Hearing of the Homeland Security Subcommittee - Fiscal Year 2005 Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE HOMELAND SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2005 APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD ROGERS (R-KY)

LOCATION: 2359 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

WITNESSES: TOM RIDGE, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

BODY:

REP. ROGERS: The committee will be in order.

Mr. Secretary, we're pleased to welcome you here today.

SEC. RIDGE: Mr. Chairman.

REP. ROGERS: Your second appearance before this subcommittee. It was one year ago today that the Department of Homeland Security opened its doors. When you appeared before us in March of last year, we let you know that we would be following your progress as you organized and merged these disparate cultures, missions and management structures of 22 separate agencies, now collectively called the Department of Homeland Security. And we've done that; and we're pleased to report that by all accounts, you have accomplished a tremendous amount in just one year.

You launched the US-VISIT program to track foreign visitors and students, something we had been attempting for decades. You created a one-stop shop for state and local first responders. You instituted a process to facilitate the development and deployment of new technologies for a variety of homeland defense functions, including bio-surveillance, radiation detection and container security. You established agreements with several major airports supporting major renovations to accommodate aviation security technology. You successfully merged four bureaucracies on the border creating one face on the border and putting them under one chain of command. And you expanded the Container Security Initiative from 10 to 16 ports, pre- screening cargo before it ever reaches our shores.

Those are just some of the accomplishments of the past year, and we congratulate you and your coworkers for a very successful first year.

Unfortunately, these praises are somewhat tempered by the reality of all that remains to be done. In this regard, critics are quick to point out what they see as shortcomings. Over the past year, some criticisms have been lobbed in your direction, from charges that our borders are not secure to complaints that air travel is not entirely safe.

We consistently hear complaints that money for first responders is not getting out on the streets fast enough. We've witnessed security breaches, as passengers carry contraband on airplanes. We're being told that cargo, whether on ships or airplanes, is not safe and that our ports remain vulnerable. In some instances, criticisms may be valid.

I continue to have concerns about the pace of our vulnerability assessments, as well as the work being done to catalog our critical infrastructure and key assets. I'm not satisfied entirely by the pace of the airport renovations to accommodate explosive detection technologies. I continue to watch carefully the department's propensity for responding to workload challenges by adding more screeners to TSA's books instead of developing and deploying cutting- edge technologies to do the same work and do it better. I remain concerned about the ability of the department to meet tight deadlines for high-risk ventures such as the US-VISIT Program. And I am extremely concerned by large gaps in hiring personnel, both within critical management offices of the department, such as the budget office, as well as the information analysis and infrastructure protection directory.

Now, I highlight those concerns not to place blame, but rather to encourage you to take inventory of where you are today and honestly compare that to where you want to be-where you need to be. Mr. Secretary, we realize the tremendous challenges that you're facing. A day in the life of Homeland Security is phenomenal. One day in the life of Homeland Security: inspecting over 57,000 trucks and containers, 580 vessels-ships, 323,600 vehicles. It includes screening about 1.5 million passengers, maintaining over 90 security zones around key infrastructure and in major ports and coastal areas. It includes helping 224 Americans recover from disasters and seizing $172,000 in counterfeit currency, all of that in one day, to start with.

Over the past 17 months, FEMA has responded to 62 major disaster declarations, 46 fire management assistance declarations and 24 emergency declarations. On top of that, the threat level has been raised four times since the inception of the threat advisory system and three times over the last 12 months. These facts and figures tell an important story, namely the work being done by the department is formidable. While the management and coordination of these day-to-day diverse operations is a daunting task, we must be careful that we are not so consumed by such day-to-day operations that we lose sight of the bigger goal, and that's to strategically secure the homeland.

Mr. Secretary, the department released recently its strategic plan which we've had a chance to review, and I take this opportunity to express some concern about its overly broad nature. Similar to my reservations about the overall national strategy on homeland security, the strategic plan provides a vision for homeland security but it lacks a detailed blueprint for implementation. There are no milestones, no benchmarks against which we or you can measure progress. There are no priorities established and no specific goals or outcomes. I believe this is somewhat of a shortcoming that requires your attention. Your strategic plan must include specific goals and specific outcomes, specific milestones; ones that your department can aim for and achieve each year and that we can sort of measure your progress as we go. Without these pieces the strategic plan is no more than a broad vision for homeland security and not a plan of action. I also believe that you'll have a difficult time overcoming your critics and your weaknesses absent a solid strategic plan.

Mr. Secretary, we look forward to hearing your thoughts on our national homeland security priorities and discussing the specifics of what you will achieve during the upcoming year. As the department enters its second year there's clearly much work to yet be done. We have put a small drop in a very large bucket, but it was the beginning. So we congratulate you and the department for the work of the past year. We look forward to even greater accomplishments in the upcoming year and your testimony today.

With that before, I recognize you, Mr. Secretary, let me yield to my colleague Mr. Sabo for any comments he'd like to make.

REP. MARTIN OLAV SABO (D-MN): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And Secretary Ridge, let me welcome you to the committee and say that I appreciate all your hard work for the nation. And I think you may have one of the toughest jobs in Washington, both in terms of setting priorities for the future, reorganizing, and running a very complex and big department.

With that said, however, I must admit that I have many concerns about the Department of Homeland Security's progress over the past year in meeting the security challenges of our country. After the 9/11 terror attacks, President Bush made commitments to the American people that have not been met. Serious security gaps remain that were identified more than two years ago, from intelligence coordination to first responder preparedness. We are still dangerously unprepared to meet the threats we know are out there.

Budgets are policy, and the president's fiscal '05 budget request falls seriously short in several ways. Al Qaeda continues to target our aviation system, yet air marshals and cargo screening, two initiatives that provide some of the best deterrence to aviation attacks, are seriously lacking in the president's budget. The air marshal budget is mostly pay and travel, and it troubles me that the administration is lagging behind on the air marshal hiring target set by the administration and Congress after September 11th.

To make matters worse, for fiscal '05, the funding proposed is below the 2004 level. I don't understand why air marshals aren't a higher priority for the administration and might say I think that was one of the more important programs that we got going.

I also find it ironic-the largest funding increase proposed in the department, 92 percent, is for departmental operations. That just doesn't seem right. First responders, who are in the front line in our communities, need equipment and training. They deserve better than a 15 percent DHS funding cut.

Critical infrastructure, including ports, chemical factories and nuclear plants, are still vulnerable. However, initiatives to harden these targets remain woefully inadequate. We need leadership to resolve and resources to protect our nation.

The American public shouldn't be shortchanged. And I look forward to your testimony.

REP. ROGERS: Mr. Secretary, you're now recognized. Please summarize your testimony. And we welcome you here.

SEC. RIDGE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman Sabo, my colleagues in public service on the committee, good morning.

It's a great pleasure to join you this morning. I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear for the second time as the secretary of Homeland Security but for the first time when we've been able to submit a department-wide budget.

I ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be put in the record. I'd just like to summarize a few highlights, if I could.

REP. ROGERS: Without objection.

SEC. RIDGE: I appreciate your accommodating some schedule restrictions, and I know people will be much more interested in question and answers than a monologue from the secretary. So thank you.

First of all, I want to share with the committee our understanding within the department-and it's an expression of concern addressed by members on both sides of the aisle-that we know we've come a fair distance but we've got a long way to go. And while we won't dwell too long on the highlights of the last year, I'm grateful for the fact that the chairman mentioned some of them publicly. But I think the first consolidated budget of the Department of Homeland Security set some priorities consistent with both presidential and congressional objectives, and I'd like to highlight some of those.

First of all, we need to continue to strengthen our border and our port security. And we're going to ask for an additional 370-plus million dollars to enhance the border security activities, purchase more technology, expand the container security initiative, and to increase additional funding for the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard's an extraordinary organization. There aren't too many organizations that have so many individual responsibilities and have a cadre of men and women that are trained to do them all, and they do them all very well. So we look for an additional 300-plus million for strengthening our borders, and we seek a 9-percent increase in the additional dollars of the Coast Guard. And you'll see that we ask for 600-million-plus for continuation of the deepwater acquisition program.

You'll see that we've asked for an additional $890 million, and that's a 20-percent increase, to improve aviation security. Members-I think Congressman Sabo highlighted it continues to be a potential target for the terrorists. We agree. We also understand the priority the Congress has given it, and accordingly request such substantial increase, to include funds to improve integration of explosive detection systems equipment into individual airports' baggage- screening process to increase security effectiveness as well.

We also want to enhance immigration security and enforcement. We request an increase of nearly $200 million in the Immigration and Customs enforcement budget to fund improvements in immigration enforcement both domestically and overseas.

We are going to invest in human capital. And I would say to Congressman Sabo, the greatest portion of the increase in headquarters to which you referred to in your opening statement goes to the $112 million that we're requesting as we develop a human resource system with a kind of eye toward protecting the due process rights, the merit selection rights. And workers and workers' rights, collective bargaining rights we're going to organize later, but also a flexible system, an agile system that gives the department the ability to respond to terrorist threats or terrorist incidents when we need to. So the bulk of the increase there is investing in human capital.

We understand one of the challenges as we develop this new human resource system along the lines of pay-for-performance system is that it hasn't been done in government before. If it has, it hasn't been done very well. This is a group of employees, men and women who are accustomed to an older system. We think we can dramatically improve the system.

I'm reminded-I've had some very, very good discussions with you, the leaders and the union membership, but the notion that your conduct and your performance can influence your rate of pay hopefully is one that would appeal. But across-appeal to them. Across the line, however, there is a great concern that it not be just simply superimposed on them, and for that reason we're asking for $100-plus billion (sic) to design the system, to train both management into how to use the system, but also to educate the entire workforce as to what their expectations are. So we are asking for that kind of investment in a flexible, pay-for-performance system that still recognizes the traditional merit principles that have governed the activity of both organized labor and those men and women who work within the department who are not members of a national labor union.

We do seek additional support for state and local first responders. The president is very consistent this year. We're basically requesting the same level of support this year as the president requested last year. I know people do refer to it as the president is cutting. The president is not. The president has shifted some of the resources from the State Homeland Security Grant Program to the Urban Area Security Initiative Program, where we think a strategic decision that-additional dollars should go into areas where there's a higher probability of a catastrophic event. And those particular areas you need to take into consideration population and population density and critical infrastructure and threat, so there's a shifting of some dollars.

And of course, last year Congress saw to it to add additional dollars to first responders. The president chose to be consistent in his request, so I just need to correct the record. Well, Congress enacted more because certainly the president hasn't cut back on his request. It's the same level of request that he asked for last year.

Finally, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the support that you've given the department. We know we've got additional work to do, but I assure you that our goal, and I think we meet it, is at the conclusion of every single day we rise to another level of readiness, another level of security so that as we proceed down this long and complex path, we can assure the people whom we're committed to serve that every day we get better at what we're doing, smarter at what we're doing, and more secure in the process.

So I thank the chairman for giving me an opportunity to summarize my remarks and look forward to questions and answers.

REP. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

And we will proceed with questions. Because of the number of members that want to participate and your limited time, I'm going to limit each member to five minutes, including myself.

Mr. Secretary, for decades now we've attempted to be in control of our borders, unsuccessfully so far. We've attempted in the old INS and the State Department over the years to initiate a program to keep track of how many people and who have gained visas to the country. But then they would stay their six months, or whatever the prescribed time, and simply stay over. And we had no way of knowing who they were, where they were or if they were. In fact, we're told that out of the some 10 or 12 million illegal immigrants in the country that most of them came here on a legitimate visa and just simply overstayed.

You have initiated a program called US-VISIT in an attempt to keep track by computer and other machinery of who is granted a visa at one of our embassies or consulates overseas, and when that person then leaves our country to keep track of the fact that they have left and check them off the list so that we have an inventory; we know who's here and how many's here and for what purpose. We funded that in '03 at $362 million, $328 million in '04 and your request for '05 is $340 million, obviously a huge amount of money. You started it this year in place in many of the airports of the country and ports. Can you describe briefly for us how it's going and what you expect of it?

SEC. RIDGE: Mr. Chairman, the first phase pursuant to congressional direction was to deploy the entry-exit system at airports and seaports by the conclusion of December 31st, '03. We have the system up and operating in 115 of those airports and I think 14 seaports. The process will be substantially enhanced this year as we site similar technology in consular offices around the world as well, so that when the visas are obtained finger scans are given, so that there's an added layer of security so that we'll be able to match and ensure the individual who received the visa is also the one presenting the visa for entry into the country.

You've also mandated that by the end of this year we have a similar system deployed at our 50 busiest land borders. That's-the bulk of the $340 million will be an enhancement of that. We'll use some of that toward the end of the year as we're putting in infrastructure in at these 50 busiest land ports. We think we can accomplish that objective, Mr. Chairman.

You should know that to date, over a million passengers have proceeded through the US-VISIT system, and because of the fingerprint database that we are developing and our connection with the FBI database and others, we've turned about 150 people away at the borders. There was a reason for us to deny them entry and that's precisely the rationale behind Congress's mandate to create and entry- exit system. So over a million have passed through and nearly 150 have been turned away at the border and returned to wherever they departed from in order to get into the United States.

REP. ROGERS: Now the inspector general at the Justice Department has just issued a report that says that we're still very vulnerable to infiltration by known criminals and terrorists because of chronic delays in making FBI fingerprint checks available to border patrol people. And the IG says it will probably take at least four more years for the FBI and the border patrol systems to be combined in a way that would allow for quick automated checks of fingerprints for the 1 million illegal immigrants who are caught each year, to check those fingerprints against the FBI files which are on file. I mean, we've been working on this for years and I can't for the life of me imagine why we don't have border patrol access-instant access-to those fingerprint files of the FBI, much the same as Wal-Mart does when they check your credit. Why can't we get this fixed?

SEC. RIDGE: Well, I think that, number one, the inspector general's conclusion for it to take another four years is absolutely correct; that is unacceptable.

Historically, the bulk of funding for the deployment of the technology to hook up the Border Patrol with the FBI has been in the budget of the Department of Justice. They provided funding to Border Patrol up until our reorganization. We have now funded several additional sites from our operations budget. We need 120 additional units to have full Border Patrol deployment to complete connection to that database. And we've got $4 million for development and deployment of this system presently available for that purpose. What percentage of the 120, Mr. Chairman, we get to with that dollar amount, I cannot tell you, but I assure you it will not take us the four years to hook it up.

REP. ROGERS: Well, in the meantime, people are dying. One case just came to our attention. A drifter with a long criminal record entered the U.S. on our Mexican border; came in illegally three times in '02, and went on to rape two nuns in Oregon, killing one. He was caught twice within hours in early '02 by Border Patrol agents as he tried to cross into New Mexico. Each time he was sent back to Mexico, unaware of his 15-year record of crimes in this country. He could have been arrested under a law making it a crime to reenter the country after being deported. He crossed the border again about seven months later; was not caught until after he had raped the nuns, choking them with their rosaries. He's now serving a life sentence in Oregon for murder.

The IG says that the attacks might have been prevented had federal law enforcement officials moved more quickly in a year's long effort to integrate criminal databases and to allow Border Patrol to be able to check fingerprints against the some-10 million fingerprints on file with the FBI.

It's a strikingly similar case to that of Angel Maturino Resendiz in 1999, who killed in Texas and other states after agents had returned him to Mexico seven times not knowing that he had this criminal past.

This is intolerable. And I think a lot of the problem-and I've dealt with this as chairman of Commerce, Justice, State in the other subcommittee over the years, in funding Justice and the INS. Most of it is bureaucratic bungling. And I know that you're not going to sit still and let this kind of thing continue. It's going to require you and the attorney general, I think, to work out some arrangement who's going to run this system, who's going to be responsible for it. We were going to call you on the carpet to say why haven't you done more. Now we don't appropriate anymore in this subcommittee, of course, for Justice Department, but we do you. So, Mr. Secretary, we're looking to you.

SEC. RIDGE: Yes, sir.

REP. ROGERS: It's got to be fixed.

SEC. RIDGE: Well, I think we can make a significant number of connections between the points of entry in the Border Patrol and the database this year with the dollars available in the budget.

I think that can get us up to 65 to 70 percent of those connections. And we will do our best internally to find additional dollars to connect them without seeking more funds from you. If not, we know we've got a responsive and interested chairman and committee; we'll come back and ask for it.

REP. ROGERS: Well, and if it takes more money, we'll try to find that from some other source.

SEC. RIDGE: Yes, sir.

REP. ROGERS: But this is intolerable. I mean, if we can't check for criminal records of people coming across the border for terrorists, as well as plain old criminals, what good is the system?

SEC. RIDGE: Well, I think, to your point, Mr. Chairman, you highlight the importance of getting as much information to our Border Patrol agents and to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel to have an integrated border defense. We want to connect with the terrorist screening center to identify the names, and there are, I think, well over 50,000 names there as well. But we will not be complete, we will not have an integrated defense at the border until all the databases, be it terrorist-related or criminal-related, are available to that Border Patrol agent.

Frankly, we have no interest or desire in taking the database away from the Department of Justice; we just need access to it. I think we've got substantial dollars in our budget in '04 in order to connect quite a few of these Border Patrol sites with that database, and we'll work with you to make sure that the rest of them get connected long, long before the unacceptable four-year time frame that the inspector general suggests it might take.

REP. ROGERS: Well, to the extent that the Justice Department/FBI is the-a problem in solving this problem, to the extent they are the problem, they should know that some of us sit on the appropriations committee that funds their agency too, and a couple of years ago chaired it, and we will be seeking their cooperation from that other angle. So we're looking for you and the attorney general to work this out forthwith.

Thank you.

Mr. Sabo.

REP. SABO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, I have always thought the air marshal program was one of the most fundamental programs we've passed in terms of protecting us from having airplanes hijacked, along with strengthening the cockpit doors and the increased screening of people going on. But from all I can gather, the administration simply doesn't consider the air marshal program a high priority.

And I ask this because last summer the department wanted to reduce that budget by $104 million to transfer it to other TSA programs. Escalating costs there, some due to mismanagement. And now it appears that the air marshal 2004 budget is insufficient to deliver the program that was agreed to by all of us following 9/11.

Then we come to the 2005 budget and again we find that the total for the air marshals program is $13 million below what they will obligate this year. It would seem to be a strong indication that the number of air marshals will have to continue to go down.

I put in front of all the members a GAO chart of the reprogramming process last year as it relates to the air marshal program. The appropriation was passed in February. By March, a month later, the air marshal program was being reduced internally by $40 million. By another month later, TSA notified that air marshal programs-they had an immediate hiring freeze. Then they cut internally the funds for the program again, to a total of $104 million.

That was then submitted to the Congress as a reprogramming request. This committee and the Senate both denied it, because we considered this a high-priority program. We went back into the internal workings of the agency, and by July we get another request for same reduction of $104 million, as part of the larger reprogramming process. The Senate approved it. This committee did not -- (approved/approve ?) the reprogramming, except for the reduction in the air marshal program.

So what we have is a pattern of the department regularly trying to cut the air marshal program at the same time when they're operating below the level that we had agreed on some time ago. And we have a new budget that would appear to reduce the program either-further in 2005, and I simply don't understand why we're doing that.

SEC. RIDGE: Congressman, let me respond as best I can to your accurate reflection of the TSA reprogramming timeline from fiscal year 2003. TSA was given basically the primary mandate from Congress to enhance aviation security and in that process were told-the technology to be deployed was identified, the screeners to be hired was identified, and the timeline for-which they were responsible to meet was identified.

I think very appropriately the Congress said we need better- trained baggage and passenger screeners, we need more technology to assist these better-trained personnel to deal with carry-on, to deal with the baggage in the hold. And you made very explicit directions as to the kind of technology we should acquire and a very specific time frame within which we had to deploy it.

Again, this was a huge, huge startup operation that initially I think had 55 (thousand) to 60,000 employees. And most felt that there was a need to do a better job of rationalizing the amount of people at each one of these airports and rely, very appropriately, more on technology than a labor-intensive proposition.

So through this series of mandates, very appropriately set by Congress, and direction with regard to personnel and technology, we were given a limited budget. And within that budget, we tried to make a determination as to as what the priorities should be as we layer in different defense mechanisms to support the universally recognized notion that we had to do a better job of providing security for commercial aviation. We've done that. We have hardened cockpit doors. We have flight deck officer training. We've gone from 55 (thousand) to 60,000 employees down to about 44,000 employees, but they're far better trained. We have the technology at the airports.

So during this process it's a startup, you're trying to be operational at the same time. We had to make some budget decisions because in our calculation, the dollars available for everything we wanted to do were not adequate. Now, I know that there is some concern, and we admit that we've actually withheld some money from some of the contractors that were helping us ramp up from zero employees to in excess of 55 (thousand), maybe close to 60,000 employees.

But we have gone, Mr. Chairman, in that process, providing a layered security system, and the additional dollars were used for baggage screeners and for technology, knowing that we had gone from a handful-it's classified; we can't-a handful of FAMs to literally thousands of FAMs. And so there is a-there has been a modest reduction in the number of FAMs, but a massive increase in the level of security across the board, and those dollars that we sought for reprogramming were put in those other forms of security. So we still have-like I said before, with the dramatic increase in the number of FAMs there has been a modest reduction, but with those dollars we're able to deploy technology and screeners and do other things to enhance commercial aviation.

REP. SABO: So you're telling me it was a conscious decision of the department to reduce the Air Marshal Program, rather than looking for other reprogramming or asking for a supplemental? And tell me, why do we continue that policy in 2005?

SEC. RIDGE: Well, first of all, what I would share with you, Congressman, is that you told us-Congress-the congressional mandate was very explicit, very direct: ramp up substantially commercial aviation security. As we have done in many other places of vulnerability, the decision was made to put in a layered system of protection, variety of protective means. Within that frame of reference, within that budget there is X number of dollars, so we have to set priorities and we had to move people and money around. And so, with a modest decrease in the amount that everyone had anticipated we would use for the air marshals, we were able to, I think, significantly enhance the protective measures elsewhere, knowing that we went from a handful in '01 to literally thousands in '04. And there's been a modest reduction and I think we can manage that reduction through '05.

REP. SABO: Mr. Secretary --

SEC. RIDGE: A modest reduction.

REP. SABO: -- I must say it's, in my judgment, more than a modest decrease.

I think my time is up.

REP. ROGERS: The gentleman's time has expired.

REP. SABO: I have other observations on this program, but we can come back to it.

SEC. RIDGE: If I might, one other element that I did not mention to you-again, it's the notion that as we layer in defenses, we rely most heavily on FAMs. One of the initiatives we're undertaking is take advantage of the other law enforcement agents who travel around the country on a regular basis: Secret Service, Immigration and Customs enforcement.

We literally have thousands of other federal law enforcement personnel who we are going to connect with, identify the flights they are on and capable of providing some security, so again we have this surge capacity, we have this enhanced capacity if we have thousands and thousands of FAMs. We also are going to be working with Immigration and Customs enforcement and Secret Service to make sure that there's additional security provided on additional fights, not necessarily FAMs, but we're going to have other law enforcement personnel on those flights far, far in excess of anything we could ever do with regard to Federal Air Marshals.

REP. ROGERS: So am I to understand that you're now coordinating the flights that the other personnel are flying on with the flights that the marshals are flying on?

SEC. RIDGE: The Air Marshals just announced an initiative with the United States Secret Service. We will be-we need to link up their scheduling office with ours so we know what flights they're on. The next step in that process is we have thousands and thousands of Immigration and Customs enforcement officers in our own Department of Homeland Security; we want to link up with their scheduling office. So suddenly we're going to have substantially more federal law enforcement agents on commercial aviation than we've ever had before.

REP. ROGERS: Just a cautionary note to the members and to the secretary, we're sort of skirting close to information here that should not be publicly broadcast.

SEC. RIDGE: Right.

REP. ROGERS: We don't talk about the number of Air Marshals we have. So if we get into this area too much more, I'm going to ask that we move to a secure room and close the hearing so that we can talk about these things frankly --

SEC. RIDGE: Right. Sure.

REP. ROGERS: -- but without violating our classified situation.

SEC. RIDGE: I understand.

REP. ROGERS: Mr. Wamp?

REP. ZACH WAMP (R-TN): Good morning, Mr. Secretary. While I would think that about 90 percent of the 22 agencies in your responsibilities would get very high marks on your one-year anniversary, I have to focus in my limited time on the other 10 percent on a couple of things for the good of the (order ?) and the good of our country.

I was very concerned when Project BioShield came to the floor for authorization, and pursued "buy America" provisions in BioShield because of the sensitive nature of the treatments and anecdotes (sic) that our country will need in the event of terrorist actions involving chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against our country.

My big concern about the formation of DHS and the response to September the 11th is that a lot of the responsibility for these various actions now rest in these interagency working groups. And I've had quite a bit of interaction with these interagency working groups this year, and I'm worried that it weakens accountability; when there's an interagency working group that we can't get to the person that made the decision. As a matter of fact, I had an experience this fall where an interagency working group basically told me that something did not happen, and I found out two months later that it did happen and that somebody in the interagency working group didn't know what the other members were doing.

Let me give you an example. We have, as a nation, through an interagency working group, given the exclusive right to manufacture the treatment, the anecdote (sic) for a dirty-bomb event and radiation exposure to a German company.

Now, there's been a lot of talk in the last 24 months, as we looked at prescription drugs for Medicare, about the quality of the American pharmaceutical industry, yet we just gave an exclusive for five years to a German company with, frankly, questionable historical relationships around the world to make the treatment for radiation exposure for a dirty bomb.

An interagency working group did that-and I think I'm correct in my whole assessment, but it's actually hard to get to the bottom of these questions as members of this committee-while U.S. manufacturers were waiting in line at the FDA for what's called an NDA, which is the approval process to go forward with manufacturing these very products.

So I would say to you today, we need to make sure that these interagency working groups are held accountable and that we have provisions in Homeland Security, like we do through the Berry amendment in national security procurements, that we buy American if it's possible, remotely possible.

And frankly, Secretary Thompson assured me, through the Project BioShield authorization that cleared the House and is still pending in the Senate, as you well know-were going forward with it even though it never really has been authorized-that we would buy American wherever possible. And I just think we've got to hold up all U.S. manufacturers for our national security interest sensitivity issues, but we're losing our manufacturing base at the same time.

So that's a responsibility that I want to raise before you today, and then I'll go to question two.

SEC. RIDGE: Well, I would just tell you, Congressman, that much of the work that we do at the Department of Homeland Security involves other cabinet-level agencies. It needs to be an interagency approach, to your point, it needs to be streamlined. People need to understand what their responsibilities are and to be held accountable to it. Every day as we set up these relationships, be it with the Department of Energy or Health and Human Services and the like, we try to streamline that process because ultimately the outcome of our actions, requiring congressional approval and congressional funding, somebody's going to be accountable on the Hill. And we understand that.

REP. WAMP: As a member of this subcommittee, I would hope that when HHS, CDC, FDA and DHS are involved, that we can get a DHS person to tell us and let us know what the bottom line is so that we don't have to run-literally run all around this city trying to find answers to things that people don't want to tell us when these negotiations are under way with people.

Secondly, the other major concern I have one year into this is the Science and Technology Directorate under your jurisdiction has asked in the budget request for a $127 million increase, putting their '05 level at $1.039 billion; yet one year into it, I have to say I'm disappointed and concerned that the process and the organization around the missions of the directorate are still unclear.

The national laboratories don't yet know what their actual role is in the Science and Tech Directorate. There's a tremendous amount of technology that's yet to make its way into the system. And I want to commend you for the progress that has been made in so many ways, and you're exactly right, in our airports, but I will also say that the technology, I think, exists so that we don't have to take our shoes off, and just silly things that we get complaints about all the time, because technology exists to streamline even further the process of the TSA security systems.

The former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, complained to me recently as a member of this subcommittee that he's travelled the world and that we're actually behind other countries in the technology used at the airports for security, yet we're the most technologically advanced country. And I think a lot of it is we haven't yet connected the dots to deploy the technologies that exist. And I think some of it organizationally, you need to go back and take a look at holding these people more accountable to quickly deciding who's going to do what, who has what technology and how do we move it to the marketplace as quick as possible, because I think time is of the essence.

And the American people have been patient with us through homeland security work since September the 11th, but frankly, they're probably not going to be patient for very long.

REP. ROGERS: Time of the gentleman has expired. Secretary Ridge --

SEC. RIDGE: If I might, I think to your point and a very important one, there are many technological solutions out there to homeland security challenges. And that is why Congress has been very generous in their support of this new unit, this new start-up, this science and technology bureau.

Secondly, I'm very familiar with the-I think the relationship we have with the national labs, and I do think it's fairly well defined-although I do know that Undersecretary McQueary is convening a meeting with them in the near future to better define that relationship, not only with the national labs but the other laboratories that are out there that can-to which we have access. But we want to invest-and where we'll ultimately invest substantial dollars that you've appropriated to us.

And third thing I would say to you, we will get those discoveries, not on any timetable other than a scientific one. I've seen some of the technology to which you referred, still in an experimental stage and a prototype stage. You still get a lot of false positives; sometimes the expense associated with a particular prototype is absolutely prohibitive. So I just assure you that the dollars will be invested wisely and they will be invested with the strong support with a great historic group of national laboratories we have in this country.

REP. ROGERS: Mr. Price?

REP. DAVID PRICE (D-NC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, let me welcome you back to the subcommittee and add my words of appreciation for your service. I'd like to focus on the funding of our first responders, starting with law enforcement and moving on perhaps in the second round to the FIRE grants. I bring this up with you because of its importance and also because it does involve various agencies within your department, and also various departments within the executive branch. So there's no question this is something that requires attention and coordination at the secretarial level.

The administration's Homeland Security budget cuts the state Homeland Security grant program by almost 60 percent, from 1.7 billion to 1 billion for '05. This is the grant program that provides a significant portion of the first responder grant money that our police, firefighters and other first responders count on to protect our country from terrorists, criminals and natural disasters. I understand that there's an $850 million increase in urban area security initiatives; that's a partial offset of these cuts. But it's also true that the USAI grants go only to the highest risk urban areas and will do nothing for many of the cities and rural areas most affected by the first responder grant cuts.

Now, as to the interdepartmental aspect. The administration also makes significant cuts to Department of Justice grant programs-the COPS program, cut by 87 percent; the Byrne grant and local law enforcement block grant programs are both zeroed out. Now, DOJ created the new Justice Assistance Program to replace Byrne and the block grants, but the Justice Assistance program is only funded at 60 percent of the level that Byrne and the block grants were. So when you combine all this, you combine the cuts at Homeland Security, the cuts at Justice. The administration, as we calculate the bottom line, is proposing a 33 percent decrease in Homeland Security-related funding for local law enforcement. And the cuts in funding for small- and medium-sized cities is almost 50 percent.

So what's going on here? And how should we deal with it? The administration likes to talk about the perfect storm with the economy right now. It's not of our own making. I'm afraid, with our first responders, we're facing a perfect storm that is of our making. What kind of coordination have you had with other departments when you decided which grant programs to cut? What kind of coordination did they have with you in drawing up their budgets?

And of course the reason I'm asking the question is because this appears to be a pretty damaging and a pretty heavy set of cuts, cumulative cuts, on the ability of our law enforcement personnel to perform their duties. But it's not a simple matter. It's not a simple matter, I realize, within your jurisdiction, but nonetheless, it's something that cries out for not only explanation but also coordination and, I would say, improvement.

SEC. RIDGE: Congressman, the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Urban Area Security Initiative programs are clearly available both to police and fire. And these are two programs that heretofore did not exist. And you had the Byrne program in, you had-the COPS program existed before, and the law enforcement grants. But there's been a huge infusion of additional dollars to first responders, be they first preventers, the law enforcement community, or first responders, in the past three years.

Right now we are in the process of distributing $8 billion that's been appropriated, just in our department alone, to the first responders. And if you approve our request, there will be additional $3.5 million just out of our department. So I think, overall, if you take a look at the level of funding to the aggregate group that you're talking about now, today, and prior to 9/11, there's been a substantial increase.

Secondly, I think there's just a-there's a philosophical difference, Congressman, with regard to the COPS program and the reason it's been phased out. I was here when the-that program was initiated, I think in the '80s. And I think it reflects the notion that every-there are certain responsibilities toward public safety that different levels of government have. And when it comes to policemen, it is the responsibility of the state and local government, in their overall responsibility to provide for the safety of the citizens, to provide for those-for that manpower on the street.

I would tell you candidly, if you took a look at my voting record back in the '80s, I voted against it. As a governor, I would tell you that the notion that we could get money for policemen or a mayor could get money for policemen and pay the full salary for the first year and then see the salary gradually diminish over a period of time just did not seem to be the best use of federal resources and certainly didn't provide a permanent policeman on the beat anyhow.

So I think, number one, in the aggregate, these worthy organizations have access to more money than ever before. And secondly, part of it is just a difference in view as to who should provide-who should pay for the policeman on the beat --

REP. PRICE: (My time ?) --

SEC. RIDGE: -- which has historically been the responsibility of the municipal government or state government, and never responsibility of the federal government until we had the COPS program. And even then it was a system where you got the full-time employee for one year, and then you started picking up the fiscal responsibility for that employee. And I don't think that-it just reflects our point of view that that's-that's almost a bait-and-switch kind of operation and not the best use of dollars to enhance security.

REP. ROGERS: The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. Latham.