[Senate Hearing 107-1005]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-1005
CREATING THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
__________
JULY 10, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
83-715 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred seventh congress
second session
JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
HARRY REID, Nevada JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
BOB GRAHAM, Florida JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
BARBARA BOXER, California GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
RON WYDEN, Oregon MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
Ken Connolly, Majority Staff Director
Dave Conover, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
?
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 10, 2002
OPENING STATEMENTS
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 7
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator from the State of New
York........................................................... 13
Corzine, Hon. Jon S., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey.. 6
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico 4
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 1
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.... 2
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia....................................................... 9
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........... 9
WITNESS
Ridge, Hon. Thomas, Director, Office of Management and Budget
Transition Team for the Office of Homeland Security............ 10
Prepared statement........................................... 32
(iii)
CREATING THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o'clock p.m. in
room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Jeffords
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Jeffords, Smith, Inhofe, Bond, Domenici,
Corzine, Wyden, Warner, Clinton, and Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. The hearing will come to order.
First of all, Governor, I want to welcome you to the
committee. We've had many excellent opportunities to work
together in the past, and I'm looking forward to our
opportunity under the circumstances that we have today.
I want to share a little story of you and I when we were
taxing our dairy farmers. I remember I went up to Pennsylvania,
they were in tough times. You had one big farmer there that got
up and said, I'll tell you how much I love farming. He said, if
I win the lottery, I'm just going to keep on farming until it's
all gone. I'll never forget that story. It was tough times.
Governor Ridge. You'd have to be a farmer to really
understand that joke.
[Laughter.]
Senator Jeffords. Anyway, I want to thank you and look
forward to your testimony. We have come a long way since
September 11, we have fought terrorism all over the globe,
created and funded a new government agency and seen an
outpouring of patriotism and resolve among Americans
everywhere. We have taken great strides to protect ourselves
from future terrorist threats, and we have come to realize that
the Federal Government can do more by reorienting its
counterterrorism efforts. I strongly believe that preventing
future terrorist attacks is a critical responsibility of the
Federal Government. That is why I support the idea of creating
a new Homeland Security Department.
But there are many unanswered questions about the
President's proposal that I hope to explore here today with
you. Chief among these is the role of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, known as FEMA, in the new Department. The
events of September 11 prove that FEMA, with its primary focus
on natural disasters, can respond to acts of terrorism. But the
fact still remains that FEMA spends the great majority of its
time and resources preparing for and responding to natural
disasters. And I am deeply concerned about how this move will
affect FEMA's responsibilities in the areas unrelated to
terrorism.
To protect this focus, I believe FEMA, similar to the Coast
Guard and some other included agencies, would be a distinct
entity within the Department with the agency's director
answering directly to the President in times of disaster. I am
not advocating that FEMA not be a part of the new Department.
But I am advocating that FEMA remain a distinct entity within
the Department to help preserve the focus of its mission.
My concerns are not unfounded. Throughout the 1980's, FEMA
focused mainly on cold war, civil defense preparedness. This
focus left the agency ill-prepared to respond to several large
natural disasters during the late 1980's and early 1990's. I
still remember some of my Senate colleagues calling for the
abolishment of the agency during that period of time.
Over the last decade, FEMA has refocused its mission on
mitigating the effects of, preparing for and responding natural
disasters. By doing so, the agency has vastly improved its
ability to coordinate Federal response and recovery efforts.
Since FEMA's inception in 1979 and through the agency's
successes and failures, this committee has worked closely with
FEMA to help the agency respond to fires, floods and
hurricanes. Today we know that our world has changed, and that
FEMA's responsibility has changed as well. I support all
efforts to ensure that we are prepared to respond to the
terrorist acts.
However, I remain committed to working with my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle and prepare to prevent and to
respond to natural disasters once the agency is included in the
new Homeland Security Department.
I want to thank you again, Governor, for coming here today.
But I want to also let you know of my experiences with FEMA. As
a result, I became chairman of the committee just 2 weeks
before 9/11. And on 9/11, that day, I was there in
communication with FEMA. And the following morning I went
immediately to the Pentagon and saw how tremendously effective
and efficient FEMA was with people coming to help from as far
away as Nebraska.
The next morning I went to New York City and met with FEMA
there. They had already set up a most effective and efficient
operation to assist the city of New York in its ability to deal
with the problem. So what I want to be sure of is that when you
have that kind of effectiveness that we don't do unnecessarily
bureaucratic changes to in any way interfere with an already
very efficient operation. So I just thank you for coming and
now if you have a statement, I'd be certainly happy to hear it.
But first of all, I want Senator Smith to have an
opportunity.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome,
Governor, it's great to see you again. We appreciate all the
work that you've done over the past several months. Little did
you know how tough it was going to be. I guess prior to 9/11,
you thought you were just going to coast through the remainder
of your Governor's term.
Governor Ridge. It was looking good, Senator.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. I for one want to say that I'm going to be
supportive of the Department of Homeland Security. We realize
there will be a lot of details to be worked out, but I think in
the interest of national security, I believe this must be done.
Certainly to coordinate and consolidate is absolutely essential
if we're going to prepare against the terrorist threats that we
face.
There's been a lot of activity on this committee regarding
people in many ways, Senators trying to help with legislation.
Obviously we will be looking forward to your views on a lot of
it. I introduced legislation last year to provide for better
coordination, both horizontally within the Federal Government
and vertically with the State and locals. But 2 weeks ago this
committee passed a bill, as you know, authored by the chairman
and myself to provide first responders with the resources
necessary to meet our needs. This was a bill based on your
first responder initiative, yours and the President's. You and
your staff have been great in working with us and providing
help with us as we're anxious to hear if you have any further
thoughts or clarifications on the bill. We're obviously open to
that.
As you know, this committee does have primary jurisdiction
over a number of functions that will be included within your
proposal. And that's the reason why the chairman is having the
hearing, obviously.
There are two areas that I just wanted to briefly touch on.
One was emergency preparedness and response and the other was
infrastructure security. Two years ago, at the time when I was
chairman, we passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, which
basically updated the Stafford Act. Senators Inhofe, Graham,
Baucus and I and others worked very hard on this law. We wanted
to ensure that FEMA's disaster preparedness and response was
the best it could be and that Joe Albaugh and his predecessor,
Jamie Lee Witt, really turned the agency, FEMA, into an
outstanding agency. Both were great, Albaugh is and Jamie Lee
was a great leader in FEMA. I joined Senator Jeffords in New
York days after 9/11 and saw first hand what they were doing
there.
There are a lot of questions and obviously we're all going
to be looking for your response on these. Certainly with regard
to infrastructure security, the safety of a lot of the Nation's
infrastructure does fall under this committee. And whether it's
water treatment plants, power plants, chemical plants,
refineries, it's all under our committee. We're obviously
looking for your input on that.
And some on the committee have sought to expand the mission
of a number of regulatory agencies to include security. I have
some problems with that and I think others do. But it's
possible that by the end of the year, we could have passed
legislation to expand EPA's mission to include ensuring the
security of water facilities, chemical plants and oil
refineries. We obviously want to hear from you in terms of
whether that's the right approach or not.
And in conclusion, if we're going to have a Department of
Homeland Security, what will be the operational role of the
regulatory agencies and the role of this new department in
providing infrastructure protection? That's the question.
Should EPA continue to lead, be a lead for chemical and water
security? If so, what should it be? What is the role of DHS in
that? Or does it make more sense to have your agency as the
lead with the regulatory agencies providing technical support?
A number of questions, obviously. But we'll be looking to
flesh these out with you and thank you for coming here today
and I look forward to hearing your remarks on this historic new
Department.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Domenici.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Mr. Director, I'm entitled to no preference. I am the last
one on this committee. But I found out that this chairman
followed the rule that if you get here early you get called on
early. So I was here long before any of them and took my seat
here, thought I was given a special desk even here today. They
didn't have room for me.
[Laughter.]
Senator Domenici. In any event, I think it will be a fun
committee for the rest of the year. I want to do just a couple
of things with you.
I have a two page, and I guess it's two pages triple
spaced, of my assessment of how you ought to look at the
national laboratories, the three major ones and the three minor
ones, as you put this together. I think you have already had
occasion to meet with the leaders of the three nuclear
laboratories and perhaps all the others. And you understand
clearly now that we don't need to go anywhere now to get any
science, we don't need to go anywhere to get any advice to you
about that kind of thing. You just have to decide how you're
going to use these laboratories to help you.
I surmise in this statement that the early comments that
one of them would be picked to be the headquarters was somewhat
in error, and you're going to use all three of the major
laboratories, and you're looking for sort of an office at one
of them, one of the three. Talk has been, there's been some
talk of Livermore, then the talk has been maybe not.
I would just suggest that you look carefully at what they
do at the laboratories. Of the three, the only one that doesn't
make bombs, at the core of making them, it's just an
engineering laboratory, is Sandia, if that means anything. And
I suggest that you take a look at that.
But there are two other issues that I think are very
important, and I think you have already clarified. I'd like to
do it on the record. The U.S. Government has a little known
entity that's nicknamed FLETC, Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center. Very large one at Glencoe, Georgia, used to be a Navy
base, and a medium sized one in Artesia, New Mexico, used to be
a university. That's the sum total of the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center for America. We train almost all of
the law enforcement officers that don't have their own home for
training, thus saving a lot of money.
Right now, today, believe it or not, at the Artesia FLETC,
there are almost 800 United States men, 5 women, training to be
air marshals. Believe it or not, it's already sitting out
there, by it are three 327's, the only things gone from them
are the engines. So the agents are to use them, the marshals
use them all day long to train, using pistols like they will be
using to guard out public. And they all live there.
Now, it's got to grow. But in the meantime, I understand
that when you get your office set up, your headquarters,
Homeland Security Office, you are going to bring both those
FLETCs within the jurisdiction, within your jurisdiction, is
that correct? So the law enforcement training centers will be
under you, not under the Treasury Department, if your plan is
accomplished, is that correct?
Governor Ridge. We had talked about that. That is still
very much under discussion. There was discussion about bringing
that it. That is initially where we thought it should be. But
again, working with Congress and trying to get the will of
Congress----
Senator Domenici. I have been working a long time on this
issue and I believe the decision is that. In the meantime, what
you all have to do is decide where you're going to put the
early money and get it ready. On that one, we are arguing where
it should go. I think you will find it should go to FLETC and
then be moved to the other one. But let's just leave that alone
for a minute. One more, for just 1 minute.
No, I think that's it for today. Thank you. You're doing a
wonderful job, Mr. Director.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Domenici follows:]
Statement of Hon. Pete V. Domenici, U.S. Senator from the State of New
Mexico
I have had an opportunity to review the President's proposal for
homeland security, particularly as it relates to the Science
&Technology (S&T) mission of the department and how our national labs
should contribute to the cause of homeland security--and I maintain
that they have much to contribute.
The president's proposal certainly recognizes the capabilities of
our national laboratories--but the manner in which the initial plan was
developed, announced, and communicated to the Congress has led to
substantial confusion.
So let me try to clear the air as to what I believe the new
Department needs in the way of Science and Technology.
1. The president has proposed an Under Secretary to address the
science, technology, and operational issues associated with Chemical,
Biological, Radiological and Nuclear or CBRN threats.
2. I would argue that the undersecretary's mission should be
broadened to cover the entire S&T mission for the whole department, and
the operational missions should be run by the other parts of the
department.
3. Certainly much of the focus will be on CBRN threats, as it
should be--but there are other S&T opportunities and challenges that
exist outside that area.
4. That Under Secretary for S&T should be responsible for several
things under him . . .
Utilizing the R&D base at Health and Human Services
Department---as the President suggests in his bill
Performing the agriculture-related R&D--as the President
suggests
But there are several ideas that are left out of the President's
bill . . .
The Under Secretary needs a mechanism to tap into the
full capabilities of the National Laboratories.
He also needs a ``DAPRA-like'' organization that can
rapidly procure technology for homeland security applications.
Finally, I think he should also have a ``RAND-like''
think tank to support homeland security research through policy and
systems analysis. This function was suggested by the National Research
Council review.
5. Thus, I think we should build upon the ideas that the President
has suggested to fully support the important S&T missions of the new
Department.
6. As it relates to the National Laboratories, let me make a few
more comments.
Tremendous capabilities exist at all of the labs--much of
it is at Sandia, Los Alamos and Livermore--but Oak Ridge, Idaho and
Pacific Northwest have unique capabilities as well.
Those capabilities should be fully utilized and managed
by DHS from a location that is centrally located among those
laboratories.
The labs' work for DHS should be governed by several
principles . . .
The Secretary of HS should be able to task and fund the
labs directly.
Homeland security work should be done on an equal basis
to the other important national security work at the labs.
DHS should be able to access all parts of the laboratory
for expertise--not just a carved out section.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Corzine.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON S. CORZINE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Corzine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too am pleased
to welcome Governor Ridge, and compliment him on the tireless
and fine work that I think you're doing in the Office of
Homeland Security. I'm particularly pleased with how you've
reached out to our State. From a number of conversations with
our Governor, I'm under the impression and feel that there's
been real attention brought to the grass roots of this problem.
I compliment you for those efforts.
I also want to acknowledge the efforts of Senator Lieberman
and his recognition of the potential for recasting this debate
in the direction that it is now taking. I thank him for that
leadership. There is no more important issue before us than to
make sure that we structure this right. I support it, will
support it. Being an old business guy who's gone through
mergers and acquisitions, any organization that puts together
169,000 people and a $40 billion budget, more or less, you've
got a heck of a task to make sure that that actually works in
some way other than on sheets of paper, to develop a culture,
to develop accountability in an organization of such size and
do it in a hurry is one tough task. We may be better at in
Government than we are in the private sector.
But I only caution patience and certainty, methodological
steps. Because it can be quite a task.
I also want to echo some of the remarks the chairman made
with regard to FEMA. I throw in Coast Guard with regard to
that, in particular, because these are institutions that have
tasks that are outside of just the homeland security area that
have done outstanding jobs with relatively limited resources. I
hope that as we integrated this we don't lose our ability to
respond in the way that I think the chairman was speaking to, I
certainly feel with regard to the Coast Guard.
I have one particular issue that I have talked with
committee members about quite a bit this year, and that is
chemical plant security. And as you know, on your recent trip
to the New Jersey-New York port, you fly into Newark airport
and you will see oil refinery facilities, you will see chemical
plant facilities and you will see a very vulnerable part of our
infrastructure. And according to EPA data, there are 123 of
these facilities where a worst case release of chemicals could
threaten more than 1 million lives. And there are 700
facilities where such a release could threaten more than
100,000. It's a big issue.
And it's a very personal issue for those of us who live in
densely populated communities. While the legislation that I
have been talking with the committee about had focused on the
Justice Department and EPA, it's probably more logical that
these elements be addressed in the Department of Homeland
Security as it gets put together. I think it should be a
priority. I don't think we, in the context of this merging,
have much room for tardiness with regard to this issue. I hope
that we can all work together, this committee and Senator
Lieberman's governmental committee, as well as your offices, to
make sure the plans actually are real that deal with these
issues. Not because we're trying to burden industry, but
because we're trying to protect our citizenry. I think it's a
substantial problem that ought to be addressed.
Again, you have my complete support in the direction you're
moving. I'd like to talk about details as everybody else would
. It's a remarkable task that you are trying to lead, and I
hope that I can be a helping partner in that process.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Bond.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Director Ridge, for joining us today. As we mentioned
earlier, we've worked together many years, and I right now
don't really envy the position you're in. But it is a
challenging and extremely important one.
We and the Nation are greatly indebted to you for your
service to get America back to its feet. I think the
President's leadership on September 11 and since has reassured
the Nation that we are doing everything possible to protect the
health and safety of our people, and the sanctity of our
borders, as well as our country. The President's bold action
and now your responsibility continues with the most far-
reaching reorganization of the Federal Government in 50 years.
This new proposed Department of Homeland Security should
eliminate barriers between the Government's critical
intelligence security functions. We could better protect our
borders and our communities. I think the President's plan that
you're supporting deserves the support of Congress.
I hope we will not be slowed by politically motivated
second guessing or by turf battles. We need to protect people,
not turf. And speaking of turf, that turf includes not only the
authorizing committees like this committee, but the
Appropriations Committee. And I happen to be the sometimes
chairman and sometimes not chairman of the VA-HUD Independent
Agencies Committee, which includes, like EPW, both EPA and FEMA
in its jurisdiction. I can assure you that as someone who might
be tempted to fight to protect the turf, I am fully supportive
and will be with you all the way in moving the FEMA functions
into your new Department in whatever appropriations
subcommittee you are blessed with. Let us hope that you do not
have to go back to every single one of them because you'd be
appearing before just about every subcommittee of
appropriations. I hope it will be, for your sake, that it will
be combined in one.
I also support the President's plan to transfer DOJ's
Office of Domestic Preparedness, the FBI's National Domestic
Preparedness Office. We hope that you will soon have additional
tools to accomplish your mission.
The first responders legislation voted out by this
committee last month includes language which was in my Urban
Search and Rescue bill. The legislation provides $3.5 billion
for first responders, including $160 million for urban search
and rescue task forces. I happen to be a really strong believer
in them. I think they have demonstrated not only their service
in 9/11, but the potential that we can call on them in the
future.
The emergency workers that we have today are the 21st
century equivalent of the Minutemen. For too many years, the
Federal Government has given our local responders a dime for
every dollar they need to be ready for and to respond to
terrorist attacks, as well as normal problems. This legislation
will fix that chronic lack of funding.
Our public health and hospitals also need our support to
respond to increased threats. Last year alone, 2,300
Missourians died from infectious diseases. Same amount almost
as were killed in the World Trade Center attack. So infectious
diseases of the future may be the result of bioterrorism, and I
will work to assure that you have the tools needed to fund
anti-bioterrorism activities, and upgrades needed for State and
local public health and hospital infrastructure. As a former
Governor, you well know the importance of that public health
infrastructure, whether it's for terrorism attacks or normal
occurrences.
Getting back to the Environment Committee, we are greatly
concerned about protecting drinking water. I appreciated your
joining the President and EPA Administrator Whitman last month
on the visit to the water treatment plant in Kansas City. We
all know that every American family depends upon clean and safe
water. We depend upon water to fill our fire engines, put out
fires, businesses depend upon water for their employees. We
must make sure that the infrastructure to collect water makes
it safe to drink and use and send out to every home and
business is protected from an intentional attack.
Likewise, we need chemicals like chlorine to clean our
water and make it safe to drink. We depend upon chemicals like
chlorine, anhydrous ammonia to make fertilizer to provide
agricultural products. However, the Government makes public
information which terrorist could use to target vulnerable
chemical facilities for attack. I have a bill, the Community
Protection from Chemical Terrorism Act, that will protect
communities surrounding chemical facilities from having
published on the internet and elsewhere a detailed how to do it
program for terrorists to use in attacking a chemical facility.
I'd be interested to hear your comments on that bill.
Finally, we also have commercial nuclear power plants in
Missouri. I live 25 miles away from one. These are heavily
regulated, defended. We need to know how we can make them even
more secure.
We look forward to working with you. We applaud your
efforts and will offer all of our support to make your job not
perhaps an easy one, but at least an effective one. Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Wyden.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF OREGON
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, I'm anxious to have questions.
I know my colleague was here before me, so I think probably I
should wait for him.
Senator Corzine. I have spoken.
Senator Wyden. Oh, have you spoken? All right.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to also welcome
my old colleague from the House, and in beginning express my
thanks in particular to your people in the technology area.
They have been working very closely with me, chairman, and the
Technology Subcommittee particularly to mobilize the talent in
the science and technology sector that we need and you and your
office have been very gracious in helping us in that regard.
There are two areas though that I do want to explore with
Governor Ridge. I want to start with the question of whistle
blowers as it relates to the Homeland Security Office, and what
protection there will be for them. As we all know, whistle
blowers can play a critical role in exposing mismanagement and
wrongdoing. If it hadn't been for Colleen Rowley, who invoked
the whistleblower provisions, we might not have known what had
happened at FBI headquarters with respect to thwarting the
field agent's efforts in investigating suspected terrorist
Massaoui prior to September 11. I'm concerned about whistle
blower protection that would be afforded those in the Homeland
Security proposal. I think my first question to Mr. Ridge today
is, I'd like----
Senator Jeffords. The questions will come later. We're
giving opening statements.
Senator Wyden. Then I am truly out of step. I thought I was
being recognized for questions, and I will wait my turn. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Warner.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Senator Warner. I welcome you, Governor. I remember very
well shortly after 9/11 the President had several members of
the Senate down, I was representing the Armed Services
Committee when he brought you in and we discussed the challenge
and your responsibilities. I remember at that meeting in the
cabinet room we discussed the possibility of having Congress
step in and legislate. The President was pretty strong that he
did not want that done at that time. But I sort of said to
myself, that day will come. And now it's here.
And I think you in a very responsible and effective way
have carried on to date. I wish you well for the future and we
will get this legislation through for a very simple, basic
reason: the American public wants it and they want it now. And
the Congress will provide it.
So I'll look forward to the question period, and withhold
any further comments I have at this time. Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Senator.
Governor, as you know, the one independent agency that
would be entirely absorbed by the Department of Homeland
Security is the Federal Emergency Management Agency. As I
mentioned in my opening statement, I am concerned----
Governor Ridge. We might as well go right to questions.
Senator Jeffords. I'm sorry, I want to hear from you.
Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS RIDGE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET TRANSITION TEAM FOR THE OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Governor Ridge. You're very kind, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate that. I appreciate the opportunity to spend some
time with former colleagues. We're all public servants with the
same focus and understand our mission and our collective
responsibility to do everything we possibly can to secure the
homeland. I'm grateful for the invitation to appear before your
committee and spend this time with your colleagues.
I want to reiterate personally the President's desire to
work with the Senators in a bipartisan way. The initial
reaction from both chambers and both parties has been very,
very positive. We want to continue to maintain that kind of
dialog. Both parties have expressed a commitment to this Act
and we look forward to working with you through the end to its
completion.
As you know, the President has signed an executive order
creating a transition planning office for the new Department,
housed within the Office of Management and Budget. I appear
before you today as the Director of this office. And I look
forward to working with you in the future in that capacity.
As members of this committee and Congress already
understand, homeland security to be its most effective, must be
a national effort. It can't just be limited to the Federal
Government. I wish every American could see what I've been
privileged to observe over the past several months. The
dedication and hard work by men and women in both the public
and private sector around this country, I get an opportunity to
spend some time with them as they deal with the various
challenges of homeland security. I spend time with political
and community leaders in communities as diverse as Boston and
Cincinnati, Orlando and Chicago, Winston-Salem and Salt Lake
City. We're finding leadership everywhere. I think that's
really the key, everybody is stepping forward to say, what can
we do and here's how we think we can help.
So I think America should take great comfort in the notion
that it is not just the President and not just the Congress and
not just people in the public sector, at the Federal level, but
people at the public sector in the State and local level and
the private sector and the academic world. There is a unity of
effort that has been going on. I think one of the advantages of
the new Department is we will be able to strengthen those
collaborative partnerships. I think they are integral for us to
maximize our protection for this country.
The President believes that the creation of a single
Department with a single, clear line of authority would not
only improve our preparedness for a future attack but would
help us prevent attacks before they happen. Let me just share
with you a few comments as to how. The Department of Homeland
Security is basically built around four different components.
There is an emergency preparedness and response component that
I know the committee has jurisdictional interest and personal
interest. There is a border and transportation security unit.
There is a science and technology research and development unit
that deals with weapons of mass destruction counter-measures
and finally, there's an information analysis and infrastructure
protection unit.
I would like to begin by just discussing the emergency
preparedness piece of this new Department, Mr. Chairman. The
President's proposed legislation requires the Department of
Homeland Security to ensure the preparedness of our Nation's
emergency response professionals, manage the Federal
Government's response to terrorist attacks and natural
disasters, and aid America's recovery. To fulfill these
missions, indeed, this agency would be multi-tasked.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which we know as
FEMA, would become a central component in the Department of
Homeland Security and its emergency preparedness and response
efforts. The Department of Homeland Security would coordinate
the Federal Government's disaster response efforts. It would
oversee Federal assistance in the disaster preparedness
training of first responders. It will consolidate grant
programs for first responders and citizen volunteers currently
scattered across several agencies.
The Department would also manage certain crucial elements
of the Federal Government's emergency response assets such as
the strategic national stockpile of pharmaceuticals, and would
be able to call upon the Department of Energy and EPA's nuclear
incident response teams in crisis.
Finally, the Department would integrate all Federal
interagency emergency response plans into a single,
comprehensive, Government-wide plan and ensure that Federal
response personnel and the locals have the equipment and the
communications capability they need. I must say that this
particular feature, in talking to my former colleagues that are
Governors, and many of the mayors, is very attractive to them.
The ability of these local political units, these men and women
that are providing leadership on this issues, to be able to go
to one place as part of a plan to be able to access what had
previously existed in several departments, access those dollars
in one department, one department in response to an overall
capacity building plan, is a very attractive feature from their
point of view.
Director Joe Albaugh and FEMA have done a terrific job, as
you've mentioned, in maintaining FEMA as an all-hazard agency
equally adept at preparing for, responding to and recovering
from man-made disasters and acts of God. Americans saw this
first hand on 9/11. More recently, they've seen it in response
to the fires in Colorado and Arizona, and the floods in Texas.
The Department of Homeland Security will maintain, and I
believe strengthen, this all-hazard capability, this all-hazard
capacity to respond.
The Department will also continue FEMA's efforts to change
our emergency management culture from a reactive one to a
proactive one. Here the Department's other three components
come into play. The Department will protect borders from
terrorism and their deadly cargo, and monitor all visitors into
this country. It will set national guidelines and conduct
drills to counter weapons of mass destruction, manage the
national pharmaceutical stockpile and develop nationwide early
warnings systems against disease.
Finally, for the first time ever, one department in the
Federal Government will fuse the intelligence it receives from
the FBI, the CIA and the other intelligence gathering agencies
and match that against the vulnerabilities of our critical
infrastructure. And depending on the match, depending on the
credibility of the threat and the assessment of the
vulnerability, be in a position to work with EPA or the
Department of Energy or the Department of Agriculture to give
specific directions as to the kinds of protective measures that
need to be undertaken to reduce vulnerability from that
particular threat.
The synthesis of capabilities will allow us to focus on
risk mitigation and prevention, not just response and recovery.
It will not divide FEMA's capabilities, we believe, it will
multiply them.
The key to this effort is partnerships, partnerships across
agency lines, between the public and the private sector, and
vertically between the Federal Government and States and
cities, counties and rural communities. We believe the
Department of Homeland Security will help us build and
strengthen those partnerships.
We have called on States, we have called on the Governors
and the territories to sit down with cities and counties as
they develop a single, statewide anti-terrorism plan. We have
emphasized certain fundamental goals be included. These include
mutual aid agreements between neighboring communities and
States, interoperability of communications systems, emergency
credentialling to protect medical personnel from liability and
crisis, public health systems that can handle mass casualty
events, and state-of-the-art technology to aid and protect our
first responders.
For the first time, one Federal department will be
empowered to help States achieve these goals. We have asked
States and localities to coordinate their efforts and pool
their resources. We think it's only appropriate that Washington
do the same.
The new Department will consolidate many of the homeland
security responsibilities that are currently dispersed among
more than 100 different Government agencies. In developing this
proposal, the President sought the best fit of an agency's core
competency with the mission of homeland security. Not always a
perfect match, but a best fit. And I note that Director Albaugh
and GSA Administrator Stephen Perry have strongly supported
that approach in this proposal.
In fact, I would share with you, a cabinet meeting in which
the President announced his plan, Director Albaugh said, Mr.
President, you came to Washington as a change agent, we're
change agents, too. Otherwise, why are we here. I believe the
Senators feel the same way. I believe they would acknowledge
the need for change after 9/11. And certainly the commitment to
working together to effect those changes has been real and
positive. We've made great progress since 9/11.
Only Congress can create a new cabinet department. I'm here
today to convey personally the President's desire to continue
to work with members to accomplish our mutual goal. The
President appreciates the enthusiastic response from Congress,
and is gratified by the congressional optimism about how
quickly we can get this done. He's ready to work together with
you in partnership to accomplish that task.
This is our priority, it's your priority, basically it's
our collective mission. We all want to get it done, we want to
get it done soon, but we want to get it done right. We are all
committed to those two priorities.
All of us know that the threats are real. We know that the
need is urgent. And working together, I think we all know we
can succeed together in this enterprise. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the opportunity to share these brief remarks with
you. I look forward to the questions.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you for an excellent statement. We
all look forward to working with you.
Senator Clinton, I understand you have a statement you'd
like to place into the record.
Senator Clinton. I would, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Jeffords. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Senator Clinton follows:]
Statement of Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Senator from the State
of New York
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Governor Ridge for
appearing before the Committee to discuss the President's proposal for
a new Department of Homeland Security.
The attacks on September 11 exposed our vulnerability within
America's borders and the need for new thinking about ways to protect
ourselves. We learned that we were, in many ways, unprepared.
We have also learned that there is a greater need for more
communication between the more than 100 agencies that both attempt to
prevent attacks and also respond to attacks after they occur. An
information-sharing bill I introduced, with Senators Leahy, Hatch, and
Schumer back in October was designed to address this issue, as between
among Federal agencies AND among Federal, State, and local homeland
security and law enforcement entities
The Administration's proposal for a new Cabinet agency, the
Department of Homeland Security requires Congress to consider carefully
whether this new Department will solve the coordination and
communication problems that have plagued our homeland security
apparatus.
We now know firsthand what we are up against, and what we need to
be prepared for in the future. We have seen the devastating impacts,
and have been confronted by challenges we may not have anticipated.
We need to learn from our experiences in the wake of September 11,
and to make certain that in the future we have the capability to
protect ourselves and--God forbid--be able to respond if need be.
In New York, we have been constantly grappling with air quality
issues resulting from the destruction of the towers--air quality both
outside and inside buildings. Questions have lingered over what
government entities are responsible for indoor air quality. There has
been confusion over what standards should be used to best protect
public health, and whether schools and other buildings have been
adequately cleaned.
On a related matter, I want to commend the Environmental Protection
Agency for undertaking such a process and developing its own Lessons
Learned report. This is a thorough and honest assessment, and provides
significant insights and recommendations regarding the Agency's
response capabilities.
But the report raises some very serious questions, which is why I
am asking that the Committee's staff review this report--and I
recommend it to all of my colleagues as well. And it is my hope that
the Chairman and Ranking Member will grant an oversight hearing, so
that we, too, can learn from EPA's own experience in responding to the
events of September 11.
Based on what we learn, we need to act to ensure that issues
outlined in the EPA's report are adequately addressed--whether through
providing additional resources, taking administrative actions, or if
need be--through legislation--perhaps the legislation we are here to
discuss today. I am prepared to introduce free-standing legislation if
necessary. And I am interested in hearing today from Governor Ridge as
to how the Administration has responded to the findings and
recommendations of the EPA report.
In addition to the issues raised by the EPA's recent report, I have
several concerns about the new Homeland Security Department that I hope
will be addressed by Governor Ridge today. The new Department would
have nuclear and radiological protection as a major focus. However, no
NRC functions have been transferred in the Administration's proposal.
As you know, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulates civilian
nuclear infrastructure in the U.S., including security requirements. I
look forward to hearing how the Administration views the new Department
playing a role in nuclear reactor security.
I have heard from local communities and first responders from all
across America about the tremendous personnel, technical, and financial
burdens they have borne since September 11. They did this even when the
Federal Government didn't provide the resources to help them; they
knew, regardless of the burden, what had to be done to protect the
citizens in their communities. I hope the new homeland security
department will work closely and in a coordinated fashion with our
States and local governments and with our first responders across the
country to ensure that we have the strongest homeland defense possible.
Last fall, I wrote to Governor Ridge to request that he designate a
point person in his office with responsibility for Northern Border
issues. As the law enforcement functions of the INS are integrated with
the border control functions of the Customs Service in the new
Department, it is critically important that the new Department include
a position with specific responsibility for Northern border issues.
One issue that is not being adequately addressed in our post 9-11
environment is how our government will address the psychological impact
of actual or threatened terrorist attacks. Although the primary impact
of terrorism is psychological, I am concerned that the proposed
Department of Homeland Security lacks a clear focus on the mental
health needs of our citizenry. I hope that Governor Ridge will explain
how the Homeland Security Department will coordinate with the
Department of Health and Human Services in order address the mental
health needs of our Nation.
Finally, I have serious concerns about the Administration's
proposal to create a workforce that could be exempted from
whistleblower protection and collective bargaining rights. We need to
be able to recruit the best possible employees for this new agency and
this legislation should not barriers to the recruitment and retention
of talented individuals.
Further, I have concerns about the Administration's bill exempting
the new Department from the Freedom of Information Act. FOIA plays an
important role in ensuring that there is adequate oversight of our
government.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing to today's
testimony from Governor Ridge.
Senator Jeffords. As you know, the one independent agency
that would be entirely absorbed by the Department of Homeland
Security is the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which you
have spoken about. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am
concerned about how this will affect FEMA's core mission. How
will FEMA's core mission change if the agency is included in
the new Homeland Security Department?
Governor Ridge. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you that I am
familiar from both personal experience as well as legislative
experience with the FEMA. As a matter of fact, working with
former Senator Stafford to help rewrite the Stafford bill, I
think we were in the House together when it was done, I recall
you were very supportive of that effort.
But I also recognized way back then that their response to
a couple of tornadoes that bounced around my congressional
district was less than satisfactory. That's why Senator
Stafford and I worked with our colleagues to make those
changes.
But since that time, as you pointed out in your opening
remarks, FEMA has become a different agency. There has been a
cultural change. Under James Lee Witt and under Director
Albaugh, there have been very positive changes and people are
very, very comfortable with the relationships they have with
the FEMA agency.
Mr. Chairman, I think it has the core competency and the
expertise to take on the additional mission. And I believe they
complement one another. Because the kinds of things that the
new Department of Homeland Security would be working with FEMA
to do in support of their mission has direct application to
their traditional mission of responding to a natural disaster.
If we improve the interoperability of their communications, if
we make sure that there's testing and exercises so that all
first responders show up in response to a terrorist incident,
if the practice sessions are about terrorism, but you improve
the collaboration and communication among the first responders,
then whether they show up at a terrorist incident or a natural
disaster, you've enhanced the capability to respond.
So I think we take that the President has looked at FEMA,
recognizes its enormous value, understands about 85, 90 percent
of its mission is related to natural disaster recovery and
mitigation, but also understands it has core competencies and
relationships with State departments of disaster assistance
center, has natural relationships with first responders, and
many of the programs in the Stafford Act, the individual
assistance grant, the small business loans, those kinds of
programs are at play in New York City right now in trying to
respond to some of those needs of that community, those
citizens and those families.
So I think the President believes core competencies,
expertise, already a strong relationship with the States and
Federal Government, already a great relationship with the first
responders, let's make it a more muscular, robust agency. As
you know, at his initiative and with your leadership, in excess
of $3 billion would be going to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. If you improve their coordination and
communication, their skill level, it's just a natural add-on
and value added to their ability to respond to a natural
disaster. So it becomes a very vigorous, robust, all-hazard
response team.
Senator Jeffords. FBI Director Robert Mueller has stated
that the FBI would not be included in the Department of
Homeland Security, because of the agency's many non counter-
terrorism responsibilities. FEMA also has significant non-
terrorism responsibilities. To preserve FEMA's primary focus of
responding to natural disasters, I firmly believe that the
agency, like the Coast Guard and the Secret Service, should
remain a distinct entity within the new Department.
Was this a consideration when the Administration crafted
its proposal? And can you explain any concerns you may have
with this approach?
Governor Ridge. Well, I think it is the intention, Mr.
Chairman, of bringing the full agency in and including, I
think, the Office of Domestic Preparedness from the Department
of Justice within the FEMA, to just bring the infrastructure
and the leadership and make it a unit within the new Department
of Homeland Security, and then building on that infrastructure
that already exists.
Senator Jeffords. I'd like to try to understand the
procedure details of your proposal for FEMA. Currently, if an
event occurs that is beyond the capacity and capability of a
local community and the State to respond to, the Governor may
request a major disaster determination. The Director of FEMA
reviews the Governor's request and forwards the recommendation
directly to the President. The President then decides whether
or not to declare a major disaster, thereby authorizing Federal
Government assistance.
Using last week's flooding in Texas as an example, how
would this process work under the new Department?
Governor Ridge. Mr. Chairman, the question is a very
appropriate one, a mechanical one. But underlying the question
is, we need an emergency declaration quickly, how do we align,
take FEMA, put in this new agency to make sure that we could
turn around on the request. Right now, we don't view, we don't
see any diminution in time to make the request to the Under
Secretary virtually on the desk simultaneously with the
Secretary of Homeland Security and forward that immediately to
the President of the United States.
So I'm very familiar with the procedure. I've made several
applications as Governor myself. The new Secretary of Homeland
Security I think would have to address, to your satisfaction,
that fundamental principle to make sure there's no lag time
between the period that the Under Secretary gets it and reviews
it and the request being made to the President. I feel fairly
competent we can make those kinds of assurances to you. If we
need specific legislative language to get it done, we'd like to
work with you on the language.
Time is of the essence and speed is very important. I think
that goes to the heart of your question. We don't want to put
any bureaucratic road blocks in a quick turnaround and a quick
decision.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, Administrator Whitman recently, about 5 months
ago, undertook a study, an internal assessment at EPA in terms
of how one might be prepared to deal with an attack, to help
determine EPA's strengths and weaknesses. Could you address
what some of those strengths and weaknesses were, and how
you're planning to address them?
Governor Ridge. Yes. I think several of the Senators,
including yourself, have commented publicly about that internal
review. I think it's very appropriate, I think actually it's
laudable and very important, once an incident occurs and once
your team has responded, you go back and take a look at lessons
learned. Because we have to continue to review both our
capacity to respond, the timeliness of the response and the
effectiveness of the response. So in that process, I think
Governor Whitman realized that her agency was severely
stretched in terms of communications capability, personnel
capability and the like. Since that time, I believe she's built
up, hired additional personnel, maybe as many as 75 additional
people to enable EPA to respond to more than one or two events.
And we do worry about simultaneous events, and we did have
several on 9/11. I think there's been an enhanced training
component.
Looking to acquire and work with first responders about the
interoperability of their communications, that was a serious
problem in New York. Candidly, as we assess other metropolitan
areas, it's a serious problem everywhere, the interoperability
of communications. So I think Governor Whitman took a look at
personnel, took a look at equipment, took a look at training
and decided we need to do more, we need to do better, is in the
process of doing that.
I also think she's made a request in the 2003 budget, my
recollection to expand its work, expand its ability to respond
to disasters, take that disaster response mechanism. As you
know, there is a national response team, 10 regional teams. I
think there is a request for about $75 million so she can
buildup that capacity.
Senator Smith. In the proposal, the Office of Domestic
Preparedness is moved out of Justice and into FEMA. At first
blink, it seems to me to be the right thing to do, but there
has been some criticism on that. Would you just elaborate a
little bit on that?
Governor Ridge. Yes. The Office of Domestic Preparedness,
within the Department of Justice, has for the past couple of
years, with bipartisan support of Members of the Congress, been
doing some very good work with first responders, to include the
law enforcement community. In an effort to consolidate that
effort and outreach from the Federal Government to the first
responders, and particularly to the law enforcement community
in non-traditional law enforcement roles, we just thought it
would be better to blend the operations so that again, first
responders can take a look at one agency, one department for
their support for training, exercises and the like.
Again, we have reviewed this matter with Governors, we
have reviewed it with mayors who all are very attracted to the
notion that instead of going to four or five different
departments to get emergency training and response money and
exercise money and equipment money, they can go to one
department, based on a statewide plan, and draw down funds
consistent with their statewide plan. So that's the rationale
for that. They do a good job. They move them in to take that
ability, move it into FEMA, move it into the new Department of
Homeland Security, additional personnel with a lot more money
to train and work with first responders. That's the rationale.
Senator Smith. I mentioned infrastructure protection in my
opening statement regarding the Homeland Security Office.
There's a lot of questions about who should have the primary
responsibility for infrastructure protections. Many members
have mentioned it, such as water treatment facilities and so
forth. Would you briefly give us your view on where you're
headed on that?
Governor Ridge. It was interesting, Senator, because you
and Senator Corzine basically alluded to it in your opening
statements. As the President has submitted the proposal, this
is the theory and in practice how we believe it would work.
There is no single place in the Federal Government presently
where someone can take a look at the threat assessments
generated by the different intelligence gathering agencies and
then take a look at the critical infrastructure that we have in
this country, and 85 to 90 percent of it is privately owned.
Then depending on the credibility of the threat and the
assessment with regard to the vulnerability, then say to either
that company, that economic sector, that community, whatever
the potential target might be, the threat is credible, you are
a very critical piece of this infrastructure, but we don't
believe that the protective measures that you have, the
security measures that you've enhanced, are the best means of
dealing with this potential threat. And then once that
assessment is made, work through the EPA with the water
companies or the chemical companies, work through the
Department of Energy, work through the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
So the collaborative feature of this Department would be
one place we get the threat, match it against the
vulnerability, make a determination whether the vulnerability
is real, what we need to do about it, and then work with the
respective agency to see that it gets done. We've had some
interesting discussions, again informally, with the trade
association and businesses that represent different sectors of
the economy. I think one of the things that is very
interesting, and a couple of them have actually volunteered, as
we go about determining best practices and working on those
protective measures, one of the first people we ought to move
in to make sure that they're satisfied locally, whether it's
the water facility or the chemical plant or whatever, one of
the first groups of people we ought to bring in should be the
first responders to help assess whether or not they believe the
protective measures are substantial enough or not. Since they
are going to be the first ones to respond, we think they ought
to have a role there as well.
Senator Jeffords. I want to point out there is a vote
scheduled at 3:15. So hopefully we could be able to conclude by
that time.
Senator Corzine.
Senator Corzine. I think you really have tried to address
where I was going to go. But there have been a number of
assessments with respect to the chemical plant, oil refining
issues already established. I'm concerned about how we're going
to use those assessments already in place, or are we going to
have to do additional assessments. I do understand identifying
and matching these off a sensible program. But there are some
clear vulnerabilities that are identified by agencies over a
significant period of time. In fact, if I understand correctly,
EPA was about to come out with a proposal with regard to
dealing with chemical plant facilities. For some reason it was
withdrawn in June, or at least we are under the impression of
that.
How are you going to put together what is already in the
public forum relative to how we get on with this? And as it
relates to chemical plants, do you think there is a joint role
between the new Department and EPA? And do you have a vision
for that as we go forward?
Governor Ridge. Senator, very appropriately you have
identified one of the challenges that we have in this country.
The fact is, we have a very diversified economy and our enemies
look at some of our economic assets as targets. And clearly,
the chemical facilities are one of them. We know that there
have been reports validated about security deficiencies at
dozens and dozens of those. As part of their ongoing work
within the Office of Homeland Security within the White House,
we've been working with an interagency group, primarily EPA but
other agencies involved as well, and the chemical industry and
other groups to take a look at overall security concerns,
protective measures, look at best practices, try to set
standards, and then work to see if frankly, once we decide what
needs to be done, if in fact it's done.
We're hoping to avoid, candidly, the need for legislation.
We take a look and then talk to the conversation with some of
the leaders of the different sectors of the economy. One,
they've got a fiduciary responsibility to the communities in
which they house these facilities to do everything they can to
ensure their protection. They've got a responsibility to the
men and women that work there. They've got a responsibility to
their shareholders. We've talked to them about an enhanced
responsibility of the private sector to take on the additional
expense associated with increased security and increased
protection.
We are close to completion of that interagency process and
I suspect one of the reasons we knew the EPA, we started
several months ago, the EPA was working independently as it
should. One of the reasons it's been slowed down is because of
the work they've been doing with us. So that's where we are
specifically on the vulnerability of chemical facilities in
this country.
Senator Corzine. One of the, sort of in between a statement
and a question, one of my concerns is the lowest common
denominator issue that can arise. It is quite possible that
some chemical plant facilities or dangerous facilities would
follow best practices on ongoing standards. We see that in
financial reporting.
Governor Ridge. Yes, we do.
Senator Corzine. We also see significant elements of our
economy that don't always follow the rules, nor are they always
taking the public interest into full account. One of the
reasons that I would ask your thoughts on why you don't think
we need legislation in this area when in fact we don't always
see a consistent pattern to the lowest common denominator.
Therefore, the public can have concerns about whether these
issues are actually addressed if we don't have statutory
responsibility and statutory direction.
Governor Ridge. Senator, I think your concern is certainly
well founded. Because the vulnerability and the prospective
damage done to people, life, limb, human damage, property
damage, psychological damage, because of the vulnerability of
our chemical facilities, is real. But having said that, there
is also, I think, a different environment post-9/11, an
acceptance of, I'm not going to say across the board, because I
don't know yet, of greater financial responsibility from within
the corporate community to enhance their security. They have a
lot of reasons to do it.
One of the interesting things that I think we should
continue to work with you on, and one of the legislative means
by which we might be able, maybe not legislative means, but a
market oriented means by which we might be able to effect some
of these changes, is working with the insurance industry to see
that there's a differential. There are some discussions we've
had with the insurance industry based on the recommended
protective standards that EPA may put out there, saying to a
chemical facility, these are the kinds of things that you need
to do. There may be a variation on insurance rates as it
relates to their willingness or their ability to effect those
changes.
But I would say to you, we'd like to avoid legislation,
Senator, but we've got to see what happens. We've got to keep
all our options open.
Senator Corzine. I'm not sure what the downside of the
legislation is if people are going to perform these roles
anyway.
Governor Ridge. Well, it really, and I am not equipped to
tell you today the specific recommendations that are going to
be made and whether or not they will be fully implemented
across the board. I feel fairly comfortable in telling you that
no one is interested in the least common denominator, and there
has to be some kind of enforcement mechanism. We'd like to
continue that conversation with you to see what the enforcement
mechanism is. If we can do it without legislation, fine.
But I do think, depending on what the recommendations are
and the outcome and acceptance of those recommendations, we're
not going to foreclose legislation. Maybe we have to use the
stick rather than the carrot.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you.
I'm going to refer to this opening statement. Over here,
you've got information analysis and infrastructure protection,
telecommunications and cybersecurity. First, to comment on
cybersecurity. Some 3 years ago, when I was chairman of the
Armed Services Committee, I became quite interested in this
subject and the fact that there are very few young people out
there seeking the education to equip themselves to go into this
complicated, highly technical field.
So I drew up a piece of legislation, it eventually got
through the Congress, it set up a program, sort of a first
cousin to a GI bill. If the young person would commit to 4
years of obligated service working with the Department of
Defense as a civilian, or other agencies, I guess we got down
to three in the final analysis, that we would fund fully their
program. We got it through Congress and I was very pleased.
Then all of a sudden, the appropriators cut it down to just
20 some million dollars. Well, that was a bit disappointing,
but I renewed the efforts the next year, and we finally got it
up to double the amount of money, just that little bit. All at
the same time that Congress was voting, now mind you, we got
$20 million for this program, then I think it got up to $40
million, Congress was voting $8 billion to $9 billion in Pell
grants.
So I hope the new Secretary begins to look at where the
money is and put it behind, whether it's cybersecurity or the
other desperately needed areas of education, to equip the type
of people to come into your organization, not just now but in
successive generation.
Governor Ridge. I appreciate that, Senator. You should know
that that is of concern. The advisor to the President for
cybersecurity, Dick Clark----
Senator Warner. He was behind this, too.
Governor Ridge. Yes. We've had that conversation, and
hopefully the conversation will lead to greater action down the
road within this Department of Homeland Security.
Senator Warner. Good.
Governor Ridge. He sees that as a very unique educational
niche, but it's also a critically important security niche.
There just aren't that many men and women interested in going
and getting the technical education around securing the
internet. So we have a big gap there, we have to try to fill
it.
Senator Warner. But you give them a scholarship program,
because after they fulfill their obligated service, there are
plenty of jobs out in the private sector. So just a thought
about it.
Second, military bases, no direct reference in your
document here to that. But CINCNORTH is a new command that we
are creating here in the Congress. Will you be in tight
coordination with that officer who will have at his command all
the military assets necessary to respond to an attack on the
United States here in the homeland?
Governor Ridge. Senator, I think first of all, as we take a
look at the reorganization effort, we think what Secretary
Rumsfeld has recommended adds enormous value to the new
Department of Homeland Security, to coordinate in advance some
of the work it would do if it had to utilize Department of
Defense assets. I think the relationship will not be from the
Department of Homeland Security to the General directly, but it
will be from the civilian level from the Secretary to the
Secretary.
But the fact of the matter remains that now that under the
unified command plan you do have a North American command that
we can sit down with and talk about how we use different assets
under certain circumstances, it really adds a great deal of
enhanced protection and ability to the new Department of
Homeland Security.
Senator Warner. Part of that will be interoperability of
communications, I hope. You'll have to put a high level of
effort there.
I'm going to read from page three, again the same section.
In short, the Department would for the first time merge, that
means bring together all the parts, merge under one roof the
capability to identify and assess threats to the homeland. Now,
at present, some of that threat analysis is done in CIA, DIA,
FBI. Are those components going to pulled out of those agencies
and merged into yours? What does that word merge mean? Are they
going to lose their capability and it be one structure only in
Homeland Defense? Or will there be parallel structures?
Governor Ridge. Senator, there would be no capacity within
the Department of Homeland Security to collect this
information. It is not a collection agency. The merger of the
information or intelligence would be the reports and
assessments from the CIA, the FBI and the other collection
agencies as they relate to domestic terrorism. But the CIA and
the FBI and the other agencies will continue their collective
functions.
Now of course, Customs, INS, other agencies that if
Congress approves become part of the Department of Homeland
Security, will be in the collection business. But we will,
there will be no collection from the CIA or the FBI. They'll
just send us reports or assessments.
Senator Warner. I understand. But the analysis, merge under
one roof the capability to identify and assess, assess means
analysis, threats to the homeland. Supposing the director of
the CIA has a set of facts which he shares fully with you. He
has one opinion that that doesn't amount to a threat, say, that
you have to issue a warning. You feel differently. The director
of the FBI may have a somewhat different view. Are you the
final arbiter of what's to be done?
Governor Ridge. I think at the end of the day, Senator,
it's really a very appropriate question. Because the President
wants to retain within the Office of the White House an
assistant to the President for Homeland Security to coordinate
the efforts among the agencies. If it ever came to a point
where there was an interpretive conflict where we had Homeland
Security looking at the reports and assessments and differing
from the CIA or FBI, I think it would be resolved in that
fashion. Ultimately at the end of the day, we want to take that
information to reduce vulnerabilities. They are using that
information to reduce threats.
My sense is that if our assessment of the information says
we ought to move to reduce vulnerabilities, we should have our
way. But if there is a conflict, obviously there's a mechanism
within the White House to resolve it.
Senator Warner. What is that mechanism again to be?
Governor Ridge. Ultimately the tie breaker is the President
of the United States.
Senator Warner. But he could well be off somewhere. I
understand the command and control there. But it seems to me
you've got to act quickly.
Governor Ridge. Oh, absolutely.
Senator Warner. You could have legitimate disagreements.
But it's important that it move swiftly, that we not have to
all get in limousines and roar over to the White House and sit
around a table. We've got to do it quickly.
Governor Ridge. The time is of the essence, you're
absolutely right, Senator. In my experience, since October 8
when I was sworn in, just dealing in a personal way with George
Tenet and Bob Mueller, one, there has been a unity of effort.
There's been no disagreement as to what should be done or the
application of the facts. But under those circumstances, I
think you can well appreciate the fact that these men and women
in this Administration or future administrations lean always
toward security, because it's an enduring vulnerability and
it's resolved in favor of doing something to make America safe.
Senator Warner. My time is up. Take a look at that
sentence. Because somehow, I understood it as you have now
stated it in this hearing, but somehow this sentence, I began
to be puzzled.
Now, you do not deal with cybersecurity in this prepared
statement for the committee. What is the basic document to
which we go to refer for expansion of points you've made in
here?
Governor Ridge. Senator, I would be pleased to send you up
a document that deals specifically with cybersecurity.
Senator Warner. There are other items that are not covered
here. Is it the President's proposal in the blue cover that
came up, or has that been replaced by a fuller document?
Governor Ridge. I think there is a fuller document,
Senator, that talks about the cyber agencies that will be
moving in, that we are going to recommend to be moved into the
new Department. And it would be my responsibility to make sure
that you get it today.
Senator Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you for very excellent questions,
Senator Warner.
Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, as you could tell from my earlier comments, I'm
concerned about the whistle blower protections in the proposal.
You have cooperated with me in a number of areas. I hope we can
get some changes in this area.
It was clear, for example, from what happened with Colleen
Rowley that that was absolutely key to getting an urgent set of
communications to the top of the FBI. I read the
Administration's proposal on the Homeland Security Office to
really be a rollback of whistle blower protections. It reads
that the Secretary of Homeland Security could choose how or in
effect whether someone would be able to get the legal
protections that are available at other Federal agencies. I
think we ought to be strengthening protections with respect to
whistle blowers. I would just like to see if you are open to
some changes on this. I sit on the Intelligence Committee. I'm
anxious to work with you on the national security implications.
But this is one of the best ways to make sure that the public
isn't in the dark and that we protect national security.
Governor Ridge. Senator, to your point, I would look
forward to the opportunity to work with you again for a very
positive clarifying language, gaining the results that we both
achieve. And that is making sure that as we set up this new
agency, and as it goes forward, men and women who have some
ideas that they're eventually critical of how things used to
be, and have a better idea of how things should be, be No. 1,
be considered patriots all, because their mission is to do
whatever they can to enhance security. I would tell you that
earlier today, the President addressed about 3,000 men and
women from the Federal work force. I had the opportunity to
speak just briefly before the President and assured them that
they will have that protection and I look forward to working
with you and your colleagues to see to it that it's consistent
with the protection they have enjoyed in the past.
Senator Wyden. That to me is the bottom line. It seems to
me at a minimum they ought to have the protections that are
available to other Federal employees. If you read the proposal
now, this certainly isn't the case, the way it reads today. We
do need to work together in a bipartisan way on it.
The other question I want to ask also relates to the
public's right to know. That deals with the Freedom of
Information Act exceptions in the legislation. Now, you heard
me commend you and your office with respect to the work you've
done with us in terms of technology. It's important we get the
ideas from the business community in particular with respect to
how to tackle this issue.
But again, I think it goes way too far to create all these
additional exemptions from the Freedom of Information Act to
make sure that the public has confidence in what the Government
is doing. Already there is a national security exemption from
the Freedom of Information Act. I would just like to see for
the record if we could work with you to again hone down these
exemptions. Because I think it would be a bad message to be
sending right now.
Governor Ridge. One of the experiences we've had, Senator,
dealing primarily with the private sector during the past
couple of months, is their reluctance to share proprietary
information with regard to their facilities, the security
measures, a variety of other things. What we were looking for
in drafting this legislation, and of course we want to work
with you on it, is to provide a limited exemption for
voluntary, for information that's communicated voluntarily
about, they make their own self-assessments of their own
facilities. It's not the kind of information you necessarily
want to put on the internet. You don't necessarily want to show
your own weaknesses.
But we do feel that it's important, if we're to have a
comprehensive look at our critical infrastructure we need those
who are responsible, have ownership of that infrastructure and
are responsible for its security as well to be able to share
with us from their perspective, we may have a different point
of view, we may have concluded they haven't gone far enough to
respond to that vulnerability. But it is a limited exemption
that we're looking for. Again, the President sent it up with an
idea that we need to work with Members of Congress to address
those concerns. We would welcome the opportunity to try to find
language that satisfies your interest and the public's right to
know, but also the President's interest and the country's
interest in not giving the terrorists a road map to identifying
vulnerabilities.
Senator Wyden. I support that. I only want to note for the
record, Governor, that the FBI, the head of the National
Infrastructure Protection Center, says that the protections
already exist to do what you're talking about. So we've got
people in law enforcement who are already saying that the
protections exist to get the information from the technology
leaders, get the information from the business community, get
the information about infrastructure. I just want to work with
you so that we don't open up new loopholes. Because if the
public is kept in the dark, if whistle blowers don't have
existing protections, that's going to make it tougher for us to
tackle the terrorists that you're going after. And I want to
support you on it.
Governor Ridge. We are going to make sure that the whistle
blowers have the protection, and we're going to work with you
to make sure that the information is volunteered from the
private sector, the kind that should be protected. And in doing
so, protect the broader right of the public to know.
Senator Wyden. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Clinton, I am going to go over
and vote and be back. We have another member that wants to
participate. So I will exit temporarily and be back.
Senator Clinton. Tell them that I'm coming, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Ridge, I want to start by thanking you for the
extraordinary cooperation that you've provided on behalf of the
needs of New York. I greatly appreciate it and I look forward
to working with you as we develop and pass this important
legislation.
I wanted to go back to a point that Senator Smith made, and
that is the Environmental Protection Agency's report, which was
first reported in the Daily News. And this lessons learned in
the aftermath of September 11, 2001 I think is extremely
instructive. I hope that we will be getting a full copy of it
here in the committee and we will be able to hold a hearing
about it. I commend the EPA and I have told Administrator
Whitman that the kind of honest assessment which was undertaken
by the EPA is exactly the right attitude. It should serve as a
road map for what we need to address going forward.
But it is a little bit daunting to read this honest
assessment, because it states, among other things, that the EPA
is not fully prepared to handle large scale NBCR attack, agency
information, experience and equipment is insufficient to
respond with confidence. Closer to home, with respect to our
ground zero air quality experience, the report says, the
dissemination of EPA's health related sampling results to non-
EPA front line responders was delayed for at least 2 weeks.
I bring this up because I think that the challenges that
the EPA has honestly laid out for itself are not only specific
to that agency, but will be found to be faced by other agencies
that you are about to merge into the Department, as well as
others like the FBI and CIA that are staying outside. I'm
wondering, since the EPA is not being merged, what are the
plans for coordinating the specific functions that the EPA
currently undertakes with the mission of the new Department?
How will that be accomplished and what are your plans for
making sure it is?
Governor Ridge. As you know, Senator, the EPA again is one
of those agencies that has many, many missions. We took a look
at the EPA just briefly, but there are just so many other
things that it does, felt that its primary mission was not
homeland security. I think they respond to maybe 30,000
chemical spills a year. But they do have a very important and
prominent role to play with us, to play with the new Department
of Homeland Security.
One is the vulnerability assessment, one is the response,
one is working with the sectors, the water, the chemical and
the other economic sectors to develop standards of protection.
And again, this could very well be formalized once the new
Department is established by a memorandum of understanding or
an executive order. But clearly, as we go about dealing with
the vulnerability assessments and response mechanisms, I think
there will be a very close collaborative working relationship.
I can't define it more specifically than that at this date, but
I expect that the new Secretary of Homeland Security would try
to create in advance the kind of working relationship he or she
would need in response to an event.
Senator Clinton. And would it be fair to assume that that
will be the same relationship you will have with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission?
Governor Ridge. I think it's important because as was noted
in the remarks earlier, the new unit, senator, that matches
threats with vulnerabilities, will work with these agencies on
the protective measures, and maybe look to these agencies to
oversee that the protective measures are done. Working with EPA
on the standards of protection for chemical or water plants,
work with the NRC for standards of protection on the nuclear
facilities we have around the country, work with DOE where
appropriate.
So I think it is the intent of the President that this is
the unit that takes a look at the vulnerability of this
information that's passed to this new Department by these
agencies and to work with the private sector. Then you go back
to those agencies, these are the standards, are they
satisfactory to you, they should be part of the oversight and
enforcement mechanism as well. I think that's the collaborative
work that we anticipate.
Senator Clinton. One of my concerns, and you and I have
discussed this, Governor, is that our front line soldiers in
this homeland security front are our first responders. We
passed out of our committee the first responder legislation
that the Administration had requested. I am still, however,
concerned that we are not putting enough focus on getting the
funds directly to the cities and the counties that are on the
front lines. I understand completely the need for State
planning. I respect greatly the role of Governors and former
Governors, having a close relationship with one who served for
12 years. So I know that there are a lot of functions that the
State has to undertake.
But I really believe that at the very least, we need some
kind of formula that guarantees dollars end up in the hands of
the people on the front lines. I also am very concerned that we
don't, we're not giving enough flexibility. Just as the
Department wants flexibility in the use of personnel and
compensation levels, I think this Homeland Security money that
goes to first responders also needs to be more flexible.
Because as I've traveled around my State, the needs in Buffalo
are very different than the needs in Watertown or in New York
City. I believe that we should take that into account with the
dollars that the Federal Government provides. I would hope that
we can continue to look at that as a need that is not yet being
addressed.
Governor Ridge. Senator, I will tell you that you echo the
concerns, the continuing concerns of our friends who serve as
mayors and as county executives and Governor Carper and I, and
you know from personal experience, sometimes there's a little
tension between the State house and the local communities. I
think we've got it worked out that a smaller percentage goes
directly to the State house. I think the bill that passed out
of the committee said a minimum of 75 percent should go to the
local communities.
And I understand why the mayors and the county executives
and the police and the fire and emergency responders, in a
respectful way, once they've participated in a plan, they've
decided what their priorities are, they don't want that money
channeled through the State so that the State legislature kind
of unties the plan, goes back in and sets their own priorities
rather than the local communities' priorities.
So we've made a commitment to work with them and Members of
Congress who have expressed the same concern, that once the
bill is passed, once those dollars are out there, once we
determine what that percentage is, that within a certain period
of time, according to the plan, the money is filed right down
to the local communities. They think it's a mechanical matter
that we can work out. I know you have emphasized that on
several occasions with prior conversations. I want to work with
you to make sure we get the language to our mutual
satisfaction. Because we've made the commitment, the President
has made the commitment as well.
Senator Clinton. The only point that I would add to that,
Governor, and I am very grateful for your comments, is that the
legislation so far prohibits use for these funds for
compensation in any form. I think that's a mistake. I think
that flexibility needs to be available, whether it's a finding
by a Governor, a finding by a mayor that can then be held
accountable.
But the biggest problem we've got in our cities, and again,
speaking for New York, that are in deficits, a State which is
in deficit, made much worse because of the attacks on 9/11, is
that we need funds that can be used to actually pay our hazmat
teams, not just equip them and give them better communications,
but make sure they are going to be out there and deployable.
So again, I just would respectfully request that at least
we provide permissive language. Right now it's prohibited. And
I think that's a mistake. Because I think the flexibility that
we want should at least be permissible. Maybe there has to be
some request that goes up to the Department by the Governor or
something, but some mechanism that can trigger that money to be
used for personnel as well as other purposes.
Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Carper. Governor Ridge, how's your time? Do you
recall the date that you stepped down as Governor of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?
Governor Ridge. Yes.
Senator Carper. What date was that?
Governor Ridge. October 5.
Senator Carper. On what date did you assume your new
responsibilities?
Governor Ridge. October 8.
Senator Carper. When did you first testify before a
congressional committee subsequent to that?
Governor Ridge. Senator, I would have to go back and take a
look at the calendar. A couple of weeks ago. Before that, as
you know, we were up here talking and consulting, but we
weren't formally testifying.
Senator Carper. You've been testifying a lot, though,
haven't you?
Governor Ridge. Senator, it's been a great opportunity to
reacquaint myself with some of my former colleagues. The
support has been, in both chambers, been bipartisan. So I'm
happy to appear before the committee as well.
Senator Carper. We old Governors get together for lunch
about every month in the Senate dining room. And we invite
another old Governor to come have lunch with us and talk about
issues that are germane. Later this month we will be having a
lunch with former Governor Whitman. And we'd welcome the
opportunity to have a chance to break bread with you.
Governor Ridge. I look forward to that, Senator. I hope
that as we go about developing the new Department of Homeland
Security that as a Governor, you could hope underscore the
notion that as we try to build a Federal-State-local
relationship, one of the things that I think is really critical
is to develop an infrastructure where we get, the Governors by
themselves since 9/11 are all much more engaged than they have
ever been before on security issues. But in certain areas, they
need to provide the visible leadership and be a very active
part of the development of the strategy and the implementation,
the homeland strategy. And to that end, encouraging the Senate
and the House to accept the notion that some of this money,
some of these dollars should be distributed according to a
statewide plan overseen by the Governor but in consultation
with local communities I think would be very helpful.
Senator Carper. Since the Administration chose to endorse
the notion of creating a department with a Cabinet secretary,
and formally presented its proposal, you've had an opportunity
to testify repeatedly and to share information and insights
with us. And in addition, you've had an opportunity to hear
from us, and questions and comments that have come along. Has
that changed your opinion in any way, large or small, with
respect to what the Administration had first proposed? Second
half of the question, has your view changed with respect to
maybe some of the elements of, say, Senator Lieberman's
proposal, because of the give and take of the last several
weeks that you've participated in?
Governor Ridge. Senator, I think there have been, because
of the opportunity to testify and the give and take, there have
been some very mechanical problems that have been identified by
Members of Congress. One thing I respect very much because of
my 12 years on the Hill is that men and women in the Congress
of the United States have built up certain areas of expertise.
And their knowledge of these departments and agencies has just
been built up over periods of time. So I think we've seen some
very constructive suggestions as to how to better organize the
chart that exists. I know presently pending there are some
discussions with some of the congressional leadership about the
alignment, about the Title V protections, about a variety of
different things. And everybody's working toward the same goal,
but it's been a good give and take.
Senator Carper. When you and I served together in the House
of Representatives, the reputation that FEMA enjoyed around the
country was not a particularly good one. During the 8 years
that President Clinton served and Jamie Lee Witt served as the
head of FEMA, and to this date, FEMA has enjoyed progressively
a better reputation. We had any number of natural calamities in
my State. I remember being asked near the end of my second term
as Governor, who was the Governor during the ice storm of the
century? I said, I was. They said, who was the Governor during
the blizzard of the century? I said, well, I was. They said,
who was the Governor during the drought of the century? I said,
I was. They said, who was the Governor during the storm of the
century? I said, well, I was.
He said, you know what I think? I said, no. He said, I
think you're bad luck.
[Laughter.]
Governor Ridge. I was going to say I shared those same
experiences, until you drew that conclusion. So I'll withdraw
that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. And in each of those instances, though,
FEMA was there big time, to help us in Delaware and I'm sure to
help you in Pennsylvania. And a concern that I have, and I'm
sure it's shared by other Governors and former Governors, how
do we do this organization drawing in FEMA and not cut the legs
out from under FEMA for their ability to do the wonderful work
that they're doing across the country? Particularly with
respect to natural disasters.
Governor Ridge. I think, Senator, it's precisely because
not only has FEMA's image changed, but their performance has
changed dramatically for the better, that the President would
like to make them a part of the new Department of Homeland
Security, to build on those core competencies. You and I were
members of the House and we share the recollection that FEMA
was not viewed as either responsive or effective or a terribly
compassionate agency in the 1980's. You helped me rewrite the
FEMA legislation in the 1980's, the Stafford bill, named after
our colleague at the time.
Since that time, because of the leadership of James Lee
Wit, now Joe Albaugh, perception has been based on performance.
I wish I could have gotten a little more money out of James Lee
Witt during the blizzard. Did you get as much money as you
wanted for the snow storm of the century? Because I didn't. But
anyhow, you may have been more effective than I was.
But other than that, the response, their turnaround time
and their response and his physical presence was just
automatic. They did a very good job.
In my experience as Governor, and hopefully in yours, FEMA
does have a relationship with your statewide disaster
assistance center or whoever you've identified to coordinate.
They do have a relationship with the first responders. They do
planning and training exercises with that core group. So it's
that competency and those connections that I think we ought to
build upon, give them substantially more money. They're going
to have ramp up their capacity not only in Washington but even
more importantly in the regions and perhaps even in some of our
local, our larger metropolitan areas, so that it's a permanent
presence.
But I think we build on that capacity. At the end of the
day, Senator, if these training exercises prove to be as
successful as I think they can be, if they get additional
equipment, if the communications equipment is interoperable, if
they spend more time together working on response plans for
terrorism, if another manmade disaster or natural event occurs,
they'll just be better equipped. So we really add value to
their all-hazard mission by pulling in and beefing up their
capacity to respond to a terrorist attack.
Senator Carper. A related question, Delaware is a coastal
State and we have a lot of people who, particularly this time
of year, come to our State to swim in the ocean, to boat, to
sail, to fish in the Delaware Bay or in the Atlantic Ocean.
From time to time, they run into a storm, a boat breaks down,
and they need to be rescued. The Coast Guard comes to the
rescue. The Coast Guard also, in addition to that, does any
number of things. They tend buoys, they protect the sanctuaries
for horseshoe crabs off the coast of Delaware and New Jersey.
They do just a wide variety of functions that have nothing to
do with the defense of our homeland but are nonetheless
important functions.
Does it make sense for us to take the Coast Guard in its
entirety, whether they're tending buoys, protecting the
horseshoe crabs, towing people to safety whose boats have
broken down, does it make sense to take all those functions and
put them within this new Department of Homeland Security?
Governor Ridge. Senator, I believe it does. Because many of
the people and many of the platforms that they use to perform
those other missions have dual or triple, have multiple use.
Earlier today I met with several previous commandants of the
Coast Guard who are in support of moving it to the Department
of Homeland Security. But they raised several issues, they said
there ought to be a couple of conditions to moving the unit
over. One, they said you have to move it all over. Because the
men and women are multi-tasked, and I know your experience and
my experience with them was very positive. They do a lot of
different things and they do them very, very well.
They said they had to make sure we didn't lose their
responsibility to the Department of Defense. They are part of
our defense structure. And that mission should remain an
integral part of their training mission as well. Third, they
said they need to be adequately funded. And I think the
President recognizes that because of the enhanced security
mission, along with the fisheries, the emergency rescue
mission, you're not familiar with it in the Chesapeake Bay or
in Delaware, but the ice breaking mission on the Great Lakes
and a few others.
Senator Carper. Up around Erie?
Governor Ridge. Yes, sir, you've identified it. That they
have many tasks, so we have to built up capacity. They have to
get more equipment, they have to get more people. In the
President's 2003 budget, they have the largest single increase
they have ever received. I think it is a way ahead for future
enhancement of their capacity.
So I think yes, they should, I agree with the commandants
that it ought to be under all those conditions. And the plan
reflects that.
Senator Carper. If I could, Mr. Chairman, one last
question. We reorganized to some extent Delaware government. I
think the year before, one of our other committees, I think
Government Affairs, I may have mentioned that you reorganized
all or a portion of the government of Pennsylvania when you
served as its chief executive. We did so in the hopes of
achieving not defending our homeland, we were looking for
efficiencies. We were looking for ways to offer better service
to the people of Delaware and to provide good or better service
at the same price or less cost to taxpayers.
In this discussion, as we attempt to create this new
Department, is there any focus at all on how do we do as much
or more without spending a huge amount of money more than we
need to?
Governor Ridge. Well, I think you raised a very important
element in our collective efforts to see to it that this new
Department maximizes every dollar that the taxpayers send and
makes best use of the personnel that are there. I would say to
you that just preliminarily, during the transition process,
we've taken a look at some of the IT budgets. So if you bring
in INS and you bring in Customs and you bring in the
Transportation Security Administration, there are literally
hundreds of millions of dollars out there, actually it's in
excess, it's billions of dollars over a period of time, that if
we develop the right kind of technological architecture, and
the question, it's a very controversial piece of the
President's proposal.
But their Secretary, the President has requested that the
new Secretary be vested in transfer authority, so that if you
can realize some savings by consolidating technology, to be
able to take that X number of dollars, several hundred million
dollars and maybe if you need more Customs agents, if you need
more personnel, you need different kinds of technology
elsewhere, that you will at least have that kind of flexibility
internally once you've identified the redundances, eliminated
them, generated some savings, to be able to use that and
transfer those dollars around the Department. That is one of
the more controversial features, as you can well imagine. And
we're just hoping we can convince particularly the
appropriators to make sure that this Secretary and his team
have the ability to maximize the use of every dollar, that if
they realize some savings, they can move some things around.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, maybe a question for another
day, not this day, but a question for another day is, when all
is said and done and we finish our work as legislators and put
a bill on the President's desk and create this new Department
and go about assembling it, at the end of the day, how will we
know that what we've done has been successful. That's one that
I ask you to think about, and next time we're together, I serve
on five committees, and my guess is you'll testify before all
of them.
Governor Ridge. I'll be prepared, Senator.
Senator Carper. Good to be with you. Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you, Governor.
I just have one, maybe two questions. The proposal from the
Administration does not speak clearly on the issue of the
preemption of State Freedom of Information Acts. Would you
oppose preemption of the State Freedom of Information Act?
Governor Ridge. One of the things we're working on within
the Office of Homeland Security, and this bears further
conversation with you and your colleagues, is trying to develop
model legislation that all Governors can deal with with regard
to Freedom of Information needs that we all have. And I think
if we did that, we would be satisfied. Governor Carper and I,
as other Governors have done, from time to time have taken
model legislation that affected all of us.
Right now, we're trying to work with Governors on this very
issue as it relates to their States and as it relates to the
issue of preemption. And candidly, I haven't been back to talk
with them to see where these discussions have taken us. But I
would like to have that conversation with them and report back
to you to give you a very specific answer to your question.
Senator Jeffords. I would appreciate that.
Just one final thing. I still have some real concern in my
mind that exists that removing FEMA and moving it into a
situation that seems to have failed in the past to have worked,
and then 9/11, I think as we all understand now, was the lack
of accurate information being utilized to hopefully preempt
what happened. That was also under previous history problems
that had existed.
So I just had deep concern about taking FEMA from the place
that it has worked so well and done such a tremendous job, both
on 9/11 as well as all of the natural disasters we've had that
I really strongly am concerned about the movement out of the
present situation. I just want to leave that with you, and I'm
sure you understand that.
Governor Ridge. I do.
Senator Jeffords. But other than that, do you really want
to be the Secretary?
Governor Ridge. That's the final question that will have to
wait to be answered at some other date, like Senator Carper's.
[Laughter.]
Governor Ridge. That's the President's call, not mine.
Senator Jeffords. Yes, right. Well, it was a pleasure to
work with you 20 odd years ago, and it's a pleasure now.
Governor Ridge. It's good to be back with you, Senator.
Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. So I look forward to that opportunity.
Governor Ridge. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Governor Tom Ridge, Director of the Transition Planning
Office for the Department of Homeland Security
Introduction
Chairman Jeffords, Senator Smith, and other distinguished members
of the Environment & Public Works Committee. It is an honor to be here
today to explain why I believe the Senate should support the
President's proposal to establish a Department of Homeland Security. I
also look forward to responding to your questions and listening to your
views.
The President's Proposal
On June 6, 2002, President Bush addressed the Nation and put forth
his vision to create a permanent Cabinet-level Department of Homeland
Security. On June 18, 2002, I delivered to the Congress the President's
proposed legislation for establishing the new Department. This is an
historic proposal. It would be the most significant transformation of
the U.S. Government in over a half-century. It would transform and
largely realign the government's confusing patchwork of homeland
security activities into a single department whose primary mission is
to protect our homeland. The proposal to create a Department of
Homeland Security is one more key step in the President's national
strategy for homeland security.
It is crucial that we take this historic step. At the beginning of
the cold war, President Truman recognized the need to reorganize our
national security institutions to meet the Soviet threat. We emerged
victorious from that dangerous period thanks in part to President
Truman's initiative. Today we are fighting a new war against a new
enemy. President Bush recognizes that the threat we face from terrorism
requires a reorganization of government similar in scale and urgency to
the unification of the Defense Department and creation of the CIA and
NSC.
Currently, no Federal Government department has homeland security
as its primary mission. In fact, responsibilities for homeland security
are dispersed among more than 100 different government organizations.
Creating a unified homeland security structure will align the efforts
of many of these organizations and ensure that this crucial mission--
protecting our homeland--is the top priority and responsibility of one
department and one Cabinet secretary.
Immediately after last fall's attack, the President took decisive
steps to protect America--from hardening cockpits and stockpiling
vaccines to tightening our borders. The President used his legal
authority to establish the White House Office of Homeland Security and
the Homeland Security Council to ensure that our Federal response and
protection efforts were coordinated and effective. The President also
directed me, as Homeland Security Advisor, to study the Federal
Government as a whole to determine if the current structure allows us
to meet the threats of today while anticipating the unknown threats of
tomorrow. After careful study of the current structure--coupled with
the experience gained since September 11 and new information we have
learned about our enemies while fighting a war--the President concluded
that our nation needs a more unified homeland security structure.
The Department of Homeland Security
The creation of the Department of Homeland Security would empower a
single Cabinet official whose primary mission is to protect the
American homeland from terrorism. The mission of the Department would
be to:
Prevent terrorist attacks within the United States;
Reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism; and
Minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do
occur.
The Department of Homeland Security would mobilize and focus the
resources of the Federal Government, State and local governments, the
private sector, and the American people to accomplish its mission. It
would have a clear, efficient organizational structure with four
divisions.
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear
Countermeasures
Border and Transportation Security
Emergency Preparedness and Response
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
The Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection section of
the Department of Homeland Security would complement the reforms on
intelligence and information-sharing already underway at the FBI and
the CIA. The Department would analyze information and intelligence for
the purpose of understanding the terrorist threat to the American
homeland and foreseeing potential terrorist threats against the
homeland.
Furthermore, the Department would comprehensively assess the
vulnerability of America's key assets and critical infrastructures,
including food and water systems, agriculture, health systems and
emergency services, information and telecommunications, banking and
finance, energy (electrical, nuclear, gas and oil, dams),
transportation (air, road, rail, ports, waterways), the chemical and
defense industries, postal and shipping entities, and national
monuments and icons. Critically, the Department would integrate its own
and others' threat analyses with its comprehensive vulnerability
assessment for the purpose of identifying protective priorities and
supporting protective steps to be taken by the Department, other
Federal departments and agencies, State and local agencies, and the
private sector. Working closely with State and local officials, other
Federal agencies, and the private sector, the Department would help
ensure that proper steps are taken to protect high-risk potential
targets.
In short, the Department would for the first time merge under one
roof the capability to identify and assess threats to the homeland, map
those threats against our vulnerabilities, issue timely warnings, and
organize preventive or protective action to secure the homeland.
Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures
The war against terrorism is also a war against the most deadly
weapons known to mankind--chemical, biological, radiological and
nuclear weapons. If the terrorists acquire these weapons, they will use
them with consequences that could be far more devastating than those we
suffered on September 11. Currently, our efforts to counter the threat
of these weapons to the homeland are too few and too fragmented. We
must launch a systematic national effort against these weapons that is
equal to the threat they pose.
The President's proposed legislation would accomplish this goal. It
would authorize the Department of Homeland Security to lead the Federal
Government's efforts in preparing for and responding to the full range
of terrorist threats involving weapons of mass destruction. To do this,
the Department would set national policy and establish guidelines for
State and local governments. It would direct exercises and drills for
Federal, State, and local chemical, biological, radiological, and
nuclear (CBRN) attack response teams and plans. The result of this
effort would be to consolidate and synchronize the disparate efforts of
multiple Federal agencies currently scattered across several
departments. This would create a single office whose primary mission is
the critical task of protecting the United States from catastrophic
terrorism.
The Department would serve as a focal point for America's premier
centers of excellence in the field. It would manage national efforts to
develop diagnostics, vaccines, antibodies, antidotes, and other
countermeasures. It would consolidate and prioritize the disparate
homeland security related research and development programs currently
scattered throughout the executive branch. It would also assist State
and local public safety agencies by evaluating equipment and setting
standards.
Border and Transportation Security
Our No. 1 priority is preventing future terrorist attacks. Because
terrorism is a global threat, we must attain complete control over whom
and what enters the United States in order to achieve this priority. We
must prevent foreign terrorists from entering our country and bringing
in instruments of terror. At the same time, we must expedite the legal
flow of people and goods on which our economy depends.
Protecting our borders and controlling entry to the United States
has always been the responsibility of the Federal Government. Yet, this
responsibility is currently dispersed among more than five major
government organizations in five different departments. Therefore,
under the President's proposed legislation, the Department of Homeland
Security would for the first time unify authority over major Federal
security operations related to our borders, territorial waters, and
transportation systems.
The Department would assume responsibility for operational assets
of the United States Coast Guard, the United States Customs Service,
the Immigration and Naturalization Service (including the Border
Patrol), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the
Transportation Security Administration. The Secretary of Homeland
Security would have the authority to administer and enforce all
immigration and nationality laws, including, through the Secretary of
State, the visa issuance functions of consular officers. As a result,
the Department would have sole responsibility for managing entry into
the United States and protecting our transportation infrastructure. It
would ensure that all aspects of border control, including the issuing
of visas, are informed by a central information-sharing clearinghouse
and compatible data bases.
Emergency Preparedness and Response
Although our top priority is preventing future attacks, we cannot
assume that we will always succeed. Therefore, we must also prepare to
minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur. The
President's proposed legislation would require the Department of
Homeland Security to ensure the preparedness of our nation's emergency
response professionals, provide the Federal Government's emergency
response to terrorist attacks and natural disasters, and aid America's
recovery.
To fulfill these missions, the Department would oversee Federal
Government assistance in the domestic disaster preparedness training of
first responders and would coordinate the government's disaster
response efforts. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would
become a central component of the Department of Homeland Security, and
the new Department would administer the grant programs for
firefighters, police, emergency personnel, and citizen volunteers
currently managed by FEMA, the Department of Justice, and the
Department of Health and Human Services. The Department would manage
certain crucial elements of the Federal Government's emergency response
assets, such as the Strategic National Stockpile. In the case of an
actual or threatened terrorist attack, major disaster, or other
emergency, the Secretary of Homeland Security would have the authority
to call on other response assets, including Energy's and the EPA's
Nuclear Incident Response teams, as organizational units of the
Department. Finally, the Department would integrate the Federal
interagency emergency response plans into a single, comprehensive,
governmentwide plan, and ensure that all response personnel have the
equipment and capability to communicate with each other as necessary.
State/Local Government & Private Sector Coordination
The Department of Homeland Security would consolidate and
streamline relations on homeland security issues with the Federal
Government for America's State and local governments, as well as the
private sector. It would contain an intergovernmental affairs office to
coordinate Federal homeland security programs with State and local
officials. It would give State and local officials one primary contact
instead of many when it comes to matters related to training,
equipment, planning, and other critical needs such as emergency
response.
Secret Service
The Department of Homeland Security would incorporate the Secret
Service, which would report directly to the Secretary. The Secret
Service would remain intact and its primary mission will remain the
protection of the President and other government leaders. The Secret
Service would also continue to provide security for designated national
events, as it did for the recent Olympics and the Super Bowl.
Non-Homeland Security Functions
The Department of Homeland Security would have a number of
functions that are not directly related to securing the homeland
against terrorism. For instance, through FEMA, it would be responsible
for mitigating the effects of natural disasters. Through the Coast
Guard, it would be responsible for search and rescue, navigation, and
other maritime functions. Several other border functions, such as drug
interdiction operations and naturalization, and would also be performed
by the new Department.
White House Office of Homeland Security and Homeland Security Council
The President intends for the White House Office of Homeland
Security and the Homeland Security Council to continue to play a key
role, advising the President and coordinating a vastly simplified
interagency process.
Making Americans Safer
The Department of Homeland Security would make Americans safer
because our nation would have:
One department whose primary mission is to protect the
American homeland;
One department to secure our borders, transportation
sector, ports, and critical infrastructure;
One department to integrate threat analyses and
vulnerability assessments;
One department to coordinate communications with State
and local governments, private industry, and the American people about
threats and preparedness;
One department to coordinate our efforts to protect the
American people against bioterrorism and other weapons of mass
destruction;
One department to help train and equip for first
responders;
One department to manage Federal emergency response
activities; and
More security officers in the field working to stop
terrorists and fewer resources in Washington managing duplicative and
redundant activities that drain critical homeland security resources.
The New Department Would Improve Security Without Growing Government
The Department of Homeland Security must be an agile, fast-paced,
and responsive organization that takes advantage of 21st-century
technology and management techniques to meet a 21st-century threat.
The creation of a Department of Homeland Security would not
``grow'' government. The new Department would be funded within the
total moneys requested by the President in his fiscal year 2003 budget
already before Congress for the existing components. In fact, the
President's fiscal year 2003 budget will increase the resources for the
component parts by $14 billion over the fiscal year 2002 budget. We
expect that the cost of the new elements (such as the threat analysis
unit and the State, local, and private sector coordination functions),
as well as department-wide management and administration units, can be
funded from savings achieved by eliminating redundancies inherent in
the current structure.
In order to respond to rapidly changing conditions, the Secretary
would need to have great latitude in re-deploying resources, both human
and financial. The Secretary should have broad reorganizational
authority in order to enhance operational effectiveness, as needed.
Moreover, the President will request for the Department significant
flexibility in hiring processes, compensation systems and practices,
and performance management to recruit, retain, and develop a motivated,
high-performance and accountable workforce. Finally, the new Department
should have flexible procurement policies to encourage innovation and
rapid development and operation of critical technologies vital to
securing the homeland.
Working Together to Create the Department of Homeland Security
President Bush recognizes that only the Congress can create a new
department of government. During his June 6 address to the Nation, the
President asked Congress to join him in establishing a single,
permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing
the homeland of America, and protecting the American people. I am here
to ask, as the President did, that we move quickly. The need is urgent.
Therefore, the President has asked Congress to pass his proposal this
year, before the end of the congressional session.
Preliminary planning for the new Department has already begun. The
formal transition would begin once Congress acts on the President's
proposed legislation and the President signs it into law. Under the
President's plan, the new Department would be established by January 1,
2003, with integration of some components occurring over a longer
period of time. To avoid gaps in leadership coverage, the President's
proposal contemplates that appointees who have already been confirmed
by the Senate would be able to transfer to new positions without a
second confirmation process.
During this transition period, the Office of Homeland Security will
maintain vigilance and continue to coordinate the other Federal
agencies involved in homeland security. Until the Department of
Homeland Security becomes fully operational, the proposed Department's
designated components will continue to operate under existing chains of
command.
7. In conclusion, I suggest the principles that I have laid out
here should be the basis on which S&T missions of the DHS should be
carried out. I look forward to working with the Administration and you,
Mr. Chairman, in building legislation to do so.