[Senate Hearing 108-555]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-555
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY'S BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR
2005
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 9, 2004
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
92-688 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 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 A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Holly A. Idelson, Minority Counsel
Amy B. Newhouse, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Collins.............................................. 1
Senator Lieberman............................................ 3
Senator Levin................................................ 5
Senator Akaka................................................ 15
Senator Durbin............................................... 18
Senator Pryor................................................ 19
Senator Sununu............................................... 28
WITNESS
Monday, February 9, 2004
Hon. Tom Ridge, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Testimony.................................................... 20
Prepared Statement........................................... 47
APPENDIX
Questions and Responses submitted for the Record for Secretary
Ridge from:
Senator Sununu............................................... 55
Senator Collins.............................................. 56
Senator Carper............................................... 60
Senator Fitzgerald........................................... 66
Senator Bennett.............................................. 78
Senator Akaka................................................ 95
Senator Lautenberg........................................... 106
Senator Lieberman............................................ 108
Senator Specter.............................................. 146
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY'S BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR
2005
----------
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M.
Collins, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Collins, Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, Durbin,
Pryor, and Sununu.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS
Chairman Collins. The Committee will come to order.
Good morning. I want to begin by welcoming Secretary Ridge
here this morning and thank him for making his third appearance
before the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
I also want to welcome back to the Committee our friend and
colleague, the Committee's Ranking Democrat, Senator Joseph
Lieberman. Joe, we have missed you greatly in the last few
months and we are very glad to have you back. I personally
believe that your philosophy resonates with a broad range of
politically moderate Americans (which would of made you a
formidable force in the general election). For that reason, I
am really glad to have you back. It is a great pleasure to
again have you back at my side.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you very much.
Chairman Collins. It has been nearly 2\1/2\ years since an
unconscionable act of war was committed against the United
States. The American people responded to the attacks of
September 11 with courage, courage that was evident that
horrible day in the heroic actions of the passengers on Flight
93, in the firefighters and police officers at Ground Zero, and
in the Pentagon employees who led their co-workers to safety
through fire, smoke, and rubble.
That courage is also evident today in the men and women of
our Armed Forces who are serving on the front lines in the war
on terrorism and in the ordinary Americans across the country
who carry on normal, productive lives, refusing to be
terrorized by terrorism.
The Federal Government responded by recognizing that this
was a different kind of war with a different kind of enemy. We
saw that this enemy used as a weapon the freedom and openness
that Americans cherish but that it despises. We realize that
our efforts to defend our Nation against this unconventional
enemy were hampered by a lack of a unified strategy. To revisit
a phrase that was used so often in the aftermath of September
11, we were not connecting the dots. Turf battles,
communication gaps, and interagency rivalries could no longer
be tolerated. The stakes are simply too high.
The Department of Homeland Security whose budget we review
here today is the single greatest manifestation of our efforts
to create that unified strategy, to connect those dots, to
coordinate an urgent new mission. This Committee played a key
role in creating the Department. Indeed, we marked up and
reported the authorizing legislation.
Having created the Department, we have also endeavored to
help it succeed. We have confirmed eight highly talented and
dedicated individuals, most notably the Secretary, who are
leading the Department. We have conducted hearings and
investigations on a wide range of homeland security issues,
from the President's plan to better coordinate intelligence
analysts and sharing, to unraveling the tangles of
international terrorism financing, to protecting American
agriculture from sabotage, to securing our vulnerable seaports.
We have approved bills to reform the Department's multi-billion
dollar State grant program, to provide cutting-edge technology
to first responders, to help the Department attract the
talented individuals it needs with sought-after skills, and to
ensure accountability within DHS's financial system.
The Department is now nearing the completion of its first
year. Therefore, this budget is the first that can be reviewed
in the context of actual performance and accomplishments. This
Committee is its first stop on Capitol Hill. Indeed, the
Secretary told me that he anticipates testifying some six times
on the administration's budget.
I am pleased to note that under Secretary Ridge's dedicated
leadership there have been many significant accomplishments.
The melding of 22 Federal agencies with more than 170,000
employees has occurred with some of the resistance that we
expected, but without the widespread turf battles that many
predicted. The level of cooperation and coordination within
this new Department, although certainly not perfect, is a vast
improvement over the previous ad hoc structure. The initial
focus on airport security has been expanded to include other
vulnerabilities such as seaport security. Our first
responders--the local and State emergency personnel on the
front lines--are getting more funding, training, and guidance
than ever before to carry out their vital missions.
Of course, there are some concerns. While our first
responders have received more resources, the administration's
budget includes a considerable cut in the basic State Homeland
Security Grant Program. In addition, our States, communities,
and first responders need a streamlined grant process that
includes greater flexibility in how they can use Federal
resources. While resource capabilities have improved,
prevention lags. Advanced counterterrorism technologies have
yet to reach the front lines in most cases.
While the addition of personnel at our ports of entry have
brought us greater security at our borders, many smaller border
communities in my State face new restrictions that have
tremendously disrupted their day-to-day lives. And while our
urban areas are receiving unprecedented Federal assistance, the
concerns and vulnerabilities of our small cities, small towns,
and small States must not be overlooked. Perhaps more than any
other area this one gets shortchanged in the administration's
budget.
As the Department pursues programs to make our country more
secure it is inevitable that a tension will arise between
security and privacy. Americans treasure their civil liberties
and expect their government to protect them wherever possible.
Where privacy must be compromised in order to prevent
terrorism, the government has an obligation to tell the
American people clearly what information it is gathering and
why it is necessary.
I am concerned about revelations that two airlines turned
over passenger information to government agencies without any
public notice or privacy safeguards. We simply cannot gain
security if we lose trust. As the Department of Homeland
Security develops its new passenger prescreening program, CAPS-
II, it must be open and forthright with the American people so
that we can determine whether the added security is worth the
privacy costs. Programs such as this one must be crafted with
care to minimize the impact on personal privacy and must be
subject to close Congressional scrutiny. I know that the
Department shares that goal.
The Department of Homeland Security's budget that we are
examining today makes substantial investments in areas that are
critical to our Nation's safety. I cannot say that I agree with
each and every detail of the budget, particularly in the area
of grants to States, communities and first responders, the
Coast Guard, and port security. But I want to commend the
Secretary for making tough choices in a lean budget year. I
also want to recognize that when one looks at the President's
budget overall that homeland security has clearly been made a
top priority.
The war on terrorism is a different kind of war. We are
proceeding to blaze a path in uncharted territory, making
mistakes, getting a little lost, but then finding our way and
making significant progress. I appreciate the difficulty of the
mission assigned to the Department and I know that its
leadership is committed to accomplishing that urgent mission
without sacrificing the freedom and the openness our enemy
seeks to destroy.
Senator Lieberman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Madam Chairman. May I say
thank you first, for your characteristically gracious welcome.
It is good to be back. I consider myself very fortunate to have
had the opportunity I have had over the last year to be a
presidential candidate and to take an extraordinary journey
around this country. I learned a lot, including about the
public's concern about homeland security, and I hope that will
enable me to contribute even more constructively, hopefully, to
these debates.
I cannot think of a better place to begin my reentry full-
time to the Senate than at this Committee with you and my
colleagues, or a better place than with you, Mr. Secretary, on
this particular topic which is so critical to all that we are
committed to doing here. I thank you very much again, Madam
Chairman, for the good work you have been doing and for your
very kind welcome back.
The fact is that we do meet here today with fresh evidence
of the urgent need to secure our homeland. Last week
information gathered by intelligence services prompted the
cancellation of several international flights to the United
States. Deadly ricin was discovered in this building, right
here in this building in Senator Frist's office. Obviously, we
do not yet know the full implications of these incidents but we
clearly do know more than enough to conclude that our Nation
faces an array of threats from terrorists bent on doing
terrible damage to us, and that we are still too vulnerable to
their evil intentions.
A number of independent, nonpartisan expert commissions
have sounded the alarm about our lack of adequate preparedness,
and I am sure we are all concerned about the critical
vulnerabilities that have yet to be adequately addressed.
Mr. Secretary, I believe that you have been given
insufficient resources to do the job the Homeland Security Act
requires you to do. The administration's fiscal year 2005
budget, which includes a stunning 30 percent cut government-
wide for first responders, is the latest alarming evidence of
shortchanging the homeland side of the war against terrorism.
Our government and our Nation are still dangerously unprepared,
as our former colleague Warren Rudman has said, to face the
ongoing and very real threats of terrorism. We need far more
funded and focused leadership to secure our domestic defenses
and to fulfill the promise, the full promise, of the Homeland
Security Act.
Have we made any progress in securing our homeland in the
last year? Of course we have, and it is significant. We are
surely safer now with the Department of Homeland Security than
we were without it. We are certainly more aware of the threats
we face and we now have a focal point for planning,
implementing, and assessing our homeland security efforts.
We have improved airport and airline security. We have
begun to look more critically at the millions of containers
that enter our ports from abroad, including pushing the borders
back to help secure containers before they reach American
shores. We have begun to consolidate homeland defense work
under one roof, and that is the agencies involved in homeland
defense at the borders and elsewhere. And in science and
technology we are starting to bring a new research and
development agency to counter terrorists' threats into
existence, although it still faces bureaucratic and funding
constraints.
But we are clearly not as safe as we hoped we would be by
now, more than 2 years after September 11 and a year after the
Department was created. We are still without a strategy, an
overall strategy as the Gilmore Commission pointed out, that
sets priorities and deadlines for homeland security efforts and
clearly allocates responsibilities among Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and the private sector. The
Homeland Security Act called for a robust intelligence fusion
center within the Department of Homeland Security, but the
administration created a separate threat center that I fear is
without a clear home and stable funding and which does not
truly break down the turf barriers among intelligence agencies.
The Homeland Security Act was intended to bring new
leadership to transportation and port security, critical
infrastructure protection, and bioterrorism preparedness. Yet
the Federal effort in each of these areas remains incomplete
and in some cases confused. The Homeland Security Act was meant
to provide adequate support to State and local governments and
first responders. Here, too, the promise has not yet been kept
as our vital State and local partners struggle to find the
resources and guidance they need from the Federal Government.
Senator Collins has mentioned the three areas that I want
to focus on myself and any concerned about shortchanging in the
budget proposal of the administration, and that is to say,
support for first responders, support for the preparedness,
response, and prevention of bioterrorist acts, and port and
container security, particularly the underfunding of the Coast
Guard.
So I would say that we have a long way to go yet before we
fulfill the promise we made to the American people, in those
dark days following the September 11 terrorist attacks, to
adequately secure our homeland. But I do want to stress that in
my opinion these debates and discussions, even disagreements we
have, are not and ought not to become partisan. They are
disagreements of policy and priorities and in some cases of
funding, in many cases of funding allocations. The fact is that
we ought to aspire to achieve the same standard of non-
partisanship in matters of homeland security that at our best
we have achieved in matters of international security.
I certainly return to the Senate full-time with a
commitment, Mr. Secretary, to work with you on that. The fact
is that--with the creation of the Department and the
appointment of Governor Ridge as Secretary--we have something
very important, a new reality, which is an authorized and
accountable member of the President's Cabinet, with whom
Members of Congress and the public can discuss these critical
matters. I look forward to doing so with you today and in the
months ahead, Mr. Secretary, with the aim of achieving the
goals that I know we have. I know that you agree with all of us
that we have no more urgent priority in fulfilling our
constitutional responsibilities to provide for the common
defense and ensure domestic tranquility than to secure our
homeland and the American people from terrorist attacks. Thank
you very much.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator. Senator Sununu.
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will defer to the
Secretary and submit any formal testimony to the record.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Levin
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN
Senator Levin. Madam Chairman, I will be very brief. First
let me join you in welcoming back Senator Lieberman. In
addition to supporting your comments, let me say that it was
really in this room that Senator Lieberman was one of the key
legislative creators of the Homeland Security Department. His
initiative led to the very creation of the Department which
Secretary Ridge leads and you literally would not be here today
but for the fact that Senator Lieberman and a few others, but
mainly Senator Lieberman, took the lead in creating a
critically important department and in pulling together all of
the departments, or most of them that are involved in
protecting our homeland.
I also want to thank you, Secretary Ridge, for your visit
to Michigan. You visited a community which is one of those
smaller towns, or smaller cities perhaps more accurately, and
one of our counties which fit into the category which our
Chairman talked about. Our grant programs do not adequately
address the vulnerabilities that some of those communities at
least have, particularly the one in Port Huron and St. Clair
County that you visited. We are very appreciative of that
visit. It made a great difference to them and I think will have
an impact on the design overall of programs as you go along.
I also am deeply concerned about the cuts in the programs.
There is an $800 million proposed cut in this budget for the
Office of Domestic Preparedness. Further, our principal first
responder program, the State Homeland Security Grant Program
will be cut by almost $1 billion. That is deeply troubling. The
Firefighter Assistance Grant Program is proposed for a 33
percent cut from the fiscal 2004 levels. I do not think that is
anywhere near acceptable given the needs and the commitments
which we made to our firefighters after September 11.
We also have to address the significant border problems
that we have in this country, including the containers that
come in and, Mr. Secretary, I know you are familiar with those
nationwide and you saw firsthand the existence of those issues
in my home State of Michigan.
I want to just focus quickly on two other issues. One is
the need that we have, and Senator Lieberman mentioned this, to
define the roles of our intelligence organizations, ones that
analyze our intelligence. We have a number of entities that are
involved in the analysis of intelligence. We have the Terrorist
Threat Integration Center, we have a Counterterrorism Center at
the CIA, we have the Department of Homeland Security's
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate,
we have one in the FBI.
Senator Collins and I wrote Director Mueller, you Secretary
Ridge, the Director of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center
at the CIA Mr. Brennan, and the head of the CIA Mr. Tenet about
these four entities that exist that relate and are supposed to
be putting together in one place the information that we have
relative to terrorist threats. We cannot divide, diffuse,
confuse the responsibility of our key counterterrorism
agencies. It has got to be located in one place. We have a
whole commission now, the September 11 commission, that is
looking at the failures of intelligence analysis prior to
September 11.
Senator Collins and I have asked in this October 30 letter
again, this is now a year after the first request that we made,
for a statement as to what are the responsibilities of those
four agencies, to avoid any overlap, any confusion, any kind of
uncertainty as to who has the principal responsibility for
analyzing terrorist threats, the intelligence relating to
terrorists threats. We have to eliminate those turf barriers
that exist that Senator Lieberman referred to. We have still
not received a response to that October 30 letter. You were
only one of the addressees and I would ask again that you
accomplish that with your colleagues in the CIA and at the FBI.
I would ask that the balance of my statement, Madam
Chairman, be placed in the record.
[The prepared opening statement of Senator Levin with
attachments follows:]
PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN
Thank you very much Madam Chairman. I join you in welcoming
Secretary Ridge once again to testify before this Committee and want to
thank the Secretary for taking the time a few weeks ago to travel to
Michigan and see first hand some of the unique homeland security
challenges facing St. Clair County and Port Huron. I commend the
Secretary for his commitment to strengthening our homeland security
efforts and improving the programs that fund our domestic preparedness
and response capabilities, protect our borders and ports and improve
our transportation security.
Maintaining an adequate level of funding for first responders is
critical to protecting our country from a terrorist attack and ensuring
that we are able to adequately respond should such an attack occur. I
am concerned about how this budget treats those on the front lines of
our battle against terrorism, our first responders. Under this proposed
budget for Fiscal Year 2005, the Office for Domestic Preparedness
(ODP), which administers grant programs to assist State and local first
responders, will receive $800 million less than it receive din FY04.
One of the biggest ODP grant programs, the State Homeland Security
Grant Program, will be cut by $1 billion. We cannot shortchange our
first responders by cutting this vital funding and I will work with my
colleagues to restore it.
While I am disappointed by these funding levels, I am pleased that
the Department of Homeland Security appears to be moving away from the
current small state funding formula. For example, using the .75 percent
base for State Homeland Security Grant Program grants in FY 2004, Texas
will received $4.04 per capita, whereas Wyoming will receive $28.72 per
capita. The result is that while Texas has 42 times the population of
Wyoming, it receives approximately one seventh of what Wyoming receives
per capita. The consequence of the current .75 percent formula is that
states with smaller populations receive far more, per capita, than more
populated states, regardless of vulnerability of infrastructure or
threat.
I am also concerned that this budget provides no funds for grants
to enhance interoperability, even though ti remains one of the top
priorities of our first responders, and cuts funding for the Emergency
Management Performance Grant (EMPG) program by $10 million. Further,
under this proposed budget, funding for the Firefighter Assistance
Grant program is cut by $250 million, or 33 percent, from FY04 levels.
This grant program was created by Congress in order to meet the basic,
critical needs of the firefighting community. Thousands of firefighting
personnel in Michigan and throughout the country rely on the Assistance
to Firefighters Grant Program for the training, firefighting equipment,
protective gear, and prevention programs that keep our citizens safe.
Some of our fire departments in Michigan have to work with old and
inefficient equipment such as corroding fire trucks with mechanical
problems, and old water tanks unable to maintain necessary pressure
levels to fight fires. Under the Administration's proposal, funding may
not be available to these fire departments for their basic firefighting
needs.
The DHS budget proposal notes that allocating grant funds within
the Department will be coordinated with relevant preparedness programs
in the Department of Justice. However, that Department has also cut
funding for our first responders. The President's budget proposes
massive cuts to local law enforcement programs that, if enacted, would
severely compromise the safety of communities around the country. Not
only are cops on the beat essential for maintaining community safety,
but they are the first line of defense against potential terrorist
attacks. The President's budget proposes a more than $650 million cut
in funding for the COPS program, including a 100 percent cut in the
COPS hiring program that helps local law enforcement meet demands for
additional officers. On top of the COPS cuts, the President's budget
eliminates funding for the local law enforcement block grant program
(FY 2004 $235 million) and the Byrne grant program (FY 2004 $674
million). All of these programs provide vital funding to our first
responders and it puzzles me as to why they would be diminished at a
time when we are at an increased threat level.
Another issue that we need to address is our border protection.
Southeast Michigan is home to five international border crossings. More
than 40 percent of all U.S./Canada trade passes through Michigan/
Ontario borders. The Ambassador Bridge is the busiest commercial
crossing in North America and the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel is the busiest
passenger vehicle tunnel on the northern border. The bridge facilitates
approximately 25 percent of all trade between the U.S. and Canada. In
2003, there were over 3 million vehicle traffic crossings at the
Ambassador Bridge--total value of goods ranging from $120-$130 billion.
It is a most critical instrument in facilitating the U.S./Canadian
Trade Agreement. Unnecessary and lengthy delays have seriously impacted
our economic stability on both sides of the bridge. Effective and
secure functioning at this border crossing must be a priority
consideration for this committee. We have seen improved and more secure
commercial traffic flow at the Ambassador Bridge with the increased
numbers of inspectors at our northern borders and with the
implementation of NEXUS and FAST, two advanced technology and effective
pre-screening programs. While border staffing levels have increased at
our northern border crossings, increased border security requirements
will add to longer processing times and additional staffing is needed.
Our economy, which is increasingly dependent on just in time delivery,
cannot afford delays at our borders.
Reverse inspections is a critical component of securing our port
and bridge. Vehicles should not be allowed to enter the bridge without
having cleared cargo inspections reducing potential for a terrorist act
which would destroy the bridge and severely impact the economy of both
the U.S. and Canada. The Legislation which calls for a pilot program on
reverse inspections was passed in 2003, however it has not yet been put
in place. If the Administration is serious about homeland security, it
should implement reverse inspection without delay.
I am also concerned that the Department of Homeland Security has
not yet reported to Congress on the plan for consolidating and co-
locating Department of Homeland Security regional offices. Section 706
of the Homeland Security Act requires DHS to submit a consolidation
plan to Congress no later than one year after the enactment of the Act
(which was November 25, 2003). These decisions by DHS will impact my
home state of Michigan because we are asking DHS to consider locating a
first responder training facility, as well as a regional headquarters
for DHS, in Michigan. As the Secretary is aware, two Michigan National
Guard facilities, the Alpena Combat Readiness Training Center (CRTC)
and Camp Grayling, are ideally suited to serve together as a training
center for first responders. These state-of-the-art facilities
currently train members of the active duty military, National Guard and
first responders. Annually thousands of individuals from throughout the
nation train at Alpena CRTC and Camp Grayling. For decades these sites
have worked to expand their capacity and hone their training
techniques. These investments have led to the creation of world class
training facilities that would be ideally suited for training DHS staff
and first responders from throughout the nation. In addition, Selfridge
Air National Guard Base is being considered as a regional headquarters
for DHS. This world class facility which currently is home to all five
branches of our nation's military as well as FAA and Customs officials,
would be ideally suited for such a purpose. I would urge the Department
to complete this plan as soon as possible, and clarify its intent about
working with Congress on these matters, so that we can begin to plan
where these regional training centers will be located.
I would also like to briefly discuss the intelligence analysis
mechanisms and strategies that exist within the Department of Homeland
Security and outside of it. We all agree that intelligence is crucial
to our national security. As we have seen, intelligence decisions can
alter our country's political course. Because of that, it is absolutely
essential for us to do everything in our power to ensure that our
intelligence is credible. Over the last two years, many of us have been
asking questions about the Administration's intelligence gathering
capabilities and responsibilities. We have not received satisfactory
answers to those questions. As I see it, part of the problem stems from
the fact that our intelligence analysis has multiple branches,
including the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC), the CIA's
Counter Terrorism Center (CTC) and the Department of Homeland
Security's Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
Directorate. Although I have been asking for over a year, the
Administration has yet to define how these three intelligence entities
are duplicating one another or complementing one another. It is the
responsibility of our current Administration to define the roles of the
intelligence organizations. If the Administration cannot define the
purposes of these entities, how can the people working at these
agencies understand communication protocol and agency purpose and
mission? Why should we feel safe when the employees and agencies tasked
with gathering and disseminating intelligence are not entirely sure
what they should be doing and to whom they should be talking? Chairman
Collins and I wrote to the CIA last year asking for a comprehensive
description of these three entitles. The explanation we received was
completely unsatisfactory, so we wrote again to the DHS, CIA, and TTIC
and requested an answer by November of last year. We are still waiting
for a response. I would like to submit the correspondence pertaining to
this subject into the record.
I look forward to discussing all of these issues in greater detail.
I have outlined the general issues that I hope you will address. I
realize that there are a lot of challenges facing the Department,
however providing our first responders with the training and equipment
they need must remain one of our highest priorities. I look forward to
working with you and your staff on these very important issues.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.006
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator. Senator Akaka.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Ridge, it is a real pleasure to have you before us
today. There was never any doubt in my mind as to how hard it
would be to create a new agency, but I want you to know that I
saw you as the right person for the job.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Senator
Senator Akaka. I have a longer statement, Madam Chairman,
and I ask that it be made part of the record.
Chairman Collins. Without objection.
[The prepared opening statement of Senator Akaka follows:]
PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Thank you Madam Chairman. Secretary Ridge, it is a pleasure to have
you before us once again. There was never any doubt as to how hard it
would be to create a new agency, but I saw you as the right person for
this job.
Today you may hear me focus on the problems of this new department,
on my perception that the glass is less than half full, but I want you
to know that I still believe that you are the right man for this
difficult task.
When the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created, we knew
it would take time to meld so many previously independent or otherwise
affiliated agencies, bureaus, and offices into a single unit. But, all
of us were also aware of the importance of quickly ensuring that these
newly merged component parts operate as one cohesive and effective
system to protect our country.
The urgency of achieving that end-state has not diminished and, in
fact, becomes more acute with each passing day. And yet, Mr. Secretary,
the Committee hears that DHS coordination and operation efficiency is
hampered by functional and cultural differences, and it appears to me
that the administration's budget proposal fails to provide sufficient
funds to implement critical functions of the Department.
The President's budget calls for $47.4 billion for the Department,
of which 32 percent is for non-homeland security activities. While the
main mission of the Department is to fight and deter attacks against
the nation, the legacy agencies transferred to DHS have many non-
homeland security missions that Americans rely upon and which remain
integral to the agencies' functional capabilities. We must make sure
that these non-homeland security missions and functions are not short-
changed.
For example, items identified as non-homeland security programs
include first responder grants, disaster mitigation, firefighter
grants, the disaster assistance direct loan program, mitigation grants,
flood map modernization, the radiological emergency preparedness
program, and emergency management performance grants.
From the President's budget, it appears that the designation of a
program as either homeland security or non-homeland security is
critical to the amount of funding a program receives. Yet, it is
unclear why or how the Department designated some as security-related
and others not.
I am also concerned about the level of support being provided to
the states. For example, states are facing critical challenges in
making communications interoperable, yet SAFECOM, which provides public
safety agencies the guidance to achieve interoperable communications,
does not have a specific funding level in the budget. States face
funding shortfalls to secure seaports, yet the budget does not include
funding for port security grants.
The proposed budget cuts funding for non-intrusive detection
technology, technical assistance with emergency response planning, and
first responder training.
In addition, in some areas, budget reductions seem to be
responsible for delaying critical preparedness programs. For example,
there are a series of goals under Emergency Preparedness and Response
that list FY 2009 as their target completion date. These include
requiring that all state, tribal, and county jurisdictions complete
self-assessments of their ability to recover from terrorist attacks or
other disasters. These assessments should not take so long to complete,
but the National Emergency Management Baseline Capability Assessment
Program has been cut by $227 million.
The President's budget request falls short of protecting homeland
security for all states. Formula grant funding, which protects smaller
states, has been reduced in the budget request by 59 percent. The
President's request eliminates minimum funding levels established by
Congress to protect smaller states. Instead, the budget request
requires that formula based grants be allocated according to
population, critical infrastructure, and other factors determined by
the Secretary. This proposal threatens to harm all states by
structurally changing homeland security grant funding according to a
yet to be determined formula.
Critical to the integration and smooth functioning of the
Department is the new human resources system, which is currently being
developed. DHS, along with the Department of Defense, is part of the
most massive transformation of government since 1947. I am concerned
that this is occurring without sufficient funding to maintain these new
personnel systems and without rationalizing agency missions to
personnel needs. In the 1990s, agency staffing was cut without giving
sufficient consideration to what employees do. The present
administration is cutting agency budgets without knowing what agencies
do, forcing these agencies to do more with less, and imposing rigid
performance rules without credible transparent and accountable systems
in place.
We must ensure that agencies have the funding necessary to manage
their workforce effectively--including funding for overall management
training, bonuses, and other recruitment and retention programs, such
as student loan repayment programs.
As I review the President's budget submission, I am disturbed by
what appears to be a trend in cuts to human capital and management
functions. The Department is requesting $133.5 million for a new human
resource system, declaring it to be an investment in human capital,
while at the same time making cuts in human captial areas that are
essential to the long term security of our nation. For example, the
Science and Technology Directorate has cut its FY05 funding for
university and fellowship programs by $38.8 million. This could lead to
a less prepared future work force if fewer new people are being trained
and recruited through these programs.
It is important that DHS remain committed to developing and
maintaining the most innovative and skilled technical staff possible.
The United States should lead the world in the development of
technology and science applications to thwart terrorism both
domestically and internationally. I am concerned that budget cuts to a
program, like the university and fellowship programs, may undermine our
ability to recruit and train new Federal workers in these critical
areas.
The Department may be robbing Peter to pay Paul. An example is in
the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate
where a net increase in the number of intelligence analysts has been
accomplished by reducing the number of policy and program professional
staff by eleven. Perhaps this is a change in name only, but my concern
is that a large reduction in policy and program analysts could led to
the development of technical programs that are not well-coordinated or
well-thought out.
DHS should be mindful of the effect of cutting a disproportionate
number of policy and program professional staff. I am concerned that
these actions could lead to the development of technical programs that
are not well-coordinated or to the failure to develop needed programs.
Steps should be taken to ensure that the loss of these positions in
the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate does
not interfere with the very important mission of assessing threats and
providing coordinated recommendations for a response.
There also needs to be significant funding for some of the critical
management functions, including the internal oversight mechanisms, such
as the Inspector General, the Privacy Officer, and the Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties Office, that were put in place by the Congress to
ensure that we do not erode our liberties and freedoms when fighting
terrorism. Moreover, the Secretary's office contains the responsibility
under the Chief Information Officer to develop a comprehensive data
management plan essential for first responders. But, to date, the
Department has been unable to acquire the geospatial data, such as
critical infrastructure, street mapping, first responder locations, and
government facilities, necessary to build a repository of information
which could be shared throughout the Department and with state and
local governments. Failure to achieve this common information database
hampers prevention and planning for emergency response and recovery
operations.
Last week the Senate had to close its offices because of a poison
attack. Fortunately no one was injured. However, the attack illustrated
the continuing vulnerability of our society to such dangers and should
be a wake-up call to all of us that time is not on our side. It
sometimes appears to me that more attention and more money is being
devoted to developing a new personnel system in the Department of
Homeland Security than to providing grants to states and developing the
technologies that first responders will soon need against threats they
cannot anticipate.
Madam Chairman thank you again for holding this hearing and thank
you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I look forward to your testimony
and responses to our questions.
Senator Akaka. I will just say now that when the Department
of Homeland Security was created we knew it would take time to
meld so many previously independent or otherwise affiliated
agencies, bureaus, and offices into a single unit. But we were
also aware of the importance of quickly ensuring that these
newly merged component parts operate as one cohesive and
effective system to protect our country.
The urgency of achieving that end state has not diminished,
and in fact becomes more acute with each passing day. Yet, Mr.
Secretary, the Committee hears that DHS coordination and
operation efficiency is hampered by functional and cultural
differences and it appears to me that the administration budget
proposal fails to provide sufficient funds to implement
critical functions of the Department.
The President's budget calls for $47.4 billion for the
Department of which 32 percent is for Non-Homeland security
activities. While the main mission of the Department is to
fight and deter attacks against the Nation, the legacy agencies
transferred to DHS have many non-homeland security missions
that Americans rely upon which remain integral to the agency's
functional capabilities. We must make sure that these non-
homeland security missions and functions are not shortchanged.
From the President's budget it appears that the designation
of a program as either homeland security or non-homeland
security is critical to the amount of funding a program
receives. Yet it is unclear why or how the Department
designated some as security-related and others as not.
I am also concerned about the level of support being
provided to the States. For example, States are facing critical
challenges in making communications interoperable, yet SAFECOM,
which provides public safety agencies the guidance to achieve
interoperable communications does not have a specific funding
level in the budget. States funding shortfalls to secure
seaports, yet the budget does not include funding for port
security grants.
Formula grant funding, which protects smaller States such
as Hawaii and Maine, has been reduced in the budget request by
59 percent. The President's request eliminates minimum funding
levels established by Congress to protect smaller States. This
proposal threatens to harm all States by structurally changing
homeland security grant funding according to a yet to be
determined formula.
Critical to the integration and smooth functioning of the
Department is a new human resources system which is near
completion. DHS along with the Department of Defense is part of
the most massive transformation of government since 1947. I am
concerned that this is occurring without sufficient funding to
maintain these new personnel systems and without rationalizing
agency missions to personnel needs. We must ensure that
agencies have the funding necessary to manage their workforce
effectively, including funding for overall management training,
bonuses, and other recruitment and retention programs such as
student loan repayment programs.
As I review the President's budget submission, I am
disturbed by what appears to be a trend in cuts to human
capital and management functions. The department is requesting
$133.5 million for a new human resource system, declaring it to
be an investment in human capital while at the same time making
cuts in human capital areas that are essential to the long-term
security of our Nation.
For example, the Science and Technology Directorate has cut
its fiscal year 2005 funding for university and fellowship
programs by $38.8 million. This could lead to a less prepared
future workforce if fewer new people are being trained and
recruited to these programs. It is important that DHS remain
committed to developing and maintaining the most innovative and
skilled technical staff possible. The United States should lead
the world in the development of technology and science
applications to thwart terrorism both domestically and
internationally. I am concerned that budget cuts to a program
like the university and fellowship programs may undermine our
ability to recruit and train new Federal workers in these
critical areas.
Madam Chairman, thank you again for this hearing and thank
you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator. Senator Durbin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Ridge, thank you for being here. From the
announcement of your appointment to this day I continue to
believe that you were the very best choice for this important
position to defend America. I thank you for your public service
and I thank you for your friendship.
Mr. Secretary, having said that, this administration's
speeches say that we are in a pitched battle in a war on
terrorism, but the budget that has been submitted suggests that
major military operations in this war on terrorism are winding
down exactly when we need them the most.
You have heard from my colleagues and I would like to make
the same point which I think really goes to the heart of this
issue. I am concerned this budget shortchanges our first line
of defense, America's first responders in counties, cities, and
communities. The budget calls for a 41 percent cut, nearly $1
billion for State and local grants in the Office of Domestic
Preparedness. FIRE Act grants are cut by 33 percent, from $746
million appropriated for this year down to $500 million for
fiscal year 2005. State and local training, exercises, and
technical assistance funds face a projected 44 percent cut.
While we appear to call for enhanced urban area security
initiative funding, this budget reflects an 18 percent overall
cut from the current year.
I know that it is not your bailiwick but in the same budget
the President virtually eliminates the COPS program, a 91
percent cut from fiscal year 2003 funding level, and 85 percent
cut from fiscal year 2004 funding level. In Illinois, during
fiscal year 2003, COPS grants provided funding for 123 full-
time police officers. A cut of 91 percent would be 111 fewer
police officers patrolling Illinois' neighborhoods and schools.
Mr. Secretary, how can we win this war on terrorism with
fewer soldiers, fewer brave men and women who are truly our
first line of defense? Our political speeches will not save us.
Our political promises will not protect us. We need to put our
money where our security will be, on the front line. We cannot
afford a hollow army in our war on terrorism.
Second, I have focused on one issue more than any other in
this whole area and it has been the interoperability of our
computers, our information technology. Starting September 11
and to this very moment I have tried to make this my issue
because I believe it passionately, that unless and until the
technology can communicate and the people are willing to share,
we will not be as strong as we should be in our defense in the
war on terrorism.
I asked for a Manhattan Project in the creation of your
department. The administration opposed it. They said it is
unnecessary. I thought that we had an opportunity to do
something unique, to bring together all of the agencies dealing
with the defense and security of our Nation into one common
effort, one stronger effort. In June of last year your CIO
Steve Cooper announced that, and I quote from an article
published in Computerworld, ``Steve Cooper, who is CIO at the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security must untangle the mess of
disparate networks' data standards of the 22 Federal agencies
that merged to form the DHS. He said last week''--and this was
in June of last year--``that a unified IT infrastructure will
be completed within 18 to 24 months.''
Mr. Secretary, we have to do better. You have the
responsibility more than any other member of the cabinet to
bring this together. I am concerned, too, when the President
announces the creation by executive order of two new terrorist
threat information gathering and analysis agencies, the
Terrorist Threat Integration Center, not under your leadership,
but under the CIA, and the Terrorist Screening Center, now part
of the FBI. I am afraid that this will continue to perpetuate
rivalries. It builds the stovepipes even higher.
The obvious question is, are you losing the turf battle
within your own administration to bring this information
technology together? Our confidence in our intelligence
community has been shaken by the litany of inaccuracies and
misleading statements leading up to the invasion of Iraq. We
are now in the midst of a review called by the President of the
United States, a commission to investigate what went wrong in
most of the substantial intelligence failures in modern history
in the United States. We cannot allow the same thing to happen
when it comes to our domestic security.
You, more than any other person, have that responsibility
to gather together these resources and forces to make certain
that our intelligence makes America safer. I am looking forward
to your testimony on the efforts that you are making.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Pryor.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just want to
again welcome Secretary Ridge to this Committee. Appreciate
your public service and all that you have done in homeland
security. My colleagues have covered some of the ground I
wanted to cover, but Madam Chairman, I just want to thank you
and also welcome Senator Lieberman back. He has been such a
leader with regard to homeland security and it is so great to
have you back here and have your mind on this. I look forward
to hearing your thoughts as we progress in this hearing today.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, we are pleased
to have you here and we look forward to hearing your statement.
You may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. TOM RIDGE,\1\ SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Ridge. Thank you. Madam Chairman, Senator
Lieberman, and Members of the Committee, I am grateful for the
opportunity to appear before you today and present the
President's budget and priorities for the Department of
Homeland Security in the coming year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Secretary Ridge appears in the
Appendix on page 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the tragic events of September 11, no single
government entity had homeland security as its primary charge.
With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and
this Committee was there at its birth, that charge was given to
us, 22 agencies, 180,000 employees brought together to pursue a
single mission. That mission, to secure our Nation and citizens
from the threats of terrorism and natural disaster, is one that
does not change or lessen in importance with the passing of
time. As several Senators have commented, the recent ricin
scare serves as a difficult reminder that terrorism is a threat
that we must confront each and every day with the same
commitment and the same sense of urgency we all remember from
the day our Nation was attacked 2 years ago.
Now as we prepare to celebrate our one-year anniversary as
a Department, it is the steadfast support of this Congress and
the resources you have provided that have made it possible for
us to not only carry out a vigorous and ambitious slate of
security initiatives, but also to say and to join with you as
you have commented today, to say with confidence that Americans
are indeed safer today. I am also mindful of the fact that we
still have more work to do.
In a short time we have strengthened airline security,
increased vigilance at our borders and ports, forged
unprecedented partnerships across the private sector, State and
local governments, improved information sharing, launched
robust efforts to engage citizens in preparation efforts, and
distributed funds and resources for our dedicated first
responders. Of course, there is still more we can do and there
is still more we must do. The President's budget request for
the Department in fiscal year 2005 includes $40.2 billion in
new resources, a 10 percent increase above the current year's
level. This increase in funding will provide the resources we
need to expand and improve existing projects and programs as
well as build new barriers to terrorists who wish us harm.
Let me touch briefly on a couple of areas where specific
increases in our resources will help us continue to make
progress at our borders, in our skies, on our waterways, and
throughout the Nation. To further strengthen our border and
port security, this budget includes a $411 million increase for
Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, and Coast Guard.
This funding will support such innovative initiatives as
the recently launched US-VISIT. This program is now operational
at 115 airports and 14 seaports across the country to help
ensure that our borders remain open to legitimate travel but
closed to terrorists. That program has been very successful
utilizing biometric technology to process more than 1 million
legitimate passengers since the beginning of the year, and
since the program began, we have matched 104 potential entrants
against criminal watch lists. With additional funding of $340
million this year, we will continue to expand US-VISIT to
include land borders and additional seaports.
However, we also recognize that potential enemies will not
always arrive at a Customs checkpoint. That is why we have more
than $64 million to enhance monitoring efforts along the border
and between the ports. We have also requested an increase of
$186 million to better enforce our immigration policies. We are
also pushing our perimeter security outward, making sure that
our borders are the last line of defense, not the first.
The Container Security Initiative, for example, focuses on
prescreening cargo before it even reaches our ports, and for
that matter before it is even loaded onto the ships. This
budget includes $25 million in additional funding to enhance
our presence at existing ports and to begin the final phase of
the Container Security Initiative, especially in high-risk
areas around the world.
Also the Coast Guard's budget will increase by 8 percent
which includes funding for the continuation of the Integrated
Deepwater System, and important new resources of more than $100
million to implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act.
One of the greatest areas of concern since September 11, of
course, has been aviation security, and thus continues to be an
area of high priority for Congress and for the administration
and for this country. It is also a high priority within the
budget with an increase of 20 percent this year. The
Transportation Security Administration will receive an
additional $890 million to continue to improve the quality and
efficiency of the screening process. Also, considerable funds
will be available to continue the research and deployment of
air cargo screening technology as well as accelerate the
development of technologies that can counter the threat of
portable anti-aircraft missiles.
While we have seen the havoc possible when aircraft are
used as weapons, we have yet to experience the full impact, and
I emphasize the full impact of a bioterror attack, and may we
never have to do so. But we must be prepared. It is in that
spirit that Secretary Tommy Thompson and I announced a $274
million biosurveillance program initiative designed to protect
the Nation against bioterrorism and to strengthen the public
health infrastructure. The initiative will enhance ongoing
surveillance programs for human health, hospitals, vaccines,
food supply, State and local preparedness, and environmental
monitoring and integrate them into one comprehensive system.
In addition, one of our primary responsibilities is to
gather intelligence and share information with the private
sector and State and local officials as we work to secure the
vast critical infrastructure upon which our economy and our way
of life depends. That is why Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection will receive in excess of $800
million in this budget, an increase in funding that will enable
us to carry out this important task.
Finally, as I have said many times in the past, for the
homeland to be secure, the hometown must be secure. That is why
we continue to funnel resources to our State and local partners
as well as to ensure that those who serve on the front lines of
the new war, our firefighters, police, and medical personnel
have everything they need. With that in mind, the total first
responder funding in this budget adds another $3.5 billion to
the more than $8 billion we have made available since March 1
of last year.
These are just some of our budget priorities over the
coming year. Priorities that reflect the vast nature of our
mission, whether safeguarding America from terrorist attack or
providing aid in the face of natural disaster, our charge never
changes and our course must never alter. To protect the people
we serve is the greatest call of any government, and through
the work of many, from those in Congress who allocate the
resources to the governors and the mayors to those who work to
fill gaps in their State and city security, and to a citizen
who makes a preparedness kit, that call is being answered and
embraced by the entire Nation.
I would like to thank this Committee and Members for their
continued support of the Department's mission and our goal to
make America stronger, safer, and better prepared every single
day. I look forward to continuing to build this Department as
we work together to secure a stronger and safer America.
Thank you.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We will now
begin a round of 7-minute questions and answers.
Mr. Secretary, as a former governor you appreciate perhaps
better than most people that State and local governments--
regardless of their size--are incurring additional costs in
this new era of homeland security. For example, according to
the Portland, Maine police chief the city of Portland spends an
additional $5,000 each week in extra police costs alone
whenever the national terrorism alert increases to Code Orange.
We have also recently seen in Maine a threat to the Casco Bay
Bridge, which closed down the bridge, diverted Coast Guard,
police, and fire resources, to deal with that threat. So
regardless of the population of a State, every State has
homeland security vulnerabilities and needs.
In previous testimony before this Committee and also the
Appropriations Committee you indicated your recognition that
every State needs a minimum amount of homeland security
funding. Is that still your position?
Secretary Ridge. Madam Chairman, I still believe that as we
take a look at the ODP funding that is to be directed to the
States and local governments, which also gives the Secretary,
it gives me the flexibility to allocate more than just on
population, that even under those circumstances there should be
a minimum allocated to individual States because there is still
basic support of infrastructure that they need to build and
sustain in order to create a national response capability.
Chairman Collins. This Committee held a hearing last year
on the threat posed by agroterrorism, and I think that is
another example where rural America faces a threat that is very
difficult to deal with and is going to require increased
coordination. That is another example of why we have to
recognize that population does not automatically translate into
vulnerabilities. Would you agree with that?
Secretary Ridge. I would, Madam Chairman. One of the
opportunities we have for the first time in the history of the
Department, and I think for that matter for the first time
since the country responded to September 11, is to build that
infrastructure and allocate those monies according to strategic
plans that governors have submitted.
As part of the requirement that we imposed on our partners
at the State level, we asked the governors of the States and
the territories to submit strategic security plans to us. They
were all due by January 31 of this year so we could take a look
at what they perceive to be the threats, their vulnerabilities,
their critical infrastructure. Your point is well taken. So we
could make a determination not based exclusively on population
as to how these dollars should be allocated, and I look forward
to working with this Committee, and Congress frankly, to
appropriately use the flexibility that the language gives the
Secretary to target these resources consistent with the State
plans that we are getting from our colleagues in State
Government.
Chairman Collins. I appreciate that assurance. As you know,
the administration's budget does not appear to maintain the
minimum for every State. It does give you some discretion and I
have great faith in your exercise of that discretion. I also
hope you will be Secretary forever. But in the event that does
not happen, I am going to be working with my colleagues to
clarify the language in the budget.
With regard to first responders, let me also commend you on
your recent reorganization within the Department to streamline
the homeland security grant process. Both Senator Levin and I
have worked with you to try to have a single number, one-stop
shopping if you will, for communities to be able to find out
more easily what funds are available. I do have two concerns
however. One, as I mentioned and several of us did in our
opening statements, the funding for the State homeland security
grant program is cut by nearly $2 billion compared to what was
appropriated last year.
And second, I am still hearing complaints that the money is
slow to get to first responders and to get to communities. I
personally have concluded the Department is not at fault but
that the States have not been as efficient in passing on the
money as they should be. Could you comment on both of those
issues, first of all the cut in the budget, and second, how can
we ensure that the money is reaching those on the front lines
as quickly as possible?
Secretary Ridge. First of all, to put it in context, Madam
Chairman, if just the dollars we have requested this year are
appropriated by Congress, the amount of money to our first
responders and State and local governments since fiscal year
2001 will be about $15 billion. So as we took a look at what we
have been able to do with regard to first responders and other
needs within this country, the allocation of those resources
were made part of the budget that I submitted to OMB. As you
well recall, last year we submitted a request for assistance to
the fire companies at $500 million and Congress raised it. We
did shift considerable resources from the State funding formula
to the Urban Area Security Initiative because I think it is
generally understood and, I think generally preferred, that as
much of these dollars be distributed based on threat and risk.
Having said that, you and I also have had the conversation
that we still need a certain amount going to the individual
States to build up their own capacity to respond to the
unpredictable nature of terrorism itself. But the bulk of
dollars we believe should be distributed according to threat
and risk. Now with the maturity and growth within the
Department of the Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection unit, with the strategic plans that are being
developed by the States, and interaction between the Federal
Government, the State Government and local governments I
believe we can better target these resources.
Chairman Collins. Finally, I want you to address the Coast
Guard budget. Senator Lieberman and I wrote to OMB last fall to
urge that the Deepwater Program, which is a very comprehensive
program to upgrade the Coast Guard's assets since it has so
many aging cutters and aircraft. We had proposed funding
deepwater over a 10-year period, which in the long run would
actually save money for the Federal Government, significant
money, as well as allow the Coast Guard to upgrade its fleet
far more quickly.
This budget does include a commendable increase in the
Coast Guard budget but it still funds the Deepwater Program
over 22 years. Could you comment on what you think is the
appropriate time for rebuilding the Coast Guard? We are
concerned, given the Coast Guard's traditional missions and its
vital homeland security missions that too many of its aircraft
and cutters are being sidelined because of maintenance and
aging problems.
Secretary Ridge. Madam Chairman, first of all I think given
the fiscal and security environment, the increase to the Coast
Guard, nearly an 8 percent increase, again as we set priorities
within the Department is precisely where we think we need to
be. If the fiscal environment changes, security environment
potentially changes, there may be some alterations to that. But
again, we are quite aware of the fact that we have cutters that
need repair and that their maintenance costs continue to
increase because of the age of some of this equipment. But we
are quite comfortable, given the nearly $500 million that we
requested the Congress to appropriate, that we will continue to
maintain the same level of service in both the homeland
security and the non-homeland security areas.
We also asked you for additional revenue for Rescue 21,
which is a part of the international distress system. In this
program, additional money for maritime safety and security
teams, which you give. You give us another $100 million to
assist us in dealing with the challenges of developing a
maritime transportation strategy and to do the inspection of
ports as well as vessels.
So again, in the fiscal environment, in the security
environment, we have asked for more. You have given us more and
we will continue to maintain the same level of service both in
homeland and non-homeland functions.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, let me just follow up, because Senator
Collins and I do share this concern about port security and the
funding of the Coast Guard. If I read this budget proposal of
the administration correctly, with regard to the modernization
of the Coast Guard fleet we are on a schedule where it will
take 22 years to achieve that modernization. In the midst of
the extraordinary increase in responsibilities that the Coast
Guard has taken on ably with regard to homeland security, how
can we justify not putting more into their fleet more quickly?
To wait 22 years for them to achieve the level of modernization
that they say they need, and which I believe they do need,
seems much too long and really unrealistic and unacceptable.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, the Congress has supported the
levels that the administration has requested, and as you know,
the Coast Guard is probably as effective an agency for taking
every single cent that they get and maximizing its use. As we
took a look at our strategic needs with regard to homeland
security as well as fiscal concerns that legitimately should be
imposed on all of government including the Department of
Homeland Security, the balancing of the fiscal and security
environment, we requested more money, additional funds for
rescue, a little bit more money for the Deepwater Program, a
few more additional dollars to implement the Maritime
Transportation Security Act, and for fiscal year 2005 believe
that is the appropriate balance.
At sometime in the future, depending on circumstances, if
there is an opportunity to significantly increase or accelerate
the modernization of the fleet--but we are not going to do
anything to jeopardize the safety of those who operate the
fleet or to minimize or denigrate our mission--we believe these
dollars substantially will get us through 2005, maintaining and
in some areas increasing the capacity we have to provide Coast
Guard services to support homeland security function but also
increasing the capacity to deal with the non-homeland security
requirements as well.
Senator Lieberman. I hope that we in Congress, again on a
bipartisan basis, can put more money into this Deepwater
Program of the Coast Guard to modernize their fleet. Some of us
on the Committee serve on the Armed Services Committee as well
and while the amount of money put into this fleet modernization
program for the Coast Guard is not insignificant, it truly does
pale in comparison to the billions of dollars we are putting
into other programs through the Department of Defense. I do
think we have got to start to look at Coast Guard capital needs
in the same way we do the services, so I hope we can turn that
around here.
I want to go now to bioterrorism. I noted that on January
29, as you mentioned, Secretary Thompson and yourself held a
press conference announcing this $274 million program to
improve our Nation's bioterrorism surveillance capabilities. I
believe that is critically important and I applaud you for
that. As a matter of fact, in one of the hearings that I was
privileged to chair of this Committee shortly after September
11, this need was focused on.
But I am concerned as I look at the budget details that it
appears that a lot of the funding for this surveillance program
that you have announced comes from cannibalizing existing
bioterrorism programs, and the most unacceptable act of
cannibalization to me is the cut, the $105 million cut, in
bioterrorism preparedness grants to State and local health
departments, which again are our first line of defense, first
responders. The administration is also cutting another $39
million in grants which were to have developed hospital surge
capacity to respond to a bioterrorism attack. Those are the
very programs that the Health and Human Services official in
charge of terrorism preparedness had said should be increased.
Indeed one public health official said that the
administration's budget proposals on bioterrorism were like,
``laying off firefighters while investing in new hoses and
ladders.''
So obviously I want to ask you who in the administration
sets these priorities? Good move on bioterrorism surveillance
but wrong place to get the money, by cutting these two other
critically important programs.
Secretary Ridge. First of all, Senator, I think if my
recollection is correct a year or two ago the Congress acted
quite aggressively and quite generously with bioterrorism
grants to State and local governments. I do not recall the
figure but I think it was an excess of $1.2 billion or $1.3
billion. And there have been subsequent grants. Again, as you
try to set priorities in terms of what the country needs to
build a national response capacity, it was clearly the
consensus view of Secretary Thompson and myself that we both
had a responsibility to develop a comprehensive national system
to make ourselves aware as early as possible about the presence
of a biological agent.
Now this, I think that dramatically improves the public
health care system because regardless of whether the pathogen
or that agent is brought to us by a terrorist or by Mother
Nature, early detection is the best and most effective means of
dealing with it.
So again, respectfully disagreeing with the notion that
anything has been cannibalized, there are still quite a few
dollars out there in the pipeline, some of which have not even
been drawn down, to my knowledge. But the best thing we can do
for the public health community generally is to develop a
system where we can detect these bioagents as early as possible
and then using, if necessary, the strategic national stockpile
or any of the other local or State means of responding to it,
that will frankly make us not only safer but I think it makes
us healthier as a country. It is an investment that I think in
the long run is a good investment to combat terrorism, but it
is also a huge strategic investment in public health as well.
Senator Lieberman. I hope to continue our work to make sure
we fund all sides. As you know, I have been concerned about the
coordination and consolidation of the 12 different terrorism
watch lists, and I am critical of the administration for taking
so long to bring them together. I gather that they have now
been consolidated. But we have heard stories, maybe fact, I ask
you to respond to, that the terrorism watch list was not used,
the consolidated list, during the recent Orange alert, and in
that case, for instance, each flight manifest had to be checked
with each terrorist watch list by the operations center at the
Department of Homeland Security, which was time-consuming,
labor intensive, and obviously risk prone.
I wonder if you could respond both to the status of the
consolidation of the terrorism watch lists and to why it was
not used during the Orange alert, if the information I received
is accurate that it was not?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, the terrorist screening center is
the place under the management of the FBI but leadership from
TSA where we are consolidating the 12 watch lists. The physical
consolidation or technological consolidation of all watch lists
in one place will continue to take several months. So right now
in the Terrorist Screening Center, as we are integrating the
watch list, we literally have a very labor-intensive but still
very important enhancement to domestic security, a labor-
intensive process where when we call upon the Terrorist
Screening Center to identify a name, we have individuals in
front of a screen running over the individual names. So we have
access to and are using the database, but it is very labor-
intensive. I believe our goal is to get the names aggregated
into a single database by midsummer.
Senator Lieberman. So that has not happened yet? In other
words, it is not----
Secretary Ridge. It is something that they are working on
24/7, Senator. Over the years, in order to get a particular
name on a particular database, there were different thresholds
of information that were required, or a different perspective
depending on the agency as to whether or not the name should go
on the database. Ultimately, I think we need to segregate those
lists and prioritize those lists. But that integration
challenge is one that we began back in December, and they are
working on that piece every day.
Having said that, we have access to that information and
literally have had several hundred contacts, even with State
and local law enforcement agents who are beginning to use the
database. Again it was labor intensive but during the most
recent occasion when we had to raise the threat alert, we were
able to access the Terrorist Screening Center. The operations
center did it, but it is very labor intensive. We believe that
by midsummer or the end of summer it should be completely
integrated.
Senator Lieberman. I am sorry, my time is up, but did I
understand correctly that is why each flight manifest would
have had to have been checked against the terrorism watch
lists, because it was still being put together in one database?
Secretary Ridge. That is why it was so cumbersome. That is
why it was so time-consuming. It is not that we ignored the
reality. This is information we need to have access to and use.
But right now it is still a very cumbersome and time-consuming
process.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Secretary. Thanks, Madam
Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Sununu.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUNUNU
Senator Sununu. Mr. Secretary, your budget includes $61
million in the Science and Technology Directorate to deal with
the threat of shoulder-fired or portable anti-aircraft missiles
you mentioned in your testimony. Could you provide more detail
about the status of that program and how the additional money
will be used?
Secretary Ridge. Actually we have already used some of the
money that Congress appropriate to us in the 2004 budget. We
have had a request for proposal out. Several companies bid. We
have awarded a couple contracts to companies to go through that
first phase of research that they need to see if we can come up
with a countermeasure, a satisfactory countermeasure, to be
applied to commercial aviation. There is a misnomer that we
could simply take the countermeasures that we deploy on
military aircraft and just attach them to passenger aircraft.
That just will not work, for a variety of reasons.
So the 2005 request is not to initiate the research. That
has begun, and we anticipate that we will need those dollars to
take us perhaps even to prototyping. So again, it is just a
follow on to research that we have already commenced with
regard to countermeasures.
Senator Sununu. Is the funding available through your
budget, the $61 million, sufficient to keep it on track to meet
current milestones?
Secretary Ridge. We believe it is. Plus you have given us--
again, the Science and Technology unit within Homeland Security
has been in receipt of hundreds of millions of dollars from the
Congress. And there is enough flexibility if we needed more or
if we needed it sooner, we would be able to transfer dollars
in. But we anticipate that that would be the cost for the next
level of research, perhaps even prototyping.
Senator Sununu. You talked a little bit about the US-VISIT
program in your testimony. Has that technology initiative
resulted in greater problems or bottlenecks? Has it reduced the
bottlenecks? What kind of impact has it had on the human
resources that you can deploy to deal with immigration or
movement at ports of entry?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, as you are well aware, the
Congress of the United States literally for years and years had
requested that, not only this administration but previous
administrations develop a system where we can monitor people
who come across our borders and then be able to confirm their
departure once their visa expired. Congress was very generous
in the 2003 budget and gave us several hundred million really
to affect that.
We added the requirement of a biometric identifier, feeling
that while we could use just information to confirm arrivals
and departures, we would be a lot better off if we were able to
identify the individual who actually had the visa or the
passport. To that end, we have the US-VISIT system which is
basically a system based on two biometrics. One is facial
recognition. The other are two finger scans. We have that
deployed at 115 airports and I think 14 seaports. The consular
offices around the country will have similar technology
available to them all, and there is in excess of 200 of them,
by October of this year so that when individuals get their
visa, they will have their photograph and their finger scans
taken there. When they come to our port of entry, we will be
able to confirm the identity of the visa holder, ensuring that
the individual that got the visa is the one that is offering it
for entry into the United States.
As you know, we are required by the Congress to come up
with a system to deal with entry across the 50 largest land
borders by the end of this year, and we are presently working
on the technology that will enable us to affect that outcome as
well.
To date we have screened over 1 million people. We have
turned away in excess of 100 at the border because of
information we picked up, particularly from NCIC, the criminal
watch list. As we go about integrating the terrorist screening
center and the other databases that we have, this information
will ultimately be available and tied into the US-VISIT system
as well.
Senator Sununu. In addition to the biometric technology,
what are you doing on document verification, the ability to
detect fraudulent passports, green cards or other immigration
documentation?
Secretary Ridge. First of all, the Congress has said that
there is a requirement for entry by October of this year for
there to be machine-readable passports prepared for our use at
a port of entry. Continuing discussions with regard to the
standards that should be applied to those kinds of documents
are part of our conversations we are having with the European
Union and elsewhere. I think one of the biggest challenges that
we have, not just as a country, because the threat of terrorism
and the notion that we need to ensure commercial shipping,
commercial air travel, and it is a worldwide challenge that we
have, is coming up with acceptable international standards
based on biometrics. We are not quite there yet.
For commercial aviation, the international commercial
aviation organization, their only standard is a facial scan. I
think, in talking to a lot of our colleagues around the world,
while that is good technology, we do need to build some
redundancy into that system. So we will be working with, again,
colleagues in international aviation as well as governments
around the world to see if they can come up with acceptable
international standards. So that work continues. We have not
reached a satisfactory international standard yet as far as I
am concerned.
Senator Sununu. Do you right now have the flexibility you
need to continue to expand coverage to new ports of entry as
our demographics change, as our economy changes and grows? Do
you, within DHS, have the ability to bring new ports of entry
into the system and to provide coverage in those expanded
areas?
Secretary Ridge. Frankly, just upgrading the personnel and
equipment at existing ports of entry has been one of the
primary tasks of the new Department, and I believe we have done
that fairly well. When we go about talking, particularly with
our colleagues in Canada and Mexico about creating new ports of
entry so we can deal with the enhanced security that we want at
our borders and the facilitation of commerce, that will require
a significant capital investment from all of the governments.
One of the things we are reviewing with our friends in Canada
and Mexico, if there were to be infrastructure improvements
along the border, where would they be? How much would they
cost? And frankly, who would absorb the cost?
Senator Sununu. I am speaking specifically, and I was not
clear in the question, on seaports, airports, points of cargo,
and passenger entry and exit in the domestic United States that
could be receiving passengers and cargo from all over the
world.
Secretary Ridge. Yes, again whether it is aviation security
or commercial shipping security, the decision has been made,
and I think Congress generally embraces it, that you never want
to rely on a single means of security. That you need to layer
in your security measures. You never want the opportunity for
there to be a single point of failure.
So to that end, when it comes to commercial shipping, as
you know, we began with a container security initiative. There
is a targeting program based on the 24-hour requirement to
provide those manifests. We board 100 percent of the high
interest vessels. We have non-intrusive inspection technology
both at ports abroad and in the United States. So we layer in
multiple preventive measures both in aviation and in port
security. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Sununu. It does in part. What I am getting at is
the fact that reluctance or inability or lack of flexibility to
distribute additional personnel can effectively prevent a
seaport or an airport from growing to accept passenger transit,
new immigration. There are some specific samples that I will be
happy to share with your staff.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Sununu. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I want to start by asking you about the allocation system
for homeland security grants. Two major programs here are the
State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Urban Area
Security Initiative when it comes to first responder grants. It
strikes me that those allocations to those first responders, to
the greatest degree possible, at least logically, ought to be
based on vulnerabilities and threats. Every State has
vulnerabilities, but there are great variations between States
and localities on those vulnerabilities.
So my first question to you is, is it the administration's
position that we should legislate formulas for allocating those
monies that go to the States and local governments and for any
State minimums? Or should that be left to the Department to
adopt criteria that we would then be able to look at which
would be transparent, but nonetheless would be basically
departmentally determined rather than legislatively determined?
Secretary Ridge. I believe, Senator, it would be our
preference as embodied in the language for both of those grant
programs, that the flexibility be given to the Department.
Understanding the political reality of whether or not it can be
accomplished remains to be seen, but we would certainly want to
address, obviously in a transparent way, the establishment of
that criteria if it was to be done internally within Homeland
Security.
Senator Levin. So that your position is that you would
rather not have them legislatively prescribed?
Secretary Ridge. That is correct, Senator. As both of the
pools of ODP dollars suggest, we do want to take into
consideration population. But we also need to take into
consideration the critical infrastructure. We need to take into
consideration threats and vulnerabilities.
It is pretty difficult to come up with a mathematical
formula that can deal specifically with that assessment. It is
for that reason, particularly with regard to the State and
local dollars through the Office for Domestic Preparedness that
we have suggested for the first time in 2005, and I have said
in response to Senator Collins' question that a minimum of
those dollars go out to every State, but that we take a look at
the State plans that have been submitted, we take advantage of
the work that the States and our Department has done in
identifying critical infrastructure.
Port Huron was an extraordinary example where we had a
small community that had critical infrastructure around it and
in it and yet I do not believe they qualified, either place,
for any additional dollars. So if we had that flexibility
vested in the Department I think we could address the concerns
of some of those communities easier.
Senator Levin. Is it the administration's position that the
minimum should be set by the Department or by Congress?
Secretary Ridge. I think it would be, again, our preference
that once we take a look at the state-wide plans and see what
common threads and needs are there, that we would set it. But
again, we welcome the notion that the Congress would work with
us in order to set that criteria internally.
Senator Levin. I would like to go back to reverse
inspections. We have been urging a system of reverse
inspections where the inspection of people and cargo be done on
the other side of the bridges and tunnels because it is too
late once that bridge or tunnel is damaged or destroyed to
inspect the cargo. We have legislated that there be at least a
couple of efforts made at testing reverse inspections. What is
the status of that pilot program?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, the Smart Border Accord we have
with Canada across the board has been successfully and almost
completely implemented. There are still one or two areas of
disagreement and reverse inspection is one of them. But with
the change in administration, we have not lost our focus on
that issue and our desire to convince our Canadian allies it
would serve our mutual interest for both security and commerce
to locate areas on either side where the inspections could take
place before these vehicles move through tunnels or across
bridges.
Senator Levin. Can you, for the record, give us the status
of those pilot programs which we legislated in 2003?
Secretary Ridge. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. On the intelligence analysis coordination
question and the letter which I referred to which went to four
different people including yourself about the question of how
do these various entities that are analyzing threats relate to
each other. I guess the real question is this, we have a
Department of Homeland Security, we have an FBI, we have a CIA.
Internally to those we have Terrorist Threat Integration
Center. In your Department we have an Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection Directorate. We have a
counterterrorism division in the FBI. And we have a CIA
counterterrorist center as well as the TTIC or Terrorist Threat
Integration Center.
Who has the primary responsibility for analyzing foreign
intelligence, No. 1? No. 2, is that laid out in writing? And
No. 3, can we get an answer to our letter--Senator Collins' and
my letter?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, you have been very patient. You
have asked me about this before.
Senator Levin. Uncharacteristic of me, by the way, I want
you to know.
Secretary Ridge. You have been very patient with this
Secretary, and I am grateful for that because I am mindful of
the date that was at the top of the letter. Having served as a
former Member of Congress all I can say is I am mindful of the
date, and I know it is several months later.
First of all, you ought to know that there is a coordinated
response that is being prepared. The Department of Homeland
Security has offered its views, and it is my understanding that
response should be coming to you shortly, within the next
couple of weeks.
Senator Levin. I just had one additional question here, but
I will pass to it. Thank you.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I have some questions concerning the human
resource system. You have requested $102.5 million for a new
human resource system. As there are no final regulations in
place detailing the new system, what assumptions did you make
in requesting this amount? What information or precedent did
you rely upon to determine that the request was sufficient to
implement the system?
Secretary Ridge. First of all, Senator, you should know
that the regulations are near completion and we would
anticipate the publication within the next several weeks. As
you know, that kicks in a 30-day comment period and certain
discussions with the men and women and their representatives
from organized labor ensue after those regulations are
promulgated.
The $100-plus million you refer to is a request based upon
our desire to develop a performance-based pay system. It is
also predicated on the notion that it is going to take some
time in order to develop this system and to train managers, on
the system, and how to apply it effectively. So the request for
those dollars is basically to design the system, train
management within the Department to utilize it appropriately
and effectively, and then to begin a pilot program beginning
toward the end of the year in fiscal year 2005.
One of the challenges we have, and it came up in our
discussions with representatives from organized labor, of which
we have had several discussions as we have developed the
system, is that there is really no prototype within government.
We have never been down that path before. We have been down
that path in the private sector.
But it is something that the administration feels strongly
about. I certainly do. I would like to have a performance-based
system. But we need to design one, and we need to train people
to use it effectively. There are some legitimate concerns that
were raised by the representatives of the men and women that
work in the Department of Homeland Security, and we thought one
of the best ways to address some of their concerns was to make
sure that we implemented the approach over a period of time,
not just through the initial regulation. Because it would not
have been satisfactory to them, we would not have designed a
satisfactory system. It is not the way to go about implementing
a broad-based system. So that is the reason for the additional
dollars.
Senator Akaka. Does the $31 million earmarked for training
extend beyond training managers for the implementation of a new
pay-for-performance system?
Secretary Ridge. I am sorry, I did not quite understand,
Senator.
Senator Akaka. Does the $31 million earmarked for training
extend beyond training managers for the implementation of a new
pay-for-performance system?
Secretary Ridge. I think it is not just managers that have
to understand the system, but I think the employees have a
right to understand what is expected of them and how their
performance would be recognized and rewarded. So again,
primarily the training is for those who would use the system,
but I think there is a broader, department-wide educational
campaign that has to be undertaken once we design the system.
Senator Akaka. Forty-two million, Mr. Secretary, has been
earmarked for the design and implementation of the new human
resources system and for the administration and staffing of the
new labor management and appeal process. My question is, does
the funding for the new human resource system include funding
for the Department's recruitment and retention efforts
including the use of student loan repayment?
Secretary Ridge. I think within the Department's personnel
budget there are adequate and standard resources we would use
to recruit and retain people. But, Senator, it does not include
any loan repayment mechanism.
Senator Akaka. Under a pay-for-performance system, you have
requested $2.5 million. How many employees will this cover?
Within this amount can you provide the anticipated pay increase
good performers will receive? And what information did you rely
upon in making this request?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I believe we are looking at a
small pool of employees in order to test the system for almost
a year, and the additional $2.5 million was to be allocated for
that purpose and, frankly, to make up for any differences that
we might experience, any losses we might experience so that
there will be adequate money for a pay-for-performance
protocol. Again, we tried to lay this out, Senator, over the
next couple of years, because it has not been done in
government successfully to date. I am not sure it has been
tried successfully. I know there has always been an interest in
getting it done. But it is going to take us a couple years to
design, train, educate, prototype, and then apply.
Senator Akaka. I wanted to ask before my time is up, of the
$300 million requested for the human capital fund to meet your
pay-for-performance goals, how much do you anticipate using?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, most of those dollars are to
effect the change within the system, and it is difficult--we
think we will need it all.
Senator Akaka. Finally, information technology funding
calls for $226 million. I understand that the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement has had some trouble
consolidating its IT systems to perform such functions as
travel, budget, and case tracking. Will this $226 million help
BICE with this issue? If not, are other funding sources being
made available to BICE to streamline and consolidate its IT
system?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, your question highlights one of
the major technology challenges that the Department has,
because as you know, some of the pieces of Homeland Security
came out of legacy departments such as Commerce and Justice,
and some of their information, the data that they use is
integrated into their systems. So to divest this data and bring
it into a consolidated system with the Department is going to
take time. That applies to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
It applies to Citizenship and Immigration Services. It applies
to several other units within the Department. Again, those
dollars will help us, basically from a technological point of
view, pull that information, pull those databases out of the
legacy agencies so we can consolidate it into the Department of
Homeland Security.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Madam Chairman, my time has
expired.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Secretary, I am a member of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, and the experience we are going through
now because of Dr. Kay's report is causing us to really take an
assessment as to whether or not our intelligence gathering
leading to the invasion of Iraq failed. The precipitate event,
I suppose, was Dr. Kay's report. Fortunately, and I give you
credit, the President and the administration, we have not had a
sequel to September 11, 2001. God forbid that should ever
occur, we will all be gathering in earnest in emergency to
determine where we failed, what we could have done better.
I would like to address one or two areas that continue to
trouble me. I made reference to them in my opening remarks. I
do not know how we can make America safer if our computers do
not speak the same language, if they are not communicating with
one another, and if we disperse responsibility among different
bureaucracies. I felt and I think others did as well, that your
arrival and your commitment to this personally, the development
of a new agency meant that a new day would dawn.
But the information that we have received suggests that the
bureaucratic battles continue. Some things are very difficult
for me to understand. In your last appropriation bill I asked
for a report when it came to information technology by December
15. It is almost 2 months beyond that. I would commend you to
note that is part of your appropriation, to give us a report on
watch lists and coordination of information technology.
But let me get right down to the bottom line, if I can. It
looks to me like you are losing the turf battle within this
administration. I think your legislative mandate is so
imminently clear, and I will read it from the bill. To access,
receive, and analyze law enforcement information, intelligence
information, other information of agencies of Federal
Government, to integrate such information in order to identify
and assess the nature and scope of the terrorist threats to
America. I thought that put you in the driver's seat.
Now let us take a look at the watch list issue. The watch
list, for some reason, has been delegated to the FBI. In an
answer to a question from, I believe it was Senator Lieberman,
you said that you expected their effort to be fully operational
by midsummer for watch list integration. When the TSC was
established it was supposed to be operational by December 1.
I also want to say, not taking anything away from Bob
Mueller and the fine people at the FBI, there are some
questions as to whether or not this was the right place to put
this watch list effort. Here we have the Inspector General's
report of December of last year talking about the FBI and the
FBI's efforts to improve sharing of intelligence. Listen to
what the Inspector General of the Department of Justice said:
``The process for disseminating intelligence was ad hoc and
communicated orally from manager to staff. One CIA detailee at
FBI characterized the informal process as disorganized, noting
that information does not flow smoothly within the FBI, let
alone externally. In the 8 months the CIA detailee had been at
the FBI, the detailee had not received a single CIA
intelligence report. The detailee said, `information goes into
a black hole when it comes into this building.' That is the
most frightening thing I can think of, 2\1/2\ years after
September 11, that we are still dealing with this. Where the
President is creating by executive order agencies that compete
with your legislative responsibility, agencies which frankly I
think should be integrated under DHS, but instead we find in
other parts of the Federal Government.''
Are we making progress? It looks like you are wading
through a sea of molasses here trying to get to change and
reform. I believe in you. I have from the beginning and I still
do. I do not like what I am seeing.
I would ask for your comment.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, hopefully I can allay some
concerns, perhaps not to your complete satisfaction but let me
do my best.
First of all, the Congress has directed that our
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection unit be
supplied with adequate resources to map the threat against the
vulnerability, and then the responsibility of the Department is
to do something about it. What you should know is that part of
the fusion operation that we do in the information analysis
department and unit within Homeland Security is to take
information from--we have access to the information generated
by the entire intelligence community. The decision to raise the
threat level over the holidays was because of the partnership
and the access to information generated by the broader
intelligence community, in this instance particularly by the
CIA, but also other sources.
We believe that the Terrorist Threat Integration Center and
the Terrorist Screening Centers add value to our effort to fuse
all information from sources, whether it is horizontal across
the Federal Government, whether it is vertical up from the
State and locals. We are partners in the Terrorist Screening
Center. We have analysts in the Terrorist Threat Integration
Center. We have access to give and to make requirements on any
of the information-gathering agencies in the intelligence
community so that if we get a report we are empowered by
Congress to go back to that agency and ask for additional
information.
So, within Homeland Security our information analysis unit
is designed by the direction of Congress to fuse information
from all sources, internationally, we get some information from
time to time, from our own intelligence community, and from the
State and locals, and that is precisely what we are doing.
Senator Durbin. Let me ask you, I only have a few seconds
left and this is such a broad question and, frankly, I do not
know if you will have an opportunity to give the complete
answer you would like to give, and maybe you would like to
reflect on it.
As you step back, as we all step back and look at the
intelligence community in America and what happened before the
invasion of Iraq, where we have the director of the CIA making
a speech saying in defense of his agency, we are being
mischaracterized. We gave good information based on what we
knew.
Now that you have to deal with intelligence, decide on
alerts, decide what is truly a threat to this country, do you
feel that there are fundamental weaknesses within our
intelligence community which need to be addressed, beyond the
partisanship here, Democrats and Republicans, that we need to
address as a Nation, as you reflect on what happened prior to
the invasion of Iraq?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I appreciate the way the question
was asked, because we all have an interest in making sure that
when information becomes available, regardless of the source,
that is relevant to Federal action, whether it is Homeland
Security, the Department of Defense, whatever, that it is
actionable, that it be shared immediately so action can be
taken.
I think one of the big challenges that we have as a
government, and I think for that matter as a society is to
understand completely how difficult information gathering and
analysis is in the context of combating terrorism. We from time
to time apply, I think Cold War standards of certainty to
information that are not necessarily applicable to the kinds of
information we can glean from multiple sources that help us
combat international terrorism. There is no country, there is
not necessarily a central point where we can get the
information. Unlike the Cold War, we do not necessarily have
satellites identifying for us troop movements, and ship
movements. It is much more difficult to get human intelligence
inserted into an organization like al Qaeda.
So the challenges we have, is to do exactly what you want
us to do, get as much information as we can, analyze it as
quickly as we possibly can. But even in that analysis there is
as much art as there is science. There is probably not a day
that does not go by, certainly not a week that does not go by,
that we just took a look at a threat or a series of threats to
the United States without considering a lot of other factors,
without considering those factors you might be inclined to
raise the threat level. We are very judicious about it. We will
only do it when we think it is credible and corroborated. It is
the notion of identifying what sources are credible, given the
unique challenge of gathering intelligence in this war against
global terrorism, and the unique challenge we have to
corroborate that information that makes it so difficult for all
of us to understand what precisely is going on.
I have enormous admiration for anyone, regardless of the
administration, Republican or Democrat, who has taken upon
themselves as life's work to gather and analyze information and
then reach conclusions that you need to act on it in one way or
the other. We are getting better at it. We are getting smarter
every single day.
To your point, Senator, you have raised this question with
me before with regard to the integration of technology. I would
like to either come up or have Steve Cooper come up and sit
down and show you what we are doing internally. I know you have
questioned the 18 to 24 months. I appreciate the milestones
that were set and the date certain within the calendar, but
some things will get done only when--they just take time to do
and I would like to come up and show you the way ahead in
regards to the technology integration within the Department.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Madam
Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Again, thank you for being here this morning, Secretary
Ridge. I appreciate the task you have ahead of you. You may
recall, during your confirmation process that I pretty much
gave you a challenge to look at this new agency, the Department
of Homeland Security, and try to make it into a model agency,
try to make it one that really was the best that the Federal
Government had to offer in terms of efficiency and
effectiveness and teamwork. Understanding that you inherited a
lot of people from other agencies and other existing
institutions, and also you brought in--some are absolutely a
new creation.
So I would like to hear your comments on how you think the
agency is running, and how it is doing in this challenge that I
have laid out, and other Members of the Committee have laid
out, to be a model Federal Government agency. I would just like
to hear your comments, and then if you could even grade
yourself on the job you have done up to this point.
Secretary Ridge. If you give anybody the opportunity to
make up the test, take the test, grade the test, I would tell
you it is easy. It is easier. If it only were that easy.
Senator one of the most significant challenges with this
whole enterprise is that basically with the direction, and
support of Congress, I might add, we are dealing with an
organization that has within it a couple of startups, a few
mergers, and an acquisition or two as well as a divestiture, to
put it in private sector terms. So we have got a lot of things
going on. One of the biggest challenges has been to maintain
the focus day to day at the borders, at the airports, with the
ports, to maintain that operational effectiveness and actually
improve it at the same time we are integrating personnel
systems, information systems, fiscal systems, procurement
systems.
I would tell you that my sense is that we have accelerated
that process rather dramatically the past 3 or 4 months. The
acceleration initially was slow simply because putting together
a leadership team requiring background checks, Senate
confirmation took a while, and very appropriately; it should.
But now that we have got the leadership team in place, the
vision is clear, the mission is clear, our performance goals
have been articulated and that from day one on March 1 we
started doing things differently at our ports of entry.
Where you had at one time three agencies, three different
Federal employees wearing three different uniforms and three
different chains of command, immediately we consolidated that
so they were all working with one chain of command and in the
future--they have now and in the future are going to be cross-
trained to do all of those tasks. So then we have more people
to do more things at ports of entry which means when we have a
surge need, that there are more people coming into the airport,
people coming into the border, and we can put more people in
order to meet the surge.
You will see innovations like this throughout. The US-VISIT
system is something that Congress had mandated we get done. No
one thought we could get it done, but we were able to achieve
it. Working on the human resource management system, it is a
real challenge. Congress gave us the opportunity to do it, but
we want to do it right, so we spent a lot of time--we have had
several meetings around the country talking to employees. We
certainly talked to their leadership. That rule will be
promulgated probably by the end of this month.
You have given us the resources to make dramatic changes at
the airports. We have leaned forward to begin the process of
protecting America and address our concern about port security
in ports around the world. As we speak today, we have
inspectors at Shanghai and Hong Kong and Rotterdam and
elsewhere who begin that targeting process, who begin
inspecting the cargo. Sometimes it is a physical inspection.
Sometimes it is where they open it. Other times it is with non-
intrusive technology. So while we try to make operational
improvements, we have also tried to pull our resources together
to begin the process of integrating all the enabling management
functions.
You will get a more complete report card on or about March
1. I think we have made great progress but I will be the first
one to admit in terms of operational efficiency we have done
well. We are going to do better. In terms of integrating some
of the enabling management personnel that we have and functions
that we have, we have done well. We are going to do better. But
I think the pace has accelerated considerably the last 3 or 4
months.
You notice I avoid giving myself a grade. It would be too
self-serving.
Senator Pryor. I did notice that.
Secretary Ridge. I wish I could have done that in college.
Senator Pryor. I am not going to press on that. I must tell
you that my background as being Arkansas's Attorney General I
am very connected to the law enforcement community in my State
and when I talk to folks in the law enforcement community,
mayors, people, firefighters, etc., one complaint I still hear
is the slowness of money coming out of the Federal Government
down to the local level to first responders. In fact today
there is a story on Fox News online about that and they quote a
number of people that are out and around the country doing
different things, and that is still a complaint. So I have
heard that in my offices. It sounds like nationally people are
hearing that, and I would like to hear your response on that.
Secretary Ridge. We are hearing it as well, Senator. First
of all, let me assure you that the dollars that you
appropriated to the Department in 2002, 2003, and 2004,
particularly the 2002 and 2003 dollars, they are ready to be
drawn down. We have done our job. You told us to get it ready
for distribution within 45 days and we were ready.
Having said that, looking at our partners, and they are our
partners at the State and local level, we know that depending
on the State there are different reasons for the delay. We are
going to take it upon ourselves with our partners to try to
break the logjam and then come up with a standard means of
distribution so that neither you nor your colleagues on the
Committee or other Members of Congress, and more importantly,
the first responders will ever say again it is taking too long
to get those dollars to us.
Clearly they are right. We have $8 billion to $9 billion to
be distributed. Some have not been distributed from 2002 yet.
We still have almost half from 2003, if not more, let alone the
2004 dollars. So there is a problem there. We are ready to make
the distribution.
So we are going to go back and take a look at the States
that have done a good job of distributing the funds and see
what practices they employ, and then sit down--frankly, I am
going to sit down with the governors when they come to town in
a couple weeks to talk about the distribution problem because
we all want those dollars, once appropriated, to get out to
where the governors and the mayors and the first responders
have prioritized their needs. The sooner, the better.
Senator Pryor. Madam Chairman, let me ask one follow-up
question on that, if I may. I have been looking at the
President's budget and I know that you have sat in that chair
right there over the last 12 months and you have reiterated
time and again the importance of having local law enforcement
on board. You just mentioned again it is teamwork, you are
partners, etc. But how can we expect preparedness at the local
level when in the President's budget we are cutting the dollars
available to local law enforcement agencies and first
responders by about $800 million?
Secretary Ridge. I think, first of all, I want to try to
put again into context, every year we are going to make an
assessment as to what the priorities of the Department of
Homeland Security are. I believe the level of funding requested
by the President this year is fairly close to the level of
funding the President requested last year and then Congress
added several hundred million dollars to that request. You will
note that we have maintained the same level of funding, knowing
full well that if we get this level as requested that there
would have been nearly $15 billion out to the States and to the
locals since 2001, and most of that in the past 3 years. Our
focus, as we maintain the same level of funding we requested
last year as this year is to not only worry about inputs but
outcomes.
We take a look at 2005 as being a critical year as we take
a look at the homeland security strategies submitted by the
States, taking a look at their needs so we can better
distribute the dollars. I think Congress will hold the
Department accountable for where the dollars have gone. We
accept that responsibility. We maintain the same strong level
of funding, $3.5 billion, but this year for purposes of the
budget a little more money for the Coast Guard, more money for
biosurveillance, more money for the human resource plan, were
priorities that were funded. And again, maintaining a $3.5
billion fund for first responders was considered appropriate
under the fiscal and security circumstances with which we
operate.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, we are going to do a very brief final round
of questions of only 3 minutes each in the attempt to get you
out of here as near to 12 noon as possible. We appreciate your
time this morning.
In my remaining few minutes I want to bring up two problems
that my home State has experienced. I bring them up not only to
bring them to your personal attention in the hope of securing a
commitment that your staff will work with us to resolve them,
but also because I believe they illustrate some of the broader
issues that the Department is confronting as it seeks to
strengthen our homeland security.
The first involves a community in far northern Maine, in
northwestern Maine, that has a very difficult situation because
the houses are on the American side of the border and all the
services that this community uses are on the Canadian side of
the border. So to go to church, to avail themselves of medical
care, and to go to the grocery store, these American citizens
need to cross over to the Canadian side.
Prior to the tightening of security, the Department had a
program called the Form One program that allowed these citizens
to get certified by our government, if you will, and to be able
to cross at will. So to go to Catholic mass on Sundays, for
example, was a very easy undertaking.
Now, however, there is a gate at that border which is
unmanned on Sundays, and the result is that these citizens are
essentially locked in on the American side of the border. They
would have to travel over 100 miles through woods roads in
order to cross at a different border crossing. This creates a
real hardship for their lives, and it has also led to some of
the citizens in frustration crossing illegally and then fines
being imposed on them. It is just a very difficult situation
given that all the services are on the Canadian side.
I would note, the Canadians still have a system that allows
these citizens to enter Canada without any problem whatsoever.
The problem is they cannot get back. They cannot cross back
over to their homes on the American side.
The Department in response to my request did institute some
limited Saturday hours which were helpful, but that has not
solved the problem on Sundays or evenings, and it is a real
problem. There are not a lot of people involved but it has
completely changed their lives, and it illustrates the problems
between free flow of people and commerce who are not going to
do our country any harm versus the need to have tighter control
over our borders.
The second incident involves a recent sweep by Immigration
and Border Patrol officials in Portland, Maine. This sweep
resulted in 10 arrests, and obviously we want the Department to
vigorously enforce our immigration laws. There were some people
who were there illegally and there were those who were there on
expired visas. But we also had many serious complaints from
community leaders that the way in which this sweep was
conducted created a great deal of fear among immigrants who are
here legally. The agents went to a homeless shelter, they
targeted Latino, Asian, and African restaurants, which then
experienced a dramatic drop in business throughout this period.
It just seems to me that there has to be a better way for
the Department to pursue its very important responsibilities
and to make sure that people are not here illegally. I do feel
strongly about that. But to work more with the community
involved to make sure that these sweeps are conducted in a way
that is respectful of people and do not target small businesses
in a way that ends up hurting their business.
So I would ask that you work with me and the Department
work with me on those two issues. Neither of them are easy
issues and I think both of them illustrate the challenges and
the problems that we face in this new September 11 world.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, it would be a pleasure to work
with you on both of those. They are illustrative of the
challenges, not just the Department or your particular
community face, but the entire country, and that is the balance
between aggressive enforcement of the law, be it for law
enforcement purposes or counterterrorism, anti-terrorism
purposes and a dramatic change in how we have historically done
business. I suspect that community that has been affected
adversely by the gate across what had heretofore been just a
normal path of entry and exit is probably mirrored across the
entire northern border. So I think, obviously, we would be
pleased to work with you on that. It is that balance between
security and convenience and commerce that sometimes needs to
be applied on ad hoc cases, one at a time. So obviously we will
be pleased to work with you on that.
I would say, hopefully, if men, women, and children are in
this country legally they have nothing to fear and should not
fear. We need to maintain ourselves as that open, welcoming
country that we have been for 200 years. How they conducted
business on that particular day or days I am not familiar,
whether or not notice was given to the local communities,
whether or not they engaged local law enforcement to assist
them, I cannot answer that question. But I suspect if we put
some of my folks down with yours we will be able to get to the
answers.
We do not want to discourage the Border Patrol from doing
their job. We also want to encourage them to do it in a way
that is consistent with the standards of service of the Border
Patrol and that is respecting the rights of individuals, be
they legal or illegal, and the rights of the community. So
again, it is obviously a situation that you and I have to
explore and if there is a need for a remedy or a change in
approach, then I would be pleased to discuss it with you.
Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, this last round I would like to give you
three questions and you can answer them to the extent that time
allows, although I hope they lend themselves to rather brief
answers. The first is on the question of interoperability. As
we know, on September 11 there is some substantial reason to
believe that some of those first responders we lost at the
Trade Center certainly were lost because of a failure to
communicate with their colleagues, brothers and sisters in law
enforcement.
This capacity to communicate with one another is lagging in
most parts of the country today. I saw one cost estimate that
said it could cost $18 billion to create real interoperable
communications. The President's budget this year appears to cut
the minimal funding that was targeted to interoperability in
the past budgets through FEMA and the Department of Justice. So
my question is, what role the administration sees in making
interoperability a reality among local law enforcement?
Second, we talked before about the terrorism watch list. My
initial thought--and I am not alone in this dream here--was
that we would eventually have a coordinated watch list that
would, using your terms, not only be horizontal but vertical
and that any local police officer stopping somebody for a
traffic violation, just as they punch into the crime
information system now, would be able to punch in similarly to
a terrorism watch list, and might apprehend somebody who was on
that list. I wanted to ask you whether you share that goal and
how we are doing in achieving it.
Then the final, on the TSA--again, we cannot do everything
right away but with the enemies that we have who are going to
strike at our vulnerabilities, I think one of our roles here is
to be persistent in pressuring each other to limit and close
those vulnerabilities. In the TSA budget, which now looks to be
over $5 billion, I find only $24 million assigned to what I
would call non-aviation modes like rail, bus, trucks, etc. What
is the priority that you can place or you think the budget
should place on the non-aviation transportation modes which
themselves, unfortunately, might be vulnerable targets for
terrorists?
Secretary Ridge. Madam Chairman, if I could have a few
extra minutes to respond, as I think I would like to answer the
Senator's questions.
Chairman Collins. Absolutely.
Secretary Ridge. First of all, Senator, the whole question
of interoperability, communications, is very much at the heart
of equipping our first responders to do the best job they
possibly can at the time of an incident. Their primary job is
to save lives, and until we come up with an interoperable
communication system, we will not be able to maximize their
personal effort.
To that end, SAFECOM, that acronym has been used in a
couple different places, but safe communications, there are
three pilot projects, there are several pilot projects out
right now and that is one of the areas that the science and
technology unit is examining for the purpose of determining the
standards we need in order to create such a system.
I would tell you that as an eligible drawdown on some of
these dollars from the Office for Domestic Preparedness there
is technology on the market that basically can be used to
secure basic information from different sources on different
frequencies, translate it, and then ship it out. That is only a
temporary measure.
So first, we have pilots working. Second, there is some
technology on the market that can assist with this. It is not
the final answer. And third, the whole notion of standards is
part of the Science and Technology's mission.
With regard to vertical information sharing, the notion
that once we have the watch list integrated into one database,
and we will be there, and I believe, by the end of the summer,
rather than individuals sitting in front of screens looking at
their individual watch lists, the notion that it should be
shared with the State and locals is one that we all embrace.
Senator you should know that most of the inquiries to date
to the terrorist screening center have been from State and
local law enforcement. Again, it just shows you what a powerful
tool information is when you get it in the hands of people who
can take action with it. So again, we are going to do better at
the integration and we are looking for ways within the
Department of Homeland Security on how we can better share that
information via the Internet and elsewhere with State and
locals under other circumstances as well. So that process is
moving along rather swiftly and I think effectively.
Senator Lieberman. Can I stop you? I apologize. In other
words, what you said, the No. 1 customer, if you will, or the
source of questions to the terrorism watch list now, are from
State and local law enforcement?
Secretary Ridge. Not the No. 1, but the first couple
inquiries we had within----
Senator Lieberman. They picked somebody up and they
wondered whether there was something to worry about?
Secretary Ridge. Correct. Now ultimately that integrated
database will be connected into the airports, the TSA, and the
ports of entry. But that is precisely what happened. They are
anxious to help, Senator. You know that.
Senator Lieberman. They sure are.
Secretary Ridge. These State and local folks, 650,000
strong, they want to help. And one of the best things we can do
to enlist their support is to get them the information they can
act on.
Third, Congress has provided, you are right, the bulk of
the funding for TSA as it relates to aviation security. But
separate and apart from that, when it comes to other forms of
transportation, shipping, you have got the Coast Guard, and as
we take a look at rail and trucking, etc., you have given us
quite a few dollars in the infrastructure protection budget to
take a look at technologies that can apply to improving
security. It is part of our responsibility as well to work with
the agencies that also oversee these other modes of
transportation, the Federal Highway Administration and the
like, to work on improving safety and adding more security to
those venues as well.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Secretary. Obviously we have
come a long way and we have got a long way to go and we are
going to get there quickest if we go there together, so I look
forward to it. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I have three quick questions. One that follows up on the
Chairman's concern on immigration. I understand that BICE is
reorganizing the special agent in charge of field office
structure. My question is, how does the budget request cover
this reorganization?
My second question has to do with cuts in science and
technology in the university and fellowship programs within
Science and Technology Directorate, a cut of $38.8 million. My
question is, why were these programs cut? Because I feel such
programs certainly develops the innovative and skilled
technical staff that we need.
Finally, on geospatial information databases. I have long
had an interest in using geospatial information to enhance our
response to disasters. A comprehensive and layered national
defense database of geospatial information could be an
essential element in developing a comprehensive response to any
disaster. Indeed, such information was useful in response to
the September 11 disaster in New York. My question is, does the
Department have a strategy for acquiring such a capability? If
so, what is the timeframe for its development?
Secretary Ridge. First of all, Senator, with regard to
seeking additional dollars to reorganize the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, we think the Congress has
been generous in supporting the basic function of BICE. You
gave us an increase this year and as far as we are concerned,
it is our responsibility to reorganize it, to make it as
efficient as possible and we should not be knocking on your
door to get additional money to do it. You have already been
pretty generous.
Second, the science and technology question that you asked,
I did not hear, Senator, the specific reduction in funding that
you were concerned about. I know it was in S&T but I did not
quite pick that up. Could you kindly repeat that?
Senator Akaka. Yes. The budget proposes a cut of $38.8
million in the university and fellowship programs within the
Science and Technology Directorate. My question, why were these
programs cut and what do you think about whether it affects the
Department's ability to develop and maintain the most
innovative and skilled technical staff possible?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, as you know we have begun both a
program to identify and work with centers of excellence--those
are academic institutions around the country--and the scholars
and fellows program. Again, as we took a look internally as to
what we thought our priorities should be for fiscal year 2005
we thought we could maintain the existing program with regard
to scholars and fellows and maintain the existing number of
centers for academic excellence, but for the fiscal year 2005
there were other higher priorities and chose to fund those. But
make no mistake about it, over the long term, scholars and
fellows for the science and technology unit will continue to be
a significant priority. It is just not the highest priority
this year.
In the academic centers of excellence which to date,
Senator, have ended up being grants given to universities that
consolidate their applications, the first one was given out
West but actually involved five universities all around the
country. So again, in 2005, set priorities, we will maintain
the existing fellows and scholars program. We will maintain--I
think we are going to have four to six academic centers of
excellence. But the priorities for 2005 said, maintain and grow
them later.
Senator Akaka. My final question was on geospatial
information database and asking for a timeframe for its
development.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I know that in discussing the
geospatial component of both our operations center and talking
with people in FEMA about it and others that there is
significant interest within the Department. I cannot speak
specifically whether or not it has been reduced to a strategy,
and I would welcome the opportunity to address that by virtue
of a letter to you here in the next week or so.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Secretary, thank you not only for appearing this
morning but for the outstanding leadership that you have given
the Department during its first year in operation. We very much
appreciate your leadership and your dedication to public
service.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much.
Chairman Collins. This hearing record will remain open for
15 days for the submission of additional materials. I want to
thank my staff and the Minority staff for their hard work in
putting together this hearing which is now adjourned. Thank
you.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2688.135