October 12, 2004
TO: Members of the Executive Committee
FR: Representative J. R. Gray,
Kentucky
Chairman,
Intergovernmental Affairs Committee
RE: Report of Activities of the Intergovernmental Affairs Committee at the
58th Annual Meeting of the Southern Legislative
Conference in
Little Rock, Arkansas, August 14-18, 2004
The Intergovernmental Affairs Committee
convened on Sunday, August 15, for a business session and on Monday, August 16,
for a program session during the 58th SLC Annual Meeting. The
following is a summary of the speaker presentations and Committee activities.
BUSINESS SESSION
Sunday, August 15
I. Recent Border and
Transportation Security Initiatives
Asa
Hutchinson – Undersecretary, Border and
Transportation Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington,
D.C.
Background
On March 1, 2003, the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) inherited the professional workforce, programs and
infrastructure of 22 different agencies of the federal government, including the
U. S. Coast Guard, Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service, and
the Transportation Security Administration. Collectively, these public servants
are responsible for protecting America’s borders and transportation systems.
This session reviews border and transportation security trends; FY2005 grants
for state and local homeland security programs; first responder grants;
immigration policy; and other intergovernmental aspects of homeland security.
Presentation
Undersecretary Hutchinson began his presentation by noting that two of the
toughest national security jobs involve enforcing drug laws and protecting the
country’s borders and transportation systems.
The Department of Homeland Security
was created with one single overriding responsibility: to make America more
secure. Along with the transformation within the FBI, the establishment of the
Department of Defense's U.S. Northern Command, and the creation of the
multi-agency Terrorist Threat Integration Center and Terrorist Screening Center,
America is now better prepared to prevent, disrupt, and respond to terrorist
attacks. The DHS has been in existence for a year and a half comprises 180,000
personnel from 22 different agencies, all working toward the same goal.
Organizing the DHS has been a tremendous challenge, but it has brought many
successes. The 9/11 Commission Report stated, “America is safer today than it
was two and a half years ago.” According to Undersecretary Hutchinson, this
mainly is due to the increase in investments from the private sector in
enhancing security and to states rebuilding their security infrastructures. In
addition, the DHS has improved defense strategies overseas and upgraded security
at key facilities around the country.
Recent activities of the DHS
include both offensive and defensive strategies. The department received a
treasure trove of intelligence from overseas, specifically Pakistan.
Intelligence revealed Citicorp, Prudential, NYSE, and other corporate icons were
subjects of extensive surveillance, casing, and analysis. Based on this
information, security was checked in each building, and the structure of each
building and escape routes that could be deployed were analyzed. The report
also revealed that the attack of these buildings would be by way of vehicle
explosives. This information was considered crucial and highly valid when
linked to the past two attacks on the World Trade Center. The surveillance of
these buildings is considered to be pre-operational and the plan to attack is
set not too far in the future since it only took eight years between the two
attacks on the World Trade Center.
The Undersecretary stated that
this intelligence report raised many questions within the DHS such as: Should
the terrorist level be increased? Should the American people be informed about
the specific geographic target area potentially subject to terrorism? (In this
case, it was downtown Manhattan.) Do the employees of Citicorp, Prudential, and
the NYSE have the right to know about the threat? And, will the stock market
plummet? Since September 11, 2001, information regarding homeland security and
the potential for domestic or international terrorist threats has been given to
the American people more than ever before. After information was revealed to
the public about possible attacks in downtown Manhattan, surprisingly, everyone
returned to work the next day at Citicorp, Prudential and the NYSE and the stock
market increased by 39 points. He continued that the American people understand
that there is no such thing as 100 percent security, and they refuse to live in
fear and have their freedom deprived. Two months ago, the Pew Research Center
revealed 74 percent of Americans feels that the occasional threat of terrorism
is part of life and that the government is doing a good job in decreasing
terror, and only 17 percent were concerned with terror, compared to 25 percent
from the previous survey. This may be viewed as complacency on the people’s
part, but it is actually their high level of confidence in the security measures
that are currently in place.
Undersecretary Hutchinson
stated that the DHS is on the right track, but it is not perfect. He then
identified major recommendations from the 9/11 Commission Report, which included
reforming the intelligence infrastructure, improving communications among
security advisors, establishing an online networking system, expanding the
terror information center to link together the CIA and the FBI, and to
appointing a national intelligence director, which still is being discussed by
Congress. A National Cyber Security Division has been established to examine
cyber-security incidents, track attacks, and coordinate responses.
One important task with which
the DHS was charged with was the establishment of a biometric entry-exit
system. This system is designed to track international visitors who enter the
United States legally with a visa, but stay for an extensive period of time
illegally in the country. Since this system has been in place, 7 million
visitors have been screened. Of those, 600 posed to be at-risk to commit
criminal actions and/or appeared on the terror watch list. For example, in
1996, a woman came to the United States, overstayed her visa, and committed a
crime in North Carolina. Seven years later, she went through the
Hartsfield–Jackson International Airport in Atlanta with a false driver’s
license, visa, and passport. Because the DHS had implemented a layered security
strategy, including an increased DHS presence at key foreign ports, improved
visa and inspection processes, strengthened seaport security, and improved
security technology at airports and border crossings, the fingerprints obtained
from the woman immediately revealed her past expired visa and her criminal acts
in North Carolina. The DHS also is implementing background checks on 100
percent of applications for U.S. citizenship and has registered more than 1.5
million travelers into the U.S. VISIT program.
Although transportation
security includes air, land, and water, Undersecretary Hutchinson’s main focus
has been aviation security, especially foreign flight crew inspections. So far,
12 pilots have been identified as a potential jeopardy to air space
security—most of whom were on terror watch list, while others possessed false
passports or had outstanding criminal warrants. Other transportation systems
that posed as being at-risk for terrorism include rail stations, highways, and
buses. The DHS has implemented the highway watch program to monitor HAZMAT
drivers and to better protect our transportation networks. There currently are
2.7 million HAZMAT-endorsed drivers around the country. The terror watch list
identified 29 of those drivers with connections to terror groups. By January
2005, full fingerprint background checks will be required on all HAZMAT
drivers.
Another important security
measure is the U.S. Border Initiative within the southwest region of the
country. Each week, more than 16,000 immigrants are detained for illegal entry
across the Arizona border through the Sonora Desert. Border patrol agents have
been positioned to monitor smuggling-related crimes in Arizona. An expeditious
process of deportation also is in place where illegal immigrants are returned to
their original country within 14 days after crossing the border unless there are
unusual circumstances.
The federal government has provided more than $13 billion
to equip and train local personnel such as firefighters, police officers, and
emergency medical service workers to respond to terrorism and other emergencies
and created a National Incident Management system. More than 500,000 responders
have been trained in a variety of fields since September 11, 2001. Every area
of the country, rural or urban, and every state needs to have a base level of
security awareness and infrastructure. Pointing out that the United States is
not, and probably never will be, free from terror, the Undersecretary believes
the DHS, in its short period of existence, has made significant progress at the
federal, state, and local level in making America more secure.
At the end of the presentation, Undersecretary Hutchinson
answered questions from the members and the meeting was adjourned.
II.
Legislative Roundtable Discussion
Due to time constraints, the
legislative roundtable discussion did not take place.
PROGRAM SESSION
Monday, August 16
I. Faith-Based Initiatives
Bryan Jackson
- Director of Communications, Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy,
Rockefeller Institute of
Government, New York
Richard W. Roper -
Associate Director of Outreach, Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare
Policy, Rockefeller Institute of
Government, New York
Background
In December 2002, President George W.
Bush issued broad executive orders to implement his Faith-Based Initiative
through administrative action. This session highlighted the role of faith-based
groups in the delivery of soical services; provided an overview of the national
policy; reviewed state policies and laws in the area, and how states have
reacted to the Faith-Based Initiative; examined the effectiveness and capacity
of faith-based services; and addressed the current legal environment surrounding
government support of faith-based social service providers.
Presentation
Mr. Jackson began his presentation by
stating that on December 12, 2002, President Bush announced two new executive
orders designed to further his Faith-Based and Community Initiative. Shortly
afterwards, the administration issued four notices of proposed rulemaking
changes by federal departments--all designed to expand government support of
faith-based social service programs. To further aid this effort, the
administration also published a booklet aimed at guiding faith-based social
service providers on how to partner with the federal government. The newly
proposed agency rules and the guidance document offer some useful clarification
on partnerships between FBOs and the federal government. Several of the
agency-specific rules introduce new and complex elements into the legal
environment of the Faith-Based and Community Initiative. The administration
also has eliminated regulatory and policy barriers that have kept faith-based
organizations from partnering with the federal government to help Americans in
need. It has worked to put into place regulations to ensure that faith-based
organizations are able to compete on an equal footing for federal funding within
constitutional guidelines, without impairing the religious character of such
organizations and without diminishing the religious freedom of beneficiaries.
The administration also created, Mr.
Jackson continued, the Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in
seven cabinet departments--the U.S. Departments of Justice, Agriculture, Labor,
Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Education and the
Agency for International Development--to promote the Initiative. Its priority
areas include
at-risk youth; ex-offenders; the homeless and hungry, substance abusers, those
with HIV/AIDS, and welfare-to-work families.
Mr. Jackson stated that the six core
components of the Faith-Based Initiative are: 1) limitations on direct financing
of religious activity; 2) the constitutional status of indirect financing; 3)
creation of a level playing field for faith-based providers; 4) protections for
the religious character of service providers; 5) protections for the religious
liberty of program beneficiaries; and 6) co-religionist preference in hiring for
government-financed services.
On June 1, 2004, Mr. Roper added, President
Bush signed a new executive order which established new Centers for Faith-Based
and Community Initiatives within three additional federal agencies, the
departments of Commerce, Veterans Affairs, and the Small Business
Administration. These three new Centers
will have the same responsibilities as the other seven Centers created by the
president.
According to Mr. Roper, On June 8, 2004,
the U.S. Departments of Education and Veterans Affairs finalized new rules
affecting funding of faith-based service providers. The new provisions are
designed to advance the administration’s effort to open program funding
opportunities to all qualified organizations, regardless of their religious
character. The rules addressed appropriate uses of public funds, and included
restrictions directing government funds not be used for "inherently religious
activities." The rules also cited the administration's view that the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 allows federally funded religious organizations to give
hiring preference to individuals based on their religious beliefs. Also on this
same day, the U.S. Agency for International Development announced a plan to make
similar changes to its rules affecting the involvement of religious
organizations.
In addition to these activities, the
courts also are involved in several major cases affecting the Faith-Based
Initiative. The most prominent of these is Locke v. Davey. This case
involved a college student who had his state-funded scholarship revoked by the
state of Washington after he enrolled in religious courses to become a pastor.
The state constitution prohibits public money from being used to provide any
religious instruction or to support a religious establishment. The U. S.
Supreme Court found that the prohibition on majoring in theology discriminated
on the basis of religion and could be upheld only if it was necessary for a
compelling government purpose. The Court further determined that the state’s
interest in avoiding conflict with its constitution was not a compelling reason
to withhold scholarship funds from a student pursuing a theology degree. The
Court found that the theology restriction was unconstitutional and that
plaintiff could receive the scholarship without violating the Washington
constitution, thus settling the question as to what extent states may maintain a
policy of religion-state separation, particularly as it pertains to funding
issues.
The leading judicial development affecting
the Faith-Based Initiative, noted Mr. Roper, is unquestionably the Supreme
Court’s decision in the case pertaining to Washington state’s Baby Blaine
Amendment. The Court will decide the constitutional permissibility of this
amendment, which bars state funds from being spent on religious worship or
instruction. Many states have similar provisions in their constitutions. The
state prohibition extends to voucher-type programs, so Locke v. Davey is
of critical importance to the school voucher movement as well as the Faith-Based
Initiative.
Through rule and policy changes, Mr.
Jackson concluded, the administration has reversed prior federal prohibitions on
government financing of structures used for religious worship or education and
now will permit such financing in a broad range of federal programs. The
administration has pressed for the maximum amount of hiring autonomy of
religious entities working as partners with government, but some of its legal
interpretations are questionable and it lacks legal authority to displace state
and local law on the subject. Very few states have taken any FBO-specific
action in the past 12 months. Mr. Jackson expressed that their failure to do so
may jeopardize the Initiative.
At the end of presentation, Chairman Gray
asked for any comments or questions from the members. With no further
discussion, the meeting was adjourned.