Hearing of the Homeland Security Subcommittee - Fiscal Year 2005 Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (Cont.)

REP. TOM LATHAM (R-IA): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

And welcome, Mr. Secretary and, I guess, congratulations on another-on a year of success. We don't know what's going to happen five minutes from now --

SEC. RIDGE: You're right.

REP. LATHAM: -- but certainly you should be commended for a lot of hard work.

One of the major concerns, I think, when the department was organized was how well are these 22 different agencies that are being pulled together going to work together? And the reason I think many of us believe it would take several years for it to be a functioning department was because of the interagency disputes and turf wars, things like that. Could you give us any kind of an idea what you believe are the successes or challenges you have yet in that regard?

SEC. RIDGE: Well, we have-it's a point that the chairman made in his opening remarks-we have internally a very, very specific organizational plan with timelines and individuals who are holding accountability. As you well imagine, we-I think it would be helpful to share that where we have multiple payroll systems, multiple procurement systems, multiple personnel systems, multiple IT systems. And we have an integration plan to reduce the number of those over a period of the next couple of years, to build an entire enterprise architecture that will help us to the business of the department. So I think from a management point of view there is a very clear way ahead, a definable set of goals and a timeline in order to achieve those goals.

I think one of the biggest challenges we've had, and I think we've-in the first year we tried to meet it-is branding who we are not only to our employees, but to the rest of the country. What does the Department of Homeland Security mean to our fellow citizens, and how do we develop a culture within the Department of Homeland Security of pride and vigilance and respect? And I think we have that, and I think it has a lot to do with the enormous pride that 180,000 people took with them into the new department. In a post-9/11 world, suddenly their job-what they do, be it at the border, be it at the lab, be it at the airport-is viewed in much higher esteem by this country, and it is important. It always was, but in a post-9/11 world it's even more so.

So again, from a management point of view, we've made, I think, a lot of progress in the first year. We have very definite goals and timelines in order to continue the integration of the department, and I'd be happy to-I'd even welcome the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, maybe as an informal meeting to come up and review that process with you and your entire committee.

REP. LATHAM: I'll just-you know, representing a rural state, I have some real concerns about the resources being shifted away to more urban centers. We have tremendous exposures when you look at agriculture, potential for huge epidemics, basically, and the ability for us in rural America to be able to respond. That is of real concern, and I guess goes with that that apparently there's some talk about five super centers or something in the reorganizing in the department, and rumors, anyway, talking about where they're going to be and what that does to coordination with other agencies who are currently in place and now coordinating just locally; FEMA, things like that. What will happen then, as far as the agency I don't know. Can you --

SEC. RIDGE: Sure.

REP. LATHAM: I mean, I have a lot of law enforcement folks that are very concerned about reductions locally and the new responsibilities that they have and being able to fund those in rural America.

SEC. RIDGE: First of all, Congressman, there are three initiatives-a couple of initiatives in this year's budget that have a direct impact on agriculture.

There's a very, very significant initiative within the Department of Agriculture, with which I'm sure you're familiar, several hundred million dollars.

Within our department and in coordination with Health and Human Services there is a bio-surveillance integration effort that we've undertaken so that as we go about preparing ourselves for a potential biological event, we understand and appreciate that the first signs of it may be transmitted through plant or food, in additional to human health. So there's a $275 million initiative to tie in and coordinate multiple agency and multiple detection systems that exist out there in a disparate way, to pull them together so we have a national surveillance system.

And then thirdly, I think you're talking about Centers of Excellence. We've got-the first one was created at the University of Southern California. There are three additional Centers of Excellence that will be identified by the Science and Technology Unit. My recollection, at least two of those are agriculturally related. And that is a very competitive process. My sense is, is that the best application, with multiple universities, multiple institutions applying to be Centers of Excellence for these particular needs, will be rewarded. And the only thing I can tell you, it's a robust competition and we go where we think we can get the highest security return on our investment as it relates to agroterrorism.

REP. LATHAM: Don't you think Iowa State University would be a great place -- (laughs; laughter). Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEC. RIDGE: I had a hunch you might recommend that on the record, Congressman!

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

Mr. Serrano.

REP. JOSE SERRANO (D-NY): Welcome, Mr. Secretary. I'd like to discuss with you the whole-one of my concerns, the issue of information being kept in databases. Databases containing an enormous variety of information about large numbers of people are exploding at all levels of government. And agencies are trying to share more information. This makes protection against collection of inappropriate information and release of information to agencies or agents without a legitimate need to have it increasingly important.

What safeguards is the department developing to protect privacy, particularly in connection with the CAPPS II system? As use of these databases grows, how does someone wrongly identified as a threat get the information corrected? In a system where multiple databases are used and the hit is enough to ground a traveler, it may not even be clear whose database needs correcting. What is happening in this area?

Now, this is becoming an international problem. And I'd like to mention to you a specific case that came to my attention and have you comment on it.

At a French airport, ready to return to the United States from a family visit to the side of a relative's grave, a United States citizen was singled out by French airport personnel. While her passport was being scanned she was asked when she had traveled to Cuba. After she replied that she didn't remember the dates, her luggage, both carry-on and checked, was carefully examined by hand.

This individual had traveled to Cuba legally with a license from Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. There was no mark on her passport to indicate that she had visited Cuba. Therefore, there must be a database that had collected and shared this information. In investigating, my office has found out, has been told that neither the Office of Passport Policy at the State Department nor OFAC shares this type of data with other countries. Which really concerns me, because is there a database, then, being kept by other countries on where our citizens travel? And I'd like you in general to comment on that issue.

SEC. RIDGE: First of all, I would have to-I don't normally deflect answers to other agencies, but the policy associated with who might have access to that information, I'm going to ask you to refer to the State Department. As it relates to the CAPPS II program, I didn't see any connection there whatsoever from the get-go as we've tried to create a computer-assisted passenger screening program. Our CAPPS II program, we have been very sensitive to and working with privacy organizations all around this country, knowing full well that both the General Accounting Office and the Congress of the United States is going to hold us to a very high standard to ensure that the protection of that personal information is assured.

We are still, I think, months away from running a test program. The Congress, when it created the Department of Homeland Security, authorized the creation of a privacy officer within the department. Nuala O'Connor has assembled an extraordinary group of lawyers who work with us from the outset, not once we've-we don't design the program and see if it works as it relates to privacy, we try to deal with those privacy concerns up front.

So again, I'll defer the answer to that one question to the agency that has responsibility for it. I don't believe it's connected with the CAPPS II program. But be assured that from the moment we began to even discuss, even before we began to design a computer- assisted passenger screening program, then-TSA-administrator Jim Loy, now the Deputy Secretary Jim Loy, began engaging the privacy community and their lawyers far in advance of designing the system.

REP. SERRANO: So your answer is in general, I guess, about databases we may have; but as to the State Department only knowing who they share that with.

SEC. RIDGE: Yes.

REP. SERRANO: Within our government. But now specifically on this other case, in France, how would the French officials --

SEC. RIDGE: I can't give you an explanation of that, Congressman. I'll be happy to probe further, with additional information from your staff, and get back to you as soon as possible.

REP. SERRANO: Okay. Then can I ask you this: Do you know of any instances or any pre-arranged situations we've had during this period after September 11th where we share with other countries where our people travel to, our citizens travel to?

SEC. RIDGE: Do I know? No.

But there is conceivably-again, one of the challenges that all governments are facing-it's a very relevant point brought up by this anecdote-there may be times when we will seek-and again, we're having discussions with the European Union on this-as the entire world, concerned about commercial aviation, concludes that getting advance passenger information and passenger name records about potential terrorists is one of the ways that we can do a better job of securing passenger airlines. There have been and, I believe, will continue to be discussions, but without any resolution, as to those circumstances when that kind of information could be shared with a foreign country.

And that is clearly at the heart of privacy concerns that you've expressed here, that we all share and have. But it is a discussion that's ongoing now, I think the thought being for very, very limited purposes, to limited countries, this is a possibility, this is a condition of international flight that we do have to consider.

REP. SERRANO: Let me conclude by saying this. I understand the need to share information with other countries, and hopefully that they will share information with us --

SEC. RIDGE: Right.

REP. SERRANO: -- about people we suspect of being bad folks. I understand that; I support that. My concern, and I'd like you to look into it, is that we may be sharing information on a whole large number of Americans who may travel anywhere, for that matter, and we're sharing that with other countries, and that's a scary thought.

REP. ROGERS: The time of the gentleman has expired.

Ms. Emerson?

SEC. RIDGE: Just briefly, your sensitivity to reciprocity. We cannot-I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman-we cannot ask our allies and the balance of the world for information that we, for a related purpose in the future, may not be prepared to share with them.

REP. ROGERS: Ms. Emerson?

SEC. RIDGE: I'm sorry.

REP. JO ANN EMERSON (R-MO): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Pauses.) Sorry, this is acting weird.

Mr. Secretary, thanks for being here today. I, too, want to just echo the same thoughts Mr. Latham did-had about rural America and the special challenges we have there, particularly because just-with regard to St. Louis-if we were to have an incident in St. Louis, for example, people would come to my hometown of Cape Girardeau, Missouri. It's about an hour-and-a-half away, a town of 33,000 people, but yet it's far enough away but it still provides all the services, that, you know, you could probably get in St. Louis. It's just that we have challenges; that we worry about just being left behind, if you will, with regard to rural America.

But I'm going to ask you, if I could, about inland waterways and particularly the security of our nation's locks and dams. It's something about which I'm quite concerned, although I have to say I'm pleased to note that the budget for DHS allowed for additional funding for the Coast Guard in these areas. But you know, we don't have coastal ports. And I obviously understand the importance of putting emphasis first and foremost on the coastal ports, but our interior ports still present a slightly different kind of security challenge. Not only do we have millions of tons of chemicals coming up and down the river on a daily basis, but the volume seems to be increasing. And consequently, the infrastructure of our interior ports is critical to the economy of areas that I represent, and certainly up and down the Mississippi River.

I'm not suggesting that we should necessarily do things in the interior parts of the country and on our waterways first, but do you feel that the department has enough flexibility in your critical infrastructure protection policy to address, number one, our interior ports? And how do you envision taking those successful policies and programs that you have implemented for our strategic seaports and applying them to our inland ports, waterways and any other associated transportation venues?

SEC. RIDGE: Mm-hmm. First of all, I believed at the outset the work of the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Patrol with regard to the screening of the ships and the crew and the contents before they make their way up any river into inland waterways I think is critically important. It is the first layer of defense.

It begins, in many instances, in foreign ports as we've layered in some strategies.

I do think that we have the flexibility within the critical infrastructure protection unit to make an assessment as to the various dams and locks internally-and will; not do we have the flexibility-yes, we do-and make an assessment as to the criticality on a case-by-case basis of each one of them to determine whether or not their failure would be tantamount to a loss of-a huge economic loss or loss of human life. So we have that flexibility. And as we build a national infrastructure database this year-and our goal is to have one completed by the end of the year-we'll be looking at not only private sector assets, but publicly owned assets, such as the locks and dams.

REP. EMERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. ROGERS: Thank you.

Mr. Mollohan.

REP. ALAN MOLLOHAN (D-WV): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for your good work. We all appreciate it.

You know, in the Patriot Act, Mr. Secretary, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, as I understand it, was supposed to fall under the purview of your department, the Department of Homeland Security. However, I don't think that's happening. And I think the '05 budget provides for its funding within the Justice Department. Where are we with that jurisdictionally, Mr. Secretary?

SEC. RIDGE: First of all, your recollection is correct, Congressman, the Department of Homeland Security contributed several million dollars from last year's budget to help set that up. But we will have-fortunately for us, we will not have any money associated with the infrastructure, we'll just be able to place our analysts there within the Threat Integration Center. So we will not be responsible for funding that site.

REP. MOLLOHAN: What about for operating it? I mean, under the Patriot Act, isn't that your responsibility?

SEC. RIDGE: I don't believe so. It's our opportunity under the Patriot Act to put our analysts there to, frankly, add enormous value to the information analytical piece that is a part of our department, the IAIP sector. As a full member of the intelligence community, we are authorized to place our analysts and work with the analysts of the CIA and the FBI there. But we don't view the direction of the Patriot Act as placing it within the Department of Homeland Security.

REP. MOLLOHAN: Well, I guess we could all look at the Patriot Act and make our own judgments about that.

But where do you think domestic intelligence should reside?

SEC. RIDGE: Well, first of all, I think the objective behind this unit within our department was to assure that our information analysts, our intelligence folks would not be part of any internal domestic collection effort. We don't collect. There are other agencies out there, primarily the FBI and the CIA, would be involved in the collection business.

REP. MOLLOHAN: For domestic-for domestic intelligence, would the CIA be involved in that?

SEC. RIDGE: Access to-well, they have foreign intelligence related to domestic threats. Excuse me. You're absolutely right. Thank you for the correction.

But we need access to that information. And overall, the country needs a strategic view of the threat, and we are part of that analytical piece. And as any of that relates to homeland security, we have access to it; we have the opportunity and the responsibility to give collection requirements back to whatever the forwarding agency was, if they had a threat report relating to homeland. So it's value- added for us. We don't fund it, we just enjoy the benefit of working within it and being able to task some of the collecting agencies, if it's relevant.

REP. MOLLOHAN: I want to note a concern with that, Mr. Secretary. The Emergency Management Performance Grant, they are a really vital source of funding for improving our state and local emergency management. I am very concerned with the proposal as I understand it, and please clarify it if I've misunderstood it at all-that with the capping at 25 percent of the amount of these grants that each state can spend on personnel and salaries. Some of the expressions of concern coming back from my rural state of West Virginia are that this could result in the elimination of as many as 56 of our 79 emergency response professionals. I don't think that would be an intended result by you or your department.

SEC. RIDGE: The effort-there has been an adjustment, you're right-a downward adjustment in terms of the amount of those dollars that could go directly to payroll cost was to share the fiscal responsibility for those individuals with the states and localities, and use the balance of the money for the training and exercises for which they are responsible and for what they do. So it enhances their access to dollars for training and exercise purposes, but begins to share the responsibility for the personnel cost with the state and locals.

REP. MOLLOHAN: Well, I hope in this process we can revisit that whole issue and that whole notion that this money can't be spent for personnel or to be capped at this low a level; it would completely undermine the emergency response systems in my state, and I can only speak for that state.

And you know, emergency-I'm concerned also with the fact that emergency funds are being so directed to what is terrorism-understand it's terrorism activities-that we are leaving by the wayside our preparedness for other emergencies, of which West Virginia on average will have four floods a year that we need funding. I'd hate for this to become an either/or; you know, either we're going to focus on what is the agency's definition of terrorism at the time, at the expense of other emergencies. That would be a very bad result as well.

SEC. RIDGE: I understand and accept your invitation to work with you on it again. That's the philosophy behind the change. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as you've appropriately indicated, it's supposed to be an all-hazard agency; it's not just about responding to terrorist events. But historically they have responded to those natural events as well.

And I do know that the Emergency Management Performance Grants went to individuals who would be directed to prepare on behalf of their counties or their states the response plans to whether it's a natural disaster or man-made one. So again, it reflects a philosophy of shifting some of the burden for the personnel cost, sharing it with the states and locals and then providing more money for training and exercises as it relates to either a natural incident or a man-made incident.

REP. MOLLOHAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Mollohan.

On the point that Mr. Mollohan raised about the Terrorist Threat Information Center, there is a thing called a Terrorist Screening Center which is being stood up, I understand. Tell us what you can in this setting about that center.

SEC. RIDGE: Mr. Chairman, historically there have been a dozen agencies that have, for various reasons, created watch lists, criminal watch lists, watch lists related to terrorists or those connected with terrorists, and they have been distributed throughout the federal government. The Terrorist Screening Center is the initiative to consolidate all of those lists into an integrated database so they could be available to both federal and state and even, for that matter, local law enforcement. That is a process that has been undertaken under the FBI, a process of integrating multiple databases that we think will be completed by the end of this summer and, again, will offer another very important informational tool for use by law enforcement, be it at the federal or any other level.

We can-again, you and I had that conversation about the other Department of Justice list and the Border Patrol. Well, we've got this Terrorist Screening Center. Right now there's about 50,000 names that are on that. We've had probably 1,300 or 1,400 inquiries. They've actually been able to identify several hundred people on that watch list who have been there for criminal activity, potential connections to terrorist organizations and the like. So it's an integration process, multiple watch lists, different thresholds, different standards, Mr. Chairman, as to what an agency required in order to put a name on a watch list. That's taking a while to sort out. But we think that the integration should be completed by the end of the summer.

REP. ROGERS: And the information would be accessible by people like the Border Patrol?

SEC. RIDGE: Yes, it would be-again, if it's an integrated database, you can connect it to our borders, our airports and the like. Again, one more source of information about people that we either don't want flying in airplanes or coming across our borders (potentially ?).

REP. ROGERS: So would a local police cruiser that stops somebody along the street in Des Moines be able to -- (short audio break) -- that against this watch list?

SEC. RIDGE: Correct.

REP. ROGERS: So it's accessible to local law enforcement as well.

SEC. RIDGE: Yes, it will be.

REP. ROGERS: And you expect it to be operational?

SEC. RIDGE: Well, we have-right now they've got, in one location, people behind computers that have the watch lists, and so the entire system is not integrated although all the watch lists and all the computers-and it's a very labor-intensive process right now. But it will be fully integrated under one database, Director Mueller and I believe, by -- (short audio break). That's certainly the intent that everybody has gone into the process with, and I believe that reflects the intent of the FBI director as well.

REP. ROGERS: So you will speak to him and tell him that we want this list available to all of our use?

SEC. RIDGE: Well, interesting enough, Mr. Chairman, the first couple phone calls into the Terrorist Screening Center were from local police.

And so they know it's out there. They know there will be quicker access to it in the future. So they view it-there's an expectation out there, Mr. Chairman, that the names that are on that watch list, they'll have access to it.

Now, there are some-there will be some instructions necessarily associated with those names. There may be reasons that we may want to know where that individual is located and perhaps what they're doing, but we may not want to apprehend them. Again, there's a law enforcement, an investigative element to all of this as well. And there may be some that we want to take immediately off the street. So again, consolidating the database and then prescribing to the individual who gets the information and giving them directions as to what to do with it is part of the integration process.

REP. ROGERS: Well, the only caution I have is that the list must be available to the front-line law enforcement people, whether it be a screener at an airport or a border patrol agent or a local cop in one our cities. Otherwise, it's useless. And FBI loves to protect their lists, but you're saying to me you've talked to the director of the FBI and this will be available to our local law enforcement people?

SEC. RIDGE: Those who need to have this information to act on it will get it, Mr. Chairman.

REP. ROGERS: And we're going to keep an eye on them.

SEC. RIDGE: I expect you will.

REP. ROGERS: Mr. Sweeney?

REP. JOHN SWEENEY (R-NY): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, welcome back. I, as well, like other members because of the limited time, am going to focus on some of the concerned areas that I have --

SEC. RIDGE: Sure.

REP. SWEENEY: -- but that is not to be reflective of what I-the respect I have for you and what I think are great accomplishments in a very tough environment in a very tough year. Now, the environment is particularly tough because we are running deficits. Dollars are tight, and there is an extra need to focus on efficiencies. And I'm happy to see in your testimony, both here and before the Select Committee, you are, after a year of sort of getting your feet on the ground, really beginning to move in that direction, and you should be applauded.

I'm going to talk about two areas and not really ask the question because we've asked this question before. And we'll have conversations elsewhere, but I do want to focus on something else.

First, on the first responders. Mr. Price, Mr. Latham both asked questions about issues relative to first responders and the great diversity we have in this nation. Let me use this as a chance to again highlight the fact that both in Judiciary, as an amendment to the Patriot Act, and in the Select Committee, as part of its underlying legislation, there is a formulation proposal that bases it on threat vulnerability and consequences. And I know in the agency, you speak of in your budget submission a new funding formula based on population density and assessment of potential threat. I would advise as well that we extend that new thinking to basic formula grants.

Secondly, and you and I have spoken about this as recently as three weeks ago and as I came in, on the national labs. I know Mr. Wamp spoke of it. The Science and Tech Directorate is of great concern for me, having worked substantially with them in the last year and recognizing we are being asked to increase their funding by $127 million. We've had this conversation about the intermural and the extramural labs. I have a couple of comments that I just would like you to chew on and we'll talk about them later.

First is my fear is that we are going to limit competition and create a Soviet-style R&D process within our national labs, rather than opening up the process.

Secondly, if extramural was such a great idea-I understand you're rethinking the thought on that, and I think you really need-we need to be very clear on why it's such a great idea.

And finally, my real concern is-and this relates not to your senior staff as much as it does to the existing staff, the professional staff that you inherited in this agency. I'm very concerned about conflicts of interest existing, be they personal and/or professional, past biases that exist there that may exclude the ability for scientists at the labs to really achieve their full potential and help us protect ourselves.

Now let me get to the questions I really want to-and it's about-it's similar to that; it's about competition, the private and public partnerships that you are fostering in the agency, and in two specific areas I want to talk about. The Safety Act is one in particular that was enacted by Congress. And here's the complaint I'm hearing: Applications for procurements are moving incredibly slowly. The agency, in the bowels of it, is taking on an FDA kind of approval- process approach to their functions and looking to essentially micromanage the establishment of standards for states and locals, and not focusing on taking preexisting technologies, be they government and/or military technologies that could be applied, and finding a way-because I believe our intent in enacting the Safety Act was to find a way to expedite the procurement process.

And my question, fundamentally, to you is can you enact, will you enact a sort of fast-track approach to the process? And I know that there are underlying liability issues out there, and what are your plans for addressing those underlying liability issues? And maybe you can answer those.

SEC. RIDGE: Congressman, you're right, we don't-there are a lot of places we could look to the government, I guess, for models or standards we want to comply with. But admittedly, the FDA approval process is fairly lengthy, and we don't want to get into that kind of system, and that's certainly not our design, that's certainly not our intent. Perhaps in execution it appears that way. And given your comments, I'll go back and review it myself again, because it is contrary to one of the objectives of the Science and Technology unit, and that is to go out and identify immediately some short-term technological solutions that we can apply today, understanding that they may not be the permanent solutions, but it will help fill a gap in whatever homeland security concern that we might have. So it is up to me to get back and to address this more specifically with you in that regard.

Again, the focus right now-and I know we're spending quite a bit of money taking a look at technologies out there that are prototype, be it in the public sector, private sector; running some field tests with an eye toward deploying them down the road. It would be one of the more interesting challenges that this committee is going to have in two or three years because there's not a large acquisition budget associated with the Department of Homeland Security today. But as our Science and Technology unit identifies and develops technology that we seek to deploy, some of it will be available to the private sector and their responsibility to purchase, but others I suspect that the federal government will want to purchase and deploy, very similar to what happens with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. You fund it to do research and design; once they come up with a product then it becomes part of the Department of Defense budget, part of their procurement. So again, we don't have that now. But I can see that in the next two or three years there will be a procurement line in our Homeland Security budget where we have identified technological solutions and we'll acquire them.

So, to your point, we want to make the identification of short- term solutions as quick and expeditious as possible. If you've got a particular example that you're concerned about, I'd be happy to engage with you on that.

REP. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And let me just say-I'll ask one very final question along the same line. Your commitment to look at something is important.

And I am grateful, because every time you have looked at something, you've made the right choices and you've-by means of not skipping over your successes but emphasizing those.

Finally-and this is very similar, because, again, the preexisting technologies in especially defense, but in other areas as well, as it relates to counterterrorism technology and equipment and more specifically as it relates to explosive detection systems, their application with TSA, their applications, frankly, across-in a whole bunch of places-is another issue that's out there.

And you sort of answered the question in answering the prior question. Are we going to look at achieving-you know, at this time we're looking for short-term advances in processes to move procurements forward, are we going to-are you going to be shortly coming forward with long-term strategies as well in that area?

SEC. RIDGE: Yes. You will note that we are obliged to present to the Congress a five-year plan very much along the Department of Defense model. So our thinking-preliminary thinking will be reflected in that plan that I think is due here in May.

You should also note that-and you raise a very good point in your question-that we have invested jointly and are working with the Technical Support Working Group, which includes the Department of Defense, because some of our interests are congruence and the technology overlaps. So if we can find an application for something that the Department of Defense has been using and apply it to Homeland Security, we're very interested in that as well.

And we do quite a bit of joint work with the Technical Support Working Group, particularly with an eye toward identifying some short- term technological solutions.

REP. ROGERS: The time of the gentleman has expired.

REP. SWEENEY: Thank you, Chairman.

REP. ROGERS: Mr. Sherwood?

REP. DON SHERWOOD (R-PA): Mr. Secretary, good to see you again. And I have to comment, as great as it was Pennsylvania's loss, that we're so proud of you for taking on this tremendous challenge and the job that you've been doing with it.

I'm concerned, as were some of my colleagues, with TTIC, and I listened carefully to your answer. But to follow up a little bit, how close are you to manning your authorized FTE levels and, specifically, with intelligence analysts? And how many analysts are assigned to TTIC by you?

SEC. RIDGE: We are-we set very high standards for these analysts, and obviously there are background checks associated with it. We are not-I'm not sure we're at our 60 percent mark at this point. We've got 80 analysts in waiting for background checks. So we have identified several dozen people that we're going to be pulling into the system and ramping up our presence at the Threat Integration Center. I can't tell you today how many Assistant Secretary Pat Hughes or Undersecretary Libutti has assigned to TTIC. I know we have several over there. And as we get more for our unit, proportionally, we'll add additional analysts to the Threat Integration Center as well.

REP. SHERWOOD: Thank you.

Clearly, we all understand that we have to charge very hard after the terrorists. But I'm wondering if we have worked out the protocols of information regarding American citizens and information regarding suspected terrorists. And issue that I want to use-I understand that some information of people that had flown on Jet Blue was recently turned over to the Department of Defense, and they were primarily American citizens. And the difference between how we handle American citizens and how we handle foreign nationals that are suspect terrorists, I think, is an important distinction. Do you have a comment on that?

SEC. RIDGE: Well, it's a distinction that we recognize, congressman, and certainly one that the citizens of this country-it's been highlighted in several of our exchanges here today, and the Congress of the United States is very concerned about how we treat personal information under any set of circumstances, even combating terrorism. Our vision statement is fairly simple within the department. It says "protecting our freedoms"-that's first: protecting our freedoms-"preserving our freedoms, protecting America," excuse me. So everything we do as it relates to getting access to personal information is done with an eye to ensuring that it's done for a limited purpose in such a way-again, using CAPPS II as an example, in such a way that it is not retained as a file within the government, that we create fire walls for use for a limited period of time.

And again, we can't proceed beyond the pilot program unless you are absolutely satisfied that the kind of privacy protections that you want in a program like that is reflected in the pilot-successfully in the pilot. Every single day, whenever we initiate an approach toward homeland security that includes gaining access to information about American citizens, the first prerequisite is to make sure that we don't infringe on any privacy right, any personal right they have in that. That's-that's the first concern we have. That's why you gave us a privacy office within the Department of Homeland Security, and that's precisely how we use it.

REP. SHERWOOD: Thank you. As you so well know from your term as governor of Pennsylvania, so much of our first responders: our volunteer fire companies out through the country-and the FIRE grants have been very successful. The FIRE grants have shown these people that we appreciate what they do and have helped train and equip them. And I'd like to tell you how much that's been appreciated out through the country, and I think how well it's been used.

SEC. RIDGE: I appreciate that. As you know, we are going to try-we will ask the Congress and identified a one-stop shop within the department. We're going to move the FIRE grant program into that. But we've assured the fire chiefs and the organizations who are very supportive of the program that the peer review continues, and that the direct assistance to the-direct payment to the fire departments continue. We will administer it differently in terms of our own paperwork and the one-stop shop, but the whole process that has been created by the volunteer organizations will be retained.

REP. SHERWOOD: Thank you. One other item that I'd just like to touch on. We all know how much our computer networks are part of our national security. And have-has your department been conducting threat assessments concerning cyber attacks? And also, how do we think the security of our own DHS computer networks compare with the rest of the federal government?

SEC. RIDGE: Well, congressman, that assessment is a daily assessment. I suspect that on a day-to-day basis we probably review dozens if not hundreds of reports of potential efforts to hack into either public or private systems. And I think since we have the opportunity, one of the big challenges as we try to connect our information systems to others is to provide the kind of security that you allude to in your question. It's a priority as we set up our own IT infrastructure. I can't give you a technical status report. I can just assure you that we're working with some of the best universities and some of the best private sector companies, using their resources to design a system that provides the level of security necessary for our operation.

REP. ROGERS: The time of the gentleman has expired.

REP. SHERWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

REP. ROGERS: Mr. Secretary, protection of critical infrastructure, we're told that some 85 percent of all the critical infrastructure in the country is privately owned, another 5 or 6 or so percent are owned by state governments, and then finally, the federals owning the balance. But clearly, the huge bulk is privately owned: pipelines, chemical plants, trains, trucks, what have you-cyber security. And yet we do not yet have, to my knowledge, an inventory of those pieces that we want to protect and how we rate their relative importance in protecting. What are we doing in this respect?

SEC. RIDGE: Mr. Chairman, by the end of this year in cooperation, in collaboration with the states, the territories and the private sector, we will create a national infrastructure protection database. To your point that we began the assessment process several months ago, there is a presidential directive that specifically charges us with the responsibility of creating that database and working with the public and the private sector in order to achieve that goal. We've set the timetable to be by the end of this year.

REP. ROGERS: And that's being done in the IAIP effort?

SEC. RIDGE: That's correct. That's correct. Now we have had, as you mentioned, I think-or someone mentioned in earlier comments-because we've had to raise the threat level on a couple previous occasions, based on preliminary assessments we went out to states and communities and asked them to provide additional security at those sites. Many of those are on the list, but it was by no means a complete and an exhaustive list. So we began that process early on and the milestone we set for ourselves is to have it completed by the end of this year.

REP. ROGERS: Well, we're providing the funding and we think that's very important and we want to see that that is completed, as do you.

Ms. Granger?

REP. KAY GRANGER (R-TX): Thank you. I apologize for coming in late, and so if you've answered this question then I will defer. But I had three hearings at the same time; I know you'll understand.

SEC. RIDGE: Things haven't changed. (Laughs.)

REP. GRANGER: No, things haven't changed at all.

You made a recent speech on the first anniversary of the department and you spoke about the importance of interoperable wireless public safety communications. And you talked about the need for short- and long-term steps to be taken. I'd like you to tell us what that-how you're working with the public safety officials, what the plan is, when you see that happening.

SEC. RIDGE: One of the, I think, most significant groups with whom we work with on a fairly regular basis are state and local officials and first responders-I mean elected officials and first responders. They're very much a part of an advisory group that we refer to from time to time, but they've very much been integrated in many of the conversations we've had as we've tried to set priorities. We work routinely with a group of seven-these are state and local officials, state legislators, governors, mayors and the like-and we work routinely with the organizations representing the police and fire chiefs.

Across the board, the number one concern has been, and it's reflected in the statewide strategies, interoperable communications. The science and technology unit has technical specifications for equipment that will provide a short-term solution for interoperable communications, regardless of the mode of communication. It's a specification that's been out and available for the private sector to take a look at and develop and sell the equipment, basically regardless of the frequency, regardless of the mode. It comes in disassembled and shot out in one singular form so that everybody can have access to it.

It's a temporary measure, short-term relief, and we think by the end of this year that every major urban area, because we've given them literally hundreds of millions of dollars, can make a procurement specific with that specification, and at least at that local level in the major urban areas have interoperable communications.

But the longer-term goal will be much more expensive and take several years to develop because there you want to build in, I think, at least some redundancy in the system. And that, obviously, those specifications and identifying priorities within that national complex is going to take several years. But we do think we have a short-term solution.

REP. GRANGER: Thank you.

REP. ROGERS: Mr. Sabo? I'm sorry. Ms. Roybal-Allard.

REP. LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. ROGERS: Recognized for five minutes.

REP. ROYBAL-ALLARD: I apologize for being late. HHS and Secretary Thompson is testifying at the other committee that I serve on the panel.

First of all, let me begin by thanking you for the extremely positive position taken by your department in its legal brief filed February 19th in the asylum case involving Rodi Alvarado, who fled Guatemala because she was being tortured and abused by her husband. My hope is that your assertion that Ms. Alvarado is a refugee will weigh positively on her case before the attorney general, and also that DHS's soon-to-be-released regulations on gender-based asylum will reflect the same sensitivity to the brutal and dehumanizing circumstances that so many women are forced to live under.

The question that I have has to do with our ports. As you know, a terrorist attack at any of our U.S. ports, such as the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, would cripple our nation's economy. And I'm very concerned, therefore, that the president's budget does not separately fund the current port security grants and instead folds this direct grant program into a general infrastructure protection fund at a reduced level of $46 million. That's nearly an $80-million cut from the current year's funding of $124 million that was in this grant program.

Given the fact that the safety of our ports is so essential to our homeland security, can you explain the cuts in direct grant funding for our ports and why the administration's proposal will no longer fund a separate port security grant program?

SEC. RIDGE: Congresswoman, first of all, thank you for your kind comments with regard to the RA case. You're right that it's an incredibly horrific set of circumstances associated with that woman's life. And thank you for your positive comments.

Secondly, I think the budget reflects a point of view that while we'll continue-and I think with fairly modest amounts-to try to support-try to add security at our nation's ports, that given the overall cost that has been anticipated by some, that this is basically a burden that should be borne more by the private sector than by the federal government.

The federal government pays-the taxpayer expends hundreds of millions, billions of dollars with regard to port security. Local and state taxpayers, more often than not, provide the land, often provide a lot of the employees. As governor of Pennsylvania, we had a couple of ports, and I know the federal dollars we had into the ports. I also know that tax dollars went into buying the cranes. And since it's part of a distribution system for the private sector, part of their supply chain, I think that this reflects our belief that there is some shared responsibility, shared fiscal responsibility.

We're increasing 8 or 9 percent for the Coast Guard. We'll continue to provide some modest grants for distribution around the country. But this is a discussion that we need to have publicly as to whose ultimate responsibility is it to secure a supply chain, and I think it reflects our view that by and large it's a responsibility that should be borne not exclusively by the federal government, but that should be shared with the private sector.

You're going to give us hundreds of million dollars for the Maritime Security Act to do a-do port assessments, vulnerability assessments, billions of dollars for the Coast Guard. I mean, we spend a lot of money on port security, and we begin checking those containers before any of them even get on the ships, before they're delivered to the United States. All that is protecting a very important supply chain for the private sector, but at some point in time we think they have to begin to frame some of the expense themselves.

REP. ROYBAL-ALLARD: Well, I don't disagree that it is a shared or should be a shared responsibility. The concern that I have, that while we're trying to convince the private sector that they should be investing in port security, in the meantime our ports remain vulnerable and the things that need to be done are not being done.

The second question that I have is that this committee has placed a very high importance on funding of port security. And while this funding has begun to reach some of the ports through this competitive grant process, the port authorities of Los Angeles and Long Beach are telling me that this approach is too unreliable to address the needs of large ports such as theirs. Will the administration support funding for a port security program that authorizes a letter of intent program that was similar to the plan that Chairman Rogers instituted for airports, in order to guarantee a multi-year, steady stream of funding for large-scale, costly projects? Because otherwise, I'm not sure that they're going to be undertaken under the current system.

SEC. RIDGE: Well, first of all, I don't have the figures, but I do believe that the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports have received-my recollection might be 20 or 30 or 40 million.

REP. ROYBAL-ALLARD: Quite a bit, yeah.

SEC. RIDGE: Quite a bit. And again, on a selective basis, I suspect we're always going to have some dollars available in addition to the five (hundred million dollars) or 600 million (dollars) that has been appropriated over the past couple of years. But we've got five secretariats set up. And right now, the specific response to your question, we have no-at this juncture, no desire to create a similar process, a process to support private-sector improvements at the ports.

REP. ROGERS: The time of the gentlelady has expired.

We've committed to the secretary to get him out of here at 12:00, and we've got a couple of minutes left here. I don't know how we're going to divide that time up, Mr. Sabo.

But let me ask you, Mr. Secretary, very briefly here on immigration issues. We are hosting, apparently at the time, an illegal alien population some say over 8 million-some say 10 (million) -- and over 300,000 illegal absconders-that is, people who fail to depart after they've been ordered to deport-ordered deported-and at least 60,000 of those, we're told, have criminal records. So we've got a huge problem on our hands in that respect. What can you tell us about how we're going to solve that?

SEC. RIDGE: The first of what obviously will need to be a vigorous effort to completely eradicate that problem, Mr. Chairman, is reflected in the budget. We ask for additional dollars for both detention facilities and enforcement teams to go out and target these absconders. And the numbers escape me right now; I think there's a significant increase in both categories. One, we need a place to detain them, and there's a request for additional dollars to support us in that effort. And I think we want to triple the number of teams we have that are exclusively responsible for tracking down, apprehending and deporting the absconders. So I think-again, I don't recall the specific numbers, but it's identified within the budget.

REP. ROGERS: All right.

Mr. Sabo?

REP. MARTIN SABO (D-MN): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of comments.

Back to the Air Marshal program. I commend you for the coordination with other federal law enforcement officials. But just in terms of background, long before you were in this position, at the start of the Air Marshals program where we set targets, the earliest discussion the discussion was about this kind of coordination. And I have always wondered why it took so long to do it because it makes so much sense to have coordination with federal law enforcement officials who are traveling. So I commend you for it. I don't think that diminishes the need for the existing marshal program because that was part of the earliest discussion that I recall.

But one that's sort of institutional. In the process of asking GAO to take a look at what happened on the reprogramming process, I'm told they had a terrible time getting information from the department, and they got virtually no documents for five months. And TSA delayed their access to information from the FAMs program, apparently it was available last October, until a month before this hearing.

And when we ask GAO to do a study, we assume a certain level of cooperation by the agency. And I don't expect your response right now, but it appears to be a problem and I would suggest there should be some communication that GAO should get cooperation.

SEC. RIDGE: I will tell you, Congressman, having sat on that side of the desk for 12 years, you're absolutely right; you can legitimately expect to have reports and responses returned in a timely basis.

I will tell you-and this is not an excuse-that the volume I think is absolutely unprecedented. In the last count, I think we had-we're trying to respond to over 400 GAO requests for information. We are aware of a backlog, and we are doing everything we can in terms of also facilitating, again, the hiring process so we can get more people in the system to respond to legitimate requests that Congress makes through the GAO.

Your criticism is appropriate. We have a backlog, and it's our job to be far more responsive than we've been in the past. Simple as that.

REP. ROGERS: Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for your generous donation of your time. We know you're under extreme pressure on your time. There are so many committees and subcommittees of the House and Senate that are demanding of you, and we are sensitive to that.

You've been very forthcoming this morning, and we appreciate your frankness and your testimony.

We are proud of one of our former members rising to the heights that you have. Makes us proud to be a member of the House, knowing that you were a member of this body for 10 years or so before you became the governor of your state.

We stand ready to help you. We're here to assist you. This is the funding committee for your department. We have an obligation of oversight, to be sure the dollars spent wisely and appropriately. But we're also, in my judgment, a supportive organization in the legislature to try to help you do the job better. We have a stake in your success, because it's the success of the American people when you're successful.

We thank you for your public service and your public commitment. You've been a great public servant for the people of your state, your nation, your congressional district, now the whole nation, and we're proud that you're in the position you are. We don't know anyone who could do it better.

SEC. RIDGE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

END