| Home | Information Sharing & Analysis | Prevention & Protection | Preparedness & Response | Research | Commerce & Trade | Travel Security | Immigration |
The threat level in the airline sector is High or Orange. Read more.
Release Date: November 5, 2008
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact 202-282-8010
Washington, D.C.
Secretary Chertoff: Good morning, everyone. I would like, obviously, to take note of the day. I would like to extend my congratulations to the President-elect for a very well run, masterfully run campaign. I would also like to extend my commendation to Senator McCain who ran a spirited campaign and whose entire career of public service remains an inspiration to everybody in this country. You might ask why we are doing the grant announcements today, the day after the election. It is because Congress has actually set November 5th as the deadline for the 2009 grant announcements and we’re complying with the mandate of Congress.
I am delighted to observe that this year we are announcing grants at the earliest time in the cycle that we ever have. By way of example, in the fiscal year 2008 we announced in February of this year. And, here, of course, we are getting the jump on a February announcement by several months. Again, part of this is credit due to Congress. Congress passed an appropriation in a timely fashion and that allowed us to go about doing the work we needed to do to get the grant process underway. It’s also a tribute to the experience that we have had over the past several years in risk-based analysis of where the grants ought to be going and putting together the guidance in a way that allows us to put it out for consideration at the earliest possible time.
This was one of the major requests made by our state and local stakeholders. They wanted us to give them the maximum amount of time to look over this grant guidance so they could get a timely application in. Let me give you some numbers. This year we are talking about grants for 14 federal programs totaling approximately $3 billion. That is similar to last year’s amount and it represents a total of more than $27 billion in homeland security funding provided to our state and local partners since 2002.
Among these 14 programs are the 2 largest: the Homeland Security Grant Program at $1.7 billion and the infrastructure security programs relating to transit ports and certain other infrastructure items that totals $845.2 million. Our funding priorities this year are the same as they were last year: preparedness, response, infrastructure protection. More specifically, we are focusing on planning, training, and exercising for our homeland security all-hazards protection. We are focused on IED deterrence, prevention, and protection. We are focused on fusion centers and information sharing, medical readiness, and radiological and nuclear detection.
The billions of dollars of grants that we have issued over the past few years have produced real results. Let me give you a couple of examples. In fiscal year 2007 the New York City, Jersey, Connecticut region used approximately $18.6 million in transit security grants to fund visible, unpredictable deterrence teams. These included canine teams, mobile screening and patrol teams, and 700 officers who went out into the stations and into the areas where people were congregating to get on mass transit and actually provided a visible deterrent security presence – using the funds that were transmitted through the program.
Fiscal year 2008. Los Angles and Long Beach committed about half of their UASI grant to support the Los Angeles regional interoperable communications system. This multi-year, $700 million project will ultimately provide modern integrated wireless voice and data communications to more than 34,000 regional first responders to use during an emergency. That’s a real success for regionalization and for also making sure the responders have the tools they need to do the job.
There are a couple of changes that we have put into play for our 2009 grants that were not part of the 2008 process. First, for the first time this year we are actually announcing targeted allocations under our state homeland security grant and UASI programs. We did this last year in some of the infrastructure programs. It is helpful for planning purposes to the state and local officials to understand what we are targeting for them. I should point out, though, that it’s not a guarantee. The number may move up or down slightly depending on the specific investment justification. At least now, however, we will have the guidance in the hands of the planners that allow them to understand the magnitude of what is available to them so they can tailor their actual applications with a sense of what the dimension is of their available resources. The final allocations will be made, however, based on the jurisdictions’ proposed effectiveness to address the risk.
Some other welcome changes. We’re removing some of the restrictions under personnel costs that used to be imposed under the Homeland Security Grant Program, including the three year funding limit for intelligence analysts. We are easing restrictions on emergency operation center construction funding and cash or in-kind matching requirements for transit port security grants. But, the basics remain the same. We’re continuing to use the same formula and risk management methodology that looks at things like population, critical infrastructure, and other salient items in managing and addressing risk.
We’re continuing to keep a streamlined and transparent application process. We are continuing to allow the top 100 urban areas to have 2 opportunities to review and submit data before the UASI list is finalized, just as we did last year. And our peer review process remains the same. So we have made a few changes, but what we’ve really done is provided stability and continuity, which is probably the number 1 request I have heard from state and local officials during the 4 years I have been involved in dealing with the grant process.
So let me lay out what some of what the targeted allocations are. Let me emphasize, again: targeted means not guaranteed. It means this is the range of expected money subject to moving up or down depending on what the effectiveness justification is and what money is available after everybody else has been given their share. Our state homeland security grant program – the direct program to the states -- is $861.3 million. And our targeted totals this year are very similar to what they were last year. New York, however, has gotten a major increase -- almost 50 percent increase -- going up from $76.5 million distributed in 2008 to a target of $113.2 million this year. California, Texas, Illinois, and Florida remain roughly the same – slightly less -- about five percent less.
This is one change that reflects a Congressional mandate. Congress, this year, directed that we consider population density as well as population in the state formula. The consequence of this, because of New York City, is that it dramatically raised New York’s share of the totals and slightly reduced the totals of the other major states. But, again, not a major variation.
With respect to the Urban Areas Security Initiative here we had almost $800 million, an increase of $17 million over last year. And our tier one cities, the highest risk cities, have allocated among them $439.2 million an increase of almost $10 million from last year. Here, again, the numbers remain similar to last year. In some cases virtually identical. And, again, we are comparing targets to actual distributions in 2008. So, the actual distribution this year may be somewhat higher or lower than the target I am going to be giving you.
Chicago will be receiving $52.3 million. That’s about $7 million up from what it got last year. The target for Houston is a couple of million dollars up from the previous year’s $9.6 million. Los Angeles, Long Beach, national capitol region, Jersey City, Newark have roughly the same amount as they had last year. Los Angeles/Long Beach is down about 3 percent -- $2 million and the national capitol region down about $1.8 million. New York has gone from $144 to $145 million, which is essentially the same and San Francisco has gone up $3 million to $40.6 million this year. Again, small differences that reflect the fact that we are talking about targets and we are comparing targets to last year’s actual distribution. So the targets may move up or down, but the basic flow remains the same.
On our two key infrastructure security programs transit security grants. This year we are distributing over $388 million, equal to last year’s funding. The amounts are identical in this year’s target to last year’s target. Again, let me remind you, ultimately, some of the communities last year got more than their target because there was some money left over from some of the communities that hadn’t justified investments. So we’re comparing target to target, not target to actual. The target figure remains exactly the same. Likewise with our port security grant program at $388.6 million, again, the same as last year. The target amounts are going to be the same as last year’s targets, but there may be some variation when we actually look at the investment justifications and the real distribution of the money.
The bottom line is this: we have stabilized the program. The continuity from last year to this year is virtually identical except for those changes mandated by some Congressional tweaking of the formula. We have gotten the guidance out much earlier than ever before. We are going to continue to have an iterative process with our communities so we can make sure that they have the benefit of submitting applications -- we can get back to them and give them some advice about how they might fine tune it. And this maximizes their ability to get the best bang for the buck that the federal government is distributing.
Let me finally identify some important dates. December 19th of this year will be the deadline for filing emergency management performance grant applications. January 13 of next year will be the deadline for infrastructure security program applications to be filed. And then the homeland security program will have a March 20 deadline for applications. And they of course will be subjected to peer review. And the final awards, which may differ somewhat or slightly from the targeted allocations, will be announced during the course of fiscal year 2009.
Again I want to thank Congress for acting promptly on our appropriation, which allowed us to do this quickly. I want to thank the people at FEMA and throughout the department who have brought their risk management expertise to the process. I want to thank our stakeholders who have done a good job of giving us feedback. I want to thank Ross Ashley for running the grant program this year and all the subject matter experts that we relied upon. And with that, I will be happy to take questions.
Question: Mr. Secretary, you have worked on this for several years and have a sense, at this point, of the kind of need there is at the state and local level to prepare. The budget situation is bound to get tougher in the years ahead, not just at the federal level but, more particularly, at the state and local level. Looking forward, though I know you will no longer be in this position, what are your concerns about what is going to happen in terms of funding for homeland security and preparedness?
Secretary Chertoff: Well I do think we have to be realistic about the fact that everybody is going to be facing budget pressures. Part of what that’s going to mean is state and local governments are going to feel more pressure to fill needs and that means that various operational activities in the states are going to be competing for money. And that’s going to probably put more pressure on the federal government to, at least, maintain the same level of grant funding that we have done up until now.
I think we have to step back and draw a larger lesson from the circumstance in which we find ourselves. One of the lessons of the financial crisis we are undertaking is, it’s better to invest early to draw down risk than gamble that the risk is not going to come to pass and then face a cataclysmic problem if, in fact, the worse does indeed occur. To me, this is an investment program in our security and in buying down risk. By buying down risk, what we are attempting to ensure against is the possibility of the kind of cataclysmic problem that would have a ripple effect not only in terms of loss of lives, but also in terms of economic damage.
So recognizing reality that there is going to be some sort of adjustment over the next few years, I would bear in mind that we have to deal with all of our risks going forward. The fact that we are now dealing with a financial crisis should not lead us to deciding that we don’t have to pay attention to our security risks which, as we know have, as I say, have first and foremost human life impact, but also a very significant economic effect as well.
Question: In the pressure of the times, though, are you afraid that is a message that isn’t going to play -- isn’t going to resonate?
Secretary Chertoff: You know, in talking to people all over the country in the last four years I have found that one of the things that people really care about is the safety and well-being of their families. And I don’t think that changes even when other considerations come into play. Even when we worry about our jobs or economic needs, I still think we think we put the lives, health, and safety of our families first. And as long as that’s true, and I believe it will remain true as long as human beings walk on this earth, I am confident there will be a recognition of the need to continue to support the security of our country in a way that all of us deserve.
Question: Can you talk a little bit about the changes with regard to the personnel expenses? I understand that that was not necessarily a DHS decision, but that was a decision that was brought about by congressional legislation.
Secretary Chertoff: Some of it was -- Congress did certainly mandate, through its legislation, more flexibility with respect to personnel. I think in the instances in which we are allowing personnel expenses it actually makes sense. One of the reasons it makes sense is precisely because we recognize that in this economic environment state and local governments are feeling pressure and we want to make sure that a short-sided sacrifice in capability is not made in what is maybe a little bit more of an economically difficult period of time.
Question: Just a follow-up on that. Was that for all components of the Homeland Security Grant Program? UASI, state homeland security grant program and then I guess there are two other components, or was it just for the two?
Secretary Chertoff:It’s basically these two programs.
Question: Will it ease up for overtime or hiring additional personnel, then?
Secretary Chertoff: It is for overtime and hiring additional personnel. Yeah.
Question: Another question, separate topic. On the issue of transition, now that the election is over, how is the department preparing? What will your role be in overseeing this, and will you stay in place until a new secretary is appointed?
Secretary Chertoff: Well, we have been preparing for transition for some time, as you know. We work with the partnership for excellence in public service. We had our own Homeland Security Advisory Council weigh in on this. We have prepared, first of all, in terms of our internal processes, succession plans that make sure there are people -- career people -- who are experienced who are in place in the number two or number three positions in all of our offices. We have made sure the management directives and all the internal processes have been collected. We are in the process of planning for the kinds of emergencies that might most likely beset the new administration after January 20th. In which it involves taking our current plans and refining them and taking them from what would be 1.0 to 2.0, I guess is the way to put it.
We put together briefing books, which are in the process of being finalized over the next few days. We have actually conducted training for our own personnel over the past year on broad requirements of the department so that they are capable of helping manage the department even while the new appointees are coming into place. And its my hope – cause we’ve got this in our plans -- that the new folks coming into the leadership positions will sit with us either late this year or early next year to go through some kind of tabletop instructional course on incident management so that if something were to happen in the month or two after the new President gets on board, they would be as prepared as the reasonably can be, based on training.
So I think we have a good plan in place. We have space available when the transition team comes and I expect, very shortly, we will begin the process of meeting with people. I’m sure I will have a couple of meetings including -- I anticipate one with my successor who, I hope whoever he or she is, will be named in the near future so we can get started talking about some of the experiences that I have had and the issues that I have seen. I’m – God willing --committed to stay until January 20, of next year.
Question: And then what?
Secretary Chertoff: Interesting question. We’ll find out. My wife asked me that.
Question: What about briefings? Are any briefings planned already?
Secretary Chertoff: Yeah, we’re anticipating what is going to happen, based on past experience, is that there will be teams coming in and they will get briefings on the subjects that they want. They will also get a book that gives them some kind of a survey of what is going on in the department. And then as the appointees get selected, there will be more in-depth briefings based upon what component they are assigned to and things of that sort. I don’t think, as of now, we have a schedule of when the first people are going to arrive, but I would anticipate we are going to see some people really in a matter of days.
Moderator: Two more questions.
Question: In terms of the threat environment there has been a lot of analysis in the past, in times of transition and periods after elections, and before elections, that there could be some increase in a terrorist attack. There has been a lot of speculation about messages coming from Osama Bin Laden. Do you have any insight as to why he has not been heard from and what the current threat environment is?
Secretary Chertoff: Well, I can tell you that there was a lot of speculation that there was going to be an attack before the election and it didn’t happen. Fortunately, we tend to drive our decision-making not on speculation, but based on intelligence, experience, and the judgment of people who are professionals in this area. What I have said before, which I continue to believe for the period of transition, is this: anytime there is a transition there is a danger or risk that vulnerability will increase because people become distracted. People are leaving, people are coming in, and that’s a disruptive process for any organization.
For that reason we need to take special pains to make sure that we are very focused on the security of this country from now, in fact, from a month ago – or two months ago -- through the first half let’s say of 2009. And so we’ve actually kind of looked at this as a period of heightened alert where we have put into effect some additional measures to just make sure we’re really scrubbing all the intelligence. We are looking very carefully at anything that might be a vulnerability. Recognizing that we can’t – you know there’s no guarantee. We can’t guarantee against bad things happening, but again, this is about making sure that we are extra-focused during a period of change, which is naturally one in which sometimes there is an element of distraction.
I want to be very clear about this. This is not a statement that there is some imminent threat out there that we are aware of. It is a recognition of the human reality that in a changing environment you have to extra-careful to make sure you don’t lose focus on something like homeland security. So that is what we are committed to doing during this period.
Moderator: Last question.
Question: Is there any specific threat at this point in time?
Secretary Chertoff: If there were, I would be announcing it. We don’t have an imminent -- we do not have credible evidence of a specific near-term or imminent threat. If that changes we will proceed accordingly.
Moderator: Thank you very much.
Secretary Chertoff: Thanks a lot everybody.
###
This page was last reviewed/modified on November 5, 2008.