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

20–175 PDF 2005

S. Hrg. 109–8

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY’S BUDGET

SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 9, 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 

GORDON LEDERMAN, Professional Staff Member 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel 

HOLLY A. IDELSON, Minority Counsel 

AMY B. NEWHOUSE, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

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

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

Senator Warner ................................................................................................ 4

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

Senator Pryor .................................................................................................... 13

Senator Coleman .............................................................................................. 15

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 17

Senator Dayton ................................................................................................. 19

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 30

WITNESS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2005

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

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33

Questions and responses for the Record from Secretary Chertoff ................ 48

(1)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY’S 

BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2005

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room SD–

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

Present: Senators Collins, Lieberman, Warner, Lautenberg, 

Pryor, Coleman, Levin, Dayton, and Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS 

Chairman COLLINS. The Committee will come to order. Good 

morning. 

The Committee faces a dilemma today. We have four stacked 

votes at 11:30, and our witness, Secretary Chertoff, has to leave 

around 1 o’clock. For that reason, I am going to greatly abbreviate 

my opening remarks, and I hope that my colleague from Connecticut will greatly abbreviate his opening remarks as well, so 

that we can get as many questions in as possible before we have 

to adjourn for the votes. 

Today the Committee will review the Department of Homeland 

Security’s budget submission for fiscal year 2006, and it is a great 

pleasure to welcome Secretary Chertoff to his first official appearance before the Committee since his confirmation. We hope that 

this budget hearing will not be so arduous that you now regret 

your decision, for which we all praised you, to give up your prestigious lifetime appointment as a Federal judge. 

The Administration’s proposed Homeland Security budget of 

$41.1 billion represents a 7-percent increase and recognizes that we 

have yet to address a great many homeland security threats and 

vulnerabilities. I applaud many of the initiatives targeted for increased spending in this budget, such as directing more resources 

to develop and deploy technology that can detect chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and to enhance the Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement Bureau. 

In addition, I am pleased that the budget proposes to bring together the various screening activities within the Department 

under a new Office of Screening Coordination and Operations. It 

would also consolidate research, development, testing, and evaluation activities of the Science and Technology Directorate. Again, I 

think all of these are proposals that will increase efficiency, elimiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:49 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 020175 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\20175.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
2

nate duplication of effort, and help to promote integration and 

unity within the Department. 

At the same time, however, I find several provisions to be very 

troubling. The proposed cut of more than 30 percent in State homeland security grant programs in addition to the proposed cuts in 

other programs for first responders short-change those on the front 

lines in the war on terrorism. The attacks of September 11 were 

directed against two great centers of our Nation’s financial and 

military power. But we all know that the enemy we face is nothing 

if not opportunistic. The enemy relishes the element of surprise 

and, thus, will strike wherever we leave ourselves vulnerable. The 

September 11 terrorists planned and trained in small cities and 

towns throughout the Nation. Two of the hijackers, including the 

ring leader, departed for their journey of death and destruction 

from Portland, Maine. Terrorist cells and financing operations have 

been uncovered in smaller communities. From farms and feedlots 

to power plants and chemical facilities, the entire length and 

breadth of our Nation offers targets of interest to the terrorists. All 

States must receive a fair share of funding, and that funding must 

be delivered in a way that will allow States to apply it with the 

flexibility that local circumstances require. At the same time, we 

all recognize that certain areas in this country are at greater risk, 

and they do deserve additional funding. But as I have said many 

times, you cannot simply look at population and population density 

and equate them with risk and threat. Last month, Senators Carper, Lieberman, Coleman, and several other Members of this Committee, and I reintroduced the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act, which in my view provides a flexible and fair formula. 

I am also concerned that the budget eliminates the technology 

transfer grant program. It gets needed anti-terrorism and homeland security technology into the hands of law enforcement and 

first responders quickly and efficiently, and I believe it should be 

restored. 

I remain concerned about the underfunding of our port security. 

Incidents of human smuggling aboard cargo containers are becoming increasingly commonplace, and the interdictions that result 

more from chance than from any coherent policy are cause for concern. The lack of a separate line item in this budget for port security grants does not reflect the importance of international trade to 

our economy and the vulnerability of these ports. In addition, the 

Coast Guard is one of our best defenses, yet the deep water modernization program remains underfunded. 

I realize that this budget does not necessarily reflect the Secretary’s personal views and priorities as it was constructed prior to 

his nomination. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary will listen 

carefully to the concerns raised today as he presents what I am 

sure will be a vigorous defense of a budget that he inherited rather 

than drew up. 

Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Nicely done, Madam Chairman. [Laughter.] 

3

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much. It is an honor and 

a pleasure to address you, Mr. Chertoff, for the first time as Mr. 

Secretary and to welcome you here in that capacity. 

Not long ago, Porter Goss, the Director of the CIA, told the Senate Intelligence Committee that, ‘‘It may only be a matter of time,’’ 

before terrorists try to attack us with weapons of mass destruction. 

And I know that he meant here at home. 

At the same hearing, FBI Director Bob Mueller warned of possible terrorist operations now under way within our borders and 

said finding such terrorists is ‘‘one of the most difficult challenges’’ 

his organization faces. 

Protecting Americans from these potential terrorist attacks is 

your responsibility and ours as we share it with you, and it cannot 

be done on the cheap. Yet in its fiscal year 2006 budget proposal 

for the Department of Homeland Security, the Administration, in 

my opinion, has underestimated what it will take to keep our citizens as safe as possible here at home. There are increases, but they 

are modest: Only a 3- to 4-percent increase in DHS discretionary 

spending after inflation, and even that increase largely depends on 

the adoption by Congress of a controversial airline ticket fee. And 

that adoption, frankly, may or may not occur. 

More important, the increases pale by comparison to what experts have told our Committee is necessary. And some key homeland security funding that was authorized by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act, the so-called 9/11 legislation, 

signed into law by the President last November, has simply been 

ignored. 

That, I am afraid, leaves us with too many gaps in our defenses, 

gaps that range from the inability of first responders to communicate between their own agencies and jurisdictions, to a lack of 

preparedness for a biological attack, to inadequately defended 

train, railway, and highway transportation networks. 

So what do I think needs to be done? I have done some work 

with my staff on this, and the result is a letter that I have submitted to the Senate Budget Committee, whose contents I have 

shared with your office. In that letter I have proposed $8.4 billion 

in increases in the budget for homeland security governmentwide. 

Of that amount, $6.3 billion would be for programs within the Department of Homeland Security, and that is over and above the 

President’s proposed $2.5 billion increase. I know that is a significant amount of money in a time of budget pressure, though it remains a relatively small, an extremely small percentage of the 

$2.57 trillion overall Federal budget. That is an $8.4 billion addon to a $2.57 trillion budget. 

About half of the increase that I am proposing in the DHS budget would go for training, equipment, and support for first responders because, as you know, and I believe you agree—I am confident 

you agree—these first responders are not only that; they are hundreds of thousands of first preventers against a terrorist attack all 

around the country. 

A significant portion of what I am recommending here would be 

invested in interoperable communications equipment to allow first 

responders from different agencies and different jurisdictions to 

4

speak to one another during a crisis, which we know they were not 

able to do on September 11. I frankly do not understand why the 

Administration is seeking to cut first responder programs by $565 

million in your Department and a truly jarring $1.7 billion governmentwide, which is to say that includes programs recommended for 

cuts particularly in the Justice Department, the COPS program, 

the Byrne grant program. 

Homeland security expert Steve Flynn, as you know, a former 

Coast Guard commandant, describes our predicament in his recent 

book, ‘‘American the Vulnerable—How Our Government is Failing 

to Protect Us From Terrorism.’’ He says, and I quote briefly, 

‘‘Homeland security has entered our post–9/11 lexicon, but homeland insecurity remains the abiding reality. With the exception of 

airports, much of what is critical in our way of life remains unprotected.’’

Mr. Flynn further points out that homeland security spending is 

still very small compared to the overall Pentagon budget. Now, as 

a member of the Armed Services Committee, as all three of us here 

at this moment are, I am a strong supporter of the Pentagon budget. Mr. Flynn says that that discrepancy suggests that the Federal 

Government continues to believe that our primary terrorist threat 

will be found outside our borders. We know that the threat from 

terrorism is both outside our borders and, self-evidently and in 

some senses most menacingly, within our borders. 

So I think we have to listen to the security experts who tell us 

that this terrorist threat is one we unfortunately must live with 

and defend against at home and abroad for the indefinite future. 

And we must listen to the experts who say we should match the 

threat at home and abroad with the resources necessary to vanquish it. 

Mr. Secretary, I note you are already hard at work examining 

the operations of your Department and the resources available to 

it. I look forward to hearing from you this morning about how together we can close our country’s continuing insecurity gap. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. 

My plan was to turn to our witness for a statement, but the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a 

Member of this Committee has joined us. Senator Warner, if you 

want to make some brief comments, feel free. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER 

Senator WARNER. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and 

our distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Lieberman. 

Judge, the honeymoon is over, as you can hear from the opening 

statements. But I would like to inquire as to what time the Chairman might consider having the Committee vote on the nomination 

of Mr. Jackson. I would like to be present. We do have three 

stacked votes. It could be off the floor. 

Chairman COLLINS. We will probably end up doing that off the 

floor. If, however, a quorum appears prior to our going to the floor 

for the stacked votes, we will do it at that time. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you. 

5

1The prepared statement of Secretary Chertoff appears in the Appendix on page 33. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Lautenberg, we are 

going to dispense with opening statements because of the stacked 

votes, but I want to make sure everybody gets a chance to question, 

so I just wanted to explain that is why——

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. I would not think, Madam 

Chairman, that it was discriminatory, and I appreciate the message. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Secretary Chertoff, you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. MICHAEL CHERTOFF,1 SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Thank you, Senator Collins, Senator 

Lieberman, and Members of the Committee. I will also cut my 

statement even further in the interest of saving time. 

I am pleased to be back in front of this Committee as Secretary 

of Homeland Security. I appreciate your support through the confirmation process, and I look forward to working with you in the 

months and years to come. 

I thought I would simply make two points in my opening statement. One is to indicate that I have initiated a comprehensive review of the Department to better understand what is working and 

what is not. This is going to involve evaluating every element of 

our working mission and making sure that the organization of the 

Department and its operations conform with the threat, not vice 

versa; that we do not look at the threat in terms of our existing 

stovepipes. 

Our philosophy, our decisionmaking, and our operational activities have to be grounded in risk management as we determine how 

to best prevent, respond, and recover, if necessary, from attacks. So 

we have to analyze the threats and our mission and then adapt the 

organization and our operations and policies to meet those threats 

and carry out that mission, not vice versa. 

Now, a second point I would make, as you said, Madam Chairwoman, is that the President has affirmed again his staunch commitment to the Department with an increase of 7 percent in the 

2006 budget over the prior year of $41.1 billion in resources. There 

are in this budget some critical structural changes: The establishment of a screening coordination office and a domestic nuclear detection office. And we are going to continue to work to protect our 

borders, strengthen law enforcement, leverage technology, improve 

preparedness and response, and streamline a 21st Century Department. At the same time, we will continue to recognize the Department’s historical functions, including responding to natural disasters, securing our coasts, and providing immigration services and 

enforcement, as we have traditionally done. 

This Committee has supported and taken a very deep interest in 

the Department, and I welcome that. I look forward to the opportunity in the coming months to engage with Members of this Committee as we refine our ideas and our recommendations about how 

to best achieve homeland security. Our shared goal is an America 

6

that is safe and secure and also true to our fundamental values 

and civil liberties. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering questions. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. We appreciate your abbreviating your statement so that we can get right 

to questions. 

I want to follow up on the comments I made and that Senator 

Lieberman made as well in our opening statements about the funding for the homeland security grant programs. Former Secretary 

Ridge often correctly said that homeland security begins with 

hometown security. When disaster strikes, our citizens do not call 

the Washington, DC, area code. They dial 911. And it is our police 

officers, our firefighters, and our emergency medical personnel who 

are always first on the scene. They truly are the front lines in the 

war against terrorism. 

States and communities have made progress over the past few 

years in improving their preparedness, but they still have enormous needs. For example, the lack of compatible communications 

equipment, which was cited by the 9/11 Commission, remains a 

major problem, and it is one that the Ranking Member and I have 

introduced legislation to try to address. And it is a very costly problem to solve. 

Yet the Administration’s budget would cut and reshape the basic 

grant programs such that smaller States could see as much as an 

80-percent decrease in the amount of baseline funding that they 

could count on. That is not just a small drop. That is a leap off the 

cliff. 

I am very concerned that those proposed reductions also come at 

a time when the Department is about to issue preparedness standards for States that are pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive No. 8. And the purpose of this directive, is ‘‘to 

strengthen preparedness capabilities in Federal, State, and local 

entities, and to help the entities meet new domestic all-hazards 

preparedness goals.’’

How can you expect States and localities to meet these new preparedness standards to solve the problem of the interoperability of 

communications equipment and to continue their progress with a 

budget that proposes to drastically slash the baseline funding that 

States and communities can count on? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Senator, I think there are a number of 

principles that we want to observe in our handling of funding, 

which I think are things I alluded to when I was testifying here 

last time. We need to be risk-based, and that means looking at 

threats, consequences, and vulnerabilities. And those characteristics do not necessarily arise in large or small States per se. They 

depend on a whole host of characteristics: The nature of the infrastructure we are worried about, the exposure and proximity to borders, historical information from intelligence about what kinds of 

areas are targets. 

I think, in general, the budget drives increasingly towards a 

model of funding and grant-making and deployment of resources 

that is focused on this overall strategic analysis under these three 

heads. 

7

I think, therefore, it is kind of hard on an abstract level to say 

that certain States are going to do better or certain States are 

going to do worse because frankly the issue is not where State lines 

are drawn. The issue is where are the vulnerabilities and what are 

the consequences. If there is a power plant, for example, that 

serves a number of States and it is located in a small State, that 

may very well require some funding and some support because 

there is a major consequence if something happens, and there may 

be major vulnerabilities. 

Obviously, therefore, we have to be the most effective we can in 

terms of deploying what are necessarily finite resources. One thing 

we want to encourage in the grant-making process is shared services, and I think we have already built this in, and I want to continue to move forward on this. 

The fact of the matter is not every community, for example, 

needs to have one hazmat suit. That does not do anybody any good. 

What is useful is when communities in a particular area can pool 

their operations so that they can centralize a response team, and 

then we could give hazmat suits to that team that might be located 

in one community, it might be done through a county, and then get 

service over an entire area. 

So what we are looking for is trying to maximize the way we use 

resources to get the most effective deployment and, again, to always be focused on where are the greatest potential negative consequences, where are we most vulnerable, and where are the 

threats. 

Chairman COLLINS. Well, I would say to you that the problem, 

however, with reducing the small–State minimum by such a dramatic amount is that States cannot count on a certain level of 

funding other than one that is dramatically below what they now 

receive. Instead, there is going to be what appears at this point to 

be a very ill-defined process for sorting out risk and threat 

vulnerabilities. And I agree that we certainly need to focus more 

of the funding, but I think that, to so dramatically reduce the 

small–State minimum, all you are going to do is create new 

vulnerabilities. 

This Committee last year had a hearing on agroterrorism, an 

issue that has not gotten much attention, but which Secretary 

Tommy Thompson cited as he was departing his post. We cannot 

assume that the threat is concentrated just in large urban areas, 

and we have to assume that the terrorists are smart enough to figure out where we are not putting the resources. 

So I think we need to proceed very carefully, particularly as the 

Department is imposing new preparedness standards that every 

State, regardless of its size or population, will be required to meet. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I completely agree with that, and I think 

that the example you give is actually a really good one. It might 

turn out, based on food distribution, for example, that there are 

risks in a particular State, perhaps a small State, that happens to 

be the place where there is food distribution that covers a wide 

area. And for that reason, that State could benefit under our risk 

analysis approach because we would identify the consequence of 

something happening, the vulnerability, and the threat. And that 

is why I quite agree we need to move away from a population-drivVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:49 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 020175 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\20175.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
8

en or size-of-state-driven model to one which really focuses on what 

I think there is general agreement, which is that we ought to be 

focused on risk. And the winners and losers there will depend on 

what the facts are and not on what some predetermined, cookiecutter formula tells us. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks again, Madam Chairman. 

Secretary Chertoff, in the past this Administration has been reluctant to recommend and allocate funds for rail and transit security. Indeed, in last year’s budget, fiscal year 2005, in the budget 

proposal, there were no dedicated grant programs for non-aviation 

security. Congress in a bipartisan way rose up and adopted $150 

million in rail and transit security grants. 

In this budget, the Administration has essentially taken that 

$150 million and put it together with a series of other grant programs in the so-called TIP, Targeted Infrastructure Protection program, which it will be your responsibility to allocate. But all that 

will have to go not only for rail and non-aviation transit, but for 

things like port security grants. 

So I feel point-blank that we are not giving enough—we are not 

investing enough in the security of non-aviation modes of transportation—and I particularly say it after the Madrid train bombings 

and other indications that we have that terrorists may be tempted 

to strike at non-aviation transportation, particularly rail, here in 

the United States. 

So I want to ask you: As you come in, what is your philosophy 

about the Federal Government’s role in ensuring rail and transit 

security and what do you hope the Department’s action will be in 

that regard? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about 

that, Senator. Let me first begin by harking back to my statement 

about doing this comprehensive review because part of my philosophy going into this is that we have various components that are 

focused on types of threats, we have various funding programs, but 

I want to step back and look at not where we have the money now 

and where we have the jurisdictional lines now, but first, where 

are the actual threats and where are the actual consequences and 

vulnerabilities. 

Clearly, transportation of a non-aviation kind is historically an 

area that has been subject to threat and is one which plays a very 

important role in our national infrastructure. So I want to analyze 

across the board, without regard to what particular box we are 

talking about, how we deal with the whole gamut of threats. Some 

of these issues involve how we deal with cargo, for example, that 

may be currently handled under CBP. Some of them deal with 

fixed infrastructure. Some of them may deal with rolling stock. 

Some of them are private-party issues. 

Once we look at that, I think we have a strategy we can put on 

top of that as an overlay the way we are currently organized, and 

that is one of the reasons I feel that in the next 60 to 90 days as 

we do this evaluation, we may get a better idea of things we could 

do to align our structure and our operations with these missions, 

such as, for example, non-aviation security. 

9

Every type of transportation presents its own issues. Cars and 

trucks, for example, are essentially heavily operated by the private 

sector, and so private sector involvement is very important there. 

We are doing things with respect to rail where we have pilot programs with respect to explosives. We have other kinds of enhancements. And there we have obviously much more government involvement, including, frankly, State and local government. 

So I would like to be able to say at the end of this process that 

we are headed in a direction of, again, increasing the way we deploy our resources and our money in an analytically sound and 

transparent way so that I can come to you at some point and say, 

‘‘look, we are doing this because we have the following intelligence 

and we have made the following evaluations, and we are being consistent and complementary across the board.’’

Senator LIEBERMAN. I appreciate that. I urge you to do it. I am 

sure you will do it, anyway, approach that view with the sense of 

urgency that the reality of the threat justifies. And I urge that we 

work together on this Committee with you on it. 

I want to just pick up and mention, in a related matter to the 

topic that the Chairman was talking about, the Urban Area Security Initiative, a really important program. And what troubles me, 

as I have said to you privately, is that the Department now administers the program in such a way that there is a threshold of population of 225,000 in a city before it can qualify for funding under 

this program. And that just does not make sense to me because 

there are some—this is slightly different from what the Chairman 

was saying—there are clearly some smaller cities in which there 

are real targets for terrorism. And I urge you to review that requirement and basically make a threat assessment free of an arbitrary threshold. 

I welcome any comment. If not, I am happy to go on and——

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will certainly look at that issue. I think 

it is important. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Good. Finally, the 9/11 bill did include, as 

I mentioned in my opening statement, a number of authorizations 

which at this point the President’s budget does not respond to. And 

some of them are really quite critical, and I hope are now coming 

in. I understand the turnaround time between budget preparation 

and submission and the 9/11 legislation adoption was not long. But 

these go to equipment that is necessary for transportation security, 

and the one I want to ask you about, finally, is border security. 

The 9/11 legislation authorized 2,000 new Border Patrol agents. 

The Administration’s budget would fund about 200 positions, which 

I understand to be replacement for agents that were deployed from 

the Southern border to the Northern border in response to congressional mandates to increase Northern border protection. In my own 

letter to the Budget Committee, which I referred to earlier, I recommended an increase in funding to allow for a thousand new Border Patrol agents because the best evidence I had was that it would 

be impossible to really find, train, and hire more than that number 

in this year. 

Would you support an effort to increase funding for the Border 

Patrol agents that we have working for us in that critical function, 

antiterrorism function? 

10

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, of course, protection of the border is 

critical, and it has to be part of a comprehensive strategy. As you 

know, the President has advanced the idea of a temporary worker 

program, and I think that fits well with the enforcement notion, 

the idea being that by reducing pressure on the border from those 

who really do not want to do us any harm, we then can deploy our 

resources more effectively against those who do. 

As I understand it, this 210 additional Border Patrol slots represent a net increase. In other words, it does not merely backfill, 

but it actually raises the bar. So it clearly moves in the direction 

of what Congress was interested in and what we think is appropriate. 

As with anything else, as part of this general review, we want 

to look at what we need to do to be as robust as possible in protecting the border. That includes things we are doing technologically with unmanned aerial vehicles, our consolidation of air resources, sensors, and also, we are working, frankly, with State and 

local partners, as we are currently doing with our Arizona border 

control initiative. 

So I look forward to the opportunity to work with you on this 

issue. I think it is very important to the Committee, it is very important to me, to make sure we are being efficient but also effective 

in protecting our borders. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you. I do not think 210 is enough, so 

I hope we can raise it up beyond that. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Secretary Chertoff, it is interesting to see you in a different facility where before we used to meet in the hall of our respective office 

building. We shared some space in the same building before Secretary Chertoff volunteered for something he, I hope, will never regret. I don’t know whether the few days at the job has given you 

any further trepidation about the massive assignment that you 

have in front of you, or whether you have had a chance to get 

enough time with the organization, with the people who will help 

you run it, to feel like this assignment is something that you can 

deal with and make differences with and in a relatively short 

while. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. This is a great privilege. I have been tremendously impressed by the people in the Department. I have enjoyed starting to work with Congress on this. I think this issue is 

one in which there is a real sense of agreement on the mission. 

And there are areas for honest debate and discussion about how we 

get the mission accomplished most effectively, which I really look 

forward to engaging in, and I particularly look forward to hearing 

from others and getting input from others, including, most importantly, this Committee on what we might do, because we are a 

young organization, there is an opportunity to really shape the way 

homeland security is dealt with in the years to come. And that is 

a very exciting and very important thing to do. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I want to say this in the time I have allotted here. I think that for the most part, DHS has had a good start 

11

on this huge task. I have concerns about some of the areas of particular interest to my home State. I offer no compromise by saying 

our home State. I just don’t want you to forget your past. But some 

States get their grant money that they really do not need, and others, like New Jersey, I think are on the short side of the grant. 

As the Secretary knows, we have a stretch of land, a stretch of 

territory between the port of Newark and New York and Newark 

Airport designated the most dangerous 2 miles in the United 

States when it comes to terrorism. Despite this and other warnings, our funding from DHS was cut last year by $32 million. 

The 9/11 Commission report recommended that homeland security grants should be based on risks and vulnerabilities. Senator 

Corzine and I have introduced a bill to implement that view. And 

we have our problems, Senator Lieberman discussed it, and that is, 

it goes far beyond the focus on aviation. We have got 120,000 New 

Jerseyans who use the Hudson River rail tunnels each day. And 

with our port situation, a recent report from the DHS Inspector 

General pointed out that port security funds have not been allocated on the basis of need and money has gone to other States. 

So September 11, I think showed that the dependence on one 

principal mode of transportation leaves us vulnerable. When aviation shut down, not only was it an impediment to our resuming life 

or continuing life as we knew it before the September 11 tragedy, 

but we were very dependent on Amtrak and its ability to carry people. And I think that in the evaluation of where we stand ready 

to respond to terrorist attacks, I believe that we have to make sure 

that we have all modes of transportation, principal modes, that is, 

rail, highway, and obviously aviation in mind. 

Mr. Secretary, did you have a chance in the production of this? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I actually think I was confirmed after the 

budget was issued. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. But, of course, I am familiar with it now. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, there has been a reduction in the 

size of the formula grants, the guarantees, by two-thirds. They 

went from 0.75 to 0.25 in terms of the guarantee that each State 

would get. 

Now, can we assume that the adjustment of the formula is something that we can get your agreement on that the risk-based view 

of grant-making is the proper way or the best way to do it, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes, and I think I have said this now in a 

number of different places, and I am nothing, if not consistent. I 

do think we need to be risk-based, and we have within the Department, as we think about a whole host of issues—how we deploy our 

resources, how we issue grant money, how we develop standards, 

a strategy which, again, looks at these three pieces. What are the 

consequences of something happening, what is the vulnerability, 

and what is the threat. 

I recognize that to every community there are things that are important. That does not mean that we can fully fund everything that 

is important to every community. We have an obligation in dealing 

with terror, in addressing those elements which would have the 

most serious consequences, as to which there are the most 

12

vulnerabilities, and where there is an active threat. And those are 

going to require judgment calls. 

What I would like to be able to say, though, as part of this process is that we have a transparent, an analytically sound and disciplined way of making these decisions, and be able to lay that out 

for the Committee. And I think that is how we get a risk-based 

funding formula implemented. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Because when we look at the budget proposal and we see that urban area security—I am sorry, State and 

local grants, Citizen Corps, other grant programs, have been reduced by $425 million in the 2006 proposal. And it is pretty hard 

to understand how we are going to be able to take care of the obligations that we have with that kind of a substantial reduction in 

funding. And I hope that between now and the time that the appropriations are finally resolved that we will hear from you, Mr. Secretary, on whether or not there ought to be adjustments made to 

accommodate these problems. 

Now, in New Jersey we saw a decrease in homeland security funding by $32 million, overall 34 percent, city of Newark, which 

was listed as one of the five targeted places by some material that 

turned up. And the city of Newark saw its homeland security funding cut by 17 percent; Jersey City, right on the Hudson River, a 

highly vulnerable place, transportation center, a lot of high-risk 

buildings, cut by 60 percent. And I know that you are aware of the 

fact that these are high-risk areas. We are still in reverberation 

from the days of September 11. 

So I don’t know whether you are prepared to say now that there 

would likely be an increase in those places or whether we can expect to have to get by on the skinny, if I can use the word, without 

having the appropriate funding for the protections we need. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me just say I think that, as part of the 

process of review I want to undertake, we are going to look at the 

criteria that was used in making grants, which take account of a 

number of characteristics. Sometimes we may need to refine the 

characteristics so we get a better sense of what we ought to give 

more weight to or less weight to. Sometimes, frankly, circumstances change. You can get differences in vulnerability or you can 

get differences in threat environment. 

And so it does not surprise me and it will not surprise me in the 

future if we wind up seeing that funding levels of particular localities do not remain static. Sometimes they may go up, sometimes 

they may go down. 

Again, what I would like to do is be able to be confident and be 

able to demonstrate that we have a formula that is risk-based, that 

is transparent, that is analytically sound, and that is disciplined. 

Then I think that tool will get us close to where we need to be in 

terms of implementing this philosophy. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Madam Chairman, I will close with a 

question that has come up in the last couple of days that I have 

been very involved with, and that is permitting gun permits to be 

issued to those who are on the terror watchlist. 

Now, we permit that, even though we would not permit those individuals to get on an airplane if we knew who they were at the 

moment of their boarding. And I don’t know how much jurisdiction 

13

Homeland Security is going to have in this area, but I did ask your 

predecessor, Tom Ridge, when he was here whether he thought 

that was a necessary thing to permit. And he said he didn’t think 

so. And we had comments from Mr. Mueller yesterday about how 

questionable he saw this program. They destroy the records of either a purchase or a decline within 24 hours—by mandate destroy 

those records. 

Mr. Secretary, you are not only there to prevent a terrorist act 

from happening, but also to enforce the law in terms of having an 

information source that can help other agencies to do their jobs in 

apprehending these people if, heaven forbid, something does happen. So I hope that you will have a chance to look at that, and perhaps we will get a chance to discuss it in the near future. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. I saved you from answering that question, I 

want you to know, Mr. Secretary. [Laughter.] 

Senator Pryor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you, Secretary Chertoff, for being here, and let me just 

say that I know you have a big job on your hands, and I appreciate 

the complexity of it and the difficulty of it. But also at the same 

time, let me say that I have looked through your budget, and as 

we understand the budget this year compared to last year, from the 

fiscal year 2005 to the fiscal year 2006 budget, if we run the numbers as we understand them to be, last year Arkansas, my State, 

got about $21.4 million. This year it looks like we stand to get 

about $5.4 million. In other words, we are taking a $16 million hit 

under this budget. You are cutting the resources to our State back 

by about 75 percent, and it makes it very difficult for me to support 

your budget when Arkansas is going to suffer such a drastic cut. 

I just want you to know that. 

I guess the way I look at it is in order for America to be safe, 

all of America has to be safe. And $21.4 million for a State with 

our geography and our population is not a lot of money. It is not 

like we are gold-plating what we have down there. We have some 

critical needs, and I know that some of the smaller States like 

Maine and Connecticut and others would say the same thing. 

There are a lot of needs out there, and if we are not strong across 

the Union, I am just concerned whether the Union can be safe. 

So do you have any comments on a State like Arkansas taking 

a $16 million, about a 75-percent cut in homeland security dollars? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I am happy to address that, Senator, because I think it is consistent with what I have been trying to take 

as a uniform position, which is that we operate as closely as possible to a risk-based analytical approach to everything that we do—

funding, operations, etc. 

Senator PRYOR. Well, I don’t want to cut you off, but I understand the risk-based. I understand what you are saying. But don’t 

we need to prepare ourselves for the next risk, not the last risk? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Absolutely. That is absolutely right. 

14

Senator PRYOR. And aren’t we assuming that because these happened in urban areas before, it is going to happen in urban areas 

again? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I agree with you, we should not assume 

that. And I think the approach to developing risk is not based on 

simply looking at what happened last time. In fact, I could not be 

in more agreement with you that it would be a huge mistake for 

us to spend all our time fighting the last war and not thinking 

about the next one. 

So what do I mean by risk-based? I mean that we look at vulnerability and we look at consequence, which is not necessarily related 

to a State. A particular State may have, for example, a kind of infrastructure, the consequences of an attack on which would be catastrophic. In that case, we ought to put the money to do what we 

have to do to protect the vulnerability there and to do what we 

have to do to avoid the threat. So that although the budget proposal may reduce the amount of guaranteed state-by-state funding, 

it does not necessarily tell you how a particular State or locality 

is going to do because if a locality or State has a real high risk, 

they are going to get the money to address the risk. 

So what we do want to do is move away from the assumption 

that risk is divided along State jurisdictional lines. The terrorists 

don’t look at State jurisdiction. We need to look at where the infrastructure is, where the threat is, and where the most serious consequences and vulnerabilities are. 

Senator PRYOR. I understand in your formula there is a 0.25 percent minimum. Am I understanding that right? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. 

Senator PRYOR. Talk to us about that minimum and how that—

I mean, is that a guarantee? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, my understanding of the way the 

budget sets it forth is every State would get its funding under this 

particular State homeland security program based on the characteristics I have discussed. 

If a particular State falls below that 0.25 percent using that 

analysis, they would be raised up to the 0.25 percent minimum. If 

a particular State exceeded that because on the merits the risk is 

there, then, of course, the State would get the amount that the 

merits warrant. 

Senator PRYOR. Well, you are saying the 0.25 is a guarantee. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. You would get a minimum of 0.25, but, of 

course, on the merits, if more were warranted, more would be distributed. 

Senator PRYOR. Right. I understand that. But that is the floor. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. That is the proposal, yes. 

Senator PRYOR. I have a concern about that because I have had 

constituents who have spent their lives and dedicated themselves 

to homeland security in Arkansas, and they are starting to hear rumors through DHS that the State cannot count on that minimum. 

I would like for you to comment on those rumors. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Senator, rumors are tough to comment on. 

I think the proposal is clear that the President’s budget contemplates under this particular program, the State homeland security grants, that there be a 0.25 percent minimum, as I have deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:49 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 020175 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\20175.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
15

fined it. Rumors abound and I just can’t—I have no way of addressing them. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Madam Chairman, thank you, and I would 

like to say for the record I do concur with Senator Lieberman’s letter of February 28, on this subject matter and others, and thank 

you for your time on this. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Coleman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Secretary Chertoff, a great pleasure to have you before us, and 

we are thrilled that you are doing what you are doing, and hopefully we will move quickly to get you some other folks by your side. 

We had a good hearing with Under Secretary Jackson the other 

day, and I know the Chairman and the Ranking Member are moving quickly on that. 

I had a chance a couple weeks ago to inspect the Port of L.A. and 

Long Beach Harbor. I think 46 percent of our Nation’s container 

traffic goes through those particular ports. One of the issues of 

great concern that I have seen some studies on has to do with the 

threat of nuclear detonation, and the impact that would have in a 

port area. I think Booz Allen’s study found the economic impact of 

a terrorist attack at $58 billion, spoilage loss, etc. 

I understand we have not deployed radiation portal monitors at 

our Nation’s largest ports. Can you talk about that issue? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. My understanding is that there are 400 

portal monitors now deployed at various ports of entry, including 

obviously seaports. I hesitate to comment publicly as to whether a 

particular port has a monitor, but the plan is to have these monitors deployed—I think the balance of the monitors deployed this 

year. 

But I also want to put it in a larger context. I think the President agrees and we agree that the issue of a potential nuclear or 

radiological device is a very serious issue we must be concerned 

about. That is why the budget contemplates this Domestic Nuclear 

Detection Office (DNDO), this nuclear office that would coordinate 

across the board and essentially almost create a mini–Manhattan 

Project to move to the next level technologically. And even as we 

speak, in addition to deploying the portals that we now have, we 

are dedicating money to doing the research necessary to get to the 

next generation of portals that will be more sophisticated and more 

adept at detecting this material. 

Senator COLEMAN. And then I believe there is $125 million in the 

budget for radiation portal monitors. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. 

Senator COLEMAN. So it is there. In terms of what you can tell 

us about the process for utilizing these dollars, is there a sort of 

focus on high risk? Can you give me a little better sense of how 

you use this $125 million? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, as I say, we want to complete the deployment of the existing technology as we wait, because obviously 

we do not want to wait until we get new devices. We are heavily 

focused, first of all, on getting a technology that will be as effective 

as possible in detecting this material. And, again, because we are 

16

in a public session, I do not want to get too detailed about what 

some of the challenges are. 

Once we get that technology, then I think part of the responsibility of this office will be to deploy it, and that, again, I think 

needs to be, as with everything else, based on risk and vulnerability and consequence. 

So presumably, once we get that technology, we will roll it out 

in a way that best meets that analytical test. 

Senator COLEMAN. Just following up on the Domestic Nuclear 

Detection Office—and I appreciate the increased focus—can you 

help me understand the role of this? Will this supplant CBP as the 

primary agency involved in deployment of nuclear detection weapons? Is it going to be an advisory role? How is it going to function 

with the existing entities? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. The theory is that this is a matter of great 

importance that requires an interagency approach, so it will be an 

interagency office. It will report to the Secretary, which I think is 

indicative of the priority that we place on this, although it will be 

tied very closely to the existing research we do at the Science and 

Technology Directorate. And the idea is not to supplant CBP because CBP is ultimately the operational—or part of the operational 

element that will make use of this technology. And so CBP will be 

involved in the process. 

But what the office will do is not merely advise; it will actually 

take ownership of the process of identifying, acquiring, evaluating 

the technology, and then rolling it out and deploying it, although 

obviously the actual use of the technology will be done in the field 

by CBP officers. 

Senator COLEMAN. Let me, if I can, get perhaps a little parochial, 

but not really. Minnesota is the home of Northwest Airlines. They, 

like many of the other legacy carriers, are in a very difficult financial situation for a whole range of reasons. But in the President’s 

proposal, it proposes to increase, to double the airline security fees 

for passengers traveling on airlines. The airlines say if this cost is 

transferred back to them, it is going to have a devastating impact 

on an industry that is already in great difficulty. 

The airlines—and I raised this issue with Under Secretary Jackson, and I am not proposing we tax train passengers, I am not proposing that we do other taxes on a range of others. I am just concerned about the equity on airline travel, airline passengers, and 

ultimately on airlines, but it is going to be shifted over to the passengers, this continued increase in fee. I believe passengers ought 

to pay $2.50 per flight segment and a maximum of $10 on a round 

trip. I think it is proposed to be doubled, a segment fee to $5.50 

and a round trip fee at $16. 

Can you respond to some of the concerns that have been raised? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I would be delighted to. My understanding, 

Senator, is that, of course, when the original legislation establishing TSA was passed, it was contemplated that eventually it 

would be largely, if not entirely funded through a user fee. And I 

think that makes sense because what it does is it matches up the 

payment of the cost of this fairly extraordinary set of security 

measures with the beneficiaries. The reality is, speaking as someone who has flown a lot, as everybody else has, I care a lot about 

17

security, and I think everybody else does. And to the extent that 

we pay for things that we care about, I think passengers would understand the need to pay a small amount of money to guarantee 

their security so they get where they are going. 

I would point out the amount of money we are talking about, I 

think if you take it on a one-way ticket, the maximum is raised 

from $5 to $8, a $3 difference, which basically, as I recall it, is 

about the price of a Coke and a newspaper at an airport when you 

are waiting around. So it is not a huge marginal cost. 

What we should do, and I think it is part of the general philosophy, is we should pay just enough to get us the security we need—

in this case, for the airline passenger—not more than we need, because that is wasteful, but not less. We should be able to fund what 

we do for security. 

So I think this is an economically sound idea. I think it will 

ultimately be something passengers, I would think, would fully understand. And to the extent there are issues with respect to the 

precise details, of course, I would look forward to working with industry on that. 

Senator COLEMAN. I anticipate that some Members of this body 

will have a differing perspective, and I being one of them. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I expect that. I look forward to discussing 

that. I think it is something worth talking about. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Levin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator LEVIN. I applaud, first of all, your moving towards a 

more risk-based grant program. I think it is the only way to go, 

providing that the grants are determined on a rational basis, and 

you have laid out the criteria for that rational basis. The 9/11 Commission recommended that funding of these grants be allocated on 

risk, stating that ‘‘Homeland security assistance should be based 

strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.’’

You have moved towards a greater reliance in your budget proposal on that assessment, although you are not strictly on that 

basis because you still have a minimum 0.25 guarantee. But at 

least you are moving in that direction, and I commend you for that. 

My concern is what happens once you get there as to just how 

rational your system is in terms of allocation. And I look at your 

buffer zone protection program, and I look at the allocations made 

to States that are supposed to be made on risk. That program is 

supposed to be a risk-based allocation program. But when I look at 

the amount of money that various States are getting, it does not 

seem at all rational to me. 

For instance, Arizona on buffer zone protection, which, again, is 

risk-based, gets six times what Hawaii gets. Does that mean that 

there are more infrastructures, more facilities in Arizona that are 

subject to attack, more critical infrastructure sites, six times as 

many in Arizona as Hawaii; Tennessee, 2.5 times Massachusetts; 

Kentucky more than Michigan. 

18

Can you describe the basis for your buffer zone protection allocations? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think the rollout of the grant-making 

process is going on as we speak. I don’t know that I can explain 

how a particular State is scored relative to another because I think, 

again, the way I understand this should work is it is based on the 

three characteristics I have described: Consequence, vulnerability, 

and threat. And that is not something which necessarily is driven 

by where State lines are drawn. 

Let me step back and put it in perspective, first by saying that 

since September 11, including the 2006 budget, there will have 

been a total of $17 billion in grants. So there is a lot of money that 

has been given out there and a lot that is going to be given. 

As part of what I have described as my desire to kind of comprehensively review the Department, I want to look at the grantmaking process and see if we have as disciplined and as defensible 

a process for scoring as possible. And it may very well be that there 

are things we have done historically in terms of scoring things that 

need to be corrected. Sometimes we get that through feedback; 

sometimes we get it through looking analytically on our own. 

So without specifically being able to tell you as we speak why a 

particular State in a particular grant got more money than another, I can tell you that the objective and the philosophy, which 

I think is shared across the Administration, is to have a program 

that is disciplined in the way I have described. 

Senator LEVIN. Well, I agree with the philosophy, but the implementation of that philosophy is critical, or else it is just going to 

cast a pall on the whole premise. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I agree with that. 

Senator LEVIN. And I want to move to a risk-based system, but 

we have all got to be persuaded that it is a rational risk-based system. And when you look at these States, at least roughly—and I 

obviously am most familiar with Michigan—it is not a rational allocation from anything that I can see. So as you go through this process, I would like to work with you and your staff on exactly how 

those criteria are applied. Is that fair enough? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think it is fair, and I think once I am 

through this process and my understanding is more detailed, I anticipate and I will insist upon having a formula that will be, I 

think, transparent and reasonable. 

Senator LEVIN. All right. I thank you for that. 

The Department of Homeland Security intended to open up five 

Northern border air wing locations, but has apparently opened up 

none of the additional ones that were stated to be necessary. Can 

you give us the status of those Northern border air wing additional 

bases? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I believe, Senator, you are correct that two 

were opened up. I know one is in New York. I think the other one 

may be in Washington or further out West. 

I think the plan is to open an additional one each year to get up 

to the five, and so we are under way with that. 

Senator LEVIN. Is that still the plan? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. 

19

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. We have a lot of issues on the Northern border. We have a very inadequate Border Patrol, and we have 

made huge efforts here to have folks realize that we have got a 

much longer Northern border than we do a Southern border. There 

were supposed to be staff increases in the Border Patrol. There 

were also supposed to be an assurance that at least 20 percent of 

the additional Border Patrol agents would be assigned to the 

Northern border, and, again, we have a far longer border and we 

have got major issues along that border. 

Is that staffing, that additional staffing, going to reflect that minimum 20 percent for the Northern border? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think what happened is it was the Patriot 

Act that required the movement up to the Northern border. That 

was accomplished, and I think the 210 Border Patrol agents that 

will be coming on will essentially be assigned where needed most. 

I cannot tell you whether that will result in a third based on the 

original number or a third as you rack it up against the total number that is enhanced. Given the threat on the Northern border, I 

suspect any significant increase will be beneficial. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. My time is up. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Dayton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAYTON 

Senator DAYTON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I just finished a meeting in my office and I turned 

on the television and saw Senator Lautenberg trying to hijack 

money from Minnesota, so I had to rush over here. And I am glad 

that Senator Coleman is here, too. 

Some of these words—and I respect you are just getting started 

in this. I am not questioning your sincerity at all, but ‘‘transparency’’ and ‘‘rationality’’ and the like—they sound good in generalities. But when they are applied, at least what happened in Minnesota this last time where you got eastern metro counties being 

eliminated entirely and western metro counties being cut back significantly, it does not appear rational. 

It may be transparent in retrospect that we could look back and 

see that there was a process involved, but there was no forewarning, and with such a drastic reversal of what has been the 

message from the Administration, from Congress, to local governments, first responders, take these initiatives, do all this, take all 

these steps, often at their expense, put hundreds and thousands of 

hours in preparedness, and then someone is going to turn around 

and say, well, we have done the risk assessment and you get no 

money. Someone from your Department needs to tell the local officials why it is that they do not need to be concerned anymore and 

why it is that for the last 3 years they have been told that they 

should be mounting all these initiatives and making all this effort, 

and then somebody has decided, for whatever reason, that if they 

are being eliminated from funding that there is no risk to them 

whatsoever and justify that. 

That is the real nitty-gritty of this. And what I don’t see in this 

budget here, I can look at the general numbers here about the 

Urban Area Security Initiative, a $135 million increase over the requested funding for 2005, but a $180 million decrease from the acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:49 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 020175 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\20175.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
20

tual appropriation, the FIRE Act grants equal to last year’s request, but $250 million less than 2005 appropriated funding. 

If I look at these aggregate numbers, it says to me that when 

this gets translated into whatever rational and transparent process, it is still going to come out with less or no money for certain 

areas. And then the statement from the Administration is that 

there are no risks there. If that is not an accurate reflection of the 

view, then there is not enough money in here in order to fund all 

these projects in areas that may not be as high risk as New Jersey 

or other areas, but where there is still risk and where they need 

to be continuing these first-responder kinds of preparations, training, and the like. 

So I need to know, before I can decide whether to support the 

budget or not, how these aggregate numbers are going to translate 

through your process into those decisions. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I agree, first of all, that we ought to make 

sure we are always communicating with our State and local partners about these issues. I don’t like to hear unpleasant surprises 

suddenly, and I think very few people do. And I think we need to 

commit ourselves, and as I have indicated, I have instructed people 

that I want to make sure we do not have this happen in the future. 

Senator DAYTON. Even if they are not surprised, I don’t want 

them to be eliminated. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, on the larger question, what we need 

to do is to—there is risk everywhere. Risk is a part of life. And I 

think one thing I have tried to be clear in saying is we will not 

eliminate every risk. First of all, some risks are risks which State 

and local governments traditionally bear and have to continue to 

bear. We can help them with standards and advice, but to take an 

example, there was an incident I guess a few weeks ago in California with a train derailment. I don’t want to talk about it too specifically because I guess there is a pending case. But that was not 

a terrorist-related incident. 

That kind of thing has always happened. The appropriate authorities have to take steps to prevent those risks and protect 

against them. They have not all become Federal matters simply because a terrorist could also choose to do the same thing. 

So we have to say, look, the risks we are most concerned about 

are those which are highest on our analytical scale. Others certainly we will be helping out in terms of standards and advice and 

the whole panoply of traditional things we can do with our partners, including information sharing. And we have to be nimble 

enough when something changes to be able to respond to it. 

But the message is not that if we do not give a substantial 

amount of Federal funding there is no risk. The message is that 

in the hierarchy of risks, we have to put the resources where the 

highest risks are. And I know that is a very tough statement, and 

in coming up and speaking to the Committee and speaking generally, I guess I have had it in my mind, that we owe pretty blunt 

talk to people about what the limitations are of what we can do 

and how important it is that what the public expects is that we put 

our resources to work in a way that most closely approximates the 

most serious risks with the worst consequences and the greatest 

vulnerabilities. 

21

Senator DAYTON. The candor would be welcome, but the consistency is also important. And what you are saying here is going to 

be a 180-degree reversal of what your Department, prior to your 

coming, and the Administration and the Congress have been saying 

to these local governments. They are not expecting the Federal 

Government to fund all of their first-responder activities, but they 

are expecting the Federal Government to be consistent in providing 

the resources for those additional efforts—training and preparation 

and equipment and the like—that they have been told that they 

should undertake in order to fulfill their responsibilities for these 

attacks. And nobody knows where they are going to come, what 

form they are going to take. 

Again, this is a total reversal, and if this is going to be the consequence of this budget, I would like to ask if you could respond 

in writing to what level of funding for these first-responder grants 

and awards, based on whatever new formula or the like, is going 

to be necessary to fund every State and local government at the 

level that it was heretofore. And then we can assess whether or not 

the amount of money that is being requested is sufficient or not. 

But if the outcome of this is going to be that a whole bunch of local 

efforts are going to be zeroed out from any Federal support, I respectfully disagree with that approach. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, we will be happy to respond in writing. Let me just add this: There is, I think, in the budget a total 

of about $3.5 billion which could be available to fund things like 

local first responders, including the homeland grants, which do 

have this built-in minimum, the UASI grants. We do still have fire 

assistance, I think $500 million. So there will be money there. 

Some of the hard decisions will have to be made at the State and 

local level. One thing, for example, that I think is important is 

sharing of resources. It may not make sense for every single town 

in a particular geographic area to have the full capability to do 

hazmat if we can centralize the hazmat response capability in a 

place that can cover a number of areas, and thereby really put a 

meaningful level of resource and training into that place. 

So this is going to require everybody to think—and, frankly, if 

a State wants grants and if a locality wants grants, the more able 

they are to demonstrate effective use of resources, it seems to me 

we ought to score that higher in the grant-making process. 

So I think we want the same things. I do believe consistency is 

important, and that is what we are going to work to achieve. 

Senator DAYTON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, my next question actually follows up well on the 

discussion that you just had, and I think you can see that many 

Members of this Committee have a great deal of concern about the 

Administration’s budget and its adequacy for homeland security 

grant programs. 

But one issue that ought to unite us is making sure that money 

is wisely spent, and unfortunately there have been some cases cited 

by the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office 

that suggest that the money is not always wisely spent. 

I think it is important to clarify that the vast majority of the 

money has been well spent and has been very necessary. But the 

22

legislation which this Committee unanimously approved last year 

and which many of us reintroduced last month had three provisions to help put in better controls to prevent wasteful and potentially fraudulent spending: 

First is a requirement for an independent audit, an annual GAO 

audit and report on DHS grants to the States. 

Second is a provision tying spending to standards. This would be 

a requirement that States distribute the homeland security funding 

only in ways that measurably help them to meet the preparedness 

standards to be set by the Department. In other words, to cite one 

egregious case, you cannot spend the funds on leather jackets unless you can somehow show that leather jackets increase preparedness, which seems to me to be unlikely. 

A third provision would be remedies for noncompliance. This 

would authorize the Secretary to terminate or reduce grant payments if a State or locality failed to comply with these requirements. 

What is your position on putting in specific legislative controls to 

help ensure that the money is well spent? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I think that, as I understand it, 

HSPD–8 actually imposes on us a requirement to get out—and I 

think we need to do it this year—a series of metrics that we can 

use to set a baseline of preparedness for all of our State and local 

partners. And I think that is an important device to use in order 

to impose this kind of discipline. What it would do is, first of all, 

enable us to give clear direction; and, second, if people were not following the direction, at a minimum that would have a seriously 

negative impact on their ability to get funding in a succeeding year. 

Whether there is a need for additional sanction beyond that, I 

don’t know. I think we ought to be able to make ourselves very 

clear. Money is tight. Everybody wants it. And the surest way to 

take yourself out of the running for a grant is to buy leather jackets, unless we are missing something on the leather jacket front. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Because money is tight, the 

Committee has scoured the budget request not only to identify 

areas that have been underfunded, in my view, such as homeland 

security grants, but also to look for opportunities to save money. 

And I want to bring up one such example. Clearly, the Department 

needs a center that is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to address threats and to respond to incidents. But from our review of 

the budget, it appears that you have three such centers. The budget justification describes the Homeland Security Operations Center, 

which is proposed to receive $61 million in fiscal year 2006, as ‘‘the 

primary national level hub for operational communications, information sharing, and situational awareness. It receives and integrates threat information. It maps the Nation’s critical infrastructure. And it enables information sharing and collaboration among 

Federal, State, tribal, local, and private sector entities.’’

In other words, that sounds to me like exactly the kind of 

around-the-clock center that the Department should have. But if 

you look further into your budget, you also have two other aroundthe-clock centers. The second called the National Infrastructure Coordination Center. That is proposed to receive $10 million. And the 

23

third is a Cyberwatch Center, which is slated to receive $11 million. 

From our review, it appears that each of these three 24/7 centers 

is monitoring critical infrastructure, communicating with State and 

local officials and the public, and responding to incidents. So when 

you add that up, that is $82 million—$61 million, $10 million, and 

$11 million. 

Do we really need three separate around-the-clock centers? 

Wouldn’t it be more efficient and save scarce dollars for us to have 

one consolidated center? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I appreciate the opportunity to answer that, 

Madam Chairman. 

First of all, any cost saving that can be identified to me, I am 

going to do my level best to exploit because we are tight on money, 

and if we are wasting money or we are duplicating effort, I want 

to put the money on the ground somewhere. 

In this instance, though, I think there are three separate roles 

that are played, and, frankly, they have to be played—and they are 

distinct. They would have to be played—even if we moved all the 

centers into one building, we would have to triple the size of the 

building, and there are reasons, by the way, not ever to do that because you never want to put all of your eggs in one basket so if 

you have a power problem or something like that, you have totally 

shut down. 

The Cyberwatch Center looks at cyber intrusions, obviously a 

very important issue and increasingly important, and makes sure 

that we are interconnected with the private sector in terms of 

warning and response. That is a function which is very sophisticated and requires a great deal of specific information and interaction with people who work in the cyber world. So that is quite 

a specific and detailed effort. 

Likewise, the Infrastructure Coordination Center deals with essentially connecting up different parts of the national infrastructure to allow communication across the board in the case of an 

emergency, such as, for example, a power failure that could then 

cascade into communications and refineries. 

The HSOC, or the Operations Center, does not deal at that level 

of granularity with information. It is designed to stand back and 

take a more comprehensive view and coordinate between incidents 

that might involve infrastructure, that might involve cyber, and 

that might involve a whole host of other things, all happening at 

the same time. And the customer for that is, frankly, me and the 

people in the leadership of the Department and in the leadership 

of the other departments. 

So that in order to make HSOC capable of doing the robust cyber 

piece that we want and the robust infrastructure piece, we would 

essentially have to triple it. And I think if I were given the choice 

between putting everything in one place and having them in three 

separate places but connected, I think probably it is prudent to 

keep them in separate places because if something happens and 

you get a power failure or a computer crash, at least you have not 

taken down your entire management structure. You have got a certain amount of redundancy built in. 

24

Chairman COLLINS. Before I yield to my colleague, let me just respond to that by saying if I were the local police chief in Portland, 

Maine, and there were an incident that involved the technology infrastructure of a local chemical plant, I would be baffled which one 

of the three centers to call. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I can answer that, and I want to because 

the point of the Operations Center, the HSOC, is precisely to be 

the place when you don’t know, that is where you go. We might 

eventually connect you to something more specific elsewhere, but 

we are very much into the one-stop shop. And that is the central 

one-stop shop for Homeland Security. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Madam Chairman. I would just 

share with you an unusual coincidence. I went out to take a call 

from my Governor, Jodi Rell, and I had something I wanted to talk 

to her about. And she said, ‘‘While I have got you, if you run into 

Secretary Chertoff, would you please make an appeal for restoration of homeland security funding for Connecticut?’’ And she specifically asked about New Haven, which is under the urban areas 

threshold of 225,000. So I now make this as a bipartisan request 

from Connecticut. 

I have a few questions I wanted to ask. One is about Coast 

Guard research and development. The fiscal year 2006 budget of 

the Department reflects plans to consolidate all of the Department’s research and development activities in the Science and 

Technology Directorate. There is no reason for you to know this, 

Mr. Secretary, but last session Congress rejected a similar proposal 

because of concerns that the Coast Guard’s research and development activities in support of its traditional missions would be jeopardized under such an arrangement. And I share that concern. 

There is a model, I gather, within the Department that the Secret Service is a distinct entity and has its own research and development programs, but is called on to coordinate closely with the 

S&T Directorate. I don’t know if you have had a chance to look at 

that and want to comment on it. If not, I will go on to another 

question, but I wanted to draw that history to your attention. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I am aware of that, and I actually anticipate that I will be looking at that particular issue. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. OK. Second is the information-sharing environment, which is a real focus of the 9/11 Commission. In fact, the 

Commission concluded that the biggest impediment to all-source 

analysis and to a greater likelihood of connecting the dots was the 

resistance they found to information sharing. As a result, they 

urged a new governmentwide approach be developed. Placing a 

really high priority on a different kind of ‘‘ISE’’ here, informationsharing environment, that the budget, as I read it, does not seem 

to me to emphasize creating that information-sharing environment, 

and I wanted to ask you generally what priority you put on it and 

how you plan to proceed to implement that particular recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and of Congress in our legislation. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think, Senator, that is one of the most important tasks of the Department, and in the 3 weeks I have been 

on the job, I have met with State and local partners, and they have 

all emphasized the importance of that in terms of their own work. 

25

We have stood up this Homeland Security Information Network, 

which now essentially connects us to 50 State homeland security 

headquarters so that we can get information out quickly and make 

sure we are all connected in that respect. 

One of the things I want to continue and, frankly, expand is the 

use of our analytical abilities to share with State and local partners 

maybe more in-depth and detailed information about the threat 

that we face, including lessons learned from what we have seen in 

past experiences where there have been terrorist incidents. 

It should not only be about here is a little tidbit of information, 

let’s get it out to everybody. It should be trying to provide a context 

within which State and local governments can have a better understanding for their own purposes of the nature of the threat that we 

face. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Good. Thank you. 

Earlier in February, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom released a study authorized by Congress on asylum 

seekers and expedited removal. In some sense, this goes back to 

the conversation we had at your confirmation hearing about my 

concern about immigration laws and due process. This is uniquely 

for those seeking asylum. And, of course, the Commission is concerned about people seeking asylum for reasons of religious discrimination and, worse than discrimination, real danger back 

home. 

The study found that the DHS had procedures to ensure that legitimate asylum seekers were not erroneously sent back to the 

countries where they might well face persecution, but that implementation of the procedures varied widely. In fact, in some ports 

of entry, they found that procedures designed to protect asylum 

seekers were being followed by DHS employees only half of the 

time; also that these asylum seekers who, in my understanding, 

are rarely criminal, are being too often detained in maximum security correctional facilities, often in the same cell blocks as convicted 

criminals who are serving time. 

I don’t know whether you have been briefed on this report at all. 

If not, I wanted to draw it to your attention and urge you to take 

steps to make sure that the procedures of the Department are implemented in a way that the promise at the base of the Statue of 

Liberty is actually implemented every day. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will do that, Senator. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Are you aware of the report? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I have read the report. I think I had read 

actually news accounts of the report, so I am familiar with it. And 

I remember we talked about it. I have not yet been briefed on it. 

I do agree these procedures ought to be followed. We have them for 

a reason. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Let me just say finally on this matter that 

one of the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission was that the existing 

DHS organizational structure does not allow problems of asylum 

seekers to be addressed anywhere other than the Office of the Secretary, because it is the only place with the line of authority down 

to all three DHS agencies involved in expedited removal: USCIS, 

ICE, and CBP. Obviously you cannot answer it now, but they recommend the appointment of a refugee coordinator to whom you 

26

would delegate your authority in this area. And I just wanted to 

draw that to your attention and ask you to consider it. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will do that. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Coleman. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I want to just follow up on the grant allocation question my colleague Senator Dayton raised. I try to pose this not solely in a—

just kind of looking at Minnesota, although I represent Minnesota, 

and that is the reality. But I am trying to understand the system. 

One of the problems we have that we faced—again, decisions 

made before your confirmation—is the large fluctuations in the 

amount of money. You get in St. Paul a $7 million grant 1 year, 

and then zeroed out the next year, without any notice until the announcement of the overall grants. 

So I would just urge you to take a look at this issue. If we are 

consistently wrong, I could understand that. But there is this sense 

in working with folks at the local level of clearly not surprise, but 

I think to be a greater sensitivity about the impact of that kind of 

action, where all of a sudden you have been given a message and 

you have acted upon it, you have put in place systems, and then, 

boom, like that. 

In addition, as we deal with this issue of risk—and, clearly, we 

saw the risk on September 11, but there are other risks. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Sure. 

Senator COLEMAN. And God forbid something else happens. We 

are all going to be talking about other risks. There are three of us 

up here right now who are Northern border communities. Minnesota has an international border with Canada, a major port of 

entry for cargo and vehicle traffic in the city of International Falls; 

two major cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul; two nuclear reactors, 

one on the Mississippi River; a major port in the city of Duluth. 

I am not sure I can get it now, but I hope that we have an ongoing discussion about this question of risk and that it is not just 

population numbers, but it is—we have the Mall of America, which 

was at one point the first or second largest tourist attraction in the 

country. 

So I just want to encourage an ongoing conversation rather than 

kind of by-the-book allocation of numbers based on number of people, etc., I think there are other things that need to be considered. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I would like to do that. I agree with you. 

I think it has got to be much more subtle and adapted to reality 

than just a cookie cutter. 

Senator COLEMAN. The other issue that I want to raise has to do 

with the Customs Border Patrol seeking a substantial increase in 

the C–TPAT program, Customs–Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. A good concept, a good program, and I am not sure how 

much you have looked at it, but the idea being that companies that 

submit—that work with the agency in the end have a decrease in 

certain fees because they have submitted a plan, etc. The increase 

is, I think, $20 million, bringing total funding of the program to 

over $54 million. It is one of the highest percentage increases. 

I know the GAO—we have submitted—we are looking at this 

program. In fact, the Permanent Subcommittee will have a hearing 

27

on this issue in early April. My Committee has substantial serious 

concerns about the implementation of the program. I know that we 

have requested GAO to do a report, and that report will be finalized and we will have our hearing in conjunction with that. But I 

think it is fair to say that there are serious concerns about the implementation of the program, that companies are submitting documents with cursory reviews, getting these significant cutbacks in 

fees, but that there has not been the kind of review and investigation that is needed. 

Can you talk a little bit about the increase in funding in a program whose fundamental effectiveness has certainly been called 

into question? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. First of all, I think the program is a very 

good program, and I think it is, again, part of a general sense that 

as we deal with an enormous influx of trade, both people moving 

and goods moving from overseas, we want to balance two things. 

We want to encourage free trade, prosperity, business, and we also 

want to keep out bad people and bad stuff. And they work together 

because the more confidence we have in the reliable trade partners, 

the more we can focus our resources on the people who are not necessarily reliable. 

So that all makes sense, but you are completely correct that from 

the theory to the practice is the implementation, and let me say 

first I look forward to seeing the result of the report. Perhaps unusually for someone in Washington, I actually think getting criticism can be helpful because we learn something from it. 

In terms of the increase in funding, I think we need to make sure 

that if this program is to work, we have the resources in place to 

validate and check these things. The worst thing would be this: To 

have a program for reliable travel or reliable cargo that was insufficiently robust so that people could sneak in and use it as a Trojan 

horse. That would be the worst of all worlds. And so I think part 

of the deal with our going to this model has to be very careful to 

make sure we are really being stringent. 

Senator COLEMAN. I appreciate your openness to review, and certainly the concept is the right concept. And our concern is to make 

sure that it works well, that it is doing what we are funding it to 

do. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Mine, as well. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Before I yield to Senator Levin, let me announce that we obviously were not able to have a quorum of Senators here at the same 

time to report Michael Jackson’s nomination. So we are moving the 

markup to off the floor during the stacked votes at noon in S–219, 

which I am told is the Ceremonial Room on the Democratic side. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. It is a bipartisan room. 

Chairman COLLINS. I hope so. That information did worry me. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. It is only on our side. It is not our room. 

Chairman COLLINS. OK. So we do hope to report Michael Jackson at that time. I know that you are very eager to have him join 

you. 

The vote has started, but we do have time for Senator Levin’s 

questions. 

28

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Jackson did 

very well at his hearing, by the way. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. He is terrific, and if confirmed, I think he 

is going to be a great Deputy. 

Senator LEVIN. Mr. Secretary, we have about 17 million containers that come into the United States each year. About half 

come in by ship at seaports; about half come in by train or truck 

at land border entries. 

We have a program inside your budget for the seaports. I am just 

wondering whether or not that covers land ports of entry as well, 

and if not, why not? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I think, again, and this is going to be 

part of the process I hope to undertake in the next 60 to 90 days. 

The problem of cargo is really a single problem with unique dimensions for sea, air, and land. 

Through the National Targeting Center, we do have a program 

for identifying high-risk cargo, and I guess it is probably most often 

discussed in the seaport context, but I believe it applies to land 

ports as well. 

Where I would like to see us move again across the board, this 

is some variation on what I said previously about a combination of 

trusted cargo shippers and fast tracking where we can make sure 

we have properly vetted the cargo, whether it be air, sea, or land, 

and then that gives us the resources to do a more robust inspection 

with respect to people who are not in that program. 

So that is where we are with that, and once I have finished this 

process of evaluating across the board, I think we will have some 

opportunity to make some adjustments perhaps to align the structure with the mission. 

Senator LEVIN. And that would include the land ports of entry. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. 

Senator LEVIN. The largest port of entry in the world, the largest 

trade link that we have with the world, is the Ambassador Bridge 

between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario. Seven thousand trucks a 

day cross that bridge, and it seems to me to leave out the land 

entry ports of entry is not a particularly rational system. 

We have also asked you to look at a specific problem because a 

large number of trucks come in each day that are not subject to inspection in an effective way, and those are the garbage trucks that 

Toronto has decided to bury in Michigan at our landfills, and that 

is a separate problem. It is part of the larger one. We have asked 

you to look into that, and we look forward to your response to that 

issue. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will. 

Senator LEVIN. Mr. Secretary, just two other quick questions. 

One is on the authorization by Congress last year of not less than 

800 additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigators, the ICE investigators that are looking at violations of immigration laws. Do you know whether or not the budget request includes those additional inspectors? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think it includes not the full amount, 

some number, and I have to say as I am sitting here, I am blanking on what the exact number is. 

Senator LEVIN. OK. If you could provide us——

29

Secretary CHERTOFF. One hundred and thirty-five. 

Senator LEVIN. Of the 210, OK. 

We had a hearing at the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations regarding a very troubling Border Patrol and INS policy back 

in November 2001. This came right after September 11, and what 

we discovered was that people who were arrested by Border Patrol 

attempting to enter into the country illegally, outside of the ports 

of entry, crossing borders at non-ports, so obviously illegal by definition, were nonetheless released on their own recognizance and 

without criminal background checks. 

It was astounding to us that was true since that person by definition is entering the country illegally. There is no doubt about it 

because they are not coming through a port of entry. And we at 

that point insisted that we be given studies as to how many of 

those people show up for their hearings, released on their own recognizance. Obviously if they are trying to get into the country, it 

is not a very reliable act to say you can just go out on the streets, 

show up at a hearing someday, and we will give you notice if we 

can have an address, thank you. 

Do you have any idea yet what percentage of people arrested for 

illegal entry and released on their own recognizance show up at the 

hearing on their removal? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I don’t have the statistics. I remember from 

my prior life that there were statistics some years back of hundreds of thousands of absconders. 

We do, however, now have a program which we have increasingly 

ramped up on compliance enforcement, where people do abscond 

going out and tracking them down and bringing them back. So we 

are trying to address that problem. 

Another piece of this is we have a program to try to fast-track 

people to get them to agree basically to be fast-tracked into deportation, for example, when they clear out in terms of finishing a 

criminal sentence. So we are trying a variety of methods basically 

to turn beds around in detention centers more quickly. 

The most important piece of this, of course, is who we choose to 

release, because it is one thing to put someone out on bail who is 

not a danger to the community; it is something else again if they 

are. And so one thing I have asked about and I am looking into 

is making sure that we have a good system in place when we make 

decisions about who should be released so that at least people of 

special interest are not the ones being released. 

Senator LEVIN. Do we do criminal background checks for anyone 

before they are released? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I do not know the answer to that, but I will 

find out. 

Senator LEVIN. If you could give us that for the record, but also 

tell us for the record what is the most recent number, percentage 

of people released on their own recognizance who do not show up 

for their hearing. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will do that. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Carper, I have never 

missed a vote, so don’t make me miss my first one in my Senate 

career. We are glad to have you here. 

30

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. Madam Chairman, you are not going 

to miss a vote today. 

Let me say to the Secretary welcome. I think it is the first time 

we have had a chance to welcome you as Secretary. We are delighted that you are here, and thank you for your stewardship and 

your willingness to serve. 

Madam Chairman, I have a statement for the record. We have 

been at a markup on the Clear Skies proposal, another important 

issue, so I have been distracted, as Senator Lieberman knows. And 

I have a statement I would like to offer, Madam Chairman, and 

some questions for the record for our witness. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for convening this hearing today on the President’s 

proposed budget for fiscal year 2006 at the Department of Homeland Security. It’s 

vitally important that we examine this budget proposal closely because, as I read 

it, it would have a devastating impact on States like mine. 

By my calculation, this budget would cut the amount of first responder aid granted to Delaware and all small and medium-sized States by more than 80 percent. 

It proposes cutting funding for the State Homeland Security Grant Program by 

about $500 million. At the same time, it would increase the amount of money set 

aside for the largest urban areas in the country while cutting the baseline allocation 

used to ensure that every State receives sufficient first responder funding by two 

thirds. 

I agree with the President that more first responder funding should be distributed 

based on risk and threat. It probably also makes sense to begin distributing more 

of this funding directly to urban areas, particularly the large urban areas such as 

New York, Washington, Los Angeles, and Chicago that are probably most at risk. 

I would draw the line, however, at reducing the baseline in the State grant program 

so dramatically. Doing so at this point could put some States in great danger. 

I admit that the current State grant formula could be improved. After each State 

receives its baseline allocation, the current formula distributes all remaining funds 

to each State based on population. While population is one part of what puts a State 

at risk of attack, this formula ignores other important risk factors such as population density and the location of critical infrastructure. I’ve also argued in the past 

that it probably also shortchanges States like Delaware that have smaller populations but potentially significant risk factors. 

Chairman Collins and I and a number of our colleagues on this Committee have 

worked over the years to make our first responder aid programs work better. Our 

proposed, featured in S. 21, legislation we introduced earlier this year, mandates a 

State grant formula that would distribute about 60 percent of State grant funding 

based on risk. It also allows the Department of Homeland Security to award up to 

25 percent of State funding to high-risk urban areas. However, it maintains the current baseline allocation so that States like Delaware will continue to receive the resources necessary to protect their population and respond to potential terrorist attacks and natural disasters even if they aren’t home to a large city and aren’t 

deemed eligible for a risk-based allocation. 

If the President’s proposal were enacted, Delaware would lose a significant amount of money. We were allocated $15 million in the current fiscal year. Under 

the President’s proposal, we would likely only receive just over $2.5 million. This 

is unacceptable and dangerous because my State emergency management agency 

tells me that they don’t have the resources and personnel necessary to handle certain attacks that the Department of Homeland Security has told them have a very 

real chance of occurring right now in Delaware. 

They also tell me that, if our State’s allocation were to be cut as dramatically as 

the President’s budget proposes, they might need to cut or eliminate funding for 

other important non-homeland security programs, including disaster mitigation efforts. Compare this with the fact that, under the President’s proposal, large States 

with large cities will likely receive three layers of funds—a baseline allocation, a 

threat-based allocation and urban area grants. 

I also believe the President’s proposal is dangerous because I haven’t yet been 

convinced that the Department of Homeland Security can truly know what level of 

31

funding should be allocated to large States, small States or urban areas. This Committee recently heard testimony from one of the authors of a report published by 

the Heritage Foundation and the Center for Strategic and International Studies 

stating that the Department hasn’t completed a comprehensive national risk assessment and doesn’t plan to have one completed until 2008. 

I’d urge you, then, Mr. Secretary, to work with us to develop a SHSGP formula 

that treats all States fairly and doesn’t run the risk of putting some at tremendous 

risk of being ill-prepared for an emergency.

Senator CARPER. Secretary Chertoff, again, it is good to see you. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. How is that? 

Chairman COLLINS. That was good. Seriously, if you would like 

to ask further questions—I guess that did work. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Senator Collins and I have an ongoing discussion about the effectiveness of guilt induction. [Laughter.] 

Apparently it worked with Senator Carper. 

Chairman COLLINS. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for being 

here today. We obviously had a great deal of discussion on the best 

way to allocate homeland security grant funding, and I want to 

leave you with some sound advice from the RAND Corporation report on this issue. It says, ‘‘Homeland security experts and first responders have cautioned against an overemphasis on improving the 

preparedness of large cities to the exclusion of smaller communities 

or rural areas, noting that much of our critical infrastructure and 

some potential high-value targets—nuclear power plants, military 

installations, agricultural facilities, etc.—are located in less populated areas.’’

I think that is good advice for the Department, and I hope you 

will heed it. 

We appreciate the opportunity to question you today. The hearing record will remain open for additional comments for 15 days. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I appreciate that, Chairman Collins, and I 

look forward to working with the Committee. I have one slight correction, if I can have a second. The 2006 budget contemplates 143 

ICE agents, not 135. 

Chairman COLLINS. You were very close. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I was close. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I look forward to working with you. Thank 

you very much. 

Chairman COLLINS. This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(33)

A P P E N D I X 


20175.001
34


20175.002
35


20175.003
36


20175.004
37


20175.005
38


20175.006
39


20175.007
40


20175.008
41


20175.009
42


20175.010
43


20175.011
44


20175.012
45


20175.013
46


20175.014
47


20175.015
48


20175.016
49


20175.017
50


20175.018
51


20175.019
52


20175.020
53


20175.021
54


20175.022
55


20175.023
56


20175.024
57


20175.025
58


20175.026
59


20175.027
60


20175.028
61


20175.029
62


20175.030
63


20175.031
64


20175.032
65


20175.033
66


20175.034
67


20175.035
68


20175.036
69


20175.037
70


20175.038
71


20175.039
72


20175.040
73


20175.041
74


20175.042
75


20175.043
76


20175.044
77


20175.045
78


20175.046
79

Æ


20175.047