Hearing of Committee on Homeland Security - Department of Homeland Security: The Road Ahead

Hearing of Committee on Homeland Security - Department of Homeland Security: The Road Ahead

Chairman Collins. The Committee will come to order. As I convene the Committee's first hearing of the 109th Congress, I
want to express my appreciation to the Committee's Ranking Member, Senator Lieberman, who will be here shortly. I also
want to express my appreciation to our other veteran Members for their commitment to the Committee's work and for choosing
to return during this Congress.

The Committee also has four new Members: Senators Warner, Domenici, Chafee, and Coburn, and we look forward to working with them as well. Along with new Members, our Committee has a new name, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. While the new name will not win praise for its brevity or its style, it does reflect the Committee's expanded jurisdiction, and so it is appropriate that the Committee's first meeting of this year is an oversight hearing focusing on the Department of Homeland Security, evaluating the progress made so far and the challenges that remain.

As we prepare for the confirmation hearing of a new DHS Secretary, this assessment is especially timely. The title of
our hearing today, ``Department of Homeland Security: The Road Ahead,'' has a deeper meaning than might be immediately
apparent. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established a clear destination for the new Department. It was to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, to reduce our vulnerability to terrorism, and to assist in recovery should an attack occur.

The precise route toward that destination, however, remains under construction. We are here to continue building a road
that is as efficient, effective, and durable as possible. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the security of America
could not wait until this road was mapped out precisely and built to perfection.

The Department began operating under the constraints of a paradox. It had to meet immediately the new threat of the 21st Century with 20th Century components, all or part of some 22 existing Federal agencies with 180,000 employees, and it had to
do so without neglecting the traditional missions of those agencies.

Any fair assessment will conclude that the Department under the leadership of Secretary Tom Ridge has made considerable
progress. Our borders and transportation systems are more secure. Our critical infrastructure is better protected, and our emergency response capabilities are improved. But other reforms, such as the transportation worker identification credential, have lagged and it has been a daunting challenge for DHS leaders to integrate the 22 agencies while at the same
time developing new policies that will make us safer.

The Homeland Security Act was not the last word on how we can best marshal our resources. As we proceed with this
assessment, I am sure we will confront and I hope address the broad issue of better integration within the Department as well
as a great many specific issues related to efficiency and effectiveness, accountability and authority.

Some observers may find it difficult to envision that a Department so large and with so many responsibilities could
ever develop the efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, and durability to meet this challenge.

Yet, the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 proves otherwise. As a result of
this act, the military's organizational culture has shifted dramatically over the last 20 years toward jointness and the
combatant commands have produced far greater cohesion among the military services. I believe the Department of Homeland
Security should strive for that same organizational culture and integration.

Today, we will hear from five witnesses, all of whom have scrutinized the Department. These witnesses will discuss
several common problems that they have identified at DHS including a lack of strategic planning. Our witnesses today
will discuss the Department's focus on managing daily crises and whether, as a result, it is not engaged in the necessary
strategic planning.

Such planning is needed to ensure that we are directing the resources to the right places and that we are making the
decisions today that will serve us well into the future.

Structural problems. Two years into the Department's life, we are now able to assess whether it is configured properly.
The Heritage Foundation and CSIS have concluded that there are unnecessary layers of bureaucracy at DHS. They recommend, for example, the merger of two separate entities, the Customs and Border Protection, CBP, and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, into ``one unit with one uniform.''

The need for clearer authorities. Some of our witnesses will discuss their belief that in a number of areas, there is a
muddled division of responsibility between DHS and other agencies and departments. We will hear about the effects of
such confusion as well as some possible solutions. These three problems and others our witnesses will discuss are obstacles in
the road ahead and they must be cleared. I am particularly interested in the thoughts our witnesses have on how these
problems relate to several key areas of concern.

Border and transportation security were at the heart of the September 11 attacks. We were reminded of our vulnerability again just last week by what proved to be a false alarm in Boston regarding possible terrorists entering our country from
Mexico.

In the hours and days after the September 11 attacks, we saw the vital role that emergency preparedness and response can play in reducing damage and loss of life. And we have done much to improve our capabilities at all levels of government since September 11. The identification of critical infrastructure and the hardening of targets or other forms of preparedness in
which we have made some progress, but they remain a weakness in our homeland defense.

The Department of Homeland Security also plays an important role in our newly reorganized intelligence community. Because of the connections that it has already forged with our first responders, the Department is perhaps our strongest link with State and local authorities. This is an invaluable asset in intelligence that must be maximized. The integration of 22
agencies with thousands of employees in different cultures, practices, and areas of expertise into one cohesive entity
remains a work in progress.

In fact, we were reminded just yesterday by the Government Accountability Office's list of high risk areas that this
integration remains incomplete and information sharing among the Department's components and many other agencies and levels of government is inadequate.

We must improve department-wide management from procurement and contracting to information sharing and technology. We must eliminate unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and the barriers to communication that remain from the Department's creation. But we must do these things, always in the interest of reaching our destination with a minimum of detours.

Our witnesses today have studied the issues related to a stronger, more effective and efficient Department and a more
secure homeland with great expertise and thoroughness, and I appreciate their joining us.

Finally, now that we have more Members present, let me say how proud I am of the very heritage and the record of this
Committee. Our bipartisan collaboration and hard work last year produced landmark legislation, strengthening our intelligence
community. It is my intention that we approach our work in the same spirit this year.

I am very fortunate to have an outstanding Ranking Member in that regard, and it is my pleasure now to recognize Senator
Lieberman for his comments. I would note that we also are very pleased to have Senator Domenici returning to the Committee
after a space of a couple of years and to welcome the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator
Warner, who is joining the Committee, I believe, for the first time, and, of course, our stalwart Member, Senator Akaka, who
plays such an important role, and it is wonderful to have you here today.

Let me also--I did it at the beginning of my comments--but welcome Senator Coburn for joining us and we have the
distinguished Member from Alaska, Senator Stevens, the Chairman of the Commerce Committee now, also joining us. I always like to recognize Senator Stevens because if he chose he could bump me as Chairman. [Laughter.]

So I am grateful that he has not chosen to exercise that prerogative and instead is chairing the Commerce Committee.

Senator Lieberman, welcome.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_senate_hearings&docid=20169.wais