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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

41–452 PDF 2010

S. Hrg. 110–996 

THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT’S 

BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 14, 2008 

Available via http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BETH M. GROSSMAN, Senior Counsel 

HOLLY A. IDELSON, Counsel 

CHRISTIAN J. BECKNER, Counsel 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ROBERT L. STRAYER, Minority Director for Homeland Security Affairs 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

PATRICIA R. HOGAN, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 1 

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 15 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 29 

Senator Pryor .................................................................................................... 23 

Senator Landrieu .............................................................................................. 25 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 20 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 4 

Senator Stevens ................................................................................................ 15 

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 16 

Senator Coleman .............................................................................................. 18 

WITNESS 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2008 

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

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Charts submitted for the Record ..................................................................... 57 

Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record ................................ 64 

(1) 

THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT’S 

BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:35 p.m., in Room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, Pryor, Landrieu, 

Tester, McCaskill, Collins, Stevens, Voinovich, Coleman, and 

Domenici. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. The hearing will come to order. 

Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary. I am pleased to welcome you this 

afternoon for what has become your annual appearance, or the Secretary’s annual appearance, before our Committee to discuss the 

Department of Homeland Security’s budget request—in this case 

for fiscal year 2009. 

The Department will have reached an important milestone at the 

end of this month. As you know, on March 1, the Department of 

Homeland Security will have completed its fifth year in existence. 

And as we examine your budget request for the coming fiscal year, 

naturally it is appropriate to take a moment to assess how the Department has fared over the 5 years since it was established and 

what more we have to do to get it to where we want it to be. 

I would say that the record has a lot of encouraging developments in it. Important measures have been taken to improve aviation and maritime security, to address vulnerabilities at our borders, to train and equip law enforcement officers, firefighters, and 

emergency medical workers—the first responders and, as we on 

this Committee like to call them, the first preventers—across our 

country. These are the people we depend on, as we have seen time 

and again, at the outset of every disaster. 

I also want to note with appreciation that every day you and the 

more than 200,000 other employees of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) across the Nation, and indeed in some cases 

outside the Nation, single-mindedly work to keep the American 

people safe in the post-September 11, 2001, world, and for that you 

do have our thanks and appreciation. 

The fact that we have not had another terrorist attack on our 

homeland since September 11, 2001, is not an accident. There is 

2 

obviously in life good fortune and grace, but the Department of 

Homeland Security and all that you at the Department have done 

has surely helped make that so. We grow safer every day, but the 

war of Islamist extremists and terrorists against us, and us with 

them, goes on. I know we would all echo the words of the 9/11 

Commission Report that we have come a long way since then, that 

we are safe. In fact, I would say we are safer today than we were 

when the 9/11 Commission Report came out—but we are in a war 

against an enemy that has no humanitarian and civilizational 

norms that it follows and therefore we are not yet safe enough. 

The Department obviously, in my opinion and others, still has a 

way to go before it gets to the point we want it to be, which is to 

be a well-integrated operation, the kind we envisioned when we 

created the Department back in 2002, even acknowledging that we 

knew that it would be difficult to bring the many agencies and 

many subcultures together quickly. 

We are in some ways not yet as prepared, as I have said, as we 

should be to meet a variety of threats, which if successfully carried 

out could inflict damage on our country. I am thinking of the security of our vast computer systems and databases, which the Department is just beginning to address seriously. I am also concerned that we lack adequate plans to prevent and respond to an 

attack using weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, which is why Senator Collins and I have launched an investigation into that subject. Significant work remains also to be done 

to secure our critical infrastructure and, of course, our borders. 

An array of management challenges also continues to impede the 

success of the Department. We have commented before in this 

Committee about the morale of the DHS workforce, which, according to surveys that have been done, is much lower than we would 

like it to be. More active supervision is needed of several large costly procurement projects, such as SBInet, Deepwater, and the Advanced Spectroscopic Portal Program, to prevent wasteful and inefficient spending and to ensure, therefore, that taxpayer dollars are 

spent wisely. 

The security of many of the Department’s own IT systems is, in 

my opinion, not yet what we want it to be, and the lack of consolidated headquarters makes many of these challenges that much 

more difficult to overcome. 

Two and a half years after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we are 

reminded that the Department is still rebuilding its preparedness, 

response, and recovery capabilities. Improvements required by the 

Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, I am pleased to 

note, are beginning to take hold. FEMA is making progress, but it, 

too, has a way to go before it is where we want it to be. 

Obviously, leadership is a key to getting this work done, and I 

thank you for your leadership and that of those on your team, Mr. 

Secretary, but adequate funding is also an essential element of 

making this Department what we want it to be. 

I am, therefore, disappointed about some of the areas in which 

the proposed budget, in my opinion, shortchanges potential success 

in key areas. I would say the most significant deficiency comes in 

the area of grants for State and local governments. For the fifth 

consecutive year, the Administration proposes to cut funding for 

3 

those grants that communities across the country depend on most 

to pay for their homeland security needs. Without these grants, the 

Nation’s first responders cannot capably partner with the Federal 

Government to prevent attacks or respond effectively when disaster 

strikes. 

The Administration’s 2009 budget proposal calls for an overall 48 

percent cut to State and local homeland security grant programs, 

including a 60 percent cut to firefighters, a 56 percent cut to transit security grants, and a 48 percent reduction to port security 

grants. Those are not just budget trimmings, they put us in danger 

of being out of the business of supporting State and local homeland 

security efforts, and this obviously in the context of a continuing 

threat. I know that Members of this Committee on a bipartisan 

basis will do what we have done before, which is to oppose these 

proposed cuts and to work to restore funding to full levels authorized by last year’s 9/11 Commission legislation. 

This will be a critical year for the Department of Homeland Security. In November, we will elect a new President, and no matter 

who is elected, the Department will undergo a transition in leadership. That is, I assume that you have retained enough sanity not 

to want to continue in this position, Mr. Secretary. We know from 

experience that al-Qaeda launches attacks at precisely the moment 

of greatest vulnerability, and one of those times can be, in their 

perception, during transitions of leadership. That is why the transition next year from one Administration to the next must be wellplanned and executed. 

I note with appreciation that serious efforts are already underway under your leadership to achieve that result and the plans you 

are now setting in place, I hope will be fully and effectively implemented. 

Mr. Secretary, you know as well as anybody that the terrorist 

threat is as serious today as it has been at any time since September 11, 2001. I have heard you talk about what keeps you up 

at night, and that is the threat of a WMD attack. The fact is that 

there is no shortage of possibilities of the ways in which this might 

happen in our open society. The challenge of confronting and overcoming these threats can seem overwhelming, but you and your 

employees cannot afford to let down your guard and we cannot afford to let down our guard, which is why I believe we must invest 

in you, the people who work at the Department, to provide better 

training and better workplace conditions so that the Department 

can attract and retain the best and brightest employees. 

We, on this Committee, understand the responsibility you have 

taken on and again appreciate your leadership and hard work. We 

will continue to work with you as we work to fulfill our oversight 

responsibilities in ways that strengthen the Department, more important, strengthen the security of every single American. I look 

forward to your testimony today and a discussion about the work 

ahead for all of us to secure our homeland. 

I thank you, Mr. Secretary. I now call on Senator Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as 

you mentioned, the Department of Homeland Security is now apVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Feb 23, 2010 Jkt 041452 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\41452.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
4 

proaching its fifth anniversary and I think it is appropriate today 

that in addition to encouraging the Department and criticizing the 

Department, that we also thank the Department and recognize 

that there has been considerable progress in the past few years 

after a rocky beginning. 

But we also know from this Committee’s oversight work, from 

GAO and IG reports, and from the Secretary’s own prior testimony 

that much more remains to be done to fully integrate, improve, and 

strengthen the Department’s ability to confront the threats facing 

us and to deliver services and implement programs more effectively. 

The Administration’s budget proposal for DHS contemplates a 

4.6 percent increase in outlays compared to last year’s levels and 

funds some very worthwhile initiatives. The budget proposal must 

recognize that the risks of catastrophic natural disasters and terrorist attacks will not go away, that our borders and coastlines 

must be made more secure, and that our Nation’s infrastructure, 

including seaports and chemical plants, must be protected. 

Yet the President’s budget actually reduces funding for nearly 

every program that supports preparedness and prevention programs at State and local levels. A bedrock assumption of the National Response Framework is that first responders and State and 

local emergency managers will typically be the first to arrive on the 

scene of any disaster, even though massive Federal aid and support 

may soon follow. These first responders also serve, as the Chairman noted, as a critical line of defense against terrorist attacks, 

whether they may be a county sheriff patrolling an area of Northern Maine near the border, or a New York City police officer investigating a pipe bomb threat. 

The unpredictability of disasters and terrorist activity underscores the practical necessity for partnership and coordination at 

all levels of government. States rely heavily on the homeland security grants for emergency planning, risk assessments, mutual aid 

agreements, equipment, training, and exercises for first responders. 

That is why I share the concerns expressed by the Chairman today 

about the nearly $700 million gap between this year’s funding for 

the State Homeland Security Grants, or rather what the budget is 

proposing, and what Congress enacted just this past year. 

The proposed funding of only $210 million instead of $400 million 

for port security grants is also cause for concern. We passed a landmark port security bill. It is already beginning to make a real difference, but if it is not funded, its promise will not be realized. 

I am also concerned about the absence of funding for important 

grant programs like the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency 

Response (SAFER) grants for firefighters, interoperable communications grants, which have been a priority for this Committee, 

and the program that provides assistance to purchase commercial 

equipment for emergency response providers. The cuts in these programs—these are the front-line programs—could have disastrous 

consequences for emergency preparedness, prevention, and deterrence. 

Federal funding has helped to enhance our Nation’s ability to 

protect transportation systems, ports, chemical facilities, and other 

critical infrastructure, but it is clear that the job is not finished, 

5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Chertoff appears in the Appendix on page 41. 

and indeed, we have not brought every State up to a certain baseline level of preparedness to meet the preparedness goals. 

Now, I do want to recognize that there are some positive elements in this budget. I applaud the DHS proposal to upgrade vehicle lane technology at the busiest 39 land ports of entry and to increase Customs officers’ presence, including at ports of entry in my 

State, in the Maine towns of Calais, Houlton, and Madawaska. The 

funding increases for FEMA, Customs and Border Protection, and 

the Coast Guard are all welcome, as is the increased funding to 

place a Protective Security Advisor in every State. 

The Department commendably is also taking initial steps to fund 

updates to a severely outdated computer system now deployed at 

the ports of entry. Our Committee has been investigating the 

weaknesses in this system that allowed a Mexican national with 

drug-resistant tuberculosis to enter the United States undetected 

some 21 times. We have found that the current system cannot perform many basic search functions that ordinary citizens could use 

on an ordinary web-based search engine every day. 

On the critical and growing need to counter the threat of terrorist bombs, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), right here in the 

United States, I am also disturbed to see that the proposed budget 

would cut the current $10 million in funding for the Office of 

Bombing Prevention by more than $800,000. This makes no sense 

to me at all given what the experts have warned us about. The 

funding also falls far short of the $25 million funding level sought 

in the bombing prevention bill that the Chairman and I have introduced. That number was not plucked out of the air. It is based on 

expert testimony and calculations, so I hope we can reverse that 

cut, as well. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for calling this hearing today. Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure to have you back. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Collins, for your excellent opening statement. 

Mr. Secretary, it is all yours. 

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Senator Collins. It is a pleasure to appear again before this Committee. We have had a terrific relationship over the 3 years that 

I have been Secretary. I have to observe that in addition to our 

fifth anniversary, which is coming up in a matter of a few weeks 

as a Department, my third anniversary as Secretary is tomorrow, 

and this is the fourth time I have appeared before this Committee 

in connection with a budget request. So I look forward to our dialogue today, but also to an ongoing dialogue as we work further to 

institutionalize the Department and prepare for a transition into 

the next President’s term. 

This is a fiscally responsible budget that advances the Department’s most critical priorities. We focus our resources on the greatest risks and we give our 208,000 employees the tools and support 

they need to continue to protect the American people. 

6 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more that this threat is 

very real, and the thing that we need to continue to remind ourselves is that complacency is the greatest enemy that we have and 

the greatest challenge that we have. In the last year since I spoke 

with you in connection with the prior budget, we have seen an attack take place in the United Kingdom that failed simply because 

of the incompetence of the attackers. We have seen a serious plot 

disrupted in Germany. We saw arrests in Spain in the last few 

weeks. There were arrests in the last couple of days in Denmark 

of a militant or a couple of militants who were planning to kill a 

cartoonist. 

These are all stark reminders that the reason we have not been 

successfully attacked here is not a lack of intent by the enemy, but 

the fact that we have managed to disrupt, frustrate, or deter them 

from carrying out their attacks. But as you have observed, Mr. 

Chairman, this is a dynamic process. They continue to retool themselves, and if we do not continue to adapt and improve, we will put 

ourselves in a position where we fall behind. Now, this year, for fiscal year 2009, we are requesting $50.5 billion in the Department’s budget as compared with the previous 

baseline budget of 2008. That is excluding emergency funding. That 

is an increase of $3.2 billion, which I think comes to about 6.8 percent over last year’s baseline, and 62 percent over where we were 

nearly 5 years ago. 

Let me talk a little bit about the five major elements of our strategy and how the budget promotes that. Let me also observe that, 

as with any other budget—I know every governor knows this as 

well as everybody who has served in the Executive Branch—there 

are difficult trade-offs. There are things that are not funded as 

fully as some might like, and not because they are not important, 

but because the pie is only so big, and although the pie has grown 

this year, it is still finite, and if we put a larger slice in one area, 

we are going to have to cut the slice in another. So I hope as we 

continue with today’s hearing to be able to explain our reasoning 

in this regard. 

I basically divide our strategy into five objectives: Protecting the 

Nation from dangerous people; protecting the Nation from dangerous things; hardening and protecting our critical infrastructure; 

boosting our emergency preparedness and response; and strengthening our management and operations. 

So let me begin with some of the highlights of what we have 

done and what we are doing to protect our Nation from dangerous 

people. At the border, as of earlier this month, we have built over 

294 miles of pedestrian-vehicle fencing at the border. We had over 

15,000 Border Patrol agents sworn in by the end of 2007, and we 

are on track to hit over 18,000 by the end of this calendar year, 

which is more than twice what the President had when he came 

into office. 

A little less than a year and a half ago, I announced that we had 

ended the pernicious practice of catch and release of non-Mexican 

illegal aliens apprehended at the border. We have sustained keeping catch-and-release off the books and have catch-and-return operating. That has been a major deterrent for people coming into the 

country illegally, and we have seen some net positive results. ApVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Feb 23, 2010 Jkt 041452 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\41452.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
7 

prehensions are down over 20 percent over the prior fiscal year. In 

addition, remittances are down. 

Evidence of activity south of the border indicates to us that staging areas are beginning to shrink. The cost of coyotes and smugglers has increased, and that is again a sign of success. An unhappy sign of success is increased violence against Border Patrol 

agents, which is typically a metric that we see going up when 

criminal organizations feel that their businesses are in peril and 

they are fighting harder to preserve their ill-gotten gains. We are 

committed to continuing to support our Border Patrol agents in 

every way that we can in making sure that they do not become victims of these organized criminal gangs. 

We want to continue building on this progress in fiscal year 2009. We are requesting $3.5 billion for the Border Patrol, which 

is an increase of almost half-a-billion dollars, so that we can add 

2,200 new Border Patrol agents by the end of September 2009. 

That would bring us up to over 20,000 agents. We are requesting $775 million on top of about $1.25 billion that 

we received in 2008 to continue our efforts to develop and deploy 

technology and tactical infrastructure, including fencing at the border, to prevent incursions and to improve the Border Patrol’s capability to intercept and apprehend illegal aliens, recognizing that, of 

course, the economic magnet that pulls illegal aliens in has to be 

tackled. If we are really going to have a solution to illegal migration, we want to continue to build on our success in worksite enforcement. In the last fiscal year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) made 863 criminal arrests, issued 750 indictments, 

and yielded 561 convictions as a result of worksite enforcement operations, 92 of the people charged were in the employer’s supervisory chain, including some senior executives, and 771 were employees. Therefore, to continue moving forward, we are requesting $1.8 

billion in fiscal year 2009, an increase of about a quarter-of-a-billion dollars, to help ICE expand its custody operations, getting us 

up to a total of about 33,000 beds. I might observe this is a 78 percent increase from where we were just 4 years ago, in fiscal year 

2005. In all, we are requesting $3 billion—that is an uptick of $311 

million—for ICE interior enforcement-related activities, including 

fugitive operations, the Criminal Alien Program, which looks to remove convicted illegal aliens from State and Federal prisons, supporting State and local programs to help us enforce the immigration laws, anti-gang initiatives, and worksite enforcement. 

Finally, we are requesting $100 million, an increase of $40 million, for our E-Verify electronic automated employment authorization verification system so that employers can use this system to 

run their new employees’ names and Social Security numbers 

against DHS and Social Security databases. This program has become increasingly popular. We now have over 52,000 employers 

who have signed up to use it. It is important, however, that in addition to the money, Congress reauthorize the program, which is 

due to expire this year. So we are going to request your help in 

that. 

Turning to the issue of protecting us from dangerous goods, let 

me observe what we accomplished last year. At the end of the calVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Feb 23, 2010 Jkt 041452 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\41452.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
8 

endar year last year, we were scanning virtually 100 percent of all 

containers entering our Southern border or coming into our seaports. That is a dramatic increase from where we were several 

years ago, where the number was around zero percent. We are at 

around 91 percent at our Northern border. We have expanded our 

Container Security Initiative to 58 foreign ports. Consistent with 

the Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act, we 

have begun 100 percent radiation scanning at three pilot ports— 

Pakistan, Honduras, and Southampton in Great Britain—and we 

have agreements with four other ports that we hope to implement 

this year, and that is part of our Secure Freight Initiative. For fiscal year 2009, we are requesting $157 million, an uptick of $67 million, to support continued deployment of radiation portal 

monitors so that we get close to 100 percent scanning at our Northern border, which will give us essentially full scanning of all containers that come into the United States. 

At the same time, we are going to be continuing to implement 

the project to screen and scan general aviation that comes into this 

country from overseas to close that potential vulnerability with respect to a weapon of mass destruction, and we are working on rolling out a small boat strategy to enable us to deal with the possibility of small boats being used to smuggle in a weapon of mass destruction or dangerous terrorists. 

Turning to the issue of our critical infrastructure—thanks to the 

work of this Congress in passing a Chemical Security Authorization 

Act—we have completed our National Infrastructure Protection 

Plan, all the 17 sector-specific plans, and the chemical security 

final rule, which we are currently in the process of implementing 

with those chemical sites that have been identified as the most potentially risky across the country. We did establish an Office of 

Bombing Prevention and we have added additional layers of security in aviation and mass transit. 

Let me highlight some of our initiatives as captured in this year’s proposed budget. We are requesting $1.3 billion, an uptick of almost $360 million, for Department-wide efforts to counter IED 

threats. This includes more than $1.1 billion for TSA explosive detection technology, $30 million to train Transportation Security Officers (TSOs), and $9 million for our Office for Bombing Prevention. 

We are also requesting $45 million, which is an increase of $15 million, for behavior detection officers who work at our airports to 

identify people whose behavior is suspicious and warrants a closer 

look. This is the kind of technique that is used in Europe and in 

Israel as an effective layer of defense against people getting on airplanes and carrying out threats. 

We are requesting $30 million, which is an increase, to continue 

our 10 Visible Intermodal Protection and Response Teams. These 

are teams of integrated law enforcement and TSOs plus dogs that 

surge into mass transit and airports in order to provide enhanced 

security, either when there is a specific threat or merely in order 

to have the random level of security raised to provide an extra 

measure of protection for mass transit. 

And finally and importantly, as the Chairman and the Ranking 

Member mentioned, we are tackling in a very significant way at 

long last the issue of cyber security as part of an integrated Cyber 

9 

Security Initiative which the President has authorized us to pursue 

beginning this fiscal year. That means we are requesting almost 

$300 million, an increase of $83 million, to further deploy our antiintrusion detection capabilities and to increase U.S. search ability 

to analyze and reduce cyber threats. I look forward to working with 

the Committee on this particular issue, which probably needs to be 

discussed further in a classified setting. 

The fourth goal is effective emergency response. We have worked 

very hard to, I wouldn’t say rebuild, but to build FEMA to a level 

it has never been before with respect to emergency preparedness 

and response. This year, we are continuing on that path by seeking 

a $64.5 million increase for FEMA’s vision initiatives, which include, among other things, converting thousands of temporary 

workers into permanent core employees at FEMA, so that is a 

cadre of experienced people that we can put into the field and 

around which we can build a surge capability when we do have an 

emergency. 

We are also working very hard to increase its information technology (IT) functions, and I think FEMA has proven over the last 

year an increased capability to move swiftly and efficiently in partnership with the Department of Defense, which has been a great 

partner, to respond effectively to emergencies and disasters across 

the country. 

I know the question of formaldehyde in trailers will come up and 

I look forward to talking with you about that effort in the course 

of this hearing. I will just simply reiterate what we said last summer. We continue to encourage people who have any anxiety about 

their trailers to come forward so that we can move them out of 

trailers. We have been very successful in the last 3 months at removing people from trailers at a rate of about 800 trailers a month, 

and we want to continue to do that. We have driven down the numbers very dramatically, but we want to continue to encourage those 

who are resistant to get into more permanent housing. 

Finally, with respect to grants, although I know the levels that 

we are requesting are below what Congress enacted and that has 

pretty much been the pattern over the last several years, we have 

done some things of which I think you will approve. We have continued this year, as we did last year, to have separate Port Security 

Grants and Rail Transportation Security Grants as opposed to 

lumping them in a single Infrastructure Protection Program, which 

was not warmly received on Capitol Hill. Our requested amounts 

for this year are, in fact, what we requested last year, which reflects our overall assessment of what is a disciplined program for 

building capabilities over a long period of time. 

I recognize there is always more need, and again, I come back 

to my pie analogy. We had hard choices to make with an admittedly generous but nevertheless finite budget and we had to balance the needs of localities and States, which are continuing to 

build capabilities, with the need to make sure we are funding those 

responsibilities which are exclusively Federal. 

Finally, let me talk about the importance of strengthening management and operations and plug in particular the need for $120 

million that we are requesting to consolidate DHS headquarters at 

St. Elizabeths. My one disappointment in the omnibus appropriaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Feb 23, 2010 Jkt 041452 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\41452.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
10 

tion this last year is we did not get the money for St. Elizabeths. 

A big chunk of this money, about $400 million or so, is in GSA, and 

that was not funded, either. It is easy to shortchange bricks and 

mortar when there are other perhaps more appealing immediate 

needs to be dealt with, but I can tell you, to build morale, to build 

institutional capability, to improve security of our operations, and 

to make our management function better across the board, investing in a permanent headquarters makes a lot of sense and I am 

going to urge Congress to work with us to do that. 

So with that, I look forward to continuing to work with this Committee over the course of this next year and to answer your questions. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Secretary. 

I would suggest we do a 6-minute round of questions, because we 

have a lot of members here. We would like to get people involved. 

Let me just say first that I totally support the request for the 

DHS headquarters to be consolidated at St. Elizabeths. I regret 

that wasn’t included in the omnibus budget. As you know better 

than we, DHS is now spread throughout 70 buildings across the 

National Capital Region and that makes communication, coordination, and leadership very difficult. So I hope we can do that this 

year. 

Let me ask you about the formaldehyde, since it is in the news 

today. This is a Center for Disease Control (CDC) report that says 

fumes from 519 trailer mobile homes in Louisiana and Mississippi 

which they tested were an average of about five times what people 

are exposed to in most modern homes. In some trailers—I am reading from the report—the levels were more than 50 times the customary exposure levels, raising fears that residents could contract 

respiratory problems. A gentleman named Mike McGann, director 

of the CDC division that focuses on environmental hazards, recommends that FEMA move people out quickly with priorities to 

families with children, elderly people, or anyone with asthma or 

other chronic conditions. 

So I wanted to get your more detailed response, and though the 

report just came out today, whether you have anything new to say 

about what FEMA intends to do to get people, including along this 

priority list, out of these trailers. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me say that last summer, FEMA announced, and I personally announced when I was down in New Orleans, a program, not only an invitation, but frankly encouragement to anybody in a trailer who not only suffered physical symptoms, but had anxiety of any kind about physical effects of formaldehyde or simply wanted to get out of trailers, to raise their 

hands so we could move them out and a number of people did. 

Frankly, fewer did than I expected would. And it has, in fact, been 

our policy and our intent over the last 3 months to move as many 

people out of trailers as we possibly can. That is particularly true 

with respect to people who are in these group shelters or group 

trailer parks. 

I actually earlier said we move 800 out a month. I am sorry. We 

have been moving 800 out a week over the last 3 months, and we 

are at the point now that there are about 38,000 households on private sites and about 7,400 in group commercial or industrial sites. 

11 

I would urge people to get out of the trailers. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Now, I recognize the reality that there is 

not a lot of housing in the area and that may mean for some people 

they will have to move some distance away. That has been, frankly, 

one of the reasons why I think some people have been reluctant to 

move out of the trailers. But from any number of standpoints, 

whether it be formaldehyde or just the fact that these trailers are 

not designed as permanent residences, I think that people would 

be much better served if they bit the bullet and moved out, and we 

will do everything that we can certainly to facilitate that. I guess 

a question you will have to wrestle with is whether we will compel 

people to move out. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes, I was just going to ask that question. 

I mean, as I looked in a little more detail at the report which just 

came out from CDC, they said average levels of 77 parts formaldehyde per billion parts of air was what they found, significantly 

higher than the 10 to 17 parts per billion concentration seen in 

newer homes. Levels in some homes were as high as 590 parts per 

billion. So I know this has just happened today, but I think you 

raise an important question which I hope you and FEMA will consider—whether the risk to public health is, based on the CDC report, so real that you will want to compel people to leave the trailers, particularly if they have kids and elderly people or anybody 

with asthma or a chronic pulmonary condition. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think that is a very serious question, so 

let me just lay a couple of other items on the table on this. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Go ahead. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. One way we could do this, of course, would 

be to charge rent for the trailers. One of the reasons people stay 

is because they are rent-free. But I want to put on the table the 

fact that when we have tried in the past to remove people, even 

if it is for their own good, there is a great deal of complaining, and 

in fact, we wind up getting sued over this. So this decision is not 

going to be an easy decision. 

Let me make two other quick observations. FEMA is in the position of the consumer, in a sense, in having acquired these trailers. 

It has been an enormous source of dismay and disappointment that 

housing products that for years have been bought by FEMA turn 

out to have high formaldehyde levels. We are like everybody else 

who buys on the open market, and we are a little bit at sea because 

there is no standard for trailers that is safe or not safe. 

Moreover, I was somewhat surprised to see in the report that 

came out that mobile homes, which are designed to be more or less 

permanent housing, which again we buy on the open market like 

everybody else, also had higher levels of formaldehyde than expected. There is a lot we don’t know and we are, frankly, not in 

a position to answer as an agency. We don’t know what is the baseline for mobile homes across the country. Is this a problem that is 

unique to the trailers that we purchased for some reason, or is it 

something that is prevalent in general? What is safe for individual 

populations? 

So while we are going to work very diligently to move people out 

of the trailers, I want to be clear that we are in a position, like any 

12 

other consumer, of being uncertain about what is a safe level, if 

any, with respect to these residences. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Looking at this summary of the CDC report today, it has a real sense of urgency to it. I mean, they say 

these conclusions support the need to move people quickly or relocate trailer residents before the warmer weather of summer, again 

following the priority list. They suggest that FEMA consider necessary assistance to Louisiana and Mississippi Health Departments 

to ensure adequate follow-up, including medical needs, for trailer 

residents and that FEMA should consider establishing a registry of 

long-term health monitoring of children and others who resided in 

FEMA-supplied trailers. 

This report puts a direct responsibility on FEMA and on the Department, and I think there is a concern implicit here about future 

liability. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I certainly hope that CDC will work 

with us on any medical follow-up because I want to emphasize we 

are not medical personnel. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Sure. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We have to rely on others just as we have 

to rely on other agencies to set standards for what we buy in the 

marketplace. 

Let me make this clear, and I have directed FEMA about this. 

We are out of the trailer business. We are no longer going to provide trailers for people in disasters. I say that up front because I 

guarantee you that in the next disaster, I will be besieged by requests for trailers. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. So in light of the uncertainty, I think the 

only safe course is to stop trailers. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. My time is up. Thank you very much. 

Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me follow up on the subject that the Chairman just raised. 

It is my understanding that just in the past couple of weeks, 

FEMA has agreed to send some of those infamous travel trailers 

and mobile homes that were stored in Arkansas and that Senator 

Pryor and I held a hearing in 2006. Some of those are going to be 

sent to house the victims of tornadoes in Arkansas and Tennessee. 

Have you put that plan on hold? Have those been tested also for 

formaldehyde? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. Let me explain. I don’t think the results that we got on the trailers were terribly surprising, but the 

mobile home results were surprising because for mobile homes apparently up to now, there have been standards for the ingredients 

in mobile homes that have been set by law, and so our assumption 

was that mobile homes were basically vetted and we could use 

them, as distinct from trailers, and you don’t want to confuse the 

two. 

I was surprised to learn today, and I haven’t studied all the data, 

that mobile homes apparently also have higher-than-expected levels of formaldehyde. So that, of course, throws a question on the 

whole issue of mobile homes and their safety. 

13 

What we will do in the short run is we will test the mobile homes 

before we send them out. However, I will warn you, that will mean 

there will be a delay in the process because we have to test them. 

It also means that we may have to get out of the business of providing mobile homes. 

So I put all this on the table because the implications of this are 

far beyond simply the question of FEMA. We are, like everybody 

else who buys things on the marketplace, relying upon confidence 

that these are fit for human use. We have these in inventory. We 

are going to test them. But I think we are going to be very hesitant 

going forward even with respect to mobile homes until we get some 

clear direction from the health authorities about what is a safe 

level for this kind of residence. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I want to turn to 

the issue of State and local grants, and the State Homeland Security Grant Program. You had a chart up very briefly and said in 

your statement that part of the Department’s rationale for slashing 

these programs so dramatically is that there is still billions of dollars in the pipeline. And, in fact, you go on to say that with Congressional approval of the fiscal year 2009 request, a total of $13 

billion would be in the pipeline for State and local homeland security needs. 

I have to tell you that I think your chart and that statement are 

very misleading. It is my understanding that State and local governments have already obligated virtually all of the money that has 

been awarded by the Department from fiscal year 2002 to 2007. So 

even though technically the money hasn’t been spent, it has been 

committed. This implies there is plenty of money in the pipeline to 

handle future needs. In fact, the money in the pipeline has been 

committed to specific projects and it simply hasn’t been completely 

drawn down yet. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I thought we were very clear in the 

chart to distinguish between money that was not drawn down but 

obligated and that which wasn’t obligated. First of all, my point 

was not to criticize States and localities because it is appropriate 

not to draw down until you have actually acquired the material you 

are seeking. 

My point was that these are not entitlements. They are not like 

something that is a recurring expense. They are designed to build 

capabilities, so that there is an enormous amount of actual capabilities that are due to come online—and the delay is not through 

anybody’s fault, it is the normal process—but the capabilities of 

State and local governments are really going to be significantly increasing over the next year so that we are literally meeting needs 

in the pipeline every day. 

Obviously, we want to continue to keep the money flowing, but 

we look at the fact that there has been, particularly in the last 

year, a significant increase. I think the rate at which we are funding, which is consistent with what we proposed last year, is a good 

rate. I can understand people would want more, but again, I have 

that pie I have to slice up and this seems to be a fair way to slice 

it. 

Senator COLLINS. I just wanted my colleagues to be clear on this 

point, that money is committed, it is going to be spent according 

14 

to the States’ homeland security plans, and it is not available for 

future projects and it does not mitigate, in my judgment, the need 

for an appropriate level of funding. 

Let me just quickly go to one other issue. Yesterday, we heard 

from the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, and the 

Commission was very critical of DHS for not yet implementing or 

promulgating the requirements for the 15 national planning scenarios, despite the fact that the National Guard is clearly a key responder in virtually all of those scenarios. What is the cause of the 

delay in fleshing out the requirements so that all those who are involved in responding under the 15 scenarios, and I commend you 

for developing the scenarios, know what their duties will be? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, let me make a couple of observations. 

I was a little surprised to read their comments because I don’t 

think that the Commission ever spoke to me. I believe that thenUnder Secretary Foresman testified before the Commission, but I 

think that was well over a year ago. And I think since his testimony, we have made a lot of progress on the 15 scenarios. 

Now, we want to continue to move those and we have been working very closely with the Northern Command (NORTHCOM) in 

doing that. Part of the disconnect may be that the National Guard 

and NORTHCOM themselves are two separate entities and that we 

typically work with NORTHCOM directly in terms of planning. We 

have integrated planning at the Department now with the Department of Defense and we rely upon them to have the plans then integrated with what the National Guard is doing. So it is a little bit 

of a complicated process. 

But one of the things we do mean to get done this year is to, if 

not complete, substantially complete most of these 15 scenarios and 

to do it joined at the hip with DOD, and I encourage you to ask 

General Renuart and Assistant Secretary McHale for their views 

on this, as well. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Collins. 

As is our tradition, we will go in order of arrival. The next three 

Senators are Senators Voinovich, Coleman, and McCaskill. 

Senator Levin, I know because I am a member of the Senate 

Armed Services Committee, that you have a hearing that you are 

convening soon. Do you want to seek the mercy of one of your colleagues to let you go ahead of them? 

Senator LEVIN. If I knew which colleague would be the most merciful, I would. [Laughter.] 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Well, Senator Voinovich—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. He is my Chairman, too. I am definitely 

merciful. 

Senator VOINOVICH. My neighbor from Michigan, I would be 

more than happy to—— [Laughter.] 

Senator LEVIN. I really appreciate that. I will just ask two questions. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Go right ahead. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. I really appreciate the generosity of the Chairman and everybody else here. 

15 

Going back to Senator Collins’s question, it was because of the 

amount of money in the pipeline that you reduced your request for 

this year’s appropriation. Is that accurate? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No. The reason—— 

Senator LEVIN. Why did you reduce this year’s request? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We didn’t—the request we made this year 

was exactly the same request we made last year. That was based 

on the level we thought was appropriate. 

Senator LEVIN. It was below the appropriated amount? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Correct. 

Senator LEVIN. All right. How much was in the pipeline last year 

at this time? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I don’t remember that. It is probably a little less than now because I think the appropriations for 2008 came 

later in the year and also are a little larger. 

Senator LEVIN. Did you use that amount last year that was in 

the pipeline to reduce last year’s request? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Actually, I think we have been pretty consistent with our request, at least during my period of time here. 

What we have done, we have actually increased in some areas. We 

have tried to put a little bit more in the Urban Area Security Initiative Grants, but we have typically come in at a level that we 

think is adequate over a period of time. 

Senator LEVIN. I am sure of that. My question was, though, did 

you reduce your request last year based on the amount of money 

in the pipeline? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No. 

Senator LEVIN. That is the same logic. Why not? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Because my point on the pipeline is not to 

suggest that is why we reduce or add money. We don’t do it based 

on the pipeline. It was to make the point that in terms of the visible output—the money is input and what matters is output—you 

are going to continue to see output based upon all the investment 

that has been made up until now. That was my point. It is not a 

rationale for adjusting the inputs. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. I am going to try to get back for the 

balance of my time, but thank you and I will ask that the record 

be kept open for the submission of questions for the record. 

Senator STEVENS. May I steal 30 seconds now? 

Senator LEVIN. I thank my colleagues. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I am sure that Senator Voinovich would 

give you at least 30 seconds, Mr. Appropriator. [Laughter.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS 

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent 

to put my statement and questions in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Stevens follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENTOR STEVENS 

Good afternoon Secretary Chertoff. Thank you for testifying before us today about 

the Department of Homeland Security’s FY09 budget. 

Before I ask a few questions, I would like to comment on two important programs. 

First, the enhanced Loran, or eLoran system. I am pleased that DHS will begin 

implementing this important back up system to the GPS. 

16 

As you know, Alaska has many environmental factors that GPS cannot always 

support. eLoran provides first responders and others with the necessary back up 

system in these environments. It’s an important safety measure, especially for Alaska, and I commend you for its implementation. 

Second, I would like to commend FEMA for creating a new program that I believe 

will be an important tool in aiding many of Alaska’s native villages suffering from 

severe erosion. 

In October, I held a field hearing on erosion in Alaska. Senator Landrieu was kind 

enough to attend, and Susan Reinertson, the FEMA Regional Administrator for 

Alaska, testified at the hearing. She also had an opportunity to join Senator Landrieu and me on a visit to the village of Shishmaref to see first-hand the destruction 

they, and other Alaska villages are facing due to this erosion. 

FEMA continuously pointed out that they did not have the authority to help communities prepare for future disasters, only to react when a disaster is ‘‘imminent’’ 

or after a disaster has occurred. 

I am pleased to see that the budget includes $200 million for the Disaster Readiness and Support Activities Program to assist FEMA in working with State and 

local partners in preparing for future disasters. Hopefully this can help villages in 

Alaska prepare before a storm hits, rather than spending more money reacting after 

the storm has already caused serious damage. 

Senator STEVENS. Alaska is different from any other State. We 

have a Canadian system. We appear before our State legislature in 

joint session once a year. My day in the box is next Tuesday. I have 

sent you a series of questions and I would hope that you might be 

able to get me some of the answers before I have to make that appearance—— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Absolutely. We will. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Stevens. 

Senator Voinovich, thanks for allowing your colleagues to go before you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Chertoff, I want to take a moment to compliment you 

on the Department’s work and strategic plan to assure a seamless 

transition. This is going to be a critical time for the Department 

as you pass the baton on to the next Administration and we are 

all concerned about that because of how important your Department is to our national security. 

I commend you for working with the Homeland Security Advisory Council on what I would consider a workable succession plan. 

I think your plan is a model that other cabinet agencies should 

look to as they prepare for the upcoming transition. This Committee is very interested in this matter, my Subcommittee particularly. If there is anything that we can do, legislatively or otherwise, 

to support you, I want you to know I will do everything I can to 

help you and I know the other Members of this Committee will do 

the same. 

As you know, I have been very interested in the Visa Waiver Program. I worked with the Department and the Committee to get legislation passed to modernize the program, which will enhance our 

ability to identify potential terrorists while improving our public diplomacy. We have a limited window of opportunity for this reform 

to become a reality so the question I have is whether or not the 

Department be able to meet the deadlines required by the legislation. When will US–VISIT and the Electronic Travel Authorization 

17 

system be fully operational? Do you believe that the five-person 

staff dedicated to this program is sufficient to get the job done? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. It will, and this is actually a very high priority for the President, as well as for me. There are a couple of 

rules that need to get out in order to get this implemented and 

those rules are in the final stage of being issued. One element of 

the rule is getting US–VISIT exit for airports up and running. We 

can get that done this summer. There is adequate money in the 

2008 budget to do the air exit piece and the Electronic Travel Authorization piece, and again, we are finalizing what is required for 

that, as well. So from a financial standpoint and a resources standpoint, there is no obstacle to our getting it done this year. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The President’s 2009 Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) request is $200 million. That is 

$100 million less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. It seems 

to me inadequate, given the fact this program is the backbone of 

our Nation’s emergency management system and fills an important 

need. In the last 6 months I have met with first responders in four 

cities in Ohio—Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus and Toledo—and 

they have indicated how important these grants are. Why is it that 

you have cut the budget by $100 million? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I am going to sound like I am being repetitious, but we have kept on all these major programs the same 

funding request level we made last year. I know Congress enacted 

more, and when we put this budget together, we engaged in the 

very difficult process of making trade-offs with a limited amount of 

resources, albeit a more generous amount than we had last year. 

Others might decide to put more money in another grant program or this one or might decide that we shouldn’t perform a Coast 

Guard function or something else. We tried to pick a level of funding that we have historically thought was reasonable and appropriate, maybe not joyful for everybody, and to keep that going over 

the long run. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, I can tell you that without adequate 

EMPG funding, first responders at the local level are not going to 

be able to get the job done that we are asking them to do. You can’t 

have people double-hatted to do the kind of work that we want in 

our communities throughout the country. 

Finally, I want to raise with you the issue of reconciling the differences between your Department and Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) on the metrics to judge the Department’s performance 

on its your strategic plan. That is extremely important that agreement be reached about how we judge whether or not performance 

is continuing with the Department. Where are we on that and how 

important a priority is that for you? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, it is important. Paul Schneider, who 

is our Acting Deputy Secretary, is working with GAO and with people on the management side to make sure that we are capable of 

being as rigorous as possible in identifying what our benchmarks 

are so we have a way of measuring our progress. We are generally, 

I would say in the Department, putting GAO to one side—if I look 

back over the last 3 years, our capability and our use of metrics 

is probably 10 times what it was when I first came in. We are realVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Feb 23, 2010 Jkt 041452 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\41452.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
18 

ly, across a range of functions, much quicker and much more accurate now in measuring what we do. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, it is really important that your work 

continues. It is one of the reasons why I support the concept of a 

Chief Management Officer with a term, to make sure that transformation really takes place. If we don’t do this, God only knows 

when we will get the Department to desired operational static. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I agree. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Voinovich. Senator Coleman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, this is the last time you will come before us to do 

a budget. Well, first of all, I want to start by wishing you a happy 

anniversary. As you noted, it is your anniversary. I will defer to 

your wife, Meryl, to wish you a happy Valentine’s Day, but we will 

focus on anniversary. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. And happy birthday, too. [Laughter.] 

Senator COLEMAN. And I want to say thanks for two things. One, 

the focus on the border and the 19 percent funding increase, everything from fencing, vehicle barriers, additional personnel, I think 

it is important. We were unable to resolve and move forward on the 

issue of immigration. I think that is unfortunate. But first and 

foremost, the American public needs to understand that we understand that we have to control our borders. 

I also want to express my thanks for the recent Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) implementation about which we 

have had a lot of discussion. I visited International Falls just a couple of weeks ago and there is a grace period now. The new law requires birth certificates, passports, and I found it operated very 

smoothly and personnel were very accommodating in working with 

folks who were not yet aware of the change in policy—the dualidentity requirement. So I thank you for moving forward with understanding in that case and hope we continue along that path. 

And then the last thanks before I get to my concern has to do 

with the response to the flooding in Southeast Minnesota last year. 

I contrast that with what I think was one of the dark moments in 

government and that was the failures of Hurricane Katrina. I can 

still vividly remember sitting with my wife and her talking to me, 

kind of yelling at me, the Senator, there are folks standing there 

with the CNN or FOX reporter by the Superdome or on the highway and where is the government? I think you made a lot of 

changes there that reflected, then, what I saw in Southeast Minnesota. You were on the scene very early. FEMA Director Paulison 

was on the scene very early. I think the President dispatched 

FEMA even before there was the official declaration in the works 

and that was appreciated. 

Obviously, some changes are personal. It is leadership that has 

been provided. My question goes to the structural changes then because I would hope that what I saw in Southeast Minnesota reflects a structural change, specifically in the area of transition for 

which you have been commended in other times, but I do have 

some concerns. I have reviewed some of the correspondence you 

19 

have had with Chairman Bennie Thompson of the House Homeland 

Security Committee in which there was a request to share documents and materials about the transition and you indicated that 

you were unable to do so at this time. I reflect upon what the 

Chairman spoke about in his opening comments, reflecting on alQaeda being targeted and focused on points of sensitivity. The Administration Transition Task Force specifically cites the transition 

period as one of those points, one of those moments. 

And so from an oversight perspective, I would really like to know 

what we are doing. I would like to have a real clear sense of what 

we are doing and certainly would like to then have the information 

that at this point apparently cannot be shared. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Sure. 

Senator COLEMAN. Could this discussion take place—is it classified? Is that what we are looking at—— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I don’t think it is classified. I think that we 

have gone up to brief and will continue to brief interested members 

on the transition. I can tell you generally, we had a number of objectives we wanted to achieve. For example, we wanted to make 

sure that we had in place a career person in the No. 2 or No. 3 

position to manage the components and the major operating elements of the Department and who would continue on even after 

the presidential and political appointees had left. We have accomplished that. I think we have almost all those positions filled and 

cemented. 

We wanted to issue our National Response Framework. We did 

that. We wanted to reduce to writing and memorialize a lot of the 

doctrine that we developed over the last few years and we are in 

the process of doing that. 

I don’t know that there is a single document to be furnished, but 

I would be more than happy to send the Deputy Secretary up with 

documents to brief you and any interested Member of the Committee about what we are doing because we are taking it as a point 

of pride to do a seamless handoff of the Department to the next Administration. 

Senator COLEMAN. I would also be interested in the plans for 

transition communications between folks at the State and local 

level. They are, as my colleagues have indicated, an essential part 

of the fabric of homeland security, and I remember sitting there as 

a mayor at times and wondering, are we going to find out? Do you 

have a specific strategy regarding transition information at State, 

local, and tribal level? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We have been discussing this with our 

State and local counterparts, our Homeland Security Advisors. We 

will continue to keep them involved and give them visibility to 

what we are doing. I also hope that if the next President is able 

to identify who the senior leadership is going to be in Homeland 

Security at an early enough stage, that we can actually bring them 

in and get them in an exercise, introduce them to all of the Homeland Security advisors and get them as much up to speed because 

I think you are quite right. I mean, I came in in June 2001, and 

when September 11, 2001 came, there were only a very few of us 

at the Department of Justice and we were really—of course, it was 

brand new for everybody, but we didn’t have fully populated agenVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Feb 23, 2010 Jkt 041452 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\41452.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
20 

cies and at least we had the advantage of a very mature department. So we are going to work very hard to make sure we give visibility on this as we continue to implement this plan this year. 

Senator COLEMAN. I appreciate it. You really do deserve recognition for the fact that there hasn’t been a successful attack on American soil. It is not just by the grace of providence, but by a lot of 

hard work and sometimes I think we don’t reflect on that enough, 

so I do thank you for that. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Thank you. This Committee has really been 

a major contributor in strengthening this country’s capability to 

keep us safe, so thank you for that. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Coleman. Excellent questions. Senator McCaskill, you are next. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Secretary Chertoff, thank you for your service. I don’t know how many more times you will be before this 

Committee before the end of the year, but I think you have worked 

very hard on behalf of the American people and we all thank you 

for that service. Public service, I think, is harder than it looks from 

the outside and I think your job is particularly challenging. 

I was a little taken aback by your comment earlier in your testimony about trailers and mobile homes that maybe you would get 

out of the business of trailers and mobile homes, which is a little 

frightening to me considering that you are emergency relief and 

that is a pretty integral part of emergency relief. It is a little bit 

like saying if you buy a car and it is a lemon that you are going 

to swear off buying any more cars the rest of your life. It seems 

to me that the more prudent course would be that you look to the 

manufacturer of those trailers and hold them accountable for providing a defective product to the citizens of the United States of 

America. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I am quite sure that once we fully understand the dimensions of what we have got, that we will certainly use all of our legal remedies. But let me take a moment to 

just follow up with you. 

You are right, it is a pretty striking statement. Here is what the 

problem is. There is no national standard on formaldehyde that I 

am aware of for people who are living in trailers or mobile homes. 

I don’t think, by the way, the trailers are meant to be long-term 

housing. They are not designed to be that. No one has been able 

to inform me what is safe for the average person, what is safe for 

people with specific kinds of conditions. If there is an agency in the 

government or if it is Congress that is capable of making a scientific determination about what is the level that is acceptable and 

what is the level that is not acceptable so that that standard can 

be imposed on the industry, then, like any other consumer, we 

could go back into the marketplace. 

But right now, if we had an emergency tomorrow and you said 

to me, we need to have trailers, I would not be able to look you 

in the eye and say these trailers are safe. I am not saying they are 

unsafe. I just don’t know the answer. And I haven’t been able to 

21 

find anybody who has told me what is the safe level of parts per 

million or parts per billion that allow us to have someone reside 

in a trailer. 

Now, we could go on a ‘‘buyer beware’’ theory, where we tell people—and this, I would be prepared to do, to say to people, we are 

going to give you money as part of your Stafford Act money. If you 

want to buy a trailer, knowing the risks, that is your choice. But 

for us to put trailers out there and say to somebody, now given 

what has emerged today, we are encouraging you to come into a 

trailer, I don’t know how I could do that in good conscience. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I think the CDC did say that certain 

levels were safe and unsafe and they said it in their report today 

and I think that is something that you could embrace. I know there 

was a lawyer in June 2006 at FEMA who actually said in writing, 

don’t test these things because once we test them, we are going to 

be responsible. It seems to me the whole timeline of these toxic 

trailers is very troubling in terms of FEMA taking primary responsibility, and I will tell you that we know these are unsafe trailers 

now. We know that many of them are not healthy for the people 

who are living in them. And we know who manufactured them and 

who sold them to the government. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. But I have to tell you, Senator, some of the 

trailers were purchased off lots. I mean, we authorized governors 

to purchase trailers off lots. Moreover, I was surprised to learn that 

mobile homes are showing similar levels. 

So here is my problem. I don’t know the answer. Now, maybe 

when I sit with CDC, they will give me more enlightenment. But 

I would be very hesitant to say that I could tell you what a safe 

level is for a trailer or for a mobile home. In the absence of some 

authoritative statement, I guess, my more cautious position is to 

say that while we will certainly allow people to buy homes themselves, I would be reluctant to furnish them. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I will pose a lot of specific questions 

about the accountability on these trailer purchases and this 

timeline of how it was dealt with to you in writing. 

I also want to pose some questions to you in writing about the 

fact that the IG budget has gone down in this year’s budget. I am 

always concerned when the Inspector General’s budget goes down 

in any agency since I think that is a lifeline for taxpayers and for 

the legislature in terms of looking at that accountability piece. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. If I can just interject there, actually in 

2008, our base budget was $93 million and this year we are actually asking for $101 million. The difference is last year, under the 

Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), an additional $16 million were provided on an emergency basis. If in 2009 that same kind of emergency money were required, it would come under the DRF. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I know we still have problems with 

the way the emergency money has been spent. Trailers are a good 

example. So I think the IG needs to stay healthy. 

Since I don’t have a lot of time left, I would just like to express 

my disappointment in looking at the 12 budget points that you 

asked for in enforcement. There is none of those under Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that deals specifically with employer enforcement. And I know you cited 93 cases of employers 

22 

being arrested in this entire country, in light of the thousands and 

thousands and thousands of employers that are knowingly hiring 

illegal immigrants. Every minute of this hearing, someone is hiring 

an illegal immigrant knowingly. 

These are not complicated cases, Secretary. They really aren’t. 

Bar owners get cited all the time for letting kids in the door with 

a fake I.D. These are false documents. Many of them are false on 

their face and it is obvious to the employer they are false. I do not 

think there has been a concerted effort to prioritize the enforcement against the employer as opposed to the enforcement against 

the illegal immigrant, and that is, in fact, the root of this whole 

problem. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I agree with you that we need to 

crack down on employers. Of course, one of the things we have 

tried to do is get our ‘‘no match’’ rule out, and the whole no match 

rule, which the employers sued to block and we are fighting in 

court now, was designed to say to employers that when they got, 

for example, a no match letter, they were on notice and they had 

to take action because one of the defenses that we hit is under the 

current rule, there is actually an ambiguous signal to employers 

about whether they can pursue discrepancies. 

So I know that the head of ICE is committed to this. I do have 

to say this. I mean, I have personal experience in doing these cases 

as a prosecutor. They are actually tough because the regulations up 

until recently have been so complicated and there is so much room 

for a clever lawyer to hide his client that they actually are time 

consuming and difficult. If we can get this no match rule out of the 

courts and we can get it applied to the employers, I will guarantee 

you it will make it a lot easier to make these cases. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I hope you are right, but I will tell 

you, knowing the U.S. Attorneys as I do, and I was just a local 

prosecutor, but if you give me 10 cases and 10 juries, I think you 

would be surprised how often they would convict. I just don’t think 

very many of these cases are being put in front of juries. I think 

there is maneuvering and finagling among lawyers and U.S. Attorneys and plea bargains. But if you take these cases in front of 12 

Americans with false documents on their face, I think you would 

be surprised how often you would get 12 people to believe the employers are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I am happy to take as many to a jury as 

we can. As I said, we had the experience some years back of doing 

a case which I thought was actually pretty much of a slam-dunk 

against a major employer where we had actually gotten pleas, and 

to my intense surprise, the prosecutor was not able to get a conviction in front of the jury. I actually was of a mind to think it was 

pretty easy. Sometimes—and I have fought a lot of jury cases— 

sometimes juries surprise you—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, they do—— 

Secretary CHERTOFF [continuing]. So we are going to keep trying. 

Senator MCCASKILL. They do. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much, Senator McCaskill. 

Speaking of prosecutions, we turn now to the former great Attorney General of Arkansas, Senator Pryor. 

23 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Chertoff, let me start on a note of good news, and that 

is I have been very pleased with FEMA’s response to our tornadoes 

last week in Arkansas. On Friday, I had the honor of flying around 

with the governor, Senator Lincoln, and the lieutenant governor 

and we actually went down that entire 120-mile swatch of land 

where that tornado just ripped through our State and saw the destruction and it was very powerful. Director Paulison came and 

joined us on that trip and FEMA has been very good, and the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management has been very 

pleased. There has been a lot of communication back and forth. So 

that is good news and it appears that is working the way it should, 

so I want to thank you for him and his focus and his attention 

there. 

I do want to ask about the trailers in a different way. With a 

previous question, you basically pronounced today that there will 

be no more trailers provided by FEMA. I can understand your hesitancy about trailers because you just don’t know some of the medical risks associated with them, but one of the things that concerns 

me about a blanket pronouncement like that is in the Post-Katrina 

Act, we asked FEMA and DHS to get us a disaster housing strategy, and that was due in July 2007. We have never received that 

from your Department. Is there any explanation for why we don’t 

have the disaster housing strategy, and also why you think today 

you can say trailers should not be an option when you don’t even 

have a strategy? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I can’t answer for you exactly where the 

strategy is. I can get back to you on that. 

I can tell you the issue with the trailers, and I am going to separate trailers from mobile homes, although they are often confused—— 

Senator PRYOR. Yes. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I am suspending judgment on mobile 

homes. The problem with trailers is this. In theory—let us put 

formaldehyde out of it. If you get a trailer and you put it in your 

driveway while you are rebuilding your house and the thought is 

you are going to be using it for a few months while you rebuild, 

it may be, even putting to one side the health issues, a reasonable 

short-term solution. 

But everything I have heard and observed about trailers put in 

parks is that it is merely a way of kicking the can down the road 

until the inevitable day when you need to move people out, and it 

becomes more painful as you wait. Now, I was told that soon after 

I came on board, that there was a real concern about trailers. People were still living in trailers from Hurricane Andrew over 10 

years ago. 

Now add on top of this the issue of formaldehyde. If you said to 

me, you have got to give people trailers, I would say to you, I can 

only do what everybody else in the country does. I buy them in the 

open marketplace. There is no standard or agency that has set a 

safe level. I accept that there are people who have different sensitivities. I can’t tell you whether they are safe or not. So my default position has to be, if I have a serious doubt about the safety 

24 

of something for long-term living, I can’t provide it. Now, you are 

free to buy it. It is a free country. But I don’t see how I could, in 

good conscience, in light of what I have seen over the last 6 to 9 

months, give people trailers and say, go live in this. 

Senator PRYOR. Well, I understand your discomfort with trailers 

right now, and again, I can’t speak for the Committee, but I would 

feel more comfortable if you made that decision as part of a disaster housing strategy, which again is required by statute and is 

already 7 or 8 months late, and those decisions would be made in 

a comprehensive fashion, not in a piecemeal fashion. So I would encourage you to get back with your people on where that disaster 

housing strategy is. 

Another thing I want to follow up on is Senator Voinovich’s question of where you are on the Emergency Management Performance 

Grants. You are recommending a reduction in the money, and I 

just want to be clear on that. Are you recommending to us that we 

spend less on EMPG grants this year than we did last year? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We are recommending the same amount 

that we recommended last year. Now, last year, Congress appropriated more money, but the level that we thought was appropriate 

last year in terms of capability building is the same level we are 

recommending this year. 

Senator PRYOR. Right. So in other words—I am not trying to put 

words in your mouth—but you are recommending we spend less on 

EMPG grants this year as compared to last year? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I am giving you the same recommendation 

in both years. I recognize Congress disregarded the recommendation last year. There is perhaps a disagreement about the appropriate level. In the end, the appropriators have to decide if they are 

going to raise the level of these grants, what are they going to cut? 

We have come up with our view of the proper balance of what are 

admittedly a lot of deserving places to spend money. If the appropriators disagree and want to allocate it differently, then we will 

have to dialogue on that. 

Senator PRYOR. Well, I guess that begs the question—are you 

forecasting fewer storms, fewer floods, fewer tornadoes? Is our terrorism preparedness—— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No, I am saying that preparedness is covered in a lot of ways, some of it covered in grants, some of it covered in kind, that these are capability-building grants, meaning 

that if we give you money for planning and you build the plan, 

then the plan is built. You don’t have to redo it the next year, although you probably need to tune it up a little bit. 

So as with any capability grant, let us say where you buy equipment, you should only be buying the equipment once. You shouldn’t 

be buying the same equipment every year unless you are getting 

defective equipment. So it doesn’t surprise me that you would expect to see, as our investments in homeland security grow, and I 

think we have spent up to $23 billion over the past several years, 

I would expect to see a lot of capability out there. 

Senator PRYOR. Mr. Chairman, I am out of time, but I must conclude by saying that I do share Senator McCaskill’s concern about 

cuts to the Inspector General’s Office because those IG offices give 

the internal accountability that every department needs, every 

25 

agency needs. So I heard your explanation on that, but I think we 

need to look at that closer and make sure that the IG has sufficient 

resources to do what it needs to do. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Pryor. I agree with you 

totally, and Senator McCaskill, about the IG Office. 

Senator Landrieu, you are next. Thank you for being here. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANDRIEU 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to 

start by asking for a little bit of a grace period. I know we are in 

a round of 6 minutes, but I actually have several very important 

questions for the Secretary that are very troubling. 

First of all, I know that you are aware that I am holding the confirmation of Admiral Johnson, the second in command at FEMA. 

I am assuming that you know this gentleman and have met with 

him. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I have worked closely with him for a considerable period of time. 

Senator LANDRIEU. OK. And I understand from Mr. Paulison 

that he comes highly recommended from within the Department. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. He was a superb Coast Guard officer. I 

have read his fitness ratings, not going back to when he was a junior officer, but in flag rank, and he consistently was rated outstanding by his superiors, and my observation of him in the time 

I have worked with him completely supports that assessment. 

Senator LANDRIEU. OK, and this is my dilemma. I am aware of 

his credentials. I am also aware that Director Paulison is a very 

able and very genuinely nice man and a fairly able leader. The 

problem is, they seem to be attached to an agency which is under 

your jurisdiction that is virtually dysfunctional when it comes to 

disaster-related issues. I can’t speak to the credibility of your work 

regarding border security or transportation, but I most certainly 

can speak to the level of incompetence relative to disasters. 

So I have put his nomination on hold, and I have sent a letter 

and I want to just review the five reasons why, because we have 

several billion dollars still in the pipeline that the Administration 

that you represent claims has been sent to the people of the Gulf 

Coast, and technically, that is correct. It is impossible for them to 

receive the money. It has been sent, but it is impossible for them 

to receive the money unless you, Director Paulison, or Admiral 

Johnson make some changes, and there are five that I have recommended in my letter. So I want to ask you on the record if you 

will support one or all of these. 

Do you support an independent appeals process for public assistance projects? You must be aware by now that this is the No. 1 

barrier to the people of the Gulf Coast receiving their money that 

they believe they are entitled to to rebuild fire stations, police stations, schools, libraries, etc., because your employees are the ones 

that recommend a reimbursement number. But the local officials 

dispute that number, and there is no one, no third party, no independent arbitrator to make that decision. So we have just gone 

round for round. Will you support an independent review or an 

independent arbitrator, and if not, not only why not, but how are 

you going to untangle it without such a person? 

26 

Please be as specific as you can be. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will be specific. I discussed this with Don 

Powell, Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding, last year, 

and I said to him, why don’t you tell the individual parishes to put 

together a list of the 6 to 10 most significant projects where they 

feel there is an obstacle, that they are not getting what they are 

entitled to, and there are a couple possibilities. 

One is that there is a legal issue about whether they have met 

the legal standard, and as to that, that is not a question of arbitration, that is a question of we have got to make a decision about 

what the law is. But there is also the possibility that there is a 

genuine dispute, and in that case I said I would be prepared to 

have us agree on selecting an independent third party to make an 

evaluation factually about whether the number that they were 

coming in with was too high. 

Senator LANDRIEU. So you will support such a process? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I have already supported such a process. 

Senator LANDRIEU. OK. That helps in that way. 

The second is, it took this Committee, over the objections, I 

might add, of this Department, to pass and the President has 

signed, over the objections of your Department, a procedure to 

allow us to aggregate, if you will, the money that you owe us, or 

the Federal Government owes us, to reconstruct schools, and it was 

met when that law was signed by the President with a great hurrah because there were over hundreds of thousands of children who 

are still, because of the incompetence of this Administration, without adequate school buildings. So that was a significant victory. 

Would you consider allowing this process to be used for other 

public buildings? In other words, instead of building one fire station at a time, if we need to build 14, would you consider using the 

model that we have used for schools to push that forward? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Anything that is lawful that will expedite 

this process, I will consider. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Would you support a change to a law if you 

don’t think the law is written correctly or if the law is not providing relief? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. Let me go further than that, Senator. 

I think that, and I have said this publicly before, the dimension of 

the challenge in what is being requested in connection with the 

Gulf Coast is of an order of magnitude that is vastly different from 

the normal disaster mechanism for which the Stafford Act applies, 

and what you describe as incompetence, which I disagree with, is 

an agency that is struggling between two mandates, a desire to 

comply with the law so that they later don’t get crucified by GAO 

and the IG for violating the law, and a set of circumstances that 

don’t fit within the law. 

So rather than attack it piecemeal, and this goes back to some 

of the ‘‘lessons learned’’ that the White House issued a couple of 

years ago, I think we should take a more general look at whether 

the way we approach a reconstruction effort of the magnitude you 

are talking about should be taken out of the normal model rather 

than trying to take the normal model and force it to fit something 

that it wasn’t designed to fit. 

27 

Senator LANDRIEU. That could be a subject for another discussion, and I would be inclined to accept that except for this. Except 

for when I or other Members of this Committee have pointed out 

to you and to your Department where the law doesn’t fit and where 

it could, if it were changed, work better, you have consistently objected. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. So if the answer is that we can’t fix anything 

until we can fix it all, the people of the Gulf Coast are going to be 

very disappointed in that. Let me just finish—— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No, I—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. We cannot wait to fix the entire program 

when there are pieces that so obviously are crying out to be fixed. 

So while I don’t disagree with you, let me say that ultimately the 

whole law needs to be rewritten, but the people I represent can’t 

wait until that happens. 

Now let me move on to the next point. The next point is this. I 

just received a letter signed by you. You wrote it on January 30. 

This is again another thing that your Department has stood in the 

way of. This Congress appropriated 2 years ago $1.2 billion for hazard mitigation, which is 7 percent of the total that went to Louisiana, and because we were shortchanged by the Administration 

and by Congress under Republican control on our Community Development Block Grant, we thought, OK, it wasn’t right to shortchange Louisiana, but we could maybe use this $1.2 billion that 

Congress has already given us, stop whining, stop complaining, let 

us just move on and make lemonade out of lemons, lift ourselves 

up by our bootstraps kind of attitude that is preached to us all the 

time. 

So we thought, OK, we have $1.2 billion. Let us just ask the 

Homeland Security Department if they would let us use it to elevate people’s homes because that is clearly in the law that hazard 

mitigation can be used to elevate people’s homes. Do you know 

what your letter says? I am sure you didn’t write it, but you signed 

it. It says, ‘‘The HMGP Program, Hazard Mitigation Program, is to 

remove at-risk property and people from harm’s way.’’ 

Can I read to you what the FEMA website says, because I disagree with that. That is not true. That is written in your letter. 

That is not the truth. The truth is this. It is found on the FEMA 

website. ‘‘The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and 

property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster.’’ 

So Mr. Chairman and Senator Collins, I have 55,000 people who 

are asking Secretary Chertoff to allow them to raise their houses 

a foot or two or three so if the levees ever break again—the Corps 

of Engineers levees that broke, and put 20 feet of water in their 

houses—or if the pumps don’t work and the water rises, they would 

be out of the water. Now, we know if the levees break nothing is 

going to help them because it is 20 feet, but in a rainstorm it would 

help. The Secretary says it is against the rules to use the money 

like this, so I have suggested we change the rules, but then he is 

against changing them. So please take one minute to clarify. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I—— 

28 

Senator LANDRIEU. Do you not think people should raise their 

houses? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No. Not only are we prepared to support 

people raising their houses, when an issue was raised a few 

months ago about people who went ahead and did it without getting advance authorization, I directed that we use that money to 

allow them to be reimbursed for the hazard mitigation measures 

that they took. 

Now, I think the letter you are referring to responds to a request 

to use the money generally to support the Road Home Program, 

and that is a different issue—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. No, it is to reimburse people to raise their 

homes as technically part of Road Home, but it is complementary 

to Road Home. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, but this is where we get into issues 

where I have to say respectfully that giving a blanket ‘‘yes’’ answer 

will with absolute certainty result in a GAO report or an IG report 

in about a year that will say that we violated the rules. We are 

prepared to be flexible in letting people use money for mitigation, 

but that doesn’t mean we can just fork the money over based on 

someone saying it is going to be used for this. 

So I am more than happy to work with you within the limit of 

the law to satisfy what you want to satisfy in terms of mitigation, 

but with that standard—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Senator Landrieu, can I ask you a favor? 

I don’t know how many more questions you have. A vote just went 

off. Senator Akaka hasn’t had his first round. If you have more 

questions, I am prepared to come back after the vote. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. For the final thing I will say on 

this, I will come back. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. OK. 

Senator LANDRIEU. You don’t like the law the way it is. You 

think that this is against the law, yet you won’t let us change it 

until we can rewrite the whole statute. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. No, I am—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. I rest my case. Thank you. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. If I could just answer that, I don’t think I 

have quite said that. What I have said is you can’t look at a single 

piece of this in isolation. Now, I am willing to sit down and talk 

about how we might more generally deal with the problem so we 

don’t bump into this problem each time. I am also prepared to look 

at individual suggestions. 

But, the bottom line is this. The poor people who work in this 

agency are put in a terrible position. Over the last 2 years, they 

are asked to bend the rules, and they often do bend the rules, and 

then invariably they get crucified by auditors because they bent the 

rules. 

So what I am suggesting is this. Let us try to change the rules, 

but do it in a way that (A) is transparent and addresses all of the 

dimensions of the problem, not just fiddling at the edges, and (B) 

lays forth for the American public, if we are going to spend money 

on reconstructing the Gulf Coast, we ought to be clear about how 

we are going to do it. And I am the first person to agree that the 

29 

normal model of a disaster probably doesn’t fit here. But instead 

of putting us in a position of tweaking one thing at a time with a 

whole lot of unintended consequences, let us sit down and figure 

out what we can do to move this process forward. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Senator Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I ask that 

my full statement be made a part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Mr. Secretary, I want to welcome you back to the Committee this morning as we 

discuss the President’s FY 09 Budget for the Department of Homeland Security. 

I want to commend you on your effort since your last appearance before this Committee to discuss the budget. The Department is making progress to put in place 

strong leadership that can mold together more effectively the various agencies and 

components that comprise DHS. Although I continue to have differences both with 

the Department and the Administration’s priorities as reflected in the FY 09 budget 

proposal, I think we both recognize that the Department of Homeland Security is 

a work in progress. I want you to know that I appreciate your efforts at improvement. 

For example, we all recognize that transition planning will be a critical function 

of the Department this year as you prepare for a new Administration. The Office 

of the Chief Human Capital Officer has taken some important steps to making that 

transition as smooth as possible. I will continue to monitor that progress through 

the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management which I chair. Senator 

Voinovich and I have a keen interest in making certain that you have the support 

you need to make that effort work. 

I also want to single out another important aspect of the President’s budget. I am 

pleased to see a significant increase over FY 08 levels in the budget request for the 

Under Secretary for Management and a commitment to improving human capital 

management and training. The Department is wise to focus on morale and other 

issues raised by employees in the 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey, which 

ranked DHS near the bottom in employee attitudes and views compared to other 

federal agencies. Prioritizing training, improving diversity, and using veterans preference to attract new talent are good areas to start addressing the shortfalls of the 

Department. 

I am very interested to see the Department’s plans to improve the diversity of 

DHS across all components and throughout all levels and to attract the talented 

pool of veterans returning home from the war in Iraq. The Department will function 

best if it draws upon the experience of our troops and reflects our Nation’s diversity 

However, I am concerned that the budget does not provide an adequate reflection 

of the real dollars to be spent on management and workforce training. Furthermore, 

the Department continues to move forward with a pay-for-performance component 

to the Human Capital Operational Plan, a revision of the MaxHR system, with 

which I continue to have many concerns. 

I would also like to underscore my support for the internship program being developed by the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer. This is an innovative program that I encourage other departments in the federal government to adopt. In addition, I hope consideration will be given to expanding it to a summer program for 

undergraduates. The earlier we can attract the next generation of workers into the 

federal government the better. I can think of no better way than to appeal to them 

while they are still in their formative educational development in college. In addition, we must continue to ensure that the existing contract specialists, including 

program managers, are trained adequately and that they utilize best practices to 

ensure better acquisition outcomes. 

Indeed we should not limit such innovative programs to just the acquisition workforce. There is a need across the Department to attract and retain its workforce. 

For example, while it is admirable that the Department is seeking to provide opportunities for TSA employees in Customs and Border Protection (CBP), it means that 

gaps in TSA need to be constantly filled. The Department must do a better job of 

resolving workforce problems without creating new issues. 

Last year, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report revealed that CBP 

was understaffed by thousands of officers. Many locations were losing staff faster 

30 

than they could be hired. As a result, officers were being forced to work extensive 

overtime, which contributed to fatigue and high turnover. During a hearing I 

chaired last year on the GAO report, all of the witnesses agreed that CBP’s recruitment and retention efforts were harmed by the agency’s inability to provide CBP 

officers with law enforcement officer benefits. Fortunately, Congress granted those 

benefits in the FY 08 Omnibus Appropriations Act and provided initial funding for 

implementation. 

Less than two months ago, President Bush signed those benefits into law. Now 

the Administration wants to repeal them. CBP officers receive law enforcement 

training, they carry firearms, and they regularly make arrests. The Administration’s 

proposal to strip officers of law enforcement officer benefits is an example of how 

the Department needs to change its policies to attract and retain employees. It is 

my strong opinion that CBP officers deserve the same benefits as other law enforcement officers, and I intend to work to ensure that they receive them. 

Until the Department addresses its human capital problems, it will continue to 

rely too much on outside contractors to conduct functions that I believe are essential 

government services. I think you are making progress in moving to increase the 

number of full time employees and in reducing the overall contractor workforce, but 

much more needs to be done. Currently the Department does not track the number 

of contract workers that are in place making it difficult to develop a realistic plan 

to reduce its reliance on contractors. Contractors cost the taxpayer more than federal employees and carry a hidden cost of reducing the institutional memory and 

loyalty to the Department which are essential ingredients to DHS’s long-term success. Also critical to DHS’s success is the consolidation of activities in a central facility. I am pleased to see that the Department is committing $120 million to an overall 

pool of funds in conjunction with General Services Administration (GSA) to consolidate DHS headquarters at the St. Elizabeths facility in southeast Washington. This 

will go a long way to bringing the Department together as a cohesive unit and will 

provide a boost to the overall economic development of the District’s Ward 8. I look 

forward to seeing more plans for how the money will be spent in the coming year 

and what goals the Department has laid out for its completion. 

In regards to other areas of the Department, I would like to underscore the innovative approach to guiding investments in the Science and Technology Directorate 

(S & T). Admiral Cohen’s approach to developing an investment portfolio for the Department will benefit the country. My only concern is that I believe that the functions of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) should be brought under S 

& T to ensure that same rigorous technology assessment is being brought to 

DNDO’s operations. I support placing a priority on nuclear weapon detection, but 

I also believe that the most effective way for developing counter-technologies is 

through the same strict business model that is being applied in S & T. 

It is said that you can tell an individual’s priorities by looking at their checkbook. 

Well, the President’s budget for FY 09 gives a clear sense of the Administration’s 

priorities. 

It is clear that the Administration does not believe REAL ID is a priority, despite 

claims to the contrary. The FY 09 budget request continues the tradition of not 

properly funding this project. While I have my own concerns about funding a project 

that risks the privacy of millions of Americans, I believe that if DHS wants REAL 

ID, then it must not only address serious privacy problems with the program but 

also provide states with the funding to implement it. Asking states to use part of 

their homeland security grants, which are already dedicated to other projects, or 

setting up a grant program that does not have any REAL ID designated funds is 

not the way to encourage state participation. In light of this proposal, a more appropriate use of funds would be to increase the number of TSA screeners at airports 

to avoid travel delays when states are unable to comply with REAL ID. 

I share the concern of my colleagues with the Administration’s proposed budget 

cuts for key homeland security grant programs. The President proposes cutting 

State Homeland Security Grants by $750 million, Port Security grants by $225 million, and Rail and Public Transport Security grants by $190 million. In addition, 

the budget again makes huge cuts to the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (FIRE) 

program which provides federal grants directly to local fire departments and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) organizations to help address equipment, training, 

and other firefighter-related and EMS needs. Specifically, the President’s budget 

cuts funding for the FIRE program by nearly 50 percent from FY 08 levels, down 

to $300 million, and proposes eliminating the firefighter staffing program. 

Similarly, the budget proposes a $7.5 million decrease in funding for Urban 

Search and Rescue task forces, despite the critical need for them in the aftermath 

of an attack or natural disaster. These task forces have been designated by DHS 

31 

to provide specialized assistance after buildings or other structures collapse. The 

task forces work to stabilize damaged structures, locate and free victims, identify 

risks of additional collapses, and meet other needs at disaster sites. 

Last year, this Committee worked hard to ensure a strong authorization for the 

all-hazards Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (EMPG). Disasters occur every day in this country as evidenced in last week’s tornadoes. EMPG 

represents the only all-hazards preparedness funding in the Department. There is 

an annual shortfall of $278 million to this program and states are over matching 

the federal government by at least $100 million each year. The current authorization is for $535 million and $300 million was provided last year; yet the Administration is proposing a $100 million cut to these grants. I strongly believe that these 

programs produce the most bang for the buck. 

I am also concerned that the value of mitigation programs is ignored. The MultiHazard Mitigation Council found that every federal dollar in invested in disaster 

mitigation reaps $4 in cost savings. Despite this, the President’s budget proposes 

to cut pre-disaster mitigation by more than half, from an enacted amount of $114 

million in FY 08 down to $75 million for FY 09, which is less than the enacted FY 

07 amount. I urge my colleagues to oppose cuts to this program and support its reauthorization this year. 

These are just a few of the vital programs being proposed for cuts this year. For example, the President proposes $387 million for flood control projects specifically 

authorized by Congress, a cut of more than one-third from the FY 08 funding level, 

and the budget again seeks to eliminate funding for the Metropolitan Medical Response System in FY 09. The Administration proposed that this program be eliminated last year, but Congress turned back this effort, instead funding it at $41 million for FY 08. 

If this is a message budget, I am not certain what message the Administration 

was trying to convey with its recommended program cuts. If the message was one 

of frugality, I suggest that some of the cuts could have come from some of the program areas whose deployment is entirely dependent on the successful development 

of questionable and unproven technologies. SBInet is a case in point. CBP awarded 

Boeing a $20 million contract to build eight integrated camera and radar towers for 

border protection in Arizona. The project has been plagued by delays, as well as 

technological and operational problems. Yet, the Department appears poised to accept the final project. Despite the shortcomings of the first part of the program, the 

Department has begun awarding Boeing a series of follow-on contracts without any 

new competition. I fear that the Department is moving forward with an unproven 

system without adequately defining its contract requirements and without providing 

enough oversight to improve future performance. 

Again, my welcome to the Secretary and I look forward to his presentation and 

response to our questions. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Secretary, I want to add my welcome to you 

to this Committee. I also want to commend you for progress you 

have made in putting in place strong leadership that can bring together more effectively the various agencies and components of 

DHS. I think we both recognize that more needs to be done. However, I want you to know I appreciate your efforts at improving the 

Department, and I am very interested in these five goals that you 

have. 

I do have some concerns. Along with many of my colleagues, I 

am strongly opposed to cuts to the grant programs at DHS, and I 

believe we need to focus, and you have it in here, on building State 

and local capabilities, and let me give you an example of why that 

is really necessary. 

For example, several days ago, a child exposed to measles in a 

San Diego clinic traveled to Hawaii, spreading the disease even 

further. By the way, the outbreak had originated in Switzerland. 

This incident underscores in no uncertain terms the need for adequate funding for pandemic disease preparedness and responses. 

Yet the fiscal year 2009 budget request recommended cutting funding for upgrading State and local capacity to respond to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies by $136.6 million. 

32 

I am concerned that the budget does not reflect the need for more 

to be spent on management and workforce training, and I believe 

prioritizing training, improving diversity, and using veterans preference to attract new talent are good areas for addressing human 

capital problems in the Department. 

Mr. Secretary, DHS’s budget submission includes a small increase for the Under Secretary for Management ‘‘to provide for continuity throughout the transition process.’’ I have been very concerned about DHS’s readiness for the upcoming transition, which 

will be its first. Will this small increase be enough to ensure a 

smooth transition, despite the challenges the Department already 

faces from a management perspective? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, thank you for the question. As I have 

said to Senator Voinovich and Senator Coleman, our transition 

planning is much broader than just this reflected in this small increase because it runs across what we are doing throughout the entire Department to put in place in the No. 2 or No. 3 positions career people who will be the continuity after the presidential and political appointees have gone, plus what we are doing throughout all 

of the agencies to reduce to written form the planning, the doctrine, 

and everything that has developed over the 5 years. 

So I think that this is a piece of the puzzle, but it is not the entire puzzle, and I am more than happy as we progress this year to 

keep this Committee informed about what we are doing with transition planning because I agree with you, it is very important that 

we have a seamless handoff as we move into next year. 

Senator AKAKA. Two months ago, President Bush signed into law 

provisions that granted law enforcement officers’ benefits to Customs and Border Protection officers. CBP is starting the implementation process for those benefits, and these benefits will help CBP 

address its serious shortfalls in CBP officer recruitment and retention. Yet the Administration is proposing to rescind those benefits 

in the next fiscal year. How do you justify proposing to take away 

benefits that CBP officers have just been promised? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, first let me say that I think the CBP 

officers in question perform an outstanding and very necessary 

service of helping us to secure our border. These are, of course, the 

inspectors, not the Border Patrol, and they deserve all of our support. 

I think in this particular case, the Administration consistently 

opposed extending these benefits, frankly, on budget grounds. To 

come back to my initial mantra, there are many things for which 

one could make quite a good argument, but there is a limited 

amount of funds, and particularly when they are personnel funds, 

they carry on indefinitely so there are tough budget decisions that 

are made. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I will 

wait for the second round. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Akaka—— 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN [continuing]. And thank you, Mr. Secretary. We are going to go and vote. We will be back probably within 15 minutes and have one more quick round of questions. Thank 

you. 

33 

1The chart referred to appears in the Appendix on page 61. 

The hearing will stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. The hearing will come to order. 

Thanks, Mr. Secretary, for your patience. I wanted to ask you a 

few questions about border security, which obviously is much on 

the minds of the American people, and I want to invite you to 

speak a little more about this chart,1 which reports that the apprehensions are down 20 percent nationwide from fiscal year 2006 to 

2007, down from 1,089,000 to 876,000. It looks like the numbers for 

the first quarter of fiscal year 2008 suggest an even lower number 

in the full year 2008. 

Obviously, we don’t know how many are coming over illegally, 

but we do know how many apprehensions there are. So explain 

why the reduction in the number of apprehensions suggests that 

there are also fewer people coming over illegally, and though I 

know we can’t know the number of illegals, what are the latest estimates about how those trend lines are going? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. As you observe, first of all, we estimate, 

and these are really estimates, that roughly 40 percent of the illegal workers or illegal people in this country come in through 

overstays. That is to say they have visas and they never leave. So 

this figure does not address that issue. This figure addresses the 

people who are coming in between the ports of entry, illegally 

sneaking across the border. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We have talked about this. The reason we 

think apprehensions are a pretty good approximation is once we 

put a lot of people at the border, we have a pretty high percentage 

chance of capturing people that we see and we typically put them 

in the areas where the highest traffic has been, and then we try 

to validate this concept of apprehensions by looking at the number 

of times we catch people who are recidivists. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. They do to some degree literally count footprints to get a sense of what the traffic flow is. They look at what 

is going on in the staging areas south of the border. And they even 

look at things like the price it costs to pay a smuggler. 

The figures coupled with the anecdotes support the notion that 

this reflects—but I say reflects as opposed to precisely measures— 

a downturn in the number of people coming across the border. 

Now, what I can’t tell you is whether the people that we don’t 

get, whether it is an exact correlation or just a rough approximation. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Sure. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. So it tells us what direction we are moving 

in, but until we get all of this technology along the border, it is not 

going to tell us with certainty. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Are there estimates that the Department 

makes of the number of illegal entries there are? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. The last time we asked, it was the general 

view that for every two we catch, one gets through. But I have been 

told that it may be now somewhat better than that. 

34 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. A higher multiplier? I mean, in other 

words, a lower—— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. That there is even a lower ratio now. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. But that is only, again, people coming between the ports of entry. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. It is not people coming through the ports 

of entry. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. So we can assume from these numbers, though in a sense they are counterintuitive, but you have 

made the argument that there are fewer people coming over—— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. That is right. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN [continuing]. Illegally between the ports of 

entry, and that is the key. 

Let me ask you about some of the programs. I appreciate that 

the budget requests $775 million for traditional fencing, infrastructure, and technology to protect the border, including creating socalled virtual fence areas of sensors and surveillance. As you know, 

we have been concerned about how so-called Project 28 (P28) and 

SBInet are doing. Senator Collins and I sent you a letter in January expressing our concerns about SBInet and asking for detailed 

information from the Department to help us better understand the 

technological component of this initiative, frankly, before we commit another large chunk of money in the fiscal year 2009, although 

we are inherently inclined to do that. What is the status of P28 

and have the problems that you have had been resolved? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will ask your indulgence to take a little 

bit of time to explain it. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Go ahead. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. SBInet is broader than P28. It is really all 

the technology we use at the border—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Secretary CHERTOFF [continuing]. So it includes, for example, our 

unmanned aerial systems. We have three and I think the fourth 

one is about to come online. We anticipate with the budget this 

year in 2008 that we are going to go from, I think, a half-a-dozen 

ground-based vehicle radars, which we call Mobile Surveillance 

Sensors, to 40, and that is technology although it covers—I think 

they generally cover about six miles each way, depending on the 

terrain, whereas P28 is designed to give you 28 miles. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. So these are moving along? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Correct. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. They are constantly in movement. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, no, they are not constantly in movement. They can be repositioned. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. So they are stable in one place. The downside is to cover—that if you do the math, to cover 28 miles with 

that, you need four agents as opposed to one, so it is more manpower-intensive. 

P28 is a solution that allows us in certain areas to actually have 

a broader situational awareness by connecting up the radar and 

the cameras so that when the radar hits something coming across 

35 

the border, we can slew the camera and allow us to determine 

what we are looking at. When it was originally let, it was let to 

see whether we could get a basically operating system. That was 

P28. And there were some problems with the equipment. 

We were disappointed over the summer, and I had a frank conversation with the CEO of Boeing and he replaced the team that 

was on it. I think at this point, although we haven’t finally signed 

off on it, all of the equipment-related issues that are material have 

been cured. There are four issues that I would characterize as not 

material for which we will get a credit. It is basically not worth trying to cure them. We will just get a reduction in price. 

But there is a second issue, which is how does this work operationally in terms of the kind of day-to-day activities of the Border 

Patrol, and to understand this, the Border Patrol needed to be able 

to work with the equipment itself over a period of some months, 

because there are two things that flow from that. One is that we 

come to see there are certain features of this that either are suboptimal, the way we actually work with it in the real world, or in 

some cases there may be some things that we don’t need that we 

would just as soon get rid of and not waste time with. And at the 

same time, the Border Patrol may want to adjust its operating procedures because it is not working in a way that fully exploits the 

full promise of the system. 

So let me give you a concrete example because I was there a 

week ago. The system, and I saw them do this, does identify a 

radar hit, the camera goes and fixes on the location, and we are 

able to characterize the people coming across so that we can intercept. One of the challenges was taking what we call the Common 

Operating Picture (COP), which is the map and the video feed, and 

getting an exact duplicate of that in the cars and the trucks that 

were actually out in the field. It is a problem partly because you 

have to stabilize it when you are driving along and there are some 

issues involving the wireless and the satellite. 

But when I was down there last week, we were talking about it 

and one of the agents said to me, ‘‘You know, we are not sure that 

we really need to have all of this data on our screen in the car. We 

clearly want to have the map, but in terms of getting the video 

feed, it may actually turn out to be more of a distraction than a 

help and we may rather just have somebody tell us there are six 

people coming with backpacks or guns or whatever it is.’’ So then 

they would make a determination that operationally, it is a waste 

of time to fully develop the COP in each car. At the same time, 

they may determine that back at headquarters, they want a better 

capability than the COP is able to provide, and this is what they 

call spiral development. 

This is now the next stage of development. The next thing we 

want to do is take the operators’ inputs, adjust the software and 

the hardware to the next level, and then make a judgment about 

how to make this work and in what areas it works, and some terrain may not be suited for it. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. OK, I appreciate that answer, and in a 

way, it anticipates what I was going to followup on asking, which 

is I have heard that one of the concerns was that the P28 was initiated without previous operational requirements from Customs and 

36 

Border Protection and that as a result, there was some dissatisfaction with it and some ideas about how it could be used better, and 

therefore that P28 itself would not be the model for the future. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I would say it is a partial model for the future. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think that it was a concept. We wanted 

to make sure, (A) does the basic concept functionality work, and (B) 

the thought was to give the contractor an opportunity to present 

something that essentially thought out of the box, that wasn’t just 

a follow-on to the traditional way of doing business. But I think we 

all agree at this point, certainly, and we have done this over the 

last few months—we now need to integrate that with the operators 

and—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Secretary CHERTOFF [continuing]. Real world functionality and 

all the development from now will be guided by what the operators 

want to do now that they have gotten to see the system. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. OK. So obviously, it is really important to 

keep us and the appropriators informed so that we have a feeling 

of confidence as we go to the next stage of appropriations for the 

virtual fence. Thank you. 

Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I want to bring up two issues that are a particular 

concern to my constituents. One is an issue that you and I have 

talked about many times. It is the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. As I have explained and as you have seen from your visits 

to Maine, Maine’s border communities are very integrated with 

their Canadian counterparts. People cross the border all the time 

to visit relatives, to shop, and to work. It is really a way of life. 

So the idea of having to have a passport or a passcard eventually 

to do that is something that is very foreign to people who have 

lived on the border their whole lives. 

Nevertheless, it seems to me that when you boil down the objections, they come down to two. One is the cost of complying with the 

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, and the second is one of access. When the Department put into effect the requirement for a 

passport for air travel, it caused enormous backlogs at the Department of State. All of us were inundated by constituents who had 

to wait for months to get their passports and so it was a real problem. 

Now, when I look at those two problems, it occurs to me that 

there are some solutions. What we have done in Congress is to 

delay the implementation date until June 2009. I know you don’t 

much like that delay, but let us look at what could be done. 

The first is to cut the cost. Now, I know the Department is looking at coming up with passcards that would be different from a 

passport and would cost about half as much, about $45. When I 

look at that $45 cost, $20 is the fee to the State Department and 

$25 is an execution fee that would be paid to the Post Office or the 

county clerk, in most cases. 

Now, one option to get that cost down further is to waive the $20 

fee to the Federal Government, and the State Department’s estiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:28 Feb 23, 2010 Jkt 041452 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\41452.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
37 

mate based on how many people are likely to apply is that would 

cost $400 million. I have to say, if that creates a more secure border crossing, considering all the other programs that we spend lots 

of money on, I am not sure but that seems to be a bargain. 

But another idea would be to have DHS or the State Department 

have mobile enrollment centers that go to border States and that 

set up shop in border communities where the demand is going to 

be high for these passcards. And from what we can calculate, that 

would reduce the cost substantially without incurring the $400 million. It would be cheaper. 

And secondarily, it solves the access issue. It solves the problem 

of people having to go to the passport office in Boston when they 

need a passport very quickly, which is what they have to do now. 

Why not put mobile offices in border States? You could share them 

among border States. But publicize that they are going to be there. 

Cut the cost. I think that would solve both the cost and access 

problem, and you could do it this year when you have this grace 

period before the law goes into effect. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, let me say, first of all, I mean, I agree 

with you that we are concerned about the cost. You are right that 

the passcard is meant to be cheaper than the passport. It is about 

half as expensive. I think it is about $45. 

We also have signed up with a number of States for enhanced 

drivers’ licenses. Those should be cheaper, still. Now, obviously 

there is your basic license fee, but I think the marginal cost if you 

want an enhanced driver’s license is pretty small. It may be less 

than $10. And that, of course, would be available through your 

motor vehicle process. So the State of Washington has already, if 

I understand correctly, issuing these. So that is another option. 

Now, the idea of doing mobile—I can’t bargain away the State 

Department’s fee because that is their—— 

Senator COLLINS. Oh, go ahead. [Laughter.] 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Sure, I would be happy to look at some way 

to get closer to the point of sale, so to speak. We have to look at 

the budget implications of that. But if there is a way to maybe 

work with the States to find—maybe we could set up in a couple 

of Post Offices to do intake and handle something there. I would 

be certainly happy to look at that if we can manage it from a cost 

standpoint. 

Our objective here is to make this as easy as possible. I think 

the end state, we all agree, is what the 9/11 Commission said we 

have to have, and I think it has been pretty painless the way we 

have done the implementation this year on tightening up on the 

border requirements. So I will be happy to look at that and see 

whether we can do something along that line. 

Senator COLLINS. I am certain that in border States across this 

country, that town hall offices would be happy to cooperate. I still 

like the idea of a mobile van going through these border States, but 

I know that when my staff goes out to do citizens’ hours, they always go to the town office and they are always welcome. They are 

given space. I am sure something like that could be worked out and 

I think it would make a real difference, so I look forward to working further with you on that. 

The second issue I want to bring up, if I may take the time—— 

38 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Go ahead. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you—is the new Transportation Worker 

Identification Credential (TWIC) enrollment centers. Now, first, I 

want to congratulate the Department that the enrollment centers 

are starting to open up around the country and I am told that more 

than 78,000 maritime workers have been enrolled and that approximately half of the planned 147 TWIC enrollment centers are 

now open. But looking ahead, you are going to see an influx of people who need these cards and I want to describe the scenario. 

My home State of Maine and several other States, including New 

York, California, and Massachusetts, operate maritime academies. 

We have Maine Maritime Academy in Castine. Each year, they 

graduate thousands of men and women who are ready to go to 

work in the maritime industry, including on U.S. vessels. With the 

September 2008 TWIC deadline for merchant mariners fast approaching, I am concerned that a lot of these students are going to 

be graduating just before the deadline goes into effect and that the 

local TWIC enrollment capacity won’t be adequate to ensure that 

they are able to get their TWIC cards in time to go to work. 

In Castine, Maine, for example, where the Maine Maritime Academy is located, the graduating class is approximately 800, and 

school officials have contacted me about this problem because they 

have been told that a mobile enrollment center will be available 

but that it can only handle 25 enrollments per day. So that is really troubling to me. I don’t know why it can’t accommodate more. 

That doesn’t seem like very many to me, but that is what I am 

told. 

So I am worried about how TSA will accommodate the spike in 

applicants due to the influx of these new graduates that will occur 

just months before the September 2008 deadline, and I don’t want 

these individuals to not be able to go to work. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. What you say makes a lot of sense. I will 

find out why we can’t, first of all, do this on a rolling basis. I mean, 

I don’t think we have to wait for people to graduate to give them 

their TWIC cards. Presumably, if they have been admitted to the 

academy, there is a lot of information available about them. I also 

don’t know why they can only do 25 a day. 

I am sensing a desire for more mobile operations. Maybe we can 

use the trailers for these—— [Laughter.] 

But seriously, I will ask TSA because I think particularly with 

a school, we should be able to do a lot of this enrolling, frankly, 

during the course of the year and get it out of the way. So I am 

going to take that back. It is a good suggestion. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. That would be very helpful. What 

we are told, and I will provide you with the information we have 

from Maine Maritime Academy, is that the mobile station is going 

to come from Bangor. That is about an hour and 15 minutes away. 

That is OK, but it is coming after the graduation date and it has 

the slow enrollment. It would be much better if it were prior to the 

graduate date and if we could somehow speed up this process. But 

this is something I wanted to put on your radar screen. It is going 

to affect the maritime graduates in those other States, as well. 

There aren’t that many of the academies, but that certainly ought 

to be a priority for the Department. 

39 

Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going 

to submit the rest of my questions for the record. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Collins. 

I want to ask you one question just before we close, Mr. Secretary. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am very pleased 

to see that you are focusing on cyber security. It is one of your top 

four priorities. Obviously, this is an area of potential vulnerability 

to enemy terrorist attack. Not really comparable, but just a couple 

of days ago, the RIM Blackberry network went down for several 

hours and it was quite interesting to see how many people were 

disabled. That wasn’t final because they actually could pick up the 

phone and call people or go to their computers. And you are requesting an additional $83 million for this year, including the $115 

million that was awarded in fiscal year 2008 omnibus appropriations. That would mean tripling the amount of money spent for 

cyber security and I am very glad to see that. 

I know a lot of this is classified and I hope that I can get a classified briefing on it soon. I want to ask you in an open setting generally what you can tell us about what the Department is trying 

to do to defend our cyber systems. Also, I know the Cyber Security 

Initiative deals with the government systems. Since most of the 

cyber networks in our country are in the hands of the private sector, what is the Department doing beyond the Cyber Initiative to 

work with the private sector? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, what we currently do with the private 

sector is we deal with individual sectors of the economy through 

our Sector Coordinator Councils—financial, telecommunications. 

We have worked with various councils in the past when we have 

identified cyber vulnerabilities. We have US–CERT, Computer 

Emergency Response Team, which I think identified something like 

37,000 intrusions last year, and we work with the private sector in 

helping them to identify intrusions and disseminate warning information and information to cure it. 

Because so much of the discussion is classified, where we want 

to go at the next level is in two places. We want to find a way to 

better protect Federal assets. There, we have greater authority, 

frankly. That may mean reconfiguring the Federal system so that 

we can use some of these tools in a more effective way to detect 

and respond to intrusions more quickly and also to make sure that 

all the agencies are operating 24/7 watch operations centers. It is 

no good detecting something and making a call at two in the morning and nobody is home. So we have to get that up to speed. 

And then the second piece is with the private sector, which is 

more delicate because we don’t want to be seen as in any way trying to regulate the Internet. We are trying to be very careful about 

that and we don’t want to create any alarm that we are trying to 

do here what is done, let us say, in China, where people are sitting 

there and censoring—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We want to see if there are things we can 

do with our partners in the government to help enable the private 

sector to protect itself better, and I think that is probably the limit 

of what I can say in an open session. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes. 

40 

Secretary CHERTOFF. But we do look forward to briefing you very 

soon on this. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes. I think it would be good if Senator 

Collins and I could do that. I urge you to be as aggressive as you 

can be, obviously within the normal constitutional protections. 

I thank you very much. It has been a good exchange of ideas. We 

look forward to working with you, as always. 

We are going to keep the record of the hearing open for 15 days 

if you want to add anything or any of the Members want to subject 

you to further interrogatories. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Always a pleasure, and I look forward to working with you on these issues during 

this coming year. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(41) 

A P P E N D I X 


41452.001
42 


41452.002
43 


41452.003
44 


41452.004
45 


41452.005
46 


41452.006
47 


41452.007
48 


41452.008
49 


41452.009
50 


41452.010
51 


41452.011
52 


41452.012
53 


41452.013
54 


41452.014
55 


41452.015
56 


41452.016
57 


41452.017
58 


41452.018
59 


41452.019
60 


41452.020
61 


41452.021
62 


41452.022
63 


41452.023
64 


41452.024
65 


41452.025
66 


41452.026
67 


41452.027
68 


41452.028
69 


41452.029
70 


41452.030
71 


41452.031
72 


41452.032
73 


41452.033
74 


41452.034
75 


41452.035
76 


41452.036
77 


41452.037
78 


41452.038
79 


41452.039
80 


41452.040
81 


41452.041
82 


41452.042
83 


41452.043
84 


41452.044
85 


41452.045
86 


41452.046
87 


41452.047
88 


41452.048
89 


41452.049
90 


41452.050
91 


41452.051
92 


41452.052
93 


41452.053
94 


41452.054
95 


41452.055
96 


41452.056
97 


41452.057
98 


41452.058
99 


41452.059
100 


41452.060
101 


41452.061
102 


41452.062
103 


41452.063
104 


41452.064
105 


41452.065
106 


41452.066
107 


41452.067
108 


41452.068
109 


41452.069
110 


41452.070
111 


41452.071
112 


41452.072
113 


41452.073
114 


41452.074
115 


41452.075
116 


41452.076
117 


41452.077
118 


41452.078
119 


41452.079
120 


41452.080
121 


41452.081
122 


41452.082
123 


41452.083
124 


41452.084
125 


41452.085
126 


41452.086
127 


41452.087
128 


41452.088
129 


41452.089
130 


41452.090
131 


41452.091
132 


41452.092
133 


41452.093
134 


41452.094
135 


41452.095
136 


41452.096
137 

Æ 


41452.097