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

33–875 PDF 2008

S. Hrg. 110–633 

THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT’S 

BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 13, 2007 

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 

A. PATRICIA ROJAS, Professional Staff Member 

CHRISTIAN J. BECKNER, Professional Staff Member 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ROBERT L. STRAYER, Minority Director for Homeland Security Affairs 

MARK B. LEDUC, Minority Legislative Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

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

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 3 

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 14 

Senator Warner ................................................................................................ 16 

Senator Landrieu .............................................................................................. 18 

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 21 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 24 

Senator Coleman .............................................................................................. 27 

Senator Obama ................................................................................................. 29 

Senator Domenici ............................................................................................. 32 

Prepared statement: 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 39 

WITNESS 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2007 

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

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

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

Questions and responses for the Record from Mr. Chertoff .......................... 59 

APPENDIX 

Charts submitted for the Record by Mr. Chertoff ................................................. 124 

Homeland Security Budget-in-Brief, Fiscal Year 2008 ......................................... 133 

(1) 

THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT’S 

BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in room 

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

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

McCaskill, Collins, Voinovich, Coleman, Domenici, and Warner. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good morning. Welcome to this hearing. 

Secretary Chertoff, a particular welcome to you as we convene to 

discuss the Department of Homeland Security’s fiscal year 2008 

budget request. 

Mr. Secretary, as you know, but I will say publicly, I appreciate 

very much the leadership that you have brought to the Department 

in melding these 180,000 employees, previously 22 separate agencies, into an effective, united Department that can protect the 

American people here at home from disasters, natural and manmade terrorist disasters. And as I look at the budget, I do note and 

I will indicate during the hearing some of the places where I think 

there is some encouraging news. But I must say that I am deeply 

disappointed that this year’s Administration budget request continues what I believe is a high-risk policy of underfunding some of 

the Nation’s most pressing homeland security priorities. 

For the fourth year in a row, the Department’s budget request 

cuts crucial support for our underequipped and undertrained first 

responders—the firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical 

workers who prepare for and respond to disasters, both natural and 

manmade. 

The Administration’s budget proposal would cut overall homeland security grant funding by a staggering 40 percent, which I believe will seriously limit the ability of State and local officials to 

protect their communities the way they should be protected. And 

this goes not just to our ongoing effort to be prepared for and to 

prevent, of course, another terrorist attack here in the United 

States, but to be ready for the natural disasters that inevitably will 

come. 

We were lucky to have a mild hurricane season in 2006, but the 

next hurricane season is less than 4 months away, and I fear that 

2 

these cuts in the homeland security grant funding programs will 

reduce the ability of every State and city to prevent and respond 

effectively. Under the Administration’s proposal, the minimum 

amount each State would receive would be reduced from approximately $6.75 million in this fiscal year 2007 to $625,000 for fiscal 

year 2008, which is obviously a very deep cut that will be difficult 

for many States to absorb. 

Second, rail and transit security is another area that I believe is 

seriously underfunded by the Department’s budget request, although I guess I should say that at $175 million, it is a marked 

improvement over last year’s request of zero. Mr. Secretary, you 

know well the vulnerabilities of our transportation systems and the 

history of al Qaeda attacks on those systems in London and Madrid. I know we can do more, and I believe it is urgent in this rail 

and transit security area that we do more. 

Third, last year this Committee worked in collaboration with the 

Commerce Committee and others in the House and the Administration to pass the Safe Port Act, which authorized $400 million in 

Port Security Grant Program funding. I believe that was a reasonable, in fact in some ways, a moderate estimate of the needs in this 

critical area that everyone agrees is a vulnerability, which is port 

security. The Department is requesting just $210 million. I hope 

that we can find a way to go up to the $400 million that the bill 

authorizes because I truly do not believe that the $210 million is 

enough. 

I will say on the brighter side that I am heartened that the Department has recognized the recommendations made in the bipartisan Hurricane Katrina Report that came out of this Committee 

and the subsequent bipartisan legislation passed by Congress last 

year. The $142 million increase to FEMA’s operating budget is a 

promising beginning toward helping the agency address critical 

shortcomings, such as incident management, disaster logistics, and 

emergency communications. I hope over the next several years the 

budget continues to provide the resources necessary to restore 

FEMA to an agency we can all be proud of again. 

As I believe you know, and I just want to state this briefly, 2 

weeks ago, Senators Landrieu, Obama, and I traveled on behalf of 

this Committee to New Orleans for a field hearing on Gulf Coast 

recovery efforts. We toured the hardest hit parts of the city and 

heard firsthand the frustrations of people desperately trying to rebuild their communities against enormous odds. 

And here I would say the most poignant plea we heard was not 

for more money to be appropriated now, but for the money that has 

been appropriated to get to the victims for whom it was intended. 

The fact is that the Gulf Coast recovery 11⁄2 years after the hurricane is painfully slow, needs the attention of your Department and 

the Administration, although it was clear to me at least that just 

as was the case in the inadequate reaction to Hurricane Katrina, 

the blame here for the slowness of the money that we have appropriated moving to the places where it is intended to go is shared 

at all levels of government as well. 

Finally, on a different note, I do want to indicate that I am 

pleased to see that the Department intends to conduct a Quadrennial Homeland Security Review in 2008. This requirement that was 

3 

put into law, urged on you, is patterned after legislation that 

passed in 1997 that established the Department of Defense’s Quadrennial Defense Review, which I believe has played an important 

role in helping both the DOD realign its strategies and missions, 

but also Congress to respond to those strategies and missions. And 

I wish you well as you go forward with your own Quadrennial Review as we approach, to me, surprisingly, the fifth anniversary of 

the Department. 

And let me indicate to you that tomorrow we will be marking up 

our bill on the so-called unimplemented 9/11 Commission recommendations, which contains provisions that we believe will 

strengthen the Department’s information sharing, terrorist travel, 

emergency response, and private sector preparedness efforts. I 

know there has been cooperation together between the Committee 

staff and your Department staff, and we hope that we can continue 

to work with you on that to move the legislation forward. 

Thanks for being here. I look forward to your testimony, and I 

would now call on the Committee’s Ranking Member, Senator Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back, Mr. 

Secretary. 

The budget for homeland security presents a mixed picture. On 

the positive side, the 8 percent increase in funding for the Department of Homeland Security stands as clear recognition of the vital 

importance of preventing and responding to terrorist attacks and 

preparing for and responding to natural disasters. Similarly, the 

nearly 50 percent increase in DHS budget authority since fiscal 

year 2003 is also notable. But we must not underestimate the 

daunting task that remains before us or forget that State and local 

first responders are on our Nation’s front lines. 

Homeland security depends on partnerships—partnerships across 

Federal agencies, among various levels of government, and with 

the private sector. Key to these effective partnerships are our first 

responders. That is why I join the Chairman in being extremely 

concerned about the large cuts in grant funding proposed in this 

budget. 

First responder grants have been chronically underfunded since 

2004, yet the new budget proposes only $250 million for the State 

Homeland Security Grant Program. That is a cut of more than 50 

percent from the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2007. We 

must reverse this trend. Communities rely heavily on State Homeland Security Grants for emergency planning, risk assessments, 

mutual aid agreements, equipment, training, and exercises for first 

responders. Combined with the proposed reduction in the minimum 

allocation, the minimum State grant level would fall to only 

$625,000, as the Chairman has pointed out, if the President’s budget is accepted. 

Now, to give you some comparison, that is less than what it costs 

Maine to staff its fusion center, employ the personnel who coordinate the training and exercises statewide, and to ensure that it effectively implements the National Incident Management System. 

We simply need a more robust level of minimum funding in order 

4 

to ensure that all States are prepared in order to fortify our prevention and response capabilities as a Nation. The proposed budget also slashes grants for firefighters by $362 

million. It zeroes out funds for the Metropolitan Medical Response 

System grants and the Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance 

Program. 

Now, these are not arcane budget details. These are vital programs that provide Americans, whether they live in New York City 

or the Connecticut suburbs or Maine’s small towns, with additional 

security. I fear that funding cuts of this magnitude would be a blow 

to our homeland security. 

In an effort to ‘‘offset’’ these cuts, the President’s budget refers to a $1 billion Public Safety Interoperable Communications program. However, these interoperability funds do nothing to supplant 

the cuts in grants for enhancing other preparedness capabilities. It 

is also my understanding that the Department is considering 

awarding grants under this program solely to urban areas. Such a 

plan, if implemented, would ignore the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina. While the emergency communications needs of our 

urban metropolitan areas are certainly great, it is imperative that 

the Department use the $1 billion interoperability grant program 

to help build a national all-hazards emergency communications system. 

Like our Chairman, I am also very disappointed with the funding 

level for the Port Security Grant Program. We worked very hard 

in this Committee to produce significant port security legislation. 

We included an authorization level of $400 million. That was a 

level carefully arrived at, and yet the budget provides barely half 

the amount that we authorized. 

Another legislative accomplishment of the last Congress was enacting authority for the Secretary to regulate the security of thousands of facilities that manufacture, store, or use hazardous chemicals. Now, the budget includes $25 million to establish an office to 

exercise this new authority. I am pleased that is a $15 million increase over last year, but considering the scope of the new mandate 

and the risks that it addresses, I question whether that level of 

funding is adequate. And that is an area that I want to pursue further with the Secretary. 

The Administration deserves credit for increasing FEMA’s budget 

by $101 million. This is strong reinforcement and includes funding 

for an additional 275 personnel. Strong leadership combined with 

more resources should put FEMA on a sound financial footing. The 

Administration also commits substantial resources to securing the 

border. As we work to defend our Southern border, however, we 

must not neglect our Northern border or our coasts. 

As we strengthen our defenses to the South, we increase the appeal of other avenues of approach for our enemies. We know from 

the case of the Millennium Plot that the Northern border is already 

attractive as a point of entry for those who would do us harm. Our 

Nation’s security demands a balanced approach to border protection. 

The last concern that I will mention here involves those who 

were perhaps the most conspicuous heroes of the response to Hurricane Katrina, and that is the men and women of our Coast Guard. 

5 

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

The new budget request for the Coast Guard is only 1.2 percent 

higher than the amount enacted for this past year. That is an increase that does not match the rate of inflation, and it slights the 

fact that the Coast Guard is continuing to play more and more of 

an important role in homeland security, particularly in port security. In addition, the Coast Guard faces the challenge of the aging 

of its cutters and its helicopters. 

Now, the Deepwater Program has been poorly managed, and that 

has been a disappointment to all of us, but that does not take away 

the urgent need for modern, effective, and efficient assets for the 

Coast Guard. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Collins, for 

that excellent statement. 

Secretary Chertoff, we welcome your testimony at this time. 

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

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

you, Ranking Member Collins. I am delighted to kick off my testimonial season before this Committee talking about the 2008 budget 

proposal for DHS. Before I get into the meat of the budget proposal, let me say that I look forward to working with the new Congress and with the new Committee Members. We have worked well 

together in the past, and I believe we will continue to do so. I am 

particularly pleased that my Department is one of two that actually got a full appropriation bill out for 2007, and I know Members 

of this Committee worked hard to make that happen. And that has 

certainly made our life easier and produced better results this fiscal year. 

Now, for 2008, we are looking at a $46.4 billion budget, as the 

Ranking Member said, an 8 percent increase over the fiscal year 

2007 request and an increase of nearly 50 percent over the 2003 

fiscal year. So this is a strong budget. 

There is no doubt, as the preceding remarks have made clear, 

that there are many worthy objectives for this Department that deserve funding. Not surprisingly, we have to make trade-offs and we 

have to be disciplined in deciding where to allocate even a significant budget increase among these many deserving programs. And 

part of what we try to do in particular is to look at those areas 

where there is a unique value-added responsibility or capability on 

the part of the Federal Government. And I would observe that, for 

example, as we consider the allocation of grants, the $1 billion of 

money for interoperable communications is money that will be in 

the hands of the first responders next year, that will not be limited 

just to cities—it will be a national program—and that will address 

completing a task which I think everybody here agrees has been 

one long overdue to be completed. 

Rather than go through the typical testimony where I try to 

touch on every element of the budget, I am going to ask that my 

full statement be entered into the record. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Without objection. 

6 

Secretary CHERTOFF. And I am going to focus just on one issue, 

which I think may be particularly timely, and that is the effort 

that our 2008 budget focuses on building and enhancing our systems to detect, identify, and resolve threats posed by individuals 

who are trying to get into the United States through our ports of 

entry or between our ports of entry. 

Now, we have built over the last few years a very substantial 

border management system. We have US–VISIT’s current biometric capability that takes two prints from everybody entering the 

country and has identified a host of people who, rightly, have been 

forbidden entry. We have new travel and identity document requirements under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The 

passport requirement for air travelers went into effect just about 

a month ago. It has been implemented virtually seamlessly, with 

very little delay, and has dramatically increased the ability of our 

inspectors to be able to rely upon the documentation people use 

when they fly up, for example, from the Caribbean or from the 

southern part of the hemisphere. And we are continuing to develop 

enhanced targeting capabilities that allow us to identify and defend 

ourselves against people who want to enter who would do us harm. 

A big part of what we want to do in 2008 is move the biometric 

program up significantly to continue collecting 10 fingerprints from 

foreign visitors and to promote completion of database interoperability between US–VISIT and the FBI. Let me tell you why this 

10-print capability is so important. 

We are now collecting latent fingerprints, kind of like that TV 

program ‘‘CSI,’’ from battlefields and safe houses all over the world. 

By putting them in the database and then getting the 10 prints 

from people who come across the border, either overseas when they 

get their visa or here at the port of entry, we can run these fingerprints against the latent prints and begin to identify terrorists, 

people who have trained in camps or been involved in building 

bombs, even though we don’t know their names. So this really 

takes the watchlist to the next level and allows us to identify the 

remnants, the evidence that people leave behind them when they 

commit acts of terror so that we can identify them when they cross 

our borders. 

But it is important that we be comprehensive. So even as we are 

building up our airports of entry and seaports of entry capabilities 

in terms of people coming from overseas, we also have to worry 

about our Northern and Southern borders. 

One of the things which we have had a little bit of controversy 

over is the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, which is designed to build more secure documentation at our ports of entry in 

the land borders with Canada and Mexico. And here is a proposition I want to suggest to you, respectfully. 

As we continue to build up the screening tools we have for people 

who want to fly directly into the United States from overseas, we 

want to also make sure they do not end-run around us, go into 

Canada, and then come through using phony documents that they 

use at the Canadian border. So what we are trying to do is, very 

significantly, a matter of comprehensiveness. 

In this regard, let me focus on one issue which I know the Committee is going to be taking up, I think tomorrow, and that is the 

7 

Visa Waiver Program. In November of last year, the President announced his desire to work with Congress to make some changes 

to the Visa Waiver Program, which allows people from a couple 

dozen countries to enter without going through the visa process. 

This is a very appealing program from the standpoint of trade and 

tourism, but it does expose a significant vulnerability to the United 

States. 

The visa process turns out to be a very good process for identifying bad people who should not be allowed in. So the question is: 

How do we promote trade and travel, but increase the degree of security we have under this program? 

The President’s proposal envisions a secure travel authorization 

system that would do something similar to what they do in Australia. We would get electronic travel data in advance of people 

coming in, we would be able to analyze the data in much the same 

way as you do in the Visa Program, and then we would be able to 

identify a subset of people that we do require to go in to have an 

interview before they are allowed to come in, and most everybody 

else can come in directly. So it gives us much of the value of the 

Visa Program and much of the convenience of the Visa Waiver Program. And, of course, this is a system we would be happy to operate with on a reciprocal basis because we ought to be prepared to 

do with our allies what we want them to do with us. 

So I think the Senate’s 9/11 proposed bill, which I think you are 

considering tomorrow, does make some of these very important security changes. I know, Senator Voinovich, you have been very active in working on this. But there are a couple of additional measures I think we ought to consider as the bill is before the Committee. 

First of all, I think the Senate should expressly require that visa 

waiver countries accept for repatriation all of their citizens who are 

subject to final orders of removal. It is very frustrating for us when 

we have someone who is deportable from the United States and the 

home country simply refuses to accept him or drags their feet. And 

it makes it very difficult for us to manage our immigration program. 

Second, I think the Senate should encourage member countries 

to assist us in the operation of an effective Air Marshal Program. 

Time and again, that program has proven to be an important element of our layers of defense which we use for air travel. 

The third piece, however, is a little bit of a different focus, and 

that has to do with the current requirement that visa waiver countries have a visa refusal rate of 3 percent or less in order to qualify 

for the program. This requirement has been a sticking point for a 

number of our allies in Eastern Europe that would otherwise be eligible to participate in the program. It, frankly, reflects not a direct 

assessment of the risk of illegal immigration from these countries, 

but rather, it is kind of the equivalent of a bank shot in pool. We 

are looking to see how our consular officials assess the program, 

and the rate of refusal is being used as a surrogate for determining 

whether there is a significant risk of immigration fraud. 

Frankly, we think a little bit of flexibility here would be useful. 

It is important to our allies. It does not increase vulnerability. In 

fact, the total package with the increased security measures actuVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:13 Dec 18, 2008 Jkt 033875 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\33875.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
8 

1The photograph referenced by Secretary Chertoff appears in the Appendix on page 127. 

2The chart referenced by Secretary Chertoff appears in the Appendix on page 129. 

3The chart referenced by Secretary Chertoff appears in the Appendix on page 130. 

4The chart referenced by Secretary Chertoff appears in the Appendix on page 131. 

ally dramatically increases our security. But it also promotes trade 

and travel and, most importantly, avoids what I have to say honestly is shaping up to be a fairly ugly dispute with Europe over this 

issue because there is a lot of push we are getting in terms of the 

fact that some of the Eastern European countries are not seeing 

progress forward on the path of getting into the program. So I 

think the President’s proposal with the additional little bit of flexibility actually is a happy win-win situation. 

Let me briefly just talk about the rest of land border security to 

round this out. Last year under the President’s mandate, we began 

Operation Jump Start, which put the National Guard on the border. We ended ‘‘catch and release’’ at the border so that we now detain and return all illegal migrants we capture at the border who 

are here illegally. And this has produced real results in terms of 

decreased flow across the Southern border. 

This year, to further the important progress, we are requesting $1 billion for additional technological and tactical infrastructure on 

the border. We are currently on the way, actually building fencing, 

as you can see, at the Barry Goldwater Range.1 We do not believe 

fencing is a total solution. It does have its place, and where it has 

its place we are building it. 

We are also on the way to increasing the Border Patrol to the 

prescribed doubling by the end of calendar year 2008, and the 

funding in the budget for this fiscal year puts us on course to complete that goal by adding 3,000 Border Patrol agents during the 

course of the year.2 And as I have said, that does not reflect itself. 

If we measured the past three quarters against the comparable 

prior period, what you will see is the measures we have done at 

the border have actually produced a reversal of momentum and a 

decrease in apprehensions, as well as a decrease in other metrics 

that show people crossing the border. This is not a declaration of 

victory, but it is a sign of encouragement that we ought to build 

upon as we move forward. 

Finally, of course, because we need to make sure that when we 

apprehend people we just do not push them out the back door and 

into the country, a combination of increased detention beds and significant streamlining of our removal processes has ended catch and 

release, and we are continuing to build on that with the request 

for almost 1,000 additional beds for this year to make sure we do 

not lose ground.3

Since August of last year, anybody that we can legally deport at 

the border has been detained until they are deported, and that, 

again, has proven itself to be very powerful as a deterrent because 

the decrease over the last three quarters in the number of nonMexicans apprehended has been between 48 and 68 percent, which 

is even greater than the total decrease of Mexicans that were apprehended. That shows there is a real impact.4

Finally, we need, of course, to continue with interior enforcement. As I have testified previously, there has been a significant 

increase from 176 to 716 in criminal cases brought against employVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:13 Dec 18, 2008 Jkt 033875 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\33875.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
9 

1The chart referenced by Secretary Chertoff appears in the Appendix on page 132. 

ers who systematically violate the rules.1 And we have dramatically increased—tripled—the number of administrative apprehensions. 

The President has made it clear that the solution here is a comprehensive approach and a total immigration program that deals 

with the temporary worker requirement. But we cannot expect to 

get that done and we cannot expect to have it work if we do not 

continue our commitment to upholding the rule of law and enforcing the law vigorously. 

So I look forward to working with the Committee on these and 

other issues and to answering your questions in this hearing and 

in future hearings. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Secretary Chertoff. I 

will begin the questioning. We will do a first round of 6 minutes, 

and then we will see where we are as we go on with that. 

I do want to say that in the contention that there is an 8 percent 

increase here, I want to explain how—that is technically correct, 

depending on how you look at the numbers, and I want to suggest 

that there is good news and bad news in that. And this is what I 

mean: The Department’s fiscal year 2007 baseline used for the 

year-to-year comparison and the resulting 8 percent increase conclusion excludes the $1.8 billion in fiscal year 2007 border security 

emergency supplemental funding, which, as the word I have just 

used suggests, was added supplementally, and we all supported it. 

If that $1.8 billion is included in the fiscal year 2007 levels, then 

the budget increase for the Department for the coming fiscal year 

is not 8 percent but significantly lower. It is 1.4 percent in net discretionary funding and 2.1 percent in gross discretionary funding. 

So, to me, if people are following this—and I know you are and 

you understand it—what this means is that you can have what you 

describe as an 8 percent overall funding increase, which means 

that you are basically renewing the $1.8 billion supplemental funding for border security, but it leaves the rest of the Department 

with very small increases, which explains why, I presume—well, 

some of it may be a matter of ideology or philosophy, but some of 

it was what turned out to be the constraints on the money available, which led to what I believe and many of us on the Committee 

believe is inadequate funding for first responders, etc. 

The interesting other aspect of this—and perhaps it is why you 

appropriately focused on what is being done at the borders. I 

looked at one of the pie charts, and it is quite interesting. At this 

point, if you put together the requested funding for the Customs 

and Border Patrol section and ICE, it comes to exactly 33 percent 

of the Department’s budget. So one-third of the budget is being 

spent on border-related, immigration-related activities. 

I totally support the funding level, but what I am suggesting is 

that we are not doing as well by a lot of the rest of the Department, and that is why we end up with the funding shortages that 

both Senator Collins and I spoke about in our opening statements. 

Let me ask you specifically about the Homeland Security Grants. 

As Senator Collins said, this budget cuts the State Homeland Security Grant Program by 52 percent and overall State grant funding 

10 

by 72 percent. It would cut the FIRE Grants for our fire departments by 55 percent, and it would cut training and technical assistance programs to States and localities almost in half. This is on top 

of what each of us observes, notwithstanding the occasional much 

publicized use of some of this funding for something that does not 

seem directly related. But, generally speaking, certainly I can say 

for myself whenever I go out and see what they are using it for, 

it is very fundamental homeland security-related equipment. And 

we build on top of the 2003 Rudman report for the Council on Foreign Relations, which said we needed $100 billion additional funding for first responders over a 5-year period. 

Are these cuts simply because OMB did not give you enough 

money and you had to cut somewhere? Or is there some evidence 

that you have that I think most of us do not have that our first 

responders are sufficiently trained, equipped, and prepared now to 

respond to a catastrophic disaster, including a terrorist attack? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think, Mr. Chairman, you have very well 

characterized what the budgeting process is. It is a question of allocating among priorities. It does not mean that there are not many 

worthwhile things that could not be funded more. But as with any 

budget, even a budget that is generous, you have still got to make 

decisions about where you put things. 

Now, you quite rightly point out that when we compare our 

budget to last year’s baseline budget, we exclude the emergency 

supplemental. Of course, to most people, I think, the idea of an 

emergency suggests one time. And if we start to treat emergencies 

as part of the baseline, it is a quick way to have the budget go out 

of control—in addition to which I will say a lot of the emergency 

supplemental is what I would call capital investment, investment 

in things like airframes, for example, for CBP, which one would not 

expect to be recurrent costs. So I think that what one sees is an 

attempt to actually increase the budget in terms of recurrent costs, 

recognizing that supplementals come along as emergencies require. 

I would say with respect to the way we have prioritized the 

amount of money available among the various missions, we have 

looked at, first of all, those things which everybody seems to say 

are uniquely Federal responsibilities. The border issue has been 

out there for 20 years. I hear actually from a lot of local and State 

responders across the country that they feel they are bearing the 

burden of our failure to enforce the border. Therefore, when we 

put—and I accept—about a third of the budget into border security 

measures, whether they are at the ports of entry or between them, 

I think in some ways we are actually doing a favor for first responders. We are doing what they have asked us to do, which is 

to get control of the border. 

As far as the grants are concerned, again, I would have to say 

I view the $1 billion that is going to be in the hands of first responders in 2008 as part of the money you have to consider. And 

I think if you add that in, when we look at this, we have about $3.2 

billion that we expect to be in the hands of State and locals in fiscal year 2008, which is very close to the $3.4 billion we had last 

year. And we do expect, by the way, the interoperability funds to 

be made available to the Nation, not just the big cities. 

11 

So, again, I think we are sustaining the basic level of spending. 

We do regard a lot of the grants as capital investments. If someone 

says give me the money to build a fence around my house and I 

give them the money and they build the fence, I do not expect to 

give them the same amount of money every year. So as we look at 

the budget, we try to put money into capital investments that 

should not be recurrent. 

The final issue, which I think you have alluded to, which I think 

we ought to have a candid conversation about, is how we allocate 

the money among many deserving recipients. We have committed 

ourselves at the Department to risk-based funding, and that does 

tend to look at putting a disproportionate sum, but not all the 

money, in those areas of highest risk. 

I will tell you that over the last 2 years, I have been beaten 

soundly about the face and head by those people who think that 

all the money ought to go to New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, 

and—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. So have we. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. I know you have. And those who believe it ought to go evenly to everybody. We have kind of taken the 

middle position. 

But I think it is worth putting this on the table because I think 

the country and Congress ought to come to a final resolution and 

give the Department direction. We believe what we are doing is 

right. We are being risk based. We think eventually, as the highrisk cities have their capabilities met, more money will be available 

to the lower-risk cities. That will mean eventually New York will 

start to get less money. But help us out here. Give us congressional 

guidance. The worst thing you can do is tell the guys who are writing grants, give them contrary instructions. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks. My time is up, but I do want to 

say that, of course, I agree with you, we should put that question 

of the Homeland Security Grant funding formula on the table. In 

fact, Senator Collins and I are going to recommend to the Committee as part of the so-called 9/11 bill tomorrow what we think is 

a compromise proposal because I agree that Congress ought to be 

setting the rules here and not forcing you every year to come up 

with a system of allocating. And the proposal we are going to make 

certainly does tip toward a risk-based system. 

I certainly can pledge my full support, and I know Senator Collins, to working with the House in conference to try to resolve this, 

this year. I am going to leave the response on the grant funding 

to others. I know Senator Collins made a very important statement 

about where that $1 billion in interoperability grant money is 

going. It is something different than what we believe is the continuing need out there. And I guess I would say this is why I believe in the end the cuts are harmful. We are not giving the Department enough money—yes, of course, the local first responders, 

particularly police, end up having to deal with some of the consequences of inadequate border security. But, frankly, if you asked 

any—I would say most—first responders across America whether 

they would want more money in the first responder grant programs 

or in border security, they would say, ‘‘We desperately need it in 

the first responder grant programs.’’ Thank you. 

12 

Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, to finish up that discussion, I do hope the formula 

that we are proposing tomorrow will be adopted. It is reasonable. 

It is an attempt to compromise among all the various interests. 

And one reason that I joined the Chairman in being determined to 

get the Department guidance on this is we need predictability in 

the funding so that States and communities can embark on multiyear projects to improve their homeland security. And if there is 

so much uncertainty in what the formula is going to be from year 

to year, it impedes their ability to do that. So I look forward to 

working further with you and all of my colleagues. 

Mr. Secretary, I want to switch to the issue of the REAL ID Act. 

You mentioned this in your written statement. When the 9/11 Commission made its recommendation for improving the security of 

driver’s licenses, Senator Lieberman and I incorporated into the Intelligence Reform bill a negotiated rulemaking procedure which 

would bring all interested parties to the table—State officials, privacy advocates, technological experts, as well as the Federal Government—to try to come up with an appropriate and cost-effective 

way to achieve the goal. And the group was making great progress. 

Unfortunately, however, that process was repealed by an appropriations bill that came over from the House, and thus, it was replaced by the REAL ID Act. 

Now, 2 years later, we are facing three problems that the States 

have brought to our attention. 

The first is a lack of guidance. It has been 2 years since the 

REAL ID Act passed, and yet we do not have detailed regulations 

or guidance from the Department setting forth the standards that 

the States are going to have to follow. 

The second problem is the cost. This is obviously an unfunded 

Federal mandate. The National Governors Association has estimated that the 5-year cost is $11 billion. In the State of Maine, the 

Secretary of State has estimated that compliance will cost six times 

the entire budget of his office. So the cost is not inconsequential. 

And the third issue that I am hearing from State officials about 

are technological barriers. What is really possible? There are also, 

obviously, privacy concerns about having interlocking databases 

and States being able to tap into one another’s databases. 

Now, I do not think we should go back to square one, and I think 

the goal set forth by the 9/11 Commission is an important goal. But 

it seems to me that we would be far better off if we more fully involved State officials, in particular, in the design of the system. 

So my question for you is twofold. First, when do you expect the 

Department to issue the regulations, which are overdue? And, second, would you find value in having a group constituted similar to 

the negotiated rulemaking process that Senator Lieberman and I 

proposed in 2004 to get together to review the regulations in a formal way rather than having every State giving comments, which 

they could do as well, but having a committee of State officials, of 

privacy experts, of technological experts advise the Department? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, let me respond as follows: The proposed regulations, which, of course, will then be subject to a comment period, will be out this month, in February. And I do want 

13 

to make it clear that one of the reasons it has taken a while is we 

have actually done quite a bit of consultation, even in a preliminary stage, with State officials and privacy advocates and other 

folks. I know we did a lot of work, for example, with the Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators because they are actually the 

association that has the most experience working with driver’s licenses since their constituents do that. 

So we do expect to have guidance out, and the guidance will reflect a very clear message we had to keep this as simple and as 

inexpensive as possible. And I am not convinced that $11 billion is 

an accurate assessment. I have heard some much lower estimates 

from individual States. 

I also think that the technical barriers are vastly overstated. In 

terms of the ability to produce a biometric card, we have them all 

over the place now. I was just in Arlington, Virginia, yesterday, 

and they are putting together a biometric credential for law enforcement that we are going to use. Ultimately, we hope to make 

a national credential that can be used interoperably. And the card 

is pretty easy to put together. I think the hard issue is going to 

be determining issues of citizenship and what are the rules that 

are going to be required. 

In terms of setting a group up, I guess I have two reactions. One 

is that typically, of course, everybody thinks they ought to be in the 

group, and you have a large group, and you do not get a lot of 

progress. I am not in principle opposed to meeting with a group, 

but I think it is very important to continue to move forward with 

the deadline that we have originally set, recognizing that the deadline only begins a 5-year implementation period, so it is not a dropdead deadline. And I say that because my experience with the 

WHTI air rule has confirmed my opinion that if you set a deadline 

and you introduce some level of flexibility but you hold people to 

it, they will actually accommodate. But if people continue to feel 

they can get the deadline put off, they will postpone, and they will 

temporize. 

And, look, at the end of the day, there is no way to say it is not 

going to have some expense. It is going to be somewhat inconvenient. But if we do not get it done now, someone is going to be sitting around in 3 or 4 years explaining to the next 9/11 Commission 

why we did not do it. 

So I think we owe everybody an open process, a transparent 

process, but I do want to keep in place the discipline of kicking this 

off in the spring or summer of next year, which was the original 

deadline. 

Senator COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, if I could just make one quick 

comment. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes. 

Senator COLLINS. I think it is unfair to ask States to comply with 

a costly unfunded mandate when the Department has yet to issue 

the guidance. The deadline is May of next year. That is not much 

time. States are preparing their budgets now. They are looking 

ahead at this. And it would be one thing if the Department had 

issued the guidance last year, but I do not think it is unreasonable 

to give States 2 years to comply given the cost and all that needs 

to be done in light of the Department’s delay. 

14 

I think it is unfortunate that we did not stick with the first system that we designed because I think we would be further along 

by now. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I definitely agree with that, Senator Collins. Thank you. 

Senator Levin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, let me say I agree with the Chairman and Ranking Member’s comments relative to the budget overall. I think their points 

reflect not a consensus of sentiment, because there may not be such 

a consensus, but a very widely supported view on this Committee 

relative to the budget and its shortfalls and its strengths as well. 

So I just want to associate myself with their comments overall. 

On the REAL ID Act implementation, was there not, when this 

act passed, an understanding that there would be some Federal 

funding for the implementation of the REAL ID Act at a State 

level? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I am not sure there was an understanding. I would have to look at the statute to see whether the 

statute authorized it. 

Senator LEVIN. In any event, there is no funding in this year’s 

budget request. Is that correct? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. There is some funding for the piece that we 

have to do. 

Senator LEVIN. Right. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. But I do not think it is viewed as being 

something the Federal Government is going to pick up the cost for. 

Senator LEVIN. Or part of it, of the States’ costs. Would you go 

back—and I do not know the answer to this question myself, and 

we will, too—and review when that act was passed whether or not 

there were not representations made that the States’ costs of this 

would be borne, at least in part, by the Federal Government? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will check that. 

Senator LEVIN. Second, there are a number of States—first of all, 

Secretaries of States are involved in this issue, including Michigan, 

because many of our Secretaries of States are the ones that issue 

driver’s licenses. A number of State officials have suggested that 

there be pilot States, a couple of States that would be allowed to 

have a pilot project to demonstrate that the driver’s license could 

meet the requirements of both the REAL ID Act and the Western 

Hemisphere Travel Initiative. 

Would you be willing to support such trials in a number of States 

to see whether that is possible to avoid this multiplicity of documentation, the expense, and the confusion? And this is particularly 

important in States that have large numbers of people that come 

in daily to work, such as our State of Michigan. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We have currently authorized a pilot in the 

State of Washington with British Columbia to do that. So I think 

we are certainly interested, and I think the vision of having driver’s licenses do double duty is a very good vision. 

15 

Again, the only thing I want to say is I am pretty adamant on 

the issue that we have got to keep essentially to the deadline we 

have set because what I very much fear is a succession of pilots 

that leads to drift. And you have been in Congress longer than I 

have been in Washington, many of you here. You know there is a 

typical thing where we set a requirement; we then have lots of pilot 

programs; then after 5 or 6 years of kicking the can down the road, 

someone is called up in front of the Committee and they say, ‘‘Why 

haven’t we implemented this yet? We have been postponing.’’ 

So I am all in favor of flexibility in doing pilots. I just want to 

make sure we keep to a disciplined set of deadlines. 

Senator LEVIN. You are going to be in Detroit, I believe, in the 

next—— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Next week. 

Senator LEVIN. Next week. Would you be willing to meet with 

our Secretary of State on this issue? Because she has got a very 

specific idea. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Sure. 

Senator LEVIN. And I think it is a very sound idea, to try to 

make one driver’s license serve three purposes. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Sure. And, by the way, I would encourage 

you to speak to the governor and Secretary of State of Washington 

because they have got something they are looking at right now. 

Senator LEVIN. Good. She already has done that, and, of course, 

our governor and our legislature are very much supportive of this. 

It is an unnecessarily burdensome requirement to have these three 

documents if, in fact, a driver’s license can meet the security needs 

as well as the other needs. So if you would have your staff get a 

hold of her—— 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Sure, we will. 

Senator LEVIN. There was some discussion here about the formulas that are being used in the programs of the Department. 

What is the minimum funding level or the percentage that the Administration is proposing in its budget for allocation of Homeland 

Security Grant Program funds? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. It is 0.25 percent per State. 

Senator LEVIN. And in your budget request, you are giving the 

rationale for the 0.25 percent argument that you are making? If 

not, would you provide that for the record? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I do not think it is in the budget. I can tell 

you, because we have been consistent about it since I have been 

here, which is we believe the funding—fixed formulas are generally 

contrary to the issue of being risk based, but I think with some nod 

to reality, I think we are prepared to say that some level is appropriate. But we are trying to reduce it from the PATRIOT Act 0.75 

percent, which absorbed about 40 percent of the total funding, 

down to 0.25 percent, which would be about a third of that. 

Senator LEVIN. All right. Now, did the 9/11 Commission have a 

recommendation on this, do you know? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I believe they want it entirely risk based, 

which would take it down to zero. 

Senator LEVIN. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act authorized your agency to hire an additional 2,000 Border 

Patrol agents each year from 2006 to 2010. It also required that 

16 

20 percent of the annual increase in the agents be assigned to the 

Northern border, which has been significantly shorted over the 

years. We have the longest border in the country, but we have a 

much tinier percentage of Border Patrol agents than other borders 

do. 

So apparently you have not complied with that act. Is that true? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I do not think right now 20 percent are 

going up there. Of course, the appropriations since that authorizing 

act have laid down their own formula, so from a legal standpoint, 

I guess the lawyers have to explain why it is that the subsequent 

act defines what the requirement is. 

We did increase the Border Patrol to 1,000 at the Northern border, and we are putting air wings up there. 

Senator LEVIN. The air wings you have not put up there that you 

committed to put up there. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I know. 

Senator LEVIN. Including one in Michigan. Are you going to carry 

out that commitment? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We will carry that one out, and there is 

money in the 2008 budget for that. 

Let me, though, explain exactly what the facts are. The facts 

are—and I had this checked the other day—of people coming between the ports of entry, not at the ports of entry, 98 percent of 

the illegals, Customs and Border Protection, are coming through 

the Southern border and 2 percent through the Northern border. 

So, if the house is burning, you want to get the part where the 

flames are the hottest first, and, frankly, that is kind of what our 

Strategic Plan is. 

Senator LEVIN. Would you check and see if you have complied 

with our legal requirement? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I will. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Levin. Senator Warner. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER 

Senator WARNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

We welcome you, Mr. Secretary. I am one who continues to be 

amazed at how well you are able to function under the extraordinary diversity of your responsibilities and the constant drumbeat 

from Capitol Hill. But you seem to be weathering the storm quite 

well. 

I am particularly pleased with the Office of the National Capital 

Region. This is a matter which I have taken an interest in, together with my colleagues from Maryland. For those that have not 

followed this, we recognize that the Nation’s capital and the two 

adjoining States are clearly identified as one of the areas of the 

greatest sensitivity, and we wanted to put ourselves as a triumvirate—the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland—with regional homeland security representation, similar to how the other 

States have their own homeland security coordinators. It does not 

replace our respective individual that represents Virginia and 

Maryland, but it brings together in one location the centralized requirements of the three jurisdictions. And through the years, I 

want to thank you and your Department because you have recogVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:13 Dec 18, 2008 Jkt 033875 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\33875.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
17 

nized it, you have begun to fund it, and I guess my question to you 

is: Are you in a position yet to give a report card on its value that 

we felt would be there were it to be established, it is established, 

it is running, and what kind of report card can you give us? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I am delighted—I tend to shy away 

from report cards because it brings back flashbacks from being in 

elementary school, but I think that the effort of this region has 

been outstanding. 

First I have to say, as it relates not only to interoperability but 

to coordination among the various localities, the two States and the 

District, I think it is about as good as anywhere I have seen in the 

country. 

Now, we are underway with emergency planning, including evacuation planning, that is particularly focused on what we would do 

if there was a mass event in the District and how the flow would 

proceed not only into the immediately adjoining counties, but even 

further into, for example, West Virginia or southeastern Pennsylvania. And that process is underway, and I think when it gets 

done, it will be another significant advance. 

We have got Biowatch up and running here. I think we have 

done a better job in the last couple of years of integrating our 

warning and threat activities with those of the District and the 

surrounding areas. And we have two new governors or comparatively new governors and a new mayor, and I look forward in the 

next few weeks to meeting with them and talking about how we 

can continue to move forward on this. 

Senator WARNER. I understand that the Capital Region is one of 

only five major metropolitan areas in the entire country deemed 

prepared with regard to interoperable communications by the DHS 

Interoperability Report. Could you comment on that, please? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. You are correct, Senator, that we do give 

them very high marks for interoperability. I was actually out in Arlington at the Emergency Operations Center. One of the reasons 

they have high marks, it is not just equipment; they have governance. They have sat down, they have put their egos aside, and they 

have agreed on a common set of rules and protocols which are really the foundation of communication. And I think that is an area 

where it is not a money area, it is a will power area. That is a 

great model for the rest of the country. 

Senator WARNER. Well, I think those are helpful comments. 

I am going to tread into an area which borders on action that my 

distinguished colleague and Ranking Member are going to put in 

an amendment tomorrow on—this REAL ID and the 2-year delay. 

To me that REAL ID permit thing is a first step toward—well, it 

may be significant enough to put the national ID concept on hold. 

If you want to drive a car, you better have the proper identification. It also provides the individuals with that identification needed 

to go through our airports and other checkpoints. 

Clearly, I am of the long-time group in this Senate that say if 

you are going to mandate to a State a requirement, you had better 

fund it. And I can understand the need to get some delay if we are 

not going to fund it. When you looked at the REAL ID program and 

you looked at all your other programs, did you weigh the benefits 

of REAL ID against some other program? It might have been the 

18 

controversial concept of the border fence because I think this REAL 

ID program could make tremendous inroads on bringing together 

greater security in all 50 States if they begin to have a common 

system of identification and an identification that, to the extent 

science is able to do it, defies counterfeiting. 

So did you, in fact, weigh a program this year in your budget to 

partially or, if necessary, wholly fund the States’ requirements 

under that program to get it going? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I think it is a very important program 

because having a secure form of driver’s license not only is a major 

step forward in security, it actually protects privacy because it reduces the ability for someone to forge my name and address on a 

driver’s license and then invade my privacy and degrade my reputation. 

I think the concept, though, was that this, like all driver’s licenses, is largely a fee-based system and that ultimately the cost 

of building REAL ID should be amortized over the driver’s license 

fee. It is actually probably a one-time cost. I do not think it is a 

recurrent cost. Although there probably is a certain amount of 

money up front, I am hoping that the regulations that come out 

work sufficiently with the existing systems so that it does not require $11 billion and that any additional marginal cost would be 

picked up as part of the cost of paying for your driver’s license. 

Senator WARNER. Would you be bold enough today to take a 

stance on the proposed amendment by my distinguished colleague 

that would be put forth tomorrow in a markup? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I have not seen it. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. That is no excuse. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think I have expressed my view about the 

importance of—we want flexibility, but we do want to make sure 

that we move forward, that we do not kick the can down the road. 

Senator WARNER. Well, we will wait until tomorrow, and I always want to support my distinguished Ranking Member. But I 

tell you this program, I think, in the concept of the average citizen, 

at long last government is really beginning to do something to cut 

down all the forgery and other things. And there is nothing more 

important to a person than their home, but next to their home is 

the car and the ability to operate that car. So I am going to be agitating in this area to see what we can do to make sure that we just 

do not park this whole concept on the side of the road for 2 years 

and go on about our merry way. 

I thank our witness. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Warner. 

Senator Landrieu. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANDRIEU 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I want to thank the Chairman for my position on this 

Committee, and, Mr. Secretary, I look forward to working closely 

with you to improve significantly the response of this Department 

to people in need when a catastrophe strikes, regardless of the reasons, whether it is a terrorist attack or natural disaster. 

I want to begin by saying that it is disconcerting to me to have 

you appear before this Committee as the Secretary of Homeland 

19 

Security for the first time this year and not even mention the more 

than a quarter of a million people who are still out of homes, many 

of whom are out of jobs, many of their businesses destroyed, neighborhoods destroyed, and future in question because there is a part 

of this Nation, a part of this homeland that is still struggling to 

stand up. 

I mentioned after the State of the Union on behalf of the 4.5 million people that I represent how disappointed I was in the President that he could not even manage one line out of his State of the 

Union. And I want to say to you that I am very disappointed in 

your opening statement that there was no mention of it verbally. 

There is some reference in your testimony. 

Second, I would like to believe, Mr. Chairman, that the information that I receive in this Committee is true and accurate from the 

Department. But I will say that in reading the prepared statement—I do not have a page number, I am sorry, but it is under 

‘‘Goal 4: Build a Nimble, Effective Emergency Response System 

and a Culture of Preparedness’’—in the fourth paragraph it says 

that there is a 90 percent satisfaction rate with Individual Recovery Assistance programs for FEMA. 

I would have to say, without the benefit of that survey, that we 

would not come anywhere near 90 percent satisfaction in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, or South Texas. So I am going to ask 

your staff to provide for me the details of this because if we are 

basing policy on effective communication from customers and clients and taxpaying citizens, I think we need to have much more 

accurate information. Now, perhaps that is an overall goal of the 

Nation, but I can promise you that it is not the satisfaction level 

along the Gulf Coast. 

Third—and I will get to my questions in a minute—Mr. Chairman, I cannot tell you and the Ranking Member how concerned I 

am, having watched us try to evacuate over 2 million people without a public communications system and an interoperability system, why we would possibly be taking $1 billion from the State 

Preparedness Grant Program to fund interoperability. In the entire 

budget, we cannot find an extra $1 billion? So from 2006 where we 

used to fund State Preparedness at $1.185 billion, we are now 

funding it, Mr. Chairman, at $465,000? Am I reading this document correctly? $1.185 billion in 2006, and this year, after Hurricane Katrina, after Hurricane Rita, after more than 250,000 people 

are displaced, after tens of thousands of people have lost their businesses, still living in trailers, and without their jobs, we have now 

cut this from $1.1 billion to $465,000. Is that correct? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, actually, no. That does not include 

the $1 billion that is going to be available through the interoperability grants. So if you add in the $1 billion that is available in 

interoperability grants, that would be $1 billion plus the $465 million. 

Senator LANDRIEU. But it is still a very minor increase for the 

State Homeland Security Grants that have decreased, according to 

this, from $550,000 to $260,000, or the Firefighters Grants that 

have been reduced, State and local training program, from 

$210,000 to $95,000, or the FIRE Act from $655,000 to $300,000. 

20 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think, Senator, first of all, before I forget, 

let me respond to your earlier observation. If you read my prepared 

testimony, I do talk about Hurricane Katrina. Obviously, I mean, 

I could talk for 15 or 20 minutes in my opening statement. I do not 

think that would be a benefit to everybody. I chose to speak about 

an issue that I knew was on the legislative agenda for tomorrow, 

but it does not reflect any lack of concern or focus on Hurricane 

Katrina, which does occupy a significant amount of time for me and 

the Department. 

As far as this budget is concerned in terms of grants, the bottom line is that with the $1 billion in interoperability, we are talking 

about $3.2 billion in the hands of communities next year, and I 

might add there are over $5 billion yet unspent from prior years 

of grants. So the pipeline is very full of money, and while I understand that there are always needs that are deserving and that cannot be met in any budget context—we all live with that even in our 

home lives—I think this is a very generous budget and puts a lot 

of capability in the hands of responders. 

I also have to say, wholly apart from the grants, we are spending, as the Chairman and the Ranking Member noted, significantly 

more at FEMA, giving FEMA the capabilities to develop communications. And we are standing up an Office of Emergency Communications which is going to be working with communities around 

the country to build communications systems with them and to get 

the early warning system into the 21st Century with reverse 911 

and text messaging and all of that. 

So you cannot look at the grants as the totality of what we are 

spending on preparedness. It is merely one slice of the pie. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, let me just respond because my time is 

up. I am looking forward to working with the new Subcommittee, 

with Senator Pryor’s Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private 

Sector Preparedness and Intergration. And as you know, I am 

going to be chairing the Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery. And 

I hope that we share enthusiasm to redesign and retool and reform 

FEMA so that it actually responds much better than it did the last 

time. 

I do not want this country to believe that there is plenty of 

money in the system and that there is not a need to get additional 

funding for interoperability. Some of those grants, Mr. Secretary, 

are not being pulled down because there is no standard, and people 

do not want to waste money taking and spending it on interoperability, only to find out that after they have spent it, they cannot 

talk to the county next door. We have a lot of work to do to get 

standards out there to be able to pull that funding down. 

I have a long list of questions, but my time is up, and, Mr. Chairman, I will submit those for the record and continue to work with 

you and the Ranking Member to get more of a focus, not just on 

our border security, not just on what might occur if a terrorist attacked, but the damage could not have been greater had a terrorist 

attacked, Mr. Chairman, than for a hurricane to strike and put 

250,000 people out of their permanent homes. We have counties 

that are still virtually empty—parishes, in our case—and a major 

American city, not a minor city, a major American city that is less 

than half occupied—and a Secretary that shows up at this ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:13 Dec 18, 2008 Jkt 033875 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\33875.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
21 

mittee and a President that gave a State of the Union that could 

not spare 5 seconds of an opening statement on the subject. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANDRIEU 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to address Secretary Chertoff concerning the Department of Homeland Security’s budget and its proposal to reshape 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency. My time is short, so I will make just 

a few comments. As you may know, Secretary Chertoff, I now chair the Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery. The Subcommittee is charged with oversight of disaster recovery, and I plan to look at FEMA reform, woefully needed Stafford Act 

changes, how the Federal Government responds to a disaster, and short term needs 

and fixes for the Gulf Coast recovery. 

In reviewing your budget, I have some concerns and am not certain that we are 

meeting the necessary objectives. 

We need to ensure the Federal Response and Recovery structure is synchronized. 

Local, State, and Federal agencies, including the military, must all be working off 

the same ‘‘sheet of music.’’ Everyone must know who is in charge; relationships and 

lines of authority must be developed before the disaster, not during the disaster. 

This means that drills and exercises must be held on a regular basis. 

Radio interoperability must also be fixed in this country. It is not acceptable that 

emergency responders cannot talk to each other. All local, State, and Federal agencies and the military should be able to talk with each other when responding to the 

same disaster. 

We must remove every impediment that prevents a community from recovering 

that has been hit by a catastrophic disaster. This means removing regulations that 

don’t make sense, while obviously making sure we account for tax dollars. In order 

to really make a recovery work, you must ensure your department’s first responders 

are professionals, who understand the Stafford Act and how it impacts a local and 

State government’s ability to recover. This has been an ongoing problem for this 

agency and one that I am not certain is met in this budget. 

So the question remains, does this budget accomplish these goals? 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Landrieu. As you 

know, when Senator Obama, you, and I were there, it is stunning 

to see how much of New Orleans remains devastated. A lot of the 

debris is cleaned up, but there is just a lot of empty street after 

empty street. And as I said to you when we were there, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have been to now 

four war zones after the wars are over, and I have never seen devastation as comprehensive and broad as I did in New Orleans and 

Mississippi along the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. So I appreciate what you have said. 

Senator Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, in your opening statement you mentioned the Administration’s desire to modify the Visa Waiver Program, and as 

you have mentioned, I have been working with Senators Akaka, 

Stevens, and Mikulski on legislation that would simultaneously enhance travel security and create common security standards in providing the Department with the flexibility needed to expand the 

program to additional countries who do not pose a threat to our security, law enforcement, or immigration interests. 

You mentioned there were three things DHS wants in the legislation. I want to thank you very much for your input on this issue. 

I want to make clear that my legislation has already incorporated 

the repatriation of citizens who violate the law, air marshal coVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:13 Dec 18, 2008 Jkt 033875 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\33875.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
22 

operation, and flexibility and discretion with regard to the 3 percent visa refusal rate requirement. 

I think one of the things that some of my colleagues do not understand is what you referred to as an ‘‘ugly dispute’’ the United 

States has with some of our best allies. I think of 10 countries that 

we brought into NATO, there is only one that has visa waiver, and 

that is Slovenia. I think you also know that U.S. public diplomacy 

and our image abroad probably is at the lowest point it has ever 

been. Modifying the Visa Waiver Program will mean a great deal 

to these countries. Every time I talk to an Ambassador or Foreign 

Minister, they are up in arms about their desire to join the Visa 

Waiver Program. They do not think they are being treated fairly. 

The point I would like to make is—and maybe you can explain 

it a little bit more—that we are not only talking about expanding 

the program, but we are also talking about modernizing and improving the Visa Waiver Program. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. This is a very important point, Senator. As 

I said in my opening statement, it is a vulnerability, and we do 

worry about the possibility of terrorists coming in from countries 

in Western Europe that have been part of the program. So this is 

most definitely, net-net, an upgrade in security to a very significant 

degree. And although the 3 percent flexibility, I think, has a very 

positive element with respect to showing a more welcoming face to 

some very good allies, no one should be under any illusion. This 

proposal is, first and foremost, a security measure that dramatically increases the level of security not only for the new countries, 

but for existing countries. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. As you know, I have been harping regarding management issues. The GAO has designated implementing and transforming the Department of Homeland Security 

as a high-risk area. DHS has been on the high-risk list since 2003, 

and that is understandable because you are talking about the complex merger of 22 agencies and 180,000 employees. But one of the 

things that is really of concern to me is that Clay Johnson with the 

Office of Management and Budget has taken all of the high-risk departments and approved a corrective action plan on how they can 

get off the high-risk list. And to my understanding, DHS is the 

only Department that does not have a published strategic plan on 

how you are going to take corrective action to get off the high-risk 

list. 

For example, I am working specifically on supply change management with the Department of Defense. They have developed a 

strategic plan. I am also working on security clearances with OPM; 

they have a plan. Congress can monitor their performance in getting the plans implemented. We do not have that in your case. You 

and I have talked about this. The remaining 2 years of this Administration is going to go by fast. And from this Committee’s oversight point of view, I would like to know where you are in developing the Department’s strategic plans to improve management 

and remove the Department from the GAO high-risk list. It is important that you lay a strong foundation for the next Administration to build on. 

Of course, that gets into another issue, and that is having a 

CMO, chief management officer, in the Department of Homeland 

23 

Security. I think you have to have one. If you don’t have one, when 

you leave, progress will halt for 6 months, and then we will have 

to start from scratch. We will never get the Department off the 

high-risk list. 

So I would like you to comment. When are we going to have a 

strategic plan that is published, that we can monitor in terms of 

your performance? Also, I would like your opinion on the need to 

have a chief management officer that will carry the ball forward 

into the next Administration. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, first of all, I agree with you that it 

is very important to institutionalize what have been some significant management reforms and continue and complete the process 

of what we need to do to get off the high-risk list—which, as you 

point out, is not surprising given that we are a new Department. 

We are building and have a set of plans to get off this list. I 

know the Deputy has been working with Clay Johnson on putting 

together something that can be published. And I cannot tell you 

right now what the timeline is, but we certainly need to get it 

done, and I will get back to you as to the timeline. 

We have a chief management officer who is the Under Secretary 

for Management. We have a new Under Secretary, Paul Schneider, 

who comes to us—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. I am very impressed with him. I would love 

to have him have a 5-year term and be in charge of carrying the 

ball into the next Administration, or somebody with his qualifications. He is terrific. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. And, Senator, I think it would be a great 

thing if the next President decides he wants to keep Paul Schneider on. I think that the issue with 5-year terms—and here I am 

going to be a little altruistic because I am speaking for the next 

President, as yet unknown. That President may choose to replace 

the Under Secretary for Management with his own person. So putting aside the various legal issues raised about it, let me say this: 

We are very committed to actually embedding at senior levels in 

the Department at every level Deputies who are career people. I 

think it is very important to put this Department on a career footing, and that is with career civil service professionals. 

When it comes to the top job, the Under Secretary job, I do think 

you have to balance the desire for continuity with the need for a 

President and a Secretary to have confidence in the person in the 

job. For the sake of future Presidents, not this one, who are going 

to inherit someone with a 5-year term, I think that is the issue 

that you need to reflect upon. 

Senator VOINOVICH. All right. We will talk about it some more. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing to consider the Department 

of Homeland Security’s budget submission for fiscal year 2008. 

The Department’s budget request coincides with its third major reorganization. 

March 1 marks the 4-year anniversary of the Department. As this date approaches, 

we must examine both the Department’s accomplishments and its deficiencies. 

I am concerned that the array of management and programmatic challenges continue to limit the Department’s ability to accomplish its mission. As we discuss the 

details of the budget request, I look forward to learning the Department’s plan to 

24 

employ effective management strategies to ensure its resources are spent in a costeffective manner. 

One deficiency that continues to plague the Department’s ability to accomplish its 

mission is the lack of a Chief Management Officer. Accordingly, I introduced legislation yesterday to elevate the existing Under Secretary for Management to Deputy 

Secretary. This position will provide the sustained, top-level leadership and continuity necessary for improving the long-term efficiency and effectiveness of the Department. I look forward to discussing with Secretary Chertoff today how this legislation and the overall budget will produce far better results for the Department. 

Accomplishment of the mission will depend in large part on whether or not the 

Department has the workforce it needs. The recent OPM Federal Human Capital 

Survey ranked DHS at or near the bottom in the four major categories, including 

job satisfaction and performance. The low employee morale identified by the survey 

is especially disturbing for an agency responsible for securing our homeland. 

Secretary Chertoff, it is our job to ensure that you have the resources you need 

to get the job done. With the bulk of the increase in discretionary spending devoted 

to border security, I question whether the Department’s budget allocates its resources in a manner that does so. Including this year’s budget request, total budgetary authority for the Department will have grown 49 percent since the Department’s creation in 2003. Government-wide homeland security spending has more 

than tripled since 2001. 

A thoughtful discussion of the need to secure our homeland against terrorism and 

strengthen our response capabilities is pointless absent an acknowledgment of the 

fact that our country has finite budgetary resources. As we work to improve our risk 

management capabilities, we must ensure that the accompanying growth in Federal 

homeland security spending does not come at the detriment of our other national 

priorities, particularly when we lack a plan to restore the fiscal health of our Nation. 

It is simply not possible for us to guard against every threat—and frankly, if we 

tried to, we would bankrupt our Nation in the process. As our national homeland 

security policy matures, we have to use our common sense and begin to prioritize 

by allocating our limited resources based upon risk assessments. Mr. Secretary, you 

have been a consistent advocate for increasing our use of risk assessments in determining homeland security policy and spending priorities. I applaud you for this position. You have rightly noted that it is impossible to eliminate every threat, and 

while we can minimize risk, we can never fully eliminate it. 

I look forward to learning of your strategic vision for the Department, and how 

your goals and priorities are reflected in the Department’s fiscal year 2008 budget 

request. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Voinovich. 

Senator McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to first briefly go over some concerns I have concerning 

the way GAO has been handled within your Department. Delay is 

the archenemy of accountability. There is nothing that is more 

damaging to the ability of independent auditors to help us do our 

job than their inability to do their work quickly and efficiently. In 

visiting with David Walker this week—I called him after I saw 

some accounts because I wanted to hear from him firsthand how 

bad the problem is at the Department of Homeland Security. He 

said that your Department was one of the very worst, if not worst, 

in terms of access issues; that they continually have access issues, 

not just to people but also to records. Let me first ask about the 

records. 

He indicated that you were perhaps the only Department that requires every request for records that GAO makes to go through the 

lawyer’s office. I would like to understand that. It seems incredibly 

cumbersome and inappropriate, completely unnecessary—in fact, 

wastes taxpayer money, a lot of taxpayer money. 

25 

I would like to hear your view on whether you are willing to 

make the decision that no longer will all the requests for access for 

records go through the lawyer’s office at GAO. And, second, the policy that you have had there that puts lawyers in interviews. It is 

so important for a government auditor to be able to get information 

that is not being chilled, or there not be any sense that they, the 

people being interviewed, have to be careful what they say. You put 

a lawyer in the room from the Department, and the quality of the 

product will be impacted. And to have a lawyer in the room when 

auditors are interviewing government employees—to somebody who 

has spent a great deal of time doing this—it is like fingernails on 

a blackboard. And I would like your comments on both access to 

records and access to people without the interference of lawyers 

from your Department. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, first of all, with respect to records, I 

think it depends on what the nature of the inquiry is. I do not have 

a problem in a significant majority of cases where I think the 

records are being sought; it is probably pretty self-evident and pretty contained. There are times when there is a broad request for 

records, and I think it is important to make sure that we actually 

respond to the requests accurately and comprehensively, and sometimes actually the lawyers facilitate that. 

I am always a little taken aback when Mr. Walker never calls 

me or writes me or raises a complaint with me personally, but airs 

it first in a public forum. That always makes me feel a little bit 

upbraided because if there was a particular issue, I could deal with 

it. That does not mean I am always going to agree with him, 

though. 

As to the issue of lawyers in interviews, I do not know that it 

is true that lawyers are in interviews all the time. My understanding from talking to the General Counsel’s office is that, in 

fact, in many cases they are not in the interviews. However, in 

some cases they are, and I frankly do not understand—putting 

aside whistleblowers, which is a separate issue and treated separately—why that would have a chilling effect. 

I have to say I also have a lot of experience investigating, and 

I was accustomed to having lawyers in rooms when I interviewed 

people and sometimes actually found it facilitating in terms of accuracy. 

So, again, I do not think there is any desire here to delay or to 

make things cumbersome. I do think we have a desire to make sure 

we are accurate, that when we say we are turning things over and 

we are doing a complete turnover, it is a complete turnover; that 

we are protecting whatever legal rights the Department and the 

Executive Branch have so we are not taking a position that we 

should not be taking, or letting something go that we should be 

raising an objection to. 

So I am very practical about these things, and I have talked to 

the Acting General Counsel about being as accommodating as possible. I cannot tell you, though, that I necessarily think it is always 

a bad thing or a wrong thing to have lawyers in an interview. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, let me just say that unlike an investigatory interview, where you are dealing in a law enforcement capacity, an auditing interview is a much different animal, and havVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:13 Dec 18, 2008 Jkt 033875 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\33875.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
26 

ing experience with both, they are much different. The auditing 

process has many different reviews for accuracy. The information 

that an auditor gets from a line employee, that is not something 

that is disseminated to the public. That is something that is 

checked and checked again through the government auditing 

standards. And, in fact, the lawyers in your Department would 

have every access to that exit report before it is even made a public 

document. 

So there is plenty of opportunity to review for accuracy, and I 

fundamentally disagree with you. A lawyer in the room with a government employee when an auditor is asking questions sends a signal. And I would urge you to take a look at a policy that would 

set out when you thought lawyers would be there as opposed to the 

current policy, which evidently allows the lawyers to go whenever 

they feel like it, because I do think it really hampers the ability 

of the GAO to do their job. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I certainly will look at it and work 

with the General Counsel to make sure we are not—I do not want 

to waste anybody’s time. I certainly do not want to waste a lawyer’s 

time. So certainly on routine things, I do not think they do, and 

I certainly will make sure they have an approach that makes sense 

in terms of making sure we are not just putting lawyers in there 

when there is no reason to do so. There should be a good reason, 

a sound reason. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Finally, briefly—and I will submit these 

questions, some of these, for the record. But there is in this budget 

a three-quarters of a billion dollar request for Deepwater. I am 

aware of the problems that have been brought to the attention. The 

question that I would like answered, and if you cannot answer it 

today—it is a yes or no question: Is it true that red ink warnings 

on design flaws were deleted from documents given to the Homeland Security auditors? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I believe that Admiral Allen answered that 

question in another hearing, and I think probably the best thing 

for me to do, since I have no first hand knowledge, is to suggest 

that you look at the answer that he furnished, which we can give 

you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And then the other question I would have— 

once again if you need to make the answer later, that is fine, if it 

is too lengthy because I am out of time. But is there a commitment 

to redraft the Deepwater agreement so that it does not presume 

that Lockheed and Northrop continue to be the only contractors on 

that system? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I know Admiral Allen has been working 

with the contractors and with his procurement people to redesign 

this to give him and his people greater visibility and greater control. But, again, I probably ought to have someone get back to you 

with the specifics of what they are going to do. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. Senator 

Coleman. 

27 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you. Thanks for what you do. When we 

went through your confirmation, I said you have perhaps the most 

difficult job of all Cabinet Secretaries. One failure for you is not acceptable, and I think you understand that. 

Let me talk a little bit about the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. I appreciate your perspective on wanting to push this forward. We have had a number of hearings on this, and I think 

across the Northern border, the uniform concern is that if you do 

not do it right, there are going to be great impacts, great consequences. So the concern is to make sure we do it right. 

You have indicated that you are in discussion with the State of 

Washington to carry out a pilot. Is that correct? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes, we are. 

Senator COLEMAN. Do you have a Memorandum of Understanding, do you have a signed agreement with the State of Washington as to how this is going to proceed and how long it is going 

to take and how you are going to measure the results of the pilot? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I did not sign it myself. I know we are 

working with them. I cannot tell you exactly how it has been embodied, but I will get back to you. 

Senator COLEMAN. I would certainly like to see a Memorandum 

of Understanding. Again, the consequences of failure in this, the 

economic consequences, the delays, there are a lot of human consequences. One of the encouraging things about this whole discussion is typically in dealing with Canada we are dealing with fights 

about fishing rights and timber and wheat, and yet in the process 

of looking at this issue, I saw communities across the border come 

together with a shared interest. I just want to make sure that what 

we do we do right. 

Tied into that, do you intend to issue a report? Do you intend to 

analyze the Washington pilot? Is there a set period of time before 

you issue a report that we in Congress could take a look at before 

we proceed further? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I don’t think we are envisioning the 

completion of the pilot as something that is a pre-condition to putting this into effect. I think we are viewing that, as in any process, 

as a parallel process. We are more than happy to put into place alternatives. For example, the NEXUS card is one alternative that 

we are going to embrace, the PASS card that the State Department 

is going to issue, as well as the passport. But the one thing that 

we really do not want to do is put a significant amount of delay 

into this because I go back to what I said earlier about the passport. When we put the air requirement in effect earlier this year, 

in the 6 months before, all I heard was the sky is going to fall. And 

by keeping to the deadline, working with the destinations, and 

doing a communications plan, we had a flawless roll-out. There was 

better than 99 percent compliance. All the doom and gloom turned 

out not to come out, and that is because we stuck to the program. 

Senator COLEMAN. I would maintain there is a perceptible difference between the air program and the sea program and the type 

of travel that you get. That is what our hearings were. We had a 

lot of discussion on this. I did not hear the doom and gloom over 

28 

the air program. I did not hear the problems about the sea program. What I heard were neighbors saying I want to go fishing in 

Minnesota, and I have a resort that is across the border, and all 

of a sudden we are going to now require a passport. 

My concern is that, for instance, in the budget you have $250 

million for PASS card readers at 13 high-volume border ports of 

entry. Is that correct? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. 

Senator COLEMAN. How many border ports of entry are there? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Oh, there are many. But most of them do 

not need high-tech readers because all that we are going to need 

is for someone to present the appropriate document instead of one 

of the 8,000 types of documentation currently being presented. 

Senator COLEMAN. And I understand that we need to have them, 

but my concern is this: That we will have the PASS card readers 

at high-volume border crossings. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. 

Senator COLEMAN. But for the individuals in the small towns 

along the Maine border and the Minnesota border who do not have 

that high technology, if, in fact, we do not have a system that allows for the smooth flow of traffic—and it may not be big volume, 

but for them and their businesses and their lives, these have huge 

impacts. We want the same result. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. 

Senator COLEMAN. I just do not want the small towns and small 

communities kind of glossed over in this and let them do what they 

may if we do not have in place a system that allows for quick, accelerated entry between Canada and the United States. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I agree. I think at the small ports of 

entry—I carry this around with me. This is a NEXUS card. This 

card will do it. 

Senator COLEMAN. But there are not NEXUS ports along the 

way. So for the smaller communities, they cannot use that card. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, you could because all we will need to 

do at the smaller border crossing is simply present the card, and 

the border inspector will look at the card, and that will be sufficient. 

Senator COLEMAN. So NEXUS will be available at every border 

crossing? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. The NEXUS card will be usable at every 

border crossing for this purpose. Now, the real value of NEXUS 

comes in the high-volume ports because of the special lane. But in 

terms of the identification, this does the trick at a small border 

crossing. So it is not going to slow you up at all, and there will be 

a PASS card similar to that. You do not need the reader if you 

have low volume because then the inspector can just look at it himself. 

Senator COLEMAN. Again, my concern is that as we move forward, the smaller communities are not put in a place where you 

have the negative economic impact. And, from a percentage perspective, it is as important to them as the high volume. It is their 

lives. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Sure. I agree with that. 

29 

Senator COLEMAN. And I just do not want them getting lost in 

the mix. I do hope that we see the results of the pilot and, if there 

are problems, that we address them before we institute this across 

the border. 

I think my time is up. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Coleman. Senator 

Obama. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR OBAMA 

Senator OBAMA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for your testimony. I have two areas 

that I want to touch on real quickly. The first goes to the budget. 

I know that this has been touched on somewhat, but I just want 

to make sure that I am understanding this correctly. 

As I understand it, the President has requested a 52 percent reduction in State Homeland Security Grant programs, and that reduction is actually a 72 percent reduction in overall funding when 

it is combined with the President’s decision not to fund the Law 

Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program. But under the President’s proposal, States have to spend 25 percent of their SHSGP 

funds for the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program. Is 

that a fair assessment or do you think that mischaracterizes it? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think that I would put it this way: In ad- dition to the Homeland Security Grants, which are funded at $250 

million, there is an additional $1 billion coming through the interoperability grants which will be made available to the States. So 

that although there are some differences in the categories that we 

fund as opposed to last year’s funding, the bottom line is that in 

fiscal year 2008, we will have $3.2 billion in the hands of first responders as opposed to about $3.4 billion last year. 

Senator OBAMA. But let me just, on the interoperability—because 

I recognize that you may be shifting some money around. We do 

not want to get too caught up in categories. But my understanding 

is the $1 billion that you are talking about in terms of interoperability comes out the Department of Commerce and that it is actually fiscal year 2007 money which is supposed to be for this year, 

not for next year. But you seem to be counting that as sort of the 

stopgap to justify the reductions that we are making here. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Right. 

Senator OBAMA. Am I misunderstanding that? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me clarify. We will co-administer this 

money with the Department of Commerce. Putting aside whether 

we come back to Congress and actually ask for more time to distribute it past the end of the fiscal year, even if we were to allocate 

it by September 30, 2007, at the end of the fiscal year, it would not 

be expended until fiscal year 2008. So in the real-world sense of 

when the money actually starts to go out the door, State and local 

responders will have that money, plus the other money, totaling 

$3.2 billion in fiscal year 2008, plus the $5 billion that has not been 

spent yet. 

Senator OBAMA. Can we talk about that just for a second? Because you mentioned that earlier. Why is there $5 billion in the 

pipeline that has not been spent? Is it because of the incapacity to 

absorb the money in an effective way at the local level? Is it beVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:13 Dec 18, 2008 Jkt 033875 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\33875.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
30 

cause local communities are coming up with a bunch of good ideas 

but your Department cannot process these requests? Because I 

think there is nobody on this Committee who is not hearing from 

their State and local communities saying, ‘‘We need the money, and 

we know exactly what we want to do for it.’’ 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think that there is not a single answer to 

all the questions. Obviously, there is always a delay while we get 

out the grant guidance. This year we were far ahead of where we 

were in previous years. Then there is some delay—there is nothing 

wrong with this—because the States may obligate the money, they 

may contract for certain things, but if they are smart, they are not 

going to actually pay the vendor until the stuff is delivered and it 

actually works. So there is a whole process of getting the money 

allocated. Then you go out and you figure out exactly what you 

want to get from the vendor. Then the vendor delivers it, and then 

you pay him. 

So it is part of a stream of work, and I am not being critical in 

suggesting it. I am just saying that there is plenty of money that 

is working its way through the pipeline, and it is not as if the pipeline is dry at this point. And that is a lot of work for States and 

locals to make sure they continue to spend the money wisely. 

Senator OBAMA. OK. Well, I have got another area that I want 

to explore real quickly, and I am running out of time. So let me 

just make this note. Your Department made a decision to deny 

some pretty major cities, like Las Vegas and San Diego and Phoenix, UASI dollars. Although Chicago has done well, and so this is 

not a parochial question that I am asking here, I think there are 

communities like New York, Boston, and others around the country 

that would argue that they still have been shortchanged. 

It just strikes me that the President’s drastic cuts in these areas 

are inexplicable, and I recognize it takes some time to get the 

money out, but these communities have very real needs. They are 

talking to me about them on an ongoing basis, and it seems to me 

that this is a shortsighted decision on the Department’s part. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. If I could just respectfully correct you in 

one respect. 

Senator OBAMA. Only if I can maybe get half a minute. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. If I could ask the Chairman to add that 

time. In 2006, Las Vegas, San Diego, and Phoenix were told that 

they did get the money, but they were told that they would not get 

it the following year, proving that we do listen. 

I met with the mayors. We reanalyzed what was going on, and 

we announced for 2007 that they were on the list. So actually, all 

those cities are—— 

Senator OBAMA. Are now on the list. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. And have remained on the list. They have 

never dropped off the list. 

Senator OBAMA. Let the record reflect my wrong information on 

that. 

The final question I wanted to ask about was on the rise in immigration fees. We are all concerned about illegal immigration. 

Your Department has budgeted significant amounts for this. I have 

been supportive of controlling our borders in the context of comprehensive reform, but we are now talking about the process of 

31 

naturalization for people who are legally pursuing the dream of becoming an American citizen. The fees involved for naturalization have gone from $95 in 1998 to $310 in 2002. Today it is $330, and as I understand it, the latest 

proposal is to raise it to $595. So if you are a family of four residing here legally, trying to pursue naturalization, you are now looking at shelling out over $2,000 just for the application process. 

Now, I recognize that the Immigration and Naturalization Act 

authorizes you to do this. It says you may do it, but it does not 

mandate you do it. And so I am just curious as to whether you 

have thought about some process to cushion the blow for low-income legal residents who are trying to pursue citizenship. Have we 

thought about staging this in ways that do not prevent legal residents from obtaining their citizenship? 

It strikes me that there is something fundamentally unfair if 

whether or not you can become naturalized ends up depending on 

your wealth as opposed to your commitment to becoming a U.S. citizen. Do you want to address that real quick? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, we drove the backlog substantially 

down, which was a good thing, and the rise in fees reflected the 

fact that if we were to continue to maintain and actually do a better job of servicing the people who wanted to become citizens, we 

needed to make some investments. So we needed the money to do 

it. 

We did exclude, for example, refugees and some other categories 

from having to pay fees. The actual budgeting of the additional fees 

was based upon a quite rigorous analysis of the costs. In some respect, what we did was we moved from a model that charged a 

lower initial fee but required you to pay every time there was an 

extension, which had the perverse economic effect of actually 

incentivizing the Department to delay because you actually made 

more money that way, to a system that you pay once but then that 

covers you until you are cleared. 

In terms of people who are truly in economic need and cannot 

make the difference, I do not know whether we have a program for 

true indigency, to waive the fees or to scale it out over a period of 

time. But I will get back to you on that. 

Senator OBAMA. Well, I would like to work with you on that. I 

do not think you have to be a true indigent to not be able to come 

up with $2,000 for fees. I think a lot of working families around 

the country would say $2,000 is real money. And so people who are 

working every day as a home health care worker, for example, and 

are trying to get naturalized, they may just be above the poverty 

line but, nevertheless, still need some help. 

I would like to work with your office on this because I think this 

could have some negative consequences, particularly when we are 

trying to send a signal that if you do things right and you come 

here legally, then you have the opportunity to pursue the American 

dream. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We would be happy to do that. 

Senator OBAMA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for the 

delay. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Obama. Senator 

Domenici. 

32 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DOMENICI 

Senator DOMENICI. Thanks very much. 

How are you? I am just looking at you there, and thinking back 

to when we confirmed you to be a circuit court judge for life and 

just wondering what you think about your decision to change jobs. 

[Laughter.] 

But I will not make you answer it. You look all right today, but 

about a year and a half ago, you did not look so good. I thought 

then you might want to go back to the court. But today you look 

all right. Things going pretty well? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think they are, Senator. Thanks. 

Senator DOMENICI. Now, you have a $37.7 billion budget. Do you 

think that the various agencies and departments that you were 

charged with starting up are now all in place? Would that be a fair 

question for you to answer? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I think things are much better in place now 

than they were a year ago and when they were when I arrived. But 

we still have work to do. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, how long do you think it will take? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I always use the example of the Defense Department, which it took them 40 years until there was 

Goldwater-Nichols, and then the first Secretary committed suicide, 

and someone told me the second one was fired. 

Senator DOMENICI. Look, we do not want any of that to happen 

at DHS. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Right, we do not want any of that. I am 

confident by the time—and I am committed to this—the President 

leaves office, we will be a fully mature Department. 

Senator DOMENICI. OK. I have three things you do or use that 

I am wondering about. One is called NISAC. You know that. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I have been out there. 

Senator DOMENICI. You have been out there, the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center. It is a rather fantastic 

facility. It is run by the two national laboratories in my State, and 

it answers questions for anybody, and DHS is supposed to use it. 

DHS pays for it. And I am just wondering what does the Department propose for NISAC’s 2008 budget and what are your plans to 

coordinate the Department’s efforts so NISAC is utilized by the entire Department? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We have proposed $16 million for 2008, and 

we do propose not only for the Department but for other agencies 

we work with, as they report to us about what they are doing in 

terms of their homeland security planning, to build into it having 

them report on their use of the modeling capabilities for purposes 

of their planning. We do use it for planning for catastrophes and 

a whole host of activities, and we think it is valuable. 

Senator DOMENICI. Still a pretty valuable tool? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes. 

Senator DOMENICI. Let me quickly go to another one, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, DNDO. That is given the job of deploying radiation detection technologies and systems designed to 

detect attempts to smuggle nuclear weapons material into the 

United States. 

33 

How is DNDO interacting with the Department of Energy where 

they have efforts that are similar? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Actually, many of the research and development activities undertaken by DNDO under its auspices and funded by it are done through the laboratories of Sandia and I think 

also Livermore. And I have actually been out myself to see some 

of the tools that they are developing that we are going to deploy 

eventually under this program. 

Senator DOMENICI. So where they have the capacity or are developing it, you are saying you welcome that? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes, and we use it. 

Senator DOMENICI. Last, the Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center (FLETC) has its principal location in Georgia and three 

other sites, one of which just happens, for the last 20 years, to be 

in Artesia, New Mexico. That is the one where you are training all 

of the people who work for you on the border, and you are training 

people like the Air Marshals that occupy seats in airplanes and are 

equipped to handle problems that come up. 

Do you agree that each of these FLETC sites is now integrated 

in a way and being used in a way that they should be utilized by 

the Federal agencies? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes, and we are actually expanding Artesia. 

I think we are building an additional dormitory because of the increase in the flow of Border Patrol we are going to be training. We 

are bringing back some retired Border Patrol to instruct, so we are 

going to be actually increasing the capacity there over the next couple of years. 

Senator DOMENICI. Can you give us an idea of which of the 

FLETC facilities are operating at full capacity? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I know Artesia is probably exceeding 

capacity, which is why we are building the new dorm, and I believe 

the others are, if not fully utilized, close to fully utilized. 

Senator DOMENICI. I did not run out of time yet so I can tell you 

a little story. When I was a brand-new Senator, we were trying to 

find a location to put FLETC at, and someplace in Maryland was 

supposed to get it. And they got mad. They did not want it. They 

thought it was a bad thing to have FLETC there. So we put it off, 

and we were going to buy a big piece of property and spend millions. And I said to the Chairman, ‘‘Why don’t we adopt a resolution that the GAO will look all over the country for the next 6 

months? Maybe they will find a property we could use.’’ And they 

all said to me, ‘‘You know, you are a young Senator. Why don’t you 

kind of keep your mouth shut?’’ I said, ‘‘Well, I will keep it shut 

if you do that.’’ 

Do you know what? They found FLETC-Artesia. It was a college 

that was being abandoned. That is why we got it free. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Good investment. 

Senator DOMENICI. Good investment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Domenici. You are always free to tell your stories whether you have time or not. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. I appreciated that one. 

Senator DOMENICI. You are terrific. I know why you won up 

there. [Laughter.] 

34 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Many people are still asking that question, so I appreciate your answer. 

Senator DOMENICI. They do not know which side to be on as a 

result of that. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right in the middle here. 

Senator Chertoff, if you have got the time, Senator Collins and 

I will do one more round of 6 minutes each. I want to come back 

to you on the funds in the pipeline response about explaining why 

there is not more funding for States and locals because my staff follows this pretty closely and says that they get reports regularly 

from the Department of Homeland Security that lead them to conclude that well over 90 percent of the Homeland Security Grants 

that have been awarded actually are already committed, they have 

been obligated by the States, and, therefore, are not really available to provide additional support for communities in fiscal year 

2008. 

So isn’t it true that those funds in the pipeline that you talk 

about are not actually available to provide additional assistance in 

this coming fiscal year and, therefore, it is not a substitute for the 

money that we believe should have been in the grant programs? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. I agree with you. A significant amount of 

the money is obligated. My point was not that it is a substitute. 

It is that the States and locals are not just cooling their heels. They 

have a lot to do, from the time of obligating to the time of expending, to manage, deploy, and train on the systems they are requiring. So that it is not so much that it is meant to say let’s take a 

year off because we are trying to resorb the money; it is, rather, 

to indicate that we actually have a steady flow of money and people 

are occupied. And to the extent that there is a lag in seeing the 

results of the money, the lag comes in that gap between the time 

we push it out the door and the time it is expended after the equipment is received. 

So it not meant to be a knock on anybody, and you are quite 

right that much more of the money is obligated than is expended. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. But that is part of an ongoing process. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. OK. I appreciate the clarification, and 

that is why, of course, I think we need to appropriate more money. 

Let me ask you a question about chemical security regulations. 

I know we all agree on the urgency of moving forward with the 

chemical security program, and I compliment you and the Department for moving ahead promptly with the regulatory authority 

Congress gave you last fall. 

However, I am troubled by three or four aspects of the regulations. I particularly want to ask you on the question of preemption, 

which is whether these Federal regulations will preempt the States 

from taking steps that are perhaps more demanding in the exercise 

of their individual judgment about what they need to do to protect 

their citizens from an accident or a terrorist attack on a chemical 

security facility. 

Also, I believe that it is important to note here that when we 

worked this over, Senator Collins and I and others, Congress had 

alternatives before us, and we specifically chose to remain silent on 

the issue of preemption. We had two sides that were arguing on it 

35 

from different points of view, and we thought in this case that silence was golden. But you have opted not to be silent in the regulations. And I want to ask you whether you are open to consider revising the regulations with respect to preempting State action to 

protect our people with regard to chemical facility accidents. And 

the revision would be simply to remain silent. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, the short answer is we are actually 

in the comment period, the reason we put them out and get comments. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. And we actually read the comments, and 

sometimes we make revisions. So we are in the middle of a process 

of considering that. 

I do want to say I think the original intent of that passage was 

not to suggest that we are altering the standard set by Congress 

or by the law or setting ourselves up as the deciders of what is preempted or not because I do not think that we can do that legally. 

I think it was merely to indicate that we would be willing to advise 

on whether we viewed something as preempted or not under the 

pre-existing legal standard that exists, and then also make our advice known. 

The courts ultimately decide these issues and accord the agency 

whatever weight is appropriate under the law. 

So certainly we are going to look at that provision and make sure 

that it is clear about what we want to do and what we do not want 

to do and make it clear that we are not arrogating unto ourselves 

power to adjudicate these things that really ultimately rest with 

the courts. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. So you interpret the language in the draft 

regulations as not of itself preempting greater State protections, 

but simply saying that the Department is available to advise. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Yes, and I do not have the text in front of 

me, but my understanding of the law is that preemption comes 

from the statute and what the statute authorizes or does not authorize, and that the provision in question indicated—and maybe 

I have to go back and look at the wording—that we would take a 

position, but a recognition that this position is ultimately one 

which gets before a court and a court either decides to accept, reject, or give it some weight. 

There might be some element of moral suasion that we could inject into it, but I do not think it was meant to say that we somehow 

have the conclusive ability to make that judgment because I do not 

think that is actually what the law indicates. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I agree, or the ability to essentially 

freeze—give the States the impression that they do not have the 

right to regulate, or legislate, more particularly, beyond that. 

I am going to follow the comment period and continue to work 

with you on it because I think it is very important that the regulations you adopt create a floor, which would be a significant step 

forward, of protection but that if individual States because if their 

individual circumstances want to go beyond that, they should have 

the right to do that. 

Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

36 

Let me follow up on that point, and you and I have discussed this 

issue before the regulations were issued. The intent of Congress 

was very clear. We decided to be silent on the issue of preemption 

and to leave it up to the courts. And my reading of the regulations 

is that you go beyond that intent, so I would urge you to take a 

second look at them to see if you can clarify that issue. 

My own belief is that States will stop legislating in this area now 

that there is a Federal standard. I think it was the void that 

caused States like New Jersey to step forward and legislate, but 

most States recognize that they do not have the expertise or the 

resources and would rather leave it to the Federal Government. So 

my hope is that States will stop legislating in this area, but I 

would urge you to tread very carefully on the preemption issue. 

I do want to switch to the issue that I brought up in my opening statement about the adequacy of the $25 million budget for chemical security efforts. There are some 15,000 chemical facilities that 

are likely to be assessed and classified under the new law. The Department has indicated that perhaps 500 of them would fall in the 

higher-level tiers. Do you really think $25 million is adequate to accomplish this 

task? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, I think it is if you recognize that we 

are not going to fund the improvements. The improvements are 

going to be funded by the chemical companies. And I am not going 

to suggest that the taxpayer pay to make ExxonMobil have the capability to protect its own assets. 

So in terms of what our function is, which is to work with them 

and do the assessments—it is an increase of $15 million. We think 

this will allow us to do the job. If it turns out that at some point 

we need a little more and there is money, obviously we could seek 

to get Congress to allow us to reprogram from some other function 

to do that. But we are going to try to leverage as much as possible 

the private sector’s assets and, frankly, money to do a job which 

in the long run benefits them as much as it benefits the communities. 

Senator COLLINS. I hope you will keep in touch with us. I think 

it is very difficult at the launch of a new regulatory program that 

has this scope, that has so many facilities, to really determine what 

amount of money is right. And that is why I questioned rather 

than criticized the amount because I think it is very difficult to determine at this point. But I hope you will not hesitate to come back 

to us if you find that it is insufficient because the task is so vital. 

I want to end my questioning on the FIRE Grant program. This 

has been an enormously effective program that is really welcomed 

by fire departments across the country. They like it because there 

is a minimum of bureaucracy in applying for the grants. They like 

it because it is a peer-reviewed grant process. And over the past 

few years, it has allowed thousands of fire departments all over the 

Nation to increase their level of readiness to respond to potential 

threats. And I think that benefits our country as a whole. 

I would point out that the Department received an astonishing 

$3 billion worth of applications for funding, and I think that shows 

the great demand for this program. Yet you are actually cutting it 

back. 

37 

Doesn’t the ratio between demand and what you are suggesting 

for supply trouble you in that program? 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Well, let me preface what I say by saying 

I have no quarrel with the fact that the program provides needed 

tools to firefighters, and in fact, although we have requested less 

than Congress appropriated last year, we have requested actually 

slightly more than we requested last year. 

So we really get down to a philosophical issue. To what extent 

is Homeland Security funding a risk-based movement of money to 

the States that is focused on issues of homeland security, issues of 

national significance? And to what extent is it a revenue-sharing 

program for police and firefighters and things of that sort where 

we just give money out to the States, a certain amount of just general sustainment money? 

I think the Administration—I think this even pre-dates my presence in the job—has typically looked at Homeland Security funding 

as money that should be not exclusively, but heavily oriented to 

risk-based and particularly homeland-wide issues of national scope, 

rather than revenue-sharing like the old COPS program, which we 

haven’t supported. And I had a conversation—or testimony, rather, 

but it was almost a conversation—with Chairman Price on the 

House Appropriations Committee about this. It is a philosophical 

issue. 

I think obviously making tough choices, we have funded more 

fully the elements that we think are really what homeland security 

is about. In the end, if Congress thinks that money ought to move 

more to the kind of traditional sustainment stuff that was done in 

the 1980s and 1990s, Congress will do that. But we think that 

where the National Government really adds value and where the 

urgency is, because we are still in an emergency situation, is building the capabilities that are most relevant to the core Homeland 

Security mission. And that is not denigrating the importance of the 

FIRE grants. It is just trying to be really open about the fact that 

there is a little bit of a philosophical divergence here. 

Senator COLLINS. I think there is a difference in philosophy, but 

what I would encourage you to remember is that homeland security 

really does depend on partnerships, and that if there is a terrorist 

attack or a natural disaster tomorrow, people are not calling the 

Washington, DC, area code. They are calling 911. And it is the firefighters and the police officers and the emergency medical personnel and the State and local emergency managers that are first 

on the scene. 

We have seen that with every natural disaster, and we certainly 

saw it on September 11, 2001, when more than 360 firefighters lost 

their lives. 

So I understand the priorities that you have to set. I understand 

that the Federal Government cannot meet every need in every community. But this is a critical partnership, and our troops, if you 

will, are the first responders. They are the ones who are called 

upon, and that is why I strongly support this program because they 

are the ones on the front lines. 

So I hope we can continue to work on this, and, again, I thank 

you for your leadership. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Thank you very much. 

38 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Collins. And, 

of course, I agree with you. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. Let me just clarify one thing for the record. 

I told Senator Landrieu that I had mentioned Hurricane Katrina 

in my written statement here. I think the answer is I did not do 

it here. I think I did it in the House, if I am not mistaken. I want 

to check that. And I have to confess, testifying three times in a 

week does tend to conflate the memory a little bit. 

I will get back and we will verify for the Committee where it appeared. I can assure you that we do spend a lot of time thinking 

about it. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I appreciate your clarifying that for the 

record. I would just continue to say that I agree with what Senator 

Collins has said. This is an interesting governmental, philosophical 

discussion. Obviously, a lot of it has to do with who pays. But it 

does seem to me today, particularly post-September 11, that the 

State and local first responders are increasingly fulfilling a national role. There is certainly a national preventive role and a national response role when disaster strikes. And the problem, of 

course, goes back to who pays because traditionally at the local 

level, and certainly in my State, most of the local budget goes for 

education, and most of the fire and police budgets go for personnel. 

So what gets left out is the kind of capital investments that, for 

instance, these FIRE Grants make possible. 

I thank you for your testimony. You have a tough job, as everybody agrees. I know you are working very hard and making 

progress at doing it. We have some disagreements about the budget. I presume if Congress rises up on a bipartisan basis and gives 

you more money for Homeland Security Grants and First Responder Grants, you will not refuse to accept and spend it. 

Secretary CHERTOFF. We will follow the law, and we will do it 

in a way that is responsible in our role as stewards of the taxpayers’ money. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Hear, hear. So I thank you. 

I am going to leave the record open for 15 days for the submission of additional statements or questions that we will forward to 

you. I thank you very much. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(39) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Today’s hearing on the proposed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) FY08 

budget is timely. Tomorrow, the Committee will consider legislation to implement 

fully the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, a significant part of which is focused on DHS and its activities. Although I am unable to be present for this critical 

hearing due to the need to chair a Veteran’s Committee hearing, I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Department’s proposed budget. 

This budget hearing is being held amid a number of troubling findings about the 

Department, including its continued inclusion on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) High-Risk List, recent findings of the DHS Inspector General critical of 

financial management and internal control systems, and the results of the semiannual survey by the Office of Personnel Management evaluating the level of employee satisfaction at government agencies. It is important that they be considered 

alongside the proposed budget. 

I am concerned by the Administration’s FY08 budget priorities. Despite mandating more homeland security requirements for State and local governments, funding for first responders, State and local emergency management and homeland security professionals—our first line of defense—continue to be insufficient. While I understand that State and local governments must shoulder an appropriate part of 

this burden, homeland security is a Federal mandate and, as such, the government 

must assist State and local governments with the means to meet these mandates. 

I am concerned that States are being short-changed in this budget. States are dependent on such funding for the effective implementation of State homeland security 

strategies, which include programs such as pre-disaster mitigation, effective interoperable communications, protection of critical infrastructure, and the conduct of appropriate training and exercises. 

I am particularly concerned about three programs: The Emergency Management 

Performance Grant (EMPG), the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) 

and the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) fund. 

In the case of funding for the Emergency Management Performance Grant 

(EMPG), a program that provides grant funding to sustain and enhance State and 

local emergency management capabilities, the Federal Government should be holding up its end of the bargain by providing 50 percent of the matching funds, as required by Congress. It is my understanding that this is currently not happening. 

In order to compensate for a funding shortfall, the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) has noted that States have been forced to overmatch their 

share by about $96 million annually. Because the FY08 budget request does not add 

any Federal dollars to EMPG, the shortfall will continue, forcing State and local 

governments to continue to overmatch their share, further draining their coffers of 

scarce resources. A shortfall in funding for EMPG has also meant that a number 

of States’ high-priority projects are not funded at all. 

I am also concerned with the sizable reduction in overall funding for the State 

Homeland Security Grant Programs (SHSGP) in the budget request. A cut of $275 

million in this important grant program, which funds enhancements in the ability 

of States, territories, and urban areas to prepare for, prevent, and respond to terrorist attacks, and other major disasters will impact all States, including my own 

home State of Hawaii, in their ability to continue developing an all-hazards capability for preparedness and response. This grant program is a critical funding source 

for building homeland security capabilities at the State and local levels, capabilities 

that are focused on an all-hazards approach to preparedness and response. 

In my own State, these programs provide critical capabilities and equipment for 

effective preparedness and response. For example, in FY2006, Hawaii received $4.5 

million from this program to fund key communications equipment including radios, 

40 

towers, fiber optics and mesh networking, equipment to support law enforcement 

and HAZMAT teams, power generation, critical infrastructure, and exercises and 

training. 

Some State government agencies, including the Hawaii State Civil Defense, rely 

on homeland security grant programs, including the EMPG to pay for 50 percent 

of salary and other personnel costs. The lack of any increase in FY08 over the FY07 

level of $200 million will leave State emergency response agencies unable to respond 

to unexpected funding contingencies, shortfalls or the ability to pay for required program implementation costs. 

EMPG and SHSGP are not the only programs to be short-changed. DHS should 

develop an anticipatory culture of preventing and responding to disasters, but the 

program designed to do this, the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund (PDM), 

does not receive the support it needs. In the proposed FY08 budget, PDM, which 

is dedicated to competitive pre-disaster mitigation activities to reduce the risk of 

flood damage to structures, receives a paltry $53,000 increase over FY07 funding 

level, despite the fact that pre-disaster preparation has been demonstrated to be one 

of the most cost-effective means to reduce the consequences of disasters. This is only 

about $1,000 per State. 

In my home State of Hawaii, PDM grants supplement available State funding by 

providing funding for drought mitigation, multi-hazard mitigation planning, floodproofing, and an all-hazards evaluation of critical facilities. The proposed minimal 

increases in PDM grant funding will keep States from fully implementing mitigation 

efforts in all sectors that could reduce the effects of a natural disaster like Hurricanes Katrina or Rita, or a 9/11-style terrorist attack. 

I would like to comment on two other issues. The first is the need for DHS to 

be more responsible to Congress and, second is the need to continue to consider 

ways to further rationalize the Department’s structure. 

The need to create a strong, unified Department of Homeland Security with sound 

and effective programs is a challenge. Gathering 22 disparate agencies, with 22 different cultures and problems under one roof presents unprecedented management 

challenges. But almost 6 years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the 

Department is still struggling. 

Creating an effective department can only be achieved through close cooperation 

between the Administration and the Congress. I am troubled that DHS continues 

to resist requests for information by Congress and the GAO. As David Walker, 

Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified on 

February 7, 2007 before the House Homeland Security Committee, ‘‘DHS has not 

been receptive towards oversight and its delays in providing Congress and us [GAO] 

with access to the various documents and officials have impeded our work.’’ GAO 

has testified numerous times about the need for increasing transparency of operations at DHS. Unfortunately, this has not yet happened. 

The creation of a separate Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) is indicative of the continuing challenges to a unified DHS with clearly delineated roles and 

responsibilities. In this area, as in others, DHS is moving in the wrong direction. 

According to DHS, DNDO was established to improve the Nation’s capability to detect and report unauthorized attempts to import, possess, store, develop, or transport radiological or nuclear material for use against the Nation, and to further enhance this capability over time. 

By comparison, the Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate’s mission is to protect the homeland by providing Federal, State, local, tribal and territorial officials 

with state-of-the-art technology and other resources. Both DNDO and S&T will be 

devoting considerable resources to developing Chemical, Biological, Radiological and 

Nuclear (CBRN) technologies. We should be seeking ways to leverage this investment rather than risk spending scarce resources on duplicative or parallel programs 

by considering putting the DNDO function back where it was initially placed: In the 

S&T directorate. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you and discussing the 

Department’s FY 08 budget proposal today. 

41 


33875.001
42 


33875.002
43 


33875.003
44 


33875.004
45 


33875.005
46 


33875.006
47 


33875.007
48 


33875.008
49 


33875.009
50 


33875.010
51 


33875.011
52 


33875.012
53 


33875.013
54 


33875.014
55 


33875.015
56 


33875.016
57 


33875.017
58 


33875.018
59 


33875.019
60 


33875.020
61 


33875.021
62 


33875.022
63 


33875.023
64 


33875.024
65 


33875.025
66 


33875.026
67 


33875.027
68 


33875.028
69 


33875.029
70 


33875.030
71 


33875.031
72 


33875.032
73 


33875.033
74 


33875.034
75 


33875.035
76 


33875.036
77 


33875.037
78 


33875.038
79 


33875.039
80 


33875.040
81 


33875.041
82 


33875.042
83 


33875.043
84 


33875.044
85 


33875.045
86 


33875.046
87 


33875.047
88 


33875.048
89 


33875.049
90 


33875.050
91 


33875.051
92 


33875.052
93 


33875.053
94 


33875.054
95 


33875.055
96 


33875.056
97 


33875.057
98 


33875.058
99 


33875.059
100 


33875.060
101 


33875.061
102 


33875.062
103 


33875.063
104 


33875.064
105 


33875.065
106 


33875.066
107 


33875.067
108 


33875.068
109 


33875.069
110 


33875.070
111 


33875.071
112 


33875.072
113 


33875.073
114 


33875.074
115 


33875.075
116 


33875.076
117 


33875.077
118 


33875.078
119 


33875.079
120 


33875.080
121 


33875.081
122 


33875.082
123 


33875.083
124 


33875.084
125 


33875.085
126 


33875.086
127 


33875.087
128 


33875.088
129 


33875.089
130 


33875.090
131 


33875.091
132 


33875.092
133 


33875.093
134 


33875.094
135 


33875.095
136 


33875.096
137 


33875.097
138 


33875.098
139 


33875.099
140 


33875.100
141 


33875.101
142 


33875.102
143 


33875.103
144 


33875.104
145 


33875.105
146 


33875.106
147 


33875.107
148 


33875.108
149 


33875.109
150 


33875.110
151 


33875.111
152 


33875.112
153 


33875.113
154 


33875.114
155 


33875.115
156 


33875.116
157 


33875.117
158 


33875.118
159 


33875.119
160 


33875.120
161 


33875.121
162 


33875.122
163 


33875.123
164 


33875.124
165 


33875.125
166 


33875.126
167 


33875.127
168 


33875.128
169 


33875.129
170 


33875.130
171 


33875.131
172 


33875.132
173 


33875.133
174 


33875.134
175 


33875.135
176 


33875.136
177 


33875.137
178 


33875.138
179 


33875.139
180 


33875.140
181 


33875.141
182 


33875.142
183 


33875.143
184 


33875.144
185 


33875.145
186 


33875.146
187 


33875.147
188 


33875.148
189 


33875.149
190 


33875.150
191 


33875.151
192 


33875.152
193 


33875.153
194 


33875.154
195 


33875.155
196 


33875.156
197 


33875.157
198 


33875.158
199 


33875.159
200 


33875.160
201 


33875.161
202 


33875.162
203 


33875.163
204 


33875.164
205 


33875.165
206 


33875.166
207 


33875.167
208 


33875.168
209 


33875.169
210 


33875.170
211 


33875.171
212 


33875.172
213 


33875.173
214 


33875.174
215 


33875.175
216 


33875.176
217 


33875.177
218 


33875.178
219 


33875.179
220 


33875.180
221 


33875.181
222 


33875.182
223 


33875.183
224 


33875.184
225 


33875.185
226 


33875.186
227 


33875.187
228 


33875.188
229 


33875.189
230 


33875.190
231 


33875.191
232 


33875.192
233 


33875.193
234 


33875.194
235 


33875.195
236 


33875.196
237 


33875.197
238 


33875.198
239 


33875.199
240 


33875.200
241 


33875.201
242 


33875.202
243 


33875.203
244 


33875.204
245 


33875.205
246 


33875.206
247 


33875.207
248 


33875.208
249 

Æ 


33875.209