Hearing of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee - FY '05 Budget for the Homeland Security Department

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SENATE GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: FY '05 BUDGET FOR THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT

CHAIRED BY: SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME)

LOCATION: 342 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

WITNESSES: DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY TOM RIDGE

BODY:
SEN. COLLINS: The committee will come to order. Good morning.

I want to begin with 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 Joe Lieberman. Joe, we've missed you greatly in the last few weeks, last few months, and we're very glad to have you back. And since I personally believe that your philosophy resonates with a broad range of moderate-politically moderate Americans, I'm really glad to have you back, since I think you would have been a formidable force in a general election. But it is a great pleasure to have you back at my side.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D-CT): Thank you very much.

SEN. COLLINS: It has been nearly two-and-a-half years since an unconscionable act of war was committed against the United States. The American people responded to the attacks of September 11th with courage, courage that we evident that horrible day in the heroic actions of the passengers on Flight 93, in the firefighers and police officers at Ground Zero and in the Pentagon employees who led the 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 realized 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 11th, we were not connecting the dots, and turf battles, communication gaps and interagency rivalries could no longer be tolerated. The stakes were 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've confirmed eight highly talented and dedicated individuals, most notably the secretary, who are leading the department. We've 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 re-fund the department's multibillion-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 accomplishment.

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'm 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 fast 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 every 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 pre-screening 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 cost. 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, and 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. And 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 openness our enemy seeks to destroy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. COLLINS: This committee held a hearing last year on the threat posed by agro-terrorism, and I think that's another example where rural America faces a threat that is very difficult to deal with, and it's going to require increased coordination, and that's another example of why we have to recognize that population does not automatically translate into vulnerabilities. Would you agree with that?

SEC. 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 this country responded to 9-11, 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, and the states, and the territories, to submit strategic security plans to us. They were all due by January 31st of this year, so we could take a look at what they perceive to be their threats, their vulnerabilities, their critical infrastructure. Your point is well taken, so we can 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 the language gives the secretary to target these resources consistent with the state plans we're getting from our colleagues in state government.

SEN. 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'll be secretary forever, but in the event that doesn't happen, I am going to be working with my colleagues to clarify the language in that 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 of one-stop shopping, if you will, for communities to be able to find out more easily what funds area 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 a billion dollars compared to what was appropriated.

And, second, I'm still hearing complaints that the money is slow to get to first responders, and to get to communities.

I personally have concluded that 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 make sure that the money is reaching those on the front lines as quickly as possible?

SEC. RIDGE: Well, first of all, to put it in context, Madam Chairman, if just the dollars we requested this year are appropriated by Congress, the amount of money to our first responders in state and local governments since Fiscal Year '01 will be about $15 billion. And 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 as part of the budget that I submitted to OMB. As you well recall last year, we submitted an 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. I think it's generally understood, and I think generally preferred that as much of these dollars be distributed based on threat and risk. Having said that, 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 the dollars, we believe, should be distributed according to threat and risk.

And 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 the interaction between the federal government, the state government, and local government, I believe we can better target these resources.

SEN. COLLINS: Finally, I want you to address the Coast Guard budget. Senator Lieberman and I wrote to OMB last fall to urge that the Deep Water Program, which has designed a very comprehensive program to upgrade the Coast Guard's assets, since it has so many aging cutters, and aircraft. We had proposed funding that over a ten- year period, which in the long-run would actually save money for the federal government, significant money, as well as allowing the Coast Guard to upgrade its fleet far more quickly. This budget does include a commendable increase in the Coast Guard's budget, but it still funds the Deep Water Program over 22 years. Could you comment on what you think is the appropriate time for rebuilding the Coast Guard? We're concerned given the Coast Guard's traditional mission, and its vital homeland security mission, that too many of its aircraft and cutters are being sidelined because of maintenance and aging problems.

SEC. RIDGE: Madam Chairman, first of all, given the fiscal and security environment, the increase to the Coast Guard, nearly an 8 percent increase, again, as we said, priorities within the department is precisely where we think we need to be. The fiscal environment changes, the security environment potentially changes, there could be some alteration to that. But, again, we're 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. We're quite comfortable, given the nearly $500 million that we've requested the Congress to appropriate, that we'll 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 part of the International Distress System in this program, additional money for maritime search and safety teams which you give us, 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, and the security environment, we've asked for more, you've given us more, we'll continue to maintain the same level of the service both in homeland and non-homeland functions.

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, we're going to do a very brief final round of questions of only three minutes each in the attempt to get you out of here as near to 12:00 as possible, and we appreciate your time this morning.

In my remaining three minutes, I want to bring up two problems that my own 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, to go to the grocery store, these American citizens need to cross over to the Canadian side.

Well, prior to the tightening of security, the department had a program called the Form 1 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. And it's just a very difficult situation, given that all those services are on the Canadian side. I would note the Canadians still have a system that allows the citizens to enter Canada without any problem whatsoever. The problem is they can't get back, they can't 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 doesn't solve the problem on Sunday or evenings, and it really 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 aren't 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, 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. And 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.

And there 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, and I do feel strongly about that, but to work more with the community involved to make sure that these are-sweeps are conducted in a way that is respectful of people and that 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 9/11 world.

SEC. RIDGE: Senator, you know, 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 particularly 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 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. And so I think, obviously, we would be pleased to work with you on that. It's that balance between security and convenience and commerce that sometimes needs to be applied on an ad hoc basis, one at a time. So, obviously, we will be pleased to work with you on that.

I would say, hopefully, if men and women, children, are in this country here legally, they have nothing to fear, and shouldn't 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'll be able to get to the answers. We don't 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's respecting the rights of individuals, be they legal or illegal, and the rights of the community.

And so again, it's 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'd be pleased to discuss it with you.

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Senator Lieberman.