Testimony by Secretary Michael Chertoff Before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee

Release Date: 04/21/05 00:00:00

April 20, 2005

SENATOR GREGG: We'll call the hearing to order.

Senator Byrd is the ranking member on this committee, and obviously on the full committee, and he will be here a little later. And when he arrives we'll accord him the opportunity to make an opening statement, if he should so wish.

We appreciate Secretary Chertoff coming here today. He's just assumed one of the priority responsibilities in our government relative to the safety of Americans. He's given up an extremely important position to take this position on, and it reflects well on him and I think on this administration that somebody with his caliber is willing to do this type of a job. And we appreciate it.

However, the agency he takes over has some very serious problems. And this morning before this hearing I was just writing down -- and I didn't do this with any staff assistance -- just off the top of my head the problems that I've seen and have been reported to me over my brief tenure as chairman of this committee.

They include things like the Border Patrol, the fact that our borders aren't effective anymore, that they are not -- that we have virtually no security along our borders; people are pouring over the borders illegally. It has gotten so bad that in Arizona citizen groups are now seeking to enforce the borders, which obviously isn't good -- that the Border Patrol training capabilities are not up to what the Congress asked them to be. We asked for 2,000 agents a year to be trained; maybe they can do 400, 500, if they're fortunate. If they can't find people, they can't hire them.

In the area of immigration, this is an agency which has had a very long history of very significant management issues. Back when I chaired the subcommittee on Commerce, State, Justice, before this department was moved over to DHS, this department had a lot of problems. Even under the prior administration the problems were significant, and they've continued. In the area of management, I don't think any member of Congress receives complaints about any agency with more consistency than about the immigration issues that we get.

We've got the issue of IT -- IT issues -- the inability of the fingerprint capability of the border, at the borders, to communicate effectively and in real time with the database of the FBI. IDENT isn't integrated into IAFIS.

We have the USVISIT program, which I have serious reservations about whether it's going where it's supposed to be going as a technology capability.

We have the TSA. It's become almost a weekly event now that the -- that there's some report that comes out about the TSA's failures in a variety of areas, from waste and fraud in the most recent IG report relative to the construction of its facilities for its headquarters, to the internal investigation, which I guess concluded that weapons and contraband was still going through the airports with a regularity which was totally unacceptable, to what I consider to be an inexcusable situation of a large amount of theft being reported from passengers in this country. The fact that an agency of the federal government would have thousands upon thousands of reported thefts occurring by federal employees against American citizens is -- it makes us look like a third world country. And it still goes on. Workman compensation claims are outrageous. And I think anybody who goes through airport security has to ask themselves, at least occasionally when going through airport security, is this really having an effect on security is this simply mindless, when you see some of the actions which are taken by the TSA.

The intelligence issue, the agency has ceded intelligence over to other agencies when originally it was supposed to be the center of basically the coordinating of intelligence, and now we see that the intelligence decisions by the -- are being made outside the agency by -- it was a conscious decision; maybe it was the right decision. But essentially the IAIP has been raided the last two years from its resources to do other things. And I view intelligence as probably the essence of whether or not we win this war. This isn't a war about reacting to events; it's a war about getting to those events before they occur, and that involves intelligence.  

The personnel issues -- the senior management turnover is extraordinary. The number of people in an "acting" position is unacceptable, and the number of positions which are unfilled at senior management levels is unacceptable.

The electronic surveillance capability along the border is nonexistent right now from all I can tell. There's been a total breakdown in the camera structures, and the unmanned vehicle program has basically been stopped, even though it was proving very successful.

Contingent to the agency's responsibility is the issue of protecting us against a biological or chemical attack. And granted, the HHS has priority here, but the agency has a very -- the department has a very significant role in making sure that HHS is successful. And it's very obvious that in the area of vaccine BioShield has not produced the results that it should have produced, and we have not created a robust vaccine capability in this country against very significant disease issues, and specifically anthrax, botulism, plague, smallpox. Small pox is probably -- we've made progress on.  

Container ships -- we all know we're not getting anywhere near the scrutiny we need on container ships.

If we look at the agency objectively, just on that list, you'd have to say that were this agency admitted to an emergency room, it would be considered to be in extreme distress.

The fact is, we haven't been attacked, and credit on that goes to the department. And I give them credit for that. But the fact also is that there are very serious, serious problems, especially on what I consider to be the three core elements of the Homeland Security portfolio, which is protecting us from a weapon of mass destruction attack, protecting our borders and making sure that they're under control, and making sure that we have adequate intelligence capability.

So the problems exist. Now they're not -- you didn't create them, Mr. Secretary. They didn't come on your watch; you've just arrived. I congratulate you for setting up a department-wide review of what's going on and trying to figure out how to correct it. But they exist. And we've got to get our arms around them.

The budget has been sent up by this administration. If we presume that the Congress will not pass a significant increase on the fees of people who are flying, which is what this budget presumed, and I don't think you're going to see this Congress accomplish that. Certainly the chairman of the Commerce Committee here in the Senate has been more than vociferous in opposition of that proposal, and that's his authorizing committee, although this appropriating committee will play a role. But if you take that number out, the budget that was sent up is well over a billion dollars less than last year's budget to operate this department. If you put that number in, giving you the benefit of the doubt that we're going to raise the fees on travelers in this country by dramatic amounts, our estimate -- even though the stated amount is that the budget is up by 7 percent -- our estimate is that the budget is up by about $100 million.

Now it may not be that money solves this problem. In fact, I don't think it does. I think a lot of this is just an issue of management and structure. But we know, for example, in the area of Border Patrol that getting more bodies on the border is critical, and that's going to cost money. And there are other areas where we know money may have -- make a difference; for example, backlogs.

So I'm not sure the budget that has been sent up is reflective of the urgency of the problem that this department has relative to different functions that in my opinion are in distress.

So I hate to start this hearing off with a dark cloud, but I think honesty is required. And these are not reports which I've manufactured; they're restatements of public information.

So with that, again, I want to emphasize that we are -- I feel that we're extremely fortunate that you've been willing to take this job on. But I think that you've been -- (audio break) - committee to constructively work with you, give you the resources you need to accomplish the improvements so that a year from now we don't have this long list of concerns.

With that, we'll listen to your thoughts.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for welcoming me to this first appearance for this committee, which I'm looking forward to working with, as we go forward, to improve our performance and make sure we are on the right track to, as you point out, protecting the American people and protecting our infrastructure, and then, if worse comes to worse, appropriately responding.

If I may, I'd like to ask that the committee receive my full statement for the record.

SENATOR GREGG: Of course.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I'm going to be very brief so that we can - I can be available to answer questions.  

Let me try just in a couple of moments to give you at high altitude the approach that I think we're taking in this review we've got going, and also in terms of our moving forward with the department.

Quite obviously, in creating the department Congress wanted to do more than assemble 22 organizations in a tent. We wanted to create a single organization that could achieve outcomes that are important in terms of enhancing our national security.

So one of the critical tasks I think I have as I begin my tenure at the department is to see what we need to do in order to further the process of integration. I completely agree that means intelligence, which is the driving guide to what we do all across the board, and we need to make sure we are appropriately collecting and fusing the intelligence we have available within the department and then contributing that to the community at large and consuming what the community has and operationalizing that.

So we are looking to enhance our ability across the department to combine our intelligence, combine our operations and combine our policymaking, so we have a department-wide approach to these things.

Second, as part of the review we're undertaking, I really want to be focused on outcome. And to kind of boil the jargon away, the example I've given to people when I try to explain what I mean - if my car's not running, I take it into the shop, and, you know, the electrician and the guy who does transmission and everybody else takes a whack at it, and I come in at the end of the day to pick the car up and everybody says, "Wow," you know, "we've each done our process exactly right but the car doesn't run," I don't consider myself a satisfied customer. I'm concerned about the outcome; I want a car that runs. And that's true here, too. We want a department that does - produces the outcome that we care about. And we ought to focus on how we do that without regard to everybody's individual stovepipes. And then the alignment of the stovepipes and the alignment of the organizations and the operations has to be what fits with getting the outcomes.

The third piece is we do want to use this risk-management philosophy. As I think you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, in your statement, there are a lot of important things, but there are some things that are the highest priority; WMD is one example. And we have to be disciplined since we're talking about a long-term issue with terrorism, and threat, about identifying the priorities and figuring out how we go about optimally taking what are obviously finite resources and getting them to where they have to be. And so that risk-management approach is going to be our guiding philosophy. We're not interested in the Department of Homeland Security as simply an opportunity for people to, you know, raid the pots of money. We're interested - we're interested in making sure that we get the money and everything we do - all of our department and our operations - in a risk-management focused manner.

So with these kind of general observations, again, I'm delighted to work with the committee. I know it's a very challenging position, but I know there's a tremendous amount of support with the American public for getting this job done right. And that's what I'm going to do my level best to do. And I look forward to answering questions.

SENATOR GREGG: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Let me - it's hard to know exactly where to begin, because there are a lot of issues here. But let me begin with some of the higher priority items, as I see them. And I congratulate you on the risk- management approach. I think the threat is the issue -defining threat and then responding to it.

Clearly, one of the priority issues from the standpoint of threat is the who's coming in the country and where they are when they get here, and who they are when they come across. I was interested when I asked Border Patrol, because there's been a whole lot of amendments floated this week on expanding the number of Border Patrol agents -- I actually asked the folks down at Border Patrol if they had an assessment as to how many agents they needed and where they needed them, and I was told that, no, they didn't. I found that to be a startling fact in the sense that I would have presumed that there had been a study done within the last two years as to where the agents are needed and to what numbers are needed. Obviously there's been a significant movement of agents to the northern border.

I guess my question is, how many agents do we - how many Border Patrol agents do we need, and where do we need them, in comparison with where we are today? The Congress has, as you know, required an increase of agents by 2,000 a year for over a three-year period.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I know that in the Intelligence Reform Act authorizations were put in place for 2,000 going forward. We are going to increase - the president's '06 budget looks for an increase of slightly more than 200.

I can tell you that - because I've sat with Border Patrol - that we do have a comprehensive picture of where we need to deploy our resources. We have this - we had an Arizona Border Control Initiative last year which was successful. This year, I guess about a month ago, we rolled out a follow-up to that initiative. And in talking with Commissioner Bonner and the other leaders of the Border Patrol about how to do that, they took a very unified approach to figuring out where the sectors of the border where we are now seeing the greatest penetration, how do we deploy not only Border Patrol at the front line but technology and also capability to transport people that we apprehend and bring them back in a way that doesn't pull people off the line in order to drive them several hours to Tucson; how do we use checkpoints; how do we use investigative resources to target organizations; and also, frankly, how do we work with the Mexicans on their side of the border to see that they are doing things to attack the - (inaudible) - trafficking organizations?

So I do think that we have a comprehensive plan about dealing with the issue of deploying resources in a -

SENATOR GREGG: Well, is 2,000 the right number, a year? And can you train - how many people can you train? Let's say we actually funded 2,000, which we're clearly not going to do, but we're going to significantly increase the funding. In fact, Senator Byrd has a proposal to do that, which I presume he's going to offer in the next day or so - and increase Border Patrol agents.

How many agents can you train, one? And two, what's the status of the unmanned vehicle program, and did it work; and if it did work, why has it been basically shut down? And three, what's the status of the electronic surveillance and the cameras? And four, how many detention beds do we need? We hear about a lot of people being sent home who are criminals and who should probably be detained permanently here to make sure that they don't come back to commit further criminal acts. How short are we on the detention bed -

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I might forget all those, so if I do, (I mean ?) to come back; I'll give you the answer. With respect to training, and obviously the president's budget talks about 210. We can certainly train and assimilate that. I don't know if that's the (limiting ?) number in training. And I would also be inclined to agree: I doubt we could train 2,000, even if one had 2,000. Certainly we can train and deploy the 210 that we've asked for on top of whatever we are replacing in terms of attrition.

The UAV program, as I understand, did work well. We are currently working now to begin the process of procuring UAVs. We'd like to get that done in a matter of months and start to put UAVs up and have them flying over the border. Now I don't think we can rely exclusively on UAVs. I think that sometimes you need manned vehicles and you need helicopters. But I think it was generally viewed as a positive program, and we are in the process of getting the RFIs and RFPs out in order to make sure that that gets done.

As far as detention beds are concerned, again, the budget contemplates adding some additional beds. I do want to, I guess, address an issue which seems to come up a lot when we talk about releasing people. The fact of the matter is we do not detain every single illegal person that we apprehend, and frankly, I have to say, as a graduate of the criminal justice system, neither does the criminal justice system. Most people who were arrested in states all over the country get released on bond. What everybody does, whether they be criminal justice people or people in the immigration area, is prioritize. And I do think we are working very hard to make sure that the people who are mandatory detainees are being detained and that we are dealing - having adequate beds to do that.

SENNATOR GREGG: And the camera situation (relative ?) to electronic surveillance beyond the UAVs?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I beg your pardon?

SENATOR GREGG: The camera situation relative to electronic surveillance - I mean, there was a contract let that was -- it appears didn't work, and now I guess they're trying again. What's the status on that?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: There was, I gather - and I think this is under investigation - there was a contract let and there were some problems with the procurement process. This goes back a number of years. That contract - the procurement phase of that is over. Obviously we're maintaining. My understanding is that as a general rule the surveillance stuff does work well. Obviously we have maintenance issues. We are now going to be begin the second stage of that, which is the America Shield program, where we are sending out RFIs and RFPs to begin the process of acquiring technology.

Obviously we're going to learn something from the procurement problems in the last round that go back several years. But again, it's a very good technology. I mean, the idea of using cameras and remote sensors does work as long as we get, you know, the right contractor and the right equipment and it's handled in a cost- effective manner, I think that's a very promising way to go about handling it.

SENATOR GREGG: Well, maybe you could have your staff tell us whether or not

-- we know we had the wrong contractor; we spent a lot of money; we bought cameras that didn't exist. Supposedly this has been corrected. We'd like to get some specifics on that.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: We'll get that to you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR GREGG: I think I've certainly used up my time, although this clock doesn't seem to be working correctly.

But in any event, Senator Byrd, did you want to make an opening statement or pursue questions? The floor is yours.

SENATOR ROBERT BYRD (D-WV): You and the 179,000 employees in your department are to be commended for your efforts to preserve our freedoms and secure our homeland.

I applaud Chairman Judd Gregg for taking on the challenge of chairing this subcommittee. His predecessor, Senator Thad Cochran, did a superlative job as chairman. Under Chairman Cochran, this subcommittee worked on a bipartisan basis to provide the Department of Homeland Security with resources to fill critical gaps in our security.

Of course you should know and I'm sure you do know, Mr. Secretary, that Chairman Gregg brings excellent credentials to this task. As a former governor, he understands that simply setting a policy in Washington does not automatically make that policy a success. We have to work effectively with state and local governments and with the private sector to protect the homeland.  

Years before the tragic events of September 11, Chairman Gregg led the way by funding state and local antiterrorism programs. He authored provisions for training and equipping first responders for chemical and biological attacks. In fact, he wanted me to father the Office of Domestic Preparedness, the predecessor to your Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, and I'm sitting right next to him on my left today. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to your partnership and mine on this subcommittee, and I thank you for taking on this assignment.

I thank you Mr. Secretary also. As the Secretary of Homeland Security, you're responsible for a critical balancing act. We are a nation that thrives on liberty, but 9/11 taught us that we also must invest in our security. I hope that you will work with the Congress to make sure that your department promotes our security without sacrificing our liberty as much as possible.

I wrote to you on March 2 to express my dismay that the president's budget fails to fund the border security investments authorized by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which the president signed into law on December 17 of last year. That act authorizes the hiring of 2,000 new border patrol agents per year for five years, the hiring of an additional 800 immigration investigators per year for five years to enforce our immigration laws, and the funding of 8,000 new detention beds for the holding of illegal aliens.

I urged you to work with the White House to propose a budget amendment seeking resources to increase security on our borders and to enforce our immigration laws. Despite the statements by Secretary of State Rice and former Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Loy that al Qaeda is a threat on our porous borders, there is virtually nothing in the president's budget to provide these additional resources for border security.

According to former deputy DHS Secretary James M. Loy when testifying before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about threats to the United States, quote, "Current intelligence strongly suggests that al Qaeda has considered using the southwest border to infiltrate the United States."

According to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, we're all concerned about terrorists and how they might use our very long and porous borders. The terrorists are going to keep trying. They're going to keep trying on our southern border. They're going to keep trying on our northern border. So I couldn't help but be satisfied -- disappointed to read your response to my letter yesterday that no budget amendment would be forthcoming.

The threat to our security is clear, the holes are in our borders are well known, and so I look forward to hearing from you on this and other issues today.

I thank you and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all Senators.

SENATOR GREGG: Thank you, Senator Byrd, and thank you for your generous comments.

Did you wish to proceed with questions at this time?

SENATOR BYRD: Would you please have someone else go and then call on me --

SENATOR GREGG: All right.

SENATOR BYRD: -- at your leisure?

SENATOR GREGG: Well then, I think I would turn to Senator Feinstein, I believe is the first member of your party here.

SENATOR BYRD: Very well.

SENATOR FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say, Judge Chertoff, that at least for this senator, you are so far a breath of fresh air, and I'm delighted to say that. I just want to publicly thank you for your response of April 6 in the use of fraudulent passports, stolen or lost passports, which is a big problem. I know that from the intelligence committee. And your letter was no nonsense, and it said forward very directly what the department is prepared to do. I for one will certainly hold you to it, and I'm very pleased that you share my concerns about the Visa Waiver Program and indicate, you know, that you share the findings of the critical reports that have been done and that you've established a Visa Waiver Program oversight unit. So I look forward to -- my understanding is that you're probably going to come in asking for another extension on the Visa Waiver Program. My vote is, as you know, is conditioned on getting the management act together in that unit, which critical reports have said has been in disrepair for some time. So I just wanted to say that.

I want to follow up on what the chairman said on the Border Patrol. This isn't just -- the expansion of the Border Patrol isn't really just the recommendation of the 9/11 committee. Those of us on the Judiciary Committee have recommended this for a long, long time. And specifically, the border reform and visa entry law recommended an enhanced border. As you know, 600 agents have retired this past year. So on a four to one basis, whether the 210 additional agents is actually going to provide you with a net gain or not I think is somewhat dubious, and I'm really concerned about it.

The position of the Border Patrol on 2,000 agents going back six years has always been they don't need them, they don't have the room to train them. I mean, this goes on year after year after year. The time has come to fish or cut bait. That's no longer, I think, a justifiable response. Bills have called for this, the president says he calls for it, although only 210 won't do it. I'd like to get your, your really -- your real answer to this because on the Southwest border, "other than Mexican" intrusions have gone from 22,000 in '02 to 88,000 in '04.

This clearly indicates that the Southwest border is being utilized as a point of major penetration into this country by other than Mexicans. And if you look at the list of apprehensions made from countries that are terrorist states, there are numbers there as well.

So I have a hard time in view of the minutemen coming on the Arizona border, the remonstratives made by this Congress over and over and over again, as to why there cannot be a net large increase in Border Patrol. This is something I think we are willing to pay for. This is something that I think we would be willing to add. And yet, year after year, it's the same kind of 200, which doesn't make up even for retirements.

Could you respond, please?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well my, my understanding -- well first, let me begin by just, if I can for a moment, go back to your visa waiver point. I mean, as, as I think you indicated, Senator, I share your concern. You know, we have to look at the border as a whole and make sure we're addressing every possible point of entry. And I certainly intend to hold the department to what I have indicated to you in the letter we need to do to make sure --

SENATOR FEINSTEIN: Thank you.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: -- our end is up. And I've spoken to our foreign partners and talked about the importance -- I've spoken personally to them about the importance of making sure they have their house in order in terms of getting us, tracking and getting us information on this, and ultimately moving to a biometric passport that is resistance to the kind of alteration or counterfeiting which is obviously a vulnerability.

Southwest border obviously is a concern as well. As I understand it, what we are proposing to do in the budget is a net increase of 210 Border Patrol agents, which would fill those that are leaving and fund an additional 210.

SENATOR FEINSTEIN: So if I may, that means 810 new border agents?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I, I don't --

SENATOR FEINSTEIN: 600 are retiring.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I think new -- as I understand new, new means over and above what we currently have, the funding level we have, so that we will wind up at the end of the day with -- I can't do the math in my head, but I guess there's approximately 10,800 currently, we would be adding about 200. That should include backfilling for positions that are becoming vacant. I mean, that's keeping the funding level -- that's keeping the funding level steady and then adding 210.

So that is that is what we contemplate, in addition to which we want to be able to bring to bear the UAVs. As I told Chairman Gregg, we want to get that, acquire those and start to put those up. I think that was a successful pilot program, no pun intended, and we do want to do more with sensors, which again, notwithstanding the contracting issues apparently several years ago, we think the idea of sensors and the usefulness of sensors is proven. So we have an America Shield initiative and we are in the process of setting out RFI's in order to start acquiring that technology and deploying it.

This is obviously an issue that we have to constantly look at and one of my -- I'm going to go down to the border at some point in the next month or two. I want to see for myself how we're doing down there, what additional things we can do. We have redeployed agents down to the Arizona border to deal with it, you know, the issue of a surge of people coming across. I totally agree with the principle that this a paramount responsibility of ours, and I'm going to be spending a lot of personal time focused on it.

SENATOR FEINSTEIN: Thank you. My time is up, thank you.

SENATOR GREGG: Senator Craig.

SENATOR LARRY CRAIG (R-ID): Secretary, like all of us, let me welcome you to the committee, and let me also speak as others have about our belief that you're the person who can get the job done.

At the same time, let me not sound like a broken record, but let me repeat what has been said here by both our chairman, our ranking member and certainly, the Senator from California. I'm going to focus on our southwestern border again.

Because I've been a bit outspoken about immigration policy and changes in it and actually led the Senate in debate for the last two days on it, I've also been given a lot of attention by those who might criticize any form of policy change. But most importantly, it's led to a lot of conversations about border and it's allowed me to focus more intently on border because I'll tell you, if we cannot control our border, we will never be able to write immigration policy that works. We will always be playing catch up to an ever increasing number of illegals in our country. The senator from California and I have discussed this at length.

Probably everyone on this committee today has a slightly different opinion about how we handle the problem, but I think we are all in concert about how we handle the border.

So my folks in Idaho say build the fence high and build it strong and spare no cost. Now, there are a variety of ways to build the fence and you're exploring all of them. But there are also not just the physicalnesses of it and all of the tools that we're going to acquire and should acquire to control that border. There are other issues as to who's there and how they handle process and movement.

You know, we've got this interesting situation. Yuma, Arizona. A lot of folks live on the other side of the border but work across in Yuma. They harvest lettuce. Your folks were out there a few weeks ago, rounded them all up early in the morning and took them back across the border because many of them were undocumented illegals. But by two in the afternoon, they were back in the fields harvesting the lettuce. The crisis of the harvest was over, but the reality was that a great deal of border movement occurred during that day and in that movement; there could have been someone that meant to do this country harm, not just to pluck lettuce from the fields of Yuma, Arizona. And that's something we have to get under control, both sides of that issue.

So let me give you a dialogue that I had with a young man who sought me out because of my position on this committee last year, a very frustrated member of the intelligence community. He and his group were prevented from apprehending suspects at the border because of strict guidelines and the chain of command. Even though it was his group's responsibility to collect the intelligence, his group had gathered immediate intelligence regarding certain aspects and actions needed to take immediate action; however, because of the chain of command and the hamstringing that resulted, certain intelligent (sic) agents, this intelligence officer had to sit and watch while suspects possibly crossed the border. These were not Hispanics. These by all appearances were people of Arabic descent. They were believed to be terrorists, and yet the outcome still today is who's on first and who's on second and who's in control; and in that fight, people are crossing our borders at an unprecedented rate.

And while we can talk about the money we've spent, and I did on the floor yesterday, billions of dollars, with a "b"; and we apprehended a hundred or million -- 750,000 or a million two last year or something like that, big numbers, demonstrates one thing when we're apprehending them -- that they got across. And I can't imagine that when someone is illegal by definition and they are apprehended, that they are turned loose. At least take them to the border and shove them across. Don't say, well, they'll come back. They don't come back. All of us are going to be able to control this process, and I'm going to keep pushing for changes in the law that are realistic and that work.

But all of a sudden the senator from California and I are engaged in conversation, and I say my proposal will affect five or six or seven hundred thousand; she says no it won't, it's millions. I don't know whether she's right or I'm right. We may both be right in some ways. But we do know there is a huge problem.

And enough said. I guess my question is, go to the border, look it over, get to understand it. It is unique in a variety of ways.

And lastly, I was in Houston, Texas over the weekend. I was visiting with a former state judge who said to me, very directly, there was a clear understanding in Texas that the laws are not going to be enforced, because they're unenforceable, and I'm talking about border laws.

Now if that's the name of the game along the border, we've got a huge problem that you must get your hands around and get it under control. I agree with the senator from West Virginia. I'm a cosponsor of his amendment to pull money in this emergency supplemental, to give you more. We either build the fence, or we do something that causes that border crossing to stop. How do we do it?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, first of all, Senator, there are a number of things that you raised, and I hope I keep them in mind, so I can address them all.

I think it's important, as you say, to look at this as a comprehensive issue, not an issue you can deal with in terms of individual slices of policy. Clearly, one piece of this is the issue of, you know, what the president has advocated addressing through a temporary worker program: finding a way to bring some portion of the people who come across the border, not to do us harm but to work, to bring them within the system--

SENATOR CRAIG: Very important.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: -- so that they -- we have some control over them. And also we then reduce the pressure, and we reduce the demand which gives the trafficking organizations the kind of resources they need to bring bad people across the border. Now that's one piece of a comprehensive package.

Another piece has to be stepped-up enforcement along the border, including better deployment and more efficient deployment of Border Patrol, use of technology to give us a better span of control over who's coming across the border. Absolutely the idea that there are laws that are tacitly not going to be enforced is dead wrong and something certainly I don't endorse.

When you talk about chain of command issues interfering with somebody apprehending a person who's come across illegally, I have to say that if there are bureaucratic obstacles to enforcing the law, I want to get rid of those.

I have spoken to Border Patrol and to Commissioner Bonner about in fact breaking down the stovepipes that I think used to be -- we used to have a very regionally controlled border-sector-controlled deployment of resources, so that you had seams between the regions. Everybody took the view that "Hey, I'm going to worry about my region, and that's all I'm going to worry about." We've now moved away from that. Commissioner Bonner has put together a much more nimble program for deploying resources, which I think again is trying to break down those stovepipes.

When I hear about these kinds of bureaucratic things, I do want to go out and see what the problem is and try to fix it.

You know, this is not -- this problem has been around for a long time. When I was U.S. attorney back in the early '90s, we were talking about this. So I know it's not a new problem.

I know there is a new urgency. And I think -- although there's a lot to discuss in terms of detail, I think there's a general view we have to take a comprehensive approach. And I really look forward to working with you and with everybody who's interested in this in putting together a comprehensive policy.

SENATOR CRAIG: Thank you.

SENATOR GREGG: Thank you. Senator Murray?

SENATOR PATTY MURRAY (D-WA): Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

And Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. You've been handed a very, very difficult job. And I commend Senator Gregg for his opening statement and agree we need an honest assessment from you of what resources we need for all of these difficult challenges.

I think everybody here shares the same goal of doing everything we can to make sure our country's secure. And it is always difficult when we feel like we're not getting what we really need.

And we've heard a lot about border security. I obviously am concerned about the northern border. I know all 200 of those-plus are going to the southern border. We know that the northern border's a problem, but let me set that aside, because I want to focus on port security and cargo security, which you and I've had some time to talk about.

I am very concerned. The Coast Guard commandant testified before us that it would take more than $7 billion to implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act. So far, Congress has provided a little over $500 million of that. None -- or I don't think any of that was requested by the administration; that was Congress adding those dollars in.

Now for the past two years, about a billion dollars in port security grants have come in to your agency.

And the American Association of Port Authorities say they need at least $400 million to help secure port facilities this year.

From our discussions, I know port security is an important issue for you. You understand it's not only human lives; it is economic disaster if we don't secure our ports. But it is disconcerting to me that the administration does not ask for the dollars for these port security grants. Does the agency just discount all the intelligence reports that tell us our ports are a significant risk? What can we expect on this?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: No. I mean, I do think ports are a very significant part of the infrastructure we have to work to protect. And one thing I want to emphasize, you know, as we go through this process of reviewing the entire operation of the department over the next couple months: I try to look at the issue, whether it be ports or rail or aviation, in terms of an outcome-oriented approach. In other words, I want to say - I don't want to know what each agency is doing; I want to know what we are doing in combination to deal with the issue of ports or rail or aviation, because that gives us our total sense of how good we are doing or how well we are doing in protecting ourselves.

There are a number of dimensions to this. First of all, there's container security. We have begun a Container Security Initiative which pushes our screening and inspection process overseas. That is a very positive thing.

SENATOR MURRAY: I want to ask you about that separately in just a minute. What I want to ask you about, first of all, is the port security. Under the Maritime Transportation Security Act, our ports have to harden the ports, and they are just not getting the resources to do that.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: We want to make sure they get adequate resources, bearing in mind - again, with the philosophy of risk management - that we have to prioritize -

SENATOR MURRAY: But the administration is not requesting any money to do that, despite the fact that the commandant of the Coast Guard told us we needed $7 billion to do that.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, I do think we have money in various grant programs that are requested in the budget that are available to be used for purposes of strengthening ports. We have infrastructure - proposing an infrastructure protection program; we have state grants; we have urban - UASI grants. We have a lot of different kinds of types of grants. But I also have to say, I think that the issue of how we protect the ports has to be looked at comprehensively. Coast Guard plays a role in that; private parties play a role in that and have private obligations.

SENATOR MURRAY: I understand that. But under the Maritime Security Act, we directed all of these ports to give us a plan of how they were going to protect their ports, which they did, and they now have to implement it; they're not getting any money to do it. And we need a direct, targeted program, the Port Security Grant Program, to do that. So I want to work with you on that.

I am just disappointed every time when the budget comes over with no money for that, because, as you and I both know, a disaster at one of our ports is going to dramatically hurt not only human life but the economy of this country, whether you're in a port city or not.

But the other part of that is cargo security, and as you know, I have been really pushing to get some kind of coordinated port security regime in place. Everyone out there is trying their best to move those ports out, to follow our cargo from where they're loaded into our ports here, and there is no coordinated approach to that. And in the committee report from last year, we directed the undersecretary of Border and Transportation Security to help us develop a plan for that coordinated approach. It was due February 8th. We still haven't gotten that yet. And I just feel like the - we need the administration. I've talked with you about this; I've talked with Commissioner Bonner; I've talked with a number of folks about it, and all we get is, "We're going to study this." I know that you and I agree this is an important issue.

How can we help you come up with a coordinated approach to secure our ports, all the cargo that moves through them and the people who work and live there?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, what we're doing - of course, I'm very sensitive to be, you know, not saying "we're studying something," so let me be a little bit more concrete.

SENATOR MURRAY: Thank you.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: We need to take the issue of cargo and container security to what I would consider to be the next level of systems sophistication. There are people in the private world who are very, very good at tracking everything, from point of departure to point of arrival. And there are processes and technologies that allow us to do that. And that is the kind of system we ought to be looking to, moving toward in our container security initiative. CSI is partway towards that. The principle of moving this overseas is a good step in that direction.

Ultimately, though, one of the things - and we have been meeting with, for example, the private sector shipping companies to talk about ways we might with greater specificity track cargo from the time that it departs the manufacturer to the time it gets to the point of arrival, working with the private sector to have them build a security envelope. And again, we have through the CT-PAT program, we've got that process as a precedent - we do use that kind of process - so that eventually what we can do is put as much of the cargo through a security envelope from point of departure to point of arrival as possible, track it, screen it, have private sector take a lot of responsibility within that envelop for maintaining security, use technology to make sure we aren't getting penetrations. And then again, you're going to always have some cargo that doesn't fit within that envelope. We are deploying technologies, like VACIS radiation portal, and our national targeting center to focus on that subset of cargo that really needs a much more - much tougher regime of screening and inspection.

So that I think is the way forward. And I do think we are working, you know, with a lot of diligence and a lot of urgency to moving to that next level.

SENATOR MURRAY: Well, I appreciate that.

Mr. Chairman, it's a very complex problem; there's a lot of players in it. And I think what is most disconcerting to me is that we don't have a coordinated approach.

And Mr. Secretary, I hope we can get that report from you that was due February 8th so that we can really start moving forward to get that accomplished.

SENATOR GREGG: Thank you, Senator. Senator Allard.

SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD (R-CO): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I also would like to join my colleagues and welcome Secretary Chertoff here this morning.

I'm also new to the committee here, Mr. Secretary, and I'm looking forward to serving under the able chairmanship of Senator Gregg.

I wonder sometimes if maybe we're not looking too much to a federal solution, and perhaps shouldn't think a little bit more about what the local law enforcement along the borders - that's the counties along the borders or the states along the borders.

You know, this is homeland security, and everybody's talking about more money for customs and more agents and whatnot. But you know, I happen to believe that those people down along the border that form the Minutemen organization have some real concerns. I think they are really concerned about their property. I think they are really concerned about the safety of their families. And I don't know whether any thought has been - in trying to do more to support our local law enforcement along the borders. You know, they're local elected officials; they know about those things; they understand the problems of their community. I wonder if we shouldn't do - the same thing with the state; the governor is elected by that state. I wonder if we shouldn't consider targeting those counties, share with them more of the technology that we've developed at the federal level, and take citizen groups like the Minutemen, incorporate them, deputize them, have the local sheriff deputize them, or whatever, or have your National Guard, or whatever, bring in some responsibility - I'm not implying that they haven't been responsible at this particular point in time, but at least bring them under some organized law enforcement thing that traditionally has relied on citizens. That's why we have a deputization process. That's why we have the National Guard. And I wonder how much thought you have given to that, because all I'm hearing from this committee, and all I'm hearing so far in this discussion is a federal solution. I think we need - and I think we'll get a better bang for the buck. I mean, they work at a lower salary level; they have more of a commitment in that safety because they live there. I wonder if you'd comment on that.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, we do work, actually, in the Arizona Border Patrol Initiative. We are working; we've had a great working relationship with state and local law enforcement officials. Now, you know, depending on what community you're in, some law enforcement officials want to be involved and engaged in the process of enforcing the laws against illegal immigration; some don't. I don't think we can get make them do it. Clearly, though, we want to work cooperatively because they are a force multiplier. And when we get well trained - and we share information and we get well-trained state and local enforcement officials, they are a welcome addition to the process of extending our ability to deal with the issue of illegal migration across the border.

SENATOR ALLARD: Well, obviously you've been in conversation with local elected officials. I just think we can do more. And I think I'll be a voice, on this committee at least, for pushing you towards more of a local solution than something run out of Washington. I don't think we have all the answers necessarily here in Washington.

The other thing that I would like to say in a positive way - it's been a few million years since we've had a coastline in the state of Colorado, so I made a personal, concerted effort to visit one of our ports. I visited the Port of Miami. And I'll have to tell you: I was pretty impressed. And just the very things that you talked about in your previous testimony I saw happening there. I saw technology that was developed at the Sandia Laboratories in New Mexico being used at that port. And I have to tell you that I feel much better about our port security. And I think sometimes we're looking at a hundred percent solution; I don't think the citizens of this country can afford a hundred percent solution. I think we have to come up with reasonable solutions that work, and I think what I saw there at the port, it was efficient. You know, they could handle a fair (amount ?). I saw a lot of dedication there. And I was rather pleased, I just have to tell you that.

I think sometimes - what we see happening at our airports, I wonder if maybe we haven't gotten off track a little bit and expecting too much on security in airports. I think the most important thing we did, and probably the most cost effective, was we put a door that was secure between the pilot and the passengers. But I do think that we need to take a hard look at what's happening at our airports, see if we can't come up with some more common sense solutions, what I see happening. And so I think there are some good things happening there.

On the other hand, I have also seen - I've walked through customs, and particularly in the state of Colorado, and I've been appalled at the rudeness of the employees there. And I come from a state where I want to welcome people to my state as tourists. And I've been sort of appalled at some of the rudeness that I saw at the customs. So hopefully we can kind of improve our bedside manner a little bit. Remember that we have visitors coming to our country; we have visitors coming to our states -

MR. : And they're not all criminals.

SENATOR ALLARD: Yeah, and they're not all criminals. And if we don't - if the federal employee doesn't treat him respectfully and with a welcoming attitude, it hurts our tourism in our state. And so I just want to call that to your attention.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR GREGG: (Off mike.)

SENATOR DOMENICI (?): Very good points.

SENATOR BYRD: In fiscal year 2004, Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed a record 150,000 illegal aliens from this country. However, we know that more than 10 million illegal aliens reside in this country. Two and a half million illegal aliens have overstayed their tourist or work visas. There are 370,000 illegal aliens who have knowingly disobeyed orders to leave the country. ICE teams - Immigration and Customs Enforcement teams deported 11,000 of them in 2004, but more than 35,000 others were added to the list. The system is not working and this budget request does almost nothing to fix it.

I have a border security amendment pending to the Iraqi war supplemental, which is currently being debated on the floor of the Senate. My amendment is offset, responds to known security shortfalls on our borders, and responds to the concerns of many Americans, including the self-styled Minutemen, who are performing a major community watch effort on the Arizona border.

While there indeed are slight increases proposed for next year, the fact remains that both the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement are experiencing significant attrition this year. According to your agency, 137 Border Patrol agents have left the service since the beginning of the fiscal year. By the end of January ICE had experienced a net loss of 299 positions. On average, you are filling 2,000 fewer detention beds a week than the level that the Congress provided funds to fill. The proposed increases for next year merely backfill the losses you're experiencing this year.

In short, this is a status quo budget request. The crisis that we're experiencing today on our borders deserves more than a status quo budget. Why should we be satisfied with a status quo budget, Mr. Secretary?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, Senator, I - first of all, my understanding, again, of what our - what we're proposing to do is that we are going to - when we talk about increases, we're talking about net increases. In other words, we are going to fund over 200 additional border patrol agents, 140 additional ICE investigators, almost 2,000 additional beds over and above the current level. Obviously, when people leave we always backfill those positions so that - I think you have to add those numbers together. And we're talking about funding that would get us a net up-tick in all those categories.

In fact, we've worked this year - in terms of 2005, we've submitted a reprogramming to get more money to ICE so that even this year we can begin the process of starting to do some hiring to move them to the level they need to be.

There's no question this is a serious issue, this whole issue of managing illegal immigration. And what we have to do is use a comprehensive approach. We have to be able to have more people at the border, better technology at the border, all of which we are now pushing forward; better investigative capabilities, better and more available use of detention beds.

And we're doing some additional things as well to free up beds. For example, we are working with the Mexicans to begin the internal repatriation program in the next couple weeks, whereby we transport Mexicans who come in back to interior locations so that they don't simply go back across the border, connect up with the same trafficking organizations and then come back a couple of days later. We're using other kinds of techniques in terms of expediting removal to try to expedite the process of getting people that we do apprehend, moving them, again, across the border back to Mexico.

We are now targeting for the first time enforcement of people who are absconders or who are violating release orders and return orders to make sure we're apprehending them and we are, again, getting them and sending them back across the border. And we have to also be vigorous in enforcing the laws against people who are removed and then in violation of the law come back across the border again. We have not always succeeded in getting the kind of sentences we need from judges in keeping those people who are violators, repeat violators, in prison.

So we're very concerned about it. We are taking steps to move forward on this. I'm going to look at this issue, as I said previously to Senator Feinstein. I'm going to go down to the border, I think within the next two months, and talk myself personally to local people and our border patrol folks down there to keep moving forward on this issue.

SENATOR BYRD: Well, are you satisfied with a status quo budget?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I am not satisfied with the status quo. We need to move forward. We need to be better about keeping our borders policed. We need to be better about tracking absconders. We need to be better about getting people removed efficiently. And I think as we look at the whole issue comprehensively, there are a lot of things we can do to get a better outcome.

SENATOR BYRD: Mr. Secretary, you didn't answer my question.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, what I think I -

SENATOR BYRD: Are you satisfied with a status quo budget?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I think what I'm saying, Senator, is I think our budget is not a status quo budget. I think it looks to net increases. And therefore, I will tell you: I'm not satisfied with - I would not be satisfied with a status quo budget or a status quo situation.

SENATOR BYRD: Finally, Mr. Chairman, we would look forward to your comprehensive approach. My amendment would provide you with real resources to implement your comprehensive approach.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR GREGG: Senator Domenici.

SENATOR PETE DOMINICI (R-NM): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Byrd, I will follow up on your questions and just get my own observation after first saying - (to Secretary Chertoff) - thank you for your job, the job you're doing. And I look forward to visiting the border with you and some of the facilities that we have in our state, such as the laboratories, to make sure you understand the competence in other departments of the government to help you do your work.

Senator Byrd, I would just say I laud your concern about doing more than we're doing, which is an answer to a status quo. We can't stand the status quo. I don't know about a status quo budget. But we also need a can't-stand-the-status-quo with reference to our current laws on migration and immigration. I mean, they're adding to their problem because it's a mix up and a mumbo jumbo of things. They don't know what they're supposed to do. I mean, when we catch them on this side and send them home, what are they supposed to do when they come right back? I mean, we then look at it and say they're not doing their job.

SENATOR BYRD (?): I'm with you.

SENATOR DOMENICI: It's embarrassing to see that we don't have a bill yet on the floor of the Senate on immigration. This is not a way to deal with immigration in a supplemental appropriation. I think you would agree with me. We need to debate this issue thoroughly. And it adds to their - makes them do their job better and adds to the propriety of the United States.

SENATOR BYRD: (Off mike.)

SENATOR DOMENICI: But it's time. I'm telling you. And many of us agree with you finally.

Now having said that, first let me say to you - (to Secretary Chertoff) - people wondered when you got this job what somebody with your background was doing. I was at your side all the way because I knew what you were capable of doing. And I want to laud you so far with the job you're doing. I want to give you a couple of my observations.

First of all, you inherited a department that was put together hurriedly. It is consequently a very hodgepodge department. The sooner you yourself find out what was done that is not done right, what was done that might even be wrong, you ought to be the one finding out about those and fixing them, because they're going to be determined sooner or later. There are many of them up and down the chain of command of your department. And you know that. I don't know how soon you can fix them, but I urge that you do.

My second observation is since we put you together this way, there's a multiplicity of activities that are, even though we thought we were putting them all together, that they aren't all together, because there are many other facilities that do work of the type you need. And I really urge that even though you have set up in the statute a function, and thus a piece of your department, that you resist your department creating a total group of experts in every one of those niches, because many of those experts already exist in the government, and you ought to use them. You're using them. I think you should just make that a policy.

Somebody said - this distinguished senator from Colorado, who shames me; he's been to see Miami and I haven't been to the border in six months, which is my own state; he's been way over there in the Port of Miami. I ought to go see what's happening on my border. But, the problem --

(laughs) -- the problem is that in enforcing our laws, there exists terrific capacity in our National Laboratories, in our Defense Department, and those who are studying unmanned vehicles. You don't have to begin every one within in your department. Do I make sense?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Yes, absolutely Senator. I mean, I really don't want to rediscover the wheel, particularly if we have the wheel discovered elsewhere in the federal government or the state government, or in the private sector. I mean we don't  have the time to do everything ourselves.

And, you know, one of the observations I had when I came into the department and -- two observations. One is completely consistent with your advise that we really need to comprehensively review what we're doing. And I give a lot of credit to Governor Ridge and Admiral Loy and everybody who stood up the department, which was an enormous challenge. They did a lot in two years. But, you know, it took the Defense Department decades to get to where it is now, and we don't have that time. So, we should be willing to examine, you know, where we can adjust and make those adjustments.  

With your second point, Senator, I mean, I think we are -- a lot of what we bring to the table is a network. Nowadays, in business, people talk about networking. We don't have to own or employ everybody in Homeland Security. We don't and we can't. What we have to do is network with what's out there in our other federal agencies, state and local partners, and figure out a way to make everybody work together and to coordinate those things. So, even in my brief two months at the department, I've been very clear about saying that we ought to pay as much attention, if not more, to that networking function as we do to the actual physical assets that we own and the people that we have in our department.

SENATOR DOMENICI: Now, my time's running out, so I want to make one last observation. I'll put in -- two in one.

First, it seems to me, without question, that what you are doing out there in terms of networking is already having a big impact. I'm not one who continues to carp on the fact that we are not -- we don't have a good Homeland Security, because I contend that nothing has happened since 9/11 and that's not an accident. I think we are doing a much better job at making it hard for terrorists than we give ourselves credit for.

Now, I don't need you to answer that, but if you can you should. I mean, everybody's just saying we're not doing anything. But why are the terrorists doing nothing? They keep saying they want to get America. They haven't done anything yet, thank God. Maybe tomorrow they'll do it and Domenici will be crazy. But, that's one observation.

And then the second one is that it seems to me obvious that even though we want to address risks, we, nonetheless, want money to go to the states and the new bill will do what you suggested -- put more money in risk and less in porks, allegedly. But, I submit that that doesn't mean all the heavily populated states are the harbors of all the risks. I mean, in my state you have two National Laboratories filled with nuclear activity -- the center of nuclear weaponry; that's all I will say. You know what that means.

Now, you can't expect New Mexico, with .005 tenths of a percent of the money to assume the risk of the extraordinary activities. And I would hope that if we give you a law that does what I've just said, that you have somebody looking at West Virginia, and New Hampshire, and New Mexico, to say what else is there that's essential to our country and dangerous. And I don't mean a football field. That's what people are saying. Every gym and every football field because people will assemble, ought to be protected. I don't know about that. You decide that. But I do know the place where nuclear weapons of the United States are in abundance, should not say, well, that's only New Mexico; it's a rural state.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I absolutely do. And as we've said, I mean, I think risk management is not about size of state or population or things of that. It's about individual piece of infrastructure, individual networks of transportation. I mean, population clearly is an element to be considered, but we have to have a much more sophisticated approach.

And I think that is exactly what we want to drive to with our risk management philosophy.

SENATOR DOMINICI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR GREGG: Thank you.

Senator Kohl, I appreciate your patience. Please take as much time as you think you need.

SENATOR HERBERT KOHL (D-WI): Thank you Senator Gregg.

And Secretary Chertoff, I'd like to talk about airport screening. For those of us, and it includes, I'm sure, most of the people here in this room, we're going through, as you know, a lot more intensive airport screening today then we were prior to 9/11, and yet a report came out this week which indicates that investigators have determined that things like knives, guns and even fake bombs are still being processed through the screeners without detection. I'm almost incomprehensible in trying to figure why -- how that can be, after all of the money and the effort that we've put into trying to improve airport security for travelers.

They talk about the need for new technology, additional technology, which we apparently don't have or have not yet been able to spend the money on. Can you tell us whether or not it's true that airport screening today is about at the level that it was before 9/11, and how soon it is that we're going to be to improve it?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I read the IG's report and I just spoke with the IG about it, because obviously I was very concerned about that. That's not a -- and I don't have an independent way of verifying it, but I'm not going to dispute it, either. I was very concerned about the question of how do we move to the next level. And, you know, clearly there are issues involving training and things of that sort, which are important, but I agree with the IG that technology is really ultimately what we have to use in order to get to the next level.

We do have some good pilot projects and we do have some good technology. We are continuing to fund that and I think that is a very promising development. I have to be completely forthright in saying we also have to make some difficult decisions about policy in order to decide if we are going to capitalize on that technology.

For example, one form of technology that makes it easier to detect these kinds of threats is backscatter technology. That has certain implications for privacy because it does essentially in some form allow you to look to see what someone is carrying on them that they may be concealing. And so there is sometimes resistance to that. I think we have to, you know, be prepared to say that we need to start to deploy these kinds of technologies and make appropriate adjustments for privacy if we're going to get to that next level. And that's not a question of-- I mean the technology is out there and it's being used. It's a question of the decision to deploy it and to try to balance that with legitimate privacy concerns, but not let's get so caught up in an endless debate about it that in five years we're still sitting there with the technology available and useful and helpful, but we haven't put it out yet because people are still hand-wringing about it.

So I very much want to start to take the step of moving that technology out and continuing to press forward on the research and development side, but also not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we can make things better, let's get them better, rather than wait for the magic bullet that's going to solve everything.

SENATOR KOHL: Yes, it is very surprising to me, and I think to every traveler, to think that in spite of all the money that we've spent and the delays that we now go through at airports that we didn't go through prior to 9/11, some people in the position to know are saying that airport security is about at the same point that it was then. This, I'm sure, is a matter of great concern to you. And I hope that we can effect some improvements.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, I intend to do so. It's troubling. I think we do have good capabilities in technology, and I think we have to now start to move the process forward. And I'm very interested in seeing that we do that.

SENATOR KOHL: Okay, I'd like to talk about foreign student visas for a minute. As you probably know, there's been a significant increase in the time that it takes for foreign students to get their visas to enter school. And, as a result, the number of applications has gone down. The number of foreign students who are enrolling post- graduate has gone down, and universities all across the country are quite concerned about this.

Just this past month, it was indicated that 40 leading research universities reported that 621 students missed the start of classes because of visa delays. Now, certainly, we need to do the job of checking out -- keep out those students who shouldn't be here for security reasons. But isn't there something we can do to increase our level of ability to move people through the process and allow them to get enrolled in universities?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, we should. I've talked to Secretary Rice about this. We've already taken some steps in terms of lengthening the period of time a visa is applicable so that at least once we've passed someone through the screen, they have an ability to spend more time here without rechanneling themselves through the process. That's a positive development. Obviously, we need to do more in terms of our ability to vet people in advance, to do it more quickly. And we need to also, frankly, send the message out that we want to be hospitable in doing those things.

So I think we're all committed to moving that forward. Again, I want to be fair and, you know, I guess I'll be blunt in saying the schools also have to help too, because we do encounter situations where people come in for schools and they don't show up or they leave the program and, of course, we should know about that. The school should report that to us. And certain schools get a reputation as being easy marks for people who want to come and maybe not to study, but to do something else. If the schools don't cooperate with us, they make it very hard to run the program in a way that helps the entire spectrum of universities.

So, part of what we need to do is make it more efficient for people to get their visas, give them longer visas, but also make sure the schools live up to their obligation to let us know if people are abusing the system. And that's part of the trade-off in order to make this work for the best interest of everybody.

SENATOR KOHL: I thank you very much.

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR GREGG: Thank you Senator. Let me pick up on your question because the TSA is an issue that I think -- just every American gets a little frustrated with sometimes. And I guess my question is this -- and it's a philosophical one. Once we hardened the doors and took away the capacity to use airplanes as missiles -- private passenger airplanes as missiles -- we changed the dynamic of the threat, fundamentally. And yet we have created an agency which has, what, 35,000 people? And here we are in a border where we have 10,000 agents and we probably need 20,000 agents to do it right. They have to be well-trained, obviously, and there has to be an infrastructure to support them and all that.

But, are we basically reacting to yesterday's threat? We've got port security issues, we've got border-crossing issues, and yet, we put a huge amount of resources into airport security without, it appears, any significant improvement in security relative to the ability to get -- transit weapons through security. And having addressed the fundamental threat, which is an airplane used as a missile.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I asked myself that question coming into this job as well. And, I want to break -- if I can, just take a minute to break it into several different issues.

First of all, there is the issue of aviation security in itself. Are we, you know, optimally focused on what the real threat is? And I think you've put your finger on it, Mr. Chairman, when you indicated the first thing we have to be, you know, really pretty tough about is recognizing that there are degrees of consequence that we're worried about. The aircraft as missile is the worst consequence. It's bad to have an aircraft blown up in midair too. That may be a somewhat less significant consequence. It would certainly have tremendous ramifications across the airline system. And then, there are yet other possible bad outcomes. So, we have to frame the issue that way.

We do have hardening of cockpit doors. There are other steps we can and should take to prevent the aircraft as missile. That might very well counsel to change or moderate or adjust our current levels for screening with respect to certain types of items and increase our screening for other types of items. Maybe, you know, we, the proverbial example of nail clippers -- which I don't think are being screened for now anyway

-- but maybe we need to be a little less worried about metal cutlery and a little more worried about explosives. So that's within the issue of aviation and that's something we are actively looking at now.

The second issue is making sure our attention is not distracted away from emerging issues. We are looking heavily at the issue of rail security, we are looking at the issue of cargo. We have deployed non-intrusive inspection technologies. Those are very good, I've seen them work myself. You may very well have as well. That's a positive step we're paying attention to.

And as I said to Senator Murray, we're looking at this whole issue of cargo movement to use how we can use modern supply chain techniques and technology to really make sure we are doing what we need to do to protect against bad cargo.

So I am completely on board with the idea of making sure we're not distracted by the thing we've already done, spending a lot of time on that because we know how to do it, and it's comfortable rather than looking at the stuff we haven't done as well that we need to elevate up.

SENATOR GREGG: I agree. And I'm glad you're looking at it that way. But I'm asking are we taking it to the next step, which is -- you know we're spending I think, I've forgotten the numbers, 3.5 billion (dollars), some outrageous number on TSA, but should we be moving that number to Border Patrol? Should we be taking a large percentage of that employee base and moving them over, if not as a direct personnel shift, as at least a resource shift, reducing the number of personnel at TSA and moving people to Border Patrol where we know we've got a bigger risk right now relative to the potential threat?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, I don't know, senator, that I would do that, because I don't know that I would say that there's a bigger risk. I mean, I don't want to go to the other end and minimize the aviation risk too much. I mean, the reality is, even putting aside the aircraft as a weapon, if we were to have a series of explosions on airlines or something comparable, that would have a humongous effect on the national economy and a humongous effect on our ability to move around.

And we want to be -- we want to have a smarter deployment of resources in the aviation security area, but we want to have the outcome be very, very good security in terms of things we're worried about. And I don't know that, for a whole host of reasons, including training and skillsets, that we could simply move TSA people over there.

SENATOR GREGG: I don't think you could move people, but I'm talking about the dollars that support those people.

Isn't -- you know, I mean, the threat to the aircraft now is, as you mentioned, an explosive probably more than a weapon because you can't get control of an aircraft as a weapon, theoretically. I mean maybe it's possible, if you've get a big enough weapon on board. But if the explosive is the threat, isn't it really a technology response to that rather than a people response?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I think that that's right. I think that there is -- I think ultimately the way to move to the level we need to get is technology because I think there is an inherent limitation. People are limited by the technology.

I mean, you can be the best trained and the most well-intentioned person in the world; if your detection device doesn't let you get sufficient granularity or make distinctions between types of things, between the dangerous and not dangerous, that's a limitation. So we need to get the technology to where it needs to be.

That might ultimately allow us to reduce workforce, although I don't want to make a prediction that that's going to happen in the short term because I still think -- you know, there's an element of human judgment that you bring to bear that's still very important.

But there is no question that we have to both invest in technology but also, as I said, roll out the technology we have and start to use it; and that rather than continuing to fuss around everybody having -- you know, I don't want to minimize privacy concerns. I have them as well. But we need to come to grips with them, we need to adjust for them, we need to reach a decision about how to accommodate them, and then we need to start to move forward.

SENATOR GREGG: The problem I see coming here -- well, this is just one element of the issue, but relative to TSA -- is that we have a report of literally thousands of thefts occurring in luggage of travelers, and it appears that a high percentage of those thefts are being -- are the responsibility or the actions of federal employees of TSA. We're probably going to have to institute a major camera program or something to monitor the search of luggage by employees. And so we're going to end up spending significant resources to protect ourselves from the employees who are supposed to protecting ourselves from damage on the planes. And as a taxpayer I find that uniquely frustrating, and as a policymaker I find it to be a terrible waste of resources.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I agree. It's really -- I mean, obviously pilferage is completely unacceptable. And it is a bad state of affairs if we have to spend money protecting ourselves from the people who are protecting us. I am convinced, of course, the majority of screeners are terrific and ethical and things like that.

SENATOR GREGG: I'm sure that's true.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: But you're right. The technology --

SENATOR GREGG: But the record is that, unfortunately, that there's a big problem here.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: And that's why I agree with you, that technology is really the way forward in terms of getting ourselves to where we need to go.

SENATOR GREGG: In the area of intelligence, I'm not sure I understand -- and I'm new to this since the issue has moved out of CJS and I'm new to this committee -- I'm not sure I understand what the department sees as its role in intelligence right now.

It's clear that there was a conscious decision to give up the actual collection and analytical effort to other federal agencies. You've got IAIP, which I guess is stood up, but it seems to continually be raided for its revenues. What do you see as the intelligence function of Homeland Security, of the agency, in relationship to these other agencies and internally?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, first of all, I think we are definitely in the business of correction, and let me explain what I mean by correction.

We have thousands of interactions everyday at the border in investigations with ICE agents, at the airport, and many of those yield information which I would consider to be of intelligence value. We are in the process now of increasing our use of that intelligence and our collection of that intelligence, doing a number of different things.

For the first time we're putting reports officers into the operational units; meaning people will look at the operational flow of information and say, wait a second, this is not just a trivial interaction, this is a piece of information that is useful from an intelligence standpoint. Let's make sure we capture it and send it up to our information analysis section so it can be fused and collected, and then ultimately transmitted to the community.

We have started to do that. I have seen the results. The federal air marshals actually use modern technology in real time to report on things they see on airplanes that could have intelligence value in terms of suspicious behavior, so we get identification of people that we need to be on the lookout for, and we can then put that into a system that all of law enforcement can have access to. So we have a tremendous potential to be collectors, which I want to make sure we are fully exercising.

Second piece of that is, once we get ourselves to where we need to be in collection, and we continue this process, we can contribute to the whole community by putting that into the NCTC, which is the counterterrorism center. That was set up by Congress in the Intel reform bill last year as the kind of fusion point for counterterrorism intelligence.

By putting that information in here, we are sharing with the community. We are also contributing, and my experience is that when you contribute as a partner, you then get full partnership. So I view that as a very critical piece of what we need to do to make sure that we are sitting at the table with respect to everything else that comes in from the other parts of the intel community: overseas stuff, signals intelligence, human intelligence in other countries.

The third piece is as partners at the table, we need to be able to look at all that stuff and operationalize it. And right now in the department we are talking about how we want to enhance the ability of IA, of information analysis, to collect all this from the central pool that we have at the NCTC, to translate it into operational mandates to make sure we make adjustments at the border and other adjustments, so that we actually make use of this intelligence.

So that's my vision of where we're going. I have met with the acting head of NCTC, I've met with other main players in the community, and I've expressed my very strong personal interest in seeing that we get this done.

SENATOR GREGG: Where do you see the technology situation relative to IDENT and IAFIS and also relative to -- (off mike)?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: As you know, senator, IDENT was I guess the system that was stood up under the old INS pre-9/11. IAFIS is a system the bureau set up.

Right now, as I understand it, we have the ability at ports of entry and at Customs and Border Patrol posts to access both of those databases at the same time. They are separate databases, but we can run prints against both of those databases.

Now, IAFIS is a ten-print database, so ultimately there's a decision which we need to reach about implementing a way to get to using -- make effective use of a ten-print database. And I think there is a technological challenge there, and there are some policy decisions that we're in the process of making.

I think we've made a lot of progress in making them, both databases, accessible at a single point at the border and in our Border Patrol and Customs stations. We haven't fully exploited the technology. We need to continue the process of building an architecture that lets us get the maximum use out of our biometric data that we capture and run it against the maximum number of databases.

SENATOR GREGG: US-VISIT?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Again, I think US-VISIT has -- certainly on the entry point, we've deployed it at our airports, we've deployed it at seaports. We've deployed at our 50 most significant manned border entry points. We're starting a pilot at the exit point. It has been very successful. I have seen it operate. It is fast. We have captured people on it that we should not be letting in the country and we've been able to turn them away. You know, it can be improved and we can make better use of it, but it is, I think, the key to the next generation of keeping our border secure.

SENATOR : How do you see your success in creating preparation for an attack that might be biological?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: As you know, senator, we just -- Mr. Chairman, we just finished TOPOFF III, which was a massive exercise done internationally and in two states, which had a hypothetical biological attack.

I've met with Secretary Leavitt. We've talked about some preliminary lessons learned. We are doing a very comprehensive review of that to make sure that we have the following things in place.

First of all, we have an adequate stockpile of the kinds of antidotes where we have them, or vaccinations where we can have them against the likely agents. That we have a very particular plans in place for distributing that type of vaccine or that type of antidote if we should have an attack.

We are fully integrated across the board in terms of our standards for reporting biological incidents. You know we had that anthrax false scare about a month ago. We did a very vigorous review of that. We've made some changes now with the Defense Department as well as with our own department in making sure we're operating with the same set of standards, and we're now working across the federal government to test to make sure everybody has got the same template for what we're sensing, what constitutes a positive finding, when do we get to the point where we need to take steps to give people inoculations or antidotes.

So we are, again, we've got progress to make. I think we have learned a lot of lessons both recently and going back. And I think we have a program in place to start to move ourselves to a position of readiness for what I agree with you is one of the two or three worst case scenarios that we have to be prepared for.

SENATOR GREGG: (Off mike.)

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I was not involved in this, I guess the selection for '03, and I guess the selection for the next one was made before I came on. I'm not sure exactly -- I know people do apply and then a decision is made.

I know Chicago did the last plan in Top Off II. Northern New Jersey obviously and Connecticut are part of the New York metropolitan area, so we did exercise some pieces of this.

I agree, at the end of the day -- by the way we should be doing tabletop exercises, meaning not maybe the full Top Off, but something all across the board.

And I was a little -- I wondered myself how valuable it was. And I have to say, I was convinced that it was of tremendous value. I learned a lot, and I think a lot of people learned a lot by testing the system.

So I'm in favor of doing at least some kind of exercising as an important part of our preparedness.

SENATOR GREGG: Well, I would hope that the department would take a look at whether or not we shouldn't do them to some degree based on threat criteria versus just the willingness of a governor to participate or a state to participate.

I appreciate your time. I have one last question. There is a large amount of open slots and acting slots, and what do you see relative to senior management, getting it up and stable?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I'm concerned obviously as a secretary who doesn't want to have to do every job himself to make sure we have very good people in. I'm pleased to say we filled some of those spots. We've got others where we have nominations pending before the Senate.

Obviously the more quickly we can fill those spots the better. We want to get the right people. We want to get people who had the energy and creativity to make a department what I think it can be, going to the next level.

And part of what we're trying to do frankly is to recruit and bring people in to top slots that people have a variety of different perspectives.

I think it's good to have people with military backgrounds, people with law enforcement background, people with business backgrounds, people with first responder background, because we are ultimately, our success involves merging functions, and that means merging skills.

So we are actively out there finding the right people. The president has gotten the nominations in and he's made some appointments already. And I am for personal as well as professional reasons very eager to get this process done as quickly as possible.

SENATOR GREGG: And lastly, beyond approving your budget, which I expect we will do, and actually probably do more than you request, is there anything this committee can do to be helpful in the legislative or other areas?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: There may well be as we complete this process of second-stage review that we will have some recommendations to make for some legislative action that would align us better in terms of what we need to be able to generate for outcomes.

And I look forward to when we get to a point that we can have some recommendations, sitting down with you and the other members of the committee and talking about those, and trying to make us adjust as much as possible.

One thing I do want to thank you for is the committee's commitment to make sure that we get real discretion in terms of using risk management as a way of handling issues like funding and all of our functions as opposed to -- I know from what I read in the paper that the lobbyists continue to view DHS as a wonderful -- I think one used in a newspaper article the term, pots of money, for their clients.

And I don't view us as pots of money. I view us as having a obligation both as stewards of the public money and as stewards of the public safety to make sure that what we do with our money that Congress appropriates for us is done based on sound judgment and risk management, and not based on lobbyists trying to get their clients into the pots of money.

SENATOR GREGG: Well, I agree with you. On this issue, first off funds should be distributed on the basis of threat. And secondly, earmarks should be used only in the extreme situation where Congress has a very legitimate policy reason that it feels the administration isn't pursuing.

So I presume that will continue to be this committee's approach.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR GREGG: Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for all your time. Appreciate your courtesy.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Thank you.

SENATOR GREGG: We will also -- there may be members who wish to submit questions to the department as is typical. We presume they'll be answered in a prompt way.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Absolutely.

SENATOR GREGG: Hearing is adjourned.

###

This page was last modified on 04/21/05 00:00:00