground 

for any illicit activity that comes into our border. By the same 

token, if you eradicate those two plants we are losing enough water 

through transpiration to those two plants to supply the City of 

Brownsville with water for four years. 

Technology is another issue. We feel that we can achieve a secure border through the implementation of modern technology. The 

sensors that we see now on the banks of the Rio Grande are three 

generations old. The Border Patrol is doing a wonderful job in the 

Del Rio sector with Eagle Pass. I believe that sector goes from 

Eagle Pass to Sanderson. Apprehensions are down 70 percent. 

At the same time period, in the San Diego sector where you have 

physical barriers apprehensions are up seven percent, so we are 

doing a good job, but Texas is unique in that we know where our 

border is. We have the scenic and historic Rio Grande River. 

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1948 established the border 

of Texas as midstream of that natural resource, and any time we 

move off that midpoint we are in effect ceding land back to Mexico. 

Mr. PRICE. Sheriff, the Department maintains that it has been 

consulting with law enforcement, including sheriffs, and chiefs of 

police. I wonder if you and your colleagues would agree with that? 

Mr. WEST. On behalf of the Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition, we 

took the position that we had no position on the fence, but as far 

as a consultation, and I think collectively we all agreed to take this 

position for the simple fact that we had little to somewhat consultation. 

I have had one meeting with them personally and then I have 

received packages in the mail, nice drawn out pictures and things 

of that nature, but we have not had that big of a role in regards 

to the fence. 

Mr. PRICE. Are you saying that you have not sought that much 

of a role? I mean, surely the nature of the border infrastructure 

that we end up constructing has something to do with law enforcement. 

Mr. WEST. Absolutely it does. From our perspective, we spend 

most of our time chasing the bad guys once they have already come 

in. I mean, they have already come around. 

We have encountered in Hudspeth County in Fort Hancock several times where we have gotten close up to the river there and 

then been held back under fire fight because they are shooting at 

us from across the other side with the brush on the other side, so 

it is a problem on both sides. 

As far as the approach, the last approach they had with me personally was it was going to be a hit and miss area of the fence. 

Keep in mind the county is kind of divided by two different terrains. We have lower valley farm areas on the west side and then 

we have natural barriers on the eastern part of the side. The border area is approximately 97 miles, so the last 50 miles of it is 

going to be natural terrain that is going to be a barrier there. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

180 

But for the consultations, in answer to your question, yes, we 

have talked about it, but once it was we are going to come talk to 

you about it but it is going to be hit and miss, then there is really 

no sense in talking about it if that is how you are going to do it. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Miller? Mr. and Mrs. Walden? From the landowners’ perspective, what would you say of the consultation process 

so far? Has it been clear what you need to do to express your 

views? Has the process been fair? How extensive has it been? 

Mr. MILLER. I do not feel it has been fair. I think because I was 

a commissioner I was invited to be on a conference call about a 

year ago with some of the high ranking Border Patrol, Homeland 

Security. 

They were talking about what a great thing this Boeing contract 

with these high tech towers they were going to put up. They used 

the term tag and track. It is going to enable the Border Patrol to 

tag and track much more effectively. 

I, being the smart aleck, said I am not really in favor of tag and 

track. Why do you not just keep them out in the first place. Not 

long after that I was approached by some Border Patrolmen and 

asked if they could get all the legal papers signed to ingress and 

egress through our farmland to do some surveying for the fence. 

I said well, just what if I do not want a fence? They said that 

is not for you to decide because you are getting one anyway. 

Mr. PRICE. Ms. Walden or Mr. Walden? 

Ms. NAN WALDEN. I would just have to echo that the Malpai 

group that submitted the letter for the record, which is a big group 

of ranchers around the Douglas area that have cooperated on a 

number of issues, they have had worries about their cattle. 

They have said these vehicle barriers that are going in there, if 

they could just save the wire fences so that the cattle could be restrained because they will go through the vehicle barriers. They 

are just tearing out the fencing. 

How much does that cost, Dick, to put in for a private—— 

Mr. RICHARD WALDEN. $10,000 a mile, we think. 

Ms. NAN WALDEN. $8,000 to $10,000 a mile for a good wire fence 

for your cattle. 

Mr. RICHARD WALDEN. Yes, sir. 

Ms. NAN WALDEN. Right. And so, you know, if they could just either leave the cattle fencing in and then put the other fence where 

it has to go or add some kind of a layer to the vehicle barriers, but 

they are not considering those practical solutions. 

Mr. RICHARD WALDEN. They are not having a two-way conversation. 

Ms. NAN WALDEN. It is strictly top down. We are the experts, 

and you can put up or shut up. 

Mr. PRICE. Thanks to all of you. 

Mr. FOSTER. Oh, we will keep talking if you want us to. 

Mr. PRICE. I know you will. 

Mr. FOSTER. We are full of conversation. 

Mr. PRICE. We will give you another chance. We are going to go 

vote, and we will be back. I think it is a series of votes. We will 

be back as quickly as we can. 

Mr. FOSTER. All right. 

Mr. PRICE. I apologize. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

181 

[Recess.] 

Mr. PRICE. There is action on the House Floor that is not under 

our control. 

Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First let me express our appreciation to these witnesses who 

traveled a great distance and expense to be with us to share their 

points of view. We appreciate it. It is very informative. Like one of 

you said to me privately a moment ago, the border is unique. The 

Texas border is unique, I guess, as well as the others. We appreciate your information. 

This is essentially about whether or not the Department is conversing properly with officials and citizenry on the border on what 

we do about controlling access to the country, and I do not guess 

there could be enough consultation, but there should be at least a 

minimum consultation. That is a debatable point. 

Someone showed me this picture of what apparently was assigned for the Del Rio and Eagle Pass part of the border. Is that 

familiar? 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Was this done with consultation with you or what? 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. If I may, that is a decorative pin. 

Border Patrol approached the City of Eagle Pass—as a date I am 

going to say June of 2006—with the project cleaning out 1.25 miles 

of cane along the banks of the river, and again reinforcing we have 

our municipal golf course goes up to the riverbank and contiguous 

to the golf course to the north is a city park. They were going to 

clean out the cane and then build a road where they were going 

to overlay on top of a cart path that paralleled the river. 

There is a creek going into the river just south of our northernmost bridge. They were going to bridge that creek and continue 

that patrol road along the banks of the river into our city park, 

which is a wonderful idea. 

Then about a quarter mile off the river they were going to put 

in 15 light towers that would illuminate our municipal golf course 

at night and our city park at night, and that is very aesthetically 

appealing. It is a park improvement project. Then they were going 

to put this decorative fence was one facet of that project. 

In the June 2006 meeting we had a resolution against any fences 

or walls. Well, they came back and approached me in December of 

2006 and made me aware that Washington had allowed them to 

delete the fence facet of that project. 

Well, I could not get them on a council meeting fast enough. We 

had them on our agenda on January 9, 2007, and they made their 

presentation with the deletion of the fence facet. I perceived it as 

a park improvement project, but in fact it passed our council on a 

3–2 vote. 

After that council meeting I asked the two dissenting council 

members what their issues were with this project because I looked 

at it as a park improvement project. The two dissenting council 

members just said flat out we do not trust them. We do not trust 

them. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

182 

From that point forward our city attorneys continued to work 

with the attorneys for the Corps of Engineers. They wanted fee 

title to the property. We agreed to grant them a—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I guess—— 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir? 

Mr. ROGERS. I guess what I am trying to find out is it sounds 

like you have had a lot of consultations. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir, and then we get sued January 14. It is my 

understanding that decorative fence that was deleted on January 

9, 2007, is back on in this suit from the drawings we have been 

able to see, but we have yet to be able to sit down with anybody 

and get a definitive. 

This lawsuit is for access into 233 acres, inclusive of Fort Duncan 

Park. Our golf course and our city park are only 90 acres. We are 

not sure what we are doing now. We had had consultation and 

reached agreement and were in communication, but now due to 

this lawsuit that was filed January 14 the wheels are off the cart 

again. 

Mr. ROGERS. That is the condemnation suit—— 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS [continuing]. By the Corps? 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. It appears to us in talking without city attorneys, it appears that the left hand did not know what the right 

hand was doing because we had been in constant communication 

with the Corps’ attorneys. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, let me ask you a general question. Answer 

whomever. How much of the riverbank is grown up in shrubs and 

trees and bushes? 

Male VOICE. All of it. 

PHYSICAL FENCE OBSTACLES

Mr. FOSTER. This Carrizo cane will get up to 30 feet, the salt 

cedar. I mean—— 

Mr. ROGERS. No. What percent of the bank is covered? 

Mr. MILLER. Percent of the bank or percent of the river? 

Mr. ROGERS. The river. 

Mr. MILLER. The river? I can only speak for El Paso to Presidio. 

I mean, below what we call Little Box Canyon about 60, 70 miles 

down from El Paso past that there is no channel. It is just nothing 

but salt cedar. 

The water that gets there does not even arrive in Presidio because it just gets sucked up by all the salt cedar. It either percolates or evaporates. I cannot speak all the way down. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, if the banks were cleared, as one of your photographs indicated—— 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS [continuing]. What would that do insofar as protecting us from interlopers? 

Mr. MILLER. From what? 

Mr. ROGERS. From people trying to get across. 

Mr. MILLER. The Border Patrol can see what is coming. It has 

been my experience, and I am not picking on the Border Patrol, 

okay, but where the river is cleaned you find Border Patrol on the 

border. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

183 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. Well, are they proposing to clear that stuff out? 

Mr. MILLER. Not that I know of. 

Mr. WEST. Can I add something to that? If you look at the picture with the brush there on both sides of the banks of the 

river—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes? 

Mr. WEST [continuing]. Several times, like I said earlier, we have 

had encounters there where we are shot upon. As a matter of fact, 

on Mr. Miller’s farms we were taking in fire when we chased a vehicle down in there with 1,800 pounds. 

That creates a problem for law enforcement not only in El Paso 

and Hudspeth Counties, but all the way down to Brownsville because you are going in from daylight into the dark. These guys can 

hide in these bushes. They can hide in this brush and pretty much 

do what they want to. We have no idea of how many we are up 

against when we go down in there. 

Mr. FOSTER. If I may, sir, I think that might be the first step 

that we would want to take is let us peel all this cover off to see 

what we have to work with because once you get rid of this cane 

and salt cedar, that facilitates line of sight for a Border Patrol 

agent to the banks of the river. 

We were taking one group in, one news group in to look at it, 

and they made the comment there could be a 500 pound elephant 

on fire in here and you would never see him because you get into 

that cane. It gets up to 30 feet high. It will be in excess of a quarter of a mile from the edge of the river. 

Once any illegal entry gets into that cane or salt cedar, he is very 

challenging to detect. Again, as the sheriff mentioned, you do not 

know how many, nor does the Border Patrol. 

Again, I would say that would be the first step is let us eradicate 

that stuff and get a real idea what the banks of the river look like. 

Mr. WEST. That would be very instrumental in officer safety to 

get that cleaned up. 

ACCESS TO PRIVATE LAND

Mr. ROGERS. A lot of landowners I am told are refusing to allow 

access to their land just to see what needs to be done. 

Mr. FOSTER. If I may, sir? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. 

Mr. FOSTER. Again, apparently what we looked at with the Border Patrol was a park improvement project, and apparently a DHS 

fence project is a separate project. 

When Border Patrol said Washington allowed them to delete the 

fence facet, and since they put that fence back on we have not had 

any consultation, but we feel again if you put these 15 light towers 

that are going to illuminate areas between our two ports of entry 

and north in the city park and eradicate this cane so that you can 

see what is coming, it would be very challenging to—— 

Mr. ROGERS. My question is, and perhaps the Waldens may answer this or Mr. Miller. 

Some property owners apparently have refused to let the Department or officials of the Corps on their property to see what needs 

to be done, and that is the reason apparently for a lot of these right 

of entry condemnations along the border. Are you familiar with—— 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

184 

Ms. NAN WALDEN. I am a little bit familiar with this because I 

think there has been a breakdown in trust. 

From the people I have talked to in Douglas, the Malpai ranching group, and I think you were alluding to it too, Mr. Mayor, is 

the Border Patrol or DHS says one thing and does another, and 

that is where then the local landowners get their backs up and do 

not want access because they work and work and work like we did 

in this working group, and then we read in the headlines that our 

considerations, our opinions do not matter. 

We are constantly told we are the experts. We are the experts. 

Well, we are also the experts when we are having violence on our 

homelands and when our businesses are threatened and when we 

are afraid to send the school kids home from school by themselves, 

so I do not think that that is a constructive attitude. 

In one case in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge near 

us, I know that the superintendent asked that some accommodation be made on a 60-foot area of fence that had endangered species there. You know, if they could just put up a camera there instead of fence for the pineapple cactus. I understand that is going 

to a lawsuit now. 

You know, that could have been a win/win if they could have 

come up with another idea, be it a camera or some other arrangement there or a different type of a fence, but there seems to be no 

willingness to compromise or to listen to alternatives at all. 

Then that is when people get suspicious of why should I cooperate because I am going to get sued anyway, or my rights will be 

trampled. 

Mr. MILLER. And may I confess I was asked by the Border Patrol 

if they could have permission to come in to do surveying projects. 

I said tell me what kind of vehicles or what is this going to entail? 

Are you coming in in a four-wheeler, or are you coming in in an 

Abrams tank? You know, I do not know. 

I said no. I said no, I am not just going to give you carte blanche 

permission to come in here with anything you want. They came in 

in a van with a Corps of Engineers and said can we go look? I said 

I will go with you. 

There are some communication things here too. I would have to 

confess that I denied them permission when they asked for written 

permission, but I did not keep them out, you know. When they 

came in with a van instead of a tank, sure, we can go do that. 

Mr. FOSTER. If I may, the City of Eagle Pass was sued for not 

signing off on a right of entry. We have never denied any federal 

entity the right to enter. We turned that over to our city attorneys, 

and they said we are communicating with them. 

I mean, in the December 7 letter we get from the Corps we are 

already in communication so we are thinking we are working the 

same project when in actuality DHS has another project that we 

are not aware of. 

We have never denied any federal entity access to any property 

in the City of Eagle Pass, yet we are being sued for right of entry. 

Ms. NAN WALDEN. A lot of us big landowners work with federal 

agencies all the time, be it the Corps, you know, the Bureau, flood 

plain issues, so we are used to doing that and we are cooperative. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

185 

It benefits all of us. This is a sign that the communications have 

broken down. 

Male VOICE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. Once again, we do have votes 

on the Floor. I know some of you have planes to catch. 

Let me just raise a couple of additional topics and ask you if you 

have remarks you would like to furnish for the record, we would 

be happy to hear from you on this. If we had more time we could 

explore this more fully. 

I was talking earlier about the requirements that were placed in 

our appropriations bill in terms of community consultation. Another requirement that is in that bill is that the Secretary of DHS 

provide our committee as part of his expenditure plan an analysis 

for each segment of the border, a segment not to exceed 15 miles 

in length, and in that analysis to compare alternative means of 

achieving operational control of the border. 

We have in mind costs and effectiveness and any other factors 

that would impinge on this and also, of course, we want to know 

about any unintended effects on communities. 

Our idea in requiring this segment-by-segment analysis is to do 

justice to the diversity—— 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. To the diversity of the border that we are talking 

about and probably the diversity of the kind of infrastructure that 

is going to be required. You are all aware of the one-size-fits-all 

mentality. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. As I am understanding every one of you today, you 

are at odds with that. You want to see solutions chosen that are 

appropriate to the terrain, to the communities, to whatever kind of 

diversity we are talking about across the border. 

So that is the point of the segment-by-segment analysis, and if 

you have further thoughts on that about the kind of diversity we 

are talking about here and how that applies to your community or 

your situation, we would like to know that. 

PORTS OF ENTRY

And then especially the Texas Border Coalition and the Sheriffs 

Coalition. We need to be aware of the interaction of what we are 

talking about here in terms of infrastructure with the strain on our 

ports of entry. 

I know in your statements you had some things to say about 

that. There is going to be increased pressure on the ports of entry. 

There are already plenty of pressures on those ports of entry. They 

are overwhelmed, some of them, with passenger and vehicle traffic, 

and that is going to potentially increase rather than decrease as we 

achieve this operational control. 

We included $225 million in last year’s appropriation or this 

year’s appropriation for GSA for port of entry modernization and 

expansion, but CBP says they need $4 billion—$4 billion—to improve the 163 land border crossings, and so we have some shortcomings and some strains there. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

186 

How much time do we have? Not very many minutes. Maybe let 

us take 30 seconds from each of you—the mayor, the sheriff—if you 

have a quick comment on this, but I will ask you to elaborate for 

the record. 

Mayor. 

Mr. FOSTER. Your comments on the amendment are just right on 

target. On that CBP number, I believe that is the Government Accountability Office that came up with the need to spend $4.8 billion 

and hire an additional 4,000 agents on the force. 

Mr. PRICE. And the congestion at these ports of entry, obviously 

that affects conditions in your community and other border communities. 

Mr. FOSTER. It affects conditions. The border is a conduit for 

goods coming, but for the flow between Mexico and the U.S. The 

goods that go to the ports are not produced on the border. We are 

just the conduit. It impacts the interior states more so than it does 

the border, but we see the first read on that. 

It is the Government Accountability Office that came up with 

that $4.8 billion and additional 4,000 agents to facilitate the legitimate flow of trade and tourism. 

Mr. PRICE. Sheriff, if I could get your attention just a moment? 

What would you say about the way that conditions at ports of entry 

affect the crime level or other security problems that you face? 

Mr. WEST. Well, you know, it is going back to a broad scheme. 

You cannot go in there. You have to take, I guess like you say, the 

cookie cutter approach and approach each area differently and with 

the local input go and decide what needs to be done in that local 

area. 

One of the major effects it causes by going in there at a mass 

amount is the backflow of traffic. When you get that big backflow 

of traffic, then CBP agents tend to just wave them on through. 

When that happens, then you have the illicit activities that come 

through with that, so each area needs to be defined on what best 

fits each area. 

Mr. PRICE. You have helped us today by giving us testimony. 

Even though we had a foreshortened hearing, we have benefitted 

from it. We will stay in touch with each of you. We invite you to 

submit further material. 

You get the idea here of the kind of questions we are asking and 

the kind of information we need to have as we work with the Department to have a rational approach to border infrastructure, but 

one that is also sensitive to the variety of community situations 

and needs that we have talked about here today. 

We thank all of you. As for the second hearing, which we had 

scheduled right after this, I think in all likelihood that hearing will 

be postponed. 

If there is a sudden reversal of the situation on the Floor in 

terms of the string of votes we are facing, then we will serve notice 

in the next 30 minutes, but otherwise we will postpone hearing 

from Commissioner Basham and the other witnesses in the second 

hearing. 

We will adjourn this hearing with our thanks to all of you. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

187 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 256 here 42401A.135
188 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 257 here 42401A.136
189 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 258 here 42401A.137
190 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 259 here 42401A.138
191 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 260 here 42401A.139
192 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 261 here 42401A.140
193 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 262 here 42401A.141
194 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 263 here 42401A.142
195 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 264 here 42401A.143
196 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 265 here 42401A.144
(197) 

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008. 

U.S. SECRET SERVICE 

WITNESS 

MARK SULLIVAN, DIRECTOR 

Mr. PRICE. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Good morning, everyone. 

And good morning, Director Sullivan. We thank you for appearing before the subcommittee today to discuss the 2009 budget for 

the Secret Service and the demanding work that you already have 

under way to protect the presidential candidates during the 2008 

campaign. 

We will be asking this morning how this protective mission, 

which makes major demands on Secret Service resources across 

multiple years, will affect your other functions, your investigations 

into financial and electronic crimes in particular. And we do this 

in the awareness that the administration has proposed new funds 

for other agencies to enhance cyber security, and we want to know 

where that leaves the Secret Service electronic crimes investigatory 

role. 

The Secret Service’s protective mission makes up nearly twothirds of the agency’s budget, or nearly $850 million in the 2009 

request. Concurrent with protecting our Nation’s leadership, the 

Secret Service must also be a vigilant guardian of our citizens’ constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms of speech, assembly and petition 

of the Government. 

The Secret Service also protects visiting foreign heads of state 

and coordinates a variety of Federal agencies and assets to protect 

large international events, such as the annual General Assembly of 

the United Nations and the upcoming visit of Pope Benedict XVI 

to our country. The partnerships upon which the Secret Service relies to man these large-scale events will be all the more important 

for this summer’s candidate-nominating conventions, both of which 

have been designated as National Special Security events by the 

Secretary. 

The Secret Service is more than just its protective operations, 

however. Its agents are conducting daily investigations into financial crimes, identity theft and money laundering through 116 domestic and 21 international field offices. The Secret Service has requested $318 million for its field operations, the work of which is 

critically important to the security of the Nation’s currency and its 

financial infrastructure. 

The 2009 budget submission introduces a different metric for reporting the amount of counterfeit currency in circulation, which, in 

turn, serves as a measure for the performance of Secret Service investigations. Unfortunately, the submission does not apply this 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

198 

new metric to prior years, so there is no way to compare the 2007 

investigatory results with what had been a negative historical 

trend of more and more counterfeit currency and circulation under 

the old reporting method. We want to know the reason for adopting 

this new metric, and would also ask that you complete a historical 

re-estimate of your investigatory data, so that we won’t have to 

wait several years to find out if counterfeit problems are continuing 

to grow. 

The Secret Service also has unique investigatory missions related 

to financial crimes committed online or through other electronic 

means. The agency has a network of 24 electronic crimes task 

forces, or ECTFs, situated across the country. These are dedicated 

to the prevention, investigation and prosecution of financial crimes 

committed electronically or by exploiting technology. 

In an era of rapidly growing cyber threats, I am surprised that 

the ECTF budget, like the overall investigatory budget at the Secret Service, includes no funding increase for 2009 except for inflation and pay annualizations. This raises a larger issue: the role the 

Secret Service will play alongside other agencies in the administration’s interagency cyber security initiative. 

With the 2008 campaign well under way, the Secret Service has 

already accelerated its protective activity, given that Senator 

Obama was assigned a protective detail earlier than any other candidate in history, and given that the protective detail for Senator 

Clinton, based on her status as a former first lady, has been enhanced because of her candidacy. 

With the extraordinary political activity accompanying the race 

to date, we will be interested to find out how you will manage the 

additional workload of protecting the party conventions, securing 

the transition to a new administration, and ensuring the security 

of the Capitol during the inauguration in 2009. 

We are also interested in other White House-related projects undertaken by the Secret Service in recent years, such as the screening of mail sent to the White House for pathogens and other 

threats. The explanatory statement that accompanied the 2008 appropriations act required the Secret Service to provide the subcommittee with information about mail screening. But, to date, we 

have not received the information we requested. We asked for a 

justification of why the Secret Service, rather than the White 

House Office of Administration, should be responsible for processing the President’s mail. I know you have been working on getting us this information, but we need to have it soon so that we 

can use it to inform our 2009 appropriations work. 

So, Mr. Director, we look forward to hearing your perspectives on 

these and other issues. We will, of course, put your written testimony in the record. We will ask you to summarize your remarks 

in 5 minutes so that we have plenty of time for exchange. 

Before we begin, let me turn to Mr. Rogers for his opening remarks. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome, Director Sullivan and your staff. 

You come before us today at an interesting time in the Secret 

Service’s history, a time when your agency is being tested in both 

of its missions: protection and investigations. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

199 

Every 4 years, the Secret Service endures the challenges of a 

presidential campaign, and today the men and women of our Nation’s oldest Federal law enforcement agency are right in the thick 

of a protracted presidential contest, one that is proving to be as dynamic as it is challenging. In fact, just this past week, the Secret 

Service surpassed 400 protective days at over 1,000 events in support of the campaign—quite a pace, by anyone’s estimation. 

This campaign comes at a time of continuously evolving threats 

to not only your agency’s current protectees, but also to our Nation’s financial infrastructure. Our monetary systems are now 

intertwined with cyberspace, and this is an arena rampant with 

derelict and criminal behavior—activity that your agency must investigate and do all it can to eradicate. 

I am interested to hear how your agency, with its impressive 

cyber crime forensics and intrusion-detection capabilities, is assisting other Government agencies and the private sector to determine 

and undermine cyber threats. And, in particular, I would like to 

know how Secret Service does or does not fit inside DHS’s latest 

cybersecurity efforts that we have recently learned about. 

So, once again, the Secret Service finds itself needing to adapt 

its resources to meet the demands of its dual mission. Once again, 

the Secret Service is striving to find that elusive balance between 

protection and investigation. But what is different today is the persistent work this subcommittee has done over the last few years to 

install the needed resources, staff and planning requirements to 

help the Secret Service weather this storm. 

Considering the difficulties you all encounter in budgeting for 

events that are as demanding and unpredictable as a presidential 

campaign, I trust you are gathering firsthand data of actual expenses and impacts upon investigations from what is only the second presidential race since 9/11. It is this empirical data that I 

hope we can learn more about today, as we discuss your request 

for fiscal year 2009 and what will move your agency forward. 

Director Sullivan, we are well aware of the challenges facing the 

Secret Service, and I believe you are well aware of our subcommittee’s expectations. You have our trust and our support. And we 

look forward to your testimony today. Welcome. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Please proceed, Director. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Good morning, Chairman Price, Congressman 

Rogers, distinguished members of the committee. Thank you very 

much for your support, and thank you very much for your comments. 

It is my pleasure to appear before you to discuss our fiscal year 

2009 budget request for the U.S. Secret Service. Mr. Chairman, I 

will offer brief remarks and ask that my full statement be made 

part of the record. 

The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request recognizes the 

Secret Service’s important contributions to homeland security. This 

budget provides the U.S. Secret Service with the resources needed 

to perform our dual mission of conducting criminal investigations 

to safeguard our Nation’s leaders, as well as safeguarding our Nation’s financial infrastructure. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

200 

In addition to investigating the production of counterfeit currency, identity theft, financial fraud and electronic and cyber 

crimes, our personnel serving in domestic and international field 

offices develop and implement complex security plans for the high 

volume and multidistrict visits of people we are charged to protect. 

For the 2008 presidential campaign, we have initiated candidate 

protection at the earliest point in campaign history—nearly 18 

months before the general election. As of March 31, 2008, we have 

implemented security plans at nearly 1,000 events and venues visited by our presidential candidates under our protection. 

The protection workload remains very busy in other areas as 

well. In April alone, our personnel have prepared for scheduled protective travel to 20 countries on five different continents. Especially 

noteworthy this month is the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Washington, D.C., and New York City. We will be the lead Federal law 

enforcement agency responsible for the security at Nationals Park 

as well as Yankee Stadium, as well as other venues during the 

Pope’s visit. 

Overall, the month of April, Secret Service protection operations 

will generate 5,300 additional personnel assignments above and beyond the number of assignments needed to sustain daily protective 

requirements. 

As these protection efforts advance, we continue to conduct aggressive financial and electronic crimes investigations. In fact, we 

are presently conducting several undercover cyber crime investigations, targeting suspects operating in foreign countries. These suspects are engaged in a range of illegal activities, from the largescale production and sale of fraudulent credit cards to the trafficking of personnel identification and account information obtained 

through data breaches resulting from computer hacking and network intrusion. 

I am often asked how we are able to do so well in meeting our 

dual mission of protection and investigation. The answer is the 

strength of the people and our diverse and talented workforce. The 

men and women of the U.S. Secret Service are dedicated and mission-focused, adaptable to change, collaborative with their law enforcement partners, and resourceful in executing comprehensive security plans and conducting criminal investigations. 

While technology has forever changed the way we carry out our 

dual mission, our core values remain the same as they have for the 

last 143 years. These same values will guide our organization as 

we prepare for tomorrow’s challenges. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening remarks. Thank you 

again for the opportunity to appear here today before you. And I 

am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

201 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 276 here 42401A.145
202 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 277 here 42401A.146
203 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 278 here 42401A.147
204 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 279 here 42401A.148
205 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 280 here 42401A.149
206 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 281 here 42401A.150
207 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 282 here 42401A.151
208 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 283 here 42401A.152
209 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 284 here 42401A.153
210 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 285 here 42401A.154
211 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 286 here 42401A.155
212 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 287 here 42401A.156
213 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 288 here 42401A.157
214 

2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Director. 

I will lead off with a question, not surprisingly about the campaign, the presidential campaign, and your work there. 

We know from the $85.3 million appropriated in 2008 for candidate protection that this is going to be the costliest campaign in 

the Secret Service’s history. Your budget for 2009 shows the budget 

going down to $41 million, but you still have substantial obligations the last month of the campaign: protection of the PresidentElect and Vice President-Elect and the inauguration, and then the 

cost of the post-presidential security detail for President Bush, 

which will start after the inauguration. 

I wonder what you can tell us about the campaign challenges to 

date. How does it compare to the 2004 race, for example? Are there 

special challenges associated with St. Paul and Denver? We certainly know there were with Boston and New York City in 2004. 

How do the challenges compare as regards to the convention cities? 

And, of course, your parent department is now 4 years older. It 

was a new department in 2004. What difference has the maturing 

of DHS made in terms of the support you can expect from your sister agencies? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Chairman. 

When I was here last year, one of the things we talked about was 

the unpredictability of the campaign. And I remember we were trying to determine how many campaign days we thought that there 

would be, and we were talking about when we thought there would 

be the high point of the campaign and the multiple candidates that 

we assumed we would be protecting. 

Little did I know then that we would be initiating protection in 

May of 2007 on Senator Barack Obama. You know, just to give a 

comparison, in the campaign going back to 2004, we initiated protection of Senator Kerry, I believe it was, in February of 2004. So 

initiating protection last May a full 18 months before the election 

did present a challenge. Not only that, coupled with the fact that 

an existing protectee that we are already protecting, Senator Clinton, was a candidate as well, in effect we had two candidates going, 

again, a full year and a half prior to the election. 

I would have to say that I believe we picked up that protection 

without missing a beat. You know, we began planning for this campaign back on January 21, 2005, and we were up and running, and 

I feel that we really did a nice job with that. 

However, it did come with challenges. As you mentioned earlier, 

we have provided protection at over a thousand venues, as of this 

date. We have gone through over 400 campaign days. And the 

tempo that we are seeing in this campaign is unlike anything we 

have ever seen before. The crowds of people we are seeing are larger—a lot of the crowds we are seeing now, quite frankly, are the 

type of crowds you see in October of the election year, a month before the election, when those crowds are really getting big. We have 

been seeing those throughout. As a matter of fact, going back to 

January, we have put 550,000 people through magnetometers or 

metal detectors that we have screened. So there are some big 

crowds out there. But our workforce has been up to it. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

215 

As far as St. Paul and Denver, as you know, the convention in 

St. Paul is August 25th through 28th of this year, and that is followed up a week later, September 1st through September 4th, in 

Denver. 

Both campaigns, I believe, are going very, very well. Convention 

planning is going very, very well. These have both been designated 

as national special security events. We have assigned senior leaders of our organization to coordinate each campaign. 

Each campaign coordination is performed using an executive 

steering committee. Each campaign has an executive steering committee. On that executive steering committee are the three main 

members from the Federal Government to coordinate these events; 

we have FEMA, the FBI and the Secret Service with senior leadership representation on there. In addition to that leadership, we 

also have the leadership of State and local law enforcement for 

each jurisdiction we are involved with. So there is a senior leadership presence on both of those executive steering committees. 

In addition to the executive steering committees, each convention 

has 17 working groups or subcommittees that have their own particular area of expertise that they are working on, as far as the 

planning goes. Examples would be air security, credentialing, crisis 

management, consequence management, intelligence-type issues, 

counterterrorism, chemical and biological issues. All of those areas 

are being addressed by these particular working groups. 

So I feel very, very comfortable that we are well on our way to 

putting together a good security plan for both of these conventions. 

I have met with both the chief of police for Denver as well as for 

St. Paul, and we have a very, very good working relationship with 

them. But as with everything we do, it all comes down to partnership, and I feel very confident about the partnership that everybody has with each other for these two events. 

We have also been planning for the—there are going to be four 

debates coming up in September and October. There will be three 

presidential debates, as well as one vice presidential debate. These 

are very unique, in that this is the one time during the campaign 

that we have both of the candidates at one venue together. 

So this also does take an extraordinarily large amount of coordination and planning and cooperation and partnership. And, again, 

I feel that is going very, very well. We have met, going back over 

a year ago, with the head of the Commission on Presidential Debates. We went with them to look at the venues. We have had 

many meetings with them. We hosted a meeting back at our headquarters building last week that was attended by all of our law enforcement partners as well as members of the Commission on the 

Presidential Debates. And, again, I feel very comfortable. Although 

these are not designated as national special security events, they 

still are big events, but I feel that the appropriate attention has 

been given to each of those events. 

And in parallel to all of this, we continue to plan for the presidential inauguration, which will be a national special security 

event. And we are doing that with all of our partners, as well 

State, local, our Federal partners up here at the Capitol. And, 

again, I feel very comfortable with the progress we are making 

with that. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

216 

So you are correct that it has been a very, very busy year with 

the campaign, but I feel very comfortable with where we are. 

On top of all of that, we continue to see a very high volume of 

foreign travel by our permanent protectees. Again, as I had mentioned last year, 3 years ago when you added up all of the foreign 

stops we had by all of our protectees, it came to about maybe 140, 

150 foreign stops in a year. This year, as well as last year, we hit 

about 350 foreign venues, and we are on track to do that same 

thing this year. The President has, I believe, foreign stops in 30 

countries for this year. The Vice President just came back from an 

8-day trip to the Middle East, to include Iraq and Afghanistan. The 

President, today, is on a foreign trip. So that volume of travel continues to stay the same or go up, as well. 

DHS SUPPORT AND COOPERATION

As far as DHS and 4 years later, what I am seeing is a high level 

of support and cooperation. Again, when we looked at this campaign, we realized it was going to be very labor-intensive on our 

organization. I spoke to both Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as with TSA regarding support from their organizations to help us through the campaign. So far we have not had to 

rely on the support of ICE. However, we have used screeners from 

TSA to help with all of the screening that we have done during the 

campaign. They work side by side with our uniform division officers. 

So far in this campaign, we have used, at all of our venues, about 

a thousand TSA screeners. This has not only been a very good partnership from an operational point of view, but also from a business 

perspective it has really been very advantageous, in that we have 

not had to travel people, lodge people, pay per diem for people, but 

we are using those TSA screeners at those local locations where 

they are able to come in and work for that 4 or 5 hours for that 

particular visit and perform their duty and then they are finished 

up. And, quite frankly, it has really, I think, created an era of collaboration between our uniform division officers and TSA as well, 

and it has been, I think, a very good learning experience for both. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Rogers. 

COSTS OF PROTECTIVE DAYS

Mr. ROGERS. Briefly on the presidential campaign, you have 

what you call a protective day, right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. And that means that is what it takes to protect one 

protectee for 1 day? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Do you have an estimate of that cost per day? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. Last year, when I appeared before you, 

we estimated that it would be about $44,000 per day. So far for 

this year, when we look at the numbers, we believe we are somewhere between $37,000 and $38,000 per day. However, again, as 

that tempo—and I do believe that the tempo will pick up, I assume 

that we are going to be pretty much on target. Right now we are 

at about $37,000, $38,000 a day, sir. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

217 

Mr. ROGERS. That is per protectee? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

DETERMINING WHEN CANDIDATES RECEIVE PROTECTION

Mr. ROGERS. How many protectees do you have now? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Candidate protectees? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Two, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. 

Mr. ROGERS. But not Senator McCain? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Why is that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sir, he has not requested protection. 

Mr. ROGERS. How do you go about mechanically deciding who 

gets protected and who doesn’t? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The decision to provide protection is made by Secretary Chertoff. He is aided in that decision by a five-member advisory committee. The advisory committee is made up of the Speaker 

of the House, the Minority Leader of the House, the Leader of the 

Senate, as well as the Minority Leader of the Senate. In addition 

to those four people, there is a fifth at-large person who is on the 

committee. This year, that fifth at-large person is the Sergeant at 

Arms for the House. Last time around, it was the Sergeant at 

Arms for the Senate. 

There are guidelines that each candidate has to comply with in 

order to be eligible for that protection. They have to have, you 

know, raised so much money. They have to be at a certain point 

in the polls. They have to belong to a major political—recognized 

political party. 

Having said all that, if they do fit all of those guidelines and if 

they do request protection, that request will go to the Secretary. 

The Secretary, based on the advice he receives from the committee, 

will make a determination whether or not protection is warranted 

or not. 

2008 CAMPAIGN PROTECTIVE DAYS

Mr. ROGERS. Now, last year, you, I think accurately, predicted 

that there would be an increase in the number of protective days 

because of what looked like a big campaign, a lot of candidates and 

so on. And you estimated a need, at that time, of 739 protective 

days—protection days, I guess you call them—as opposed to the 

454 days for the 2004 presidential campaign. A substantial increase, almost double. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Has that panned out to be true? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It has, sir. Going back to—not including the days 

going from May until October, but going from October to now, we 

are right at about 440 days, I believe, of protection. So, although 

we thought these days would come in a different fashion, the way 

it has played out, we are pretty much on track for what we predicted. When you look at how many days we have left going 

through October of 2008, I believe our prediction will be pretty 

much on target. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I think you said you have provided protection 

at over a thousand events so far in the campaign, correct? 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

218 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

SECRET SERVICE INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. ROGERS. Let me switch briefly and quickly to the other half 

of what you do, and that is investigate criminal activity in the financial world. 

I am concerned, as we discussed last year, that with this heavy 

work that you are doing in protecting people, especially in the presidential campaign, that we will not get the equal treatment that 

should be given to investigating crimes, financial crimes. 

Can you help me alleviate that worry? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. That was a—as with you—and, again, I 

do appreciate your support on that Congressman Rogers—that was 

a concern we had, as well. And we believe we had a very aggressive 

and a very strong momentum going on into the campaign, and we 

didn’t want to lose that. And I would say I don’t believe we have 

lost that momentum. 

You know, as you know, I believe you were referring to our return on investigation, where we take a look at qualitatively and 

quantitatively, you know, how are we performing. And last year, 

for the first time, we did take a look at that. We came up with the 

result of 50 percent protection and 50 percent investigation. And 

we never want to go below that minimum. 

But I can tell you, during this campaign, we continue to work 

some very, very high-quality investigations. I was just briefed on 

a cyber investigation that we are doing right now. It is an undercover cyber investigation, where we have identified and arrested an 

individual who was responsible for hacking into computer systems 

and getting over $1.5 million—1.5 million accounts from various individuals. 

I continue to see this type of investigation where our agents are 

not only identifying individuals who are responsible for millions of 

dollars of fraud, but they are also conducting investigations in a 

timely manner where they are preventing additional millions of 

dollars’ worth of fraud. 

So I do believe that we are able to maintain that investigative 

initiative that is so important to our mission. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I certainly hope and trust that you will keep 

your eye on that ball continuously. Because the Secret Service is 

the Nation’s premiere investigators of financial crimes. And in this 

day now of cyber security and the worry about being hit and attacked in cyberspace, especially with our financial system now reliant upon that type of communications, as well as everything else, 

is terribly important. 

So can you assure us that nothing is being sacrificed in the investigations arena in order to finance this heavy load of protection 

that you are having during the presidential campaign? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Congressman, there is no denying that we are 

taking assets away from investigations to, you know, do our protection. However, I do believe we have a pretty good strategy that we 

can continue to maintain that momentum. 

You know, one of the things, I believe, that has become a great 

asset for us are our electronic crime task forces that we have 

throughout the country. We have 24 of these task forces out there. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

219 

And I think that combined strength of other State, local and Federal law enforcement to run these task forces, as well as the academia partners we have, as well as our financial and banking partners that are involved with these task forces, just will not allow 

that drop to take place. 

I really do feel that the strength of our investigative, in particular our cyber investigations right now, the strength of that, are 

these electronic crime task forces out there. And it is my desire, my 

hope that we can open more of these electronic crime task forces 

out there, because I think that it is a great force multiplier. I think 

it is a great example of partnership. And I think that the proven 

success that we have been able to show just makes them an advantage that we need to continue to maintain. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, at the direction of this subcommittee last 

year, we were encouraging you, and you have instituted, improved 

planning and performance metrics for mitigating and tracking the 

impacts upon investigations. And you made it a priority to ensure 

long-term investigative efforts are not derailed during the campaign. That was at our discussion last year. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. And the committee helped you and you followed 

through on setting up those metrics to let everyone know physically 

whether or not investigations were being impacted by protection. 

Are those metrics available? And are they demonstrative of the 

fact that we are not hurting investigations? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sir, there are responsible, as far as I know, for 

2007. I looked at those for 2007. We have not completed those yet 

for 2008. But when I do look at them for 2007, we are in the ‘‘outstanding’’ category for every one of those four metrics that we use, 

as far as the impact on the community, as far as the number of 

prosecutions that we have, as far as the assessment by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, as far as the assessment by the financial institutions. All of those metrics have been well met. And we are continuing to keep an eye on those. 

And if you haven’t seen those metrics, I would be more than 

happy to provide those to you, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, perhaps you can, maybe not necessarily for 

the record, but for the committee’s review. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. I really do appreciate your support on 

that initiative. It is important to us. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

SENATOR MCCAIN’S PROTECTION STATUS

Mr. Rodriguez. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. 

I am actually surprised to hear that Senator McCain is—not that 

he hasn’t asked, but that we are not protecting. Is there certain 

levels or faces of protection—any of that, in effect? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. There are not, sir. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We don’t have an automatic preliminary level 

because of the fact that he is the candidate of the Republican 

Party, as a presidential candidate, that we protect him at a certain 

level even though it is not being asked for? 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

220 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sir, statutorily he is not required to take protection. 

Now, we have been in contact with his staff, and there have been 

conversations with his staff to make sure that they are aware of 

what the guidelines are. 

So there have been those conversations. But as far as an actual 

request, there has not been one yet. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. So we don’t go in advance and secure some of 

the sites where he might be at or anything like that? You don’t 

have to respond. I mean, if you can’t respond, let me know. But I 

would presume that we would have some kind of initial phases that 

might not have anything to do but securing the place where they 

might participating in, or those kind of things that might not interfere with him but yet making sure that, you know, there is some 

protection going on. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Congressman, we have no involvement, at this 

point. 

CONVENTION VENUES

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. Let me ask you, based on the resources 

that you have now, do we do any preliminary phases, for example, 

for the presidential conventions on both parties to securing and 

checking those facilities way in advance and making sure that we 

are on top of the program way before and we are not jeopardizing 

any of that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is a good question, Congressman. Positively, 

we do. We have looked at every venue. Our people are looking at 

every venue, every site that is going to be involved in this particular convention. As I mentioned before, there are these 17 subcommittees, and each one of them look at these venues from their 

perspective. But this will be a very detailed and very in-depth plan. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And we shouldn’t be worried about any of that 

being as a result of not having the resources that you need in order 

to make that happen—occurring? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I do appreciate your concern at this point. I have 

not been told that there is any issue as far as us needing any resources. But believe me, sir, if there are any needs like that, I will 

make sure that I make the committee aware of that. 

USSS DIVERSITY

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Let me ask you, in terms of just the diversity 

of the Secret Service, can you make any comments as it deals with 

your diversity, as it deals with minorities and women? Do you 

know what those numbers are or the figures are? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sir, I do not have the numbers off the top of my 

head. But I—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Could you give me that, you know, later on? And 

also in terms of the multilingual or linguistic capabilities of the department? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sir, I would be more than happy to come up and 

give you a full briefing on that. But I will say that the outreach, 

the recruitment and the retention of a diverse workforce is extremely important to me and is a priority, and it is a priority with 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

221 

our organization. But I look forward to coming up and providing 

that information to you. 

Mr. PRICE. We would actually appreciate that information for the 

record, as well. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

222 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 305 42401A.158
223 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And I think probably the fact that we have the 

first woman ever as a presidential candidate and the first African 

American ever as a possible presidential candidate also and I think 

that—I don’t know if that has helped in improving on that, if any. 

Let me also ask you on cybersecurity issues, are you basically engaged just domestically or internationally? Or where is the distinction there that is made? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Both domestic and internationally. You know, 

cyber crime is a borderless crime, and we see hundreds of thousands of account numbers that are here in the U.S. one minute and 

they are transferred electronically to a foreign country the next 

minute. 

We have 21 field offices around the world, and they are all being 

very, very proactive with their foreign counterparts. And I think we 

have some great examples of that partnership. 

CYBER SECURITY

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And where is the distinction that is made—Mr. 

Chairman, if I can ask—where is the distinction that is made between your role, the FBI, Homeland Security and CIA and all of 

the others, as it deals with cyber? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. You know, as this whole cyber issue has exploded, 

there are many, many people that have jurisdiction and authority 

to combat it, to investigate it and to be involved in it. And we have 

our role, which is as it relates to cyber crime and financial crimes, 

and that is pretty much a niche that we have been able to develop 

for ourselves. 

We work with all of our partners, whether it be the FBI, whether 

it be State and local law enforcement, or whether it be the Department of Homeland Security. I think the important thing is that we 

are all talking to each other and we are all coordinating it with 

each other. 

The one thing I found is that there is plenty of work out there 

for everybody, but the main thing is that we are coordinating it together. And as I said before, I believe that that coordination, from 

my point of view, is going very, very well. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. And thank you for the 

work that you do in protecting our people. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. We will have some further questions about the very important issued you raised about coordination in the area of cyber crime. 

Mr. Carter. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Sullivan, welcome. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Good morning, Congressman. 

Mr. CARTER. I am glad to have you here, and I appreciate the 

great work you do. It must be nice to be the director of an agency 

that most people perceive as being very effective and doing their 

job well. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CARTER. I think that is something you should be proud of. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

224 

SECRET SERVICE RETIREMENT ISSUES

Mr. CARTER. And that brings up an issue that I learned about 

just yesterday, that I want to make sure that we figure out how 

to fix this, and maybe you have some ideas. 

I understand there is somewhat of a human capital at the Secret 

Service because there are about 175 senior agents and officers who 

were hired between 1984 and 1986 that face the fact that they 

might have to retire early or leave the Secret Service due to some 

kind of glitch in a retirement transfer between, as I understand it, 

having at one time been considered part of the Federal Government, then switched over to the D.C. police—I think these are your 

uniformed people—and then back to Secret Service, and they have 

some kind of retirement glitch. 

Are you aware of that? And, if so, what steps can we help you 

to resolve that problem so we won’t have to see qualified, experienced agents have to retire because of a glitch in the retirement 

system? Are you aware of what that problem is? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I will try to answer that as best I can. And I 

might not be entirely correct here, but I can get you a full briefing 

on that later. But I will attempt to try to give you an answer on 

that, Mr. Congressman. 

You know, as you know, back in 1984, beginning in 1984, a new 

retirement system was implemented for Federal employees, and we 

went from the civil service retirement system to FERS. For a period of time, when they weren’t really sure how that plan, as I understand it, was going to be implemented, there was a bit of a 

limbo, I guess, as far as, you know, how that plan was going to 

work. 

We have a group of uniform division officers and special agents 

and other employees who came on, as well, that were non-law enforcement people—and this goes through the whole Government. 

This is not just an issue with our organization, but an issue that 

was Governmentwide. 

I believe it wasn’t until maybe mid–1986, I believe, that they realized that it was a—that a solution was found where FERS would 

start. But for that 2.5-year period, again, as I say, people were up 

in the air exactly what plan they were going to be in. 

Not to complicate things any more than that, Secret Service was 

in a—anybody hired by our organization prior to 1983 was in another separate 20-year retirement system, and that system also 

went away after 1984. It is the contention, I believe, of these 

agents and officers that you are referring to that, because there 

was no plan, they feel that they should be allowed to get back into 

this 20-year retirement plan. 

And let me just say, as the Director—and I am extremely proud 

to be the Director of this organization, as you pointed out, Congressman—and let me just say, as the Director, that I do want the 

best and what is fair for all of our employees. 

When this matter was brought to the former Director, asking 

him for relief, it was the opinion of our general counsel that this 

was not an issue for the Director to make a determination on. As 

a matter of fact, a determination had already been made, I believe 

by OPM and OMB, that all of these people, Governmentwide, not 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

225 

just in our organization, but anyone who came on subsequent to 

1984 would be under this FERS retirement plan. 

The recommendation was made that if they were looking for 

some type of a relief or decision, that they would have to do that 

by legislation, which, in fact, is what I believe they are doing right 

now. 

As far as these agents or officers being forced to leave because 

of that retirement system, that, as far as I know, is not the case. 

I mean, like any other employee, they are entitled to—you know, 

I believe the retirement is 25 years at any age or 20 years at 50, 

and that would apply to these particular individuals et al., as well. 

I believe what they may be referring to is, from a retention point 

of view, they believe if they were allowed to be in the plan going 

back prior to 1984, that that would be a retention vehicle and that 

that would encourage them to stay longer because of that retirement plan. 

Mr. CARTER. And I am just speculating, okay. I don’t know the 

facts, and that is why I appreciate that. Are you seeing any early 

retirement or leaving of the service of people who fall in that category? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I have not. For special agent, our attrition rate, 

Congressman, is about 4.5 percent, I believe, at this point. Uniform 

division is upwards of about 9.5 percent. 

But as far as based upon that issue, I—and, again, I would have 

to check; I am just talking off the top of my head here—but I am 

not aware of one. But, again, I would be happy to look into that. 

I hope I did give you an accurate picture of what is going on, but 

I am sure somebody here will correct me. And I will get the right 

information to you. 

Mr. PRICE. Again, if there is further information that you wish 

to furnish, we will be happy to put it in the hearing record. 

Ms. Kilpatrick. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Please excuse my 

tardiness. Trying to cover more than one meeting at 10 o’clock. 

Thank you, sir, for coming. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Nice to see you. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. I will read the testimony. I went over it a bit 

last night, just to see how the agency is doing. As Director, how 

long have you been there, sir, as Director? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Two years now. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. And everything you thought it would be? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. And more. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. And more is a good answer, good answer. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It is going great. Thank you. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. Thank you. 

SECRET SERVICE PROTECTIVE MISSION

I want to talk a little bit about the protection, and I know you 

protect current Presidents, past Presidents and their families, 

minor children, I understand. That seems to be within your budget 

restraints, and I don’t see a big budget ask for that, so I am assuming that you are handling that fine? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, ma’am. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

226 

Ms. KILPATRICK. And this campaign season that we are now in, 

$110 million in this budget year to handle that, does it meet all of 

your requirements for this campaign year? It is bigger than it has 

ever been and different, for sure. Is it meeting the demands of the 

agency? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Congresswoman, it is. So far we are doing pretty 

well, and I believe we are right on track for the estimate that we 

had provided last year. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. Okay. And as you cover the campaigning season, I think it says something in the law about major candidates. 

Do you also look at or have information on—and you don’t have to 

share it in open committee; I am asking more just to know. 

When candidates, as we as Members of Congress get from time 

to time, threatening or other kinds of e-mails and mail, do you 

have that kind of problem with the current campaign season that 

we are in, with the people who are running? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. With the number of threats going up? 

Ms. KILPATRICK. Yes. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. During a campaign, with all of our protectives, we 

pay an awful lot of attention to the threats out there. You know, 

I get briefed daily on the threats that we are seeing. During a campaign, we do, as the campaign continues to go on. The more information we begin to see, some of it is threatening and some of it 

isn’t threatening. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. And some of it is nice, I hope, as well, right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Some of it is nice. But if there is any type of 

threat, the one thing—we are very, very aggressive on that, and we 

will go out and do a complete and comprehensive investigation on 

that particular threat. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. And you feel your agency has the resources to 

handle this campaign season, unlike any other, in a manner that 

is required of your agency? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Congresswoman, I do. And, again, the cooperation 

we are getting from all of our State, local and Federal partners out 

there has been terrific. I feel very comfortable with between internally what we have and what we are doing, and with our external 

partners as well. I feel we are getting everything we need. 

With all the travel we have done, it really has been a big demand 

on State and local law enforcement. And they have just been terrific in giving us that needed support. And we couldn’t do our job 

without them. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. I think the partnership is very important. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It is. 

Mr. KILPATRICK. It has to be effective and very well done. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, ma’am. 

CONVENTIONS

Ms. KILPATRICK. And then finally for me, as we move to conventions, both conventions, one in August and one in September, does 

the same line handle that expense for you, or is there another 

something in that budget where that is identified? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That was all put into the budget for both of those 

conventions. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

227 

Ms. KILPATRICK. As we plan for those, and you are fine in that 

regard? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. Thank you very much. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

VICE PRESIDENTIAL PROTECTION AFTER LEAVING OFFICE

Mr. Director, while we are on this protection budget, I want to 

ask you about a rather puzzling provision in your 2009 request 

that perhaps you can clarify. 

The budget proposes a provision allowing the Secret Service to 

protect the Vice President for up to 6 months after he leaves office. 

Now, in the past, this protection has been afforded to former Vice 

Presidents, but it has been done either by Executive Order or by 

a joint resolution of the Congress. 

So why is this provision included in the Homeland Security budget since the Appropriations Committee really has no standing to 

change the Secret Service’s statutory authorities? Why doesn’t your 

budget include funding to pay for this proposal? 

Does the President intend to designate protection to Mr. Cheney 

after he leaves office? Have you or your legislative affairs staff spoken about this proposal with the Judiciary Committee, which 

would have jurisdiction over this kind of legislative change? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. I would agree with you. As you know, 

Chairman, over the last 40 years, the departing Vice President has 

been afforded protection by our agency. Going back to the last two 

Vice Presidents, we have provided protection going into July of that 

year that they departed, a total of about 180 days. 

As I have said before, we do not make the determination who— 

and as I mentioned to the Congressman earlier, we do not make 

a determination who does get protection. We do provide it. However, we believe that it is a pretty safe bet, with the threat environment that we face today, that Vice President Cheney will be afforded Secret Service protection upon his departure in January of 

2009. 

Mr. PRICE. Excuse me, but if it is a safe bet, why is there no specific budget provision? Is your assumption that you just absorb the 

cost out of other funds available? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We do plan on eating that out of our other funds 

available. We figure it is going to be about $4 million to—that is 

what we paid last time, about $4 million. We felt, by having this 

included in the appropriations budget, this would be a transparent 

way of bringing this issue out. 

We have also, as you asked about, sir, we have talked to Judiciary. We have made them aware of this particular provision. And 

we are currently working with them, as well, on the issue. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. And there are traditionally two paths by 

which this has been done; one of which is the Congressional joint 

resolution, and the other of which is the presidential designation. 

You have no information that that will or will not be forthcoming 

from the President? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I do not. No, sir. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

228 

CENTER FOR INFORMATION SECURITY

Mr. PRICE. Let me turn to a matter that is reminiscent of our 

hearing last year. I am sure you remember our conversation last 

year about the new training facility, the Secret Service and the National Protection and Programs Directorate jointly established in 

Alabama without prior Congressional notification or approval. I 

said at the time, and I think Mr. Rogers did as well, that it is inappropriate for the executive branch to make new decisions about 

spending money without Congressional involvement. So I have to 

ask you, and I have told you and your staff that this question 

would be forthcoming—I have to ask you why our committee staff 

only recently found out that last August, well after the 2008 budget 

hearing, the Secret Service established yet another center, this one 

a research center at the University of Tulsa for specialized analysis 

of cellular telephone technology, without first seeking Congressional approval? Funding for this research center was awarded 

without any announced competition and without public notice. 

And I want to be scrupulously fair about this. I understand that 

there are some differences. This isn’t identical to the Alabama 

issue since the program is being funded through the Asset Forfeiture Fund, and the Treasury Department did send a letter last 

year to the Financial Services Appropriations Subcommittee about 

it. However, I do believe the fundamental situation is the same. 

This is a new program in your agency whose purpose and need 

were not reviewed by this subcommittee or by any other committee 

up here. The budget has never been presented to us until last 

month. So, there is the potential for this program to need appropriated funding in the future, particularly if the Asset Forfeiture 

Fund produces less revenue than expected. 

So I just have to ask what processes you can and will put in 

place to make sure this doesn’t happen yet again. This subcommittee needs your assurance that we are not going to be uncovering another situation like this in the future, that we are simply 

going to have the kind of notification that we need and the ability 

to review with you the kind of budgetary needs, the process for 

competing these proposals, you know, all the kind of process safeguards that we count on in these cases. 

What can you say about this, and what assurances can you give? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, sir. 

Sir, I was under the impression that there was a distinction and 

that this was done in a transparent fashion. The center you are 

talking about is the Center for Information Security, which is at 

the University of Tulsa, and they are known for their technical specialized expertise as it pertains to the use of cellular telephones. 

And as you know, sir, cellular telephones are used for the same 

purpose as computers are as far as being able to conduct different 

types of financial and electronic crime, and it is our opinion that 

this Center for Information Security is the leading program providing academic research, and that is what this relationship is all 

about. It is about research. And that is where this asset forfeiture 

money went was towards this research. 

Again, there is a rigorous approval process for us to use these 

asset forfeiture funds. It requires that we write a detailed explamstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

229 

nation to asset forfeiture with an explanation and a justification for 

why we are looking to use those funds. That written request will 

then go to Treasury Department, where they will review it for either approval or disapproval. In this particular case it was approved, and as I understand it, Treasury then submitted that to 

their congressional oversight for their approval. 

From our point of view, we are under the belief that we did comply throughout the entire process with Treasury and with Congress 

as far as getting the proper approval for this, as well as in other 

years with asset forfeiture funding, and last year I believe we got 

about $24 million in asset forfeiture funding. We provide this committee with a breakdown of all of our asset forfeiture funding. 

So again, sir, I do believe that, from our point of view, we did 

try to be very transparent here and make all the people aware that 

we were told we needed to make aware of this. If there is more 

that we need to do to work on this process, I want to work on it 

with the committee to make sure that we can make that happen. 

Mr. PRICE. I think we are going to have to do that, frankly. This 

may have been transparent in some quarters. It wasn’t transparent 

here. It wasn’t transparent with us. And this is, after all, a Homeland Security agency. 

As I said, we understand there are some differences with the 

Alabama case in terms of where this money comes from. And the 

issue, by the way, is not the virtues of the University of Tulsa program. We understand that this is probably a fine program, but that 

would be all the more reason why it could withstand a competitive 

process. 

So there are multiple questions, I would say, here of good process 

involved. One is how you award these kinds of contracts, and the 

one that concerns us at this moment is the kind of awareness this 

committee has of your activities. And as I said, this has future, if 

not present, implications possibly for our appropriations bill and so 

forth. So we are going to need to address this, I think, in a more 

systematic way than we did last year. I don’t think an informal understanding is going to work. We are going to have some agreedupon ground rules for dealing with these situations. 

Mr. ROGERS. Will the Chairman yield? 

Mr. PRICE. I certainly will. 

Mr. ROGERS. I want to echo the Chairman. We went through this 

last year, and we had a blowup. It was not pleasant. It left a bad 

taste certainly in our mouths about the Alabama matter. And I 

thought from that point on you would be extremely cautious about 

doing this type of thing essentially again and without some consultation with those of us who have to figure out where the money 

comes from. And I know these are asset forfeiture funds, but I 

thought the uprising that occurred last year with the Alabama 

matter would have sensitized you more than apparently it has. 

Mr. PRICE. I thank the gentleman and invite him to continue. It 

is his turn to ask questions. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sir, just to that point I will say that we do look 

forward to working with the committee on that to make sure that 

if it is not transparent enough now, I do want to make sure that 

it is transparent. And I do appreciate your support, and I want to 

make sure that we do get this information to you in the right way. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

230 

Mr. PRICE. We appreciate that. I assure you it is not transparent 

now. And we do need to work on this. 

Mr. Rogers. 

NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY CENTER

Mr. ROGERS. Let me get back to cyber security. The President 

just announced a new special cyber security czar, I guess you 

would call it, a national cyber security center. Tell us what you 

know about that and how you will be working with them, that new 

office, as well as the regular Department of Homeland Security 

cyber security agency. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. As I understand it, the Department has 

brought in an individual who is going to be the Director of the National Cyber Security Center. As I have been briefed, I have not 

met with that individual yet, and we do have a meeting coming up 

here, I believe. He is currently putting together his concept of operations. And that is pretty much all I know about that position right 

now. 

As far as our relationship with the Department as it pertains to 

cyber, I have a very good relationship with Under Secretary Robert 

Jamison, who runs the NPPD, as you know, and he deals with the 

cyber issues within the Department. 

I believe that the Department does recognize the talent and the 

attributes that our program brings to the table, and we are working with them to provide them with people to go over and work 

within their initiatives. As a matter of fact, we have several of our 

senior managers who are going over to work for Mr. Jamison right 

now to help him with these particular issues. We have a strength 

as it pertains to network intrusion and forensic research, and those 

particular things are going to be utilized by the Department. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, the DHS already has a National Cyber Security Division within their National Protection and Programs Directorate that you have referred to Jamison being the Director of that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Do you understand what this new office of the 

President has created, the National Cyber Security Center, how 

that differs from what we already have within the Department? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think this new center, sir, is a more holistic approach as far as the coordination goes governmentwide. We have 

again so many people with jurisdiction and authority when it 

comes to cyber. We have DOJ, DHS, the DNI, DOD all working 

cyber. I believe this particular person is going to be responsible to 

make sure that all of those efforts are coordinated in a very unified 

way. 

The Department is more involved with the internal issues going 

on within the Department as well as taking a look, I believe, as it 

pertains to the dot-gov challenges that we currently have, and I believe that is what is being worked on by the National Cyber Security Division as opposed to the National Cyber Security Center. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, you know, I hope we don’t get lost in the acronyms and agencies here, because it is a clear mission that needs 

to be prosecuted. The Secret Service is the lead Federal investigative agency for financial crime, including financial institution fraud 

and false ID documents. And given the fact that most modern fimstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

231 

nancial systems these days, the banking world, are now entirely 

electronic in nature, and you have been and are the chief lead investigative agent of the government for these types of crimes, it 

seems to me that Secret Service should be right in the center of 

things in this respect. Do you think you are? 

CYBER SECURITY

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sir, I believe we are. And I think that is recognized, and although, you know, it is a classified document, but in 

HSPD 23 I believe that we are recognized as far as our efforts and 

as far as our ability as it pertains to cyber. I believe within the Department it is recognized what we bring to the table as far as cyber 

is concerned. 

I really do think the big effort here, and I know there are a lot 

of acronyms out there, but I do believe it all is directed towards 

making sure there is one coordinated effort as it pertains to cyber, 

whether it has to do with financial crimes or attacks on our infrastructure, network intrusion into government systems. I believe 

that this new center they are putting together, I believe that that 

is the goal here. 

Mr. ROGERS. Is the financial cyber system vulnerable? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think right now every system is vulnerable. 

Again, when I look at these people that are conducting these attacks, we have some people here that are just very talented. They 

are very aggressive, and they are very technology savvy. We just 

had a particular investigation where we arrested an individual who 

was involved in cyber crime, and he had an encryption system on 

his computer which was as complicated as we had ever seen before. 

So I believe that we are up against some pretty smart albeit 

criminal thinkers out there, and I think that is why these partnerships are so important with academia and the business community 

in that we are looking at these trends, we are identifying these 

trends, we are identifying the method of attack, and we are doing 

everything that we can do to notify people and make sure that they 

are able to protect themselves from that attack. 

Mr. ROGERS. What can you tell us in this open atmosphere, open 

session, what can you tell us about the number of cyber attacks 

and where they come from and who they are? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sir, I think that is something I prefer to do in a 

closed session. 

Mr. ROGERS. What about the number? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sir, I do not have—it is hundreds of thousands, 

but I don’t have the exact number. 

Mr. ROGERS. Hundreds of thousands per year? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would say—probably say in the millions per 

year. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

232 

Mr. PRICE. If I could just echo that request, I think whatever you 

can furnish in a nonclassified fashion that would be a useful number for the record just to give some specificity to the answer you 

just gave Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I would have to go back and get 

the numbers. 

Mr. PRICE. You can furnish that for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

233 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 328 here 42401A.159
234 

Mr. PRICE. Let me just underscore the line of questioning that 

Mr. Rogers was undertaking. I fully appreciate the priority that the 

administration is attempting to give this area, but I do think there 

is a fair amount of confusion about the division of labor, and that 

confusion is really reflected rather than resolved in the budget request we have. 

The ICE budget includes funds for new cyber investigations. 

There is no increase in your budget for the Electronic Crimes Task 

Forces apart from inflation. 

And then there is the question of the lines of authority. The 

FBI’s cyber investigations Web site describes its role as, quote, ‘‘to 

lead the national effort to investigate and prosecute cyber crime.’’ 

So, I think the questions are very well taken, and I think any— 

we are going to be needing clarification on this as we write the 

budget, to say the least. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. And I would just emphasize that our role 

as it pertains to cyber is the investigation of cyber financial crimes. 

That is our role that we perform. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Rodriguez. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to continue to follow up on that same issue. It might work 

out okay now as you establish it, but, Mr. Chairman and Minority 

Leader, I think as another administration comes into play, you basically well might just have another bureaucracy there that might 

not be talking to DOD, that might not be talking to the FBI and 

NSA and all the others, and we have created another situation 

where I know nothing was more frustrating for me right prior to 

9/11 than to find out that back home there was mainly a little 

fighting competition between some of the agencies down there. If 

it was not the FBI and the Border Patrol and the other drug agency fighting each other, then we might have a situation created here 

where they are not going to be talking to each other unless maybe 

legislatively, you know, we require some of them to dialogue with 

each other, because from one administration to another they just 

might not do that. 

Mr. ROGERS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. We are all a little concerned about the same thing 

here, I think, and that is if you have two masters, you really have 

no master. If two people are in charge, no one is in charge. And 

that is what I think our concern is. You know, Secret Service historically has been our financial investigative experts, and now in 

the cyberspace days they still are. But they are not the experts in 

DOD or military cyberspace intrusions, nor are they in other 

crimes that may occur in cyberspace. So obviously there is a larger 

picture here, and the new office, as I gather, will be sort of the coordinating cyberspace intrusion office for the whole government, 

and Secret Service will still be within DHS the financial crimes 

cyberspace investigators. Have I said that more or less accurately? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I agree with you, Congressman. I do think there 

has been a recognition that there are a lot of people, a lot of organizations out there, a lot of departments out there, a lot of agencies 

out there that do have authority and jurisdiction as pertains to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

235 

cyber. And I think this is an effort to make sure all of those efforts 

are coordinated, and that everyone is talking to each other. But 

again, from my point of view, I think that there is some very, very 

good partnership and cooperation going on right now. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you. 

I have the same concerns as to when does it become one that 

deals with money or one that deals with drugs or one that deals 

with national security issue, you know, and that dialogue is occurring between the agencies. And I would just be concerned in terms 

of, you know, it might be okay now, but as other administrations 

come in, you know, what does that do to that situation in terms 

of that require dialogue, unless you mandate it, you not have the 

initial dialogue that is needed and that is required. 

I know that from my perspective I have spent 8 years on the 

Armed Services Committee, and there was very little dialogue in 

terms of us receiving anything. I shouldn’t say anything; most of 

the time there were not. I read it in the newspaper before I got it 

in terms of secret meetings. And so I would presume that the concerns that I would have would be between the dialogue between 

the two people, whether it be just on a superficial level or to the 

direct cases that are out there. And I know DOD has been involved 

with this issue since the 1950s in terms of defending our country, 

and so I think it is something we need to continue to get on. Thank 

you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Again, from a law enforcement perspective, I 

think when you look at cyber, cyber is just a different type of tool 

than was used 50 years ago to rob a bank. Fifty years ago when 

you rob a bank, you would use a gun. Twenty years ago when you 

robbed a bank, you used a pen. And today when you rob a bank, 

you use a keyboard. And I think that is what you are seeing with 

a lot of different violations that all of us are out there, whether it 

is ICE or the FBI, a lot of the violations we have now that were 

done are traditional crimes, but they are being done now in a more 

nontraditional way using cyber. And from what I see from the law 

enforcement perspective is that we are just reacting to that evolving methodology of performing that crime. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If I may, and the same thing applies for defense 

or—— 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ [continuing]. Or on the offensive the first thing 

we do, if we are going to do anything, is through cyberspace, and 

the first thing we will receive or hopefully catch on if something 

is going to occur in our country is through cyberspace. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Carter. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this is a good line 

of questioning, and I also have a lot of concerns in this area. 

INVESTIGATIVE AND PROTECTIVE WORK LOAD BALANCE

Back to a question a long time ago that I don’t think I got an 

answer. Do you have an idea what the percentage is between the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

236 

protection division and the investigation division of number of percentage? Eighty-twenty? Sixty-forty? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It is about 50–50 right now. 

Mr. CARTER. Fifty-fifty, that is good. 

IDENTITY THEFT AND VULNERABILITIES OF TECHNOLOGY

I think that everybody is aware that the number one fastest rising crime in America today is identify theft, and that has been for 

several years now. Today I went to an antiterrorism joint bipartisan meeting this morning, and we were told that the rise of the 

cell phone, the rise of the Internet is the fastest single thing going 

wrong in every center of terrorist activity in the world; that in just 

Iraq alone they went from zero cell phones to basically 100 percent 

cell phones for every person between the age of 15 and 40, which 

is pretty amazing. And in Iran the cell phone spread was 800 percent in the last 2 years. And all these young people are very talented on these phones. They are much more talented than we are. 

The question that the man asked was, have you read the instruction manual on your BlackBerry? How many of you have read the 

whole thing? Nobody raised their hand. He said, well, then, you 

wouldn’t know that with bluetooth capability there is a lot of things 

more that you can do with it than just walk around with the little 

funny thing on your ear. And these kids know that is available. 

And the Internet cafe is the most popular place in the world outside the United States. 

So the cyber attack is massive. It is potential. And I agree with 

my colleagues. It looks to me, at least from the financial aspect, 

that is where a great deal of this is going to come from, especially 

at the small petty crime that ultimately becomes a great major 

crime factor. We need to know if you need extra resources because 

someone—the whole concept of government is somebody has to be 

in charge, and that is what we have been trying to cut through. 

That is what Homeland Security, as I got into it, as I understood 

it, was all about. Somebody has to be in charge. 

I personally would like to say if there are more resources you 

need to be the agency in charge, then I would like to know them 

before we are catching up. I would like to be ahead of the game 

rather than catching up, because I personally think this is a very 

dangerous area for every American citizen. So, do you need anything else? And if so, put it in there. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you very much. 

You know, sir, as far as our cyber initiative goes right now, we 

are depending on asset forfeiture funding for our cyber initiative, 

and we are—you know, our ability to either grow our cyber program, grow our, you know, Electronic Crime Task Forces out there 

is all dependent on what we get from asset forfeiture. So your support truly is appreciated, and I do thank you for that. 

And you know, as far as being in charge, as I mentioned before, 

I just really do think there are so many of us out there working 

cyber, and I think the important thing is that we just all coordinate 

our efforts with each other, and I do believe that that is underway 

right now, and I do believe that is occurring. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

237 

Mr. Sullivan, I am going to have some additional questions, but 

I think I will reserve them for the record. 

Mr. PRICE. I want to yield to Mr. Rogers, though, because he 

does have a final question. 

COMMUNICATION INTEROPERABILITY

Mr. ROGERS. I will be brief, but I am somewhat concerned. My 

understanding is that your Secret Service radios are currently incompatible with the radio system utilized by the White House Communications Agency and State Department’s Diplomatic Security 

Service. Is that correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sir, our radios, we still are able to communicate 

with our White House communication counterparts; however, over 

the last several years, the White House Communication Agency 

has been able to put in, I would guesstimate, about $250 million 

into their communication infrastructure. We have not been able to 

do that. They have been able to do go from a digital to a Web-based 

radio system where we are still on digital. I do believe that as they 

continue to receive additional funding at that level, and we do not 

get funding at that level, I do believe that there is a gap—there 

is a gap, and that gap is going to continue to become wider. 

Mr. ROGERS. So it is interoperability we are talking about, right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. And at the moment, as I understand it, you are on 

digital; the White House and the diplomatic service are on Webbased, right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right now, sir, we are making it work. But again, 

my fear is that they can—as they continue to progress and we stay 

flat, we will not—that ability for us to be able to communicate with 

them is going to become more and more challenging. It is challenging now, but it will become even more challenging. 

Mr. ROGERS. Is there a request in the budget for—any requests 

in the budget for this? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Not in this budget, no, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. So you don’t think it is that important? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sir, I understand that there are priorities, and 

this was a topic that we had talked about. However, this particular 

initiative was not able to get into this particular budget. 

Mr. ROGERS. What would it cost? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right now we have a 5-year program. I believe 

the first year of this program is about $54 million we would need 

for that first year. I would have to get you the rest of the figures 

for that, sir, but I believe we are talking somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 million. But again, I can get you the exact figures 

on that, but I do believe the first year it is $54 million. 

Mr. ROGERS. But you are saying you are making it work. How 

are you making it work? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sir, working with our IT people, working with our 

operational people, we are getting some help from WHCA as well, 

we are able to continue to communicate at this point. However, I 

do believe with the continued advancement of WHCA, we are not 

going to be able to patch it together the way we are right now. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

238 

I say to the Ranking Member I think we have heard a unique 

formulation that a proposal was not able to get into the budget. 

What do you suppose that means? I think we get the picture. 

Mr. ROGERS. As they say, a vision without funding is a hallucination. So I think we have just heard about a hallucination. 

Mr. PRICE. I think on the contrary you have identified a very real 

need, and it clearly has budget implications, and we need to look 

at it, and we will count on your cooperation in doing so. 

CLOSING REMARKS

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. And let me again thank you for your testimony and 

for your good work in what I know in a very demanding year. We 

have many occasions out in our districts and at foreign points. For 

example, when this subcommittee went to the Middle East in January, we received a debriefing the day after the President was in Jerusalem and Ramallah about the extraordinary effort—I don’t 

know if it is matched in Secret Service history—the extraordinary 

effort to afford protection in those sensitive places on that sensitive 

mission. As I understand it, the City of Jerusalem was basically 

brought to a halt for one day and the City of Ramallah for another. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It was a very challenging trip. 

Mr. PRICE. We understand that, and we also understand the intricate cooperation that is required in this case with our friends 

and allies as well as the partners you have in our government. So 

your mission and its importance are impressed on us in many 

ways. So we appreciate your testimony here today. We understand 

that we have some work to do on the budget, and we look forward 

to working with you. 

Thank you, and with that the subcommittee is adjourned. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

239 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 341 here 42401A.160
240 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 342 here 42401A.161
241 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 343 here 42401A.162
242 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 344 here 42401A.163
243 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 345 here 42401A.164
244 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 346 here 42401A.165
245 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 347 here 42401A.166
246 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 348 here 42401A.167
247 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 349 here 42401A.168
248 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 350 here 42401A.169
249 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 351 here 42401A.170
250 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 352 here 42401A.171
251 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 353 here 42401A.172
252 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 354 here 42401A.173
253 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 355 here 42401A.174
254 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 356 here 42401A.175
255 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 357 here 42401A.176
256 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 358 here 42401A.177
257 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 359 here 42401A.178
258 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 360 here 42401A.179
259 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 361 here 42401A.180
260 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 362 here 42401A.181
261 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 363 here 42401A.182
262 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 364 here 42401A.183
263 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 365 here 42401A.184
264 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 366 here 42401A.185
265 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 367 here 42401A.186
266 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 368 here 42401A.187
267 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 369 here 42401A.188
268 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 370 here 42401A.189
269 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 371 here 42401A.190
270 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 372 here 42401A.191
271 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 373 here 42401A.192
272 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 374 here 42401A.193
273 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 375 here 42401A.194
274 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 376 here 42401A.195
275 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 377 here 42401A.196
276 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 378 here 42401A.197
277 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 379 here 42401A.198
278 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 380 here 42401A.199
279 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 381 here 42401A.200
280 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 382 here 42401A.201
281 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 383 here 42401A.202
282 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 384 here 42401A.203
283 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 385 here 42401A.204
284 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 386 here 42401A.205
285 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 387 here 42401A.206
286 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 388 here 42401A.207
287 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 389 here 42401A.208
288 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 390 here 42401A.209
289 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 391 here 42401A.210
290 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 392 here 42401A.211
291 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 393 here 42401A.212
292 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 394 here 42401A.213
293 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 395 here 42401A.214
294 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 396 here 42401A.215
295 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 397 here 42401A.216
296 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 398 here 42401A.217
297 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 399 here 42401A.218
298 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 400 here 42401A.219
299 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 401 here 42401A.220
300 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 402 here 42401A.221
301 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 403 here 42401A.222
302 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 404 here 42401A.223
303 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 405 here 42401A.224
304 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 406 here 42401A.225
305 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 407 here 42401A.226
306 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 408 here 42401A.227
307 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 409 here 42401A.228
308 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 410 here 42401A.229
309 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 411 here 42401A.230
310 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 412 here 42401A.231
311 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 413 here 42401A.232
312 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 414 here 42401A.233
313 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 415 here 42401A.234
314 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 416 here 42401A.235
315 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 417 here 42401A.236
316 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 418 here 42401A.237
317 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 419 here 42401A.238
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

(319) 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2008. 

IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF THE AVIATION 

SECURITY SYSTEM 

WITNESSES 

KIP HAWLEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION 

CATHLEEN A. BERRICK, DIRECTOR FOR HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

JUSTICE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

JAMES E. BENNETT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY 

PEGGY E. STERLING, VICE PRESIDENT FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY, 

AMERICAN AIRLINES 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PRICE

Mr. PRICE. The Subcommittee will come to order. Good morning 

everyone. We welcome you to this hearing on improving the efficiency of the aviation security system. 

I first want to welcome our witnesses this morning, Assistant 

Secretary Kip Hawley, the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration; Ms. Cathleen Berrick, the Director for 

Homeland Security and Justice Issues of the Government Accountability Office; Mr. James Bennett, President and CEO of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, and Ms. Peggy Sterling, 

Vice President for Safety and Security for American Airlines. Welcome to all of you. We appreciate your appearance here today and 

we look forward to what you have to say. I will be asking you to 

each summarize your statement in five or six minutes and then 

leave plenty of time for questions. Of course, we will insert all the 

statements in the record. 

Today, we are going to be reviewing TSA’s efforts to improve the 

efficiency of the aviation security system in the context of the agency’s 2009 budget request. We do this at a time when the wait time 

data is mixed. At the nation’s top 40 airports, the wait times average only five minutes. But, we know that average figure conceals 

considerable disparities, even at a single airport. We have got to 

find ways to move airline travelers, their luggage, and air cargo expeditiously, while at the same time strengthening security. That is 

basically the focus of this hearing today and we will return more 

specifically to that wait time issue, some of the differences there 

and how we can reduce them. 

For fiscal year 2009, TSA is requesting a discretionary appropria- tion of just over $4 billion. That is an increase of less than one percent above the current fiscal year, far less than is needed even to 

address the effects of inflation. This request is made despite the 

public’s growing demand on our aviation system and the fact that 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

320 

the aviation industry and our airports remain a valued target for 

terrorist attacks against our economy and our homeland. 

Based on the challenges we face, one would expect significant increases across several TSA accounts. But those increases, by and 

large, are not to be found in this budget. Secure Flight is an exception, vetting operations, but, generally, there are very few increases 

proposed that one would think are commensurate with the task at 

hand. 

At the same time, the budget request cuts key programs that 

help our aviation system operate more efficiently. For example, the 

request almost halves funding for checkpoint equipment and explosive detection systems. At the same time, airlines and airports are 

facing rapid growth in travelers and much of the checked baggage 

screening equipment is reaching the end of its useful life. To make 

up for some of these substantial reductions, the budget assumes a 

new aviation surcharge totaling $426 million that must be adopted 

by the authorizing committees. This surcharge, which has been rejected by Congress in the past, is something we appropriators have 

little or no control over. So, it is hard to discern how TSA can claim 

that we are going to be reliably improving the country’s security 

when the budget proposes to cut the most critical programs designed for its protection or, at best, to make those programs contingent on some rather uncertain increases in surcharges. 

These budget reductions are being proposed as more and more 

demands are being placed on the aviation system. Since 2005, passenger levels have consistently exceeded those experienced before 

9/11, overcoming the precipitous decline in airline travelers after 

that event. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics estimates that 

2007 traffic will be 3.6 percent above 2006. That is 744 million passengers. FAA is optimistic about the future, estimating that U.S. 

commercial aviation is on track to carry one billion passengers by 

the year 2015. So, with these are record traffic levels and with the 

threats to our homeland that can accompany this, a flat budget, I 

believe, will not suffice. 

We have not yet mastered the efficient screening of all airline 

passengers. Repeatedly, TSA has told this Subcommittee that Secure Flight is the solution to this problem, because it will allow the 

agency to focus more effectively on the few worrisome individuals 

that need additional scrutiny with fewer disruptions for travelers, 

who pose no threat. There is already a voluntary passenger screening system, Registered Traveler, that provides expedited screening 

for passengers, who volunteer to undergo a security threat assessment to confirm that they do not pose a threat to transportation 

or to national security. But, this program currently offers very limited benefits and it is not clear what the future of the registered 

traveler program is. At best, people get to move to the front of the 

security line. They are still subject, however, to the normal security 

checks. So, we need to explore this morning how either Secure 

Flight or Registered Traveler can help the agency better target passenger screening at the checkpoints. For the moment, that remains 

somewhat unclear. 

Finally, with the adoption of the 9/11 Act, TSA was given additional security requirements, including the better vetting of transportation employees and stricter mandates on air cargo screening. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

321 

On air cargo specifically, the 9/11 Act requires that by February of 

next year, 50 percent of all air cargo being carried on passenger 

aircraft must be screened with 100 percent screening requirement 

beginning in August of 2010. Yet, the 2009 budget request does not 

appear to include new funding to meet this mandate. So, that is 

another question we will raise this morning, how the requirements 

of the 9/11 Act can be met within this budget. 

We appreciate all of you being here this morning. We look forward to your testimony. I want to begin with Mr. Hawley and then 

we will just proceed right down the line. But, first, I want to recognize our distinguished ranking member, Mr. Rogers, for any comments he might want to make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to this distinguished panel. I am especially pleased today to receive additional 

testimony from Jim Bennett and Ms. Peggy Sterling. Their industry expertise will provide a valuable prospective as we evaluate and 

discuss our aviation security challenges here today. 

The significance of a trusted partnership between DHS and the 

aviation industry cannot be overstated. While we can never eliminate the threat, we can certainly work together in a productive 

manner to improve our security strategies. And I believe that is the 

only way to achieve our common goal of facilitating legitimate travel and trade, while also stopping those who wish to do us harm. 

Even today, front line TSA employees remain the most enduring 

visible reminder of the events of 9/11. And while challenges certainly remain, I do believe TSA should be recognized for its efforts 

thus far in securing commercial aviation through the hard work of 

its people and advances in technology. However, since TSA was 

formed, and I was chairman of the Transportation Appropriation 

Subcommittee, I have consistently and strenuously cautioned TSA 

on overly relying upon people and not leveraging technology to 

carry out its mission. So, I must say I am concerned when I see 

a budget request supporting a total TSA workforce of almost 58,000 

employees, the largest of any component within the Department of 

Homeland Security, alongside a decrease in EDS procurement to 

nearly half of last year’s level. 

Administrator Hawley, the way I see it, your total for transportation security officers, which encompasses all aspects of checkpoint security, exceeds the 45,000 FTE cap we previously maintained. However you want to slice up the workforce, whatever job 

titles you create, whatever categories you devise, nothing changes 

the fact that TSA is now the largest component in DHS, not by a 

little, but by a lot, trumping the U.S. Coast Guard by over 9,000 

employees. While I certainly know it takes people to make it all 

work, I just see a troubling trend of more people, less technology, 

and a false inflation of fees. That is the wrong direction. 

Now, I realize TSA is attempting to offset this reduction with an 

increase in mandatory fees. Well, let me just say again, we have 

been down that road before. There you go again. And until the authorizers weigh in and actually approve the proposed passenger 

surcharge, I say such a proposal resides only in fantasy land. So, 

I like to call it as I see it and what I see troubles me: a staff cenmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

322 

tury budget, a declining investment in EDS procurement, and a 

funding proposal that is unlikely to see the light of day. 

Now, despite this fee proposal and the imbalance of resources, 

there are some encouraging developments and signs of progress to 

note. TSA is pursuing new innovative checkpoint screening programs, such as Black Diamond, airport employee and vehicle 

screening pilots, cast prosthesis and bottled liquid screening systems, and TSA is also deploying new technologies for passenger 

and baggage screening, such as whole body imagers, new reduced 

size EDS systems, millimeter wave portable technology, and advanced technology x-rays. Further, as I noted earlier this month, 

programs such as TWIC and Secure Flight, programs that were 

honestly going nowhere just a few years ago, are actually gaining 

traction and showing some initial results. 

So, I see some real signs of progress at TSA against the backdrop 

of looming issues and challenges, including the 9/11 Act requirement for TSA to have a system in place to screen 100 percent of 

cargo transported on passenger aircraft by 2010, no small chore by 

anyone’s estimation. So, what I would like to hear today is how 

TSA is meeting these challenges and how the fiscal year 2009 

budget can actually move TSA forward. 

Mr. Hawley, as we have discussed numerous times, I know the 

mission of TSA is challenging and I have always wondered about 

the sanity of someone leaving Pebble Beach, California to come 

here and do this kind of work. But, I know you and I know you 

are perfectly sane. So, I am looking for other disabilities. But, no 

one wants to see you succeed more than this member and the other 

members of this Subcommittee. So, thank you for your testimony 

and we look forward to corresponding with you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Mr. Hawley, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MR. KIP HAWLEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Mr. HAWLEY. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman and ranking 

member Rogers, members of the Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to 

share the panel this morning with Cathy Berrick from GAO and 

my colleagues, airport executive Jim Bennett and Peggy Sterling 

from American Airlines. I would also like to recognize that we have 

TSA’s Deputy Administrator with us this morning behind me, Gail 

Rossides, who is a career executive, who will be with TSA through 

the transition next year. 

A DAY IN THE LIFE AT TSA

As we discuss the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget proposal 

here this morning, I would like to point out a few of the things that 

are going on right now as we speak. We have thousands of Federal 

Air Marshals around the world performing their missions based on 

the latest intelligence. We have Behavior Detection Officers and 

Travel Document Checkers providing additional layers of security 

at checkpoints all over the United States. Every day, we have our 

behavior detection folks and Travel Document Checkers zeroing in 

on people, who by their behavior or false documents, indicate that 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

323 

they are higher threats. Just yesterday, in Miami, Boston, Newark, 

and Long Beach, we have examples where our BDOs, we call them 

Behavior Detection Officers, and our Travel Document Checkers 

intercepted people, who were suspicious and/or had false documents, including one arrest. 

VIPR teams, our mobile strike teams, of Federal Air Marshals, 

Behavior Detection Officers, inspectors, and canine teams are operational this morning, starting at four a.m. in Detroit, in Miami, 

where they are joined by ICE and CBP agents in Louisville, Kentucky, New York, Denver, Los Angeles, and the metro Washington 

area working with Metro and the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Authority. These teams are supported by our law enforcement partners in all of those locations. Our mobile Employee 

Screening teams are out right now screening airport employees and 

performing vehicle checks across the country. Yesterday, an individual tried to get a SIDA badge with a false ID in Reno, Nevada 

and he was arrested. Sophisticated explosives detection training 

and tests of our Transportation Security Officers are in progress 

right now across the country. 

IMPROVEMENTS IN TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

TSA is a very different agency than it was three years ago. All 

of these capabilities have been started or significantly enhanced by 

this subcommittee’s support over the past three years. I appreciate 

that support and the partnership with this subcommittee. I think 

you teed up the issues very well, in terms of where we are on our 

technology investment versus our people investment and I look forward to discussing them with you. 

But, there is no doubt that the transportation system is safer 

today and better prepared for tomorrow, because of our work together. TSA’s management team of career professionals in Headquarters and the field have performed magnificently during that 

time. Let me give you some metrics. 

In fiscal year 2005, we had, as Mr. Rogers mentioned, a 45,000 

TSA full-time equivalent number for screening. In contrast, in fiscal year 2008, we have approximately 39,000 FTE performing those 

same basic functions. Despite an eight percent growth in passenger 

traffic, wait times have remained reasonable and stable. Over the 

peak holiday period between Thanksgiving and New Year, 98 percent of travelers had wait times of less than 20 minutes. As the 

Chairman mentioned in his opening remarks, the reports on average wait times, we look at the average peak wait times and the average peak wait times are up in the 15-minute range. So, the average peak wait times at the airports are at 15 minutes and that is 

way below 30 minutes. 

At the same time, we have added additional layers of security. 

We have added approximately 5,500 FTE now to perform travel 

document checking, employee screening, Bomb Appraisal Officers, 

and our behavior detection capability. And, as you have directed, 

TSA is providing better and smarter security for more travelers 

with the same 45,000 FTE provided in fiscal year 2005. And the 

difference in numbers that Mr. Rogers mentioned has to do with 

the supervisors. We did not change the definition. The supervisors 

are what make the number in fiscal year 2009 look about 45,000. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

324 

We could not add these security layers without attracting or retaining high performing TSOs and the credit for this improved security goes to them. Thousands have stepped up to take on new responsibilities and the challenges of these very difficult and demanding jobs. In 2008, we will see the first major upgrade in 

checkpoint technology in many years. New Advanced Technology xray will be deployed at hundreds of lanes starting this spring. 

We have begun innovations in the checkpoint process, as well. 

Passengers have already seen examples in Salt Lake City, Denver, 

and Burbank. We are looking to provide a better environment for 

us to do our security job and also improve the experience for the 

passengers. 

All of these initiatives work together as connected pieces in a 

multilayered total security system. In 2005, we had a handful of 

Behavior Detection Officers, no Travel Document Checkers, no AT 

x-ray, and no employee screening done by TSA in the back of the 

airport. By the end of 2008, the vast majority of passengers will be 

covered by behavior detection, 100 percent of passengers will be 

covered by the Travel Document Checkers, and over half of the flying public by AT x-ray. And now, every airport conducts random 

screening every day of its employees. 

So, our threat environment remains high and TSA’s challenge 

has never been greater. In executing TSA’s mission, I am very 

grateful for the high level of personal engagement and thoughtful 

support of the Chairman, Ranking member, and members of this 

subcommittee. I can assure you and the American public that the 

men and women of TSA will honor your support again this coming 

year with tireless, intense commitment and focus on meeting the 

challenges ahead. Thank you, very much. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

325 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 506 here 42401A.312
326 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 507 here 42401A.313
327 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 508 here 42401A.314
328 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 509 here 42401A.315
329 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 510 here 42401A.316
330 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 511 here 42401A.317
331 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 512 here 42401A.318
332 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 513 here 42401A.319
333 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Hawley. Ms. Berrick, we will hear 

from you. 

STATEMENT OF MS. CATHLEEN A. BERRICK, DIRECTOR FOR HOME- LAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT- ABILITY OFFICE

Ms. BERRICK. Thank you, Chairman Price, Mr. Rogers, and members of the subcommittee for inviting me today to discuss GAO’s 

work assessing TSA’s efforts in guiding investments in aviation security. My testimony focuses on TSA’s efforts in the following three 

areas, which represents about $4.5 billion of the President’s budget 

request for TSA: Screening operations, including transportation security officer allocations and checkpoint technologies, air cargo, and 

passenger watch list matching. 

Overall, we found that TSA has more systematically planned for 

and guided investments in these areas to strengthen security and 

has taken, or plans to take, action to address many of the issues 

GAO previously identified. However, we found that TSA can further strengthen its efforts to help ensure that these programs 

achieve their desired outcomes and that resources are appropriately targeted. 

For example, we concluded that TSA generally used sound methods to determine TSA allocations among airports through the use 

of their staffing allocation model. Although we found that the 

model did not always reflect actual operating conditions, such as 

the need for TSOs to take training, TSA has since addressed this 

issue and, as we recommended, developed a process to periodically 

reevaluate model assumptions to account for changing conditions. 

TSA also implemented or expanded several workforce initiatives involving TSOs to further strengthen security, including travel document checker, behavior detection officer, and bomb appraisal officer 

initiatives, among several others. 

With respect to checkpoint screening procedures, we reported 

that TSA can improve its process for evaluating the effectiveness 

and impact of significant procedural changes before implementing 

them nationwide. For example, we found that TSA did not always 

conduct the analysis necessary to determine whether key procedural changes would have their desired impact. We recommended 

and TSA agreed that the agency develop sound evaluation methods 

to test significant procedural changes before they are implemented. 

Regarding checkpoint technologies, we reported that DHS and 

TSA are pursuing a number of technologies to enhance the detection of explosives and other threats, but that the deployment of 

technologies on a wide scale basis has been limited due to performance, maintenance, privacy, and planning issues. As Mr. Hawley 

mentioned, TSA is making progress in this area, including procuring additional technologies to be fielded this year and pursuing 

the research and development of other projects. We are currently 

assessing TSA’s checkpoint technology program and will report on 

our results within two months. 

We also found that TSA lacked a strategy for securing cargo 

transported into the United States from foreign locations and can 

strengthen their inspections of air carriers and freight forwarders, 

to ensure that they are adhering to security requirements related 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

334 

to air cargo. We also reported that DHS and TSA are pilot testing 

a number of technologies that can be used to screen cargo, but 

their efforts are in the early stages. TSA has taken action to address some of these and other issues, including initiating a pilot to 

begin addressing the legislative mandate to screen 100 percent of 

air cargo on passenger aircraft, but more work remains. 

TSA has significantly strengthened its development of Secure 

Flight, a government run program to match passenger information 

against terrorist watch lists. Improvements made include instilling 

more discipline and rigor into the systems development and 

strengthening privacy protections. However, we found that TSA did 

not develop cost and schedule estimates for the program in accordance with best practices; did not demonstrate that they were fully 

identifying, tracking, and reporting program risks; and did not 

fully address information security requirements and 

vulnerabilities. 

Taken together, these issues place the program at risk of experiencing cost overruns, missed deadlines, and performance shortfalls. 

We are making a number of recommendations to strengthen TSA’s 

development of Secure Flight in our testimony today and will continue to evaluate the program as a part of ongoing work mandated 

by Congress. 

In closing, TSA has made considerable progress over the past 

year in systematically planning for and guiding investments to 

strengthen security, and is continually taking action to strengthen 

security in the areas I mentioned today. However, there are opportunities for TSA to further strengthen its efforts to help ensure 

that investments are appropriately targeted. 

This concludes my opening statement and I will be happy to respond to questions at the appropriate time. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

335 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 518 here 42401A.320
336 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 519 here 42401A.321
337 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 520 here 42401A.322
338 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 521 here 42401A.323
339 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 522 here 42401A.324
340 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 523 here 42401A.325
341 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 524 here 42401A.326
342 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 525 here 42401A.327
343 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 526 here 42401A.328
344 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 527 here 42401A.329
345 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 528 here 42401A.330
346 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 529 here 42401A.331
347 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 530 here 42401A.332
348 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 531 here 42401A.333
349 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 532 here 42401A.334
350 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 533 here 42401A.335
351 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 534 here 42401A.336
352 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 535 here 42401A.337
353 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 536 here 42401A.338
354 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 537 here 42401A.339
355 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 538 here 42401A.340
356 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 539 here 42401A.341
357 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 540 here 42401A.342
358 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 541 here 42401A.343
359 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 542 here 42401A.344
360 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 543 here 42401A.345
361 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 544 here 42401A.346
362 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 545 here 42401A.347
363 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 546 here 42401A.348
364 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 547 here 42401A.349
365 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 548 here 42401A.350
366 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 549 here 42401A.351
367 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 550 here 42401A.352
368 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 551 here 42401A.353
369 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 552 here 42401A.354
370 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 553 here 42401A.355
371 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 554 here 42401A.356
372 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 555 here 42401A.357
373 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 556 here 42401A.358
374 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 557 here 42401A.359
375 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 558 here 42401A.360
376 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 559 here 42401A.361
377 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 560 here 42401A.362
378 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 561 here 42401A.363
379 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 562 here 42401A.364
380 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 563 here 42401A.365
381 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 564 here 42401A.366
382 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 565 here 42401A.367
383 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 566 here 42401A.368
384 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 567 here 42401A.369
385 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, very much. Mr. Bennett. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES E. BENNETT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rogers, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to offer the 

views of the airport community here today. 

Today’s hearing is timely, given the situation thats exist at airports, as TSA struggles to make its current labor-intensive passenger and baggage screening model work in the face of growing 

passenger levels. The strains are clearly showing. 

With an additional 300 million travelers expected to take to the 

skies in the near future, putting a band-aid on today’s screening 

system simply cannot work in the long term. The problems today 

are not only an inconvenience for the traveling public, but they also 

represent a serious security threat. Long lines in airport terminals 

and at the screening checkpoint do not equal better aviation security. 

In the view of airport professionals, rapidly deploying enhanced 

technology for baggage and passenger screening and resisting the 

urge to expand the mission of the federal government into inherently local security responsibilities at airports are key in the ongoing efforts to enhance efficiency and accuracy in aviation security. 

In the checked baggage arena, the benefits of moving explosive detection equipment from crowded airport lobbies into the integrated 

in-line systems are evident. 

This subcommittee has long supported funding for in-line 

projects and airport professionals are grateful for your leadership. 

Unfortunately, we are literally billions of dollars in necessary investments away from having optimal systems in place at all airports where they make sense. The longer we wait, the more expensive these projects get. Cost estimates at Washington-Dulles airport alone run at nearly $237 million, some $115 million more than 

just a few years ago, thanks to increased construction material 

costs and other factors. We need more funding for in-line projects. 

Additionally, we need Congress to insist that a portion of those 

funds be distributed via the multi-year letter-of-intent mechanisms 

included as part of the 9/11 Act signed into law last year. 

Multi-year LOIs enable TSA to spur airports to leverage their resources to begin in-line projects with a promise of federal reimbursement. In-line systems in major airports, including Denver, Atlanta, and Seattle, were all built under LOIs signed in 2002 and 

2003. At many larger facilities, like Washington-Dulles, the LOI 

approach is one of the few viable options that exist for moving forward for in-line systems. Yearly grants from TSA simply don’t offer 

enough funding certainty. I urge you to insist that the TSA issue 

LOIs to airports, as required by the 9/11 Act. This issue is too important to allow OMB to thwart the will of Congress. 

Moving to passenger screening, there are two programs that 

merit particular attention and support. The first is the Registered 

Traveler program, which holds great promise in allowing TSA to 

more effectively focus scarce resources on those who pose the greatest threat to the aviation system. We appreciate the support TSA 

has offered in moving this program forward to this point. However, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

386 

more can be done to improve the RT’s program effectiveness as a 

security tool. 

In addition, the checkpoint of the future concept also merits support with one cautionary warning. Airports must be involved in the 

rollout of new technology as soon as possible in the process. As past 

experiences with initial deployment of checked baggage screening 

systems proved, a lack of consultation with airport operators will 

increase long-term costs and potentially hamper the efficient deployment of critical technology. TSA must be prepared to quickly 

pay for any terminal modifications that may be necessary to support this program. 

Finally, I want to emphasize the importance of keeping TSA focused on its primary mission of passenger and baggage screening. 

Unfortunately, some have suggested expanding the reach of TSA to 

include responsibilities that have been performed by airports, as 

local public entities, for more than 30 years, including perimeter 

security, incident response, credentialing, and access control to secured areas. Expanding TSA’s already daunting mission into inherently local security responsibilities will diminish security and divert scarce federal resources. Airport personnel involved in these 

functions are highly-trained public safety professionals with first 

responder responsibilities. The best approach moving forward from 

a security perspective is to maintain local control backed by federal 

standards, federal oversight, and federal resources. 

Before closing, I would like to briefly mention the issue of airport 

employee screening, given the interest of the subcommittee on that 

topic. Several years ago, I was part of a small group of airport professionals that traveled to the U.K. with DHS and TSA officials to 

look at the European model of screening employees. After a considerable study and debate, a decision was made by DHS and TSA to 

reject plans to implement a European-type system of physically 

screening U.S. airport workers, because of the unique nature of the 

U.S. aviation system and the astronomical cost of building the infrastructure necessary to meet that requirement. 

Airport professionals agree with the decision and believe that 

100 percent physical screening of airport workers would result in 

the diversion of billions of dollars of scare resources with little, if 

any, security benefit. In our view, the best approach to addressing 

the insider threat, while improving the aviation security environment, is through the deployment of sustainable approaches, including enhanced background checks for workers, increased random 

physical inspections, and additional technology in the field. Airport 

professionals are committed to the continued improvement of security at their facilities. We pledge our continued support to TSA and 

this subcommittee in achieving our shared goals of a more secure 

and efficient aviation system. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

387 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 573 here 42401A.370
388 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 574 here 42401A.371
389 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 575 here 42401A.372
390 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 576 here 42401A.373
391 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 577 here 42401A.374
392 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 578 here 42401A.375
393 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 579 here 42401A.376
394 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 580 here 42401A.377
395 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 581 here 42401A.378
396 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 582 here 42401A.379
397 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 583 here 42401A.380
398 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Ms. Sterling. 

STATEMENT OF MS. PEGGY E. STERLING, VICE PRESIDENT FOR

SAFETY AND SECURITY, AMERICAN AIRLINES

Ms. STERLING. Good morning, Chairman Price, Ranking Member 

Rogers, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on efforts to improve the accuracy and efficiency of aviation security. As the Vice President of Safety and Security for the nation’s largest airline, let me assure you that we, 

at American Airlines, have the safety and security of our passengers as our top priority. We fly more than 250,000 passengers 

on over 4,000 daily flights. We could not meet this challenge as 

successfully without the leadership of Assistant Secretary Kip 

Hawley. While we may not always agree on the best way to tackle 

a particular challenge or should pay for a given government mandate, his unwavering dedication should be applauded. 

My testimony today focuses on where we believe the accuracy 

and efficiency of the air security system can be improved. I do not 

speak for the entire industry, but rather offer one carrier’s perspective. Overall, when the industry has been allowed to provide input 

into pending security changes and has been afforded an adequate 

and reasonable implementation period, TSA has achieved better results. 

Let me begin with the topic of watch list and Secure Flight. Almost seven years after the attacks on 9/11, compiling a comprehensive accurate and manageable watch list, as well as an automated 

real-time passenger vetting system, has continued to challenge 

DHS. Under significant congressional pressure, DHS has recently 

taken a more systematic and coordinated approach to the creation 

and management of a single terrorist watch list and a name check 

system across the department. In particular, we applaud DHS for 

combining CBP’s APIS Quick Query system with TSA’s Secure 

Flight initiative to the maximum extent possible. While we support 

both initiatives, the cost to the airlines in reprogramming our reservation systems is significant. Reprogramming to conform CBP’s 

requirements will require increased staff and cost American Airlines over $1.7 million. As DHS moves to implement Secure Flight, 

we urge that it consider the magnitude of programming involved 

and not publish an unrealistic implementing deadline. 

Our customers’ perception of TSA are formed by their experience 

at the checkpoint. How TSA performs is dependent upon its staffing levels at a particular airport and on the deployment and adequate maintenance of technology. We fully realize that TSA does 

not have endless resources. TSA has made progress in developing 

a staffing allocation model. It is important for TSA to prioritize efforts at those airports where staffing is inadequate to meet passenger demand. In contrast to other hubs, Miami has consistently 

experienced customer wait times, missed flights, and passenger dissatisfaction. We have been in discussions with TSA on ways to best 

meet the hiring challenges it faces in Miami. 

More broadly, deploying new technology will continue to increase 

TSA’s efficiencies. At those airports that now have in-line EDS, we 

have experienced substantial gains in baggage throughput and a 

reduction in staffing demands on TSA. This Subcommittee has 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

399 

been a long advocate for the rapid installation of in-line EDS 

through multi-year LOIs. On behalf of American Airlines, we thank 

you. Miami has applied for a multi-year LOI to fund an in-line system. We strongly support this application. 

In light of the overall staffing challenges TSA continues to face, 

we, also, believe that 100 percent physical screening of airport employees is both unrealistic and counterproductive. Simply put, funneling employees through passenger checkpoint lines only serve to 

put more hay in the proverbial haystack. Instead, TSA should develop and fund a mandatory federal airport ID badge. The current 

piecemeal approach to security badges is simply not acceptable. 

Under a uniform system, TSA could develop credentialing, background check standards, and a continuous monitoring process that 

would, for example, allow free movement of flight crews from airport to airport. 

Turning to air cargo, in order to ensure that 100 percent screening regime actually adds to the level of security intended, with 

minimal disruption and operational impact, we believe the following three key points need to be considered and addressed. 

Number one, TSA must continue to work in consultation with all 

stakeholders to develop effective and realistic operating procedures. 

Number two, TSA’s proposed certified cargo screening program 

must be implemented in a fashion that spreads the 100 percent 

screening requirement across the supply chain. Without this, 100 

percent cargo screening will fall solely on the carriers, which will 

require and create major disruptions in service, impede the flow of 

cargo at acceptance, and significantly increase carrier’s costs. 

Number three, TSA must continue to support and develop technology that is effective for cargo screening. Absent new technology, 

TSA must develop protocols that will allow the use of existing technology for more effective screening of bulk and palletized cargo. 

The last topic I would raise is one that is not currently under 

TSA’s responsibility, but we believe should be. We support the 

long-standing congressional mandate regarding U.S. VISIT Exit. 

Congress has repeatedly expressed that this system be a governmental responsibility. However, DHS informed the airlines without 

prior consultation that we would be required to collect biometric information for U.S. VISIT Exit. This is contrary to the legislative 

history of this program, is highly inefficient, and is not the best security and privacy approach. 

In conclusion, I would simply highlight the fact that the airline 

industry continues to grapple with the devastating financial impact 

of $100 plus a barrel of oil. American lost $69 million last quarter. 

As you might imagine, we are extremely sensitive to anything that 

increases the hassle factor on our customers or imposes costly unfunded government mandates. Since we and our customers are the 

ones that pay the price for any inaccuracies and inefficiencies in 

the security system regime, we are extremely motivated to work 

with TSA to ensure that the system is as accurate, efficient, and 

effective as possible. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement and I would be 

happy to answer any questions that you or the members of the 

Subcommittee may have. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

400 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 589 42401A.381
401 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 590 42401A.382
402 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 591 42401A.383
403 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 592 42401A.384
404 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 593 42401A.385
405 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 594 42401A.386
406 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 595 42401A.387
407 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 596 42401A.388
408 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 597 42401A.389
409 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 598 42401A.390
410 

Mr. PRICE. Thanks, Ms. Sterling. Thanks to all of you for some 

very useful testimony. We will put your full statements in the 

hearing record. Now we will proceed with questions. 

AIRPORT PASSENGER WAIT TIMES FOR SCREENING

I want to turn to the question of screeners and wait times, perhaps not surprisingly. I would say that is a subject right up there 

with campaign finance reform that every Member of Congress features himself or herself an expert in, simply because we encounter 

screening each week, as we come and go. My weekly encounter is 

not only with your airline, Ms. Sterling, or U.S. Airways, but also 

with the TSA screeners at Raleigh-Durham and at Washington National. And I must say that based on that experience, and everybody has their own anecdotal experience, based on my experience, 

I have seen great improvements in recent years in terms of the efficiencies of those operations, and apparent employee morale. Mr. 

Hawley, I know you work on that very hard and this Member’s experience tends to confirm that you are making some good progress. 

However, the progress on wait times is uneven. And Mr. Rogers 

consistently stresses the personnel levels that we are dealing with 

in this agency. But, it is also true that many airports are looking 

for more screeners and for more ability to cover peak times. Traffic 

levels have risen. More people are traveling than ever before. The 

levels are above the pre-9/11 figures in many instances. 

Most airports do not have lengthy average security lines. I think 

the average is now around five percent. But some do still have long 

times and the travelers are often affected by this and are often unhappy about it. 

I want to include for the record, at this point, a table representing the longest average peak wait times in February of this 

year, ranging from Miami International at 23.6 minutes, through 

Las Vegas at almost 20 minutes, Atlanta Hartsfield at 19.1 minutes and so forth. So, there are still some real problems here. 

[The information follows:] 

Miami International Airport ................................................................. 23.63 minutes 

Las Vegas McCarran Airport ................................................................ 19.76 minutes 

Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport ............................................. 19.10 minutes 

Charlotte/Douglas International Airport ............................................. 18.85 minutes 

San Juan Luis Munoz Marin International Airport ........................... 18.43 minutes 

Newark International Airport .............................................................. 18.22 minutes 

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport .................................................. 17.75 minutes 

John Wayne Airport .............................................................................. 17.39 minutes 

San Diego International Airport ........................................................... 17.16 minutes 

Tampa International Airport ................................................................ 17.02 minutes 

Philadelphia International Airport ...................................................... 17.01 minutes 

I know, Mr. Bennett, that the D.C. airports have had problems 

with long screening lines and you have been very vocal about your 

need for additional screeners. You are no longer on the top 10 list, 

in terms of wait times. I do not know if you ever were. The longest 

wait times at National and at Dulles are in a more reasonable 

range now. You do have peak screening wait times of more than 

10 minutes, though, at both facilities. 

In the past year, TSA has added additional screeners to check 

documents and to look for suspicious behavior, in addition to the 

way they were previously deployed. Do you see any effect on wait 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

411 

times of these additional security resources? I would appreciate 

your assessment in general of the wisdom and effectiveness of 

those additions, but, in particular, I am also asking you about any 

discerned impact on wait times. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. We 

have not observed any addition to or degradation of service associated with the document checkers. I actually think that is a good 

program and it appears to be working very well. But, we do, as you 

noted, still experience some delay issues with screening lines, not 

at Reagan National, but at Dulles. It is a very complicated environment and it does not happen every day. But, for instance, in the 

month of January this year, we had 58 percent of the days where 

Dulles exceeded the average daily wait times that TSA posts. And 

the peak afternoon wait time at Dulles, the longest wait time, 52 

minutes was our longest peak wait time during the month of January. February is a little better, as they continue to try to address 

that challenge. Only 35 percent of our days in February have we 

exceeded the peak wait times, and the peak wait time that we have 

had so far at Dulles in February has only been 35 minutes, which 

is an improvement. But, as we move into the peak travel season, 

January, February, some of our lower travel months, as we move 

into the peak season, actually starting next month as spring break 

commences, and then we move into the summer travel times, we 

are somewhat concerned that those wait times will continue to 

grow. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, where do you look for solutions? Is it simply a 

matter of more personnel? 

Mr. BENNETT. There are two complicating—there are two issues 

at Dulles. One is the physical environment at Dulles. As the chairman, I am sure, is aware, we are in a massive reconstruction of 

Dulles and one of the features of that construction will be two very 

large new security mezzanines that will give TSA an opportunity 

to install their check point of the future. We have been working 

very closely with them to get sign off on the design of those checkpoints of the future and those will preview at Dulles in 2009. 

But, the other is staffing issues and trying to make sure that all 

of the lanes that we do have available are open in anticipation of 

the peaks. Once you get behind, if you cannot get the lanes open 

in time, once you get behind, you never recover and that is unfortunately what happens from time to time. 

Mr. PRICE. Ms. Sterling, I know your airline serves Miami—— 

Ms. STERLING. Yes. 

Mr. PRICE [continuing]. With a number of flights each day and 

you singled out Miami for what you refer to as the longer customer 

wait lines, the missed flights, and the passenger dissatisfaction. 

You note that the wait times are the worst nationwide, well above 

the five-minute average. I wonder if you could just take Miami as 

an example or if you want to choose another example, that is fine. 

But, what, from your viewpoint, needs to be done to improve the 

situation? Again, is it personnel? Is it other factors that you believe 

need to be addressed? 

Ms. STERLING. Let me just say that I work very closely with the 

TSA. I would like to recognize the fact that through their manning 

allocation model and through some of the new initiatives that they 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

412 

are putting in place, I think that there is progress being made. 

They are looking at full-time employees with split shifts. They are 

looking at additional part-time hiring. And as they proceed down 

that road, I think it is going to help the airline industry to be able 

to cover the peak hour demand at the checkpoints. Additionally, I 

think there are some efficiencies to be gained, in terms of how the 

checkpoints are actually managed and the process itself. I know 

that the TSA optimization team has spent many hours in Miami 

with our team sorting through how we could collectively improve 

that process. 

So, I think that with all of the efforts that are joining together 

in a place like Miami, where we have facility challenges, we have 

limited throughput capability, but we, also, work together to make 

sure that we are addressing the staffing issues that we have there. 

Hiring in the Miami area is a challenge for a lot of corporations. 

I think that being focused on gaining part-timers, will result in a 

change in the wait time in Miami. Initially they were at two percent. They are now at 20 percent and they are moving towards 30 

percent part-time employees. 

So, from my recommendation, and I was just in Miami two or 

three weeks ago working with the TSA on improvements and redesign of what they have there, we are working with the optimization 

team to make that happen. Part-time employees are an essential 

piece of peak hour coverage and staffing. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Hawley, the Miami case does raise the question 

of the way wait times figure in your determination of where to assign screeners, because, as you know, Miami actually has had a 

significant reduction in screeners in the last couple of years. According to our figures, Miami had 1,698 screeners in 2005, has only 

1,167 now. Any obvious explanation to that, particularly as it relates to what we have been discussing? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Sure. First off, security is our top priority and our 

job is to stop attacks that would be in progress, disrupt those that 

might be being planned, and that is the focus that we have our security officers on. I think it is important when we are looking at 

the wait time discussion to understand what the mission is here 

and that is our mission. And I have said to our TSOs, it is our job 

at the senior management level to get the right staffing and get the 

process right. It is your job just to focus on your security assignment. And so, it is very important that we keep that message clear. 

The second is, in terms of expectations, we are talking here 

about average peak wait times, peak wait times in the 20-minute 

range. And if you could turn the clock back a couple of years and 

think that we would be sitting here in a hearing room discussing 

how hard—you know, what a bad situation it is to have a peak 

wait time in 20 minutes, I would say that is very good performance. And then you have to ask yourself, what would it take and 

what would it cost if you wanted to move those peaks down significantly below that. So, I would argue that, and I think the point 

that you made, Mr. Chairman, is dead on, that as a system, we 

have the process management down pretty well and that, in fact, 

and Jim Bennett is exactly correct, if we get behind in an individual circumstance, we will get those peaks. So, that is what we 

have to work on, is staying on top of the unexpected thing where 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

413 

we are caught without the checkpoint open early. So, I think that 

is a valid criticism. But, the overall level of wait times in the U.S. 

are, I would say, exemplary. 

Mr. PRICE. Yes. Let me clarify, if I did not before. The figures 

I was citing for Miami and these other airports is the longest average peak wait time. Nonetheless, it is, of course, not as good as it 

should be and it does raise the question about the relationship of 

this data to your allocation decisions. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, we have gone to, as Peggy Sterling mentioned, we have changed our workforce from only 10 percent parttime to about a quarter or above part-time and split shift, which 

allows us to have the folks there for the peaks and not have to pay 

for billing the church for Easter Sunday. So, those are a particular 

mechanism that we have done. And I would also like to add in that 

the additional security of the Behavior Detection Officer and the 

Travel Document Checker, those are additional levels of security, 

very significant additional security measures that are in place 

today that were not in place three years ago and we have done that 

without interrupting the wait times. So, I think that is something 

from the management side of which we are very proud. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, you make an important point about the additional deployment of part-time people. The figures I cited for Miami 

are FTE figures. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. 

Mr. PRICE. If you could furnish for the record, it would be significant to know how many bodies we are talking about here and how 

many are full and part-time. The FTE figures could mask some significant changes. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. And I think on Miami, that is when you look 

at what issues are in Miami. And I agree, that is one of the airports that is most difficult, because of a lot of reasons that Peggy 

Sterling mentioned, and we do lag the national average in terms 

of our part-time and split shift in Miami. And it is due to the workforce environment there and that is one of the solutions to the 

problem. Also, we are working very closely with the airport to 

streamline the process and to do some of the innovation I mentioned in these other airports, bring that to Miami and see if we 

can improve things that way. 

Mr. PRICE. Let me elaborate the request and ask that you could 

take these top dozen airports with the longest average peak wait 

time and give us that kind of deployment figure in terms of the 

trend in full-time and part-time employees and not just the FTE 

total from 2005 to 2008. I think that would be illuminating now. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. I think that is a great question and we will 

do it. 

[The information follows:] 

Airport 

FTE 2008 Headcount 

2005 2008 FT PT Total 

Miami International Airport ........................................................................... 1698 1171 952 355 1307 

Las Vegas McCarran Airport ......................................................................... 1079 1019 941 132 1073 

Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport ........................................................ 161 890 711 281 992 

Charlotte/Douglas International Airport ........................................................ 266 360 297 98 395 

San Juan Luis Munoz Marin International Airport ........................................ 415 428 349 137 486 

Newark International Airport ......................................................................... 1281 1113 888 347 1235 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

414 

Airport 

FTE 2008 Headcount 

2005 2008 FT PT Total 

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport ............................................................ 1000 787 636 242 878 

John Wayne Airportt ...................................................................................... 267 281 227 83 310 

San Diego International Airport .................................................................... 562 561 444 173 617 

Tampa International Airport .......................................................................... 585 539 462 122 584 

Philadelphia International Airport ................................................................. 777 889 719 276 995 

Total ..................................................................................................... 8991 8038 6626 2246 8872 

From FY 2005 to FY 2008, the number of TSA FTEs declined frm 45,000 to 43,000. Since small airports must operate with a fixed number 

of FTE comprising the minimum number of TSOs necessary to operate a checkpoint and screen baggage, that decline was largely absorbed by 

increases in efficiency at the largest airports in the country. All of these airports, with the exception of Charlotte/Douglas have installed optimal baggage screening systems and realized those efficiencies. 

Mr. PRICE. Okay, thank you, sir. Mr. Rogers? 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Hawley, you have done a remarkable job during 

your tenure at TSA. The chairman alluded to it and I do, too. It 

is been a remarkable management job of which you are an expert. 

But, I want to congratulate you on the good work that you have 

done and are doing and the way that you are handling it. Having 

said that—— 

Mr. HAWLEY. First of all, thank you. 

EFFICIENCY AT SCREENING CHECKPOINTS

Mr. ROGERS. I have a couple of questions, mainly about the 

workforce, because as I alluded in my opening statement, in my estimation, in my calculation, TSA has now exceeded the former 

45,000 FTE cap that no longer exists, but, nevertheless, it exists 

in my mind. It is a virtual cap. You exceed that by 438 FTEs in 

fiscal year 2008, 643 in 2009. Now, I know, and you conversed with 

me about this, that you do not think you have exceeded that number, strictly using people on the front line. But, if you put back in 

the managers, which, in my mind, they are a part of TSA, and the 

other categories that you have not called something else, nothing 

can take away from the fact that your total FTE does exceed the 

cap. And I will give you time in a moment to respond to that. 

But let me tie it then with the reason I think that is important, 

the cap, a cap, and the purpose of the cap at the outset was to put 

some sort of pressure on TSA and DHS to bring on line and bring 

into place machinery, which is more capable, in many instances, of 

screening people than the human touch, not to mention the cost. 

So, that was the purpose of the cap in the first place, was to try 

to drive down the cost and buildup the effectiveness of what we 

were doing checking people through airports. And so, that gets me 

to the decrease in EDS procurement and installation that is in your 

budget proposal of decrease, a 48 percent from last year in the 

amount of money that you are requesting out of the appropriated 

funds, to go toward buying machinery for airports. So, we are digressing, receding from doing the right thing, in my judgment, in 

getting machinery into the airports, whether it be in-line or whatever. 

Now, I know you say, well, no, that is not exactly true, because 

you are not counting, you say, the $426 million that would go toward that purpose, that would come from the mandatory passenger 

security fees that you are proposing. However, as we all, I think, 

have indicated, the likelihood of that taking place is very, very low 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

415 

and I do not want to see us gambling on that taking place with 

something as important as getting machinery in airports to check 

baggage and check people, and your budget from appropriated 

funds falls way short of that. So, let me give you now time to respond to these questions. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes, thank you. And I will break them up into the 

passenger checkpoint screening and the checked baggage screening. 

And I do understand your point about, hey, I thought we were 

going to be buying a lot of technology and that would allow us to 

make it less dependent on large numbers of people. 

The issue with the passenger checkpoint is that the threat from 

the person, somebody carrying something with them, is going to be 

solved by technology when we have something that will screen the 

individual in a privacy friendly way and fast enough to be able to 

keep up with the throughput. And we are now just entering that 

period where we are going to be operationally deploying the millimeter wave portal that we have been testing. And, still, that is not 

going to be an efficiency accelerator. It still takes a long—well, a 

relatively long time, 20 seconds, say, to process a person going 

through that. So, the technology curve is still too far away to get 

the effective screening we need and accelerate to be able to reduce 

the number of people at checkpoints. 

We are investing in the AT x-ray. One of the features of the AT, 

in addition to being extraordinarily better than what we have 

today, is that it will allow TSOs to make a very quick resolution 

and, in fact, have fewer bag checks. When we get to the point of 

the computers being able to do it automatically, that would be the 

next step. 

On the baggage screening, I agree with you. That is the opportunity we have to deploy technology and reduce our headcount requirement. 

The difference we have on the funding is with—the reason that 

we went with a fee in this budget or the surcharge is that if you 

look—the problem, I think, we agree is money. We need to get a 

lot of money, as fast as we can get it, and apply it to this problem. 

And, in our judgment, pumping in $400 million in cash, above the 

$400 million available appropriated funds every year for the next 

four years was a shot of cash that would buy down that risk and, 

in fact, complete the baggage rollout that we put in our strategic 

plan. So, from our perspective, the budget that we sent forward, in 

addition to the $400 million of available funds with another $400 

million of these fee funds in cash would allow the airports to move 

immediately to do the deployment. 

Then the issue of whether it is going to pass or not, I do understand that difference. But I think we agree that this is the opportunity to achieve headcount efficiencies through technology. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I hear you and understand you and appreciate 

what you are saying, and I appreciate all along your determination 

to get more money into procurement of machinery in the airports, 

which everyone admits is woefully inadequate, dangerous even. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

416 

FUNDING FOR IMPROVED SCREENING TECHNOLOGY

I guess what we are saying up here is the likelihood of that surcharge is probably really low. My concern is: What if it does not 

happen? How will we make that up? 

Mr. HAWLEY. We are going to work as hard as we can to get that 

surcharge in place. 

We are very mindful of the provisions in the 9/11 Act that discuss multiyear LOIs, and that is certainly something in the business model which we will explore, as required. 

Our judgment is that we want to first get after the cash right 

away. That would be the best solution. If we have to go to other 

solutions, we will work that, too. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, as to the LOIs, I have been an advocate of 

those from day one, for years. After a while, OMB allowed us to 

allow us to have a few, I have forgot the number. Essentially, 

which is to allow airports to use monies that they expect to receive 

from the government for renovations for safety. 

To receive that money up front, allow them to construct the improvements and then pay back the bond, if you will, over a period 

of years. Then OMB clamped down and says no, no more, about a 

couple or three years ago. 

But it is the only way in my judgment to allow the huge expenditures needed in these airports to go online behind the wall, admittedly the most efficient, safest way to check bags. I do not know 

how you get the kinds of billions of dollars that we are talking 

about without some sort of bonding practice which this really is. I 

hope that OMB would see fit to allow that to happen. 

If your proposed passenger security fee does not materialize, 

which I think is the extreme likelihood, then we are left with nothing except the possibility of LOIs. Is that right? 

Mr. HAWLEY. That is correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. That is the end of the line. If you cannot get the 

fee, and OMB says no more LOIs, what are you going to do about 

expanding and fixing airports? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, the legislation in the last year has put aside 

the 20-year targeting of the $250 million a year, so we do know 

that we have an assured base level of support for this going forward. And, that is, I think, a very good thing. 

Working with OMB, we have had a very good productive business relationship on this particular topic. And the fact that we are 

able, in our budget, to put $826 million cash on the table for EDS 

right now, I think is something you would not have expected out 

of OMB perhaps. But, that we are working with them to get the 

best business solution. 

We are mindful of what is moral, we are mindful of the subcommittee’s position and direction; and we are pursuing what we 

consider to be the best way to solve the problem, which is: provide 

the most money as fast as we can. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I know your priority is the fee, and we understand that. But I am sitting here saying you are bucking up the 

tree where the squirrel has already gone, and we are going to have 

to find another way. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

417 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, the 911 Act requires an allocation of no less than $200 million annually for letters of intent. And fund the cost 

shares of up to 90 percent, so it is in the law. I would hope that 

we could get it done. 

DEVELOPMENT OF OPTIONAL IN-LINE SCREENING TECHNOLOGY AT

AIRPORTS

Finally, and quickly, how many of the top 30 airports have optimal in-line systems in place now? 

Mr. HAWLEY. I would say 19 off the top of my head, but I 

will—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Nineteen. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Out of the top 30? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes, out of the top 30. 

Mr. ROGERS. And passenger levels? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. And beyond the top 30, how many airports that are 

appropriately suited for in-line systems are still waiting for federal 

investments in those projects? 

Mr. HAWLEY. We have that all in our strategic plan, so I do not 

have that off the top of my head. But I think we are well over 40 

total in the in-line system. 

Mr. ROGERS. That what—40 what? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Forty airports, 40 major airports with in-line. 

Mr. ROGERS. That have in-line now? 

Mr. HAWLEY. I believe so. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. Well, the bottom line is: most all the larger airports do not have in-line? I am not talking about the top 30, top 

50. I am talking about the top 200? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes, right, that is correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. That are appropriately suited for in-line? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Exactly. 

Mr. ROGERS. So there is a backlog. How much money would it 

take, roughly, to fix those airports, let us say in the top 200? 

Mr. HAWLEY. That is about a $1.7 billion, and that is what we 

have in the—I will get to the squirrel. But the $436 million times 

4 is about what we would figure would cover that top 200 airports 

with the optimal systems. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. I thank you. 

Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hawley, 

for doing your job. I am very proud to represent you. Perhaps Ms. 

Sterling could help us out by just getting a direct flight from Washington to Monterey. 

Mr. PRICE. Yes. 

Mr. FARR. And we would not have to have the nine-hour-a-week 

travel time. 

TSA’S ABILITY TO ADJUST STAFFING TO ACCOMMODATE WEATHER

DELAYS

I have several questions. But I would like to follow-up on the 

Chairman and Peggy Sterling’s comment that TSA’s opinion is 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

418 

formed by passengers at the checkpoint. And that checkpoint is not 

only outgoing, but it is incoming if you are coming in from an international travel. 

So my questions are related to that. One is this, and I have 

talked to you about this beforehand when we had been talking 

about wait times. Let me just tell you what the passengers formed 

their opinion on January 18th. It was a Friday. It had snowed the 

night before and it was at Dulles. 

The west coast flights leave early in the morning, all around 

7:30. But I see that every week and I have never seen the kind of 

lines and backup. 

In talking with the United personnel, they indicated that because 

of the cancellations the night before, they had all their staff come 

in early and process passengers. Because before you even get to the 

TSA check line, you have already had to get your boarding pass, 

so there has been time spent on that. 

What really triggered my complaint to you was when I got 

through the line, because I was a frequent flyer, I can get through 

the faster line. But when I entered the plane with my boarding 

pass, I asked: How many passengers that are not, and I was there 

at just the 15-minute closing period, she said 80 passengers have 

not yet checked in. 

And a TSA staff person responded right away, and I really appreciate that, but here is what he said, and remember you had a 

snowstorm the night before. Additionally, we had gone back and 

crunched the numbers, and you had a lot of sick calls in, and you 

had one of the gates were closed because of a leak. 

We had gone back and done the crunch numbers. The airlines 

predicated 6,200 passengers for this morning’s bank. In fact we 

screened 7,039 passengers due to re-bookings, cancellations, et 

cetera. This is a 25 percent spike increase over the projections. 

Moreover, we noted a difference in the type of traveler. Both yesterday and today, due to a three-day weekend, off-peak fares, et 

cetera, many families are traveling with small children, strollers, 

carseats, and various carry-ons, winter coats, scarves, hats, gloves, 

boots, all of which have to be removed and screened. 

In addition, they have liquids, gels, baby bottles, et cetera. All 

this tends to slow down the through point. My point there is that 

you are blaming the passenger. And those passengers are not 

thinking about that their an over-burden. They want the government to be responsive. 

The one thing interesting about your Agency is that there are 

only like two things that people think about with the federal government: One is when they have got to pay their taxes; and the 

other is when they have to get on an airline. 

So their opinion of the government is softened by—and I think 

you do an excellent job, and have certainly gotten a lot better. 

What my questions go to: I would love to see the point where TSA 

works itself out of a job. What we have done is we have secured 

cockpits, we have gone into all of these other types of things, things 

that you cannot carry on. 

In the process, we have also created a two-tier system. If you fly 

private air, or you fly, as Congress members do, on CODEL, they 

do not check whether your liquids are in a bag, and you know they 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

419 

are not limited to size, and they do put the bags through a screen, 

but nobody complains about anything in there, or that you cannot 

take water through, whatever that is. 

So you have this one system that is sort of a private that is sort 

of the private system, the VIP system, and then you have the commercial system. The burden is in the commercial system, so that 

day what you pointed out, and your records show, that at 6:30, 

there was a 44-minute wait flight. 

At 7:30, there was a 40 minute. At 7:30, it had gone down to 32 

minutes; by 8:00, it was 30 minutes. At 8:30, it was four minutes. 

Well, you had opened up other screening ins. I think the point I 

am trying to make is that everyone knew that this was going to 

be a horrible day. 

The intel on that should have said: Okay, we have got to be prepared. This is an exception and we have got to bring in extra personnel, and we have got to do it a lot faster. Because the airlines 

pay the price in this thing. These 80 passengers that did not check 

in, and whether they all got on the flight, I do not know. They were 

delayed because a lot it was also—they had to de-ice. I missed my 

connection when I got to San Francisco. 

My question is, and sort of the broader train, but more specifically because I know you have been involved, and I appreciate that, 

in the Naval Post-Graduate Center for Homeland Security. What 

I recommend is that you continue that kind of training and maybe 

the whole DHS Department do it, that we also take a network approach. 

We asked about that last year that perhaps this in-line process 

would do it. John Porter and I are chairs of the Congressional 

Tourism Caucus. We are interested in the international business 

arrivals, and whether you will engage in being a part of the team 

in the model ports of entry, which would reduce a lot of—we have 

these model ports, but I understand TSA is not being involved in 

that. 

You ought to be a key player in that. And Customs and border 

patrol and other airport authorities are involved in it. That is my 

line of questioning. I know time is limited because we have been 

called for a vote. 

Mr. PRICE. We do have limited time. Mr. Hawley, if you could respond as efficiently as possible. We want to get in some questions 

here before we have to leave. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. We will return after the votes. But I know that Ms. 

Granger, in particular, needs to get her question in. 

Mr. HAWLEY. The short answer on the Dulles story, the ball 

game is one that at 4:00 in the morning, and if we get the lanes 

open with enough folks early, we manage it. If we do not, it backs 

up and does not get done. 

It appears, without personally looking at it, that you just described a failure of having the right amount of people, the lanes 

open; and that does occasionally happen, but you are right, the 

staff worked very close with the airlines when there is a snowstorm 

or any of that stuff to know how many people are rolling over to 

the next day. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

420 

So, system wide, we are supposed to be able to handle those. I 

do not know specifically what went wrong there. 

On the NPS, yes, we are continuing to engage within the network thinking that they do theirs, which is extremely valuable. As 

to the model ports, I thought we were involved, but I will look into 

it to make sure that we are, in fact, involved. 

Mr. FARR. The naval postgraduate school is a question of getting 

all the rest of DHS. You know the value of that. Perhaps you can 

talk to your colleagues in the other departments. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Ms. Granger. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you so much. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman 

and I appreciate all of you being here. I would like especially to say 

hello to Peggy Sterling. She is a constituent of mine. She has been 

overseeing Americans’ excellent safety and security operations for 

many years. She does not look like it, but she has been in the aviation industry for 30 years. America is a huge corporate citizen in 

our district from Ft. Worth, so I appreciate that. 

AIR CARGO SCREENING

I am going to go from white lines with passengers to cargo. Secretary Hawley, I just have a couple of questions. It has to do with 

the Certified Cargo Screening Program. It should play a key role 

in cargo screening. I know that the 911 Commission created the 

100 percent Cargo Screening Law, and I supported that. 

Currently, though, TSA’s approved screening technology for the 

industry for screening large pieces of cargo is limited. I am concerned about the availability of that technology to the carriers for 

screening. So my question is: Since the program is voluntary, what 

are TSA’s plans for supporting the passenger airlines as they 

screen those very large shipments without adversely impacting the 

supply chain? 

Mr. HAWLEY. We are doing the fast answer. The point you raise 

on the large screening equipment is a very good one. Our answer 

to it is: Do not screen everything at the airport when the pallets 

are all built up. Try to do the screening earlier in the process, and 

exactly as Peggy Sterling said, have other participants in the supply chain do the screening when the packages are smaller, and 

then secure the passageway to the airport. 

That is how we plan to do it, and we do plan to meet the deadline in about a year from now in February 2009 for 50 percent. 

Ms. GRANGER. Okay, as a follow-up, and I understand your plan, 

but what if that does not happen and the airline gets these large 

shipments and they show up and they have not been screened? 

What is TSA, what is their help then at the airline dock? 

Mr. HAWLEY. I think we agree with the airline industry that trying to do the screening at the airport will not work for 50 percent 

or 100 percent of packages. The only way to get there from here 

is to get further back into the supply chain. Having said that, they 

are working on the science and tech side to get the machines to be 

able to do the pallets as well. Our plan just does not depend on 

that technology being deployed in the next year. 

Ms. GRANGER. But you think you can meet the deadline? 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

421 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Ms. Granger. You are raising a very important set of questions. We will resume in this vein after the 

break. 

Mr. Carter, we will work you in here. 

REGISTERED TRAVELER PROGRAM

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Real quickly, I have 

signed up for that registered travel thing and that has been the 

biggest waste of time I have ever been involved in. 

I have got my retina scan and my thumb done and all that stuff. 

It took three hours in Houston to do it, and I found out that it gets 

me past that first lady, who does not even work for TSA, at least 

in the airports that I fly out of. She is a contractor. But I assume, 

through all the other hassle, is there going to be anything that 

moves that faster than just getting past the first lady? 

Mr. HAWLEY. There is no full background check with Registered 

Traveler today. As we have seen in terrorist arrests, including six 

or eight plots disrupted this year, all having people who have clean 

records in them, you cannot rely on the absence of a criminal 

record, or being on the watch list, to let somebody onto a plane 

without checking very fully. 

So we have made it a private sector program. We said, on January 20, 2006: If you do a private background check, like you do in 

the securities industry, the financial services industry, if you do 

that, we will give you better security and we will make it faster 

for you security-wise. 

If you put approved technology in, we will let you keep your 

shoes, coats, laptops. None of that has happened. It is a cut to the 

front of the line program, and we are so focused on our security 

program. We are not devoting government resources to go figure 

out a way for the Registered Traveler Program to get off the 

ground. 

So the Registered Travelers need to step it up and invest, if they 

are going to get additional security benefits. Otherwise, it will participate with the whole rest of the checkpoint process to try to 

make everybody’s trip fast. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. We have got other things we have got to 

do right now. We will recess and go to the floor and be back as soon 

as we can possibly make it. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, a short recess was taken.] 

[Hearing room sound turned off; inaudible portion.] 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Hawley, how will you ensure that, once physical 

screening has been completed and the pallet has been sealed, it is 

not tampered with later on in the process. Is there anything in particular that you want to say about that? 

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCESS TO MEET 100 PERCENT AIR CARGO

SCREENING MANDATE

Also, the air-cargo screening mandate calls for air cargo to receive ‘‘a level of security commensurate with the level of security 

for the screening of passenger-checked baggage.’’ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

422 

Is that a standard that you can meet? I am thinking particularly 

here of one of your proposals to screen air cargo with advanced 

checkpoint technology systems that do not specifically look for explosives. Is that a degradation of security compared to the checked 

baggage? 

So those two questions, if you will. 

Mr. HAWLEY. On the second question, we are working right now 

on the standards of what constitutes commensurate with checkedbaggage screening under the law as to exactly what the requirements are for the machinery that can accomplish that. 

So, I would expect in the spring that we will have that released, 

and then that will show the glide path for the rest of the year of 

what we have to buy, and what others have to buy, to enable that 

screening to occur off the airport. 

And there was a question on: How do you secure the supply 

chain from where the screening occurs to the aircraft? That is the 

linchpin of the program. 

The guidance that we will put out on that, will indicate that the 

screening would have to be in certain controlled areas, and then on 

trucks with drivers who are vetted to seal, the tamper-evidence 

seal technology that would enable you to quickly tell if something 

had been tampered with after the screening, is all part of it. 

So, I think as you may have mentioned in the opening, that we 

are doing right now, in San Francisco, Philadelphia and Chicago, 

pilot programs to work out all of those details. 

Mr. PRICE. I would like to give the rest of you an opportunity to 

comment on this subject, not just the questions I have just raised, 

but also on the broader plan that Mr. Hawley has outlined and the 

way the 9/11 Act mandate is going to be met. 

Maybe we start with you Ms. Berrick. 

Ms. BERRICK. Sure, thank you. 

I have just one comment on the Certified Screening Program that 

Mr. Hawley is talking about to push the screening down further in 

the supply chain, I wanted to mention that a similar program is 

already in place in the United Kingdom. In fact, it is working pretty well for them. 

And I think TSA has coordinated with the UK in learning from 

their experiences in working this out. Some of the work that we 

have done on air-cargo security, where GAO has looked at this, is 

that there are some practices in foreign countries that could potentially be applied in the United States, and this was one of them. 

Another point on air cargo that we found is that there has been 

a lot of focus on cargo transported domestically within the United 

States, but less of a focus on cargo coming into the United States 

from foreign countries. 

For example, we had recommended to TSA that they develop a 

strategy on how they were going to ensure security for cargo coming into the United States. Because even though they have measures in place to ensure the security of that cargo, it is not as stringent as for measures in place of domestic cargo, so we think more 

can be done in that area. 

Then, a third area related to air cargo has been talked about this 

morning as technology. We think that DHS S&T, primarily working with TSA, is still in the early stages of this. And there is lots 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

423 

of technology that they are pursuing that is in the pipeline right 

now. 

There is not a lot of time frames for when they expect to complete pilot testing and moving the technologies forward. So I think 

it would be good to see more planning in terms of those technologies, and time frames as to when they hope, S&T primarily, 

can move those through the chain. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Ms. Berrick. 

Mr. Bennett. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, the concept of moving much of the 

screening downstream is very welcome in the airport community 

for air-cargo purposes. 

The air cargo at most of the major airports is really not designed 

to accommodate a very large screening system, or screening systems in the air-cargo facilities, and would probably face increasing 

challenges as we would try to accommodate those very similar to 

end-line baggage screening challenges at the airports as we develop 

facilities; and change the way that freight flows on the airport from 

the trucks when it arrives to the point that it gets on the airplane. 

So the concept of having that cargo, as it arrives at the airport, 

already screened and gone through those formalities is a very welcomed approach to that issue. 

Mr. PRICE. Ms. Sterling. 

Ms. STERLING. I agree with everything that has been said. I 

would just add that until the technology arrives, as I said in my 

testimony, TSA must develop clear- and concise screening protocols 

that will allow the use of existing technology to screen the large 

volumes of cargo. 

In addition, I think there is an opportunity between TSA and foreign country security programs to eliminate redundancies and requirements to re-screen cargo that has been screened or flown. 

ALTERNATIVE SCREENING FOR LARGE PALLET AIR CARGO SHIPMENTS

Mr. PRICE. What would you say about these large pallet-sized 

shipments? There is no TSA-approved screening technology currently available, for those. In your view, what alternative methods 

of screening might be most effectively implemented for palletized 

shipments? 

Ms. STERLING. Again, American has stated in the testimony that 

we advocate that the best way is through the supply chain, up-line. 

We know that there is a large amount of volume in cargo, and we 

know that the shipments are large. Clearly, moving it upstream to 

the supply chain is the way to go. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Let me, just briefly, revisit the topic Mr. 

Carter brought up: the Registered Traveler Program. 

I think, Mr. Hawley, for better or for worse, you expressed your 

view of that program’s progress thus far, indicating, as I understood you to say, that you did not think it had lived up to its security billing, in terms of making possible an abbreviation of the 

screening process. Also, saying, as far as TSA is concerned, that 

you are content to leave the development of this program with the 

private sector and with the airports. 

Mr. Bennett, it is your testimony that perhaps most directly addressed this. I wonder what you would have to say about the curmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

424 

rent state of registered travelers, as you see it; and what you think 

TSA’s role should be in moving this program forward? 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Carter’s comments were correct. The Registered Traveler Program is, as it exists today, really 

nothing more than getting you, hopefully, to the head of a line, and 

getting you through security a little earlier. So if you are experiencing the 45-minute peak-time waits that Mr. Farr referenced 

from a January day out at Dulles, if he had been a participant in 

the Registered Traveler, ideally, he would have been able to avoid 

that lengthy delay. 

But, from the airport perspective, we think that Registered Traveler, if done correctly, offers a tremendous benefit to improving the 

security environment, and actually taking the opportunity to reduce the size of the haystack. 

From an airport perspective, we would welcome being able to 

work with the Registered Travelers vendors, as well as the TSA, 

and establish what additional requirements might be necessary so 

that we could improve the benefits of the program and make it a 

more effective tool in improving the security environment for aviation. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, the development of these programs seems to be 

somewhat stalled. So beyond that general expression of a willingness to cooperate, what kind of steps would you hope to see in the 

near term? 

Mr. BENNETT. We would be supportive of expanding the background investigations to expand it to have criminal-history-record 

checks, and to bring commercial financial data bases. 

Many of us, as employers, today, when we hire employees, we do 

all of those investigations on employees before we put them on the 

payroll. It is very easily done; and it can be done, I think, with not 

too intrusively, and protect the privacy of those people who are applying to be participants in the Registered Traveler Program. 

If we are able to come to a way to stand that type of program 

in investigations up, and if it meet with TSA’s approvals, then, 

hopefully, we would be able to have security lanes dedicated at our 

airports for the registered travelers. 

Mr. PRICE. With what kind of screening procedures, presumably 

abbreviated-screening procedures? 

Mr. BENNETT. That would be up to TSA to be able to determine 

what their level of comfort would be for an abbreviated or modifiedscreening protocols. 

We are not of the opinion that the people should be allowed to 

not have screening. We think screening is very important. But we 

do think that if we have an in-depth knowledge of who these individuals are, that there could be a modified-screening protocol that 

would meet TSA’s requirements. 

Mr. PRICE. It sounds, though, like you are placing more stock in 

the background check than you are in improved technology, for example, to permit shoes not to be removed or something of that sort. 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, the technology would be a very important 

piece of that puzzle. But, right now, I am not sure that there is a 

technology available that is ready to roll out not the screening environment that would, for instance, allow the shoes not to be taken 

off. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

425 

But I do think that there may be other benefits that could be just 

procedural benefits within TSA’s protocols that would benefit the 

through put for registered traveler lines. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Hawley, is there anything that you would like to 

add? 

Mr. HAWLEY. I think that Mr. Bennett captured it very well. The 

crux of the matter is: once you make the policy decision that this 

is going to be a private-sector-led program, then it is the private 

sector who comes up with the risk capital, and puts up the effort 

to go figure out all the requirements of essentially a financial-services background check. 

I suggested that on January 20, 2006. And we also proposed that 

there would be dedicated lanes for the Registered Traveler, and the 

Registered Traveler community shot that down and said: No, we do 

not want to add that to the fee that would allow that to happen 

to be in there. 

So, essentially, we are waiting on those vendors to come forward 

with something that will allow us to change the security. It is a 

private-sector market. And, if there is not the market to do that, 

then it will stay where it is. 

But we have to keep our eye on the ball with security. As soon 

as we find a technology that we could deploy that will allow folks 

to keep their shoes on, we will be certainly discussing, with the 

Subcommittee, the opportunity we might use to buy that for all 

passengers. 

Mr. PRICE. As you know, the Committee in the 2008 bill, did address the issue of double identification. There may be other aspects 

that we will want to work on in the near term, but for now, I think 

we will leave it at that. 

And I will turn to Mr. Rogers for any questions he has on this 

concluding round. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHALLENGES TO MEETING THE AIR CARGO SCREENING MANDATE

Let me get back to air-cargo screening. The question is directed 

to anyone who would like to respond. About 23 billion pounds of 

cargo is shipped annually in the U.S., and about a quarter of it is 

shipped via passenger aircraft. That is an astounding amount of 

poundage. I suspect a big chunk of the revenue of an airline. 

What percent of your revenues do you think come from your 

cargo on passenger planes? 

Ms. STERLING. I do not have that statistic with me, but I can certainly furnish it to you. 

Mr. ROGERS. Give me a guess. 

Ms. STERLING. I would imagine that it is probably about 5 percent. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. So this is a very important piece of—— 

Ms. STERLING. Yes, it is. 

Mr. ROGERS [continuing]. Whether or not you are going to operate? 

Ms. STERLING. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. The 9/11 Act mandates that we screen 100 percent 

of air cargo carried on passenger aircraft by August 2010. I opposed 

that because it was impractical. We just could not get there at that 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

426 

time, but I found myself in the minority and it passed. It is the law 

now. 

Then, we have been told, Mr. Secretary, that development of fullscreening technologies to meet that directive may be five to seven 

years away from now. Is that correct? 

Mr. HAWLEY. It could be, if it is done at the airport for the largesize pallets. 

Mr. ROGERS. I am sorry? 

Mr. HAWLEY. For the large-size pallets, the technology does not 

exist today. It could well take five to seven years for that to be deployed. 

Mr. ROGERS. In order for you to say you are screening 100 percent? 

Mr. HAWLEY. At the airport, which is why our solution is to not 

do it at the airport because the technology does not exist for that. 

CERTIFIED SHIPPER PROGRAM

Mr. ROGERS. So you are relying upon the Certified Shipper Program? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. And you are saying that the certified Shipper Program meets the requirement of 100 percent screening, or it can be 

called screening? 

Mr. HAWLEY. It will meet the requirements of the law, and what 

we are developing now is exactly what the requirements are to 

meet the law. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, that is open for debate, whether or not the 

Certified Shipper Program can be called, as the law calls for 

screening of cargo for passenger aircraft. 

I want to believe, and I would like to believe that what you are 

saying is correct. I am sure it is. If you can give us chapter and 

verse of whether or not a Certified Shipper Program satisfies the 

requirement of the law we passed requiring 100 percent screening 

of cargo on passenger aircraft, then I will feel better. 

But I remain unconvinced at this point, and I am not looking for 

it today. If you have some time one of these days, perhaps you 

could get us something on that. 

A Certified Shipper Program, though, depends on so many intangibles out there, going all the way back to the manufacturing of the 

product, and the integrity of the protection of that product all the 

through its many hands into the belly of the craft. It is a lot like 

when I used to be a prosecutor you had to establish the chain of 

evidence, having everyone who touched it along the way come and 

testify: I had it from January 1 to January 5th. It was in my hands 

all the time. It was never touched by anyone else, that type of a 

process. 

I do not know whether Certified Shipper meets those requirements even yet or not or whether or not a Certified Shipper Program satisfies the law requiring 100 percent screening. What do 

you think? 

Mr. HAWLEY. The proof of the pudding is when we produce the 

standards that dictate exactly this is how we do it, with what technology, and we have not provided that data for you, so you do not 

have the basis to judge. But, the burden is on us to demonstrate, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

427 

and I said we would do it this spring, that we would say here are 

the technologies that could do it. 

Now, just some attributes of the industry that I think that make 

it easier to do is that 66 percent of all that tonnage you are talking 

about is concentrated in 18 airports and that drives the size down. 

And, then the other piece of it is that by having certified places to 

do the screening, it changes from 10,000 known shippers that we 

have to have our inspectors go to, where we will have 400 inspectors and they will be able to concentrate on far fewer locations to 

do the inspections. And, we also have 170 canine teams for air 

cargo. So, we have quite a few resources lined up to do it, and the 

model, the air cargo model is very concentrated. 

We, today, at all of the small airports run 100 percent of the air 

cargo through exactly the same technologies we do for checked 

bags. So we have a head start, probably more so than most people 

think, but the whole ballgame is going to come down to exactly 

what those standards of what is the approved technology that can 

constitute screening under the 9/11 Act. 

[The information follows:] 

The air cargo screening provision, 49 U.S.C. § 4490(g), added by section 1602 of 

the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, P.L. 110– 

53, 121 Stat. 266 (August 3, 2007), explicitly permits the Administrator of the 

Transportation Security Administration to fulfill the mandate of screening cargo 

carried aboard passenger aircraft using a certified cargo screening program under 

which the screening is performed by shippers. The provision states, in part: ‘‘Such 

additional cargo screening methods may include a program to certify the security 

methods used by shippers . . .’’ Under § 44901(g), cargo must be screened by either 

physical examination or non-intrusive methods to assess whether it poses a threat 

to transportation security; the methods of screening may include any of the methods 

explicitly named in the statute or another method approved by the Administrator. 

A method approved by the Administrator may include a program to certify the security methods used by shippers. Furthermore, the method of screening may not consist solely of performing a review of information about the contents of cargo or certifying the identify of a shipper of the cargo, but allows use of this method in conjunction with other methods. Overall, the level of security must be commensurate with 

that provided for checked passenger baggage. 

The certified cargo screening program (CCSP) that TSA is developing to meet the 

100% screening requirement of the 9/11 Act will provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of checked passenger baggage. 

Employees and authorized representatives with unescorted access to cargo in a certified cargo screening facility (CCSF) must each successfully undergo a Security 

Threat Assessment. The CCSF at an airport must also undergo an audit of the security measures of the facility by a TSA-approved auditor and must be approved by 

TSA. The CCSF at an airport must: 

—screen cargo intended for transport on a commercial passenger aircraft using 

only TSA-approved methods. 

—implement stringent physical access control measures to ensure that there is no 

unauthorized access to the cargo once screened. 

—adhere to strict chain of custody measures, including tamper evident technology, 

to ensure the security of the cargo throughout the supply chain prior to tendering 

it for transport on commercial passenger aircraft. 

The multilayered approach of the CCSP upon full implementation will meet all 

of the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 44901(g). 

RESPONSIBILITY TO FUND AIR CARGO SCREENING PROGRAM

Mr. ROGERS. Now are you anticipating the airlines would pay the 

equivalent of a passenger fee for this service? 

Mr. HAWLEY. No. What we are anticipating, the airlines will certainly be a participant as they are today in the screening, but we 

do not think it is the right answer to have them bear the entire 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

428 

burden for a variety of reasons, including the operational ones of 

it would not work piling everything up at the airport. And, I think 

the other point on my understanding of the air cargo industry is 

that it is a significant part of the profitability picture for airlines 

and, therefore, it is very important networkwide to have a profitable airline system and that a vibrant air cargo industry plays into 

that. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I agree with that. I mean, it is self-evident 

that they must have this, but the government is going to a huge 

expense to ensure the safety of that cargo that is passive and is 

the reason for the airlines’ way to make profit. Should they not 

bear some more of the expense of what we are doing? 

Mr. HAWLEY. I think the supply chain should in fact bear—it 

should be shared among the airlines and the other participants in 

the supply chain. And at the end of the day, it is the person who 

makes the product who is going to pay the bill in that if it is a computer manufacturer, they are going to pay what it costs to get their 

computer to their customer, and they will have the incentive to, 

therefore, set up screening at the manufacturing location and then 

it is far easier at that point to secure the chain of custody, as you 

described, than perhaps hitting it at other points in the supply 

chain. 

So, we think the market incentives will drive some of the manufacturers to do it at the point of manufacture. The large freight 

consolidators, I expect, will have a significant portion of this, and 

we are expecting them to participate in the cost of this ongoing 

that would not be subsidized entirely by the government. 

CERTIFIED SHIPPER PROGRAM STATUS

Mr. ROGERS. Where are you today on this certified shipper program? 

Mr. HAWLEY. We have three efforts underway. San Francisco, we 

have been in San Francisco for about a month, and in Philadelphia 

and Chicago, I think we started this week. So, we will be adding 

additional pilots, I believe six more, in March and then further as 

we go. 

Mr. ROGERS. And when do you anticipate putting out certified 

shipper standards? 

Mr. HAWLEY. This spring. 

Mr. ROGERS. And will there be a notice of rulemaking with the 

opportunity to comment and so on? 

Mr. HAWLEY. We are working through those, what the legal vehicle is to get that done. Our hope is that we will get the standards 

out and then we will get some participants to step up and accept 

those and implement them right away. But, certainly it will follow 

up with a requirement of some sort. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, we will be watching that with interest as we 

go along here. You say spring, meaning what? 

Mr. HAWLEY. By June 20. [Laughter.] 

Mr. ROGERS. June 20? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. All right. Let me set my clock. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HAWLEY. It is the longest day of the year. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

429 

AIRPORT EMPLOYEE SCREENING PROGRAM PILOTS

Mr. ROGERS. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, let me quickly ask about the 

airport employee screening pilot. Now where do we have a pilot or 

pilots going on security screening of airport employees? 

Mr. HAWLEY. We have announced that we will be doing seven 

pilot programs. Again, we do not have the exact date, but our expectation is that they are 90-day pilots that will be concluded by, 

I would say, the fall, such that we would have results to be able 

to report to Congress in this calendar year. And, three of the pilots 

will be full employee screening, physical screening of employees 

coming to work. Four will be of alternative methods of providing 

security. And then, we will have a third party evaluate the results 

and then report to Congress. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, according to a 2007 report, nearly 700,000 airport employees across the country, including cleaners, maintenance 

workers, catering, and ramp workers and others, hold what is 

called secure identification display area badges, SIDA, which allow 

them access in the proximity of passenger aircraft on the ground. 

Often and I am sure perhaps all the time these are the lowest-paid 

workers at the airport. They are not routinely screened, unlike the 

flight crews that have to pass through a regular security screening. 

It just seems to me that despite the efforts of the airports, and 

we praise them for that, that it is still not up to where we would 

like to see it. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. I believe more can be done, which is why we 

have our program. We have put up to our folks and then the Congress and this committee has supported dedicating up to, I think, 

it is 1,200 employees full-time in Fiscal Year 2008 and 1,600 total 

in 2009, and that is to get at it regardless of what the pilots show, 

that we are already doing that today. 

Mr. ROGERS. So, at the pilots, at least at three airports you are 

going to have 100 percent employee screening. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. And the other four will be random screening? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes, random, neighborhood watch, things like that. 

Mr. ROGERS. And then three of the seven will include vehicular 

screening. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I believe they all will involve vehicular screening. 

The three would be the 100 percent. The others would be something else. 

Mr. ROGERS. What kind of screening will that entail? 

Mr. HAWLEY. There would be a couple of options. One would be 

the visual inspection. Another one would be canines. And, we have 

portable explosive detectors that could be used in those as well. 

Mr. ROGERS. You are talking about the vehicular? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. And what about the employees? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, you could use the same technology on the 

passenger, but you would add a handheld magnetometer. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. So we will get the report when? 

Mr. HAWLEY. By the end of the calendar year, 2008. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. Well, in closing, let me congratulate you, Mr. 

Hawley, for a terrific job. It is a tough, tough job you have, one of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

430 

the toughest in the government I think, and you have brought an 

expertise to that job that you have that was right for the job. We 

appreciate your service and dedication to the country. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. ROGERS. And the same to all of you. 

Mr. PRICE. Ms. Lowey I know needs to leave, so I want to give 

her a chance. 

Mr. ROGERS. She wanted to respond. 

Ms. BERRICK. Yes. I am sorry. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I just 

wanted to mention the two questions you had related to air cargo 

and the certified shipper program and employee access screening. 

GAO has ongoing work looking at both of those areas and are going 

to be reporting out later this year, and we would be happy to come 

and talk to you about our results and brief you on those. 

Mr. ROGERS. We would love to hear it. 

Mr. PRICE. Good. Thank you. Ms. Lowey. 

Ms. LOWEY. I want to first thank the Chairman for holding this 

hearing and apologize, but as we all know, there are probably a 

dozen Appropriations hearings going on. Otherwise, I would have 

loved to be here. And I would like to follow up for a moment with 

Mr. Rogers’s compliments, because Assistant Secretary Hawley is 

really a pleasure to work with, and your answers are always direct. 

You do not talk around the issue. And although we may have some 

slight disagreements, it is not without a great deal of respect that 

I ask you all these questions, so I thank you very much. 

100 PERCENT SCREENING FOR AIRPORT EMPLOYEES

I want to follow up on Mr. Rogers’s line of questioning for a moment because, Mr. Sterling and Mr. Bennett, both of you say in 

your testimony categorically that 100 percent screening of airport 

employees is not reasonable. Yet we know it works at some of the 

busiest airports in the world, Heathrow, Charles de Gaulle. Piloting these measures as I have been advocating and this committee 

recently required can only provided us with more knowledge of our 

aviation security measures. 

Frankly, I find it hard to believe, and when I read your statements, I find it hard that you said it is not reasonable because it 

has never been tried on a wide-scale level in the United States. 

And at the airports that perform some level of employee screening, 

Miami and Orlando, it appears effective. If it is not, I would love 

to hear about it. There are other problems with Miami. I was there 

not too long ago and waited about an hour and a half on a line, 

but that is another story. It had nothing to do with the workers. 

So Secretary Hawley, while we may disagree on the merits of 100 

percent employee screening, I am very pleased that TSA has moved 

quickly to comply with the intent of Congress, and I really do look 

forward to the results of these pilot programs. 

And by the way, I would just say after I ask another question, 

Ms. Sterling and Mr. Bennett, if you want to backtrack on that 

comment in your report and not say it is not reasonable, you certainly would have an opportunity to respond. 

I am puzzled as to why you, Secretary Hawley, and some of the 

witnesses who are here today have expressed reluctance to implement the 100 percent screening pilot program in the past. I would 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

431 

be very interested to know how many airports have expressed an 

interest in participating in the pilot program. 

Mr. HAWLEY. We have volunteers. The seven that we have are 

volunteers. I have to say they were motivated, I think, perhaps 

thinking that there would be federal funds to cover some of the 

costs of the pilots, which there are. They will have some expense 

of their own. 

Ms. LOWEY. Any way you can motivate them is just fine, right? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, we need to get the data. And, I think to your 

point, and I appreciate your kind words and, I think we do in fact 

disagree on this topic, but I think this—— 

Ms. LOWEY. You are coming along, though. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, on the pilots, I think it will go a long way 

to giving us data on which we can say here is what we found out, 

and we will certainly go where the data takes us. 

IDENTIFICATION BADGES FOR AIRPORT EMPLOYEES

Ms. LOWEY. Now, Ms. Sterling, your testimony advocates for 

more tamper-proof ID badges at our airports but still does not seem 

to get the fundamental issue of protecting aircraft from employees 

who wish to cause destruction. So, under the proposal you mentioned, what assurances are there that an employee properly vetted 

and badged is not carrying a gun or IED into the secure sterile 

area? 

Ms. STERLING. I think my focus in my testimony was more on the 

badging process. And in my testimony, I stated that the current 

piecemeal approach to security badge that exists because airports 

want to retain control over their existing local system is simply not 

acceptable. And what I mean by that, if you can imagine where you 

have crew members traveling the United States, they require access to the secure side, and having to have 15 or 20 different ID 

badges to be able to do that would be quite cumbersome for them 

to do so. So what we are advocating is that there be a system approach to ID badging and credentialing, which we believe makes a 

lot of sense. 

At no time in my testimony would I ever take away from added 

security measures that we have in place today, that TSA has in 

place today by randomly checking people who are on the AOA. I 

support that, and we agree with that 100 percent. 

Ms. LOWEY. But where we disagree is you are talking random 

checking, and they do not randomly check members of Congress. It 

is 100 percent. So we just think it should be 100 percent, but I 

gather we disagree on that one. 

Secretary Hawley, in light of the various criminal incidents involving airport and airline workers last year, the COMAIR incident 

in Orlando, the Russell Defreitas arrest connected to JFK, the 

SIDA badge bust at O’Hare, is TSA taking any additional steps to 

better account for personnel within secure and sterile areas and 

limit workers to only the areas of an airport they are permitted to 

be in? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. In addition to what we call ADASP, which is 

the random, unpredictable screening that we do every day at every 

airport and now have dedicated 1,200 folks to do, we have done additional work with our colleagues at ICE in establishing the relimstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

432 

ability of the underlying documents establishing the identity of the 

person who then goes over to the airport badging office. 

So, in other words, Peggy Sterling has been talking about the 

badging process. That is a critical part. There is an additional critical part prior to that, which is to establish the validity of the person. Let us say they come to a cleaning company and apply to the 

cleaning company and say who they are. We need to check that 

those are the correct documents and that those are valid. 

So we have done over the last several months, three times in 

fact, a surge on SIDA badge instection, whether people are displaying them properly. We followed it up with 10 airports where 

we have gone in and gone back to the cleaning company level, and 

we have found some areas that need to be improved, and that is 

something that we are working with. Not only the airports, we are 

on the same side with airports. It is just they want to know too 

they are the right people, but, how do we ensure that we have the 

correct chain of custody, as Mr. Rogers was saying, of the individual’s validity from the point of application to the company all the 

way through to the SIDA badge. 

Ms. LOWEY. Thank you very much. And I know my time is up. 

I thank the Chairman, and I will submit the rest of the questions 

for the record. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Before turning to Mr. Farr, I do want to 

briefly turn to Mr. Bennett, since your testimony has been referenced several times, to see if you want to briefly elaborate. 

FREQUENCY OF AIRPORT EMPLOYEE SCREENING

Mr. BENNETT. I would enjoy elaborating. Thank you for the opportunity. What the airport community proposes in lieu of 100 percent screening we feel is actually more effective and improves the 

security environment more than 100 percent screening of employees. One hundred percent screening of airport employees does little 

towards understanding whether any of those individuals has an intent to do harm to the aviation system. 

And the program that we have proposed of more robust background investigations, the randomness of the program that is in 

place today of screening individuals, putting the biometric identification mediums on those individuals and limiting the number of 

those individuals that have that unrestricted access to certain 

areas of the airport, we believe that a combination of those measures is actually more effective than 100 percent screening because 

we need to remember that airports are very complex environments, 

and even though you may be screening 100 percent of those employees before they go to their work station, as a routine of their 

daily job, they are working with equipment and tools and chemicals 

and devices that are just as destructive as any gun or bomb may 

be. And screening those employees as they go to work does not 

keep them from having access to that equipment as part of their 

daily job. And our proposal is we are trying to establish whether 

any of those employees would have the intent to do harm with 

those devices. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you for pursuing 

that question, and I thank you for your thoughtful response, almstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

433 

though I respectfully disagree, respecting your experience in this 

area, because not everybody who may do harm has the intent to 

do harm or the background which reflects any indication that they 

could do harm, and it seems to me that we should keep our minds 

open, and I look forward to the pilot program because we have seen 

these incidents in Orlando and elsewhere where there were those 

who did harm or could have done harm when they may not have 

had a biography, a resume ́ that reflected the fact that they may do 

harm. So thank you very much. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. The discussion will continue. Mr. Farr. 

INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS AND INFORMATION SHARING

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on that 

concept, in the IED area in Iraq I know and Afghanistan, we have 

spent billions of dollars trying to detect these things, and now we 

are spending some good money on trying to deal with the psychology of why do people want to do this in the first place, go to 

the individual intent. I think that is smart intelligence, and I know 

we have to do that. 

And what, Mr. Hawley, I want to ask you about is I know TSA 

has major challenges in building the intelligence capabilities that 

are necessary for our transportation system, and I know that those 

challenges are strengthening your own in-house capabilities personnel with analytic expertise, but it is also the ability to coordinate the data systems that are collected by all these government 

agencies and allow you to have those data systems interoperable. 

So I wonder what programs do you have underway to help build 

your intelligence analysts and also to make the information system 

interoperable? And in your opinion, what are the most important 

TSA intelligence areas that the next Administration needs to focus 

on, and where are we going? 

Mr. HAWLEY. I think those are really critical questions because 

the way to stop attacks is to get them before they are launched, 

and the Department of Homeland Security has a Chief Intelligence 

Officer, Charlie Allen, who at the Department level has created a 

university, if you will, for taking new people into the intelligence 

business and training them up as analysts and then having them 

be provided to the DHS entities, and I think that is an excellent 

long-term program and will have long-term benefits. 

We have the benefit of a very professional intelligence staff at 

TSA. Mr. Allen helped us recruit those individuals. And we are 

daily participants with the counterterrorism community that is 

called together by the National Counterterrorism Center. NCTC, 

every day, has a briefing, an interactive briefing. I personally participate every day, including today. And, that is, I think, the best 

way for us to keep both the intelligence that is going on and the 

tactical response and understand what the FBI is doing, what TSA 

is doing, other DHS components. We do that on a daily basis. I 

think that is the best thing. 

On the interoperability of systems, the Terrorist Screening Center holds the watch list, and that is I think the most important 

part of the information interoperability of getting those watch lists 

right both in terms of the right people and the protection of that 

data so that we are not inconveniencing individuals who are not 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

434 

meant to be on those watch lists. So, that is a focus of ours with 

the Terrorist Screening Center, and we are very close with them 

in terms of going through every individual file to make sure that 

there is not a mistake and that the most information we have on 

that individual is there and accurate so it sorts away from people 

who should not be involved. 

The longer-term issue is cyber, and I think it was very instructive. Secretary Chertoff in the end of 2007 looking ahead to 2008 

listed it as one of his top four worries. I think as we go as a country, that is going to be a very central issue. Information protection 

and integrity is going to be a national priority. I think it will be 

right at the top going forward. 

And, I would add, you mentioned earlier the Naval Postgraduate 

School, and they have a Center of Excellence in this area, and we 

have participated with them, and they are, in fact, now talking to 

the Department about using the resources that they have and the 

learning that they have developed in this to quickly make that 

available to the DHS effort. 

MODEL PORTS OF ENTRY AT AIRPORTS

Mr. FARR. Thank you. I also had a question that this committee 

appropriated $40 million to expand the model ports of entry program to the top 20 international in-bound airports, and I wondered 

whether you could access some of that funding to improve the TSA 

screening process in those designated model ports of entry. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I do not know the answer to that, but I will follow 

up to make sure that we are engaged with the model ports of entry. 

And whether or not we have access to the dollars associated there, 

we will participate and be a good partner with that. 

[The information follows:] 

The $40 million appropriated for the Model Port of Entry program was provided 

to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Nevertheless, with the Committee’s support, 

TSA has an aggressive program in fiscal year (FY) 2008, and continued in FY 2009, 

to deploy new technologies, practices, and procedures to the security checkpoint that 

will enhance overall security while information all passengers and improving the 

traveler experience. 

Mr. FARR. The one thing that I ran against, Nita just talked 

about, Ms. Lowey, about Miami Airport. When I recently went 

through there, Dade County, which owns the airport, has employed 

12 professional greeters because that airport has so many VIPs 

from diplomats, members of parliaments and so on from around the 

world coming through there as a port of entry, and I know they 

work closely with TSA. But it really does expedite. 

And one of the things we have heard on our side from visitors 

from other countries, our colleagues who are in Zuma and Russia 

was the one that really he came and he said he had been here 12 

times, this was in this building, and he indicated he was never 

coming back because of the way he was treated at his port of entry. 

That was not Miami. I mean, we have never put into the values 

of this whole situation of what about those local assets, local ability 

to have people employed at the ground level to sort of do that kind 

of stuff. It is a value to that airport, but other airports of entry do 

not have those kinds of offices. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

435 

I do not know what I am saying other than the local government 

seems to be able to do in some cases, put on that extra value, that 

other airports perhaps ought to be doing. 

WORKING WITH PARTNERS TO IMPROVE AIR TRAVEL

The last question if I can get into it is USA Today reported yesterday on the findings of the six-month investigation into the effectiveness of TSA’s security procedures. They reported that the hype 

and the hassles are not balanced by effective procedures at TSA. 

The report’s findings along with continued flight delays, of outdated traffic control systems and record levels of lost passenger 

luggage have made us all keenly aware the domestic air travel system is getting worse, not better. 

And I wondered if you would agree that TSA should participate 

in a comprehensive plan to tackle this problem along with relevant 

public and private sector stakeholders such as at the table? I mean, 

none of these problems is all within one jurisdiction. It is sort of 

this question of interoperability that seems to be the appropriate 

word these days of getting everybody regardless of how they get 

there to the table to work on making these systems work systematically. I was shocked to hear that you have got to have all these 

different IDs depending on the airport you are in. It just does not 

make sense. So are you all working towards that? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Certainly at DHS, we are very definitely. I mentioned at the very beginning when I said we are doing VIP programs, we do those in conjunction with CBP and ICE. When we 

talk about the credentialing, those we also do with CBP and ICE 

in terms of assuring the accuracy. And, I think your point about 

the system nature of it, having all parties working together is exactly right on, and it is something that it is a shared responsibility, 

and the degree to which we work well together it does better. 

So, I am not familiar with the report you cite, but the issues are 

familiar. I know at DHS, a large part of what Paul Schneider, who 

is our Acting Deputy Secretary, does. And, yesterday is an example, we meet every week as component heads with the Deputy Secretary to go over operational integration opportunities. So, it is 

something that has the personal attention of every component head 

at DHS. 

CHECKPOINT OF THE FUTURE

Mr. FARR. Do you think we can ever get to the point where we 

eliminate the lines, that we do not have to have the individual 

screening because we will have all of the process in place so that 

you do not have to open every bag and take off your shoes? You 

mentioned that in your testimony. I wondered how long it would 

take us to get there. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. And I think it is a future Administrator who 

will get to tell you how to do it. [Laughter.] 

Mr. FARR. But it is doable? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Sure. Conceptually. I do not have the equipment, 

and I am not sure it exists on Earth quite yet, but a millimeter 

wave has a way of—you can put them in sensors that will be more 

standoff—and I think when they are accurate as a standoff, then 

you can have more of a walkthrough-type screening process and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

436 

more distributed identity verification. It clearly is possible. It just 

has not been put together, either the technology or operationally, 

but it is absolutely possible. 

Mr. PRICE. With that, we will bring the hearing to a close. I want 

to thank all of you for being here, for your patience with our delay 

and with the unique information each of you brought to the table. 

We are very grateful, and we will be in touch as we put our bill 

together. Thank you. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

437 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 663 42401A.391
438 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 664 42401A.392
439 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 665 42401A.393
440 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 666 42401A.394
441 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 667 42401A.395
442 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 668 42401A.396
443 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 669 42401A.397
444 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 670 42401A.398
445 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 671 42401A.399
446 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 672 42401A.400
447 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 673 42401A.401
448 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 674 42401A.402
449 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 675 42401A.403
450 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 676 42401A.404
451 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 677 42401A.405
452 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 678 42401A.406
453 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 679 42401A.407
454 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 680 42401A.408
455 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 681 42401A.409
456 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 682 42401A.410
457 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 683 42401A.411
458 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 684 42401A.412
459 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 685 42401A.413
460 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 686 42401A.414
461 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 687 42401A.415
462 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 688 42401A.416
463 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 689 42401A.417
464 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 690 42401A.418
465 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 691 42401A.419
466 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 692 42401A.420
467 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 693 42401A.421
468 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 694 42401A.422
469 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 695 42401A.423
470 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 696 42401A.424
471 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 697 42401A.425
472 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 698 42401A.426
473 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 699 42401A.427
474 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 700 42401A.428
475 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 701 42401A.429
476 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 702 42401A.430
477 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 703 42401A.431
478 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 704 42401A.432
479 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 705 42401A.433
480 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 706 42401A.434
481 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 707 42401A.435
482 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 708 42401A.436
483 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 709 42401A.437
484 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 710 42401A.438
485 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 711 42401A.439
486 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 712 42401A.440
487 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 713 42401A.441
488 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 714 42401A.442
489 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 715 42401A.443
490 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 716 42401A.444
491 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 717 42401A.445
492 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 718 42401A.446
493 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 719 42401A.447
494 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 720 42401A.448
495 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 721 42401A.449
496 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 722 42401A.450
497 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 723 42401A.451
498 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 724 42401A.452
499 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 725 42401A.453
500 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 726 42401A.454
501 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 727 42401A.455
502 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 728 42401A.456
503 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 729 42401A.457
504 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 730 42401A.458
505 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 731 42401A.459
506 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 732 42401A.460
507 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 733 42401A.461
508 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 734 42401A.462
509 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 735 42401A.463
510 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 736 42401A.464
511 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 737 42401A.465
512 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 738 42401A.466
513 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 739 42401A.467
514 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 740 42401A.468
515 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 741 42401A.469
516 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 742 42401A.470
517 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 743 42401A.471
518 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 744 42401A.472
519 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 745 42401A.473
520 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 746 42401A.474
521 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 747 42401A.475
522 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 748 42401A.476
523 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 749 42401A.477
524 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 750 42401A.478
525 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 751 42401A.479
526 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 752 42401A.480
527 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 753 42401A.481
528 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 754 42401A.482
529 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 755 42401A.483
530 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 756 42401A.484
531 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 757 42401A.485
532 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 758 42401A.486
533 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 759 42401A.487
534 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 760 42401A.488
535 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 761 42401A.489
536 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 762 42401A.490
537 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 763 42401A.491
538 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 764 42401A.492
539 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 765 42401A.493
540 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 766 42401A.494
541 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 767 42401A.495
542 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 768 42401A.496
543 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 769 42401A.497
544 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 770 42401A.498
545 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 771 42401A.499
546 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 772 42401A.500
547 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 773 42401A.501
548 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 774 42401A.502
549 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 775 42401A.503
550 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 776 42401A.504
551 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 777 42401A.505
552 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 778 42401A.506
553 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 779 42401A.507
554 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 780 42401A.508
555 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 781 42401A.509
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

(557) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2008. 

INVESTING IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

WITNESSES 

RICH DAVIS, RTI INTERNATIONAL 

MARC SAGEMAN, RTI INTERNATIONAL 

SCOTT ATRAN, RTI INTERNATIONAL 

CHRISTOPHER DARBY, CEO, IN-Q-TEL 

JAY COHEN, UNDERSECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PRICE

Mr. PRICE. The Subcommittee will come to order and our hearing 

will begin. We offer our apologies for the confusing start to this 

hearing. I must say it is not totally unprecedented, but we are a 

little late in starting and we appreciate your patience. We hope we 

will not have too many distractions in the way of floor votes, but 

we are not certain. 

This morning, we are going to hear from two panels on identifying and investing in research and technologies that can be adapted to make our homeland more secure. Our first panel will consist 

of Mr. Rich David, Marc Sageman, and Scott Atran from RTI International and Mr. Christopher Darby, President and CEO from InQ-Tel. The first three panelists from RTI will brief the Subcommittee on their research into the process of radicalization, as it 

relates to terrorism and political violence. 

I want to be very clear that our discussion here today is not referring to anyone who simply holds political views that might be 

labeled by someone as radical. That is not what we are talking 

about. In this context, radicalization refers to the process by which 

an individual becomes open to the prospect of committing violent 

political acts, terrorist acts. We need a much better understanding 

of the process of radicalization, if we want to keep homegrown terrorism from escalating in the United States. No one should forget 

that long before the 9/11 attacks, a homegrown terrorist successfully carried out an attack on the federal building in Oklahoma 

City. This discussion will focus on specific cases on how this kind 

of research should be informing U.S. policy. 

Thereafter, Mr. Darby will discuss how In-Q-tel acts as an innovation forum to foster the development of the introduction of next 

generation technologies needed by the Federal Government, similar 

to what the innovation office in the Science and Technology Directorate is trying to do for DHS. 

Let me point out that the work of the witnesses before us this 

morning is not at this moment being funded by the Science and 

Technology Directorate. We believe it is the kind of work that DHS 

should be aware of and that is why we have asked them to testify 

today. S&T should be spreading a wide net and identifying both remstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

558 

search topics and technology solutions that can help better secure 

our homeland. 

When the first panel concludes, we will hear from Undersecretary Jay Cohen from the Science and Technology Directorate about 

his plans for research and technology investments for the Department of Homeland Security in fiscal year 2009. In total, the President’s budget requests $869 million for the Science and Technology Directorate, including $132 million for 

management and administration and $737 million for research, development, acquisition, and operations. This is a five percent increase over 2008. I am pleased to see that the budget carries forward many key initiatives that have been important in this Subcommittee over the past three years, including funding for the University Centers of Excellence program, the design and construction 

of key laboratories, and enhancements to cargo and conveyance security. 

I am also pleased to note that the budget doubles the amount of 

funding requested for detecting, deterring, and responding to improvised explosive devices or IEDs. IEDs have been a concern since 

the Oklahoma City bombing, well before September 11, 2001, and 

their threat has increased over time after each unfortunate incident in Europe and Asia and the Middle East. This is the kind of 

effort we really should have started years ago and I hope we will 

be able to expedite the development of countermeasure technologies 

that are truly effective. S&T’s budget request is $1.7 million less in 2009 than it was in 

2008 for research on emerging cyber security threats and ways to 

thwart them. A cut in this area seems counterintuitive given the 

increasing number of media reports indicating that China and 

other countries have targeted the U.S. Government and privatelyowned cyber infrastructure. Given the large and growing dependence of our economy on the Internet, we cannot afford to see a U.S. 

version of what happened in April of 2007, when Estonia was essentially shut down after its computer infrastructure was overwhelmed by cyber attacks. Technology and research will play a 

critical role in seeing that we thwart this threat. 

Gentlemen, we look forward to hearing your testimony. Please 

summarize your oral statement in about five minutes. Your entire 

written statements will be placed in the record. We will begin with 

the first panel and then turn to Undersecretary Cohen. Before we 

begin, though, let me turn to the distinguished ranking member, 

Mr. Rogers, for his comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to our witnesses. I have been advocating for many years that we simply need 

to do more to embrace the talent and depth of knowledge that exists in the commercial sector. So, I appreciate the participation 

from those of you from outside of the department and outside the 

government. 

We have testifying today a purely unique mix of industry experts 

from RTI International and In-Q-tel. I hope their testimony will be 

stimulating and challenging to our own preconceptions as to what 

techniques and approaches may be available to help minimize the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

559 

threat against our critical infrastructure and key resources. After 

all, it should never be lost on anyone that our national security interests start here inside our own borders. 

Our adversaries are incessantly adapting and inhibited by radical ideology. Last week’s Time Square bombing, though we are 

still unsure of its source and intent, even the London bombings 21⁄2

years ago exemplify the simplicity of threats we face. They are also 

indicative of the complexities that confront our ability to prevent 

them. It is often repeated that ‘‘the terrorists need to be right just 

one time, but we must be right 100 percent of the time.’’ So, it is 

imperative, absolutely imperative that we stay out in front. 

Today’s panel exemplifies the out-of-the-box style of thinking 

that I believe is absolutely necessary to predict a terror and mitigate that attack on our homeland. RTI International has conducted 

over 10,000 R&D projects in its 50-year history and is currently engaged in over 1,000 projects for government and private sector customers, much of which involves the abstract world of basic and applied research, where there may be no tangible or functional result, 

rather just more of an accurate—a key in understanding. 

In-Q-tel began in 1999 as a venture catalyst firm, as opposed to 

venture capitalist charted and funded by the U.S. Government. 

This organization was charged with the mission of canvassing industry for investment opportunities in technologies for solutions to 

specific security-related problem sets. It is my understand that due 

to their very unique ability to reach deep into industry, much of 

what In-Q-tel has provided the federal government has been instrumental to our national security. I believe these companies represent the realm of what is possible for the Department of Homeland Security or at the very least something to learn from, in terms 

of how to push the envelope towards our common goal of improved 

security. 

We would like to also welcome Secretary Cohen back to the committee. Mr. Secretary, as you would expect, we continue to demand 

the highest return from our investment in science and technology. 

Last year, you testified that 2008 would be a transition year and 

we agreed. Accordingly, in the 2008 Appropriations Act, we did not 

fence funding, as we had done previously. We were supportive of 

the plan you put before us, so you were given a degree of flexibility 

to do one thing, produce demonstrable results. On paper, the directorate appears to have laid the critical foundation for its customerdriven output-oriented approach. On paper, it appears to have been 

a judicious reorganization. But, we are just halfway through this 

year and, in my opinion, it is still too early to proclaim success. 

In 2009, S&T will manage $737 million within its investment 

portfolio, including well over 100 individual R&D programs 

throughout its six divisions, transition to its customers, roughly 35 

of those, and initiate another 30 or so new starts. This is a solid 

improvement from where we were just a few short years ago. But 

the proof is not in the numbers, but rather in the technical solutions you deliver to those on the front line. It appears S&T is on 

a positive course, but that does not mean we should relax in our 

zeal to do more. In light of the prepared testimony submitted by 

the first panel, we will be listening closely to hear how willing and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

560 

able S&T is to embrace industry as an enabler for improving their 

security. 

Lastly, it needs to be said that we are nearing the end of an administration. This Committee needs to ensure that the structural 

integrity of S&T is not disrupted by a turnover in executive leadership during the transition. It has taken us some time to get to this 

point and we need to establish continuity. Prudent investments in 

basic and applied research opportunities and a predefined road 

map toward the development of enterprising technologies will continue to be the foundation under which S&T executes its piece of 

the department’s mission to protect this great nation. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. We will now proceed first 

with the RTI witnesses. I understand the plan is for Mr. Davis to 

give a 2- to 3-minute overview and then Mr. Sageman and Mr. 

Atran to contribute around five minutes each. I know that is constricting. On the other hand, it will let us get on to the discussion 

and, at the same time, we will, of course, be happy to have your 

full statements printed in the record. We will then turn to our InQ-tel witness, Mr. Darby, for five or six minutes and we will then 

turn to the panel for questions. 

I, of course, want to say that I am proud to have the Research 

Triangle Institute headquartered in the research triangle area of 

North Carolina. It is an organization, though, as Mr. Rogers has 

said, with worldwide reach. That was most recently demonstrated 

to me when our House Democracy Assistance Commission was in 

Indonesia and there was an RTI team working very effectively with 

the Indonesian parliament to strengthen their capacity, as well as 

other agencies of the Indonesian Government. 

Today, though, we are seeing another aspect of RTI’s reach and 

RTI’s operation. We are happy to have you gentlemen here to enlighten us on this line of research, which I know you think is promising and which I believe we should hear about. So—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, would you briefly yield? 

Mr. PRICE. I would be happy to. 

Mr. ROGERS. When the Research Triangle concept was first 

broached by the then North Carolina governor, I was working in 

a small radio station in western North Carolina and everyone 

thought that this was an idiotic idea. And I know you have been 

working ever since to disprove that theory. 

Mr. PRICE. I tell you, if we have not disproved this to you, Mr. 

Rogers, I do not know what kind of evidence it would take. People 

do forget that though, that there was a long period where this 

looked like a really risky venture. And IBM became the anchor tenant and the rest is history. But, it did prove to be a concept, whose 

idea had come. It has made a tremendous difference in our part of 

the South. 

Mr. ROGERS. If you can learn to play basketball, we would be in 

business. 

Mr. PRICE. Yes. I do not think I need to comment on that. Mr. 

Davis, will you please start. Thank you. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

561 

STATEMENT OF RICH DAVIS, RTI INTERNATIONAL

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Chairman Price, ranking member Rogers, other 

members, thank you for the opportunity for us to be here today and 

to testify. The opportunity to challenge the Subcommittee is exactly 

what we are here for. Government-sponsored research, if I just go 

right into it, government-sponsored research exists for one primary 

reason and that is that it gives us the information, in order to be 

able to understand how to intervene properly. And in terms of 

radicalization and terrorism, the challenge that the country faces 

is that we have a lack of capacity in the country today to really 

understand what radicalization is happening and how it is happening around the world. 

And the reason we have this deficit is twofold. First, our intelligence community does not have the apparatus to go into our local 

communities or into local communities around the world, like the 

Mezuak neighborhood of Tetuan within Hebron in the West Bank. 

These type of areas are not conducive to the type of work that the 

intelligence community does. 

Second, there is a deficit, as a result of the fact that the government-funded research today does not have as much of a component 

of field-based science work as it needs to have. So, the field-based 

work—and within the written testimony, you can see that I have 

actually defined what that means—but the science-based field research is actually necessary, in order to be able to understand the 

process of radicalization and ultimately to give us the information 

necessary on how to intervene. And the reason why RTI International and its sister organization, which it has established, 

helped establish to be able to do this field-based science work, 

called ARTES, research and risk modeling, the reason it has prepared this sort of capability to do this is because it believes it is 

in the national interest to be able to have the science-based field 

work coming to the forefront and helping increase the knowledge 

base that our science is able to produce. 

To give you a better understanding of what we mean by this 

science-based field work, we have Dr. Sageman and Dr. Atran, who 

are here to give you a little bit of insight as to what information 

we are finding from the field. But before I turn it over to them, I 

did want to address kind of the structural element to the way that 

I see government operating at this moment within the Department 

of Homeland Security and how it relates to overall the science and 

technology context of the U.S. Government. 

Under the leadership of Undersecretary Cohen, the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy is actually—they have a Committee 

on homeland and national security and this Committee has actually developed a Subcommittee on human factors whereby they are 

bringing the research and program directors of the human factors 

from across the departments and agencies underneath one umbrella at the Office of Science and Technology Policy out of the 

White House, to be able to look and study these issues further. We 

believe, after having briefed all across the departments and agencies, we believe that such a kind of coordinating function is actually 

important for the country. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

562 

As Marc and Scott detail the case studies that they have, you are 

going to find these case studies come from northern Africa, they 

come from the Middle East, they come from Europe, and there is 

even some information on northern Virginia. I will turn it over to 

Mr. Sageman. 

STATEMENT OF MARC SAGEMAN, RTI INTERNATIONAL

Mr. SAGEMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member. I want to just give you a broad outline of what is 

emerging from the field and I will let Scott give you specific cases. 

Basically, from the field what we is very different from what we 

see here in the United States, simply because I think that we are 

dealing with very different information. Most people here have secondary information of account, based their information on the 

Internet. We have a lot of bragging and pretending. We actually go 

to the field to actually gather that information. And what is happening in the field, the broad outline on this process of 

radicalization that everybody is interested in is that it is really 

young people and it is driven by a desire for adventure, dreams of 

glory, a sense of belonging, or a greater sense of significance and 

we basically see four factors driving this process. And they are not 

particular orders. They are not chronological. They are not in a linear fashion, in the sense you have 24 pathways, if you think about 

it. 

One is a sense of moral outrage and it could be a sense of moral 

outrage in seeing a large global violation, for instance, Muslims 

dying in Iraq. But, you also have a local component, for instance, 

police harassment. And the global and the local here seems to reenforce each other. 

But that is not enough. That has to be framed in a certain way 

and that is the second prong. The frame is a simple sound bite, a 

war on Islam. Because what we found is that right now, the terrorists around the world are not intellectual, not Islamic scholars. It 

is really paper thin and you have a fairly large portion, a quarter 

have absolutely no ideology. 

So, this notion, this frame is embedded in large ideas. And this 

is where the United States differ from Europe, because we have a 

notion that we are a melting pot and also this American dream and 

this undermines the notion that we are at war against our own 

communities. Of course, this does not play well abroad, but, here, 

it is almost protective within the United States. Europe does not 

have this protective element and so the threat is much worse over 

there. 

The third prong, the reason that this sound bite, this frame 

sticks to people is that it resonates with a personal experience. And 

here, we have a large local variation. And, again, if we look at the 

European versus the American context, we see very much that we 

are dealing with two very different population. In a sense, we have 

the elite of the Muslim world here, upper middle class with a fairly 

higher average income per family than the average American. In 

Europe, of course, it is quite the opposite, where you have the children of unskilled labor. And so, they are facing very, very different 

labor markets. They are facing discrimination and exclusion from 

the economy. And so what you have is very different numbers. If 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

563 

you look at the number of Muslims arrested for violent terrorist activities, it is about 2,400 in Europe since 9/11 up to last September 

and it is about 60 in the United States. You see it is a huge, huge 

disparity. 

But so far, you have a lot of angry young people. What transformed them into terrorists is that they mobilize by networks, by 

groups. So, first, a formation of those networks, networks of trust, 

are really on the basis of friendship, about 70 percent, and kinship. 

And by the way, this is almost identical to what we found in Saudi 

Arabia, as well. So, the process seems to be the same. So, we have 

a spontaneous self-organized networks of trust from the bottom up. 

It is really a consequence in the sense of regular group dynamics, 

where you have mutual escalation of grievances to the point that 

people do this for each other. 

And what I wanted to conclude with is that right now, our research in Europe shows that the threat has changed dramatically. 

In a sense, I have written about this in my formal book. And what 

I found then was that the terrorists were fairly well educated. They 

were married. They came from the upper middle class. But the people that we find now in Europe are the opposite. They are not well 

educated. They are much younger. They are about 20. We are facing a third wave, as I call it, and the third wave is really a natural 

evolution of the threat over time. What we are gearing up, I think, 

in terms of the government, in terms of ideas and so on, is really 

geared toward the first two waves. Those have almost gone. We are 

not dealing with the third wave. There, the strategy would be quite 

different. 

And with that, I will turn it over to Scott to illustrate what I just 

said. Thanks. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT ATRAN, RTI INTERNATIONAL

Mr. ATRAN. I am an academic also at John Jay College and University of Michigan and I try to get out of teaching by going to the 

field. And I have worked with Marc and others and I have interviewed people from Indonesian Islands, like Borneo and Sulawesi, 

all the way to suburbs of Paris and London and North Africa, 

working with Jihads, talking to the leaders of the Hamas and the 

foot soldiers and the families of suicide bombers. And what we find 

is that ideals and ideology are fairly superficial. It is not about the 

Koran. It is not about any theological understanding of anything at 

all. It is about young people trying to be heros, trying to find excitement for their lives, and trying to find meaning. And we find, 

like young people everywhere, the most dynamic aspect of what 

makes people become terrorists is whether their friends do it. And 

it is almost a random process, like traffic. You never know which 

car is going to be stuck in the traffic jam. You know there are sort 

of general conditions. And trying to figure out which particular people are going to be terrorists, I do not think is probably the right 

way to go. We have to understand the context, in terms of which 

these people become terrorists, the local conditions, and why they 

are moving down this path of violence, and most important what 

we can do to front end prevention, so that these people will take 

different paths in the future, because that is where things are important. Once we are into law enforcement and military measures, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

564 

in a sense, it is already too late. You have already lost the battle 

for the future. 

So, let me just give you an example, a couple of examples of what 

is going on around the world, what we are finding in terms of this 

sort of third wave. The first one is a very interesting one, is that 

we find that five of the seven plotters, who helped plan the train 

bombings in Madrid in March 11, 2004, the anniversary was yesterday, four years ago, came from a small area in a neighborhood 

called the Jemaa Mezuak in Tetuan, Morocco. It is a sort of tumble-down neighborhood, not particularly religious. If you walk down 

the neighborhood, you find it is not a particular morose place. It 

is a pretty happy place, actually. And these guys were immigrants 

to Madrid and they got involved in petty criminal activity and 

drugs. And one of the reasons that we are finding this new wave 

of Jihad linked to criminality is because, in effect, the policies of 

the United States stop funding of Jihad have been too successful. 

So, now, they are looking for money wherever they can find it and 

these things, like criminal networks, are there to provide money. 

And we find that the criminals, themselves, want to find meaning 

in life, especially petty criminals. They want something more than 

just to be criminals. And so, we find that five of the seven guys, 

who blew themselves up, did not even know about Jihad or the plot 

even six months before. And, yet, they are the guys, who died and 

blew themselves up. 

And when we went to the neighborhood, when we walked around 

the neighborhood, we found lo and behold just across the street 

were another five guys, who had gone to Iraq to blow themselves 

up. They had debated among themselves. They were confused by 

what happened in Madrid. Some of them were related by marriage, 

cousins and friendship, the other guys. All of these guys, the ones 

who went to Iraq to blow themselves up, the ones who blew themselves up in Madrid, they are all from the same elementary school, 

Abdelkarim Khattahi elementary school. All but one went to the 

same high school. They were friends. And the whole neighborhood 

believes what they do. The whole neighborhood believes that they, 

too, should go to Iraq. It is the most heroic thing in the world. It 

is what I hear from people in Sulawesi who have never been out 

of their villages. Imagine a young kid to fight the greatest army in 

the world in what they consider to be a noble cause. 

It is the same sort of thing in places like Hebron, for different 

reasons. It is not against the United States, but the dynamics of 

it are almost exactly the same. We went to interview the families 

of the suicide bombers of Dimona, February, our last month, and 

what we find is here is a soccer team with 12 guys on this one soccer team, the Masjad al-Jihad, in one neighborhood, the Wad Abu 

Katila in Hebron, who blew themselves up over a six-month period 

in 2003. These guys, also on the soccer team, were too young. They 

were arrested by the Israeli authorities. They were too young. They 

dreamt about their buddies. The mother of the guys, who just blew 

themselves up a month ago, told us, you know, my son, he loved 

those boys. He was a good boy. He loved those boys. He loved soccer and he loved those boys. And, in a sense, he was waiting to 

emulate his friends. The Hamas had a truce from December 2004, 

no suicide bombings, but that truce was broken down after the killmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

565 

ing of Mahmoud Zahar’s son and the breaking down of the wall. 

And so, these kids had a chance and it was easy to task. Almost 

anybody could come along and say, hey, we have something to do. 

If you look at something like the Harold Square bombing, to 

bomb Harold Square, or the paint ball bombing, the paint ball in 

Virginia that you had, you find the same sort of thing. You do not 

find particularly criminal minds or pathological minds or motivating individual causes, you find a group dynamic. And one of the 

things we are learning from the field is that notions of selves, of 

recruiters, of leadership really do not make much sense. It is more 

bureaucratic mirroring of what is going out in the world than what 

is going out in the world. 

One last comment, so we were in Saudi Arabia last week and the 

Saudis were very open about what they said to us. Well, you know, 

we find that 64.4 percent of the prisoners we have into Jihad are 

recruited through their friends and 24 percent are recruited 

through their family. You know, we are saying, is 90 percent recruited through family and friends? No, it is not recruited through 

family and friends. You follow the path of your family and friends. 

And this is something, I think, that we are not really dealing with, 

with these sort of talked down measures that, again, are being applied too late. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. We will return to this extremely interesting and important topic in the question period. I now want to 

turn to Mr. Darby to invite him to give us an oral summation of 

his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER DARBY, CEO, IN-Q-TEL

Mr. DARBY. Chairman Price, ranking member Rogers, members 

of the subcommittee, my name is Christopher Darby and I am the 

President and CEO of In-Q-tel. First of all, I applaud your efforts 

today. I think that the United States’ private industry is a source 

for innovative solutions and technologies that can be brought to 

bear on the challenges that face homeland security and the broader 

safety of our Nation. 

In-Q-tel was formed in 1999 largely as a response to a shift in 

innovation in corporate America. In the last 1980s and through the 

1990s, corporate America began to cut their funding of core research and development projects. And led by people like John 

Chambers from Cisco, corporate America began to let a Darwinian 

process happen within the venture community. So, you had small 

companies being funded by venture capitalists in places like Silicon 

Valley, Boston, and, yes, RTI. I am proud to say I managed one of 

those companies in RTI. What corporate America did is they allowed these companies to grow and then when they saw the leader, 

they acquired it. And so, they changed their mode of acquiring innovation. As opposed to growing it at home, they went out and they 

bought these start-ups and that was the way they jumped started 

their innovative technologies. 

The CIA and the larger intelligence community are the customers of In-Q-tel. In-Q-tel is an independent not-for-profit company. CIA and the intelligence community recognized that they 

were not getting always the upstream technology. They were not 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

566 

seeing what was coming from the venture community early enough. 

And so, In-Q-tel was formed to allow them to tap into that market. 

When you think about In-Q-tel, we are a strategic investor. We 

invest for one reason only and that is to accelerate innovation within our community. And so, we look at speed and we look at cost 

as the two drivers for what we do. The way we do this, we start 

by understanding the customer requirements. And so, we have 60 

percent of our organization with top secret security clearances and 

we spend a huge amount of time in the field, whether it is Beijing, 

Kabul, Baghdad, we spend time in the field with our customers, 

understanding the problems that they face today. 

We, then, provide a translation facility, because we then go to 

the venture capital communities and the people doing the investing, we say, look, we are looking for technologies in these areas, 

sensors, biochem nano types of technologies, software and analytics 

to parse the huge amounts of data that we are gathering around 

the world today. And then once we have understood their requirements and once we have made these connections with these emerging companies, whether they be in the Valley, New York, Texas, it 

really does not matter with us, we engage the company in what we 

call the work program. And so when we look at an investment, we 

are looking for largely non-equity investments. And this is important. What we do is we allow that company to maintain their development path, but to tweak the development so that the product is 

applicable to our community, because our community has some 

very unique requirements. And this is good for the company, in 

other words, they get an injection of capital for their research and 

development. It is also good for our community, because when we 

do this, we leverage for every dollar that we spend, nine dollars of 

venture capital. So, simplistically speaking, you can think of this 

as costing one-tenth of what it would have, if you had just gone 

and tried to buy it off the shelf. 

We believe we add values to these companies and so we will 

take, for example, warrant coverage on that investment that we 

make and we think that is only good for the American taxpayer. 

So, that if one of these companies becomes a huge success, we can 

take the profit generated from that and turn it right back into investments for the community. 

The investment piece is only half of it, because once that work 

program starts, we have to be totally focused on transferring that 

technology into the government and that is no small task. The government apparatus is very well equipped for dealing with large 

project-based programs. There are a number of vendors that are 

well understood and relied upon. Dealing with small companies, 

who may not have a lawyer on staff, is something that we have to 

help with. We have to act as that bridge between that small company and the government customer. 

We spend a lot of time monitoring the success of the adoption 

and the pilot within the customer set, because that is how we are 

measured. Is the technology being piloted and is it being adopted? 

And to date, In-Q-tel has made approximately 110 investments, of 

which 70 of those companies have deployed technologies within our 

customer set. That is an incredibly good hit rate, when you compare it to venture capital, where only one in 10 companies is sucmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

567 

cessful. So, we are doing a lot better than that and let me give you 

and end with a couple of good examples. 

Some of you are familiar with Google Earth. Google Earth is an 

In-Q-tel product and company. So, when In-Q-tel found Google 

Earth, they were focused on the real estate market. And In-Q-tel 

went in early, pre-revenue for Keyhole, and invested in Keyhole, allowed it to grow its technology base, and then ultimately that company was acquired by Google. 

Other examples, Polycromix is a hand-held spectrometer, so it is 

used to identify chemical components in sand. When we found 

Polycromix, it was actually being used to separate carpet types for 

recycling. They were using this handheld device and they would 

point it to the carpet, it would tell what the compounds of the carpet were and they could decide what bin to put it in for recycling 

purposes, which is a noble and worthy exercise in and of itself, but 

we felt that it could be re-purposed. And so, you can create libraries associated with this and what used to take us two weeks, where 

someone would go gather a sample in the fields, send it back to the 

United States, the sample would be prepped and analyzed, and we 

would get a result two weeks later, we can now take this handheld 

spectrometer, point it at the sand, click the button, and it will tell 

you what is in the sand, based on the libraries that have been developed. 

And so, these are two examples of things that I think In-Q-tel 

has done that have been very, very successful in the market. I can 

go on with other examples, but, ultimately, that is how we are 

measured is through what technologies are we deploying. 

IMPACT OF THIRD WAVE ON THREAT OF RADICALIZATION

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, sir. Thanks to all of you. This is very interesting and very stimulating testimony. Unfortunately, we have 

votes on the House floor, which will break us up here in just a moment. But, let me began with our RTI team, to ask you to elaborate 

a bit on some of the things you said. Dr. Sageman, Dr. Atran, as 

I understand, you are both suggesting that we are now at a third 

wave of radicalization and that the critical variable often with 

these young radicals is a kind of group dynamic that pulls them 

in, because of what their friends are doing, not so much because 

of any inherent qualities that they have in terms of religion or ideology or psychological factors. Dr. Atran, you said at the very end 

of your statement that this understanding of this third wave raised 

serious issues about what you called our top-down approach with 

dealing with the threat of radicalization. I think we would all like 

to have you elaborate that, because, after all, the bottom line here 

is what do these findings imply, in terms of our policy and our 

counter-terrorism strategies. 

Mr. ATRAN. Well, I will let Marc handle most of this. The idea 

is that radicalization is a path people take to violence. And this 

path, itself, is determined by the environment, by the context, by 

group dynamics and that the only way we are going to ever understand what is going on is to embed ourselves in local context and 

communities and find out what alternate paths, what alternate 

dreams are for these young people, because dreams ultimately 

move people in life. They are movements. It even moves civilizamstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

568 

tions and cultures, ultimately, even more than material incentives, 

although those, too, are important. We have got to find alternate 

dreams for these people. I must mention that the FBI is also very 

much interested in this type of approach and more and more are 

trying to figure out how within the local communities and context, 

they can start moving people towards ultimate alternate paths 

than the path of violence. 

EXAMPLE OF THIRD WAVE RADICALIZATION

Mr. SAGEMAN. Yes. Let me give you one example. Mohammed 

Atta went looking for Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda did not go looking for 

Mohammad Atta. If you want to stop this, you have to stop it from 

the Mohammad Attas looking for something. It is a bottom-up process, in that sense. So the question is why do some people, young 

people, at a particular time, particular place, why they are attracted to these ideas and that really is the other way around. 

And to just give you an illustration, we defeated the Communist, 

but we did not defeat the Communist by making comments on 

Marx, saying that the Communist ideology is wrong. The movement degraded by itself for its own reason and not so much because of a top-down ideological approach. 

Mr. PRICE. I must say, though, when you talk about these remote 

villages that become the hotbed of this kind of radicalization, you 

think, how many such villages there are. Of course, most of them 

do not become radicalized but there appears to be an almost random quality of when something truly takes hold. The idea of how 

we anticipate that and reach it and affect it is daunting. 

Mr. SAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me just correct you. Again, you 

look at it from a top-down, so when does this viral anti-Jihad take 

hold. It is not that way. It is young people searching for ideas that 

would inspire them. And it could be anything that could lead to violence. 

Mr. PRICE. Yes, but small groups of friends in many, many communities find all sorts of ways to bond together and to find a purpose. And when there is a particularly toxic turn that that takes, 

it seems to me that anticipating where and when that is, is a huge 

challenge. Why do not we recess for just a moment. I apologize. We 

will resume as quickly as we can get back. 

[Whereupon, a short recess was taken.] 

POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF PROVIDING ALTERNATIVES TO YOUNG

PEOPLE

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Sageman, Mr. Atran, if you could just wrap-up 

what you were saying very rapidly when we adjourned, I would appreciate it. But, the question, I remind you, had to do with the policy implications under what have to be regarded as very difficult 

circumstances, to offer alternatives to these young people, who are 

taking this path. What are the implications, just in a nutshell for 

national policy? We want to continue this discussion, believe me, 

and we know that we can only touch the—skim the surface this 

morning. 

Mr. SAGEMAN. Well, I think that we are dealing with a youth culture, al-jihad and so on, and that is probably where we need to address our policy recommendation, namely just as Scott said, at the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

569 

front end of the pathway. By the time we get at the end, such as 

rehabilitation centers, social work, we are a little bit later and it 

is much easier to deviate people from traveling that path early on 

than later on. 

UNDERSTANDING COMMUNITIES

Mr. ATRAN. Let me just say that one thing we should do is, as 

I said, get involved in understanding the communities. That does 

not mean get involved in every community. That means getting a 

good enough scientific sample, so we know what is liable to happen 

in different communities. Knowing what happened in Mezuak, for 

example, and knowing, for example, there are 50 guys from 

Dimona, Libya, on their way to Iraq, leads us to believe probably 

the same processes are involved. We do not have to do it all over 

in Dimona. Knowing what happened to the guys, who wanted to do 

the Herold Square bombing, and knowing how the paint ball group 

gets involved in Virginia, we have a pretty idea about what kind 

of thing is going on. But, we need enough control studies, enough 

scientific studies where we know of the millions and millions of 

people, who support this idea, who are attracted to this, why only 

a very few make the move? And just looking at the guys, who did 

it, is not going to give you the answer, okay. You have to know why 

the other guys do not do it and no one is really doing that. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, I can imagine that there are serious implications here for intelligence policy, for foreign assistance policy, and 

certainly for our cooperative efforts with our friendly allies, with 

countries with whom we have a joint interest in preventing this 

sort of activity. Mr. Davis? 

APPLICATION OF FIELD-BASED WORK TO NATIONAL POLICY

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Chairman Price, by way of background, I came 

to work with Scott and Marc as a policymaker first. I was at the 

White House serving on the Homeland Security Council with the 

responsibility, the portfolio of radicalization. So, I have made it my 

business over the past couple of years to understand how to apply 

the field-based work to national policy and understand how to build 

national capacity for this. So, to address your question quite succinctly, you touched on the fact that foreign assistance is the single 

tool that the United States has to actually address challenges that 

we have in radicalization around the world. We certainly want to 

address radicalization before either the military or law enforcement 

or bullets are necessary. So, the single tool that we have right now 

is actually this foreign assistance capability. 

Now, the best way to target foreign assistance capability is to understand what is happening in the local communities with the 

young men, who have actually radicalized. And so what we are arguing here today is ultimately what needs to happen is there needs 

to be a requirement by the Committee, by the Department of 

Homeland Security, and by the other departments and agencies to 

require that more of the funding that goes to terrorism research actually be required to go into the field and to actually study this and 

then studying the implications of what sort of foreign assistance 

programs and interventions can actually work in those communities with those particular kids. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

570 

ADAPTATION AND APPLICATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Darby, let me briefly turn to you. Mr. 

Rogers and I were talking on the floor about how interesting your 

testimony is and also how interesting the experience of your organization is, in terms of providing a way for new technologies to be 

vetted and considered from the institutions and businesses out 

there that have something to contribute or think they do and also 

strengthening the agencies you are working with in figuring out a 

way to consider the many, many ideas that come over. Even if one 

idea out of 10 is a good one, nonetheless, it is very important to 

have a way of supporting that idea and its development. 

Based on your experience, what would you say—this is something, I am sure, Undersecretary Cohen will address, because he 

has wrestled with it at Homeland Security—what would you say 

about how the Science and Technology Directorate at Homeland 

Security should accelerate the development of new technologies and 

the adaptation of existing technologies? Based on your experience, 

what kind of advice would you give about how to evaluate these 

ideas and quickly procure what needs procuring to address pressing needs? 

Mr. DARBY. Well, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we do is 

try and understand the customer requirements first and foremost. 

And having not spent time yet with Undersecretary Cohen, it 

would presumptuous of me to specifically talk to the homeland situation. I will say that as In-Q-tel relates to the S&T directorate 

within CIA, I think they use us for two different things. First and 

foremost is that acceleration and economical solution to technology 

problems, because small companies want to sell their product. They 

want to solve the problem today. They do not want to solve it three 

years from now or five years from now. There is an economic imperative with small companies, generate revenue and make sure 

your product meets the needs of your customer. That is just basic 

business in the United States. And so, they are not looking for 

long-term rigmarole associated with trying to introduce their technologies. These companies want to get in and solve the problem 

fast. And the S&T recognizes that and uses In-Q-tel to foster those 

relationships and make sure that it gets in fast. 

We cannot solve huge programmatic things with these small 

technologies. So, this is not a replacement for the systems integrators and the larger providers of project-oriented things. But, I will 

say that within these large projects, you have an option sometimes. 

You can either buy an off-the-shelf piece of technology from one of 

these small companies or you can develop it over three years. And 

as a taxpayer, I think it is more economical often to just buy the 

off-the-shelf piece of technology and integrate it quickly. And so, I 

think that that makes good sense. 

I think the other thing that we do is we bring situational awareness to the table. So, through the history, we have only made 110 

or so investments. However, we have seen 6,000 companies and we 

document that and we talk about what the relative pros and cons 

are to those technologies. And so, there is a fairly detailed database 

of what is out there and we allow our customers to survey that 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

571 

database very quickly and determine whether what they are doing 

is state-of-the-art today. 

I think American creativity is underrated and I think the creativity is happening in the garages. It is happening in that threeperson and four-person enterprise right now, where these people 

are working 24 hours a day to get the best product out there. And 

we have to tap into that. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, you could not be plucking my strings more 

than what you are. This is something I have been preaching at 

with the department now for five or six years, ever since we started 

on this Subcommittee. Time and again, people would come to my 

office, still are, and they will say, I have this gizmo that you can 

put in a container crate and it will tell you whether or not it has 

been broken into. And, in fact, there was a small individual inventor from North Carolina. Well, I thought we had created S&T at 

the Department of Homeland Security to do just that, what you are 

doing. Sadly, I was mistaken. I have sent people like this inventor 

with this gizmo to S&T. I said to him that S&T will evaluate and 

tell you whether or not they already have one or whether this was 

good, bad, or indifferent. And if it is good, they will proceed with 

it and so on. When I sent him down there, I never heard from the 

poor guy again. He fell into that deep, dark black hole that, at that 

time, was S&T. We are going to find out whether or not that has 

changed here in a few minutes with the Undersecretary. 

But what you are doing, as I understand it, is precisely what 

needs to be done and that is provide a way for the government to 

find entrepreneurs out there with an idea that could be applied in 

a broad sense by the government in need of a solution. And you 

make money on it, or the non-profit does, perhaps, but the government gets what it needs. 

There was a reason why during World War II, we went from nowhere; no army, no planes, no bullets, no jeeps, nothing. Four years 

later, just four years later, we became the world’s superpower, destroying two major allegiances of enemies on both sides of the 

world. It was an incredible undertaking. We had no airplanes and, 

yet, four years later, we had built almost 300,000 planes. We had 

no armor and, yet, a few years later, we had 86,000 tanks, 65,000 

landing craft, three-and-a-half million jeeps and personnel carriers, 

53 million deadweight tons of cargo vessels, 12 million rifles, carbines, machine guns, 47 million tons of artillery shells, and on and 

on and on. It was an incredible performance. And I think the reason we were able to do that was the government said to industry 

that we have some important gaps to fill. We have to have an airplane that will deliver x number of pounds, tons of bombs, so many 

miles, and so many minutes, can you do it? And people like you 

said that we will find you somebody, sir, and you did. And off we 

went. 

I do not know why we cannot do that now, but we are not. There 

are gizmos and inventors out there by the acres-full, with ideas 

that solve the problems that we have. How do we protect our aircraft landing and taking off from the 440 commercial airports in 

this country, how do we protect them from stinger missiles? Well, 

we are trying, but, I wish we had turned to people like you sooner. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

572 

How do we protect container boxes from all points of the world, 

going to all points in the U.S., through a lot of good choke points? 

How do we know when one of those have been broken into, whether or not it had something bad in it at the outset? And how do we 

tell that fireman, who finds the wrecked train, leaking white fluid 

from one of these containers, whether or not that is milk or hydrochloric acid? 

The private sector can solve that. But, we have not yet. I do not 

think we have adequately turned to people like this, to integrate 

between the government and the private sector to find the gizmos 

and the answers to the solutions that you are looking for. I wish 

we had the Undersecretary at the table with us now for this conversation. What do you think about this? 

Mr. DARBY. Well, I think you are right obviously, but I do 

empathize with the position that the Undersecretary is in however. 

Without an intermediary like In-Q-Tel, the S&T Directorate within 

our customer set would be overwhelmed because there is always an 

inventor out there who has a solution to a problem. Is not that 

true, Mr. Undersecretary? 

And to be able to vet that inventor, to be able to vet that technology before it takes up time within the agencies that we serve, 

I think is an incredibly valuable thing because, as I have said, we 

have looked at over 6,000 different companies; we made 110 investments in companies, so we do an awful lot of technology vetting, 

and we are not big. 

Mr. ROGERS. Let me ask you how this operates. You work with 

the CIA? 

Mr. DARBY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Do they tell you: Look, we need an x, y or z answer 

to the problem, and here is the problem? And then they say to you: 

Can you help us find somebody to help solve it? 

Mr. DARBY. It is above and beyond that, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Tell me how that operates. 

Mr. DARBY. I think it probably started that way with requirements, documents saying we need a technology that will do x. We 

do not have it today. 

Today, we are far more sophisticated inasmuch as we will start 

with the dialogue around the problem set at a high level, but we, 

then, spend time in the field asking them questions. I think this 

is a very important role that we play because, within our organization, most of us recently come out of private industry, so we have 

built companies and we have built technologies right up until coming to In-Q-Tel. 

And this is a handicap sometimes: We are not government, but 

we understand what is going on in private industry. Therefore, 

when we interrogate CIA about a problem set, we are asking different questions. We are looking at the problems with a different 

lens than perhaps they are. So I think there is this interrogative 

period of time to help qualify. 

There had been occasions when they thought they wanted x. Yet, 

by the time we go through this process, they actually want y because we bring to bear an alternative technology that they maybe 

did not know about. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

573 

Mr. ROGERS. But, basically, do they tell you: We have got a problem in this field. what do you think we do about that? 

Mr. DARBY. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROGERS. Then, you go out and check in the field and see 

what is available; and you may uncover something that maybe a 

bit different but it is a better idea than they had, right? 

Mr. DARBY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Is that the type of thing you do? 

Mr. DARBY. Yes. Let me give you an example. One of the things 

that we have been monitoring and actually starting to invest in is 

this notion of virtual worlds. 

Some of you may be familiar with these things. The Internet has 

virtual worlds, and communities from around the world are going 

on-line and representing themselves on these virtual worlds, having dialogues, and creating relationships, and so on. 

When you are my age, it is kind of foreign to you. But certainly 

the younger members, and the Jihadists in different neighborhoods, are participating in these on-line environments. So, what 

are the technologies that can be brought to bear in these environments? 

How do you begin to assess behaviors in these environments? Are 

these operational environments for different people? 

We know that money is moving in these environments. So I 

think it is probably fair to say that In-Q-Tel was one of the catalysts for examining these new and emerging environments within 

our community. 

Mr. ROGERS. Would you have your company, or a company like 

yours, working with S&T and the department in a similar vein? 

Mr. DARBY. Absolutely. I think it starts with understanding the 

problem set. And In-Q-Tel, specifically, has probably a number of 

different overlapping technology practices, so we have a Bio-chem, 

Nano practice; we have a Coms and Infrastructure practice, Software and Analytic practice, Embedded Systems and Power; and we 

have a Digital Security Technology practice. 

So, those five practices, probably overlap at a certain level with 

some of the problem sets that are facing Homeland today. For us 

to re-purpose a lot of the investments and create economies of 

scale, potentially would make sense. But whether it is our organization or another one that is set up, I think a couple of key things. 

First of all, we are not venture capital. So the individuals do not 

profit from the companies going public. Right now, we are metrixed 

on base and bonus, and bonus associated with technologies being 

deployed. That is a very strategic investor model, much like Intel 

Capital, it is the Intel Corporation. I think that model works. 

Secondly, we are technologists at heart. We have some people 

that are in the investment community, and have been there for a 

long time, but most of the employees at In-Q-Tel are technologists, 

Ph.D.s that come out of private industry, have built companies and 

been successful, and have those relationships back into the entrepreneur’s community and into the investment community. 

Mr. ROGERS. So can we say that you are the guy in the James 

Bond movies who invented all the gizmos, Q? 

Mr. DARBY. That is the Q in In-Q-Tel, yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Ah, so, you are Mr. Q? 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

574 

Mr. DARBY. I am today, yes. 

Mr. PRICE. All right, thank you. 

Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have been 

very stimulated by these papers and by this discussion. 

I would urge you to see if we can sometime just do a retreat, a 

weekend of these round-table discussions because I do not think 

the nature of these short hearings is going to allow us to grasp 

what we want to. 

It is very interesting that of the witnesses, that three of them are 

talking about high-touch and one of them is talking about hightech. My background from the Peace Corps was really living in 

barrios and trying to understand from the bottom up and find that 

that is very relative to being a successful politician because, essentially, we all represent these barrios. 

My wife always said that I am still a Peace Corps Volunteer. I 

just changed my barrio, being in Congress. But it is about, and 

what I really appreciate this papers, because let me just tell you 

that I represent the Naval Post-Graduate School. Last year, Congressman Murtha was there with members of the Defense Appropriations Committee, and we had some soldiers who had just gotten back from Iraq. They were the IED experts, detecting them, 

and also trying to find them. 

One of the things they complained about was that we have 

thrown too much technology at them. There is so much technology 

that it was jamming the airwaves in Baghdad, and not being able 

to do just do communications. Jack Murtha said: We have just appropriated $2 billion to discover how we can jam these things. I think he said that one of the 

soldiers said: Have you ever put any money into the sociology of 

why people do this in the first place? 

So the people who are on the ground, whose lives were at stake 

and who had watched people, were now asking that question, 

which I think these panelists are asking you is: What is the motivation in the first place? 

The issue in this Subcommittee, it is the ounce of protection or 

the pound of cure. And Homeland Security is a big agency, and it 

has just been spending with a pound of cure. We have not spent 

money on figuring out what is the root causes in the culture of poverty. 

Your story about these kids who are all soccer players, I think 

in your paper, thought that maybe had one of them gotten a scholarship because they were good enough to play at the college level, 

they might have had a whole different motivation for all the gang, 

the whole team. We thought maybe we could all go on and be great 

soccer players. 

So, again, my question is—and last week the House passed, and 

the Senate has a comparable bill, a really nifty bill that I have 

been working on for a long time. It is creating a crisis core in the 

State Department USAID. 

Well, hundreds of people in the State Department who are experts in a specific field, and who can be called on within 24-hours 

notice to go into a failed state, and backed up by thousands of people in the federal government, and backed up by even more thoumstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

575 

sands of people at the local level, who would be fire chiefs, police 

chiefs and so on, and judges, and hopefully, they would be recruited 

on the basis that they have some knowledge about countries and 

languages and cultures. 

When Mr. Price took us on a CODEL, in meeting with the heads 

of state in all these countries, I think you will agree that there was 

not a discussion about how much money you can get for us. All the 

discussions were: What kind of talent can you send us to help us 

upgrade our infrastructure? 

So I think Homeland Security is the guns and butter. We are 

spending so much money on guns and so little on butter. We need 

to begin doing what I think the three witnesses here talk about, 

and that is building this, and I would like to hear more about, is 

the science-based political violence field research teams that would 

be actually—understanding these pockets of poverty. 

We need to understand them in this country, too, because I think 

that is where people are going to come out of doing violent acts in 

this country. 

If, indeed, we have the sophistication to go out there and look at 

these start-up companies that are smart and doing the right 

things, then you can buy a little bit of attention. Tweak them, why 

cannot we tweak a barrio, or a neighborhood, so that we can do 

that ounce of prevention? 

I would like some of your feelings about what is it going to take 

to really build this? The military, frankly, is asking these questions. They are not asking us—you know, we want to give them the 

right equipment. But the question is not make me a better gun. It 

is figure out what motivates people to do these things to do harm 

to others in the first place? 

That is coming out of the military community, and I think it is 

very, very interesting to hear that. I would hope that we might 

spend some resources trying to figure that out. How much is it 

going to take? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Congressman Farr. 

In terms of building capacity, to be able to kind of redirect where 

radicalization is going in the field, the first place to start is overseas. 

As I addressed earlier, the Foreign Assistance Program that the 

country has targets these eighteen-month programs in health, social-service type programs in different communities, but they are 

not long-standing programs in different communities. And they are 

also, many times, based upon assumptions about what might work 

in particular communities. 

What is really interesting now about not having the data from 

the field, base-science research, is that we can actually test these 

theories of intervention of what could actually change these communities. We can test them. We can find out whether the opportunity for those young men in Hebron by getting one soccer scholarship could actually change the trajectory of a community. We can 

test that. 

That, perhaps, is the next step for what we need to do: be able 

to take the good quality science that exists, although there is not 

much of it, but what does exist in the field, and actually begin to 

test our intervention strategies to see whether or not they are 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

576 

working, and find out, community-by-community, where we need 

to, what sort of intervention strategies can work. 

Let me leave you with one kind of picture that I became very familiar with in understanding the way the National Security Council works, the Homeland Security Council works, and the Domestic 

Policy Council works. When you ask the question how do we 

change the hearts and minds of these would-be radical actors, who 

is sitting at the table? 

You have got the Defense Department, you have got the FBI, you 

have got Justice, you have got Homeland Security. You have got all 

these experts in security, but you have very few health people, very 

few educators who are actually sitting there, and that is partially 

why the capacity does not exist. 

Mr. FARR. What is it going to take to build that capacity, what 

kind of investment? 

Mr. DAVIS. To start with, you should strengthen the institutions 

that area actually doing the field-base science, so that you have 

some sort of qualitative work that you can base your information 

on. 

Why RTI is so interesting in this capacity is because RTI not 

only does it serve on the front line in Iraq, in its local governance 

program through a developmentally related program, but it right 

now is working on trying to lessen the number of radicals that are 

coming from Iraq. 

Then you take that on the flip side you look at it and: Okay, now 

we have political violence, kind of individual and group-related research. You need to strengthen that first. Then, ultimately, you 

need to add the type of research, and require more of research happening from the field in terms of political violence, and had a requirement on that political-violence research that you actually test 

intervention strategies otherwise what good is it? 

Mr. PRICE. Dr. Altran, why do not you chime in and then we will 

have to move on. 

Mr. ALTRAN. One of the problems, especially in academia, is that 

it is much more convenient. It costs a lot less and takes a lot less 

time to just take data in and speculate and write theories about 

it. 

It is very costly in terms of time and commitment for people to 

actually go out in the field, in terms of the actual dangers they 

may face, and in terms of the commitment to their lives and their 

homes. There has got to be some incentive for people to do that. 

There is no such incentive in the United States right now. In fact, 

there are disincentives. 

Mr. FARR. How much cultural and language capability do you 

have to have to do that? 

Mr. ALTRAN. You are going to have to have certainly a minimum 

of cultural language. 

Mr. FARR. Can we hire host countries nationals to do it? 

Mr. ALTRAN. Of course, and you have to. That is what we do. 

People who come out with us in the field that we can vet and find 

out who—but they have to be trained. 

Because if you just get people who have no training in science, 

and do not know what a base rate is, know no hypothesis, the information they give is mostly a waste of time. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

577 

Mr. PRICE. I hate to cut this off because it is extremely interesting, and I hear what the members are saying about the need to 

continue this kind of discussion, maybe in a less chaotic atmosphere than the one created by multiple votes on the House floor. 

We do want to hear from Undersecretary Cohen, and we need to 

bring him forward. 

So let me thank all of you for a very interesting and useful morning, and we hope to remain in touch with all of you. Thank you for 

the good work you are doing. 

Mr. Undersecretary, I appreciate your presence with us this 

morning for this earlier discussion, and we are very, very glad to 

have you with us now. 

I think Mr. Rogers and I will dispense with any further statements, and ask you to give us your oral summation, and then we 

will proceed to a discussion. 

STATEMENT OF JAY COHEN, UNDERSECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

Mr. COHEN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will follow your lead and 

Chairman Price and Congressman Rogers, Congressman Farr, it is 

a great personal honor for me to appear before you. 

Chairman, I think you have indicated that my written testimony 

would be made part of the record, so I will not repeat that. I would 

like to start out, Chairman, by congratulating you on your selection 

by the National Emergency Management Association recognizing 

you for a congressional recognition award. I understand that that 

would be presented later today. I only regret that I cannot be 

there. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, thank you. You are very kind to note that, and 

I am very grateful for the recognition. 

Mr. COHEN. Well, you are all deserving of awards, and I am sure 

in time that those will follow. 

And thank you for including me in that very enlightening testimony and interaction from both RTI and In-Q-Tel. You might remember that we established the Human Factors Division as part 

of the reorganization which the Congress so graciously approved in 

a very rapid way when I was in Naval Research many of the same 

questions came up. And I was blessed to have an anthropologist, 

Dr. Montgomery McFate, who is still with the Department of Defense, and is helping us go in exactly the direction that Congressman Farr has addressed, understanding the barrio as you said; and 

now I am blessed to have Dr. Sharla Rauisch, who is a social psychologist with a Justice background, bringing those very same 

things to bear. 

What I would like to just address is where we are and where we 

are headed. Congressman Rogers, I think very wisely, addressed 

the fact that we are in a transition year, and we take that very seriously because science and technology, as I have come to learn 

over the last eight years, is bipartisan, non-partisan. It is a 

strength of America, and it enables not only our economy but our 

very way of life that we enjoy. 

So a year-and-a-half ago, I briefed you all on what I believe needed to be done. In a Science and Technology Directorate, those were 

the four ‘‘gets.’’ We had to get the people right; we had to get the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

578 

books right; we had to get the organization right. When you do 

that, you get the content right. I believe we are substantially there. 

And then I addressed what I believe were the threats that faced 

the nation. Those were the four Bs: bombs, borders, bugs and business. 

Just to remind you because bombs, borders and bugs are self-evident. But business is that cyber-backbone that underlies everything we do, and the concerns there have already been addressed. 

So, where are we in this transition year? 

THE FOUR P’S

Well, the good news, Chairman, and members and Staff, is that 

we are now up to the four ‘‘Ps.’’ There are only 23 more initiatives 

I can have and then I run out of alphabets. But what are the four 

‘‘Ps’’? The people. 

When I came on board, we were fewer than 60 percent government manned, and we were bleeding. Today, we are 95 percent 

government manned thanks to your support; and about a dozen individuals, government service, who had left the directorate before 

I got there are now back on board. We have no shortage of volunteers. We even have people who want to work pro bono because 

they believe in the mission and they get it. 

The second P is: process. We have put in place the processes that 

we deal with your Staff and with you, on the day-in, day-out basis. 

Those are the same processes that I, after a long period of time, 

six years in Naval Research, was able to put in place. 

And now that I am two years removed from there, an electromagnetic rail gun, and free-electron lasers, and super-conducting 

motors, and mack-7 missiles, and so many other things are now 

being delivered to the fleet and the force, and the MRAP to protect 

our Marines and soldiers. 

When you go to a five-year budget, when you have an open and 

accountable organization, when you put those processes that are 

customer driven in place, no person is indispensable. The good lives 

on afterwards, and that is the process and the organization that I 

put in place that I believe, with our five-year budget, if you consider every year, will serve us well. 

And then, finally, partnerships. We are partnered with all of the 

other S&T components, not only in government but your vision in 

HR–1 last summer, where you took the small initiative I had with 

international partnerships because the world is flat. 

EUROPEAN UNION PARTNERING

You know, Congressman Farr, the European Union has come to 

me twice in the last year and laid 1.4 billion Euros on the table 

that they want to partner with us for what they call security, we 

call homeland security. 

And we have interoperable technologies, and we have understandings of other cultures, then our ability to work together and 

make these partnerships is critically important. So we have partnerships with industry. Congressman Rogers, I think will be 

pleased that we have taken the PsiTech and the Tech Clearing 

House, which I think was brilliant on your part. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

579 

It is not an In-Q-Tel model. And I think Mr. Darby was eloquent 

actually in describing that. But we have now focused it, as you envisioned, on the first responders. We have tech solutions, where 

first responders come in directly on the web and also now, we have 

expanded that to firstresponder.gov because so many more first responders wanted to be able to field it. 

I think we have fielded the anti-tamper device. I just cannot tell 

you if it’s from that North Carolina young man, but I will work to 

find out. 

So with people, process and partnerships, at the end of the day, 

and you have addressed this, it is about product. And product is 

coming out the door. Some of it is demonstration, some of it is developing, others long-term. 

But this is the long war. This is a war of ideas and ideals. It will 

go on. It requires psychology. It requires the carrot and the stick. 

But we believe that with the four ‘‘Ps,’’ we are well situated for 

that. 

So I thank you, I thank your staff, and I thank both bodies for 

the support that we have received. I look forward to your oversight; 

I look forward to your questions. With that, I will conclude. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

580 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 836 here 42401A.510
581 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 837 here 42401A.511
582 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 838 here 42401A.512
583 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 839 here 42401A.513
584 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 840 here 42401A.514
585 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 841 here 42401A.515
586 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 842 here 42401A.516
587 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 843 here 42401A.517
588 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 844 here 42401A.518
589 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 845 here 42401A.519
590 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 846 here 42401A.520
591 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 847 here 42401A.521
592 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 848 here 42401A.522
593 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 849 here 42401A.523
594 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 850 here 42401A.524
595 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 851 here 42401A.525
596 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 852 here 42401A.526
597 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 853 here 42401A.527
598 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much, Mr. Undersecretary. We appreciate that testimony, and your good work. We will proceed to try 

to link I think, initially, the first panel to your observations. 

The first panel, as you heard, talked about radicalization, and 

the different waves of radicalization that we are confronting in the 

offensive against terrorism. I think we all agree that the phenomenon needs to be well understood to keep the threat from growing, and to enable sensible interventions. 

FIELD RESEARCH ON RADICALIZATION

Worldwide we hear, though, that there is less than $12 million 

being spent on open-source field research on radicalization. I do not 

know what your estimate would be. I wonder what percentage of 

your budget is spent in areas roughly comparable to what we have 

heard about this morning. 

Where should this research be going on? I guess we want an assessment of the importance of this from the standpoint of your mission. But, we, of course, have talked often before about the way different research portfolios across the federal government feed into 

the Homeland Security mission. We have ordered up a more thorough analysis as a matter of fact, so we all understand what the 

bigger picture looks like. 

But, if you are not undertaking this kind of research, is anybody 

undertaking it; and what do you think would be the best way of 

getting this research up to a level where it needs to be, and where 

we can make maximum use of it for our homeland security purposes? 

HUMAN-FACTORS INITIATIVES

Mr. COHEN. As to my specific investment, I will take that for the 

record, and get you my best estimate from my budget. 

[The information follows:] 

DHS SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE RADICALIZATION R&D FUNDING 

PPA Program Containing 

Radicalization R&D 

FY07 

Enacted 

FY08 

Enacted 

FY09 

Request 

Explosives Counter-IED—Deter - 1.0 3.1 

Human Factors Motivation and Intent & IHSS 4.6 4.3 4.4 

University Programs START (forward funded in FY07) - 3.6 3.6 

Total 4.6 8.9 11.1 

But I have no shortage of ideas; I have no shortage of requirements. I should say good ideas, requirements, etc., and because of 

the enabling legislation, you very wisely told me not to reinvent the 

National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, 

DOD, or DOE Labs. 

I think that was brilliant, as a taxpayer. On the other hand, you 

have given me full leverage to go in and find out what they are 

doing. I cannot tell other departments what to do, but I can leverage what they are doing, and then take my precious dollars and 

add on to it. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

599 

So, as I have testified previously, when I first came on, I thought 

about what is unique in Homeland Security S&T, meaning if I did 

not do it, would it not get done? 

And I settled on two items and they are both in the human-factors area, and they are both complementary towards RTI. One was 

hostile intent, and the other was psychology of terrorism. 

Almost everything else I deal with, whether it is a weapon, a 

communication, a platform, it is being done somewhere else in government. I can leverage them. I have to modify for the techniques 

and procedures for first responders. We are here to protect and 

serve, as opposed to soldiers and Marines who have a different mission. 

But, in this area, I would tell you that the Department of Defense as I have observed, and you know this as well as I do, that 

over the last two years, DOD really has got it and they are trying 

to work their way up the kill chain. 

The Brits get it. When you get the bomber, when you get into 

the cell, you do not have to worry about the bomb. But you cannot 

always do that, that is why we have infrastructure protection. But 

I think the success that we are seeing today in Afghanistan and 

Iraq, in part, is because we are getting to the left of the boom. 

We are investing as a nation, primarily the Department of Defense. I do not know what the State Department’s investment is 

here. I do not know what National Science Foundation’s investments are, but I will get together with Arden Bement on this, and 

we talk all the time, to get to the left of the boom. There was a 

series of articles that appeared in October in The Washington Post 

that talked about this. So we are seeing the impact of that. This 

should not be a surprise. This is just good law enforcement. This 

is how we do business. 

So I was very pleased that Congress gave me the resources that 

I could more fully engage with RTI in the FY 2008 appropriation. 

You see already the results. Charlotte Roche and her team and the 

rest of my team have been down to RTI. We look forward to their 

proposals, but it has to be done in the field. 

It is complicated. It was discussed here. And I would tell you 

that we are under-invested in it across the government. 

BASIC RESEARCH TIED TO POLICY

Mr. PRICE. We, of course, are always looking for the payoff in 

terms of policy interventions and what they should look like. I 

think you would agree that it is sometimes premature, though, to 

insist on that as the first thing that we learn. There is a certain 

amount of good social science using basic social-science methodology that needs to go on before we can draw sound conclusions. 

So it is not a matter of being too intolerant of what might appear 

to be academic-type studies, assuming we know where they are 

headed. I am sure that is a debate you engage in all the time, 

whether basic research that you are funding is sufficiently tied to 

policy, sufficiently relevant? 

Mr. COHEN. Well, Chairman, as you know, when I racked and 

stacked my investment portfolio when I first came on board, it 

looked to me like just about 12 percent of my investment was going 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

600 

to what you and I would call basic research, whether that was universities or laboratories, unfettered. 

You do not know what you do not know. You have got to go up 

a lot of alleys to figure out which ones are blind, about an eight 

year or longer timeframe. But this is the strength of America; this 

is where Bayh-Dole has affected our economy. America and very 

few other countries do the basic discovery and invention that 

changes the world. 

We, then, in America tend to give away. We allow those patents 

to be bought, and then we buy the valuated product back, generally 

from overseas. I wish that were not so. But you see in my budget 

that I have committed to you last year that I would grow the basic 

research in universities and laboratories to 20 percent of my budget. And that is the budget that the President has come forward 

with and I am very appreciative of that support. 

In the Navy, I was at 40 percent, but Naval Research had a 

much different history. The Army and Air Force have about 20 percent in their basic research, and I think that is a reasonable number. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. I also have some questions about Mr. 

Darby’s testimony, but I suspect Mr. Rogers is still on a tear on 

that subject. So why do I not turn to him. We do want to move 

along here. Thank you. 

RELATIONSHIPS SIMILAR TO CIA AND IN-Q-TEL

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you did read my 

mind. 

Do you have anything similar to the arrangement apparently 

that the CIA has with people like In-Q-Tel? 

Mr. COHEN. The short answer, sir, is: Yes. When I was in Naval 

Research, the Congress, this was in the Defense committees, asked 

me: Did I want legislation to create a Navy In-Q-Tel? 

They had done something similar with the Army and a $30 million venture-capital fund for the Army. 

I told them that I thought I had all the authorities I needed in 

that position, and I would get back to them in a year. So I started 

on the In-Q-Tel model, a spin-in, spin-out model. 

A spin-in is where I go to the venture capitalists. I provide for 

them the needs that we are unable to fulfill by traditional means 

and they, either themselves or through their network, as Mr. 

Darby very accurately described, were able to give us neat and 

timely, and cutting-edge solutions. 

The spin-out was that Congress had invested over decades literally billions of dollars of intellectual property. I was sitting on it 

at the Naval Research Lab. Yet we were not getting utilization out 

of it. 

And I saw what IBM had done ten years ago where those patents, they were not able to use in their core business, they created 

a profit center for intellectual property, which now is multi-billion 

dollars a year. So we went ahead and did that. It was not as successful as I wanted. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

601 

VENTURE CAPITALIST ENTREPRENEUR

What I have done now in Homeland Security S&T is: We have 

brought on board within the last six months, which your enabling 

legislation has allowed me to do this, Dr. Tom Cellucci. Dr. Cellucci 

is a very, very successful venture capitalist entrepreneur, etc. He 

took an incredible pay cut, as so many of the people who have come 

on board have had to do, and today he is engaged with hundreds 

of small businesses, effectively doing what In-Q-Tel is doing. 

I am not limited by good ideas; I am not limited by entrepreneurs. I am only limited by resources and the authorities I have 

for acquisition. 

Mr. ROGERS. What is the result, the bottom line? 

RESULTS

Mr. COHEN. The bottom line is we are getting cutting-edge devices that I now have been able to field, such as retinal scan to determine if you or I have been exposed to a nerve agent based on 

what happens to the retina. That is just one simple example. 

But what Dr. Cellucci is doing with my six divisions, is he is 

doing the bottom up. He knows what my customer requirements 

are from the 22 components, TSA, Coast Guard, et cetera. He 

knows our programs of record. What he is doing, he has worked 

with my division directors to say you need to go to talk to Johnny. 

You need to go to talk to Janie. 

This is exciting stuff. Cellucci, he is at a leadership level, and I 

give him that authority to go ahead and do that. 

Then I engage and find out why my division directors may or 

may not be as innovation tolerant as I would like them to be. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, we still have a lot of unsolved problems in 

Homeland Security. 

Mr. COHEN. Sure. 

Mr. ROGERS. I have got to believe that there is a solution, on the 

shelf even, right around the corner, that we have not found yet. 

I do not know whether the operation you are talking about is aggressive enough in laying out the problem that you want solved, 

and inviting the private-sector world to bring their genius to bear 

on it, as we have done so successfully in other periods in our history. 

Are you comfortable with where you are? 

Mr. COHEN. I am not comfortable with where I am. 

Mr. ROGERS. I am not either. 

CELL ALL

Mr. COHEN. I think you have got it right—I have reached in my 

pockets, and I want to take out just a little example. Last year we 

testified to a program which you supported called Cell All. This is 

to put a lab on a chip in a cell phone. Now it might be Anthrax; 

it might be cobalt 60. You can turn it on or off. We will address 

those privacy issues. 

We got over 80 respondents, 80 proposals to solve this problem 

in SBIR, Small Business Innovative Research. We are seeing the 

ma and pa solutions, and we are fast-tracking that. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

602 

THE DAZZLER

I think you are aware that this year, in Time Magazine, instead 

of having the taser which, unfortunately, has killed some people, 

we now have the dazzler. It has been called the puke ray. This is 

the light—— 

Mr. ROGERS. The what? 

Mr. COHEN. The puke ray, I apologize. It makes you seasick. But 

it is a nonlethal weapon. I think in the packet we have given you, 

you have a picture of it. But it was one of the top 100 innovations 

noted in Time Magazine. It has been covered on CBS Morning 

News, et cetera. 

What it does is if it is pointed at your face, it affects your brain 

so that you become nauseous to the point that you cannot do damage. You then get a migraine and several hours later you feel fine, 

but the threat has passed. That came out of SBIR. Those are tools 

you have given me. 

CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE

Mr. ROGERS. Let me ask you about the Centers of Excellence. In 

the area of radicalization behavioral research, are you satisfied 

with the Center of Excellence in that regard? 

Mr. COHEN. I must tell you that that is one of my better performing Centers of Excellence from what I would call the traditional Centers of Excellence that were stood up initially, and there 

are really two. One is START and the other is CREATE. Those are 

the two names that they use. One is much more the radicalization, 

very much like what RTI is doing. And the other one is operations 

analysis/operations research. 

And so we are working with them. We are resourcing them. This 

is an area where the Congress provided additional monies from our 

Human factors, but it remains a work in progress. And I look forward to working with RTI and incorporating them in that bigger 

program. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, are you satisfied with the COE productivity 

so far in this area? 

Mr. COHEN. We can do better with the COEs. And when I came 

onboard a year and a half ago, they were at risk for the very reasons that you have just addressed, but you showed confidence in 

the proposal that we made to realign them to my divisions. And as 

you are aware today, we just went out with five new COEs. Four 

were competitive. One came out of HR-1. And we are moving forward with a six-year assignment for COE, renewable for six years 

on a competitive basis. 

But now I have underlying COEs to support each of my six divisions where we do not have solutions in transition near term, and 

we do not see solutions that are high-risk in innovation where my 

division directors are making the investment of about $148 million 

a year in their divisions, in universities and laboratories to make 

the discoveries that will change the world and make the nation 

safer. 

So I think we are aligned for success. We are at a stable point. 

We have got full engagement by the Congress and the COEs, and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

603 

now we need to keep it stable because in the basic research, it 

takes time, it takes focus to get the product out the door. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will wait for the next 

round. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The coordination between 

R&D and the first responders is obviously a two-way communication. 

Mr. COHEN. Sure. 

FUNDING FOR NAVAL POST GRADUATE SCHOOL

Mr. FARR. Science and technology experts need to know the 

needs of field personnel. And I think the field personnel also need 

to know what are those tools and technology, and that is what your 

job is, to bring them all together. My understanding is that you 

have a three-year $1 million a year MOU with the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey in addition to the $2 million Homeland Security Consortium that was funded in the fiscal year 2008 

bill. In your testimony, you state that S&T directorate is requesting $5.5 million less for its university programs, reflecting no funding request for the Naval Postgraduate School. What does that 

mean? 

Mr. COHEN. Well, I think what we have here, Congressman, first 

of all, I want to compliment the Naval Postgraduate School, and I 

know your longstanding support both when I was in Navy and here 

after the tragic events of 9/11, it was the Naval Postgraduate 

School that immediately, immediately responded. In fact, they offered me their Predators, which they were using for their students, 

which we refitted to send over to Afghanistan and Iraq. As it 

turned out, they were not needed. They stood up a Homeland Security education and research program when there was no Department of Homeland Security. This was the kind of vision and forethought the Naval Postgraduate School had. 

And today and over the last many years, representatives from all 

agencies of government have gone there and they are up through 

a Master’s degree. My team was out there last week working on 

the details now of a postgraduate, excuse me, a Ph.D. degree in 

Homeland Security, and so I was very pleased when we went 

ahead and established our Memorandum of Understanding with 

the Naval Postgraduate School. 

Now everything I do, no surprise to you, is pending funding, and 

we committed to $3 million over three years. I am a man of my 

word. We committed and have transferred the first $1 million, but 

regrettably, because the omnibus appropriations came so late in 

the calendar year, the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget was already locked down, and so the omnibus appropriations and the 

President’s fiscal year 2009 budget were like ships passing in the 

night. Normally, when I get the appropriations, whether it is a law 

or it is an omnibus appropriation, we are able to make adjustments 

to the President’s budget. I was not able to do that, and so we are 

going to have to do that either during this Congressional year on 

the Hill or I will have to do it in execution. 

But I have been and I remain committed to our initiatives with 

the Naval Postgraduate School and am very pleased to have them 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

604 

on the DHS Homeland Security team and in fact want to leverage 

them with some of my other Centers of Excellence because of their 

excellence in educational programs. 

Mr. FARR. Well, thank you. I am learning every time I visit that 

school about the innovations coming out of it. 

Mr. COHEN. Sure. 

Mr. FARR. And what I think is exciting for the federal government is to have that kind of an intellectual think-tank where you 

have people from the ground right out of theatre dealing with the 

academics to match up what needs tweaking, what needs fixing. 

Mr. COHEN. Sure, sure. 

Mr. FARR. And then immediately putting it in the curriculum. So 

I hope someday that we can all go out there and see all this stuff. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony today. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Congressman, for all you do. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Undersecretary, let me turn to one 

area that decidedly is not to the left of the boom, as you phrased 

it. 

Mr. COHEN. Sure. 

Mr. PRICE. Unfortunately, it has to do with IEDs, improvised explosive devices. 

Mr. COHEN. Sure. 

IED DETECTION PRODUCTS

Mr. PRICE. Primary devices used by terrorists seeking uncomplicated, inexpensive means of inflicting mass casualties and creating 

a psychological perception that almost anyone can be harmed at 

any time. IEDs were a known threat before 9/11. 

Mr. COHEN. Sure. 

Mr. PRICE. Certainly we have seen their impact in Oklahoma 

City, Israel, Spain, London, Bali, Mumbai, Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Some of these events occurred years ago, others more recently. Just 

last week, as you know, a military recruiting station in Times 

Square was the target of an IED. 

Mr. COHEN. Sure. 

Mr. PRICE. Now last year Congress provided $15 million above 

the fiscal 2008 budget request for S&T to ‘‘work on producing detection products that deter, reduce or eliminate explosive attacks 

and their consequences, including car bombs.’’ 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. The fiscal 2009 budget request more than doubles 

funding to $34 million for this effort. Just looking backward briefly, 

I would appreciate your assessment of why we are only now beginning an aggressive program on IEDs. It has been six and a half 

years since September 11 after all and five years since the Department was formed. But I want mainly to look forward, and I want 

to ask you to elaborate on the budget documents that you provided 

to the committee. You note that DHS plans to ‘‘identify near term 

technological improvements in less than five years.’’ 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Now that seems like a long time to wait, and I wonder what we can reasonable expect to experience in the near term, 

to achieve in the near term. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

605 

Both TSA and the Secret Service have been working on detecting 

IEDs for a significant period of time. DOD has a very aggressive 

program that has developed a lot of military solutions for use in 

Iraq and Afghanistan. So I wonder how your program differs from 

those of these other agencies I have mentioned. In other words, I 

am asking you to give us an update and to touch on these questions if you will. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. It would be my pleasure, sir, and thank you 

for the question. 

Mr. PRICE. Excuse us one moment. 

Mr. COHEN. Please. Yes, sir. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. PRICE. Please proceed, Mr. Undersecretary. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. And I will speak quickly. Like you, Chairman, I drive by looking through the windshield, not the rearview 

mirror, and I appreciate very much in a very difficult budget year 

that the Appropriations and the Congress would provide the $15 

million to quick start what we are trying to do, and I am very 

pleased that the President and the Administration then followed 

that, as you indicated, with an additional $34, $35 million to get 

this going. 

If I can capture this fairly succinctly, billions of dollars have been 

spent properly I believe by the Congress in the supplemental appropriations for JIEDO, which is Joint IED Defeat Office, was established in the Department of Defense. This is in response to the 

combatant commanders who saw the carnage that car bombs, 

IEDs, suicide bombers were causing in theatre and are very well 

known. 

The tactics, techniques and procedures for soldiers and Marines 

are to kill, capture and destroy generally over there. My workforce, 

my customers are first responders. They protect and serve. They 

are here in the homeland. We can take an electronic jamming airplane and fly it over a foreign city, and we can, as you heard from 

Congressman Farr’s testimony, electronically jam the fuses, et 

cetera. But if I did that over Washington, I would bring to a halt 

all of the electronic commerce that drives our society. That is independent of the Constitution. That is independent of the Federal 

Communications Commission. So tactics, techniques and procedures for the military and first responders are fundamentally different, and they should be different. 

IED DETECTION PRODUCTS CONTINUED

The focus that I am placing is in the basic research where today 

we do not have the technology to detect at range—you can define 

it as 50 yards, 100 yards—that someone has an explosive device on 

them or that a vehicle traveling at 55 miles an hour has an explosive device, I do not care if it is nitrate, plastic, an explosive device. 

There is a one-second warning before they get to your checkpoint. 

T.S.A. has properly focused on explosive detection systems, scanning devices, portals that the person goes through, but as you indicated, suicide bombers, IEDs are the weapon of choice, have been 

for a long time by terrorists to try and destabilize an election, society, events, how we live our lives. So it is a different scenario, and 

I must in the basic research, and this is an area that JIEDO and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

606 

no other component of DOD that I am aware of has in fact solved 

the problem. 

Believe it or not, Princeton has come to me with a photon packet 

proposal. I am not a physicist. You know, it is way out there. I do 

not know if it will work, but no one else has come to me with a 

viable solution of a handheld or portable device that a first responder can have in Times Square, and I was in Times Square last 

Friday and saw the destruction that that small bomb caused—fortunately no one was injured or killed—and so it is only S&T with 

the help of the Congress that can make the sustained investment 

at a critical mass in the basic research that will give us this solution. 

And when we do that, sir, we will deny the terrorists the ability 

to get to their target. We will prevent them from getting to nirvana. Their picture will not go on the Martyrs Hall of Fame, and 

their family will not get a multithousand dollar stipend because 

their child became a suicide bomber. That is the focus of what I 

am doing. The Department has stood up the Office of Bombing Prevention. Charlie Payne is my customer in the near term for the 

bomb disposal squads. 

I am going to take about one-third of the monies you gave me, 

I am going to use those in the near term to leverage JIEDO and 

other solutions to get near-term maybe suboptimum tools to the 

first responders, 571 bomb squads around the country, 700,000 police, but the other two-thirds, we will work with your staff, we will 

work with the National Science Foundation, OSTP, Dr. Marberger, 

OSD, et cetera, and we will invest in the universities, the laboratories, the partners to find a phenomenology to turn the calculus 

around to do what I said, detect at range so we can prevent the 

bombers from getting to their target. 

Mr. PRICE. And it is that second component that leads you to a 

five-year projection, or what is the five-year projection built on, 

based on? 

Mr. COHEN. I know from my experience, I have been an S&T executive now for eight years in two different components, that this 

is tough. This is tough, especially when I do not have someone at 

my door other than the Princeton proposal, which is nascent, with 

a clear path ahead. If I have a technology that is even maturing, 

by applying resources, I can accelerate it, but I am pre, I am in 

the basic research. I need a phenomenology that will allow me to 

do this. And so five to eight years is the timeframe, and I believe 

that this is an area that will grow to between $50 and $100 million 

in basic research each year if we are to get there. 

And I believe, and I think others in government would tell you, 

we are five years behind. This was called by Secretary Gordon England the Manhattan Project. He tried to start this four years ago 

in DOD, had some success. But if we do not start now, we will be 

just one more year behind and one more year behind, because, sir, 

this problem is going to be with us as long as we are alive, and 

I am planning on living to be 100. 

CYBER SECURITY

Mr. PRICE. Let me turn to cyber security quickly. I referred in 

my opening statement to media reports about the efforts of China, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

607 

other countries, to target U.S. government privately owned cyber 

infrastructure. On November 6, 2007, DHS submitted a budget 

amendment for $115 million for DHS’s National Security Cyber Division to enhance federal cyber security efforts government-wide. 

We fully funded that request in our 2008 bill and provided S&T almost $20 million for cyber security activities. That was an increase 

of $5 million over the budget request. 

Mr. COHEN. Sure. 

Mr. PRICE. Now the 2009 budget request only requests $18.1 mil- lion for cyber security. That is a decrease of $1.7 million from that 

appropriated level. So I naturally want to know why that is so. We 

did provide $120 million above the original budget request in 2008 

to address these cyber threats, these infiltrations from other countries, these various concerns. 

Mr. COHEN. Sure. 

Mr. PRICE. S&T received a small plus-up in funding for research 

and next-generation technologies. So why is the funding for this effort proposed to go down? Cannot the case be made for more involvement by S&T in researching tools and techniques that could 

protect the federal government from whenever the next wave of 

cyber attacks comes? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. I will answer those in reverse order. Absolutely there is a critical role for S&T, and this is where the solutions will come from. This is an area that is cutting-edge warfare. 

It is measure, countermeasure, counter-countermeasure. We face 

this. You buy McAfee or Symantec. We decide how much is enough 

for us to protect our home computers. 

As I told Congressman Farr, that because the omnibus appropriation came at the end of the calendar year and the President’s 

budget was already locked down that there are some discrepancies. 

The fiscal year 2008 President’s budget as you are aware in this 

area for me was $14.9 million, almost $15 million. The President’s 

budget comes forward with an $18.2 million request. That is an increase of more than 20 percent. Regrettably, the ships passing in 

the night, you wisely invested even more, nearly $20 million, and 

so my $18 million is less than your $20 million, and I understand 

that. 

Having said that, and cyber is absolutely one of my top priorities, 

this is a very simplistic diagram of likelihood of occurrence versus 

consequence of occurrence and why you can see nuclear is off the 

chart to the right in consequence. Today you have to either buy or 

steal a bomb. I would tell you the odds of that happening today are 

low. I cannot speak for tomorrow. But cyber you see is happening 

right now. Someone may be trying to steal our identity. And as you 

indicated with Estonia, and there is not a day that goes by that we 

are not made aware of other attacks either by foreign nations or 

individuals or terrorist organizations. 

NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE

So it is critically important. I am very pleased that the Administration has gone forward with Homeland Security Presidential Director 23. This is a very highly classified executive order. I think 

your staff is aware of it. I have had a chance to participate in its 

development, have read it when it came out. This is an area that 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

608 

cuts across the government, involves all of .gov; .mil will be associated, but they have their own processes. And I believe that that 

initiative, the National Cyber Security Initiative, will develop into 

probably more than $1 billion a year initiative. I will leave that to 

the Administration to work with the Congress. 

But unlike IEDs where Homeland Security Presidential Decision 

19 said that DHS and Department of Justice were responsible for 

IEDs in the homeland and that DHS S&T would take the lead on 

that, which is why I have stepped up to the plate and we briefed 

everybody on that, in cyber, in the National Cyber Initiative, the 

responsibility there falls with OSTP, and I will fall in like all other 

government agencies and provide that portion of solutions that are 

appropriate for DHS. So two different models, and I am sorry that 

our ships passed in the night, but cyber, we got it, and it is a 

biggie, and it is going to grow. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Rogers. 

TRANSITION DIRECTORATE

Mr. ROGERS. I want to get back to Dr. Cellucci’s operation at 

S&T. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. How does that office operate? 

Mr. COHEN. Well, it is pretty lean like almost all of my offices. 

As you know, I maintain my overhead at 9 percent, which is what 

I committed. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. How many people does he have there? 

Mr. COHEN. He has a small cadre. I think at this point, it is 

about three people who are helping him. I put him in my Transition Division. As you know, the Transition directorate is zero to 

three years. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, you know, I am not sure that is the way we 

need to go. The In-Q-Tel model—— 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS [continuing]. As I understand it leverages existing 

commercial investment as it looks around industry for technologies, 

which translates to minimal government investment. In other 

words, it is not a government operation and it does not invest government funds. It goes out and seeks out the private sector gizmos 

and ideas and investment, which does not cost the government very 

much. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

USE OF COMPANIES LIKE IN-Q-TEL

Mr. ROGERS. And number two, you only have two or three people 

within S&T working on this, as compared to a company like In-QTel, and maybe there are others. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. But I guarantee you they are out there, those companies who can scour the world with thousands of people at little 

or no cost to you and us, the taxpayers. And more importantly, you 

get all the brilliant ideas that the genius of the private sector generates when there is a profit motive involved. Is that right or 

wrong? 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

609 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. Well, it is mostly right, sir. The facts of life 

are the solutions come from the private sector. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. 

Mr. COHEN. And I am involved with thousands of people in the 

private sector. 

Mr. ROGERS. Give me one person. 

Mr. COHEN. I am. But you know Mr. Darby? He has a small 

group. As he shared with you, he is a component of the CIA S&T 

Directorate. The Congress I believe has gone forward with IARPA, 

with the Director of National Intelligence, trying to have an advanced research project as you did for me with Homeland Security 

Advanced Research Projects now for intelligence. So he is one piece 

of the puzzle. 

In my innovation portfolio, which is 10 percent of my budget and 

I have 20 people in there, solutions come from industry, and that 

is cutting-edge stuff. The facts of life are he is in In-Q-Tel, and it 

is an exciting model, a nonprofit. If you are going to deal with venture capitalists, you must bring scratch to the table. Now he indicated he brings 10 percent scratch. What I bring to the table is the 

imprimata of the DHS logo, and I can tell you that industry gets 

it. They understand this is a growth area. I have Safety Act protection, which you have very wisely given me. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, yes. Let us stay on track here and try to keep 

it brief because we are running out of time. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

THINK-TANK MODELS

Mr. ROGERS. There are two conflicting models here, I think. One 

is a government-operated think-tank, if you will, that tries to involve the private sector in solutions that we need. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. And the other model is what I am going to refer to 

as the World War II model where the government says, here are 

the questions we want answered. 

Mr. COHEN. Sure. 

Mr. ROGERS. Here are the solutions we need. Can you in the private sector help us out? And you had this link between the government and the private sector through some nonprofit. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Those are two different models, and it seems to me 

that as brilliant as you are and as brilliant as Cellucci is and as 

brilliant as the government workers are—— 

Mr. COHEN. Sure. 

Mr. ROGERS [continuing]. They are no match for the genius that 

exists in the private sector where profit is involved. 

Mr. COHEN. We agree. That is the genius of America. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. So I wonder if we are taking advantage of that 

enough. 

Mr. COHEN. I will end by saying we have put out, as you well 

know, all of our requirements. This is where in fact people have 

said to me, how dare you put out our shortcomings of TSA, of Coast 

Guard, et cetera? Because I asked for their capability gaps. Then 

we offer them technology solutions from industry, from international, U.S. laboratories, universities, et cetera, and then they 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

610 

choose and then I resource it. But tech solutions, PSITEC, 

firstresponder.gov, SBIR, Congressman, if offline I cannot convince 

you that we are doing the equivalent of In-Q-Tel, then I will help 

you as you desire write whatever legislation you want to give us 

those added enhancements to further, further leverage the model, 

the mobilization board model that you talked about, which was so 

successful in the past. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I look forward to being convinced. I am not 

yet convinced. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. I understand. 

Mr. ROGERS. I need to be convinced. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. But I know you have an open mind. 

Mr. ROGERS. I have an open mind. But we have also got an open 

sore of money problems. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. And we need the most efficient use of our taxpayer 

dollars to get the biggest bang for our buck, to coin a phrase. 

Mr. COHEN. Congressman, I think I have a reputation of doing 

innovation through ‘‘OPM.’’ OPM is other people’s money. And I 

will go anywhere to make the nation safer. 

Mr. ROGERS. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Undersecretary. We appreciate your 

being here today and appreciate your patience as we went through 

the paces on the House floor, which have now resumed. So we must 

adjourn, but your testimony was very useful. We appreciate your 

service. We look forward to collaborating with you as we put the 

appropriations bill together for next year. 

Mr. COHEN. Sure. And, Chairman, thank you and your hardworking staff. We appreciate the support very much, and we will 

spend it wisely. 

Mr. PRICE. The subcommittee is adjourned. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

611 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 884 here 42401A.528
612 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 885 here 42401A.529
613 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 886 here 42401A.530
614 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 887 here 42401A.531
615 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 888 here 42401A.532
616 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 889 here 42401A.533
617 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 890 here 42401A.534
618 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 891 here 42401A.535
619 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 892 here 42401A.536
620 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 893 here 42401A.537
621 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 894 here 42401A.538
622 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 895 here 42401A.539
623 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 896 here 42401A.540
624 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 897 here 42401A.541
625 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 898 here 42401A.542
626 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 899 here 42401A.543
627 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 900 here 42401A.544
628 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 901 here 42401A.545
629 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 902 here 42401A.546
630 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 903 here 42401A.547
631 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 904 here 42401A.548
632 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 905 here 42401A.549
633 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 906 here 42401A.550
634 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 907 here 42401A.551
635 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 908 here 42401A.552
636 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 909 here 42401A.553
637 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 910 here 42401A.554
638 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 911 here 42401A.555
639 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 912 here 42401A.556
640 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 913 here 42401A.557
641 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 914 here 42401A.558
642 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 915 here 42401A.559
643 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 916 here 42401A.560
644 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 917 here 42401A.561
645 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 918 here 42401A.562
646 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 919 here 42401A.563
647 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 920 here 42401A.564
648 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 921 here 42401A.565
649 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 922 here 42401A.566
650 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 923 here 42401A.567
651 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 924 here 42401A.568
652 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 925 here 42401A.569
653 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 926 here 42401A.570
654 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 927 here 42401A.571
655 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 928 here 42401A.572
656 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 929 here 42401A.573
657 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 930 here 42401A.574
658 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 931 here 42401A.575
659 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 932 here 42401A.576
660 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 933 here 42401A.577
661 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 934 here 42401A.578
662 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 935 here 42401A.579
663 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 936 here 42401A.580
664 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 937 here 42401A.581
665 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 938 here 42401A.582
666 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 939 here 42401A.583
667 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 940 here 42401A.584
668 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 941 here 42401A.585
669 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 942 here 42401A.586
670 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 943 here 42401A.587
671 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 944 here 42401A.588
672 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 945 here 42401A.589
673 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 946 here 42401A.590
674 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 947 here 42401A.591
675 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 948 here 42401A.592
676 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 949 here 42401A.593
677 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 950 here 42401A.594
678 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 951 here 42401A.595
679 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 952 here 42401A.596
680 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 953 here 42401A.597
681 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 954 here 42401A.598
682 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 955 here 42401A.599
683 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 956 here 42401A.600
684 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 957 here 42401A.601
685 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 958 here 42401A.602
686 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 959 here 42401A.603
687 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 960 here 42401A.604
688 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 961 here 42401A.605
689 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 962 here 42401A.606
690 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 963 here 42401A.607
691 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 964 here 42401A.608
692 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 965 here 42401A.609
(693) 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 422 here 42401A.241
694 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 423 here 42401A.242
695 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 424 here 42401A.243
696 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 425 here 42401A.244
697 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 426 here 42401A.245
698 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 427 here 42401A.246
699 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 428 here 42401A.247
700 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 429 here 42401A.248
701 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 430 here 42401A.249
702 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 431 here 42401A.250
703 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 432 here 42401A.251
704 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 433 here 42401A.252
705 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 434 here 42401A.253
706 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 435 here 42401A.254
707 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 436 here 42401A.255
708 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 437 here 42401A.256
709 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 438 here 42401A.257
710 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 439 here 42401A.258
711 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 440 here 42401A.259
712 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 441 here 42401A.260
713 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 442 here 42401A.261
714 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 443 here 42401A.262
(715) 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 444 here 42401A.263
716 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 445 here 42401A.264
717 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 446 here 42401A.265
718 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 447 here 42401A.266
719 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 448 here 42401A.267
720 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 449 here 42401A.268
721 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 450 here 42401A.269
722 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 451 here 42401A.270
723 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 452 here 42401A.271
724 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 453 here 42401A.272
725 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 454 here 42401A.273
726 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 455 here 42401A.274
727 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 456 here 42401A.275
728 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 457 here 42401A.276
729 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 458 here 42401A.277
730 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 459 here 42401A.278
731 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 460 here 42401A.279
732 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 461 here 42401A.280
733 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 462 here 42401A.281
734 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 463 here 42401A.282
735 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 464 here 42401A.283
736 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 465 here 42401A.284
737 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 466 here 42401A.285
738 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 468 here 42401A.287
739 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 469 here 42401A.288
740 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 470 here 42401A.289
741 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 471 here 42401A.290
742 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 472 here 42401A.291
743 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 473 here 42401A.292
744 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 474 here 42401A.293
745 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 475 here 42401A.294
746 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 476 here 42401A.295
747 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 477 here 42401A.296
748 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 478 here 42401A.297
749 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 479 here 42401A.298
750 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 480 here 42401A.299
751 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 481 here 42401A.300
752 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 482 here 42401A.301
753 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 483 here 42401A.302
754 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 484 here 42401A.303
755 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 485 here 42401A.304
756 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 486 here 42401A.305
757 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 487 here 42401A.306
758 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 488 here 42401A.307
759 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 489 here 42401A.308
760 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 490 here 42401A.309
761 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 491 here 42401A.310
762 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 492/800 here 42401A.311
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Atran, Scott .............................................................................................................. 557 

Bennett, J.E ............................................................................................................. 319 

Berrick, C.A .............................................................................................................. 319 

Cohen, Jay ................................................................................................................ 557 

Connors, Bill ............................................................................................................ 746 

Darby, Christopher .................................................................................................. 557 

Davis, Rich ............................................................................................................... 557 

Foster, Chad ............................................................................................................. 93 

Hawley, Kip .............................................................................................................. 319 

Kelley, C.M ............................................................................................................... 754 

Larson, Larry ........................................................................................................... 735 

Millar, W.W .............................................................................................................. 730 

Miller, J.E ................................................................................................................. 93

Sageman, Marc ........................................................................................................ 557 

Skinner, R.L ............................................................................................................. 1 

Sterling, P.E ............................................................................................................. 319 

Sullivan, Mark ......................................................................................................... 197 

Walden, N.S ............................................................................................................. 93 

Walden, R.S .............................................................................................................. 93 

Walker, D.M ............................................................................................................. 1 

West, Arvin .............................................................................................................. 93 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(iii) 

I N D E X 

Management Challenges—Inspector General and GAO 

Opening Statement of Chairman Price .................................................................. 1 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Rogers ................................................... 1 

Statement of David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office .............................................................. 3 

Statement of Richard L. Skinner, Inspector General, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 34 

Cooperation from DHS ............................................................................................ 60 

Management Personnel ........................................................................................... 61 

FEMA ........................................................................................................................ 63

Information Sharing Capabilities ........................................................................... 64 

Involving State and Local Governments in Determining Investment Priorities 65 

Fusion Centers ......................................................................................................... 66 

Financial Management ............................................................................................ 66 

Civilian CFO for U.S. Coast Guard ........................................................................ 69 

Ability to Identify and Deport Criminal Aliens .................................................... 69 

DHS Transition to the Next Administration ......................................................... 71 

Human Capital Management ................................................................................. 74 

TSA Passenger Surcharge Proposal ....................................................................... 75 

OIG Budget .............................................................................................................. 75 

Near Term Performance Soars ............................................................................... 77 

First Responders ...................................................................................................... 81 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman Price ..................................... 84 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Sam Farr ....................... 90 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard ... 91 

Land Border Enforcement 

Opening Statement of Chairman Price .................................................................. 93 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Rogers ................................................... 94 

Border Fence ............................................................................................................ 95 

Consultation and Outreach ..................................................................................... 177 

Physical Fence Obstacles ........................................................................................ 182 

Access to Private Land ............................................................................................ 183 

Ports of Entry ........................................................................................................... 185 

Insert from the Honorable John Culberson ........................................................... 187 

U.S. Secret Service 

Opening Statement of Chairman Price .................................................................. 197 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Rogers ................................................... 198 

Statement of Mark Sullivan, Director, U.S. Secret Service ................................. 199 

2008 Presidential Campaign ................................................................................... 214 

DHS Support and Cooperation ............................................................................... 216 

Costs of Protective Days .......................................................................................... 216 

Determining When Candidates Receive Protection .............................................. 217 

2008 Campaign Protective Days ............................................................................. 217 

Secret Service Investigations .................................................................................. 218 

Senator McCain’s Protection Status ....................................................................... 219 

Convention Venues .................................................................................................. 220 

USSS Diversity ........................................................................................................ 220 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
Page

iv 

Cyber Security ......................................................................................................... 223 

Secret Service Retirement Issues ........................................................................... 224 

Secret Service Protective Mission ........................................................................... 225 

Conventions .............................................................................................................. 226 

Vice Presidential Protection After Leaving Office ................................................ 227 

Center for Information Security ............................................................................. 228 

National Cyber Security Center ............................................................................. 230 

Cyber Security ......................................................................................................... 231 

Investigative and Protective Workload Balance ................................................... 235 

Identity Theft and Vulnerabilities of Technology ................................................. 236 

Communication Interoperability ............................................................................ 237 

Closing Remarks ...................................................................................................... 238 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman Price ..................................... 239 

Management ..................................................................................................... 239 

U.S. Secret Service Investigations .................................................................. 261 

Staffing and Training ....................................................................................... 292 

Airspace Security Branch ................................................................................ 298 

White House Mail ............................................................................................. 299 

E Street Closure ............................................................................................... 301 

White House Locks ........................................................................................... 301 

Protection for Embassies, Consulates, and Visiting Heads of State ............ 301 

Asset Forfeiture Fund ...................................................................................... 304 

U.S. Secret Service Discrimination Lawsuit .................................................. 307 

U.S. Secret Service in Inaugural Parade Route Permitting ......................... 308 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Member Rogers ...................... 309 

Communications ............................................................................................... 309 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Nita Lowey ................... 311 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Robert Aderholt ............ 313 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Chet Edwards ............... 314 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable John Culberson ............ 316 

Improving the Efficiency of the Aviation Security System 

Opening Statement of Chairman Price .................................................................. 319 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Rogers ................................................... 321 

Statement of Mr. Kip Hawley, Assistant Secretary, Department of Homeland 

Security, Transportation Security Administration ............................................ 322 

A Day in the Life at TSA ........................................................................................ 322 

Improvements in Transportation Security ............................................................ 323 

Statement of Ms. Cathleen A. Berrick, Director for Homeland Security and 

Justice Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office .................................... 333 

Statement of Mr. James E. Bennett, President and CEO, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority .................................................................................... 385 

Statement of Ms. Peggy E. Sterling, Vice President for Safety and Security, 

American Airlines ................................................................................................ 398 

Airport Passenger Wait Times for Screening ........................................................ 410 

Efficiency at Screening Checkpoints ...................................................................... 414 

Funding for Improved Screening Technology ........................................................ 415 

Development of Optional In-Line Screening Technology at Airports .................. 417 

TSA’s Ability to Adjust Staffing to Accommodate Weather Delays ..................... 417 

Air Cargo Screening ................................................................................................ 420 

Registered Traveler Program .................................................................................. 421 

Implementation of Process to Meet 100 Percent Air Cargo Screening Mandate ........................................................................................................................ 421 

Alternatives Screening for Large Palate Air Cargo Shipments ........................... 423 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
Page

v 

Challenges to Meeting the Air Cargo Screening Mandate ................................... 425 

Certified Shipper Program ...................................................................................... 426 

Responsibility to Fund Air Cargo Screening Program ......................................... 427 

Certified Shipper Program Status .......................................................................... 428 

Airport Employee Screening Program Pilots ......................................................... 429 

100 Percent for Airport Employees ........................................................................ 430 

Identification Badges for Airport Employees ........................................................ 431 

Frequency of Airport Employee Screening ............................................................ 432 

Intelligence Analysis and Information Sharing .................................................... 433 

Model Ports of Entry at Airports ............................................................................ 434 

Working with Partners to Improve Air Travel ...................................................... 435 

Checkpoint of the Future ........................................................................................ 435 

Questions for the Record from Chairman Price .................................................... 437 

Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request ................................................................... 437 

Surcharge .......................................................................................................... 440 

Transportation Security Officers (TSO) Workforce ........................................ 441 

Checkpoint Technologies .................................................................................. 444 

Explosive Detection Systems (EDS) ................................................................ 447 

EDS and Checkpoint Expenditure Plans ........................................................ 449 

Explosive Detection Systems Maintenance .................................................... 449 

Air Cargo Security ............................................................................................ 450 

Blast Resistant Containers .............................................................................. 453 

Airport Employee Screening ............................................................................ 456 

Aviation Regulation and Other Enforcement ................................................. 457 

Federal Flight Deck Officer and Flight Crew Training ................................. 458 

Other Vetting Programs ................................................................................... 458 

Secure Flight ..................................................................................................... 459 

Air Crew Screening .......................................................................................... 462 

School Bus Security Assessments ................................................................... 462 

Transportation Security Support .................................................................... 464 

Attrition of Senior Level Employees at TSA .................................................. 466 

Hiring ................................................................................................................ 467 

Working Capital Fund ..................................................................................... 468 

Reception and Representation ......................................................................... 468 

Contracts ........................................................................................................... 468 

Bonuses ............................................................................................................. 531 

Travel ................................................................................................................ 539 

Unobligated Balances ....................................................................................... 541 

Questions for the Record from Ranking Member Rogers ..................................... 542 

Personnel ........................................................................................................... 542 

EDS Procurement/Checkpoint Recapitalization ............................................. 542 

Certified Shipper Standards ............................................................................ 542 

Passenger Wait Times ...................................................................................... 542 

Screening Partnership Program ...................................................................... 543 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Nita Lowey ................... 547 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard ... 549 

Comprehensive Airport Security ..................................................................... 549 

Air Cargo Security Plan for Inbound Cargo ................................................... 550 

Replacement of Carry-On Baggage Screening Equipment ............................ 550 

Air Cargo Security Exemptions ....................................................................... 551 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Sam Farr ....................... 552 

Intelligence Issues ............................................................................................ 552 

Transportation Networks ................................................................................. 553 

Model Ports of Entry ........................................................................................ 553 

TSA Checkpoints .............................................................................................. 554 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
Page

vi 

Investing in Science and Technology 

Opening Statement of Chairman Price .................................................................. 557 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Rogers ................................................... 558 

Statement of Rich Davis, RTI International ......................................................... 560 

Statement of Marc Sageman, RTI International .................................................. 561 

Statement of Scott Atran, RTI International ........................................................ 563 

Statement of Christopher Darby, CEO, In-Q-Tel .................................................. 565 

Impact of Third Wave on Threat of Radicalization ............................................... 567 

Example of Third Wave Radicalization ................................................................. 567 

Policy Implications of Providing Alternatives to Young People ........................... 568 

Understanding Communities .................................................................................. 568 

Application of Field-Based Work to National Policy ............................................. 569 

Adaptation and Application of New Technologies ................................................. 569 

Statement of Jay Cohen, Undersecretary for Science and Technology ............... 577 

The Four P’s ............................................................................................................. 577 

European Union Partnering ................................................................................... 578 

Field Research on Radicalization ........................................................................... 598 

Human-Factors Initiatives ...................................................................................... 598 

Basic Research Tied to Policy ................................................................................. 599 

Relationships Similar to CIA and In-Q-Tel ........................................................... 600 

Venture Capitalist Entrepreneur ........................................................................... 601 

Results ...................................................................................................................... 601 

Cell All ...................................................................................................................... 601 

The Dazzler .............................................................................................................. 602 

Centers of Excellence ............................................................................................... 602 

Funding for Naval Post Graduate School .............................................................. 603 

IED Detection Products ........................................................................................... 604 

Cyber Security ......................................................................................................... 606 

National Cyber Security Initiative ......................................................................... 607 

Transition Directorate ............................................................................................. 608 

Use of Companies Like In-Q-Tel ............................................................................ 608 

Think-Tank Models ................................................................................................. 609 

Questions for the Record from Chairman Price .................................................... 611 

BioWatch ........................................................................................................... 611 

Regional Bio Containment Laboratories (RBL) ............................................. 612 

Chemical Programs .......................................................................................... 613 

Counter MANPADS .......................................................................................... 614 

Explosives .......................................................................................................... 618 

Manhattan II .................................................................................................... 620 

Air Cargo ........................................................................................................... 621 

FFRDC ............................................................................................................... 623 

National Bio Agro-Defense Facility ................................................................. 624 

Authorities Necessary to Build and Operate NBAF in the Continental 

United States ................................................................................................ 626 

Sale of Plum Island .......................................................................................... 627 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory .......................................................... 628 

Transportation Security Laboratory ............................................................... 628 

Unobligated Balances ....................................................................................... 631 

FY 2007 ............................................................................................................. 633 

Infrastructure and Geophysical ....................................................................... 634 

Reception and Representation ......................................................................... 637 

Staffing .............................................................................................................. 637 

Contracting ....................................................................................................... 653 

Broad Agency Announcements ........................................................................ 678 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
Page

vii 

Questions for the Record from Chairman Price—Continued 

University Centers of Excellence .................................................................... 679 

Fellowships ........................................................................................................ 681 

Test and Evaluations ....................................................................................... 682 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard ... 684 

Centers of Excellence ....................................................................................... 684 

Dissemination of ST Directorate Research Results ....................................... 685 

Audible Tsunami Warning Systems ................................................................ 686 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Sam Farr ....................... 687 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Kay Granger ................. 692 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman Price to the Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Center 

Questions for the Record from Chairman Price .................................................... 693 

Workload ........................................................................................................... 693 

Technology Initiatives ...................................................................................... 695 

Construction ...................................................................................................... 696 

Management ..................................................................................................... 696 

Contracts ........................................................................................................... 702 

Outside Witness Testimony 

Outside Witness Testimony .................................................................................... 715 

American Association of Exporters and Importers ........................................ 716 

American Public Transportation Association ................................................. 730 

Association of State Floodplain Managers ..................................................... 735 

National Association of Manufacturers .......................................................... 738 

National Business Travel Association ............................................................ 746 

National Congress of American Indians ......................................................... 747 

National Treasury Employees Union .............................................................. 754 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING