<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:20175.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-8
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY'S BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR
2006
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 9, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
20-175 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Gordon Lederman, Professional Staff Member
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Holly A. Idelson, Minority Counsel
Amy B. Newhouse, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Collins.............................................. 1
Senator Lieberman............................................ 3
Senator Warner............................................... 4
Senator Lautenberg........................................... 10
Senator Pryor................................................ 13
Senator Coleman.............................................. 15
Senator Levin................................................ 17
Senator Dayton............................................... 19
Senator Carper............................................... 30
WITNESS
Wednesday, March 9, 2005
Hon. Michael Chertoff, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Questions and responses for the Record from Secretary
Chertoff................................................... 48
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY'S BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR
2006
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M. Collins,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Collins, Lieberman, Warner, Lautenberg,
Pryor, Coleman, Levin, Dayton, and Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS
Chairman Collins. The Committee will come to order. Good
morning.
The Committee faces a dilemma today. We have four stacked
votes at 11:30, and our witness, Secretary Chertoff, has to
leave around 1 o'clock. For that reason, I am going to greatly
abbreviate my opening remarks, and I hope that my colleague
from Connecticut will greatly abbreviate his opening remarks as
well, so that we can get as many questions in as possible
before we have to adjourn for the votes.
Today the Committee will review the Department of Homeland
Security's budget submission for fiscal year 2006, and it is a
great pleasure to welcome Secretary Chertoff to his first
official appearance before the Committee since his
confirmation. We hope that this budget hearing will not be so
arduous that you now regret your decision, for which we all
praised you, to give up your prestigious lifetime appointment
as a Federal judge.
The Administration's proposed Homeland Security budget of
$41.1 billion represents a 7-percent increase and recognizes
that we have yet to address a great many homeland security
threats and vulnerabilities. I applaud many of the initiatives
targeted for increased spending in this budget, such as
directing more resources to develop and deploy technology that
can detect chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and to
enhance the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Bureau.
In addition, I am pleased that the budget proposes to bring
together the various screening activities within the Department
under a new Office of Screening Coordination and Operations. It
would also consolidate research, development, testing, and
evaluation activities of the Science and Technology
Directorate. Again, I think all of these are proposals that
will increase efficiency, eliminate duplication of effort, and
help to promote integration and unity within the Department.
At the same time, however, I find several provisions to be
very troubling. The proposed cut of more than 30 percent in
State homeland security grant programs in addition to the
proposed cuts in other programs for first responders short-
change those on the front lines in the war on terrorism. The
attacks of September 11 were directed against two great centers
of our Nation's financial and military power. But we all know
that the enemy we face is nothing if not opportunistic. The
enemy relishes the element of surprise and, thus, will strike
wherever we leave ourselves vulnerable. The September 11
terrorists planned and trained in small cities and towns
throughout the Nation. Two of the hijackers, including the ring
leader, departed for their journey of death and destruction
from Portland, Maine. Terrorist cells and financing operations
have been uncovered in smaller communities. From farms and
feedlots to power plants and chemical facilities, the entire
length and breadth of our Nation offers targets of interest to
the terrorists. All States must receive a fair share of
funding, and that funding must be delivered in a way that will
allow States to apply it with the flexibility that local
circumstances require. At the same time, we all recognize that
certain areas in this country are at greater risk, and they do
deserve additional funding. But as I have said many times, you
cannot simply look at population and population density and
equate them with risk and threat. Last month, Senators Carper,
Lieberman, Coleman, and several other Members of this
Committee, and I reintroduced the Homeland Security Grant
Enhancement Act, which in my view provides a flexible and fair
formula.
I am also concerned that the budget eliminates the
technology transfer grant program. It gets needed anti-
terrorism and homeland security technology into the hands of
law enforcement and first responders quickly and efficiently,
and I believe it should be restored.
I remain concerned about the underfunding of our port
security. Incidents of human smuggling aboard cargo containers
are becoming increasingly commonplace, and the interdictions
that result more from chance than from any coherent policy are
cause for concern. The lack of a separate line item in this
budget for port security grants does not reflect the importance
of international trade to our economy and the vulnerability of
these ports. In addition, the Coast Guard is one of our best
defenses, yet the deep water modernization program remains
underfunded.
I realize that this budget does not necessarily reflect the
Secretary's personal views and priorities as it was constructed
prior to his nomination. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary
will listen carefully to the concerns raised today as he
presents what I am sure will be a vigorous defense of a budget
that he inherited rather than drew up.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Nicely done, Madam Chairman. [Laughter.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN
Senator Lieberman. Thank you very much. It is an honor and
a pleasure to address you, Mr. Chertoff, for the first time as
Mr. Secretary and to welcome you here in that capacity.
Not long ago, Porter Goss, the Director of the CIA, told
the Senate Intelligence Committee that, ``It may only be a
matter of time,'' before terrorists try to attack us with
weapons of mass destruction. And I know that he meant here at
home.
At the same hearing, FBI Director Bob Mueller warned of
possible terrorist operations now under way within our borders
and said finding such terrorists is ``one of the most difficult
challenges'' his organization faces.
Protecting Americans from these potential terrorist attacks
is your responsibility and ours as we share it with you, and it
cannot be done on the cheap. Yet in its fiscal year 2006 budget
proposal for the Department of Homeland Security, the
Administration, in my opinion, has underestimated what it will
take to keep our citizens as safe as possible here at home.
There are increases, but they are modest: Only a 3- to 4-
percent increase in DHS discretionary spending after inflation,
and even that increase largely depends on the adoption by
Congress of a controversial airline ticket fee. And that
adoption, frankly, may or may not occur.
More important, the increases pale by comparison to what
experts have told our Committee is necessary. And some key
homeland security funding that was authorized by the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act, the so-called
9/11 legislation, signed into law by the President last
November, has simply been ignored.
That, I am afraid, leaves us with too many gaps in our
defenses, gaps that range from the inability of first
responders to communicate between their own agencies and
jurisdictions, to a lack of preparedness for a biological
attack, to inadequately defended train, railway, and highway
transportation networks.
So what do I think needs to be done? I have done some work
with my staff on this, and the result is a letter that I have
submitted to the Senate Budget Committee, whose contents I have
shared with your office. In that letter I have proposed $8.4
billion in increases in the budget for homeland security
governmentwide. Of that amount, $6.3 billion would be for
programs within the Department of Homeland Security, and that
is over and above the President's proposed $2.5 billion
increase. I know that is a significant amount of money in a
time of budget pressure, though it remains a relatively small,
an extremely small percentage of the $2.57 trillion overall
Federal budget. That is an $8.4 billion add-on to a $2.57
trillion budget.
About half of the increase that I am proposing in the DHS
budget would go for training, equipment, and support for first
responders because, as you know, and I believe you agree--I am
confident you agree--these first responders are not only that;
they are hundreds of thousands of first preventers against a
terrorist attack all around the country.
A significant portion of what I am recommending here would
be invested in interoperable communications equipment to allow
first responders from different agencies and different
jurisdictions to speak to one another during a crisis, which we
know they were not able to do on September 11. I frankly do not
understand why the Administration is seeking to cut first
responder programs by $565 million in your Department and a
truly jarring $1.7 billion governmentwide, which is to say that
includes programs recommended for cuts particularly in the
Justice Department, the COPS program, the Byrne grant program.
Homeland security expert Steve Flynn, as you know, a former
Coast Guard commandant, describes our predicament in his recent
book, ``American the Vulnerable--How Our Government is Failing
to Protect Us From Terrorism.'' He says, and I quote briefly,
``Homeland security has entered our post-9/11 lexicon, but
homeland insecurity remains the abiding reality. With the
exception of airports, much of what is critical in our way of
life remains unprotected.''
Mr. Flynn further points out that homeland security
spending is still very small compared to the overall Pentagon
budget. Now, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, as
all three of us here at this moment are, I am a strong
supporter of the Pentagon budget. Mr. Flynn says that that
discrepancy suggests that the Federal Government continues to
believe that our primary terrorist threat will be found outside
our borders. We know that the threat from terrorism is both
outside our borders and, self-evidently and in some senses most
menacingly, within our borders.
So I think we have to listen to the security experts who
tell us that this terrorist threat is one we unfortunately must
live with and defend against at home and abroad for the
indefinite future. And we must listen to the experts who say we
should match the threat at home and abroad with the resources
necessary to vanquish it.
Mr. Secretary, I note you are already hard at work
examining the operations of your Department and the resources
available to it. I look forward to hearing from you this
morning about how together we can close our country's
continuing insecurity gap.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator Lieberman.
My plan was to turn to our witness for a statement, but the
distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a
Member of this Committee has joined us. Senator Warner, if you
want to make some brief comments, feel free.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER
Senator Warner. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and
our distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Lieberman.
Judge, the honeymoon is over, as you can hear from the
opening statements. But I would like to inquire as to what time
the Chairman might consider having the Committee vote on the
nomination of Mr. Jackson. I would like to be present. We do
have three stacked votes. It could be off the floor.
Chairman Collins. We will probably end up doing that off
the floor. If, however, a quorum appears prior to our going to
the floor for the stacked votes, we will do it at that time.
Senator Warner. Thank you.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Lautenberg, we are
going to dispense with opening statements because of the
stacked votes, but I want to make sure everybody gets a chance
to question, so I just wanted to explain that is why----
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. I would not think, Madam
Chairman, that it was discriminatory, and I appreciate the
message.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Secretary Chertoff, you may
proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. MICHAEL CHERTOFF,\1\ SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Chertoff. Thank you, Senator Collins, Senator
Lieberman, and Members of the Committee. I will also cut my
statement even further in the interest of saving time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Secretary Chertoff appears in the
Appendix on page 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am pleased to be back in front of this Committee as
Secretary of Homeland Security. I appreciate your support
through the confirmation process, and I look forward to working
with you in the months and years to come.
I thought I would simply make two points in my opening
statement. One is to indicate that I have initiated a
comprehensive review of the Department to better understand
what is working and what is not. This is going to involve
evaluating every element of our working mission and making sure
that the organization of the Department and its operations
conform with the threat, not vice versa; that we do not look at
the threat in terms of our existing stovepipes.
Our philosophy, our decisionmaking, and our operational
activities have to be grounded in risk management as we
determine how to best prevent, respond, and recover, if
necessary, from attacks. So we have to analyze the threats and
our mission and then adapt the organization and our operations
and policies to meet those threats and carry out that mission,
not vice versa.
Now, a second point I would make, as you said, Madam
Chairwoman, is that the President has affirmed again his
staunch commitment to the Department with an increase of 7
percent in the 2006 budget over the prior year of $41.1 billion
in resources. There are in this budget some critical structural
changes: The establishment of a screening coordination office
and a domestic nuclear detection office. And we are going to
continue to work to protect our borders, strengthen law
enforcement, leverage technology, improve preparedness and
response, and streamline a 21st Century Department. At the same
time, we will continue to recognize the Department's historical
functions, including responding to natural disasters, securing
our coasts, and providing immigration services and enforcement,
as we have traditionally done.
This Committee has supported and taken a very deep interest
in the Department, and I welcome that. I look forward to the
opportunity in the coming months to engage with Members of this
Committee as we refine our ideas and our recommendations about
how to best achieve homeland security. Our shared goal is an
America that is safe and secure and also true to our
fundamental values and civil liberties.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering questions.
Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. We
appreciate your abbreviating your statement so that we can get
right to questions.
I want to follow up on the comments I made and that Senator
Lieberman made as well in our opening statements about the
funding for the homeland security grant programs. Former
Secretary Ridge often correctly said that homeland security
begins with hometown security. When disaster strikes, our
citizens do not call the Washington, DC, area code. They dial
911. And it is our police officers, our firefighters, and our
emergency medical personnel who are always first on the scene.
They truly are the front lines in the war against terrorism.
States and communities have made progress over the past few
years in improving their preparedness, but they still have
enormous needs. For example, the lack of compatible
communications equipment, which was cited by the 9/11
Commission, remains a major problem, and it is one that the
Ranking Member and I have introduced legislation to try to
address. And it is a very costly problem to solve.
Yet the Administration's budget would cut and reshape the
basic grant programs such that smaller States could see as much
as an 80-percent decrease in the amount of baseline funding
that they could count on. That is not just a small drop. That
is a leap off the cliff.
I am very concerned that those proposed reductions also
come at a time when the Department is about to issue
preparedness standards for States that are pursuant to Homeland
Security Presidential Directive No. 8. And the purpose of this
directive, is ``to strengthen preparedness capabilities in
Federal, State, and local entities, and to help the entities
meet new domestic all-hazards preparedness goals.''
How can you expect States and localities to meet these new
preparedness standards to solve the problem of the
interoperability of communications equipment and to continue
their progress with a budget that proposes to drastically slash
the baseline funding that States and communities can count on?
Secretary Chertoff. Senator, I think there are a number of
principles that we want to observe in our handling of funding,
which I think are things I alluded to when I was testifying
here last time. We need to be risk-based, and that means
looking at threats, consequences, and vulnerabilities. And
those characteristics do not necessarily arise in large or
small States per se. They depend on a whole host of
characteristics: The nature of the infrastructure we are
worried about, the exposure and proximity to borders,
historical information from intelligence about what kinds of
areas are targets.
I think, in general, the budget drives increasingly towards
a model of funding and grant-making and deployment of resources
that is focused on this overall strategic analysis under these
three heads.
I think, therefore, it is kind of hard on an abstract level
to say that certain States are going to do better or certain
States are going to do worse because frankly the issue is not
where State lines are drawn. The issue is where are the
vulnerabilities and what are the consequences. If there is a
power plant, for example, that serves a number of States and it
is located in a small State, that may very well require some
funding and some support because there is a major consequence
if something happens, and there may be major vulnerabilities.
Obviously, therefore, we have to be the most effective we
can in terms of deploying what are necessarily finite
resources. One thing we want to encourage in the grant-making
process is shared services, and I think we have already built
this in, and I want to continue to move forward on this.
The fact of the matter is not every community, for example,
needs to have one hazmat suit. That does not do anybody any
good. What is useful is when communities in a particular area
can pool their operations so that they can centralize a
response team, and then we could give hazmat suits to that team
that might be located in one community, it might be done
through a county, and then get service over an entire area.
So what we are looking for is trying to maximize the way we
use resources to get the most effective deployment and, again,
to always be focused on where are the greatest potential
negative consequences, where are we most vulnerable, and where
are the threats.
Chairman Collins. Well, I would say to you that the
problem, however, with reducing the small-State minimum by such
a dramatic amount is that States cannot count on a certain
level of funding other than one that is dramatically below what
they now receive. Instead, there is going to be what appears at
this point to be a very ill-defined process for sorting out
risk and threat vulnerabilities. And I agree that we certainly
need to focus more of the funding, but I think that, to so
dramatically reduce the small-State minimum, all you are going
to do is create new vulnerabilities.
This Committee last year had a hearing on agroterrorism, an
issue that has not gotten much attention, but which Secretary
Tommy Thompson cited as he was departing his post. We cannot
assume that the threat is concentrated just in large urban
areas, and we have to assume that the terrorists are smart
enough to figure out where we are not putting the resources.
So I think we need to proceed very carefully, particularly
as the Department is imposing new preparedness standards that
every State, regardless of its size or population, will be
required to meet.
Secretary Chertoff. I completely agree with that, and I
think that the example you give is actually a really good one.
It might turn out, based on food distribution, for example,
that there are risks in a particular State, perhaps a small
State, that happens to be the place where there is food
distribution that covers a wide area. And for that reason, that
State could benefit under our risk analysis approach because we
would identify the consequence of something happening, the
vulnerability, and the threat. And that is why I quite agree we
need to move away from a population-driven or size-of-state-
driven model to one which really focuses on what I think there
is general agreement, which is that we ought to be focused on
risk. And the winners and losers there will depend on what the
facts are and not on what some predetermined, cookie-cutter
formula tells us.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks again, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Chertoff, in the past this Administration has
been reluctant to recommend and allocate funds for rail and
transit security. Indeed, in last year's budget, fiscal year
2005, in the budget proposal, there were no dedicated grant
programs for non-aviation security. Congress in a bipartisan
way rose up and adopted $150 million in rail and transit
security grants.
In this budget, the Administration has essentially taken
that $150 million and put it together with a series of other
grant programs in the so-called TIP, Targeted Infrastructure
Protection program, which it will be your responsibility to
allocate. But all that will have to go not only for rail and
non-aviation transit, but for things like port security grants.
So I feel point-blank that we are not giving enough--we are
not investing enough in the security of non-aviation modes of
transportation--and I particularly say it after the Madrid
train bombings and other indications that we have that
terrorists may be tempted to strike at non-aviation
transportation, particularly rail, here in the United States.
So I want to ask you: As you come in, what is your
philosophy about the Federal Government's role in ensuring rail
and transit security and what do you hope the Department's
action will be in that regard?
Secretary Chertoff. I appreciate the opportunity to talk
about that, Senator. Let me first begin by harking back to my
statement about doing this comprehensive review because part of
my philosophy going into this is that we have various
components that are focused on types of threats, we have
various funding programs, but I want to step back and look at
not where we have the money now and where we have the
jurisdictional lines now, but first, where are the actual
threats and where are the actual consequences and
vulnerabilities.
Clearly, transportation of a non-aviation kind is
historically an area that has been subject to threat and is one
which plays a very important role in our national
infrastructure. So I want to analyze across the board, without
regard to what particular box we are talking about, how we deal
with the whole gamut of threats. Some of these issues involve
how we deal with cargo, for example, that may be currently
handled under CBP. Some of them deal with fixed infrastructure.
Some of them may deal with rolling stock. Some of them are
private-party issues.
Once we look at that, I think we have a strategy we can put
on top of that as an overlay the way we are currently
organized, and that is one of the reasons I feel that in the
next 60 to 90 days as we do this evaluation, we may get a
better idea of things we could do to align our structure and
our operations with these missions, such as, for example, non-
aviation security.
Every type of transportation presents its own issues. Cars
and trucks, for example, are essentially heavily operated by
the private sector, and so private sector involvement is very
important there. We are doing things with respect to rail where
we have pilot programs with respect to explosives. We have
other kinds of enhancements. And there we have obviously much
more government involvement, including, frankly, State and
local government.
So I would like to be able to say at the end of this
process that we are headed in a direction of, again, increasing
the way we deploy our resources and our money in an
analytically sound and transparent way so that I can come to
you at some point and say, ``look, we are doing this because we
have the following intelligence and we have made the following
evaluations, and we are being consistent and complementary
across the board.''
Senator Lieberman. I appreciate that. I urge you to do it.
I am sure you will do it, anyway, approach that view with the
sense of urgency that the reality of the threat justifies. And
I urge that we work together on this Committee with you on it.
I want to just pick up and mention, in a related matter to
the topic that the Chairman was talking about, the Urban Area
Security Initiative, a really important program. And what
troubles me, as I have said to you privately, is that the
Department now administers the program in such a way that there
is a threshold of population of 225,000 in a city before it can
qualify for funding under this program. And that just does not
make sense to me because there are some--this is slightly
different from what the Chairman was saying--there are clearly
some smaller cities in which there are real targets for
terrorism. And I urge you to review that requirement and
basically make a threat assessment free of an arbitrary
threshold.
I welcome any comment. If not, I am happy to go on and----
Secretary Chertoff. I will certainly look at that issue. I
think it is important.
Senator Lieberman. Good. Finally, the 9/11 bill did
include, as I mentioned in my opening statement, a number of
authorizations which at this point the President's budget does
not respond to. And some of them are really quite critical, and
I hope are now coming in. I understand the turnaround time
between budget preparation and submission and the 9/11
legislation adoption was not long. But these go to equipment
that is necessary for transportation security, and the one I
want to ask you about, finally, is border security.
The 9/11 legislation authorized 2,000 new Border Patrol
agents. The Administration's budget would fund about 200
positions, which I understand to be replacement for agents that
were deployed from the Southern border to the Northern border
in response to congressional mandates to increase Northern
border protection. In my own letter to the Budget Committee,
which I referred to earlier, I recommended an increase in
funding to allow for a thousand new Border Patrol agents
because the best evidence I had was that it would be impossible
to really find, train, and hire more than that number in this
year.
Would you support an effort to increase funding for the
Border Patrol agents that we have working for us in that
critical function, antiterrorism function?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, of course, protection of the
border is critical, and it has to be part of a comprehensive
strategy. As you know, the President has advanced the idea of a
temporary worker program, and I think that fits well with the
enforcement notion, the idea being that by reducing pressure on
the border from those who really do not want to do us any harm,
we then can deploy our resources more effectively against those
who do.
As I understand it, this 210 additional Border Patrol slots
represent a net increase. In other words, it does not merely
backfill, but it actually raises the bar. So it clearly moves
in the direction of what Congress was interested in and what we
think is appropriate.
As with anything else, as part of this general review, we
want to look at what we need to do to be as robust as possible
in protecting the border. That includes things we are doing
technologically with unmanned aerial vehicles, our
consolidation of air resources, sensors, and also, we are
working, frankly, with State and local partners, as we are
currently doing with our Arizona border control initiative.
So I look forward to the opportunity to work with you on
this issue. I think it is very important to the Committee, it
is very important to me, to make sure we are being efficient
but also effective in protecting our borders.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you. I do not think 210 is enough,
so I hope we can raise it up beyond that. Thanks, Madam
Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Lautenberg.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Chertoff, it is interesting to see you in a
different facility where before we used to meet in the hall of
our respective office building. We shared some space in the
same building before Secretary Chertoff volunteered for
something he, I hope, will never regret. I don't know whether
the few days at the job has given you any further trepidation
about the massive assignment that you have in front of you, or
whether you have had a chance to get enough time with the
organization, with the people who will help you run it, to feel
like this assignment is something that you can deal with and
make differences with and in a relatively short while.
Secretary Chertoff. This is a great privilege. I have been
tremendously impressed by the people in the Department. I have
enjoyed starting to work with Congress on this. I think this
issue is one in which there is a real sense of agreement on the
mission. And there are areas for honest debate and discussion
about how we get the mission accomplished most effectively,
which I really look forward to engaging in, and I particularly
look forward to hearing from others and getting input from
others, including, most importantly, this Committee on what we
might do, because we are a young organization, there is an
opportunity to really shape the way homeland security is dealt
with in the years to come. And that is a very exciting and very
important thing to do.
Senator Lautenberg. I want to say this in the time I have
allotted here. I think that for the most part, DHS has had a
good start on this huge task. I have concerns about some of the
areas of particular interest to my home State. I offer no
compromise by saying our home State. I just don't want you to
forget your past. But some States get their grant money that
they really do not need, and others, like New Jersey, I think
are on the short side of the grant.
As the Secretary knows, we have a stretch of land, a
stretch of territory between the port of Newark and New York
and Newark Airport designated the most dangerous 2 miles in the
United States when it comes to terrorism. Despite this and
other warnings, our funding from DHS was cut last year by $32
million.
The 9/11 Commission report recommended that homeland
security grants should be based on risks and vulnerabilities.
Senator Corzine and I have introduced a bill to implement that
view. And we have our problems, Senator Lieberman discussed it,
and that is, it goes far beyond the focus on aviation. We have
got 120,000 New Jerseyans who use the Hudson River rail tunnels
each day. And with our port situation, a recent report from the
DHS Inspector General pointed out that port security funds have
not been allocated on the basis of need and money has gone to
other States.
So September 11, I think showed that the dependence on one
principal mode of transportation leaves us vulnerable. When
aviation shut down, not only was it an impediment to our
resuming life or continuing life as we knew it before the
September 11 tragedy, but we were very dependent on Amtrak and
its ability to carry people. And I think that in the evaluation
of where we stand ready to respond to terrorist attacks, I
believe that we have to make sure that we have all modes of
transportation, principal modes, that is, rail, highway, and
obviously aviation in mind.
Mr. Secretary, did you have a chance in the production of
this?
Secretary Chertoff. I actually think I was confirmed after
the budget was issued.
Senator Lautenberg. OK.
Secretary Chertoff. But, of course, I am familiar with it
now.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, there has been a reduction in the
size of the formula grants, the guarantees, by two-thirds. They
went from 0.75 to 0.25 in terms of the guarantee that each
State would get.
Now, can we assume that the adjustment of the formula is
something that we can get your agreement on that the risk-based
view of grant-making is the proper way or the best way to do
it, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission?
Secretary Chertoff. Yes, and I think I have said this now
in a number of different places, and I am nothing, if not
consistent. I do think we need to be risk-based, and we have
within the Department, as we think about a whole host of
issues--how we deploy our resources, how we issue grant money,
how we develop standards, a strategy which, again, looks at
these three pieces. What are the consequences of something
happening, what is the vulnerability, and what is the threat.
I recognize that to every community there are things that
are important. That does not mean that we can fully fund
everything that is important to every community. We have an
obligation in dealing with terror, in addressing those elements
which would have the most serious consequences, as to which
there are the most vulnerabilities, and where there is an
active threat. And those are going to require judgment calls.
What I would like to be able to say, though, as part of
this process is that we have a transparent, an analytically
sound and disciplined way of making these decisions, and be
able to lay that out for the Committee. And I think that is how
we get a risk-based funding formula implemented.
Senator Lautenberg. Because when we look at the budget
proposal and we see that urban area security--I am sorry, State
and local grants, Citizen Corps, other grant programs, have
been reduced by $425 million in the 2006 proposal. And it is
pretty hard to understand how we are going to be able to take
care of the obligations that we have with that kind of a
substantial reduction in funding. And I hope that between now
and the time that the appropriations are finally resolved that
we will hear from you, Mr. Secretary, on whether or not there
ought to be adjustments made to accommodate these problems.
Now, in New Jersey we saw a decrease in homeland security
funding by $32 million, overall 34 percent, city of Newark,
which was listed as one of the five targeted places by some
material that turned up. And the city of Newark saw its
homeland security funding cut by 17 percent; Jersey City, right
on the Hudson River, a highly vulnerable place, transportation
center, a lot of high-risk buildings, cut by 60 percent. And I
know that you are aware of the fact that these are high-risk
areas. We are still in reverberation from the days of September
11.
So I don't know whether you are prepared to say now that
there would likely be an increase in those places or whether we
can expect to have to get by on the skinny, if I can use the
word, without having the appropriate funding for the
protections we need.
Secretary Chertoff. Let me just say I think that, as part
of the process of review I want to undertake, we are going to
look at the criteria that was used in making grants, which take
account of a number of characteristics. Sometimes we may need
to refine the characteristics so we get a better sense of what
we ought to give more weight to or less weight to. Sometimes,
frankly, circumstances change. You can get differences in
vulnerability or you can get differences in threat environment.
And so it does not surprise me and it will not surprise me
in the future if we wind up seeing that funding levels of
particular localities do not remain static. Sometimes they may
go up, sometimes they may go down.
Again, what I would like to do is be able to be confident
and be able to demonstrate that we have a formula that is risk-
based, that is transparent, that is analytically sound, and
that is disciplined. Then I think that tool will get us close
to where we need to be in terms of implementing this
philosophy.
Senator Lautenberg. Madam Chairman, I will close with a
question that has come up in the last couple of days that I
have been very involved with, and that is permitting gun
permits to be issued to those who are on the terror watchlist.
Now, we permit that, even though we would not permit those
individuals to get on an airplane if we knew who they were at
the moment of their boarding. And I don't know how much
jurisdiction Homeland Security is going to have in this area,
but I did ask your predecessor, Tom Ridge, when he was here
whether he thought that was a necessary thing to permit. And he
said he didn't think so. And we had comments from Mr. Mueller
yesterday about how questionable he saw this program. They
destroy the records of either a purchase or a decline within 24
hours--by mandate destroy those records.
Mr. Secretary, you are not only there to prevent a
terrorist act from happening, but also to enforce the law in
terms of having an information source that can help other
agencies to do their jobs in apprehending these people if,
heaven forbid, something does happen. So I hope that you will
have a chance to look at that, and perhaps we will get a chance
to discuss it in the near future.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. I saved you from answering that question,
I want you to know, Mr. Secretary. [Laughter.]
Senator Pryor.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Chertoff, for being here, and let me
just say that I know you have a big job on your hands, and I
appreciate the complexity of it and the difficulty of it. But
also at the same time, let me say that I have looked through
your budget, and as we understand the budget this year compared
to last year, from the fiscal year 2005 to the fiscal year 2006
budget, if we run the numbers as we understand them to be, last
year Arkansas, my State, got about $21.4 million. This year it
looks like we stand to get about $5.4 million. In other words,
we are taking a $16 million hit under this budget. You are
cutting the resources to our State back by about 75 percent,
and it makes it very difficult for me to support your budget
when Arkansas is going to suffer such a drastic cut. I just
want you to know that.
I guess the way I look at it is in order for America to be
safe, all of America has to be safe. And $21.4 million for a
State with our geography and our population is not a lot of
money. It is not like we are gold-plating what we have down
there. We have some critical needs, and I know that some of the
smaller States like Maine and Connecticut and others would say
the same thing. There are a lot of needs out there, and if we
are not strong across the Union, I am just concerned whether
the Union can be safe.
So do you have any comments on a State like Arkansas taking
a $16 million, about a 75-percent cut in homeland security
dollars?
Secretary Chertoff. I am happy to address that, Senator,
because I think it is consistent with what I have been trying
to take as a uniform position, which is that we operate as
closely as possible to a risk-based analytical approach to
everything that we do--funding, operations, etc.
Senator Pryor. Well, I don't want to cut you off, but I
understand the risk-based. I understand what you are saying.
But don't we need to prepare ourselves for the next risk, not
the last risk?
Secretary Chertoff. Absolutely. That is absolutely right.
Senator Pryor. And aren't we assuming that because these
happened in urban areas before, it is going to happen in urban
areas again?
Secretary Chertoff. I agree with you, we should not assume
that. And I think the approach to developing risk is not based
on simply looking at what happened last time. In fact, I could
not be in more agreement with you that it would be a huge
mistake for us to spend all our time fighting the last war and
not thinking about the next one.
So what do I mean by risk-based? I mean that we look at
vulnerability and we look at consequence, which is not
necessarily related to a State. A particular State may have,
for example, a kind of infrastructure, the consequences of an
attack on which would be catastrophic. In that case, we ought
to put the money to do what we have to do to protect the
vulnerability there and to do what we have to do to avoid the
threat. So that although the budget proposal may reduce the
amount of guaranteed state-by-state funding, it does not
necessarily tell you how a particular State or locality is
going to do because if a locality or State has a real high
risk, they are going to get the money to address the risk.
So what we do want to do is move away from the assumption
that risk is divided along State jurisdictional lines. The
terrorists don't look at State jurisdiction. We need to look at
where the infrastructure is, where the threat is, and where the
most serious consequences and vulnerabilities are.
Senator Pryor. I understand in your formula there is a 0.25
percent minimum. Am I understanding that right?
Secretary Chertoff. Right.
Senator Pryor. Talk to us about that minimum and how that--
I mean, is that a guarantee?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, my understanding of the way the
budget sets it forth is every State would get its funding under
this particular State homeland security program based on the
characteristics I have discussed.
If a particular State falls below that 0.25 percent using
that analysis, they would be raised up to the 0.25 percent
minimum. If a particular State exceeded that because on the
merits the risk is there, then, of course, the State would get
the amount that the merits warrant.
Senator Pryor. Well, you are saying the 0.25 is a
guarantee.
Secretary Chertoff. You would get a minimum of 0.25, but,
of course, on the merits, if more were warranted, more would be
distributed.
Senator Pryor. Right. I understand that. But that is the
floor.
Secretary Chertoff. That is the proposal, yes.
Senator Pryor. I have a concern about that because I have
had constituents who have spent their lives and dedicated
themselves to homeland security in Arkansas, and they are
starting to hear rumors through DHS that the State cannot count
on that minimum. I would like for you to comment on those
rumors.
Secretary Chertoff. Senator, rumors are tough to comment
on. I think the proposal is clear that the President's budget
contemplates under this particular program, the State homeland
security grants, that there be a 0.25 percent minimum, as I
have defined it. Rumors abound and I just can't--I have no way
of addressing them.
Senator Pryor. OK. Madam Chairman, thank you, and I would
like to say for the record I do concur with Senator Lieberman's
letter of February 28, on this subject matter and others, and
thank you for your time on this.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Coleman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN
Senator Coleman. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Chertoff, a great pleasure to have you before us,
and we are thrilled that you are doing what you are doing, and
hopefully we will move quickly to get you some other folks by
your side. We had a good hearing with Under Secretary Jackson
the other day, and I know the Chairman and the Ranking Member
are moving quickly on that.
I had a chance a couple weeks ago to inspect the Port of
L.A. and Long Beach Harbor. I think 46 percent of our Nation's
container traffic goes through those particular ports. One of
the issues of great concern that I have seen some studies on
has to do with the threat of nuclear detonation, and the impact
that would have in a port area. I think Booz Allen's study
found the economic impact of a terrorist attack at $58 billion,
spoilage loss, etc.
I understand we have not deployed radiation portal monitors
at our Nation's largest ports. Can you talk about that issue?
Secretary Chertoff. My understanding is that there are 400
portal monitors now deployed at various ports of entry,
including obviously seaports. I hesitate to comment publicly as
to whether a particular port has a monitor, but the plan is to
have these monitors deployed--I think the balance of the
monitors deployed this year.
But I also want to put it in a larger context. I think the
President agrees and we agree that the issue of a potential
nuclear or radiological device is a very serious issue we must
be concerned about. That is why the budget contemplates this
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), this nuclear office
that would coordinate across the board and essentially almost
create a mini-Manhattan Project to move to the next level
technologically. And even as we speak, in addition to deploying
the portals that we now have, we are dedicating money to doing
the research necessary to get to the next generation of portals
that will be more sophisticated and more adept at detecting
this material.
Senator Coleman. And then I believe there is $125 million
in the budget for radiation portal monitors.
Secretary Chertoff. Yes.
Senator Coleman. So it is there. In terms of what you can
tell us about the process for utilizing these dollars, is there
a sort of focus on high risk? Can you give me a little better
sense of how you use this $125 million?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, as I say, we want to complete the
deployment of the existing technology as we wait, because
obviously we do not want to wait until we get new devices. We
are heavily focused, first of all, on getting a technology that
will be as effective as possible in detecting this material.
And, again, because we are in a public session, I do not want
to get too detailed about what some of the challenges are.
Once we get that technology, then I think part of the
responsibility of this office will be to deploy it, and that,
again, I think needs to be, as with everything else, based on
risk and vulnerability and consequence.
So presumably, once we get that technology, we will roll it
out in a way that best meets that analytical test.
Senator Coleman. Just following up on the Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office--and I appreciate the increased focus--can you
help me understand the role of this? Will this supplant CBP as
the primary agency involved in deployment of nuclear detection
weapons? Is it going to be an advisory role? How is it going to
function with the existing entities?
Secretary Chertoff. The theory is that this is a matter of
great importance that requires an interagency approach, so it
will be an interagency office. It will report to the Secretary,
which I think is indicative of the priority that we place on
this, although it will be tied very closely to the existing
research we do at the Science and Technology Directorate. And
the idea is not to supplant CBP because CBP is ultimately the
operational--or part of the operational element that will make
use of this technology. And so CBP will be involved in the
process.
But what the office will do is not merely advise; it will
actually take ownership of the process of identifying,
acquiring, evaluating the technology, and then rolling it out
and deploying it, although obviously the actual use of the
technology will be done in the field by CBP officers.
Senator Coleman. Let me, if I can, get perhaps a little
parochial, but not really. Minnesota is the home of Northwest
Airlines. They, like many of the other legacy carriers, are in
a very difficult financial situation for a whole range of
reasons. But in the President's proposal, it proposes to
increase, to double the airline security fees for passengers
traveling on airlines. The airlines say if this cost is
transferred back to them, it is going to have a devastating
impact on an industry that is already in great difficulty.
The airlines--and I raised this issue with Under Secretary
Jackson, and I am not proposing we tax train passengers, I am
not proposing that we do other taxes on a range of others. I am
just concerned about the equity on airline travel, airline
passengers, and ultimately on airlines, but it is going to be
shifted over to the passengers, this continued increase in fee.
I believe passengers ought to pay $2.50 per flight segment and
a maximum of $10 on a round trip. I think it is proposed to be
doubled, a segment fee to $5.50 and a round trip fee at $16.
Can you respond to some of the concerns that have been
raised?
Secretary Chertoff. I would be delighted to. My
understanding, Senator, is that, of course, when the original
legislation establishing TSA was passed, it was contemplated
that eventually it would be largely, if not entirely funded
through a user fee. And I think that makes sense because what
it does is it matches up the payment of the cost of this fairly
extraordinary set of security measures with the beneficiaries.
The reality is, speaking as someone who has flown a lot, as
everybody else has, I care a lot about security, and I think
everybody else does. And to the extent that we pay for things
that we care about, I think passengers would understand the
need to pay a small amount of money to guarantee their security
so they get where they are going.
I would point out the amount of money we are talking about,
I think if you take it on a one-way ticket, the maximum is
raised from $5 to $8, a $3 difference, which basically, as I
recall it, is about the price of a Coke and a newspaper at an
airport when you are waiting around. So it is not a huge
marginal cost.
What we should do, and I think it is part of the general
philosophy, is we should pay just enough to get us the security
we need--in this case, for the airline passenger--not more than
we need, because that is wasteful, but not less. We should be
able to fund what we do for security.
So I think this is an economically sound idea. I think it
will ultimately be something passengers, I would think, would
fully understand. And to the extent there are issues with
respect to the precise details, of course, I would look forward
to working with industry on that.
Senator Coleman. I anticipate that some Members of this
body will have a differing perspective, and I being one of
them.
Secretary Chertoff. I expect that. I look forward to
discussing that. I think it is something worth talking about.
Senator Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Levin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN
Senator Levin. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Welcome, Mr.
Secretary.
Secretary Chertoff. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Levin. I applaud, first of all, your moving towards
a more risk-based grant program. I think it is the only way to
go, providing that the grants are determined on a rational
basis, and you have laid out the criteria for that rational
basis. The 9/11 Commission recommended that funding of these
grants be allocated on risk, stating that ``Homeland security
assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks
and vulnerabilities.''
You have moved towards a greater reliance in your budget
proposal on that assessment, although you are not strictly on
that basis because you still have a minimum 0.25 guarantee. But
at least you are moving in that direction, and I commend you
for that.
My concern is what happens once you get there as to just
how rational your system is in terms of allocation. And I look
at your buffer zone protection program, and I look at the
allocations made to States that are supposed to be made on
risk. That program is supposed to be a risk-based allocation
program. But when I look at the amount of money that various
States are getting, it does not seem at all rational to me.
For instance, Arizona on buffer zone protection, which,
again, is risk-based, gets six times what Hawaii gets. Does
that mean that there are more infrastructures, more facilities
in Arizona that are subject to attack, more critical
infrastructure sites, six times as many in Arizona as Hawaii;
Tennessee, 2.5 times Massachusetts; Kentucky more than
Michigan.
Can you describe the basis for your buffer zone protection
allocations?
Secretary Chertoff. I think the rollout of the grant-making
process is going on as we speak. I don't know that I can
explain how a particular State is scored relative to another
because I think, again, the way I understand this should work
is it is based on the three characteristics I have described:
Consequence, vulnerability, and threat. And that is not
something which necessarily is driven by where State lines are
drawn.
Let me step back and put it in perspective, first by saying
that since September 11, including the 2006 budget, there will
have been a total of $17 billion in grants. So there is a lot
of money that has been given out there and a lot that is going
to be given.
As part of what I have described as my desire to kind of
comprehensively review the Department, I want to look at the
grant-making process and see if we have as disciplined and as
defensible a process for scoring as possible. And it may very
well be that there are things we have done historically in
terms of scoring things that need to be corrected. Sometimes we
get that through feedback; sometimes we get it through looking
analytically on our own.
So without specifically being able to tell you as we speak
why a particular State in a particular grant got more money
than another, I can tell you that the objective and the
philosophy, which I think is shared across the Administration,
is to have a program that is disciplined in the way I have
described.
Senator Levin. Well, I agree with the philosophy, but the
implementation of that philosophy is critical, or else it is
just going to cast a pall on the whole premise.
Secretary Chertoff. I agree with that.
Senator Levin. And I want to move to a risk-based system,
but we have all got to be persuaded that it is a rational risk-
based system. And when you look at these States, at least
roughly--and I obviously am most familiar with Michigan--it is
not a rational allocation from anything that I can see. So as
you go through this process, I would like to work with you and
your staff on exactly how those criteria are applied. Is that
fair enough?
Secretary Chertoff. I think it is fair, and I think once I
am through this process and my understanding is more detailed,
I anticipate and I will insist upon having a formula that will
be, I think, transparent and reasonable.
Senator Levin. All right. I thank you for that.
The Department of Homeland Security intended to open up
five Northern border air wing locations, but has apparently
opened up none of the additional ones that were stated to be
necessary. Can you give us the status of those Northern border
air wing additional bases?
Secretary Chertoff. I believe, Senator, you are correct
that two were opened up. I know one is in New York. I think the
other one may be in Washington or further out West.
I think the plan is to open an additional one each year to
get up to the five, and so we are under way with that.
Senator Levin. Is that still the plan?
Secretary Chertoff. Yes.
Senator Levin. Thank you. We have a lot of issues on the
Northern border. We have a very inadequate Border Patrol, and
we have made huge efforts here to have folks realize that we
have got a much longer Northern border than we do a Southern
border. There were supposed to be staff increases in the Border
Patrol. There were also supposed to be an assurance that at
least 20 percent of the additional Border Patrol agents would
be assigned to the Northern border, and, again, we have a far
longer border and we have got major issues along that border.
Is that staffing, that additional staffing, going to
reflect that minimum 20 percent for the Northern border?
Secretary Chertoff. I think what happened is it was the
Patriot Act that required the movement up to the Northern
border. That was accomplished, and I think the 210 Border
Patrol agents that will be coming on will essentially be
assigned where needed most. I cannot tell you whether that will
result in a third based on the original number or a third as
you rack it up against the total number that is enhanced. Given
the threat on the Northern border, I suspect any significant
increase will be beneficial.
Senator Levin. Thank you. My time is up.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Dayton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAYTON
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I just finished a meeting in my office and I
turned on the television and saw Senator Lautenberg trying to
hijack money from Minnesota, so I had to rush over here. And I
am glad that Senator Coleman is here, too.
Some of these words--and I respect you are just getting
started in this. I am not questioning your sincerity at all,
but ``transparency'' and ``rationality'' and the like--they
sound good in generalities. But when they are applied, at least
what happened in Minnesota this last time where you got eastern
metro counties being eliminated entirely and western metro
counties being cut back significantly, it does not appear
rational.
It may be transparent in retrospect that we could look back
and see that there was a process involved, but there was no
forewarning, and with such a drastic reversal of what has been
the message from the Administration, from Congress, to local
governments, first responders, take these initiatives, do all
this, take all these steps, often at their expense, put
hundreds and thousands of hours in preparedness, and then
someone is going to turn around and say, well, we have done the
risk assessment and you get no money. Someone from your
Department needs to tell the local officials why it is that
they do not need to be concerned anymore and why it is that for
the last 3 years they have been told that they should be
mounting all these initiatives and making all this effort, and
then somebody has decided, for whatever reason, that if they
are being eliminated from funding that there is no risk to them
whatsoever and justify that.
That is the real nitty-gritty of this. And what I don't see
in this budget here, I can look at the general numbers here
about the Urban Area Security Initiative, a $135 million
increase over the requested funding for 2005, but a $180
million decrease from the actual appropriation, the FIRE Act
grants equal to last year's request, but $250 million less than
2005 appropriated funding.
If I look at these aggregate numbers, it says to me that
when this gets translated into whatever rational and
transparent process, it is still going to come out with less or
no money for certain areas. And then the statement from the
Administration is that there are no risks there. If that is not
an accurate reflection of the view, then there is not enough
money in here in order to fund all these projects in areas that
may not be as high risk as New Jersey or other areas, but where
there is still risk and where they need to be continuing these
first-responder kinds of preparations, training, and the like.
So I need to know, before I can decide whether to support
the budget or not, how these aggregate numbers are going to
translate through your process into those decisions.
Secretary Chertoff. I agree, first of all, that we ought to
make sure we are always communicating with our State and local
partners about these issues. I don't like to hear unpleasant
surprises suddenly, and I think very few people do. And I think
we need to commit ourselves, and as I have indicated, I have
instructed people that I want to make sure we do not have this
happen in the future.
Senator Dayton. Even if they are not surprised, I don't
want them to be eliminated.
Secretary Chertoff. Well, on the larger question, what we
need to do is to--there is risk everywhere. Risk is a part of
life. And I think one thing I have tried to be clear in saying
is we will not eliminate every risk. First of all, some risks
are risks which State and local governments traditionally bear
and have to continue to bear. We can help them with standards
and advice, but to take an example, there was an incident I
guess a few weeks ago in California with a train derailment. I
don't want to talk about it too specifically because I guess
there is a pending case. But that was not a terrorist-related
incident.
That kind of thing has always happened. The appropriate
authorities have to take steps to prevent those risks and
protect against them. They have not all become Federal matters
simply because a terrorist could also choose to do the same
thing.
So we have to say, look, the risks we are most concerned
about are those which are highest on our analytical scale.
Others certainly we will be helping out in terms of standards
and advice and the whole panoply of traditional things we can
do with our partners, including information sharing. And we
have to be nimble enough when something changes to be able to
respond to it.
But the message is not that if we do not give a substantial
amount of Federal funding there is no risk. The message is that
in the hierarchy of risks, we have to put the resources where
the highest risks are. And I know that is a very tough
statement, and in coming up and speaking to the Committee and
speaking generally, I guess I have had it in my mind, that we
owe pretty blunt talk to people about what the limitations are
of what we can do and how important it is that what the public
expects is that we put our resources to work in a way that most
closely approximates the most serious risks with the worst
consequences and the greatest vulnerabilities.
Senator Dayton. The candor would be welcome, but the
consistency is also important. And what you are saying here is
going to be a 180-degree reversal of what your Department,
prior to your coming, and the Administration and the Congress
have been saying to these local governments. They are not
expecting the Federal Government to fund all of their first-
responder activities, but they are expecting the Federal
Government to be consistent in providing the resources for
those additional efforts--training and preparation and
equipment and the like--that they have been told that they
should undertake in order to fulfill their responsibilities for
these attacks. And nobody knows where they are going to come,
what form they are going to take.
Again, this is a total reversal, and if this is going to be
the consequence of this budget, I would like to ask if you
could respond in writing to what level of funding for these
first-responder grants and awards, based on whatever new
formula or the like, is going to be necessary to fund every
State and local government at the level that it was heretofore.
And then we can assess whether or not the amount of money that
is being requested is sufficient or not. But if the outcome of
this is going to be that a whole bunch of local efforts are
going to be zeroed out from any Federal support, I respectfully
disagree with that approach.
Secretary Chertoff. Well, we will be happy to respond in
writing. Let me just add this: There is, I think, in the budget
a total of about $3.5 billion which could be available to fund
things like local first responders, including the homeland
grants, which do have this built-in minimum, the UASI grants.
We do still have fire assistance, I think $500 million. So
there will be money there.
Some of the hard decisions will have to be made at the
State and local level. One thing, for example, that I think is
important is sharing of resources. It may not make sense for
every single town in a particular geographic area to have the
full capability to do hazmat if we can centralize the hazmat
response capability in a place that can cover a number of
areas, and thereby really put a meaningful level of resource
and training into that place.
So this is going to require everybody to think--and,
frankly, if a State wants grants and if a locality wants
grants, the more able they are to demonstrate effective use of
resources, it seems to me we ought to score that higher in the
grant-making process.
So I think we want the same things. I do believe
consistency is important, and that is what we are going to work
to achieve.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, my next question actually follows up well on
the discussion that you just had, and I think you can see that
many Members of this Committee have a great deal of concern
about the Administration's budget and its adequacy for homeland
security grant programs.
But one issue that ought to unite us is making sure that
money is wisely spent, and unfortunately there have been some
cases cited by the Inspector General and the Government
Accountability Office that suggest that the money is not always
wisely spent.
I think it is important to clarify that the vast majority
of the money has been well spent and has been very necessary.
But the legislation which this Committee unanimously approved
last year and which many of us reintroduced last month had
three provisions to help put in better controls to prevent
wasteful and potentially fraudulent spending:
First is a requirement for an independent audit, an annual
GAO audit and report on DHS grants to the States.
Second is a provision tying spending to standards. This
would be a requirement that States distribute the homeland
security funding only in ways that measurably help them to meet
the preparedness standards to be set by the Department. In
other words, to cite one egregious case, you cannot spend the
funds on leather jackets unless you can somehow show that
leather jackets increase preparedness, which seems to me to be
unlikely.
A third provision would be remedies for noncompliance. This
would authorize the Secretary to terminate or reduce grant
payments if a State or locality failed to comply with these
requirements.
What is your position on putting in specific legislative
controls to help ensure that the money is well spent?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, I think that, as I understand it,
HSPD-8 actually imposes on us a requirement to get out--and I
think we need to do it this year--a series of metrics that we
can use to set a baseline of preparedness for all of our State
and local partners. And I think that is an important device to
use in order to impose this kind of discipline. What it would
do is, first of all, enable us to give clear direction; and,
second, if people were not following the direction, at a
minimum that would have a seriously negative impact on their
ability to get funding in a succeeding year.
Whether there is a need for additional sanction beyond
that, I don't know. I think we ought to be able to make
ourselves very clear. Money is tight. Everybody wants it. And
the surest way to take yourself out of the running for a grant
is to buy leather jackets, unless we are missing something on
the leather jacket front.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Because money is tight, the
Committee has scoured the budget request not only to identify
areas that have been underfunded, in my view, such as homeland
security grants, but also to look for opportunities to save
money. And I want to bring up one such example. Clearly, the
Department needs a center that is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, to address threats and to respond to incidents. But from
our review of the budget, it appears that you have three such
centers. The budget justification describes the Homeland
Security Operations Center, which is proposed to receive $61
million in fiscal year 2006, as ``the primary national level
hub for operational communications, information sharing, and
situational awareness. It receives and integrates threat
information. It maps the Nation's critical infrastructure. And
it enables information sharing and collaboration among Federal,
State, tribal, local, and private sector entities.''
In other words, that sounds to me like exactly the kind of
around-the-clock center that the Department should have. But if
you look further into your budget, you also have two other
around-the-clock centers. The second called the National
Infrastructure Coordination Center. That is proposed to receive
$10 million. And the third is a Cyberwatch Center, which is
slated to receive $11 million.
From our review, it appears that each of these three 24/7
centers is monitoring critical infrastructure, communicating
with State and local officials and the public, and responding
to incidents. So when you add that up, that is $82 million--$61
million, $10 million, and $11 million.
Do we really need three separate around-the-clock centers?
Wouldn't it be more efficient and save scarce dollars for us to
have one consolidated center?
Secretary Chertoff. I appreciate the opportunity to answer
that, Madam Chairman.
First of all, any cost saving that can be identified to me,
I am going to do my level best to exploit because we are tight
on money, and if we are wasting money or we are duplicating
effort, I want to put the money on the ground somewhere.
In this instance, though, I think there are three separate
roles that are played, and, frankly, they have to be played--
and they are distinct. They would have to be played--even if we
moved all the centers into one building, we would have to
triple the size of the building, and there are reasons, by the
way, not ever to do that because you never want to put all of
your eggs in one basket so if you have a power problem or
something like that, you have totally shut down.
The Cyberwatch Center looks at cyber intrusions, obviously
a very important issue and increasingly important, and makes
sure that we are interconnected with the private sector in
terms of warning and response. That is a function which is very
sophisticated and requires a great deal of specific information
and interaction with people who work in the cyber world. So
that is quite a specific and detailed effort.
Likewise, the Infrastructure Coordination Center deals with
essentially connecting up different parts of the national
infrastructure to allow communication across the board in the
case of an emergency, such as, for example, a power failure
that could then cascade into communications and refineries.
The HSOC, or the Operations Center, does not deal at that
level of granularity with information. It is designed to stand
back and take a more comprehensive view and coordinate between
incidents that might involve infrastructure, that might involve
cyber, and that might involve a whole host of other things, all
happening at the same time. And the customer for that is,
frankly, me and the people in the leadership of the Department
and in the leadership of the other departments.
So that in order to make HSOC capable of doing the robust
cyber piece that we want and the robust infrastructure piece,
we would essentially have to triple it. And I think if I were
given the choice between putting everything in one place and
having them in three separate places but connected, I think
probably it is prudent to keep them in separate places because
if something happens and you get a power failure or a computer
crash, at least you have not taken down your entire management
structure. You have got a certain amount of redundancy built
in.
Chairman Collins. Before I yield to my colleague, let me
just respond to that by saying if I were the local police chief
in Portland, Maine, and there were an incident that involved
the technology infrastructure of a local chemical plant, I
would be baffled which one of the three centers to call.
Secretary Chertoff. I can answer that, and I want to
because the point of the Operations Center, the HSOC, is
precisely to be the place when you don't know, that is where
you go. We might eventually connect you to something more
specific elsewhere, but we are very much into the one-stop
shop. And that is the central one-stop shop for Homeland
Security.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Madam Chairman. I would just
share with you an unusual coincidence. I went out to take a
call from my Governor, Jodi Rell, and I had something I wanted
to talk to her about. And she said, ``While I have got you, if
you run into Secretary Chertoff, would you please make an
appeal for restoration of homeland security funding for
Connecticut?'' And she specifically asked about New Haven,
which is under the urban areas threshold of 225,000. So I now
make this as a bipartisan request from Connecticut.
I have a few questions I wanted to ask. One is about Coast
Guard research and development. The fiscal year 2006 budget of
the Department reflects plans to consolidate all of the
Department's research and development activities in the Science
and Technology Directorate. There is no reason for you to know
this, Mr. Secretary, but last session Congress rejected a
similar proposal because of concerns that the Coast Guard's
research and development activities in support of its
traditional missions would be jeopardized under such an
arrangement. And I share that concern.
There is a model, I gather, within the Department that the
Secret Service is a distinct entity and has its own research
and development programs, but is called on to coordinate
closely with the S&T Directorate. I don't know if you have had
a chance to look at that and want to comment on it. If not, I
will go on to another question, but I wanted to draw that
history to your attention.
Secretary Chertoff. I am aware of that, and I actually
anticipate that I will be looking at that particular issue.
Senator Lieberman. OK. Second is the information-sharing
environment, which is a real focus of the 9/11 Commission. In
fact, the Commission concluded that the biggest impediment to
all-source analysis and to a greater likelihood of connecting
the dots was the resistance they found to information sharing.
As a result, they urged a new governmentwide approach be
developed. Placing a really high priority on a different kind
of ``ISE'' here, information-sharing environment, that the
budget, as I read it, does not seem to me to emphasize creating
that information-sharing environment, and I wanted to ask you
generally what priority you put on it and how you plan to
proceed to implement that particular recommendation of the 9/11
Commission and of Congress in our legislation.
Secretary Chertoff. I think, Senator, that is one of the
most important tasks of the Department, and in the 3 weeks I
have been on the job, I have met with State and local partners,
and they have all emphasized the importance of that in terms of
their own work.
We have stood up this Homeland Security Information
Network, which now essentially connects us to 50 State homeland
security headquarters so that we can get information out
quickly and make sure we are all connected in that respect.
One of the things I want to continue and, frankly, expand
is the use of our analytical abilities to share with State and
local partners maybe more in-depth and detailed information
about the threat that we face, including lessons learned from
what we have seen in past experiences where there have been
terrorist incidents.
It should not only be about here is a little tidbit of
information, let's get it out to everybody. It should be trying
to provide a context within which State and local governments
can have a better understanding for their own purposes of the
nature of the threat that we face.
Senator Lieberman. Good. Thank you.
Earlier in February, the U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom released a study authorized by Congress on
asylum seekers and expedited removal. In some sense, this goes
back to the conversation we had at your confirmation hearing
about my concern about immigration laws and due process. This
is uniquely for those seeking asylum. And, of course, the
Commission is concerned about people seeking asylum for reasons
of religious discrimination and, worse than discrimination,
real danger back home.
The study found that the DHS had procedures to ensure that
legitimate asylum seekers were not erroneously sent back to the
countries where they might well face persecution, but that
implementation of the procedures varied widely. In fact, in
some ports of entry, they found that procedures designed to
protect asylum seekers were being followed by DHS employees
only half of the time; also that these asylum seekers who, in
my understanding, are rarely criminal, are being too often
detained in maximum security correctional facilities, often in
the same cell blocks as convicted criminals who are serving
time.
I don't know whether you have been briefed on this report
at all. If not, I wanted to draw it to your attention and urge
you to take steps to make sure that the procedures of the
Department are implemented in a way that the promise at the
base of the Statue of Liberty is actually implemented every
day.
Secretary Chertoff. I will do that, Senator.
Senator Lieberman. Are you aware of the report?
Secretary Chertoff. I have read the report. I think I had
read actually news accounts of the report, so I am familiar
with it. And I remember we talked about it. I have not yet been
briefed on it. I do agree these procedures ought to be
followed. We have them for a reason.
Senator Lieberman. Let me just say finally on this matter
that one of the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission was that the
existing DHS organizational structure does not allow problems
of asylum seekers to be addressed anywhere other than the
Office of the Secretary, because it is the only place with the
line of authority down to all three DHS agencies involved in
expedited removal: USCIS, ICE, and CBP. Obviously you cannot
answer it now, but they recommend the appointment of a refugee
coordinator to whom you would delegate your authority in this
area. And I just wanted to draw that to your attention and ask
you to consider it.
Secretary Chertoff. I will do that.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Coleman.
Senator Coleman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I want to just follow up on the grant allocation question
my colleague Senator Dayton raised. I try to pose this not
solely in a--just kind of looking at Minnesota, although I
represent Minnesota, and that is the reality. But I am trying
to understand the system.
One of the problems we have that we faced--again, decisions
made before your confirmation--is the large fluctuations in the
amount of money. You get in St. Paul a $7 million grant 1 year,
and then zeroed out the next year, without any notice until the
announcement of the overall grants.
So I would just urge you to take a look at this issue. If
we are consistently wrong, I could understand that. But there
is this sense in working with folks at the local level of
clearly not surprise, but I think to be a greater sensitivity
about the impact of that kind of action, where all of a sudden
you have been given a message and you have acted upon it, you
have put in place systems, and then, boom, like that.
In addition, as we deal with this issue of risk--and,
clearly, we saw the risk on September 11, but there are other
risks.
Secretary Chertoff. Sure.
Senator Coleman. And God forbid something else happens. We
are all going to be talking about other risks. There are three
of us up here right now who are Northern border communities.
Minnesota has an international border with Canada, a major port
of entry for cargo and vehicle traffic in the city of
International Falls; two major cities, Minneapolis and St.
Paul; two nuclear reactors, one on the Mississippi River; a
major port in the city of Duluth.
I am not sure I can get it now, but I hope that we have an
ongoing discussion about this question of risk and that it is
not just population numbers, but it is--we have the Mall of
America, which was at one point the first or second largest
tourist attraction in the country.
So I just want to encourage an ongoing conversation rather
than kind of by-the-book allocation of numbers based on number
of people, etc., I think there are other things that need to be
considered.
Secretary Chertoff. I would like to do that. I agree with
you. I think it has got to be much more subtle and adapted to
reality than just a cookie cutter.
Senator Coleman. The other issue that I want to raise has
to do with the Customs Border Patrol seeking a substantial
increase in the C-TPAT program, Customs-Trade Partnership
Against Terrorism. A good concept, a good program, and I am not
sure how much you have looked at it, but the idea being that
companies that submit--that work with the agency in the end
have a decrease in certain fees because they have submitted a
plan, etc. The increase is, I think, $20 million, bringing
total funding of the program to over $54 million. It is one of
the highest percentage increases.
I know the GAO--we have submitted--we are looking at this
program. In fact, the Permanent Subcommittee will have a
hearing on this issue in early April. My Committee has
substantial serious concerns about the implementation of the
program. I know that we have requested GAO to do a report, and
that report will be finalized and we will have our hearing in
conjunction with that. But I think it is fair to say that there
are serious concerns about the implementation of the program,
that companies are submitting documents with cursory reviews,
getting these significant cutbacks in fees, but that there has
not been the kind of review and investigation that is needed.
Can you talk a little bit about the increase in funding in
a program whose fundamental effectiveness has certainly been
called into question?
Secretary Chertoff. First of all, I think the program is a
very good program, and I think it is, again, part of a general
sense that as we deal with an enormous influx of trade, both
people moving and goods moving from overseas, we want to
balance two things. We want to encourage free trade,
prosperity, business, and we also want to keep out bad people
and bad stuff. And they work together because the more
confidence we have in the reliable trade partners, the more we
can focus our resources on the people who are not necessarily
reliable.
So that all makes sense, but you are completely correct
that from the theory to the practice is the implementation, and
let me say first I look forward to seeing the result of the
report. Perhaps unusually for someone in Washington, I actually
think getting criticism can be helpful because we learn
something from it.
In terms of the increase in funding, I think we need to
make sure that if this program is to work, we have the
resources in place to validate and check these things. The
worst thing would be this: To have a program for reliable
travel or reliable cargo that was insufficiently robust so that
people could sneak in and use it as a Trojan horse. That would
be the worst of all worlds. And so I think part of the deal
with our going to this model has to be very careful to make
sure we are really being stringent.
Senator Coleman. I appreciate your openness to review, and
certainly the concept is the right concept. And our concern is
to make sure that it works well, that it is doing what we are
funding it to do.
Secretary Chertoff. Mine, as well.
Senator Coleman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you.
Before I yield to Senator Levin, let me announce that we
obviously were not able to have a quorum of Senators here at
the same time to report Michael Jackson's nomination. So we are
moving the markup to off the floor during the stacked votes at
noon in S-219, which I am told is the Ceremonial Room on the
Democratic side.
Senator Lieberman. It is a bipartisan room.
Chairman Collins. I hope so. That information did worry me.
Senator Lieberman. It is only on our side. It is not our
room.
Chairman Collins. OK. So we do hope to report Michael
Jackson at that time. I know that you are very eager to have
him join you.
The vote has started, but we do have time for Senator
Levin's questions.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Jackson did
very well at his hearing, by the way.
Secretary Chertoff. He is terrific, and if confirmed, I
think he is going to be a great Deputy.
Senator Levin. Mr. Secretary, we have about 17 million
containers that come into the United States each year. About
half come in by ship at seaports; about half come in by train
or truck at land border entries.
We have a program inside your budget for the seaports. I am
just wondering whether or not that covers land ports of entry
as well, and if not, why not?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, I think, again, and this is going
to be part of the process I hope to undertake in the next 60 to
90 days. The problem of cargo is really a single problem with
unique dimensions for sea, air, and land.
Through the National Targeting Center, we do have a program
for identifying high-risk cargo, and I guess it is probably
most often discussed in the seaport context, but I believe it
applies to land ports as well.
Where I would like to see us move again across the board,
this is some variation on what I said previously about a
combination of trusted cargo shippers and fast tracking where
we can make sure we have properly vetted the cargo, whether it
be air, sea, or land, and then that gives us the resources to
do a more robust inspection with respect to people who are not
in that program.
So that is where we are with that, and once I have finished
this process of evaluating across the board, I think we will
have some opportunity to make some adjustments perhaps to align
the structure with the mission.
Senator Levin. And that would include the land ports of
entry.
Secretary Chertoff. Yes.
Senator Levin. The largest port of entry in the world, the
largest trade link that we have with the world, is the
Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario. Seven
thousand trucks a day cross that bridge, and it seems to me to
leave out the land entry ports of entry is not a particularly
rational system.
We have also asked you to look at a specific problem
because a large number of trucks come in each day that are not
subject to inspection in an effective way, and those are the
garbage trucks that Toronto has decided to bury in Michigan at
our landfills, and that is a separate problem. It is part of
the larger one. We have asked you to look into that, and we
look forward to your response to that issue.
Secretary Chertoff. I will.
Senator Levin. Mr. Secretary, just two other quick
questions. One is on the authorization by Congress last year of
not less than 800 additional Immigration and Customs
Enforcement investigators, the ICE investigators that are
looking at violations of immigration laws. Do you know whether
or not the budget request includes those additional inspectors?
Secretary Chertoff. I think it includes not the full
amount, some number, and I have to say as I am sitting here, I
am blanking on what the exact number is.
Senator Levin. OK. If you could provide us----
Secretary Chertoff. One hundred and thirty-five.
Senator Levin. Of the 210, OK.
We had a hearing at the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations regarding a very troubling Border Patrol and INS
policy back in November 2001. This came right after September
11, and what we discovered was that people who were arrested by
Border Patrol attempting to enter into the country illegally,
outside of the ports of entry, crossing borders at non-ports,
so obviously illegal by definition, were nonetheless released
on their own recognizance and without criminal background
checks.
It was astounding to us that was true since that person by
definition is entering the country illegally. There is no doubt
about it because they are not coming through a port of entry.
And we at that point insisted that we be given studies as to
how many of those people show up for their hearings, released
on their own recognizance. Obviously if they are trying to get
into the country, it is not a very reliable act to say you can
just go out on the streets, show up at a hearing someday, and
we will give you notice if we can have an address, thank you.
Do you have any idea yet what percentage of people arrested
for illegal entry and released on their own recognizance show
up at the hearing on their removal?
Secretary Chertoff. I don't have the statistics. I remember
from my prior life that there were statistics some years back
of hundreds of thousands of absconders.
We do, however, now have a program which we have
increasingly ramped up on compliance enforcement, where people
do abscond going out and tracking them down and bringing them
back. So we are trying to address that problem.
Another piece of this is we have a program to try to fast-
track people to get them to agree basically to be fast-tracked
into deportation, for example, when they clear out in terms of
finishing a criminal sentence. So we are trying a variety of
methods basically to turn beds around in detention centers more
quickly.
The most important piece of this, of course, is who we
choose to release, because it is one thing to put someone out
on bail who is not a danger to the community; it is something
else again if they are. And so one thing I have asked about and
I am looking into is making sure that we have a good system in
place when we make decisions about who should be released so
that at least people of special interest are not the ones being
released.
Senator Levin. Do we do criminal background checks for
anyone before they are released?
Secretary Chertoff. I do not know the answer to that, but I
will find out.
Senator Levin. If you could give us that for the record,
but also tell us for the record what is the most recent number,
percentage of people released on their own recognizance who do
not show up for their hearing.
Secretary Chertoff. I will do that.
Senator Levin. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Carper, I have never
missed a vote, so don't make me miss my first one in my Senate
career. We are glad to have you here.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Thanks. Madam Chairman, you are not going
to miss a vote today.
Let me say to the Secretary welcome. I think it is the
first time we have had a chance to welcome you as Secretary. We
are delighted that you are here, and thank you for your
stewardship and your willingness to serve.
Madam Chairman, I have a statement for the record. We have
been at a markup on the Clear Skies proposal, another important
issue, so I have been distracted, as Senator Lieberman knows.
And I have a statement I would like to offer, Madam Chairman,
and some questions for the record for our witness.
[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for convening this hearing today on the
President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2006 at the Department of
Homeland Security. It's vitally important that we examine this budget
proposal closely because, as I read it, it would have a devastating
impact on States like mine.
By my calculation, this budget would cut the amount of first
responder aid granted to Delaware and all small and medium-sized States
by more than 80 percent. It proposes cutting funding for the State
Homeland Security Grant Program by about $500 million. At the same
time, it would increase the amount of money set aside for the largest
urban areas in the country while cutting the baseline allocation used
to ensure that every State receives sufficient first responder funding
by two thirds.
I agree with the President that more first responder funding should
be distributed based on risk and threat. It probably also makes sense
to begin distributing more of this funding directly to urban areas,
particularly the large urban areas such as New York, Washington, Los
Angeles, and Chicago that are probably most at risk. I would draw the
line, however, at reducing the baseline in the State grant program so
dramatically. Doing so at this point could put some States in great
danger.
I admit that the current State grant formula could be improved.
After each State receives its baseline allocation, the current formula
distributes all remaining funds to each State based on population.
While population is one part of what puts a State at risk of attack,
this formula ignores other important risk factors such as population
density and the location of critical infrastructure. I've also argued
in the past that it probably also shortchanges States like Delaware
that have smaller populations but potentially significant risk factors.
Chairman Collins and I and a number of our colleagues on this
Committee have worked over the years to make our first responder aid
programs work better. Our proposed, featured in S. 21, legislation we
introduced earlier this year, mandates a State grant formula that would
distribute about 60 percent of State grant funding based on risk. It
also allows the Department of Homeland Security to award up to 25
percent of State funding to high-risk urban areas. However, it
maintains the current baseline allocation so that States like Delaware
will continue to receive the resources necessary to protect their
population and respond to potential terrorist attacks and natural
disasters even if they aren't home to a large city and aren't deemed
eligible for a risk-based allocation.
If the President's proposal were enacted, Delaware would lose a
significant amount of money. We were allocated $15 million in the
current fiscal year. Under the President's proposal, we would likely
only receive just over $2.5 million. This is unacceptable and dangerous
because my State emergency management agency tells me that they don't
have the resources and personnel necessary to handle certain attacks
that the Department of Homeland Security has told them have a very real
chance of occurring right now in Delaware.
They also tell me that, if our State's allocation were to be cut as
dramatically as the President's budget proposes, they might need to cut
or eliminate funding for other important non-homeland security
programs, including disaster mitigation efforts. Compare this with the
fact that, under the President's proposal, large States with large
cities will likely receive three layers of funds--a baseline
allocation, a threat-based allocation and urban area grants.
I also believe the President's proposal is dangerous because I
haven't yet been convinced that the Department of Homeland Security can
truly know what level of funding should be allocated to large States,
small States or urban areas. This Committee recently heard testimony
from one of the authors of a report published by the Heritage
Foundation and the Center for Strategic and International Studies
stating that the Department hasn't completed a comprehensive national
risk assessment and doesn't plan to have one completed until 2008.
I'd urge you, then, Mr. Secretary, to work with us to develop a
SHSGP formula that treats all States fairly and doesn't run the risk of
putting some at tremendous risk of being ill-prepared for an emergency.
Senator Carper. Secretary Chertoff, again, it is good to
see you.
Secretary Chertoff. Thank you very much.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Madam Chairman. How is that?
Chairman Collins. That was good. Seriously, if you would
like to ask further questions--I guess that did work.
Senator Lieberman. Senator Collins and I have an ongoing
discussion about the effectiveness of guilt induction.
[Laughter.]
Apparently it worked with Senator Carper.
Chairman Collins. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for
being here today. We obviously had a great deal of discussion
on the best way to allocate homeland security grant funding,
and I want to leave you with some sound advice from the RAND
Corporation report on this issue. It says, ``Homeland security
experts and first responders have cautioned against an
overemphasis on improving the preparedness of large cities to
the exclusion of smaller communities or rural areas, noting
that much of our critical infrastructure and some potential
high-value targets--nuclear power plants, military
installations, agricultural facilities, etc.--are located in
less populated areas.''
I think that is good advice for the Department, and I hope
you will heed it.
We appreciate the opportunity to question you today. The
hearing record will remain open for additional comments for 15
days.
Secretary Chertoff. I appreciate that, Chairman Collins,
and I look forward to working with the Committee. I have one
slight correction, if I can have a second. The 2006 budget
contemplates 143 ICE agents, not 135.
Chairman Collins. You were very close.
Secretary Chertoff. I was close.
Chairman Collins. Thank you.
Secretary Chertoff. I look forward to working with you.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Collins. This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0175.047
<all>