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

26–745 PDF 2006

S. Hrg. 109–513

NOMINATIONS OF GEORGE W. FORESMAN AND

TRACY A. HENKE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON THE

NOMINATIONS OF GEORGE W. FORESMAN TO BE UNDER SECRETARY 

FOR PREPAREDNESS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

AND TRACY A. HENKE TO BE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION AND PREPAREDNESS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

DECEMBER 8, 2005

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 

ADAM R. SEDGEWICK, 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 Carper ................................................................................................. 5

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2005

Hon. Jo Ann Emerson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri ....................................................................................................................... 5

George W. Foresman to be Under Secretary for Preparedness, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ................................................................................. 7

Tracy A. Henke to be Executive Director, Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ......................................................................................................................... 9

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Emerson, Hon. Jo Ann: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5

Foresman, George W.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35

Biographical and professional information ..................................................... 37

Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics ............................................... 43

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 44

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 114

Henke, Tracy A.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 127

Biographical and professional information ..................................................... 129

Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics ............................................... 135

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 136

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 172

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements submitted for the Record from: 

Senator Warner for Mr. Foresman .................................................................. 23

Senator Warner for Ms. Henke ....................................................................... 24

Senator Bond for Ms. Henke ........................................................................... 25

Senator Talent for Ms. Henke ......................................................................... 27

Senator Allen for Mr. Foresman ..................................................................... 28 

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver, II, Member of Congress from the State of Missouri, House of Representations for Ms. Henke ......................................... 31

E-mail from Tracy Henke ....................................................................................... 195

Memorandum from Deborah J. Daniels, Assistant Attorney General, Subject: 

Publication Clearance Process ............................................................................ 197

Press release from the Department of Justice submitted by Ms. Henke ............ 198

Letters of support for Mr. Foresman from: 

Chief William D. Killen, President, International Association of Fire 

Chiefs ............................................................................................................. 200

Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., Governor, State of Maryland ..................................... 201

Jerry Johnston, NAEMT President-Elect, National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians (NAEMT) ......................................................... 202

Page

IV

Letters of support for Mr. Foresman from—Continued

Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Nevada, CSG Chair, and Governor Ruth 

Ann Minner, Delaware, CSG President, The Council of State Governments ............................................................................................................. 203

Bruce Baughman, NEMA President, National Emergency Management 

Association (NEMA) ...................................................................................... 204

Letters of support for Ms. Henke from: 

Jo Ann Emerson, Member of Congress from the State of Missouri, House 

of Representatives ......................................................................................... 206

Kenny Hulshof, Member of Congress from the State of Missouri, House 

of Representatives ......................................................................................... 207

Wm. Lacy Clay, Member of Congress from the State of Missouri, House 

of Representatives ......................................................................................... 208

Emanuel Cleaver, II, Member of Congress from the State of Missouri, 

House of Representatives ............................................................................. 209

Roy Blunt, House Majority Whip, Member of Congress from the State 

of Missouri, House of Representatives ........................................................ 210

Ken C. Nicolas, Executive Director, Criminal Justice Division, Office 

of the Governor, State of Texas ................................................................... 211

Sheriff Edmund M. ‘‘Tex’’ Sexton, President, National Sheriffs’ Association ................................................................................................................. 212

Chief William D. Killen, President, International Association of Fire 

Chiefs ............................................................................................................. 214

James Burns, President, National Association of State Fire Marshals ....... 215

Chuck Canterbury, National President, Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order 

of Police .......................................................................................................... 217

R. Gil Kerlikowake, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Department, City of 

Seattle ............................................................................................................ 218

David A. Warm, Executive Director, Mid-America Regional Council 

(MARC) .......................................................................................................... 219

Chief Steve Holle, President, Western Missouri Fire Chiefs Association .... 220

Chief Richard A. Dyer, Fire Director, Office of the Fire Chief, Kansas 

City, Missouri ................................................................................................ 221

Thomas J. Charron, Executive Director, National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) .............................................................................................. 222

‘‘Contacts between Police and the Public, Findings from the 2002 National 

Survey,’’ Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, submitted by Senator Lieberman ............................................................................. 223

(1)

NOMINATIONS OF GEORGE W. FORESMAN 

AND TRACY A. HENKE 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2005

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M. Collins, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Collins, Lieberman, and Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS 

Chairman COLLINS. The Committee will come to order. 

Today, the Committee will consider nominations for two key positions at the Department of Homeland Security, George Foresman 

to be the Under Secretary for Preparedness, and Tracy Henke to 

be the Executive Director of the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. 

The Preparedness Directorate at the Department is new. It is 

part of the organizational changes that resulted from the Secretary’s second-stage review completed this summer. This directorate will consolidate the Department’s existing preparedness efforts, including planning, training, conducting exercises, and 

awarding grants. In addition, this new directorate will include the 

U.S. Fire Administration, a Chief Medical Officer, an Assistant 

Secretary for Infrastructure Protection, and an Assistant Secretary 

for Cyber and Telecommunications Security. 

According to Secretary Chertoff, this new directorate will remove 

partitions among functions critical to our Nation’s preparedness for 

catastrophic events. While I agree with the general concept of consolidating preparedness resources, I am reserving judgment on 

whether FEMA’s preparedness assets should be removed from its 

core response capabilities. Preparedness and response are two sides 

of the same coin, and separating these functions seems unwise to 

me. 

The President’s nominee, George Foresman, brings outstanding 

credentials to this new and challenging position. He is a highly respected veteran emergency management professional with more 

than 20 years of emergency preparedness experience, including his 

current position as Assistant to the Governor of Virginia for Commonwealth Preparedness. In addition to being Virginia’s principal 

advisor and coordinator for homeland security and emergency response, he also serves as the Governor’s cabinet-level liaison with 

2

1The letters in support of Mr. Foresman and Ms. Henke appear in the Appendix on pages 

200 through 222, respectively. 

the military commands and installations throughout Virginia. Mr. 

Foresman has served at the national level as well. He was Vice 

Chairman of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities Involving Terrorism, which was established by Congress 

in 1998 and completed its work in 2003. 

The Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness is the Federal Government’s lead agency responsible for 

preparing the Nation against terrorism by assisting States, local 

and tribal jurisdictions, and regional authorities. The office, now 

housed within the Directorate for Preparedness, provides a broad 

array of assistance to America’s first responders through funding, 

coordinated training, equipment acquisition, and technical assistance. 

One of the office’s primary responsibilities is implementing the 

Homeland Security Presidential Directive Number 8, which 

charged the Department of Homeland Security with establishing a 

National Preparedness Goal. This effort brings together experts 

from Federal, State, and local governments as well as the private 

and nonprofit sectors to create an integrated system of preparedness. In addition, the office distributes billions of dollars in grants 

to the States and territories, as well as to firefighters, law enforcement, emergency medical responders, ports, transit authorities, 

and other homeland security stakeholders. 

The Members of this Committee have worked tirelessly to 

strengthen the homeland security grant program and to include 

strong new accountability measures. It is my hope that Ms. Henke 

will pledge to work with the Committee to ensure the enactment 

of this legislation that is supported by 71 Senators. This legislation 

would stop the troubling and persistent decline in homeland security funding. It doubles the funds allocated according to the Secretary’s assessment of risk, threat, and vulnerabilities, provides a 

meaningful baseline of funds to each State so that the Nation as 

a whole can achieve essential levels of preparedness, and holds 

State and local governments accountable for spending funds in 

ways that help to achieve specific preparedness goals. 

Leading this office is an enormously important job. The nominee 

before us, Tracy Henke, has considerable relevant experience working effectively with State and local governments. I would note that 

the Committee has received letters recommending her from a number of organizations, including the National Association of State 

Fire Marshals, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs’ 

Association, and the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and 

without objection, all of those letters will be included in the record, 

as well as the letters that have been received by the Committee in 

support of George Foresman.1

Ms. Henke currently is a Deputy Associate Attorney General for 

the Department of Justice. Prior to joining the Justice Department, 

she served as a Senior Policy Advisor for Senator Bond, where she 

worked closely with firefighters and the law enforcement community at the State and local levels. She is also strongly recommended 

3

by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who described her to 

me as a ‘‘faithful public servant, skillful and hard working.’’

I welcome both nominees to the Committee, and I look forward 

to hearing their testimony. 

Senator Lieberman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It strikes me 

that I should say that though the Senate may be in recess, under 

your leadership, this Committee is not. 

Chairman COLLINS. We never rest. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Never rest, no. This is our second hearing 

of the day. Thanks for convening this one to consider these two 

nominees to two very important positions at the Department of 

Homeland Security, and I welcome both Mr. Foresman and Ms. 

Henke to this hearing. 

As the Chairman has said, these are the first two nominations 

for positions in the Preparedness Directorate, which has been 

newly created by Secretary Chertoff’s second-stage review. I must 

report that I personally asked the Secretary to hold off on his reorganization of DHS’s emergency preparedness and response structure until this Committee completes its investigation into the lack 

of preparedness at all levels of government exposed by Hurricane 

Katrina. 

The disarray surrounding that disaster has obviously shaken the 

confidence of a lot of people in our country and the capacity of our 

government to protect them. I am hopeful that our investigation, 

a hearing of which was held this morning, will produce recommendations that would be helpful to the Department of Homeland Security internal management structure. I have told the Secretary that this Committee may, therefore, write legislative 

changes after we have thoroughly reviewed the record and are confident we know everything about what went wrong during Hurricane Katrina. 

Nonetheless, I am pleased that the President has nominated Mr. 

Foresman for the position of Under Secretary for Preparedness at 

DHS. He is an experienced emergency manager, has been a first 

responder, a leader in homeland security in Virginia, Vice Chair of 

the Gilmore Commission, and is widely respected in the emergency 

management community. 

The Under Secretary for Preparedness will have a critical role to 

play helping our country prepare for all hazards, including everything from the next terrorist attack to the next major hurricane or 

other natural disaster. 

Earlier this week, as I am sure most of us saw, the 9/11 Public 

Discourse Project, formerly the 9/11 Commission, issued its final 

report card on our Nation’s lack of preparedness as they saw it. 

Some of the grades, I thought, were fair. Some of them, I thought, 

were not fair. I thought some of the most significant accomplishments in which the Chairman and I, and Members of our Committee as well as the Senate and the House, had a lot to do with, 

I am proud to say, were not as highly noted. These accomplishments were, in fact, the top two recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which was the creation of the Director of National IntelVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:06 Aug 08, 2006 Jkt 026745 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\26745.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
4

1The press release appears in the Appendix on page 198. 

ligence and the National Counterterrorism Center, which in the 

Commission’s own estimate were functioning well. 

But the Commission does in other regards give us a clear message that we have not done enough yet, not as much as we should, 

to keep the American people as safe as they deserve to be. If confirmed, Mr. Foresman will obviously be in a position to address 

some of the outstanding problems the Public Discourse Project 

identified. Top among them, I would say, is the inability of our Nation’s first responders to talk to one another across jurisdictional 

and disciplinary lines, and in this regard, I am pleased to note that 

under Mr. Foresman’s leadership, Virginia was one of the first 

States to develop a strategic plan for interoperability, although obstacles, including inadequate and inconsistent funding, still remain 

as they do in most States. 

Mr. Foresman, if you are confirmed, you will be in a position to 

forge a national strategy to achieve interoperability, strengthen 

Federal leadership, and provide sufficient funding, all of which are 

components of legislation which Senator Collins and I have offered 

and which now awaits action on the Senate floor, after having been 

reported out of Committee. 

Madam Chairman, the Under Secretary for Preparedness and 

the Director of the Office of State and Local Coordination and Preparedness will also have the opportunity to address homeland 

funding. While debate has focused on the funding formula for 

homeland security grants, less attention has been paid to the fact 

that funding for first responders has, in the last 3 years, been dramatically reduced. That is unacceptable, and I hope we can work 

together to turn it around. 

Finally, I want to welcome Ms. Henke, thank her for her years 

of public service, and just express publicly some concerns that I 

have about your nomination. Those are allegations that while you 

were at the Department of Justice, some of the actions that you 

took there in the administration of your office may have undermined the office’s reputation for objectivity and independence. 

In one incident earlier this year, the allegations are that you demanded that the Bureau of Justice Statistics delete from a press 

release1 information about significant racial disparities in the 

treatment of motorists stopped by police, that you insisted over repeated objections from the director of the office—and in fact, the 

release was never issued because he decided that it was misleading 

in the form that you ordered him to release it. Soon after, this 

man, whose name was Larry Greenfeld, who had been a civil servant for 23 years, was told without explanation that he was being 

dismissed from his position. I hope today you will take this opportunity to address the questions that I, and others, have about your 

involvement in this episode. 

I must say that my concerns occur in the context of recent disclosures that the Department of Justice political appointees overruled 

career staff in sensitive cases involving minority rights. In August, 

a team of lawyers and analysts at the Civil Rights Division recommended rejecting a Georgia voter identification law because it 

was likely to discriminate against African American voters, but 

5

they were overruled the next day by political appointees. And then 

this month, we learned that top Department of Justice officials had 

overruled a unanimous determination by civil rights staff at the 

Department that a Texas redistricting plan violated the Civil 

Rights Act. 

In this context, I am concerned that the considerable discretion 

that Congress has given the Department in the administration of 

homeland security grants will be exercised, if you are confirmed, in 

a fair and transparent manner. I hope that you will find it possible 

to give the Committee your assurances in that respect today. 

Madam Chairman, if confirmed, these two nominees will have to 

work closely with our nation’s first responders, the private sector, 

and State and local officials to assure that we do a much better job 

of preparing for whatever may come. 

I thank you for holding the hearing, and I look forward to the 

witnesses’ testimony. Thank you very much. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

We are very pleased to be joined by the distinguished Senator 

from Delaware. I know he is often burning to share his views, so 

before calling on Congresswoman Emerson, I want to give the distinguished Senator a chance to make any opening comments he 

would like. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. I just want to say to our witnesses, yesterday 

was Senator Collins’ birthday——

Chairman COLLINS. That wasn’t a burning comment. 

Senator CARPER. And I was unable to reach her to wish her in 

person a happy birthday, but I have to say, she is looking great for 

30, and we are honored to serve under her leadership, despite her 

youth. Belated happy birthday. 

It is always good to be with my friend, Senator Lieberman. He 

and I were both over in the Middle East about the same time. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. They are going to 

pull me out of here in a little bit, but I look forward to hearing you, 

and my staff is going to monitor everything else that takes place. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I know Senator Carper knows this, but in 

case he doesn’t, my birthday is February 24. [Laughter.] 

Chairman COLLINS. I am writing it down. [Laughter.] 

I am very pleased to welcome to the Committee Congresswoman 

Jo Ann Emerson, who is here to introduce one of our nominees 

today. We very much appreciate your coming over to this side of 

the Capitol, particularly since I know the House is in session, and 

we are very pleased to hear your comments. Thank you for being 

here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JO ANN EMERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Ms. EMERSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Carper. You will have to forgive me because we 

are in a series of votes right now, and fortunately, I have about a 

15-minute window. But I am honored to be here, and I do want to 

thank you for the opportunity to speak and introduce to you Ms. 

6

Tracy Henke as she is considered by your Committee for the position of Executive Director of the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. 

As a member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations, I am very pleased that we are filling these spots, I want 

to mention. But we should have only the highest standards for this 

position at the Department of Homeland Security, and Tracy 

Henke certainly meets these high standards. 

I have long known Tracy to be a dedicated, hard working, and 

extremely intelligent public servant. She shares your commitment 

and shares my commitment to enabling first responders at all levels of government to be prepared, well integrated, and cohesive in 

their response to any emergency. In her illustrious service to her 

fellow citizens, she has not yet encountered a challenge that she 

has not been able to meet. She is also intelligent, personable, flexible, and thorough. All of these great qualities have served her well 

throughout her career, and they would also be a great boon to our 

Nation and to our national mission of homeland security. 

As Deputy Associate Attorney General and Acting Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice, Ms. Henke has repeatedly demonstrated her regard for the law and her enthusiasm 

for law enforcement. She has guided programs of national significance, such as the Amber Alert program, in her efforts to make our 

Nation safer for our citizens. 

In addition to her extensive legal credentials, Tracy possesses a 

significant public policy background from her years of service as a 

senior staff member in the U.S. Senate, and I think she is able to 

approach decisions from both policy and legal perspectives, which 

I believe, is an invaluable combination. Also, she is familiar with 

the separate homeland security challenges faced in both rural and 

urban parts of the country. 

Ms. Henke’s qualifications for this position are very clear from 

simply reviewing her resume, and we are certain to hear a great 

deal more in her testimony before the Committee today. 

But today is also an opportunity for you to see Tracy Henke and 

see in Tracy Henke what I know very well. She has sincere enthusiasm for her work, her stalwart patriotism, and her rare ability 

to work with people regardless of any difference between them. She 

is a leader, by example, because her character rings true. 

I welcome the Committee’s consideration of Ms. Henke and the 

beginning of her service in this new capacity to the benefit of every 

American and the safety and security of our Nation. I am very honored to introduce to you Ms. Tracy Henke. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Representative Emerson. I appreciate your endorsement of the nominee. I know you do 

need to leave, and I am pleased to excuse you at this time. 

Ms. EMERSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. For the benefit of my colleagues, I also want 

to note that Senator Warner, who is a Member of this Committee, 

has submitted statements in support of both Mr. Foresman and 

Ms. Henke. Senators Bond and Talent have submitted statements 

in support of Ms. Henke’s nomination, and Senator Allen has subVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:06 Aug 08, 2006 Jkt 026745 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\26745.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
7

1The prepared statements of Senators Warner, Bond, Talent and Allen appear in the Appendix on pages 23 through 31, respectively. 2The prepared statement of Mr. Foresman appears in the Appendix on page 35. 

The biographical information of Mr. Foresman appears in the Appendix on page 37. 

The pre-hearing questions for Mr. Foresman appear in the Appendix on page 44. 

The post-hearing questions for Mr. Foresman appear in the Appendix on page 114. 

mitted a statement in support of Mr. Foresman. All of those statements will be included in the record.1

Both nominees have filed responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire, answered pre-hearing questions submitted by 

the Committee, and had their financial statements reviewed by the 

Office of Government Ethics. Without objection, this information 

will be made a part of the hearing record with the exception of the 

financial data, which are on file and available for public inspection 

in the Committee’s office. 

Our Committee’s rules require that all witnesses at nomination 

hearings give their testimony under oath, so would you please both 

stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to the 

Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. FORESMAN. I do. 

Ms. HENKE. I do. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Mr. Foresman, you may proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE W. FORESMAN2 TO BE UNDER SECRETARY FOR PREPAREDNESS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. FORESMAN. Thank you, Chairman Collins, Senator Lieberman, Senator Carper. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss my qualifications to serve as the Under 

Secretary for Preparedness at the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security. 

I truly believe that there is no higher honor than serving the citizens of America in positions of responsibility and public trust. I 

also want to extend my deepest thanks and appreciation to President Bush and to Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff 

for their confidence, as evidenced by this nomination. I am humbled simply by the nomination and recognize the enormous responsibilities that will be entrusted upon me if it is the will of the U.S. 

Senate to confirm me. I do not take lightly the expectations of me 

by President Bush, Secretary Chertoff, the U.S. Congress, and most 

importantly, the citizens of our great Nation. 

Let me begin by acknowledging my immediate family who could 

not be with me today. My wife and children are busy preparing 

lists and other things for a special visitor who is expected at our 

house in about 17 days. Now, in the eyes of a 3- and 5-year-old, 

Daddy’s day before the U.S. Senate, while important, pales in comparison to getting the list just right. 

I am fortunate to have a partner in marriage whose prayers, sensibility, and tremendous support have allowed me to be a servant 

of the people for my entire professional career. She believes in me, 

she believes in the ideal of public service, and is an all-important 

8

anchor and the most important anchor in my life that keeps me 

from drifting. 

Public service is sometimes said to represent sacrifice. While 

there are sacrifices, I would offer there is no greater calling or 

honor for each of us as Americans. My father and mother instilled 

in my three brothers and me a deep and unwavering spirit of public service. My parents were phenomenal role models. They underscored each and every day that our most important duties in life 

are to God, family, and our great Nation. Both are no longer living, 

but our family keeps their spirit with us in how we conduct our 

own lives each and every day. 

My oldest brother has just returned from a second tour of duty 

in the Middle East as an Army officer. One has returned from the 

Gulf Coast where, as a Coast Guard employee, he assisted local 

governments distribute critical relief supplies after Katrina. And 

my third brother today is pulling duty as an officer in a fire department in Western Virginia. We are proud of each other and our respective roles to make America, its communities, and our citizens 

safer and more secure. 

Like my brothers, every day, thousands of men and women 

across America go to work in the public and private sector with 

jobs critical to the safety and security of communities, States, the 

Nation, and businesses. They help us manage the risks inherent in 

a Nation that is the centerpiece of a global economy and the beacon 

of democracy around the globe. Their work provides comfort and 

confidence to ordinary citizens and customers that someone is 

working every day to keep them safe and to meet their needs. It 

is important work and it is preparedness. Preparedness is not and 

cannot simply be a function of government or elements of the private sector. It must be the culture in a culture of government, business, and society. 

I would offer that we are at a rare crossroads in the history of 

this great Nation, where the hatred of enemies has combined with 

the ferocity of Mother Nature to underscore the importance for disciplines, professions, levels of government, and our citizens to do 

their part to better prepare for emergencies and disasters of all 

kinds, including terrorism. The tragic attacks of September 11 and 

the widespread devastation from Katrina have provided searing 

images of destruction seen around the globe and felt in some way 

by every American. These drive us to be better prepared. 

But we should also be reminded that thousands of crisis events 

are threatened or will occur today and every day across America, 

and most will require limited response and are not likely to receive 

widespread attention. However, to the people affected, many of 

these will represent the greatest calamity of a lifetime. These more 

limited events also drive us as a Nation to be better prepared. 

But wanting to be better prepared and actually doing it remains 

a challenge. Differing perspectives on how to best make advancements, limited resources, and the necessity of addressing the crisis 

of the moment have the potential to cause us to lose sight of the 

ultimate goal of enhancing preparedness. Two things are clear from 

more than 22 years of experience. First, I have not met anyone, 

anyone in America, who does not share a desire for a safer and 

9

1The prepared statement of Ms. Henke appears in the Appendix on page 127. 

The biographical information of Ms. Henke appears in the Appendix on page 129. 

The pre-hearing questions for Ms. Henke appear in the Appendix on page 136. 

The post-hearing questions for Ms. Henke appear in the Appendix on page 172. 

more secure America. Second, we must provide a better structure 

for synchronizing the Nation’s preparedness efforts. 

Our greatest challenge also is our greatest opportunity. We have 

a greater ability today than ever before to strengthen our systems 

and processes so that irrespective of the cause, size, location, or 

scope of a crisis, we improve our levels of preparedness. A strong 

focus on preparedness will allow us to better manage the risks that 

we face each and every day in our lives. Preparedness is that continuum of how we deter, prevent, respond to, and recover from the 

full range of hazards and risks as government, as our private sector, and as citizens. 

Those who are threatened or become victims of an emergency or 

disaster, irrespective of the cause, expect that the structure, strategy, management, and leadership of all of the organizations and 

people responsible for managing risk will operate in a harmonized 

and a synchronized manner. Our collective responsibility in unity 

is to ensure that we adhere to the opportunity, to make sure that 

we achieve this harmonization, while at the same time helping ordinary citizens become a stronger part of America’s preparedness 

culture. 

Based on my more than 20 years of public service in wide-ranging front-line and executive-level experience at the local, State, and 

national levels, I believe that this is our moment in time and our 

moment in the history of the United States to make unprecedented 

advancements in our Nation’s preparedness. I hope I am given the 

opportunity to contribute to these advancements as the Under Secretary for Preparedness. I thank you very much for the courtesy of 

this hearing, and I look forward to your questions. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Ms. Henke. 

TESTIMONY OF TRACY A. HENKE1 TO BE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION AND PREPAREDNESS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Ms. HENKE. Thank you, Chairman Collins, Senator Lieberman, 

and Senator Carper. It is a pleasure to be here today. 

I want to first say thank you to the President for the confidence 

that he has shown in me by nominating me as the Executive Director for the Office of State and Local Domestic Preparedness and 

Coordination—if I could even get the office straight. With the reorganization—it has changed on me. In addition, I would also like to 

take the opportunity to thank Secretary Chertoff for the confidence 

and trust that he has also shown in me. I have had the opportunity 

to know the Secretary for several years now, and if confirmed, I 

look forward to being part of his team at DHS. 

I also thank Congresswoman Emerson, and I know that Congressman Cleaver also wanted to be here, but I am certain the 

votes on the House side have interrupted his transportation and 

his appearance here today. I want to thank Congresswoman Emerson, though, for her kind words, her support, and her friendship. 

10

Additionally, I want to thank Senators Bond, Talent, and Warner. 

They couldn’t be here today, but throughout the years, they have 

been strong advocates and supporters of me, and for that, I am 

grateful. I am blessed to have known, as well as to have worked 

with, all these great public servants. I am grateful for their mentoring and, more importantly, their friendship. 

In addition, I would be remiss if I didn’t take the opportunity to 

thank my family and my friends, thank them for their support, 

their guidance, their love, and, sometimes most importantly, their 

patience. 

With September 11, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, as 

well as other events from around the world, our national awareness 

of threats, terrorist threats, natural disasters, and other events has 

sharpened. As a result, all of us, especially those involved directly 

or indirectly in public safety, understand our collective responsibility to work to prevent but also to prepare and respond to those 

threats, as well as our duty to build a safer and more secure world. 

Throughout my years in public service, but specifically at the Department of Justice, I have been honored, but more importantly, 

grateful for the opportunities to support, to serve, and to partner 

with the public safety community, individuals who are on the front 

lines every single day, individuals who are making a difference. 

Working on issues such as September 11, Katrina, body armor, 

DNA, Medal of Valor, and countless others, I have been reminded 

and shown that our Nation’s first responders put themselves—intentionally put themselves in positions where they will be called 

upon to show their courage, their dedication, and their selflessness 

every single day. Men and women in public safety have a perfect 

sense of the dangers they might face. Yet despite that, they raise 

their right hand, swear the oath, and they take the job anyway. 

If confirmed, I hope to be given the opportunity to raise my right 

hand, to swear the oath, and to continue the opportunity to serve 

with and for, as well as support and partner with the tremendous 

public safety community serving and protecting all of us and this 

great Nation. 

If confirmed, I commit to continuing the effort to build partnerships at and across all levels of government, with the private sector, and with everyday citizens as we work to provide and improve 

upon the capabilities necessary to better prepare and protect America. If confirmed, I commit to listening to and working with the 

first responder community, local, State, and tribal leaders, and all 

stakeholders, as we work toward the common goal of getting the 

best value and return for our homeland security investments. 

If confirmed, I commit to working on improving the preparedness 

of citizens across the country, knowing that an alert, informed, and 

knowledgeable public makes a tremendous difference. If confirmed, 

I commit to working with the Congress and others in the Administration to ensure a coordinated and informed effort to assist States, 

communities, and our Nation’s first responders better prevent, prepare, and if need be, respond and recover from whatever hazards 

we might confront. If confirmed, I commit my energies to making 

a difference in this Nation’s quest for preparedness. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

11

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. I am going to start my questioning with the standard questions that we ask of all nominees. 

First, is there anything in your background that you are aware of 

that might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office 

to which you have been nominated? Mr. Foresman. 

Mr. FORESMAN. No, ma’am. 

Chairman COLLINS. Ms. Henke. 

Ms. HENKE. No. 

Chairman COLLINS. Second, do you know of anything personal or 

otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have 

been nominated? 

Mr. FORESMAN. I do not. 

Ms. HENKE. No. 

Chairman COLLINS. And finally, do you agree without reservation 

to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before 

any duly constituted Committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. Foresman. 

Mr. FORESMAN. Yes, ma’am. 

Chairman COLLINS. Ms. Henke. 

Ms. HENKE. Yes, Senator. 

Chairman COLLINS. We will now start a round of questions limited to 6 minutes each for the first round. 

Mr. Foresman, in announcing the results of the second-stage review, Secretary Chertoff stated that we ‘‘are not where we need to 

be as a Nation in the area of preparedness.’’ While certainly the 

preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina only underscores that fact, you have been an emergency management official 

at the State level. You have worked closely with Federal officials. 

What, in your judgment, went wrong with Hurricane Katrina in 

terms of preparedness? 

Mr. FORESMAN. Senator, thank you for the question. I do not 

have the specific level of first-hand knowledge in terms of the decisions as they were made at the local, State, or Federal level with 

regard to Hurricane Katrina. As we look at Virginia’s perspective 

in the aftermath of Hurricane Isabel several years ago, preparedness must be a shared vision of what is it that different organizations are going to do in advance of a potential crisis event to be 

prepared to prevent, deter, and to respond and recover, and historically, what we have found in Virginia is shortfalls with regard to 

preparedness simply because organizations have not had a shared 

vision of what is it that we need to do to be stronger and more resilient in terms of our ability to deal with emergencies and disasters. 

Chairman COLLINS. As a State official, what has been your biggest frustration in working with the Department of Homeland Security? 

Mr. FORESMAN. Well, Senator, having watched the evolution of 

the Department of Homeland Security, I would say as a consumer 

out there that my first point is the organization continues to mature, and it is nurtured every day, and it is certainly a much 

stronger and better organization in terms of my interaction with 

them as a State official than when they were created. That is the 

12

1 Report entitled, ‘‘Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from the 2002 National 

Survey,’’ appears in the Appendix on page 223. 

natural evolution of when you would amalgamate 22 Federal agencies and 180,000 employees. That is an organizational issue. 

But I think, clearly, the big issue from my State perspective is 

we have got to make sure that there is a common identity within 

the Department, that there is a common direction forward, and I 

think, frankly, there are many components of DHS as well as the 

entire Federal family that work with States and communities on 

preparedness planning, training, and exercising—FEMA, Coast 

Guard, Secret Service, Health and Human Services, DOD. I think 

the biggest frustration with DHS is the biggest frustration that we 

see across our Federal interagency, is an inconsistent vision of 

what is preparedness and how do we go about strengthening preparedness. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Ms. Henke, there has been considerable controversy over actions that you took with regard to a 

Bureau of Justice Statistics report entitled, ‘‘Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from the 2002 National Survey.’’1 According to information compiled by the Committee staff, you edited 

a proposed press release in a way that would have taken out specific information showing some disparities in treatment by police. 

First of all, please explain why you made those edits. 

Ms. HENKE. Of course. I thank you for the question, as well. 

Editing press releases is a regular part of the job of the principal 

deputy or the Assistant Attorney General or most leaders in the 

different components, I am certain not just at the Department of 

Justice, but also throughout other agencies, as well as when I 

worked in the Senate. And so it was something that I am very used 

to doing. 

The draft press release was potentially edited by several people 

before it even reached my desk, and when it reached my desk, it 

was edited by my deputy, who suggested some changes to the draft 

press release, which I concurred with, so therefore I take ownership of those changes. 

The edit that was made was—the reason for the edit was because 

it didn’t accurately portray the information in the underlying report. As was pointed out, the report itself is contacts with police, 

and there are hundreds upon hundreds of statistics that could have 

been pulled from that report. But in this case, they tried to condense it down to a press release that is a page or two long, and 

so you can’t get all the information in there. 

The sentences that were proposed to be stricken that I concurred 

with were misleading. The sentences did say that blacks and Hispanics were more likely to be searched once pulled over. The next 

sentence in the report itself, however, says that you cannot conclude that race is the factor. You can’t conclude that race is the factor because these numbers didn’t take into account behavior of the 

individuals that were pulled over. It didn’t take into account potentially demographics of the areas. So the report itself says, you cannot conclude that race was the factor in the search. 

In addition to that, another fact, for instance, that was not in the 

press release is that over 90 percent of the individuals who were 

13

1The press release appears in the Appendix on page 198. 

surveyed for this document said that the actions of the police were 

appropriate. That also includes 90 percent of the people that were 

searched concluded that the actions of the police were appropriate. 

So the sentences in the press release were misleading. You can’t 

put in—the press release shouldn’t contain every statistic in the report, and so, therefore, in conversations with the deputy and then 

in conversations with the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, it was determined, and I did make a decision, that those sentences should be stricken and that the press release could go ahead 

and be issued.1

Mr. Greenfeld had some disagreement with that, and it was a 

discussion that we had that more than 70 percent of the Bureau 

of Justice Statistics reports don’t have press releases ever issued. 

In addition to that, the document is available online unedited and 

was distributed to over 600 media outlets. 

Chairman COLLINS. Did you make any changes in the underlying 

report? 

Ms. HENKE. Absolutely not. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Madam Chairman. I’m going to 

continue the line of questioning because as I said in my opening 

statement, I was concerned both by the news reports of this incident and then by what my staff informed me after the staff interview. 

I know you have said you wanted removed from the release the 

findings of racial disparity in the treatment of motorists because 

the report could not explain the reasons for the racial disparity, but 

you also wanted the release to include a finding that there were 

no racial disparities in the rate at which motorists were stopped. 

Can you explain the distinction between those two? 

Ms. HENKE. Actually, it wasn’t a statistic that I asked to be inserted. That statistic that you reference was part of the press release prepared by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, not a statistic 

that I asked to be added. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. So you don’t see any inconsistency in including the one but excluding the other? 

Ms. HENKE. Considering that the report, once again, was available online, was distributed to over 600 media outlets, and that in 

the highlights of the report itself, concluded the statistic that you 

are currently referencing, it did not include the statistic that was 

stricken from the report. So I didn’t necessarily view it as being inconsistent because even in the highlights of the actual report, it 

wasn’t included. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. The news release that Mr. Greenfeld’s office 

drafted would have reported that the police searched white motorists 3.5 percent of the time, but black motorists more than 10 percent of the time and Hispanic motorists more than 11 percent of 

the time. It also describes how police were approximately three 

times more likely to use force or threaten to use force against Hispanics and blacks than against whites that they had stopped. 

My question really is to explain to me why you thought that 

those statistical findings, that is the 3.5 percent compared to the 

14

10 and 11 percent, were not important or newsworthy and, therefore, should not have been included in the release. 

Ms. HENKE. Oh, it is not that I don’t consider them important, 

sir. They are included in the report, and the report which once 

again was distributed to over 600 media outlets and available online for all to see. The Bureau of Justice Statistics website gets 

over 20,000 hits a day, on average, and so that information is readily available. And once again, the majority of the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics reports do not have press releases associated with them. 

There is additional statistics in there that, once again, help complete or can help complete the picture a little bit, and once again, 

it goes back to, for instance, the fact that 90 percent of those, including those that were searched, whites, blacks, and Hispanics, 

believed that the actions of the police were appropriate. That information wasn’t in the press release, either. 

And so having the entire information available, and once again, 

distributed to over 600 media outlets and available online, the information is readily available and it is important. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Let me ask this question so I have clarity 

on this myself. Do I understand correctly that you argued for a release to say that no significant racial disparities existed among individuals stopped by police? 

Ms. HENKE. No. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. You did not argue for that affirmatively——

Ms. HENKE. Absolutely not. 

Senator LIEBERMAN [continuing]. But you wanted to take out the 

contrary conclusion, is that right? 

Ms. HENKE. The only thing I concurred with, so I take ownership 

of the proposed change in the draft press release that was edited 

by my deputy in the office, I did not propose any addition. All I proposed and all I concurred with was the striking of the sentences 

that were misleading without full or without complete information, 

without, for instance, the next sentences in the report or the additional statistics. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Why not include the next sentences in the 

report and the additional statistics in the press release? 

Ms. HENKE. It is one of those things, and maybe it is from my 

time on the Hill and the fact that press releases—we were always 

told once you get off—once it is past page one, it is unlikely that 

people are even going to look at it, so a press release is supposed 

to hit the highlights. The press release isn’t—it is supposed to hit 

the highlights and not include absolutely everything. It can entice 

people maybe to read the report. So I didn’t view this as necessarily needing more information. The information, once again, 

was readily available and was available for all the media and the 

general public to see in the report. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Let me ask you a different kind of question. 

Do you agree that the matter, the problem of racial profiling, is an 

important public issue? 

Ms. HENKE. I do concur with that, and I know that the President 

in the State of the Union, I believe the State of the Union a year 

or two ago, also stated that it is an important issue and that it 

must end. 

15

Senator LIEBERMAN. Let me ask you a couple of questions about 

another part of this. I will try to be quick. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

A few weeks after your disagreement with Mr. Greenfeld, as you 

know, he was called into the office of an Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum to discuss the incident. Actually, stop me if 

you disagree with anything I am saying. 

Ms. HENKE. I have been informed. I was not informed that meeting was taking place——

Senator LIEBERMAN. You didn’t know about it, but you know 

now? 

Ms. HENKE. Yes. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. A few weeks later, Mr. Greenfeld was summoned to the White House Personnel Office, where he was informed that he was going to be relieved of his position as Director 

of the Bureau of Justice Systems. 

Ms. HENKE. I was informed of that after the fact. 

Senator LIEBERMAN [continuing]. Of that afterward. 

Ms. HENKE. Yes. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. And this is my point. In responding to the 

Committee’s pre-hearing questions and during your staff interview, 

you said that you had no role in, knowledge of, or opinion about 

the decision to remove Mr. Greenfeld after 23 years with the Bureau of Justice Systems, and I guess the record shows that he consistently got outstanding evaluations through all the administrations he had served, both Democrat and Republican. So the question I have is, since the Director of the Bureau of Justice Systems, 

Mr. Greenfeld, reports to the Assistant Attorney General for the 

Office of Justice Programs and you were Acting Assistant Attorney 

General from January to June of this year, it is surprising that you 

were not consulted or notified that the director of an agency for 

which you were responsible was about to be removed. How do you 

explain that? 

Ms. HENKE. I am not necessarily surprised by that. Mr. 

Greenfeld was a career public servant. Mr. Greenfeld became a 

Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed individual in 2001 or 

2002. He chose to take a political appointment, Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed. As Acting Assistant Attorney General, I 

did not anticipate or expect consultation pertaining to other Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed individuals at the Office of 

Justice Programs. They serve at the pleasure of the President, and 

as a political appointee myself, I didn’t anticipate or expect, once 

again, having any role in the hiring or conversations of his employment. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Do you know why he was told that he would 

be dismissed? 

Ms. HENKE. I have not had any conversations. Other than receiving a notification that he was told, I have had no conversations 

with anyone pertaining to the reasons why. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. A final question on this, Ms. Henke. In earlier discussions with the Committee staff, you mentioned an e-mail 

that was sent to Mr. McCallum, who I have just cited is associate 

Attorney General. I understand that the e-mail forwarded a message from Mr. Greenfeld related to your dispute over this press reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:06 Aug 08, 2006 Jkt 026745 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\26745.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
16

1 Copy of the e-mail appears in the Appendix on page 195. 

lease. I trust you know, but if you don’t, we have requested a copy 

of your e-mail to Mr. McCallum from the Justice Department.1 Do 

you have a copy of the e-mail yourself? 

Ms. HENKE. I am certain it is on my system, but I am confident 

that if the Committee is working with the Department’s Legislative 

Affairs Office, that they will make a determination on its availability. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Have you looked at it lately? 

Ms. HENKE. I have not, no. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. You haven’t. So it doesn’t lead you to add 

anything more to the exchange we have just had about Mr. 

Greenfeld? 

Ms. HENKE. I mean, the only thing that the e-mail did was forward—was just simply a forwarding of the communication exchange. There was no other information in it. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Then I would ask that, and I presume 

maybe in the process of your position in the Department you have 

to get approval, but I would formally ask that after this, you go 

back and ask if you can share the e-mail with all the Members of 

the Committee. 

Ms. HENKE. I am happy to consult with the Department on that 

issue. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks. Madam Chairman, I apologize for 

this. I am just going to wind this up with this general question. 

Obviously, the concern is if you are confirmed for the position for 

which you have now been nominated, which is a powerful position, 

giving out grants, I mean, to some extent, you oversaw activities 

like this in your earlier position, but usually with less discretion, 

and within formulas mandated by Congress, what can you say to 

us to assure us that you will conduct and carry out your responsibilities in a manner that is fair, transparent, independent, and 

nonpartisan? 

Ms. HENKE. I can offer you my commitment today to doing just 

that, and I believe I have a track record of doing just that. If I may, 

once again, it was an editing of a press release that was never 

issued and a document that is available in its entirety, unedited, 

online. The information is important. I completely concur with that. 

And therefore, once again, it was made available. And I can assure 

you today, if confirmed, every single day that I am in the job, that 

I will act in a professional, impartial, and fair way and make certain that the Administration and the Department policies, as well 

as the direction by Congress and the law, is upheld. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Thanks, Madam Chairman, for 

your indulgence in allowing me to complete that line of questioning. 

Chairman COLLINS. I am happy to do so. 

Mr. Foresman, one of the astounding facts that this Committee 

hears over and over again is that some 85 percent of our Nation’s 

critical infrastructure is owned not by government, but by the private sector. How would you improve DHS’s relationship with the 

private sector to strengthen the security of America’s critical infrastructure? 

17

Mr. FORESMAN. Senator, thank you for the question. I would offer 

that as we look at critical infrastructure, this has been an area 

that we paid particular attention to in Virginia even prior to September 11, given the potential of natural disaster impacts on critical infrastructure. But I think there are a couple of key lessons 

that we learned. 

In kind of our visceral reactive state in post-September 11, I 

think there was a lot of focus on the physical protection of critical 

infrastructure and it was driven very much from a Federal-centric 

perspective. It is not right or wrong, it is just the simple reality of 

the environment that we were in in the post-September 11 environment. But I think that we have an opportunity to step back, if you 

will, and to engage with our private sector partners and to diffuse 

our critical infrastructure protection efforts to where we have more 

active roles with State Governments, local communities, stronger 

collaboration with the private sector, and frankly, what I would 

offer to you is critical infrastructure protection has got some tough 

policy issues. It has got some tough issues that are not easily understood. 

And I think that we have now reached the level of maturity in 

terms of our national efforts post-September 11 whereby bringing 

the private sector and our State and local partners, our Federal 

agency partners to the table in maybe a little more aggressive way 

than has been done before. Certainly, we have seen this in Virginia. I think we can advance our infrastructure protection efforts 

to the next level. 

The other piece that I would offer is there is great incentive for 

the private sector to protect that critical infrastructure. Customers 

demand service from their businesses. Insurance companies are 

looking to minimize exposure, a whole variety of issues. I will tell 

you, my experience in Virginia is there is no weakness in the commitment of the private sector to protect that critical infrastructure. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Ms. Henke, if confirmed, you will 

oversee the distribution of the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention program. We have heard a lot of discussion about homeland 

security grant programs and how the funding should be allocated. 

This is a program that gets far less attention and yet is vitally important. If we can disrupt, detect, and deter terrorist attacks before 

they occur, that obviously should be our highest priority. And indeed, in recent years, this program has distributed more than $400 

million a year for the purpose of preventing a terrorist attack. 

The 9/11 Commission found that the terrorists conducted their 

activities, trained, transited, and hid in places like Stone Mountain, Georgia, Norman, Oklahoma, and Portland, Maine. We see 

the clear trend again with the London bombings, where the terrorists planned their attacks well away from the target in London, but 

rather in a small town called Leeds. 

Despite all this evidence, the clear bias within the Department 

of Homeland Security, when given discretion on how to distribute 

the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention funds, is toward large 

cities. Doesn’t this strategy ignore what we have learned from 

where the September 11 terrorists trained? Doesn’t it ignore the 

plotting that was done in Leeds? What would be your approach to 

18

distributing the funds that may well lead to the disruption or prevention of a terrorist attack? 

Ms. HENKE. Senator, as you are aware, prevention is one of the 

core missions, one of the four main missions of the Department of 

Homeland Security, and it is extremely important. It is my hope 

that we would be able to prevent, instead of having to respond and 

recover from, an attack. 

It is my understanding that the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention program at this office, like most of the grant funding that 

this office distributes, is provided to the States and then the States 

are required to work with the localities, whether rural or urban, 

suburban, because they know, as you know and as I know, that for 

preparedness, there is no arbitrary boundaries. We need to be prepared as a Nation. That means rural, suburban, and urban. 

And so what I can commit to you, Senator, is that, if confirmed, 

if there is a better way to distribute resources, I commit to looking 

at that and working to ensure that our homeland security resources are providing us the best prevention as well as preparedness that we can get. 

Chairman COLLINS. There has also been extensive discussion in 

recent months on the need for increased border security. One costeffective way that I hear about to increase border security is to use 

State and local law enforcement officials as a force multiplier. For 

a time, the Department did allow reimbursement for State and 

local law enforcement activities that assisted Federal officials in securing the border. That has changed, however, in recent months. 

Do you believe that it should be an allowable use of the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention program funding for reimbursement of support of border security activities? 

Ms. HENKE. Chairman, it is my understanding that the office has 

reviewed this, and in the past, I know that funding was available 

under the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention program for 

Code Orange, if there was a Code Orange, that entities were allowed to have reimbursement. And then under the Urban Area Security Initiative, some areas that were high-risk, that had Code 

Yellow or Orange, were able to use funds to reimburse for State 

and local costs pertaining to the border. And I do believe I recall 

seeing that the Department has reviewed this and is working to 

ensure that there is some allowable cost for reimbursement for border security for State and locals. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Foresman, I appreciated, in your written responses to the 

Committee, that you talked a lot about the importance of planning 

as a function of preparedness. You pointed out that a good plan 

repays the investment in time and effort in its development and rehearsal by shortening the time required to gain control over an incident and clarifying roles, responsibilities, tasks, and resources before an incident. 

This morning at a hearing in this room, we heard from three of 

the operational professionals of FEMA about their work in the days 

before and immediately after Hurricane Katrina hit landfall on the 

Gulf Coast. It spoke to a crying need for more training. It was a 

very informative hearing in a lot of ways. I certainly came out with 

19

a better understanding of the extent of the deprivation, for one, the 

denial of adequate funding to FEMA personnel for training to prepare them adequately for a Katrina-type disaster, and particularly, 

this roster of reserves they have that they call on in a crisis who 

rarely get a chance to train. 

So first question is, if you want to talk a little bit about the importance of planning and training? Two, do you believe that the 

Preparedness Directorate should work with FEMA to make sure 

that exercises, training, and response happen and are linked to one 

another? 

Mr. FORESMAN. Senator, thank you. I would offer that, historically speaking over 22 years in Virginia, the plan is not necessarily 

as important as the process of planning because with that, you are 

able to bring people together to mutually understand the nature of 

the crisis or the hazard that they are reading themselves to deal 

with and then intuitively provides an element of training, just as 

you are doing the functional planning process, but planning is absolutely critical. 

Now, one of the things that I would offer, Senator, is that we 

have got to get a greater degree of consistency in terms of how we 

go about planning. For instance, in Virginia, we are going to be 

working with FEMA on a day-to-day basis in terms of planning for 

natural disasters or other response and recovery activities. We may 

be working with the U.S. Coast Guard, planning for oil spills, the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission on nuclear power plant incidents, 

and I think that one of the key factors that we see is the necessity 

not only within the Department, but across the entire Federal 

interagency, and frankly, across States and communities and the 

private sector, a much greater degree of consistency in terms of the 

road ahead. And the National Preparedness Goal and the National 

Incident Management System are two critical elements that will 

help us achieve that. 

With regard to the issue of training, the one thing that I would 

offer is that we have a Reservist program in Virginia, individuals 

that we bring on board during emergencies and disasters similar 

to the Reservist program that FEMA has. All of us, I think, would 

agree that appropriate planning and training, or appropriate training and education for our personnel is critical. I would say that we 

also have to recognize that there is a great deal of training that 

occurs in a real-world event. And so we recognize that there is the 

necessity for classroom activity, but we also recognize there is 

value added from actually being out there and practicing what you 

need to practice on a day-to-day basis. 

But Senator, let me offer this. FEMA is but one component of the 

Nation’s preparedness efforts, albeit a very critical, and if not the 

most critical component, because of their responsibility for looking 

in an all-hazards approach. But FEMA, the Coast Guard, HHS, 

DOD, EPA, a host of Federal agencies, elements internal to the Department and external to the Department, we are going to have to 

make sure that we do a much stronger and better job in terms of 

our coordination for planning, our coordination on training and exercise activities, and I would just say everybody is going to have 

to be at the table to make us stronger. 

20

Senator LIEBERMAN. Well said. Let me ask you a few questions 

about interoperability based on your experience in Virginia and 

what you know generally as you think about going forward. What 

would you say are shortcomings in the current system of funding 

with regard to communications interoperability of first responders? 

Mr. FORESMAN. Senator, I think there are two critical issues. We 

do not have a consistent national definition of what are we talking 

about. Are we talking about interoperability, or are we talking 

about operability, or are we talking about the interoperability between disciplines, between levels of government? But it goes back 

to a conversation that you and I were fortunate enough to have in 

your office, and before we get to the technological and the funding 

solution, we need to decide who needs to talk to whom, when, and 

how, and that is good old-fashioned business rules in terms of how 

we want to do business on a day-to-day basis. 

We have been fortunate, in Virginia, in the development of one 

of the first interoperability strategies in the Nation. Does it solve 

all the problems? Absolutely not, but it gives us a clear indicator 

of where we are going to spend our critical dollars, whether Federal, State, or local dollars toward solving interoperability issues. 

And frankly, the one thing I would tell you is having that strategy, 

it allows us to use it as a tool. We don’t use Federal grant dollars 

for interoperability projects unless it is consistent with that strategy, and we have an executive committee that reviews those proposals. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Good for you. I am not going to hold you to 

this, but in a general sense, what is a reasonable time table for 

achieving a reasonable level of communications interoperability 

among first responders nationwide? 

Mr. FORESMAN. Well, Senator, it is difficult to try to put a time 

frame on it. I come from the rural parts of Virginia where not only 

do the local governments own their own radio systems, the actual 

first responder organizations, and we are talking about thousands 

if not tens of thousands of systems across the country. I would be 

hard-pressed to give you an answer that had any modicum of accuracy, but please understand that having been a first responder in 

the early 1980s at an automobile accident in the middle of nowhere 

on the Interstate, driving an ambulance and not being able to talk 

to anybody and having people die is exceptionally frustrating. I 

have lived with interoperability, I understand interoperability, and 

I am committed to making sure that we work on interoperability. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you. My time is up. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

I do have some additional questions for both nominees, which I 

am going to submit for the record. 

Senator Lieberman, do you have anything else you would like to 

ask at the hearing, or——

Senator LIEBERMAN. Just one quick question for Mr. Foresman, 

and this, though they haven’t asked me, is on behalf of our two colleagues from California, who continue to ask Senator Collins and 

me to focus on San Francisco and the potential for an earthquake 

because we all hear that this is considered by natural disaster experts as one of their bigger fears, along with the two that tragically 

21

have already happened, a terrorist attack on New York and the 

flooding of New Orleans. 

I don’t know whether you have been in a position to know whether the Department has existing plans with regard to responding to 

an earthquake in California, and if not, whether you would work 

with the State of California to conduct the kind of simulations, 

training, and planning exercises that we have just talked about. 

Mr. FORESMAN. Senator, with regard to the specific plans on the 

shelves at the Department, I am not aware of the specifics, but I 

would offer to you that in the early 1990s when we were developing 

what was then the first Federal Response Plan and States and the 

Federal Government working together, that grew out of what was 

then FEMA’s Catastrophic Incident Earthquake Plan, and so we 

know that we have the core principles. We have to be careful that 

we don’t try to develop a plan for every hazard or every scenario, 

but rather, we develop the framework that is expandable, adaptable to the specific situations that would occur. 

But I can say clearly, working with my counterparts from California over the years, the New Madrid fault, the L.A. basin, certainly San Francisco, those are the types of events that would occur 

with little or no warning. They would cause a widespread amount 

of devastation. And clearly, doing continuous planning, training, 

and exercise in preparation for those is absolutely critical. Preparedness is very much about progress, and we have got to continue to make progress every day in terms of continuously looking 

at all of the risks we face and manage them better. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you both. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

I want to thank both nominees for appearing before the Committee today. Without objection, the record will be kept open until 

5 p.m. tomorrow for the submission of any written questions or 

statements or other materials for the record. 

This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:39 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(23)

A P P E N D I X 


26745.001
24


26745.002
25


26745.003
26


26745.004
27


26745.005
28


26745.007
29


26745.008
30


26745.009
31


26745.010
32


26745.011
33


26745.012
34


26745.013
35


26745.014
36


26745.015
37


26745.016
38


26745.017
39


26745.018
40


26745.019
41


26745.020
42


26745.021
43


26745.105
44


26745.035
45


26745.036
46


26745.037
47


26745.038
48


26745.039
49


26745.040
50


26745.041
51


26745.042
52


26745.043
53


26745.044
54


26745.045
55


26745.046
56


26745.047
57


26745.048
58


26745.049
59


26745.050
60


26745.051
61


26745.052
62


26745.053
63


26745.054
64


26745.055
65


26745.056
66


26745.057
67


26745.058
68


26745.059
69


26745.060
70


26745.061
71


26745.062
72


26745.063
73


26745.064
74


26745.065
75


26745.066
76


26745.067
77


26745.068
78


26745.069
79


26745.070
80


26745.071
81


26745.072
82


26745.073
83


26745.074
84


26745.075
85


26745.076
86


26745.077
87


26745.078
88


26745.079
89


26745.080
90


26745.081
91


26745.082
92


26745.083
93


26745.084
94


26745.085
95


26745.086
96


26745.087
97


26745.088
98


26745.089
99


26745.090
100


26745.091
101


26745.092
102


26745.093
103


26745.094
104


26745.095
105


26745.096
106


26745.097
107


26745.098
108


26745.099
109


26745.100
110


26745.101
111


26745.102
112


26745.103
113


26745.104
114


26745.022
115


26745.023
116


26745.024
117


26745.025
118


26745.026
119


26745.027
120


26745.028
121


26745.029
122


26745.030
123


26745.031
124


26745.032
125


26745.033
126


26745.034
127


26745.106
128


26745.107
129


26745.108
130


26745.109
131


26745.110
132


26745.111
133


26745.112
134


26745.113
135


26745.150
136


26745.114
137


26745.115
138


26745.116
139


26745.117
140


26745.118
141


26745.119
142


26745.120
143


26745.121
144


26745.122
145


26745.123
146


26745.124
147


26745.125
148


26745.126
149


26745.127
150


26745.128
151


26745.129
152


26745.130
153


26745.131
154


26745.132
155


26745.133
156


26745.134
157


26745.135
158


26745.136
159


26745.137
160


26745.138
161


26745.139
162


26745.140
163


26745.141
164


26745.142
165


26745.143
166


26745.144
167


26745.145
168


26745.146
169


26745.147
170


26745.148
171


26745.149
172


26745.151
173


26745.152
174


26745.153
175


26745.154
176


26745.155
177


26745.156
178


26745.157
179


26745.158
180


26745.159
181


26745.160
182


26745.161
183


26745.162
184


26745.163
185


26745.164
186


26745.165
187


26745.166
188


26745.167
189


26745.168
190


26745.169
191


26745.170
192


26745.171
193


26745.172
194


26745.173
195


26745.175
196


26745.176
197


26745.174
198


26745.177
199


26745.178
200


26745.179
201


26745.180
202


26745.181
203


26745.182
204


26745.183
205


26745.184
206


26745.185
207


26745.186
208


26745.187
209


26745.188
210


26745.189
211


26745.190
212


26745.191
213


26745.192
214


26745.193
215


26745.194
216


26745.195
217


26745.196
218


26745.197
219


26745.198
220


26745.199
221


26745.200
222


26745.201
223


26745.202
224


26745.203
225


26745.204
226


26745.205
227


26745.206
228


26745.207
229


26745.208
230


26745.209
231


26745.210
232


26745.211
233


26745.212
234


26745.213
235


26745.214
236


26745.215
237


26745.216
238


26745.217
239


26745.218
240


26745.219
241


26745.220
242


26745.221
243


26745.222
244


26745.223
245


26745.224
246


26745.225
247


26745.226
248


26745.227
249


26745.228
250


26745.229
251


26745.230
252


26745.231
253


26745.232
254


26745.233
255

Æ


26745.234