Hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee - The Department of Homeland Security's FY 2009 Budget

Statement

SEN. INOUYE: Mr. Secretary, welcome, sir.

Chairman Byrd plans to be back here in the Senate on Thursday, and he has asked me to chair this hearing today.

This week, as you may know Mr. Secretary, marks the fifth anniversary of the establishment of your department. Since the department was created Senator Byrd and other members of this committee have pressed the president and the Congress to provide the department with resources it needs to fulfill its critical mission.

Mr. Secretary, I thank you for appearing before the subcommittee today. You manage a department that employs more than 195,000 dedicated men and women. These workers serve on the front lines, securing our ports, our waterways, securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws, protecting over 700 million airline passengers using our airports each year, and responding to disasters.

And in behalf of the committee I wish to commend them for their dedication and their service to preserving our freedoms and securing our homeland.

While we have had many issues with the administration over its commitment to providing the resources necessary to get the job done, I hope you will work with the committee to find a way to properly fund the department's efforts to achieve this primary mission.

Last month, as you are well aware, the director of national intelligence released the annual threat assessment. The director confirmed that al Qaeda has regrouped in Pakistan, and that terrorists continue to pose significant threats to the United States. According to this assessment terrorists are likely to continue to focus on prominent infrastructure targets with a goal of producing mass casualties and significant economic aftershocks.

In addition the department continues to believe that the aviation sector is at a high risk of attack.

Based on this assessment, I believe I speak for the committee in saying that we are disappointed that the president proposed a flat budget for your department. The president seeks discretionary funding of 37.6 billion (dollars), the same as FY 2008.

I'm also disappointed that funding approved by the Congress nine months ago for hiring air cargo inspectors, deploying more canine teams, and purchasing explosive detection systems remains unspent, sitting in the Treasury.

In your testimony, Mr. Secretary, you assert that the president proposes an increase of 7 percent in FY 2009. However in this calculation you exclude the $2.7 billion in emergency funding for border security that the Senate passed by a vote of 76 to 17, and the president signed into law.

Most of this funding was not one time funding. Your own budget for 2009 assumes that most of the emergency funding was not one time funding. Securing our borders is a requirement that is not going away.

Mr. Secretary, in light of the administration's latest threat assessment, a flat budget simply is not satisfactory. Senator Byrd relayed to me that he is particularly troubled by the president's proposal to cut first responder grants by $2 billion or 48 percent.

Hurricane Katrina proved that our communities are not prepared to respond to a major disaster. Dramatically cutting funds for police, fire and emergency medical personnel and for emergency planning is not a solution.

It is equally troubling that the department has not requested sufficient resources to fully implement the 9/11 act requirements such as the expansion of a service transportation security program and increased screening of air cargo.

Further, port security grant program is cut by $198 million, and there are no funds requested to develop interagency operation command centers for the maritime domain as mandated under the Safe Port Act.

When the Senate appropriations committee, under Chairman Byrd's leadership, marks up the homeland bill, I'm certain we will restore the ill-considered cuts in first responder funding while providing a robust budget for border security; for the Coast Guard; for aviation security; and for other efforts to respond to an evolving threat.

The president has already stated that he will veto any appropriations bill that exceeds his request. When we send such a bill to the president, I urge you to put the security of the American people above the president's agenda.

And without objection I will insert the full statement of Chairman Byrd in the record.

And now I wish to turn to my good friend and able colleague, Senator Thad Cochran. Following any remarks that Senator Cochran may have, we look forward to your testimony.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. INOUYE: Thank you very much, Secretary Chertoff, for your excellent statement.

You spoke much on the P28 virtual fence project. I'm asking this question in behalf of Senator Byrd. Based on your experience with the P28 pilot program, do you have any estimate as to how long it will take to test and deploy this improved version of the new system?

SEC. CHERTOFF: I think our expectation is that we will begin the next phase of deployment, which involves both retooling and improving what we are currently doing in this 28 miles, and then moving to the next part of Tucson sector that we're going to deploy in. We're going to begin that process this year, 2008, and that phase ought to be done in 2009.

I think we will begin Yuma sector probably in 2009, and I would expect that to be finished in about a year. And then I would expect the next phase, which is our -- what we have in our current plan, to begin maybe -- to be deployed maybe in 2010.

Here I have to be a little more hesitant because we continue to reserve the right to modify the plan. If it turns out that the value- add counsels for doing a little bit less, we may wind up doing a little bit less. We may wind up substituting more in terms of some of the other tools.

But I would say that we should be underway in all the places we currently envision by 2010. That's my estimate.

SEN. INOUYE: Thank you very much, sir. I will be submitting in behalf of Senator Byrd several questions that he would want you to respond to, and we'll place it in the record.

The administration has proposed a fee increase to fund the so- called explosive detector system. Now, I'm certain you're well aware that Congress has rejected similar proposals in the past. Doesn't your department have unobligated funds that can carry this project out?

SEC. CHERTOFF: Well, Senator, we are -- I am aware, having lived through this with a couple of earlier budget cycles that using fees to plug our operating budget needs has been frowned upon by Congress, and we have abandoned that kind of approach. This is a very specific and narrow request with respect to fees. It is for a particular capital investment that would allow us to begin the process of moving, A, to a better level of technology at the airport. We should be more efficient and more, frankly, customer-friendly. And B, to begin the process of replacing equipment that is really now becoming obsolete.

I think in talking about it, particularly with the airports, there was a fair amount of sentiment supporting this. And it's simply a way to accelerate the process of getting this equipment in. If we were not to have a fee dedicated to this particular function -- and the idea is that it would be dedicated specifically to this function -- we would have to fund the retooling process through the ordinary budget process. That is going to wind up, frankly, making it a longer process.

I think it's part of a larger set of challenges that we have when we deal with very substantial investments in high technology, and it raises the question of whether our whole method for financing this kind of approach ought to be looked at carefully -- whether the federal government ought to buy equipment that becomes obsolete in a number of years, as opposed to leasing it or contracting for a service in which the service provider has to provide the equipment. I think that is a subject that we might profitably spend some time talking about.

But the bottom line is this is meant to be a dedicated fee for a particular purpose that will actually benefit the airports by making their processes more efficient and ultimately, therefore, should be in their interest.

SEN. INOUYE: Several airports have funded the installation of the system on the assumption that they would receive funding through a letter of intent arrangement. Would these airports be eligible to receive accelerated funding that you are proposing?

SEC. CHERTOFF: It's hard, Senator, for me to answer that question without knowing what -- specifically what the facts and circumstances of the airports' position would be. I don't know that we're envisioning this as a retroactive repayment.

There was a letter of intent program that, if I'm not mistaken, has expired. Whether -- what would be covered by funding under this fee or not, I'm not sure I can answer you right now without having some specific knowledge of exactly what an airport's application would be.

We'd certainly look at the applications, if Congress approves this fee. And the idea is that we would begin a forward-moving replacement and enhancement program.

SEN. INOUYE: Mr. Secretary, I understand the Coast Guard's active duty personnel is roughly the size of the New York City police department and has not had a significant increase in 50 years. Do you think this is an appropriately sized workforce to adequately enforce maritime security and safety along 95,000 miles of coastline and 3.36 million miles of U.S.-exclusive economic zone, not to mention the force protection in Operation Iraqi Freedom?

SEC. CHERTOFF: Well, let me say, Senator, first, I don't know how big the New York City police force is. No question that the Coast Guard's mission has expanded in the wake of 9/11. The issue of force protection remains really a much more urgent requirement now than it was prior to 9/11. We do have some forces deployed over in Iraq, and I was privileged to visit them last year.

What we're trying to do, obviously, again, to manage the budget, is to equip the existing Coast Guard with the best possible tools to leverage their mission. That's why we do have money in this budget for continuing with the national security cutters and for other essential retooling elements that the commandant advises me is important in order to make sure that the men and women of the Coast Guard have the best possible tools.

Again, difficult trade-offs. You can always benefit from having additional personnel. We also need additional personnel at the border. We have other missions, and with in a budget that has expanded but is nevertheless finite, I think we've struck a good balance in terms of these various missions.

SEN. INOUYE: Do you believe that the funds are sufficient?

SEC. CHERTOFF: Having consulted with the commandant, I do believe they're sufficient.

SEN. INOUYE: I thank you, Mr. Secretary. I have a whole bundle of questions that I'd like to submit for your consideration.

And now may I recognize Senator Cochran.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. INOUYE: Will the senator yield?

SEN. STEVENS: Yes.

SEN. INOUYE: I just wanted the record to show I support you.

SEN. STEVENS: Thank you.

I support Hawaii's coverage on this and we did it on committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. INOUYE: Thank you very much.

Mr. Secretary, in order to clarify an exchange that we had, for the record, on the Passenger Vessel Services Act, PVSA, I do not support withdrawing or repealing or canceling out the rule. But I am in favor of modifying the rule so that it applies to the Hawaii cruise ship vessel program.

SEC. CHERTOFF: I think -- I appreciate that. I think I was aware from prior conversations that that's -- was your position. And I'm well aware of the issue. It is -- the points made have been taken on board. I can't say more than that. I will press the bureaucracy to issue forthwith its final resolution of this as quickly as possible.

SEN. INOUYE: I thank you very much. (Off mike.)

Mr. Secretary, on behalf of the Committee, I thank you very much for your presence and for your testimony and your responses. And we look forward to receiving your responses to the questions that we will be submitting.

SEC. CHERTOFF: Thank you. I just have one little minor clarification. When I gave you the up-tick before on FTEs for the Coast Guard, I think that that was from the base funding. If you add the emergency funding from '08, the up-tick is 372 FTEs. So I just wanted to make sure I clarified that.

And we'll respond to the written questions as quickly as possible.

SEN. INOUYE: Thank you very much.

This hearing is adjourned. (Strikes gavel.)

Source