[Senate Hearing 108-84]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-84
INVESTING IN HOMELAND SECURITY: STREAMLINING AND ENHANCING HOMELAND
SECURITY GRANT PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 1, 2003
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs
88-245 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON 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
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Tim Raducha-Grace, Professional Staff Member
Joyce Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Michael A. Alexander, Minority Professional Staff Member
Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Collins.............................................. 1
Senator Levin................................................ 3
Senator Stevens.............................................. 7
Senator Akaka................................................ 8
Senator Carper............................................... 9
Senator Voinovich............................................ 12
Senator Fitzgerald........................................... 16
Senator Pryor................................................ 24
Senator Specter.............................................. 31
Prepared statement:
Senator Lieberman............................................ 41
WITNESS
Hon. Tom Ridge, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security:
Testimony.................................................... 14
Prepared Statement........................................... 43
GPost-hearing qestions for the Record submitted to the Hon.
Tom Ridge from:
Chairman Collins........................................... 47
Senator Carper............................................. 55
Senator Levin.............................................. 59
Senator Lieberman.......................................... 63
Senator Voinovich.......................................... 77
Appendix
Chart entitled ``Tangled Web of Federal Homeland Security Grant
Programs''..................................................... 78
Chart entitled ``12 Steps for a State to Receive Homeland
Security Dollars''............................................. 79
Hamilton County Fire Chiefs and Sycamore Township prepared
statement...................................................... 80
INVESTING IN HOMELAND SECURITY:
STREAMLINING AND ENHANCING
HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAMS
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M.
Collins, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Collins, Levin, Stevens, Voinovich,
Specter, Fitzgerald, Akaka, Carper, and Pryor.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS
Chairman Collins. Good morning. The Committee will come to
order. Today, the Governmental Affairs Committee continues our
efforts to streamline and strengthen homeland security grant
programs for States, communities, and first responders.
I want to start by welcoming Secretary Tom Ridge, who will
discuss the Department of Homeland Security's ongoing
challenges in providing the resources needed to protect our
homeland.
Mr. Secretary, let me start this morning by commending you
for your leadership in building a more effective homeland
security partnership with our States, localities, and first
responders. But in some ways, I believe that Congress' lack of
guidance has left you with one hand tied behind your back.
Despite these constraints, you are doing a great job, but we
can and must do more to ensure that those who are on the front
lines receive the information, equipment, training, and
planning they require to be effective.
The Homeland Security Act provides a framework to establish
your new Department, yet the law contains virtually no guidance
on how the Department is to assist those at the State and local
level with their homeland security needs. Congress wrote a 187-
page law creating the new Department, yet only a single
paragraph describes grant programs for first responders. As a
result, the Department is allocating billions of dollars to
States and localities with very little guidance from Congress
as to how such decisions should be made.
As with so many other important issues, much of the front-
line responsibility for homeland security has fallen squarely
on the shoulders of our State and local officials and first
responders. Communities across America have risen to this
challenge and have developed scores of innovative homeland
security strategies.
Instead of encouraging these new ideas, however, the
tangled web of Federal Homeland Security Grant Programs is
stifling State and local innovation.\1\ Instead of providing a
foundation on which States and localities can build homeland
security strategies tailored to specific risks, Federal
programs present States and communities with a mountain of
paperwork. Instead of giving communities the flexibility that
they need, State and local officials face a one-size-fits-all
grant structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Chart entitled ``Tangled Web of Federal Homeland Security Grant
Programs,'' submitted by Senator Collins appears in the Appendix on
page 78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Secretary, in my judgment, the current homeland
security grant program structure simply doesn't work as well as
it should. Congress should give you a map to replace the maze
of homeland security programs with a straight path, to topple
the mountain of paperwork, and to provide States and
communities the flexibility that they need to be effective.
Today, I am announcing principles for legislation that I
will be introducing in coming weeks to streamline and enhance
homeland security grant programs. This outline is based on
extensive input from State and local officials and first
responders and includes several key principles.
First, my legislation will topple the mountain of paperwork
by eliminating duplicative homeland security application and
planning requirements that States and localities are now
required to complete as a condition of receiving Federal funds.
As this chart illustrates,\2\ on my right, a State must engage
in a 12-step odyssey to obtain funding from a single homeland
security grant program, and this is just one of several
homeland security grant programs to which a State, community,
police, or fire department can apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Chart entitled ``12 Steps for a State to Receive Homeland
Security Dollars'' submitted by Senator Collins appears in the Appendix
on page 79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, my legislation would allow flexibility in the use
of homeland security funds. Instead of a one-size-fits-all
formula determining how homeland security dollars must be
allocated, the legislation will allow State and local officials
to decide how to spend Federal dollars to meet their highest
priority needs.
Third, my legislation will make it easier to apply for
grants by moving toward one-stop shopping within the Department
for accessing homeland security dollars in a direct and timely
fashion. A single source within the Department will provide
States, communities, and first responders with information on
grant programs, both within and outside of the Department.
Fourth, the bill will help to coordinate the wide range of
grant programs that provide homeland security funds for
planning, preparedness, and response capabilities. Federal
programs inside and outside the Department of Homeland Security
provide much-needed support to ensure basic level of equipment
and training among first responders, yet they often lack even
basic coordination. The legislation I am proposing will
coordinate these programs to avoid duplication, ensure that a
broad spectrum of needs are being met, and maximize the return
on the taxpayers' investment. We simply cannot afford to spend
Federal dollars in a duplicative or haphazard manner. The risks
are simply too great.
Fifth, the legislation will promote a community-based
approach to homeland security funding. It will ensure that
local officials and first responders have a seat at the table
in the homeland security planning process and that they can
access resources in an efficient manner.
Sixth, we must allocate homeland security dollars according
to need, while at the same time ensuring that each and every
State receives a reasonable share of funds. Currently, the
Department is allocating billions of dollars with little
guidance from Congress.
Seventh and finally, this legislation will not reinvent the
wheel. It will recognize the importance of building on existing
successful programs, such as the popular and effective FIRE
Act.
All States face security challenges, including our Nation's
rural and less populous States. Maine, for example, was the
starting point for two of the September 11 hijackers and is
home to one of New England's busiest seaports. Unique
challenges also face smaller States, such as Delaware, which
must protect a major military base and an international
speedway. In other words, the size of the State does not
necessarily determine the seriousness of the threat.
We don't need to look far into our history to witness the
tragic events that can occur in even relatively rural States.
Just consider Oklahoma City, the highest casualty domestic
terrorist event prior to September 11.
We must engage in a thoughtful dialogue about how best to
distribute homeland security funds or we may end up leaving
some of our communities more vulnerable to attack because we
inadequately assessed the risk.
Again, Mr. Secretary, let me close by commending you for
your efforts to simplify the grant process and make it easier
for States, communities, and first responders to access
funding. But Congress has provided you with an incomplete tool
box. You need more to build an effective homeland security
partnership with States, localities, and first responders, and
I know that the Members of this Committee are committed to
giving you the tools that you need. We look forward to working
with you on legislation to build a stronger and more effective
homeland security partnership in the months and years ahead.
At this point, I would like to turn to Senator Levin for
his opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN
Senator Levin. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and let
me join you in welcoming Secretary Ridge to this hearing and
join you also in commending him for the extremely great effort
that he is making to put together a Homeland Security
Department which reflects the needs of this country. I think
you are doing a fine job and I join in that commendation.
We obviously have a number of concerns which we want to
raise with you today. The programs and operations of the
Department of Homeland Security continue to be unclear to our
people and to our local governments. The coordination or lack
thereof between your agency and State and local governments is
troubling. The interaction with State and local governments is
still confusing, unclear, and of great concern to us.
There are other issues, too, which I want to raise with you
during our question period, particularly as to the relationship
between your Directorate for Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection and the CIA entities that now exist.
There are now two entities in the CIA, the Counterterrorist
Center and the new one which was apparently just announced
yesterday, Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC). So you
have these two entities that are engaged in analysis of
intelligence information, now both located apparently at the
CIA, and how that is going to relate to your directorate, which
was the place where some of the dots were going to be
connected, at least, is very unclear and I think we need you to
give us some guidance on that, as to what the intent is.
There are also other issues besides the one that is the
focus of today's hearing that I want to raise with you,
including access to information under the Freedom of
Information Act and how that is going to work and what
information would be protected from public scrutiny by
corporations just simply filing with your agency information
and thereby protecting themselves from the corrective remedies
that might otherwise be indicated or from public access to that
information. That is a whole issue which we kind of ducked at
the time that this agency was put into place.
I don't want to repeat all of the concerns which our
Chairman has just raised, but I will just simply highlight a
couple of them that I hear a lot about when I go back to
Michigan.
I hear many complaints about how the Department issues
grants and allocates funds to State and local governments and
the first responders, like the police and the fire fighters.
The first issue, which I hope you will address, is the overall
budget issue. According to my figures, the Department of
Homeland Security funds for first responders, when you add the
Office of Domestic Preparedness allocation in 2004 and the fire
grant program, which is not given any money in 2004, you have
actually less money, the way we add it up, for first responders
in your budget for fiscal year 2004 than we had in 2003, and I
wish you would address that issue. The total is $3.5 billion
for first responders in 2004, roughly, and $4 billion in 2003
when you put those two programs together, the Office of
Domestic Preparedness and the fire grant program.
There is still no 800 number where people can call just to
get information, as far as I know. We had gone into that issue
at the time we were considering the creation of your
Department. There is still no one-stop grant process for State
and local officials and there is the whole host of budget
questions which were raised. The administration is proposing to
basically drop the COPS program to decrease the Byrne grants
and to eliminate or almost eliminate the local law enforcement
block grant program, and that is not made up for, as far as we
can see, in the budget dollars that have been proposed for your
agency.
So those are the big picture budget items that we hope you
will address, as well as for first responders, as well as some
of the issues which relate to the grant application process,
whether we can't have a one-stop grant process where people can
go to one place or call one number to get information relative
to what is available to local governments.
We then have all the formula issues, which I think to some
extent, at least, are based on legislative decision, but where
you have made some recommendations which we would like to hear
as to how these funds can be more fairly apportioned to where
the greatest risks are. Some of those formulas make no sense to
me. When we have flat-out minimums guaranteed, for instance,
that is not based on threat. It should be based on threat. I
understand you have some recommendations in that area, because
I agree that we ought to put our funds where the greatest
threats are and I don't think that is the case where we have
fixed formulas that go to States or to localities based on
anything other than what the threat is and what their
infrastructure vulnerabilities are.
So you have got a lot of questions before you. I know there
are a lot of challenges on your plate. And again, I just want
to add my thanks for all the good work of you and your staff in
attempting to address those challenges.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator Levin. Senator
Stevens.
[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is still a new agency but
pressing questions about how it should function, how it should
coordinate with other Federal agencies, and how it should interact with
State and local governments are issues that Members of this Committee
have now been raising for over a year. New questions are piling up,
while many old issues remain unresolved. It is past time to get
definite answers to some of these questions and to clarify how this
Department is going to be set up and run to ensure the safety of our
country.
As the key oversight Committee for the new Department, our job is
to identify key issues and help with the solutions. One of the key
issues that I have been focusing on for the past year involves
intelligence--improving our ability to map terrorist threats and
prevent terrorist acts. The 9-11 tragedy exposed troubling gaps and
weaknesses in our intelligence efforts and made it clear we need to
improve the Federal Government's ability to connect the dots, identify
threats, and stop terrorism.
Simply creating a new Department has not cured our intelligence
weaknesses. In fact, the intelligence situation may have been muddled,
not improved, by the creation of the DHS which appears to be causing
new confusion over who has what intelligence responsibilities and who
can be held accountable. The DHS will have a new intelligence capacity
that will map threats and try to prevent future terrorist attacks. In
addition to this, the administration recently announced the creation of
a new intelligence entity called the Terrorist Threat Integration
Center or TTIC. But frankly, I'm not convinced that anyone really
understands what the TTIC will look like, what its mission will be, or
how it will work with other intelligence agencies.
We've been told, for example, that the TTIC is supposed to be a
gathering point for all sources of intelligence on terrorism so that
information can be analyzed and distributed. But that is also the
mission of the Counter Terrorist Center in the Central Intelligence
Agency. Today, the Counter Terrorist Center or CTC receives 17,000
pieces of intelligence a month and produces about 300 outgoing
intelligence products a month. All of the key agencies sit at the CTC
table. But the same agencies are supposed to also participate in the
TTIC. The question this Committee must ask is what is the expected
relationship between the CTC and the TTIC?
What are their respective intelligence roles and responsibilities?
Will they share information and resources to minimize duplication and
ensure effective communication? Or, by asking both entities to perform
the same or similar tasks, will we diffuse responsibility, waste
resources, and increase the risk of important information slipping
through the cracks?
In addition to defining the general relationship between the TTIC
and CTC, it is critical to know which agency has primary responsibility
for gathering, analyzing and distributing foreign intelligence to
ensure this information is acted on. The statute failed to assign clear
responsibility for handling foreign intelligence, which could be lodged
in at least three places: The DDS, the TTIC, or the CTC. I have been
talking about this issue for a year and a half, and it has yet to be
clarified.
On January 17, I asked Secretary Ridge whether the principle
responsibility to analyze foreign intelligence would remain at the CTC.
He said yes. At a hearing on February 26, I asked Deputy Secretary
Gordon England the same question, and he also named the CTC. On
February 26, I asked other administration officials with responsibility
for intelligence matters to provide a written statement naming the
agencies with primary responsibility for the analysis of foreign
intelligence and domestic intelligence, and Chairman Collins seconded
that request. It's more than 2 months later, yet nothing has been
placed in writing. Given the size of the intelligence community, the
potential for confusion, the importance of this matter, and the need
for accountability, assigning the CTC primary responsibility for
handling foreign intelligence needs to be placed in writing, and it's
unclear why that has yet to happen.
A second critical issue involves the public's right to know what
the new Department is doing. When we first started the process of
creating a Department of Homeland Security, a key concern was how to
strengthen our national security without abandoning public oversight
and the openness that a free society requires to function. It is
frustrating to have to remind people that we reached a bipartisan
compromise on this subject last summer--now almost 1 year ago--
balancing the two concerns in a provision clarifying how the Freedom of
Information Act would apply to the Homeland Security Act. But that
bipartisan compromise, which also enjoyed administration support at the
time, was dropped from the final bill in favor of much more restrictive
language that over 50 public interest groups have been protesting ever
since. To resolve this issue, Senators Leahy, Lieberman, Byrd and I
have reintroduced the compromise as S. 609, the Restore FOIA bill. The
Department also recently issued proposed rules on the subject, but that
effort appears to have only further confused the issue and further
inflamed public interest groups who believe the public has a right to
reasonable amounts of information affecting their security, health, and
safety. This issue continues to fester.
A third critical issue that is only beginning to receive attention
involves the role of the new Department in combating money laundering.
Terrorists launder money to finance their schemes. Some terrorists also
work with other criminals, such as drug traffickers, to obtain funds
and other assistance to commit terrorist acts. For this reason, it is
crucial to track down money launderers of all types around the globe
and shut down their operations. It is also crucial to ensure that
terrorists are not using our own financial systems against us, by
moving funds through U.S. bank or securities accounts or misusing our
trade laws to launder dirty money. The new Department has acquired some
of the leading Federal experts on money laundering, including the
Customs anti-money laundering unit known as Greenquest, which plays a
key role in stopping terrorist financing and other money laundering
efforts. But so far, it is unclear who at the new Department is in
charge of the anti-money laundering mission and how the new Department
is plugged into government-wide efforts to battle this problem. Money
laundering is too important to get lost in the shuffle, and it needs to
become much more of a DHS priority.
That brings me to a final issue which is the focus of this hearing:
How the new Department is working with State and local governments to
fight terrorism. Complaints are increasing as to how the Department is
issuing grants and allocating funds to State and local governments and
first responders like fire fighters and the police. There is still no
800 number for grant information and still no one-stop grant process
for State and local officials. Increases in DHS funds are apparently
being offset by decreases in other Federal grants programs to the same
units. For example, look at three grant programs for local police: COPS
was funded in 2003 at $929 million, but in 2004 the administration
requested just $164 million, an 82 percent decrease; the Byrne Grants
were funded at $651 million last year, but in 2004 the administration
requested zero; and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program was
funded at $400 million last year, but in 2004 the administration
requested zero dollars.
I was also extremely surprised and disappointed that when DHS
announced recent grant awards to high-threat urban areas, absolutely no
funds were allocated to Detroit. Detroit is the eighth largest
metropolitan area in the country, it is home to the largest U.S.-
Canadian border crossing in the Nation, it has a diverse immigrant
population, and it has been the site of numerous recent investigations
and prosecutions related to terrorism. Excluding Detroit from the
initial round of funding for high-threat urban areas is a flat out
mistake if homeland security is to be strengthened. It also indicates
the current funding process is flawed, and that better criteria are
needed for awarding funds to high-threat urban areas. There are also
signs that key funding formulas need adjusting. For example, Wyoming
now gets more funds per capita than Michigan for first responders, even
though Michigan has 20 times Wyoming's population. This anomaly
apparently results from the Office of Domestic Preparedness grant
formula, which has a mandatory State minimum that many experts believe
is set too high. Secretary Ridge has indicated that he would support
adjusting at least some of the funding formulas, and I look forward to
working with him to better target funds to match the country's security
needs.
There is a lot of work that needs to be done, and I hope this
Department will work with us in resolving some of the long-standing
issues as well as addressing the new ones.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I am
pleased to be here with Secretary Ridge. As a matter of fact,
we have an Appropriations hearing going on right at this time
on homeland security. I will be going over there from here.
I am here for two reasons. One, I do really sincerely thank
the Secretary for what he is doing and his responsiveness to
our Congressional action so far. But I want to make this point.
Legislation concerning homeland security should originate in
this Committee and not on the floor of the Senate in
appropriations bills, and I intend to oppose any such
amendments now on appropriations bills to deal with the basic
laws concerning homeland security.
We have got to get back to the point where legislation is
considered legislation. I think we are through the emergency
phase after September 11, but we are setting the parameters for
the relationships between the Federal Government and State and
local governments on homeland security. I do not believe that
all homeland security expenses, and costs should be
underwritten by the Federal taxpayer and we have to define, in
detail, in the legislation that comes from your committees and
those in the House what that relationship should be.
Clearly, we already have a substantial responsibility in
supporting the National Guards of each individual State. Those
are people involved and who have been involved in homeland
security for years.
There is a hope and a desire in every community in the
country that we will find Federal money to assist in meeting
the newly perceived requirements for homeland security. I,
myself, have had one representative of a small area in my State
come to tell me that I should help him get money for a new fire
truck. When we looked into it, they never have had a fire
truck. There is a limit to the amount of money that is going to
be made available for homeland security, including first
responders, but this Committee and your colleagues in the House
should help us define, and Congress with the President's
approval should define what is that relationship. It should not
occur on each individual appropriations bill that comes up.
So I hope that you will join us in trying to decide that
the authorizing committees are going to set those parameters.
We will do our best to find the money within those parameters
after you have established them. But I do believe it is time
for us to come to agreement and to reduce the expectation of
unlimited assistance from the Federal Government for homeland
security that exists in State and local governments today.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator Stevens.
We have now begun a 15-minute vote. I am going to call on
Senator Akaka. I am going to go vote. I would ask Senator Levin
if he would call on my colleagues in my absence. I will get
back as soon as I can, and if the time expires, we can take a
short recess. Thank you.
Senator Levin. I would be happy to do that.
Chairman Collins. Senator Akaka.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I join
you and my colleagues in welcoming Secretary Ridge to this
hearing.
Secretary Ridge, I share my colleagues' concerns that since
September 11, local governments have not received adequate
funding to help them prepare for the possibility of new
terrorist attacks. Just last month, this Committee heard from
first responders who testified that sufficient funding for
homeland security is still not reaching the local level. They
told us that even when Federal assistance is received,
restrictions prevent them from using grant funding for their
specific needs.
It is a huge challenge and we need to address this
challenge. First responder funding is most effective when it is
utilized for the specific needs of a community. For that
reason, I am a cosponsor of Senator Collins' legislation which
provides States and localities with much-needed flexibility to
use unspent grant funding.
For example, an estimated 1.4 million people, including
U.S. service members and tourists, are in Hawaii any given day.
Formulas for first responder grants, however, are based on
States' permanent population. As a result, Hawaii is
responsible for protecting a significantly higher population
than is reflected in grant allocation formulas.
Like other States, in the event of a terrorist attack,
Hawaii would rely on support from Federal, State, and local
officials. However, unlike most States, external assistance
from the U.S. mainland is not immediately available. Hawaii's
geographic location makes mutual aid for mainland States
impractical for that reason. Hawaii's National Guard, State,
and counter-response agencies require special consideration for
additional homeland security funding to attain a comparable
level of training and equipment to respond to a weapon of mass
destruction attack.
We must also maximize existing State capabilities which are
so important to our homeland security. As an example, the State
of Hawaii has an advanced database called the Criminal Justice
Information System, or CJIS, which contains information which
may be invaluable in preventing a terrorist attack. Currently,
TSA is not accessing this information and I believe this is a
mistake. We should promote better integration and sharing of
possible terrorist information, which is the subject of a just-
released GAO report.
Secretary Ridge, I thank you for being here. As you and I
have discussed before, funding for first responders is crucial
to Hawaii given its strategic and geographic location, and I
really do appreciate your willingness to work with me and our
State officials and thank you so much for what you are doing
for our country in your position now. Thank you very much, Mr.
Secretary.
Senator Levin [presiding.] Thank you, Senator Akaka.
Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Thank you. Secretary Ridge, welcome today.
I don't think I have ever called you Secretary Ridge, Governor.
It is nice to have you before us again.
Secretary Ridge. Thanks.
Senator Carper. I want to say thanks very much for joining
us last night at the Fire Services Caucus dinner, where you hit
not one home run, but maybe a couple with some men on base.
The Chairman is gone. I want to thank her for holding the
hearing, and her staff and our staffs for putting it together
and certainly to you for being with us. We look forward to
working with Senator Collins, Senator Lieberman, and others on
trying to figure out how we can take this important program and
make it better.
I like to say that the road to improvement is always under
construction and this road to improvement is going to be under
construction for some time and we look forward to working with
you on that.
Last month, we had a hearing where, wonder of wonders,
everybody agreed. Sometimes, I am sure you recall from the time
that you served in the House, sometimes you have a hearing
where all the witnesses disagree and it is hard to find a
common thread. Last month, we had four local first responders--
one of them was a police chief from Dover, Delaware--and they
agreed on just about everything. They have been dealing with a
number of their new homeland security responsibilities over the
past 18 months or so and they told us that in doing their jobs
since September 11, that they have been operating in what they
described as an intelligence vacuum. They said they often
learned about increases in our Nation's terrorism threat levels
not from the FBI or from our new Department but from the media.
Again, any legislation authorizing a new Federal first
responder aid program should streamline the grant approval
process so that States and localities get the resources that
they need faster, and I think we would all agree with that. It
should also improve coordination between the Department of
Homeland Security and States and local first responders. I
would like to see more officials from States and localities
given access to threat information so that they can deploy
their scarce resources in the ways that they believe best
protect their own citizens.
I would also like to encourage the Department to begin
offering States and localities technical assistance in putting
together response plans and needs assessments so that emergency
planners can better match what they are doing on the ground
with what the intelligence community and the Federal experts
think that is needed.
This Committee would also, in my judgment, do well to
consider creating a separate first responder grant program for
localities. It is something that the Dover Police Chief and the
other witnesses from our hearing last month were calling for.
And while it is important that localities coordinate their
emergency planning and equipment purchases with States, some,
and especially in the larger urban areas, have special needs
that might not be reflected in State plans.
A new grant program for localities could also be used to
encourage interstate coordination in metropolitan areas, such
as those around Philadelphia, which include not only
Southeastern Pennsylvania, but Southern New Jersey and the
first State, the State of Delaware.
With all that said, this Committee's top priority should be
to come up with a better formula for distributing first
responder aid to States. The current formula is largely based
on population and it shortchanges less populous States like my
State that are home to some important critical infrastructure.
Senator Collins actually mentioned a couple of them. Dover Air
Force Base is one. We have the Northeast Corridor with all that
it involves. Even though we don't have a lot of people, we have
a fair amount of threat for a State as small as ours is.
I understand the need to give the larger States, especially
those with densely populated urban areas, enough money to
protect their larger populations. No State, though, should be
less safe than our neighbors simply because we happen to have a
relatively small population.
The Federal Government should be working to bring every
State and locality to the point where they are able to respond
effectively to any potential threat. By distributing first
responder aid to States based largely on population, I fear we
will fail to do this.
The current formula for distributing first responder aid
ignores, as I said earlier, the fact that we do have a lot of
unusual threats because of the Dover Air Force Base. About a
third of the military airlift cargo material from the
Afghanistan War went through the Dover Air Force Base, and a
whole lot of it is going through that base again for Iraq and
for the Middle East.
I want to applaud your recent call, Governor Ridge, for a
new formula that gives greater weight to risk and I urge you
and our colleagues on this Committee to recognize that all
States, large and small, must take certain steps and make
certain expenditures in order to be minimally prepared for a
major attack.
When this Committee worked last year under Senator
Lieberman's leadership to create the Department of Homeland
Security, I think all of our colleagues hoped that what we are
setting up would help the Federal Government to be better able
to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. No matter how well
you do your work, and your staff and team do their work, at the
Federal level, we are not going to be much safer than we were
before September 11 unless our first responders are better
prepared to do their work on the local level.
While homeland security should certainly be a shared
responsibility, it is vitally important that the Federal
Government does its part to provide each State with enough
first responder aid to ensure that our citizens are adequately
protected.
I would just add as a P.S.--Senator Collins mentioned
this--she and I have introduced legislation that is designed to
provide some greater flexibility to the State and local level.
We don't mandate redistribution, but we do provide the local
folks with some greater discretion. I would urge you to take a
look at that and hope you find some merit in it and perhaps can
support it. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'd like to begin by thanking you for
holding this series of hearings on the Federal first responder aid
program. I look forward to working with you, Senator Lieberman and the
rest of the Committee on taking what we are learning here and finding a
way to make this important program work better. In my view, there is
much room for improvement.
This Committee heard last month from four local first responders
from different parts of the country, including Dover, Delaware Police
Chief Jeffrey Horvath. All of them have been dealing with a number of
new homeland security responsibilities over the past 2 years but have
received little to no Federal aid. All of them have also been doing
their jobs since September 11, 2001 in an intelligence vacuum, often
learning about increases in the Nation's terrorism threat level from
the media before they hear it from the FBI or the Department of
Homeland Security.
I believe any legislation authorizing a new Federal first responder
aid program should streamline the grant approval process so that States
and localities get the resources they need faster. It should also
improve coordination between the Department of Homeland Security and
State and local first responders. I, for one, would like to see more
officials from States and localities given access to threat information
so that they can better deploy their scarce resources. I would also
like to see the Department of Homeland begin offering States and
localities technical assistance in putting together needs assessments
and response plans so that emergency planners can better match what
they're doing on the ground with what they need to be doing to protect
their citizens.
This Committee would also do well to consider creating a new first
responder grant program for localities, something Chief Horvath and the
other witnesses from the last hearing called for. While it is important
that localities coordinate their emergency planning and equipment
purchases with States, some, especially larger urban areas, have
special needs that might not be reflected in State plans. A new grant
program for localities could also be used to encourage interstate
coordination in metropolitan areas such as the area around Philadelphia
encompassing southeastern Pennsylvania, northern Delaware and southern
New Jersey. If a major incident were to occur in Philadelphia, first
responders from neighboring jurisdictions in Delaware and New Jersey
would certainly be called on to assist their colleagues in the city.
The current first responder aid program, however, does not recognize
that fact that planning and coordination does not stop at State
borders.
All that said, this Committee's top priority should be to come up
with a better formula for distributing first responder aid to States.
The current formula, unfortunately is based largely on population so
shortchanges less populous States like Delaware that are home to
important critical infrastructure or that are situated in more
dangerous, densely-populated parts of the country.
I understand the need to give larger States, especially those with
densely populated urban areas, enough money to protect their larger
populations. No State, however, should be less safe than its neighbors
simply because it has a smaller population. The Federal Government
should be working to bring every State and locality to the point where
they are capable of responding effectively to any potential threat. By
distributing first responder aid to States based on population,
however, I fear we will fail to do this.
The current formula for distributing first responder aid ignores
the fact that Delaware, small in population though it is, is located in
the Northeast midway between New York and Washington. It ignores the
fact that Delaware is home to a major port, oil refineries and chemical
plants and everyday hosts scores of ships, trains and trucks as they
make their way to destinations up and down the East Coast. It also
ignores the fact Delaware is home to the Dover Air Force Base, a
facility that played a crucial role in the war in Iraq.
I applaud Secretary Ridge's recent calls for a new formula that
gives greater weight to risk. I urge him and my colleagues on this
Committee to recognize, however, that all States, large and small, must
take certain steps and make certain expenditures in order to be even
minimally prepared for a major attack.
When this Committee worked last year under Senator Lieberman's
leadership to create the Department of Homeland Security, I think all
of my colleagues hoped that what we were setting up would help the
Federal Government be better able to prevent and respond to terrorist
attack. No matter how well Secretary Ridge does his work on the Federal
level, however, we will not be much safer than we were on September 10,
2001 unless our first responders are better prepared to do their work
on the local level.
While homeland security should certainly be a shared
responsibility, it is vitally important that the Federal Government
does its part to provide each State with enough first responder aid to
ensure that its citizens are adequately protected.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Senator Carper.
I think we will now take a recess until Senator Collins
returns, and I assume she will be back any minute.
[Recess.]
Chairman Collins [presiding.] The Committee will come to
order. I would now like to call on Senator Voinovich for his
opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
As you know, I have a deep, abiding passion for improving
intergovernmental relationships, and when it comes to investing
in homeland security, failure is not an option. Therefore, I
commend you for investing your time and energy and resources to
investigate, evaluate, and develop solutions to improve the
current homeland security grant process.
I would also like to extend a warm greeting to my old
friend, Secretary Ridge. I believe that you have one of the
toughest jobs in the world. Merging 22 agencies into one
Department comprised of over 170,000 employees is among the
most significant challenges anyone has undertaken in the
Federal Government since the creation of the Department of
Defense in 1947. I think you have a tougher job than that.
I am sure that the days when you were Governor of
Pennsylvania, including the floods, seem heavenly compared to
the challenge you are facing right now---- [Laughter.]
And I just want to thank you and Michelle and your family
for your sacrifice on behalf of your country.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Voinovich. I think people should really understand
what a burden that you are carrying for our country, and I am
glad that you are willing to do it.
As former governors, we know what it takes to accomplish
goals at the State and local levels of government. Executives'
decisions should be based on proper alignment and allocation of
resources which are designed to meet a specific need within a
community. Unfortunately, our current homeland security grant
system is based on a fragmented structure that impedes the
effective decisionmaking at the State and local governments,
and I think you are aware of the problem. I am cosponsoring a
bill with the Chairman of the Committee that moves the Office
of Preparedness into your office. As you begin working in the
Department, it is important for Congress to make small
legislative changes to help you to get the job done and to
respond to the needs of people on the State and local level.
I think one of the biggest problems that we have, though,
Mr. Secretary, is the fact that--and it is the one that Senator
Stevens just mentioned before, and that is that there are big
expectations out there about what we are going to do for State
and local governments. We must put them in a position where
they can respond to the new risks that they have because of
September 11. I think it is really important to streamlike the
grant dissemination process, but it is more important to
clarify just exactly what it is that we are going to do in
terms of helping State and local governments first and
foremost.
Senator Stevens made reference to a fire department that
was in need of a fire engine, and because of September 11 and
the new homeland security funding, they are going to obtain a
fire engine. I have mayors that are telling me that they don't
like the fact the money is going into the States and then it is
allocated to them. Some have expressed an interest in going
back to the community development block grant program. As you
recall, there is a large city entitlement program and then you
have got the small cities entitlement. That might be a way of
dealing with that problem.
And then the other one that has been a problem is the issue
of paying for personnel and do we anticipate paying for
personnel. There is a provision, I guess, that you can only
spend the money for equipment. Well, maybe that is what it is
supposed to be. We are only going to pay for equipment or
training. But are we involved in paying for personnel, adding
new people to our fire department, police department, emergency
medical services? Is that what this is all about?
So there are a lot of these questions that I think that
really need to be clarified, and my only suggestion to you
would be that perhaps it is time for you to maybe sit down with
the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors
and maybe our old National Governors Association and have a
very honest dialogue with them about just who is responsible
for what.
I mean, we cannot prepare for every incident that can
possibly happen and pay for it. If Osama bin Laden is alive
today, the guy has got to be the happiest man in the world
because he has wrought more on this country than probably any
individual in the history of the United States of America, and
if we keep going the way we are, we will bankrupt the country.
There are just so many resources that we have and they have got
to be allocated in the most efficient, effective way possible
because you can't possibly take care of everything.
Madam Chairman, intelligence is probably the most important
thing that we have in this country. If we have a good
intelligence system and we can prevent things happening in this
country, then we don't have to spend the money to secure
everything that we can possibly think of that could be in
jeopardy.
So you have a tough job and we want to work with you, and
we know it is not going to happen overnight. I think that too
often, those of us on the legislative side of government think
you can snap your fingers and something is going to happen, and
I know from my experience as Mayor of Cleveland and as
governor, it doesn't happen that way. I have to say that some
of the most important changes I made in my governmental career
took 3 and 4 years to accomplish. It took time. And if I had
rushed into them and tried to do it quickly, I would have
fallen flat on my face.
So I think that we need to be patient with you, and at the
same time, I think you have to understand that we have got a
lot of pressure being put on us. People want action, and we
just want you to know we want to work with you.
Secretary Ridge. Thanks, Senator.
Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich.
As a former mayor of a large city, your perspective is
particularly helpful to this Committee as we try to define the
appropriate relationships and roles of the Federal, State, and
local governments for homeland security.
I am now very pleased to welcome our witness today,
Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, as we try to find
ways to help our first responders and State Governments receive
the resources that they need to succeed in their duties.
Secretary Ridge officially assumed his position when the
new Department of Homeland Security opened its doors on January
24 of this year. He had, however, been serving as the
administration's point person on homeland security since he was
appointed as the first Director of the Office of Homeland
Security in 2001.
I would be remiss if I were not to mention that this past
Tuesday marked the Department's and the Secretary's official
first 100 days of work. In such a short time, Secretary Ridge
and his team have put the new homeland security structure into
place and completed the first phase of the largest Federal
reorganization since World War II. He has also successfully
implemented Operation Liberty Shield, deployed new programs and
tools to protect our borders, and distributed billions of
dollars in grants.
I look forward to hearing the Secretary's testimony today.
Again, thank you for your hard work and for appearing before us
today and please proceed with your statement.
TESTIMONY OF HON. TOM RIDGE,\1\ SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Ridge. Thank you and good morning, Chairman
Collins, Senator Voinovich, and to the distinguished Members of
the Committee who I am sure will be joining us after the vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Secretary Ridge appears in the
Appendix on page 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a pleasure and a privilege to be here with you for my
first appearance before the Governmental Affairs Committee--as
your colleague Senator Carper mentioned--as Secretary of
Homeland Security. This is, after all, the Committee's
principally responsible for the creation of the Department
itself, and I thank you for your historic efforts in that
undertaking and for your continued interest and support.
I particularly appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you today to discuss possible ways to improve the Department's
homeland security grant programs. We, as Americans, have an
appropriately deep sense of gratitude, respect, and admiration
for the dedicated and courageous first responder community.
They are the ones we turn to first in time of need and they
never let us down. When something happens in the local
community, whether it is by force of nature, a criminal act, or
the force of evil, folks don't dial area code 202 for help.
They pick up the phone, and they call the local first
responder. I think we now better appreciate that more than any
other time in our Nation's history.
It is a priority of this administration and the Department
of Homeland Security to effectively and efficiently meet our
responsibility to support first responders as they play their
critical role in counterterrorism efforts. I am pleased to be
given the opportunity to work with leaders at the State and
local level to ensure that this support, as all the Members of
the Committee have noted very appropriately to make sure, is
properly organized, properly focused, and properly funded.
Today, we operate in both a fiscal and homeland security
environment where we must ensure maximum benefit is derived
from every security dollar. To do that, we must have the
courage to question the way we do business and the will to make
changes if we find that there is a better way.
Two questions I would like to address today are, first, can
we improve the way that the Department of Homeland Security's
first responder grant programs are organized? And second, can
we improve the way that these grants are distributed? I believe
the answer to both of these questions is an emphatic yes.
Currently within the Department, the Office for Domestic
Preparedness issues formula grants to State and local first
responders from its placement within the Directorate of Border
and Transportation Security. At the same time, the Directorate
of Emergency Preparedness and Response issues fire grants to
State and local fire fighters. At the same time, there is also
an Office of State and Local Government Coordination, which
serves as our principal liaison to State and local entities,
but this office doesn't administer any grant programs at all.
All three of these entities are doing a superb job with
their respective programs, but without a doubt, the degree of
coordination is far greater than before the Department was
created, and yet I believe, and I think it is shared by the
Chairman and many Members of the Committee, that there are
steps available to us that would streamline and improve the
important work that they do in supporting our State and local
partners in the war on terrorism.
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2004
proposes that all monies for both the Office for Domestic
Preparedness and fire grant programs be administered through
the Office for Domestic Preparedness. The request is a $3.5
billion commitment to support first responders, and it is a
major step toward simplifying the administration and
dissemination of first responder grants. It would also move
State and local governments toward the much-needed one-stop
shop they have been seeking, consolidate related functions
within the Department of Homeland Security, and certainly would
improve the coordination among these programs.
S. 796, a bill written and cosponsored by Chairman Collins
and Senators Lieberman and Durbin, takes a second and equally
important step. It would move the Office for Domestic
Preparedness from its current placement within the Directorate
of Border and Transportation Security and place it within the
Office of State and Local Government Coordination. It would
also strategically place funding programs for State and local
first responders within the office directly responsible for
maintaining communications and coordinating Department activity
with State and local governments.
The administration supports the move of ODP as proposed in
this legislation, and I look forward to the opportunity to work
with everyone on this Committee, the Chairman and the Ranking
Member, in a bipartisan fashion on the particulars of the bill.
Both of the above-mentioned steps will substantially
increase the efficiency with which these programs operate.
There are additional changes, though, that are needed to reach
similar improvements to increase the effectiveness of the
grants.
We have learned much about securing our homeland since
September 11, 2001. One lesson that has become clear is that we
certainly can improve upon the formula currently being used for
distribution of ODP grants as partially defined within the
PATRIOT Act. The concept behind the PATRIOT Act is valid.
Security needs to be improved everywhere, and more protection
is usually needed where more people reside or work. The current
formula fails to recognize that linear population increases do
not always equate to linear threat increases. Concentrations of
people, critical infrastructure, and politically attractive
targets can tend to increase threat levels exponentially.
The need to separate out funds for high-threat urban areas
was first recognized and addressed in the fiscal year 2003
Omnibus Bill. That need was again addressed in the fiscal year
2003 Wartime Supplemental. While the steps taken in these bills
are effective in the short term, I believe we need to address
the cause behind the need for them, as well, and make long-
term, better yet, permanent changes to the distribution
formula.
In that spirit, DHS is currently working to develop an
updated formula that better takes into account threats,
population density, and presence of critical infrastructure. We
look forward to working with Members of this Committee, Members
of Congress, our Nation's State and local first responders, and
stakeholder communities throughout this entire process to
ensure that effective and equitable funding is provided.
Let me close with a reaffirmation of the administration's,
of the Department's, and my own personal commitment to our
Nation's heroic first responders. We all salute them for their
patriotism and thank them for their service. The people at the
Department of Homeland Security are committed to doing all
within our power and purview to see that the first responder
community and all those involved in protecting our homeland are
part of a well organized, properly resourced, and focused team.
I thank the Committee for the opportunity to share these
thoughts on this most important topic and welcome any questions
you might have.
Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Before turning to questions, I would like to give the
Senator from Illinois an opportunity for any opening comments
that he might like to make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR FITZGERALD
Senator Fitzgerald. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would just
ask unanimous consent to submit my opening remarks for the
record.
Chairman Collins. Without objection.
Senator Fitzgerald. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Fitzgerald follows:]
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETER G. FITZGERALD
Good morning, Secretary Ridge. I want to join my colleagues in
welcoming you today. The last time you appeared before this Committee
was for your nomination hearing on January 17. You and the Department
of Homeland Security have accomplished a lot since then, and I want to
thank you for your dedication and leadership in protecting our Nation
and the American people from acts of terrorism.
The subject of today's hearing is streamlining and enhancing
homeland security grant programs. I have heard from a number of
Illinois officials regarding the need to streamline the homeland
security grant process to expedite the allocation of funds, especially
to first responders. Therefore, I want to thank Chairman Collins for
holding this timely and important hearing today.
As we consider this issue, it is important to ensure that tax
dollars allocated for homeland security are invested wisely and that
the investment is maximized to the greatest extent possible.
One area for consideration is how funds are spent when localities
respond to heightened alert levels. The U.S. Conference of Mayors
recently reported that cities spend an estimated $70 million more per
week when the national threat level is Code Orange, compared to Code
Yellow. Localities across the country deploy police officers and other
emergency response personnel for longer hours in what appears to be a
``one-size-fits-all'' approach. This leads to significant overtime
expenses although there is no specific local threat. I look forward to
hearing how the Department of Homeland Security is providing guidance
and intelligence to localities to improve the allocation of limited
resources.
A second way to maximize the Federal investment is to minimize
duplication and overlap of homeland security programs through close
coordination at the State and local levels. The State of Illinois, for
example, has a Terrorism Task Force that includes over 40 agencies,
associations and organizations throughout the State. The Terrorism Task
Force represents law enforcement, fire service, public health,
emergency management, public works, and other disciplines. With limited
resources, this Task Force is working to ensure a coordinated domestic
preparedness strategy in our State. I would be interested to hear how
the Department of Homeland Security is working with State and local
officials to foster collaboration and coordination in the allocation of
grant funds.
Another way in which the Department can help ensure the best use of
tax dollars is through rigorous audits and financial management. As the
Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Financial
Management, the Budget, and International Security, I have a special
interest in the issue of independent audits of Federal agencies and in
making our government more accountable to the taxpayers.
In January 2003, the General Accounting Office (GAO) included the
Department of Homeland Security on its so-called ``High Risk'' list as
a program with Major Management Challenges and Program Risks. Strong
financial management systems are necessary to ensure that homeland
security funds are not misdirected at the Federal, State, or local
level. Therefore, I look forward to hearing what steps the Department
is taking to institute financial systems that will ensure sound
accounting of homeland security grant funds.
On a related issue, news reports indicate that the FBI this week
issued an alert to State and local law enforcement agencies regarding
nuclear power plants. Although no specific threats were reported, the
FBI urged that the plant owners and operators should be aware of any
suspicious activity that may signal a possible terrorist attack. In
addition, on Tuesday of this week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
issued new security rules for nuclear power plants. I look forward to
hearing your views on these developments.
Again, thank you Secretary Ridge, for being here today and for your
leadership on behalf of the American people.
Thank you, Chairman Collins.
Chairman Collins. Secretary Ridge, I want to start my
questions by following up on your testimony about the
allocation of Federal funds. We all know that formula fights
are never pretty. Pitting various regions or cities in the
country against one another as they scramble for Federal funds
is always a difficult task.
The largest source of homeland security funding now is
ODP's State Homeland Security Grant Program, and it is my
understanding that ODP currently distributes the funds based on
a minimum State allocation of 0.75 percent and then adjusts the
rest according to population. Is that essentially correct?
Secretary Ridge. That is correct. The States each get
three-quarters of one percent of whatever the dollar amount is,
the territories get one-quarter of a percent, and the rest is
population-based. You are absolutely correct.
Chairman Collins. And I know that you are looking at
modifying the formula. You make the point in your comments that
population doesn't necessarily equate to threat, and we
certainly know that population density would in no way have
predicted the unwelcome role that my small State played in the
September 11 attacks.
In addition, population-based formulas don't take into
account the presence of historic monuments that might be
attractive targets, seaports, whether the State is a border
State, military bases or other particularly vulnerable targets.
Could you expand for the Committee on what factors the
Department is looking at as you attempt to come up with
recommendations for a new formula?
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would be
pleased to. We have run some exercises using the traditional
formula, which is the basic allocation plus population, and
have used varying weighting on threat, that is, the threat
which would be acknowledged by the intelligence community,
analysts from the FBI would take a look at the region or the
State, from the Department of Homeland Security, from the CIA,
so that we have taken a look at the basic funding formula plus
weighting some factor for purposes of the threat assessment.
Based on intelligence information, the threat may be higher in
certain cities or communities than others. Then we plugged in a
certain weighting factor for vulnerability. Vulnerability
relates to the infrastructure, both public and private, in a
particular region or community. And then, clearly, there is a
place for population density.
To date, we haven't, in the numbers and the dry runs that
we have done on a Statewide or national basis, haven't found
anything that's acceptable. That's why we welcome the
opportunity to work with Congress to find something that is
acceptable.
It is much easier, and I think Congress may have given us a
pathway that I think we should discuss, because I do start with
the notion that every State needs a minimum level of funding,
because there will be training. One of our jobs is to create
national training standards and certify them, and so States
will be, I think, ultimately in need of X-number of dollars for
training their first responders and their first preventers.
So, you start with a basic formula and then you add these
other components of threat and vulnerability and population. It
is much easier to apply that, we think, to either large urban
areas or regions. What Congress did in the 2003 bill, by giving
the traditional funding of $1.5 billion, and then there was
$100 million for an urban security initiative. In the
supplemental, there was a traditional funding and then $700
million for high-threat or urban security areas.
There is a little bit more flexibility in that, and so I
think there is possibly a combination of both where we may take
a look at the formula, where we make sure all the States get a
minimum level of funding because there are certain things that
the Federal Government wants the States to do, and the Congress
has said those dollars are distributed 20 percent to the
States, 80 percent to the locals. And then, another pool of
funding is available where I think, frankly, the threat
assessment and the vulnerability assessment, more clarity and
more precision is brought.
But no matter what we do, Madam Chairman, we will attribute
certain weight and certain value to the threat, the
vulnerability, the population, and population density. We just
have to see if we can come to some agreement as to what the
weighting factor is.
Having said all that, and I didn't mean to give you such a
long-winded answer to a very complicated problem, but at the
end of the day, I hope that while we are discussing the
formula, we say to our friends, governors, the cities, and
mayors, as Senator Voinovich pointed out, we shouldn't
distribute a dollar, a security dollar, unless it is consistent
with a plan, an overarching plan brought to us by the States.
That doesn't mean we are going to necessarily send all the
money through the States to distribute through the locals. But
every security dollar we should distribute should be
distributed according to a plan rather than trying to respond
to the individual requests of thousands and thousands of
communities around the country.
Chairman Collins. Mr. Secretary, let me follow up on your
point about having a plan. One of the concerns that I hear from
State and local officials is that there are too many homeland
security plans required, each with its own set of benchmark and
questions. I am told by emergency management officials in my
State, for example, that they have to have an emergency
management plan for ODP, for FEMA, for the Department of Health
and Human Services, for the Environmental Protection Agency,
that there are a lot of the same questions, that there is no
coordination. That produces a lot of paperwork for them.
Shouldn't there be a way to consolidate some of those
plans? A plan is very important, and we all agree that should
be required. But do we need to require so many plans to so many
different agencies?
Secretary Ridge. Madam Chairman, you and your colleagues
are absolutely correct. One of the challenges we have, and I
believe together we can solve it, is to eliminate the
duplication in the planning process associated with dollars
that not only relate to terrorism and counterterrorism
activity, but as you indicated, there is a lot of overlap on
basic questions, because some of the training and the exercise
equipment that you may get from one agency are really relevant
and useful in the event of another non-terrorist-related event.
So I think there is enormous benefit that we could bring to the
whole process of ensuring that every dollar is well and wisely
spent if we work together to consolidate that process.
We are doing the same thing. Over the years, there have
been four or five national incident management plans. Congress
said to this agency, you develop one, and said to another
agency, you develop one. We don't need four or five national
incident management plans, we need one.
And so I certainly would look forward during the 2004
budget cycle to working with this Committee to see what we can
do to reduce the paperwork. Ultimately, our goal in the
Department of Homeland Security is to have all plans submitted
to us without paper, and I think a lot of the folks out there,
the States and the locals, would appreciate having the
opportunity to submit one paperless plan to one agency that
would direct a substantial part of their funding.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I have
additional questions for the next round, but I will now turn to
Senator Levin and I want to thank Senator Levin for presiding
while I was voting.
Senator Levin. I am afraid I didn't fully occupy that spot
because I had to leave and had to recess, but sorry we couldn't
quite connect the dots.
Chairman Collins. It went well.
Senator Levin. Mr. Secretary, in your initial grant
announcement of high-threat urban area grants, I was, frankly,
quite surprised to see that my home town was not there given
the obvious factors that exist, including the border location,
the highest commerce point between ourselves and Canada, the
whole population issue, what that population is, the nature of
that population in terms of the immigration and so forth.
But in your grant announcement, you said that the cities
were chosen by applying a formula based upon a combination of
factors, including population density. And then it reads,
critical infrastructure and threat vulnerability assessment.
Can you tell us something about that, that criteria that was
used----
Secretary Ridge. Yes.
Senator Levin [continuing]. Critical infrastructure and
threat vulnerability assessment. Was there a factor given to
that? Was there a qualitative number given to all of the cities
that were considered, or how did that work?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, thank you for the opportunity to
explain the distribution of that $100 million. As I mentioned
briefly, I think Congress gave us the discretion, but with some
guidance, and said, come up with an assessment based on the
factors that you mentioned, threat, what does the intelligence
community view the nature of the threat based on information
they have secured about either this city, this region, or this
State. Again, we looked and got three different estimates from
our own shop. We had the FBI take a look at it. We had the CIA
take a look at it. And by and large, the estimates were pretty
much the same. In a classified session, I will be happy to show
you what we did.
Vulnerability--you can't confuse threat from vulnerability.
Threat is basically an assessment based on information that the
intelligence community has. Vulnerability has a lot to do with
the kind of infrastructure that exists if subject to a
terrorist attack could result in a catastrophic loss of human
life or enormous economic disruption.
And then, obviously, we weighted population. More often
than not in the United States, the greatest possibility of a
catastrophic loss is associated with infrastructure close to or
proximately located next to a large urban area, and we weighted
it, and admittedly, the factors that we put in the equation for
threat and vulnerability and population density are a
variation. You gave us the discretion and we did it. We came up
with those cities, and obviously, your city of Detroit and
other cities were assessed.
I then made the decision, and I will take full
responsibility for it, that instead of sending out a little
money to a lot of cities to make significant investments in the
cities that under our formula seemed to merit the support with
that limited amount of money. I assure you, Senator, using
basically the same formula, Detroit, because of population
density, and infrastructure, will be there.
But again, it is something I would be very happy to share
with you privately.
Senator Levin. I would like to see those numbers that were
allocated----
Secretary Ridge. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Levin [continuing]. And the various criteria, and I
assume other Members of the Committee would also be interested.
But in any event, I would be interested.
Secretary Ridge. Yes.
Senator Levin. Now, I want to go back to the coordination
of intelligence question. There is a new independent
intelligence agency called TTIC, or the Terrorist Threat
Integration Center. The operation was announced yesterday.
I would like to know the relationship between your
Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection and TTIC and the Counterterrorist Center, the CTC.
It seems to me that there is some duplication involved there. I
don't quite understand, and I read the article about the
operational announcement yesterday describing it, and it sounds
an awful lot like the CTC to me, both in the CIA, both
analyzing intelligence, foreign intelligence.
But what is your understanding, first, of the difference
between the CTC and TTIC, and second, what is your relationship
between your agency and both of those two entities, and
finally, we suggested at our last hearing that there be a
written statement as to what the responsibilities are, because
if they are not clear, if they become vague, we are not going
to have accountability and we are going to have a repeat of the
intelligence failure that we saw prior to September 11. So we
have got to be very clear on responsibility so that we have
accountability in this process.
So what is your understanding of those three relationships
and will there be a written statement of those three
relationships forthcoming?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, the CTC, the Counterterrorism
Center, the CIA, the FBI's analytical team, DOD, the new
Department of Homeland Security, and several other agencies, as
you know, have their own independent analytical teams. There is
no single place, no single venue, where all the information
generated by all of those information gathering agencies within
the Federal Government, as well as external international
sources, is located.
TTIC, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, will be the
final and ultimate consumer and collection point for all of the
information. The CTC feeds information as does the FBI. We have
several intelligence gathering units within our Department. We
will feed information in.
So the Threat Integration Center is the venue that has
access to all the information generated by everybody else on a
day-to-day, real-time basis. It will continue to get stronger
and better as each of the individual agencies improve their
technology assessment capability within it. That is number one.
Senator Levin. Because my time is up, what will it get in
terms of information to analyze that the Counterterrorism
Center does not get? What will TTIC receive in terms of
information that it is supposed to analyze and be ultimately
responsible for that the Counterterrorist Center does not
receive?
Secretary Ridge. I think there are certainly occasions when
information generated by Federal agencies as a matter of
course, don't necessarily get to the CTC. I think with the new
Department of Homeland Security, as I have traveled around the
country, and I think you have, too, as we are developing State
and local sources of critical information relating to terrorist
activity, that information will be poured into the TTIC. I
think there are significant pieces of information that are out
there in the world that don't, as a matter of course, get to
the CIA, and I think, again, this is the single collection
point for all of that.
Our unit, the information analysis and infrastructure
protection unit, is both a consumer of that information from
the TTIC and a provider of information to it. We will have some
of our analysts working side-by-side on a daily basis with the
other analysts in the CIA, the FBI, and DOD on a day-to-day
basis, as well.
So the advantage it gives to us in the new Department, and
there was a lot of concern expressed by Members of Congress, is
access to raw data. Will you have access to the work products
or the raw material generated by all these other agencies? The
answer is absolutely yes, because we will be placing some of
our own analysts from the Department of Homeland Security to
work on a day-to-day basis within the Threat Integration
Center.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. I would just like to comment that I am
as much concerned about this as Senator Levin is in terms of
the coordination of all this intelligence because I think that
is the best defense that we have against terrorism, and if we
did that right, then a lot of these other costs wouldn't have
to be incurred. So I do think that is real important.
Second of all, according to the General Accounting Office,
there are 16 different grant programs for the Nation's first
responders. I would like to suggest that as you are looking at
the idea of bringing the domestic preparedness into the State
and local coordination, that possibly you might get in touch
with Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice,
who have programs, and see if there was some way that you would
have a one-stop shop where it all comes into that one place.
Also, about 3 years ago, I introduced a bill with Rob
Portman from Ohio called the Federal Financial Assistance
Management Improvement Act. The purpose of it was to untangle
the web of Federal grants available to States and localities
and nonprofits. It directs each Federal agency to develop and
implement a plan that, among other things, streamlines and
simplifies the application, administrative, and reporting
procedures for Federal grant and loan programs and also
reporting on them. I suggest you examine what other agenceis
are doing to implement this law. I know HHS is spearheading one
of the President's E-Government initiatives called E-Grants.
That might be a good place to start.
The other issue, as the Mayor of Columbus is concerned
about, he says, ``I only can use money for equipment, but none
for personnel,'' and I suspect the reason why they can't use it
for personnel is that you didn't anticipate that they would be
using it for personnel, and some of them are saying, well, if
you get the equipment, I need the personnel. I think that needs
to be clarified. Are there instances where money is made
available for personnel?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I think the answer to that is to
support overtime payments for personnel, but here is one of
those defining issues that I think, at least from our
perspective, Congress may have a different perspective. From
our perspective within the Department, historically, there has
been primarily a State and local responsibility to provide for
public safety. Historically, mayors, the Mayor of Cleveland,
Governors of Ohio and Pennsylvania worked to provide money for
police and fire and emergency responders and the like, and I
think that is still very much a part of the Federal system that
we have.
And so I think the notion that even under the new
circumstances under which we operate in the 21st Century,
combatting international terrorism, that the Federal Government
would be involved in the hiring of local or State police and
fire fighters, that is just not, I think, consistent with the
history or the appropriate approach toward the shared
responsibility of dealing with this issue.
I have heard from governors and mayors that they would like
that some of the dollars that we are distributing now be
allocated not just to training and exercises and equipment, but
to overtime, because some of the things that we have asked them
to do and some of the things they have had to do when we have
gone to Code Orange or Liberty Shield involved keeping people
at work longer. I think that is a legitimate cost that we
should help them absorb. So as we go about talking about
flexibility either now or in the future, I think overtime costs
related to enhanced security, particularly at the direction of
the Federal Government, should be an eligible cost.
Senator Voinovich. That being clarified would help a great
deal, I think.
The other issue is that we have seven high-threat cities,
and I think you have already answered that, that you allocated
those funds because you felt, based on your assessment, those
are the ones that were most vulnerable. But Detroit, Columbus,
other cities--for instance, Columbus is the capital city. There
are many defense installations and so forth. Are you
contemplating adding any more?
Secretary Ridge. Absolutely, Senator. The $700 million,
even with the same formula, gives us a lot more flexibility to
make significant investments in additional cities, as well.
There was a question of whether I thought the Congress wanted
me to dilute those dollars or really make a significant
investment in enhancing the security of those communities, and
I thought it would be better to make that significant
investment. Then you gave us the same flexibility with a lot
more money, so there will be quite a few more cities that will
benefit.
Senator Voinovich. And I am just as interested in how that
is going to be done.
I am also concerned about the Emergency Management
Performance Grant, the EMPG. As you know, they are the backbone
of our Nation's State and local government emergency management
agencies. According to Dale Shipley, who runs our EMS situation
in Ohio, EPMG's have not been identified in the 2004 budget.
How is that going to be taken care of?
Secretary Ridge. I have had that good conversation, maybe
even with Dale, but when I was in Ohio a couple of times,
emergency management professionals talked to me about that,
some from our own State of Pennsylvania have, and the like. It
is not identified specifically, but I know its role and how
important it is to planning and then operational preparation.
So I have assured the emergency management community that I
supported those grants. One, I felt there was a good
possibility that Congress may just restore the line item, but
in the event they didn't, I think it is a critical program and
I would ensure they had funding similar to last year's level at
the minimum.
Senator Voinovich. The last question would be just how you
are going to continue the 100 percent grant program, because
many of the communities are strapped right now for funds and
they are interested in knowing whether their rules are going to
change.
Secretary Ridge. Under the ODP program, as a matter of
fact, we just went online yesterday with the $1.5 billion you
gave us in the supplemental. The rules haven't changed. While
you gave us the discretion to send some of that money out based
on threat and vulnerability and critical infrastructure, again,
we worked hard to see if we could make a formula work. We
weren't satisfied with anything we came up with. We also saw
you gave us $700 million where we thought the formula worked
much better. So that $1.5 billion is going out as Congress
directed, 80 percent to local communities, 20 percent to the
States under the traditional ODP formula.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Secretary Ridge. Yes, sir.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator. Senator Pryor.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The first question I have is about interoperable
communications. We have had some discussion about this in this
Committee, and I think you have been part of that and some of
your people at Homeland Security have. Is there something that
this Committee should be doing to encourage this and get
interoperable communications systems in place?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, Congress has been, I think,
fairly generous, appropriating in excess of $40 million so that
we can run some demonstration projects with regard to
interoperability of communications. That is something that we
are engaged in now. That is something that the science and
technology unit of the new Department has as one of its highest
priorities.
There was an announcement in the past couple of days that
the FCC has expanded the broadband that will be available for
homeland security, so right now, Senator, it is a high
priority. It is a work in progress, and at some point in time,
I will get back to you either privately or publicly and respond
to the Committee to tell you where we are and how the
demonstration projects are working out.
Senator Pryor. Great. I know that today, there has been a
lot of discussion about the grant process and the money and the
complexity there has made it difficult to actually get the
money to the local level. Obviously, this Committee has focused
on it. It is important. You have acknowledged many times
already it is important.
But I want to talk about other things that are on your
plate, other things that you are dealing with that are
important, as well. And what I would like for you to do is just
tell me, as a Member of this Committee, what should we be
focused on to help you accomplish your mission? I mean, what
tools do you need? What logjams do you need us to help break
through? What do we need to be doing to help you accomplish
your mission?
Secretary Ridge. Well, I think, first of all, the Chairman
and Ranking Member have identified a couple of operational
needs that we have so that we can streamline security plans and
streamline the distribution process. We will have further
consultation with you with regard to getting more and better
information down to the State and locals.
But I will tell you, I think one of the most important
things if we could reach agreement on with Capitol Hill, which
means we have got to get agreement with our friends, the mayors
and the governors and the like, that security dollars are
distributed according to plans, not on an ad hoc basis,
because, obviously, we will need to build in the years ahead
basic capacities around the country, so that within large
cities and then within regions, there are certain kinds of
equipment, training exercises, and protocols that are fairly
commonplace. We need in the new Department to set certain
standards for communications, standards for equipment, and then
certify that certain manufacturers meet our standards and let
the mayors, police, governors, and fire fighters negotiate the
best deal.
So we know we have a role here, but I think one of the
biggest challenges we have in terms of using Federal dollars
most effectively is getting everybody on the same page. There
has to be some mechanism that we can compare the request for
the dollars and the expenditure to an outcome that we all want
and see as important to this country in enhancing our security.
I have talked to the League of Cities. I have talked to the
NGA. I have talked to the mayors, and there is a predictable
and traditional preference that they just come down and make
their own application and fund it accordingly.
I understand the concerns of local governments. They are
afraid that if we just send the money to the governor's office
that it is going to get tied up there. I think there are ways
we can certainly obviate that. But I think the bigger issue is,
let us agree on the strategic plan, capacity building over the
years, and I think we can work out the funding stream rather
easily.
Senator Pryor. Do you feel like the process is in place to
get through that logjam, or is it----
Secretary Ridge. No, it is not. Candidly, I have spent the
last year trying to convince folks that this is the best way to
go about doing it. We have made a lot of progress. Everybody
out there shares the common goal. They want to do the best for
their community. They want to access the most dollars for their
community. And they do understand the need for mutual aid. But
some are more inclined to do it than others, and I just think
that if we can work together here at the national level and say
to our friends out there, you are going to get the dollars, and
we will assure you that you will get them in a timely way. But,
they are Federal dollars, and we just want to make sure that
they are spent according to a plan. I don't think that is too
much to ask.
I think, just with your support, we will bring in the
League of Cities and the NGA and everybody else to see how we
can best do this, and I think if we streamline some of these
grant programs, they might be far more inclined to do it.
Senator Pryor. OK. Well, that is good to know, and I am
about to run out of time, but let me ask one last question. In
the past when we have talked about establishing the new
Department, establishing a model agency, one that is very
efficient, very effective, very good at what you do. And I know
it is early in the history of the Department of Homeland
Security, but if you can, grade yourself, grade the agency on
how you are doing in terms of efficiency and effectiveness and
completing your mission.
Secretary Ridge. We haven't even had the mid-term first
quarter exam yet.
Senator Pryor. I look forward to it.
Secretary Ridge. But I will tell you this. What I will
grade is the interest, the desire, and, I think, by and large,
the morale of the 175,000 to 180,000 people working in the
Department. Some of them have been involved in agencies that
haven't enjoyed the best public relations and they feel perhaps
put upon, sometimes legitimately, sometimes not, but these
people go to work every single day. They work hard. They work
as smart as they can.
Our job is to not only manage it better and organize it
differently to build new capacity, but to train them better, to
provide them more and better technologies. They are good people
that are working hard. I will let somebody else give us a
grade, but I think we have made a lot of progress in the first
100 days. But we still have an enormous amount of work to do,
and on some of these critical issues, we will need
Congressional support in order to get it done. Thank you.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Fitzgerald.
Senator Fitzgerald. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and
Secretary Ridge, welcome back to the Committee. I want to
compliment you again. I think you are doing a wonderful job,
and keep it up. You are providing strong leadership for the new
Department.
I want to follow up with your answer to one of Senator
Pryor's questions. You point out the need that allocating funds
for homeland security should be based more on a plan than
perhaps we are doing now, and it strikes me that you are really
hitting on a key problem we have with these grant programs. I
know the requests that are coming into my office, including a
lot of communities all over my State that come to my colleagues
from the Illinois Congressional delegation and me asking for
this and that. Every local community wants more money.
Half of what we do all day is talk to people who want more
money, but we are not proceeding according to a plan here. I
imagine that we are allowing too many political considerations
to come into play. Your Department is probably receiving
letters from Senators and Congressmen demanding a grant for
this town or this city, and some House Committee Chairman or
some key Senator who is up for reelection, who knows. These
political considerations are going to come into play too much.
Do you think we should maybe consider revamping the whole
system to try and wall it off more from the political
considerations? This is serious business. These are not pork
projects. They are not public works projects. We are talking
about the people's security. Is there something we could do to
wall this off from politics more?
Secretary Ridge. First, Senator, I would share with you,
and I think we all agree, anybody that has been in public
service longer than a day, and I have been there 20-plus years
and some of my colleagues here have been here longer, no one
ever walked across my threshold in the Congressional office or
the governor's office and lobbied me for less.
Senator Fitzgerald. Yes.
Secretary Ridge. No one ever walked in and said, well, you
really gave me a lot of money last year. I don't need as much
this year. When it happens, I hope you will call me.
So I understand. There is enormous pressure on all of us to
try to find more resources, particularly during times when
revenues are down at the State and local and national levels.
So I understand that.
I think that the existing grant programs that I have seen
are products of the debate and perhaps compromise on the Hill
as part of the political process. But like the ODP program or
any of the other grant programs, I think Congress has pretty
much immunized them from the politics of the town or the moment
because there is a formula. We used the political system to
decide everybody deserves a baseline and we used the system to
decide, plus the baseline, you need to calculate and give
credit to population and population density.
So I am not worried at all about that. I think Congress has
legitimized the process and made sure that the dollars go out
absent any political considerations. This is why we need to
engage ourselves in rethinking what that formula might be.
Senator Fitzgerald. So you are saying all the letters we
write don't really matter? [Laughter.]
Secretary Ridge. I will tell you, there aren't too many
places, Senator, in the grant program that I have seen where
you have given us discretion, we have used it, but we have used
it based on calculations and weighting factors that you told us
we could use. If the letter is consistent with the conclusion
we drew from the weighting factors, you got the money, and if
it wasn't, you didn't get it, so----
Senator Fitzgerald. I am glad to hear that, and if there is
anything we need to be doing, let us know, because I think the
money needs to be going out the door strictly on the merits,
based on our security needs.
With respect to the financial management of your
Department, in January, the GAO included the Department of
Homeland Security on its high-risk list, citing a number of
major management challenges and program risks that you have.
You are bringing in so many other components and consolidating
them. Do you feel you are going to be able to get a grip on the
financial records across the board and come up with clean
financial statements that comply with the Chief Financial
Officers Act that we are now requiring all the Departments to
follow and hopefully get clean audit opinions every year?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, that January report really just
highlighted the circumstances around financial management
practices of the different units that we began to consolidate
on March 1. One of the things that we have done, we have taken
a look at those GAO reports and Inspector General reports and
basically gone back to those units saying, one of the first
orders of business, since this is criticism with regard to
either process or organization or fiscal management, is clean
this up as we go about consolidating our effort. And I think,
in fact, the process of consolidation and stricter
accountability and more controls will help us address that. But
those documents highlighted some challenges that we have and it
is our job to meet the challenges, so we view them as
constructive direction.
Senator Fitzgerald. And finally, I just want to ask a
question about nuclear power plant security. I saw briefly on
the news yesterday some reports indicating that the FBI had
this week issued an alert to State and local law enforcement
agencies regarding nuclear power plants. I didn't see much more
about it this morning.
We are heavily reliant in Illinois on nuclear power. Almost
50 percent of our power statewide comes from nuclear power, and
we have more nuclear power plants than any other State. Can you
give me an overview of what your Department is doing with
respect to nuclear power plant safety?
Secretary Ridge. Well, first of all, as you know, the
nuclear facilities are under the control and regulated for both
safety and security purposes by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. Since September 11, 2001, there have been a series
of initiatives that they have undertaken to assess
vulnerability, and based on the assessment, improve security at
each site. We work closely with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. They have at least an individual accountable to
them at each facility and we--and they monitor not only the
assessments, but the actions that have been done, that have
been taken in order to enhance security at those facilities,
and they have the regulatory authority to direct that it be
done if it is not.
To date, it is my understanding that the assessments have
been completed and that the enhanced security has been begun.
Some of it is new construction. Some of it is with regard to
perimeter security, cameras and the like. We have worked with
them to do background checks, not only on employees, but
contractors and subcontractors who come in, because there is
constant work going on at these nuclear facilities.
So I think there have been significant improvements since
that time and because in the intelligence community that venue
as a possible target pops up once in a while. I think what the
FBI does is just send out a reminder, not too subtle, but a
reminder that you might be a target to make sure you are
following directions from the Regulatory Commission and you
enhance the security protocol as you have been directed to.
Senator Fitzgerald. Secretary Ridge, thank you very much.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Governor, when I was succeeding Mike Castle as Governor of
Delaware, he told me about a vision that he and his
administration had for creating a Statewide interoperable
communications system for fire, police, paramedics, and other
emergency responders. The idea was an 800-megahertz system. We
were just coming out of a recession at the time, however, so
didn't have the money to do anything about it.
As you know, during the time that we were governors, we had
better times financially. We were able to do a lot of things.
We actually had the money to go out and to hire somebody to put
that kind of system in place in our State.
I always think of the States as laboratories of democracy.
Because Delaware is so small, it is more affordable to use it
as a laboratory.
As we go forward, looking at interoperable communications
and demonstration projects around the country to see what works
and what doesn't work and what the problems might be and how to
address those, I would offer our little State. We have done it.
We had some hiccups along the way. The folks at Motorola kept
working with us until we got most of those resolved. But it is
a pretty good case study and it might be of value. The folks
who run the system are the Department of Public Safety and our
DEMA operation, the Delaware Emergency Management Agency, so I
would offer that if it is of any value.
Second, I mentioned earlier, and so did Senator Collins,
some legislation that she and I have introduced. I think
Senator Akaka alluded to it, as well. The issue deals with
flexibility.
Secretary Ridge. Right.
Senator Carper. I will just mention a couple of things.
When we passed No Child Left Behind here a year or two ago, we
provided more money for education, but we gave more money to
States with greater flexibility to use in their schools. We
said, in return for more money, more flexibility, we want
results. We are going to hold you accountable.
When we were working in the NGA--I see at least one NGA
staff person sitting out in the audience there behind you--we
sought to convince the Congress and the administration that if
we are not going to provide a lot more money for passenger rail
service, at least give State's governors the ability to use
some of our transportation money, congestion mitigation money,
for passenger rail if that makes sense. I recall a time when we
said, well, we can use this money for bicycle paths, we can use
it for freight railroads, we can use it to build roads and
highways. We can't use it for passenger rail, even if that
makes sense in our respective States.
I think we have a similar situation here, and I would just
recommend it for your attention. As I understand, the money
goes out in four categories. I think they include planning,
training, equipment, and maybe exercises. I think those are the
four. And the legislation that Senator Collins and I have
introduced, along with the support of others, allows States to
apply to your Department for a waiver that would give them the
opportunity to use some of the money across categorical lines.
The Department, your Department would review the application
from the State or from a local unit to ensure that the State's
planned expenditures is consistent with the emergency response
plan for that jurisdiction.
If this bill becomes law--and a lot of the things that
Senator Collins and I work on together do become law, I have
noticed, isn't that right, Senator Collins?
Chairman Collins. Absolutely.
Senator Carper. It is kind of amazing.
Chairman Collins. We have a good record.
Senator Carper. We really do. We worked on something a year
ago, and actually had a big success on the Senate floor, a big
vote, and I said, you know, this the first time I have ever won
anything. [Laughter.]
And she said, ``I have never lost.'' [Laughter.]
Chairman Collins. A slight exaggeration, but----
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I said, well, let us work on some other
things, so this is one of them.
But if the bill becomes law, a State can get away with
spending planning money on equipment, for example, or some
other variation of that. I don't know that you are familiar
with what we proposed. Any initial reaction to it?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I am familiar with the purpose of
the legislation and the fact that you have introduced it. It is
certainly consistent with how I think we should, as a country,
deal with homeland security issues. We don't want to be so
rigid that if----
Senator Carper. So what?
Secretary Ridge. Rigid. I was afraid you caught that.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Ridge. That we limit our funding so that it is
not available to meet needs that they might have identified in
the plan that I want them to have.
I mean, you are right. We have four categorical areas,
fairly broadly identified. But I would welcome the opportunity
to work with you, because the principle is good of a little
flexibility. I am not sure across the board. Someone mentioned
earlier the notion that we just make it similar to a community
development block grant. I am not sure that gets us where we
need to be and assures that the security dollar gets the
outcome that we want.
But I look forward to working with you on that legislation
and providing the locals and the governors some flexibility--
you and I enjoyed some flexibility with financing. As long as
it is consistent with a plan, there is a great deal of merit to
giving the States and locals more flexibility.
Senator Carper. One last quick one, if I could. Governor,
you have called on Congress to develop a new formula, we have
talked about it a little bit here, but a new formula for
Federal first responder aid so that the program places more of
an emphasis on risk. As you know, the current formula is based
largely on population. I talked to you a little bit about that
in my comments. I think that can tend to shortchange less
populous States.
How would the new formula or a new formula that you
envision take into account the need of less populous States
like Maine or Delaware?
Secretary Ridge. I think you start, Senator, with the base
that there is a certain amount that every State receives at the
outset, regardless of population, whether it is percentage or a
dollar amount. I do think we have to recognize that there are
long-term needs that every State will have that we should help
sustain. But I don't know, Senator, whether long-term is a
specific dollar amount based on population, if it is a
percentage of the overall appropriation as it is now. It is
just one of those issues that we need to review to get us much
closer to the day when we are all more comfortable with the
notion that the dollars are going where they are most needed.
But clearly, there is a need to make sure that every State
starts with a basic sum. How we arrive at that is in itself
debatable. But then there are some add-ons that I think that we
need to see if we can reach agreement on.
Senator Carper. Mr. Secretary, we appreciate you being here
today. We appreciate very much your stewardship and very much
look forward to working with you, especially on the issue of
flexibility of the legislation that we have introduced and hope
that we can make some headway there.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator. Senator Specter.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SPECTER
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I want to follow up on some questions which
I had asked yesterday during the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Homeland Security. First, I hope that these sessions before the
various committees are not draining you of too much time to
impede the operation of your office. We have, as you well know,
the two Houses. You were in the House of Representatives for so
many years, and authorizing and appropriating committees. But
we do appreciate your coming in.
The reports that I talked to you about yesterday, the GAO
report was just made available actually yesterday afternoon,
the one on local law enforcement, and they are voluminous and
really matters of some concern on the central question as to
coordination and really as to whether the Secretary of Homeland
Security has sufficient authority.
I continue to think that you need more authority. This is
something you and I have discussed repeatedly, and it was
really too bad that when we passed Homeland Security last fall,
the Senate had a ``take it or leave it'' situation, where the
House passed a bill and left town, and then it was a matter of
our offering amendments or not. I had been pressing this
amendment which would have given you the authority to ``direct
the agencies to provide intelligence, analysis of intelligence,
etc.''
As I read through the voluminous GAO report and pick one of
the conclusions on page 28, that to date, the Federal watch
systems environment has been characterized by a proliferation
of systems among which information sharing is occurring in some
cases but not in others. This is inconsistent with the most
recent Congressional and Presidential direction.
And another voluminous report on local-Federal partnerships
says this at page 64. ``Current systems are simply inadequate.
While progress is being made in certain regions, the lack of
national information sharing severely limits the ability of law
enforcement to prevent and investigate terrorism,'' and
repeated references to the FBI culture.
I had decided not to introduce an amendment to give an
opportunity to see how the system would work, and perhaps there
hasn't been sufficient time to really see, but if we did have
legislation and if this Committee took a very incisive
oversight view, hearing from CIA Director Tenet and FBI
Director Mueller, and the other agencies, really as only
Congress can do--these reports are one thing, but when the
Governmental Affairs Committee, when this Committee, which has
principal authority and jurisdiction over these lines, would
dig into it, we can, I think, make the best assessment as to
whether the authority is sufficient.
It may be that I just have a lot of confidence in you,
Secretary Tom Ridge, which is certainly true. But after having
chaired the Intelligence Committee and after having seen the
battles with the FBI and DOJ oversight on the Judiciary
Committee and the culture of concealment, I just have very
strong reservations as to whether any system is going to be as
good as having a new broom like the Secretary of Homeland
Security come in.
Do you think it would be helpful, and I know it is our
choice to make, but do you think it would be helpful if this
Committee undertook such an analysis with a view to legislation
to give you the authority to direct the agencies to provide
intelligence?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, under the President's executive
order--Senator Levin and I had a brief conversation about this
in the earlier questioning--with regard to the Terrorist Threat
Integration Center, which becomes the ultimate depository of
all information, all raw data, and the like. We have by virtue
of this, our relationship with this Terrorist Threat
Integration Center, the capacity to set intelligence
requirements. Our analysts within the Department of Homeland
Security will also be placed in the Terrorist Threat
Integration Center and we can go back to the Terrorist Threat
Integration Center and seek very specific information and
actually set some intelligence requirements that we need in
order to do our job to protect the critical infrastructure.
So I think--you mentioned in your introductory comments--
you are waiting to see the outcomes of how the reorganization
might unfold and whether or not it addresses the concerns you
have. I think, conceptually, it does, and I have no reason
presently to think that it will not work operationally. We have
only been up and running for a day, but I know that as we
expand our intelligence analytical effort and as we begin to
engage the State and local law enforcement community and the
large cities around this country, they are developing their own
analytical capability. As a matter of fact, they are starting
to connect with one another, which I think will be enormous
value added down the way, if they detect in different parts of
the country different surveillance patterns, different kinds of
activity, criminal and/or terrorist related.
So I think we have that capacity right now, and I have no
reason to think that the TTIC won't be responsive to any
request for information we need.
Senator Specter. My red light is on, but I have one more
question. I came in after being at a Judiciary Committee
hearing, but I was informed that you had testified that the
only the Department of Homeland Security could receive raw
intelligence was through the Terrorist Threat Integration
Center. Is that so?
Secretary Ridge. That is correct. Our information analysis
group, and it is a concern that I think you raised even during
our public discussions about this unit within the Department of
Homeland Security, you expressed the concern of perhaps Senator
Levin and others did, would we have access to the raw data.
Since we have our analysts accompanying the CIA, the FBI, and
other analysts in the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, we
will. We will actually have DHS employees in that Threat
Integration Center that will have access to it.
Senator Specter. But that is only what the CIA or the FBI
may voluntarily turn over.
Secretary Ridge. Well, Senator, I think that the
President's direction to the CIA and the FBI and everybody else
is that everything is to be available to the Terroist Threat
Integration Center, and----
Senator Specter. Well, unfortunately, as I have seen, there
may be directives, but they are honored in the breach more than
the observance. Maybe it wouldn't do any real good to give you
the authority to direct, but I would certainly feel a lot more
comfortable if the new agency which has the ultimate
responsibility was in a position to direct, as contrasted with
waiting for the other agencies to comply.
Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator Specter.
I know the Secretary is on a tight schedule. We are going
to do one final round of questions of 5 minutes each, and I
would ask my colleagues to try to adhere to that 5 minutes in
view of the Secretary's schedule.
Mr. Secretary, at our last hearing, we heard from first
responders who talked about the communication between the
Department and first responders. A report that Senator Specter
alluded to that was requested by Senator Levin and Senator
Grassley and released yesterday suggests that there are still
problems as far as getting terrorist watch lists in a
consolidated way available to State and local law enforcement
officials.
Similarly, the witnesses at our last hearing testified that
they had all learned of the elevated threat status to Code
Orange from television rather than any sort of formal
communication. Could you address both of those issues and the
issue of communication with State and local governments?
Secretary Ridge. Sure. First of all, Madam Chairman, I
don't believe there is any Federal agency that on a routine
basis has as much interaction with States and locals as the new
Department of Homeland Security. I may be wrong, but we have
several phone calls a month with homeland security advisors
where we engage. We have a very aggressive outreach effort, and
it will continue to improve and I am not going to say here that
all is right and is as complete and comprehensive as we want it
to be.
But we think we have a very strong foundation upon which we
can build. The President has very appropriately noted that you
can't secure the homeland without securing the hometown, and
the only way we do that is make sure that our partners at the
State and local level are engaged.
So we will continue to work on that. I think pulling in the
grants into the State and local unit within the Department of
Homeland Security, and as we staff up, that communication will
continue to get better and better.
Let me just briefly share with you the process, because I
anticipated the question because I hear it from our friends all
the time in State and local government, that we go through once
we have made the decision to take the system up. We have done
it three times in a year.
We make the decision to raise the threat level, and that is
another series of steps. We then give advance conference calls
that I am engaged in to notify governors, State homeland
security advisors, and key mayors, as appropriate.
Simultaneously, there is an electronic notification to the
Homeland Security Centers, the State, local, private sector,
and other Federal agencies via INLETS, FBI, and the law
enforcement community.
Shortly thereafter, there is a conference call with the Big
Seven and other State and local associations. There is a
conference call with as many State and local law enforcement
associations that we can get. And again, one of the challenges
is that we admit that you can't arrange these conference calls
too far in advance because the decision hasn't been made. We
then engage the Business Roundtable CEO Link. We then make a
public announcement through a press briefing. That is something
we have done historically. Then we have conference calls with
14 critical infrastructure associations. We call other business
groups.
It is as much a frustration to those of us in the
Department who appreciate the need to get timely and accurate
information to our State and local partners as it is to them
that on a couple of occasions--one occasion, we had made the
decision, had talked about it with the President, and we
weren't 15 feet away or 30 seconds away when someone came in
and said, somebody just announced that we have gone to Code
Orange. Now, if I could figure out how that happened, obviously
that is not the way I choose to have my friends informed. Now,
the flip side of it, the last time around, we were able to get
some information out.
So it is a process. We will work continuously with you,
Madam Chairman, and our friends at the State and local level to
improve. I share their frustration.
Chairman Collins. Thank you.
I would now like to switch to the issue of port security.
Secretary Ridge. Yes.
Chairman Collins. It is my understanding that the
Department has yet to allocate about $170 million in port
security funding that is distributed by the Transportation
Security Administration. Could you tell us what the
Department's plans are for distributing those funds? Some of us
are concerned about the delay, given the tremendous need to
improve port security.
Secretary Ridge. That distribution schedule should be made
available to me. I think Congress directed, I may be wrong
since we have gotten several directions from Congress with
regard to certain dollars, but I think we had to run the
distribution plan through OMB. I think that process is done. I
think you gave us a June 1, 2003 date to get it out, and we are
certainly going to be in advance of that date.
The $170 million is there. It hasn't been reprogrammed. It
is going to be used for that purpose and the announcements will
be made shortly.
Chairman Collins. And finally, I just want to touch on the
fire grant program. Of all the Federal grant programs that I
have ever had experience with, none gets higher reviews from
State and local officials than the fire grant program, and it
seems that it is working well being administered by FEMA. The
President's budget originally has proposed transferring that
program to ODP. Is there a way to keep the program administered
by FEMA, but with oversight and coordination by ODP so that we
don't have a case of tinkering with something that is working
extraordinarily well?
Secretary Ridge. Madam Chairman, I believe that if we are
looking to consolidate and create a one-stop shop, we need to
bring the program into the State and local, and put ODP under
State and local. I think it is a good program and I think I can
assure the Chairman, as I have tried to assure the fire and
emergency services, that change in the venue where the program
is administered will not affect the program. They have their
own way of going about peer reviewing the applications.
One of the reasons that it is such a successful program
that it was designed by fire fighters, reviewed by fire
fighters, and then implemented by fire fighters. That is the
reason about 97 percent of the grants, when you farm them out
the door, are used and are used well.
So I would hope that with your support, we could convince--
as long as we assured the fire services that we are not going
to alter the program, but again, all those dollars that
relate--and a lot of their acquisitions are dual-use. You can
use a lot of this equipment whether responding to a natural
event, a criminal event, or a terrorist act. So there is a lot
of flexibility in that program. But my preference would be to
have it administered under the State and local operation of the
Department of Homeland Security with a proviso that we are not
going to alter the program itself. As a matter of fact, we
might bring some of those FEMA employees over.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Let me pick up there, also, on the fire
grant program. When you say the program won't be altered, in
terms of dollars available to that program, it is going to be,
as I understand it now, part of the Office of Domestic
Preparedness budget. Is that accurate?
Secretary Ridge. That is correct, Senator. At least, that
is the budget submission, hopefully.
Senator Levin. You are right, and I do want to talk about
budget submission. I don't know that I have the budget
resolution numbers yet. We tried to get them but could not
disaggregate them.
But just in terms of dollars, the Office of Domestic
Preparedness in 2003 had $3.28 billion, let us round it off to
$3.3 billion in 2003. The fire grant program had over $750
million. So together, they had about $4 billion-plus in 2003.
Your 2004 request for the Office of Domestic Preparedness
is $3.5 billion, roughly, which means together, you have a
half-billion less dollars for first responders when you link
together the Office of Domestic Preparedness and the fire grant
program.
So if our numbers are correct, even though you say the
program won't change, it is going to be put under great
pressure financially because if you are going to keep anywhere
near the same amount of money for all the programs that you got
in ODP last year, then you have a half-billion-dollar
shortfall.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, first of all, the history, if I
recall correctly, of the fire grant program, in 2001, it was
$100 million. In 2002, it was $200 million. I think we
requested $350 million in 2003 and Congress more than doubled
it to $750 million. So in terms of budget request, we are
requesting $150 million more this year than we requested last
year for the fire grant program.
Senator Levin. I thought that there is no specific request
for the fire grant program.
Secretary Ridge. In the----
Senator Levin. It is not in the administration request that
we have.
Secretary Ridge. Well, the ODP, you will notice there is
$3.5 billion, but you notice--I have got to refresh my
recollection of the budget document, but I think we indicated
out of that $3.5, we wanted to make sure there was $500 million
available to fire fighters, and it was our intention to use
that $500 million to continue this program.
Senator Levin. That would be, then, $250 million less than
what we appropriated last year, is that correct?
Secretary Ridge. Well, it would be $250 million less, but
Senator, last year, my recollection--again, it is the budget
process. We send up some priorities, and you have your
priorities. At the end of the day, the budget reflects a
compromise. But in fact, last year, assistance to the States
and localities, if my numbers are correct, and this is across
the board, our request was about $5 billion and we received
less than that request from the Congress because you made
decisions that were different than ours. That is just the way
the process works.
We wanted $350 million. We wanted to continue to see the
growth of the fire grant program. That is why we took it to
$350 million. You more than doubled it. We think it is
appropriate from our perspective to ask for more money than we
requested before and you may choose to----
Senator Levin. But less than the authorized amount.
Secretary Ridge. Less than you authorized, correct.
Senator Levin. Let me just quickly, because I have just a
few minutes, on the question of population, I just want to kind
of point out to my colleagues that in your ODP program, on a
per capita basis, the small States in population have done very
well because of that minimum grant. I was giving my good
friend, Tom Carper, this information on the way out. Delaware,
for instance, per capita, got $6.60 from the ODP programs,
whereas Pennsylvania got $1.50 per capita. They are doing very
well. It is not necessarily reflective of the threat--maybe,
and, by the way, small States could have greater threats than
big States population-wise. I happen to agree with that. But
this population distribution formula is not based on threat.
Secretary Ridge. That is correct.
Senator Levin. And when there is a minimum amount that goes
to small States, I mean, you have got Wyoming that gets almost
$10 per capita, and you have got New York that gets $1.40 per
capita. Let me tell you, they start with a pretty good floor,
the small States, which is not reflective of threat.
So I tried to persuade him that small population States
were doing probably better logically than they had a right to
expect. I don't think I persuaded him, but I at least gave
him----
Secretary Ridge. You take information.
Senator Levin. He is not one of the people who crosses your
doorway who talks about less, either.
My red light is on, but if I can take 2 more minutes, I
want to get the leave of the Chair to do this, as well, and
this has to do with the sharing and the analysis of
intelligence information.
We have still got a big problem here, obviously, as to
whose responsibility and whose role it is to analyze all the
intelligence that we get. Your answer before was that the
difference between the Threat Integration Center and the
Counter Terrorist Center is that more information will go to
TTIC than went to CTC. They will both be analyzing a threat. I
don't see how that is quite true, since FBI is located at both
and local and State law enforcement is located at neither
except through the FBI.
So I think it would be helpful here, rather than trying to
sort this out right now, which I don't think we can, is if you
are able, obviously with CIA and with FBI and everybody else
that is involved in this effort, to come up with a written
statement of responsibility clearly laying out what information
is going to what entity, obviously including your own entity
inside your own agency, and who is responsible for what, but in
writing, and I think that the Chairman was very supportive of
this approach last time we had this meeting. I think it would
be very helpful for the country----
Secretary Ridge. I would----
Senator Levin [continuing]. And this will focus
accountability, which to me is the key issue.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I would be pleased to take on the
task of coordinating that effort with my colleagues from the
FBI and the CIA.
Senator Levin. And I greatly appreciate that, and one last
question. Two quick questions, if I can. Is your State and
local government office in your agency able to provide to State
and local governments all necessary information on all grant
programs anywhere in your Department for which State and local
governments are eligible?
Secretary Ridge. Not yet, so the answer is no.
Senator Levin. Is that your goal?
Secretary Ridge. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. That is great. That is, I think, precisely
what the Chair and so many of us really need in terms of that
one stop, is that piece of your agency, you have all the
information on all grants that your agency offers to State and
local governments.
Secretary Ridge. To your point, Senator, you suggested
earlier there be a 1-800 number. There is one, but it only
relates to ODP programs. We will make sure that there is the
800 number, is adequate staffed, but also on the DHS website,
that kind of information is available to the State and locals.
Senator Levin. That is great. And then one issue which I
briefly had a chance to chat with you about was the New York
Times article relative to your former aides lobbying your
Department, and I think it would be good to clear the air on
that issue as to whether or not you are in the process, or
maybe already have, some kind of guidelines relative to that
issue, to ethics guidelines.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, absolutely. One of the first
responsibilities and undertakings of the new General Counsel,
who we announced, is to take a look at our ethics laws, since
we develop our own internal code to deal with potential
conflicts. I was aware of the article. I might say that I have
known those people for a long time, but they have also known me
for a long time. If they learned one thing in our relationship,
is that the personal side won't do them any good unless they
have got the best product for this country. But I think it is
very appropriate that the Department have its own set of
internal guidelines relating to ethics and conflicts and we
will.
Senator Levin. And given the public interest in that issue,
when you do complete those, if you could supply those to the
Committee----
Secretary Ridge. Absolutely. I would be pleased to.
Senator Levin. I think I, and I am sure I speak for
everybody around here, have great confidence in your ability to
do exactly what you just described. You have set a very high
ethical standard and we have great confidence that will be
maintained through those guidelines, but also in just the day-
to-day messages that are sent forth from you personally,
because we know you well enough to believe that deeply.
Secretary Ridge. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator Levin.
Secretary Ridge, thank you so much for being with us today.
I have several additional questions, but I am going to submit
them to the record.\1\ range from questions about the Coast
Guard to questions about the fact that we have some five
different Federal grant programs for interoperability, to
achieve that goal, and yet there seems to be no coordination
among them. So there are many other issues that I want to
explore through submitting questions to the record. But you
have been very generous with your time today and I don't want
to prolong your stay with the Committee further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Post-hearing questions for the Record submitted to the Hon. Tom
Ridge appears in the Appendix on page 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope that you will direct your staff to continue to work
with us on the formula and other issues that we have covered
today. I do intend to have an additional hearing on this issue
on Thursday, May 15, and we are going to hear from State and
local officials at that time. We then are going to sit down,
draft the legislation which I hope we will mark up shortly
thereafter. We need your help and assistance in doing so.
Secretary Ridge. We will welcome that opportunity to work
with you and the Committee, Madam Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The hearing record will remain open for 15 days for the
submission of additional statements or questions. I want to
thank the staff for their hard work on this issue, and this
hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN
Thank you, Madame Chair, and thank you for holding these very
valuable hearings on how we can reform and reengineer Federal homeland
security programs to meet the needs of States, localities, and the
first responders and preventers who protect us. I appreciate your
bipartisan leadership and partnership. I also want to thank Secretary
Ridge for being here.
One of the Federal Government's first responsibilities under the
Constitution is to provide for the common defense. In the face of the
threat of terrorism, that means more than building a mighty Army, Navy,
Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. It means strengthening the shared
security of our fifty States and their cities and towns, as well as our
territories.
That takes money. To train and employ top-flight police officers,
firefighters, and public health professionals. To buy new biometric
security systems, install information sharing networks, and develop
biological and chemical testing and treatment capabilities. To improve
security around water plants and air ports. To revamp aging ports and
protect chemical and nuclear plants. These tough jobs and countless
others can't be accomplished with wishful thinking or a magic wand. And
they cannot be accomplished by placing an unfair share of the burden on
State and local governments who are already facing the worst fiscal
crises in decades.
One challenge we face is clearly to improve the process for
distributing funds to State and local governments. We need to make the
funds flow faster, cut unnecessary red tape, and make certain that
programs are adequately coordinated so that we get the most out of the
dollars once they are appropriated. I agree that there needs to be more
flexibility in the use of Federal funds--and I am pleased to co-sponsor
your legislation, Madam Chairman, to provide State and local officials
with some the ability to move funds between accounts when it is
necessary. I think we can certainly make a lot of improvements here.
But this is more than just a red tape problem. It's also a red ink
problem.
We didn't spare a penny in fighting the war in Iraq. Our resources
matched our rhetoric and our resolve. But here on the home front,
there's a gap between our resources and our rhetoric and resolve. And
the gap is about the size of Texas.
That's unacceptable and it is unfair--and worst of all, it leaves
our citizens in danger. States and localities are being spread thinner
than ever at the moment they can least afford it. Their deficits are
growing. Their homeland security and healthcare costs are rising. The
economy remains sluggish. The fiscal straitjacket is getting tighter by
the day.
And in response, the Bush Administration offers no economic
leadership to help get all of them and all of us out of the fix. In
fact, it wants to pile on hundreds of billions of new tax cuts that
won't work, which will only make things worse, while shortchanging
homeland security and other needs.
Asking States and localities to bear a greater share of their
security burden now, of all times, is like asking a runner to complete
a tough new course in record time with bricks strapped to his back.
I have called for $16 billion in funding in the next fiscal year
above and beyond the President's request for homeland security, much of
which would go straight to States and localities--to provide our first
responders, our public health networks and more with better troops,
better training, and better technology.
Let me give you one quick example of an urgent challenge facing
many State and local governments that my plan would address:
interoperable communications equipment. First responders must have the
ability to talk to each other in an emergency. They don't need that
equipment 10 years from now. They need it now. If police, firefighters,
and emergency medical workers across jurisdictions can't talk to each
other, they simply cannot react swiftly and effectively in a crisis
that requires mutual support. We have been painfully aware of this for
a long time. The problem first got major media attention over 20 years
ago after an Air Florida plane crash. It reared its head again after
the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, and after the
bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building in 1995. And of course,
firefighters lost their lives because of it on September 11, 2001.
If ever a country could fix this once and for all, we're living in
it. Think about the genius of our innovation economy. Our
communications technology is so advanced that we could view a war half
a world away, in real time, on the television. But just last week, fire
officials from different jurisdictions right here in the D.C.
metropolitan area told this Committee that their departments still
could not communicate with one another if both responded to a regional
emergency. The Public Safety Wireless Network--a project of the Justice
and Treasury Departments--issued a report 2 weeks ago which stated that
only 14 States have upgraded communications equipment enough so that
public safety agencies can talk to each other during a terrorist attack
or other emergency situation. The remaining States remain vulnerable
during crises that require communications between police officers, fire
fighters, paramedics, and other emergency personnel.
This problem is still with us--because the Federal Government
hasn't made it a priority. Too little leadership, vision, and money. We
have basically left it up to States, and many of them need our help.
When will the administration come to realize that loose change can't
bring about real change?
It's true that a long-range solution to this problem will take
several years to implement. But I don't want to wait for the perfect
fix. We have the technology to put working interoperable communications
systems in place now. We have the way--if the Bush Administration finds
the will.
The Bush Administration also needs to find the will to support the
SAFER Act, which will invest $7.5 billion over 7 years in communities
across the country to hire new firefighters. Our fire departments are
losing strength just as their responsibilities are increasing. That's a
recipe for disaster.
Finally, I urge the White House to wake up to what's happening in
city halls and State capitals, and with police departments and State
law enforcement agencies around the country as a result of the sagging
economy and inadequate Federal support. The fiscal crisis facing State
and local governments has forced one in four cities to layoff police
officers in the past year, according to the National League of Cities.
That is creating a double danger--threatening our homeland security and
the fight against domestic crime at the same time. In 44 big American
cities the picture is particularly stark. Since 2000, their police
forces have been shrinking by 2 percent per year, and their crime rates
have been going up by nearly 5 percent per year. Why, then, would the
President's budget for next year eviscerate the COPS program and other
key law enforcement grants? What sense does that make? That directly
compromises the fight against terrorism by placing an ever growing
burden on the backs of our police forces.
Madame Chair, I hope we focus not only on how to modify these key
homeland security grant programs to get resources out to our States and
local communities more quickly. That's very important--but I urge us
all to realize that getting the money out faster is just one part of
the solution. Our States and localities need more support. More
funding. And more leadership from the President on down. I hope we can
work together to provide the brave, experienced, and hardworking men
and women who protect us from terrorism the genuine assistance that
they deserve and that our security demands.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8245.039