Hearing of the Cybersecurity, Science and Research & Development Subcommittee of the House Select Homeland Security Committee

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE CYBERSECURITY, SCIENCE AND RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE SELECT HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: HOMELAND SECURITY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BUDGET HEARING FOR CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE MAC THORNBERRY (R-TX)

LOCATION: 2325 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.P. M. EST

WITNESSES: CHARLES MCQUEARY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

BODY:
REP. MAC THORNBERRY (R-TX): I want to welcome members and witnesses and guests to our hearing today which is going to focus on the Department of Homeland Security's budget for science and technology. Next Monday the department will mark its one year birthday. It seems to me this is an appropriate time to measure how much progress has been made over the past year and assess where we are now and also plan on how we move ahead. And I'm also cognizant of the fact that as September 11th recedes further back into our memory, it is a challenge to maintain a sense of urgency, both in improving operations of the department and also in the day to day job of making our country safer.

I personally believe that there are five areas in which the department and Congress ought to focus in our second year efforts. One is integrating the department into that one seamless unit that we intended it to be. Two is improving coordination with the private sector with other government entities and ultimately also other international entities. Three is improving intelligence analysis and sharing. Four is developing ways to measure whether we're really making the country safer and five is developing and fielding technology, which of course is the subject of our hearing today.

Most of us acknowledge that central to the success in the war on terrorism is fielding of technologies that can help prevent attack as well as those that help us to respond quickly and effectively when something does occur. But deciding what to buy and in which technologies to invest involves setting priorities and to a certain extent in making educated guesses. It also involves not buying everything that somebody has for sale and having the discipline to invest for longer term solutions. The first step was to get the building blocks in place: the people, the organizations, the processes to make decisions. And my view is that the S&T directorate has done a good job so far in setting those cornerstones.

The next step is to begin making decisions, whether it's identifying an existing technology that you want to field quickly, or developing a technology to a more useful application, or directing research dollars into some area where you have vulnerabilities. For Fiscal Year 2005 the administration has requested just a little over $1 billion for the S&T directorate, about $126 million more than last year. The largest increase over last year is for biosurveillance. Other parts of the Department of Homeland Security as well as other cabinet agencies also have homeland security related science and technology funding and one of the issues we'll want to explore is how that is coordinated. The bottom line, it seems to me, is that we are safer than we were a year ago but we're not nearly as safe as we should be or as safe as we will be. Technology in our ports, in our cities or in our squad cars are going to help us all do a better job of protecting Americans.

With that I will yield to the distinguished ranking member, the gentlelady from California, for any statement she'd like to make.

REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd ask unanimous consent to put my entire statement into the record.

REP. THORNBERRY: Without objection.

REP. LOFGREN: First, this is our first hearing of this year and I think when we look back over the last year, we did accomplish a lot but there's much, much more to do as you have just referenced. And thinking back to when we first met with Dr. McQueary last year, he spoke about seven specific areas that he wished to focus in on. I'm hoping today to get an update on all seven of those and where we stand with each of them. As you've mentioned in the budget there is a strong emphasis on biodefense. I'm interested in how-to the extent you can discuss that in an unclassified setting-we reached the conclusion that that was our highest priority as compared to other threats, chemical nuclear high explosives and the like.

The other thing I hope you can touch on, and I've mentioned to the chairman we may want to have further discussions either in a workshop format or the like, to pursue further the interface between the private sector and your shop. I still hear concerns that people don't know who to talk to, how to be heard. Clearly I remember last time we met you mentioned, and it actually made me-it scared me to hear that you were reading all the emails, I'm sure that that can no longer be the case, and that's good news.

But I want to know about the processes in place and, without being unduly negative, note that we need to do a better job here because the members of the committee are constantly being approached by private sector people with suggestions. We shouldn't really be the entry point for the department, we're not skilled to do that. And so I'm hopeful that we can come up with-I mean, there's so many great ideas out there, but some of them are also (vaporwear ?) and so somebody needs to sort through what's real, what isn't, what can be applied in a way that's better than what we're doing now. So I'm hopeful to hear about the private sector one-stop-shop, where that is and where it's going to be located and how we can deploy it.

And with that, I'd would just like to mention again what a pleasure it has been to work with the chairman, Mr. Thornberry, and I look forward to another good year.

-BREAK OF TRANSCRIPT-

REP. LOFGREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just have a few questions relative to the budget, I suppose. And the first thing I want to raise has to do with the academic university centers. Now, I think we all thought that was a pretty good idea last year when we went through it and-but in the budget, if I'm correct, there's only $30 million allocated for this activity and I don't think that's enough to do the number of centers that we'd talked about. I think it was appropriated $70 million and I don't think that was all spent. So I guess that's a question. Was it all spent? And how are we going to award the 10 centers that we had originally planned on? And if we're not going to do that, why not?

And in particular, I'll be a little parochial if I may. We have in San Jose a university center on transportation that I've heard from-not just from them, but I heard from the Navy and I also heard from Lawrence Livermore National Lab that they are doing very important work in terms of security and on transportation issues. And I know we've looked at Ag and we're looking at some other things but we have infrastructure issues that are huge, that I'm not sure we're really dealing with in any department and I was hoping that either with them or we might be able to do that. So can you address that whole issue, the university centers for us please?

MR. McQUEARY: Well, you've raised several important issues and certainly the request that we have in is $30 million. With $30 million for this year our-and if one had the same amount for outgoing years that would support approximately three centers of excellence. These are approximately $5 million minus our expenses and the remaining $15 million would support another 100 scholars and fellows there. One of the things I've learned in this job is that we all work for someone and it is my job-we have adequate opportunity to debate the issue about what the size of the budget should be for the fellows and scholars program.

At this point I view my responsibility as one of trying to make the best performance that we can get out of the budget that has been requested and that is what I can assure you I will do.

REP. LOFGREN: So without putting words in your mouth, it sounds like the three was a budget decision more than a policy decision emanating from your job?

MR. McQUEARY: It's a consequence of a budget decision, yes.

REP. LOFGREN: Okay. Was the $70 million appropriated actually spent?

MR. McQUEARY: No, ma'am. We have not spent all of the 70. In fact, without going through the rigorous details, the arithmetic-an approach that we could use, and I'm not proposing that we do this, we have enough money so that we can actually create a total of five centers, but the problem would be at the end of the three year period would be-we've been allocated these for three years, there would be at least two of them that would have to be stopped, because $30 million would not be sufficient to sustain five units of that --

REP. LOFGREN: I don't know what the chairman thinks, but it seems to me that you can get a lot of pretty good research done in three years, especially if you're honing in to assessments, not just solutions. And as we know from the Senate hearing and the hearings we've had, we're way behind in our threat assessment activity everywhere-in cyber and in critical infrastructure. And without good assessments you really don't have a work plan for expenditure so I would tend to favor doing something rather than --

MR. McQUEARY: Okay.

REP. LOFGREN: -- I mean, that's just one person's opinion obviously, but maybe we can get into that discussion at some point. I am also concerned about the Department of Energy labs, and I'm interested in hearing about this designation of-I was surprised by intramural, extramural-what does this mean? And why was this done and what are the implications for the various labs?

I think that the feedback I've gotten from the scientific community is that those who have been designated extramural are grumpy because they weren't good enough to be intramural. Those who have been designated intramural are grumpy because they can't get-compete for funding and nobody's happy. And so when you-so I'm interested why we did this and whether we are going to continue to do this?

MR. McQUEARY: This has been quite a remarkable experience for me personally to find what I'll call the firestorm, that we've been able to develop with something and which we actually thought and discussed this in great detail internally and also with nine of the labs, that we're trying to use the approach that would maximize the opportunities for the labs to participate in what we're doing. And so the logic in our thinking was as follows: because of the charter or the mission that we have, chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high explosives, some labs have more to offer in these areas than do other labs.

And therefore what we concluded is that there was a small number of the labs in which we expected to be using more than the others and we needed to have those-we felt we needed to have those labs be participants in what I'll call our internal planning and so forth. And so our conclusion was it would not be appropriate to let those labs also compete externally if they have insider information. So we concluded that what we should do is designate the five that we chose as the intramural labs, and with that goes the responsibility or the requirement that they not compete on any business or university teams for any of the work we do.

The others, what we believe we were doing was providing an opportunity for them to either compete directly in other areas such as through HSARPA where we'll be spending money or to team with private industry in order to have a larger possibility, because had we gone down a path, quite frankly, of choosing-let's say we chose all nine or chose all 22, made them all intramural, meaning that we gave them the full access to all of our internal information there would be some of those labs that would get virtually no money, because they just don't have the skills and expertise that we find that we need at this time.

Now, that could change later on, but at least as we look at it right now. So we thought we were doing something that would be beneficial but obviously has not been perceived that way. Although one thing you did say that I have not personally encountered, those that have been designated as the intramural labs I have not had any complaints from them. I've had a fair share from those who were designated as the extramural labs --

REP. LOFGREN: Well, I think their concern is that they will not be able to compete.

MR. McQUEARY: Well, they will not be able to, that's the --

REP. LOFGREN: Yes. For example, you've got-without naming names-some labs where I mean the depth of the scientific experience is just breathtaking. I mean, it's awesome, and so there are the intramurals but we are going to deny the best scientists in their field, maybe in the world, the opportunity to actually do work for us later.

MR. McQUEARY: Well, at the same time we have these views coming from the private labs, we also have a university and a private sector who looks at the labs as their competition and a view that the labs have or the insight into what the government wants to do and therefore they have the added advantage. And so we've been trying to do what I'll call a balancing act --

REP. LOFGREN: Right, but our job is to get a job done, not to be a jobs program, right?

MR. McQUEARY: Absolutely right, and I completely agree with that. And in fact you raise a point if I may make it here, the amount of money that Science and Technology will spend in all of the labs on what I see is an ongoing basis, is about $200 million. DOE spends almost $9 billion-they have a total budget on those labs of almost $9 billion. The Department of Homeland Security has about another $100 million, the balance being spent primarily in other directorates, borders and transportation, so there's about $300 million out of $9 billion, so we represent 3 percent of the total budgets they've got.

And had we gone down a path of let's just put some of this in all the labs. It is my professional view that we would have such a small amount of money in any lab that would be difficult to get the needed attention that we have to have on ours other than through, you know, congressional direction or something of that sort, and that's not the way to get scientists to perform.

REP. LOFGREN: So-I'll stop because I don't-we'll have a second round, but you're not planning to change this intramural, extramural --

MR. McQUEARY: I had testimony before Congressman Boehlert's committee last week or the week before, time runs together for me --

REP. LOFGREN: Yes, it does.

MR. McQUEARY: And what we agreed to do is have an independent review team. I volunteered to have an independent review team to look at the methodology we used to make the selection because there was nothing magical about it or intended to be surreptitious and so be happy to have it examined and we'll see where we go from there. Another-and we'll look at options. We could make them all as a possibility, although I'd rather not do it today, I wouldn't do it today, they could all be intramural. But with that goes the requirement that they not be-if they get access to inside information then they cannot compete as I would see it today, because I view that would be against a fair competition with private industry and not something-a direction we should go in.

REP. LOFGREN: We'll have greater discussion on this --

MR. McQUEARY: Okay, sure.

REP. LOFGREN: And I'm a big fan of the private sector, as you know, but I also think that you would be hard pressed to find the depth of science and anybody in industry will tell you the same thing in the private sector that you'll find that some of these labs and some of these specialized subjects, I mean it's just --

MR. McQUEARY: In some areas, you're absolutely right.

REP. LOFGREN: That's why we have the arrangements that we do to roll their science out into the private sector. I mean that they're really gems, national gems.

MR. McQUEARY: Absolutely, completely agree.

-BREAK OF TRANSCRIPT-

REP. LOFGREN: Just a few additional questions. They really mostly relate to how we amass the information that's available, first that we find out what's out there and then make use of it in a way that helps us. You, in your testimony, talk on page 10 about the standards for development of biometrics for precise identification of individuals, which is great. That's something I've been wanting somebody to take the lead on for quite some time. However-and you also mention someplace that you're working in coordination with US- VISIT. However, I'm worried that US-VISIT is proceeding with their own biometrics standard that I guess has not been developed by you, and certainly the FBI is doing their own thing.

And I guess the concern I have is that all of this stuff is moving ahead, and I understand it needs to, but we're going to end up with different biometric standards that don't have the benefit of what you were planning to do. So how are you-what's your intention on getting your presumably excellent work that is yet to be done actually adopted by the various segments of the government that need biometrics?

MR. McQUEARY: It's been an interesting prospect to create a new science and technology division that is a service organization for-an organization that's been in existence for many, many years and are already underway with programs. The approach that we chose to take in the beginning, in the formation of the science and technology group was in those scientific endeavors that were already underway to not try to take those over because we were in a mode of trying to grow our staff. At the same time, we were trying to get our operational procedures in place. So what we did is choose to focus in the areas more in detectors and standards and things of that sort that was not intrusive on existing programs.

We did, however, have a role to play in the US-VISIT program in that the science and technology organization contracted to have a systems engineer-a systems engineering company take over and provide some inputs into what was ultimately put out in the RFP for the development of that. We did not have great influence on it but it was something that I felt very strongly. US-VISIT will have to evolve over time. It now uses two fingers, as you know, for that biometric.

At some point the data system becomes overloaded and two fingerprints are not adequate to be able to provide a full biometric identification, and so I see as needing to move towards certainly more fingerprints over time, and I'm confident that will be done. And as we make those evolutions, I think we'll be having more-I'm confident we'll have more Science and Technology involvement in that.

REP. LOFGREN: So basically you're thinking that that proceeds but when you're finished, you might-for example, they might want to add on an iris scan. There's a smaller data load there and the reliability's at least as high, maybe a little bit higher than fingerprints, and it would be duplicative, but with the duplication, you'd have a higher level of reliability.

MR. McQUEARY: And if we've done our job, they should be getting their scientific view on whether that's a good idea from the Science and Technology Directorate.

REP. LOFGREN: And how do you plan to have them listen to you, since they don't listen to us?

MR. McQUEARY: I can't comment on that. The manner in which we tried to make sure that we have close relationships-I have one of my-we have portfolios, which you've probably read in the testimony. One of the portfolio managers is responsible for the direct interaction with the borders and transportation organization. In fact, she came out of the borders and transportation-she came out of the old Customs organization to join us because our plan all along was for the portfolio managers that represented the operational units, we wanted to get a person that came out of those units so that, one, that person knew the interoperations of that unit from which they came, and two, we would hope that they could be a trusted person to contact within Science and Technology by virtue of having come out of it.

REP. LOFGREN: Let me ask about another sort of consolidation issue, and that is in the whole cybersecurity testing issue. I'm aware-well, let me ask you this. How many on staff people do we have in that function as compared to contractors, you know?

MR. McQUEARY: I do not know how many the director of the National Cyber Security Division has. I spoke with him recently and asked him that question, but I simply cannot recall the answer he gave.

REP. LOFGREN: All right. Well, they're doing some things, then we've got universities. I know that the University of California, San Diego --

MR. McQUEARY: And Berkeley also.

REP. LOFGREN: -- and Berkeley and Carnegie Mellon are doing some things. Some of them are under contract with us, some of them they're just doing on their own. They've come up with different analyses of what might happen in various scenarios. It looks to me that we are primarily in your testimony on page 36 on the Internet, security technology focusing on cyberspace, but there's the physical infrastructure element of vulnerability that I am concerned has just not been attended to because it's not been assigned to anybody, and that that's maybe not being integrated into the diverse analysis that's going forward, some funded by the government, some just independent. How do we get our arms around all of this good science information and integrate it into what you're doing?

MR. McQUEARY: Well, my view is that the appropriate thing to do is to look to the National Cyber Security Division that is the Infrastructure Protection Directorate that is their established responsibility. People like myself have a responsibility to provide the scientific support that they might need in order to do that.

REP. LOFGREN: So we ask them and not you?

MR. McQUEARY: I'm not saying ask them and not me, I'm just saying that's the area of responsibilities as they've been currently devised.

REP. LOFGREN: Okay. No, that's fine.

If I could indulge the chairman for just one final questions, the RFP for the Homeland Security Institute requires that the contract management and all the full-time staff have to be in Washington DC. And my question is, why are we limiting the universe that can respond to that RFP just to inside the Beltway? Is there a reason for that?

MR. McQUEARY: I wouldn't view it as limiting at all, I'd view it as-I mean, many companies set up operations here in Washington when there's a need to have the interaction. It does not --

REP. LOFGREN: Well, but my understanding is that all contractor management and all full-time staff are to be located in the Washington DC metropolitan area.

MR. McQUEARY: That's intended to be for the people that would be working in that Homeland Security Institute. That does not mean-it could be a larger company, it could be a university or a national lab or something of that sort that has --

REP. LOFGREN: But what's the rationale for that?

MR. McQUEARY: Because we will have some classified material to deal with over time. We have a small amount right now. But the important thing is having that group. They will be involved heavily in systems engineering work for us. It is very, very important to have them close so that our people can interact with them on an easy basis. Having somebody on the West Coast or Northeast or wherever where you've always got to travel in order to have a meaningful interaction, in my judgment, is simply not the most effective way to get the most out of it.

REP. LOFGREN: So you've already decided who's going to get the --

MR. McQUEARY: We have not decided who is going-we have absolutely not decided who's going to get that, no.

REP. LOFGREN: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

-BREAK OF TRANSCRIPT-

REP. LOFGREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you were talking I was remembering the other questions I forgot to ask. And really there's just three and they all really relate to the same subject, which is information that is out there in other parts of the federal government, in some cases, that may or may not be known to you because there's no good source.

For example, as we were talking about the detection of bioagents, I was recalling that the Post Office actually has deployed-and I know this because one of the component parts is manufactured not in my district but nearby, and I've visited, where they do air samples 24/7 and the component that is made in California actually does the testing for DNA of the biohazard. It produces a result that is 99.9 percent accurate, according to the Army. You know, they did a competition at the testing ground-under 35 minutes.

So I don't know whether that's the right-I mean, it was good enough for the Post Office. They're just a component. It's a major Defense contractor who's got the prime contract, because they're testing for other things. But we don't need to invent that because it's already been done.

And just one example, NASA is doing all kinds of interesting things, not for homeland security, for space, but they've-for example, Ames has come up with a piece of equipment at NASA Ames, where they can detect life, you know, in very dense rubble. And they were thinking it wasn't devised for rescuers but that it would have an application for rescuers. But there's really nothing in place for the NASA Ames scientists to funnel that in to you.

Or the CIA got so frustrated or alarmed about what was going on in Silicon Valley in terms of invention, I'm sure you're aware that they hired Gilman Louie to be a venture capitalist to go out and find out about this stuff. I don't know if Gilman gives reports to your department or not --

MR. McQUEARY: We have met with Gilman. I have not personally met him but we've had people --

REP. LOFGREN: I see him in the airplane all the time. You know, I mean, there's just-but there's no real way to funnel this information in to you. And I guess I'm thinking-I don't know that I have the solution either, but there needs to be some thought given to how we harness the brain power and diverse elements of the federal government, things funded by the federal government, so we don't end up reinventing what's already been invented.

MR. McQUEARY: I completely agree with you. Completely agree with you.

REP. LOFGREN: So what are your thoughts on how to do that?

MR. McQUEARY: Well, certainly at the top level, I think Jack Marburger, Dr. Marburger, is in the best position to have the view of what is going on scientifically throughout the government. Now, he's one individual and he has a relatively small staff, and so how much detail they can get into in order to be able to provide that --

REP. LOFGREN: I don't think it's possible for him to play that role.

MR. McQUEARY: Probably not. But other than that, the only way I know if is through working groups. By the way, we have had contact with NASA. I don't recall whether it was Ames, but early on when I was reading all the e-mails, I got an e-mail from someone at NASA that had some ideas that I can't reconstruct at this point as to what they might be able to do to help us. But that's informal and it would be-I share your view that if we had a more formalized way of stimulating the interaction, we all could be better served by the money the federal government's spending. And I'll take it on to try to see if I can come up with a better thing in saying why doesn't Jack Marburger help me.

REP. LOFGREN: I'd be very interested if you'd give some thought to that and maybe that's one of the questions we should pose to our advisory council as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.