<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:27746.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-849
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY'S BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR
2007
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 1, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-746 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
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
Jennifer A. Hemingway, Professional Staff Member
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
A. Patricia Rojas, Minority Professional Staff Member
Jason M. Yanussi, Minority Professional Staff Member
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Collins.............................................. 1
Senator Lieberman............................................ 3
Senator Coleman.............................................. 5
Senator Levin................................................ 6
Senator Bennett.............................................. 7
Senator Dayton............................................... 8
Senator Voinovich............................................ 9
Senator Lautenberg........................................... 10
Senator Warner............................................... 11
Senator Pryor................................................ 12
Senator Akaka................................................ 32
Prepared statement:
Senator Carper............................................... 45
WITNESS
Wednesday, March 1, 2006
Hon. Michael Chertoff, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security:
Testimony.................................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Responses to questions submitted for the Record.............. 68
APPENDIX
Letter dated February 10, 2006, submitted by Senator Dayton...... 46
Chart titled ``Container Security Initiative''................... 47
Chart titled ``Radiation Portal Monitor (RPM) Deployments at
Seaports''..................................................... 48
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY'S BUDGET SUBMISSION
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. Susan M.
Collins, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Collins, Voinovich, Coleman, Bennett,
Warner, Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, Dayton, Lautenberg, and Pryor.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS
Chairman Collins. The Committee will come to order.
Good morning. Today, the Committee will review the
Department of Homeland Security's budget submission for fiscal
year 2007. I am very pleased to welcome Secretary Chertoff back
to the Committee.
Three years ago today, the Department first opened its
doors. As we review the implications of this budget proposal
for our homeland security, we must do so in the context of both
the accomplishments and the deficiencies of the past 3 years.
The 2007 budget proposal requests $42.7 billion in funding,
an overall increase of 6 percent. The President's budget
includes a number of funding increases that will help the
Department make America stronger and the American people safer.
For example, it provides increases for Customs and Border
Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to better
secure our borders and to help bring an end to the ``catch and
release'' practice of not detaining those who are here
illegally and who are caught by law enforcement officers. It
also prioritizes intelligence gathering and analysis at the
Department.
In addition, the budget would create an office within the
Department to oversee the security of chemical facilities. This
is of particular interest to me as I have held four hearings on
chemical security and have introduced bipartisan legislation
with Senators Lieberman, Coleman, Carper, and Levin to
authorize the Department to establish performance-based
standards to enhance the security of our chemical plants.
But there are other aspects of this budget that I find
troubling. The mission of DHS cannot successfully be
accomplished from Washington alone. The Department must rely on
a strong partnership with State and local governments. Yet the
Administration proposes to cut grants to State and local
governments, to police, to firefighters, and to other first
responders.
These grants helped train and equip our first responders
and include providing them with funds for interoperable
telecommunications equipment. As we have seen time and again,
from September 11 to Hurricane Katrina, this training and
equipment are essential to an effective front-line response to
catastrophes.
There are other areas where I believe the funding is
insufficient. Although this budget recommends a 4 percent
increase for the Coast Guard, this amount is inadequate given
the enormous expansion of the Coast Guard's responsibilities
for homeland security since September 11 as well as the
proposed new mission for the Coast Guard of being responsible
for the National Capital Region Air Defense.
Nor does the budget adequately fund the Coast Guard's non-
homeland security missions. Indeed, under the proposed budget,
the Coast Guard would suffer cuts in areas such as search and
rescue, maritime safety, and environmental protection. The cuts
to search and rescue are particularly incomprehensible in light
of the Coast Guard's extraordinary, heroic performance during
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
I am also very concerned that the proposed budget maintains
the Deepwater Program as a 25-year acquisition project, causing
us to continue to spend tremendous sums on legacy assets that
are near or past their service life.
And I will note that the Coast Guard, in response to
inquiries from Senator Lieberman and myself in years past, has
estimated that you could save literally more than a billion
dollars by accelerating the Deepwater Program to a 10-year
recapitalization.
The silver lining of the reaction to the pending sale of
Peninsular and Oriental (P&O) to Dubai Ports World is that it
has served to highlight another critical issue, and that is
port security. Last November, Senators Murray, Lieberman,
Coleman, and I introduced the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security
Act based on our years of work and investigations into port
security.
This comprehensive legislation authorizes $835 million for
programs and initiatives to better secure our Nation's ports.
It provides strong direction to the Department regarding the
crucial next steps in supply chain security.
Regrettably, the Administration's budget shortchanges port
security. It does not dedicate a separate funding stream for
port security grants, whereas our bill would provide $400
million for that purpose. The budget request folds port
security in with all other transportation and critical
infrastructure grants, thus providing no assurance of funding
to strengthen the security of our ports through port security
grants.
I would note that this budget proposal was developed in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. While the Committee's
investigation of Katrina has highlighted many outstanding
performances, such as by the Coast Guard, our investigation has
also revealed a great many failures across the partnership of
government agencies at all levels charged with disaster
preparation and response.
The failures at the Department of Homeland Security are
profound and disturbing since the Department bears the ultimate
Federal responsibility for effective preparation and quick
response. I am encouraged, therefore, that the Department is
requesting $50 million for a National Preparedness Integration
Program, a new initiative designed to strengthen the Nation's
capacity to prepare for and respond to natural and other
disasters. I look forward to discussing with the Secretary how
this new initiative and the overall budget will help produce
far better results than we saw with Hurricane Katrina.
Finally, of course, we come to FEMA. From the delayed,
uncoordinated, and ineffective response to Katrina to the
recurring and ongoing waste, fraud, and abuse that afflict the
relief programs, the performance of FEMA during this disaster
has been a disaster itself.
The budget provides for a 10 percent increase to begin
strengthening FEMA. But I remain concerned that the problems
Katrina exposed require not only more resources, but also
better leadership and a more integrated culture at DHS.
A budget is primarily about money, but it is about more
than just money. It is about priorities. As we review a budget
that will carry the Department of Homeland Security into its
fourth year, we must ensure that the priorities will truly
advance the goal of a stronger, safer America.
Senator Lieberman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Madam Chairman, for that
excellent statement.
Good morning, Secretary Chertoff. Mr. Secretary, in my
opinion, the Administration's proposed budget for homeland
security is shortsighted and short-funded, given the dangers,
both natural and terrorist, that this Department was created to
confront.
A new hurricane season begins exactly 3 months from today.
And of course, the threat of terrorism never stopped, as we
have seen in London, Madrid, Bali, and so many other places,
despite the best efforts to prevent it. The fact is that a
terrorist attack could happen almost any place at any time.
And therefore, the Department of Homeland Security must be
more ready than it is now, in my opinion, to detect, prevent,
and respond. Yet this budget actually makes cuts in areas
history has shown are most crucial, certainly when responding
to a disaster.
The Administration's proposed Department of Homeland
Security budget cuts $802 million from programs for first
responders and cuts $233 million from the Coast Guard for its
traditional missions.
It was, after all, State and local first responders and the
Coast Guard who were among the greatest heroes of Hurricane
Katrina. They must be given the funds they need to better
prepare for and respond to the next disaster.
This budget, as Chairman Collins has said, also fails to
accelerate the Coast Guard's Deepwater integrated system
program, ignoring evidence that such acceleration will not only
provide better security and response, but save the Federal
Government a lot of money in the long run.
Despite the very necessary attention finally being paid to
port security as a result of the Dubai Ports World deal, this
budget, in my opinion, fails to address adequately the damage
that terrorists can do in containers carried to America aboard
ships. It provides no new money for the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection's Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism
Program, leaving just 80 inspectors with the responsibility of
assessing the security practices of about 10,000 applicants
under this program.
And it provides just $35 million for X-ray or other imaging
prototypes that will be deployed at just five ports of the many
ports in this country for cargo inspection next year. At this
pace, we will not have all the Nation's ports covered by the
necessary imaging equipment for at least another 5 years.
I am deeply concerned by the Administration's proposal once
again to force ports, chemical plants, and rail and transit
facilities to compete with each other, along with public
utilities, telecommunications, and financial networks, for
scarce security resources through a consolidated grant program.
I also believe the border security priorities outlined in
the budget are, to some extent, misplaced and do not reflect a
realistic assessment of all of the avenues of infiltration
terrorists are likely to use to get into this country.
Finally, as Chairman Collins has said, the budget
inadequately addresses some of the failures of FEMA that
Hurricane Katrina exposed, failures that the Administration's
own report acknowledges and that, of course, our Committee
investigation has already detailed.
Those are my criticisms. But as in the last few years, I
have felt a responsibility to work with my staff and others who
follow questions of homeland security to come up with some
estimate of what we think would adequately fund this
Department. And I have expressed those in a letter that I am
sending to the Budget Committee chairman, Senator Gregg, and
the ranking member, Senator Conrad. And I will give you,
Secretary Chertoff, a copy of those recommendations and ask
your consideration of them.
In sum, they would have our government invest an additional
$8 billion in homeland security needs government-wide next
fiscal year, with about $6.3 billion of that going to the
crucial programs that are in the Department of Homeland
Security.
Very briefly, to highlight a few of those areas that I
would make recommendations in, one is to restore $802 million
to first responder programs and then add an additional $1.2
billion to help improve the State and local capabilities,
particularly in the area of interoperable communications, which
everybody acknowledges are critically deficient now.
I would recommend adding $1.7 billion in spending on
security for chemical plants, ports, and other critical
infrastructure systems like rail and transit. I would give FEMA
an additional $465 million to specifically improve its
readiness, response, and recovery capabilities in areas that
Katrina exposed as flawed.
I would provide the Coast Guard with an additional $1.1
billion, primarily to accelerate that Deepwater Program to
modernize and replace the Coast Guard's fleet, which,
unfortunately, is one of the oldest in the world.
I would increase the budget for Immigration and Customs
Enforcement by $158 million so that the agency can station more
visa security officers overseas, provide more training for
consular officers, and identify additional criminal aliens who
are in jail and should be deported from the United States.
And finally, I would recommend investing an additional $752
million next year in aviation security so that we can better
detect explosives in checked bags or carried on by passengers.
Can the Department get by with the budget that the
Administration has recommended? Yes, it can. But getting by is
not enough in an age of terrorism and an age of continuing
natural disasters post-Katrina. We have an urgent need, in my
opinion, to invest more now so that we will be safer sooner and
into the future.
The fact is there is no cheap way to be better prepared. We
know that from our work with regard to our military. It takes
money. More money, in my opinion, than this budget offers. But
it is money that will be very well spent because it will bring
the greater protection that the American people need.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I look forward to your testimony, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Coleman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN
Senator Coleman. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am going to
make very brief comments.
I first want to associate myself, Madam Chairman, with your
comments and the concerns that you have specifically raised,
the things that you have found troubling--grants, State and
local governments, first responders, the importance of
additional resources to the Coast Guard, and then,
significantly, port security. And I will talk about that during
my question and answer time.
I just want to say this, Mr. Secretary. I think you have
the toughest job in the President's Cabinet. The reality is
that there are challenges that we face overseas every day in
Iraq, but the Secretary of Defense isn't on the line
personally. There are challenges that we face in the
environment. There are challenges we face in transportation.
Challenges we face across the board.
But your neck is on the line personally when things don't
go right with Katrina. We see it when we have concerns about
what is happening with port security. And so, I want to
recognize that.
I also want to note that I had the opportunity recently to
visit our border areas in San Diego. I was in Arizona looking
at the testing of the unmanned vehicle, UAVs. Our border folks
are doing a much better job than we give them credit for. It is
a stunning challenge. Much better job than we give them credit
for.
So I want to say that as I then get into areas of concern,
and there are areas of concern. Clearly, the situation with the
UAE has highlighted the issue of port security, which many of
us have been working on for a long time.
And as we look at this budget, my concern is that we are
still not putting the resources in areas where we know we have
problems. We can't be looking back to the last challenge, which
we had when we were dealing with aviation security. We have
also got to look ahead. You can't just fight the last war.
I had a chance to be in Hong Kong, and Hong Kong privately
funded, they screen each and every container, each and every
container. Ten thousand trucks a day dropping containers in,
and we are still doing a targeting system.
There isn't money in the budget for testing and validation
of the automatic targeting system. There isn't money in the
budget for the ISIS system, the system that would allow us to
screen each and every container.
There are still concerns about the ability to bring a
nuclear device into this country. I think we are at about 40
percent of cargo being screened through radiation portal
monitors. I worry that, as I look in the budget, there is,
perhaps, an overly optimistic estimation of where we are going
to go in the next couple of years, and the resources aren't
there.
So, again, I want to say that I appreciate what you are
doing. I appreciate the difficulty of what you are doing. But
it is important, and the reason your neck is on the line is
that we can't afford failure, and we have to make sure the
resources are there. And so, in my questioning, I will
highlight some of those areas.
But I also do want, as I said, to compliment the work that
we have seen in Customs and Border Patrol and other areas that
your folks are doing every day on the front line.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Levin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN
Senator Levin. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary. First, let me say that I fully
agree with our Chairman, our Ranking Member, in terms of the
shortfalls in your budget. Senator Lieberman went through a
list of needed additions to the budget. The Chairman has also
indicated where the budget is short, and I will fully be
supportive of trying to add to your budget for these essential
needs, including port security and interoperable communications
equipment, first responder support.
You also in the budget severely shortchange two areas that
I have a particular interest in. One is the northern border,
the longest border we have. Nonetheless, we find that the
resources have not been provided as promised.
It was just a couple of years ago--actually, in March of
last year--that I asked you whether or not you were going to be
opening up the five northern border airwing locations, which
are so essential to air interdiction and enforcement
capabilities along the northern border. You assured me that
there would be one each year added. That has not happened.
There were two sites, particularly in southeastern
Michigan, which you were going to consider. We have not seen
those commitments relative to the northern border airwing
carried out.
The Coast Guard budget is of tremendous concern to us.
There is a great emphasis on the Deepwater Program, and the
Chairman indicated that she would like to speed up that
program. And we would surely support that. But there is almost
nothing in that program for the Great Lakes.
We instead are losing boats in the Great Lakes. The Great
Lakes is our longest coastline. I don't know whether that is
recognized in homeland security, whether or not the Great Lakes
and the St. Lawrence Seaway together, by far, is our longest
coastline. We are exceedingly vulnerable because we have such
good relations with Canada. That opens the vulnerabilities to
us.
And yet, when it comes to the Coast Guard budget, we see a
reduction in the budget and in the commitment to replace ships
that are being lost in the Coast Guard for the Great Lakes.
That is totally unacceptable to us.
And so, during my question period, we are going to be
focusing on the northern border and on the Great Lakes and
pressing you on why it is that with all of the needs that we
have that there is such a disadvantageous position that the
budget places the Great Lakes in, despite the fact that it is,
with the northern border, our longest border and, with the
Great Lakes, our longest coastline.
Thank you.
Chairman Collins. Senator Bennett.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, listening to this litany, I wonder why we
haven't had a whole lot of attacks, problems in 3 years. We
haven't had any since September 11.
The combination of the Department of Homeland Security and
the Department of Defense and the intelligence community has
succeeded in keeping the terrorists from our shores. They have
been forced to turn to Madrid or London or Saudi Arabia or
other places for their attacks, and they are currently making
their stand in Iraq.
So with all of your difficulties--and I repeat, I am the
one who predicted this Department wouldn't work for at least 5
years regardless of who headed it and regardless of how much
money it had just because of the challenge of putting it
together--someone, somehow, somewhere must have been doing
something right to have kept us safe to the degree we have been
since the September 11 attack.
I have some questions that I will raise during the question
period. I welcome you here. I am grateful for your explanation
of the P&O, Dubai Ports World thing. I have no problem with
that.
My first reaction was that which everybody had. My gosh, we
are going to turn the ports over to the Arabs? Then you get
into the details, and clearly, Dubai is an ally in the war on
terror. The Dubai Ports World is an organization upon whom we
are dependent for our naval activities around the world.
Without their excellent providing of ports where naval ships
can put in with complete security and safety, we would have
more examples of the USS Cole kind of thing.
So I simply welcome you here, and while I have some of the
same questions that some of my colleagues have, I acknowledge
the fact that when you step back from it and look at the
overall picture, we can't ignore the fact that the United
States has survived since September 11 without an additional
attack on our shores.
And for that, we can be grateful to you and Secretary Ridge
and all of the people in your Department, the intelligence
community, and the Department of Defense for the great job they
have been doing, in spite of all of the problems that have been
legitimately raised here by my colleagues.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Dayton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAYTON
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I would like to associate myself with all of the remarks
that have preceded me, and I think Senator Bennett's comments
are well founded. I am waiting in my lifetime to see the front
page headline ``Government does something well.'' And we don't
acknowledge those successes, and you certainly deserve credit.
And the many thousands of dedicated men and women working
with you, under you, who are devoting their careers, their
lives to protecting this country and doing so with a vigilance
that I think we all need to respect and show due gratitude for.
When I was commissioner of economic development on a much
smaller scale in Minnesota in the governor's cabinet, I said
that working for a governor, as you work for the chief
executive, is like having a constituency of one. I was
responsible to him and to his final decisions and upholding
those.
In this case, however, I think you have a broader
constituency, which is all of the American people. And I worry,
as the Chairman and particularly the Ranking Member, I think,
outlined very well, that this budget is deficient and that it
doesn't represent the best interests of all of that broad
constituency.
I think the border security is one of critical concern. I
agree with Senator Levin as it relates to the northern border,
although I want to acknowledge that there has been some modest
improvements in the northern border in Minnesota, and I
appreciate that. I hope those will continue.
I worry about the first responder prioritization, as some
call it. I call it triage because some of the first responders,
the local units, the government in Minnesota have been zeroed
out of funding. And we sent them a first message that they
should devote thousands of person-hours, which they have in a
very dedicated way, to being ready to respond, and then we turn
around and tell them a year or two later, ``Well, you are not a
priority. So you don't have any money.''
I think that is a very wrong message. And when you look at
a bunch of trailers sitting in Hope, Arkansas, rotting away, it
is hard to explain to first responders, local government
officials in places like Ramsey County, Minnesota, why they
don't deserve any funding whatsoever and how that fits into a
homeland security set of priorities. So I do look forward to
your testimony in that regard.
And I would just note also that I believe we are going to
take up in the next couple of weeks immigration reform, a
serious crisis. Badly needed, long overdue. But if we don't
have your border security, particularly in the southern border
as it relates to the border with Mexico, if we don't really
deal with that directly and with whatever additional
resources--manpower, person power, security, technology,
whatever is necessary--we are going to defeat our own efforts
at reform.
And in Minnesota, I know the methamphetamine epidemic is
truly that, and the flood of pure methamphetamine is coming
now, I am told by local law enforcement, directly from Mexico
into a northern State like Minnesota. It has got to be
happening elsewhere in the country. I think we have a crisis of
security in our borders, and I hope this budget, if it doesn't
address that, can do so remedially with this Committee.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Welcome back to the Committee. I would like to thank you
for your leadership and the leadership of your colleagues in
the Department. As was already stated, the combining of
agencies to create the Department of Homeland Security is a
monumental management challenge, more significant than when we
put the Defense Department together five decades ago.
And so, you have a full plate and have had many challenges.
I want to make sure that you understand and that your family
understands that we do appreciate the effort that you have made
to do this job for the American people.
I think, to a degree, many of the comments made here are
very well taken. We have a real dilemma here. We want
everything to be secured, but if you add it all up, it would
bankrupt the country. I have said on many occasions that Osama
bin Laden is probably one of the happiest people in the world
because what he wanted to wrought in the United States he has
accomplished, and that is the fear of terror.
If we do everything that everyone suggests to enhance
security, we will bankrupt the country. Our problem is that we
need to understand that our resources are limited. And we
can't, as a Nation, look to the non-defense discretionary
budget as the place where we are going to save money.
In other words, the discretionary non-defense budget has
been almost flat-funded. You have proposed a 6 percent increase
in the DHS budget. But if you take out the money that TSA is
supposed to collect from the airlines, and you don't get it
this year, in fact, the 6 percent increase is substantially
reduced.
When you, as the Secretary, go to the Office of Management
and Budget, I would like to know, do you give them your full
budgetary requirements? Or do they tell you, ``Mr. Secretary,
we don't want to see any more than a 3 percent or 4 percent
increase?''
I think the Members of this Committee ought to know that
you have to deal with OMB, and I don't know whether you are
going to be able to be candid with us today regarding your
agency's budgetary requirements.
I don't understand in a country with the Iraq war and with
homeland security costs why this Nation is talking about making
tax cuts permanent. We need more money to get the job done, and
the American people understand it.
But our head is in the sand, folks. It is in the sand. I am
a former mayor and former governor. I have had to go through
the budget process. Our Federal Government must balance its
expenses and revenues.
We are asking Secretary Chertoff to do almost an impossible
job because we are not giving him the resources that he needs
to get the job done. We are not doing it because when he goes
to OMB, they tell him, ``This is the amount you are going to
have.'' Perhaps you can discuss that in your testimony.
But we ought to look at the bigger picture and decide what
it is that we really need to do and then set priorities in
terms of how we use our resources. We can't afford everything
that all of us are talking about here today. We don't have the
money for it.
When I was mayor of Cleveland, we had to make hard choices
between police, fire, and choices between other things. You
come up with a reasonable budget, and you allocate the
resources as best you can.
The most important thing, Mr. Secretary, is that we have
not had an event in the United States of America since
September 11. I thank you, and I thank the other people
involved in protecting our Nation. We all want to make sure
that we don't have another event.
So I would just like to say that as we go through this
hearing, I would like to have some real candor from you. I am
concerned, for instance, in FEMA, you have lost 500 people. And
nearly half the people you have remaining are eligible for
retirement. How are you going to handle it?
You have management positions in that agency that are left
unfilled. You have to have enough people to accomplish FEMA's
mission. And how are you going to get that job done?
If I were a FEMA employee and I had a chance to retire, I
would get out of there quickly. I am out there busting my back,
trying to get the job done, and all I do is read about the fact
that FEMA is a terrible organization. I come home to my
children and to my wife, and they say, ``You work for that bum
agency.'' You know?
These are practical things that we are dealing with here
today, and I think we need to get real here at this Committee,
and we have to get real in the U.S. Senate about the resources
that we need to get the job done and stop putting our head in
the sand as we have done for too long a period during the last
several years.
Thank you.
Chairman Collins. Senator Lautenberg.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Voinovich just raised a ray of hope that goes a
long way with me. When we talk about further permanence of tax
cuts and we talk about our needs, these two things just don't
square.
I sat on this Committee--Mr. Secretary, I am glad to see
you--and I want to recall for this Committee's review how hard
we both worked to get grants given on a risk base. And we had a
vote, and there was only one person who voted for making it
risk based, and that was me. Nobody else. Nobody else here
thought that was the way to do it, despite the fact that you,
sir, and the 9/11 Commission said absolutely that is a critical
condition. And finally, I think we are getting closer there.
But when I look at the responsibility that we have in the
Senate and our government and, as we heard Senator Voinovich
describe it, almost an impossible task, but that doesn't mean
you don't work at it. And the fact of the matter is that never
before have we ever had a single day in America when we lost
almost 3,000 citizens in a terrorist act.
And the fact that we have been spared such a happening
again shows good work, shows hard work, but it also doesn't say
that we can breathe easy. And if that is the way we look at
this and say, OK, one single attack on our people or our soil
can kill as many as died that day.
And I look at the port of New York/New Jersey, where our
interests primarily are, and been told by the FBI that in that
2-mile stretch from Newark airport to the New York/New Jersey
harbor, a chemical attack could kill as many as 12 million
people, how dare we say, well, OK, we are going to mix in port
security with other things and let you scrap it out, kids, and
divide it up so that we look pretty good from the
Administration standpoint. ``There is more money in there. What
are you talking about?''
The fact is it is a dereliction of duty. And I am pleased
to hear my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about the
need that we have and that we must fill if we are going to do
our job honestly and correctly.
The Coast Guard, we keep giving them more assignments and
less money to do things with. They are a very important part of
our protection mechanism.
And so, when I look at what we budget to protect lives in
Iraq, and I respect protecting those lives. I hate to see it
when 20 or 30 children or women are killed, Iraqis, by other
Iraqis. But when I think of rebuilding, trying to rebuild Iraq,
and I think of trying to rebuild New Orleans, and I think of
trying to protect almost 300 million Americans in the best way
we can, the budgets are quite differently calculated.
Mr. Secretary, one question was asked of you. Are you
relegated to spectator position when it comes to the budget? Or
can you, or dare you, fight to do the job, the entire job that
is in front of you?
I know that you try hard, and we respect your efforts. But
we have to get more, in good conscience, to protect our people.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Senator Warner.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER
Senator Warner. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I welcome you this morning, Judge. And I happen to be one
that thinks you are doing a fine job, and just hang in there.
The question of cyber security has been a subject that I
have been intensely interested in. If I may say with a little
immodesty, about 5 years ago, I actually set up a program of
scholarships using the defense budget for young people to get a
4-year curricula paid education if they, in turn, would give
2\1/2\ years back to some Federal entity dealing with cyber
security.
I saw where you achieved a $7 million increase in the cyber
security account, and I am wondering as to your own views as to
the risks associated with that critical subject and how your
Department is proceeding?
At the appropriate time, I will put those questions to him.
But I thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Pryor.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Welcome back to the Committee, Mr. Secretary. It is good to
have you here.
In this budget, I am pleased to see that FEMA is getting a
10 percent increase, but I am still concerned about that
agency's organization and leadership. I am concerned that the
Coast Guard is only getting a 4 percent increase, given their
new responsibility for the Deepwater Program, for example.
We have a very small Coast Guard presence in our State
because we are not a coastal State. But I am very impressed
with the work the Coast Guard has done since I have been in the
Senate. Very impressed. And I just think it is one of those
agencies that we should give more resources to as we give them
more responsibility.
I am also a little bit dismayed in the cuts--well, more
than a little bit dismayed in the cuts for programs for State
and local first responders. In fact, there are two programs--
the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program and the State
Homeland Security Grant Program--if you just add those two
together, I think they are getting a $317 million cut.
So I feel like that is too much, but I would love to hear
your rationale on that and hear your view of the budget
pressures that you are under.
And also I just want to recall a conversation that we had
with Secretary Ridge. I had a line of questions with him, and
we talked about this a number of times with him, either
publicly or privately. And that is when Homeland Security was a
brand-new Department--it is kind of like what Senator Bennett
said--I felt that it really was an opportunity, but also a
challenge, to set Homeland Security up as a model agency.
And I know that is easy to say and hard to do. But I am
just not sure yet that Homeland Security has lived up to that
promise. I hope that it is moving in that direction, but I
think it has had a few bumps in the road along the way. And
certainly, I hope for the very best for the Department of
Homeland Security and hope for the very best for your
leadership there. Thank you.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator.
I would advise my colleagues that the lights on the clock
are not working. The vote has begun. I would suggest that we
recess at this point and then come back and proceed with the
Secretary's testimony.
The Committee will be in recess for 15 minutes. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Chairman Collins. The Committee will come to order. Our
witness today is Secretary of Homeland Security Michael
Chertoff.
Secretary Chertoff, I want to thank you for appearing
before the Committee today to present the Department's budget
prepared after a year of very significant events for the
Department. I also want to join my colleagues in thanking you
for your leadership. This is an extraordinarily challenging
job, and we look forward to hearing your testimony today.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL CHERTOFF,\1\ SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Chertoff. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator
Lieberman, and the other Members of the Committee. It is always
a pleasure to appear, and it is always a pleasure actually to
deal with you personally. We get to talk from time to time
about how we are trying to shape this still very young
Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Secretary Chertoff appears in the
Appendix on page 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am going to be brief because I know that people have a
lot of questions. But this is a period of a number of
milestones. It is the third anniversary of the Department being
stood up. It is a little bit more than a year since I was
confirmed and sworn in.
At the time I went through my hearing, I remember people
asked me, ``Well, how do you feel giving up a lifetime
appointment for this?'' And now I realize that in this job, a
year is a lifetime. So I guess I have come out ahead.
I do think what I want to do is lay out some of the
principles that I think we are trying to apply in continuing
the job of building the Department and making it work as well
as it can, making it a model Department, and then talk very
briefly about four priority areas.
I have a written statement I would request the Committee
accept for the record.
Chairman Collins. Without objection.
Secretary Chertoff. And I certainly want to be clear that
my focus on four priorities doesn't mean to exclude other
things, but it is simply a recognition of a limit of time.
I agree with I think what Senator Lautenberg said and what
Senator Dayton said about not breathing easily. I take a lot of
comfort in the fact that we haven't been attacked successfully
in this country in the last 4 years. That is a tribute to the
work done in many departments--our Department, the Department
of Justice, and the Department of Defense.
And I think we have had some instances where but for that
very fine work, we might have had different results. But it
does not mean we can be complacent. And I am still focused very
deeply on the issue of what we can do to elevate our ability to
prevent, protect against, and, if necessary, respond to
terrorism.
The basic principles I think we bring to what we do here
are four. First of all, we have to be systematic. We have to
think about the objectives we are trying to achieve, assess
what are the elements we need to get to the objective, and then
make sure we adequately fund and build the capabilities to meet
the objective.
Second, we have to be integrated. We are not fully
integrated yet. I think one of the lessons of last year was
integration was incomplete. And to be honest with you, I think
there were some people who resisted integration.
And I think, in a very painful way, we have learned the
lesson that we have to complete the job that this Committee and
this Senate and this Congress told us to do, which is to build
a single department. And that means the hesitancy in some
quarters has to be put to one side, and we have to now
understand we are going to be one department and function as
one.
Third, I think Senator Voinovich was correct in observing
at some level the challenge in dealing with security is
recognizing that there is a limitless demand for security. The
city of New York, I think, has 30,000, 40,000 police officers.
I am sure if it had 400,000, it would be even safer.
We always balance. And the way we balance in this
Department is risk management. We try to focus on the highest
priority risks and then apply our resources to those,
recognizing that we can't guarantee against all risks. And I
think one of the things I have tried to do in the last year is
to have a mature conversation with the American people about
what we can do and what we can't do and what is reasonable to
expect and what is not reasonable.
Finally, again, to echo Senator Voinovich, who has just
walked in, I think the fourth principle we have to have in this
job is respect for the people who do the work. They do an
outstanding job, and I do worry about morale. I worry about the
fact that, for example, people with FEMA--many of whom did just
a tremendous job--are subject to ridicule, not individually,
but the component is the butt of jokes.
I think we obviously owe them increased resources, and we
have a lot more in this budget for that. But we also need to
recognize the accomplishments.
And part of what I want to do in this opening statement is
talk about some of the things we have done right because
although I am the first to admit we have more to do, and I said
it last summer in this Committee, I think it is important to
say we have done a lot. And I think the people of this country
should hear that from me, and the people from this Department
should hear me saying it.
So let me turn to four areas. First, port security. Port
security is very much in the news. I know you know, and I am
going to make it clear publicly, that we have been focused on
port security as a significant issue for the last year.
One of the things I talked about in my 2SR review was the
need to extend the issue of the security envelope, secure
freight, so we would have better visibility and better control
over cargo in the maritime domain at an earlier point in the
supply chain. And that is something we are still very much
focused on as an end state.
Part of what I want to do is, in fact, I am planning to go
out to Hong Kong, as I told Senator Coleman, at the end of this
month to look at their prototype. We are monitoring the
prototype. I have to caution everybody that it is still a
concept. They are putting containers through, but they are not
necessarily assessing them in the way one would have to assess
them in real life.
We are going to have to ultimately test this against the
real-life demands of balancing the time it takes to really look
at what you are screening versus the time you want to spend
lingering before you load the vessel. But it is an important
issue.
One thing I would like to address is the criticism I see
sometimes when people talk about the amount of money we spend
on port security. Often, there is a kind of apples to raisins
comparison. People compare air security, aviation security,
include the payroll for the screeners, include the capital
expenses. But then when they look at port security, they only
look at the amount of money spent in grants.
But if you look at the line items for port security and the
U.S. Coast Guard and money on CSI, C-TPAT, and Customs and
Border Protection, and what we are doing at S&T and what we are
doing in the Transportation Security Administration, you will
see that last year, in 2006, we had almost $2.5 billion, with a
``B,'' spent on matters related to port security.
This year, the 2007 request ups that to $3.1 billion, and
that includes a significant chunk for the Coast Guard, a little
over $2 billion in port security for the Coast Guard. If we get
the 2007 budget, we will have spent almost $10 billion on port
security-related funding since 2004.
And I think that is not only a very important statement,
but I think important to bear in mind when we compare the money
on aviation security. Because we need to make sure we are
comparing personnel costs and capital costs in an apples to
apples way against both accounts.
Now we have more to do. We have to complete the process of
deploying our Container Security Initiative. And let me show
you where we are with this. The Container Security Initiative
is currently rolled out at 42 ports. That covers 74 percent of
the container cargo that comes into this country during the
course of a year. At the end of this fiscal year in October, we
will add an additional eight ports, and that will give us
approximately a little over 80 percent.
What this chart is going to show you,\1\ first of all, is
there has been a dramatic increase since March 2002, when this
began. It will also show you that we have focused our attention
on those ports which have the maximum volume of containers
being shipped out. And that makes sense. I mean that is where,
again, being risk managers, we want to be focused first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart titled ``Container Security Initative'' appears in
the Appendix on page 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second element of our strategy is radiation portal
monitors, which I think was brought up in one of the opening
statements. And here again, this is part of what we call our
layered defense for the ports.\1\ But we began this program in
February 2003, and if you see where we expect to be in October
2006, it will be 66 percent of the cargo that comes in
containers through our seaports will be taken through radiation
portal monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart titled ``Radiation Portal Monitor (RPM) Deployment at
Seaports'' appears in the Appendix on page 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that is not to say the job is done yet. We are
projecting getting to over 95 percent at the end of fiscal year
2007. But I have to say two thirds at the end of this fiscal
year is certainly an accomplishment, and it certainly takes us
a lot further than we were, for example, in February 2005, when
I think there was a somewhat critical GAO report saying we only
had a small percentage of containers going through.
We also have approximately 90 percent of that cargo going
through the land ports is going through radiation portal
monitors. So these are a couple of things we are doing that I
think are measurable accomplishments. We have put a lot of
money into a Domestic Nuclear Detection Office that is designed
to take us to the next level of research in terms of
technology. But it is also designed to make sure we are
integrating our detection system.
The right way to do this is to make sure our intelligence
and our operations and our technology are treated as a single
system. And the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, which I am
pleased to say that Congress has now funded in 2006 and which
we have asked for considerable funding in 2007, is going to do
just that.
Let me turn to FEMA. As someone observed, we envision a 10
percent increase in FEMA's budget over last year. And if we
include the amount of money that was provided in the 2006
supplemental, we will be adding 240 FTEs to FEMA. These are
going to be looking at some very critical support functions.
Procurement staff, pre-disaster mitigation grants, strengthen
financial and acquisition management--things which are designed
to address some of the shortfalls in capability we had during
what was, by any measure, an extraordinary year last year.
But I want to go beyond dollars to talk very specifically
about what we are doing for hurricane season because we have 3
months to hurricane season, and we have a gulf that is in the
process of being rebuilt. And that will pose special
challenges.
We are in the process now of contracting, getting the
procurement people onboard and contracting for logistics
capabilities for this hurricane season. That means not only
filling up and resupplying the caches or stockpiles of material
that we have, but making sure we have contracts for surge
capacity. And most importantly, for the first time, building
into those contracts requirements for real-time visibility to
the movement of goods that we did not previously have. So that
is one thing we are going to be doing.
Second, we are working on upgrading our call center
capacity to get up to a surge ability of 200,000 calls if we
were to need that for registration. We have already put into
place a mechanism for verifying identity and verifying or
acting against fraudulent Social Security numbers on our
telephone registration system that matches what we previously
had in our computerized Web-based system.
We are in the process of acquiring enhanced communication
capability. I have tasked our communications people by June 1
to have a fully developed and resourced communications
capability that we can put into any afflicted area that can
use, for example, aircraft or Coast Guard cutters as relay
stations to relay radio traffic, as well as to support our own
teams of law enforcement trained individuals who will go in
self-sustained to be able to give us real situational awareness
on the ground.
So those are some of the things we are doing in the area of
FEMA.
Chemical security. As I think we have said previously, and
I will reiterate again, we support the idea of a chemical bill
that in an intelligent and risk-based way gives us the
authority necessary to make sure that we bring chemical
companies up to standard. That is a tiered approach looking at
the nature of the risk. It would put a burden, obviously, on
the industry to come up to standard.
Much of the industry, I think, wants to do that, but I
recognize some do not. And I think that the industry, at this
point, would welcome a sensible regulatory regime. We have been
working with the Committee on this. I would very much like to
see a chemical security bill passed this year. I think it is
overdue.
It will require us to be sensible to recognize that not
everybody is going to be happy with every element of the bill.
But if we pitch it right, we will actually produce a positive
result, which I think will make the American people not only
have more faith in us as government actors, but more confidence
in their own safety.
Finally, border security. I am pleased this year to come up
with a budget with 1,500 additional Border Patrol agents,
which, on top of the 1,500 we got in this last year, will bring
us up to almost 14,000 by the end of fiscal year 2007.
But it is not just about agents, it is about increased
technology. We are, for the first time, putting together an
integrated strategy with ICE and CBP to acquire technology. We
hope to start that this fiscal year. That will give us really
the ability to leverage our personnel with respect to
intercepting illegal migrants at the border.
Another critical element of this is ending catch and
release. I said I was going to make this my objective this
fiscal year. We are on track to getting that accomplished. We
have not only additional beds we received from Congress in the
last year, but we are asking for 6,700 additional detention
beds for the next fiscal year, which would increase our
capacity to make sure we do not release people who should be
removed from the country.
I have to be honest and tell you we track this very
carefully. We are trying to use the Secure Border Initiative as
a prototype for a whole new way of organizing the Department in
which we are very clear about mission, very clear about
assignment, and we build very clear metrics so we can track on
a weekly basis everything that we do.
In fact, I am now, both with our FEMA retooling and our
border activity and our preparedness activities, getting weekly
reports with metrics, which allow me to hold people accountable
in a very specific way for what they are doing.
The two obstacles we are going to face with respect to
detention beds relate to a court injunction that is preventing
us from expedited removal for a certain category of people we
apprehend. We are in court. We are trying to get that
injunction, which is 11 years old, modified to let us do what
we have to do. I will be pleased to answer questions about
that.
And we also have some countries that don't take their
illegal migrants back. We can only make this work if we are
able to send people back. If we have to occupy beds for months
at a time without being able to remove people, it becomes
simply impossible financially to do it, plus I think after 6
months there is an argument that there will be a legal
requirement we release people.
I won't name the countries here, but I will tell you that
we are going to be working very aggressively. Diplomatically, I
have spoken to the Secretary of State about this. I intend,
when I go to Asia, to be raising this issue to make sure that
countries that want to trade with us understand they have to
live up to their obligation to take people back. They cannot
simply put the burden on us to house people who are illegal
migrants.
There are many other things that I could talk about, but I
know that you all have a lot of questions. I want to thank you
again for hearing me, and I look forward to answering
questions.
Chairman Collins. Thank you for your testimony.
We are going to begin a round of 8 minutes per Senator, and
I would ask everyone, and I will likewise, to stick to the time
because we have so many Senators present today.
Secretary Chertoff, you mentioned in your statement that
some of the component agencies of your Department have resisted
integration. And as you are well aware, there are some who have
concluded that DHS is simply too big, too unwieldy. It just
doesn't work.
Fueling that perception have been a number of serious
communications gaps. We talked about that, as you are painfully
aware, with Katrina, where vital information about the levees
did not reach you and other top officials when it should have.
Similarly, this week we learned that an important Coast
Guard memo raising red flags about the Dubai purchase did not
reach your deputy nor Mr. Baker, your designee on the Committee
reviewing the transaction.
I want to make clear that I don't think the answer to those
problems is to break up the Department, although others do.
What are you doing to foster better internal communications to
ensure that vital information reaches you and other top
officials since this has happened more than once?
Secretary Chertoff. I think there are two separate issues.
I mean, the FEMA issue was a much more fundamental problem. And
the way we deal with this is, first of all, the purpose of our
2SR reorganization was precisely to flatten the organization,
get the component heads more closely in touch with the
secretary and the deputy secretary. And then create cross-
cutting functions in the same way that the Defense Department
does when they manage the various different kinds of elements
that you do to have a joint command.
So what we do now, by way of example, is now we have weekly
component meetings with the component heads, where we discuss
the whole range of departmental issues. We have cross-cutting
functions like preparedness, where our under secretary works
with all of the different components on a regular basis, making
sure we are integrated.
We have a policy office, which we have--again, as part of
2SR--put into place, which now has an integrated planning
capability. And a perfect example of that is our Secure Border
Initiative.
Every week, I sit down with the heads of Customs and Border
Protection, Border Patrol, ICE, or their deputies, and we look
over an integrated plan that they have all contributed to
building under the auspices of the planning element of our
policy office. So that everybody has ownership in the mission.
That is building the kind of culture of preparedness that we
need.
Another thing that we need to do is build jointness down in
the organization. And I am interested in building a set of
career paths that actually encourage people to be cross-
designated into other departments or detailed into other
components.
We do that, for example, with the Coast Guard now. We use
the Coast Guard in a lot of areas. We do it with the Secret
Service. And I think much of the military has done it.
Over time, that will give us the kind of real integration
as a single department, which we need to really realize the
fruits of this creation.
Chairman Collins. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I
am very concerned about the cuts in funding to State and local
governments, to first responder groups, because they are your
essential partners. And as we learned during Katrina, if you
don't have strong partners at the State and local level, our
ability to respond will be lessened considerably.
In that regard, I am particularly concerned about the
reduction in the Emergency Management Performance Grants
Program. This program has been around for many years. The
budget proposes $15 million less than was enacted last year.
And emergency managers are deeply concerned with this
funding level, particularly since many believe that an
inadequate State emergency management capability was exposed by
Katrina and that if you don't invest at that level, you risk a
repetition of the response in Katrina.
What is the rationale for cutting the emergency management
grant program as well as other money that goes to State and
local officials and first responders?
Secretary Chertoff. I think, as you know, of course, that
the amount we have allocated in the budget this year is the
same that was allocated last year.
Chairman Collins. But less than was enacted.
Secretary Chertoff. But less than was enacted by about $13
million. I would also have to observe, to put it in context,
that we do have $50 million for our preparedness initiative,
which is, in fact, designed to work with emergency managers in
the 50 States and 75 biggest urban areas on their evacuation
and emergency plans.
So we should look at the whole complex of grants that are
available for these kinds of planning and preparedness
functions in evaluating the kinds of resources that are
available. I would say in general, though, if you look at what
we are doing, we tend to move away from grants that are
personnel cost focused. And it is a philosophical issue.
Generally, we believe grants ought to be focused, with some
exceptions, on building capabilities. That means capital
investments, training, equipment. But not on, for example,
recurring personnel operational costs or the kind of training
that is generally done on a regular basis, just as a matter of
being an ordinary first responder.
We recognize also that in the context of our State homeland
security grants and our UASI grants there are funding sources
available that can be used if a State or locality feels it
wants to put some money into things that will help the
emergency managers and first responders.
The other thing I would have to observe is this. We have a
lot of money in the pipeline, and I don't mean this to be
critical because the money has been obligated. But quite
wisely, it hasn't all been expended because if you are smart,
you don't pay the contractor or the person who is supplying the
equipment before they give you the equipment or perform the
contract.
But what that means is that we haven't necessarily seen the
full fruits of what we have already invested. And with the
total amount of grant funding we are putting in this year, we
are going to be up to $17 billion in grants, of which we have
$3 billion that was enacted last year that we still are in the
process of giving out and about $5.5 billion in the pipeline.
So I recognize all of these programs have value. But I
think what we are trying to do is reconfigure them in a way
that actually is more disciplined and more risk based.
Chairman Collins. I will just leave you with the comments
of an emergency manager director from Maine who pointed out
that there is a 50 percent State match for the emergency
management grant program.
He wrote to me, ``To imply that the funding of personnel
under the EMPG is not a traditional function of the Federal
Government is astonishing given that this program has been in
existence since the 1950s. If that is not a traditional
function, I am puzzled what is.''
Secretary Chertoff. I guess the one thing I would say is we
haven't zeroed it out. So I would agree that I don't want to be
taken to say it is not a function. But we are trying to level
it, let us put it that way. Put it at level.
Chairman Collins. Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, let me begin just by going back briefly. At
the conclusion of our hearing on February 15 in regard to
Hurricane Katrina, you said that you would provide answers to
the Committee's post-hearing questions by the close of business
yesterday.
Obviously, I know you are busy, but we are nearing
conclusion of our investigation, trying to write the report.
And as of this morning, we still haven't received the answers.
Can you tell us when?
Secretary Chertoff. Yes. I looked at them yesterday. They
were drafted. I wasn't satisfied. They relate to matters some
of which are within my own personal knowledge, and I think that
requires me to put a degree of attention to the detail that I
might not do if I were speaking institutionally.
I would expect to be working on them today, and I would
expect to have them finished tomorrow.
Senator Lieberman. Fine. OK, I understand, and I appreciate
it. We look forward to getting them.
I share the Chairman's concern about the grants to State
and local governments and first responders. And I just want to
very briefly say in response to your two responses, there is a
significant amount of money in the pipeline. You are right. But
as you said, and I think this is the important distinction,
just about every dollar of it has been obligated at the local
level. So it is not additional money that is available to be
spent, and the State and local responders do have a real crying
need for that.
Second, my guess is you are right that there has been $18
billion provided to State and local governments since September
11. But as you probably know, there was that bipartisan panel,
headed by our former colleague Warren Rudman, that issued a
report in 2003 and concluded that if the then-current level of
investment in these programs remained unchanged, the country
would fall about $100 billion short of what was needed to
adequately prepare.
And I would add, just to put it in context, that original
estimates by David Boyd, director of Project SafeCom at the
Department of Homeland Security, put the total cost of just the
interoperability needs of State and local first responders at
$18 billion. So I think we have a lot more that we can and
should do.
I want to focus on port security, if I may. It is now more
than 4 years since September 11 and then the adoption early in
2002 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, which
required the Department to issue minimum security standards for
port facilities in our country.
To my knowledge, those standards have not yet been issued.
Can you explain why and what schedule you are on now?
Secretary Chertoff. If you would just excuse me for a
moment?
The problem is there were so many different plans. I know
that there is a report that was due to Congress that I think we
sent up yesterday, which is maybe what you are referring to.
What I will do is get back, if we are talking past each other,
I will find out the status of that. But we sent up a report
that was due under the statute with our baseline security
assessment on ports, I think, went up yesterday.
Senator Lieberman. OK. I will look forward to that with
some interest and respond to you when I see it and see if it
fulfills that need.
I want to go back and just go over a little bit about what
you indicated about inspection of containers coming in. Because
the percentages that you gave us are dramatically different
from the numbers we are dealing with, and I think we may be
talking here about apples and oranges. And I want to clarify it
because I certainly am under the impression that we inspect
only 5 or 6 percent of the containers coming into American
ports.
And I always like to point out, which I think most people
in the country don't realize, that we still receive well over
90 percent of the goods that come into America by ship. So
these ports are very important, and there are a lot of
containers coming in.
You said that 72 percent of the cargo coming into the
country will go through radiation portal monitoring, and I want
you to just help us understand that because I believe we still
have a lot we have to do. I know that you are making progress.
But just compare those apples and oranges.
And obviously, this is all about detecting weapons of mass
destruction, dirty bombs--including, potentially, nuclear
devices in containers coming on ships.
Secretary Chertoff. I am happy to do that. I want to make
sure I am clear because this is always an area where we have to
make sure we are consistent in the way we use terms. It is
correct we inspect about 5 to 6 percent of the containers that
come in. We screen 100 percent.
I know you know--the public doesn't always understand--that
screening means we assess the risk of the container.
Senator Lieberman. So just talk about how we do that. It is
obvious we don't physically open every one of them.
Secretary Chertoff. Correct.
Senator Lieberman. Nor does every one of the containers go
through either radiation or something else.
Secretary Chertoff. Well, let me begin overseas.
Senator Lieberman. Yes.
Secretary Chertoff. Let me indicate that, of course, when
we have the Container Security Initiative, we actually do the
screening and a lot of the inspection overseas. And that is
really, ultimately, where we want to go. I mean, we would
prefer never to have to inspect here because we would like it
all to be done overseas before the container gets loaded.
But what we do is we take--the details are classified--but
we take information about such things as the manifest, the
shipper, the destination, the source of funding, other kinds of
characteristics, past patterns of shipping from the same
shipper. We have some shippers in the C-TPAT program, where we
have greater visibility into them.
And based on that and some other characteristics, we score
the containers in terms of the risk attached to that particular
container. Sometimes that is driven by specific intelligence,
and that factors into it. Containers above a certain score are
inspected.
Senator Lieberman. Meaning they are opened?
Secretary Chertoff. Meaning they will first be--we use like
an X-ray to look inside, to see what is in the container----
Senator Lieberman. Right.
Secretary Chertoff [continuing]. And measure the density.
And then, in many cases, if that doesn't resolve an issue, and
depending on the score, we will open and actually look inside
the containers and at the material inside. The radiation portal
monitor is yet another layer of defense.
Senator Lieberman. And that is what is 72 percent of the
cargo?
Secretary Chertoff. I think I said 66 percent by the end of
this fiscal year will go through----
Senator Lieberman. All right.
Secretary Chertoff. Well, let me make sure I have the
right--I am not sure if it is 66 or 72. There are two different
figures. Do you have the charts?
Senator Lieberman. Well, that is OK.
Secretary Chertoff. It is either 66 or 72 percent. You may
be right. It may be 72 percent go through the radiation portal
monitor. What that is--OK, it is 65 percent by the end of
October.
Senator Lieberman. OK. But in any case, that is a lot
higher than the 6 percent number that we have in our minds.
Secretary Chertoff. Right. That is not inspection.
Senator Lieberman. Not inspection. Right.
Secretary Chertoff. The radiation portal monitor is a large
device through which a container is driven. If the container
emits radioactive particles, it is captured on the device.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
Secretary Chertoff. Which can also determine, either at the
port or reaching back to Washington to our targeting center,
the particular type of isotope. There is a lot of material that
comes in that emits radioactive particles that is harmless like
marble. Other stuff doesn't.
Senator Lieberman. Yes. And forgive me for interrupting. My
time is just about up, and I want to stick to the time. This is
to detect nuclear devices or a dirty bomb?
Secretary Chertoff. Correct.
Senator Lieberman. So what does the 6 percent number mean?
Secretary Chertoff. The 6 percent is where we go further,
and we either do an X-ray inside the container to look at the
container or we open the container.
Senator Lieberman. OK. My time is up. I would just say,
finally, that Steve Flynn, who we all know is an expert, former
Coast Guard, has said that to get the kind of security we need,
we ought to have imaging systems, need new container imaging
systems for every two portal monitors.
And I want to say, finally, I don't see that only including
in the budget $35 million for the imaging equipment compared to
$180 million for the portal monitors. This is an area I urge
you to really go back and take a look at, and I hope the
appropriators do, too. Because this is one where we ought to
raise our guard as quickly as possible and as comprehensively
as possible so we diminish as close to zero as we can the
possibility of bringing in a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb.
Thank you. Sorry, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Coleman.
Senator Coleman. Thank you. I am going to follow up on
Senator Lieberman's comments about--it is actually supply chain
security, not ports. It is supply chain security, and that is
really the critical issue there.
Before I do that, I do want to associate myself again with
the comments of the Chairman regarding State and local grants
and the concerns there. I also want to raise the issue of--I
mentioned I had been in Arizona and looked at the UAVs, which
really are a force multiplier.
You are at 15,000 feet, 5 miles up, and you have total view
of the area which you are scanning. You can direct Customs and
Border Patrol folks to a specific area using incredible
technology.
I know we are testing one. Obviously, representing a
northern border State, having the ability to have that kind of
control of eyes at that distance would make a difference. I
think the budget is simply one per year. And I know it is in a
testing phase. But if it pans out, I would hope that you would
take a look at that.
As you said in your testimony, technology is important. I
don't see that in the budget for that technology, and I hope
there is flexibility should these things pan out.
Let me go back to the issue of supply chain security, just
to be very clear. We look at 1 in 20, it is 1 in 20 of the 11
million containers that come in through our ports, 11 million.
One in 20 gets that extra review. We have this automatic
targeting system.
And step back before that. We have both a voluntary system,
C-TPAT, working with the private sector, and then we have the
Container Security Initiative, which our folks are working hand
in hand at those ports, so we push the defenses back so we are
fighting part of the battle not as waiting until it gets here,
but in other countries. So a couple of questions about that
system.
First, let me go to the radiation portal monitors. My
concern is that, today, at least the figures I had is that we
roughly screen between 35 and 40 percent today of maritime?
Secretary Chertoff. Correct.
Senator Coleman. So today 35 to 40 percent are being
screened. They go through a system, and you have the portal
monitor there, and they give you a reading, and then you have
to make some determinations. You have false positives on
occasion, depending on what is being shipped. You have to
compare it to shipping matter. But only 35 to 40 percent.
So, in 3 years, we have deployed 181. And from what I
understand from your testimony that in less than 2 years, we
intend to deploy 440 to get to this higher figure. Is that a
realistic timetable, and is the money in the budget to do that?
Secretary Chertoff. It is. We expect by the end of this
fiscal year to be up to--again, let us put the chart back
up.\1\ I don't want to just go by memory. We are looking at
getting coverage of 65 percent of the volume, which would be
294 ports by October 2006. And by October 2007, there is money
in the budget to take it up to essentially 96 percent or close
to 100 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Chart titled ``Radiation Portal Monitor (RPM) Deployments at
Seaports'' appears in the Appendix on page 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I also want to indicate that as part of our Domestic
Nuclear Detection Office, we are actually looking to start the
next generation of these detectors. Detectors that would be
better able to determine if there is material that is being
shielded, that would be less likely to give us false positives
because it would be more precise about the particular isotopes.
And I should also point out that we have, although they are
not quite a technologically advanced as these monitors, we have
hand-held monitors and devices and pagers that are also used at
the ports to detect radioactive material.
Senator Coleman. Let me talk about the automated targeting
system. First, the system, as I understand it, was really one
that was originally developed for smuggling, for drug smuggling
specifically, maybe for human trafficking. But not for weapons
of mass destruction.
And I know the GAO, we have looked at this, and there are
questions about whether the system has been validated, whether
it can incorporate real-time intelligence. There have been a
number of questions.
Is there any money in the budget to test and validate this
automated targeting system?
Secretary Chertoff. As I sit here, I don't know if there is
a specific item for validation. I mean, obviously, we do want
to continually validate the system. Part of the validation is
experience. We are always, when we do open containers or we do
inspect, that validates in the sense of we can determine
whether we have been right or not.
Another way to validate is to determine if people get
smuggled in, and occasionally we do miss something that
suggests we are not where we need to be, it has to be adjusted.
I have been to the targeting center, though, and as we get more
data, it gets better.
Now I will tell you there is an additional step we need to
take as part of the supply chain. We need to start to get more
information earlier. It will get better as we know more about
the cargo. It also gets better as we get more shippers into the
C-TPAT program because if you get a known shipper that has
always got a routine and you know what is in the shipments, and
if they are committed to having real security on a container,
that really gives you an ability to eliminate that as a serious
risk.
So I don't want to suggest we are at the point where we can
say, great, we are done. We have done a lot. But we do have to
push this out further, and I have actually talked to some of
the shipping companies about things we might do in that regard.
Senator Coleman. Regarding C-TPAT, let me just kind of
focus on that a second. I do not see any increase in the budget
for supply chain specialists. The C-TPAT requires voluntary
participation. But one of the concerns we had--and I give you
credit, Mr. Secretary, for addressing those concerns--is we
have to validate that these companies are doing what they said
they were going to do.
We are, in effect, giving them almost a free pass. Not
totally, but you factor that in, and they are less likely to
have their stuff inspected if they are part of this system. So
how do you propose to have the goal of validating companies,
and I think the goal is within 3 years, if there is no increase
in supply chain staff or the specialists?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, I think our total C-TPAT/CSI
funding has gone up several million dollars. I am sorry, $16
million. In addition, we have a better human capital plan now.
Currently, we have either validated or are in the process
of validating approximately two thirds of the certified members
of C-TPAT. So that is as of this February. If we continue at
this rate, we should get most of them validated by the end of
the calendar year or in the next calendar year.
Senator Coleman. The GAO was worried about the validations,
and I think they talk about woefully behind schedule.
Secretary Chertoff. Yes. And I think there were some
lessons learned and incorporated in responding to that.
Senator Coleman. Let me just talk about then the ability to
look at individual containers, and we have talked about the
system in Hong Kong. Which is not just the ISIS system, not
just an ability to scan cargo, but it is really a package. You
have optical recognition scanners. You look at what is on the
cargo. You compare that to manifest. You have the radiation
portal monitor. So, in this case, each and every container is
validated.
Is the money in the budget? And I appreciate the fact that
you are personally going to go and take a look at that. But
that really should be the goal. The goal is, if it is possible
and technology makes it possible, to some way actually look at
each of the containers that come into the country.
Hong Kong, those 10,000 trucks a day, and they are moving.
It is like a moving CAT scan is really what it looks like. Can
we make this a concept in reality at all our ports?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, first of all, ideally, we want
the concept overseas. That is the best of all possible worlds.
And I know that we are working with this concept. We are
looking at the concept. What I want to caution about is, my
understanding is, that while they move the cargo through, they
don't actually assess in the way we would really want to assess
in real life.
And having watched the VACUS machines operate, the X-ray
machines operate, you have to have an operator who knows what
to look for, and it takes a few minutes. And the question is
when we finally put in an operator and make it operational,
will it prove to be practical in terms of the throughput?
I would love to see it be practical. If it is practical, it
is the kind of thing we ought to move to. In this case, I think
the company itself has funded this. And I certainly think it
would be a great idea if we could build an incentive structure
to have the private sector pick up a lot of the cost of this
because, after all, it benefits the private sector, and that
means the taxpayer doesn't have to pick up the bill.
Senator Coleman. I would have just a last comment in regard
to that. The interesting change that I have seen is that years
ago, the private sector, if it was going to add $3 to $5 to the
cost of a container, they weren't interested. The private
sector has come to us, come to me, and said, ``Hey, we would
like to see this across the board.'' Because they recognize the
risk if something goes wrong.
And so, the idea of adding $5, $8, perhaps even $10 a
container to get this kind of security guarantee is something
that I think is much more possible today than it was before.
Secretary Chertoff. I agree with that.
Senator Coleman. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
First, I would like to talk to you about interoperable
communications equipment. This Committee has put a lot of
emphasis on that. We have put initiatives in the budget and in
the appropriations bills for it. I and others have made a
special effort to talk about interoperable equipment with
border States so that we can communicate with Canada and Mexico
as well as internally.
You indicated, I believe last year in written responses to
our questions prior to your confirmation, that you do support
the goal of focused spending for interoperable equipment, and
you were going to study the issue further. The Administration's
response to Hurricane Katrina contains language that says we
should develop a national emergency communications strategy
that supports communications interoperability. Where are you?
Secretary Chertoff. We have a program called RapidCom,
which has deployed interoperable communications systems in the
10 largest cities in the country at the command level, meaning
not every firefighter or policeman has the ability to talk to
another firefighter or policeman. But at the command level,
meaning lieutenant or whatever the equivalent is in the
firefighting service, they can talk to one another.
The challenge is this, and some of it has to do with this
issue of bandwidth. I know there is a question about whether a
part of the spectrum is going to be made available for this
kind of communication. I think that is maybe an FCC issue.
But we have a series of different systems now migrating
into the digital world that are being built by different
vendors. The challenge is, first of all, in the short run, we
do have technology that allows different systems to bridge
through gateways, technological gateways, and we have to get
the money out to do that.
But the long-term solution is we have to settle on a
system. It is a little bit of a delicate issue because if you
pick a particular system, there is a proprietor who has an
interest in it.
Senator Levin. Do we have a designated funding source to
address this challenge?
Secretary Chertoff. I think once we get a system in place
and we have gateways that we have designated, the grant funding
that we have under State homeland grants, under UASI grants,
and under other kinds of grants are specifically available
under our targeted capabilities list.
Senator Levin. But do we now have a designated funding
source in this budget or not?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, as part of the grant system, the
State grants, there is not a separate line item for----
Senator Levin. I think there was a commitment to do that,
and I am just wondering whether you are going to carry out that
commitment?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, I think we are doing it through
our national capabilities goal or national preparedness goal,
which identifies as one of the funding items that we will fund
under these grants interoperable communications.
Senator Levin. So, in other words, there is no funding
source? It is obviously one of the eligible programs. But as of
right now, at least, there is no funding source that is line-
item designated, as I understand it.
Secretary Chertoff. Well, I want to be clear. Our research
is funded through S&T. In other words, we do fund our research.
The State ability to buy gateways is funded through the State
grant systems. They have to elect to ask for the money.
Senator Levin. OK. Secretary, a year ago, you indicated
that you were going to be opening up five northern border
airwing locations. These are critically important in terms of
air and marine interdiction, enforcement capabilities along the
northern border. The longest border in this country is the
northern border, but it is shortchanged significantly.
Now there was a commitment to open up an additional one
each year. That was not kept last year. Is it going to be kept?
Secretary Chertoff. I am told the following is the
schedule. And that Plattsburg, New York, and Bellingham,
Washington, were opened in 2005, fiscal year 2005. Great Falls,
2006. Grand Forks, North Dakota, is 2007.
Senator Levin. Fine. You have the funding to open up one
per year then. Is that the short answer?
Secretary Chertoff. Right. And Detroit, Michigan, I think
the site assessment is complete, and it will be open next year
as well.
Senator Levin. Great. Thank you.
There is 100 U.S. deep draft ports on the Great Lakes, six
connecting waterways to the Great Lakes that must handle cargo
during the ice season. So we have a problem of ice breaking in
the Great Lakes. We have 17 million tons of raw materials
shipped on the lakes during periods of ice cover, which help to
keep steel mills going in winter time.
The program that you have, the so-called Deepwater Program,
will have you acquire or modernize 200 vessels for the coast,
the East and West Coasts and the Gulf Coast, but none for the
Great Lakes. In fact, we are losing a ship.
Now given the fact that we have the longest coastline on
the Great Lakes, we have this ice-breaking problem, instead of
a program such as Deepwater, which I support, to modernize and
acquire new vessels, you have a loss of a vessel on the Great
Lakes. I just want to let you know you can comment if you want
briefly, but I am going to run out of time.
It seems to me you are clearly shortchanging the Great
Lakes in this area. The Coast Guard is critically important to
us. Their vessels are critically important to us. But there is
a program for modernizing and acquiring vessels for the coast,
the East and West Coast and Gulf Coast, but none for the Great
Lakes.
Can you give us a brief answer as to whether you are going
to try to remedy that?
Secretary Chertoff. I believe, but I need to verify this. I
believe that there will be a replacement ship for the one that
has been removed. But let me make sure the Coast Guard double
checks that.
Senator Levin. Well, in general, though, there is such a
disproportion here that you have between the East and West
Coast and the Great Lakes. And when you were up for
confirmation, this was an issue I talked to you about. You said
that you would become more aware of the Great Lakes as our
longest coastline. We just don't see that reflected in your
agency's programs. I will make that statement and go on to
another issue, even though that is critically important to us.
You have spent a lot of time here, Mr. Secretary, in terms
of container security. We have a major container security issue
in Michigan that is festering. It is a big problem. It is the
municipal waste trucks that come in from Canada that cannot be
adequately inspected.
Now those are the facts. This is municipal waste. We have a
large number of these trucks that are coming to Michigan. We
have about 99,000 of these trucks a year dumping Canadian trash
in our landfills. Now we resent that because they have more
land than we do in Ontario. We think also there is an
environmental issue because it is using up landfills.
But I want to just focus on the security issue. We asked
your IG about 2 years ago to give us a report on the
vulnerabilities since these municipal waste/trash trucks cannot
be adequately inspected. I, along with Senator Stabenow and
Congressman Dingell, asked for this report. It has just come.
It is so supportive of our position that apparently the IG
is afraid of making it public because it will show
vulnerabilities apparently in our security system. And so, it
is put down ``for official use only.'' I am not allowed to
quote from it today.
But it shows such vulnerabilities, I have to tell you--I
won't quote from it--supporting what our position is purely on
security issues that it is marked for official use only. And
all I can do is plead with you, first of all, to read it. I
don't know if you have read it?
Secretary Chertoff. I haven't received it yet.
Senator Levin. I would ask my colleagues to read it and
support an amendment which says that if you can't inspect
containers coming into this country, if there is no practical
way to inspect them, we have simply got to say until they can
be inspected, we are not going to allow them.
And I would hope that you would read this report and that
you would support that amendment. We talk about inspecting
containers, and we should, obviously. We have I don't know how
many tens of millions of containers coming in. We have 12,000
trucks entering Michigan each day. They can be inspected,
except for the municipal waste trucks, where there is no
effective way of inspecting them.
And we know that there are drugs that go into those trucks
because we have been able to, apparently by chance almost, find
drugs in those trucks. We know that there is medical waste that
is in those trucks, where we have been able, just by luck, to
find a shipment of that.
But we are talking about chemical, biological materials
being placed into waste, municipal waste not by the Canadian
government, obviously--not with their knowledge or consent--but
by someone who wants to do damage to us. And there is no
effective way to inspect them, and we are going to ask for your
Department to either give us an unclassified report, which will
say what is in this classified or official use only report.
And in any event, to support language in our law which will
tell Canada, sorry, we are not able to practically inspect that
waste. You are going to have to keep your waste and find a dump
site for it yourself.
So that is my request to you, and I would hope that you
would promptly respond to it.
Secretary Chertoff. I certainly look forward to reading the
report and getting back to you on it.
Senator Levin. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, I am interested in your progress with
respect to port security, perhaps picking up on conversation I
have had with Senator Lautenberg. As you make your analysis of
where you are focusing priorities, high risk, do you take into
account the proximity of a particular port to a high-risk
situation?
For example, a port in Hawaii has a proximity to a naval
base at Pearl Harbor. But a port in New Jersey has a proximity
to a chemical plant that, as Senator Lautenberg has said, could
kill millions of people.
You are examining cargo and shipping practices for risk,
but in terms of places coming in, is there a priority in the
Department of, well, we are more concerned about going into
Port A because there is a chemical industry around Port A or
there is a refinery around port A that is very vulnerable. Do
you have that kind of analysis?
Secretary Chertoff. We do take that into account in several
respects. We do, obviously, with respect to our grant funding.
We have been focused on categorizing risk to ports in precisely
that way in terms of how we do port grants.
The Coast Guard, in terms of doing the port security plans
and assessing the security of the port itself, takes into
account the location of the port and what the consequences and
vulnerabilities are. With respect to our targeting in terms of
container cargo, I don't know that--I want to be a little
careful because I don't want to get into details I shouldn't
say publicly. There are a lot of factors that go into that mix.
Obviously, with smuggling something in a container, the
concern is not only that someone is going to do something at
the port. The concern is they are going to take it out of the
port and get into a city with it, and that is----
Senator Bennett. Yes.
Secretary Chertoff. But the short answer is, in many
respects, we do take account of those factors.
Senator Bennett. OK. Katrina demonstrated that a hurricane
hitting in one part of the country had a significant economic
impact, where if it had been X number of miles to the right or
the left, it would have had a somewhat less impact because
Katrina took out a refinery capacity that didn't exist
elsewhere along the coast.
Senator Warner talked to you about cyber security. As you
know, that is an area I have been very concerned about. And I
was pleased with the announcement of the creation of the
position of the assistant secretary for cyber security and
telecommunications. But I am unhappy that position hasn't been
filled.
Can you share anything with the Committee as to where you
are in trying to find that particular individual?
Secretary Chertoff. I can tell you that I am unhappy it
hasn't been filled. We are talking to a number of people. I
have talked to a number of people. Some have chosen not to be
candidates because the amount of money you can make in the
private sector makes what we can pay pale by comparison.
Senator Bennett. Yes. Particularly in this discipline. I
understand that.
Secretary Chertoff. But we do have some people we are
pursuing because I do think it is important that we fill this,
and in particular it is important we fill it because the way we
conceived the position actually unifies IT and
telecommunications. And I think that recognizes a convergence
of those two elements in real life, which I think is an
important step to consider.
Senator Bennett. OK. Thank you.
Let us talk about immigration for a minute. I am a strong
supporter of the President's position with respect to temporary
workers. And it is my impression, and I say to my constituents,
if we had an effective guest worker program or temporary worker
program, that would free up the Border Patrol to concentrate on
terrorists, drug dealers, and criminals.
And for support of that, I go back to the experience of the
Bracero Program of the 1950s, when people came over the
southern border, came and went--and it is the ``went'' part of
it that we want to encourage--with relative ease. We had a
Border Patrol that was much smaller but could focus on criminal
activity and not on those that were coming over to pick celery
or strawberries or something during harvest season.
Have you done any studies on what kind of change a guest
worker program would make in terms of the Border Patrol
activity and Border Patrol effectiveness dealing with
terrorists, criminals, and drug dealers?
Secretary Chertoff. Yes. We have actually spent a lot of
time talking about this because we view the whole issue of
border security as part of a system, and I think you are 100
percent right. Without a temporary worker program, we actually
wind up impeding the flow, the circularity, the flow of people
in and out. It means we are spending a lot of time chasing
individuals who really don't want to do anything else except
come and do a day's work and then go back home or maybe go back
home on the weekend.
And that means that our resources are spread more thinly
than if they could focus on people who don't want to come to
work, but want to come to smuggle drugs or commit crimes or
commit acts of terror.
From my standpoint, and I know the business community wants
a temporary worker program, but I have a much more limited
objective. I want to have effective border enforcement. And I
don't think you can have effective border enforcement at
anything approaching a reasonable cost if you don't allow us to
bleed off the legitimate workers into a regulated non-amnesty
program so we can focus on the people we are worried about.
Terrorism and crime across the border is really the core of
what we ought to be focusing our Border Patrol on.
Senator Bennett. Yes. Well, I have seen that in Salt Lake
City in the previous administration. We are not a border State.
But the Salt Lake City police chief said 80 percent of our drug
arrests and 50 percent of our murders involve illegal aliens.
They get across the border. They go past the border State,
where there is a degree of sensitivity and enforcement, come
inland to Utah, and I have had the experience--I hasten to say
in the presence of Salt Lake City police officers--being out on
a ride along with the police. I have had the experience of
buying cocaine on the streets of Salt Lake City from one of
these illegal immigrants, who was arrested within 90 seconds
after we had made the purchase. But that was just a live
demonstration.
And at that time, the INS official said, well, you are not
a border State, so we don't really need to have that many folks
there. It was a dramatic demonstration to me of how important
it is to focus there.
Because I know there are plenty of chambermaids in the ski
resorts in Utah who are changing sheets, who probably are
undocumented, who do not represent any kind of a challenge. And
if we are spending all of our time focusing on them and
allowing the drug dealers on the streets of our cities, we have
the wrong priority. So I appreciate the way you are making that
kind of distinction. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Akaka.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I want to add
my welcome to the Secretary to the Committee.
Madam Chairman, I have a number of questions, but I would
like to have my opening statement included in the record.
Chairman Collins. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Today's hearing comes only a week after
Secretary Chertoff appeared before our Committee to discuss the role of
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the government's response
to Hurricane Katrina. I join Chairman Collins in welcoming the
Secretary to this morning's review of the Department's FY07 budget
proposal.
It is our responsibility to ensure that the Department has the
necessary resources, in terms of funding and personnel, to carry out
its mission of protecting the Nation from both natural and man-made
disasters. Unfortunately, one of the first comprehensive tests for DHS
came in the form of one of our most tragic natural disasters: Hurricane
Katrina. All aspects of the Department, including senior leadership,
preparedness and response capabilities, and policy and planning, were
stressed and strained--many to the point of failure.
In many ways, today's hearing is a follow-up to the Katrina
investigation this Committee will conclude shortly. Over the past 6
months, we have identified areas of weakness and uncovered serious
management challenges, while recognizing those entities that performed
well. We must now ensure that the Department has the tools needed to
avoid the mistakes of the past.
Unfortunately, after reviewing the President's FY07 budget proposal
for the Department, I do not believe the Administration has aligned its
budget priorities in the right order. I am especially concerned about
the diminished support for State and local emergency management and
homeland security professionals who are our first line of defense.
We know that adequate funding of State and local homeland security
initiatives are key to making sure that the people of our home States
are protected against natural disasters. That is why I object to the
Administration cutting almost $400 million from State and local
homeland security assistance programs. Last year, Congress appropriated
$2.965 billion. The FY07 budget proposes $2.57 billion for the same
programs.
The budget proposal would also reduce the Assistance to
Firefighters Program (FIRE Act) by a staggering 55.3 percent and the
Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) by 8.1 percent even
though the EMPG program suffers an annual shortfall of $260 million. I
look forward to discussing with Secretary Chertoff why these important
all-hazards grant programs, which are so vital to my home State of
Hawaii, have been cut. These cuts are especially perplexing in light of
the Secretary's acknowledgment last week that the Department must
emphasize all-hazards preparedness.
Throughout the debate over the creation of the Department, I
cautioned that combining the various functions of the legacy
departments could adversely impact the Nation's ability to deal with
natural disasters. Part of my concern was because I believe that this
Administration undervalued the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
(FEMA) disaster mitigation programs, which helps communities prepare
for and respond to disasters.
Despite my belief that the establishment of the Department would
hamper the Federal Government's ability to respond to disasters, it was
my hope that DHS would develop an anticipatory culture of preventing
and responding to disasters. Perhaps there will be a change in attitude
given the $100 million increase to pre-disaster mitigation as well as
moderate increases to both FEMA and the Department's new Preparedness
Directorate. However, we cannot wait for catastrophic events like
Hurricane Katrina to force this Administration into taking mitigation
programs seriously.
With hurricane season only 3 months away, I am dismayed that the
Department continues to ignore its enabling statute by failing to
establish regional offices. Time and again, I have discussed with DHS
officials the need for regional offices. I am particularly concerned
because Hawaii, an island State, has no neighbors--no resources outside
of what is available within the State--to respond to a natural or man-
made disasters. At last week's hearing with Secretary Chertoff, I asked
that he review the Department's relationship with the U.S. Pacific
Command (PACOM) because my State of Hawaii is the only State that does
not come under the protection of the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM).
This is why a consolidated DHS presence in the form of a regional
Pacific office based in Hawaii is critical. I know that DHS has
proposed establishing Federal Preparedness Coordinators in major
metropolitan areas, but they are not a substitute for regional offices.
I urge that consolidated regional offices be funded through the FY07
budget.
Secretary Chertoff, it is the responsibility of the Department of
Homeland Security to provide unity of national effort before, during,
and after catastrophic events. Over the past year, DHS has failed to
function as a cohesive entity, let alone coordinate necessary Federal,
State, and local efforts. Nearly 3 years after its inception, DHS
should be experienced in all aspects of planning and integration to
achieve unity of national effort. As we debate next year's budget, we
must remember that for the good of this great Nation and its people,
the Department of Homeland Security must not fail again.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I look forward to working with you, and
I look forward to discussing the Department's budget proposal today.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Secretary, in looking at your fiscal
year 2007 initiatives, particularly your Office of Policy, your
budget requests an $8 million increase in that Office of
Policy. Some of these funds, according to your justification,
will be to establish a committee on foreign owned investments
in the United States.
I understand that this will be the Department's counterpart
to the frequently discussed in the past few days Treasury
Department's Committee on Foreign Investments in the United
States that we call CFIUS. And in a briefing to this Committee,
the Department's Assistant Secretary for Policy, Stewart Baker,
stated that DHS has been an active, even ``aggressive'' member
of CFIUS and was heavily involved in the Dubai Ports World
review.
In light of Mr. Baker's statement, Mr. Secretary, could you
explain what the Department intends to use these additional
funds for that it is not currently able to accomplish?
Secretary Chertoff. We currently fund that out of our
infrastructure protection component. That is the way it has
been funded since the Department stood up. And the idea here is
to actually enhance its resources, move it to the Office of the
Assistant Secretary--hopefully soon to be an under secretary--
for Policy, which would then give that person a somewhat easier
ability to operate across all of the components in order to
gather information for purposes of our participation in CFIUS.
So we essentially would be taking some of the people and
some of the function out of infrastructure protection and
moving them, but I think it would add a little extra resources
as well.
Senator Akaka. Could you tell me how these funds and
resources would be enhanced?
Secretary Chertoff. I think we were talking about maybe an
additional FTE. I have to double check that. One additional FTE
on top of the individuals that we would be transferring from IP
to policy.
But I should make clear that when we have a CFIUS
transaction that has to be reviewed, we obviously talk to a
number of different components, and the people in the
components, as part of their ordinary work, are expected to
assist the CFIUS people in terms of their review.
So I mean, you have people who are full-time dedicated or
substantially dedicated, and then you have people who, on an
as-needed basis, will contribute information, views, facts, or
whatever else needs to be taken into account.
Senator Akaka. I want to know about DHS's fiscal year 2006
request of $50 million to establish DHS regional offices. In
our last hearing with you, I did mention about regional
offices. Just last week, the White House called for the
establishment of DHS regional offices in its Katrina report.
I understand that some may think that regional offices
would create an extra level of bureaucracy. However, I want you
to understand, Mr. Secretary, that from the perspective of
Hawaii, as I have mentioned before--which is 2,500 miles from
the Mainland, with no contiguous States to rely upon in the
event of a disaster and has a 6-hour time difference with
Washington, DC--the benefits of a regional office outweigh the
potential costs. And we need a point of contact out there in
the Pacific as well.
I would appreciate it if you could clarify for the record
whether DHS agrees with the White House and intends to
establish a regional office system?
Secretary Chertoff. I think I have previously said that I
did believe we needed to have a regional preparedness function
to be married up to FEMA in the FEMA regions. The exact
configuration of that I don't think is finally settled, but I
am not talking about a huge bureaucracy.
We are talking about the FEMA people in the region,
preparedness people who would be planners, and then I think we
have an agreement with the military that they would designate
some of their planning folks to co-locate. The idea being that
we would have in every region a cell of operators, planners,
and military planners who would build the plans to deal with
emergencies or crises at a closer level with State responders.
We do endorse that idea, and we do intend to execute on
that. And we are, in fact, in the process of trying to identify
the people who are going to want to take this function on.
Senator Akaka. Do you have an idea when you may be
finalizing that proposal?
Secretary Chertoff. I think probably in the next month or
two.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Secretary, the Homeland Security Act
required that the Secretary of Homeland Security submit to
Congress a report for consolidating and co-locating regional
offices of the 22 agencies that formed DHS by November 2003.
We still have not received this report, which makes it
difficult for the Appropriations Committee to assess how to
allocate funding for regional offices. Will you commit to
provide this report to Congress?
Secretary Chertoff. I am not sure what the report refers
to. There was originally a conception, I believe this was
before my time, of a kind of regional DHS office that would
encompass all of the components. I want to be clear that is not
what we are talking about doing here.
What we are talking about doing here is a regional office
that would be what I call a much smaller footprint and that
would be focused on preparedness, response, and planning but,
for example, wouldn't be involved with Border Patrol, or we
wouldn't control Coast Guard.
In other words, we are not going to have mini DHS
secretaries in the various regions. So I am not quite sure what
the report is. It may be that the original proposal that was
reflected in the report has been overtaken by events. I will
find out and let you know.
We will be able, though, to brief Congress on what our plan
is in terms of these regional planning, preparedness, and
response offices within the next couple of months, I think.
Senator Akaka. Yes. May I just point out that this report
is called for in Section 706 of Public Law 107-296.
Madam Chairman, I know my time has expired.
So thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Collins. Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Secretary, I would like to talk
about people, human resources. I chaired a joint hearing of the
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management with the
House Subcommittee on Civil Service back on March 29, 2001. And
at that hearing, we had a report on U.S. security in the 21st
Century, and I would like to quote from that report.
It says that ``As it enters the 21st Century, the United
States finds itself on the brink of an unprecedented crisis of
competence in government. The maintenance of American power in
the world depends on the quality of U.S. Government personnel,
civil and military, at all levels. We must take advantage,
immediate action in the personnel area to ensure that the
United States can meet future challenges.''
And a former Secretary of Defense, James Schlesinger, who
was one of the people that testified, said, ``In other words,
it is the commission's view that fixing personnel problems is a
precondition of fixing virtually everything else that needs
repair in the institutional edifice of U.S. national security
policy.''
Since that time, we have had September 11. You are now part
of the whole issue of national security. I want to congratulate
you on including in your budget money for implementation of
your MAXHR program, which is your new personnel system. I think
it is really imperative that you underscore how important that
is to the Budget Committee so that you can move forward to deal
with the human capital challenges that you have in the
Department of Homeland Security.
I believe that if we are going to be successful in this
century that the Federal Government is going to have to be the
employer of choice in the 21st Century. Quite frankly, we are
not yet there today.
I would like to agree with our Chairman and Ranking Member
in regard to Emergency Management Performance Grants. Just as
personnel is very important to you, I believe that we are
underfunding EMPG and that our States don't have the manpower
to do the job that they are supposed to do.
I understand that you are going to get a report back on the
preparedness of the various States, and I would hope that you
would consider whether part of the reason why some of the
States are not adequately prepared is that they don't have the
people to get the job done to follow through with a readiness/
preparedness plan.
Regarding the issue of interoperability equipment, the
question was raised, is there going to be money in the budget
that is earmarked so that States can go forward with meeting
interoperable communications needs? Because I think what we
found in Katrina was that there was no interoperability of
communication. It was one of the things that really stopped
responders from doing the job that they were supposed to do. Is
there money for it?
Secretary Chertoff. There is money in the budget for our
research in science and technology. And there is grant money
available through the homeland security grants and the UASI
grants for interoperability. Now the State has to choose to do
that.
If the State applies for money and doesn't want to use the
money for that, we haven't designated a particular item and say
you have to use this for interoperability. Some States may feel
that they are covered in terms of the way that they have their
local law enforcement involved.
There is clearly a technological step that we have yet to
make, which is settling on the architecture for the particular
digital communication system that everybody would acquire. The
challenge in doing that, as I started to say, is there are
proprietary systems that don't talk to each other.
Without getting into an area that is delicate because there
are going to be a lot of people with a lot of money at stake
listening carefully to see if I am tipping my hand somewhere, I
think we are going to have to figure out a way--it is like
railroad track. Ultimately, we are going to have to figure out
what the gauge of the track is so everybody can build the same.
Senator Voinovich. Well, the question I have is, how much
money is going to be available to interest the States to fund
interoperability? As governor of Ohio, I spent $271 million to
implement the MARCS system. Since then, Governor Taft has
continued to buildup the MARCS system, increasing the number of
State dollars to over $300 million. Additionally,
municipalities have continued to make interoperable
communications a priority, bringing the total funding to over
$500 million State-wide with the assistance of the State
Homeland Security grant funding.
It is no wonder that Ohio has a strong communications
system. Now they are working to expand beyond voice and get
into data. I would suggest that Ohio could be used as a model
for other States. But, if there isn't adequate funding from the
Federal Government, many of the States aren't going to put the
money into interoperable communications. Mr. Secretary, are you
suggesting it is solely the State's responsibility to fund
these programs, without Federal assistance?
Secretary Chertoff. No. I am saying there is money
available. The State will have to choose, in requesting money
under the grant program, to use it for interoperability. It
turns out that, in fact, the No. 1 item requested by States and
funded in our grant programs is interoperable communications.
But the State has to make the judgment.
If the State of Ohio decided, for example, that they are
where they want to be with that and they would rather have
their grant funds used for something else, as long as that
something else was within our targeted capabilities list----
Senator Voinovich. Ohio is choosing to use over half of the
State Homeland Security grant money for interoperability.
Secretary Chertoff. Well, that is great.
Senator Voinovich. For clarification, Ohio has spent over
$300 million on interoperability. But, I am concerned that you
are basically saying that DHS will help States with the
technology, but the majority of funding is going to have to
come from the States. That is a large investment.
Secretary Chertoff. No, our Federal grant funding--the
grant funding that we give them under our programs can be used
by them for this purpose. All I am saying is when they ask for
the money, they have to choose----
Senator Voinovich. Well, the grant program, Mr. Secretary,
doesn't even scratch the surface, if you are talking an
investment already in excess of $300 million. That is an
enormous sum of investment by a State.
If you are going to have a good response system on the
local level, you have to have the manpower that puts the
program in place, and they have to make a commitment. The plan
has got to be there. And then the people who are working on it
have to be able to communicate with each other. Establishing
this network requires substantial investment. We must ensure
that the Federal Government can support this investment in
interoperability.
The last thing I would like to ask you about is the issue
of FEMA. I am really concerned about the condition of FEMA's
workforce. My understanding is that FEMA's workforce has
suffered a significant erosion, that the agency has lost as
many as 500 employees since its merger with DHS, and that these
people haven't been replaced.
I further understand that the staffing at your senior
career levels is particularly lacking. For instance, 8 of your
10 regional directors are working in an acting capacity. And
all three of FEMA's top Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
Division directors have left the agency since 2003. And as of
October 2005, FEMA had 17 vacant senior executive positions.
You can't successfully operate FEMA without the people that
are necessary to get the job done, having the right people with
the right knowledge and skills at the right place. How are you
going to handle this situation?
Secretary Chertoff. This is a huge issue. And you know, I
don't want to underestimate the nature of the problem because
it is one thing to put money into a system and another thing to
get people for the system. You have to be able to attract
people. And I will not deny that certainly when there is a lot
of negative publicity, it doesn't make a lot of people want to
migrate.
We are looking very closely now at putting together a top
management team to get in place within a very short period of
time. Right now, of course, we have an acting director who is
very capable and is very well respected. But underneath that,
we have to build some other people.
So we are doing some active recruiting. There may be some
promotion within. Above and beyond that, we have to get about
the business of hiring. And I will be honest with you in saying
that I think FEMA was so overwhelmed in the first few months
after Katrina, just keeping its head above water--no pun
intended--dealing with emergent needs, that the kind of stuff
you need to do to run the agency was really put on the back
burner.
We are putting our procurement and our human capital people
into FEMA in effect to help them do this recruiting and help
them get up and running. But I will acknowledge to you that
this is an area that I am concerned about.
Chairman Collins. Senator Dayton.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I want to acknowledge at the outset that you
inherited the badly broken systems of immigration control and
border security when you arrived. Any government which cannot
assure the integrity of its country's borders and control of
the people and the products which enter is failing its most
fundamental responsibility to its citizens.
And despite the efforts of your Department, from all
accounts, there is a continuing flood of illegal people and
illegal products and especially illegal drugs flooding our
country.
And Senator Coleman and I have met with local officials in
Minnesota, small communities that are literally desperate. I
mean, they are overwhelmed by the trafficking of drugs, by the
illegal immigrants that are in the communities, by the
predators that are dealing.
And ironically, with the action of the Minnesota
legislature and some other States to ban Sudafed and some of
the other products indigenously, the result has been that even
more potent methamphetamine, I am told, is coming in, flooding
into our communities in Minnesota from the Mexican border.
So I realize the commerce of this country depends on
business as usual. But this is business as usual. Business as
usual means that we are hemorrhaging our children and
sacrificing their lives, literally, to continue a convenient
flow of goods across the border.
What do we need to do, even conceptually, what would we
need to do to stop--I don't mean just mitigate, but stop the
flow of illegal people and illegal drugs into this country? We
have to, in my mind, define what it is we would have to do, and
then we can decide whether or not we are willing to do that.
But we are just playing games here, and these people are out
for our lives.
Secretary Chertoff. I am going to come back to what I said
to Senator Bennett because I think that the problem of illegal
migrants coming in is different than the problem of drugs.
Senator Dayton. I agree.
Secretary Chertoff. If we can build a comprehensive
strategy, which is a secure border, plus work site enforcement,
plus a temporary worker program so that we can focus our border
resources not on people who want to come and make beds at the
Quality Inn, but people who want to come in with drugs, we will
then have actually applied the resources we have where I think
most people want to see them applied.
Without a temporary worker program, we have to chase
everybody who comes in illegally. And that means, by
definition, our percentage of ability to capture illegal drugs
that come in or other criminals that come in is less.
Senator Dayton. Sir, I don't want a percentage. I want to
know what conceptually we would have to do. Do we need 20,000
more people? Do we need a fence?
Secretary Chertoff. I don't think a fence----
Senator Dayton. What do we need to do to put a stop--let us
talk about the illegal drug trafficking, which is just
destroying these communities.
Secretary Chertoff. I think we need to siphon off the
migrant problem into a temporary worker program, focus our
border resources on the border. But it is also the Coast Guard
who has to play a big role in this. A lot of the stuff is flown
by air over the border, and they have landing strips on this
side.
And the other thing, of course, is you have to break the
organizations, the drug organizations, in this country, and
that means increased prosecution, drug prosecutions, take their
assets, put them in jail for long periods of time. Find ways to
discourage users, which means sometimes we require forfeiture
of vehicles and things that people are using when they are
buying drugs.
Senator Dayton. Who is responsible, if we talk about just
the interdiction? We talk about the Coast Guard. I agree. We
talk about the border. We talk about landing strips. Who is
responsible?
Secretary Chertoff. We are responsible----
Senator Dayton. The top official in the Federal Government
who is responsible for stopping the flow of illegal drugs into
the United States?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, we are responsible at the border.
In terms of prosecution and internal enforcement, we share
responsibility with DEA and FBI and, obviously, State and local
law enforcement. There is a national drug czar, John Walters,
who has, I guess, the integrated planning and integrated
strategy portfolio. The Defense Department plays a role in
support of us in terms of interdiction. We have a lot of assets
out there.
You have to use every level of American national power to
do this. It is, yes, we have to do better at the border, better
at the Coast Guard. But if we aren't, for example, drying up
the demand by seizing assets of people who buy drugs or by
really cracking down on people who sell drugs with long jail
terms, then we are just asking someone to stick their finger in
the dike to hold back the flood. So I think all of us are going
to have to push harder on this.
Senator Dayton. Well, with all due respect, I need to know
what ``push harder'' means. I need to know in quantifiable
terms, in terms of the budget, whether this budget is adequate
to do that--really make a difference, really change, reverse
the status quo or not.
Secretary Chertoff. Well----
Senator Dayton. Because, sir, it is just not--I would like
to bring you to Worthington, Minnesota, and talk with the mayor
and talk with the police officers who are overwhelmed. Who have
cut-throat criminals who are making mega dollars off of the
people in that community, and they are overwhelmed. And they
can't deal with that. They don't have first responder money, in
addition, but that is a separate issue.
It is our responsibility, yours and mine, to stop this
epidemic. And if we don't do it, no one else will do so. So I
need to know specifically and backed up with resources, people,
and dollars. And if it means bringing border migration to a
halt, that is something we ought to look at.
At least we ought to know what it would take to do that, to
have zero tolerance for this kind of flood of a dangerous drug,
it is much more, a daily threat. It is not just a threat, it is
more a reality than a terrorist attack. I mean, it is a
terrorist attack. It is a continuing terrorist attack, and we
are just looking the other way.
Secretary Chertoff. A fence at the border would not deal
with this problem because what would happen is you would get
people coming up on the coast. You would get people flying
across the border.
I mean, there is a large piece of this that is the border,
but a lot of it is the demand inside the United States. If
people didn't use the stuff, no one would be bringing it in.
And I have spent a lot of years doing drug cases and doing drug
enforcement, and the problem has always been the same. You have
to do everything at once.
If you simply say, well, we have to shut the border down,
that is not going to do the trick. It has to be interior
enforcement, strong prosecution, and you have to focus on the
users. You have to start to make users pay a price if they
continue to fuel the market for illegal drugs.
Senator Dayton. Well, I would like and request a response,
and I will put it in writing, what ``everything at once''
means. Thank you.
Also, my time is almost up, but I am going to give you, in
conclusion, a letter regarding Roseau, Minnesota.\1\ I
mentioned this the last time that you were here. They applied 3
years ago, this city that was flooded in northwestern
Minnesota. They applied 3 years ago for one grant that was
finally approved by the FEMA Region V office. They have another
one, $619,000, that was denied. They began the application
process in March 2003. The city flooded in June 2002. They were
denied this in December 2005. They are now in an appeals
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The letter submitted by Senator Dayton appears in the Appendix
on page 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean this is crazy. Three years of a process for a city
that is trying to rebuild itself. So I would ask if you could
give that your personal attention, please?
Secretary Chertoff. I will.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Madam
Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, since breaking through the complications of
cargo, of containers, of manifest, etc., it is a fairly complex
job and that is in the screening process. I think that it is
fair to say that we have to look to whatever means we can
within the law or change the law to make sure that we have
exhausted our view of those who are coming into our port area.
And that is brought out by this Arab Emirate attempt to come
into ports across the country.
And what I am proposing to put in legislatively is
something that says the management of the port, of the port
area, will have a responsibility, a mandated responsibility to
check the history or the background of those who are applying
for a lease, whether it is a transfer of a lease or a new lease
or a purchase of property. For them also to be included in the
loop so that there is an opportunity for them, if they find
anything, to deny a lease extension or a lease transfer or a
purchase of property.
Do you think something like that can be of help?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, it is hard for me to react in the
abstract. I can tell you that the Coast Guard and TSA,
actually, under legislation that currently exists is in the
process of putting in place background checking requirements
for people at the ports.
Whether the port authorities--which I guess are really
State agencies. I know New York/New Jersey is a bi-State
agency. I think Maryland is a State agency. Whether they ought
to have a separate authority may be a matter of State law as to
whether they do because they are really State entities.
So I guess the answer is I am always interested in looking
at something and reacting, but it is hard to do it in the
abstract.
Senator Lautenberg. All right. I would like to attach it to
the receipt of Federal money.
You and I agreed, and I think our colleagues as well, that
when it comes to the port areas that risk assessment ought to
be the criteria by which we guide our decisions for grants. Now
according to your staff in the fiscal year 2005 port security
grant program, the most recent program, risk-based threat
assessment was used.
In the awards program, the port of Memphis received $6.5
million. The port of New York and New Jersey received an almost
identical amount of $6.6 million.
Now I have a list of the tonnages and the number of
containers and so forth, and I don't find Memphis on here at
all. And I don't want to pick on Memphis. But how is that
justified?
Secretary Chertoff. There are two parts to the program. I
am going to have to say this, and it might make some people a
little unhappy back at home. There is an eligibility based on
risk. There is also an investment justification. You have to
come up and you have to say very specifically what do you want
to spend the money on.
And we have the captain of the port, the Coast Guard person
in charge, and another committee of people locally evaluate the
investment justifications and rate them. Sometimes a port that
might, in terms of risk, be high up doesn't really put together
a very good investment justification. We get something like
``give us money, and we will do something with it.'' I am
exaggerating. And that won't cut it.
I mean, part of what we are going to--and this is not the
easiest thing in the world to tell people is--part of what we
are going to say is that risk is the threshold. High risk
should get money. And certainly, New York/New Jersey is in the
highest risk category. But you can't just then stand and put
your hand out and say, ``Well, give me money.'' You have to
have a specific investment justification and make sense. And it
will be reviewed by the captain of the port and other people
from Customs to really kick the tires.
Senator Lautenberg. All right. I get the message, and since
time is short. But we are going to take the liberty of checking
this thoroughly from our office, including a review of the
Coast Guard's agreement or assessment of risk.
Mr. Secretary, something I want to ask you about, and that
is how do you verify the reliability of vendors or the
authenticity of accounts payable? Let us say for FEMA, for
Katrina. How do you check those things?
And the reason I ask that question is it was just noted
that the Defense Department is going to pay Halliburton $250
million that was, according to the auditors, an unjustified
expense. Now that is a breach of certainly decent management or
trust the likes of which are rarely seen.
But we are not surprised when it comes from Halliburton. I
would like to know what happens with FEMA and any of your
Departments when it comes to taking care of this?
Secretary Chertoff. This is a procurement issue. Shortly
after I got onboard a year ago, I asked the IG to come in and
give us an assessment of what he thought we needed to do to
improve our procurement process. Because my observation over
time has been these problems most often arise when you have
started the procurement process in a sloppy way, or you haven't
fully thought out what you want to procure, and then you keep
adding change orders and you keep adding things to the
contract, and you wind up getting disputes.
We are enhancing our procurement office. We have just
brought a new procurement officer onboard to replace our old
one. And we are trying to drive, through a combination of the
procurement office and our investment review board, to a much
more systematic procurement process, getting the IG involved
early on in the process of designing our system.
So, hopefully, we don't have these huge problems where, at
the end of the day, there is a real disconnect between what the
vendor thinks we are asking for and what we think we are
getting, which tends to--I don't know the particulars of this
case. But my experience is that tends to lead into some bad,
bad stuff.
Senator Lautenberg. Right. Well, I wanted to highlight that
because this information was just in the newspapers, and the
auditors say don't pay it. And the Department of Defense says
we are going to pay it any way, $250 million.
According, Mr. Secretary, to the American Association of
Port Authorities, even if all $600 million of new grant
programs are given, we still have a $400 million shortfall in
the level required to keep our ports safe. How do you deal with
that if those are the facts?
Secretary Chertoff. That is obviously port authority
operators tend to think that they need more money than they
get. I doubt you could find a single sector of the business
world or the infrastructure world that doesn't say we could use
more money.
I think that if you look at the total amount of spending on
ports, recognizing how much of----
Senator Lautenberg. You are justifying the $400 million
shortfall and attribute it to crybabies?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, I am saying that I don't
necessarily buy into the fact that $1 billion is the necessary
amount. I understand they are taking that position.
But I think we have put a lot of money into port security,
including the Coast Guard and Customs and other things, and I
think that often does not get counted by the port authority
people because they don't see it. It is not coming to them, but
it is part of what pays for everything around them, including
the guns and the boats that they see on the waterway.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, once again, you are in luck. The Senate has
begun four stacked votes, and we have only a few minutes
remaining in the first vote. So I am going to ask my
colleagues, rather than doing a second round of questions, to
submit questions for the record.
I had hoped to ask questions relating to the TWIC card, the
PASS card system, chemical security, your views on the
composition of the CFIUS committee, and fire grants. There are
so many other issues, but they will have to wait for another
day.
Secretary Chertoff. And also I would be delighted to come
by and just chat about some of these issues informally.
Senator Lieberman. Fine.
Chairman Collins. Thank you.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks for your testimony. I also will
be adding to the homework of you and your staff, Mr. Secretary,
with additional questions. Thank you.
Chairman Collins. The hearing record will remain open for
15 days.
Thank you very much for your testimony, Secretary Chertoff.
Secretary Chertoff. Thank you.
Chairman Collins. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you, Secretary Chertoff, for
taking the time once again to appear before this Committee.
This is a critical time for the Department of Homeland Security.
While we may have made some progress in areas like aviation security in
recent years, it should be clear to all of us now--6 months after
Hurricane Katrina--that it will take time, patience, strong leadership,
and, in all likelihood, significant resources before this Department
can become what we intended it to be when we sat in this room after
September 11 and began the process of putting it together.
It seems like this Department has been forced to respond to one
crisis after another since it was created. First there was the need to
secure our airports. Then, in the wake of a series of bombings in
Europe, a call from many of us--myself included--for more attention to
rail and transit security.
More recently, there's been more attention on immigration and
border security issues. That's reflected in the budget we'll be
examining today. I suspect that now there might be an effort to get
more resources for port security.
I'm sure we'd all like to be able to spend more money in all of
these areas. That's not realistic, however. I look forward to hearing
from Secretary Chertoff, then, about how the Department of Homeland
Security is setting priorities. Just as important, I look forward to
hearing more about how the Department is saving money and effort and
improving outcomes by better integrating the work of the various
agencies that make it up.
There are some parts of this budget I like but there's also much of
it I don't like. For example, I still don't see a strong enough
commitment to non-aviation security--especially port, rail, and transit
security. Plus, I believe States like Delaware would be significantly
hindered in their preparedness efforts if the President's proposals on
first responder aid and other grant programs were to be enacted.
All of that said, I look forward to working with you, Mr.
Secretary, and with my colleagues on this Committee to ensure that the
Department of Homeland Security is focusing on the right priorities
and, despite the rough time it's had in recent months, is still on the
path towards becoming an integrated, more efficient entity that will
make us better able to prevent another September 11.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7746.075
<all>