Leadership Journal

Responding to the Oklahoma and Missouri Tornadoes

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Tue, 13 May 2008 22:09:00 +0000

Today, Secretary Chertoff and I traveled to Picher, Okla. and Seneca, Mo. to asses the damage caused by the recent storms. I was struck by the severity of damage to the area. We would like to offer our condolences to those who lost loved ones.

In the aftermath of the storms FEMA was on the ground within hours and are on site to support local emergency managers and officials. We will continue to support the authorities on the ground.

The residents of Picher and Seneca have strong leadership from their local and state leaders. These leaders have spoken to the President as well as met with myself and Secretary Chertoff. They will receive support as requested to recover.

Bad weather continues to move through the Midwest, and I urge all residents in area to listen to the local authorities and head all warnings. Thankfully, most of the residents in the area were able to seek shelter and escape injury from the tornadoes.

From what we saw today the resiliency and spirit of the people remains strong. The residents of these two towns are committed to rebuilding and getting life back to normal. FEMA will continue to be there to support the local and state officials as needed as they continue the recovery effort.

David Paulison
FEMA Administrator

A Vicious Circle

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Mon, 12 May 2008 14:12:00 +0000

When homeland security officials point out that we are still threatened by al-Qaeda, we are sometimes accused of fear-mongering. But when it comes to creating a bogeyman to scare the public, it’s our critics who are in a league by themselves.

The Washington Post recently recycled a travel association claim that overseas travel to the U.S. has declined since 2000 because people are treated badly at the border (“Fear Is A Tax, And We’re Eagerly Paying It,” Josef Joffe). I say recycled because this is at least the tenth time in the past year that much the same claim has been repeated, always accompanied by references to the same flawed poll. While saying they just want to encourage tourism, Joffe and the industry that commissioned the biased poll are in fact discouraging it by perpetuating fear of a border “security apparat,” whose face is “distorted by fear and suspicion.”

There are two problems with the claim that travel to the U.S. has declined because of harsh security at the border. First, the poll Joffe cites as evidence that border security is too harsh doesn’t actually show that at all. Half the respondents had not come to the U.S. in the last five years. So when they were asked whether they feared rude treatment in U.S. Customs, they weren’t relying on recent experience. The only data they had to go on was the news media. Peddling this uninformed judgment as proof that travelers are treated badly simply generates more stories claiming rude treatment in the U.S. It’s a nearly perfect example of a vicious circle.

The second problem with Joffe’s argument is that there has not been a reduction in travel to the United States. It is true that, after 9/11, there was a decline in global tourism (not just travel to the United States). However, international arrivals to the U.S. have risen for four consecutive years, and they have returned to pre-9/11 levels.

Some argue that those figures reflect a disproportionate increase in Canadian and Mexican visitors, while visitors from overseas (mostly Europe) are still below 2000 levels. Maybe so, but that in itself raises doubts about the claim that our border practices are deterring travel. The U.S. doesn’t have one line at the airport full of friendly inspectors for Canadians and a different line for Europeans.

So why has travel from Europe been slower to recover? Here’s one answer: During the last five years, transatlantic plane fares have steadily increased while intra-European fares have dropped, making it cheaper to fly from Britain to Southern Spain or Italy than to Florida. That’s a much more straightforward explanation for the slow recovery of transatlantic travel.

Want proof? How’s this--overseas travel to Canada dropped even further after 2001 than travel to the U.S. And travel to Canada has not been as quick to rebound. But no one thinks Canada’s border has gotten more unfriendly recently. Only transatlantic fares explain why European travel to both the U.S. and Canada have been slow to reach 2001 levels.

We at DHS want to attract more international travelers. We will continue to do whatever it takes to improve the quality of our welcome. But we won’t stay silent when aspersions are cast on the quality of our workforce.

Stewart Baker
Assistant Secretary for Policy

ICE and INTERPOL Cooperation Nabs Child Predator

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:52:00 +0000

One of the most important lessons for law enforcement in the 21st century is that cooperation in investigations is absolutely essential. As criminals and terrorists become more mobile, more sophisticated and more technologically savvy, it’s critical that law enforcement agencies across the board work together to get the job done.

That spirit of cooperation was on display in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) most recent success yesterday when we arrested a suspect in an international child predator investigation in New Jersey. The arrest stemmed from an alert circulated earlier this week by INTERPOL, the international law enforcement organization that works closely with ICE agents in fighting transnational criminal activity.

It was a tough case: The suspect’s name, nationality and location were a mystery. But his face was known from a series of photographs depicting the sexual abuse of three boys between the ages of six and 10 years old. The pictures, believed to have been taken in Southeast Asia, were originally discovered by police in Norway two years ago. Since then, the photographs have been circulated widely to law enforcement agencies around the world.

INTERPOL, working with ICE investigators, distributed a new alert on the suspect on May 6. Traffic to the INTERPOL Web site exploded, with more than a quarter million hits, as the public and law enforcement officials joined in to help offer information that might identify the suspect. Thanks to these Internet tips, by the morning of May 8, ICE agents arrested 59-year-old Wayne Nelson Corliss of Union City, N.J., who at this time is believed to be the man in the photographs.

This alleged predator is now in custody and will face charges for the exploitation of vulnerable children. It could not have happened without the coordination and cooperation of law enforcement investigators working around the world to keep children safe.

Julie L. Myers

Assistant Secretary

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

An Op-ed the New York Times Editorial Page Refused to Run

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:09:00 +0000

When it comes to illegal immigration, the American people are tired of thirty years of lip service. They want our laws enforced. As Secretary of Homeland Security, I have directed my department to pursue that mandate, using all the tools permitted by law.

This involves a three-fold approach.

First, we stem the flow at the border by increasing the likelihood that illegal entrants – and smugglers of all types – will be detected, apprehended, and removed.

Second, we drive businesses to comply with laws against employing illegal workers.

Third, when we encounter those who are here illegally, we remove them.

Granted, we need a long-term solution involving a temporary worker program, legal immigration reform, and a fair policy to deal with illegal immigrants long-rooted here.

But the American people have demanded that we first demonstrate an effective commitment to enforce current laws. And even those who are sympathetic to the painful circumstances of illegal immigration question any change that might trigger new waves of entrants seeking to benefit from still-future waves of “reform.”

Our policies respond to this demand and to Congress. They may be tough, yet they are fair, and they are succeeding.

That success has now bred a firestorm of opposition. Opponents are driven by factors ranging from an ideological commitment to open borders to reliance on illegal workforces. Apparently, their strategy is to challenge every enforcement action with exaggerated or misleading cries of outrage. These challenges add up to a position that would forbid any effective enforcement.

The New York Times editorial page is a case in point.

Regarding interior enforcement, a March 27, 2008 editorial (“A Foolish Immigration Purge”) attacked our proposal that businesses receiving letters about workers whose names don’t match Social Security numbers clear up the discrepancy within three months. Under this proposal, if a mismatch is caused by an innocent clerical mistake, the mistake is simply corrected. But if it’s caused by an illegal worker carrying a forged identity, the employer must act. Ignoring this distinction, the Times falsely implied that businesses would have to fire workers even for innocent errors.

A December 18, 2006 editorial (“Swift Raids”) protested earlier efforts at workplace enforcement. It was followed by an October 4, 2007 editorial (“Stop the Raids”) which depicted our enforcement efforts on Long Island and elsewhere as trampling on localities. But an April 16, 2008 editorial (“New Jersey’s Immigration Crackdown”) castigated Garden State localities for their enforcement efforts.

Concerning border security, an April 3, 2008 editorial (“Michael Chertoff’s Insult”) condemned our exercise of legal authority to waive certain environmental regulations that would have stopped us from fulfilling the explicit mandate of Congress to put fencing, roads, and lighting in place this year in order to stem drug and human smuggling.

The editorial failed to mention that we had previously conducted multiple environmental reviews or that the Interior Department has complained that some border areas are so endangered by smugglers that visitors and employees are turned away.

Taken together, these examples suggest that in some quarters, no enforcement technique is acceptable. Of course, if none is acceptable, enforcing immigration law becomes impossible.

Perhaps that’s what some critics really want. In a March 4, 2008 editorial (“Border Insecurity”), this newspaper takes aim at the very propriety of defending our sovereignty and our laws:

“From San Diego on the Pacific to Brownsville on the Rio Grande, a steel curtain is descending across the continent. Behind it lies a nation….that has decided to wall itself off….”

In this rewrite of lines from Winston Churchill’s Iron Curtain address, the editorialists outrageously compare America’s attempts to secure its own borders against smugglers with Josef Stalin’s subjugation of Eastern Europe.

In the end, the debate is not about enforcement tactics. It’s about enforcing the rule of law. Do our critics want a country where employers create economic incentives for people to come here illegally? Do they desire an America with open borders and uncontrolled illegal migration? Should federal officials tacitly allow this to happen by rejecting every meaningful effort to enforce the law?

In the end, two truths stand out. We need to continue to discuss reforms to our immigration laws. But we must continue to uphold our current laws by enforcing them.

Michael Chertoff

Exit Strategy

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:05:00 +0000

Among its many recommendations to improve the security of our nation, the 9/11 Commission also recommended the Department “complete, as quickly as possible, a biometric entry-exit screening system” to record the entry and exit of visitors at our ports of entry, identify potentially dangerous people, and process lawful travelers more efficiently. In the Commission’s words, our ports of entry are “a chance to establish that people are who they say they are and are seeking access for their stated purpose, to intercept identifiable suspects, and to take effective action.”

Congress also mandated an entry-exit system, though it may surprise you to learn they did so more than a decade ago – in 1996. Initial efforts to get this system up and running encountered strong resistance from border communities, which effectively killed the plan. As a result, years later our immigration authorities lacked a valuable tool that might have prevented some of the 9/11 hijackers from entering our country.

The good news is the entry portion of this system, known as US-VISIT, is now deployed at all U.S. ports of entry. Every day, US-VISIT checks thousands of visitors’ fingerprints against integrated criminal, terrorist, and immigration watch lists and databases in real time, and it has kept thousands of criminals from entering our country.

Combined with our use of advance passenger data as well as recent reforms to the Visa Waiver Program that will require travelers under the program to submit information electronically prior to arrival in the United States, we have created a formidable barrier against the entry of terrorists, criminals, and immigration violators while expediting safe and efficient travel for everyone else.

Today we are taking another major step forward to develop the capabilities of our border management system. We are announcing a proposed rule that mandates the collection of digital fingerprints from most non-U.S. citizens departing the United States by air or sea – a key underpinning of the recent legislation authorizing an expanded Visa Waiver Program.

Why is having an exit system important? It will allow us to positively confirm through biometrics that an individual has, indeed, left our country. By knowing who departed on time and who overstayed the terms of their admission, we can better manage our borders and build more integrity into our immigration system.

Of course, we need to overcome some technical challenges before we can fully deploy an exit system, including building the necessary infrastructure to capture and transmit the fingerprint data as people leave our country while minimizing the impact to travelers.

That is why our rule proposes to build upon the role commercial air carriers and vessel owners and operators already play. Today, carriers collect and transmit biographic information electronically and submit paper I-94 forms to our Department for passengers departing the United States. The introduction of biometrics into that process will require commercial air carriers and vessel owners and operators to collect additional information and make sure it is protected under rigorous privacy standards.

For this reason, we are seeking comments over the next 60 days from industry partners as well as the general public as we plan to integrate new exit procedures into the international departure process. We are looking for creative ideas and real world solutions. The proposed rule is available on our website and it will be published in the Federal Register later this week and open for comments.

Eventually, our goal will be to require international visitors departing from any airport or seaport with international departures to provide biometric data before leaving the country. We will address land border exit procedures in a future rulemaking. We welcome your input as we address this critical 9/11 Commission recommendation and add yet another important layer of security to our nation.

Michael Chertoff

DHS Employee Survey Results – Employees Matter

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:26:00 +0000

We conducted our own all employee survey in the fall of 2007. Just like the Office of Personnel Management’s 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey, DHS wanted to measure employee job satisfaction and agency performance.

The results of the survey reflect improvement over the 2006 survey in two of the four Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework indices:

Leadership & Knowledge Management, from 46% to 48% positive responses
Results-Oriented Performance Culture, from 42% to 44% positive responses
Talent Management, remains at 49% positive responses
Job Satisfaction, remains at 58% positive responses

The survey results provide insight into our employee’s experiences and perceptions, and I am encouraged by the positive progress in areas addressed by a number of recent initiatives and programs such as the Performance Management and Leadership Development and Training. This is especially heartening given the length of time it can take to effect change in such a large and diverse organization such as DHS. It’s important to recognize that it takes time to turn around a battleship. Ours is still a young department – the newest in the federal government – and as we mature and continue to resolve some natural growing pains, I expect employee morale and satisfaction will improve accordingly.

Through the survey results, managers and employees alike delivered an unambiguous message that leadership has heard loud and clear. I find it gratifying to note the percentage of survey respondents who would recommend DHS as a place to work rose from 51% in 2006 to 54% in 2007.

When evaluating these figures, we must take an honest look at our current situation. For example, instead of a central headquarters location that promotes unity and makes simple things like meetings easier, we have incongruent offices spread out across the National Capital Region. Many of our employees have gone through a number of reorganizations since the Department stood up, the most recent of which was last year. While these are not excuses for low morale, as a DHS employee, I can honestly say I see the challenges first-hand.

More than 140,000 employees were surveyed and more than 65,000 responded; representing all levels of the workforce across components. In addition, 91% of survey respondents believe that the work that they do is important, and 80% indicated that they understand how the work relates to the agency’s goals and priorities; an increase from 76 percent in 2006.

The bottom line is that our 208,000 employees are the backbone of this Department and their service is invaluable in keeping our country secure. They deserve the best we have to offer; and as we continue to make our own improvements, I encourage Journal readers to avoid a quick rush to judgment. Instead, assess our performance based on what we have accomplished in five short years.

You can see more information on the 2007 DHS All Employee Survey.

Elaine C. Duke
Deputy Under Secretary for Management

In Case You Missed It

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:41:00 +0000

While the media dwell on celebrity peccadilloes and microscopic analysis of political comments, sometimes really important news gets overlooked. Right now, buried in the pages of a number of U.S. newspapers is a very significant story that tells us a lot about why we need some of the moderately inconvenient security measures with which we live.

If you fly commercially, you will remember that about 18 months ago new restrictions on hand-carried liquids were imposed at airports here and overseas. As we explained at the time, these actions were the result of a major disrupted plot to detonate liquid explosives on airliners flying from Britain to North America. Because we couldn’t say more without violating British legal rules, some of you may have wondered whether the plot was all that serious.

The trial of a number of the plotters is now underway in a London courtroom. The details being unfolded are riveting – and chilling. Unfortunately, the trial is not getting much play in our domestic news outlets, but the evidence should be required reading for those who travel by air.

As the prosecutor has explained, the plotters intended to smuggle liquid explosives on airplanes in plastic bottles of popular soft drinks. To conceal the liquid explosives, the terrorists injected them into the bottles with a syringe and used food coloring to approximate the appearance of a drink. Blueprints showed in court demonstrated how the explosives could be combined with detonators in mid-air.

The targets: at least half a dozen flights, including aircraft headed for Washington, D.C., New York, Chicago, and San Francisco.

Particularly disturbing, the terrorists intended to detonate these bombs only when the aircraft were all midway over the Atlantic Ocean and packed with summer travelers. The sinister idea was that after the first plane exploded, the others would be too far from land to reach safety before the next detonation.

Not much imagination is required to conceive of the horror that would have been experienced when word of the first explosion reached crews and even passengers of other transatlantic flights.

Was the plot real? The courtroom was told that the plot was “almost ready.”

I recommend following this story in the newspapers over the next few weeks (if you can find it). The evidence is powerful proof of the reason that we work 24/7 to avert terrorist plots by devoting time, money, and energy to security.

Michael Chertoff

Setting the Record Straight on REAL ID (Part III) – Too Much Spaghetti

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:18:00 +0000

Critics of REAL ID often misrepresent what it is and what it is not. Probably the most egregious myth is the claim that the law creates a national ID that Americans will be required to carry.

Wrong. REAL ID is simple. The regulation requires that states meet minimum security standards when they issue driver’s licenses and identification cards necessary for “official purposes,” like getting on a plane or entering federal buildings. That’s it. The federal government’s role is to make sure that states meet minimum standards of security, so that banks and airports in one state can count on the quality of licenses issued in another.

States will still control their licenses and the personal information they collect. And, they will have plenty of flexibility in setting the license’s design, physical security features, and issuance procedures. These minimum standards will make it harder for terrorists to take advantage of the weak security of a particular state, the way Timothy McVeigh did when he used a fake South Dakota license to rent a Ryder truck in Oklahoma to bomb the Murrah Federal Building.

Don’t want a REAL ID? Don’t get one. If you don’t need a driver’s license or similar ID today, nothing in the REAL ID Act requires you to get one. In fact, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate how or whether a bank, grocery store, retailer, or school requires REAL ID. States and private companies make those determinations. So, given that states will have control over the production and issuance processes, the design and features of the card, and the data stored, how can anyone argue that REAL ID is a national ID? In short, they can’t, but that does not stop them from trying.

REAL ID is one of the last 9/11 Commission recommendations that still remains to be implemented. All but one of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers carried some form of government-issued ID, mostly state driver’s licenses, many of which were obtained fraudulently. In the planning stages for the attacks, these documents were used to rent vehicles, evade law enforcement, enroll in flight school, and board airplanes on that fateful day.

The 9/11 Commission was dismayed, like the rest of us, by how easy it was for the hijackers to beat the system. That’s why the Commission recommended that “(s)ecure identification should begin in the Untied States. The Federal Government should set standards for the issuance of birth certifications and sources of identification, such as driver’s licenses.”

Critics of REAL ID have been busy throwing a lot of spaghetti on the walls. They’ll tell you it’s a national ID, it invades privacy, or that it’s too expensive. Spaghetti throwing is almost a pastime in the beltway. It is also an indication that one lacks valid arguments. So, absent that validity, they’ll throw out a bunch of poor arguments and see which ones stick.

But, REAL ID is too important for these sorts of myths or games. I have commented on some of them in earlier blogs, and I’m still waiting for a convincing argument in favor of insecure identification. If you have one, I’d sure like to see it.

For more information on REAL ID, visit: www.dhs.gov/realid.

Stewart A. Baker
Assistant Secretary for Policy

Setting the Record Straight on REAL ID -- Part II Privacy

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:22:00 +0000

Is REAL ID a threat to privacy? There are critics who will say so. But, these same critics can’t and won’t tell you precisely how REAL ID threatens privacy. There’s a reason for that. They have no evidence. The facts are that REAL ID will actually increase privacy protections for Americans, and in several concrete ways.

Under REAL ID, state Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMVs)--not the federal government--will continue to control driver’s license data. And, thanks to REAL ID, that data will get additional protection from disclosure. State DMVs will meet tough new security standards for that data.

State security plans must address, among other things:

the physical security of the facilities and materials used to produce licenses,
the design and security features on the cards, and
the security of how the public’s personal information is managed.

In addition to the "Driver’s Privacy Protection Act," which will continue to bar states and their employees from selling or releasing personal information, the DHS Privacy Office has established a set of best practices for the protection of this information. These best practices provide guidance to the states and raise the bar for state DMVs beyond what was previously required by federal or state law.

Another myth we sometimes hear – "But, won’t REAL ID create new links between DMVs, who will now be checking to make sure that drivers don’t hold licenses from several states? Doesn’t that create a risk of hacking, and identity theft?" Here again, the argument does not hold any water. Law enforcement officials from every state can already log into DMV databases check the validity of a license when they perform a traffic stop. And, for the past 16 years DMV officials have run checks for commercial licenses to keep truck drivers from holding multiple licenses. To date, there’s not been a single reported privacy violation.

If you've ever been the victim of identity theft, there's a one-in-three chance that the thief used a fake driver's license to commit the crime. It’s very simple. Making licenses harder to forge will make this crime harder to perpetrate.

For example, REAL ID requires all states to verify birth certificates by going to the source – the states where the certificates were issued. It calls for electronic confirmation of the data on the certificates, making it much more difficult for an identity thief to create a fictitious identity using a forged birth certificate.

There will always be folks who yearn for a simpler day – before Google, before the Social Security Number, and before telephone books. No doubt all of these innovations have had an effect on privacy. But, they’ve also made modern life far more convenient.

There will also always be folks who yearn for a world where ID isn’t necessary. But, we don’t live in such a world. And, pretending we can live without ID will simply make the lives of the criminals, or even terrorists, easier.

A Public Opinion Strategies poll taken last year shows that 82 percent of the American public favors secure identification to prevent terrorism and identity theft. Most all Americans currently reside in states that are well on their way to secure licenses. There’s still time for the remaining three states to get on board, and provide their citizens with a powerful protection against identity theft.

Thanks for reading. I’ll check in with other thoughts on the topic soon.

Stewart A. Baker
Assistant Secretary for Policy

Fit to Print?

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:42:00 +0000

The Times got it wrong again. I feel compelled to set the record straight for 17,000 employees who work late nights and weekends to welcome lawful immigrants into our society. I will not stand idly by as the New York Times insults the dedicated and professional services they provide.

If the Times seeks to add legitimacy to its editorial, they should first get the facts straight. USCIS received more than 600,000 applications for citizenship in June and July of 2007 - a 350 percent increase from the same time the year before. While this surge was substantial, it isn’t close to the “perhaps a million empty promises” the Times suggests.

Further, all applications received during that time have been opened, issued receipts, and entered into our processing queue. The idea that there are “envelopes with large checks and money orders, delivered by truckloads, waiting in shrink-wrapped pallets, unopened” at any USCIS facility, is an outright fabrication, hastily conceived by an imaginative writer.

What the writer failed to mention, and what I personally conveyed to the Times, is that more than half of all the citizenship applications received in June and July will be completed by September 30. Further, many of the applicants who filed for citizenship after July 2007 have already been naturalized. The writer also omitted that not withstanding our challenges, in 2008 we will process some 20-25 percent more citizenship applications than in 2007, while maintaining the integrity of the immigration system and the security of the process.

The fact is, last year we anticipated an application surge, and dedicated USCIS employees at our Service Centers worked hard and long hours to process the increased number of applications received before fees were raised in July. As a result of their dedication, nearly 750,000 applications were processed in a record amount of time. Instead of commending this effort, the New York Times degraded it, suggesting “intentional disenfranchisement” of Latino voters. That is both absurd and an insult to our workforce.

This agency does not lose focus by such editorial bias. Our workforce will continue to do everything possible to assist immigrants on the path to legal residency or citizenship, facilitate the smooth transit of others who wish to work here temporarily, and safeguard the security of the United States through the integrity of our immigration system. Modernization efforts to build a fully-electronic immigration platform continue to move forward. More than 34 USCIS facilities will be renovated or replaced nationwide, and more than 3,000 new employees will join our ranks by the end of this year. Our professional training programs are varied and robust.

My posting today demonstrates to the more than 700,000 newly naturalized citizens that this country embraces free and open debate. It is a shame, however that a newspaper like the New York Times – which boasts with each paper that it contains all the news that’s fit to print – only values its version of a story and leaves no room for that debate or for the facts.

Emilio T. Gonzalez
Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

REAL ID – Plain and Simple

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:26:00 +0000

The driver’s license is the most commonly used identity document in the United States. Originally designed to verify that you’re allowed to drive, it is now the primary identification for almost everyone over the age of 16 in the United States. It’s used to enter federal buildings, board airplanes, prove your age, and it’s even used in some states as a debit card.

Like it or not, Americans rely on driver’s licenses for every day life. That’s why the security of state licensing systems is so important. And, licensing systems are only as secure as the weakest link.

Unfortunately, we learned this the hard way. Twice.

First, in 1995, when Timothy McVeigh was able to create a fake South Dakota license with ease; all it took was a manual typewriter and a kitchen iron. He used the license to rent a Ryder truck in Oklahoma and destroy the Murrah Federal Building. Then, on September 11, 2001, eighteen of the nineteen hijackers carried government-issued IDs – mostly state driver’s licenses, many obtained fraudulently.

The 9/11 Commission recognized that it’s too easy to get false identification in the U.S. That’s why the Commission determined that “(s)ecure identification should begin in the United States. The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as driver’s licenses.” Congress responded with the REAL ID Act of 2005, which requires the federal government to set standards for the identifications it accepts.

At its core, the regulation requires that, in order for a state’s ID to be used to gain access to federal facilities, airplanes and the like, the state must implement strong security standards in three areas.

First, the state must apply better standards when verifying the identification of those applying for driver’s licenses.

Second, states must increase the physical security features on the driver’s license card by making it harder to alter or forge (e.g., optical variable devices, ultraviolet features, micro-printing, fine line duplex patterns, and other features that cannot be reproduced using commercially available products).

Finally, it calls for the security of the production facilities and materials used in the production of licenses, as well as the security of the DMV databases.

In recent weeks, we've heard myth upon myth and anecdote after anecdote to counter the mounting momentum in favor of REAL ID. Fifty-one jurisdictions, to include forty-six states accounting for 97 percent of the licenses issued in the United States, are already on the road to driver's license security. That’s because Americans want identity protection, and it’s because they recognize that knowing who a person is matters. We still live in a world where airplanes and passengers are a target of choice.

That’s where REAL ID comes in. Plain and simple.

As I write, four states have yet to commit to secure licenses for their citizens. The good news for these state leaders is that there’s still time to get on board. I’ll have more to say about this in the coming days. In the meantime, thanks for reading and I look forward to your comments.

Stewart A. Baker
Assistant Secretary for Policy

Lessons from Europe

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:42:00 +0000

I just returned from a trip to Europe to meet with several of my counterparts, and want to make an observation about what impressed me most about my visit.

In Berlin, Attorney General Mukasey and I signed an important agreement with Germany to improve information sharing, including information on known and suspected terrorists. While at the Reichstag building, which houses the German parliament, I came across an exhibit depicting the fall of the Berlin Wall. It’s easy to forget that just a short time ago Berlin was literally a divided city – totalitarianism on one side of the wall and democracy on the other. The photo brought to life a historical moment that a lot of people thought would never happen: students standing on top of the breached wall; East German guards looking unsure of themselves as freedom asserted itself before their eyes; and people separated for decades coming together in the streets to celebrate. Seeing the exhibit was an inspiring reminder of the power of freedom over tyranny and how the will of the people, even in the face of tremendous opposition, can lead to monumental change.

In Estonia, I signed an historic agreement with the Interior Minister to put his nation’s citizens on a path to join our Visa Waiver Program (VWP), which will allow them to travel to the United States without first having to get a visa. Several European countries have signed similar agreements with the United States, including the Czech Republic, Latvia, Slovakia, Hungary, and Lithuania. In his comments after the signing, the Interior Minister said something that really struck me. He praised the United States and the American people for standing by his country during its darkest days of Soviet occupation. As you may recall, America never recognized the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States. He told me that it was our stand against communism that gave his people hope and inspired him to hold fast to a dream that someday a fleet of white ships from the United States would sail into the Estonian port of Tallinn. Signing the VWP agreement signified to him that the symbolic white fleet had finally arrived, and the United States remains a symbol of hope and freedom for people all over the world.

Finally, I had a chance to visit the tomb of Pope John Paul II in Rome. Aside from being a man of tremendous faith and strength of character, Pope John Paul did as much as anyone to reverse the forces of tyranny. Pope John Paul assumed the papacy at a time when his native country of Poland and other states was still under communist rule. He refused to accept the conventional wisdom that said nothing could be done about it. Instead, he helped set in motion communism’s downfall.

These three things are vivid reminders that taking a so-called “realistic” view of the world does not mean abandoning our efforts to advance the cause of freedom around the world. Thirty years ago, few people would have thought it realistic to believe the Berlin Wall could fall, or that Estonia and other Eastern European nations would be liberated, or that Pope John Paul would help bring about the demise of communism. But these things did happen – and they happened not because people accepted the status quo, but because they held true to their ideals and vision of a better world and they acted upon their beliefs. That is a lesson Europe fought hard to achieve, and it is a lesson we should never forget in the United States

Michael Chertoff

Answers About the Fence

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:46:00 +0000

In recent months there has been much discussion and speculation about the fence we're building along our southwestern border. As part of this discourse, Americans have been asking a number of thoughtful questions on this Journal and in other venues. For the sake of accuracy and fairness, I would like to cite some of the more crucial ones and provide the kinds of straightforward answers they deserve.

Why does America need a fence? Our country has an illegal immigration problem that challenges its sovereignty and security. While fencing is not a panacea, in some areas it does make guarding our homeland easier. It slows down illegal border crossers, buying our Border Patrol agents time to apprehend them before they can reach our nation's interior.

What kind of fence are we building and how much fencing is being built? We are constructing a combination of pedestrian and vehicle fencing.

More than 300 miles of literal fencing, including more than 167 miles of pedestrian fence and 134 miles of vehicle fence, have been laid down. We are on track to building a total of 670 miles of fencing by the end of this year.

Are there places along the southwestern border where no physical fence will be constructed? In certain more remote areas, or areas with natural obstacles, we will install "virtual fencing" -- sensors, surveillance cameras and other kinds of technology -- in place of physical barriers.

What is P-28 and is it really being delayed for three years? P-28 stands for Project 28, a demonstration project involving one type of "virtual fencing" deployed along a 28-mile stretch in Arizona. It was designed to determine whether a certain kind of technology mix could be used to help secure the border.

Last summer, as part of the process, we discovered technical deficiencies. Those were corrected and last week, after successful field testing, our Department formally accepted P-28. Already, it has helped us identify and apprehend over 2,400 illegal aliens trying to cross the border since December.

Reports that we are delaying technology deployment across the border are overstated. We have been deploying and will continue to deploy solutions that will incorporate integrated radars and cameras, mobile surveillance systems, unattended ground sensors, unmanned and manned aviation assets, and an improved communications system.

We already have ground sensors in place and will acquire more of them in the coming year. We are also expanding our ground-based mobile surveillance systems.

Why does it appear that the literal fence is taking a while to construct? Appearances can be deceiving and building is not as simple as it sounds. In order to build a pedestrian fence, for instance, a long period of preparatory work is needed. Holes must be dug, concrete poured, and posts and bollards dropped into the holes. Only then can the wire sheeting be laid between the bollards and an actual fence created.

That's one reason visible signs of progress occur in spurts. But we have built more fence this past year than in the previous 20 years.
Another reason is this: Before any of this happens, the land must be possessed, surveyed, and graded. There are environmental laws to contend with, as well as an occasional landowner who refuses to grant the United States government access to any of his land.

Despite these challenges, we remain on course to achieving our construction goals by year's end.

Why didn't someone explain this to us the way you just did? That's a very good question indeed.

Michael Chertoff

An Untold Story

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:29:00 +0000

Sometimes the best stories at DHS are the ones that are seldom heard. For example, the incredible increase in persons with disabilities employed at DHS and their many contributions to safety and securing our homeland. We’ve known that to achieve our mission, we must tap into the knowledge, skills and abilities of all Americans. This includes one of the most under-utilized sectors of our country’s workforce – people with disabilities. Between February 2004 and October 2007, DHS headquarters witnessed a nearly 300 percent increase in employment of individuals with disabilities – from 50 to 191 employees. And, the department is stronger and more efficient thanks to their countless contributions day in and day out.

Both Secretary Chertoff and former Secretary Ridge have led a focused initiative to ensure that people with disabilities, including veterans who have been wounded serving our country overseas, are offered equal employment opportunities. The results have been remarkable. When this initiative began, individuals with disabilities comprised less than 2.5 percent of the headquarters workforce; now, they comprise over six percent. DHS headquarters further distinguished itself at the SES level, with a 7.4 percent participation rate for employees with disabilities (compared to the government-wide participation rate of less than four percent). We also exceeded the government-wide participation rate for the employment of people with disabilities at the GS 13, 14, and 15 grade levels.

The Secretary’s directive for DHS headquarters also served as a catalyst for the component agencies. FLETC and the Secret Service achieved impressive net increases in the employment of individuals with disabilities. FEMA, FLETC and the Coast Guard also exceeded the government-wide participation rate for the employment of people with disabilities at the GS 13, 14 and 15 grade levels. Most impressively, USCIS reports that approximately 10 percent of the new employees hired in 2007 were people with disabilities. This is a direct result of Director Emilio Gonzalez’s personal leadership on this issue.

DHS is among the first federal agencies to participate in the Department of Defense’s Operation Warfighter. The program provides wounded service members with meaningful opportunities, and provides DHS with an important new pipeline of veterans with skills, talents and abilities needed to support its mission. As a result, five DHS components (including the Coast Guard, USCIS and ICE) exceeded the government–wide participation rate for the employment of disabled veterans in FY 2007.

However, there is still much more ground to cover. While DHS headquarters and some components experienced positive results, the number of individuals with disabilities across our total workforce has essentially remained stagnant. Moreover, individuals with “targeted disabilities” continue to face very substantial obstacles as they seek equal employment opportunities.

To address these continuing obstacles, we are introducing two new projects that will be a great resource to our managers across the Department.

First, we have developed a new training program, “Employment of People with Disabilities: A Roadmap to Success.” This 45-minute training describes the department’s initiative, identifies the tools that make hiring people with disabilities a convenient option and contains personal testimonials from four DHS employees with disabilities. The statements from these employees are powerful.

The second new project is an “Accessibility Help Desk.” Like most large organizations, DHS currently operates many IT Help Desks. We now have a help desk staffed with specialists who understand unique disability-related information technology and assistive technologies. Employees with disabilities can be assured that a trained specialist will be there to help them with accessibility issues.

As we reflect on the department’s first five years, and on this initiative, we can point to many significant results. But, we are not complacent. It is our goal to continue to improve on these results if we want to truly open the doors of equal opportunity, and ensure our workforce meets the highest standards of excellence. DHS values diversity.

Daniel W. Sutherland
Officer for Civil Rights & Civil Liberties

Our Commitment to Iraqi Refugees

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:20:00 +0000

Today, both Senior Advisor for Iraqi Refugees Lori Scialabba and I testified before Congress on welcoming Iraqi refugees to the U.S. Bottom line -- since last spring, more than 3,559 Iraqi refugees have been admitted to our country and we expect many more in the coming months.

Make no mistake that the Iraqi refugee program is a top priority for this department. We are committed to working with the State Department and other program partners to welcome as many eligible Iraqi refugees as possible to the U.S. Every effort will continue to be made to provide protection to qualified refugees from Iraq as we work to ensure that the Iraqi refugee population is not infiltrated by individuals seeking to harm the United States. We have a moral and humanitarian obligation to help the people of Iraq equal to our obligation to also remain vigilant to preserve our national security.

Since the spring of 2007, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers have interviewed Iraqis in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Turkey and Lebanon. During FY2007, USCIS interviewed nearly 4,500 Iraqi refugee applicants; we anticipate that more than 8,400 interviews will have been completed by the end of the first half of FY2008, for a total of over 12,000 interviews to date. We expect both the number of interviews and the number of admitted applicants to rise in the coming months.

In just a few months time, Lori Scialabba, her counterpart at the Department of State – Ambassador James Foley – and all our partners have worked tirelessly to help guide and streamline our efforts to resettle Iraqi refugees in the U.S.

One recent change -- in-country refugee processing in Iraq to offer resettlement to embassy staff and their immediate family members in Baghdad who are at risk of persecution based on their association with the U.S. government. The first group of referrals from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad includes 31 staff and their immediate family members who, if approved, will receive expedited processing.

We currently have 20 USCIS employees in the region performing Iraqi processing and many other employees here in Washington devoting substantial time to this effort. We have also begun new hiring for our Refugee Corps, increasing the base level of 47 positions to 62 this year. Further, we are leveraging more of our Asylum Division employees to conduct interviews; we expect that asylum officers will assist in adjudicating half of the refugee cases we will process this year.

We’re the first to say that there is more work to be done, but important progress is being made. On average, the total processing time for Iraqi cases is significantly less than for any other refugee group worldwide. In fact, Iraqi refugees are able to enter the U.S. in four to six months – certainly much faster than refugees from anywhere else in the world.

We pledge -- along with our State Department colleagues and other partners -- to further the humanitarian mission of admitting Iraqi refugees while at the same time ensuring the highest standards of security for our homeland.

Emilio T. Gonzalez
Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Our Commitment to Military Naturalizations

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:51:00 +0000

On February 24, the New York Times published a factually inaccurate front-page article entitled “After the War, a New Battle to Become Citizens” about the commitment U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has made to processing military naturalizations in a timely manner. We intensely manage every aspect of the path to citizenship for our immigrant Armed Forces Service Members. As an American by choice and a veteran myself, this program has my close personal attention, and I can tell you that it is a real success story for our agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and our nation.

In 2007 alone, USCIS naturalized 4,735 military service members, with more than 1,300 taking the Oath of Allegiance at ceremonies overseas, in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and along the Demilitarized Zone in South Korea. Since 2001, USCIS has helped more than 36,900 immigrant soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines become United States citizens. These service members and their families have made extraordinary sacrifices for our nation, and USCIS does everything possible to ensure that qualified immigrants who serve in our military receive U.S. citizenship at the absolute earliest opportunity.

Despite exhaustive efforts to fulfill our obligation to our men and women in uniform, there are rare instances when we are unable to favorably approve their applications in an expedited time frame. Service members frequently move from post to post, sometimes internationally. Therefore, gathering the information necessary to process their applications requires additional time, notwithstanding the significant efforts employed by USCIS to ensure that applications are handled in a timely and expeditious manner. Let me say this, nothing stands in our way when it comes to supporting the military. We move mountains and travel to military installations worldwide to help members of the military in their quest to become citizens of the United States. This is the least we can do on behalf of a nation grateful for their service.

Working with the Department of Defense (DoD), we have, through these military naturalization efforts, cut in half the number of non-citizens serving on active duty. But numbers alone cannot tell the story of the USCIS commitment. USCIS has a specialized team at our Nebraska Service Center dedicated to processing military naturalization cases. Once the up-front processing is complete, dedicated specialists in our field offices complete the interview and testing for military naturalization -- a privilege our employees consider an honor. These immigration experts work tirelessly to ensure that applications are processed and completed before these brave men and women are deployed to combat zones overseas.

As of May 1, 2006, we began accepting fingerprints from service members submitted at the time of enlistment. This upfront intake of information has helped streamline the process for service members. In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation will expedite background security screening for any service member who notifies us of an impending deployment.

To improve communication and outreach with the armed forces community, USCIS recently established a dedicated toll-free hotline exclusively for military members and their families stationed in the United States and overseas. Through January 2008, we’ve responded to more than 7,200 calls requesting information about immigration and citizenship services. USCIS also accepts emails to ensure that the military, some of whom are stationed overseas, can find the most expeditious way to communicate with USCIS about their pending applications. Additional efforts include local initiatives in communities with large military populations, the development and dissemination of educational materials, a USCIS military brochure and targeted media efforts designed to reach our constituents both in the United States and overseas.

In all of our military naturalization efforts, we work in concert with our colleagues at DoD to ensure that the military community has accurate and up-to-date information about immigration services and benefits. We provide training to military lawyers, and USCIS community relations officers regularly conduct seminars and classes at military bases around the country, answering questions about naturalization and assisting with paperwork.

I am proud and extremely honored to serve this agency in support of our military men and women and their families. USCIS has always been, is now, and will remain steadfastly committed to exhausting every effort to ensure that the processing of military naturalization applications are a top priority and that qualified members of the military receive this honor on behalf of a grateful nation.

Emilio T. González

Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Missing the Facts

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:56:00 +0000

This past weekend, I was surprised to open The Wall Street Journal and read a story that was riddled with inaccuracies about Project 28 – or the first 28 miles of our virtual border fence. I’d like to set the record straight and clear up any confusion about what we’re doing along the Southern border, and what role technology is playing in our overall strategy.

As anyone living in the Southwest will tell you, it’s a rugged, landscape with little geographic uniformity. Therefore a one-size-fits-all approach utilizing a single physical fence or a single virtual fence is doomed to fail. That’s why we’re applying a mix of technology, traditional fencing, and manpower to secure the roughly 2,000 mile border – and Project 28, or P28, is the first stretch of what will eventually be several miles of towers, radars, and sensors at strategic points along the border.

First, the Journal story stated that the initial 28 miles of virtual fence we recently installed in Arizona would be the end of the project. This is simply incorrect. From the outset, P28 was designed as a prototype, or a building block that would be tested and refined so it could be deployed elsewhere along the border.

The next glaring inaccuracy in the Journal’s article was their reference to “the effective mothballing of the concept” as “a setback for the government’s border-protection efforts.” Mothballing the concept? We just formally accepted the project last week, and have a budget request of $775 million next fiscal year to continue to develop and deploy technology and tactical infrastructure along the border – precisely P28’s purpose. One might surmise that the reporters confused the meaning of “mothballing,” with “full steam ahead.”

The article went on to report that we awarded a $64 million contract to Boeing late last year to fix the Common Operating Picture, an integral part of P28. This allows our Border Patrol agents to view images relayed from P28’s towers to their vehicles and acts as a force multiplier, allowing fewer agents to cover more ground. The fact of the matter is that this contract was not awarded to fix anything, but rather was a planned investment for the development of a new Common Operational Picture and to build on the progress Boeing had made throughout the project. Any assertions to the contrary are simply false.

I’ve seen this system work with my own eyes, and I’ve talked with the Border Patrol Agents who are using it. They assure me that it adds value. That’s what matters to me, and it’s a fact that cannot be denied.

Michael Chertoff

Our Commitment to National Security

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:30:00 +0000

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is committed to protecting national security as we go about our mission of providing the most fair and transparent immigration service possible to our customers.

Let me repeat just one part of that phrase to remove all ambiguity – we are committed to protecting national security. USCIS will never put expediency ahead of national security.

Recently, we modified our policy regarding the adjudication of applications for permanent residence, commonly know as green card status. USCIS will favorably adjudicate those applications where the cases are otherwise fully approvable and FBI name-check requests have been pending for more than 180 days. These cases will not be approved unless the applicants are otherwise eligible and have cleared the FBI fingerprint check and the Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS) check. In the unlikely event that the FBI name check produces actionable information against an applicant, DHS will initiate removal proceedings.

This is not only good business, but it is also the right thing to do. The policy change better aligns the background check screening processes between DHS agencies. It’s worth noting that 99 percent of all FBI name check results are received within six months. Through process improvements, we fully expect all name-check results to be obtained within that period by the end of this year.

There is no change to the normal background scrutiny conducted on every application for any immigration benefit. All applications are checked through IBIS to gather information from a multitude of law enforcement agencies. It should also be noted that there has been no change to the name-check policy pertaining to naturalization applications.

As a department and as an agency, we are committed to providing immigration benefits and services as quickly as possible to eligible applicants. But, let’s be clear -- we will not shortcut our procedures or processes to the detriment of immigration integrity or national security.

Emilio T. Gonzalez
Director, USCIS

A Fresh Look at Port Security

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 21:52:00 +0000

It often amazes me how certain myths about our Department’s efforts continue to endure despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Take port security, for example. I regularly see stories in the media asserting that our nation’s seaports are insecure as if we’ve done nothing since 9/11 to protect them. Just yesterday, a columnist for the New York Times casually repeated that claim.

I suspect a lot of this venting is simply intellectual laziness by those who prefer to recycle old sound bites rather than do their homework. In some cases, a deeper misunderstanding is taking place about how ports function in the real world. I’m referring to those who contend that because we don’t physically inspect every one of the 11 million shipping containers arriving at our ports each year, our entire system of security is compromised. Incidentally, those same individuals never explain that if we did open every box, there’d be a line of ships stretching across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans waiting to enter our country.

As we approach our Department’s fifth anniversary, I’d like to step back for a moment and take a fresh look at what we’ve done since 9/11 to protect our ports and maritime commerce, and hopefully dispel some of the stubborn inaccuracies that continue to persist.

First of all, it is factually wrong to suggest we’ve shortchanged funding for our ports. In fact, we’ve invested more than $16 billion to date. This includes funding for the Coast Guard’s port security operations, deployment of our personnel and equipment overseas, research into science and technology development, $1.39 billion in port security grants to states and port authorities, and hardening of physical assets and infrastructure.

Second, we’ve pushed our security perimeter outward so that we can identify and interdict suspicious cargo before it even has a chance to threaten our country. We now require information and intelligence on every single U.S. bound shipping container before it’s loaded onto a foreign ship. We’ve stationed CBP officers at 58 overseas ports accounting for 86 percent of the container traffic that comes to the United States. We’ve deployed equipment overseas to scan cargo for radiation before it leaves for our country. And we’ve proposed new regulations to collect more commercial data from the private sector so we can better track international shipments.

Third, we’ve taken common-sense measures to protect our ports here at home. Every major port and maritime facility in our country must now file a security plan with the Coast Guard that identifies its vulnerabilities and sets a plan to address them. We’ve enrolled close to 80,000 maritime workers into our Transportation Worker Identification Credential program, which provides secure identification to workers who pass terrorist and criminal background checks. Most significantly, we now scan virtually 100 percent of containers for radiation upon their arrival to prevent the entry of potential weapons of mass destruction. Prior to 9/11, we scanned zero percent of such cargo.

Have we achieved perfect security at our ports? Of course not. No human endeavor will ever achieve perfection and no system of security is infallible. But we have dramatically elevated our protection and built successive layers of security that have made our ports more secure than they have ever been. And we’ve done this without destroying the underlying reason for having ports in the first place – the efficient movement of people and commerce.

Those who don’t put in the effort to get their facts straight, or who use misinformation to suggest we are ignoring our maritime sector, are not serving their readers or the American people. They also do a disservice to the men and women who stand watch over our ports and our frontlines every day.

Michael Chertoff

State of the Coast Guard

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:03:00 +0000

Yesterday I delivered my second State of the Coast Guard address at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. In this annual address to the Coast Guard, our interagency partners and our maritime stakeholders, I focused on the Coast Guard’s future – the strategy, legislation, and budget we need to build a 21st Century Coast Guard.

Since becoming Commandant nearly two years ago, I’ve traveled across the country and around the world to meet personally with thousands of Coast Guard active duty, reserve, Auxiliary and civilian employees. I made a commitment to them that we would provide the equipment, support and training they needed do their jobs more efficiently and effectively. I pledged to continue to recapitalize our aging fleet and command and control systems. I’m pleased to report that we are seeing the results of those efforts right now.

The Coast Guard’s first major cutter to be built in more than 25 years, the National Security Cutter Bertholf, successfully completed sea trials this week and we are preparing to missionize three new HC-144 Ocean Sentry maritime patrol aircraft. We are also well underway in our reorganization of our force structure, having made significant progress across all fronts to modernize and transform the service over the past year and a half. More importantly, we’ve provided a vital service to the American public and reached new milestones in our history in the past year, such as the removal of a record-breaking 350,000 pounds of cocaine at sea and our celebration of a million lives saved since 1790.

Going forward, the Coast Guard cannot rest on our reputation or remain fixated on our wake. Now is the time to build a 21st Century Coast Guard, one that will be responsive to the environment as it evolves around us. As a unique instrument of national security, we will work closer than ever with the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps to put our cooperative maritime strategy in action. As America’s lifesavers and guardians, we will enhance our marine safety program, develop our intelligence and maritime domain awareness, and take action to restore our polar icebreaking fleet, as we prepare to operate in an increasingly open Arctic. We also need to grow the Coast Guard. We cannot continue to meet the ever growing needs and higher expectations of our citizens with a workforce that is essentially no bigger than it was 50 years ago. That is why I will fight for every penny of the President’s FY09 $9.3 billion budget request. It is a down payment on the future of America’s Coast Guard.

Never before has this nation relied so heavily on our oceans and waterways for the safety, security and prosperity of all Americans. And never before has this nation relied so much on its Coast Guard to protect the environment and our keep our communities safe and secure. We will answer that call.

All threats. All hazards. Always ready.

Admiral Thad Allen
Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard

Americans By Choice

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:52:00 +0000

As the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and an American by choice, I find it satisfying that so many people want to become a part of the American fabric. The significant increase in the number of immigration applications and petitions filed is clearly welcome news as applicants demonstrate a deep desire to participate fully in our country’s civic life. I understand well that processing delays are not abstract numbers. Each case affects an individual’s or family’s dreams and aspirations. At USCIS, we are committed to providing immigration services and benefits to eligible applicants as expeditiously as possible.

In July and August, we received almost 2.4 million applications and petitions for immigration benefits, double the normal volume. During fiscal year 2007, the agency received approximately 1.4 million naturalization applications. That is more than the total naturalization applications filed in 2005 and 2006 combined. For the months of June and July of 2007, it represented an increase of nearly 350% compared to the same period in 2006.

This surge in filings initially resulted in receipting delays for many naturalization applicants. We have addressed this situation, and have returned to normal timeframes for issuing naturalization application receipt notices. USCIS projects this filing surge will impact overall processing times for naturalization applications received after June 1, 2007. USCIS is projecting that under current conditions, the average processing time for these applications is expected to be up to 18 months. It is likely, however, that some applicants in jurisdictions less heavily impacted by the filing surge will be processed sooner.

We are finalizing a plan to specifically address the application increase. It will detail how we expect to improve this situation by enhancing our information systems, realigning our internal processes, and expanding our workforce capabilities. In the interim, we are taking some immediate steps. Our new fee schedule (pdf) has provided the resources to expand our workforce by about 1,500 employees and invest in information technology, facilities, training and other areas to improve service. We now have more than 690 new staff members onboard, including more than 400 adjudicators, who have a direct effect on this workload. Many more will be arriving in USCIS offices this summer.

Our goal is to continue these efforts and accelerate them where possible to better meet demands. We will not shortcut our procedures or processes to the detriment of immigration integrity or national security. Processing applications fairly without sacrificing national security and public safety is our core mission, and the American people deserve our utmost dedication and commitment. USCIS remains committed to fulfilling its promise of maintaining the integrity of our immigration system while also providing world-class customer service.

Dr. Emilio T. Gonzalez
Director, USCIS

Tornado Response

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:45:00 +0000

Early this morning Secretary Chertoff and I flew to Tennessee in response to the recent tornadoes that devastated communities across the region.

We are deeply saddened by the lives lost. Our prayers are with the friends and families of those who lost loved ones and with all those now rebuilding from these devastating storms.

Today, the Secretary and I are traveling with Governor Bredesen to assess the damage and tomorrow we'll begin the physical accounting of damage with our preliminary damage assessments. The big challenge is to get people back into their homes and back to work.

Our efforts are focused on partnering with the state and local officials and private groups to respond quickly and efficiently as a team. FEMA is leaning forward, and had people on the ground before the storms struck. Today, we have teams in place helping state and local officials to evaluate damage to these communities.

Many of the affected states are shifting their operations from the initial emergency response phase to damage assessment and recovery duties. There are still hundreds of people who will need shelter, basic relief supplies, and other support, and we have FEMA teams to assist the response on the ground. We have FEMA liaisons deployed to Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky, Arkansas and Alabama in addition to the regional personnel already on site.

As we work together in a partnership to meet the needs of these communities, we remember that the first response always rests with the people in their communities. We stand ready to assist those on the ground as they respond to these horrible storms.

David Paulison
Administrator
Federal Emergency Management Agency

Privacy Report

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:35:00 +0000

Perhaps no other condition is more important between a government and its citizens than trust. That trust is earned through consistently being open and honest—in short, being transparent. Indeed, the government’s work in the privacy field is especially built upon a foundation of transparency.

That’s why I’m pleased to announce that the Department of Homeland Security Privacy Office recently issued its third Annual Report covering July 2006 through July 2007. This report is the centerpiece of our transparency obligation and summarizes how DHS protects the privacy of personally identifiable information.

During this past reporting cycle, my staff and I made significant progress in our development of privacy resources and outreach within the department, as well as externally to other agencies, privacy advocates, and international data protection officials.

As the DHS Chief Privacy Officer, I have worked to build upon the strong privacy foundation established by my predecessor. My focus has been to formalize the processes and operations of this important office to ensure that we can fulfill our statutory requirements and support the Department’s vital mission.

Among our recent accomplishments, we’ve continued to increase internal DHS privacy compliance. Some of our efforts include conducting Privacy Threshold Analyses, Privacy Impact Assessments, and Privacy Act System of Records Notices. We also updated and disseminated our popular DHS Privacy Impact Assessment Guidance for 2007 and conducting tutorial workshops to train federal employees and contractors on the development and use of PIAs.

In response to growing federal attention to privacy issues, DHS has been a leader in issuing specific privacy guidance. We developed privacy documents regarding the use of Social Security numbers, protections afforded to non-U.S. persons, and a privacy incident response plan for the department. Additionally, we’ve implemented an inventory process aimed at reducing the use of social security numbers within the Department.

We are also working closely with our colleagues to ensure that privacy protections are integrated into DHS programs and rulemakings. Through our efforts to increase the transparency of high-profile department initiatives, we have participated in the rulemaking process, and actively sought to address privacy concerns raised by Congress, the privacy community, and the public. In addition, we continue to work with our international partners, expanding both our international outreach, as well as DHS and Federal involvement in international privacy initiatives.

Looking ahead, we see our next Annual Reporting cycle as a period of significant opportunity for the department to expand the presence of Privacy Officers and Privacy Points of Contact within DHS operational components. Our Disclosure and Freedom of Information practice will continue to substantially reduce Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request backlogs in components and improve the efficiency of the Department’s FOIA process. I encourage you to read our report (PDF).

Our work is far from over, but my dedicated team of privacy professionals is up to the challenge of working in a global environment where appropriate privacy protections are critical to fulfilling the Department’s mission.

Hugo Teufel
Chief Privacy Officer

Engaging the Public for a Better Security Process

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:12:00 +0000

One of my main priorities for TSA in 2008 is to get passengers and TSA on the same side, working together toward a better security process for everyone. That’s why TSA has launched a blog called “Evolution of Security” to get a two-way conversation going between our workforce and the public. While I’ll still be posting here on TSA’s many transportation security initiatives, I invite you to check out www.tsa.gov/blog to interact with some TSA employees, learn about the innovations we have in the works for checkpoints, and give us your feedback. I wanted to share with Leadership Journal readers an excerpt of my initial Evolution of Security blog post:

Our ambition is to provide here a forum for a lively, open discussion of TSA issues. While I and senior leadership of TSA will participate in the discussion, we are turning the keyboard over to several hosts who represent what’s best about TSA (its people). Our hosts aren’t responsible for TSA’s policies, nor will they have to defend them -- their job is to engage with you straight-up and take it from there. Our hosts will have access to senior leadership but will have very few editorial constraints. Our postings from the public will be reviewed to remove the destructive but not touch the critical or cranky.

Please be patient and good-humored as we get underway. The opportunity is that we will incorporate what we learn in this forum in our checkpoint process evolution. We will not only give you straight answers to your questions but we will challenge you with new ideas and involve you in upcoming changes.

I encourage the readers of the Leadership Journal to visit our new blog and contribute to the conversation with TSA front line employees. This is your chance to let us know what you think, ask questions, and help us improve the screening process so it is more effective for everyone. Please stay tuned to this Journal as I will continue to be a major contributor.

Kip Hawley

TSA Administrator

Securing Our Land Border

noreply@blogger.com (DHS Journal) — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:29:00 +0000

Earlier this month, I wrote about the new border-crossing requirement we’ll be instituting tomorrow, January 31. We’re replacing the outmoded honor system of oral declarations at our border with a common-sense requirement of tangible documentation.

Most Americans might find it hard to understand why, in our post-9/11 world, our country even has a system that allows anyone -- including potential terrorists, convicted felons, and illegal aliens -- to cross our border simply by declaring who they are and where they’re from without having to prove it.

They’d be surprised to learn that even when proof of citizenship and identity are required, more than 8,000 different documents are accepted, including easily forged student library cards and foreign baptismal certificates.

And they would be dismayed by the fact that in spite of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation that we take serious steps to identify who is crossing our border, our government faces mounting pressure from critics who strongly oppose replacing the current system.

We understand the concerns about commerce. We want commerce. But we can’t ignore the continued threat we face from dangerous people seeking entry.

They’re also ignoring the fact that -- as evidenced by last year’s immigration debate -- the American people rightly oppose open borders, care deeply about border security, and view secure ID as a national imperative.

And they seem unaware of the incongruity of building border fences to stop people from sneaking through America’s back door while failing to check adequately who’s walking through our front door.

Critics charge that our actions will harm commerce by slowing the processing of arriving travelers. In fact, with consistent identity and citizenship documents that are easily recognizable to our CBP officers, we expect processing speed to increase.

We’re also accused of springing these changes on people with little warning. On the contrary, we first gave notice to travelers and border communities in June of last year. We’ve since engaged in a sustained outreach campaign from regular briefings with stakeholders to participation in multiple media interviews. To this day, our outreach efforts continue. And starting tomorrow, when we begin implementation, we’ll do it in a flexible way, treating travelers with understanding and patience as they acclimate.

Michael Chertoff