U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–746 PDF 2007

S. Hrg. 109–849

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY’S

BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 1, 2006

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JENNIFER A. HEMINGWAY, Professional Staff Member 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel 

A. PATRICIA ROJAS, Minority Professional Staff Member 

JASON M. YANUSSI, Minority Professional Staff Member 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 1

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 3

Senator Coleman .............................................................................................. 5

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 6

Senator Bennett ................................................................................................ 7

Senator Dayton ................................................................................................. 8

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 9

Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................................... 10

Senator Warner ................................................................................................ 11

Senator Pryor .................................................................................................... 12

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 32

Prepared statement: 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 45

WITNESS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2006

Hon. Michael Chertoff, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 13

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49

Responses to questions submitted for the Record .......................................... 68

APPENDIX 

Letter dated February 10, 2006, submitted by Senator Dayton .......................... 46

Chart titled ‘‘Container Security Initiative’’ .......................................................... 47

Chart titled ‘‘Radiation Portal Monitor (RPM) Deployments at Seaports’’ ......... 48

(1)

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY’S BUDGET SUBMISSION 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2006

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. Susan M. Collins, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Collins, Voinovich, Coleman, Bennett, Warner, 

Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, Dayton, Lautenberg, and Pryor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS 

Chairman COLLINS. The Committee will come to order. 

Good morning. Today, the Committee will review the Department of Homeland Security’s budget submission for fiscal year 

2007. I am very pleased to welcome Secretary Chertoff back to the 

Committee. 

Three years ago today, the Department first opened its doors. As 

we review the implications of this budget proposal for our homeland security, we must do so in the context of both the accomplishments and the deficiencies of the past 3 years. The 2007 budget proposal requests $42.7 billion in funding, an 

overall increase of 6 percent. The President’s budget includes a 

number of funding increases that will help the Department make 

America stronger and the American people safer. 

For example, it provides increases for Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to better secure 

our borders and to help bring an end to the ‘‘catch and release’’ 

practice of not detaining those who are here illegally and who are 

caught by law enforcement officers. It also prioritizes intelligence 

gathering and analysis at the Department. 

In addition, the budget would create an office within the Department to oversee the security of chemical facilities. This is of particular interest to me as I have held four hearings on chemical security and have introduced bipartisan legislation with Senators 

Lieberman, Coleman, Carper, and Levin to authorize the Department to establish performance-based standards to enhance the security of our chemical plants. 

But there are other aspects of this budget that I find troubling. 

The mission of DHS cannot successfully be accomplished from 

2

Washington alone. The Department must rely on a strong partnership with State and local governments. Yet the Administration proposes to cut grants to State and local governments, to police, to 

firefighters, and to other first responders. 

These grants helped train and equip our first responders and include providing them with funds for interoperable telecommunications equipment. As we have seen time and again, from September 11 to Hurricane Katrina, this training and equipment are 

essential to an effective front-line response to catastrophes. 

There are other areas where I believe the funding is insufficient. 

Although this budget recommends a 4 percent increase for the 

Coast Guard, this amount is inadequate given the enormous expansion of the Coast Guard’s responsibilities for homeland security 

since September 11 as well as the proposed new mission for the 

Coast Guard of being responsible for the National Capital Region 

Air Defense. 

Nor does the budget adequately fund the Coast Guard’s nonhomeland security missions. Indeed, under the proposed budget, 

the Coast Guard would suffer cuts in areas such as search and rescue, maritime safety, and environmental protection. The cuts to 

search and rescue are particularly incomprehensible in light of the 

Coast Guard’s extraordinary, heroic performance during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

I am also very concerned that the proposed budget maintains the 

Deepwater Program as a 25-year acquisition project, causing us to 

continue to spend tremendous sums on legacy assets that are near 

or past their service life. 

And I will note that the Coast Guard, in response to inquiries 

from Senator Lieberman and myself in years past, has estimated 

that you could save literally more than a billion dollars by accelerating the Deepwater Program to a 10-year recapitalization. 

The silver lining of the reaction to the pending sale of Peninsular 

and Oriental (P&O) to Dubai Ports World is that it has served to 

highlight another critical issue, and that is port security. Last November, Senators Murray, Lieberman, Coleman, and I introduced 

the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act based on our years of 

work and investigations into port security. 

This comprehensive legislation authorizes $835 million for programs and initiatives to better secure our Nation’s ports. It provides strong direction to the Department regarding the crucial next 

steps in supply chain security. 

Regrettably, the Administration’s budget shortchanges port security. It does not dedicate a separate funding stream for port security grants, whereas our bill would provide $400 million for that 

purpose. The budget request folds port security in with all other 

transportation and critical infrastructure grants, thus providing no 

assurance of funding to strengthen the security of our ports 

through port security grants. 

I would note that this budget proposal was developed in the 

aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. While the Committee’s investigation of Katrina has highlighted many outstanding performances, 

such as by the Coast Guard, our investigation has also revealed a 

great many failures across the partnership of government agencies 

at all levels charged with disaster preparation and response. 

3

The failures at the Department of Homeland Security are profound and disturbing since the Department bears the ultimate Federal responsibility for effective preparation and quick response. I 

am encouraged, therefore, that the Department is requesting $50 

million for a National Preparedness Integration Program, a new 

initiative designed to strengthen the Nation’s capacity to prepare 

for and respond to natural and other disasters. I look forward to 

discussing with the Secretary how this new initiative and the overall budget will help produce far better results than we saw with 

Hurricane Katrina. 

Finally, of course, we come to FEMA. From the delayed, uncoordinated, and ineffective response to Katrina to the recurring and 

ongoing waste, fraud, and abuse that afflict the relief programs, 

the performance of FEMA during this disaster has been a disaster 

itself. 

The budget provides for a 10 percent increase to begin strengthening FEMA. But I remain concerned that the problems Katrina 

exposed require not only more resources, but also better leadership 

and a more integrated culture at DHS. 

A budget is primarily about money, but it is about more than 

just money. It is about priorities. As we review a budget that will 

carry the Department of Homeland Security into its fourth year, we 

must ensure that the priorities will truly advance the goal of a 

stronger, safer America. 

Senator Lieberman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Madam Chairman, for that excellent statement. 

Good morning, Secretary Chertoff. Mr. Secretary, in my opinion, 

the Administration’s proposed budget for homeland security is 

shortsighted and short-funded, given the dangers, both natural and 

terrorist, that this Department was created to confront. 

A new hurricane season begins exactly 3 months from today. And 

of course, the threat of terrorism never stopped, as we have seen 

in London, Madrid, Bali, and so many other places, despite the best 

efforts to prevent it. The fact is that a terrorist attack could happen almost any place at any time. 

And therefore, the Department of Homeland Security must be 

more ready than it is now, in my opinion, to detect, prevent, and 

respond. Yet this budget actually makes cuts in areas history has 

shown are most crucial, certainly when responding to a disaster. 

The Administration’s proposed Department of Homeland Security 

budget cuts $802 million from programs for first responders and 

cuts $233 million from the Coast Guard for its traditional missions. 

It was, after all, State and local first responders and the Coast 

Guard who were among the greatest heroes of Hurricane Katrina. 

They must be given the funds they need to better prepare for and 

respond to the next disaster. 

This budget, as Chairman Collins has said, also fails to accelerate the Coast Guard’s Deepwater integrated system program, ignoring evidence that such acceleration will not only provide better 

security and response, but save the Federal Government a lot of 

money in the long run. 

4

Despite the very necessary attention finally being paid to port security as a result of the Dubai Ports World deal, this budget, in my 

opinion, fails to address adequately the damage that terrorists can 

do in containers carried to America aboard ships. It provides no 

new money for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CustomsTrade Partnership Against Terrorism Program, leaving just 80 inspectors with the responsibility of assessing the security practices 

of about 10,000 applicants under this program. And it provides just $35 million for X-ray or other imaging prototypes that will be deployed at just five ports of the many ports in 

this country for cargo inspection next year. At this pace, we will 

not have all the Nation’s ports covered by the necessary imaging 

equipment for at least another 5 years. 

I am deeply concerned by the Administration’s proposal once 

again to force ports, chemical plants, and rail and transit facilities 

to compete with each other, along with public utilities, telecommunications, and financial networks, for scarce security resources through a consolidated grant program. 

I also believe the border security priorities outlined in the budget 

are, to some extent, misplaced and do not reflect a realistic assessment of all of the avenues of infiltration terrorists are likely to use 

to get into this country. 

Finally, as Chairman Collins has said, the budget inadequately 

addresses some of the failures of FEMA that Hurricane Katrina exposed, failures that the Administration’s own report acknowledges 

and that, of course, our Committee investigation has already detailed. 

Those are my criticisms. But as in the last few years, I have felt 

a responsibility to work with my staff and others who follow questions of homeland security to come up with some estimate of what 

we think would adequately fund this Department. And I have expressed those in a letter that I am sending to the Budget Committee chairman, Senator Gregg, and the ranking member, Senator 

Conrad. And I will give you, Secretary Chertoff, a copy of those recommendations and ask your consideration of them. 

In sum, they would have our government invest an additional $8 

billion in homeland security needs government-wide next fiscal 

year, with about $6.3 billion of that going to the crucial programs 

that are in the Department of Homeland Security. 

Very briefly, to highlight a few of those areas that I would make 

recommendations in, one is to restore $802 million to first responder programs and then add an additional $1.2 billion to help 

improve the State and local capabilities, particularly in the area of 

interoperable communications, which everybody acknowledges are 

critically deficient now. 

I would recommend adding $1.7 billion in spending on security 

for chemical plants, ports, and other critical infrastructure systems 

like rail and transit. I would give FEMA an additional $465 million 

to specifically improve its readiness, response, and recovery capabilities in areas that Katrina exposed as flawed. 

I would provide the Coast Guard with an additional $1.1 billion, 

primarily to accelerate that Deepwater Program to modernize and 

replace the Coast Guard’s fleet, which, unfortunately, is one of the 

oldest in the world. 

5

I would increase the budget for Immigration and Customs En- forcement by $158 million so that the agency can station more visa 

security officers overseas, provide more training for consular officers, and identify additional criminal aliens who are in jail and 

should be deported from the United States. And finally, I would recommend investing an additional $752 

million next year in aviation security so that we can better detect 

explosives in checked bags or carried on by passengers. 

Can the Department get by with the budget that the Administration has recommended? Yes, it can. But getting by is not enough 

in an age of terrorism and an age of continuing natural disasters 

post-Katrina. We have an urgent need, in my opinion, to invest 

more now so that we will be safer sooner and into the future. 

The fact is there is no cheap way to be better prepared. We know 

that from our work with regard to our military. It takes money. 

More money, in my opinion, than this budget offers. But it is 

money that will be very well spent because it will bring the greater 

protection that the American people need. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I look forward to your testimony, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Coleman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am going to 

make very brief comments. 

I first want to associate myself, Madam Chairman, with your 

comments and the concerns that you have specifically raised, the 

things that you have found troubling—grants, State and local governments, first responders, the importance of additional resources 

to the Coast Guard, and then, significantly, port security. And I 

will talk about that during my question and answer time. 

I just want to say this, Mr. Secretary. I think you have the 

toughest job in the President’s Cabinet. The reality is that there 

are challenges that we face overseas every day in Iraq, but the Secretary of Defense isn’t on the line personally. There are challenges 

that we face in the environment. There are challenges we face in 

transportation. Challenges we face across the board. 

But your neck is on the line personally when things don’t go 

right with Katrina. We see it when we have concerns about what 

is happening with port security. And so, I want to recognize that. 

I also want to note that I had the opportunity recently to visit 

our border areas in San Diego. I was in Arizona looking at the testing of the unmanned vehicle, UAVs. Our border folks are doing a 

much better job than we give them credit for. It is a stunning challenge. Much better job than we give them credit for. 

So I want to say that as I then get into areas of concern, and 

there are areas of concern. Clearly, the situation with the UAE has 

highlighted the issue of port security, which many of us have been 

working on for a long time. 

And as we look at this budget, my concern is that we are still 

not putting the resources in areas where we know we have problems. We can’t be looking back to the last challenge, which we had 

when we were dealing with aviation security. We have also got to 

look ahead. You can’t just fight the last war. 

6

I had a chance to be in Hong Kong, and Hong Kong privately 

funded, they screen each and every container, each and every container. Ten thousand trucks a day dropping containers in, and we 

are still doing a targeting system. 

There isn’t money in the budget for testing and validation of the 

automatic targeting system. There isn’t money in the budget for 

the ISIS system, the system that would allow us to screen each and 

every container. 

There are still concerns about the ability to bring a nuclear device into this country. I think we are at about 40 percent of cargo 

being screened through radiation portal monitors. I worry that, as 

I look in the budget, there is, perhaps, an overly optimistic estimation of where we are going to go in the next couple of years, and 

the resources aren’t there. 

So, again, I want to say that I appreciate what you are doing. 

I appreciate the difficulty of what you are doing. But it is important, and the reason your neck is on the line is that we can’t afford 

failure, and we have to make sure the resources are there. And so, 

in my questioning, I will highlight some of those areas. 

But I also do want, as I said, to compliment the work that we 

have seen in Customs and Border Patrol and other areas that your 

folks are doing every day on the front line. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Levin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. First, let me say that I fully agree with 

our Chairman, our Ranking Member, in terms of the shortfalls in 

your budget. Senator Lieberman went through a list of needed additions to the budget. The Chairman has also indicated where the 

budget is short, and I will fully be supportive of trying to add to 

your budget for these essential needs, including port security and 

interoperable communications equipment, first responder support. 

You also in the budget severely shortchange two areas that I 

have a particular interest in. One is the northern border, the longest border we have. Nonetheless, we find that the resources have 

not been provided as promised. 

It was just a couple of years ago—actually, in March of last 

year—that I asked you whether or not you were going to be opening up the five northern border airwing locations, which are so essential to air interdiction and enforcement capabilities along the 

northern border. You assured me that there would be one each 

year added. That has not happened. 

There were two sites, particularly in southeastern Michigan, 

which you were going to consider. We have not seen those commitments relative to the northern border airwing carried out. 

The Coast Guard budget is of tremendous concern to us. There 

is a great emphasis on the Deepwater Program, and the Chairman 

indicated that she would like to speed up that program. And we 

would surely support that. But there is almost nothing in that program for the Great Lakes. 

We instead are losing boats in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes 

is our longest coastline. I don’t know whether that is recognized in 

7

homeland security, whether or not the Great Lakes and the St. 

Lawrence Seaway together, by far, is our longest coastline. We are 

exceedingly vulnerable because we have such good relations with 

Canada. That opens the vulnerabilities to us. 

And yet, when it comes to the Coast Guard budget, we see a reduction in the budget and in the commitment to replace ships that 

are being lost in the Coast Guard for the Great Lakes. That is totally unacceptable to us. 

And so, during my question period, we are going to be focusing 

on the northern border and on the Great Lakes and pressing you 

on why it is that with all of the needs that we have that there is 

such a disadvantageous position that the budget places the Great 

Lakes in, despite the fact that it is, with the northern border, our 

longest border and, with the Great Lakes, our longest coastline. 

Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Bennett. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, listening to this litany, I wonder why we haven’t 

had a whole lot of attacks, problems in 3 years. We haven’t had 

any since September 11. 

The combination of the Department of Homeland Security and 

the Department of Defense and the intelligence community has 

succeeded in keeping the terrorists from our shores. They have 

been forced to turn to Madrid or London or Saudi Arabia or other 

places for their attacks, and they are currently making their stand 

in Iraq. 

So with all of your difficulties—and I repeat, I am the one who 

predicted this Department wouldn’t work for at least 5 years regardless of who headed it and regardless of how much money it 

had just because of the challenge of putting it together—someone, 

somehow, somewhere must have been doing something right to 

have kept us safe to the degree we have been since the September 

11 attack. 

I have some questions that I will raise during the question period. I welcome you here. I am grateful for your explanation of the 

P&O, Dubai Ports World thing. I have no problem with that. 

My first reaction was that which everybody had. My gosh, we are 

going to turn the ports over to the Arabs? Then you get into the 

details, and clearly, Dubai is an ally in the war on terror. The 

Dubai Ports World is an organization upon whom we are dependent for our naval activities around the world. Without their excellent providing of ports where naval ships can put in with complete 

security and safety, we would have more examples of the USS Cole

kind of thing. 

So I simply welcome you here, and while I have some of the same 

questions that some of my colleagues have, I acknowledge the fact 

that when you step back from it and look at the overall picture, we 

can’t ignore the fact that the United States has survived since September 11 without an additional attack on our shores. 

And for that, we can be grateful to you and Secretary Ridge and 

all of the people in your Department, the intelligence community, 

and the Department of Defense for the great job they have been 

8

doing, in spite of all of the problems that have been legitimately 

raised here by my colleagues. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Dayton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAYTON 

Senator DAYTON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I would like to associate myself with all of the remarks that have 

preceded me, and I think Senator Bennett’s comments are well 

founded. I am waiting in my lifetime to see the front page headline 

‘‘Government does something well.’’ And we don’t acknowledge 

those successes, and you certainly deserve credit. 

And the many thousands of dedicated men and women working 

with you, under you, who are devoting their careers, their lives to 

protecting this country and doing so with a vigilance that I think 

we all need to respect and show due gratitude for. 

When I was commissioner of economic development on a much 

smaller scale in Minnesota in the governor’s cabinet, I said that 

working for a governor, as you work for the chief executive, is like 

having a constituency of one. I was responsible to him and to his 

final decisions and upholding those. 

In this case, however, I think you have a broader constituency, 

which is all of the American people. And I worry, as the Chairman 

and particularly the Ranking Member, I think, outlined very well, 

that this budget is deficient and that it doesn’t represent the best 

interests of all of that broad constituency. 

I think the border security is one of critical concern. I agree with 

Senator Levin as it relates to the northern border, although I want 

to acknowledge that there has been some modest improvements in 

the northern border in Minnesota, and I appreciate that. I hope 

those will continue. 

I worry about the first responder prioritization, as some call it. 

I call it triage because some of the first responders, the local units, 

the government in Minnesota have been zeroed out of funding. And 

we sent them a first message that they should devote thousands 

of person-hours, which they have in a very dedicated way, to being 

ready to respond, and then we turn around and tell them a year 

or two later, ‘‘Well, you are not a priority. So you don’t have any 

money.’’

I think that is a very wrong message. And when you look at a 

bunch of trailers sitting in Hope, Arkansas, rotting away, it is hard 

to explain to first responders, local government officials in places 

like Ramsey County, Minnesota, why they don’t deserve any funding whatsoever and how that fits into a homeland security set of 

priorities. So I do look forward to your testimony in that regard. 

And I would just note also that I believe we are going to take 

up in the next couple of weeks immigration reform, a serious crisis. 

Badly needed, long overdue. But if we don’t have your border security, particularly in the southern border as it relates to the border 

with Mexico, if we don’t really deal with that directly and with 

whatever additional resources—manpower, person power, security, 

technology, whatever is necessary—we are going to defeat our own 

efforts at reform. 

And in Minnesota, I know the methamphetamine epidemic is 

truly that, and the flood of pure methamphetamine is coming now, 

9

I am told by local law enforcement, directly from Mexico into a 

northern State like Minnesota. It has got to be happening elsewhere in the country. I think we have a crisis of security in our 

borders, and I hope this budget, if it doesn’t address that, can do 

so remedially with this Committee. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Welcome back to the Committee. I would like to thank you for 

your leadership and the leadership of your colleagues in the Department. As was already stated, the combining of agencies to create the Department of Homeland Security is a monumental management challenge, more significant than when we put the Defense 

Department together five decades ago. 

And so, you have a full plate and have had many challenges. I 

want to make sure that you understand and that your family understands that we do appreciate the effort that you have made to 

do this job for the American people. 

I think, to a degree, many of the comments made here are very 

well taken. We have a real dilemma here. We want everything to 

be secured, but if you add it all up, it would bankrupt the country. 

I have said on many occasions that Osama bin Laden is probably 

one of the happiest people in the world because what he wanted 

to wrought in the United States he has accomplished, and that is 

the fear of terror. 

If we do everything that everyone suggests to enhance security, 

we will bankrupt the country. Our problem is that we need to understand that our resources are limited. And we can’t, as a Nation, 

look to the non-defense discretionary budget as the place where we 

are going to save money. 

In other words, the discretionary non-defense budget has been almost flat-funded. You have proposed a 6 percent increase in the 

DHS budget. But if you take out the money that TSA is supposed 

to collect from the airlines, and you don’t get it this year, in fact, 

the 6 percent increase is substantially reduced. 

When you, as the Secretary, go to the Office of Management and 

Budget, I would like to know, do you give them your full budgetary 

requirements? Or do they tell you, ‘‘Mr. Secretary, we don’t want 

to see any more than a 3 percent or 4 percent increase?’’

I think the Members of this Committee ought to know that you 

have to deal with OMB, and I don’t know whether you are going 

to be able to be candid with us today regarding your agency’s budgetary requirements. 

I don’t understand in a country with the Iraq war and with 

homeland security costs why this Nation is talking about making 

tax cuts permanent. We need more money to get the job done, and 

the American people understand it. 

But our head is in the sand, folks. It is in the sand. I am a 

former mayor and former governor. I have had to go through the 

budget process. Our Federal Government must balance its expenses and revenues. 

10

We are asking Secretary Chertoff to do almost an impossible job 

because we are not giving him the resources that he needs to get 

the job done. We are not doing it because when he goes to OMB, 

they tell him, ‘‘This is the amount you are going to have.’’ Perhaps 

you can discuss that in your testimony. 

But we ought to look at the bigger picture and decide what it is 

that we really need to do and then set priorities in terms of how 

we use our resources. We can’t afford everything that all of us are 

talking about here today. We don’t have the money for it. 

When I was mayor of Cleveland, we had to make hard choices 

between police, fire, and choices between other things. You come up 

with a reasonable budget, and you allocate the resources as best 

you can. 

The most important thing, Mr. Secretary, is that we have not 

had an event in the United States of America since September 11. 

I thank you, and I thank the other people involved in protecting 

our Nation. We all want to make sure that we don’t have another 

event. 

So I would just like to say that as we go through this hearing, 

I would like to have some real candor from you. I am concerned, 

for instance, in FEMA, you have lost 500 people. And nearly half 

the people you have remaining are eligible for retirement. How are 

you going to handle it? 

You have management positions in that agency that are left unfilled. You have to have enough people to accomplish FEMA’s mission. And how are you going to get that job done? 

If I were a FEMA employee and I had a chance to retire, I would 

get out of there quickly. I am out there busting my back, trying to 

get the job done, and all I do is read about the fact that FEMA is 

a terrible organization. I come home to my children and to my wife, 

and they say, ‘‘You work for that bum agency.’’ You know? 

These are practical things that we are dealing with here today, 

and I think we need to get real here at this Committee, and we 

have to get real in the U.S. Senate about the resources that we 

need to get the job done and stop putting our head in the sand as 

we have done for too long a period during the last several years. 

Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator Voinovich just raised a ray of hope that goes a long way 

with me. When we talk about further permanence of tax cuts and 

we talk about our needs, these two things just don’t square. 

I sat on this Committee—Mr. Secretary, I am glad to see you—

and I want to recall for this Committee’s review how hard we both 

worked to get grants given on a risk base. And we had a vote, and 

there was only one person who voted for making it risk based, and 

that was me. Nobody else. Nobody else here thought that was the 

way to do it, despite the fact that you, sir, and the 9/11 Commission said absolutely that is a critical condition. And finally, I think 

we are getting closer there. 

But when I look at the responsibility that we have in the Senate 

and our government and, as we heard Senator Voinovich describe 

11

it, almost an impossible task, but that doesn’t mean you don’t work 

at it. And the fact of the matter is that never before have we ever 

had a single day in America when we lost almost 3,000 citizens in 

a terrorist act. 

And the fact that we have been spared such a happening again 

shows good work, shows hard work, but it also doesn’t say that we 

can breathe easy. And if that is the way we look at this and say, 

OK, one single attack on our people or our soil can kill as many 

as died that day. 

And I look at the port of New York/New Jersey, where our interests primarily are, and been told by the FBI that in that 2-mile 

stretch from Newark airport to the New York/New Jersey harbor, 

a chemical attack could kill as many as 12 million people, how dare 

we say, well, OK, we are going to mix in port security with other 

things and let you scrap it out, kids, and divide it up so that we 

look pretty good from the Administration standpoint. ‘‘There is 

more money in there. What are you talking about?’’

The fact is it is a dereliction of duty. And I am pleased to hear 

my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about the need that 

we have and that we must fill if we are going to do our job honestly 

and correctly. 

The Coast Guard, we keep giving them more assignments and 

less money to do things with. They are a very important part of 

our protection mechanism. 

And so, when I look at what we budget to protect lives in Iraq, 

and I respect protecting those lives. I hate to see it when 20 or 30 

children or women are killed, Iraqis, by other Iraqis. But when I 

think of rebuilding, trying to rebuild Iraq, and I think of trying to 

rebuild New Orleans, and I think of trying to protect almost 300 

million Americans in the best way we can, the budgets are quite 

differently calculated. 

Mr. Secretary, one question was asked of you. Are you relegated 

to spectator position when it comes to the budget? Or can you, or 

dare you, fight to do the job, the entire job that is in front of you? 

I know that you try hard, and we respect your efforts. But we 

have to get more, in good conscience, to protect our people. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Warner. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER 

Senator WARNER. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I welcome you this morning, Judge. And I happen to be one that 

thinks you are doing a fine job, and just hang in there. 

The question of cyber security has been a subject that I have 

been intensely interested in. If I may say with a little immodesty, 

about 5 years ago, I actually set up a program of scholarships using 

the defense budget for young people to get a 4-year curricula paid 

education if they, in turn, would give 21⁄2 years back to some Federal entity dealing with cyber security. 

I saw where you achieved a $7 million increase in the cyber security account, and I am wondering as to your own views as to the 

risks associated with that critical subject and how your Department is proceeding? 

12

At the appropriate time, I will put those questions to him. But 

I thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Pryor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Welcome back to the Committee, Mr. Secretary. It is good to 

have you here. 

In this budget, I am pleased to see that FEMA is getting a 10 

percent increase, but I am still concerned about that agency’s organization and leadership. I am concerned that the Coast Guard is 

only getting a 4 percent increase, given their new responsibility for 

the Deepwater Program, for example. 

We have a very small Coast Guard presence in our State because 

we are not a coastal State. But I am very impressed with the work 

the Coast Guard has done since I have been in the Senate. Very 

impressed. And I just think it is one of those agencies that we 

should give more resources to as we give them more responsibility. 

I am also a little bit dismayed in the cuts—well, more than a little bit dismayed in the cuts for programs for State and local first 

responders. In fact, there are two programs—the Law Enforcement 

Terrorism Prevention Program and the State Homeland Security 

Grant Program—if you just add those two together, I think they 

are getting a $317 million cut. 

So I feel like that is too much, but I would love to hear your rationale on that and hear your view of the budget pressures that 

you are under. 

And also I just want to recall a conversation that we had with 

Secretary Ridge. I had a line of questions with him, and we talked 

about this a number of times with him, either publicly or privately. 

And that is when Homeland Security was a brand-new Department—it is kind of like what Senator Bennett said—I felt that it 

really was an opportunity, but also a challenge, to set Homeland 

Security up as a model agency. 

And I know that is easy to say and hard to do. But I am just 

not sure yet that Homeland Security has lived up to that promise. 

I hope that it is moving in that direction, but I think it has had 

a few bumps in the road along the way. And certainly, I hope for 

the very best for the Department of Homeland Security and hope 

for the very best for your leadership there. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. 

I would advise my colleagues that the lights on the clock are not 

working. The vote has begun. I would suggest that we recess at 

this point and then come back and proceed with the Secretary’s testimony. 

The Committee will be in recess for 15 minutes. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman COLLINS. The Committee will come to order. Our witness today is Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. 

Secretary Chertoff, I want to thank you for appearing before the 

Committee today to present the Department’s budget prepared 

after a year of very significant events for the Department. I also 

want to join my colleagues in thanking you for your leadership. 

13

1The prepared statement of Secretary Chertoff appears in the Appendix on page 49. 

This is an extraordinarily challenging job, and we look forward to 

hearing your testimony today. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL CHERTOFF,1 SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator 

Lieberman, and the other Members of the Committee. It is always 

a pleasure to appear, and it is always a pleasure actually to deal 

with you personally. We get to talk from time to time about how 

we are trying to shape this still very young Department. 

I am going to be brief because I know that people have a lot of 

questions. But this is a period of a number of milestones. It is the 

third anniversary of the Department being stood up. It is a little 

bit more than a year since I was confirmed and sworn in. 

At the time I went through my hearing, I remember people asked 

me, ‘‘Well, how do you feel giving up a lifetime appointment for 

this?’’ And now I realize that in this job, a year is a lifetime. So 

I guess I have come out ahead. 

I do think what I want to do is lay out some of the principles 

that I think we are trying to apply in continuing the job of building 

the Department and making it work as well as it can, making it 

a model Department, and then talk very briefly about four priority 

areas. 

I have a written statement I would request the Committee accept 

for the record. 

Chairman COLLINS. Without objection. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. And I certainly want to be clear that my 

focus on four priorities doesn’t mean to exclude other things, but 

it is simply a recognition of a limit of time. 

I agree with I think what Senator Lautenberg said and what 

Senator Dayton said about not breathing easily. I take a lot of comfort in the fact that we haven’t been attacked successfully in this 

country in the last 4 years. That is a tribute to the work done in 

many departments—our Department, the Department of Justice, 

and the Department of Defense. 

And I think we have had some instances where but for that very 

fine work, we might have had different results. But it does not 

mean we can be complacent. And I am still focused very deeply on 

the issue of what we can do to elevate our ability to prevent, protect against, and, if necessary, respond to terrorism. 

The basic principles I think we bring to what we do here are 

four. First of all, we have to be systematic. We have to think about 

the objectives we are trying to achieve, assess what are the elements we need to get to the objective, and then make sure we adequately fund and build the capabilities to meet the objective. 

Second, we have to be integrated. We are not fully integrated yet. 

I think one of the lessons of last year was integration was incomplete. And to be honest with you, I think there were some people 

who resisted integration. 

And I think, in a very painful way, we have learned the lesson 

that we have to complete the job that this Committee and this Senate and this Congress told us to do, which is to build a single deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:00 Apr 19, 2007 Jkt 027746 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27746.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
14

partment. And that means the hesitancy in some quarters has to 

be put to one side, and we have to now understand we are going 

to be one department and function as one. 

Third, I think Senator Voinovich was correct in observing at 

some level the challenge in dealing with security is recognizing 

that there is a limitless demand for security. The city of New York, 

I think, has 30,000, 40,000 police officers. I am sure if it had 

400,000, it would be even safer. 

We always balance. And the way we balance in this Department 

is risk management. We try to focus on the highest priority risks 

and then apply our resources to those, recognizing that we can’t 

guarantee against all risks. And I think one of the things I have 

tried to do in the last year is to have a mature conversation with 

the American people about what we can do and what we can’t do 

and what is reasonable to expect and what is not reasonable. 

Finally, again, to echo Senator Voinovich, who has just walked 

in, I think the fourth principle we have to have in this job is respect for the people who do the work. They do an outstanding job, 

and I do worry about morale. I worry about the fact that, for example, people with FEMA—many of whom did just a tremendous 

job—are subject to ridicule, not individually, but the component is 

the butt of jokes. 

I think we obviously owe them increased resources, and we have 

a lot more in this budget for that. But we also need to recognize 

the accomplishments. 

And part of what I want to do in this opening statement is talk 

about some of the things we have done right because although I am 

the first to admit we have more to do, and I said it last summer 

in this Committee, I think it is important to say we have done a 

lot. And I think the people of this country should hear that from 

me, and the people from this Department should hear me saying 

it. 

So let me turn to four areas. First, port security. Port security 

is very much in the news. I know you know, and I am going to 

make it clear publicly, that we have been focused on port security 

as a significant issue for the last year. 

One of the things I talked about in my 2SR review was the need 

to extend the issue of the security envelope, secure freight, so we 

would have better visibility and better control over cargo in the 

maritime domain at an earlier point in the supply chain. And that 

is something we are still very much focused on as an end state. 

Part of what I want to do is, in fact, I am planning to go out to 

Hong Kong, as I told Senator Coleman, at the end of this month 

to look at their prototype. We are monitoring the prototype. I have 

to caution everybody that it is still a concept. They are putting containers through, but they are not necessarily assessing them in the 

way one would have to assess them in real life. 

We are going to have to ultimately test this against the real-life 

demands of balancing the time it takes to really look at what you 

are screening versus the time you want to spend lingering before 

you load the vessel. But it is an important issue. 

One thing I would like to address is the criticism I see sometimes 

when people talk about the amount of money we spend on port security. Often, there is a kind of apples to raisins comparison. PeoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:00 Apr 19, 2007 Jkt 027746 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27746.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
15

1The chart titled ‘‘Container Security Initative’’ appears in the Appendix on page 47. 

1The chart titled ‘‘Radiation Portal Monitor (RPM) Deployment at Seaports’’ appears in the 

Appendix on page 48. 

ple compare air security, aviation security, include the payroll for 

the screeners, include the capital expenses. But then when they 

look at port security, they only look at the amount of money spent 

in grants. 

But if you look at the line items for port security and the U.S. 

Coast Guard and money on CSI, C–TPAT, and Customs and Border 

Protection, and what we are doing at S&T and what we are doing 

in the Transportation Security Administration, you will see that 

last year, in 2006, we had almost $2.5 billion, with a ‘‘B,’’ spent on 

matters related to port security. This year, the 2007 request ups that to $3.1 billion, and that in- cludes a significant chunk for the Coast Guard, a little over $2 billion in port security for the Coast Guard. If we get the 2007 budget, we will have spent almost $10 billion on port security-related 

funding since 2004. 

And I think that is not only a very important statement, but I 

think important to bear in mind when we compare the money on 

aviation security. Because we need to make sure we are comparing 

personnel costs and capital costs in an apples to apples way against 

both accounts. 

Now we have more to do. We have to complete the process of deploying our Container Security Initiative. And let me show you 

where we are with this. The Container Security Initiative is currently rolled out at 42 ports. That covers 74 percent of the container cargo that comes into this country during the course of a 

year. At the end of this fiscal year in October, we will add an additional eight ports, and that will give us approximately a little over 

80 percent. 

What this chart is going to show you,1 first of all, is there has 

been a dramatic increase since March 2002, when this began. It 

will also show you that we have focused our attention on those 

ports which have the maximum volume of containers being shipped 

out. And that makes sense. I mean that is where, again, being risk 

managers, we want to be focused first. 

A second element of our strategy is radiation portal monitors, 

which I think was brought up in one of the opening statements. 

And here again, this is part of what we call our layered defense for 

the ports.1 But we began this program in February 2003, and if you 

see where we expect to be in October 2006, it will be 66 percent 

of the cargo that comes in containers through our seaports will be 

taken through radiation portal monitors. 

Now that is not to say the job is done yet. We are projecting getting to over 95 percent at the end of fiscal year 2007. But I have 

to say two thirds at the end of this fiscal year is certainly an accomplishment, and it certainly takes us a lot further than we were, 

for example, in February 2005, when I think there was a somewhat 

critical GAO report saying we only had a small percentage of containers going through. 

We also have approximately 90 percent of that cargo going 

through the land ports is going through radiation portal monitors. 

So these are a couple of things we are doing that I think are measVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:00 Apr 19, 2007 Jkt 027746 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27746.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
16

urable accomplishments. We have put a lot of money into a Domestic Nuclear Detection Office that is designed to take us to the next 

level of research in terms of technology. But it is also designed to 

make sure we are integrating our detection system. 

The right way to do this is to make sure our intelligence and our 

operations and our technology are treated as a single system. And 

the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, which I am pleased to say 

that Congress has now funded in 2006 and which we have asked 

for considerable funding in 2007, is going to do just that. 

Let me turn to FEMA. As someone observed, we envision a 10 

percent increase in FEMA’s budget over last year. And if we include the amount of money that was provided in the 2006 supplemental, we will be adding 240 FTEs to FEMA. These are going to 

be looking at some very critical support functions. Procurement 

staff, pre-disaster mitigation grants, strengthen financial and acquisition management—things which are designed to address some 

of the shortfalls in capability we had during what was, by any 

measure, an extraordinary year last year. 

But I want to go beyond dollars to talk very specifically about 

what we are doing for hurricane season because we have 3 months 

to hurricane season, and we have a gulf that is in the process of 

being rebuilt. And that will pose special challenges. 

We are in the process now of contracting, getting the procurement people onboard and contracting for logistics capabilities for 

this hurricane season. That means not only filling up and resupplying the caches or stockpiles of material that we have, but making sure we have contracts for surge capacity. And most importantly, for the first time, building into those contracts requirements 

for real-time visibility to the movement of goods that we did not 

previously have. So that is one thing we are going to be doing. 

Second, we are working on upgrading our call center capacity to 

get up to a surge ability of 200,000 calls if we were to need that 

for registration. We have already put into place a mechanism for 

verifying identity and verifying or acting against fraudulent Social 

Security numbers on our telephone registration system that 

matches what we previously had in our computerized Web-based 

system. 

We are in the process of acquiring enhanced communication capability. I have tasked our communications people by June 1 to 

have a fully developed and resourced communications capability 

that we can put into any afflicted area that can use, for example, 

aircraft or Coast Guard cutters as relay stations to relay radio traffic, as well as to support our own teams of law enforcement trained 

individuals who will go in self-sustained to be able to give us real 

situational awareness on the ground. 

So those are some of the things we are doing in the area of 

FEMA. 

Chemical security. As I think we have said previously, and I will 

reiterate again, we support the idea of a chemical bill that in an 

intelligent and risk-based way gives us the authority necessary to 

make sure that we bring chemical companies up to standard. That 

is a tiered approach looking at the nature of the risk. It would put 

a burden, obviously, on the industry to come up to standard. 

17

Much of the industry, I think, wants to do that, but I recognize 

some do not. And I think that the industry, at this point, would 

welcome a sensible regulatory regime. We have been working with 

the Committee on this. I would very much like to see a chemical 

security bill passed this year. I think it is overdue. 

It will require us to be sensible to recognize that not everybody 

is going to be happy with every element of the bill. But if we pitch 

it right, we will actually produce a positive result, which I think 

will make the American people not only have more faith in us as 

government actors, but more confidence in their own safety. 

Finally, border security. I am pleased this year to come up with 

a budget with 1,500 additional Border Patrol agents, which, on top 

of the 1,500 we got in this last year, will bring us up to almost 

14,000 by the end of fiscal year 2007. 

But it is not just about agents, it is about increased technology. 

We are, for the first time, putting together an integrated strategy 

with ICE and CBP to acquire technology. We hope to start that 

this fiscal year. That will give us really the ability to leverage our 

personnel with respect to intercepting illegal migrants at the border. 

Another critical element of this is ending catch and release. I 

said I was going to make this my objective this fiscal year. We are 

on track to getting that accomplished. We have not only additional 

beds we received from Congress in the last year, but we are asking 

for 6,700 additional detention beds for the next fiscal year, which 

would increase our capacity to make sure we do not release people 

who should be removed from the country. 

I have to be honest and tell you we track this very carefully. We 

are trying to use the Secure Border Initiative as a prototype for a 

whole new way of organizing the Department in which we are very 

clear about mission, very clear about assignment, and we build 

very clear metrics so we can track on a weekly basis everything 

that we do. 

In fact, I am now, both with our FEMA retooling and our border 

activity and our preparedness activities, getting weekly reports 

with metrics, which allow me to hold people accountable in a very 

specific way for what they are doing. 

The two obstacles we are going to face with respect to detention 

beds relate to a court injunction that is preventing us from expedited removal for a certain category of people we apprehend. We 

are in court. We are trying to get that injunction, which is 11 years 

old, modified to let us do what we have to do. I will be pleased to 

answer questions about that. 

And we also have some countries that don’t take their illegal migrants back. We can only make this work if we are able to send 

people back. If we have to occupy beds for months at a time without being able to remove people, it becomes simply impossible financially to do it, plus I think after 6 months there is an argument 

that there will be a legal requirement we release people. 

I won’t name the countries here, but I will tell you that we are 

going to be working very aggressively. Diplomatically, I have spoken to the Secretary of State about this. I intend, when I go to 

Asia, to be raising this issue to make sure that countries that want 

to trade with us understand they have to live up to their obligation 

18

to take people back. They cannot simply put the burden on us to 

house people who are illegal migrants. 

There are many other things that I could talk about, but I know 

that you all have a lot of questions. I want to thank you again for 

hearing me, and I look forward to answering questions. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you for your testimony. 

We are going to begin a round of 8 minutes per Senator, and I 

would ask everyone, and I will likewise, to stick to the time because we have so many Senators present today. 

Secretary Chertoff, you mentioned in your statement that some 

of the component agencies of your Department have resisted integration. And as you are well aware, there are some who have concluded that DHS is simply too big, too unwieldy. It just doesn’t 

work. 

Fueling that perception have been a number of serious communications gaps. We talked about that, as you are painfully aware, 

with Katrina, where vital information about the levees did not 

reach you and other top officials when it should have. 

Similarly, this week we learned that an important Coast Guard 

memo raising red flags about the Dubai purchase did not reach 

your deputy nor Mr. Baker, your designee on the Committee reviewing the transaction. 

I want to make clear that I don’t think the answer to those problems is to break up the Department, although others do. What are 

you doing to foster better internal communications to ensure that 

vital information reaches you and other top officials since this has 

happened more than once? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think there are two separate issues. I 

mean, the FEMA issue was a much more fundamental problem. 

And the way we deal with this is, first of all, the purpose of our 

2SR reorganization was precisely to flatten the organization, get 

the component heads more closely in touch with the secretary and 

the deputy secretary. And then create cross-cutting functions in the 

same way that the Defense Department does when they manage 

the various different kinds of elements that you do to have a joint 

command. 

So what we do now, by way of example, is now we have weekly 

component meetings with the component heads, where we discuss 

the whole range of departmental issues. We have cross-cutting 

functions like preparedness, where our under secretary works with 

all of the different components on a regular basis, making sure we 

are integrated. 

We have a policy office, which we have—again, as part of 2SR—

put into place, which now has an integrated planning capability. 

And a perfect example of that is our Secure Border Initiative. 

Every week, I sit down with the heads of Customs and Border 

Protection, Border Patrol, ICE, or their deputies, and we look over 

an integrated plan that they have all contributed to building under 

the auspices of the planning element of our policy office. So that 

everybody has ownership in the mission. That is building the kind 

of culture of preparedness that we need. 

Another thing that we need to do is build jointness down in the 

organization. And I am interested in building a set of career paths 

19

that actually encourage people to be cross-designated into other departments or detailed into other components. 

We do that, for example, with the Coast Guard now. We use the 

Coast Guard in a lot of areas. We do it with the Secret Service. 

And I think much of the military has done it. 

Over time, that will give us the kind of real integration as a single department, which we need to really realize the fruits of this 

creation. 

Chairman COLLINS. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I 

am very concerned about the cuts in funding to State and local governments, to first responder groups, because they are your essential partners. And as we learned during Katrina, if you don’t have 

strong partners at the State and local level, our ability to respond 

will be lessened considerably. 

In that regard, I am particularly concerned about the reduction 

in the Emergency Management Performance Grants Program. This 

program has been around for many years. The budget proposes $15 

million less than was enacted last year. 

And emergency managers are deeply concerned with this funding 

level, particularly since many believe that an inadequate State 

emergency management capability was exposed by Katrina and 

that if you don’t invest at that level, you risk a repetition of the 

response in Katrina. 

What is the rationale for cutting the emergency management 

grant program as well as other money that goes to State and local 

officials and first responders? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think, as you know, of course, that the 

amount we have allocated in the budget this year is the same that 

was allocated last year. 

Chairman COLLINS. But less than was enacted. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. But less than was enacted by about $13 

million. I would also have to observe, to put it in context, that we 

do have $50 million for our preparedness initiative, which is, in 

fact, designed to work with emergency managers in the 50 States 

and 75 biggest urban areas on their evacuation and emergency 

plans. 

So we should look at the whole complex of grants that are available for these kinds of planning and preparedness functions in 

evaluating the kinds of resources that are available. I would say in 

general, though, if you look at what we are doing, we tend to move 

away from grants that are personnel cost focused. And it is a philosophical issue. 

Generally, we believe grants ought to be focused, with some exceptions, on building capabilities. That means capital investments, 

training, equipment. But not on, for example, recurring personnel 

operational costs or the kind of training that is generally done on 

a regular basis, just as a matter of being an ordinary first responder. 

We recognize also that in the context of our State homeland security grants and our UASI grants there are funding sources available that can be used if a State or locality feels it wants to put 

some money into things that will help the emergency managers 

and first responders. 

20

The other thing I would have to observe is this. We have a lot 

of money in the pipeline, and I don’t mean this to be critical because the money has been obligated. But quite wisely, it hasn’t all 

been expended because if you are smart, you don’t pay the contractor or the person who is supplying the equipment before they 

give you the equipment or perform the contract. 

But what that means is that we haven’t necessarily seen the full 

fruits of what we have already invested. And with the total amount 

of grant funding we are putting in this year, we are going to be 

up to $17 billion in grants, of which we have $3 billion that was 

enacted last year that we still are in the process of giving out and 

about $5.5 billion in the pipeline. 

So I recognize all of these programs have value. But I think what 

we are trying to do is reconfigure them in a way that actually is 

more disciplined and more risk based. 

Chairman COLLINS. I will just leave you with the comments of 

an emergency manager director from Maine who pointed out that 

there is a 50 percent State match for the emergency management 

grant program. 

He wrote to me, ‘‘To imply that the funding of personnel under 

the EMPG is not a traditional function of the Federal Government 

is astonishing given that this program has been in existence since 

the 1950s. If that is not a traditional function, I am puzzled what 

is.’’

Secretary CHERTOFF. I guess the one thing I would say is we 

haven’t zeroed it out. So I would agree that I don’t want to be 

taken to say it is not a function. But we are trying to level it, let 

us put it that way. Put it at level. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, let me begin just by going back briefly. At the conclusion of our hearing on February 15 in regard to Hurricane 

Katrina, you said that you would provide answers to the Committee’s post-hearing questions by the close of business yesterday. 

Obviously, I know you are busy, but we are nearing conclusion 

of our investigation, trying to write the report. And as of this morning, we still haven’t received the answers. Can you tell us when? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. I looked at them yesterday. They were 

drafted. I wasn’t satisfied. They relate to matters some of which 

are within my own personal knowledge, and I think that requires 

me to put a degree of attention to the detail that I might not do 

if I were speaking institutionally. 

I would expect to be working on them today, and I would expect 

to have them finished tomorrow. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Fine. OK, I understand, and I appreciate it. 

We look forward to getting them. 

I share the Chairman’s concern about the grants to State and 

local governments and first responders. And I just want to very 

briefly say in response to your two responses, there is a significant 

amount of money in the pipeline. You are right. But as you said, 

and I think this is the important distinction, just about every dollar of it has been obligated at the local level. So it is not additional 

money that is available to be spent, and the State and local responders do have a real crying need for that. 

21

Second, my guess is you are right that there has been $18 billion 

provided to State and local governments since September 11. But 

as you probably know, there was that bipartisan panel, headed by 

our former colleague Warren Rudman, that issued a report in 2003 

and concluded that if the then-current level of investment in these 

programs remained unchanged, the country would fall about $100 

billion short of what was needed to adequately prepare. 

And I would add, just to put it in context, that original estimates 

by David Boyd, director of Project SafeCom at the Department of 

Homeland Security, put the total cost of just the interoperability 

needs of State and local first responders at $18 billion. So I think 

we have a lot more that we can and should do. 

I want to focus on port security, if I may. It is now more than 

4 years since September 11 and then the adoption early in 2002 of 

the Maritime Transportation Security Act, which required the Department to issue minimum security standards for port facilities in 

our country. 

To my knowledge, those standards have not yet been issued. Can 

you explain why and what schedule you are on now? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. If you would just excuse me for a moment? 

The problem is there were so many different plans. I know that 

there is a report that was due to Congress that I think we sent up 

yesterday, which is maybe what you are referring to. What I will 

do is get back, if we are talking past each other, I will find out the 

status of that. But we sent up a report that was due under the 

statute with our baseline security assessment on ports, I think, 

went up yesterday. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. OK. I will look forward to that with some 

interest and respond to you when I see it and see if it fulfills that 

need. 

I want to go back and just go over a little bit about what you 

indicated about inspection of containers coming in. Because the 

percentages that you gave us are dramatically different from the 

numbers we are dealing with, and I think we may be talking here 

about apples and oranges. And I want to clarify it because I certainly am under the impression that we inspect only 5 or 6 percent 

of the containers coming into American ports. 

And I always like to point out, which I think most people in the 

country don’t realize, that we still receive well over 90 percent of 

the goods that come into America by ship. So these ports are very 

important, and there are a lot of containers coming in. 

You said that 72 percent of the cargo coming into the country 

will go through radiation portal monitoring, and I want you to just 

help us understand that because I believe we still have a lot we 

have to do. I know that you are making progress. But just compare 

those apples and oranges. 

And obviously, this is all about detecting weapons of mass destruction, dirty bombs—including, potentially, nuclear devices in 

containers coming on ships. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I am happy to do that. I want to make sure 

I am clear because this is always an area where we have to make 

sure we are consistent in the way we use terms. It is correct we 

inspect about 5 to 6 percent of the containers that come in. We 

screen 100 percent. 

22

I know you know—the public doesn’t always understand—that 

screening means we assess the risk of the container. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. So just talk about how we do that. It is obvious we don’t physically open every one of them. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Correct. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Nor does every one of the containers go 

through either radiation or something else. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, let me begin overseas. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me indicate that, of course, when we 

have the Container Security Initiative, we actually do the screening and a lot of the inspection overseas. And that is really, ultimately, where we want to go. I mean, we would prefer never to 

have to inspect here because we would like it all to be done overseas before the container gets loaded. 

But what we do is we take—the details are classified—but we 

take information about such things as the manifest, the shipper, 

the destination, the source of funding, other kinds of characteristics, past patterns of shipping from the same shipper. We have 

some shippers in the C–TPAT program, where we have greater visibility into them. 

And based on that and some other characteristics, we score the 

containers in terms of the risk attached to that particular container. Sometimes that is driven by specific intelligence, and that 

factors into it. Containers above a certain score are inspected. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Meaning they are opened? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Meaning they will first be—we use like an 

X-ray to look inside, to see what is in the container——

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Secretary CHERTOFF [continuing]. And measure the density. And 

then, in many cases, if that doesn’t resolve an issue, and depending 

on the score, we will open and actually look inside the containers 

and at the material inside. The radiation portal monitor is yet another layer of defense. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. And that is what is 72 percent of the cargo? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think I said 66 percent by the end of this 

fiscal year will go through——

Senator LIEBERMAN. All right. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, let me make sure I have the right—

I am not sure if it is 66 or 72. There are two different figures. Do 

you have the charts? 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Well, that is OK. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. It is either 66 or 72 percent. You may be 

right. It may be 72 percent go through the radiation portal monitor. What that is—OK, it is 65 percent by the end of October. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. OK. But in any case, that is a lot higher 

than the 6 percent number that we have in our minds. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. That is not inspection. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Not inspection. Right. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. The radiation portal monitor is a large device through which a container is driven. If the container emits radioactive particles, it is captured on the device. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. 

23

Secretary CHERTOFF. Which can also determine, either at the 

port or reaching back to Washington to our targeting center, the 

particular type of isotope. There is a lot of material that comes in 

that emits radioactive particles that is harmless like marble. Other 

stuff doesn’t. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes. And forgive me for interrupting. My 

time is just about up, and I want to stick to the time. This is to 

detect nuclear devices or a dirty bomb? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Correct. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. So what does the 6 percent number mean? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. The 6 percent is where we go further, and 

we either do an X-ray inside the container to look at the container 

or we open the container. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. OK. My time is up. I would just say, finally, 

that Steve Flynn, who we all know is an expert, former Coast 

Guard, has said that to get the kind of security we need, we ought 

to have imaging systems, need new container imaging systems for 

every two portal monitors. 

And I want to say, finally, I don’t see that only including in the 

budget $35 million for the imaging equipment compared to $180 

million for the portal monitors. This is an area I urge you to really 

go back and take a look at, and I hope the appropriators do, too. 

Because this is one where we ought to raise our guard as quickly 

as possible and as comprehensively as possible so we diminish as 

close to zero as we can the possibility of bringing in a nuclear 

weapon or a dirty bomb. 

Thank you. Sorry, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Coleman. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you. I am going to follow up on Senator Lieberman’s comments about—it is actually supply chain security, not ports. It is supply chain security, and that is really the 

critical issue there. 

Before I do that, I do want to associate myself again with the 

comments of the Chairman regarding State and local grants and 

the concerns there. I also want to raise the issue of—I mentioned 

I had been in Arizona and looked at the UAVs, which really are 

a force multiplier. 

You are at 15,000 feet, 5 miles up, and you have total view of 

the area which you are scanning. You can direct Customs and Border Patrol folks to a specific area using incredible technology. 

I know we are testing one. Obviously, representing a northern 

border State, having the ability to have that kind of control of eyes 

at that distance would make a difference. I think the budget is simply one per year. And I know it is in a testing phase. But if it pans 

out, I would hope that you would take a look at that. 

As you said in your testimony, technology is important. I don’t 

see that in the budget for that technology, and I hope there is flexibility should these things pan out. 

Let me go back to the issue of supply chain security, just to be 

very clear. We look at 1 in 20, it is 1 in 20 of the 11 million containers that come in through our ports, 11 million. One in 20 gets 

that extra review. We have this automatic targeting system. 

And step back before that. We have both a voluntary system, C–

TPAT, working with the private sector, and then we have the ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:00 Apr 19, 2007 Jkt 027746 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27746.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
24

1 Chart titled ‘‘Radiation Portal Monitor (RPM) Deployments at Seaports’’ appears in the Appendix on page 48. 

tainer Security Initiative, which our folks are working hand in 

hand at those ports, so we push the defenses back so we are fighting part of the battle not as waiting until it gets here, but in other 

countries. So a couple of questions about that system. 

First, let me go to the radiation portal monitors. My concern is 

that, today, at least the figures I had is that we roughly screen between 35 and 40 percent today of maritime? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Correct. 

Senator COLEMAN. So today 35 to 40 percent are being screened. 

They go through a system, and you have the portal monitor there, 

and they give you a reading, and then you have to make some determinations. You have false positives on occasion, depending on 

what is being shipped. You have to compare it to shipping matter. 

But only 35 to 40 percent. 

So, in 3 years, we have deployed 181. And from what I understand from your testimony that in less than 2 years, we intend to 

deploy 440 to get to this higher figure. Is that a realistic timetable, 

and is the money in the budget to do that? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. It is. We expect by the end of this fiscal 

year to be up to—again, let us put the chart back up.1 I don’t want 

to just go by memory. We are looking at getting coverage of 65 percent of the volume, which would be 294 ports by October 2006. And 

by October 2007, there is money in the budget to take it up to essentially 96 percent or close to 100 percent. 

But I also want to indicate that as part of our Domestic Nuclear 

Detection Office, we are actually looking to start the next generation of these detectors. Detectors that would be better able to determine if there is material that is being shielded, that would be less 

likely to give us false positives because it would be more precise 

about the particular isotopes. 

And I should also point out that we have, although they are not 

quite a technologically advanced as these monitors, we have handheld monitors and devices and pagers that are also used at the 

ports to detect radioactive material. 

Senator COLEMAN. Let me talk about the automated targeting 

system. First, the system, as I understand it, was really one that 

was originally developed for smuggling, for drug smuggling specifically, maybe for human trafficking. But not for weapons of mass 

destruction. 

And I know the GAO, we have looked at this, and there are questions about whether the system has been validated, whether it can 

incorporate real-time intelligence. There have been a number of 

questions. 

Is there any money in the budget to test and validate this automated targeting system? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. As I sit here, I don’t know if there is a specific item for validation. I mean, obviously, we do want to continually validate the system. Part of the validation is experience. We 

are always, when we do open containers or we do inspect, that validates in the sense of we can determine whether we have been right 

or not. 

25

Another way to validate is to determine if people get smuggled 

in, and occasionally we do miss something that suggests we are not 

where we need to be, it has to be adjusted. I have been to the targeting center, though, and as we get more data, it gets better. 

Now I will tell you there is an additional step we need to take 

as part of the supply chain. We need to start to get more information earlier. It will get better as we know more about the cargo. It 

also gets better as we get more shippers into the C–TPAT program 

because if you get a known shipper that has always got a routine 

and you know what is in the shipments, and if they are committed 

to having real security on a container, that really gives you an ability to eliminate that as a serious risk. 

So I don’t want to suggest we are at the point where we can say, 

great, we are done. We have done a lot. But we do have to push 

this out further, and I have actually talked to some of the shipping 

companies about things we might do in that regard. 

Senator COLEMAN. Regarding C–TPAT, let me just kind of focus 

on that a second. I do not see any increase in the budget for supply 

chain specialists. The C–TPAT requires voluntary participation. 

But one of the concerns we had—and I give you credit, Mr. Secretary, for addressing those concerns—is we have to validate that 

these companies are doing what they said they were going to do. 

We are, in effect, giving them almost a free pass. Not totally, but 

you factor that in, and they are less likely to have their stuff inspected if they are part of this system. So how do you propose to 

have the goal of validating companies, and I think the goal is within 3 years, if there is no increase in supply chain staff or the specialists? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I think our total C–TPAT/CSI funding 

has gone up several million dollars. I am sorry, $16 million. In addition, we have a better human capital plan now. 

Currently, we have either validated or are in the process of validating approximately two thirds of the certified members of C–

TPAT. So that is as of this February. If we continue at this rate, 

we should get most of them validated by the end of the calendar 

year or in the next calendar year. 

Senator COLEMAN. The GAO was worried about the validations, 

and I think they talk about woefully behind schedule. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. And I think there were some lessons 

learned and incorporated in responding to that. 

Senator COLEMAN. Let me just talk about then the ability to look 

at individual containers, and we have talked about the system in 

Hong Kong. Which is not just the ISIS system, not just an ability 

to scan cargo, but it is really a package. You have optical recognition scanners. You look at what is on the cargo. You compare that 

to manifest. You have the radiation portal monitor. So, in this case, 

each and every container is validated. 

Is the money in the budget? And I appreciate the fact that you 

are personally going to go and take a look at that. But that really 

should be the goal. The goal is, if it is possible and technology 

makes it possible, to some way actually look at each of the containers that come into the country. 

26

Hong Kong, those 10,000 trucks a day, and they are moving. It 

is like a moving CAT scan is really what it looks like. Can we 

make this a concept in reality at all our ports? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, first of all, ideally, we want the concept overseas. That is the best of all possible worlds. And I know 

that we are working with this concept. We are looking at the concept. What I want to caution about is, my understanding is, that 

while they move the cargo through, they don’t actually assess in 

the way we would really want to assess in real life. 

And having watched the VACUS machines operate, the X-ray 

machines operate, you have to have an operator who knows what 

to look for, and it takes a few minutes. And the question is when 

we finally put in an operator and make it operational, will it prove 

to be practical in terms of the throughput? 

I would love to see it be practical. If it is practical, it is the kind 

of thing we ought to move to. In this case, I think the company 

itself has funded this. And I certainly think it would be a great 

idea if we could build an incentive structure to have the private 

sector pick up a lot of the cost of this because, after all, it benefits 

the private sector, and that means the taxpayer doesn’t have to 

pick up the bill. 

Senator COLEMAN. I would have just a last comment in regard 

to that. The interesting change that I have seen is that years ago, 

the private sector, if it was going to add $3 to $5 to the cost of a 

container, they weren’t interested. The private sector has come to 

us, come to me, and said, ‘‘Hey, we would like to see this across 

the board.’’ Because they recognize the risk if something goes 

wrong. 

And so, the idea of adding $5, $8, perhaps even $10 a container 

to get this kind of security guarantee is something that I think is 

much more possible today than it was before. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I agree with that. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Levin. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

First, I would like to talk to you about interoperable communications equipment. This Committee has put a lot of emphasis on that. 

We have put initiatives in the budget and in the appropriations 

bills for it. I and others have made a special effort to talk about 

interoperable equipment with border States so that we can communicate with Canada and Mexico as well as internally. 

You indicated, I believe last year in written responses to our 

questions prior to your confirmation, that you do support the goal 

of focused spending for interoperable equipment, and you were 

going to study the issue further. The Administration’s response to 

Hurricane Katrina contains language that says we should develop 

a national emergency communications strategy that supports communications interoperability. Where are you? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We have a program called RapidCom, 

which has deployed interoperable communications systems in the 

10 largest cities in the country at the command level, meaning not 

every firefighter or policeman has the ability to talk to another firefighter or policeman. But at the command level, meaning lieutenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:00 Apr 19, 2007 Jkt 027746 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27746.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
27

ant or whatever the equivalent is in the firefighting service, they 

can talk to one another. 

The challenge is this, and some of it has to do with this issue 

of bandwidth. I know there is a question about whether a part of 

the spectrum is going to be made available for this kind of communication. I think that is maybe an FCC issue. 

But we have a series of different systems now migrating into the 

digital world that are being built by different vendors. The challenge is, first of all, in the short run, we do have technology that 

allows different systems to bridge through gateways, technological 

gateways, and we have to get the money out to do that. 

But the long-term solution is we have to settle on a system. It 

is a little bit of a delicate issue because if you pick a particular system, there is a proprietor who has an interest in it. 

Senator LEVIN. Do we have a designated funding source to address this challenge? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think once we get a system in place and 

we have gateways that we have designated, the grant funding that 

we have under State homeland grants, under UASI grants, and 

under other kinds of grants are specifically available under our targeted capabilities list. 

Senator LEVIN. But do we now have a designated funding source 

in this budget or not? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, as part of the grant system, the State 

grants, there is not a separate line item for——

Senator LEVIN. I think there was a commitment to do that, and 

I am just wondering whether you are going to carry out that commitment? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I think we are doing it through our 

national capabilities goal or national preparedness goal, which 

identifies as one of the funding items that we will fund under these 

grants interoperable communications. 

Senator LEVIN. So, in other words, there is no funding source? It 

is obviously one of the eligible programs. But as of right now, at 

least, there is no funding source that is line-item designated, as I 

understand it. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I want to be clear. Our research is 

funded through S&T. In other words, we do fund our research. The 

State ability to buy gateways is funded through the State grant 

systems. They have to elect to ask for the money. 

Senator LEVIN. OK. Secretary, a year ago, you indicated that you 

were going to be opening up five northern border airwing locations. 

These are critically important in terms of air and marine interdiction, enforcement capabilities along the northern border. The longest border in this country is the northern border, but it is shortchanged significantly. 

Now there was a commitment to open up an additional one each 

year. That was not kept last year. Is it going to be kept? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I am told the following is the schedule. And 

that Plattsburg, New York, and Bellingham, Washington, were 

opened in 2005, fiscal year 2005. Great Falls, 2006. Grand Forks, 

North Dakota, is 2007. 

Senator LEVIN. Fine. You have the funding to open up one per 

year then. Is that the short answer? 

28

Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. And Detroit, Michigan, I think the 

site assessment is complete, and it will be open next year as well. 

Senator LEVIN. Great. Thank you. 

There is 100 U.S. deep draft ports on the Great Lakes, six connecting waterways to the Great Lakes that must handle cargo during the ice season. So we have a problem of ice breaking in the 

Great Lakes. We have 17 million tons of raw materials shipped on 

the lakes during periods of ice cover, which help to keep steel mills 

going in winter time. 

The program that you have, the so-called Deepwater Program, 

will have you acquire or modernize 200 vessels for the coast, the 

East and West Coasts and the Gulf Coast, but none for the Great 

Lakes. In fact, we are losing a ship. 

Now given the fact that we have the longest coastline on the 

Great Lakes, we have this ice-breaking problem, instead of a program such as Deepwater, which I support, to modernize and acquire new vessels, you have a loss of a vessel on the Great Lakes. 

I just want to let you know you can comment if you want briefly, 

but I am going to run out of time. 

It seems to me you are clearly shortchanging the Great Lakes in 

this area. The Coast Guard is critically important to us. Their vessels are critically important to us. But there is a program for modernizing and acquiring vessels for the coast, the East and West 

Coast and Gulf Coast, but none for the Great Lakes. 

Can you give us a brief answer as to whether you are going to 

try to remedy that? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I believe, but I need to verify this. I believe 

that there will be a replacement ship for the one that has been removed. But let me make sure the Coast Guard double checks that. 

Senator LEVIN. Well, in general, though, there is such a disproportion here that you have between the East and West Coast 

and the Great Lakes. And when you were up for confirmation, this 

was an issue I talked to you about. You said that you would become more aware of the Great Lakes as our longest coastline. We 

just don’t see that reflected in your agency’s programs. I will make 

that statement and go on to another issue, even though that is 

critically important to us. 

You have spent a lot of time here, Mr. Secretary, in terms of container security. We have a major container security issue in Michigan that is festering. It is a big problem. It is the municipal waste 

trucks that come in from Canada that cannot be adequately inspected. 

Now those are the facts. This is municipal waste. We have a 

large number of these trucks that are coming to Michigan. We have 

about 99,000 of these trucks a year dumping Canadian trash in our 

landfills. Now we resent that because they have more land than we 

do in Ontario. We think also there is an environmental issue because it is using up landfills. 

But I want to just focus on the security issue. We asked your IG 

about 2 years ago to give us a report on the vulnerabilities since 

these municipal waste/trash trucks cannot be adequately inspected. 

I, along with Senator Stabenow and Congressman Dingell, asked 

for this report. It has just come. 

29

It is so supportive of our position that apparently the IG is afraid 

of making it public because it will show vulnerabilities apparently 

in our security system. And so, it is put down ‘‘for official use only.’’ 

I am not allowed to quote from it today. 

But it shows such vulnerabilities, I have to tell you—I won’t 

quote from it—supporting what our position is purely on security 

issues that it is marked for official use only. And all I can do is 

plead with you, first of all, to read it. I don’t know if you have read 

it? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I haven’t received it yet. 

Senator LEVIN. I would ask my colleagues to read it and support 

an amendment which says that if you can’t inspect containers coming into this country, if there is no practical way to inspect them, 

we have simply got to say until they can be inspected, we are not 

going to allow them. 

And I would hope that you would read this report and that you 

would support that amendment. We talk about inspecting containers, and we should, obviously. We have I don’t know how many 

tens of millions of containers coming in. We have 12,000 trucks entering Michigan each day. They can be inspected, except for the 

municipal waste trucks, where there is no effective way of inspecting them. 

And we know that there are drugs that go into those trucks because we have been able to, apparently by chance almost, find 

drugs in those trucks. We know that there is medical waste that 

is in those trucks, where we have been able, just by luck, to find 

a shipment of that. 

But we are talking about chemical, biological materials being 

placed into waste, municipal waste not by the Canadian government, obviously—not with their knowledge or consent—but by 

someone who wants to do damage to us. And there is no effective 

way to inspect them, and we are going to ask for your Department 

to either give us an unclassified report, which will say what is in 

this classified or official use only report. 

And in any event, to support language in our law which will tell 

Canada, sorry, we are not able to practically inspect that waste. 

You are going to have to keep your waste and find a dump site for 

it yourself. 

So that is my request to you, and I would hope that you would 

promptly respond to it. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I certainly look forward to reading the report and getting back to you on it. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Bennett. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Secretary, I am interested in your progress with respect to 

port security, perhaps picking up on conversation I have had with 

Senator Lautenberg. As you make your analysis of where you are 

focusing priorities, high risk, do you take into account the proximity of a particular port to a high-risk situation? 

For example, a port in Hawaii has a proximity to a naval base 

at Pearl Harbor. But a port in New Jersey has a proximity to a 

chemical plant that, as Senator Lautenberg has said, could kill millions of people. 

30

You are examining cargo and shipping practices for risk, but in 

terms of places coming in, is there a priority in the Department of, 

well, we are more concerned about going into Port A because there 

is a chemical industry around Port A or there is a refinery around 

port A that is very vulnerable. Do you have that kind of analysis? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We do take that into account in several respects. We do, obviously, with respect to our grant funding. We 

have been focused on categorizing risk to ports in precisely that 

way in terms of how we do port grants. 

The Coast Guard, in terms of doing the port security plans and 

assessing the security of the port itself, takes into account the location of the port and what the consequences and vulnerabilities are. 

With respect to our targeting in terms of container cargo, I don’t 

know that—I want to be a little careful because I don’t want to get 

into details I shouldn’t say publicly. There are a lot of factors that 

go into that mix. 

Obviously, with smuggling something in a container, the concern 

is not only that someone is going to do something at the port. The 

concern is they are going to take it out of the port and get into a 

city with it, and that is——

Senator BENNETT. Yes. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. But the short answer is, in many respects, 

we do take account of those factors. 

Senator BENNETT. OK. Katrina demonstrated that a hurricane 

hitting in one part of the country had a significant economic impact, where if it had been X number of miles to the right or the 

left, it would have had a somewhat less impact because Katrina 

took out a refinery capacity that didn’t exist elsewhere along the 

coast. 

Senator Warner talked to you about cyber security. As you know, 

that is an area I have been very concerned about. And I was 

pleased with the announcement of the creation of the position of 

the assistant secretary for cyber security and telecommunications. 

But I am unhappy that position hasn’t been filled. 

Can you share anything with the Committee as to where you are 

in trying to find that particular individual? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I can tell you that I am unhappy it hasn’t 

been filled. We are talking to a number of people. I have talked to 

a number of people. Some have chosen not to be candidates because 

the amount of money you can make in the private sector makes 

what we can pay pale by comparison. 

Senator BENNETT. Yes. Particularly in this discipline. I understand that. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. But we do have some people we are pursuing because I do think it is important that we fill this, and in 

particular it is important we fill it because the way we conceived 

the position actually unifies IT and telecommunications. And I 

think that recognizes a convergence of those two elements in real 

life, which I think is an important step to consider. 

Senator BENNETT. OK. Thank you. 

Let us talk about immigration for a minute. I am a strong supporter of the President’s position with respect to temporary workers. And it is my impression, and I say to my constituents, if we 

had an effective guest worker program or temporary worker proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:00 Apr 19, 2007 Jkt 027746 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27746.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
31

gram, that would free up the Border Patrol to concentrate on terrorists, drug dealers, and criminals. 

And for support of that, I go back to the experience of the Bracero Program of the 1950s, when people came over the southern 

border, came and went—and it is the ‘‘went’’ part of it that we 

want to encourage—with relative ease. We had a Border Patrol 

that was much smaller but could focus on criminal activity and not 

on those that were coming over to pick celery or strawberries or 

something during harvest season. 

Have you done any studies on what kind of change a guest worker program would make in terms of the Border Patrol activity and 

Border Patrol effectiveness dealing with terrorists, criminals, and 

drug dealers? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. We have actually spent a lot of time 

talking about this because we view the whole issue of border security as part of a system, and I think you are 100 percent right. 

Without a temporary worker program, we actually wind up impeding the flow, the circularity, the flow of people in and out. It means 

we are spending a lot of time chasing individuals who really don’t 

want to do anything else except come and do a day’s work and then 

go back home or maybe go back home on the weekend. 

And that means that our resources are spread more thinly than 

if they could focus on people who don’t want to come to work, but 

want to come to smuggle drugs or commit crimes or commit acts 

of terror. 

From my standpoint, and I know the business community wants 

a temporary worker program, but I have a much more limited objective. I want to have effective border enforcement. And I don’t 

think you can have effective border enforcement at anything approaching a reasonable cost if you don’t allow us to bleed off the 

legitimate workers into a regulated non-amnesty program so we 

can focus on the people we are worried about. 

Terrorism and crime across the border is really the core of what 

we ought to be focusing our Border Patrol on. 

Senator BENNETT. Yes. Well, I have seen that in Salt Lake City 

in the previous administration. We are not a border State. But the 

Salt Lake City police chief said 80 percent of our drug arrests and 

50 percent of our murders involve illegal aliens. 

They get across the border. They go past the border State, where 

there is a degree of sensitivity and enforcement, come inland to 

Utah, and I have had the experience—I hasten to say in the presence of Salt Lake City police officers—being out on a ride along 

with the police. I have had the experience of buying cocaine on the 

streets of Salt Lake City from one of these illegal immigrants, who 

was arrested within 90 seconds after we had made the purchase. 

But that was just a live demonstration. 

And at that time, the INS official said, well, you are not a border 

State, so we don’t really need to have that many folks there. It was 

a dramatic demonstration to me of how important it is to focus 

there. 

Because I know there are plenty of chambermaids in the ski resorts in Utah who are changing sheets, who probably are undocumented, who do not represent any kind of a challenge. And if we 

are spending all of our time focusing on them and allowing the 

32

drug dealers on the streets of our cities, we have the wrong priority. So I appreciate the way you are making that kind of distinction. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I want to 

add my welcome to the Secretary to the Committee. 

Madam Chairman, I have a number of questions, but I would 

like to have my opening statement included in the record. 

Chairman COLLINS. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Today’s hearing comes only a week after Secretary 

Chertoff appeared before our Committee to discuss the role of the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) in the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina. I join 

Chairman Collins in welcoming the Secretary to this morning’s review of the Department’s FY07 budget proposal. 

It is our responsibility to ensure that the Department has the necessary resources, in terms of funding and personnel, to carry out its mission of protecting 

the Nation from both natural and man-made disasters. Unfortunately, one of the 

first comprehensive tests for DHS came in the form of one of our most tragic natural 

disasters: Hurricane Katrina. All aspects of the Department, including senior leadership, preparedness and response capabilities, and policy and planning, were 

stressed and strained—many to the point of failure. 

In many ways, today’s hearing is a follow-up to the Katrina investigation this 

Committee will conclude shortly. Over the past 6 months, we have identified areas 

of weakness and uncovered serious management challenges, while recognizing those 

entities that performed well. We must now ensure that the Department has the 

tools needed to avoid the mistakes of the past. 

Unfortunately, after reviewing the President’s FY07 budget proposal for the Department, I do not believe the Administration has aligned its budget priorities in 

the right order. I am especially concerned about the diminished support for State 

and local emergency management and homeland security professionals who are our 

first line of defense. 

We know that adequate funding of State and local homeland security initiatives 

are key to making sure that the people of our home States are protected against 

natural disasters. That is why I object to the Administration cutting almost $400 

million from State and local homeland security assistance programs. Last year, Congress appropriated $2.965 billion. The FY07 budget proposes $2.57 billion for the 

same programs. 

The budget proposal would also reduce the Assistance to Firefighters Program 

(FIRE Act) by a staggering 55.3 percent and the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) by 8.1 percent even though the EMPG program suffers an annual shortfall of $260 million. I look forward to discussing with Secretary Chertoff 

why these important all-hazards grant programs, which are so vital to my home 

State of Hawaii, have been cut. These cuts are especially perplexing in light of the 

Secretary’s acknowledgment last week that the Department must emphasize allhazards preparedness. 

Throughout the debate over the creation of the Department, I cautioned that combining the various functions of the legacy departments could adversely impact the 

Nation’s ability to deal with natural disasters. Part of my concern was because I 

believe that this Administration undervalued the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency’s (FEMA) disaster mitigation programs, which helps communities prepare 

for and respond to disasters. 

Despite my belief that the establishment of the Department would hamper the 

Federal Government’s ability to respond to disasters, it was my hope that DHS 

would develop an anticipatory culture of preventing and responding to disasters. 

Perhaps there will be a change in attitude given the $100 million increase to predisaster mitigation as well as moderate increases to both FEMA and the Department’s new Preparedness Directorate. However, we cannot wait for catastrophic 

events like Hurricane Katrina to force this Administration into taking mitigation 

programs seriously. 

33

With hurricane season only 3 months away, I am dismayed that the Department 

continues to ignore its enabling statute by failing to establish regional offices. Time 

and again, I have discussed with DHS officials the need for regional offices. I am 

particularly concerned because Hawaii, an island State, has no neighbors—no resources outside of what is available within the State—to respond to a natural or 

man-made disasters. At last week’s hearing with Secretary Chertoff, I asked that 

he review the Department’s relationship with the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) 

because my State of Hawaii is the only State that does not come under the protection of the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM). This is why a consolidated DHS 

presence in the form of a regional Pacific office based in Hawaii is critical. I know 

that DHS has proposed establishing Federal Preparedness Coordinators in major 

metropolitan areas, but they are not a substitute for regional offices. I urge that 

consolidated regional offices be funded through the FY07 budget. 

Secretary Chertoff, it is the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security to provide unity of national effort before, during, and after catastrophic events. 

Over the past year, DHS has failed to function as a cohesive entity, let alone coordinate necessary Federal, State, and local efforts. Nearly 3 years after its inception, 

DHS should be experienced in all aspects of planning and integration to achieve 

unity of national effort. As we debate next year’s budget, we must remember that 

for the good of this great Nation and its people, the Department of Homeland Security must not fail again. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I look forward to working with you, and I look forward to discussing the Department’s budget proposal today.

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Secretary, in looking at your fiscal year 2007 

initiatives, particularly your Office of Policy, your budget requests 

an $8 million increase in that Office of Policy. Some of these funds, 

according to your justification, will be to establish a committee on 

foreign owned investments in the United States. 

I understand that this will be the Department’s counterpart to 

the frequently discussed in the past few days Treasury Department’s Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States 

that we call CFIUS. And in a briefing to this Committee, the Department’s Assistant Secretary for Policy, Stewart Baker, stated 

that DHS has been an active, even ‘‘aggressive’’ member of CFIUS 

and was heavily involved in the Dubai Ports World review. 

In light of Mr. Baker’s statement, Mr. Secretary, could you explain what the Department intends to use these additional funds 

for that it is not currently able to accomplish? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We currently fund that out of our infrastructure protection component. That is the way it has been funded 

since the Department stood up. And the idea here is to actually enhance its resources, move it to the Office of the Assistant Secretary—hopefully soon to be an under secretary—for Policy, which 

would then give that person a somewhat easier ability to operate 

across all of the components in order to gather information for purposes of our participation in CFIUS. 

So we essentially would be taking some of the people and some 

of the function out of infrastructure protection and moving them, 

but I think it would add a little extra resources as well. 

Senator AKAKA. Could you tell me how these funds and resources 

would be enhanced? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think we were talking about maybe an 

additional FTE. I have to double check that. One additional FTE 

on top of the individuals that we would be transferring from IP to 

policy. 

But I should make clear that when we have a CFIUS transaction 

that has to be reviewed, we obviously talk to a number of different 

components, and the people in the components, as part of their orVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:00 Apr 19, 2007 Jkt 027746 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\27746.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
34

dinary work, are expected to assist the CFIUS people in terms of 

their review. 

So I mean, you have people who are full-time dedicated or substantially dedicated, and then you have people who, on an as-needed basis, will contribute information, views, facts, or whatever else 

needs to be taken into account. 

Senator AKAKA. I want to know about DHS’s fiscal year 2006 re- quest of $50 million to establish DHS regional offices. In our last 

hearing with you, I did mention about regional offices. Just last 

week, the White House called for the establishment of DHS regional offices in its Katrina report. 

I understand that some may think that regional offices would 

create an extra level of bureaucracy. However, I want you to understand, Mr. Secretary, that from the perspective of Hawaii, as I 

have mentioned before—which is 2,500 miles from the Mainland, 

with no contiguous States to rely upon in the event of a disaster 

and has a 6-hour time difference with Washington, DC—the benefits of a regional office outweigh the potential costs. And we need 

a point of contact out there in the Pacific as well. 

I would appreciate it if you could clarify for the record whether 

DHS agrees with the White House and intends to establish a regional office system? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think I have previously said that I did believe we needed to have a regional preparedness function to be 

married up to FEMA in the FEMA regions. The exact configuration 

of that I don’t think is finally settled, but I am not talking about 

a huge bureaucracy. 

We are talking about the FEMA people in the region, preparedness people who would be planners, and then I think we have an 

agreement with the military that they would designate some of 

their planning folks to co-locate. The idea being that we would 

have in every region a cell of operators, planners, and military 

planners who would build the plans to deal with emergencies or 

crises at a closer level with State responders. 

We do endorse that idea, and we do intend to execute on that. 

And we are, in fact, in the process of trying to identify the people 

who are going to want to take this function on. 

Senator AKAKA. Do you have an idea when you may be finalizing 

that proposal? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think probably in the next month or two. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Secretary, the Homeland Security Act required that the Secretary of Homeland Security submit to Congress 

a report for consolidating and co-locating regional offices of the 22 

agencies that formed DHS by November 2003. 

We still have not received this report, which makes it difficult for 

the Appropriations Committee to assess how to allocate funding for 

regional offices. Will you commit to provide this report to Congress? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I am not sure what the report refers to. 

There was originally a conception, I believe this was before my 

time, of a kind of regional DHS office that would encompass all of 

the components. I want to be clear that is not what we are talking 

about doing here. 

What we are talking about doing here is a regional office that 

would be what I call a much smaller footprint and that would be 

35

focused on preparedness, response, and planning but, for example, 

wouldn’t be involved with Border Patrol, or we wouldn’t control 

Coast Guard. 

In other words, we are not going to have mini DHS secretaries 

in the various regions. So I am not quite sure what the report is. 

It may be that the original proposal that was reflected in the report 

has been overtaken by events. I will find out and let you know. 

We will be able, though, to brief Congress on what our plan is 

in terms of these regional planning, preparedness, and response offices within the next couple of months, I think. 

Senator AKAKA. Yes. May I just point out that this report is 

called for in Section 706 of Public Law 107–296. 

Madam Chairman, I know my time has expired. 

So thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Secretary, I would like to talk about 

people, human resources. I chaired a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management with the 

House Subcommittee on Civil Service back on March 29, 2001. And 

at that hearing, we had a report on U.S. security in the 21st Century, and I would like to quote from that report. 

It says that ‘‘As it enters the 21st Century, the United States 

finds itself on the brink of an unprecedented crisis of competence 

in government. The maintenance of American power in the world 

depends on the quality of U.S. Government personnel, civil and 

military, at all levels. We must take advantage, immediate action 

in the personnel area to ensure that the United States can meet 

future challenges.’’

And a former Secretary of Defense, James Schlesinger, who was 

one of the people that testified, said, ‘‘In other words, it is the commission’s view that fixing personnel problems is a precondition of 

fixing virtually everything else that needs repair in the institutional edifice of U.S. national security policy.’’

Since that time, we have had September 11. You are now part 

of the whole issue of national security. I want to congratulate you 

on including in your budget money for implementation of your 

MAXHR program, which is your new personnel system. I think it 

is really imperative that you underscore how important that is to 

the Budget Committee so that you can move forward to deal with 

the human capital challenges that you have in the Department of 

Homeland Security. 

I believe that if we are going to be successful in this century that 

the Federal Government is going to have to be the employer of 

choice in the 21st Century. Quite frankly, we are not yet there 

today. 

I would like to agree with our Chairman and Ranking Member 

in regard to Emergency Management Performance Grants. Just as 

personnel is very important to you, I believe that we are underfunding EMPG and that our States don’t have the manpower to do 

the job that they are supposed to do. 

I understand that you are going to get a report back on the preparedness of the various States, and I would hope that you would 

consider whether part of the reason why some of the States are not 

36

adequately prepared is that they don’t have the people to get the 

job done to follow through with a readiness/preparedness plan. 

Regarding the issue of interoperability equipment, the question 

was raised, is there going to be money in the budget that is earmarked so that States can go forward with meeting interoperable 

communications needs? Because I think what we found in Katrina 

was that there was no interoperability of communication. It was 

one of the things that really stopped responders from doing the job 

that they were supposed to do. Is there money for it? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. There is money in the budget for our research in science and technology. And there is grant money available through the homeland security grants and the UASI grants for 

interoperability. Now the State has to choose to do that. 

If the State applies for money and doesn’t want to use the money 

for that, we haven’t designated a particular item and say you have 

to use this for interoperability. Some States may feel that they are 

covered in terms of the way that they have their local law enforcement involved. 

There is clearly a technological step that we have yet to make, 

which is settling on the architecture for the particular digital communication system that everybody would acquire. The challenge in 

doing that, as I started to say, is there are proprietary systems 

that don’t talk to each other. 

Without getting into an area that is delicate because there are 

going to be a lot of people with a lot of money at stake listening 

carefully to see if I am tipping my hand somewhere, I think we are 

going to have to figure out a way—it is like railroad track. Ultimately, we are going to have to figure out what the gauge of the 

track is so everybody can build the same. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, the question I have is, how much 

money is going to be available to interest the States to fund interoperability? As governor of Ohio, I spent $271 million to implement 

the MARCS system. Since then, Governor Taft has continued to 

buildup the MARCS system, increasing the number of State dollars 

to over $300 million. Additionally, municipalities have continued to 

make interoperable communications a priority, bringing the total 

funding to over $500 million State-wide with the assistance of the 

State Homeland Security grant funding. 

It is no wonder that Ohio has a strong communications system. 

Now they are working to expand beyond voice and get into data. 

I would suggest that Ohio could be used as a model for other 

States. But, if there isn’t adequate funding from the Federal Government, many of the States aren’t going to put the money into 

interoperable communications. Mr. Secretary, are you suggesting it 

is solely the State’s responsibility to fund these programs, without 

Federal assistance? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No. I am saying there is money available. 

The State will have to choose, in requesting money under the grant 

program, to use it for interoperability. It turns out that, in fact, the 

No. 1 item requested by States and funded in our grant programs 

is interoperable communications. But the State has to make the 

judgment. 

If the State of Ohio decided, for example, that they are where 

they want to be with that and they would rather have their grant 

37

funds used for something else, as long as that something else was 

within our targeted capabilities list——

Senator VOINOVICH. Ohio is choosing to use over half of the State 

Homeland Security grant money for interoperability. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, that is great. 

Senator VOINOVICH. For clarification, Ohio has spent over $300 

million on interoperability. But, I am concerned that you are basically saying that DHS will help States with the technology, but the 

majority of funding is going to have to come from the States. That 

is a large investment. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No, our Federal grant funding—the grant 

funding that we give them under our programs can be used by 

them for this purpose. All I am saying is when they ask for the 

money, they have to choose——

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, the grant program, Mr. Secretary, 

doesn’t even scratch the surface, if you are talking an investment 

already in excess of $300 million. That is an enormous sum of investment by a State. 

If you are going to have a good response system on the local 

level, you have to have the manpower that puts the program in 

place, and they have to make a commitment. The plan has got to 

be there. And then the people who are working on it have to be 

able to communicate with each other. Establishing this network requires substantial investment. We must ensure that the Federal 

Government can support this investment in interoperability. 

The last thing I would like to ask you about is the issue of 

FEMA. I am really concerned about the condition of FEMA’s workforce. My understanding is that FEMA’s workforce has suffered a 

significant erosion, that the agency has lost as many as 500 employees since its merger with DHS, and that these people haven’t 

been replaced. 

I further understand that the staffing at your senior career levels 

is particularly lacking. For instance, 8 of your 10 regional directors 

are working in an acting capacity. And all three of FEMA’s top Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Division directors have left the 

agency since 2003. And as of October 2005, FEMA had 17 vacant 

senior executive positions. 

You can’t successfully operate FEMA without the people that are 

necessary to get the job done, having the right people with the 

right knowledge and skills at the right place. How are you going 

to handle this situation? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. This is a huge issue. And you know, I don’t 

want to underestimate the nature of the problem because it is one 

thing to put money into a system and another thing to get people 

for the system. You have to be able to attract people. And I will 

not deny that certainly when there is a lot of negative publicity, 

it doesn’t make a lot of people want to migrate. 

We are looking very closely now at putting together a top management team to get in place within a very short period of time. 

Right now, of course, we have an acting director who is very capable and is very well respected. But underneath that, we have to 

build some other people. 

So we are doing some active recruiting. There may be some promotion within. Above and beyond that, we have to get about the 

38

business of hiring. And I will be honest with you in saying that I 

think FEMA was so overwhelmed in the first few months after 

Katrina, just keeping its head above water—no pun intended—

dealing with emergent needs, that the kind of stuff you need to do 

to run the agency was really put on the back burner. 

We are putting our procurement and our human capital people 

into FEMA in effect to help them do this recruiting and help them 

get up and running. But I will acknowledge to you that this is an 

area that I am concerned about. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Dayton. 

Senator DAYTON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I want to acknowledge at the outset that you inherited the badly broken systems of immigration control and border 

security when you arrived. Any government which cannot assure 

the integrity of its country’s borders and control of the people and 

the products which enter is failing its most fundamental responsibility to its citizens. 

And despite the efforts of your Department, from all accounts, 

there is a continuing flood of illegal people and illegal products and 

especially illegal drugs flooding our country. 

And Senator Coleman and I have met with local officials in Minnesota, small communities that are literally desperate. I mean, 

they are overwhelmed by the trafficking of drugs, by the illegal immigrants that are in the communities, by the predators that are 

dealing. 

And ironically, with the action of the Minnesota legislature and 

some other States to ban Sudafed and some of the other products 

indigenously, the result has been that even more potent methamphetamine, I am told, is coming in, flooding into our communities in Minnesota from the Mexican border. 

So I realize the commerce of this country depends on business as 

usual. But this is business as usual. Business as usual means that 

we are hemorrhaging our children and sacrificing their lives, literally, to continue a convenient flow of goods across the border. 

What do we need to do, even conceptually, what would we need 

to do to stop—I don’t mean just mitigate, but stop the flow of illegal people and illegal drugs into this country? We have to, in my 

mind, define what it is we would have to do, and then we can decide whether or not we are willing to do that. But we are just playing games here, and these people are out for our lives. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I am going to come back to what I said to 

Senator Bennett because I think that the problem of illegal migrants coming in is different than the problem of drugs. 

Senator DAYTON. I agree. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. If we can build a comprehensive strategy, 

which is a secure border, plus work site enforcement, plus a temporary worker program so that we can focus our border resources 

not on people who want to come and make beds at the Quality Inn, 

but people who want to come in with drugs, we will then have actually applied the resources we have where I think most people 

want to see them applied. 

Without a temporary worker program, we have to chase everybody who comes in illegally. And that means, by definition, our perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:00 Apr 19, 2007 Jkt 027746 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\27746.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
39

centage of ability to capture illegal drugs that come in or other 

criminals that come in is less. 

Senator DAYTON. Sir, I don’t want a percentage. I want to know 

what conceptually we would have to do. Do we need 20,000 more 

people? Do we need a fence? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I don’t think a fence——

Senator DAYTON. What do we need to do to put a stop—let us 

talk about the illegal drug trafficking, which is just destroying 

these communities. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think we need to siphon off the migrant 

problem into a temporary worker program, focus our border resources on the border. But it is also the Coast Guard who has to 

play a big role in this. A lot of the stuff is flown by air over the 

border, and they have landing strips on this side. 

And the other thing, of course, is you have to break the organizations, the drug organizations, in this country, and that means increased prosecution, drug prosecutions, take their assets, put them 

in jail for long periods of time. Find ways to discourage users, 

which means sometimes we require forfeiture of vehicles and 

things that people are using when they are buying drugs. 

Senator DAYTON. Who is responsible, if we talk about just the 

interdiction? We talk about the Coast Guard. I agree. We talk 

about the border. We talk about landing strips. Who is responsible? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We are responsible——

Senator DAYTON. The top official in the Federal Government who 

is responsible for stopping the flow of illegal drugs into the United 

States? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, we are responsible at the border. In 

terms of prosecution and internal enforcement, we share responsibility with DEA and FBI and, obviously, State and local law enforcement. There is a national drug czar, John Walters, who has, 

I guess, the integrated planning and integrated strategy portfolio. 

The Defense Department plays a role in support of us in terms of 

interdiction. We have a lot of assets out there. 

You have to use every level of American national power to do 

this. It is, yes, we have to do better at the border, better at the 

Coast Guard. But if we aren’t, for example, drying up the demand 

by seizing assets of people who buy drugs or by really cracking 

down on people who sell drugs with long jail terms, then we are 

just asking someone to stick their finger in the dike to hold back 

the flood. So I think all of us are going to have to push harder on 

this. 

Senator DAYTON. Well, with all due respect, I need to know what 

‘‘push harder’’ means. I need to know in quantifiable terms, in 

terms of the budget, whether this budget is adequate to do that—

really make a difference, really change, reverse the status quo or 

not. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well——

Senator DAYTON. Because, sir, it is just not—I would like to 

bring you to Worthington, Minnesota, and talk with the mayor and 

talk with the police officers who are overwhelmed. Who have cutthroat criminals who are making mega dollars off of the people in 

that community, and they are overwhelmed. And they can’t deal 

40

1The letter submitted by Senator Dayton appears in the Appendix on page 46. 

with that. They don’t have first responder money, in addition, but 

that is a separate issue. 

It is our responsibility, yours and mine, to stop this epidemic. 

And if we don’t do it, no one else will do so. So I need to know specifically and backed up with resources, people, and dollars. And if 

it means bringing border migration to a halt, that is something we 

ought to look at. 

At least we ought to know what it would take to do that, to have 

zero tolerance for this kind of flood of a dangerous drug, it is much 

more, a daily threat. It is not just a threat, it is more a reality than 

a terrorist attack. I mean, it is a terrorist attack. It is a continuing 

terrorist attack, and we are just looking the other way. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. A fence at the border would not deal with 

this problem because what would happen is you would get people 

coming up on the coast. You would get people flying across the border. 

I mean, there is a large piece of this that is the border, but a 

lot of it is the demand inside the United States. If people didn’t use 

the stuff, no one would be bringing it in. And I have spent a lot 

of years doing drug cases and doing drug enforcement, and the 

problem has always been the same. You have to do everything at 

once. 

If you simply say, well, we have to shut the border down, that 

is not going to do the trick. It has to be interior enforcement, 

strong prosecution, and you have to focus on the users. You have 

to start to make users pay a price if they continue to fuel the market for illegal drugs. 

Senator DAYTON. Well, I would like and request a response, and 

I will put it in writing, what ‘‘everything at once’’ means. Thank 

you. 

Also, my time is almost up, but I am going to give you, in conclusion, a letter regarding Roseau, Minnesota.1 I mentioned this the 

last time that you were here. They applied 3 years ago, this city 

that was flooded in northwestern Minnesota. They applied 3 years 

ago for one grant that was finally approved by the FEMA Region 

V office. They have another one, $619,000, that was denied. They 

began the application process in March 2003. The city flooded in 

June 2002. They were denied this in December 2005. They are now 

in an appeals process. 

I mean this is crazy. Three years of a process for a city that is 

trying to rebuild itself. So I would ask if you could give that your 

personal attention, please? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will. 

Senator DAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Madam 

Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, since breaking through the complications of cargo, 

of containers, of manifest, etc., it is a fairly complex job and that 

is in the screening process. I think that it is fair to say that we 

have to look to whatever means we can within the law or change 

the law to make sure that we have exhausted our view of those 

41

who are coming into our port area. And that is brought out by this 

Arab Emirate attempt to come into ports across the country. 

And what I am proposing to put in legislatively is something that 

says the management of the port, of the port area, will have a responsibility, a mandated responsibility to check the history or the 

background of those who are applying for a lease, whether it is a 

transfer of a lease or a new lease or a purchase of property. For 

them also to be included in the loop so that there is an opportunity 

for them, if they find anything, to deny a lease extension or a lease 

transfer or a purchase of property. 

Do you think something like that can be of help? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, it is hard for me to react in the abstract. I can tell you that the Coast Guard and TSA, actually, 

under legislation that currently exists is in the process of putting 

in place background checking requirements for people at the ports. 

Whether the port authorities—which I guess are really State 

agencies. I know New York/New Jersey is a bi-State agency. I 

think Maryland is a State agency. Whether they ought to have a 

separate authority may be a matter of State law as to whether they 

do because they are really State entities. 

So I guess the answer is I am always interested in looking at 

something and reacting, but it is hard to do it in the abstract. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. All right. I would like to attach it to the 

receipt of Federal money. 

You and I agreed, and I think our colleagues as well, that when 

it comes to the port areas that risk assessment ought to be the criteria by which we guide our decisions for grants. Now according to 

your staff in the fiscal year 2005 port security grant program, the 

most recent program, risk-based threat assessment was used. In the awards program, the port of Memphis received $6.5 million. The port of New York and New Jersey received an almost 

identical amount of $6.6 million. 

Now I have a list of the tonnages and the number of containers 

and so forth, and I don’t find Memphis on here at all. And I don’t 

want to pick on Memphis. But how is that justified? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. There are two parts to the program. I am 

going to have to say this, and it might make some people a little 

unhappy back at home. There is an eligibility based on risk. There 

is also an investment justification. You have to come up and you 

have to say very specifically what do you want to spend the money 

on. 

And we have the captain of the port, the Coast Guard person in 

charge, and another committee of people locally evaluate the investment justifications and rate them. Sometimes a port that 

might, in terms of risk, be high up doesn’t really put together a 

very good investment justification. We get something like ‘‘give us 

money, and we will do something with it.’’ I am exaggerating. And 

that won’t cut it. 

I mean, part of what we are going to—and this is not the easiest 

thing in the world to tell people is—part of what we are going to 

say is that risk is the threshold. High risk should get money. And 

certainly, New York/New Jersey is in the highest risk category. But 

you can’t just then stand and put your hand out and say, ‘‘Well, 

give me money.’’ You have to have a specific investment justificaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:00 Apr 19, 2007 Jkt 027746 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\27746.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
42

tion and make sense. And it will be reviewed by the captain of the 

port and other people from Customs to really kick the tires. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. All right. I get the message, and since 

time is short. But we are going to take the liberty of checking this 

thoroughly from our office, including a review of the Coast Guard’s 

agreement or assessment of risk. 

Mr. Secretary, something I want to ask you about, and that is 

how do you verify the reliability of vendors or the authenticity of 

accounts payable? Let us say for FEMA, for Katrina. How do you 

check those things? 

And the reason I ask that question is it was just noted that the 

Defense Department is going to pay Halliburton $250 million that 

was, according to the auditors, an unjustified expense. Now that is 

a breach of certainly decent management or trust the likes of 

which are rarely seen. 

But we are not surprised when it comes from Halliburton. I 

would like to know what happens with FEMA and any of your Departments when it comes to taking care of this? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. This is a procurement issue. Shortly after 

I got onboard a year ago, I asked the IG to come in and give us 

an assessment of what he thought we needed to do to improve our 

procurement process. Because my observation over time has been 

these problems most often arise when you have started the procurement process in a sloppy way, or you haven’t fully thought out 

what you want to procure, and then you keep adding change orders 

and you keep adding things to the contract, and you wind up getting disputes. 

We are enhancing our procurement office. We have just brought 

a new procurement officer onboard to replace our old one. And we 

are trying to drive, through a combination of the procurement office 

and our investment review board, to a much more systematic procurement process, getting the IG involved early on in the process 

of designing our system. 

So, hopefully, we don’t have these huge problems where, at the 

end of the day, there is a real disconnect between what the vendor 

thinks we are asking for and what we think we are getting, which 

tends to—I don’t know the particulars of this case. But my experience is that tends to lead into some bad, bad stuff. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Right. Well, I wanted to highlight that because this information was just in the newspapers, and the auditors say don’t pay it. And the Department of Defense says we are 

going to pay it any way, $250 million. 

According, Mr. Secretary, to the American Association of Port 

Authorities, even if all $600 million of new grant programs are 

given, we still have a $400 million shortfall in the level required 

to keep our ports safe. How do you deal with that if those are the 

facts? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. That is obviously port authority operators 

tend to think that they need more money than they get. I doubt 

you could find a single sector of the business world or the infrastructure world that doesn’t say we could use more money. 

I think that if you look at the total amount of spending on ports, 

recognizing how much of——

43

Senator LAUTENBERG. You are justifying the $400 million shortfall and attribute it to crybabies? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I am saying that I don’t necessarily buy into the fact that $1 billion is the necessary amount. I understand they are taking that position. 

But I think we have put a lot of money into port security, including the Coast Guard and Customs and other things, and I think 

that often does not get counted by the port authority people because they don’t see it. It is not coming to them, but it is part of 

what pays for everything around them, including the guns and the 

boats that they see on the waterway. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Secretary. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, once again, you are in luck. The Senate has begun 

four stacked votes, and we have only a few minutes remaining in 

the first vote. So I am going to ask my colleagues, rather than 

doing a second round of questions, to submit questions for the 

record. 

I had hoped to ask questions relating to the TWIC card, the 

PASS card system, chemical security, your views on the composition of the CFIUS committee, and fire grants. There are so many 

other issues, but they will have to wait for another day. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. And also I would be delighted to come by 

and just chat about some of these issues informally. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Fine. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks for your testimony. I also will be 

adding to the homework of you and your staff, Mr. Secretary, with 

additional questions. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. The hearing record will remain open for 15 

days. 

Thank you very much for your testimony, Secretary Chertoff. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(45)

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you, Secretary Chertoff, for taking the 

time once again to appear before this Committee. 

This is a critical time for the Department of Homeland Security. While we may 

have made some progress in areas like aviation security in recent years, it should 

be clear to all of us now—6 months after Hurricane Katrina—that it will take time, 

patience, strong leadership, and, in all likelihood, significant resources before this 

Department can become what we intended it to be when we sat in this room after 

September 11 and began the process of putting it together. 

It seems like this Department has been forced to respond to one crisis after another since it was created. First there was the need to secure our airports. Then, 

in the wake of a series of bombings in Europe, a call from many of us—myself included—for more attention to rail and transit security. 

More recently, there’s been more attention on immigration and border security 

issues. That’s reflected in the budget we’ll be examining today. I suspect that now 

there might be an effort to get more resources for port security. 

I’m sure we’d all like to be able to spend more money in all of these areas. That’s 

not realistic, however. I look forward to hearing from Secretary Chertoff, then, about 

how the Department of Homeland Security is setting priorities. Just as important, 

I look forward to hearing more about how the Department is saving money and effort and improving outcomes by better integrating the work of the various agencies 

that make it up. 

There are some parts of this budget I like but there’s also much of it I don’t like. 

For example, I still don’t see a strong enough commitment to non-aviation security—especially port, rail, and transit security. Plus, I believe States like Delaware 

would be significantly hindered in their preparedness efforts if the President’s proposals on first responder aid and other grant programs were to be enacted. 

All of that said, I look forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary, and with my 

colleagues on this Committee to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security 

is focusing on the right priorities and, despite the rough time it’s had in recent 

months, is still on the path towards becoming an integrated, more efficient entity 

that will make us better able to prevent another September 11.

46


27746.001
47


27746.002
48


27746.003
49


27746.004
50


27746.005
51


27746.006
52


27746.007
53


27746.008
54


27746.009
55


27746.010
56


27746.011
57


27746.012
58


27746.013
59


27746.014
60


27746.015
61


27746.016
62


27746.017
63


27746.018
64


27746.019
65


27746.020
66


27746.021
67


27746.022
68


27746.023
69


27746.024
70


27746.025
71


27746.026
72


27746.027
73


27746.028
74


27746.029
75


27746.030
76


27746.031
77


27746.032
78


27746.033
79


27746.034
80


27746.035
81


27746.036
82


27746.037
83


27746.038
84


27746.039
85


27746.040
86


27746.041
87


27746.042
88


27746.043
89


27746.044
90


27746.045
91


27746.046
92


27746.047
93


27746.048
94


27746.049
95


27746.050
96


27746.051
97


27746.052
98


27746.053
99


27746.054
100


27746.055
101


27746.056
102


27746.057
103


27746.058
104


27746.059
105


27746.060
106


27746.061
107


27746.062
108


27746.063
109


27746.064
110


27746.065
111


27746.066
112


27746.067
113


27746.068
114


27746.069
115


27746.070
116


27746.071
117


27746.072
118


27746.073
119


27746.074
120

Æ


27746.075